{"title":"Classical and Near Eastern Slavery in the First Millennium bce","authors":"D. Lewis","doi":"10.1093/OXFORDHB/9780199575251.013.42","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Twentieth-century scholarship, guided in particular by the views of M. I. Finley, saw Greece and Rome as the only true ‘slave societies’ of antiquity: slavery in the Near East was of minor economic significance. Finley also believed that the lack of a concept of ‘freedom’ in the Near East made slavery difficult to distinguish from other shades of ‘unfreedom’. This chapter shows that in the Near East the legal status of slaves and the ability to make clear status distinctions were substantively similar to the Greco-Roman situation. Through a survey of the economic contribution of slave labour to the wealth and position of elites in Israel, Assyria, Babylonia, Persia, and Carthage, it is shown that the difference between the ‘classical’ and ‘non-classical’ worlds was not as pronounced as Finley thought, and that at least some of these societies (certainly Carthage) should also be considered ‘slave societies’.","PeriodicalId":390313,"journal":{"name":"The Oxford Handbook of Greek and Roman Slaveries","volume":"9 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2016-08-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Oxford Handbook of Greek and Roman Slaveries","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/OXFORDHB/9780199575251.013.42","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Twentieth-century scholarship, guided in particular by the views of M. I. Finley, saw Greece and Rome as the only true ‘slave societies’ of antiquity: slavery in the Near East was of minor economic significance. Finley also believed that the lack of a concept of ‘freedom’ in the Near East made slavery difficult to distinguish from other shades of ‘unfreedom’. This chapter shows that in the Near East the legal status of slaves and the ability to make clear status distinctions were substantively similar to the Greco-Roman situation. Through a survey of the economic contribution of slave labour to the wealth and position of elites in Israel, Assyria, Babylonia, Persia, and Carthage, it is shown that the difference between the ‘classical’ and ‘non-classical’ worlds was not as pronounced as Finley thought, and that at least some of these societies (certainly Carthage) should also be considered ‘slave societies’.
20世纪的学者,特别是在M. I. Finley观点的指导下,认为希腊和罗马是古代唯一真正的“奴隶社会”:近东的奴隶制在经济上的意义不大。芬利还认为,近东地区缺乏“自由”的概念,使得奴隶制难以与其他“不自由”的阴影区分开。本章表明,在近东,奴隶的法律地位和明确区分地位的能力与希腊罗马的情况本质上相似。通过对以色列、亚述、巴比伦、波斯和迦太基的奴隶劳动对财富和精英地位的经济贡献的调查,可以看出,“古典”和“非古典”世界之间的差异并不像芬利认为的那样明显,至少这些社会中的一些(当然是迦太基)也应该被认为是“奴隶社会”。