Ancient Greek History

This special issue addresses the possible connections and mutual benefits of examining together two analytic concepts – memory and periphery. These concepts receive much attention in various scholarly discussions, yet they have done so rather independently from each other. The potential applications and utilities of combining memory and periphery and the epistemic insights they provide for various disciplins are presented in the different contributions to this issue.

It can no longer be realistically doubted that ‘Ahhiyawa’ in Hittite texts must refer to one or several of the Greek Mycenaean palatial states. Recent evaluations of the available textual and archaeological evidence, and especially an improved understanding of the geography of western Anatolia during the Late Bronze Age, rule out the erstwhile popular hypothesis that Ahhiyawa was an Anatolian entity. Whilst the identification of Ahhiyawa with (parts of) Mycenaean Greece is no longer seriously challenged, debate continues to rage over the territorial extent and the political status of Ahhiyawa. This article seeks to explore some possible models of Ahhiyawan political organisation and the place of Ahhiyawa in the world of the Late Bronze Age Great Kings.

The most original and shocking interpretation of Lucretius in the last 40 years.

Thomas Nail argues convincingly and systematically that Lucretius was not an atomist, but a thinker of kinetic flux. In doing so, he completely overthrows the interpretive foundations of modern scientific materialism, whose philosophical origins lie in the atomic reading of Lucretius' immensely influential book De Rerum Natura.

This means that Lucretius was not the revolutionary harbinger of modern science as Greenblatt and others have argued; he was its greatest victim. Nail re-reads De Rerum Natura to offer us a new Lucretius--a Lucretius for today.

The Materiality of Magic is an exciting new book about an aspect of magic that is usually neglected. In the last two decades we have had many books and proceedings of conferences on the concept of magic itself as well as its history, formulas and incantations in antiquity, both in East and West. Much less attention, however, has been paid to the material that was used by the magicians for their conjuring activities. This is the first book of its kind that focuses on the material aspects of magic, such as amulets, drawings, figurines, gems, grimoires, rings, and voodoo dolls. The practice of magic required a specialist expertise that knew how to handle material such as lead, gold, stones, papyrus and terra cotta—material that sometimes was used for specific genres of magic. That is why we present in this well illustrated collection of studies new insights on the materiality of magic in antiquity by studying both the materials used for magic as well as the books in which the expertise was preserved. The main focus of the book is on antiquity, but we complement and contrast our material with examples ranging from the Ancient Near East, via early modern Europe, to the present time.

The appearance of the brailed rig and loose–footed sail at the end of the Late Bronze Age revolutionized seafaring in the eastern Mediterranean. The most famous early appearance of this new technology is found in history’s first visual representation of a naval battle, on the walls of Ramesses III’s mortuary temple at Medinet Habu. In this monumental combat scene, both Egyptian and Sea Peoples ships are depicted with this new rig, as well as top–mounted crow’s nests and decking upon which shipborne warriors do battle. The identical employment of these innovative components of maritime technology by opposing forces in this battle suggests either some level of previous contact between the invaders and those responsible for designing and constructing Egypt’s ships of war, or shared interaction with a third party, perhaps on the Syro–Canaanite coast. This article examines the evidence for the development of the brailed rig in the eastern Mediterranean, and explores the possibility that at least one group of Sea Peoples, who may have comprised a key part of the international economy of the Late Bronze Age in their role as “pirates, raiders, and traders” (Georgiou 2012: 527) – Artzy’s “nomads of the sea” (1997) – played a similarly integral role in the transference of maritime technology between the Levant, Egypt, and the Aegean.

This article offers a fresh critique of the work of political scientists and historians who have propagated the Eurocentric history of democracy. The paper argues that such work can be dissected and critiqued along several key lines: their reliance on a distinctly patriarchal discourse riddled with prejudices; the assertion that one can understand the history of democracy via the etymology of the word itself; and the deeply Eurocentric
roots of the study of democracy’s past embedded in the canon of Western political thought. The paper concludes by calling on contemporary political scientists and political historians concerned with the history of  democracy to be careful in re-iterating this deeply flawed history of democracy and to instead work towards a history of democracy that retrieves the silenced histories and the forgotten democratic moments that lay behind the roar of Western power.

This dissertation argues that martial virtues and images of the soldier’s life represented an essential aspect of early Byzantine masculine ideology. It contends that in many of the visual and literary sources from the fourth to the seventh centuries CE, conceptualisations of the soldier’s life and the ideal manly life were often the same. By taking this stance, the dissertation challenges the view found in many recent studies on Late Roman masculinity that a Christian ideal of manliness based on extreme ascetic virtues and pacifism had superseded militarism and courage as the dominant component of hegemonic masculine ideology.

ABSTRACT Although Greek contacts with the Southern Levant during the Iron Age have been studied at length, the matter remains controversial in many aspects. The present study provides an overview of East-West contacts during the first half of the 1st millennium BC, suggesting to divide it into five major periods of contact. These periods, involving a different chronological setting, are characterized by different ‘total contexts’, heavily shaped by geopolitical dynamics. It is suggested that every period of contacts (or their absence) requires a different explanation.

In summary, the Karians lived in a close symbiosis with the Greeks, first the Mycenaeans, then especially the Ionians, for more than a millennium. Interestingly, Karian-Dorian contact was not that long-lived, nor was it as intensive as the Ionian-Karian one. This remains true until the Hellenistic period, when Rhodes established its large peraia on the Karian mainland. 
The peninsula of Knidos existed as a Dorian Greek ‘island’ on the Karian mainland from at least Geometric times onwards. The Isthmos was surrounded by the other cities of the ‘Dorian Hexapolis’, and connected with them via the sea. The Triopion, the common sanctuary of the Dorian city league, was located at its western tip, Cape Tekir. The peninsula was easy to cut off from the hinterland, which allowed the Knidians to build a five stadia long ditch at its narrowest point to protect themselves from the advancing Persian army (Herodotus 1.174).
The ‘Dorian’ past of Halikarnassos receded in favour of a ‘Kekropid’-Ionian one early on, as is indicated in her foundation story in the Hellenistic Salmakis Epigram. The reason will have been Halikarnassos’ exclusion from the Dorian ‘Hexapolis’ in the sixth century BCE, henceforth a mere ‘Pentapolis’, comprising the Dorians concentrated on the adjacent islands of Rhodes and Kos, whose only mainland footings were Knidos and the Triopion.
From the fifth century BCE on, the Karians gradually gave up the main marker of Karian identity, their language and script, in favour of the Ionian one. Their closeness to the Ionian Greeks, as well as the will to widen their zone of influence, may have caused the Hekatomnids Maussollos and Idrieus to back the refoundation of the Ionian League and the common festival of the Panionia at Mt. Mykale. This is strongly supported by their involvement in the refoundation of New Priene, the city managing and protecting the Panionion (see § 6.3). At the same time, however, the parallel relocation of Knidos, again initiated by Maussollos,  may have aimed at the simultaneous control of the adjacent Triopion.  It is important to note that the new Karian capital at Halikarnassos was a former member of this league (see § 1). The Hekatomnids clearly aimed at establishing their influence on the Greek mainland also, again instrumentalising Greek as well as Karian cults: the relief from Tegea testifies to the translation of Zeus Labraundeus to the Peloponnese by Ada and Idrieus (Fig.17), while around 345 BCE, dependent Miletos erected statues of the ruling couple in Panhellenic Delphi, instead in her own oracle sanctuary in Didyma. 
The Hekatomnids have this ambition in common with another Hellenized ‘barbarian’ people (Isocrates, Philippus 105–108), who were ultimately more successfull: the Macedonians. When Alexander the Great conquered Karia in 334/33 BCE, Ada adopted him. For this stroke of genius he made her satrap of Karia. Nevertheless the Hekatomnid dynasty came to an end, when she died in 324 BCE.  After her death or slightly earlier, the Karian language was gradually replaced by Attic Koiné. This is evident from the recently found bilingual proxeny-decree in Kaunos, dated to c. 322-314 BCE, which was written in local Kaunian-Karian and in Attic Koiné. 

I hope to have shown that the final assimilation of the Karian language and culture into the Greek, recognizable even in the loss of Karian personal names, is not the result of a cultural inferiority. This is simply the version of history that the Greeks have fostered, and passed on until today. They stylised the Karians as the prototypical ‘barbarians’ in the process of their own ethnogenesis as Hellenes. They did this with sayings like the following, which was still being repeated as late as the fifteenth century CE (Diogenianus Epicureus 6.24; Michael Apostolius, Paroemiae 12.37):
Λυδοὶ πονηροί, δεύτεροι δ’ Ἀιγύπτιοι, τρίτοι δὲ πάντων Κᾶρες ἐξωλέστατοι.
“The Lydians are base, second the Egyptians, but third and most abominable are the Karians”.

It was the failure of Karia to achieve political independence and unity that was decisive for the loss of its cultural identity.  The central rule of the Hekatomnid dynasty (395/94 or 392/1 to 324 BCE) was too short-lived,  and the cultural impact of Alexander and the Diadochi on Karia was too strong, while the Karian ‘Chrysaoric League’ (third/second century BCE) was too weak and active too late, and by no means purely Karian as it incorporated the Macedonian colonists in Stratonikeia (cf. Strabo 14.2.25) 
The Karians, like many other ‘Luwic’ people of Asia Minor, disappeared in the Roman Imperial period at the latest. Only the name of the land survived as the Byzantine province of Karia up to the thirteenth century CE, signalling the remnants of some form of ‘regional identity’.

The development of the 48 Greek constellations is analyzed as a complex mixture of cognitive layers deriving from different cultural traditions and dating back to different epochs. The analysis begins with a discussion of the zodiacal constellations, goes on to discuss the stellar lore in Homer and Hesiod, and then examines several theories concerning the origins of the southern non-zodiacal constellations. It concludes with a commentary concerning the age and possible cultural significance of stars of the Great Bear constellation in light of ethnohistorical documentation, folklore, and beliefs related to European bear ceremonialism.

The topic of the present contribution is two ethnic terms of likely Aegean origin specified in the title, which appear, in different guises, in written sources of the late 2nd and early 1st millennium BC across the entire Eastern Mediterranean, from Egypt in the South to the Levant to Cilicia in the North (besides the Aegean itself). My discussion of them will be, however, not quite the same. As for the first one, Ahhiyawa or Hiyawa, I will summarize the recent discussion revolving around recognition of this name in the Hieroglyphic-Luwian inscription KARATEPE, adding some details and placing it in a more general historical context. The second and central part of the paper will concern Danu(na), in which a full linguistic reassessment of this term and a revision of different sources which mention it will be offered. The third part will discuss the distinction between the two terms, also touching upon the problem of ethnolinguistic boundaries in Late Bronze Age Greece.

This book chapter, published in 2008, discusses the intellectual world in which Berossus lived. Berossus was a Babylonian priest, who lived in the early Hellenistic period, and produced a Babyloniaca in three books about the culture and history of Babylonia from the beginnings to his own time. This article focusses on the history of Babylonia in the first millennium BC. For this history he had many sources to go on. One of the most important are the Babylonian Chronicles; other sources are royal inscriptions. The article discusses the character of the Babylonian chronicles in the light of a general discussion on what historiography ideally is. A ladder of 11 characteristics, which I compiled during lectures on historiography in dialogue with students (and thus called sometimes with a pun on my name ‘the Ladder of Baconius’), was used to evaluate these chronicles as historiography. The article shows how Berossus used Babylonian chronicles for his survey of Neo-Babylonian history and he appeared to have followed closely the so-called East India House Inscription of Nebuchadnezzar for the description of the royal palace. Berossus (or was it Alexander Polyhistor?) adds a paragraph on the “Hanging Garden” of Babylon, of which there is no mention in the inscription or in any other. This anomaly gets ample discussion.
------ ADDENDA ET CORRIGENDA:    In the last seven years many important new publications appeared regarding chronicles and Berossus. I mention:
On Berossus:
Geert de Breucker, ‘Berossos (680)’, Brill’s New Jacoby Online, 2010.
--- ‘Abydenos (685)’, Brill’s New Jocoby Online, 2010
--- ‘Berossos between tradition and innovation’, in: Karen Radner, Eleanor Robson eds., The Oxford Handbook of Cuneiform Culture (Oxford 2011), 637-57
--- De Babyloniaca van Berossos van Babylon. Inleiding, editie en commentaar. PhD dissertation University of Groningen. 2012.
--- ‘Alexander Polyhistor and the Babyloniaca of Berossos’, BICS 55 (2012) 57-68.
Johannes Haubold, Giovanni B. Lanfranchi, Robert Rollinger, John M. Steele (eds.), The World of Berossos: Proceedings of the 4th International Colloquium on “The Ancient Near East between Classical and Ancient Oriental Traditions”, Hatfield College, Durham 7th-9th July 2010. Classica et Orientalia, 5. Wiesbaden:  Harrassowitz Verlag, 2013.

------ On Babylonian Chronicles:
Waerzeggers, Caroline. “The Babylonian Chronicles: Classification and Provenance.” JNES 71 (2012) 285–98.
--- ‘Facts, propaganda or history? Shaping political memory in the Nabonidus Chronicle’ in: Jason M. Silverman and Caroline Waerzeggers, Political Memory In and After the Persian Empire, Atlanta GA: Society of Biblical Literature, forthcoming.
R.J. van der Spek, ‘Coming to terms with the Persian Empire. Concluding Remarks and Responses’, ibidem.

------ On the Hanging Garden:
Stephanie Dalley, The Mystery of the Hanging Garden of Babylon. An Elusive World Wonder Traced (Oxford: Oxford University Press 2013).

------ Additional Addenda et corrigenda:
p. 280: On the Babylonian Chronicles of the Hellenistic Period. Note that many of the latest “chronicles”, esp. of the Parthian periods, are in fact historical sections of the Astronomical Diaries. So e.g. BCHP 18, the “Bagayasha Chronicle”.
p. 280-287 on the Babylonian chronicles. See now the articles by Caroline Waerzeggers, who discovered the origins of the chronicles as coming from Borsippa or Babylon and is very critical of the concept of “chronicle series”. She now argues that the Nabonidus Chronicle is a new creation of the early Hellenistic period.
p. 283, first line third paragraph, words are missing. Read: In my view the Neo-Babylonian collection of chronicles about the recent past is a unique and outstanding piece of historiography. Although … (etc.)
p. 286, line 8 from below: remove comma after ‘compilers’.
p. 287-8; 313: Berossus’ dedication of his work to Antiochus. See now: Johannes Bach, ‘Berossos, Antiochos and die Babyloniaka,’ AWE 12 (2013) 157-180, who argues that the book was dedicated to Antiochus II. Interesting proposition, difficult to prove. He is certainly right that the traditional dating to the third YEAR of Antiochus I (278 BC) is a wrong interpretation by Verbrugghe and Wickersham. The number refers to the “third” KING after Alexander (Tatianus, Or. Ad Graecos 36) or Seleucus (Eusebius, Praep. Evang. 10.11.8).
p. 288-9: on the question of the authorship of the astronomical sections: John Steele, ‘The ‘Astronomical Fragments’ of Berossos in context’ in: Haubold et al. eds. The World of Berossos, 107-122. He argues that the fragments belong to Berossus, but his knowledge was based on literary rather than on astronomical texts.
p. 296, n. 35. New evidence of copies on clay tablets of the Cyrus Cylinder has come to light: I.L. Finkel, ‘The Cyrus Cylinder: the Babylonian Perspective’ in I.L. Finkel ed., The Cyrus Cylinder. The King of Persia’s Proclamation from Ancient Babylon. London: I.B. Tauris 2013, 4-34.

Though Odysseus’ tales to Eumaios and Aninoos in Odyssey 14.199–359 and 17.417–44, respectively, are presented as fictional tales within Homer’s larger myth, some elements have striking analogs in Late Bronze–Early Iron Age reality.

This article examines these portions of the hero’s false ainoi within their fictive context for the purpose of identifying and evaluating those elements. Particular focus is given to Odysseus’ declaration that he led nine successful maritime raids prior to the Trojan War; to his twice–described ill–fated assault on Egypt; and to his claim not only to have been spared in the wake of that Egyptian raid, but to have spent a subsequent seven years in the land of the pharaohs, during which he gathered great wealth.

Through a comparative examination of literary and archaeological evidence from the Late Bronze–Early Iron transition in the Eastern Mediterranean, it is shown that these aspects of Odysseus’ stories are not only reflective of the historical reality surrounding the time in which the epic is set, but that Odysseus’ fictive experience is remarkably similar to that of one specific member of the ‘Sea Peoples’ groups best known from 19th and 20th dynasty Egyptian records: the ‘Sherden of the Sea.’

ÖZET Dünya tarihi, yazı ile başlamıştır denir bu nedenle tarih Sümerlerle başlar denilebilir. Yunan tarihi ise bu şartlara göre M.Ö. 776'da başlamıştır. Çünkü Yunan tarihi ile ilgili ilk yazılı kaynağımız Olimpiyat oyunları sırasında kaydedilmiştir. Bu nedenle yazılı Yunan tarihinin ve konumuz olan Olimpiyat tarihinin başlangıcı olarak M.Ö. 776 kabul edilmiştir. Din ve sporun birleştirildiği en ünlü spor etkinlikleridir olimpiyatlar. Bu noktada yanlışa düşülmemesi için belirtilmelidir ki dünyada spor ilk kez Yunanistan'ın Olimpia yöresinde başlamamıştır. Olimpiyatlar, adını yapıldığı Olimpia şehrinden almış ve hiçbir kesintiye uğramadan 1200 yıl devam etmiş bir tarihi gerçekliktir. Diğer kentlerde yapılan başka spor şölenleri de Olimpiyatları örnek almışlar, ama hiçbiri Olimpiyatlar kadar önem taşımamışlardır. Ele alacağımız bu yazı da amacımız Antik Yunan coğrafyasında düzenlenmiş olan olimpiyat oyunlarına genel bakış ile bu olimpiyatların zaman içerisinde değişim geçirerek hangi sportif etkinliklerine ev sahipliği ettiği hakkında bilgi vermektir. Çalışmamız, ikinci hatta üçüncü el kaynakları kullanarak olimpiyatlar ve sportif etkinlikler hakkında toplu bir bilgi verme amacı gütmektedir. ABSTRACT The history of the world is called the beginning of writing, and for this reason history can be said to begin with Sumerians. Greek history, according to these conditions it started at BC 776. Because our first written source about Greek history was recorded during the Olympic Games. For this reason, written history of the Greek and the position of the Olympic 1 1* Ankara Yıldırım Beyazıt Üniversitesi, Tarih Bölümü Lisans Öğrencisi, 1202041024, tunalijulide@gmail.com

If war was justified by Moses,the prophet of the god in the Old Testament,then why the son of the same god, decry war  and preach the command of love, in the New Testament?
How the warrrior god of of the Jews became the meek sacrificial lamb of the Christians? Is the Father,Son and the Holy Spirit the same as claimed? If the three are the same, can a fighter choose to become a sacrificial lamb like a slave ?
Also,no warrior will ever sacrifice his son for somebody else’s faults or sins.
Why this shift in policy of the God of Israel in a period of 1200-1500 years?
Is it because Israel had a god(king) who was a warrior(Thutmose) during Moses’s time and Israel was a slave nation without a god(king) during Christ’s time? A warrior wins by fighting his enemies,but  a slave wins by loving his master/ enemies as preached by Christ.

Abstract: The present paper offers a new theory with regard to the Greek presence at Naukratis during the late 7th and the first half of the 6th century BC, emphasising the hitherto unacknowledged role of Lydians as mediators between Egypt and Greeks. After establishing a reliable chronological framework for Naukratis’ foundation, it is suggested that the initial establishment of Greek commercial settlement at Naukratis should be seen as a by-product of the treaty that was contracted between Lydia and Miletus toward the end of the 7th century BC. Concerning the next significant phase of Naukratis’ history, which took place during the reign of Amasis and was accompanied by administrative reform and the construction of the Hellenion, it is suggested that only the Greek poleis that found themselves under the aegis of the Lydian empire, or who were on friendly terms with it, could officially operate on Egyptian soil during this period. Revealing the Lydian connection behind the commercial activities of Greeks in Naukratis, against the background of Lydian imperial aspirations, allows better understanding of contact zones in antiquity.

More than 20 years after presenting his first interpretation of the mosaic from the House of Aion in a paper entitled “Uwagi na temat mozaiki z Domu Aiona w Nea Paphos (Cypr)” (Meander 9/10, 1987, p. 421-438, in Polish, and translated to English: « The Immortality of the Human Soul and the Dionysiac Mysteries in the 4th Century Allegory [in Connection with the Interpretation of the Mosaic from the “House of Aion” at Paphos in Cyprus]»), where he proposed reading the five mythological panels (1. Leda and Zeus; 2. Dionysus on Mount Nysa; 3. The Dionysian thiasos; 4. Apollo and Marsyas; 5. The Apotheosis of Cassiopeia) as an allegory of the destiny of the human soul and body, starting with conception and ending with the liberation of the soul and its apotheosis, the author now enhances his initial interpretation with numerous reflections concerning the historical context of this work of art, created in the years 320-360.
If, according to the author, the mosaic is a “Hymn” in honour of the pagan gods, Man (his soul) and his place in the (pagan) universe, then at the same time it polemicises with the Christian faith and its God, Jesus Christ.
The author puts forward numerous new solutions relating to the mosaic’s iconography and iconology. Analysis of the mosaic also leads him to propose a solution to the as-yet unanswered question regarding the absence of images of the crucified Christ in Christian art of the 3rd and 4th centuries, up until 420/430, when the first images of Christ on the cross appear.
CONTENTS:
Introduction
1. Research to-date (recap)
2. Description of mosaic (recap)
2.1. Composition of five mythological scenes
2.2. Brief iconographic description of mythological panels
2.3. Outline of individual iconographic elements and their respective roles
2.4. The pagan gods’ air of majesty and dignity as an expression of piety
3. A few words about the pagan reaction
4. An apology of pious human life according to pagan principles and a polemic on the Christian model of Man and his theological idol, Jesus Christ
4.1. Divine intervention in the act of human conception (allusion to/polemic on the Annunciation to the Virgin Mary)
4.2. The Epiphany of Dionysus (an allusion to the Epiphany of Christ – Theou Pais)
4.3. The procession and dissemination of Dionysian order (allusion to/polemic on Christ’s entry into Jerusalem)
4.4. The error of Marsyas (polemic on/allusion to the error of Jesus the Messiah): arrest, sentencing for arrogance and lack of piety (asebeia) and condemnation to a martyr’s death
4.5. The anabasis (or anagoge psyches) of a ‘beautiful soul’ (allusion to/polemic on the Ascension of Christ)
5. A few words on the mosaic programme prior to final conclusions
Final conclusions
Key words: mythological mosaic, House of Aion, Nea Paphos, Late Antiquity, Roman art, allegorical narrative, allusive language of mythological pictures, wordplay (Marsyas-Messias), Jesus Christ, anti-Christian polemic, Dionysos, Cassiopeia, Apollon, Nereides, Abstract Personifications, Greek Mythology, ΚΥΠΡΟΣ

Paul has been regarded as being uncritical of the Roman Empire for a long time, not least because of his apparent call to obey the state in Rom 13:1-7. However, recent scholarship has questioned this assumption by pointing to "hidden criticism" in the letters of the apostle. But how can we decide, in a methodologically sound way, whether such a counter-imperial message lies beneath the surface of the text? On the basis of insights from the philosophy of science, Christoph Heilig suggests several analytical steps for examining this paradigm. He concludes that the hypothesis that we can identify critical "echoes" of the Roman Empire in Paul's letters needs to be modified for it to be maintained. In particular, concern over the danger of overt criticism and subsequent persecution do not sufficiently justify this interpretative hypothesis. Nevertheless, Heilig concludes that the search for a counter-imperial subtext in Paul could turn out to be heuristically fruitful so long as the limitations of the approach are heeded. Hence, a re-evaluation of Pauline passages in light of Paul's engagement with ideas from his Roman environment is encouraged.

The label ‘Illyrians’ was used in different contexts, probably developing as an ethnographic generalisation of foreigners related to similar indigenous language(s). In all certainty it developed in the sixth century BC but the evidence we have appears only in the fifth century. Later perceptions of ‘Illyrians’ are related to political and territorial contexts, first to the political alliance of the Hellenistic-era Illyrian kingdom, and after that to the Roman use of this term in the context of early imperial expansion.

This paper argues for the centrality of memory in the Greek city-state; the latter can be thought of as a "place of memory", to use the concept developed by Pierre Nora. The focuse is on the malleability of collective memory, constantly reinvented— along with collective identity— which does not preclude authenticity and involvement,but also is co-terminous with strategic manipulation.

This paper sets out an ambitious critique of contemporary political scientists, political historians and others concerned with the history of democracy. It argues that overwhelmingly the history of democracy relies on an overtly Eurocentric narrative that emphasizes the keystone moments of Western civilization. According to this narrative, democracy has a clear trajectory that can be traced from ancient experiments with participatory government in Greece and to a lesser extent in Rome, through the development of the British parliament, the American Declaration of Independence and the French Revolution, and then finally onto the triumphant march of the liberal model of democracy across the globe over the last 200 years, particularly under Western tutelage. Histories of democracy that focus exclusively on these events not only privilege Europe and its successful colonies, but also miss the broader human story of the struggle for and achievement of democracy.

This presents us with a distinct challenge. For those whose heritage does not include a direct link to Greek assemblies, the American Congress or the French Revolution, the 'standard history of democracy' provides a distant and exclusive narrative, which limits one's ability to embrace democracy. This paper concludes by noting that, as democracy spreads out across the world today, political scientists not only need to break down the intellectual orthodoxy that democracy has exclusively Western roots, but also to embrace a more global view of democracy as a political practise that has been present at various times and in sometimes unfamiliar ways in the complex histories and rich cultural traditions of most of the people of the earth.