This type of community is the most frequent in the ‘Third Greece’. Given the geographical facts - many mainland regions and, obviously, all islands border on the sea, and large continuous fertile plains are rare, but mediocre ones reasonably common - it is not surprising that most agricultural communities near a good port and most larger islands fall into this category. Typically the disadvantage of the limitations of arable land led to a concentration on specific agricultural goods to be produced, in amounts exceeding what was needed for subsistence, for export thanks to easy access to the sea.
One might consider the example of Korinth on the coast of the Korinthian Gulf in a fertile coastal strip east of Sikyon, and west of (but including) the Isthmus of Korinth, with several terraces north of Akrokorinth and some more land on the Isthmus. Korinthia (c. 900 km2), not abundant in agricultural land if compared to Athens, ‘not very fertile, but rifted and rough’ (Strabon 8.6.23), was able not only to support its own sizeable community but also to export some of its agricultural production. However, it was the land-bridge of the Isthmus with its road, the harbours on both the Korinthian Gulf (Lechaion) and the Saronic Gulf (Kenchreai) and the diolkos (a well-paved ‘road’ for pulling boats across the Isthmus on a kind of sledge) which supported ‘wealthy Korinth’ (Pindar F 122 Snell; cf. Olympian Odes 13.4). Strabon (8.6.20) states:
Korinth is called ‘wealthy’ because of its commerce, since it is situated on the Isthmus and is master of two harbours, of which the one leads straight to Asia, and the other to Italy; and it makes easy the exchange of merchandise from both countries that are so far distant from each other. . . . It was a welcome alternative, for the merchants both from Italy and from Asia, to avoid the voyage to Malea (around the Peloponnese) and to land their cargoes here. And also the duties on what by land was exported from the Peloponnese and what was imported to it fell to those who held the keys.
Trade and tolls brought in extra money, and surplus agricultural as well as specifically manufactured goods (from small pots to large boats) could be sold, or even delivered to the customers, in both East and West. It is obvious, then, why the rise of Athens in the fifth century brought Korinth into conflict with this city in the Peloponnesian War. Korinth’s successes were shared by Sparta, which, however, soon became more oppressive towards the city, and the so-called Korinthian War (395 - 386) led to the destruction of the city, and for some time to a complete loss of independence. Korinth regained it, but henceforth mainly kept a ‘low profile’ in international politics throughout the Classical Age, while expanding its agricultural and trading activities again. After 338, Philip II made it the centre of his Korinthian League (see above); later events (notably the Roman destruction in 146, and the wealth of the city refounded by the Romans in 44) seem to repeat the lessons of the Classical Age (cf. Salmon 1984).
Similarly, the mountainous Aegean island of Chios, which had limited agricultural lands, clearly could grow enough to feed its population. But the fact that the Chians were even referred to as ‘the richest of the Greeks’ (Thuc. 8.45) was the result of specialization in agricultural goods exported via the island’s fine harbours: a prized wine (cf. Athenaios 1.32 - 3) for which the vines even grew on the slopes of the mountains, and the so-called mastix, which was widely used throughout the Greek world as a drug, as a kind of ‘chewing gum’ and as a perfume (cf. Dioskurides 1.70.3). As at Korinth, some specialized manufacturers (e. g., producing ceramics for storage and transport), and some wood workers and furniture makers, also supported themselves, and consequently the islands’ community, well beyond subsistence. But despite its affluence through trade Chios never became an important power. A member of the Delian League, the island had its own fleet, but when it tried to break away from Athens after the Sicilian disaster in 413, internal strife ensued. Chios also joined the Second Athenian League, and eventually developed a growing dependence on the Karian dynast Maussolos.
Even the three poleis on the largest of the Aegean islands, Rhodes (lalysos in the north, Kamiros in the north-east, Lindos in the south-east), remained mainly selfsufficient farming communities surviving on the lands, and on fishing and hunting; individually, they were members of the Athenian-led Delian League. Near the end of the Peloponnesian War, in 408/7, they united forces in an anti-Athenian move, which led to a synoikismos, forming a new city, called Rhodos like the island, at its northernmost corner, and a new artificial harbour (Strabon 14.2.5). At the time, this was mainly used for trading some of the surplus agricultural goods; it was only after the Classical Age that Rhodes became one the most important trading harbours, dealing with exports from and imports to Hellenistic Egypt.
Like Rhodes, the Aegean islands of Samos, Lesbos, Kos and Naxos (the least famous for its wine among these islands) fall into the category discussed here, but having looked at communities on the Greek mainland and in the Aegean Sea, it remains in this section to single out one community in western Asia Minor which equally enjoyed easy access to the sea and medium size agricultural lands: Miletos. It had fertile, but - when compared to Athens - not abundant agricultural land; olive oil and wool (raw and manufactured into textiles) were produced in surplus. Most important, however, was the fact that the city boasted excellent access to the sea; Strabon (14.1.6) exclaims: ‘The city has four harbours, each one of which is large enough for a fleet!’ Like Korinth, Miletos engaged in trading both its own products and goods produced elsewhere, in its case in the Persian Empire. Increasingly under pressure from the Persians, it rose against them in the so-called Ionian
Revolt (499 - 494), but was conquered and destroyed, and its population deported to Persia or sold into slavery. The quality of the site’s agricultural land, however, and especially the very easy access to the sea, led to a resettlement of Miletos soon afterwards, though during the Classical Age it never returned to its former affluence; rather than enjoying its former independence, it remained a prize in the conflicts between Athens, Sparta and Persia, and concentrated on farming and trading activities throughout the Classical Age. The silting up of the harbour led to a decline of the city in later times (cf. Kleiner 1968). A similar basic structure characterized other communities in Asia Minor as well, e. g., Erythrai, Klazomenai, Teos and Knidos, to name but the most obvious examples for this category.
It has become clear, then, that communities with easy access to the sea, but only mediocre agricultural lands, tended to concentrate on the benefits of their harbours, by selling some specialized agricultural products of which they generated a surplus, and otherwise concentrating on trading other people’s goods. None of the communities in this type became strong enough to pursue a truly independent foreign policy; economic success was, however, continuously possible, especially when keeping a ‘low profile’ in what we might want to call the ‘world conflicts’ of the Classical Age. Significantly, most of these communities began to flourish when these conflicts had ceased, in Hellenistic and especially Roman times, and when easy access to the sea became the most important asset for a community which could safely import foodstuffs beyond what the mediocre lands in its possession could supply.
World History
