How to write the history of preclassical Greece? Following other scholars, Peter Zeller stresses the extent to which this period has long been approached from a teleological point of view, as a preliminary stage in the maturation of an idealized classical Greece. He also reminds us how studies published since the 1980s have radically transformed this approach, by moving away from institutional and legal matters to focus on a historical and cultural anthropology of social actors and their practices. How then should we rethink the making of archaic Greek societies and, more specifically, the relationships between elites and communities?

In this renewal of archaic Greek history, ethnographic and historical comparisons have long offered a solid heuristic tool, whether it be with the big men of Melanesia or the men of influence of Nuristan. In his very interesting book Zeller explores the parallels offered by medieval Iceland, both in terms of similarities and differences, in order to provide answers to the questions raised by archaic Greece, and more specifically by the eighth and seventh centuries. Following Mischa Meier and Bjørn Qviller (B. Qviller, ‘Diktning og politisk makt i det arkaiske Hellas’, in Ø. Anderssen and T. Hägg (eds), Hellas og Norge: Kontakt, Komparasjon, Kontrast (Bergen 1990), 45–64; M. Meier, ‘Ephoren, Volkstribune, Goden: Zum Aufstieg politischer “Nebenkräfte” in Sparta, Rom und im mittelalterlichen Island’, in B. Linke, M. Meier and M. Strothmann (eds), Zwischen Monarchie und Republik. Gesellschaftliche Stabilisierungsleistungen und politische Transformationspotentiale in den antiken Stadtstaaten (Stuttgart 2010), 91–115), Zeller explores the society of the Icelandic Commonwealth (or Icelandic Free State) that spans from the colonization of the island between 870 and 930 to its annexation to the Kingdom of Norway in 1262, which led to the reshaping of its society on the model of medieval Scandinavia. During these three centuries, Icelandic society was characterized by the absence of any central authority, systematic legal order or institutional bodies. Until the mid-eleventh century, the sociopolitical power was in the hands of a small group of individuals, the goðar (sing. goði), a local elite with an agrarian, mainly pastoral background, who were not economically distinct from wealthy peasants. The social position and function of these actors was not based on birth or any law, but on a complex social dynamic, which made their status unstable. Gradually, however, particularly influential goðar managed to expand their power at the expense of weaker competitors. Towards the end of the twelfth century, this process of political consolidation led to an all-out struggle, resulting in the collapse of this highly fluid social system and the eventual loss of the Icelandic Commonwealth’s independence to Norway. Debates about the origin and nature of the superiority of the Icelandic goðar find a parallel in those about the status of early Greek elites. According to Zeller, like medieval Iceland, archaic Greece was a society governed by a social dynamic in which the economic, cultural and social capital of individuals was the key to their prestige and pre-eminence. In Homer, Hesiod and in lyric poetry, the position of the basileis (rulers) was indeed based on recognition by other influential actors and, more broadly, by the whole community; it was therefore also unstable. On the other hand, contrary to what happened in late twelfth-century Iceland, archaic Greek communities did not allow for the consolidation of a stable political elite which could have escaped the social control of the community, but instead institutionalized it by transforming the traditional order of village communities into political entities that prevented the escalation of competition within the elite.

All this is extremely stimulating, and the Icelandic analogy certainly contributes much to the reflection on ancient Greece. While one is pleased to read an archaic Greek history that avoids the pitfall of a retrospective elaboration from the classical period, one remains confused, however, by the choice of the starting point, mainly dictated by literary sources. The eighth century, once branded as a ‘Renaissance’, is here still considered as pivotal in the long period that goes from the fall of the Mycenaean palaces to the rise of the classical cities. This will surprise any reader aware of the considerable insights brought by the archaeology of Early Iron Age Greece. The absence of the cultic domain in the comparison between medieval Iceland and archaic Greece is also to be regretted, but it seems that appropriate sources are lacking for the Icelandic world, whereas it was a major field of social action in Greece. Lengthy methodological and historiographical discussions, which reflect the academic origins of the book, could also have been reduced. Overall, Zeller’s work demonstrates the exciting fertility of contemporary German-speaking historiography in the field of archaic Greek history, which would render null and void any study that does not take it into account. One regrets, however, that Zeller’s discussion is often restricted to German scholarship and, to a lesser extent, to English references (with significant gaps, however). The meagre French literature cited (again with significant omissions) is mentioned only in footnotes and without real discussion. As the author rightly points out in the preamble to his survey (25–26), ancient historical ‘reality’ is (also) a contemporary discursive construction, a constant dialogue between ancient sources and scholars. The debate should therefore be global.