Conclusions and Implications

Abstract

Abstract The conclusions refer to the first two parts and offer some general observations. Drawing lots served equality and fairness, expressed in distribution, procedure, selection, and mixture. Its salient features—randomness and unpredictability—guaranteed equal chances; Greeks often preferred equal outcomes too. A direct line leads fromisomoiria in the Iliad and the Odyssey to isonomia and democracy: from equal, concrete portions (booty, land, etc.) to equal, abstract portions of the law. Since Homer, we observed equal distribution of booty by lot combined with a significant role for the community. The gods also distribute their realms by lot. Their role in drawing lots existed on a spectrum from explicit divination (lot oracles) to a general invocation. Drawing lots defines, exclusively, the contours of the group or community, whether small (brothers sharing an inheritance by lot, with no primogeniture) or large (sharing portions of sacrificial meat or settlers founding a new polis). Archaic colonization, responsible for at least 30 percent of all Greek poleis, was limited to Greeks, thus enhancing the Small World effect of quickly sharing commonalities of mindset, conventions, and practice over vast geographical horizons. Conquered land was considered “empty” and available for distributing by lot equal kleroi. Even in imaginary accounts, Greeks could not conceive of any alternative. Settlers expected “equal and fair terms” concretely expressed in the First Lots that signified sharing in the polis and conforming to the ideal of “one man–one oikos–one kleros.” However, there was no cap on wealth, and elites in colonies—based rather on wealth than descent—would soon appear. A salient feature of ancient Greek history is the contrasting pulls of the elite, the top-down vector, and the egalitarian one. The drawing of lots was a concrete expression of the latter.