Joseph B. Scholten - The Politics of Plunder: Aitolians and their Koinon in the Early Hellenistic Era, 279-217 B.C.

(p.vii) In these earlier times piracy became a common profession both among the Hellenes and among the barbarians who lived on the coast and in the islands. The leading pirates were powerful men, acting both out of self-interest and in order to support the weak among their own people. They would descend upon cities which were unprotected by walls and indeed consisted only of scattered settlements; and by plundering such places they would gain most of their livelihood. At this time such a profession, so far from being regarded as disgraceful, was considered quite honorable. It is an attitude that can be illustrated even today by some of the inhabitants of the mainland among whom successful piracy is regarded as something to be proud of; and in the old poets, too, we find that the regular question always asked of those who arrive by sea is, Are you pirates? It is never assumed that those who were so questioned would shrink from admitting the fact, or that those who were interested in finding out the fact would reproach them with it. The same system of armed robbery prevailed by land; and even up to the present day much of Hellas still follows the old way of lifeamong the Ozolian Locrians, for instance, and the Aetolians and the Acarnanians and the others who live on the mainland in that area. Among these peoples the custom of carrying arms still survives from the old days of robbery.

Thoukydides 1.5.16.1 (TR. R. Warner)

The subject of this study, the Aitolian koinon of the early Hellenistic era, presents something of a historical paradox. As a polity, it breached the traditional, parochial barriers of Greek political community, an important advance both for third-century resistance to Makedonian domination of the mainland and for the later, modern development of federal democracy based upon proportional representation. Yet the citizens of that same polity were reviled by many of their contemporaries as backward, semibarbarous brigands. While this ancient prejudice is not entirely unjustified, it nonetheless seems to have steered modern scholars away from consideration of the Aitolian koinonsmore positive accomplishments. It has been over fifty years since a major monograph addressed the political history of the Aitolian federation in its heyday, and nearly a century since one did so in English. Recent important research on the Aitolians and their polity by an array of international scholars means that a new overview is wanted. It is all the more needed, however, as most previous studies have failed to grapple with the central paradox that the Aitolians and their koinon pose: How is it that a people their peers considered so destructive could make such a constructive contribution to their regional political culture? I am under no illusions that the answer I propose herethat the Aitolians achievements, outrages, and ultimate failure are bound up in idiosyncratic political, social, and economic mentalitieswill find general acceptance. I nevertheless offer it in the belief that, to paraphrase an eminent colleague, sometimes it is important simply to ask a question, even if the answer you reach is unsatisfactory or wrong.

The bias of the ancient literary record is not the only obstacle to the reconstruction of Aitolian political history in the early Hellenistic period. A much greater problem is that most of the ancient narrative tradition has not

The list of my financial benefactors begins with the Fulbright-Hays Grant Program of the United States Educational Foundation in Greece, the American Numismatic Society, and the Office of the Chancellor of the University of California, Berkeley, which together subsidized my initial work in Greece. Subsequent trips were supported by grants from the American Philosophical Society, the Office of the Provost of Portland State University, and the International Studies and Programs Office and the College of Arts and Letters at Michigan State University. The latter also provided an important research leave that allowed me to pull the final version of the study together. Finally, the Office of the Vice President for Research at Michigan State paid for the production of maps and indexes. These maps were initially prepared by R. Harden at the MSU Center for Cartographic Research and Spatial Analysis; E. White produced the final versions. J. Moran helped with the production of the index of ancient authors and the epigraphic index. My research in Greece was greatly facilitated by the directors and staffs of a number of institutions, including the Epigraphic and Numismatic Museums in Athens; the Ephorias of Patras, Delphi, Kos, and Lamia; the American School of Classical Studies at Athens; and the office of the United States Educational Foundation in Greece. The American Numismatic Society in New York also has placed its resources at my disposal time and again.

As will be evident, much of what is new in this study is synthesized from the work of a small but growing group of scholars who in recent years have been looking afresh at Aitolia and the Aitolians. They have been most generous in sharing their expertise with me, as well as their friendship. L. S. Bommelj, P. K. Doorn, and the other members of the Dutch Aetolia Studies Project first invited me to join their annual survey expedition in 1986, and I was able to return for two longer stays in 1988 and 1989. Much of what I know of the Aitolian landscape comes from travels in their company. My other great tutor of Aitolian topographyand epigraphyhas been C. Antonetti, who has unhesitatingly shared the results of her research; the first map in this study is in fact a compilation of two found in her work Les toliens: Image et religion (pp. 355, 356). On all matters Aitolian, and especially (p.xiii) institutional development, I am equally indebted to the work, advice, and steadfast collegiality of P. Funke, who was my first contact among the Aitolian studies community.