Talk:Slavery in antiquity

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 09:29, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Serfs
Please do not use the term serf outside of mediaeval Europe, unless specifically marked as an analogy; the question of whether the helots and penestae were analogous to serfs, and if so, how closely, is extremely controversial. Septentrionalis 28 June 2005 21:24 (UTC)

P.S. Read Finley and Marc Bloch on "ever-extending feudalism/"


 * Did the helots of Laconia share language and culture with those of Messenia? The last paragraph should supply evidence, or be phrased to avoid the question.


 * What I wrote was entirely based on GEM de Ste Croi The Class Struggle in the Ancient Greek World. It is difficult to use him as evidence that the hellots were serfs and as such distinct from slaves because he considers it so obvious that it needs no justification.  One of the key differences that he draws attention to is that serfs (hellots) rebelled and slaves didn't.  That the two groups were distict runs thru his work.Dejvid 29 June 2005 09:41 (UTC)
 * Reaching for my Ste Croix it seems he does after all explain his reasons. A 'were the hellots serfs of mere slaves?' section, would be in order me thinks.Dejvid 29 June 2005 09:53 (UTC)
 * Yes, that is Ste. Croix's POV (and he may be right; POV doesn't equal "wrong"). But too much of Wikipedia has been produced by taking one book, even an excellent book, and writing edits from its POV as if it were consensus. Please don't do this until you read other books too. Septentrionalis 29 June 2005 22:53 (UTC)
 * You are right, I should have sourced that bit from Ste Croix. Perhaps the contention that Hellots are not serfs needs to be sourced?  Wiki is a joint work and we all fill in for each others weaknesses.Dejvid 30 June 2005 20:28 (UTC)
 * The contention that helots should not be called serfs can be derived from Sir Moses Finley, citing the mediaevalist Marc Bloch. But it is a matter of fact: serfdom is a specific system, and it is pure conjecture that ancient Greece was at all similar to it. Ste. Croix is, in effect, proposing a convention, and it has not in fact been generally adopted; the usage is strongly tied to Ste. Croix's Marxist theory that every history must develope in pre-ordained stages, identical with those Marx and Engels set down for modern Europe. Septentrionalis 30 June 2005 22:26 (UTC)


 * We know very little about the helots, and less than that about the penestae. Were they are adscripti glebae, in any sense? Were they Dorian, Achaean, Arcadian, Pelasgian, or a mixture (all have been argued)? were they the same in Messenia?


 * I have also removed a duplicate paragraph; Ste. Croix's theories have been mentioned once; any more would be unbalanced, at least for this length of article. Septentrionalis 30 June 2005 22:26 (UTC)
 * By all means include more of Finley's views but I see no reason to cut de Ste Croix. If at the moment you feel it is distorted then increase the rest.  The Ancient period on Wiki has pages on the most insignificant skirmish - there is plenty of justification for expanding something so important as slavery.Dejvid 30 June 2005 22:36 (UTC)

Whether such groups should be classified as slaves or serfs is extremely controversial with many academics contending that the term serf should not be used outside the medieval period.

False; their classification as slaves is ancient: Isocrates 6,27. It is not controversial except to User:Iasson, who believes that douloi were freemen. Septentrionalis 19:26, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, I'm a bit confused, what has Iasson got to do with our discussion here? As to the slave hellot distiction it is true, as Ste Croix condceeds, that the ancients tended to use the same term for both.  However slave in modern English is normally applied to someone who is completly the property of another while serf is someone who is boud to the land but has fixed obligations.  (Okay you can get terms like "wage slavery" but such a phrasing is intentionally retorical.)  A slave has to do whatever is the whim of his owner.  It is not in dispute that Sparta was not a feudal society.  Ste Croix goes to some length to emphasize that that there is not automatic link between feudalism in the sense of a fief system and serfdom.  I suggested earlier that it would be of value to have Finley's views on the page.  I do think tho that you are the best person to do that as you agree with him.Dejvid 22:06, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
 * This isn't Finlay; this is Liddell and Scott. A helot was a doulos and the English for doulos is "slave". Septentrionalis 02:17, 20 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I may be misreading this but you do seem to be treating this as a re-run of an argument you have had with someone else. As I was not party to that argument it makes things very confusing for me.  It would help if you were more explicit about these past arguments rather  expect me to pick it up from allusions.  For starters the meaning of the word  doulos is not important to me except to the extent in bears on the serf-slave distinction.  Serf an slave are modern English words whatever there  origins.  If you look slave and serf up in the dictionary you will find two quite definitions and certainly in my dictionary serfs are defined as laborer bound to the land with no reference  to feudalism.  Serf in fact comes from the Roman word for slave but it is the meaning in modern English that is at issue here.  (By all means quote Liddell and Scott on the page if you like)Dejvid 13:13, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * My point is simple: to use "slave" in ancient Greece for any other purpose than to translate the Greek doulos is an abuse of the English language. In that sense, helots were slaves. The person with no rights whatever is a strawman who did not exist anywhere; neither at Sparta or at Athens (nor, for that matter, in Mississippi). To suggest that helots were not slaves is a falsehood; to affirm that they were a special category of slaves is obvious; to call that category serfs, without extreme caution and express acknowledgement of the analogy, is to assert what we have no evidence for whatever. Septentrionalis 17:17, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry but slave is a normal English word and is not simply the translation of "doulos". When you use the slave it will be understood to mean a status equivalent to that of the US South pre civil war.  The concept of serfs has a very clear meaning and indeed is defined separately from slaves in the anti slavery convention 0f 1956. [1856, I assume? Septentrionalis] An Atheninan slave master could sell his slave to whomsoever he wished, like wise a Virginian slave holder.  A hellot was bound to the land which meant he was not subject to that.  But why does this have to be so either-or.  The page can include both points of view.  Isn't that the normal way of reaching a concensus on Wiki?Dejvid 18:17, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, serf has a clear meaning. This is precisely why it should not be used, except with great care, in a context where there is no evidence that it applies. What is inaccurate about the sentence under discussion, however, is a different question : its implication that helots were not slaves, which is false. Septentrionalis 20:18, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

I would, btw, regard it as a great kindness if you would consult any other book on classical slavery (I mentioned Finlay's because it is famous and recently reprinted, not out of partisanship) in addition to Ste. Croix before continuing this discussion. Ste. Croix wrote a polemic in favor of a particular application of historical materialism, and is therefore by nature PoV. Septentrionalis 20:18, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Can we settle on the distinction that helots were not chattel slaves? Septentrionalis 18:46, 21 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Whether they are serfs or slaves is to an extent one of definition and that kind of dispute is less important and almost impossible to resolve. That helots were a kind of intermediate group is the important point. But the wording is more that just about definitions.  The reason why, I suspect, that you dislike the term and I like it is that it makes links to different groups who had the same experience in different periods.    You assumed wrongly that 1956 was a typo.  Clearly if people felt the need to draw up a convention in the middle of the twentieth century to extend the protection that existed to prevent people being treated as slaves to another group who they defined as serfs them somewhere in the  world there were people bound to the land in that way.  I don't know what groups prompted this concern but I doubt that these serfs lived under a feudal system.


 * Further, while Ste Croix is unique to the extent that he insists on the label, quite a lot of people seem to use the word serf in relation to helots. Peter Green talking about a group between slave and free says they can be loosely if somewhat anachronistically called serfs if somewhat.


 * I have suggested several times that the best solution is to expand the Greek section. At the moment ste Croix's views get a disproportionate amount of space but at the same time his views are dismissed.  That is a kind of balance but not an ideal one.  It seems to be that you have not read ste Croix for some time.  He really isn't as dogmatic as you seem to have remembered him.  Please, you have up to now seemed to ignore my suggestion of putting other peoples views (Finlay et al) in which case ste Croix would have proportionately less space.  The reason I started editing here was because it seemed far to short and laconic given that it is so important a field.


 * Please let me know why you seem so reluctant to expand the page as a solution.Dejvid 22:00, 21 July 2005 (UTC)


 * The bits I've included from Finley are from his book "The Ancient Economy". I don't have access to his book on Slavery so I have no ideas had changed by the time he wrote that book.Dejvid 20:26, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Why I reverted this page back to Slavery in antiquity from Slavery in the ancient Mediterranean
Okay, I have now sussed why the move was made. There is now a Slavery in Japan page but the point that this page logically cover a wider area than just the Med still stands. I'd have nothing against Slavery in West Eurasia. Dejvid 23:13, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) while antiquity has been extended to cover China and even for all I know the Aztecs (and that is probably a good thing) it traditionally has meant before about 500 CE in West Eurasia. No one is going to be shocked to find the contents of the page not being so wide.
 * 2) in any case if someone wants to write a section on these other regions there is no problem
 * 3) the page concetrates on the three civilisations for who the most detailed sources exist.  Discusion on slavery in Parthia or among the ancient Germans logically belongs here.  Further the Roman Empire included Britania and that can not by any stretch of the imagination be considered part of the Mediterranean region.  Dejvid 17:42, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

de Sainte Croix's reasons for arguing that Hellots were serfs
"believed in economic determinism, and attempted to show that ancient society passed through exactly the same  economic, and consequently social, forms as medieval and modern Europe" I may be missing something but this seems to have little relation to what de Sainte Croix was arguing. It might well be what Marx would have come out with and it is true that de Sainte Croix was a Marxist but it doesn't follow that de Sainte Croix used Marxism in such a dogmatic way. For one thing, the way de Sainte Croix goes out of his way to restrict the concept of feudalism and argues that serfdom can exist in societies that were not feudal suggests that he had moved on from Marx's simplistic epochism. Where in the book I referenced does he seem to be arguing along the lines you suggest?Dejvid 17:49, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
 * This is an odd reading of what I added. I did not say Ste. Croix proved the status of the helots from economic determinism; he made claims about the status of the helots, in order to prove economic determinism. If the present text is misleading on this, please amend; I don't see it. Septentrionalis 18:20, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

No I did understand your point (though I may not have expressed myself very well) but I don't see that his motive can be what you suggest. de Sainte Croix argues that places such as Sparta and Thessaly were exceptions. It's a good 30 years since I'v read Marx but as I recall his model was that societies go thru stages primitive-communism >> chattel-slavery >> feudalism >> capitalism with the next stage being communism (which is a bit overdue by Marx's expectations). As I understand Marx's model, a feature like serfdom belongs solely to feudalism and if it existed in a chattel slavery it should have been a harbinger of the next stage. de Sainte Croix, however, says that the tendency was for such serf relations to disappear over time as they did in Sparta itself. Further he argues that the origin of helotory was not economic development but due to conquest by the Spartans. In short, the fact that he thinks the helots were serfs shows that he realized that history is more complex than the stage model of Marx.

It seems to me that the Finley-de Sainte Croix debate revolves round the fact that de Sainte Croix looks at what the relation of the helots to their masters consisted of. Finley concerns himself with to whomDejvid 19:20, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
 * That is part of it; although Finley also argues very strongly that slavery is an essentially unlimited relation, which can change at the master's whim - and that this is what matters, even if there is a custom on what whims ought to be (this is directed more against the German "slavery wasn't so bad" people than Ste. Croix).


 * The other part is that most of the ancient evidence on helotry is to whom - because it's some philosopher writing about the Spartiates. Septentrionalis 21:47, 10 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Note: the anon presumably removed the external link because it no longer works. Septentrionalis 16:50, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Free time
There is a common myth today, this myth states that slaves generate free time for their masters. This is untrue, slaves are less productive than free laborers, since free laborers receive the totality of its produce in forms of wages, and so tend to be more estimulated to be productive. Free time occurs when the marginal value of income falls bellow the marginal value of free time, soh slave lavour tends to increase the marginal value of income, since less income is produced, and so decrease free time.

Slaves did not contribute to the progress of ancient civilization of any sort, actually, the civilizations with had less slavevery, progressed much more than slave societies. For exemple, in medieval europe, serfs (with were economically inferior to slaves since they were not private property) corresponded to the vast majority of the population compared to slaves in ancient rome with corresponded to a large minority, this helps to explain why the ancients developed their civilization much further than medieval europe, with only progressed beyond the ancients with the abolition of serfdom in the modern age.--RafaelG 22:25, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Slavery in Greece
Is currently just a mess; significant contradiction with cited statements in the main article; & the fuzziness of not defining types of slaves..will have a crack at aligning this piece with Slavery in Ancient Greece, Helots, & Penestai. The question of 'thought slavery was natural' and ' opposed slavery' was not simultaneous - this was a change over time (as it was in the modern west).Bridesmill 22:01, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Why is the ONLY image of an ancient Greek slave black, when the vast majority of slaves from Mediterranean civilizations were fellow Mediterraneans?? Kemet 23:58, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Becaue black slaves in Ptolemaic Egypt were common enough for people to make statues of them? The fact other regions don't have pictures is probably easily remedied by someone who is more acquainted with those regions.Bridesmill 00:09, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Lets hope this is remedied; ancient slavery (indeed, all slavery through the early modern period) was a thoroughly multi-"racial" institution and the images in this article should reflect that. Kemet 03:10, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Some of us are aware of that; feel free to fix.Bridesmill 04:01, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I'd say that few of us are aware of that; when I learn how to upload the pictures I will fix it. In the meantime those who are more familiar with wikipedia are free to do so.  Kemet 14:12, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Medieval and Premodern Slavery
This series has a gaping hole; only slavery of antiquity and the early modern period are discussed, leaving out a good 1000 years of slavery. Kemet 00:04, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Erm, because the article is "Slavery in antiquity" perhaps?Bridesmill 00:07, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Erm, I said "series." Read carefully and try again.  Kemet 03:13, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

In which case this comment should prob be made in the slavery article; when you said series "here" I read that as refering to the sections discussed here. SorryBridesmill 04:00, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Done. Kemet 14:18, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Apologetic
This piece of apologetic should only be included if the consensus of modern scholarship:
 * The Roman economy certainly depended heavily on slavery, but was not (as is sometimes mistakenly stated) the most slave-dependent culture in the history of the world. That distinction probably belongs to the Spartans, with "helots" (the Spartan term for "slave") outnumbering the Spartans around seven to one (Herodotus; book IX, 10). While we have from Herodotus an ancient source to place Spartan slavery at 7:1, few cite a similar source for the Roman proportion of 1:2, so one must view it as less reliable.

It is not; whoever wrote it has no idea how severely Herodotus's numbers are deprecated. Septentrionalis 18:57, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Corrected Grammar spelling--PHKingston 22:20, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Slaves in Rome quote/Use of Copyrighted Material
Erm, the first sentence of Slavery in Rome is part of the quote "Slaves … had no head in the state, no name, title or register: nor could they take by purchase or descent; they had no heirs, and therefore could make no will:… whatever they acquired was their master's: they could not plead nor be pleaded for, but were excluded from all civil concerns whatsoever:…they were not entitled to the rights and considerations of matrimony, and, therefore, had no relief in the case of adultery:…they could be sold, transferred, or pawned as goods of personal estate..." Aside from not having an odd number of quotation marks, this appears to be from pages 31-32 of "A sketch of the laws relating to the slavery in the several states of the United States of America" by George M Stroud. Now, I don't have that particular source on hand, but someone should check this source and confirm that the statement really is in reference to Roman law, particularly as I've seen this quote used applying to American slavery. Bitnine 19:36, 11 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, given that it's not cited, appears to be paraphrased and gramatically incorrect (the same version of the quote appearing on a few web sites that give the quote without referencing the source), and there's no verification that it the statement has anything to do with roman law, I'm removing it. Bitnine 19:54, 11 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Zounds! Actually, looking that the section, the first paragraph seems to have been copied from the book "Apostolic Christianity: History of the Christian Church, Volume I" by Phillip Schaff.  You can do a google book search for "Slaves had no head in the state" and it'll pop up a preview to page 371, under the section "To Christianity we owe the gradual extinction of slavery."  It's complete with a "Copyrighted Material" watermark on the bottom right.  It's this author who gives part of the direct quote from "A sketch..." and then paraphrases the rest (the quote within quote somewhat explains the odd number there).  If I'm missing something here, please feel free to let me know, but it really looks like somehow a chunk of a copyrighted work has made its way into this article.  Seriously, am I missing something?  Because it looks like in the edit here the material was introduced into the pre-split Slavery article.  Anyways, due to this, I'm removing the paragraph.  If I've gone mad here, feel free to tell me what I missed. Bitnine 23:32, 11 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Quick addendum, it actually looks like in this edit, user 24.247.116.201 added several paragraphs verbatim from the textbook, the later change merely readded some sections after blanking. (Also, deleted accidental paragraph split above, bah.) Bitnine 23:41, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Slaves in Rome: request for help
Quoting from the article: "The provinces with more expensive labour (like Roman Italy) absorbed a large number of slaves that came from provinces with low wages."

I don't understand how wage pressure can affect the movement of slaves, since surely slaves by definition receive no wages? I could understand that a province with more expensive labour would make owning a slave more profitable and therefore we should expect to find a higher slave population in those provices, but this is not what the article is saying. If anyone with more knowlege of this area could clarify this article, I'd be extremely grateful. Pinkmouse (talk) 11:05, 6 May 2008 (UTC)


 * In Rome that was far from true. Slaves could sometimes amass large fortunes, buy other slaves for themselves, etc. I imagine that as wages went down that even more freeing of slaves occured as it because more expensive to house and feed the slaves than it is worth, and more slaves with saved up wages could buy their freedom and move to a more profitable region. 207.61.204.116 (talk) 19:10, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Agreed with the pinkmouse, but do you think there is need of original research? OwnDealers (talk) 19:12, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Biblical slavery
This section should also mention the notorious acceptance in Exodus 21:7-11 of the practice of selling female children into slavery.

I would also like to know when and how this type of patriarchal enslavement fell into desuetude.

--JamesWim (talk) 16:39, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Biblical Events
You cannot just put Biblical events next to proven historical events.

"The Old Testament also recounts tales of slavery in Egypt: slave-dealers sold Joseph into bondage there, and the Hebrews suffered collective enslavement (Exodus, chapter 1) prior to the Exodus." is not relevant to a discussion about Slavery in Ancient Egypt unless we have reason to believe that it actually happened, and a good scientific reference.

In my opinion nothing from the bible belongs on this page and should have its own page where is clear that this is from a work of fiction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.61.204.116 (talk) 19:25, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Persia?!
There's nothing on Ancient Persia (or anywhere else in the Ancient World outside of the Occident and its mother cultures). I frankly think I need to remedy the situation with a section myself; discussion is welcome. Jamutaq (talk) 19:30, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

The Persian reference is apocryphal, the Iranian government has been exagerating the importance of the Cyrus Cylinder and embellishing the text since before the Iranian revolution. The cited reference contradicts the wiki page on the Cyrus Cylinder, for instance: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyrus_Cylinder — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.43.74.144 (talk) 11:32, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Why is Darius only mentioned in the Ancient Egypt section?2600:1700:B770:8420:A4E4:5E8A:94A2:B9E4 (talk) 12:59, 20 July 2018 (UTC)