Leah Wild

I S THE HEL L ENI S TI C PERI OD ANYTHI NG MORE

THAN A L ABEL OF CONVENI ENCE F OR
HI S TORI ANS OF THE ANCI ENT WORL D?

The Hellenistic Period is a term used to describe what is commonly accepted to be the period
ranging from 323-30 BCE. It describes the period between the death of Alexander the Great, and the
fall of the last of the Ptolemaic pharaohs, Kleopatra. Throughout this essay, the term label of
convince will be taken to mean how useful, relevant and easy the title of Hellenistic Period is,
specifically directed towards the historians of the relevant subject matter. The term Hellenistic
itself is controversial, with debate arsing over its meaning, and if because of its etymology, it is
appropriate to use in the context that many historians wish to discuss. There are also disagreements
over when the Hellenistic epoch is said to cover, with the generally accepted standard dates being
323-30 BCE, there are historians who make persuasive cases that argue otherwise.
Through, there will be an attempt to shed light onto the full meaning behind the term, as well as the
appropriateness of its usage, which will hopefully be proved ultimately more useful than not.

In one sense, the Hellenistic period should be something easily definable, akin to Inter-War Years,
as it is often approached as simply the gap between the fall of Classical Greece, and the rise of the
Roman Republic following the Punic Wars. Yet the term itself encounters much controversy, and has
been questioned. The native populations of the countries conquered by Alexander did indeed have
new, Greek rulers, and were held under a Greek administrative system. However, the native
populations did not become Greek. There was no Hellenization of the native population. asserts
The Oxford History of the Classical World. There was a sharp divide between the native and Greek
populations, with the Greek concentrating mainly in towns and cities, with the native population
excluded from many institutions until the Hellenised, that is, learned to speak koin ,the new lingua
franca of the Hellenistic world, and partook in Greek traditions. The gymnasia is a perfect example
of how this practice went about: the gymnasia were built at the centre of the New Greek polis,
which sprung up across Alexanders former empire. Many citizens were excluded from these places,
including non-Greek speakers. Moreover, in order to enter the gymnasia, you had to be completely
naked, something horrific to most barbarians. The nudity and vulnerability of this is an excellent
illustration of how Hellenization occurred: the stripping being symbolic for the loss of culture, and
the shedding of cultural values. The vulnerability of the nakedness, and then partaking in Greek
activities. This illustrates the importance of the loss of one culture, and it being replaced with
another- there was no mixing, only Greek and non-Greek.

The term Hellenistic was coined by Dorysden, the first to write an in-depth study of the period. He
was the one who gave it what has been translated as Hellenistic. He called it Hellenismus, which is
derived from the word helleniz, meaning to act Greek, adopt Greek ways, or speak Greek, coming
from the term Hellene, which is what the Greeks called themselves. Essentially then, the Hellenistic
Leah Wild
Period is the period in which Greek ideas were spread, across Alexanders former empire, now
divided into kingdoms, from Egypt to Afghanistan. Until this point in the 19
th
Century, with the
writings of Droysden, the period had been dismissed, as low point between the fall of Classical
Greece, and the rise of the Roman Republic. This does a shocking disservice to the rich and varied
history of the time, a culture that spread across the entire Greek world. However, Droysden was far
too influenced by his own times, in the 19
th
Century, at the dawn of the Unification of Germany, he
searched the ancient texts in order to make sense of and justify his current situation. He latched on
to how the different, previously warring states of Greece had been united under one king. He
attempted to show that the situation in Germany, of one powerful sate exerting domination over all
the others and forcing a unitarian, pan-cultural law upon them was something that had a successful
precedent. This he found in the Hellenistic period, even naming it after its tendency to dominate
other cultures, rather than to integrate. Clearly inspired by Hegels idealism, and perhaps longing to
make sense of his own situation, he mainly focused on the politics of the era, which is how he came
up with the dates 323-30 BCE for the span of the epoch. This political approach, while a credit to
him, and lying the foundations for many other works, is rather limiting in the deciding how to divide
the era.

The commonly accepted timescale is that it began in 323 BCE, after Alexanders death, when new
dynasties fought to be installed. It then ended when the last of these dynasties fell, with the fall of
Alexandria to Octavian. That is how it was defined by Droysden. However, some historians have
begun to question the usefulness of these dates, and suggest that there were different events that
could be used to mark the Hellenistic Period. The battle of Ipsos has been suggested for a beginning,
which occurred in 301 BCE. Moreover, if you take full Roman control of former Greek lands to be a
signifier as the end of the period, then could assign the end of the period to anywhere between 168
BCE and 72CE. Barry Strauss asks: When, for example, did the Hellenistic period end? With the
mission of Jesus c. 30 CE? Or earlier, in 30 BCE, with the death of Cleopatra? This is not as pedantic
as it first seems: even after the fall of Greek rule (a broad term), Greek city culture and many Greek
ways of life continued to evolve long after the rise of the Roman, with some Greek-style cities lasting
even beyond the Romans, to see the rise of Christianity, and the split of the Roman Empire.
Droysden was perhaps too politically-minded to take this view of events; it is important to also note
that he did not study Hellenistic language and culture alongside the politics, which could account for
some oversights. Claire Peraux examined the culture of the Hellenistic era as lasting Aprs
Augustus, as she factored in Hellenistic culture and language.

Furthermore, the question merely asks if the term is useful for historians of the ancient world. The
Hellenistic Period only really has meaning when applied to a specific geopolitical location, that is the
Hellenistic Kingdoms, and those that interacted with them. It would be of no use for those ancient
historians that were interested in the history of ancient China. We must therefore remember that as
with many epochs, it can only be relevant when applied to a specific location and climate of thought.
This presents a specific type of western-centric thought, which would be best eliminated in historical
writings.
We all too often take the side of the Greeks when studying historical documents, who were known
to regard other civilisations as barbarians. While this was not a term of endearment for the Greeks,
Leah Wild
it did not carry with it quite the same connotations as it does today. To the Greeks, barbarian was
simply a catch-all term for someone who did not speak Greek (an amusing notion, as it is said to
have originated from the fact that, to them, all other languages sounded like Bar-bar. It was formed
into the word barbaroi, meaning non-Greeks, and has been taken up by Latin as barbarous), we have
given it our own westernised notion of the word, and its unpleasant connotations meaning things
like uncivilised, and savage, things in themselves that display a hostile attitude to people of other
cultures, and betrays our own underlying superiority complex, a reminder from the days of Empire,
allowed to linger through our western-dominated world power structure. Therefore, the term
Hellenistic could be seen as a relic from a past colonial age. We can see stark examples of this
throughout history, by focusing on the rise and fall of Classics in popularity as a subject of study.
Neo-classism was most popular in Britain in the Victorian era, where parallels were drawn between
Alexander and Victoria, with British historians siding with Herodotus, who describes Alexander as
civilising the barbarians, and applying it to the situation then. They felt that they were justified in
educating the people they conquered. We must remember that all history reflects the time in
which it is was written. It is arguable that history is namely a history of how events are recorded.
Therefore, we should strive to remove these bygone institutions, and cast off the term Hellenistic,
and its pseudo-colonial connotations.

However, we are forced to acknowledge the limits of periodization in general, and the fact that it is
almost always limited to a specific geopolitical climate. For example, it can be stated that the 60s
never happened in Spain. which is ridiculous. That is not to say that there was no 1960s in Spain, it
is merely a reflection that there was no sexual revolution in Spain in the 1960s, because that was
when the reign of Franco was at its most orthodox. What we are talking about when we use the
term the 60s is not necessarily the time period, though that was when the event was
concentrated, but the indicative cultural movement. It is the same for Hellenistic history, in that
what we mean when we talk about the Hellenistic period is a typified cultural understanding across
the Hellenistic world that is bookended by political events: Alexander and Kleopatras deaths. Whilst
these events did not bring to a halt the entire Hellenistic culture, they represent a change in trend,
and a turning of the tides in the Mediterranean and Near Eastern World of the time. There is little
chance that we could satisfactorily come up with an inoffensively names period for all of world
history, especially ones that did not interact. It merely need to be made clear that the Hellenistic
period is a reflection of culture, and the impact of Macedonian conquest only affects the states that
Alexander came into contact with.

However, even the term Hellenistic presents issues from some historians. Barry Strauss objects to
the term as a whole, stating that the -istic makes the whole era seem to be noting more than a
footnote to Classical Greece, whereas the Hellen- part of it ignores the non-Greek aspects,
minimising the role of the indigenous people in the period. This leaves us is a particularly precarious
position with the Hellenistic Period. We are unable to pin down an exact, date-based period, with a
name that poses issues by its nature. We are forced to question is The Hellenistic Period can even
be described as a useful label, let alone anything more.

Leah Wild
The Hellenistic Period is useful in that is a widely accepted epoch in time. Many books on the
Hellenistic period often open with debates such as the one above, but then concede to using the
dates 323-30 BCE anyway. This is because it is indeed a label of convenience. When you state that
something was within the Hellenistic period, or you study the Hellenistic culture as a whole, there is
a general understanding as to the time of which you are speaking, and the cultural shift that it
implies. It allows the intelligent general reader to find other works in a similar vein, so navigability is
improved by the continued use of this term. The label of the Hellenistic Period is widely renowned
as for being a useful label. Graham Shipley states that: Despite problems associated with the name
Hellenistic, it remains a convenient and clear label.

The name Hellenistic too is important, and is what distinguished it from being merely post-classical:
The events of Alexanders reign had not only expanded the Greek world geographically, but also
culturally. The Greeks came into contact with many other cultures, and despite sharp differences,
learnt many things from the barbarians. While remaining essentially Greek, many aspects of Greek
art, literature, culture and language differ too much to still be linked to the Classical period. The
uniqueness of the period makes it a fallacy to call it anything but the Hellenistic period. Their poetry
was unique, with a rise in epigrams and other styles. The rules of architecture relaxed, and allowed
styles to intermingle: previously Doric and Ionic styles were rigidly separated, with no interplay of
elements form either style, but in the Hellenistic period, they became combined to form the new
Corinthian style. Even the language, formerly a set of dialects, such as Attica, or Doric, evolved, so
that there was a common tongue used all across the Hellenistic world, known as koin, which united
the kingdoms, and allowed for the greatest communication and trade seen up to that point.
Culturally alone, we can see why this specific period warranted being set apart. Politically too, it
differed from the Classical city-states. While Athens was unique in being run democratically, few
Greek states had kings. In Alexanders wake, three major kingdoms were set up, and there was
significant adjustment required for the Greeks to be run by a monarchical system again. Along with
this, civic culture also changed, becoming more reliant on the patronage of wealthy citizens. Also
there were 1,500 new polis that sprung up in Alexanders wake. Therefore, it is possible to conclude
that The Hellenistic Period is still a useful piece of terminology.

It is clear to see that the use of the term Hellenistic is a valid and useful one. It is a label of
convenience, in the sense that it illustrates in precise shorthand the time and context discussed.
There may be issues with dates, and an overlap of eras, but that is an inherent problem with
periodization. What is important is to not allow this to prevent further study. History must be broken
down into periods, simply for purposes of categorisation. If we cannot do this, then it would be
impossible to have areas of focus, or to explained large overarching events and themes of history.
The Hellenistic period is a valid label, based on facts and culture, and bookending the delineation of
events, which marked the end of Classical Greece and the rise of the Roman Republic. Periodization
is vital to our understanding of our past. While it is often seen as an essentially arbitrary
measurement of timekeeping, the Hellenistic epoch is based on facts: the seismic shift provided by
Alexander, and the power vacuum left by his death. These are events that made the world at the
time pause. Reflect. Take note. There is nothing else you could ask of a period, an era, an epoch. For
epoch is derived from the Greek to mean a pause. An event that could make the world stand still. At
Leah Wild
the end of these, as the world remembers it must begin once more, it is perhaps most respectful to
begin a new chapter, to acknowledge that things will change from that point onwards.
A NOTE ON SPELLINGS:
In this essay, I have mostly used the direct letter-to-letter translation style for words of Greek origin,
in the German style, which leads to spellings like Kleopatra. This is truer to how the names would
have been spelt in Greek, there being no C in the Greek alphabet, and it was a Latinisation of these
spellings which gave us words like Hercules and Cleopatra. I feel that my attempt to stay truer to
these Greek spellings better reflects the period of study, which is mostly based in Greek-speaking
countries, with Greek people in them. However, because of our socialisation and other factors, we
do not immediately recognise some names in their direct forms, such as Alexandros the Great.
Therefore, I have deliberately left some names and other words in their more classic forms, for ease
of recognition.

ON THE USE OF BCE/CE
Throughout the essay, I have used the notations of BCE/CE, instead of BC/Adin order to denote the
era. This was a deliberate choice, for a number of reasons.
The term Common Era has been in use for a while, it can be dated back to around 1825, where it
was called VE, or Vulgar Era (meaning common/ non-regal, rather than distasteful), and was used
by Jewish scholars to denote their own history, in the context of the Gregorian calendar. They
wished to have a way to reconcile the time line of the cleaner, without having to say Anno Domini,
In the year of Our Lord. This is an understandable complaint, yet the VE, or CE, as it has now
become is a secular term. Furthermore, it gives a more appropriate fixed point, as it has been
speculated that Jesus may not have been born in 1AD. CE is a more practical term.
Whilst there are some issues with the terminology, and the issues surrounding a Christian-centric
view of the world, the UN director Kofi Anan points out that "[T]he Christian calendar no longer
belongs exclusively to Christians. People of all faiths have taken to using it simply as a matter of
convenience. In this sense, it is perhaps like the Hellenistic Period: Not the best term to use, but
the best one available, and certainly a label of convenience.


WORD COUNT: 3093






Leah Wild

BIBLIOGRAPHY:
o Demetriou, Kyriacos N.. (2001). Historians on Macedonian Imperialism. Journal of Modern
Greek Studies. 19 (1), p. 23-60.
o Vdan, Paul Ioan. (2010). The Evolution of the Study of the Hellenistic Period. McGill Classics
Journal. 8 (11), p. 121-130.
o Glenn R. Bugh. (2007). Introduction. In: Glenn R. Bugh The Cambridge Companion to the
Classical World. 2nd ed. Cambridge Collections Online: Cambridge University Press. p. 1-7.
o B. Bosworth. (2007). Alexander the Great and the Creation of the Hellenistic Age. In: Glenn
R. Bugh The Cambridge Companion to the Classical World. 2nd ed. Cambridge Collections
Online: Cambridge University Press. p. 9-27.
o John Boardman (Editor), Jasper Griffin (Editor), Oswyn Murray (Editor) (1988). The Oxford
History Of The Classical World. Greece And The Hellenistic World: Greece and the Hellenistic
World. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
o Green, Peter (1994). Alexander to Actium. London: Thames & Hudson.
o Hadas, Moses. (1963). Historiography. In: Hellenistic Culture. 3rd ed. Columbia: Columbia
University Press. p. 115-119.
o Shipley, Graham. (1999). Approaches and Sources. In: The Greek World After Alexander: 323-
30 BC. London: Routledge. 1-7.
o Grant, Michael. (1982). Preface. In: The Hellenistic Greeks: From Alexander to Cleopatra. 2nd
ed. University of California: Scribner. 1-5