The Greek Slavery in Ancient History: Finley's Theories Revisited

Abstract

There are some reasons why we should consider the Greek slavery in particular. First, it is endowed with ample evidences which specify also the various types of servile people other than the typical slaves. The study of these evidences is the best way to investigate the slavery in the pre-modern world from a comparative viewpoint. Second, through revealing the diversities of servile statuses in ancient Greece, the historical position of classical antiquity would conversely be made clear. It is just M.I.Finley's contribution to the studies of social and economic history of classical antiquity to have called attention to the above-mentioned facts and to have shown his inventive theories.
Finley's theories are based on the methodology that converts the historical comparison between the ancient and the modern economy into the regional one between the developed and the underdeveloped areas in the ancient world where the servile labour was throughout preponderant. Finley suggests that the large-scale employments of typical slaves in classical Athens as well as in Italy and Sicily from the late republican to the early imperial periods are rather exceptional results of the social democratization among citizens.
Though not a few scholars have been opposed to Finley's theories, the author of this review article is even ready to agree with Finley. Having made sure that there were two types of intermediate servile status, the serfdom originated from conquest (woikeus) and the debt-bondage (nenikamenos, katakeimenos), in Fifth-Century BCE Gortyn (IC IV 72), the author insists that in classical Greece outside Athens remained extensively the custom of debt-bondage, indicating the geographical diffusion of the relevant inscriptions (Halicarnassus : Buck 2 ll. 32-41; Crete:IC IV 72, I 56-II 2, VI 46-55, IX 40-43;Heraclea:Buck 79 ll. 154-156) as well as the description of Lysias 12.98.
Moreover, he discusses the problem of the pre-Solonian hektemoroi and criticizes the speculations of P. J. Rhodes (A Commentary on the Aristot. Ath. Pol. pp. 90-97, 126) and E. M. Harris (CQ 52, pp. 415-430), who suggest the existence of debt-bondage in classical Athens. First, Harris' speculation that the aim of Solonian reform was to emancipate the victims of factional struggles is no more well-grounded than A. An-drewes' theory followed by Rhodes that hektemoroi were originally hereditary serfs. Second, if some evidences appear to tell us the survival of debt-bondage in classical Athens, they do not always prove it to signify the authorization as a system. The author suggests that it would be possible for a debtor to offer himself as a servile labourer under the circumstances that he has no longer any perspective of repayment. Two rather convincing instances of debt-bondage (Menandros, Heros 20-38 ; Terentius, Heautontimorumenos 600-606, 790-796) might be related to non-citizens.
It is regrettable that ancient historians, primitivists as well as modernists, have hardly attempted to appreciate Finley's theories on the slavery as an effective clue to make sure of the historical position of classical antiquity. In Japan after the Second World War, the ancient slavery became a vital subject for historians, and their researches have yielded rich harvests both methodologically and empirically. The author proposes to refer to such works as Japanese historians of pre-modern Japan and China provide for the comparison. Finley's spectrum of servile statuses would find prominent witnesses in the pre-modern Japan and China.