men behave in ways much befitting a slave.” […]
At what circumstances does the first man accuse his interlocutor of being a slave? What does this show about the ways slavery is understood?
How does the man who accuses the other of being a slave understand and define slavery throughout the oration?
What are the problems of such definitions, according to his interlocutor? What do you think?
What is the definition of slavery agreed by the bystanders? What are its problems?
What is the last conception of slavery presented in the oration? No real objections are raised to that in the oration, but what is your opinion?
Notes
1 6 Andreau and Descat 2011.
2 7 Patterson 1982.
3 8 Lewis 2018.
4 9 Harper 2011.
5 10 Vlassopoulos 2021a.
6 11 Unless otherwise specified, we have translated what is considered the standard edition of the Greek and Latin literary texts.
7 12 See 1.11.
8 13 A people on the south coast of the Black Sea; cf. 3.29.
9 14 Sikyon and Argos are cities in the northern Peloponnese.
10 15 The legendary founder of Spartan social and political order.
11 16 In 369 BCE the Thebans invaded Laconia and Messenia, ultimately liberating the Messenian helots.
12 17 Greek text: Marr and Rhodes 2008.
13 18 In the original Greek, these officials are specified as holding the office of hypomnêmatographos, literally “recorder of deeds”.
14 19 According to this law, women with a certain number of children were allowed to act without a guardian. See also 10.17.
15 20 Greek text: Cunningham 2002.
16 21 The end of this sentence has not survived in its entirety.
17 22 CMG V 10,2,4.
18 23 A poisonous plant.
19 24 CMG V 4,1,2.
20 25 Greek text: von Arnim 1893–96.
2 Studying Slavery The Variety of Evidence and Its Interpretative Challenges
This chapter focuses on the methodological and evidentiary problems that scholars face when they use the various forms of evidence for ancient slavery. One major problem is that of identifying slaves in our sources. In many cases, there is no explicit labeling, and it is necessary to debate the criteria we use to identify slaves or former slaves (2.1–4). In other cases, the evidence is ambiguous and can be interpreted in various ways (2.4–5, 2.9–10); occasionally, we also get explicit identification of individuals as if they were still slaves, although there are reasons to doubt such labels (2.7). Sources can also use concurrently different terms for slaves, thus creating significant problems of interpretation (2.6).
The study of the material and visual culture of slavery has become a burgeoning field in recent years. But identifying slaves in the material and visual record presents problems of its own. What criteria should we use to make such identifications? What role does the depiction of slaves play in ancient objects (2.10, 2.12)? Sometimes epigraphic evidence makes it easy to identify ancient objects as made by or for slaves; consequently, such objects are extremely helpful for understanding the identities, values, and life histories of ancient slaves or former slaves (2.11). In other cases, epigraphic evidence is ambiguous, and the visual evidence becomes crucial for making identifications (2.13). But the most difficult question concerns the identification of slaves in the material record: can we locate slaves in ancient buildings on the basis of space use (2.14–5)?
Finally, is it possible to identify the voice of slaves in the extant ancient sources, given that most sources were written by elite authors, who were usually slaveholders? To what extent can we use fictional slaves to reconstruct the lives and views of real slaves (2.16–21)? Can we trust inscriptions that purport to present the slaves’ own words (2.22)? How reliable are the statements and narratives of elite authors for understanding slaves (2.23–4)? And when we have texts written by people who had experienced slavery, how useful are they for reconstructing that experience (2.25)? Debating these methodological problems is a necessary first step for studying the wealth of evidence on ancient slavery and slaves.
IDENTIFYING SLAVES IN DOCUMENTARY SOURCES
Literature: Schumacher 2001; Bruun 2014; Maffi 2014; Straus 2016; Chaniotis 2018; Zelnick-Abramovitz 2018.
2.1 IG II2 2940: Greek Dedicatory Inscription, Laureion, Attica (Fourth Century BCE)
Laureion, in southeastern Attica, was the site of the Athenian silver mines, where thousands of slaves used to work (see also 4.10, 7.2, 8.27). Some of the names mentioned below are Greek (Kallias, Artemidoros, Sosias, Hermaios), while others are foreign names, from Paphlagonia (Tibeios, Maes), Phrygia (Kadous, Manes, Attas), Bithynia (Sangarios), and of other imprecise origins (Hermos). The name of the deity honored has not survived fully on the stone and can be restored in various ways, as Men Tyrannos or god Herakles.
Literature: Zoumbaki 2005; Vlassopoulos 2010, 2011b, 2015; Hunt 2015.
The following eranistai 26 offered this dedication to [Men Ty]ra[nnos] for good fortune: Kadous, Manes, Kallias, Attas, Artemidoros, Maes, Sosias, Sangarios, Hermaios, Tibeios, Hermos.
What group is responsible for this dedication?
How do they describe themselves? Do they identify their legal status?
Can we draw any inferences on the basis of the dedicators’ names? Do these names indicate a single origin or a variety of origins?
Can we draw any inferences from the find spot of the inscription?
If these people are slaves, what can we learn about slavery from their collective dedication?
2.2 IG XII.1 881: