Other ways to examine the finances behind the birth of Classical Greece

Abstract

Although the birth of Classical Greece is often attributed to the constitutional reforms of Cleisthenes (508/507 BCE), the achievement of an economically minded government under the Peisistratid tyrant Hippias (527-510 BCE) potentially paved the way by advancing Athenian silver for exportation in international trade. It is proposed here that new silver technology, which initiated the transition from acquiring silver from 'dry' silver ores to silver-bearing lead ores, was introduced to Greece during the time of the Peisistratids (561-510 BCE). Massive exploitation of silver-bearing lead ores at Laurion in Attica, which later financed the construction of a war navy, appears evident in the lead pollution records of Greenland ice, lead isotopic analyses of sixth-century BCE Attic silver coins and late Iron Age Levantine hacksilver, and is reflected in the numbers of lead votive figurines at sanctuaries in Sparta. Against the backdrop of the threat of war with Persia and an imminent Spartan invasion which resulted in the overthrow of Hippias (510 BCE), it is considered that a political transition occurred because Greece was both geologically and politically disposed to adopt this labour-intensive silver technology which helped to initiate, fund and protect the radical social experiment that became known as Classical Greece.

Spartan dependence on Laurion lead

“…I agree with Wood’s argument that the production of silver from argentiferous lead ore (galena) was not widely commercialised until the 6th century bce , and that at some point in the 6th century the technology to produce silver from galena emerged at scale in Laurion, though it probably existed beforehand (Wood, 2022; Wood et al, 2020). This technological development was of considerable economic and strategic importance for the Athenians.…”

“…While Wood rightly questions the extent to which the wider geopolitics of the 6th century might have affected Greek access to metals (Wood, 2022, p. 2), the question is perhaps one of control and access. The wider mechanics of pan‐Mediterranean trade suggests that Greek poleis , and the traders who frequented them, would have had a certain flexibility and adaptability.…”

“…This means that when plotted numerically (Wood, 2022, p. 11, fig. 3b) the decrease in votives produced between the Lead III–IV and Lead V and VI periods seems very extreme.…”

“…In a recent Archaeometry article on lead and silver production in Greece in the 6th century, Jonathan Wood turns to the production of lead votives at Sparta to support his dating of the realisation and exploitation of the Laurion lead ore in Attica for silver production during the rule of Hippias. Near the end of the article Wood (2022, p. 12) argues that: ‘The 520 bce date for the drop in the numbers of [Spartan lead] figurines … would suggest that restrictions on lead exports were instigated during the reign of Hippias (527–510 bce ).’…”

“…Wood (2022, pp. 12–13) writes that: ‘If this sudden decrease [of Spartan lead votives in 520] can be interpreted as Athenians placing restrictions on the export of argentiferous lead ores, it would support the position that argentiferous lead ores at Laurion were exploited for silver and that lead metal was reallocated (and not exported) in order to extract its intrinsic silver during the reigns of the Peisistradids.’ This article makes the case for why the Spartan lead votives should not be interpreted this way.…”