Periodic Reporting for period 1 - FeBo (Federalism and Border Management in Greek Antiquity)
Période du rapport: 2022-09-01 au 2025-02-28
“Federation for Peace in Ancient Greece” is the title of a well-known article published by J.A.O. Larsen in 1944. As the world was being ravaged by war, the scholar wondered about the potential of federalism as a means of conflict resolution. The subject of his study was federal organisations in a broad sense in ancient Greece, but the research clearly stemmed from a question that is today becoming increasingly topical: can federal organisations limit or even eliminate intra-federal war?
The project "FeBo: Federalism and Border Management in Greek Antiquity" starts from the assumption that the question above, which continues to be asked by scholars, no longer makes sense. Despite romantic projections, federalisation processes do not guarantee peaceful coexistence, neither within themselves nor on their external borders. This is true for both ancient Greece and the contemporary world. As far as ancient Greece is concerned (and perhaps not only ancient Greece), the question should focus rather on borders: how did the Greek federal states deal with the problem of internal (intra-federal) as well as external borders?
The aim of this project is to demonstrate that (a) Greek federal states developed a specific border culture and sometimes even implemented precise border-management policies, that (b) the main focus of this culture was not peaceful coexistence, but rather stabilization and balance of power, and that (c) in order to be successful, economic, ethnic, cultural and religious networks had to be taken into account, i.e. there had to be a multi-level culture of border management.
In order to prove these points, it will be necessary to adopt a holistic perspective that takes into account not only political borders, but also everyone and everything that crossed and animated these, giving rise in turn to economic/cultural/ethnic/religious networks or even communities of destiny, which were of crucial importance for the stability of a federal state. Politics was not enough. Much more was needed.
The project "FeBo: Federalism and Border Management in Greek Antiquity" starts from the assumption that the question above, which continues to be asked by scholars, no longer makes sense. Despite romantic projections, federalisation processes do not guarantee peaceful coexistence, neither within themselves nor on their external borders. This is true for both ancient Greece and the contemporary world. As far as ancient Greece is concerned (and perhaps not only ancient Greece), the question should focus rather on borders: how did the Greek federal states deal with the problem of internal (intra-federal) as well as external borders?
The aim of this project is to demonstrate that (a) Greek federal states developed a specific border culture and sometimes even implemented precise border-management policies, that (b) the main focus of this culture was not peaceful coexistence, but rather stabilization and balance of power, and that (c) in order to be successful, economic, ethnic, cultural and religious networks had to be taken into account, i.e. there had to be a multi-level culture of border management.
In order to prove these points, it will be necessary to adopt a holistic perspective that takes into account not only political borders, but also everyone and everything that crossed and animated these, giving rise in turn to economic/cultural/ethnic/religious networks or even communities of destiny, which were of crucial importance for the stability of a federal state. Politics was not enough. Much more was needed.
The first year of the project (2022-23) was specifically dedicated to the study of external, i.e. inter-federal border areas, while the second year of the project (2023-24) was devoted to both the study of external and internal, i.e. intra-federal borders. The objective was twofold: a) the collection and analysis of evidence on economic, ethnic, cultural, and religious interactions on the borders of a federal state in its various phases in order to explore the extent to which these phenomena influenced processes of effective integration sensitive to the bottom-up needs and expansion of a federal state, b) the creation of a catalogue of all border conflicts in the Peloponnese, Central and Northern Greece with the intention of identifying recurrent dynamics in the management of these conflicts. The study of the evidence analysed so far (ranging from West Lokris to western Arkadia and northern Boiotia) uncovered a number of border-management dynamics briefly summarized in the following:
1- Border zones of (between) federal states are central. An in-depth analysis of border areas revealed, and this may seem paradoxical, their centrality.
2- The collective identity in border areas is specific but flexible and adaptable to historical circumstances. This flexibility seems to have facilitated effective integration, sensitivity to bottom-up needs and stabilization of border zones.
3-Cross-border commuters have a potential for stabilization in intra-federal conflicts. Tensions that can potentially be triggered by exchanges of various kinds in border areas can be defused by exploiting the mediating skills and credibility some categories of cross-border commuters earned by virtue of the prestige gained by their past activities. Paradigmatic is the case of federal athletes who were often enrolled as interstate arbitrators and mediators in political conflicts after their careers.
4-Border zones between federal states can be cross-borderised. The dynamics mentioned above, esp. frequent border crossing and cross-border cooperation, promote cross-borderisation, i.e. the transformation of a marginal situation into an advantage, which in turn led to integration and stabilization.
5-Border disputes represent a crisis situation which can be turned into an opportunity by federal bodies. Crises of intra-federal relations can provide an opportunity to reshape the balance of power between the different league members and thus prevent hegemonic aspirations.
1- Border zones of (between) federal states are central. An in-depth analysis of border areas revealed, and this may seem paradoxical, their centrality.
2- The collective identity in border areas is specific but flexible and adaptable to historical circumstances. This flexibility seems to have facilitated effective integration, sensitivity to bottom-up needs and stabilization of border zones.
3-Cross-border commuters have a potential for stabilization in intra-federal conflicts. Tensions that can potentially be triggered by exchanges of various kinds in border areas can be defused by exploiting the mediating skills and credibility some categories of cross-border commuters earned by virtue of the prestige gained by their past activities. Paradigmatic is the case of federal athletes who were often enrolled as interstate arbitrators and mediators in political conflicts after their careers.
4-Border zones between federal states can be cross-borderised. The dynamics mentioned above, esp. frequent border crossing and cross-border cooperation, promote cross-borderisation, i.e. the transformation of a marginal situation into an advantage, which in turn led to integration and stabilization.
5-Border disputes represent a crisis situation which can be turned into an opportunity by federal bodies. Crises of intra-federal relations can provide an opportunity to reshape the balance of power between the different league members and thus prevent hegemonic aspirations.
1-Cross-border cooperation (cbc) in interstate relations that involves states belonging to different federal bodies has a strong stabilizing potential. Given that informal cbc is more spread in antiquity and, more generally, in pre-contemporary societies, this achievement might have an impact on studies on contemporary federalism, too.
2. States and supra-state bodies develop border-management strategies which are deeply rooted in specific border-management cultures. This provides a new perspective on boundary disputes in Ancient Greece that have only been analysed from a religious perspective (as ritual wars) or by focusing exclusively on the juridical aspects of interstate arbitration so far.
3. The potential of cross-border commuters to contribute to the stabilization of intra-federal relations has been overlooked so far.
4. Autonomous border management is a means of manifesting powers by political communities and at the same time empowers these very communities. This applies both to federal states and to the emergent autonomy of former federal members. With regard to federal states, paradigmatic case studies are the disputes related to the competing spheres of influence of Orchomenos and Thebes. As far as poleis are concerned, the case of Ambrakia in Epirus, a city that constituted a contested space and can be understood as a federal border area is telling.
5. Border porosity is more frequent than imagined and the rise of linear borders tends to be late. An overview of current cases in fact demonstrates these two interconnected trends. We are currently focusing on koinai chorai, border areas with an economic significance which were declared ‘common’ and open to joint exploitation by several communities. Their legal definition had in some cases a stabilizing potential and was therefore promoted by the leagues in order to regulate intra-federal tensions. Another aspect we are currently about to explore in this regard is that of rivers (and gulfs) that united rather than divided polities
2. States and supra-state bodies develop border-management strategies which are deeply rooted in specific border-management cultures. This provides a new perspective on boundary disputes in Ancient Greece that have only been analysed from a religious perspective (as ritual wars) or by focusing exclusively on the juridical aspects of interstate arbitration so far.
3. The potential of cross-border commuters to contribute to the stabilization of intra-federal relations has been overlooked so far.
4. Autonomous border management is a means of manifesting powers by political communities and at the same time empowers these very communities. This applies both to federal states and to the emergent autonomy of former federal members. With regard to federal states, paradigmatic case studies are the disputes related to the competing spheres of influence of Orchomenos and Thebes. As far as poleis are concerned, the case of Ambrakia in Epirus, a city that constituted a contested space and can be understood as a federal border area is telling.
5. Border porosity is more frequent than imagined and the rise of linear borders tends to be late. An overview of current cases in fact demonstrates these two interconnected trends. We are currently focusing on koinai chorai, border areas with an economic significance which were declared ‘common’ and open to joint exploitation by several communities. Their legal definition had in some cases a stabilizing potential and was therefore promoted by the leagues in order to regulate intra-federal tensions. Another aspect we are currently about to explore in this regard is that of rivers (and gulfs) that united rather than divided polities