Territory and land
Even in the most sophisticated and complex of the polis economies, such as Athens, a significant proportion of the population did not live in the urban centre (asty). The polis was almost always intrinsically linked with and dependent on its territory (the countryside or, to use the Greek word, the chora) and the agricultural produce of the countryside (Osborne 1987; Sallares 1991). Thucydides says that at the outbreak of the Peloponnesian war, ‘from early times down to the present war most of the Athenians still lived in the country with their families and their households’ (Thuc. 2.16). Attika was unusual in that its territory of around 2,400km2 had only two urban centres (Athens and Piraeus). However, in other respects its demes were the same sort of size as the small or medium poleis that one finds in other regions of Greece. In this respect most other regions of Greece of a similar size would have been far more ‘urbanized’. To illustrate this point one can consider Boiotia, a territory which occupied roughly the same area as Attika (2, 500 km2: Fossey 1988: 4) but was made up of many poleis. There were fourteen main poleis in Boiotia but many other smaller poleis which were often associated with or attached to the larger cities of the region. Hansen (1996: 74; Hansen & Nielsen 2004: 436-59) has found as many as twenty-five identifiable poleis of varying size in Boiotia. By definition the political structure of the region known as Boiotia is much more typical of Greece, in that a region was made up of several poleis or urban centres with a rural territory attached. In some regions ‘nucleated’ living may well have accounted for larger proportions of the population of the polis than at Athens before the Peloponnesian war. The authors of the southern Argolid survey suggest that less than half the population resided in the countryside, perhaps as few as 16 per cent (Jameson et al. 1994: 553). In the long course of its history (the longue duree), the Greek countryside was most heavily exploited during the Classical period and probably peaked in the fourth century. Archaeological surveys find consistently that the signs of the greatest activity fall in the Classical and early Hellenistic period (Alcock et al.1994: 142).
Land and property
Ownership of land and property was usually restricted to citizens and a minority of people (non-citizens) given the right to own land (enktesis). An ideal oikos (household) owned sufficient land to feed itself and produce a surplus (Plato Laws 744B, in order to avoid stasis) but this ideal was probably far from the reality (see, e. g., Garnsey 1988: 43-6). Xenophon’s Oikonomikos includes a fictionalized conversation between Sok-rates and Ischomachos and a discussion of farming, in which Sokrates says: ‘Not everyone does equally well, but some live in plenty and have a surplus, whereas others cannot provide themselves with the necessities, but even get into debt as well’ (Xenophon Oikonomikos 20.3). Sokrates’ intention here is to encourage Ischomachos to organize and run the household efficiently based on agriculture (Xenophon Oikonomikos. 6.4-8) - the essence of the treatise and a topos of conservative Greek thought ([Aristotle] Oikononomika 1343b). Sokrates refers to and Ischomachos reports differences in property holding and the running of estates (Xenophon Oikonomikos 20.4-5; 11.14-18) that probably reflect a reality (Foxhall 2002: 210-12).
Not all citizens ran estates of the same scale ([Aristotle] Oikonomika 1345a17). In some parts of the Greek world, communities had their roots in a more egalitarian control of oikos-sustaining property, such as at Metapontion (Metapontum), where the average property-plot covered 9 ha (Isager & Skydsgaard 1992: 76). It is widely believed that 5 ha of land was sufficient to sustain a typical household in ancient Greece. In the Hellenistic period a register of land in Larissa (Thessaly) allotted 5 ha to the settlers (Habicht 1976; SEG 26 672-6), and 5 ha is widely understood to have been the standard size of farm in classical Greece (Burford Cooper 1977-8; Gallant 1991: 86-7). In some regions, not only were individual properties large enough to produce a marketable surplus ofagricultural products but wealthy individuals probably owned several properties. In the hinterland of Chersonesos Taurike (in south-west Crimea on the northern coast of the Black Sea) big estates of an average of 26 ha maximized the production of surplus in different crops (Saprykin 1994: 83-94). However, in Attika, a small minority of Athenians, perhaps as few as 9 per cent, may have held a large proportion of the agriculturally productive land (40 per cent) in the fourth century, according to one theory (Foxhall 1992: 156).
In Sparta, Hodkinson (2000: 123, 382-5) has shown that the estates of ordinary Spartiates were relatively large, around 18 ha. The Spartiate elite had considerably larger estates, on average 44 ha, and such property holding was considerably larger than that of most of the richer Athenians (Hodkinson 2000: 384-5 and [Plato] Alcibiades 1122D). As in other Greek societies, the Spartans enjoyed a fragmented and almost certainly geographically scattered property portfolio; in other words the average 44 ha was probably made up of several properties (Hodkinson 2000: 121-2).
The reality of the economics of property holding, the potential pressures of population increase (and decrease), the limit of property ownership to citizens, and the possible restrictions on the property available provide the background not only for farms, farming and farmers but also for our picture of the landed economy. In the Athenian economy it is highly likely that not all workers on the land were the property-owners. The Spartan economy was built on the fact that the Spartan citizens relied on other people to work the land, notably the helots (Hodkinson 2000: 113-43).
The question of labour, particularly in Athenian agriculture, is still highly contentious (Finley 1981: 99-100). There are grounds for believing that slave labour must be envisaged for larger farms, fundamentally farms larger than the subsistence farm of around 5 ha. Much of the activity in ancient agriculture was labour intensive and subject to peaks of activity coinciding with times of greatest activity, such as the harvest, when timing can be critical (Halstead & Jones 1989: 49). For the subsistence farm, one model suggests that the household maximized the labour of family members, even relatives and possibly neighbours, rather than buying slaves; if slaves were bought, then they might have been kept and sold on depending on the economic circumstances of the household (Gallant 1991). Whether the subsistence farmers did or did not ordinarily own slaves is important in terms of the extent of slave ownership. But one must also factor in social expectation and values: it is likely that most households desired to own a slave or slaves (Osborne 1995; Jameson 2002: 170-2). Both Xenophon (Oikonomikos 3.4) and Lysias (5.3-5) suggest that slave ownership was expected. It was a reality for the richer members of society, without doubt for those of hoplite status/wealth levels and upwards (‘hoplites’ owning slaves: Thuc. 3.17.3-4; 7.75.5) and only the poorest members of society could not afford slaves (Lysias 24.6; Aristotle Politics 1323a5). For the rich, slaves were no doubt owned and employed widely in agriculture (Lysias 7.34; Xenophon Oikonomikos 12.3; 14.1-2; 15.9-10; [Aristotle] Oikonomika 1.6.5), and given the likelihood that this group dominated much of the cultivable land there is some reason to believe that the largest number of slaves were employed in either agriculture or the silver mines (Hypereides F 29 Jensen). No doubt for the rest of the numerically significant members of slaveowning society, slaves would have been used in a variety of ways, including some agricultural work.
The agricultural foundation of Greek society ensured that slaves were a fundamental economic fact. Agriculture was the most widespread activity and the most intensive demand on free and non-free labour in the diverse economies of Greece. Chios had a highly developed economy. The evidence of Chian amphoras suggests a peak of exports to Athens in the middle of the fifth century, and supports a view that the Chian economy flourished for many decades up to the point of the oligarchic revolt against the Athenians in 412 (Thuc. 8.24; Lawall 1998: 88-90). Chios was probably one of the most extensive slave-based economies in the Greek world (Jameson 1992: 142). When the Athenians arrived to put down the oligarchic revolt in 412, the large numbers of slaves on Chios rebelled against their owners and considerable damage was done to the rural economy, the basis of the society’s wealth (Thuc. 8.40). The island’s economy was specialized and produced large quantities of an exportable commodity, wine, that could be sold abroad. The foundation for the surplus was an agricultural economy that was almost certainly dependent on slave labour.
In a different way the Spartan economies depended on agriculture and non-free labour. For Spartiates relied on helots to work their estates on Spartan territory that included Lakonia and, until 370/69, Messene. The helots were probably the property of one particular Spartiate and worked his land. For the most part they were relatively stable and identified with the property that they worked (Hodkinson 2000: 119-21), which in some cases may have consisted of separate portions of land that belonged to different owners. It is clear that many helots may have worked the land belonging to a Spartiate property-holder (Xenophon Hellenika 3.3.5).
Farmers and wealth
Agriculture was one foundation for the wealth of the elite in any Greek community. The Athenians enjoyed many benefits from their Empire in the fifth century, in particular the ownership of land abroad. When several Athenians, including Alkibiades, were tried and found guilty in the mutilation of the herms in Athens, their property was confiscated and sold. Inscribed fragments of the sales from the Eleusinion have survived. Adeimantos, no doubt one of the richest Athenians of his generation, had at least eight slaves sold and lost considerable revenue from his rented property (M&L 79.53-61 = Fornara 147D; M&L p. 247). He also lost two very valuable vineyards on Thasos: one including a slave, farm and house, storage jars and stored local wine (possibly 230 hectolitres), and another with 93 storage jars, pressing table and wine vat (Salviat 1986: 150-2). The first property may have been 8 to 10 ha in size, and it and the highly valuable harvest of Thasian wine would have provided considerable wealth for Adeimantos.
In Lakedaimonia, land was owned by citizens, inferiors (former citizens, hypo-meiones) and perioikoi (free, non-citizen habitants of Lakedaimonian territory). The Spartan citizen land-owner owned sufficient land to fulfil his mess obligations (syssi-tion) and supported the helots who worked it. The inferior could still own land but by definition not to maintain his full citizen status (Hodkinson 2000: 146 n. 15). Eisphora in Lakedaimonian territory was collected not only from Spartiates but also from perioikoi (Hodkinson 2000: 190), which suggests that in some cases this category included individuals with significant property holding (on dedication of votives by perioikoi and production of bronzes in their territory, Hodkinson 2000: 296).
The distribution of property among Spartiates became increasingly unbalanced in the Classical period. The declining number of Spartan citizens is suggested by the number of Spartans serving in the army and indicates a fall in those Spartans able to perform the mess duties that were required of those who enjoyed Spartan citizenship (Aristotle Politics 1271a26-36; Hodkinson 2000: 399-400). The fall in citizen numbers meant that the rich became richer, and almost certainly their wealth increased because they owned more and more land (Hodkinson 2000: 416). The Spartans suffered from a shortage of citizens (oliganthropia) that was already evident in the fifth century, and by the fourth century they were de facto a plutocracy. The loss of Messenia in 370/69 deprived the Spartans of perhaps as much as 60 per cent of their territory, resulting in significant losses particularly for the less wealthy Spartan land-owners. From 370 to the middle third century the fall continued from 1,000 to 700 Spartans (Aristotle Politics 1270a29-31; Plutarch Agis 5.4; Hodkinson 2000: 436-7), and only served to intensify the already disproportionate concentration of property ownership among the ever smaller Spartan elite.
Farming a profit
It should now be clear that by the fifth and fourth centuries, it is no longer helpful to consider the agricultural economies of Classical Greeks in terms only of subsistence farmsteads. Individual wealth and the wealth of whole communities existed in many instances because of agricultural productivity. At the same time, some of those communities as a whole presented economic vulnerabilities, most famously at Athens, where grain imported from outside of Attika helped to feed the population. Athens was probably not unusual in its importation of grain, as the example of Teos shows. There (c. 470) it was forbidden for anyone to prevent the importing of grain by land or sea into the city, and the subsequent re-exportation of grain was banned. In each case the penalty was death for the transgressor and his family (M&L 30.A = Fornara 63.A lines 6-12).
Spreading the risk on the farm
A variety of agricultural and productive practices were pursued in many regions of the Greek world to spread the risk of crop failure (Gallant 1991: ch. 3). So a typical farm might grow at least one or a combination of the four main crops, the Mediterranean quartet: cereals (typically wheat and barley), olives, pulses and vines. Many farmers throughout the Greek world practised polyculture: legumes, figs, honey, other tree-fruits were all part of this picture. Most farmers or land-holders, even in urban contexts, might have had some animals (typically pigs). Animal husbandry was of considerable importance and exploited land that was not always best suited to agriculture: land that was, sometimes particularly, suited to animal husbandry (Hod-kinson 1988; 2000: 133, 151-2). But the simple desire to have a varied diet could also have figured in the practice of polyculture (see Plato Republic 369D, 371C, 372C-D for a varied diet). The Spartiates had to provide for their mess (syssition) a simple diet of barley meal, wine, cheese and figs that already requires a reasonably diverse agricultural economy: cereals, vines, figs and animals (sheep/goats) for the cheese. Indeed the sophisticated rural economy practised by the Spartans produced sufficient agricultural surplus to supply the messes, the helot population and a tidy surplus that brought considerable financial benefit to the Spartan land-owners (Hod-kinson 2000: 133-5). Polyculture was also a natural consequence of the agricultural calendar, in which different crops needed sowing or harvesting at different moments in the year (see Isager & Skydsgaard 1992: 160-3, fig. 11.1).
But sometimes necessity restricted the diversity. Not all regions were suited to one or a number of crops (for olives: Brun 2003: 126) and some regions positively favoured certain forms of cultivation that saw, indeed, an intensive cultivation of specific crops. For instance, on Amorgos, as on several other Cycladic islands such as Delos, the cold northern winds prevented productive olive cultivation. Olives are absent from the lease of the land belonging to the cult of Zeus Temenites at Arkesine (IG 12.7 62 = Pouilloux 2003 no. 35; Brunet et al. 1998: 222-31). But in Asia Minor, the people of Klazomenai, for example, enjoyed a highly productive olive harvest and stored (in amphoras) a considerable surplus that at one time was envisaged as a means of raising money to buy in cereals in the face of a shortage of rain ([Aristotle] Oikonomika 2.2.16; for the amphoras, Doger 1986).
Land-ownership remained the essential (and most conservative) source of wealth in the Greek world largely because of the importance of agriculture. However, the development of urban centres dependent on their neighbouring territory also produced complex non-agricultural economies. Not everyone in the Greek world was either a farmer or a land-owner, and we now turn to craftsmen and other forms of non-agricultural production.
World History
