3628465

In Defense of Morgan's "Grecian Gens": Ancient Kinship and Stratification Author(s): Howard Becker Source: Southwestern Journal of Anthropology,
Vol. 6, No. 3 (Autumn, 1950), pp. 309-339 Published by: University of New Mexico Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3628465 Accessed: 09/10/2009 18:42
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=unm. Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
University of New Mexico is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Southwestern Journal of Anthropology.
http://www.jstor.org
IN DEFENSEOF MORGAN'S"GRECIAN GENS": ANCIENT KINSHIP AND STRATIFICATION

HOWARD BECKER
I
of writing a bookto be entitledMind on the Loomsof IN THE PROCESS

Greece, a follow-up of the writer'searlier study,1 it has been necessaryto arrive at a tenable decision about the nature of Greek kinship systems. This decision is based on researchthat initially owed nothing to Morgan's Ancient Society. Instead,GustaveGlotz, EduardMeyer, Georg Busolt, and a considerable numberof other morerecentspecialistswere closely compared,and only after the substantiveresearchhad been done did the writer discover that it went far to sustain a number of the conclusions reached by Morgan about the "Grecian gens."2 In spite of Morgan's shortcomings,many of them inevitablein his day, he knew a great deal about Greece. As Ster has shown, Morgan had good elementary training in Greek, also took advancedwork, and continued his interest in later life.3 In fact, the writer would hazard the assertionthat the Greeks had almostas muchto do as the Iroquoiswith some aspectsof Morgan'sthought. The followinganalysiswill make little direct referenceto Morgan, for in spite of the title of the paper, the primarypurposeis not to defend him, but ratherto show that researchdemonstratesthat he can be defended where Greece is con1 Howard Becker, lonia and Athens: Studies in Secularization (unpublished PhD dissertation, University of Chicago, 1930). As one of the research assistants for the follow-up (financed by the Graduate School of the University of Wisconsin), Norman O. Brown, then a graduate student, now of Connecticut Wesleyan, did a large amount of highly useful and outstandingly excellent work on the present topic in 1940-42. It must be clearly stated, however, that he bears no responsibilityfor the form, substance, or conclusionsof this paper. Where the form is concerned,the reader will note that all accents and diacriticalmarks in Greek words, uniformly transliterated,have been omitted. Those who know Greek do not need them; others only find them annoying. 2 It should be unnecessary to insert the following "personal equation" remarks, but the hotly controversialnature of the topic makes them unavoidable. (1) The writer is not only hence he has no reverencefor Morgan as a saint anti-Communist,but also anti-orthodox-Marxist; of any faith. (2) He has never belonged, so far as he knows, to any organization patronized by "fellow-travelers." (3) In many of his publications he has sharply criticized the exponents of Golden Age social thought pointing toward "classlesssocieties"of past or future. (4) Corollarywise, he has long rejected social and cultural evolutionism,and still does. (5) In particular,the rejectionof Morgan's general evolutionaryscheme is complete. 3 Bernhard J. Stem, Lewis Henry Morgan: Social Evolutionist (Chicago, 1931), pp. 4-5, 205. 309 VOL. 6, 1950
310
SOUTHWESTERN
JOURNAL OF ANTHROPOLOGY
will be drawnupon,and in particular, a good deal of cerned.Recentscholars willbepaidto thegreatFrench attention Gustave historian, Glotz,who,as it turns is closest to the taken out, by Morgan. position will be quiteintricate; The analysis no simplepilingup of opinion pro and
contrawill suffice.
is not a matter in whichit is possible the received Greekkinship to reproduce of the experts on Greekhistory, for thereis todayno received opinion opinion, andthe casewaslittledifferent in Morgan's time. It is knownthatin Athensin the sixth century of kinship-groupings to BC therewerefour maincategories whichan individual were: or These the immediate mightbelong. (1) family, of husband, household wife, and children;(2) the extended (oikos),consisting in Attic law reaching family (withconsanguine only as far as the extension), which of uncles, of brothers andsisters andthegrandchildren grandchildren group clan (genos); was called"thenear-relatives" (anchisteia);(3) the patrilineal and (5) the tribe (phyle). Now, while Glotz5 (4) the phratry(phratria); the clan,phratry, and tribeas the characteristic socialgroupings of the regards than Eduard no less an authority Greeksin the periodbeforethe city-state, 6 regards all of themas comparatively after the late phenomena, created Meyer of the city-state or in theprocess formation of that formation. Do theclan,phratry, andtriberepresent of of the socialorganization vestiges in theperiod theGreeks the formation of thecity-state? The question is of before of the for Glotz'sanalysis and significance crucial of the formation importance theclan,which in thatanalysis for it is precisely oneof thesegroupings, city-state, in pre-city-state is boththe primary socialorganization societyandalso the polar itself. Glotzspeaks of the city-state as establishing antithesis of the city-state its the of the as at the of the of clan, autonomy city-state previous supremacy expense him from the umbilical cord that the the individual tied to clan, emancipating etc.7 If the viewsof Meyerareright,andthe clanis an organization originating
4 Georg Busolt, GriechischStaatskunde (Munich, 1920), vol. 1, pp. 248-262. 5 Gustave Glotz, The Greek City (trans. Mallinson: New York, 1929), pp. 5-6; Gustave Glotz and Robert Cohen, Histoire grecque (Paris, 1925), vol. 1, pp. 118-124, 390. I cannot verify the date of the French original of the first item in this note, but internal evidence shows that it definitely antedates the second. The first will hereafterbe cited as GC, the second as GH. 6 Eduard Meyer, Ober die Anfange des Staates und sein Verhailtnisszu den Geschlechtsverbande und zum Volkstum (Sitzungs-Berichte der Berliner Akademie der Wissenschaften, Phil.-Hist. Klasse, 1907, pp. 508-538); idem, Geschichte des Altertums (2nd. ed., Stuttgart, 1937), vol. 3, pp. 283-286. 7 Note the titles of the three books into which Glotz divides La Solidariti de la famille dans le droit criminel en Grece (Paris, 1904): I. La famille souveraine;II. La cite contre la famille; III. La cit6 souveraine.La Solidariti will hereafter be cited as GS.
IN DEFENSE OF MORGAN'S "GRECIANGENS"
311
of the Greekaristocracies, afterthe establishment of the cityonlyin the period in the and to social situation then then state, originating response specific existing, it is difficult to see howmuchremains of famous in standing Morgan's chapters or of Glotz's a as Ancient La Solidarite book,generally regarded classic, Society, en Grece. de la familledansle droitcriminel If on this question the judgments of leading historical authorities werefairly it mightperhaps be justifiable to stateone'sownpreference, and evenlydivided, of the argument leave it to the generalcoherence and the use made of the to winthe reader's to one'sownside. The fact is, allegiance hypothesis preferred at least the seem the support that on to havegained clan, however, Meyer's views, of scholars of the majority outsideof France.It therefore seemsin orderfor on thesideof theviewthatthe clandoesrepresent himself the whoranges anyone in the establishment the Greek before of fundamental society city-state grouping in defense an argument of thisview,andto showjustcausefor departto present in the field. This is all the more of the experts ing fromtheviewof the majority whohavedeveloped Glotznoranyof thescholars hispoint sinceneither necessary of the clan. cometo gripswiththe rivalinterpretation of viewhavereally is madeto present of all theissues a complete In thispaper no attempt analysis first is In the attention almost focused on the in thiscontroversy. place, exclusively is adduced. clan. In the secondplace,no claimis madethat any new evidence is to showthatthe evidence leads to the The mainobjective considered generally drawn it view to that from i.e. that to the conclusion it, generally opposite points that Morganwas that the clan is of pre-city-state and,as a corollary, antiquity of the "Grecian often rightin so far as his analysis gens"-i.e. the clan in our sense-is concerned. of the scope of the clan can be are the recentdefinitions How divergent in The GreekCity (pp. 6-8) and his Glotz'sdefinitions seen by contrasting to be found in Busolt's Historiegrecque(vol. 1, p. 391) with the definitions eviGriechische Staatskunde (2nd edition: vol. 3, pp. 283-286). The relevant that the positively knownfacts are not by themselves denceis so fragmentary the of the clan, of to yieldan intelligible sufficient historyand function picture haveto be supplemented considerations based on a parandtherefore by general it seemsbest to beginby ticularviewof Greeksocialhistory.In this situation in the Attic and facts about the known clan, spite of theirinadequacy, stating of the historical the moreimportant framework to consider thenproceed question be placed. in whichthesefactsshould
312
SOUTHWESTERN
JOURNAL OF ANTHROPOLOGY II
The clanwasa groupof individuals heldtogether by the beliefthattheywere of a common ancestor.In historical timesthe (realor fictitious) descendants all theclansmen thattheclanfell bondbetween wasso remote kinship (gennetai) was which into of a term "kindred" distinguished naturally groups (syngeneis), The few in the same clan.8 fromthe term (gennetai)designating membership clan which we of are late; they would examples family-trees possess relatively that the (realor fictitious)common was placedaboutfifteen indicate ancestor in the clandescended BC.9 Membership back,in the ninthcentury generations in the male line. exclusively In historical timesthe function roundtwo fundamental of the clan centered activities: (1) the performance of certain ancestral and (2) the mainrituals,10 tenance the admission, on presentaof an authorized list, including membership in the citynewmembers, whichhad importance a function tion,of the qualified in the law-courts, statein that the evidence of the clanwasaccepted alongwith in determining otherevidence, of questions relationship.ll disputed On the internal of the clanin the classical organization periodthe following like factsareknown.At the headof the clanstooda "ruler" (archon), chosen, of the Athenian the "rulers" state,annually by lot. Therewas also a treasurer
(tamias or epimeletes), who was in chargeof the commonpropertyof the clan.
This common in holyprecincts, for the clan, consisted a meeting-place property andsomecashfunds. The affairs of the clan (theregulation of theirpriesthoods, of theirmembership the administration of theirproperty, the supervision list) of the clan meetingin were directedin egalitarian fashionby the members session.12 plenary we havesomestatistical of the Atticclansandthe dataon thenumber Finally, in to them the classical number of Athenians who belonged period.The most is that certainly not all, and very fact, whichis universally admitted, important to clansin the classical of Athenians, minority onlya definite belonged probably of the Athenians thatonlyone-quarter wereclansmen estimate period.Ferguson's hasnot beenattacked.13 As to the seemsnot unfounded, and to my knowledge
8 Georg Busolt Griechisch Geschichte (Gotha, 1893-1904), vol. 2, pp. 113; idem, Griechische Staatskunde (Munich, 1904), vol. 2, p. 957. Hereafter the first item will be cited as BG, the second as BS. 9 BS, vol. 1, p. 249 and note 3. 10 Gaetano DeSanctis, ATTHIS: Storia della republicaateniese (Turin, 1912), pp. 61-62. 11 BS, vol. 2, p. 957 and note 6. 12 BG, vol. 2, p. 116. 13 W. S. Ferguson, The Athenian Phratries (Classical Quarterly, vol. 4, 1910), pp. 261, 277.
IN DEFENSE OF MORGAN'S "GRECIAN GENS"
313
number of clans, there are about ninety names which with varying degrees of certaintyhave been assertedto be names of clans;14 the most skeptical analysis would reducethis to about fifty.15 Of course,there is no reasonfor assumingthat our lists are complete. Aristotle raisesthe numberto as high as 360, though it is generallyheld that he arrivesat this numbernot a posteriori,but on the basis of an arithmeticalschema. Inscriptionalevidence, from the period of the Roman Empire,would indicateabout one hundredmembersper clan.16 These are all the generalfacts about the Athenianclan whichmay be taken as known. There are in additionsome particularfacts about particularclans (gene) and also we have some presentations of what the Greeksthemselvesthought to be the historyand scope of the clan; these have been fitted into the variousmodern theories, and we shall have occasion to refer to them when consideringthose theories. It is perhapsworthwhile,in order to show the nature of the evidenceand the degree of certaintyobtainablewhen theorizingabout the Greek clan, to compare the list of known characteristics of the clan with the characteristics ascribedto it who take the view that those it the social unit before the rise by represents primary the Let us take the ten characteristics of of the "Grecian city-state. gens"given by Morganin his Ancient Society 17 (a list which coversthe majorpoints): (1) "Commonreligiousrites." This is obviousand undeniable. (2) "A common burial-place." There seems to be no unequivocaldirect evidenceshowing this. Glotz maintainsthat the Attic clans did have a common at least in the earliest period, and quotes some indirectevidence;18 burial-place, it has also been claimed that there is indirectevidenceto the contrary.l9 It is a questionthat can hardly be decided apart from general theorieson the antiquity should be noted. It is certainthat and scope of the clan. One other complication
14 J. A. F. Toepffer, Attische Genealogie (Berlin, 1889) names 87; Ferguson,op cit., p. 277, note 3, draws attention to 4 new ones discoveredon inscriptions. 15 DeSanctis, op. cit., p. 63 and note 3. 16 Ferguson,op. cit., pp. 266-277. 17 Lewis Henry Morgan, Ancient Society (New York, 1877), pp. 222-226 et seq. 18 GH, vol. 1, p. 391 and note 71. 19 By Dittenberger in Hermes, vol. 20. pp. 4 et seq., pointing to the distinction made by Demosthenes LVII, 67, between the clansmen and "those who share the same burial ground." The passage would, however,seem to prove too much, since it also distinguishes "those who share the same burial ground" from the "near-relatives"(anchisteia) group; we would therefore have to infer that "those who share the same burial ground" did not compose a kinship group of any kind or degree, and this does not seem credible. On the other hand, the evidence of Plutarch, Solon 21, seems quite strong in favor of the view that up to the time of Solon the clan did play a role in funeral ritual. Plutarch says that Solon restrictedmourners to the anchisteia group; it is implied that a wider group was previouslyinvolved. Compare also Demosthenes XLIII, 62.
314
SOUTHWESTERN
in Greece were a familial affair. Now the Greeks used the word burial-grounds genos in two senses: (a) in the technicalsensewhichwe have been discussing,and which may be translated"clan"; and (b) as a general equivalentof our word "family,"designatingthe group of near kindredalso termedsyngeneis,which, as we said above,was distinct from the group of clansmen. In this second,narrower sense,genos means"family." Now in respectto commonburial,and also to other of the "Greciangens," we find that he can be shown of Morgan'scharacteristics sense.Much else to refer to a knownfeatureof the Greek family in this narrower has to be proved,however,before we are justified in holding that it was also a feature of the clan, even at an earlierperiod.20In particular,we should have to prove that the Greek family in the narrowersense, in the classicalperiod, repreof an originalclan-system. sents a breaking-up "Mutual rights of successionto propertyof deceasedmembers." Here (3) there does not seem to be any direct and unequivocalevidence that the again membersof the clan had any rights of successionto the propertyof a deceased the membersof the immediatefamily (genos in the narmember. Contrariwise, rowersense) had rightswhich were carefullyregulatedon the basis of degreesof kinship. Here again, any argumentthat the rights of successionpossessedin the classicalperiodby the family wereat an earlierperiodpossessedby the clan must be precededby demonstration of the (earlier) universalityand predominance of the clan. Only whenthis questionis settled can we hope to interpretthe statement of Plutarch that before Solon "propertyhad to remainin the genos," in which the wordgenos is taken by Glotz21in the technicalsense of clan, and by Busolt22 in the non-technical sense of family. obligationsof help, defense and redressof injuries." Glotz's (4) "Reciprocal La de la famille dans le droit criminelen Grece,attempts (a) to Solidarite book, show that originallythe operativeunit in mattersinvolvingdefense and redressof injurieswas the clan, and (b) to trace the gradualemergenceof a conceptionof
20 It is regrettablethat not only Morgan, but also Lecrivain (art. "Gens" in DarembergSaglio, Dictionnaire des antiquites grecques et romains (Paris, 1873-1919), and Glotz (in GS especially) attribute functions and traits to the genos without keeping the distinction between small and extended family clear. The result is that the reader must carefully analyze each statement to see whether the function can justifiably be attributed to the extended genos, i.e. the clan in the full sense. 21 GH, vol. 1, p. 433 and note 42; cf. also M. Wilbrandt, Die attischen Geschlechtervor Solon (Philologus, vol. 7, pp. 197-200) taking the same view as GH, vol. 1, p. 199: "... auf keine Weise also konnte Landbesitzaus den Geschlechternherausfallen." 22 BS, vol. 1, p. 142 and notes 2 and 3. It may also be questioned whether the limitation of inheritanceto the triakas, or group of thirty, is rightly interpreted by BG, vol. 2, pp. 111-112, note 1, as referringto the anchisteiarather than the clan.
315
individualresponsibility. It must be admitted, as has already been stated, that Glotz's theories about the initial solidarity of the clan are not based on direct evidence,but are inferencesresting (among other things) on the hypothesisof a one-timeuniversalityof the clan as a social institution. It is a fact that in Attic law on homicide,the clan of the dead man has no role, although his phratrydoes; this is even used as an argumentin favor of the view that the clan was not an ancientand nevera universalkinship-grouping, whereasthe phratrywas.23 At the same time it would be generallyadmitted,even by those to whom the clan is the that down to the time of characteristic organizationof the Greek aristocracies, Cleisthenesthe Attic clans did act as operativeunits in the pursuit of power and and that in fact it was one of the objectivesof Cleisthenes'reformsto property,24 put an end to this state of affairs.25We may therefore say that there was an obligationto mutual help in the "Greciangens." Whether we may representthe clan as operativein blood-feuds,etc., after the mannerof clans in other societies, dependson the view held about the antiquityand scope of the clan in Greece. in the gens in cases of orphan daughtersand (5) "The right to intermarry heiresses." It was indeed a part of Attic and general Greek law that females, recognizedas heiressesin default of male heirs,not only could but should marry their nearestmale relative (the epiclerate)so as to ensurethe transmission of the propertyto a male descendant.26However, the genos in the technical sense of clan does not figure in this, and could only figure in it in default of any male in the immediatefamily to whom the heiressmight be given. I know of no evidence which would justify the assertionof any role, at any time, attributedto the clan in the epiclerate. Here Morganunquestionably went too far. Nor is it easy to see what generalconsiderations inducedGlotz to attribute"immemorial antiquity"to a the institutionof the epiclerate,27 since it presupposes system of privateownership of propertyas distinct from the system of collective ownershipby the clan whichMorgan and Glotz regardas "theprimitivesystem"in Greece.28 (6) "The possessionof commonproperty,an archon,and a treasurer."All these, as we saw, are directlyattestedfor the Attic clan. It is important,however,
23 E.g. by Ferguson, op. cit., pp. 261-262; BS, vol. 1, p. 250 and note 1. 24 GH, vol. 1, p. 392, has this: "Dans les guerres civiles qui vont s'engager, tant6t entre les regions de l'Attique, tant6t entre les classes sociales, tant6t entre les factions politiques, se
des luttesde clans." cachent toujours Charakter der von Kleisthenes 25 Cf. BS, vol. 2, pp. 877-888: "Der demokratische Verbanden." Loslisungvon den gentilizischen Einteilung lag in der grundsatzlichen geschaffenen 26 BS, vol. 1, p. 240; GS, pp. 336-340. 27 GS, p. 336. was consequently inalienable 28 GC, p. 7: "... property and indivisible.There wereno chainfromthe deadto the living ...." rulesof succession-itpassedin an unbroken
316
SOUTHWESTERN
to realize the restricted nature of the common whichis directly attested. property The common consists of littleornothing or a property apartfroma meeting-place that the claneverpossessed holyprecinct.Thereis no directevidence property used to supplyits members with theirlivelihood.29 the Yet Glotz represents with its owned as a self-sufficient clan, collectively primitive property, forming unit.30We do not meanto implythat Glotzis wrongin making economic such we wish make it clear to that the of a statements; only primitive hypothesis is another of collective of livelihood ownership by the clan of the basicsources on a particular of the clan. thosepointswhichdepend viewof the history of descent to the maleline." This is universally recog(7) "Thelimitation
nized to be true of the Attic clan.31
in thegensexcept not to marry in certain cases."There (8) "Theobligation that the Attic clan was Certain seemsto be no evidence exogamous. indicating have as surbeen Greekinstitutions, institutions, especially religious interpreted 32 but before of clanexogamy; we can speakof exogamous vivalsof the custom wemustfirstdemonstrate an adequate for the clansin Greece of antiquity degree is probably toosweeping here. clan. Morgan Greek wasa well-established custom (9) "Therightto adoptstrangers." Adoption for evidence for all sortsof Greekkinship-groups,33 and we haveinscriptional
adoptionby a clan.34
we havepoints its chiefs."The evidence (10) "Therightto electanddepose as the of the archon of an Attic but this lot mode to election clan,35 selecting by froma lateperiod.Earlier comes theremayhavebeenno suchegalitarevidence in favor of "liberty, ianism. Morganwas stronglypredisposed equality,and fraternity." the clanas it appears in the historical Fromthis comparison between period which of thought holds the that school to clanby attributed andthecharacteristics
29 Cf. Ferguson, The Salaminioi of Heptaphylai and Sounion (Hesperia, vol. 7, pt. 1, 1938), p. 44 and note 3: "There is no sound evidence that the gene as corporationsever owned lands and properties beyond those which they still possessed in the fourth century and used to defray their religious and other communal expenses." See also BS, vol. 1, p. 142 and note 2. 30 E.g. GC, p. 7: "The demesne, with its livestock and slaves, belonged in common to the whole group," etc. 31 BS, vol. 2, p. 955. 32 Numerous suggestions appear in L. Gernet and A. Boulanger, Le Genie grec dans la religion (Paris, 1932), pp. 32-55. 33 GS, pp. 135-165. 34 E.g., Dittenberger, Sylloge inscriptionumgraecarum (2nd ed., Leipzig, 1898-1901), no. 119, and Corpus inscriptionemgraecarum,no. 2161. 35 BG, vol. 2, p. 116 and note 1.
317
conclusions in Greece, somegeneral socialgrouping that it wasoncethe primary socialunit,already seemto emerge.First,if the clanwaseverthe primary by the of the historical periodit has ceasedto have any such function. beginning to allow whether ornot it is necessary to decide it is of crucial Second, importance role than the limitedone it has in the that the clan everhad a moreextensive thattheclanin thehistorical historical period period.Onlyif it canbe established muchmore of what was oncean institution an atrophied does represent vestige the veryimportant in its influence is it possible evento entertain theory pervasive of property of collective a system thattherewasoncein Greece by the ownership are those who there of the problem, to ourinitialstatement clan. For,to return aristocracies. no olderthanthe riseof theGreek holdthattheclanis aninstitution of of collective Sinceit wouldbe agreed ownership by thosewhoholdthe theory the aristocracies in the of the rise of Greek that clan the age property by property that the postulate of a primitive, tendedto be individually held, it is obvious clan mustbe abanautonomous and unitary and morally socially, economically, donedunlessit can be shownthat the clan is olderthanthe age of the Greek and and that the riseof the Greekaristocracies aristocracies, changed seriously its functions. attenuated
III
the viewthat the clanis no olderthanthe to consider We therefore proceed thatthe clan Thisviewis based on theproposition aristocracies. riseof theGreek Athens the "Wellaristocratic class to the which an organization wasin origin (in that membership had exclusive Sired"or Eupatrids) access,in such a manner of thisinterto beinga Eupatrid.The wholesubstance in a clanwasequivalent or term in the the use of is the clan of nobility" "hereditary implied pretation this is current an for as houses" "noble clan; usage (Adelsgeschlechter) equivalent We proceed theviewwe areexamining. whosupport scholars the German among on whichit of thispointof viewandthe arguments statement to givea summary of thehistory of reconstructions threedifferent is based.We shalltreatseparately we the the clan with in the Attic clan,all of whichagree identifying Eupatrids; of themaredue to the failureto dispose between shallarguethatthe differences entailed difficulties argue majorpremise.We shall therefore by theircommon thatin originthe clanwas leadsto the conclusion of the evidence thatan analysis but ratherincludedthe wholeof to the Eupatrids, not limitedin membership the elite. not merely Atticsociety, is of the view that the clan is a Eupatridorganization The protagonist of in his leaned Max Weber the Eduard interpretation by way, Meyer(onwhom,
318
SOUTHWESTERN
the clan). Meyer's position may be seen from the following paraphraseand quotations from his essay "Zur Rechtfertigung des zweiten Bandes meiner Geschichtedes Altertums"printedin his Forschungen zur alten Geschichte (vol. 2, pp. 512-548); in this essay he states most fully the argumentson which the the family views taken in his Geschichtedes Altertumsrest. Meyer presupposes in the narrowsenseas priorto the clan; the processof the formationof the clan is the same as the processof distinguishing,as a superiorstatus-group,the large landowners(the aristocracy)from the homogeneous mass;the clan of that the clingingtogether(Zusammenhang) out of the circumstance ... develops as a consequence of the settling the family persistsbeyondthe living generations and greater With stable conditions down (Sesshaftigkeit)of the large landowners. that transcends heritage(Erbgut) therearisesan idealintegration (Zusammenhang) Thus vital for centuries. the circleof immediate relatives(anepsiades) and remains folk as mass of the thesegroupsset themselves from the something homogeneous apart and thereforeare not of the same origin as their special. They are self-contained, tribalfellows,but have theirown genealogy.It is clear,and is contested by no one, that this development can have occurred only in the circlesof the ruling families. the expression and bearerof is peculiarly that] clan organization [Meyer concludes controlby the nobility.36 is... the expression Meyer'sfundamentalproposition,that "clanorganization and bearerof controlby the nobility,"is acceptedby a host of writers,including some who differ from him in their handling of the crucial pieces of evidence. Thus Busolt says formeda bandof blood kin, the . . .families that wereboundin close relationship and socialdevelopthere arose,in conjunction with economic anchisteia.Gradually of the bands mentandthe greater of richandrespected families, alongside prominence in whichthe noblesshut themselves of blood kin, moreclose-knit clan organizations off and set themselves apartfromthe commoners.37 Fergusonsays the clans are aggregatesof men who throughthe acquisition of large estateshave for themselves, at the sametimewitheconomic achieved social,political, pre-eminence, the which they seek to preserve military,and religiousdistinction by organization, in thiswayof exclusive idealgroups.38 fictionof a common and the formation descent, DeSanctis gives a similar analysis.39Francotte,Wilamowitz, Dahms, and Wil36 37 38 39 Eduard Meyer, Forschungenzur alten Geschichte (Halle, 1899), vol. 2, pp. 517-518. BS, vol. 2, p. 955. Ferguson, The Athenian Phratries (Classical Quarterly, vol. 4, 1910), p. 262. DeSanctis, op. cit., pp. 56-67.
319
of the structure of earlyAttic society brandt, is, as we shall thoughtheirpicture fromMeyer's, Athensthe clanwasan see,slightlydifferent agreethatin earliest to which theEupatrids hadexclusive access. organization Beforeproceeding to detailed of evidence, it is worthwhile considerquestions is between thisviewof the clanand Glotz's (as noted,the ing whatthe relation modern writer mostlike Morgan),withwhichwe contrast it. Obviously the two viewsstandin sharp antithesis. Glotzbegins the analytical of his The Greek part Cityas follows:
The first Greeksto arrivein Greece. . . were semi-nomadic shepherdsfrom the Balkanpeninsula.Since they had spent their lives wandering with their flocksover the plainsand throughthe mountain forests,theyhad neverformeda state. The unit of organization was the patriarchal clan, to whichthe nameof patria,or moreoften wereall descendants of the same ancestor and genos,was given, and whosemembers of the samegod.40 worshippers The clan is the basic unit of organizationfor the whole body of the Greeks. At first sight Glotz and Meyer seem to contradicteach other diametrically.This is, however,strictly speakingnot so. It is importantto realizethat they are talking about differentperiodsin Greek social history. Meyer is speakingof a period in which (1) the city-state, and (2) marked social differentiationexist. Glotz (whetherjustifiablyor not) feels it necessaryto take as his startingpoint a period essentiallydefined as one in which those two featuresare absent. As a matter of fact, Glotz agreeswith Meyer that in the periodcharacterized by the formationof the city-stateand the rise of social differentiation the clan was identifiedwith the Eupatrids;he holds that certainfactorsled to the clan'sceasingto be the universal kinship organization,and perpetuatingitself only in the form of groups of the privilegednobility. (We shall show that there are reasonsfor believingthat even in this periodthe clan was not exclusivelyEupatrid;this, however,is irrelevantat this point.) In otherwords,Glotz and Meyerdo not differ in their presentation of the role of the clan at the beginning of Attic history; they differ in that Glotz asserts,and Meyer denies, that the clan had a prehistoryin which its role was a differentone.
IV
The main arguments-to continuethe statementof Meyer'sposition-are as follows: (1) The lower classes (peasants,craftsmen,and day-laborers),because of their social position, were not able to put into practice in the blood-feud, and political life, the solidarity of the family to the extent of inheritance-law,
40 GC, pp. 5-6.
320
SOUTHWESTERN JOURNAL OF ANTHROPOLOGY
of a contactwith so wide a group as the clan.41(2) It is characteristic maintaining clan that its members claimeddescentfrom a particular(named) god or hero;this them from the mass of the Athenianswho claimeddescentfrom the distinguishes in a general nationalgod, the AncestralApollo (Apollo Patroos). Membership clan therefore implied distinction of ancestry, which is the hallmark of the Eupatrids.4 (3) It is admittedby all that the Greeksin general,and Aristotle in particular,held the view that the clan was in origin a universaland all-inclusive kinship organization. Meyer offers an explanationof how this (for him, mistaken) view arose. He says that the mentalityof the age-i.e. the mentalityof the with the institutionof the clan that it cannotconceive elite-is so deeplyimpressed of humansociety otherwisethan as composedof clans; hence arosea tendencyto divide the whole political community,without residue,into clans. This actually was put into practicein Romeand some Greek cities (thoughnot Athens), and is reflectedin Aristotle's schema in which he divides the whole people of early Athens into tribescomposedof phratriescomposedof clans.43 As to the first of these arguments,it is noteworthythat it does not lay the as such and in principlefrom the clan. basisfor an exclusionof the non-Eupatrids In fact, Meyer goes on to say that non-Eupatrids were in certainsituationstreated de facto as if they belongedto a clan: and belonged For them the fictionsufficed that if they at least had landedproperty the blood-feud and rightsof inheritance), to a phratry(the lattercontrolled they also froma claneventhoughno one knewits nameand genealogy.44 descended Meyersays this, apart from the generalprincipleexplicitlystated, in deferenceto the generallyadmittedfact that the phratrywas an all-inclusive kinship organizalaw and the blood-feud; tion, which is known to have playeda role in inheritance he implies that the subdivisionsof the phratry, to which the non-Eupatrids belonged,were de facto clans. To the questionas to whetherthis is a necessary we shall returnlater. Meanwhileit shouldbe noted that this admission assumption of Meyer'sseemsto negate the principlethat only Eupatridsbelongedto the clan, substitutinginstead the principlethat only the Eupatridsbelonged to a named clan, while non-Eupatrids belongedto a group that for practicalpurposes,though on a limitedscale,actedas if it werea clan. This is a ratherformalisticdistinction. in relationto the views of Busolt, Meyer'ssecondargumentwill be considered a followerof Meyer, who proposesan importantcorrection.
41 42 43 44 Meyer, op. cit., pp. 517-518. Idem, pp. 520-528. Idem, pp. 518-520. Idem, pp. 519-520.
321
thirdargument focuses attention on whatmustbe a crucial Meyer's difficulty for thosewho hold that the clan was a Eupatrid organization; namely,how to ourleading ancient on Greek explain whyAristotle, authority political antiquities, thatthe clanwasin origina universal With charthought kinship organization. acteristic thatthe fact thatAristotle thisview honesty, Meyerrecognizes presents in the formof an arithmetical schema(30 mento a clan,30 clansto a phratry, 3 phratries to a tribe,4 tribes) does not mean that his view does not need If to comment on Meyer's without explaining. it is possible explanation goinginto the analogywith the Romangenteswhichhe adduces, one must say that the doesnot haveinherent for if the clanis "theexpression plausibility; explanation of control andbearer to by the nobility," whyis it so 'natural" for the nobility 45 as constituting clans? thinkof commoners
V
to consider additional for the viewthat the clanis in We proceed arguments an a view adduced who organization, Eupatrid origin exclusively by twoscholars most weightyargufollow Meyer closely,Fergusonand Busolt. Ferguson's are: ments of the Athenianswere clansmen:if originallyall (1) Only one-quarter thenthree-quarters wereclansmen, of theAthenians wereimmigrants.46 Athenians that thereis another other To whichit mustbe answered possible explanation, the factorof immigrants than the admitted acquiring citizenship; namely, prinindividualism and increasing social by Glotz,that with increasing cipleasserted andtendedto be perpetuated clanstructure differentiation atrophied onlyin the of thearistocracy.47 circles members of a clanwaswidely of thedifferent scattered over (2) The property that this can thewholeof Atticaat the timeof Cleisthenes. Ferguson argues only that the clanwas a late and artificial institution on the hypothesis be explained different noblefamilies formedon the basisof politicaland socialties between In criticism of thisargument bond.48 was no there whom genuine kinship among for assuming a generalstability in it maybe urgedthat we havelittle warrant Threepossiblefactors whichpreceded Cleisthenes. in the centuries land-tenure of engrossing themselves:(1) theprocess the land for instability suggest making
45 Cf. the criticismof Meyer by D. P. Costello, Notes on the Athenian GENE (Journal of Hellenic Studies, vol. 58), p. 173, note 18. 46 Ferguson, op. cit., p. 261. 47 GS, pp. 3-18. 48 Ferguson, op. cit., pp. 276-281.
322
SOUTHWESTERN
which attendedthe ascent to power of the aristocracy;(2) the redistribution of land, creditedto the Peisistratidtyrantsof Athens, in favor of the poor peasants; and (3) the mobility (though restricted) in land propertyestablishedby Solon. we have good evidence,going back to the origin of the clan, for a Furthermore, connectionbetweenparticular clans and a particular localityin Attica. This is the fact that certainclans have the same name as certainlocalities,49 a fact which no doubt provokedAristotle to make a generalstatementconnectingthe clan group with the village community.50It is thereforenecessaryto explain not only the attesteddispersion(whichcan be explainedby externalfactors) but also the local foci. In fact, Fergusonseems to have withdrawnthis argumentof his in a later paper dealing primarilywith the phratry group; but it is easy to see that his argumentappliesalso to the clan. He says there: the thiasoi [or "fellowOur evidencethat the phratries,and their subdivisions, had local foci with some distribution of members to points considerable celebrants"] from that distancesaway carriesus no fartherback than 508 BC. In retrojecting point to the seventhcenturyor beyondwe have as our basisthe fact that Kleisthenes butwe cannotignorethe consideration that the ancestors left the phratries undisturbed, of what weregroupsof somewhat scattered peoplein 508 BC may have lived comlocalitiesat an earlierepoch. ... It is thus easierto explainthe pactlyin specified of membersof particular attested dispersion phratriesthan their local foci. We conclude that theywerekin-groups, therefore morecompactly centered locallyin early thanin historic times.51 (3) Ferguson contrasts the title of the "ruler"or chief magistrateof the Athenianclan (archon) and the phratry (phratriarch)with the title of the chief or chief of the tribe) and infers from this magistrateof the tribe (phylobasileus, evidencethat the tribebelongsto the regal, and the clan and phratryto the postregalperiodof Athenianhistory.52To whichit must be answeredthat the role of the phratryin Homer is such that it should be regarded (as for exampleBusolt and DeSanctis regard it53) as being of prehistoricantiquity;in which case the title of archonceasesto be evidencefor a late origin. It might also be said that if
49 BS, vol. 2, p. 955: "Einige. . . (Geschlechter) nanntensich nach dem Orte ihres In anderenFallen war umgekehrtder Name des Geschlechts auf den Ort Stammsitzes. Cf. DeSanctis,op. cit., p. 62: "Non v'ha dubbioche in originela proprieta iibergegangen." che facevano in un medesimo fondiaria dellafamiglie distretto.Di partedi una gentesi trovava nomeda genti." che alcunidemiatticipresero 50 Aristotle,Politics, I, 2, 5 and III, 9, 12. "The AthenianLawCodeand the Old Attic Trittyes"(in Classical 51 Ferguson, Studies to Edward Presented Capps, Princeton, 1936), p. 257. 52 Ferguson, The Athenian Phratries, p. 278. 53 BS, vol. 1, p. 250: "Weitalterals die korporativ Geschlechter warendie geschlossenen Phratrien," etc.;DeSanctis, op. cit.. pp. 43-45.
323
the clan werein origin not a Eupatridinstitution,there would be good reasonfor the distinctionin title betweenthe clan and the tribe, for the chiefs or "kings"of the four tribes would necessarilybe exalted personages,which the leaders of the clans may not have been. It was at all times the rule that the chiefs of the tribes had to be Eupatrids,54 i.e. nobles. (4) In a recentlypublishedstudy of the affairsof the clan of the Salaminioi, as known to us from inscriptions,Ferguson reachesconclusionswhich he would his generalview of the originof the clan.55He showsreasons regardas confirming for holding that (a) "the Salaminioias an organization so namedcannotantedate the opening of the struggle between Athens and Megara for Salamis,"i.e. the second half of the seventhcentury;56 (b) the clan was formed by the mergerof two groups of families, each residingin differentparts of Attica, betweenwhom there was no real bond of kin;57 (c) the bond leading to the formationof the clan was commonpolitical interestin acquiringSalamis for Athens.58 One might reconstruction.It might be asked, for example, questionthe details of Ferguson's whetherit is not possible that the clan is older than its name; also whether the absenceof any indicationof kinship betweenthe componentfamilies in the clan in the fourth centuryis a valid groundfor assertingthat therenever had been any kinship bond; and finally, whetherit might be possible to entertain a different hypothesisas to the history of the clan of the Salaminioi. But even accepting in detail, surely it is not only possiblebut also necessary Ferguson'sinterpretation to argue that we do not have here a typical case of clan formation;for according to that interpretation,the purpose for which the clan was formed was to strengthen Athenian claims to Salamis by setting up a group which claimed descent from a Salaminianhero. But this purpose would only be advanced if there was at this time a general belief that the clan was not an artificialbut a if therewas no good currency. genuinekinshipgroup;forgerieswouldbe worthless
VI
We now turn to the last memberof the group of three-Meyer, Ferguson, Busolt-who, in spite of minordifferences, give essentiallythe same interpretation of the clan. Busolt gives the following argumentsthat have not been mentioned before:
54 55 56 57 58 Pollux, Onomastikon,VIII, 111; BS, vol. 2, p. 770 and note 2. Ferguson, The Salaminioi, pp. 1-74. Idem, p. 42. Idem, pp. 23, 43, 45. Idem, p. 44.
324
(1) The known genealogiesof clans do not go back earlier than the ninth centuryBC, that is to say, to the period of the rise of the landed aristocracy.59 To make historicalinferencesfrom the genealogiesof pre-literate or semi-literate is The fact of the matter seems to be that Greekgenealpeoples notoriouslyrisky. took as its end of the the "heroic was at the this ogizing startingpoint age"; placed second milleniumBC. So it may be said that not only clan traditions,but all Greek traditionsgo back only so far.60 Busolt's argument therefore has little weight. (2) It is the family in the narrowsense, not the clan, that is recognizedin inheritancelaw, the blood-feuds,and the cult of the dead.61This is perhapsthe most importantargumentin favor of the view that the clan was not a universal kinship organization. Yet as stated, it must be said that in one respectthe fact may be concededby thosewho hold that the clan was originallya universalkinship and in one respectthey can argue that it begs the question. It may organization, be conceded,because,as previouslystated, in the historicalperiod (to which the admittedthat the family in the narrowsense,not argumentrefers) it is universally the clan, is the primary social grouping; the question is whether there was a prehistoricperiod when things were different. It begs the question, because it ignoresthe particularargumentswhich have been made for the presenceof indicationsthat the clan does have a prehistory.If the readerwill refer to the previous analysisof Meyer'stheories,he will see that Meyer held that the clan did play a role in inheritancelaw and the blood-feud.We might show by an examplehow ambiguousthe evidenceis. Busolt (and Ferguson) point out that the clan does for vengeance not figure in Draco's laws on homicide,which place responsibility on the immediatefamily in the first instance,and on the phratry,represented by ten Eupatrid members,in the second instance,"whereas," says Ferguson, "they .... [the clansmen] should have been chiefly concernedand concernedas an organization,had they been once the sole protectorsof human life." 62 The hypothesishas been put forward63 that the reasonwhy the clan is not mentioned, but ten Eupatridschosen from the phratry,is that the legislatorwanted to place responsibility,in default of immediatefamily, in the hands of Eupatrids, the expertsin holy and profanelaw, and there not necessarily being Eupatridsin the
59 BS, vol. 1, p. 249 and note 3. 60 See also the discussion of the genealogies by Costello, op. cit., pp. 174-175. He argues that "another indication of this genuineness is the obscurity, remarkedby Toepffer, of the traditional ancestorsof the phratriesand gene" (p. 175); most of the genealogiesdefy analysis. 61 BS, vol. 1, p. 250, note 1. 62 Ferguson, The Athenian Phratries, pp. 261-262. 63 Wilbrandt, op. cit., pp. 152-153.
325
clan, he had to omit the clan and transfer the matter to the wider phratry grouping. This hypothesisis, of course,part of a theory accordingto which, at the time of Draco, the clan was not an exclusivelyEupatridorganization,but on the contrarycoveredall citizens. And surely Glotz has shown, in La Solidarite, how much of the known phenomenacan be explainedon the hypothesisof an originallyprimaryclan yieldingplace to a subsequently primaryindividualfamily. for Busolt is also a revision in the premisesof the noteworthy making (3) the on which contrast the individual laid between great stress, argument Meyer heroic genealogiesof the clans and the commonnational god of the plain folk. of the clan, the fact that "all clans celeBusolt includes,as one of the differentiae Zeus and the AncestralApollo."64 We bratedthe ritualsof the Oath-Guarding shall returnto this problemlater: here it is sufficientto point out that Busolt's statementtakes the ground away from Meyer's distinctionof the clan from the commoners.According to Busolt, the celebratingof the rituals of the Ancestral of the "nobleclans." Since we know that in Apollo was originallythe prerogative of these ritualswas the generalright of all Athenian classicaltimesthe celebrating to citizensas such, he has to posit an extensionof the right from the aristocracy of every candidatefor the the commonalty.Moreover,since it was a requirement officeof archonthat he should have the right to celebratethese rituals,Busolt has to date this extensionof the right to coincidewith the abolitionof the Eupatrid i.e. at least as early as Solon. monopolyof the archonship, In this survey we have tried to considerall the argumentswhich have been made by Meyer, Ferguson,and Busolt in favor of the identificationof the clan with the aristocracy.We submit that the identification emergesas a possibleone (no decisiveobjectionto it has been made) but not a necessaryone (no argument in its favor has been found decisive).
VII
We turn now to a secondtype of theory,which is identifiedwith the namesof Dahms,66and Wilbrandt.67 These theoristsalso hold that origiWilamowitz,65 nally only Eupatrids were in the clan. Their theory differs from the first in or positing the later emergence (but before the time of Draco) of non-Eupatrid a it a curious at as Thus seventh clans. twist, positing arrives,by "plebeian"
64 BS, vol. 2, p. 956. Aristotelesund Athen (Berlin, 1893), vol. 2, 65 Ulrich von Wilamowitz-Moellendorf, pp. 57-59. der Worterbuch 66 Dahms, art. "Geschlechter" (in Pauly-Wissowa, Enzyklopadisches vol. 7, pt. 2, Nachtrage, klassischen pp. 2667-2670). Altertumswissenschaften, 67 Wilbrandt, op. cit., pp. 133-228,esp.pp. 136-157.
326
SOUTHWESTERN
the whatto Glotzwastheaboriginal stateof affairs; development namely, century in clans. This positionis reached inclusion of all Athenians by the following arguments: the rituals of Ancestral (1) Sincethe rightto celebrate Apollowasnecessary for archonship, was to a candidate state"the archonship andsincein the "nobles' was to Eupatrids, the restricted but restricted to originally right Eupatrids; the a practice of theserituals wascharacteristically of the clans,therefore celebration of the clanswererestricted to Eupatrids.(2) The original originally subgroup whichthe phratry wascomposed wasthe clan;but we knowthat in the timeof were in thephratries; Dracothere therefore we mustposita change non-Eupatrids in the set-up, in the establishment, or recognition as authorized consisting groupof non-Eupatrid a posteriori clans. (3) This is confirmed ingsin the phratry, by of of a number of names indicate theexistence of clanswhich hereditary pursuit a and therefore that to the of craftsmen indicate these clans order craft, belonged as to (demiourgoi) opposed Eupatrids. This theoryas a wholemaybe safelyrejected.It wrecks itself againsttwo mainconsiderations, Athenian social onea priori, the othera posteriori. A priori, if we haveto positthe to nonsense development up to thetimeof Solonis reduced of the supposed datedto clansas a recent recognition development non-Eupatrid before Draco. Dahmshimself of realizes the social accurately implications sucha he calls it after the of "political achievement, development; "long struggles," the an achievement before lower orders. To such by equality" posit egalitarian Draco (oneof whichwe have,needless makesutternonto say, no testimony) senseof bothDraco's will show reflection andSolon's work,andyet a moment's the thatsuchan assumption is the veryheart andsoulof the theory.A posteriori, of Homer makes it absolutely evidence inadmissible to positphratries as originally to Eupatrids. restricted in drawing On theotherhand,thetheory introduces something veryimportant attention to the groupof clan-names whichhaveconnotations of various crafts. of clanscomposed if correct, The assumption of craftsmen, wouldbe fatal to the on the whole,it view.Busoltattacksthe assumption;68 Meyer-Ferguson-Busolt comesthrough unscathed. Busolt'smainattackis seemsto me, the assumption Wilamowitz' definition of theseclansas "guilds levelledagainst become clans"; it an he rightly to speakof guildsin thisperiod.But that is anachronism objects familial of a craftis a perfectly feature of thisperiod; hereditary regular pursuit a clandevoted to a particular craft? No doubtWilamowitz whynot therefore
68 BS, vol. 2, p. 955, note 5.
327
was deterredfrom speakingso becauseof his view that non-Eupatridclans were late emergentswhich developedout of somethingother than clans (guilds). Let us then tentatively substitute the general assumptionthat from the beginning there were clans of craftsmen as well as of nobles. It thus appears that the Wilamowitz-Dahms theory has brought the first bit of positive evidenceagainst the premisewhich they share with Meyer et al.; namely,the premiseof originally exclusivelyEupatridclans.
VIII
The thirdand last type of theoryconcerning the clan is that identifiedwith the 69 names of Francotte and Glotz. If Glotz in La Solidaritdis comparedwith is Glotz in his Historie grecque (with RobertCohen), an apparentcontradiction seen. In the firstbook he developsthe hypothesisof the clan as a universalkinship organization;in the second, when describingthe social situation in early Attica whenthe peopleweredividedinto the threeordersof the Eupatrids,the craftsmen, and the peasants,he findsthat at that periodnot only the clan but also the phratry are restrictedto the Eupatrids.70These two positions are reconciledby broadly identifying the craftsmen and peasants with the "honorless"or "unhonored" (dtimoi) of Homer, i.e. those who were outsideof the clan and therefore"beyond Thus the historicalheirs of the primitiveclan are the pale" of Homeric society.71 the Eupatridsof earlyAttic history,and Glotz thus starts early Attic historywith the same premiseas both Meyer, etc. and Wilamowitz,etc.; namely,that the clan is exclusivelyEupatrid. Francotteand Glotz differ from Meyer and agree with Dahms that the phratrywas originally Eupatrid; they differ from Dahms and agree with Meyer that there never were any but Eupatrid clans; they posit an admissionof the non-Eupatrid groups to the phratry (not, as Dahms, to the clan of also) some time before Draco; they hold that they wereadmittedin sub-groups a special kind called "fellow-celebrants"(thiasoi) and "rite-participants" (orgeones). At bottom this is equivalentto the same assumptionof a decisiveturn in AtheniansocialhistorybeforeDraco: for that in the directionof egalitarianism reasonit is to be rejected. The most interestingidea developedby Francotteand Glotz is that in early Attica only the Eupatrids can be regarded as enjoying the equivalent of full citizen rights. To them the essence of citizenship is membershipin the clan, phratry,and tribe; and these organizations,accordingto them, are restrictedto
69 Henri Francotte, "La Polis grecque" (in Studien zur Geschichte und Kultur des Altertums, ed. E. Drerup, vol. 1, pts. 3-4, Paderborn, 1907), pp. 10-38. 70 GH, vol. 1, pp. 390-395. 71 Idem, p. 395.
328
SOUTHWESTERNJOURNAL OF ANTHROPOLOGY
the Eupatrids.72 They thus achievewhat to the outsidermight have seemedto be an impossibility,a reconciliationbetween the view that the clan is exclusively Eupatrid,and Aristotle'sview that in earliest Athens all citizens were in clans. In the same way they reconcilethe propositionsthat (1) the celebrationof the ritualsof AncestralApollo was a privilegeof the (to them, Eupatrid) clans, and (2) the sameprivilegewas possessedby all citizens. At the same time one cannot but ask oneself whether the achievementof these nice syntheses has not been correctlydescribedby Meyer as resultingin ... the monstrous notion . . . that there couldhave been a nobilitywithouta conor . .. that the citizenry of Romewas ever composed trastingmass of commoners, of patricians, of Athensexclusively of Eupatrids.73 exclusively
IX
After this surveyof the leading theoriesabout the Attic clan which have been held in this century,long after Morgan, one may well ask, "What then can we believe?" The need for a thoroughreworkingof the whole problemis evident. We believethat a beginningin the right directionhas been made by two writers of the 1930'swho have abandonedthe commonmajor premiseof all the theories that have been so far considered, in a clan was and have denied that membership ever limited to the Eupatrids. These writers are Wade-Gery74 and Costello.75 Wade-Geryarguesin favor of acceptingAristotle'sview that Attic historybegins with a situation in which there are clans, but no Eupatrids;since this situation determinesthe relationsof the clan to the Eupatridsat a later date, it follows that thereis no reasonfor the assumption that a memberof a clan was necessarily a Eupatrid. Costello goes further, and argues in favor of accepting Aristotle's view that Attic history begins with a situation in which the whole body of the Athenian people are organized into clans. In what follows we attempt an made by Costello,drawingon the arguments argumentin favor of the proposition and but madeby Wade-Gery Costello, addingsome argumentsnot madeby them. It was Wade-Gery's great contributionto have made clear exactly what Aristotlesaid about the clan. The essentialpoint of Aristotle'sview is that before the Eupatrids were separated out as a noble estate, the whole body of the Athenians was divided into clans, phratries,and tribes. This is in contradiction
72 Francotte, op. cit., p. 10: "... l'tat, c'est-a-dire les eupatrides, se divise en phylai, phratries,gen6." 73 Meyer, op. cit., vol. 2, p. 520. 74 H. T. Wade-Gery, Eupatridai, Archons, and Areopagus (Classical Quarterly, vol. 25, 1931), pp. 1-11, 77-89. 75 Costello, op. cit., pp. 171-179.
329
with all the views that we have discussed. Now Aristotle's views, as a fourth have very great weight; this is made patheticallyobviousby centuryBC observer, the earnestattemptsmade by those who hold to the Eupatrid-clan assumptionto find some way of fitting Aristotle into theirscheme. Such are Francotte'shypothesis of citizenshiplimited to Eupatrids, Dahms' identificationof the situation outlined by Aristotle with the situation consequenton his supposed creation of clans,and Busolt'sfeeble suggestionthat by "clan"Aristotledid not non-Eupatrid mean clan in the technicalsense, but only "family."76 All these are guilty of the self-stultifyingprocedureof implicitlyrecognizing Aristotle'sauthoritywhile explicitlycontradictinghim. Meyer, characteristically, with Aristotle'sand undertookto explain saw that his view was in contradiction why Arisotle should make the mistake;we argued that he did not succeed. The upshotof the matteris that Aristotle'sjudgmentis initial evidencein favor of the of Wade-Geryand Costello. In view of the fact both Eupatridsand propositions clansmenwere existentand recognizable groups in Aristotle'sday, the burdenof on those who hold that Aristotle mistook the relation of rests proof certainly these groups to one another. With regardto the phratry,it may be taken as known77 that it was an organ76 BG, vol. 2, p iii: "Diese Einteilung ist sicherlich eine kiinstliche antiquarische Konstruktion, die augenscheinlich darauf beruht, dass es zur Zeit ihrer Entstehung . . . im athenischen Staate etwas iiber zehntausend Hausstande gab." 77 The evidence on the phratries is to be found in Ferguson, The Athenian Phratries, pp. 257-283; idem, "The Athenian Law-Code and the Old Attic Trittyes," pp. 144-158; DeSanctis, op. cit., pp. 41-48; BS, vol. 1, pp. 133, 250-256; vol. 2, pp. 958-963. As noted, the composition of the phratries is of the utmost importance for our analysis. The earliest mention of groups of fellow-celebrants(thiasoi) and rite-participants(orgeones) is in a probablygenuine quotation from the laws of Solon (see BS, vol. 1, p. 253, note). A very important passage is a law quoted by Philochorus (BS, vol. 1, p. 252, note 2), which says that, as quoted later "the phrateres shall be compelled to admit both the orgeones and the homogalakteswhom we call gennetai." The date of this law is unknown; it comes from a part of Philochorus' history which deals with the second half of the fifth century (BS, vol. 1, p. 253, note); but since no one believes that there was a state-enactedreorganizationof the phratry in that period, the natural assumption is that Philochorus is referring to an earlier arrangement. Most scholarsseem to connect this with Cleisthenes (BS, vol. 1, p. 252; Costello, loc. cit., etc.). Something can be learned from it, however, quite apart from the date. It implies an attempt of the gennetai to exclude the orgeones from the phratry, i.e. from citizenship. Homogalaktes equals gennetai, and no one can doubt that it is the gennetai who want to keep the orgeones out, not vice versa. The passage therefore indicates that within the phratry the orgeones were an underprivileged or insecure grouping. But, for reasons given elsewhere, it is not a tenable supposition that the citizenship-status of the cadres of the original tribal society was threatened. Therefore we cannot identify the orgeones with any Homeric group, e.g., craftsmen (demiourgoi). Conversely, there is mention in Athenian constitutional history of "the newly enfranchised" (e.g., Cleisthenes' neopolitai, or new citizens, Aristotle, Ath. Pol. 21); hence it is with such groups that the orgeones should be identified. See also our notes 81 and 82.
330
ization to which from earliesttimes the whole people belonged. At the same time it appearsto be regularfor the "brothers"(phrateres)to belong to the phratry not as individuals,nor as individualhouseholds,but organizedin sub-groups. In classicaltimesthereare threetypes of such componentgroups within the phratry: (1) the clan, (2) the fellow-celebrants (thiasos), and (3) the rite-participants for There are and good grounds (orgeones). holding that the fellow-celebrants are at least as within the relatively late, rite-participants component groups there are therefore for that origiphratry; good grounds holding (with Aristotle) nally the clan was the only type of sub-groupwithin the phratry. It then follows, since the phratry was a universal organization,that the clan was a universal organization. The first premiseof this argument,the universalityof the phratry,rests on the following considerations. (1) The phratry is a universal organizationin Homer; (2) Draco's laws on homicidelikewiseassumethat everyonebelongsto a phratry; (3) we must reject all theories which involve the hypothesis of an egalitarian extension of phratry membership,previously supposed reserved to some time before Draco. Eupatrids,to commoners As to the second premise, that the clan was originally the only and the necessarysub-groupwithin the phratry,we should note at the outset that it was precisely this proposition, combined with the proposition that the clan was exclusivelyEupatrid,that led both the Dahms and the Francottetype of theorist to abandon our first premise, and restrict the phratry originally to Eupatrids. Thus we can stick to the direct evidence, and say with Meyer et al. that the phratry was universal, and with Dahms and Francotte that the original component group in the phratrywas the clan, only if we abandonthe idea that the clan was exclusivelyEupatrid. Noteworthy, also, in this connectionis Meyer's implicitadmissionthat the originalcomponentgroup in the phratrywas the clan; that was why he made the concessionthat the non-Eupatrids, in so far as they acted as members of a phratry,acted as if they belongedto a clan, i.e. belongedto de facto clans. This concessionobviously weakens the whole theory of "noble houses" (Adelsgeschlechter), not only by reducingthe distinctionbetweende jure "noblehouses"and de facto plebeianclansto a formalone, but also by invitingthe question, "Why should not the plebeian clans have been de jure as well as de facto?" x The foregoingargumentmay be madeclearerby showingthat there are few if any ways of getting aroundit. Hence the following: The known sub-groupsin the phratry,as we said, fall into three types: clans,
331
It is obviouslya theoreticalpossibilityto and rite-participants. fellow-celebrants, maintainthe universalityof the phratry,and the exclusiveness of the clan, by the hypothesis that the non-Eupatridswere in the phratry in groups of fellowcelebrantsor rite-participants.Less ingenious than Meyer, and more logically consistent,Fergusonand Busolt have taken this way out of the dilemma;Ferguson holding that the componentgroup in the phratry, in which the non-Eupatrids and Busolt holding that it was the were, was made up of the fellow-celebrants, rite-participants. Against the view that the non-Eupatrids belongedto the phratryin groupsof or rite-participants, it may be urged in the first place, that either fellow-celebrants have not involvedhim in the hypothesis anyonewhose theoreticalpresuppositions that these were the groups within the phratry to which the non-Eupatrids and the ritebelonged, will incline to the view that both the fellow-celebrants late of or whose "constitutional" are formation, relatively groups participants late" we mean so late that they cannot recognitionis relativelylate (by "relatively were sub-groupedin the be regardedas the groups in which the non-Eupatrids It is not without that significance Ferguson,who prefers the fellowphratry). celebrantsas the constituentgroup in the phratry,arguesthat the rite-paricipants are late,78while Busolt, who prefers the rite-participants, argues that the fellowcelebrantgroup was late.79 The evidence, approachedwithout theoreticalpreand possession,would indicate that Fergusonis right about the rite-participants, Busolt is right about the fellow-celebrants!The earliestmention of both is in a law of Solon, recognizingtheir right to regulatetheir internalaffairs.80Furtherwere a group whose affiliationwith the more, we know that the rite-participants have a fragmentof early Athenian law phratrymight be called in question;we which enacts that "the phrateres shall be compelled to admit both the riteor 'milk-brothers' (homo-galaktes) participants(orgeones) and the 'milk-sharers' whom we call clansmen (gennetai)."8 There is no doubt that it is the riteparticipantsand not the milk-sharerswhose status is threatened. If the riteparticipantsare taken to be the group within the phratry to which the native status belonged,it is necessaryto assumethat at some Athenian of non-Eupatrid in the phratrywas called in question. Since memberlater date their membership at least in a was, up to the time of Cleisthenes,the equivalentof phratry ship to have would we say that the citizenship of native Athenians of citizenship,
78 Ferguson, op. cit., pp. 262-263. 79 BS, vol. 1, p. 253. in BS, vol. 1, p. 252, note 2. 80 Quotedand discussed 81 Cf. BS, loc. cit. See alsoournote 77.
332
non-Eupatridorigin was called in question.The assumptionthat the citizenship of native Athenianstock was ever called in question (apart from palpableirregularities in birth) not only lacks any external confirmation,but is per se an assumptionthat does not fit into the known social situation at any period of Athenian historyearlierthan the period of oligarchicreactionat the end of the fifth century BC. We must thereforedistinguishthe native Athenians, who in ordersof craftsmenand peasants, earlyAttic historybelongedto the non-Eupatrid from the rite-participants and fellow-celebrants, and find a differentsocial composition for the latter. This is not hard to find. It is generallyrecognizedthat the fellow-celebrants and rite-participants represent groupsof familiesunited by a bond which was not a kinshipbond, but might be religious,professional,geographical,or a combination of these. It is generallyrecognizedthat they were recruitedfrom those who found themselvesoutside of the concentriccircles of the universalkinship (or quasi-kinship)system which coveredthe whole body of people in a Greek citystate in the earliestperiod. Their exclusionmight have originatedin loss of status or in being of immigrant stock. Immigrants whichresultedin being "unhonored," often became "residentaliens," i.e. metics. On occasion people of metic status gained admissionto citizenship,and thereforeto the phratries. Their condition might continueto be precarious.There is much to be said for the view that the law guaranteeing the positionof the rite-participants in the phratrywas passedin of meticsat the time of Cleisthenes.2 connectionwith an enfranchisement it is true, espousedthe view that the craftsmenand Glotz 83 and Francotte,84 peasants of early Attic history were composedof just these elements; namely, of the kinship system. We have already outsiders,immigrants,and ex-members stated the objectionsto this: the conceptionof an aristocratic societywithout any non-aristocratic members,and the inadmissiblehypothesis of an extension of citizenshipstatus before Draco.
XI
Having consideredways to get around the argument,and their futility, we thus arriveonce more at the conclusionthat since the phratrywas universal,and since the only original groupingin the phratrywas the clan, the clan was originally universal. This corresponds entirelyto the resultsof Glotz's analysisof the social organizationof the embryocity-stateas seen in Homer. In his paper on La Marineet la cite de l'epopeea l'histoire,Glotz showedthat in Homer the lower
82 BG, vol. 2, p. 429; Costello op. cit. See also our note 77. 83 GH, vol. 1, p. 395. 84 Francotte,op. cit., p. 10.
333
ordersare integratedinto the generalkinship systemwhich in the Greek City he says consistsof clans, phratries,and tribes.85In his Histoire grecque,operating with the conceptionof the clan in Attica as exclusivelyEupatrid,he has to get the craftsmenout of the kinshipsystem,and then in again before Draco. At the same (as shownby a footnote) his previousstudy, he tries to recontime, remembering cile the two positionsby placing the craftsmenand peasants,not in the phratries (where at the very least his earlierpaper had proved they should be) but "distributedindividuallyin the tribes." Such is the Procrusteanbed that all those who insist that the clan was exclusively Eupatridpreparefor themselves. Liberatingourselvesfrom this fetish, we are able to say that as in Homer, so in earliestAttica the whole people belonged of societyinto Eupatridsand to both the phratryand the clan; that the polarization is which a takes not the accretionof a body which non-Eupatrids process place, by lies outside the kinship system and forms the non-Eupatrids,but by a fissure occurringwithin the kinship system itself (as Aristotle held); and that the riteparticipantsadmitted to the phratry do representthe assimilationof such an accretionof originaloutsiders. The right to practicethe ceremonies(possession of the cultus) of the Ancestral Apollo (Apollo Patroos) has importantbearingon the subjectwe are discussing; the readercan see that for himself by observinghow it is coveredin every type of conclusionsdrawn theoryof the clan with whichwe have dealt. The contradictory from the evidenceare nothingless than bewildering.Meyer regardedthe cultus as the hallmarkof the mass of the non-nobleAthenians as opposed to the "noble houses" (Adelsgeschlechter);Busolt holds that the cultus was originally the propertyof the "noblehouses"but was extendedto the commonpeople some time before Solon, etc. The facts of the matter are quite simple: (1) possessionof the cultus was regardedas the equivalentof being an Athenian citizen;86 (2) possessionof the of the clan.87 If even in as complexa subject cultus was regardedas characteristic as this the simplest hypothesis is to be preferred, then one must say that Francotteis right in saying that the facts point to an original situation in which all citizens were in the clans.88 Francotte,of course, then proceededto tie the matterin a knot again with his specialtheorythat only the Eupatridswere citizens in the period of what the Germanscall the "nobles'state" (Adelsstaator Gesch85 Glotz, "La Marine et la cite de l'epopee ' l'histoire" (in Etudes sociales et juridiques sur I'antiquitegrecque,Paris, 1906), pp. 229-253, esp. 239-243. 86 Most forcibly stated by Meyer, op. cit., pp. 520-528. 87 As recognizedin BS, vol. 2, p. 256 and note 1; also by Wilbrandt, op. cit., pp. 136-144. 88 Francotte,op. cit., p. 12.
334
lecherstaat). But the hypothesisis substantiatednot only by its simplicity,but also by the insuperable difficulties involvedin all the alternatives. Meyer ignores the evidencefor a connectionbetweenthe cultusand the clans; all the others,who recognizea connectionbetween the cultus and what they believe to be "noble houses"ignore: (a) the evidence,amply developedby Meyer, that the cultus of AncestralApollo is inherentlyethnic or "national,"not a hallmarkof the priviof positing an extension leged distinctionof the nobility; (b) the inadmissibility of the cultus from the Eupatridsto the non-Eupatrids, because (on their definitions) this would be equivalentto the ennobling of the non-Eupatrids,and it would have to be placed no later than Solon. The idea that at the beginningof the sixth centuryBC the commonpeople could be given equalityin pedigreewith the nobilityby legislativefiat is absurd. At the sametime, it seemsthat Ferguson'stheoryshould be accepted,i.e. that in the fifth century BC the cultus was largely associated with the individual "householdfamily" (oikos) ratherthan with the clan.89 This situationwould be the natural result of the failure of the clans to include, as they once did, all Athenians. As the individualhouseholdtook the place of the clan as the basic elementin the city-state,the cultus tendedto shift from the clan to the household family.
XII
Let us now reviewcertainother argumentsfor the existenceof non-Eupatrid clans; obviously,this is crucialto the whole discussion. First, whetherwe reckonwith Aristotle'sfigures (360, 30 in a clan) or with the inscriptional indications (Fergusonreckonswith about ninety clans and about a one hundredin clan), we arriveat a numberthat seemsincrediblylarge for just of earlyAttica.90 the aristocracy Second,it is often said that withinthe phratrya privilegedpositionis occupied by a clan, this privilegedpositionbeing relatedto the privilegesof the nobles;this is then related to the general hypothesisof the Eupatrid nature of the clan.91 However, if we bear in mind the numberof the Attic clans (the most skeptical
89 Ferguson, The Salaminioi, pp. 31-32. 90 Cf. BG, vol. 2, p. 112, note, where he argues against the trustworthinessof Aristotle becauseon his (Busolt's) definition of clansman= Eupatrid, it gives an absurdly high number of Eupatrids: "Fasst man gennetai im eigentlichen Sinne als Angeh6rige der gene auf, so kann natirlich von 10,800 gennetai nicht die Rede sein." One would think that it should have been obvious to Aristotle also. 91 Cf. BS, vol. 2, p. 959; also Meyer, Geschichtedes Altertums (2nd ed., Stuttgart, 1937), vol. 3, pp. 283-286.
335
analysis admits about fifty) and the number of the phratries (twelve, or about twelve), it is obviousthat all the Attic clans could not have a privilegedposition in the phratries. Thus the evidenceactually points to the conclusionthat some clans had privilegesbecausethey were Eupatrid,while othersdid not, presumably becausethey were non-Eupatrid.92 Third, and closely related to the last argument,it has been held that the exclusivepossessionof the priesthoodin certainstate cultus ceremonials by certain clans is a survivalof Eupatridprivilegein religiousmatters.93But to begin with, it is only a fraction of the known clans which can be shown to have had such privileges. Again, it seems theoreticallyimpossibleto find enough cultus ceremonialsto supply all the clans with the privilege. Further,although most of the state cultus ceremonialswere presumablyinstituted in the period of the social hegemony of the Eupatrids, and one would therefore expect to find privileges reserved for Eupatrid clans, yet on the other hand certain ceremonialswere or even anti-Eupatrid.A priori, institutedunderauspicesthat were non-Eupatrid one would not be at all surprisedto find that in such ceremonials(for example the Dionysus cultus, developed by Peisistratus) the privileges went to nonEupatrids. We shall argue, when we come to considerwhetherthere are specific that this is in fact the case. clans which should be regardedas non-Eupatrid, in are definite traces of a distinction the late there Fourth, grammarians is between betweenclans that probablya distinction Eupatridand non-Eupatrid clans. Some are called "of upright born" (gene ithagenon); some are called "undistinguished" (gene adoxa), a very curiousadjectiveto apply to any of the "noble houses"!94 Another distinction is between those that were regardedas "autochthonous" and those that were not; we are told that "the Eupatridswere so autochthonous, that all Eupatridswere 'well-born'(eugeneis), but not all the
92 It is obvious that if we reject the equation of Eupatrid and clansman, then it becomes a question of whether a clan was en bloc either Eupatrid or non-Eupatrid,or whether in a given clan some might be Eupatrid and some not. H. T. Wade-Gery (Studies in the Structure of Attic Society, Classical Quarterly, vol. 25, 1931, p. 130) leaves the question unanswered; Costello (op. cit., p. 176) holds that the Eupatrids were the chiefs of the clan. In what follows it is assumed that a clan, as a whole, is either Eupatrid or not. The justificationfor this assumption, in addition to the evidence about to be adduced for a distinction between clans, is Hellanikos, frag. 170 (Felix Jacoby, Fragmente der griechischen Historiker, Berlin, 1923-30) and Xenophon, Symposium, VIII, 40. In both of these passages it seems to be implied that a man's possession of Eupatrid status is derived from his membership in a particular (Eupatrid) clan. 93 E.g., DeSanctis, op. cit., pp. 61-62. 94 Examplesof gene adoxa are the Titakidai and Thyrgonidai; cf. Toepffer, op. cit., p. 291. The distinction is given full value by Wilbrandt, op. cit., p. 155.
336
of to be the equivalent wereEupatrids."95 'well-born' (HereI take "well-born" "members of an ancient clan.") houses" of "noble Fifth,it is clearthatthe wholetheory (Adelsgeschlechter) if one singleclancan be shownto be non-Eupatrid. We pointto the collapses which as those should be as clans regarded non-Eupatrid: following to whichThemistocles As a personality belonged.96 (a) The Lykomidai, is knownas an excellent and the of the parvenu specimen type, Themistocles wasan alien (Thracian) whobecame a concuhetaira man;his mother marginal told that, bine;hersonhadto be legitimatized by his father.We arespecifically 97 Furtheras far as hisclanwasconcerned, Themistocles was"undistinguished." withwhichthe Lykomidai wereconnected more,the cultusceremonials definitely werepromito the to above.98 The referred type Lykomidai belong non-Eupatrid of Phlya,a demewhichwas a centerof the cultusof nent in the ceremonials himself wasan enthusiast for thatcultus.The Lykomidai Themistocles Dionysus; be held of certain it wouldgenerally werealsotheguardians writs"; Orphic "holy characteristic of the Orphic that it waspropagated thatit is an essential religion strata. by non-Eupatrid of which wearetoldthat"theEupatrids didnot particiThe Hesychidai, (b) in" ritual the This induced a certain by performed Hesychidai.99 passage pate to a clan of the "noble houses" invoke into the holders theory being particular in addition to thestatus-group of theEupatrids! calledtheEupatrids Wade-Gery is purelyimaginary, and has also has shownthat the "clanof the Eupatrids" makesit perfectly understandout howthe nature of the ritualinvolved pointed of shouldbe excluded fromit.100It follows, ablewhythe Eupatrid status-group thatthe Hesychidai werenon-Eupatrid. course, Boththeseclanshadpriestly functions andKrokonidai.10l (c) The Euneidai are described as a clanof lyre-players in the cultusof Dionysus.The Euneidai suitable for Eupatrids. The cultuswith theseprofessions arehardly anddancers; is whichthey are connected that of DionysusMelpomenos ("Lordof song"),
95 Scholiast on Sophocles, Electra, 25, for the notion of Eupatrids as autochthonous; cf. Demosthenes, Against Neaira, 75. 96 Plutarch, Themistocles, 1. 97 Ibid. 98 On the cultus practicesof the Lykomidai, cf. Toepffer, op. cit., esp. pp. 208-225. On the Lykomidaias a non-Eupatridclan, see Costello, op. cit., p. 173, note 13. 99 By Polemon, quoted by Scholiast on Sophocles, Oedipus at Colonus, p. 435. 100 Wade-Gery, op. cit., pp. 82-85. His argument is supportedby Costello, op. cit., p. 171, note 4. 101 On the Euneidai, cf. Toepffer, op. cit., pp. 181-206; on the Krokonidai, idem, pp. 101-104.
337
which may well be the cult instituted or elaboratedby Peisistratus. The Krokonidai, we are told, were the "wine-overseers" (oinoptai) at some Dionysiac festival. The comedianEupolis, lamentingthe fact that in his day the Athenians no longerelectedtheirgeneralsfrom the best families,says, "O city, city, now you elect as generals men who previouslyyou would not have to tolerated even as impliedignoble birth. oinoptai";102it seemsclear that being a wine-overseer refer the the also to clans to names of which WilamoWe should again (d) witz drew attention as indicatinghereditarypursuit of a craft, and thereforeas indicating that they belonged to the craftsmen or peasants rather than the Eupatrids. It is true that it has been denied that some, at least, of these namesare names of clans. They are knownto us only as namesof the localitygroupscalled demes; from their patronymicform it is clear that the deme was named after the group of people residingthere, and that this group was united by a (real or fictitious) kinshipbond. Since this kinshipbond, uniting a whole village, must have passed to beyondthe limits of the immediatefamily, and must in fact have corresponded them "noble can favor of that it a clan, seems houses") deny only prejudice (in the name of clans, particularlyin view of Aristotle'sidentificationof the village communitywith the clan, and of the existenceof other caseswheredeme and clan certainlydo have the same name. These clans are the Aithalidai (connectedwith forging), Daidalidai (connectedwith metal-work), Eupuridai (connectedwith fire, i.e. forging), and Iphistiadai (connectedwith the art of Hephaestus, the smith). In addition there are others which are explicitlystated to be clans, such as the Poimenidai (shepherds),Phreoruchoi (well-diggers),Aigeirotomoi (treecutters), and Chalkidai (bronze-and copper-workers).No doubt a special theory might be devisedto explainwhy "noblehouses"might have some of these names; for that reasonwe here regardthem as an indication,ratherthan a proof, of the existenceof non-Eupatrid clans,but taken all together,they can hardlybe denied some weight. (e) Of less weight, naturally, but still important,is the existence of nonEupatridclans outsideAttica. We have certain evidencethat in Crete, Kalymna,Olymos, and Thasos the clan was not a Eupatridgroup.l03 It must be conceded,in view of the differences in social structurebetweendifferentGreek city-states,that we cannot argue that thereforeit must have been so in Attica also. That it does have a certainweight,
102 Eupolis, in August Meineke, Fragmenta comicorum graecorum (Berlin, 1839-1857), vol. 2, p. 510; cf. p. 486. 103 Costello, op. cit., p. 176, note 34, and p. 173.
338
SOUTHWESTERN
in view of the general Greek nature of the clan, is shown by Meyer'sattemptto explain these phenomenaas resulting from an extensionof what were originally "noble houses" to include the whole people.104Costello rightly points out the natureof the hypothesisthat the nobilitysharedwith the commons unsatisfactory "the hallmark of nobility" (das Kennzeichendes Adels);l05 the Eupatrids remained a distinct and distinguishable group even in egalitarian ("democratic") states.
XIII
It is submitted,in conclusion,that Attic historybegins with a periodin which the whole people is organizedin clans, and that, though in time the perpetuation of the clan tended to be limited to the Eupatrids,and the "householdfamily" (oikos) supplantedthe clan as the basic unit of Attic society, yet there remain clear tracesof the organization of people of craftsmanstatus in clans, as well as some other non-Eupatridclans which owed their survival to the fact that they acquireda priestly function. This conclusionby itself does not validateall the attributesascribedby Glotz to the clan in the periodof its universalityand supremacy; it only establishesthe attribute of universality. In fact, one may say that Glotz's whole conception would be endangeredif there were no signs in Attic history that the clan was functionally anything but a Eupatrid organization,howeverplausible might be the reasonsadvancedwhy what was once a universalorganizationwould tend to emerge later as a Eupatrid organization. The disjunction in Glotz's narrative betweenthe periodof the clan and the earliestperiodin Attic history,in which he representsthe clan as limited to the Eupatrids,is hardly tolerable. His case is strengthenedif it has been shown that he was wrong in making so large a concessionto the Meyer, et al. theoryof "noblehouses" (Adelsgeschlechter).At the same time, many of the objectionsmade against his views on the functioningof the earlyclan, e.g., his view on commonownership of land by the clan, arebasedon the presupposition that the clan was exclusively Eupatrid. Hence the presentpaper of the evidence on these might be said to lead logically to a reconsideration questions. In fact, by omittingthis next step, the paper is manifestlyincomplete; for thereis much to be said for the view that if the clan was a universalgrouping, there should be signs that its functionswere once correspondingly large in scope. There are such signs, and many of them, but they cannot be surveyed and analyzedwithin presentspacelimits. In any event,enoughhas beensaid aboutthe place of the clan in Greeksociety
104 Meyer, Forschungen (see footnote 36), pp. 518-519. 105 Costello, op. cit., p. 173, note 18.
339
to make it plain that the ignoring or bypassingof Morgan, where his "Grecian gens" is concerned,is hardly defensible. Reiterating and restating: Glotz and others upholdinga conceptionof the clan and its functioning akin to Morgan's would have done well to have made fewer concessionsto Eduard Meyer and similar theorists.106
UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN
WISCONSIN MADISON,
106 Just at the time when the writer received the galley proofs of this article, there came to his attention the book by George Thomson, Studies in the History of Ancient Greek Society: the PrehistoricAegean (London, 1949). Thomson is a somewhat dogmatic not to say belligerent Marxist, and to me at least, who should probably be classified as a "bourgeois"social scientist (if we must have such classifications), he seems to drag in several extra-scientificconsiderations when dealing with his material. Nevertheless, I feel that he is entirely right in the immediate substanceif not the remoter implicationsof his attack on E. A. Gardner and F. A. Adcock, who in the Cambridge Ancient History, vol. 3, do little more than repeat, with minor variations,the contentions of Meyer, Ferguson, and other writers dealt with in the present article. Gardner, in particular, seems blandly indifferent to time-sequencesin the evidence, and is taken to task by Thomson thus: "So far as it goes,... [Gardner's statement that the clans stood in no definite relation to the phratries] is perfectly correct, but, since it purports to describethe state of affairs before the democratic revolution, when the old system was still in being, the unsuspecting reader should be warned that the evidence on which it rests is taken from the period after the revolution, when the old system had been abolished; and once this small but necessaryadjustment has been made, the correctconclusion is seen to be the opposite of that which is here described [by Gardner] as certain" (Thomson, op. cit., pp. 108-109).

3628465

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

3628465

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

In Defense of Morgan's "Grecian Gens": Ancient Kinship and Stratification Author(s): Howard Becker Source: Southwestern Journal of Anthropology,

IN DEFENSEOF MORGAN'S"GRECIAN GENS": ANCIENT KINSHIP AND STRATIFICATION

of writing a bookto be entitledMind on the Loomsof IN THE PROCESS

IN DEFENSE OF MORGAN'S "GRECIANGENS"

IN DEFENSE OF MORGAN'S "GRECIAN GENS"

IN DEFENSE OF MORGAN'S "GRECIANGENS"

IN DEFENSE OF MORGAN'S "GRECIANGENS"

IN DEFENSE OF MORGAN'S "GRECIANGENS"

SOUTHWESTERN JOURNAL OF ANTHROPOLOGY

IN DEFENSE OF MORGAN'S "GRECIANGENS"

IN DEFENSE OF MORGAN'S "GRECIANGENS"

SOUTHWESTERN JOURNAL OF ANTHROPOLOGY

IN DEFENSE OF MORGAN'S "GRECIAN GENS"

IN DEFENSE OF MORGAN'S "GRECIAN GENS"

IN DEFENSE OF MORGAN'S "GRECIANGENS"

SOUTHWESTERN JOURNAL OF ANTHROPOLOGY

IN DEFENSE OF MORGAN'S "GRECIANGENS"

SOUTHWESTERN JOURNAL OF ANTHROPOLOGY

IN DEFENSE OF MORGAN'S "GRECIANGENS"

SOUTHWESTERN JOURNAL OF ANTHROPOLOGY

IN DEFENSE OF MORGAN'S "GRECIANGENS"

SOUTHWESTERN JOURNAL OF ANTHROPOLOGY

IN DEFENSE OF MORGAN'S "GRECIANGENS"

IN DEFENSE OF MORGAN'S "GRECIANGENS"

You might also like