![]() Given the Eupatridai and Bacchiadai lineages and not much else, the notion of extensive, pervasive hereditary power in late archaic Greece falters. As such, lineages which appear legitimate and politically powerful cannot be traced back more than three generations. ![]() 600.” Duplouy adds that the majority of these cited groups belong to other categories such as “patronymics, personal names, toponyms, sub-ethnics and names of professional associations,” which do not indicate successive political power and blood-relations. ![]() Investigating Aegina in particular, Fisher notes that “there is no evidence that any of the leading families” claimed the same, specific descent, and moreover “there are no claims of a family history which began before c. Overall, Van Wees points out, only the Eupatridai in Athens and the Bacchiadai in Cornith are well-attested, and many others only occur in passing, without proof that they are legitimate hereditary lineages which held significant political power. However, the quality and quantity of evidence supporting these claims is limited. Scholars often cite family names ending in – ides and – ades as proof of an ancestral Greek nobility. Therefore even in instances where inheritable political rule is well-attested, the short duration of existent lineages, combined with the limitations of this power, diminished its impact in the long narrative of Ancient Greek history. ![]() Like the kings, tyrants’ powers were limited, and even at the height of their supremacy they did not possess any powers to grant privileges or honors to their inner-circle. Van Wees notes that even for tyrants from the seventh to fifth centuries who attempted to impose a rule with inheritable power, none lasted beyond the third generation. Even for families which did retain power successively, Qviller explains, genealogies were rather short, suggesting that lines of kingship were relatively short-lived. The Odyssey provides literary evidence for the flexibility of inherited power succession when Telemachus recognizes that “there are other kings of the Achaeans” eligible to replace him as king after his father’s death (Od., 400). Although the kingship described in the Odyssey involves an inherited succession of power, there was no “depersonalized, institutionalized royal officialdom” which guaranteed a secure transfer to the next generation. Therefore, the benefits of acquiring hereditary wealth and power in archaic and classical Greece appear far more limited than historians suggest due to the vulnerability of these assets, and consequently had a nominal impact on the stratification of Ancient Greek society.Īt the outset, the hereditary power which is thought to have existed in early and late Archaic Greek society was relatively weak. Likewise, while hereditary wealth enabled elites to compete for power from one another, the division of inheritance made the promise of wealth acquired at birth unreliable. The prevalence of old archaic noble families is disputed, and hereditary transfer of political power, where proven to exist, appears short-lived, limited, and insecure. Though historians have often argued that hereditary power and wealth played a critical role in defining an individual’s prospects in Ancient Greek society, there is ample evidence against this conclusion. The Limits of Ancestral Wealth and Power in Ancient Greece
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |