Gift and Commodity in Archaic Greece

Author(s): Ian Morris

Source: Man, New Series, Vol. 21, No. 1 (Mar., 1986), pp. 1-17
Published by: Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2802643 .
Accessed: 13/01/2015 08:30
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve
and extend access to Man.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 131.114.244.20 on Tue, 13 Jan 2015 08:30:30 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

GIFT

AND

COMMODITY

IN ARCHAIC

GREECE

IAN MORRIS

University
ofCambridge
The roles of the giftand the commodityin Greece c. 800-500 B.C. are analysedfromthe
primaryliterarysources,and it is suggestedthatcurrentanthropologicalmodels of the interrelationshipsof forms of production,exchange and social organisationare too simplistic.
Historicalevidencecan be used to supplementtheethnographic
record,and to show the great
importancegiftexchangecan have in stateand even imperialcivilisations.Further,the great
importanceof the giftin ArchaicGreecewas not unusualin earlyEurope. It is arguedthatthe
archaeologistcan attemptto identifyspheresof exchangeand a gifteconomyin the material
recordofthedeliberateconsumptionof wealthin prehistory.

Over thelastsixtyyears,thestudyof giftexchangehas been one of thecentral

fieldsofresearchin economicanthropology.Ethnographically
based modelsof
giftexchange,particularlythe evolutionaryschemesof relatedformsof exchange,technology,productionand social organisationdevelopedby Mauss,
Sahlinsand most recentlyGregory,have had a profoundimpactin therelated
disciplinesofhistoryand archaeology.In thisarticle,I will arguethathistorians
in particulararein a positionto repaysome ofthegiftstheyhave receivedfrom
anthropologists,
by providingevidencefromcase studieswhichmightlead to a
modificationof thesewidely used models. Historicaldata can illuminatethe
no longeravailablefor
rolesof thegiftand thecommodityin socialformations
anthropologicalor sociologicalstudy,and can show changesthroughtimein
therelativepositionsand importanceofthetwo exchangeforms.
In thisarticle,I will concentrate
on thespecificcase ofArchaicGreece,in the
eighthto sixth centuriesB.C., arguingthatthe dominantethnographically
derivedmodelsof thesocial correlatesof thegifteconomyare over-simplified:
in particular,thattheanthropologists'
positionthatgiftexchangeis a dominant
featurein 'clan' societiesalone is of dubious value. A rangeof ancientliterary
evidence will be consideredwhich, I will argue, indicatesthat the relative
positionsand importanceof thegiftand commodityas formsof exchangedo
varywithinclassand statesocieties,butthatthereis no reasonto suggestthatthe
giftcan be a primarymechanismonlyin kinship-based,
non-statesocieties.1
A number of anthropologistshave argued that a closer rapportbetween
anthropologyand historyis necessary(e.g. Godelier1977a:25-9; Lewis I968;
Copans & Seddon 1978), andsomehaveevenmadeuse ofevidencefromancient
Greece (Goody 1976: 71-2; Godelier 1977b). Too few ancienthistorians,
however,have triedto generalisefromtheirparticularfieldsto contributeto
models of widerrelevanceto anthropologists
and archaeologists(cf. Godelier
1977b: I s).
Man(N.S.)21,

1-17

This content downloaded from 131.114.244.20 on Tue, 13 Jan 2015 08:30:30 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

IAN MORRIS

Anthropologicalmodelsof giftexchangehave been widelyemployedin the

of the archaeologicalrecord of the complex societies of the
interpretation
European LaterBronze Age and EarlyIronAge, oftenroughlycontemporary
withtheGreekmaterialdiscussedhere(e.g. Kromer1982; Championetal. 1984:
292-5),
even thoughtheverymodelsused would excludethepossibilityofgift
exchange playing a major role in such complex, hierarchicalsocieties.The
positionadoptedin thisarticleis thatmoreusefulmodelscanbe constructed
by
theinclusionofhistoricalevidence,showingthepossiblerelevanceoftheoriesof
thegiftto a widerrangeofsocial and economicformations.
of giftexchangeforthe studyof
This frameworksuggeststhe significance
complex prehistoricsocieties,and in thefinalpartof thisarticleI will discuss
thepresenceofgiftexchangein the
how thearchaeologistmightseekto identify
materialrecord. Giftexchangeis itselfof coursean ephemeralphenomenon,
archaeologicallyinvisible,for most social contextsof prestationproduce no
archaeologicalresidue.The onlycontactthearchaeologistcanhope forwiththe
of
circulationofgiftsis throughtheactivityofdeliberatedisposalor destruction
one of thecharacteristic
wealth.I will arguethatit may be possibleto identify
featuresof thegifteconomy-the existenceof restricted
'spheresof exchange'
thiswithevidencefromEarly
-in thearchaeologicalrecord,and will illustrate

IronAgeGreece(c. I000-500 B.C.).

Giftsandcommodities
Any discussionof giftsand commoditiesmuststartwithMarx. For him, the
commoditywas an alienableobject exchangedbetweentwo transactors
in a
state of mutual independence(Marx 1976 [I867]: 178): to a large extentits
exchangeuse was seen by Marx as definitional.
Its appearancewas treatedas a
consequenceof theriseof privateproperty.This was because of his view that
therewas no exchange otherthan throughthe commodity;he held thatin
primitive,Asiaticand Classical modes of productionthe commodityexisted

in the interstices
primarily
of communities
(1976:

172),

and in primitive

societiestherewas no exchangewithinthe community(1976: I82). Marx's

positionon thisseemsnaivein thelightofmodernanthropological
research(see
Firth1975: 37; Gregory1982: 12; Bloch 1983: 63-94), but his conceptof the
formstheindispensablebackgroundagainstwhichto
commoditynevertheless
studythegift.

Thetheory
ofthegifthasowedmosttoMauss(1954 [1925]) andLevi-Strauss
an inalienable
[1949]):
thingorpersonexchanged
betweentworecipro-

(I969

callydependenttransactors.2
The aim of thegifteconomyis accumulationfor
de-accumulation;the gifteconomy is above all a debt-economy,where the

actorsstrive
tomaximise
outgoings
(seeGregory
I980;

1982; 1984).

Thesystem

canbe describedas one of'alternating

disequilibrium',
wheretheaimis neverto
havedebts'paid off',butto preservea situationofpersonalindebtedness.
Mauss
placed societies on an economic evolutionaryscale, from total prestation
throughgifteconomyto commodity
exchange(1954: 9I, n. 68), and both

Sahlins(1974:

I86-7)

and Gregory(1982:

I9)

havefollowedin this,distin-

This content downloaded from 131.114.244.20 on Tue, 13 Jan 2015 08:30:30 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

IAN MORRIS

guishingbetweenthe clansociety,wherethe giftpredominates,and the class

society,where privatepropertyand the commodityare the norm. Gregory
elaboratesthissimplebipolaroppositioninto a continuumof relatedformsof
and exchange(1984: 17), ofwhichhe writes3
technology,distribution
At one end of thecontinuumthereis themoietyor dual-clansystemof organisation,at theother
end theproletarianor capitalistsystemof organisation.As one moves fromone extremeto the
other,equalityand unitygive way to inequalityand separation(GregoryI982: 37).

Gregoryhas been at pains to point out thathis approachprovidesa logical

and testedevolutionarymodelforthe
ratherthana carefully
constructed
history
prehistorian,
and thatmuch studywill be necessarybeforeits validitycan be
assumed (1984: I9). Nevertheless,the potentialof Gregory'smodel for the
prehistorian
is immediatelyobvious, and his approachhas alreadybeenapplied
in the studyof consumptionin thecomplexsocietiesof theEuropeanBronze
Age (Bradley1982; 1984: 96-I06). In thenextsection,I will ask how usefulthe
clan:class::gift:
commodityformulais, assessingits validityin thelightof the
earliestliterarysourcesfromtheGreekworld.
inArchaicGreece
Giftexchange
To the historianof ancientGreece,Gregory'sspectrumof exchangeformsis
debate of the
disturbinglyreminiscentof the fruitlessprimitivist/modernist
In
Hasebroek
his
book
Staat
und
imalten
Handel
1930's.
1928,Johannes
published
the
in
Griechenland
translation
that
ancient
(English
1933), arguing
economy
Greecehad to be studiedin thecontextof itslinkswiththepoliticallifeof the
Greek citystate.He pointedout thatcapitalistconceptscould not be applied
directlyto the Greek economy; therewas no nationaleconomyin the Greek
state,and the only 'political'interestin 'economic' problemswas to insurea
steadyflowoflife-giving
necessities,wherethesecouldnotbe obtainedlocally.
The citizenswere importantin theirrole as consumers,not producers,and
industrialand commercialactivitywas almosttotallydominatedbyfreeresident
aliens(metics)
and slaves.
This importantworkunfortunately
onlyservedto renewan old controversy
as to whethertheGreekeconomywas a 'primitive'domesticmode of production,or a 'modern'mercantile
system.The primitivists,
followingthetradition
ofRodbertusand Buicher,heldthatHasebroek'spositionwas sound,butthathe
exaggeratedtheunimportanceof tradein theeconomy;whilethe'modernists'
stressedthe gaps in Hasebroek'sknowledgeand his excessiveschematisation.
The moderniststracedtheirpositionmainlyfromthelate nineteenth
century
writingsofthegreatGermanhistorianEduardMeyer,buttheirargumentis best
knownin theEnglishspeakingworldfromA. W. Gomme'sreplytoHasebroek

(Gomme1937:

42-66),

stigmatised
by Moses Finleyas 'a schoolboyversion

of Adam Smith' (Finley I965: 12). The essence of the debate is caught in
Rostovtzeff'sclassicstatement,
publishedin 1932, thattheissuewas 'notone of
wordsand concepts,butoffacts'andthatHellenisticGreece,in thelatefourthto
mid-second centuries B.C., 'differedfrom the modern economy only
not qualitatively'(citedfromFinleyI965: 12).
quantitatively,

This content downloaded from 131.114.244.20 on Tue, 13 Jan 2015 08:30:30 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

IAN MORRIS

The debateis now largelylaid to rest(see Will 1954: FinleyI965: II-I3; 1973;
Austin& Vidal-Naquet1977: 3-8; Cartledge1983), butshouldreallyneverhave
begun. As early as I909, Max Weber had demonstratedthat the ancient
fromthemodernnotonlyquantitatively
butalso qualitatively
economiesdiddiffer
(Weber 1976). Ancient Greek and Roman society cannot be placed on a
simple-complexscalelikeGregory'sat all.
One veryusefulway oflookingat theancientGreekworldis to conceivethe
relationsofproductionas notbased in kinshipor capital,butinpolitics.Political
statusesof 'free'and unfree,citizenand alien,ratherthankinshipor objectified
'economic' relations,were decisive in determininga household's position
relativeto the means of production,the allocationof social labour, and the
of products(VernantI980: I-I8; Godelier1977b: i9; and particudistribution
larly Finley 1973; 1981: 129). Both kinshipand class in Marx's sense could
contributeto decidingthe membershipof thesepoliticalgroups,4but ancient
Greece belonged to neitherthe clan nor the class end of the scale, nor to any
intermediate
positionbetweenthetwo.
Greece in the eighthto sixthcenturiesB.C. is a particularly
good place to
of thegiftand thecommodityin an earlystatesociety.
studytherelationships
Thereareveryclearreferences
to theimportanceofgiftexchangein theliterary
sources, althoughthereis oftenambiguityas to theirpreciseinterpretation.
During thisperiod the Greek city-stateemerged,based on the ideology of a
notionalequalityof all membersof a politicallydefinedcitizenestate;and with
theGreekstatecame theworld's firsttrueslave economies,Marx's 'Classical'
mode of production(Marx I964: 82, 94). As Finleyputsit, therewas a move
away froma continuumofstatusesto an idealoftwo sharplydemarcatedorders,
thefreecitizensand theslaves (Finley1973: 62-84, 95-122; I980: 67-92; 1981:
97-I66).

It is difficult
to place ArchaicGreecein any way on Gregory'sclan to class
scale. Even beforetheevolutionof theslave economy,ancientGreecewas to a
considerableextenta 'class' societyas Gregoryuses theterm(1982: 36-7), with
limitedslaveryand unfreelabourersin a positionanalogous to a serf:landlord
relationship.Eighth- and early seventh-century
literarysources seem to be
describinga situationin the Aegean where nascentstate communitieswith
had
slavery,privateownershipand a complexdescriptivekinshipterminology
existed for generations.5Many featuresof the 'clan' societyare, however,
equallyapparentin thisworld.AmongtheKachin,Leachnotedthathierarchical
relationshipswere personifiedthroughthe medium of the gift:the chiefs'
to as giftgiving(Leach 1954: 142-3). The samecanbe
extractions
beingreferred
in
and
Greece: in Homer's Iliad, Agamemnon
seen eighthseventh-century
offeredAchilles'Seven well-situatedcities. . . who willhonourhimlikea god
withgifts'(9.149-55;
whileHesiod spokeof 'gift-eating
repeatedat 9.291-97),
chiefs'(WorksandDays 38-9).
The land,thecentreofArchaiclifeand thecentreofanyinquiry,sharedmany
featureswith land in the 'clan' societies.It could be alienatedunder certain
in theeighthcentury,but probablyonlywithinthecommunity
circumstances
in normalsituations.Hesiod urgedhis brotherto workhardand to honourthe
gods, 'so you mightobtain another'sholding(kleros)and not anotheryours'

This content downloaded from 131.114.244.20 on Tue, 13 Jan 2015 08:30:30 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

IAN MORRIS

(WorksandDays 341). ThroughoutGreekhistory,however,theland generally

remainedthe subject of what Gregoryhas called 'overlappingstewardship',
owned-in so faras thisconceptapplies-at severallevelsfromthehousehold
up to thestate(Gregory1982: 44; cf.Goody I962: 297). The Greekevidenceis
complex,and thisis ofcoursean over-simplification,
butlandwas certainly
not

a commodity
in theArchaicperiod(FinleyI968; Walcot1970:
normally

14).

Agriculturewas explicitlylinkedwithsacrifice,cooking,fertility,
the family
and cultureas a centralsymbolofsocial reproduction-againfeaturesnotedby
Gregoryfor the clan, gifteconomy (Detienne I963; Vernant I98I; VidalNaquet I98I; see Gregory1982: 40, 77-9).
This mixtureof featuresof the clan and class economiesis paralleledin the
importanceof the giftin the eighthcentury.As Sahlins documented,most
communitiespractisea formof commodityexchangeoutsidetheirown group
(1974:

185-314);

oftheeighth
andseventh
theideal
butintheliterature
centuries,

formsof inter-community
exchangewere also throughthemechanismof the
gift.It was socially acceptablefor an aristocratof this period to engage in
overseasexchangeofbulkitems,buttheexchangeswere,itseems,precededby
the establishmentof guest-friendship
ties throughcommensalityand gift
giving.A passage fromthe Odysseyperhapsillustrates
this.Athenachooses to
pose as a certainMentes, chiefof a tribecalled theTaphians,on a missionto
exchangeiron forcopper. Arrivingin Ithaca,she is greetedby the cry 'Welcome, sir,to our hospitality!. . . You can tellus whathas broughtyou when
you have had some food' (Odyssey1.123-4).
First,the personalrelationship;
then,when thishas been established,anyexchangesthatare desiredcould take
of the
place withina frameworkof mutualdependenceand thepersonification
transaction.
At thispointa shortaside on thenatureof theliteraryevidenceis calledfor.
Our poems arealwayswrittenfroman aristocratic
vantagepoint,and theymay
providea veryunbalancedview of exchange.It has even been suggestedthat
both Homer and Hesiod were polemicisingagainstnon-aristocrats
becoming
involved in inter-community
trade,and particularlyagainstthe rise of professionaltradersand the 'commodification'of exchange(Mele 1979). Thereis
littlein the primaryevidenceto supportMele's perhapsexaggeratedreading
(Cartledge1983; Millett1984: 88) butthegravityoftheproblemsofthesources
remains.We are largelyin thedarkas to how farthearistocratic
giftexchange
was underpinnedby a stratumof commoditytrade,and the importanceof
hardto assess.Thereis
non-Greektraderssuchas thePhoeniciansis particularly
a littleevidencethatbythelatesixthcenturytradewas oftenconducted
certainly
among Greeksas betweenmutuallyindependenttransactors.The volume of
tradeinvolvingGreeksincreaseddramaticallyin the second halfof the sixth
century,and it is perhapslikelythatthecommoditywas gaininggroundin this
period(FinleyI980: 87-8).
Coined money probably appeared in Greece early in the sixth century
(Robinson i95i; i956; Kraay 1976; Waggoner1976). There have been movementsrecently
towardsraisingthedateto c. 700 B.C. (Kagan1982), butthese
have not been successful(Kroll & Waggoner 1984). The significanceof the
appearance of coinage for the developmentof commoditytrade in Greece

This content downloaded from 131.114.244.20 on Tue, 13 Jan 2015 08:30:30 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

IAN MORRIS

Most of theearlyGreekcoins were

should not, however,be over-estimated.
ofverylargedenominations,and theirdistribution
was on thewholelimitedto
thecityoftheirorigin(Will I955; Cook i958; Kraay i964). Itis probablybestto
view earlyGreekcoinage as theincorporationof a novel formof wealthinto
pre-existingchannelsof exchangeand as a symbolof politicalindependence,
ratherthan as an indicationof the appearanceof the pre-requisitesof wage
labour(Marx i964: 67).6 The situationdescribedby Gregory(ig80) in contemporaryPapua New Guinea,wherecashhas beenassimilatedintothetraditional
frameworkof the agonisticdestructionof wealth may have some points of
similarity.
to theattitudesof
The value of our literaryevidenceis necessarilyrestricted
audiences.For them,at
theGreekpoets and theirprobablylargelyaristocratic
least,commodityexchange,even when carriedon betweencommunities,was
not consideredan acceptablepracticefor a Greek. On the whole, it seems
value system (Austin &
unlikelythat therewas any rival, anti-aristocratic
Vidal-Naquet 1977: i5-i6; Donlan ig80), althoughthe point should not be
democratictheoryin Athens
pressedtoo hard.Therewas no clearlyformulated
in thefifth
and fourthcenturiesB. C. (Finley1983), butthedemocracynevertheless existed.
Tradersstandingin no personalisedrelationshipto those with whom they
were exchangingobjectsappear as peripheralin theearlyGreekliterature.In
Homer, the professionaltraderis a marginalfigure,while Hesiod seems to
regardthe small farmeras a typicaltrader,drivento theactivityby necessity
(Worksand Days 691-4). There is from an economics point of view little
difference
betweenthe activitiesof traderssuch as the Phoeniciansor traders
but fromwithinthesystemthetwo wereworlds
such as theGreekaristocrats,
was veryinsultedat beinglikened
apart.Odysseus, thearistocrat
parexcellence,
to 'some skipperof a merchantcrew,who spendshis lifeon a hulkingtramp,
worryingabout his outwardfreight,or keepingan eye on the cargo when he
comes home with theprofitshe has snatched'(Odyssey8.I59-64): and it was
meantto offend.In fact,no one keptsuchan eagleeyeon hisgainsas Odysseus;
butthesewerethegainsofthegift,notofcommoditytrade,andso boththepoet
and thegoddessAthenaheartilyapproved(Odyssey13.208-3 IO).
This is not, as one historianhas written,'Littlebut an ideologicalhairline'
featurein thesocialstructure
ofearly
(Humphreys1978: I67), buta fundamental
Greece. After700 B.C., in spiteof theincreasingvolume of commoditytrade
which was probably takingplace, the ideal still remainedpersonalisedgift
exchange. The tyrantsof the seventhand sixthcenturiesconductedmuch of
their diplomacy throughsuch channels,and around 6oo B.C. Solon the
Athenianwrote 'Happy is he . . . who has a (guest-)friendin foreignparts'
(frag.23).' Even in thefourthcentury,commodityexchangewas not wholly
approvedof (Aristotle,Politics1. 1256 b 26-1257 b 39), and Aristotlefeltthat
boththeindividualand thestateshouldtakepartin suchexchangesonlyinso far
as it was essentialforsurvival(Politics7. 1326 b 39-1327 a 40; cf. Plato, Laws
12.952d-953e).8 An area of the cityshould,he suggested,be set aside forthe
purpose of the commodityexchangeso thatit should not taintthe citizens
(Politics7.133I a 30-b 3); and Aristotleagain tellsus thateven in the fourth

This content downloaded from 131.114.244.20 on Tue, 13 Jan 2015 08:30:30 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

IAN MORRIS

of a
centurygenerosityin giftgivingwas stilla centralfeaturein thedefinition
nobleman(Nicomachean
Ethics1123 a 4-5). Marx's and Polanyi'streatments
of
Aristotle'sattitudesto the'economy'have made thisfeatureof Classical Greek
societyknown to a wide audience (Marx 1976: I5I-2; Polanyi 1957; more

seeFinley1970; Meikle1979).
recently,

The ArchaicGreekcase,then,suggeststhatin a politicalsocietygiftexchange

can stillflourishas a primaryexchangeformeven withina statesystem.As the
scale and complexityof the stategrows, the relativepositionsof the giftand
commodityare likely to change, but personification
of transactorsand the
transactedobjects throughlong-termsocial relationshipsand the giftis not
purelya primaryfeatureof clan societies.The Greek type of economy was
probably not uncommon in prehistoricand ancientEurope; anothergood
exampleis furnished
by Tacitus'saccountof theGermans,writtenin A.D. 98.
Their politicisedsociety,definedby Runcimanas a 'proto-state'(1982), includedslavery,debtbondage,sympoticgroups,a law code andincremental
gift
exchange(Tacitus, Germania11-26): againwe see a combinationof featuresof
the clan and class societiesin associationwith thegiftas the primaryformof
exchange.
The received wisdom on the evolution of exchange formsseems to be
altogethertoo simplistic.Numerouscases can be citedfromlaterhistoryof the
verygreatimportanceofthegiftwithinstateandevenimperialsystems.In early
Medieval Byzantium,giftexchangeco-existedwiththemarket,and has even
beendescribedas a stimulantto production(Patlagean1977: 181-203). Georges
Duby (1974) has argued thataristocraticgiftexchangein the class systemof
feudalwesternEurope in theMiddle Ages was only graduallyreplacedby the
commodityas war and theeconomybecameseparatespheresof activityin the
eleventhcenturyA.D.
shouldfeelconstrainedby the
There seems to be no reasonwhy researchers
approaches of Mauss, Sahlins and Gregoryto exclude the possibilityof a
roleforgiftexchangewithinclassand evenearlystatesocieties.The
significant
case of Archaic Greece suggests that models based on both historicaland
data mayproveto be moreusefulin studiesofexchange.
ethnographic

correlates
Archaeological
ofgift
exchange
The use of giftexchangeas an explanationforthecirculationofmaterialobjects
in thecomplexprehistoric
societiesofcentralandnorthern
Europein theperiod
withArchaicGreececannotbe ruledout. In thissection,I will
contemporary
considerthequestionof how farit is possibleto documentthepresenceof gift
exchangeas a primaryeconomic strategyin the empiricalevidenceavailable
societies.
fromprehistoric
The mainproblemforthearchaeologistis ofcoursetheinvisibility
ofmostof
the social contextsof giftexchange. Giftgivingat weddings,initiationceremonies of various kinds and the establishmentof ties of guest-friendship
cannot be expectedto produce a recognisablematerialresidue.Hodder and
Orton(I976: 146) discussedthepossibilityofrecognisingreciprocalexchangein

This content downloaded from 131.114.244.20 on Tue, 13 Jan 2015 08:30:30 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

IAN MORRIS

butcoulddrawno verypositiveconclusions.
thepatternofdispersalofartefacts,
Here I will suggesta ratherdifferent
approach.
Giftexchangesystemsoftenincludethedeliberatedestruction
ofwealth.It is
these contextswhere materialobjects are deposited and so removed from
circulationwhichhave thegreatestpotentialforthearchaeologicalobservation
oftheprinciplesofgiftexchange.Gregory(I980; 1982: 60-i) hasarguedthatthe
destructionof wealth is the simpleststrategyavailable to an individualwho
wishes to achieve pre-eminencein a giftsociety,althoughthereare perhaps
equallyvalid alternativeexplanations(e.g. FirthI965: 344-7; forgravegoods,
Rosenblattet al. 1976: 67-75). How is thearchaeologistto identify
patternsof
giftexchangefromthesedepositsof deliberatedisposal?This is an important
question,which has a greatbearingon the rathernebulousfieldof economic
archaeology.I will suggestone approachwhichmightshed some lighton the
it withevidencefromEarlyIronAge Greece.
problem,and will illustrate
Anthropologists'studiessince Mauss have produced a numberof widely
relevantcross-culturalgeneralisationsabout the workingsof gifteconomies.
Two of thesecan be used in thiscontext.First,theobservationthatgiftitems
generallyhave 'exchange-order'ratherthan'exchange-value'(FirthI965: 33644; I967: I8). Giftobjectsdivideup intowhatwe can call 'spheresofexchange',
with objects classifiedinto a hierarchicalsequence of ranks,and valued not
cardinallybut ordinally.Such spheresofexchangeareveryfrequently
foundin
primitiveand peasantsocieties(FirthI964: 25). In some cases,objectscan never
be exchangedbetweenspheres(e.g. Firthi965: 340-4), whilein othercasesitis
possibleto crosstheboundaries,butonlyunderexceptionalcircumstances
(e.g.
Bohannan 1955: 65; BarthI967: I64-5). Such a systemobviouslypre-supposes
theabsenceofmoney,and indeedone ofthemostcelebratedcasesofa primitive
currency-theRossel Island 'shellmoney'-has been shown to be an example
ofa systemwithspheresofexchange,wheretheshellsdo notreallyfunction
as a
mediumof exchange,since shellsof highrankcannotbe exchangedagainsta
largernumberof shellsof a lowerrank(Baric I964: 42).
Top rankgiftsoftenincludethoseobjectsmostdifficult
to obtain(Gregory
I980: 646), althoughtherankingis of courseculturally
specific,and sometimes

factorsotherthanscarcityare important
(FirthI965:

342).

Gregory(1982:

contraststhe rankingsystemsof the Tiv of Nigeria,theMae-Enga of

Papua New Guinea and theMelanesiansof Kiriwina.Whiletheactualobjects
used vary,the principlesof scarcityand monopolydo have some validityin
rankorder,and a littleempiricalsupportcan be foundforLevidetermining
Strauss'sobservation(I969: 65) thatwomen are 'thesupremegiftamong those
thatcan onlybe obtainedby reciprocalgifts'.
The secondobservationis thateach rankofgiftsnormallyhas an appropriate
social contextin whichit is used. These too will differ
fromsocietyto society,
but rites of passage and institutionalised
competitionnormallyprovide the
acceptedsituationsfortheexchangeof top rankedgifts(Gregory1982: 50). On
Rossel Island,forexample,it was notpossibleto conducta weddingceremony
withouta numbereighteenndapshell(Baric I964: 44).
Spheresof exchangecan act as a verypowerfulmeans of exercisingsocial
control.Wherestatusdependsupon beingable to give away top rankedgifts,a
49-50)

This content downloaded from 131.114.244.20 on Tue, 13 Jan 2015 08:30:30 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

IAN MORRIS

group withinsocietycan attemptto perpetuateitselfby limitingaccess to the

vital items,eitherthroughcontrollingthe supplyor else throughsumptuary

rules(Service1971:

145-6).

Becauseitemsof one exchangeranknormally

cannot be used to obtain those of a higherrank,if one group establishesa

monopolyoverpossessionofthetop rankofgifts,itcanbe verydifficult
indeed
forthoseoutsidethisgroupto enterit (MacCormack I98I; Gregory1982: 53).
The Tiv provide a good example of this:men aim to gain prestigeby 'converting'items of low rank for those of high rank. This is very difficultto
achieve,and anyonewho is guiltyof converting'downwards'suffers
disgrace
(Bohannan1955: 64).
In Homer, women, cattle,and finishedobjectsof metalformthetop rank
group (e.g. Iliad 6.234-36; 23.257-886: see Finley 1978: 6i-8; 1981: 233-45).9
Hesiod's mythof the Ages of Man (Worksand Days 109-20I)
has been
interpreted
as a complexstructural
homologyassociatingdifferent
groupsin the
worlds of men, spiritsand gods with gold, silver,bronze and iron in a rank
sequence (Vernant1983: 3-72). Vernant'ssophisticatedreadingof Hesiod is
notacceptedbyall ancienthistorians,
butHesiod's storydoesprovidea
certainly
strikingparallel for Firth'ssimile describingspheresof exchange in a gift
economy:

in our societygold, silverand copperwereused as

It is as if,allowingfortheobvious differences,
but therewas no accuratemeansof rendering
media of exchangein threeseriesof transactions
themin termsofeach other.(FirthI965: 341)

From Homer, the primarycontextsfor gift-giving

seem to have been marriages, funeralgames and within guest-friendship
arrangements,although
of
The destruction
manyotheroccasionsalso providea pretextforprestations.
wealthand competitiveconsumptionis less prominentin theepics,but can be
observedin burialand sacrificial
practices(Morris1985).
the
Deliberatedisposalofwealthcanactas an important
methodofpreserving
exclusivityoftoprankgifts.Ifobjectsbecometoo common,theymaylose their
prestigevalue (Meillassoux I968; Bradley 1984: 46-57), and changesin what
constitutesthe highestrank of giftmay alterthe membershipof the highest
tendto be resistedby theelitegroupas a
social statusgroup,and will therefore
of wealth,as
basic tacticof social reproduction.For thisreasonthedestruction
well as being the only dimension of gift-related
behaviour with a direct
manifestationin the archaeologicalrecord, can be of great value for the
of an ancientsociety.
understanding
The archaeologicalevidencefromIron Age Greececan now be considered.
Finishedmetal objects are the only class of objectsin the top rankwhich are
on these.Metalfindshave
likelyto be directlyobservable,and I willconcentrate
on sitesof thisperiod.This was theEarlyIronAge,
a verylimiteddistribution
ofiron' model
but thereis nothingto comparewithChilde's 'democratization

(Childe1942:

I4I;

seeSnodgrass
1971:

239;

inpress).InHomer,metalobjects,

whethergold, silver,bronzeor iron,are keimelion,

treasure(see Gray1954: 2);
and while metalobviouslyhad use value, to theHomericheroesthejoy of the
possessionof metallay perhapsas muchin givingit away as in usingit (Finley

This content downloaded from 131.114.244.20 on Tue, 13 Jan 2015 08:30:30 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

io

IAN MORRIS

1978:

6i). The same attitudesseem to surfacein thepoetryof theseventhand

sixthcenturies
(Gallant1982:

117-18).

in the archaeologicalrecord.
This giftmentalityhas clear manifestations
Metal objects come almost exclusivelyfromcontextsof deliberatedisposal
However, a problemhereis the
-graves, and after750 B.C., sanctuaries.10
sites,(see
relativelysmall numberof well excavatedand publishedsettlement
fig. i) but theevidencethatthereis seemsto supporttheidea of a verylimited
11Quite a numberoftheexcavatedEarlyIron
ofthemetalartefacts.
distribution
the
were abandonedpeacefully,and thistoo will have affected
Age settlements
of metal.
distribution
The largestexcavationhas been at Karphiin Crete,a hilltopsiteabandoned
aroundIOOOB.C. Here all housescontainedstoneand bone tools,oftenin large
numbers,butveryfewhad anymetal.Wherescrapswererecovered,generally
in one room
fragmentsof brokenornaments,theytendedto be concentrated
withina house (e.g. rooms 12, 17, 26 and io6), whichwe mightsurmisewere
the greatestquantityof
storeroomsratherthanactivityrooms. Significantly,
metalscrapscame fromrooms 12 and 17, bothwithina complexknownas the
as the chief'sresidence(Pen'Great House', which the excavatorinterpreted
dlebury193 7/38). Large-scaleexcavationsin recentyearsat theeighth-century
sites of Zagora on Andros and Koukounarieson Paros have producedlittle
metal from the settlementsbut in both cases rathermore from associated

Ithaca

Delphi

Lef andi

>

<tria

Asine

Sparta

3~~~~Old

Afl~~~~Er;e
rS ~~a gr

Koukounaries

Nichoria
Metos

100

200

KILOMETRES
K arh
Vrokastro
FIGURE I.

Sitesmentionedin thetext.

This content downloaded from 131.114.244.20 on Tue, 13 Jan 2015 08:30:30 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Smyrna

IAN MORRIS

II

templesto Athena;and in both cases large quantitiesof stone and bone tools
havebeenfound,and obsidianflakes,bladesand coresfromthenearbyislandof
Melos in sealedeighthand seventhcenturydeposits(CambitoglouI98I: 70-8I;
fora summaryofworkat Koukounaries,see SchilardiI983).
a more
The evidencefromdestroyedsettlements,
presumablyrepresenting
A
is evenmorevaluable. groupoflateninth-century
roomsat
directtestimony,
Thorikosin Atticawere probablyabandonedaftera landslide(Bingen I967a:
One of theseroomshad beenused forthe
25-36; i967b: 3I-49; I984: I44-49).
cupellationof silver,but neithersilvernor lead nor any othermetalswere
representedin the floordeposits. A stone grinder(room X) and flintblades
(room III) were,however,found.
house destroyedby firehas been excavated at
Part of an eighth-century
A singleiron knifewas
in
Lefkandi Euboea (Popham et al. I979/80: II-25).
a
of
stone
tools.
Another
late eighth-century
with
number
found,along
large
in
at
Asine
the
fire
was
excavated
house destroyedby
Argolid.Along with a
it
have
been a storeroom,it
of
closed
large number
vases, suggesting may
includeda flintscraperand a clay weight.An iron knifewas found,but was
probablyintrusive(Hagg I978: 93-I20).
Severalhouses of thetenthto seventhcenturieshave been excavatedat Old
Smyrna,apparentlydestroyedby fireon a numberofoccasions.The published
account is not very thorough,but makes no mentionof any metal finds
(AkurgalI983: 22-33).
The onlysubstantialdepositfroma settlement
was a smallcup containing5I0
grammesof gold buriedundera late eighth-or seventh-century
house floorat
Eretriain Euboea (ThemelisI980; I983). Unfortunately,
mostofthissmalloval
or apsidalhouse was destroyedin thethirdcenturyB.C. (ThemelisI98I), and
itsfunctionis unclear.The hoardconsistslargelyofscrap,andis probablyto be
seenas a responseto an emergencyratherthanas a ritualdepositlikethoseofthe
CentralEuropeanBronzeAge (BradleyI982). We cannotestablishwhetherthe
gold belongedto a richman or a smith,butitis quiteunparalleledelsewhere.In
Homer, Nestor providedthegold fora smithto gild a heifer'shorns(Odyssey
3.430-37),

and quitepossiblytheEretriadepositcame froma richman's

storeroom.Therewereno tracesofmetalworking
activityfromtheareaaround
thehouse.
12
The generalpatternis perhapsone oflittleuse ofmetalin everydayactivity.
Thereis some archaeologicalevidencethatmetalswereonlyjustbeginningto be
used in industrialpursuitsin the late eighthand seventhcenturies,with the

oftoolmarksonstone(AdamsI978; BrookesI98I).
appearance

siteswherequantitiesofmetalhavebeen
The onlycontextswithinsettlement
found are very probably related to shrinesand deliberatedisposal. Both
Nichoria Univ IV-i (MacDonald et al. I983: 32, 37, 39) and seventhcentury
structure
B-II at Perachora(TomlinsonI969: I72-90) have beenso interpreted.
At Vrokastroin Crete,probablyabandonedin theeighthcentury,such metal
wereconcentrated
in rooms8, I I, 13 and
objectsas werefoundin thesettlement
I7 (Hall I9I4:
99-I09; see Hayden I983: 370, 372). The excavatorsuggested
room I7 was a shrine,and the objects were dispersedaround it by post-

disturbance
depositional
(Hall I9I4:

I09).

This content downloaded from 131.114.244.20 on Tue, 13 Jan 2015 08:30:30 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

I2

IAN MORRIS

The evidencefromthesettlements
seemsto complementtheliterarysources
well: in Homer, the swineherdEumaeus uses wooden mixingbowls forhis
wine wheretheeliteuse metal(OdysseyI4.78; i6.52), and Hesiod's description
of how to make a plough does not mentiona metal share (Worksand Days
427-36). FromthisevidenceI would suggestthatmetalobjectswereused little
beforetheend of theeighthcentury,when there
in everydaylife,particularly
seems to have been some increasein suppliesof metal;and metalobjectswere
notevenstoredas potentialgiftsin morethana veryfewhouses. As theliterary
sourcesindicate,metalmay have been seen above all as somethingto be given
foundin contextsof deliberatedisposalratherthanin
away, and it is therefore
thedomesticsphere.
The identificationof the limited distributionand the narrow range of
as
archaeologicaldepositsin whichcertainitemsoccurmay,then,be interpreted
evidenceforthe existenceof giftexchangeas an integrativeand competitive
mechanism,even in earlystatesocieties.The Greekevidencealso offersus a
second line of approachto thearchaeologicalstudyof thegift.Changesin the
contextsof the deliberatedestructionof wealth oftenoccur in prehistoric
archaeology,and ArchaicGreece is no exception.In the late eighthcentury,
sanctuariesbegan to receivemetal votives on a huge scale (Snodgrass I980:
54-5). Justat thesame time,around700 B.C., gravegoods began to declinein
manyareas(althoughnotall) wherethecitystatewas appearing.
in the
This is a fineexampleof a changefromgifts-to-men
to gifts-to-gods
contextof the destructionof wealth (see GregoryI980). Placing objects in
sanctuariesin the eighth centuryvery obviously did have the functionof
placatingor flattering
thegods (e.g. Odyssey3.273-5; I2.335-7; i6. I84-5), but
was also an unbrokencontinuationof competitionthroughincrementalgift
exchange.A clueis providedbytheetymologyofthewordagalma(GernetI98 I:
i i 5). In the eighthcentury,an agalmawas anythingpreciouswhich could be
used in giftexchange,butabove all peopleandhorses-items presumablyin the
firstrank.This noun comes fromtheverbagallein,'to adorn'or 'to honour'.In
thefifth
to the
centuryand later,though,agalmacameto meanonlyan offering
and
above all a statueplaced in a sanctuary.In modernGreek,toacgalma
gods,
meanssimply'statue'.Here thelinguisticevidenceveryclearlysupportstheidea
of a changed contextfor the disposal of wealth ratherthan a changein the
withdonors'names
functionofpartingwithvaluableobjects.The inscriptions
in Greeksanctuariesfurther
foundon some oftheofferings
suggestthatdisplay
and conspicuous consumptionremainedan importantelement.Herodotus,
writingin thefifth
centuryB. C., tellsus how in themid-sixthcenturyCroesus,
kingofLydia,soughtto impresstheGreeksby sendinggiftsto thesanctuaryof
Apollo at Delphi; and even that a particularDelphian, eager to please the
Spartans,inscribed'Given by theLacedaimonians'on a gold vesselin factsent
by Croesus (HerodotusI .50-5 I). Some oftheobjectsfoundin thesanctuaryof
Artemisat Ephesus on theAegean coast of Turkeyhad partsof theinscription
BasileusKroisosanetheken
('King Croesus dedicatedthis')preserved(Tod I933:
#6;FornaraI979: #28). Herodotus(I.92) actuallygoes so faras to mentionthat
thepillarsfromwhichtheseinscriptions
camewereprovidedbyCroesus,along
withoxen made of gold.

This content downloaded from 131.114.244.20 on Tue, 13 Jan 2015 08:30:30 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

IAN MORRIS

I3

In Greece, the changeoverin the eighth centuryfrom gifts-to-mento

thestateand inter-state
gifts-to-gods
(and particularly
gods) did not affectthe
of wealthas a meansof rankinghouseholdsand
use of competitivedestruction
even states,just as changesin theoutwardformsof theKwakiutlpotlatchand
ofwage labourandcashdidnot
Papuan giftgivingfollowingon thepenetration
altertheunderlying
principlesoftheseinstitutions
(GregoryI980: 648-9).
Itis veryprobablethatthechangeto thesanctuaryas a contextforthedisposal
aristocratic
of wealthwas linkedto a need to represent
competitionas havinga
wider communalvalue at a timeof greatsocial stress,when aristocratswere
theirprivilegedpositions(MorrisI985).
facingseriousproblemsinlegitimising
As oftenhappens in such periods, the materialrecord undergoesa radical
transformation
(cf. KristiansenI984: 96, n. i). In the case of ArchaicGreece,
of giftwealthmayhave beenlinkedto
changesin thecontextofthedestruction
in
in particularthe'burstingopen' of
structural
and
profound
changes society,
an unstable,competitiveculturethroughthe appearanceof new wealth and
incorporation
intolargereconomicsystemsin theeighthto sixthcenturies(cf.
Qviller I98I; Rowlands I980: 20).
Summingup, I have arguedthattheliteraryevidencefromArchaicGreece
suggeststhatsome of theethnographically
derivedmodelsof therelationships
offormsofsubsistenceand socialorganisationto exchangeneedto be modified
in thelightofhistoricaldata. Giftexchangecouldbe veryimportant
evenwithin
statesocieties.I have further
suggestedthatwhile the archaeologistcan only
observegiftexchangeindirectly,
throughcontextsofthedestruction
ofwealth,
itis nevertheless
possibleto inferthepresenceofthegiftandrestricted
spheresof
exchangefromthe distributionof artefacts,and to attachvery considerable
importanceto changesin thecontextsof thedeliberatedisposalof high-ranked
gifts.
NOTES

This articleis based on a paper read at the Annual conferenceof the TheoreticalArchaeology
Group at Cambridge,on I4th December I984, in thesession'Fetishand phantasm:value,prestige
and consumption'.I shouldlike to thankthesessionorganisers,Mike ParkerPearsonand Richard
Bradley,fortheiradvice and encouragement;and Paul Cartledge,Moses Finley,AnthonySnodgrassand Robin Torrenceforreadingearlierdrafts.They are not, of course,responsibleforany
errorsof factor fancywhichappearin thetext.
Translationsof all theancientauthorscitedareeasilyavailablein thePenguinClassicsseries.
1 By 'primarymechanism'I meantheexchangeformwhichis structurally
dominant.Structural
dominanceis notnecessarilya matteroftheabsolutenumbersofgiftexchangesor eventherelative
proportionsof giftand commodityexchanges(whichin any case cannotbe recoveredforancient
societies),but thefunction
and locationof the practice.If the actorsconsideredthe giftthe most
importantway to exchangepeople and things,thenwe can speakin emictermsofa gifteconomy.
2 Mauss's argument
thatthegiftwas ultimately
inalienableandinseparablefromthepersonofthe
donorseemsto restabove all on hisaccountofthehauofthegiftamongtheMaori (I954: 8-iO). The
view thatthe Maoris saw the exchangeof giftsas the exchangeof personshas been successfully
challenged(SahlinsI974: I49-68), as has thevalidityof thisargumentas a cross-cultural
generallsation(FirthI967: 9-IO). In theArchaicGreekevidencediscussedhere,theobligationto returngifts
is presentedas social,political,economicand moral,and thegiftis nottreatedas an extensionofthe
person.
3 The idea of a continuum
is also to be foundin thewritingsofRaymondFirth(e.g. I 967: 6).
4 In Athens,membership
of the citizenestateseems to have been determinedby descentin the

This content downloaded from 131.114.244.20 on Tue, 13 Jan 2015 08:30:30 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

I4

IAN MORRIS

ofwealthin Solon's reforms

of 594/3B.C., and
seventhcentury,to havebeenchangedto a criterion
thenback to birthin Cleisthenes'sreformsof 5o8/6 B.C. (see Davies I977/8).
5 The richestand earliestliteraryevidence in this period is the poetry of Homer. Many
methodologicalproblemssurrounditsuse. Finleyhas suggestedthattheseorallycomposedpoems
of the tenthand ninthcenturiesB.C. (I978: 48), while
representa memoryof the institutions
ofthethirteenth
Snodgrasshas arguedforan ahistoricalmelangeofelementsdrawnfromtraditions
to eighthcenturies(I974). Both these views seem to me to be mistakenin theirassumptions
(see Redfield
oforalheroicpoetryto thesocietyinwhichitis performed
concerningtherelationship
I975;

as a direct
betreated
Finnegan
I977; GoodyI977; Ong I982; HenigeI982). Thepoemscannot

of the poet's and

source of social historyforany period,being rathera complex transformation
audience'slived experiencesin theeighthcentury(Morrisin press).The Iliad and Odysseymustbe
one
a particular
ideologicallyslantedworldview,butnevertheless
handledwithcare;theyrepresent
whichthrowsconsiderablelighton theperiod(cf.Rowlands I980: 2I-8), especiallywhenused in
conjunctionwithotherearlyGreekliterature.
6 Although,as Marx noted in a letterto Engels, Greek coined money did provide for the
emergenceof thefirstlargegroupof wage labourersin history,themercenaries(Ste. Croix I98I:
24-5).

7 Solon also wroteof 'one man,who rangesthefishy

deepin a shipto bringhomegain,tossedby
grievous winds, puttingno value on his life' (frag. I3, lines 44-46), which may well referto
commoditytrade. It is important,however,to note thatSolon wrote thispoem to criticisethe
in
unrighteouspursuitof wealth(lines7-32). On thepossibleroleof giftexchangeand reciprocity
Solon's career,see Gallant(I982: I I2).
to
views mayhave beenveryextreme,and theirrelationship
8 It shouldbe notedthatAristotle's
customarybehaviourand attitudesin thefourthcenturyis likelyto be complexand subtle.
9 The contextsforgivingeach typeof giftvaried:cattleseem to have been largelyconfinedto
i8.593; Hesiod, Catalogueof Womenfr. 7, line 9) and
bridewealthprestations(Iliad II.242-43;
consumption(Iliad23. I66).
funerary
10 Whileawarenessof theunevendistribution
of metalfindsis on theincrease(e.g. Snodgrassin
sitesareexamined
press)thisclaimwillstillsurprisesome Classicalarchaeologists.A fewsettlement
ofmetalworking
atgreaterlength
below, and I hope to pursuethequestionofthesocialorganisation
elsewhere.
1 In particular,the evidencefromrecentexcavationssupportsthisargument:thereis a strong
possibilitythatbadly corrodediron findsmay have been ignoredin earlyexcavationsin Greece
(SnodgrassI97I: 2I6).
12 References
is notalways
in Homer arerelativelyfew(see GrayI954: 5), and theirsignificance
to bronzetoolsarein divineor sacrificial
contexts,andnineof
clear.Nine oftheeighteenreferences
to irontools are in factto thesingleepisodeof theironaxes used in the
Gray'sthirteenreferences
competitionforPenelope'shandin Odysseus'spalace. The situationshouldnotbe exaggerated,and
thereferences
to metaltools in similessuggestat leastlimiteduse. In one passage (OdysseyI4.4I8)
Odysseus'sswineherdchopswood witha bronzeaxe; althoughon theotherhanditshouldbe noted
as a referenceto iron farmtools (Iliad 23.834) in factmerely
thatthe one verseofteninterpreted
speaksof a noblemansendinghis shepherdor ploughmanintotown in orderto fetchiron,not of
irontools as such.

REFERENCES

Greece.Oxford:British
Creteandmainland
sculpture
insoftlimestonefrom
Adams,L. I978. Orientalizing
ArchaeologicalReports.
I: Wohnschichten
undAthenatempel.
Ankara:Turk Tarih Kurumu
Akurgal,E. I983. Alt-Smyrna
Basimevi.
ofancientGreece:an introduction.
Austin,M. & P. Vidal-Naquet I977. Economicand socialhistory
London: Batsford.
economy(Rossel
in a 'non-monetary'
Bari6,L. I964. Some aspectsofcredit,savingand investment
inpeasantsocieties
(eds) R. Firth& B. S. Yamey. London:
Island),in Capital,Savingandcredit
Allen& Unwin.
anthropology
(ed.) R. Firth.
Barth, F. I967. Economic spheresin Darfur. In Themesin economic
London: Tavistock.

This content downloaded from 131.114.244.20 on Tue, 13 Jan 2015 08:30:30 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

IAN MORRIS

I5

Bingen,J. I967a. L'establissementdu IXe siecleet les necropolesdu secteurouest 4, Thorikos

II,
1964. Brussels:Comite des FouillesBelges en Grece.
I967b. L'establissementgeometriqueet la necropoleouest, ThorikosIII, 1965.Brussels:
Comite des FouillesBelges en Grece.
i984. La necropolegeometriqueouest 4, ThorikosVIII, 1972/1976. Brussels:Comite des
FouillesBelges en Grece.
Bloch, M. i983. Marxismandanthropology.
Oxford:Univ. Press.
Bohannan,P. i955. Some principlesofexchangeand investment
amongtheTiv, Am. Anthrop.
57,
60-70.
ofwealthin laterprehistory,
Man (N.S.) 17, I08-22.
Bradley,R. i982. The destruction
i984. Thesocialfoundations
ofprehistoric
Britain:themes
andvariations
inthearchaeology
ofpower.
Harlow: Longman.
Brookes,A. C. i98i. Stoneworkingin theGeometricperiodat Corinth.Hesperia50, 285-go.
MuseumofAndros.Athens:
Cambitoglou,A. i981 . Archaeological
Cartledge,P. A. i983. 'Trade and Politics'revisited:ArchaicGreece.In Tradeintheancient
economy
(eds) P. Garnsey,K. Hopkins& C. R. Whittaker.Cambridge:Univ. Press.
Champion, T., C. Gamble, S. Shennan& A. Whittlei984. Prehistoric
Europe.London: Academic
Press.
inhistory.
Harmondsworth:Peregrine.
Childe, V. G. I942. Whathappened
Cook, R. M. i958. Speculationson theoriginofcoinage.Historia7, 257-62.
Copans, J. & D. Seddon I978. Marxism and anthropology:a preliminary
survey.In Relationsof
production
(ed.) D. Seddon. London: Cass.
Davies, J. K. I977/78. Atheniancitizenship:the descentgroup and its alternatives,
Class.J. 73:2,
I05-2I.

chezHesiode.Brussels:Latomus.
Detienne,M. i963. Criseagraireetattitudes
religieuses
idealinancient
Greece.Lawrence:Kansas Univ. Press.
Donlan, W. ig80. Thearistocratic
warriors
andpeasantsfrom
theseventh
Duby, G. I974. The earlygrowthoftheEuropeaneconomy:
tothe
Ithaca:CornellUniv. Press.
twelfth
century.
Finley,M. I. i965. Classical Greece. In SecondInternational
Conference
ofEconomic
History,Vol. I.
(ed.) M. I. Finley.Paris:Mouton. (ReprintI979), New York: ArnoPress.
i968. The alienabilityofland in ancientGreece:a pointofview. Eirene7, 25-32.
47, 3-25.
1970. Aristotleand economicanalysis,PastandPresent
I973. Theancient
London: Chatto& Windus.
economy.
I978. The worldof Odysseus(3rd edn). London: Chatto & Windus. (Reprint I979),
Harmondsworth:Penguin.
ideology.London: Chatto & Windus. (Reprinti983),
ig80. Ancientslaveryand modern
Harmondsworth:PelicanBooks.
i98i. Economyand societyin ancientGreece.London: Chatto & Windus. (Reprinti983),
Harmondsworth:PelicanBooks.
world.Cambridge:Univ. Press.
i983. Politicsintheancient
Finnegan,R. I977. Oralpoetry.Cambridge:Univ. Press.
Firth, R. i964. Capital, saving and credit in peasant societies: a viewpoint from economic
anthropology,in Capital,savingand creditin peasantsocieties
(eds) R. Firth& B. S. Yamey.
London: Allen& Unwin.
i965. Primitive
Polynesian
economy
(2ndedn). London: Routledge& Kegan Paul.
i967. Themes in economic anthropology:a generalcomment. In Themesin economic
anthropology
(ed.) R. Firth.London: Tavistock.
Social anthropologyand Marxistviews on society.In
I975. The scepticalanthropologist?
Marxistanalysesandsocialanthropology
(ed.) M. Bloch. London: Tavistock.
war.London:JohnsHopkinsUniv.
Fornara,C. W. I979. ArchaictimestotheendofthePeloponnesian
Press.
Gallant,T. W. i982. Agriculturalsystems,land tenureand thereformsof Solon. Ann. Brit.Sch.
Archaeol.Athens77, I I I-24.
andsociety
Gernet,L. i98i. 'Value' in Greekmyth.In Myth,religion
(ed.) R. Gordon. Cambridge:
Univ. Press.
inMarxistanthropology.
Godelier,M. I 977a. Perspectives
Cambridge:Univ. Press.

This content downloaded from 131.114.244.20 on Tue, 13 Jan 2015 08:30:30 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

i6

IAN MORRIS

thoughtson theexampleof classical

an anthropologist's
I977b. Politicsas 'infrastructure':
in Theevolution
Greeceand thenotionsofrelationsofproductionand economicdetermination,
(eds)J. Friedman& M. Rowlands. London: Duckworth.
ofsocialsystems
andliterature.
Oxford:Univ. Press.
Gomme, A. W. I937. EssaysinGreekhistory
andtheancestors.
London: Tavistock.
Goody,J. R. I962. Death,property
Cambridge:Univ. Press.
andreproduction.
I976. Production
du
dans les societesavec et sans ecriture:la transmission
I977. Memoire et apprentissage
Bagre. Homme17, 29-52.
Gray,D. H. F. I954. Metalworkingin Homer,J.Hellen.Stud.74, I-I5.
Gregory,C. A. I980. Giftsto men and giftsto god: giftexchangeand capitalaccumulationin
contemporary
Papua. Man (N. S.) i5, 626-52.
Cambridge:Univ. Press.
andcommodities.
I982. Gifts
I984. The economy and kinship:a criticalexaminationof the ideas of Marx and Leviinarchaeology
(ed.) M. Spriggs.Cambridge:Univ. Press.
Strauss,in Marxistperspectives
intheBarbouna
and Geometricperiods.In Excavations
Hagg, R. I978. Findsof theProtogeometric
areaatAsineII (eds) I. Hagg & R. Hagg. Uppsala: Boreas.
Publ.3:3, 79-I85.
Hall, E. I914. ExcavationsinEasternCrete,Vrokastro.Univ.Penn.Mus. anthrop.
Greece.London: Bell.
Hasebroek,J. I933. Tradeandpoliticsinancient
at Vrokastro.Hesperia52, 367-87.
Hayden,B. J. I983. New plansoftheEarlyIronAge settlement
Harlow: Longman.
Henige, D. I982. Oral historiography.
Cambridge:Univ. Press.
Hodder, I. & C. Orton I976. Spatialanalysisinarchaeology.
andtheGreeks.London: Routledge& Kegan Paul.
Humphreys,S. C. I978. Anthropology
Kagan, D. I982. The datesof theearliestcoins,Am.J.Archaeol.86, 52-73.
Kraay,C. M. I964. Hoards, smallchangeand theoriginsofcoinage,J.Hellen.Stud.84, 76-9I.
andClassicalGreekcoins.London:
I976. Archaic
Kristiansen,K. I984. Ideology and materialculture:an archaeologicalperspective.In Marxist
inarchaeology
(ed.) M. Spriggs.Cambridge:Univ. Press.
perspectives
Kroll,J. H. & N. M. WaggonerI984. Dating theearliestcoinsofAthens,CorinthandAegina.Am.
J.Archaeol.88, 325-40.
Kromer,K. I982. Giftexchangeand theHallstattcourts.Inst.Archaeol.Bull. 19, 2I-30.
Burma.London: Bell.
ofhighland
Leach, E. I954. Politicalsystems
structures
ofkinship.Boston:Beacon Press.
Levi-Strauss, C. I969. The elementary
(ed.) I. M. Lewis. London:
Lewis, I. M. I968. Introduction.In Historyand socialanthropology
Tavistock.
archaeology
(eds) A. Sheridan& G.
MacCormack, C. I98I. Exchange and hierarchy.In Economic
Bailey. Oxford:BritishArchaeologicalReports.
atNichoriainsouthwestGreece
MacDonald, W. A., W. D. E. Coulson &J. Rosser I983. Excavations
III. Minneapolis:Univ. ofMinnesotaPress.
London: Lawrence& Wishart.
economicformations.
Marx, K. I964. Pre-capitalist
Penguin.
I976. CapitalVol. i. Harmondsworth:
Mauss, M. I954. Thegift.London: Routledge& Kegan Paul.
Meikle, S. I979. Aristotleand thepoliticaleconomyofthepolis.J.Hellen.Stud.99, 57-73.
Soc. 2, 760-72.
reproduction.
E~con.
Meillassoux,C. I968. Ostentation,destruction,
edemporie.
Naples: Cahiersdu CentreJeanBerard.
arcaico:prexis
Mele, A. I979. Il commerciogreco
Millett,P. I984. Hesiod and his world. Proc.Cambr.philol.Soc. 2I0, 84-II5.
Morris,I. M. I985. Burialand SocietyatAthens,c. II00-500 B.C. Thesis(inprogress),Cambridge
University.
in press.The use and abuse ofHomer. Class. Antiq.
-~
London: Methuen.
Ong, W. J. I982. Oralityandliteracy.
etpauvrete
socialed Byzance,4e-7esiecles.Paris:Mouton.
e'conomique
Patlagean,E. I977. Pauvrete
J.D. S. I937/3 8. Excavationsin theplainofLasithiIII: Karphi,Ann.Brit.Sch.Archaeol.
Pendlebury,
Athens38, 57-I45.
intheancient
Empires
(eds) K.
Polanyi,K. I957. Aristotlediscoverstheeconomy,in Tradeandmarkets
Polanyi,C. Arensberg& H. W. Pearson.Chicago: Aldine.
and
Popham, M. R., L. H. Sackett& P. G. Themelis I979/80. LefkandiI: theIronAge settlement
London: Thames & Hudson.
cemeteries.

This content downloaded from 131.114.244.20 on Tue, 13 Jan 2015 08:30:30 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

IAN MORRIS

I7

Qviller,B. I98I. The dynamicsof theHomericsociety.Symbolae

Osloenses56, I09-55.
intheIliad: thetragedy
Redfield,J. M. I975. Natureandculture
ofHector.Chicago: Univ. Press.
Hellen.Stud.71,
Robinson,E. S. G. I95I. The coinsfromtheEphesianArtemisionreconsidered,J.
156-67.
I956. The dateof theearliestcoins.Numis.Chron.i-8.
Rosenblatt,P. C., R. P. Walsh& A. J.JacksonI976. Griefandmourning
in cross-cultural
perspective.
New York: HRAF Press.
Rowlands, M. J. I980. Kinship,allianceand exchangein theEuropeanBronzeAge. In TheBritish
LaterBronzeAge (eds)J. Barrett& R. Bradley.Oxford:BritishArchaeologicalReports.
Runciman,W. G. I982. Originsof states:thecase of ArchaicGreece. Comp.Stud.Soc. Hist.24:3,
35I-77.

London: Tavistock.
Sahlins,M. D. I974. StoneAgeeconomics.
of Koukounariesat Paros. In The
Schilardi,D. U. I983. The declineof theGeometricsettlement
GreekRenaissanceof theeighthcentury
B.C. (ed.) R. Hagg. Stockholm:SkrifterUtgvina i
SvenskaInstitut1Athen.
socialorganization:
an evolutionary
New York: Random
Service,E. R. I97I. Primitive
perspective.
House.
Snodgrass,A. M. I97I. TheDarkAgeofGreece.Edinburgh:Univ. Press.
I974. An historical
Homericsociety?J.Hellen.Stud.94, II4-25.
I980. Archaic
Greece:theageofexperiment.
London: Dent.
in press.The bronze/iron
in Greece.In Thebronze/iron
transition
transition
inEurope(eds) R.
Thomas & M-L. Stig-S0rensen.Oxford:BritishArchaeologicalReports.
intheancient
Greekworld.London: Duckworth.
Ste. Croix, G. E. M. I98I. Theclassstruggle

Themelis,
P. G. I980. Anaskaphi
Eretrias.
Praktika
78-I02.
I98I. Anaskaphi
Eretrias.
Praktika
I4I-53.

I983. An eighthcenturygoldsmith'sworkshopat Eretria.In The GreekRenaissance

ofthe
eighth
century
B. C. (ed.) R. Hagg. Stockholm:Skrifter
Utgvinai SvenskaInstituti Athen.
Tod, M. N. 1933. Greekhistorical
inscriptions.
Oxford:ClarendonPress.
Tomlinson,R. A. I969. Perachora:theremainsoutsidethetwo sanctuaries.
Ann.Brit.Sch.Archaeol.

atAthens
64,I55-259.

inancient
Greece.Brighton:HarvesterPress.
Vernant,J-P. I980. Mythandsociety
I98I. Sacrificeand alimentary
codes in Hesiod's mythof Prometheus.In Myth,religion
and
society
(ed.) R. Gordon. Cambridge:Univ. Press.
I983. Mythandthought
amongtheGreeks.
Vidal-Naquet, P. I98I. Land and sacrificein the Odyssey: a studyof religiousand mythical
andsociety
meanings,in Myth,religion
(ed.) R. Gordon. Cambridge:Univ. Press.
Waggoner,N. I976. ArchaicGreekcoinage.London:
andmodern.
Manchester:Univ. Press.
Walcot,P. I970. Greekpeasants,ancient
civilizations.
London: New LeftBooks.
Weber,M. I976. Theagrarian
sociology
ofancient
Will, E. I954. Trois quartsde si&clede recherchessurl'economiegrecqueantique,Annales,Econ.
Soc. Civilis.9, 7-22.
surles originesde la monnaie.Rev. Numism.17, 5-23.
I955. Reflexionsethypotheses

This content downloaded from 131.114.244.20 on Tue, 13 Jan 2015 08:30:30 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions