Digital resources in the Social Sciences and Humanities OpenEdition Our platforms OpenEdition Books OpenEdition Journals Hypotheses Calenda Libraries OpenEdition Freemium Follow us

The ties that bind in a federal state? Some reflections from the ancient world

TrIBES is pleased to host this contribution by Roy van Wijk (University of Trento), which explores the intricate relationship between identity and federalism through the case of Oropòs. This article is part of our ongoing effort to foster an exchange of perspectives with disciplines that may seem, at first glance, distant from the methods and questions that typically animate our discussions.

The case of Oropòs, a contested borderland in ancient Greece, serves as a compelling example of how local identity is shaped by broader federal structures. Caught between competing hegemonic powers, Oropòs experienced shifting allegiances and fluctuating political status, revealing the tensions between regional autonomy and supra-regional governance. Through a detailed historical analysis, this article examines the mechanisms that influenced political and cultural affiliations in antiquity, offering insights that resonate beyond the classical world.

By engaging with these themes, Roy van Wijk’s study enriches our understanding of historical identity formation while demonstrating how ancient federalist dynamics can inform contemporary debates on governance and territorial belonging.


The European Union is increasingly fragmented. Internally dismantled by a rising populism and exclusionary nationalism, its weaknesses such as shallow integration or the lack of the right political institutions to bind people with different background, languages and religions together, form a stern reminder of the difficulties that have plagued federal states since their inception. Also in ancient Greece we have parallels for example the special case of the Boiotians in the late sixth, fifth and fourth century B.C.E., where there is evidence of the first federal polity, its state formation was troubled by endogenous issues.

Understanding the best ways to tie together member states of a federal state provides valuable insights into some of the problems encountering current federal entities, such as the European Union. Learning from successful past federal polities offers a blueprint for moving forward with the project of a unified Europe. More importantly, the distance in time grants more perspective and less emotionally invested analysis. Finally, the modern comparisons demonstrate the validity of the argument put forward here: that only fully integration of new members – including political representation, embracing them gracefully into the political organs of the federal state and forging stronger ties through shared rituals or celebrations – can ensure the survival of a gradually expanding European Union.

This interest in comparing the ancient and modern federal world stems from my research in the ERC-funded project ‘Federalism and Border Management in Greek Antiquity’ (https://erc-febo.unitn.it/). My role in the project is to investigate internal borders, or the borders between member states, in Greek federal polities spread across a region known as Central Greece. Within that role, I look at how borders were shaped through economic measures, religious interactions or military structures and how to stabilise these borders from the perspective of the central authority, the federal state or koinon. One question that continuously emerges is: how were these borders defined and how do you solve an internal dispute between members of the same polity? In that vein, the integration of new members became imperative to the question, because they would subsequently not only form the new external border in some cases, but in other ones, also reshaped internal borders of a koinon. Similarly, forging strong ties with these border communities also ensured they felt they belonged to the common polity and through such integrative measures, would became a stable border for the federal state.

This was indeed also the case in one of the earliest attested common polities, mentioned above, that of the Boiotians: the Boiotoi. Starting in the early fifth century B.C.E., largely at the behest of its largest city-state (polis) Thebes, this polity was fraught with internal dissent throughout its existence. Member states like Orchomenos or Plataia provided reluctant to be reigned in. In some cases, this was due to external pressures. The Athenians supported Plataian resistance to the polity, just like the Spartans did with the Orchomenians against the Thebans. In the latter case, a persistent local identity formed an obstacle to a full integration into the Boiotian polity. Yet the Boiotians were sometimes successful in integrating neighbouring poleis that originally did ‘not belong’ to Boiotia and maintained their own local identity and institutions. One such example is Oropos. This town lay at the border of Boiotia and Athens. It was originally founded by people from Eretria, who lived on island just across the water from Oropos (see map).

Ancient authors were aware of its epichoric perspective. The third century B.C.E. writer Nikokrates (FrGrHist 376, fr. 1) for instance claims that Oropos was a colony of the Eretrians while another third-century writer mentions that the locals called themselves ‘Boiotian Athenians’ (Herakleides Kritikos BNJ 369a). This unique concoction shows the Boiotians had work to do to make these people feel part of their political community. Interestingly, they seem to have been more successful at it than the Athenians – who frequently controlled Oropos – ever were. The Oropians tried to break free from their grasp on numerous occasions, while their departure from the Boiotians often seems to have been forced by external powers, like the Spartans or Macedonian kings (Wilding 2021).

 A brief comparison between the treatment of Oropos by the Athenians – a non-federal entity – and the Boiotians will prove fruitful in demonstrating the need for full integration into political offices as well as proportional representation. The latter in particular has been the key to success for a severely divided modern federal state, Switzerland (Linder and Mueller 2023). Another modern comparison is Puerto Rico and its role in the United States of America (Developments in the Law — The U.S. Territories, 130 Harv. L. Rev. 1616, 1632 (2017)). Placing these three examples together will hopefully clarify the strengths of federalism and its limitations, and offer insights for the European Union.

The idea is here is that federalism only works if new members become fully integrated members, rather than territorial add-ons with no proper say in federal affairs. This is not necessarily a modern concept. The philosopher Aristotle already toyed with the idea that for the right balance within a polity, it is of paramount importance to integrate every area of that polity and allow them a voice in the decision-making process. In his Politics, for instance, he describes the essence of how he envisions this process:

ἀναγκαῖον τοίνυν εἰς δύο μέρη διῃρῆσθαι τὴν χώραν, καὶ τὴν μὲν εἶναι κοινὴν τὴν         δὲ τῶν ἰδιωτῶν, καὶ τούτων ἑκατέραν διῃρῆσθαι δίχα πάλιν, τῆς μὲν κοινῆς τὸ   μὲν ἕτερον μέρος εἰς τὰς πρὸς τοὺς θεοὺς λειτουργίας τὸ δὲ ἕτερον εἰς τὴν τῶν            συσσιτίων δαπάνην, τῆς δὲ τῶν ἰδιωτῶν τὸ ἕτερον μέρος τὸ πρὸς τὰς ἐσχατιάς,            τὸ δὲ ἕτερον πρὸς πόλιν, ἵνα δύο κλήρων ἑκάστῳ νεμηθέντων ἀμφοτέρων τῶν             τόπων πάντες μετέχωσιν. τό τε γὰρ ἴσον οὕτως ἔχει καὶ τὸ δίκαιον καὶ τὸ πρὸς    τοὺς ἀστυγείτονας πολέμους ὁμονοητικώτερον. ὅπου γὰρ μὴ τοῦτον ἔχει τὸν            τρόπον, οἱ μὲν ὀλιγωροῦσι τῆς πρὸς τοὺς ὁμόρους ἔχθρας, οἱ δὲ λίαν φροντίζουσι     καὶ παρὰ τὸ καλόν

[T]he land for private ownership is to be divided in half, one part in the borderlands,      the other part by the city, in order that, two lots having been distributed to each citizen, everybody shall have a share in both places. Thus this is equal and just and more conducive to agreement on wars with neighbours. For wherever this is not the case,     some citizens care little about hatred of neighbours, while others worry about it a lot,             indeed beyond what is good. For that reason among some there is a law that those who   live by the borderlands should not participate in deliberation about wars against them           on the ground that because of private interest they cannot deliberate well

(Arist. Pol. 7.1330a).

A similar situation can be envisioned in a larger polity, where it concerns member states rather than the citizens of various areas within a state. As I will argue in this piece, it was imperative to integrate new members in all offices and decision-making processes for federalism to work properly.

How to treat a neighbour

From roughly the end of the sixth century until 287 BCE, control over Oropos changed hands a staggering eleven (!) times. In most cases, this occurred between the Boiotians and Athenians; exceptionally, the Oropians collaborated with the Eretrians or enjoyed brief spells of independence. The difference in treatment of the Oropians by the two neighbouring powers is striking. The Athenians treated the Oropians like subjects who needed reminders of who was in charge. Examples of such behaviour in the fifth and fourth centuries BCE abound. In the fifth century, Thucydides describes how the lands around Oropos were controlled by the Athenians, with the Oropians tilling the land. Later in the century, among items confiscated from Athenian exiled elites for their sacrilegious behaviour, there are large estates in the Oropia. They had thus profited from the fertile land, undoubtedly leaving the Oropians in the lurch. The fourth century proved no different. Isokrates describes how the Athenians only the offer from Oropian exiles to take over the town as a countermeasure to Theban expansionism (Isokrates 14.20 (Plataicus). In exchange, they granted control over parts of the resource-rich Oropian woodlands. These woods were a prime generator of income since it was one of the few areas in the region that produced pine tar resin, essential for the maintenance of ships. Nor did the Athenians neglect to show their dominance. At the most important Oropian sanctuary, the Amphiareion, where the Oropians a few decades earlier happily proclaimed their independence, the Athenians now erected a stone with a decree an Athenian for his work. More importantly, the language contained in the decree was eerily reminiscent of Athenian habits in Athens itself, leaving no doubt to the visitors of the temple that this was no longer Oropian land.

Worse was yet to come. In 335 BCE, the Macedonian king Alexander III – also known as the Great – granted the Athenians control over the Oropia after a hiatus of 30 years. It was lavishly celebrated. The Athenians divided plots of Oropian land among their citizen tribes; put up dedications to the god Amphiaraos at the Oropian shrine as if it was an Athenian temple by identifying themselves as stemming from town inside the Athenian state and crowned Amphiaraos through a decision of the Athenian Assembly. This was, in fact, the only god to have been honoured in such a fashion. On first glance, this seems like an extraordinary honour. The decree accompanying the crown suggests otherwise. It consistently makes a difference between the Athenians and “others” (xenoi) under the god’s supervision. The signal was clear. The Oropians were now strangers in their own land and temple. Matters may have gotten worse. A recent analysis of the Oropian inscriptions has pointed out that it’s strange there are hardly any private gravestones stemming from this period, which are important markers of family property (Papazarkadas 2016). Only 6 out an attested 239 date to the fourth century. Papazarkadas ponders whether the Athenians were behind the dearth of funerary inscriptions, by clearing the plots of lands out of local ownership in an effort to redivide the lands. It would have been a rather egregious way of treating one’s neighbour.

The Oropian response to these Athenian efforts have been (partially) recovered. Numerous dedications at the Amphiareion that bore marks of Athenian localities were altered to identify the people who offered these gifts to the god as merely being ‘Athenian’, thereby ensuring visitors were aware the temple was again in Oropian hands.

The Athenians’ treatment of Oropos stands in stark contrast to the Boiotian way of handling matters. The ‘Boiotian’ stamp on Oropian affairs in the fifth and fourth centuries BCE appears remarkably light, other than the large stoa erected at the Amphiareion. Only in the third century, after 287 BCE, did the Boiotians use the Amphiareion as if it were a ‘federal’ sanctuary by erecting federal decrees there. But in most cases, these were actually proposed by Oropians locals and officials, meaning it was more a source of epichoric pride than a firm take-over.

Another clue can be found in the account of Diodorus Siculus. At the end of the fourth century BCE and a period of civil war in Oropos, some exiles called in the help of the Thebans. After the take-over, the Thebans – by which Diodorus means the Boiotian federal state in most cases – moved Oropos land inward as a protective measure. Other steps to ensure their participation were that the Oropian territory was ‘added to Boiotia’ and the Oropians granted citizenship. Diodorus’ language is a bit vague but it seems like the Oropians did not become a separate member of the Boiotian polity, but were somehow granted access to its institutions. These other procedures were vital for securing Oropian allegiance and the functioning of the common polity. This effort at integration can be perceived in the third century BCE as well. Numerous attestations of Oropian fulfilling roles in the Boiotian federacy exist, acting as dignitaries for the Boiotians and shared a ‘district’ with the Plataians, thereby granting them the chance to have one of their own in the highest board of magistrates, the Boiotarch. A more telling examples from the religious sphere. At Oropos, an inscription was found recording the official invitation of the Boiotians for the Oropians to participate in the Ptoia-festival at the Apollo Ptoios temple in Akraiphia (IOropos 304, lines 6-7: representatives come from Akraiphia to the cities of Boiotia, and invite them συναύξειν τὴν θυσίαν τῶι Ἀπόλλωνι τῶι Πτωίωι καθάπερ τὸ | κοινὸν Βοιωτῶν καὶ ἡ πόλις τῶν Ἀκραιφιείων (‘to join in enhancing the sacrifice to Apollo Ptoios, in the same way as the Koinon of the Boiotoi and the polis of the Akraiphians do’).

This sanctuary had been a focal point for articulating Boiotian identity. For the Oropians, who were not originally Boiotian, to be invited to this festival shows again a matter of appreciation and integration that was missing from the Athenian efforts. No wonder we cannot find any evidence of vengeful Oropians exerting their revenge on Boiotian dedication throughout its history. In fact, there is even one inscription dated to the 280s BCE in which the Oropians request funding from the common polity to repair their walls. One phrase in particular is striking. They claim to be doing it for the good of the Boiotian state, conveying the sense they wish to be useful members and feel acknowledged as a full member.

This provides a useful comparison with modern examples, like Switzerland or the USA and Puerto Rico. In each case, it concerns the integration of people with different backgrounds and languages, yet in one – Switzerland – it succeeded, whereas in another – the USA – Puerto Rico has yet to attain full integration into its political system.

Switzerland: a modern success story?

In its current political organisation, the Swiss Republic has only been in place since 1848. The early years were troublesome, with a brief civil war along confessional and urban lines. Making matters more complex was the mosaic of territories, some French, German, Italian or Romansch speaking. Exacerbating the situation further was the division into Protestant and Catholic cantons. Unsurprisingly, the unity of this polity was fragile and far from a given. Even during the First World War (1914-1918), loyalties were divided along language lines and the war efforts of linguistic brethren. Yet from this turbulent and troublesome mixture a nation has arisen that seemingly has managed to balance these differences. In fact, despite the continued centrality of local pride, a feeling of Swiss identity has gradually grown over the last decades.

A recent investigation of the ‘Swiss accomplishment’ has underlined that proportional representation – even when not anchored into law but into accepted practice – of all the linguistic groups in governmental bodies, has been the key to the success (Linder and Mueller 2023, 27). Two key facets helped to put this into place. The non-ethnic character of Switzerland’s nation-state and more mundanely, federalism. These allowed a balanced approach to nation-state building, whereas the regional self- and shared rule provided the bottom-up foundation for the federal state to flourish, in which the diverse character of the country could be explored, cemented and celebrated. Each group could pursue their own goals and ambitions, while maintaining their local identities, yet without losing any involvement in the federal structure. People thus felt part of the Swiss political system and at the same time held on to their local identities. All of the members that joined later, or had not been part of the ‘original core’ of cantons that – in the self-created myth of the early Swiss confederacy – thereby became well integrated into the political system and in that sense, cemented the stability of a nation that could have easily suffered from fraught parochial interests or separatist tendencies.

One final interesting example comes from the ritualistic sphere as well. It concerns the ritual of Sächsilüüte, celebrated each year mid to late April in Zürich. Each year, a figure (the Böögg) representing king winter is set on fire, to chase away the bad weather and celebrate the arrival of spring. Many of the city’s guilds wear traditional garments and participate in a procession through the city towards a large square where the figurehead is set aflame. Since 1991, to celebrate the occasion of the 700th anniversary of the Swiss Confederacy, the central committee of the Zürich guilds invites guests from other cantons to participate in the celebrations. In turn, the guests are then allowed to bring a piece of their own canton to Zürich and present it to the people present. So while the celebration is lodged in local lore, it is interesting development that the Zürich guilds chose the anniversary of the confederacy to inaugurate a new integrative ritual that aims to tie together the various cantons, only this time in the ritual sphere.

A territory within a state: Puerto Rico and the U.S.A.

In sharp contrast to the successful Swiss integration of regions with a different religion and language, stands Puerto Rico and its place within U.S.A. Although citizens can obtain U.S. citizenship, the fact that Puerto Rico is assigned the status of territory, rather than a full-fledged state, creates a difficult position within the federal system of the United States. One of the fears that has prevented the integration of the island as a state has been the possibility that it could develop into a Quebec-like situation, but in fact, it is the issue that Puerto Rico is a nation within a nation, to quote an analysis of the situation (Thornburgh 2001). The lack of proper integrative measures, such as the status of statehood and all the benefits and duties that come with it, mean that there will be no ‘full empowerment and equal citizenship’ (Thornburgh 2001, 359) for its citizens. Despite the possibility to participate in the United States through their citizenship, the lingering difficulty of combining the local identity with participation in the U.S. federal system will not be solved. This creates potential difficulties and is more reminiscent of the Athenian treatment of Oropos alluded to above, then in line with the federalist approach employed by the Boiotians and Switzerland.

Conclusions

The vexed question of what the right way forward for Puerto Rico is within the U.S.A. demonstrates the effects a lacklustre effort to integrate neighbouring regions can have, leading to friction, separatism and perhaps in the future, a separate nation-state. It is far from the integrative measures employed by the Boiotians in the past, and the Swiss in the modern period. Their efforts show that fully embracing federalist institutions and participatory measures do not cancel out local identities and institutions, but rather supports and strengthen them within a political system that promotes collaboration and debate. The comparison perhaps shows that the best way forward for the European Union is to truly create a federalist pluriform system, where member states can maintain their own identities and institutions, rather than try and create an overarching European identity built upon vague notions of what that actually means. What is lacking furthermore is ‘ritualised’ cohesion. Shared celebrations, for instance through festivals or rituals, could perhaps strengthen the togetherness of various nations, rather than singing Beethoven’s Ode to Joy at the European Parliament. It remains a distant affair for most people and therefore other integrative measures – like a celebration of the European Union’s formation through a continent-wide festival, for instance – could prove beneficial. The same applies for proportional representation, rather than cliquing around political parties. Hopefully, learning from the ancient world can provide some mechanism with which to strengthen today’s European Union and prevent it from collapsing underneath the avalanche of nationalist and populist tendencies.

Bibliography

Linder, W. and Mueller, S. 2023. ‘Switzerland: A Paradigmatic Case of Political Integration’ in P. Emmenegger et al (eds.) The Oxford Handbook of Swiss Politics. Oxford: 15-32.

Thornburgh, R. 2001. ‘Puerto Rican Separatism and United States Federalism’ in C. Duffy         Burnett, B. Marshall, G.M. Joseph and E.S. Rosenberg (eds.) Foreign in a Domestic Sense Puerto Rico, American Expansion, and the Constitution. Durhan: 349-73.

Wilding, A. 2021. Reinventing the Amphiareion at Oropos. Leiden.


OpenEdition schlägt Ihnen vor, diesen Beitrag wie folgt zu zitieren:
Redaktion / Redazione (24. Januar 2025). The ties that bind in a federal state? Some reflections from the ancient world. TrIBES. Abgerufen am 19. Januar 2026 von https://doi.org/10.58079/13d30


Das könnte dich auch interessieren …

Schreibe einen Kommentar

Deine E-Mail-Adresse wird nicht veröffentlicht. Erforderliche Felder sind mit * markiert

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.