Identifying Richard White’s ‘Middle Ground’ in the Ancient World

By Nicholas Spezia-Shwiff

In 1991, historian Richard White published a book titled The Middle Ground: Indians, Empires, and Republics in the Great Lakes Region, 1650-1815 where he analyzed the relationship between French settlers and Indigenous peoples, primary Algonquian tribes, around the Great Lakes region. To establish and fully analyze this rather nuanced and ever-fluctuating relationship, White created a framework he called the ‘middle ground.’ While White believes the middle ground is a concept which cannot be applied to other historical contexts, the island of Sicily in the ancient world presents an interesting case study. In particular, the zones of cultural exchange and interaction between ancient Greeks, Phoenicians, and Indigenous populations in Sicily and, more broadly, around the ancient Mediterranean present an opportunity to apply (or at least attempt to apply) the concept of the middle ground. I would like to note that the application of the middle ground to the ancient Mediterranean has been far more extensively researched by historian Irad Malkin, who has summarized much of the evidence I will be using in A Small Greek World: Networks in the Ancient Mediterranean.

What is the ‘Middle Ground?’

Before looking at Sicily and the ancient Mediterranean, however, I must first define what exactly the middle ground consists of. The middle ground is essentially the zone and manner of interaction between two groups of people with different cultures. These kinds of interactions include, but are certainly not limited to, trade, intermarriage, religious conversion, and a broader level of cultural exchange. This zone of interaction is not static, but rather fluctuates and is constantly being shaped by each group in the middle ground through compromise and shared cultural legitimization. This might sound confusing, and indeed writing about the middle ground in these broad strokes does not truly allow for a complete understanding, especially of the more nuanced interactions. I cannot fully cover all of the details here, and for those more interested in the topic I highly recommend reading White’s work, however it is important to get a sense of how the middle ground operates, which may then allow for its extrapolation to the ancient world. I will therefore highlight two main aspects of the middle ground that are important for understanding the overall framework.

The first aspect of the middle ground, which I have already alluded to, is that it was mutually invented by both groups. In the case of the French-Algonquian middle ground described by White, each group approached the middle ground with a set understanding of how to behave and interact with the other in order to achieve their set goals. Eventually, however, through the actual interactions between the French and Algonquians, they established a mutual set of social codes that combined both behavioral and cultural understandings into a single framework, which, importantly, was riddled with misunderstandings. As part of the mutually constructed framework of the middle ground, the Algonquians and French attempted to legitimize their actions and goals through the other’s cultural practices and beliefs. A good example of this invented framework, its misunderstandings, and the role of legitimization is the discussion and procedure that followed the murder of two Frenchmen by members of an Algonquian tribe, leading to the execution of an Algonquian. Both sides attempted to come to a compromise to resolve the conflict based on their interpretation of killing—the French distinguished killings based on those done during war versus murder, while the Algonquians distinguished killings by enemies from killings by allies (White, p. 80). Because the killing was interpreted as a murder, since the Algonquians and French were not at war, the French sought retribution. In order to do so, however, the French attempted to find a connection between so-called Indian custom and French law, deciding that executing two Algonquians for the two Frenchmen killed would be an appropriate compromise (though, as mentioned, only one would actually be executed) (p. 80). That the French would attempt to justify the execution using Algonquian beliefs, even though those beliefs were misinterpreted, demonstrates the use of cross-cultural legitimization as vital to the middle ground. Ultimately, the French and Algonquians were unable to agree as to the type of punishment necessary, though they did later reconcile. However the important point of this example is not in the outcome of the event. Instead, it is to highlight the various levels of interaction and how each side (mis)interpreted and attempted to compromise with the other using a mutual framework within the middle ground. Based on this example, we also get the sense that the invented framework of the middle ground was never precise (subject to the context of the event) and could certainly still lead to conflict.

The second aspect of the middle ground that I will describe is put most aptly by White: “The middle ground depended on the inability of both sides to gain their ends through force. The middle ground grew according to the need of people to find a means, other than force, to gain the cooperation or consent of foreigners” (p. 52). This inability of one group to fully force the other is absolutely essential to any understanding of the middle ground because it explains the character of interactions between groups. It is likely that the French and Algonquians would have been in more far more frequent conflict if one could have overrun the other. Because neither could, however, the middle ground was created as a zone of interaction where the French and Algonquians were mutually dependent. This level of mutual dependence is especially evident when analyzing trade between the groups. For example, in exchange for access to furs, the French traded various European goods, like weapons, to the Algonquians. Despite the benefits that come from a mutually dependent relationship, White makes it clear that the time where the middle ground can exist is not permanent. Eventually one group will overpower the other or be replaced by another group who will (in the French-Algonquian case, the French were replaced by the British and later the Americans who ultimately forced the Algonquians into a series of unequal treaties).

The ‘Middle Ground’ of Phoenicians and Greeks

Now that I have explained what I believe to be a couple of key elements of Richard White’s middle ground, it is best to turn to the example of Greeks and Phoenicians around the ancient Mediterranean and Sicily. The first example of the middle ground that I will analyze is the close relationship between the Phoenician god Melqart and the Greek hero Herakles, including how their iconographies were transformed by the interactions of Greeks and Phoenicians. For some additional context, Melqart is a dominant figure and supposed mythical founder of the Phoenician city of Tyre, which led much of the Phoenician colonization in the ancient world (Malkin, p. 124-26). Herakles, on the other hand, is a hero and son of the Greek god Zeus, and by the period of Greek and Phoenician colonization between the 8th to 6th centuries BCE, he was commonly associated with the founding of colonial settlements (p. 132). By the 6th century BCE in Phoenician-controlled western Sicily, however, Herakles and Melqart had become integrated as a singular figure, referred to as Herakles by ancient sources. The question then is, how did this blending of Melqart and Herakles occur? White’s middle ground is a useful tool in answering this question, focusing on the interactions and interpretations between Greeks and Phoenicians in relation to Melqart and Herakles.

While Melqart was often depicted as a god, Malkin describes how he also shared many characteristics typical of a Greek hero, which likely led to him being equated to Herakles by Greek foreigners (p. 127). Phoenicians also interpreted Herakles to be similar to Melqart based on both figures having the role of archegetai (founders) of cities and royal lineages. According to Malkin, Phoenicians were also able to see, through various interactions of trade and war with the Greeks, how they justified colonization using Herakles and the idea that he and his descendants founded many settlements which the Greeks continued to hold claim to. Because of Herakles’ association with colonization, the connection between Melqart and Herakles was useful for Phoenicians to exploit in order to justify their own colonization (p. 141). This deliberate connection of Melqart to Herakles by Phoenicians is evident in iconography as well, with Herakles’ lion attributes found on 6th century BCE representations of Melqart in Tyre (p. 129) (Fig. 2, 3). There are many more similarities that exist between the two, but what all of this tells us is how the interactions and various interpretations of Phoenicians and Greeks in the middle ground in and around Sicily led to cultural exchange. The inherently fluid nature of the middle ground is clear to see through how each side adapted and interpreted the duality of Melqart and Herakles. As Malkin describes, the characteristics of both figures were ever-fluctuating and made to fit the context in which they existed. Neither figure was forced on the Phoenicians or Greeks, but mutually invented by both. I hope that this analysis has made it clear that the middle ground can be applied to any time in history where two groups define and create the circumstances through which they interact, which can then yield a variety of results. In the case of French-Algonquian interactions, it created a unique blending of judicial systems and networks of trade, whereas in the Greek-Phoenician interactions around Sicily, it led to the creation of a hybrid Herakles figure with influence from both Melqart and Herakles.

The middle ground depended on the inability of both sides to gain their ends through force. The middle ground grew according to the need of people to find a means, other than force, to gain the cooperation or consent of foreigners.

Richard White, The Middle Ground: Indias, Empires, and Republics in the Great Lakes Region, 1650-1815, p. 52.

Greeks and Natives in Italy

The next example of the middle ground in the ancient Mediterranean that I would like to examine moves away from Sicily to the ancient Greek cities of Kroton and Sybaris, located within the modern day region of Calabria (Fig. 1, 4). The focus of examination here, based on another piece by Malkin, is the legendary Greek hero Philoktetes and the interactions of Kroton and Sybaris with each other and with the native people in the surrounding area. For Kroton, Herakles was worshipped as the founder of the city, however Philoktetes (due to his association with the final stages and victory of the Trojan War) also became revered. By the end of the 6th century BCE in the context of a war for territorial expansion between Kroton and Sybaris, Philoktetes was thought of as a Krotoniate hero (Malkin, p. 133). Turning to Sybaris, it is clear that Philoktetes was also worshipped. In fact, Malkin and other scholars believe that various relics and shrines related to Philoktetes were taken from Sybaris to Kroton after the aforementioned war, indicating a similar level of reverence in both cities. What is truly fascinating about this case study, in my opinion, is not the interactions between Kroton and Sybaris, but rather their interactions with the native people that lay in the frontier zones between Kroton and Sybaris. Before Kroton won its war over Sybaris and expanded its territorial control over the non-Greek natives, Philoktetes had already been adopted by these non-Greeks (p. 140). Yet the way non-Greeks adopted Philoktetes is interesting, because it was not in the mirror image of Kroton and Sybaris’ Philoktetes. Instead, Philoktetes was adapted from the myths of Kroton and Sybaris and “indigenized” (given a different origin that emphasized his connection to non-Greeks) by the native communities to meet their precarious circumstances of being situated between two Greek colonies (p. 140). In addition, the indigenization of a Greek hero would grant legitimacy to these tribes—because there was no feeling of Greek ethnic superiority over barbarians yet, associating with Greek heroes was a useful diplomatic tool of finding common ground with Greek settlers. In understanding this interpretation of Philoktetes by native non-Greeks, it is absolutely essential to note that there were Greeks living among native populations, which is where interactions of the middle ground were actually taking place on a daily level. These Greeks would have certainly brought their myths and culture into these interactions, while the natives would have done the same, creating the indigenized Greek hero Philoktetes. Although we unfortunately lack the detail of these settlements and their exchange, it is still possible to see how the middle ground would have flourished and created a unique indigenous hybridization of Greek heroes. Returning again to the element of power, the middle ground between natives and Greeks would have disappeared after Kroton conquered the nearby hinterlands, thereby assimilating the natives into a singular area of Greek domination (p. 140-141). Regardless, in the short time where Greeks and native non-Greeks were living together between two Greek cities, a middle ground was able to exist and create new interpretations of Greek myths and heroes.

Final Thoughts

Through two examples—one of the Greek and Phoenician interaction in Western Sicily and how Melqart and Herakles became a singular figure, and the other of the interactions between Greeks, from Kroton and Sybaris, and native non-Greeks in the hinterlands that resulted in an indigenized creation of Philoktetes—I have examined where Richard White’s framework of the middle ground existed in the ancient world. To be perfectly honest, though, White’s middle ground is not completely applicable to the past, and there are certainly discrepancies that emerge when trying to make the connection. One notable discrepancy that I would like to highlight is that in the two examples I examined, there is no clear evidence of mutual legitimization between groups; in the Greek/native non-Greek example we only see the natives legitimizing their actions instead of both sides doing so, as we see in White’s French-Algonquian case. Despite this, it is evident that there are benefits to using the middle ground as one of many frameworks when analyzing the ancient world. The analysis of the middle ground allows us to see the nuanced relationships and interactions between groups that lead to cultural exchange and a continually shifting way of understanding the “other” without focusing on who had the power. It gives more agency to groups who are traditionally marginalized, allowing us to understand that cultural exchange was not a one-sided affair, but was impacted by both parties involved. It may not be a perfect application, but the new perspective that the middle ground provides is an invaluable tool for historians and archaeologists to use, no matter the time period. With all of that said, I am interested to see where else the middle ground can be applied and what new evidence will come from those applications.

.

Bibliography

Antonaccio, Carla. “Networking the Middle Ground.” Academia.edu, June 1, 2014. https://www.academia.edu/3449993/Networking_the_Middle_Ground.

“Great Lakes Indigenous People and the French.” Minnesota Historical Society. Accessed November 16, 2022. https://www.mnhs.org/furpost/learn/french.

Malkin, Irad. A Small Greek World: Networks in the Ancient Mediterranean. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013.

Malkin, Irad. “The Middle Ground: Philoktetes in Italy.” Kernos, no. 11 (1998). https://doi.org/10.4000/kernos.1221.

Stanley, Jean-Daniel, Graham Nickerson, Maria Pia Bernasconi, Stephanie Fischer, and Natalie McClure. “Multibeam Sonar Technology and Geology to Interpret Ancient Harbor Subsidence off Crotone Peninsula, Italy.” ResearchGate, December 2011. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/272439973_Multibeam_Sonar_Technology_and_Geology_to_Interpret_Ancient_Harbor_Subsidence_off_Crotone_Peninsula_Italy.

White, Richard. The Middle Ground: Indians, Empires, and Republics in the Great Lakes Region, 1650-1815. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press, 2011.