members were phrateres, a word derived from the Indo-Eu-
ropean root meaning “brother.” Th e names of phratries nor-
mally used the patronymic (name derived from the father’s
name) ending -idai (thus Demotionidai, “sons of Demo-
tion”), and while membership was inherited, the phratry was
thought of as a larger unit than the family; “clan” is some-
times used to translate the term. Phratries were probably in
existence in Mycenaean times (ca. 1600–1100 b.c.e.) but are
fi rst mentioned in the Iliad and existed in many Greek cities,
both Dorian and Ionian. For citizens of the Ionian cities (in-
cluding Athens), phratry membership was an essential com-
ponent of their Ionian identity. Th e creation of the phratries
was traced to Ion, the hero for whom the Ionians are named,
and virtually all Ionian cities celebrated a festival known as
the Apatouria, which was devoted mainly to enrolling new
phratry members. In some instances, phratries seem to have
been subdivisions of phylae, though in most cities it seems
that the two institutions were separate and overlapped.
Membership in a phratry was a necessary condition of
citizenship in Athens, even aft er the reforms of Cleisthenes
(c a. 570 –a ft er 508 b.c.e.); this practice seems to be true for
other Ionian cities as well. Th eir functions generally refl ect
the notion of phratry as brotherhood or extended family.
Th ey were responsible for enrolling citizens (usually young
men coming of age and occasionally naturalized citizens) and
oversaw questions of legitimate descent and inheritance. Th e
Draconian law on homicide, which dated from the 620s b.c.e.
and was the only one of Draco’s (seventh century b.c.e.) laws
reenacted in the fi ft h century b.c.e., provided that in a case of
homicide, the victim’s fellow phrateres were responsible for
supporting his family and were to take on the responsibilities
of his family (including prosecuting the alleged killer) if he
had no family.
Phratry membership evolved with the changing needs of
the polis. In the early days phratries may have been strong-
holds of aristocratic privilege (though the link of phratry
membership to citizenship makes this theory somewhat
less likely). Phratries could split up into smaller phratries or
merge (whereas the number of demes, or local communities,
and phylae were fi xed). In democratic Athens phratries were
themselves democratic: All members voted by secret ballot,
and an offi cial called a phratriarch was elected to a one-year
term. Th ere were perhaps 30 phratries in Athens, subdivided
into genē, whose function is less clear. Not all citizens belonged
to genē. Th ey seem to be self-identifi ed groups, claiming de-
scent from a common ancestor. In some cases priesthoods
were reserved for members of a particular genos.PHYLAE
Later to develop than the phratry but ultimately more impor-
tant was the phyle, or tribe. Unknown in the Homeric poems,
phylae were in place by the eighth century b.c.e. in most but
not all Greek cities. Th ere were two main sets of phylae in
the Archaic Period: the Dorian, consisting of the Hylleis, the
Dymanes, and the Pamphyloi, and the Ionian, consisting ofthe Geleontes, the Hopletes, the Argadeis, and the Aigikoreis
in Athens and including the Oinopes and the Boreis in other
Ionian cities. Th e names common to various cities most likely
owe to the development of Dorian and Ionian ethnic identity,
thus establishing the relatively late origin of the phylae.
Phylae oft en served as military units or as voting con-
stituencies. Each tribe would be responsible for providing a
certain number of soldiers or entitled to elect a certain num-
ber of magistrates. Like the phratries, phylae oft en had sub-
divisions—in some cases phratries themselves, or genē, but
more oft en numerical subdivisions, such as thirds, hundreds,
or thousands. Phylae were less stable than phratries, perhaps
because they were viewed as more strictly political divisions,
lacking some of the phratries’ religious aura. Almost all cities
for which we have evidence had altered their basic tribe struc-
ture by the start of the fi ft h century b.c.e. In some cases new
tribes were added to accommodate an increase in population
or an infl ux of immigrants; in others a political upheaval or
a consolidation of several smaller communities (a process
known as synoecism) provided the impetus for realignment.
Th e Greek historian Herodotus (ca. 484–between 430 and 420
b.c.e.) tells the story of Cleisthenes (r. ca. 600–ca. 570 b.c.e.),
who became tyrant of Sicyon and gave the local Dorian tribes
insulting names (such as Hyatai, “pig-men”) while naming
his own tribe Archelaoi (“rulers of the people”).
Th e best-known tribal reform is that of the Athenian
Cleisthenes (grandson of the Sicyonian tyrant), which was ef-
fected in the years immediately following the establishment of
the democracy in 508 b.c.e. Th e system was both complex and
central to civic life. Attica (Athens and its surrounding terri-
tory) is one of the larger areas controlled by a polis, some 930
square miles. Th ere existed within Attica a number of formerly
independent cities (such as Marathon) that had been brought
together via synoecism during the early Archaic Period. As a
result, there were many local communities known as demoi
(demes), representing villages or neighborhoods within the
city. Th e demes were grouped into three main divisions: city
demes, coastal demes, and hill demes (the inland parts of At-
tica), which had developed rivalries based on their perceived
diff erences in economic interests. Cleisthenes made 30 groups
(known as trittyes) out of contiguous demes (10 in each divi-
sion), then formed 10 phylae by taking one trittys from each
of the three divisions. Th e phylae were named aft er local he-
roes—Erechtheis for Erechtheus, Kekropis for Kekrops, and
so on—thus distinguishing them from the older Ionian tribes
(whose use was kept only for certain limited religious con-
texts) and marking them as a uniquely Athenian institution.
Th e distribution of demes irrespective of geographic location
had the eff ect of breaking down rivalries within the city so
that any Athenian citizen would fi nd himself sharing civic du-
ties with citizens from far-fl ung parts of Attica.
A citizen in Athens, then, would fi nd himself a member
not only of a phratry but also of a deme, a trittys, and a phyle.
Th e deme as a small-scale political unit had a substantial de-
gree of autonomy; more important for social organizationsocial organization: Greece 10330895-1194_Soc&Culturev4(s-z).i1033 1033 10/10/07 2:30:50 PM