Democracy in Hellenistic Cos:
An Anthropological Perspective

Colleen E. Kron (Northwestern University)

This paper approaches the study of Greek democracy from an anthropological perspective, that of cultural materialism. This paper examines S.M. Sherwin-White’s 1978 work on the structure of Coan democracy in the Hellenistc period the perspective of current anthropological theory, specifically with the cultural materialist perspective of Timothy Earle and his framework cross-cultural analysis of power relationships in stratified societies. This paper analyzes the constitution of Hellenistic Cos in three sections, corresponding to three of Earle’s categorical sources for control in stratified societies: ideological power, “military might” or coercive power, and economic power. Through the examination of these sources within the Coan constitution, the position of the demos at Cos in the Hellenistic period is clarified and the argument that Coan government was a democracy is disproved. In her work on Coan History, Ancient Cos: A Historical Study from the Dorian Settlement to the Imperial Period (Sherwin-White 1978) S. M. Sherwin-White determines that in the Hellenistic polis, decision-making power resided in the demos. However, Sherwin-White also comments that the demos seems to have exercised this power only in exceptional circumstances. The Coan boule controlled which proposals were brought to a vote, and the chairman of the magisterial body, the prostatai, presided over the boule. The prostatai’s control over assembly was manifest in the double-probouleutic process in which the boule was not able to debate.

To begin with the first of Earle’s categories, ideological power at Cos was clearly held by the aristocracy, through the administration of religious practice – the prostatai managed sanctuaries and distributed priesthoods, performed sacrifices at state festivals, and elected ad hoc committees to draft regulations to be presented to the demos for consideration. Martial coercive power (what Earl deems “military might”) was also in the hands of the Coan aristocracy. The Strategoi, the second Coan magisterial board and elected from the aristocracy, maintained the phrouria, or forts. Finally, the prostatai, with their control of the minting process and the allocation of state finances held economic power, the aspect which Earle considers to be the crucial element in societal power structures. The Hellenistic constitution of Cos may appear to allow a monopoly of political power in the demos. However it is clear that the Coan state was under aristocratic control. In The Great Tradition vs. the Great Divide, Renfrew states that it is “the development of new ideas and the acute awareness of the need for coherent and explicit theory…” separates classical study of the Old World from anthropologically based study of the new (Renfrew1980, 84). In conclusion, through the application of Earle’s framework for anthropological analysis, this paper provides new insights on the political structure of Hellenistic Cos.