Roy van Wijk
In my role as a Postdoc in the ERC-funded project Federalism and Border Management in Antiquity (FeBo) Project (PI Prof. Elena Franchi), I look at cases of internal borders within federal entities or koina in Central and Northern Greece during the Classical and Hellenistic period. More specifically, the aim is to understand how border cultures arose and there was a distinct fashion of negotiating and managing borders between members of the same koinon. This includes an analysis of the archaeological, epigraphic and numismatic material to understand the economic, social and religious relations between neighbouring members, to go beyond the monolithic prism of 'balance of power' or 'neutralising conflict' that is often ascribed to koina.
less
InterestsView All (52)
Uploads
There were some striking recurring themes and conclusions in the volume's different contributions. First the phenomenon of overlapping imperial spheres, which may be thought of as typical for maritime empires, and in addition the subsequent interimperial competition that was an important incentive for intra-imperial developments (Borschberg, Kirk, Lane, Mörke, Singh, Strootman, van Wijk). Three contributions pointed out the existence of unofficial “shadow networks” utilizing the same networks as the “official”, imperial ones (Antunes, Lane, Raben). The complex interweaving of economic, political and social motivations in the process of empire was emphasized by five contributors (Antunes, Borschberg, Heebøll-Holm, Kelder, Raben). Then there was the notion of multipolarity, as opposed to the conventional center-periphery model (Antunes, Singh, Strootman). And finally, an important point that merits more research especially in the field of ancient empire studies: the phenomenon of the commissioned “freelance” entrepreneur who invests in an imperial project for personal profit (Antunes, Heebøll-Holm, Strootman, Van den Eijnde).
lived experience of communities in the Alpheios valley in the western Peloponnese. This
analysis includes an Iron Age material koine, a religious network of the fifth century BC,
and the example of Megalopolis’ foundation in 370 BC to highlight the strength of local
religious, economic, and social networks in Archaic and Classical Greece. This forms part
of a wider research project into the resiliency of local networks in three river valleys
across mainland Greece between 800 and 146 BC.
faraway friend and nowhere does this adage ring truer than in the case of Attica and Boiotia. Intertwined through their geographical proximity, events in one region inevitably had ramifications for the other. Most clearly this could be felt alongside the border territories flanking the Mount Kithairon- Parnes range. Nevertheless, Boiotia’s location on the crossroads between Northern and Southern Greece, as well as its connection between the Euboic and Corinthian Gulfs, meant that it held the reigns to several vital strategic locations across Greece. Moreover, with Boiotia’s suitability for hoplite warfare, its relatively easily defendable entry points at places in both its southern and northern hemisphere, and its capability to muster substantial military forces, the Boiotians were the ideal partner for the Athenians and their maritime prowess. Normally, however, scholars have tended to focus on
the dangers the northern neighbour posed to Attica’s security, or how other areas such as the Thraceward region were of more paramount importance to the Athenians to maintain and hold. In this article, on the other hand, it will be argued that control over, or collaboration with the Boiotians was essential to Athenian strategy and the maintenance of its control over the Aegean, in both a positive and a negative sense. A hostile Boiotia was detrimental to the security of Athenian rule, whereas a cordial neighbour provided all the security it needed to establish hegemony over the Aegean. In various cases, it acted as the ideal “buffer” state, prohibiting troop movements across Central Greece, whether coming from the Peloponnese or the north. The use of Boiotia as a buffer for Athenian defence, and interests, will therefore be shown to have run like a red thread throughout Athenian history and strategy.
To subscribe to this free open access journal please write to the editor
There were some striking recurring themes and conclusions in the volume's different contributions. First the phenomenon of overlapping imperial spheres, which may be thought of as typical for maritime empires, and in addition the subsequent interimperial competition that was an important incentive for intra-imperial developments (Borschberg, Kirk, Lane, Mörke, Singh, Strootman, van Wijk). Three contributions pointed out the existence of unofficial “shadow networks” utilizing the same networks as the “official”, imperial ones (Antunes, Lane, Raben). The complex interweaving of economic, political and social motivations in the process of empire was emphasized by five contributors (Antunes, Borschberg, Heebøll-Holm, Kelder, Raben). Then there was the notion of multipolarity, as opposed to the conventional center-periphery model (Antunes, Singh, Strootman). And finally, an important point that merits more research especially in the field of ancient empire studies: the phenomenon of the commissioned “freelance” entrepreneur who invests in an imperial project for personal profit (Antunes, Heebøll-Holm, Strootman, Van den Eijnde).
lived experience of communities in the Alpheios valley in the western Peloponnese. This
analysis includes an Iron Age material koine, a religious network of the fifth century BC,
and the example of Megalopolis’ foundation in 370 BC to highlight the strength of local
religious, economic, and social networks in Archaic and Classical Greece. This forms part
of a wider research project into the resiliency of local networks in three river valleys
across mainland Greece between 800 and 146 BC.
faraway friend and nowhere does this adage ring truer than in the case of Attica and Boiotia. Intertwined through their geographical proximity, events in one region inevitably had ramifications for the other. Most clearly this could be felt alongside the border territories flanking the Mount Kithairon- Parnes range. Nevertheless, Boiotia’s location on the crossroads between Northern and Southern Greece, as well as its connection between the Euboic and Corinthian Gulfs, meant that it held the reigns to several vital strategic locations across Greece. Moreover, with Boiotia’s suitability for hoplite warfare, its relatively easily defendable entry points at places in both its southern and northern hemisphere, and its capability to muster substantial military forces, the Boiotians were the ideal partner for the Athenians and their maritime prowess. Normally, however, scholars have tended to focus on
the dangers the northern neighbour posed to Attica’s security, or how other areas such as the Thraceward region were of more paramount importance to the Athenians to maintain and hold. In this article, on the other hand, it will be argued that control over, or collaboration with the Boiotians was essential to Athenian strategy and the maintenance of its control over the Aegean, in both a positive and a negative sense. A hostile Boiotia was detrimental to the security of Athenian rule, whereas a cordial neighbour provided all the security it needed to establish hegemony over the Aegean. In various cases, it acted as the ideal “buffer” state, prohibiting troop movements across Central Greece, whether coming from the Peloponnese or the north. The use of Boiotia as a buffer for Athenian defence, and interests, will therefore be shown to have run like a red thread throughout Athenian history and strategy.
To subscribe to this free open access journal please write to the editor
L’Achéloos est peut-être le fleuve le plus connu dans la Grèce ancienne. Son cours, qui traverse l’Etolie et l’Acarnanie, a occupé une place très importante dans l’imaginaire grec. Son rôle, comme une frontière entre les deux régions déjà mentionnées, est également réputé, grâce à une inscription fameuse qui concerne leur alliance. Malgré cette réputation, il n’est pas vraiment clair si le fleuve a influencé la formation d’une identité commune qui pouvait jouer un rôle formatif pour solidariser les communautés qui se trouvaient aux berges. Donc, le but de cette communiquée est d’essayer de retrouver la place occupée par l’Achéloos dans la formation des identités locales a la vallée propre, grâce à l’inscription citée au-dessus et un exemple plus intéressant, la grotte de Mastro.