Ever since the 19th century, when the concept of Hellenism was introduced to designate and characterize an era, it has repeatedly been maintained that Hellenism stood for the conscious or unconscious dissemination of Greek culture. However, it remains debatable whether there was in fact more to it than mere geographical expansion. It is true that Greekpoleis were founded for the disbanded mercenaries of Alexander and his successors in a vast territory extending from the Mediterranean to Uzbekistan and Kashmir, but these poleis were no more than islets of Greek culture in an ocean of indigenous cultures. Because of a distinct sense of superiority, the Greek inhabitants of these islets were not particularly desirous to share their Greek city culture with the surrounding “barbarians”; on the other hand, the indigenous population was not always keen to embrace the culture of the conquerors either. The development of law in the Hellenistic period may serve as an illustration. This period had four types of law functioning side by side: local Greek law, which was specific for every Greek polis; a somewhat loosely defined “general Greek law” applied to Greeks wandering outside the polis; an increasing amount of royal Greek law; and indigenous law, which varied from region to region and was hardly influenced by Greek law. This judicial patchwork existed throughout the Hellenistic period; naturally, the various judicial forms evolved and changed, but separately. Only the Greek language in its Hellenistic form, the so-called koine, spread widely among non-Greeks, and became the lingua franca in many parts of the Hellenistic world, a general means of communication that was used by members of the many different language groups. In the Near East, however, it never completely ousted the regional lingua franca, Aramaic. Many indigenous languages and dialects never developed a culture of writing and have disappeared without a trace, but this does not mean they did not exist. We may presume that regional differences were considerable, and it is therefore dangerous to generalize; in regions such as Asia Minor, the use of Greek was widespread, but in other parts the Greek language was not nearly as influential.
Naturally, in certain regions, members of the indigenous elite wanted to “Hellenize,” for opportunistic reasons, and sometimes perhaps because they were genuinely enthusiastic.
Antiquity: Greeks andRomans in Context, First Edition. Frederick G. Naerebout and HenkW. Singor. © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Published 2014 byJohn Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Some of them gradually found their way into the world of the Macedonian and Greek elite. We find that Romans who migrated to the newly conquered territories in the East likewise became part of the local elite. This degree of assimilation, however, only concerns a handful of people. Greek culture was only adopted by larger groups in regions with a strong Greek presence, such as Asia Minor and parts of the Balkans where it had been promoted for centuries by Hellenistic princes and later, too, by the Roman authorities. For the most part, Greek and indigenous culture existed side by side. Egypt, with on the one hand Greek Alexandria and its court for the Greek rulers, and on the other hand the rural areas where these foreign conquerors continued to be viewed with aversion and distrust, is a good example of this. However, for Greeks and Egyptians at the lower end of the social scale it was difficult to live separate lives. But this did not lead to Hellenization either; on
Figure 34 Sculptures from the Buddhist monastery at Tepe Shotor, Afghanistan (3rd-4th c. AD). These photographs show sculptures decorating two chapels of the Buddhist monastery of Tepe Shotor, at Hadda in southern Afghanistan. They date from the 3rd or 4th century AD, and although the Hephtalites destroyed all Buddhist monasteries in the area in the 5th century AD, these sculptures survived, only to fall prey to the iconoclasm of the Taliban in the very recent past. The sculptures are in stucco, a technique developed to a high standard in Hellenistic Alexandria and subsequently exported to the East, as far as Afghanistan. But in an important Buddhist center such as Hadda, it was not merely the technique that was copied: one of the companions of the Buddha, seen seated to the left of the Buddha in the picture above, has the looks and attributes of Heracles, while another Buddha is accompanied by someone, detailed in the picture overleaf, who looks like Alexander the Great. Gandhara, in the 2nd century BC had been part of the kingdom of the Greek king Menander, and in the first centuries AD appears as an important center of art inspired by Greek examples. Photos: © Catherine Jarrige
Figure 34 (Continued)
The contrary, the poorer Greeks, a minority among their Egyptian neighbors, tended to gradually assimilate with the indigenous population. On the periphery of the Hellenistic world, it was not just the humblest people who adapted to the local situation, but in the long run the whole of society did so. This holds true, for instance, for the Greeks in the remotest eastern regions.
Even though Greeks in the East assimilated to their surroundings, for instance by turning Buddhist, local culture did not remain completely unaffected; Buddhist art, for example, shows strong Greek influence. Thus, one should not think simplistically about Hellenization, nor, for that matter, about its counterpart “orientalization.” The key concept is acculturation. When two cultures meet, in whatever manner, we will find acculturation processes: changes set in motion by the contact. Acculturation is reciprocal, although it does not necessarily concern the same cultural aspects and may not be of equivalent scope. This is not about the mere “adoption” of goods and patterns; changes on both sides are generally much more subtle. For instance, stressing one’s own cultural identity as a reaction to the other’s presence is also an expression of acculturation. Members of the Ptolemaic dynasty played the role of pharaoh for their Egyptian subjects, but this should not be seen as an example of the merging of two cultures or an assimilation of the Greeks with the Egyptian context. It was, indeed, no more than a recurring “performance,” and in this way almost the opposite of merging or assimilating. All the same, it was an expression of acculturation. At the same time, playing the role of pharaoh influenced Greek conceptions
Of monarchical rule: as a result of the acculturation process, Greek culture itself also changed.
The situation described above, in which Greek and non-Greek inevitably influenced each other but deliberate assimilation was mostly avoided, has one big exception: Rome. Here, cultural as well as political relationships were different. Greek influence on Rome, especially in the area of religion, dates from long before the Roman conquest of the Greek East, but it was this very conquest that gave momentum to the acculturation process. Although the Romans were the military victors, they had to admit that the Greeks were their cultural superiors, and, significantly, had no problems in doing so. They were not uncritical toward the Greeks: although they felt almost unlimited admiration for the Greek cultural heritage, they were largely contemptuous of their Greek contemporaries, whom they called Graeculi, “little Greeks.” The Greeks, in their turn, generally saw the Romans as “barbarians,” which strengthened Rome’s ambivalent attitude to Greece. Despite all this, the Romans, as military and political masters, could afford to be open to Greek influence: this was Rome’s own choice. The Hellenization of Rome was profound; it is hard to overestimate Greek influence on all aspects of Roman civilization. There were some protesters who favored “old Roman values,” but they were incapable of turning the Greek tide. However, again, we should not think simplistically about this process: the Greek influence did not make Rome “Greek.” Rome remained Roman, but the definition of “Roman” was subject to constant change, and the Greek heritage, adapted or not, became part of “Romanness.”
The polis
In the various Hellenistic societies, the polis was the natural environment for Greeks wherever they lived, just as it had been in the Classical period. Now, however, poleis were part of large monarchies, and they were subsequently incorporated in a single empire of unprecedented dimensions. In any case, they had de facto lost their political independence, which is illustrated, for example, by the fact that everywhere royal law functioned alongside local law. At times, central power temporarily disappeared, and poleis were again able to take control for a while, but the coming of Rome spelt the definitive end of any form of political independence. In the old days, for instance, the citizens of the polis were also its soldiers, even if they saw little action. Rome effectively demilitarized the poleis: waging war was a job for Roman legions. In the centuries following Alexander, poleis increasingly turned inward, and policy came to mean local policy.
Apart from political independence, there was another loss: koinonia, the citizens’ sense of community, gradually disappeared during the first two centuries of the Hellenistic period. The transition to authoritarian forms of government, a process of oligarchiza-tion, and an ever-widening gap between rich and poor may be held responsible for this development. External politics, but also internal koinonia, became rather make-believe than actual independent policy making, seen for instance in the continual rivalry between poleis, all seeking to be the biggest and the best, and the accompanying expressions of pride where one’s own polis was concerned. The puffed-up sense of identity of the Hellenistic city dwellers was on the one hand a moving spirit, but on the
Other hand no more than a futile pose in a world that had changed fundamentally. Local chauvinism was indisputably genuine, but it was of a different order from the sense of superiority shared by a citizenship that is truly united. Philosophy presented some new alternatives for the role of the polites, particularly the Stoa’s kosmopolites or “citizen of the world,” but this was hardly a serious alternative for the average city dweller.
There were, however, viable alternatives to koinonia. To begin with, poleis housed a multitude of clubs, societies, and “guilds.” Every polis had its gumnasion as an important center of Greek cultural identity: a school for the sons, and sometimes the daughters, of the elite, which also functioned as a cultural community center. The many private societies that flourished as never before and where everyone could feel secure were of even greater importance for creating a sense of community. There was some form of association for every segment of society, every professional group, and every religious denomination. Many of these clubs, both the societies dedicated to the cult of a particular deity and the associations that were not explicitly religious, had social objectives, such as mutual funeral insurance. The expanding membership of these private associations maybe interpreted as a turning away from public life in favor of privacy. Such particularism seems to have been a general social phenomenon. This may also be deduced from the increasing importance of family life.
Paradoxically, this movement from the public toward the private in due course offered a new way to structure public life: public life became modeled on private life. One could also say that in the course of the Hellenistic period, public life was increasingly absorbed by private life. That is to say, the private life of a small group within the various communities, the family life of the urban elite, was important enough to encompass all of the polis. The result was a paternalistic system in which the polis’ inhabitants were seen as the children and the members of the elite as their fathers and mothers. In exchange for respect and obedience, these “parents” offered protection. At the state level, the paternalism of the urban elite may be compared to the role of the Hellenistic monarchs and that of the prominent leaders of the late Roman Republic.
World History
