Franz Steiner Verlag

95 Theses about the Greek "Polis" in the Archaic and Classical Periods.
A Report on the
Results Obtained by the Copenhagen Polis Centre in the Period 1993-2003
Author(s): Mogens Herman Hansen
Source: Historia: Zeitschrift für Alte Geschichte, Bd. 52, H. 3 (2003), pp. 257-282
Published by: Franz Steiner Verlag
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4436692 .
Accessed: 22/07/2013 11:32
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Franz Steiner Verlag is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Historia:
Zeitschrift für Alte Geschichte.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 205.133.226.104 on Mon, 22 Jul 2013 11:32:16 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
95 THESES ABOUT THE GREEKPOLIS IN THE ARCHAIC
AND CLASSICAL PERIODS
A Report on the Results Obtained by the Copenhagen Polis Centre in the
Period 1993-2003
A brief survey of the more important results of the research conducted in the
Copenhagen Polis Centre is best presented as a number of theses with refer-
ences to the publication(s) in which the issues at stake have been discussed and
the theses have been advanced. The article is intended as a vade mecum for
historians to help them to find their way through the numerous publications of
the Polis Centre. The theses are stated ratherbluntly, without any discussion or
argumentation which, however, can be found in the literature referred to after
each thesis. The theses represent either novel views or controversial topics to
which we believe we have made a significant contribution. References are to
the following publications.
The Acts Series
CPCActs 1 = M.H. Hansen (ed.), The Ancient Greek City-State. Acts of the
Copenhagen Polis Centre 1. Det Kongelige Danske Videnskabernes Selskab,
Historisk-filosofiske Meddelelser 67 (Copenhagen 1993).
CPCActs 2 = M.H. Hansen (ed.), Sources for The Ancient Greek City-State.
Acts of the Copenhagen Polis Centre 2. Det Kongelige Danske Videnskabernes
Selskab, Historisk-filosofiske Meddelelser 72 (Copenhagen 1995).
CPCActs 3 = M.H. Hansen (ed.), Introduction to an Inventory of Poleis. Acts of
the Copenhagen Polis Centre 3. Det Kongelige Danske Videnskabemes Sel-
skab, Historisk-filosofiske Meddelelser 74 (Copenhagen 1996).
CPCActs 4 = M.H. Hansen, The Polis as an Urban Centre and as a Political
Community. Acts of the Copenhagen Polis Centre 4. Det Kongelige Danske
Videnskabemes Selskab, Historisk-filosofiske Meddelelser 75 (Copenhagen
1997).
CPCActs 5 = M.H. Hansen (ed.), Polis and City-State. An Ancient Concept and
its Modern Equivalent. Acts of the Copenhagen Polis Centre 5. Det Kongelige
Danske Videnskabernes Selskab, Historisk-filosofiske Meddelelser 76 (Copen-
hagen 1998). - A French edition of this book was published in 2001 by Les
Historia,BandLII/3(2003)
i FranzSteinerVerlagWiesbadenGmbH,Sitz Stuttgart

258 MOGENSHERMANHANSEN
Belles Lettres (Paris) in the series Histoire, collection dirigee par Michel
Desgranges et Pierre Vidal-Naquet.
CPCActs 6 = T. Heine Nielsen & J. Roy (eds.), Defining Ancient Arkadia. Acts
of the Copenhagen Polis Centre 6. Det Kongelige Danske Videnskabemes
Selskab, Historisk-filosofiske Meddelelser 78 (Copenhagen 1999).
The Papers Series
CPCPapers 1 = D. Whitehead (ed.), From Political Architecture to Stephanus

Byzantius. Papers from the Copenhagen Polis Centre 1. Historia Einzelschrift-
en 87 (Stuttgart 1994).
CPCPapers 2 = M.H. Hansen and K. Raaflaub (eds.), Studies in the Ancient
Greek Polis. Papersfrom the CopenhagenPolis Centre2. Historia Einzelschriften
95 (Stuttgart 1995).
CPCPapers 3 = M.H. Hansen and K. Raaflaub (eds.), More Studies in the
Ancient Greek Polis. Papers from the Copenhagen Polis Centre 3. Historia
Einzelschriften 108 (Stuttgart 1996).
CPCPapers 4 = T. Heine Nielsen (ed.), Yet More Studies in the Ancient Greek
Polis. Papers from the Copenhagen Polis Centre 4. Historia Einzelschriften 117
(Stuttgart 1997).
CPCPapers 5 = P. Flensted-Jensen (ed.), Further Studies in the Ancient Greek
(Stuttgart 1999).
CPCPapers 6 = T. Heine Nielsen (ed.), Even More Studies in the Ancient Greek
(Stuttgart 2002).
CPCPapers 7 = T. Heine Nielsen (ed.), Once Again: Studies in the Ancient
GreekPolis. Papersfrom the CopenhagenPolis Centre7. Historia Einzelschriften
180 (Stuttgart, forthcoming).
The City-State Series
30 CSC = M.H. Hansen (ed.), A Comparative Study of Thirty City-State Cul-

tures, Det Kongelige Danske Videnskabernes Selskab, Historisk-filosofiske
Skrifter 21 (Copenhagen 2000).
6 CSC = M.H. Hansen (ed.), A Comparative Study of Six City-State Cultures,
Det Kongelige Danske Videnskabemes Selskab, Historisk-filosofiske Skrifter
27 (Copenhagen 2002).

95 Theses aboutthe GreekPolis in the Archaicand Classical Periods 259
The Inventory
Inv = M.H. Hansen and T. Heine Nielsen (eds.), An Inventory of Archaic and
Classical Poleis (forthcoming).
Other Monographs
P&P = P. Flensted-Jensen, T. Heine Nielsen, L. Rubinstein (eds.), Polis and

Politics. Studies in Ancient Greek History Presented to Mogen Herman Hansen
on his Sixtieth Birthday, August 20, 2000 (Copenhagen 2000).
Ark = T. Heine Nielsen, Arkadia and its Poleis in the Archaic and Classical
Periods. Hypomnemata 140 (Gottingen 2002).
Other Articles
No. I = M.H. Hansen, "Aristotle's Two Complementary Views of the Greek

Polis", in R. Wallace & E. Harris (eds.), Transitions to Empire (Norman 1996)
195-210.
No. 2 = D. Whitehead, "Polis-Toponyms as Personal Entities (in Thucydides
and Elsewhere)", MH 53 (1996) 1-1 1.
No. 3 = M.H. Hansen, "Emporion.A Study of the Use and Meaning of the Term
in the Archaic and Classical Periods", in G. Tsetskhladze (ed.), Greek Coloni-
sation 1-2 (Leiden 2003) 1: forthcoming.
No. 4 = M.H. Hansen, "Belonging in a Political Context", forthcoming in the
Leicester-Nottingham Studies in Ancient Society (1998).
The Concepts of City-State and City-State Culture
(1) We have introduced and defined "city-state culture" as a concept to be

distinguished from the concept of city-state. By a city-state culture we under-
stand the civilisation of a large region whose inhabitants share language (or a
lingua franca), religion, traditions etc.; the region usually constitutes an ethnic,
a social and an economic entity, but politically it is broken up into a large
number of small communities each centred on a city. To be excluded from the
concept of city-state culture are isolated city-states which do not form an
integrated part of a city-state culture (e.g. Ragusa 1358-1700, Macao 1557-
1967, Andorra today), as well as cities which form a cultural and economic

network but are capitals of large "territorial"states, and not small city-centred
self-governing political entities (The Harappan cities in the Indus valley ca.
2600-1900 B.C.) (30 CSC 16-17, 609-16).
(2) We have (so far) traced thirty-five different city-state cultures in world
history ranging from the Mixtec in Mesoamerica to the Takiamakancity-states
in central Asia and from the Viking city-states in Ireland to the Swahili stone
towns in Kenya and Tanzania. City-state cultures are attested as early as the late
fourth millennium B.C. in Mesopotamia and as late as the late 19th century
A.D. in West Africa (30 CSC 20-22; 6 CSC 8-12).
(3) City-state cultures emerge in one of the three following ways: (3a) In a
period of demographic and economic upsurge, urbanisationand state formation
take place simultaneously or in close sequence. The city-state period is pre-
ceded by a pre-state period. The formation of city-states is gradual and often
imperceptible (the Greek polis). (3b) Colonisation of a region takes the form of
the foundation of a number of city-states (the Aztec city-states ca. 1200 A.D.).
(3c) In a period of decline, an urbanisedmacro-state disintegrates in such a way
that each of its major urbancentres becomes a city-state (the Chinese city-states
in the Spring-and-Autumnperiod) (30 CSC 16 with n. 64).
(4) The emergence of a city-state culture by devolution (3c) is much more
common than usually believed and that disproves the still common evolutionist
model that early cities were all city-states and that the territorial state dotted
with cities is a later phase of a universal development (6 CSC 12-13).
(5) Attempts to create larger political units, either peacefully or by con-
quest, often lead to small city-states being swallowed up by larger city-states
(Florence conquering other city-states in Toscany). But more often such at-
tempts take the form of hegemonic leagues (The Delian League), or federations
(the Lykian, the Swiss and the Dutch federations), or "mini-empires"consisting
of one large dominant city-state and a number of smaller dependent city-states
(Oyo and later Ibadan in Yorubaland) (30 CSC 17, 612-13; 6 CSC 14-15).
(6) When, occasionally, one city-state succeeds in long-term conquest of all
the others, the city-state structure usually persists so that the result is a large
"capital" in control of an empire built up of dependent city-states (Rome,
Tenochtitlan) (30 CSC 17, 613-14).
(7) Thus, the city-states of a city-state culture are not necessarily "peer
polities", but can be hierarchically organised systems of polities, of which some
are hegemonic, some independent, and some dependencies (30 CSC 17, 606).
(8) Dependent city-states are self-governing communities, but as regards
foreign policy or defence, they have either limited independence or no indepen-
dence at all, and usually they have to pay tribute and provide troops to a
neighbouring overlord or a hegemonic city-state within the region, or a central
government in regions in which the city-states are united in a federation (30
CSC 17, 608; 6 CSC 14).

95 Theses about the Greek Polis in the Archaic and Classical Periods 261
(9) A city-state culture ceases to exist either (9a) by the (temporary)dis-

appearance of the urban centres which, of course, is associated with the dis-
appearanceof the political structureof the cities as well (the Maya city-states ca.
900 A.D.) or (9b) by being conquered by a neighbouringGreat Power: the city-
states are transformedinto cities, sometimes abruptly (the Sumerian city-states
when conqueredby Sargon of Akkad in ca. 2330 B.C.), but sometimes the city-
states are allowed to persist for some time, and the transformationfrom city-states
to cities is slow and gradual (Mixtec and Aztec city-states for some generations
afterthe Spanishconquest) (30 CSC 17 with nn. 7 1-3, 610-1 1; 6 CSC 13).
(10) City-state cultures often appear in neighbouring regions, and in some
cases one can almost speak of clusters of city-state cultures (Mesoamerica,
West Africa, the Fertile Crescent) (30 CSC 17 with n. 74; 6 CSC 13-14).
(11) In some cases a region is split up into city-states only once in history,
but there are several examples of regions which have been a city-state culture at
least twice and sometimes three times in world history (Mesopotamia, Tosca-
ny) (30 CSC 17 with n. 75; 6 CSC 13-14).
(12) By contrast with a modem nation state, the population of a city-state
has a political identity which is different from its ethnic identity. It shares its
ethnic identity (language, culture, religion, history, etc.) with a number of other
city-states, whereas its sense of political identity (including patriotism) is
primarily centred on the city-state itself ratherthan on smaller entities (munici-
palities) or larger entities (ethnically based political organisations, federations,
monarchies) (30 CSC 18).
(13) The name of a city-state is either identical with the name of its major
urban centre, or it is an ethnic derived from the name of the urban centre. The
name of a territorial macro-state is usually identical with the name of the
country (30 CSC 18 with n. 80; 6 CSC 14).
(14) In many small city-states the majority of the population lives in the
town. In middle-sized and large city-states a substantial part and sometimes
even the majority of the population may have been settled in the hinterland,
either nucleated in villages or dispersed in homestead farms. But in all city-
states the population of the urban centre constitutes a much higher percentage
of the total population than in any other type of pre-industrial community (30
CSC 18, 32, 614; 6 CSC 15-16).
(15) Small city-states may have what is essentially a subsistenceeconomy; but
the urbancentres of middle-sized and large city-states are cities in the Weberian
(historical) sense of this tenn. Although Ackerburger(see infra no. 24) may have
constitutedpartof the populationeven of largecity-states,the cities of middle-sized
and large city-states were centres whose inhabitantsacquiredan essential part of
theirnecessities in the local market.Thus, specialisationof functionand division of
labourare essential aspects of the economy of a city-state (30 CSC 18, 602-4).
(16) A city-state is a self-governing polity, but not necessarily an "indepen-
dent and autonomous state". It suffices that a city-state is a legislative, adminis-

trative and judicial unit and, by and large, possesses what in modern terms is
called "internal sovereignty", i.e. a govemment which enforces a legal order
within a territory over a population. Many city-states are independent, many
others possess some of the powers that are commonly subsumed under the
concept of "external sovereignty". But external sovereignty (= independence or
autonomy) is not a necessary requirement for being a city-state. Nothing pre-
vents a city-state from being a tributarypolity or a dependency of anothercity-
state, or of a federal central government, or of a monarch. Even (some) interfer-
ence with a city-state's internal sovereignty does not necessarily undermine its
identity as a city-state. A central criterion is the citizens' own perception that
their city is their fatherland (no. 29 infra) and constitutes a polity (30 CSC 18,
608-9; 6 CSC 14).
(17) The city-state is a highly institutionalised form of political community
and the percentage of the population directly involved in the government of the
community is larger than in any other type of state in world history at least until
the 20th century. That applies not only to republican city-states; even in city-
states ruled by monarchs a high percentage of the population participates in the
running of the political institutions (30 CSC 17, 611-12).
(18) In his description of the ideal polis Aristotle emphasises economic
self-sufficiency (autarkeia) as an unobtainable but desirable aspect of the
Hellenic polis. Undoubtedly following Aristotle, it has become customary to
include economic self-sufficiency among the defining characteristics of the
city-state. City-state cultures, however, are characterisedby urbanisationwhich
entails specialisation of function,division of labourandtrade- not only local trade
but also tradewith other city-states in the region as well as with states outside the
region. Thus, comparedwith other types of early state formation,the city-state is
characterisedby its lack of economic self-sufficiency and by a high degree of
economic interaction with its neighbours (30 CSC 18-19, 616 n. 15).
The Concept of Polis
(19) In our study of the ancient Greek city-state culture we distinguish between
(a) the ancient Greeks' understanding of their own settlement pattern and
political system, and (b) the modern historians' analysis of the ancient Greek
settlement patternand political system. When investigating the Greeks' percep-
tion of their social and political organisation we focus upon the Greek term
polis as attested in Archaic and Classical sources, whereas we restrict the
concept of the city-state to our modern analysis of ancient Greek society. The
analysis is thrown into perspective by comparing the concept of polis as found
in the sources with the concept of city-state as found in modern historical
accounts. Many modern historians, however, are not sufficiently aware of the

distinction between (a) and (b). They use the term polis synonymously with the
term city-state and accordingly they erroneously transfer characteristics of the
more general concept of city-state to the ancient concept of polis (CPCActs 3:
7-34, especially 7-9).
(20) In a study of the history of the modem terminology we have discovered
that the English term city-state was probably coined in 1885 as a rendering of
the German term Stadtstaat. The Germnanterm Stadtstaat was probably coined
in 1842 as a rendering of the Danish term Bystat, coined in 1840 by Johan
Nikolaj Madvig. The terms bystat and Stadtstaat were not originally connected
with the Greek concept of polis, but first developed and used in connection with
the Roman concept of civitas, and only later transferredto studies of the Greek
polis and the Italian citta'.The French term cite-Etat and the Italian term cittai-
stato are both derived from Stadtstaat and/or city-state and neither is attested
earlier than the 20th century (CPCPapers 1: 19-22; CPCActs 5: 15-6).
(21) When studying the concept of polis, we have conducted two separate
investigations, one of the intension (meaning) and one of the extension (cover-
age) of the term. (a) All attestations of the term polis and its derivatives are
collected and analysed in order to determine the intension of the term (what is a
polis?). (b) All attestations of the termpolis applied to a named and identifiable
community are collected in order to determine the extension of the term (the
total number of Archaic and Classical poleis). This second investigation is the
foundation of our inventory of all communities that are actually called polis by
the Greeks. (c) The results of (a) and (b) are compared in order to describe and
define the concept of polis in the Archaic and Classical Periods (CPCActs 3:
7-34, especially 9-14). The inventory will be the first documented survey of the
number and identity of ancient Greek poleis in the Archaic and Classical
periods, and it will enable historians to compare e.g. Plato's and Aristotle's
general view of the polis and their ideas about what a polis ought to be with
what a polis actually was (CPCPapers 1: 14-15; CPCActs 3: 55-62, 73-116;
Inv).
(22) Our investigation covers the Archaic and Classical periods, i.e. the
period from ca. 650 B.C. (when our sources begin) to ca. 323 B.C. (when
Alexander's conquest of the East led to the foundation of several hundred new
poleis). Our investigation is based on contemporary sources, and later sources
are used only if their information is explicitly retrospective and, accordingly,
based on lost Archaic and Classical sources. We thereby avoid the all too
common anachronistic use of, e.g., Pausanias' understandingof what a polis is
(10.4.1), or Strabo's classification of named urban settlements as either poleis
orkomai (CPCPapers 1: 14-5; CPCActs 2: 326-44; CPCActs 3: 55-62, 73-116).
(23) The inventory of poleis comprises 1,035 entries and covers the Archaic
and Classical periods down to 323 B.C. Given the lack of sources, especially for
remote regions, it can be presumed that there were altogether ca. 1,500 poleis.

but not all at the same time. Throughout the period new poleis emerged while
others disappeared. In Euboia around 400 B.C. the number of poleis was
reduced from ca. twelve to four, but in the same period numerous new poleis
were founded in the Adriatic by Dionysios I, and in the fourth century many
indigenous communities became Hellenic poleis, e.g. in Sicily and Karia. A list
of poleis in the year 400 B.C. comes to 850, and the presumption is that there
were never, in any given year, more than ca. 1,200 poleis max. (Inv).
(24) Pace Moses Finley, Max Weber's antike Stadt as an ideal type is a very
valuable model when applied to the Greekpolis of the fifth and fourthcenturies.
Because of his "primitivistic" view of the ancient economy it was Finley who
argued that Weber's Idealtypus or "model" of die antike Stadt did not fit the
over one thousand middle-sized and small poleis. The investigations conducted
in the Polis Centre indicate that Weber's ideal type of city does fit even small
poleis: the Classical polis (in the sense of state) was a self-governing (but not
necessarily independent) political community invariably centred on a polis (in
the sense of town). Many poleis were so big that it was impossible for all
inhabitants to know one another, whereas in most cases the number of adult
male full citizens was small enough to allow the polis (in the political sense) to
be a face-to-face society. A considerable number of townsmen were farmers
who had their home in the city but their fields in the hinterland (Ackerburger).
The town was enclosed by a defence circuit and centred on an agora in which
the inhabitants supplied themselves with a substantial part of the necessities of
life, often produced in the hinterland but sometimes imported from abroad
(CPCActs 4: 32-54; 30 CSC 156-60, 602-04); CPCPapers 7).
(25) The polis was a community of politai. Structurally it was a descent
group of citizens of both sexes and all ages; but functionally, the politai were
the adult male citizens. As a community, the Archaic and Classical polis was
primarily a political and a military organisation, a male society from which
women and children were excluded, not to speak of foreigners and slaves. The
polis was a highly institutionalised community, and at the core of the polis were
the political institutions where the politai met and isolated themselves from
women, foreigners and slaves. Political activity was a fundamentalaspect of the
community, and, as a polity, the polis is best seen as a very deliberately planned
and highly rational form of political organisation (CPCActs 4: 57, 493-502; 30
CSC 165-73; P&P 241-42).
(26) The sweeping statement that the ancient Greek polis was a fusion of
state and (civil) society is a false generalisation. It is true for Sparta, but false
for Athens. Again Spartaseems, in the Classical period at least, to have been the
exception and Athens much closer to what we can expect to have been the case
in other poleis, at least in democratically governed poleis. The presumption is,
however, that Spartaand poleis organised like Sparta,though exceptional, were
poleis to the same degree as Athens and poleis organised like Athens. Thus,

whether a given polis was a fusion of state and society or separated state from
society is irrelevant for its status as a polis, but is, of course, relevant for the
modem historian's discussion of whether or not it was a state or, to be more
precise, a state in the modem liberal-democratic sense (CPCActs 5: 84-106).
(27) Like the modem state, the polis is often seen not just as a system of
political institutions, but as an abstraction, i.e. a permanentpublic power above
both ruler and ruled (CPCActs 5: 67-73; CPCPapers 6: 22-26).
(28) The modern concept of sovereignty is subdivided into supremacy
(intemal sovereignty) and independence (external sovereignty). Our sources for
the ancient polis reveal not the same, but a similar distinction between internal
supremacy expressed through the adjective kyrios and external independence
expressed through the adjective autonomos (CPCActs 5: 73-83).
(29) Like the modem state the polis provided its citizens with a feeling of
common identity, based on traditions, culture, ceremonies, symbols and some-
times (presumed) common descent. For a Greek citizen the polis was his
fatherland (patris) for which he was expected, if necessary, to die, just as the
modern state expects "every man to do his duty". Both in the ancient and in the
modern world victories in the Olympic Games are won by participants repre-
senting, respectively, their state or their polis. The polis had no flag; but city-
ethnics (Naukratites, Milesios etc.) were used as a kind of surnamewhich, at the
same time, indicated the bearer's status as a citizen of the polis in question.
Other symbols were the eternal flame burning in the prytaneion, cult festivals,
monumental architecture etc. (CPCActs 5: 72-73, 120; Ark 203-10; forthcom-
ing article in CPCPapers 7).
(30) The increasingly common view that the polis was not a kind of state
but a "stateless society" is based on a skewed comparison. It is claimed that in
the polis there was no clear distinction between rulers and subjects, no separate
political institutions, no prison and law-enforcing apparatus of any conse-
quence, whereas all these features are characteristics of the state from the age of
Thomas Hobbes onwards. In the polis, administrationof justice was dominated
by self-help, private apprehension and private prosecution of criminals. This
apparent contrast between the polis and the early modern European state is
based on suppression of (a) all the ancient sources which show that even in
democratic poleis there was a clear distinction between archontes and ar-
chomenoi, but combined with an annual rotation, that every polis had a prison
and separate political institutions empowered to enforce the laws, and that self-
help was legal only in a few narrowly defined cases. (b) It is also passed over in
silence that, in the early modern state down to the 19th century, self-help was
allowed against the same types of criminal as in the polis, that private apprehen-
sion and private prosecution of criminals took place in the great majority of
cases, and that the prisons served precisely the same functions as in a Greek
polis (CPCPapers 6: 17-47).

The Use and Meaning of the Term Polis and Related Terms
(31) The Greeks were conscious of using polis in two basically different senses,
viz. (1) settlement, and (2) community. As a (nucleated) settlement a polis
consisted of houses, as a (political) community it was made up of human
beings. A study of words used synonymously with polis shows that both the
local and the personal sense were used in a number of different ways. (1) In the
local and physical sense of settlement, polis was used (a) synonymously with
akropolis about a small and often fortified hill-top settlement; (b) synonymous-
ly with asty about an urban centre; and (c) synonymously with ge or chora
about a territory (composed of a town plus its hinterland). (2) In the personal
sense of community, polis was used (a) synonymously with politai about the
citizen body; (b) synonymously with ekklesia vel sim. about the people's
assembly or some other body of government; and (c) synonymously with
koinonia about a political community in a more abstract sense. (Re la-c): apart
from some frozen formulas found in inscriptions, (la) is rare; (1c) is not
common and mostly attested as a connotation. (Re 2a-c): the three different
uses of polis in the sense of political community are very close and are indeed
just different aspects of one concept: In (2a) and (2b) the polis is understood in
a concrete, in (2c) in an abstract sense, just as we use the term state sometimes
about the body politic, sometimes about the government, and sometimes about
a permanent public power above both ruler and ruled. Thus, the two important
senses are (lb) "city" and (2a-c) "state" of which both are very common,
whereas (1c) "territory"is a less common variant. In numerous passages these
three senses are indistinguishable. The various senses do, of course, overlap,
and especially so when polis is used as a generic term or a heading (see infra no.
38) or is opposed to other terms as, e.g., chora or ge (CPCActs 5: 17-34).
(32) The common view is that polis in the sense of "town" is often used
about urbancentres which were not poleis in the sense of being centres of city-
states. Our examination of the sources disproves the orthodoxy and shows
instead what we have called the Lex Hafniensis de Civitate: in Archaic and
Classical sources describing Hellenic communities the term polis used in the
sense of "town" is not applied to just any urban centre but only to a town that
was also the centre of a polis in the political sense. Thus, the termpolis had two
different meanings, "town" and "state",but even when it is used in the sense of
town its denotation seems almost invariably to be what the Greeks called polis
in the sense of a self-governing community and what we today call a city-state.
The Lex Hafniensis does not apply to barbarianpoleis (CPCActs 3: 25-34;
CPCPapers 5: 173-215).
(33) In opposition to the modern trend to minimise the urban character of
the Greek polis, we want to emphasise urbanism as a paramountaspect of the
polis, and we believe that we can substantiatewhat can be called the inverse Lex

Hafniensis: in the sense of polity, the term polis was invariably applied to a
polity which had an urbancentre also called polis. The common view that there
were quite a few poleis without an urbancentre has no foundation in the sources
of the late Archaic and Classical periods (see no. 62 infra), and it cannot even
be convincingly demonstrated for the early Archaic period, for which the lack
of sources forces us to suspend judgement (CPCActs 1: 13-16; CPCActs 4: 34-
42; 30 CSC 154-65).
(34) The close connection between the political, territorial and urban as-
pects of the polis is also apparentin the use of toponyms. The common view is
that the toponym invariably denotes the town and the state is referred to by the
city-ethnic. An inspection of both literary sources and inscriptions reveals that
this view is an exaggeration: a toponym denoting a polis-town (e.g. Athenai,
Korinthos or Tanagra) is also commonly used as the name of the polis-state and
as the name of the polis' territory(CPCActs 3: 28, 38; Article no. 2).
(35) In a number of studies on individual authors we have demonstrated
that the termpolis is used much more consistently in our sources than previous-
ly believed, and that the site-classifications found in Archaic and Classical
literary and epigraphical sources must be taken seriously and cannot just be
brushed aside as unreliable whenever it suits a modem historian to question a
settlement's status as polis (CPCActs 3: 14-20; cf. CPCActs 2: 39-45; CPCActs
3: 39-54; CPCActs 5: 17-34; CPCPapers 2: 83-102, 128-32; CPCPapers 3:
127-67; CPCPapers 4: 17-27; CPCPapers 5: 133-215).
(36) The highest number of occurrences of the word polis in any ancient
source is in Stephanos of Byzantion's lexicon. Whenever Stephanos quotes or
paraphraseshis source, he is remarkablyreliable, and in all such cases his use of
the term polis as a site-classification can be trusted to stem from the author he
quotes (CPCPapers 1: 99-124). On the other hand, we must refrain from using
Stephanos when we are unable to establish that he took the site-classification
from the source he cites. Thus, if we pick out the actual quotations, Stephanos
provides us with valuable information about how the term polis was used by
otherwise lost historians, such as Hekataios, Theopompos and Ephoros. All
three were non-Athenian authors, and thus important sources for checking to
what extent the bulk of our sources give a too Athenocentric view of the
concept of polis (CPCPapers 4: 17-27; CPCPapers 5: 141-50).
(37) In the Classical sources, the highest numberof occurrences of the word
polis applied to a named community is in Pseudo-Skylax' Periplous of the
fourth century B.C. Comparison with all other contemporary sources shows
that whenever the site-classification found in Pseudo-Skylax can be checked,
there is a remarkable agreement between what Pseudo-Skylax classifies as
poleis and what is found in all other sources. In the chapters about Greece and
the regions densely colonised by the Hellenes, Ps.-Skylax follows the generally
accepted usage and restricts the term polis to urbancentres which were also the

political centre of a polis. Erroneousclassifications and "ghost cities" are found

only in the chapters that deal with remote regions (CPCA(ts 3: 30-32; CPCPa-
pers 3: 137-67).
(38) A word has a broaderfield of meaning when used as a generic term or
a heading than when used individually in its specific sense, cf. e.g. the term
nation in United Nations. Thus, one has to distinguish between (a) polis used as
a generic term and/or heading of a list of political entities, and (b) polis applied
to an individual community. A failure to make this distinction has led some
modern historians to assume thatpolis often signifies and denotes not only city-
states but also large "territorialstates" (as states covering a whole country are
usually called). The evidence for such a view, however, is that such states are
occasionally recorded alongside genuine city-states in lists headed by the word
polis. A more importantobservation is that the term polis is not applied to such
communities when they are mentioned on their own (CPCPapers 4: 9-15;
CPCActs 5: 124-32).
(39) The polis was not believed by the Hellenes to be a specifically Hellenic
institution, one that separated Greeks from barbarians.True, Aristotle's basic
view was that the polis was peculiar to Hellenic civilisation and that in this
respect there was a gulf between the Greeks and the others. But the gulf is rather
between Aristotle and our other sources. In Hekataios, Herodotos, Thucydides,
Xenophon and Ps.-Skylax we hear about hundreds of barbarianpoleis, often in
the sense of city rather than state, but sometimes obviously in the sense of
political community and applied to, e.g., the Etruscanor Phoenician city-states
(CPCPapers 5: 180-82; 30 CSC 145; P&P 237-38, 242).
Membership of the Polis. The Concept of Citizenship
(40) Modem historians disagree about which of the inhabitantsof a community

to include or exclude in the concept of polis. On the basis of Arist. Pol. Books I
and 3 we have shown that the Greeks themselves had two different views of this
issue according to whether they saw the polis as a political community or as a
social and economic community. When the term polis is attested in the sense of
state, the focus is upon the political institutions and the polis is seen as a
community of adult male citizens from which women, free foreigners and
slaves are excluded. In this context the "atom" of the polis is the citizen
(polites). When the termpolis is used in the sense of town, the focus is upon the
economic and social aspects of the community and the polis comprises all
inhabitants:citizens, free foreigners and slaves of both sexes and all ages. The
"atom"of the polis is the household (oikia) (CPCActs 1: 16-18; Article no. 1).
(41) In the ancient Greek world citizenship was, essentially, what it has
become once again in the modern world, i.e. the legally defined hereditary

membership of an individual in a state whereby the member (in the modem

world called a citizen or a national) acquires political, social and economic
privileges that a non-citizen member of the community does not enjoy, or
enjoys only partially. As a rule, a person is a citizen of one state only. In ancient
Greece the corresponding terms used were politeia to denote citizenship itself,
and polites to denote the citizen if the emphasis was on a citizen's exercise of
his political rights, whereas astos (masculine) and aste (feminine) were com-
monly used to denote a person of citizen birth. As a rule a person was a polites
of one polis only (CPCActs 5: 114-15; 122-23).
(42) In Aristotle's Politics the key concept, politeia, does not just mean
"constitution" or "structureof the polis", it often has the connotation body of
citizens, citizenry, and, in the sixfold classification of constitutions, politeia -
the positive variant of popular rule - should be understood in the specific sense
of citizen-constitution (CPCPapers 1: 95-97).
(43) We believe that of all western peoples the Greeks are unique in having
used their equivalent of hereditary surnames - i.e. the ethnic - as a sign of
political status, primarily as an indicator of a person's status as citizen of a
polis. Furthermore, instead of the prevailing defective terminology: ethnic
(indicating affiliation with either a region or a polis) and demotic (indicating
membership of a municipality and used in this narrow sense about citizens of
Athens, Eretria, Rhodes and a few other places), we propose to distinguish
between regional ethnics (indicating affiliation with a whole ethnos), city-
ethnics (used externally to indicate membership of the polis as a whole) and
sub-ethnics (indicating affiliation with a civic subdivision, i.e. a phyle, a demos,
a kome or a phratria etc. and used internally to indicate membership of a polis).
Apart from the termpolis itself, the attestation of a city-ethnic or a sub-ethnic is
one of the best criteria for identifying a community as a polis (CPCPapers 3:
169-96).
(44) The use of a regional ethnic as part of a personal name or as a coin
legend does not necessarily show that the region in question was politically
united and formed a federal and/or tribal state; thus, Arkas is found both as part
of personal names and as a coin legend in the fifth century, a period which is
characterised by serious political disunity, and, again, Arkas is used as part of a
personal name after the dissolution of the Arkadian Confederacy in 324 (CPC-
Papers 3: 39-61; Ark 54-66).
The Concept of the Dependent Polis
(45) In most modern accounts of ancient Greek society independence (often

equated with autonomy) is singled out as the most importantdefining character-
istic of the polis, and the ancient concept of autonomia is equated with the

modem concept of autonomy without any thought for the fact that the modern
concept covers everything from true independence to a very restricted form of
self-government (cf., e.g., Gaza and Jericho after 1993). Our sources show,
however, that in some periods more than half the poleis were dependencies
without autonomia. In reply to the "peer polity interaction"model of the polis
we have emphasised the hierarchical structure of the polis culture, and in
opposition to the view that all poleis were autonomous we have developed the
concept of the dependent polis. We have dissociated the concept of polis both
from the ancient concept of autonomia and from the modem concepts of
independence and autonomy. We hold that the concept of autonomia becomes
linked to the concept of polis only in the course of the fourth century, and that
the history of the autonomos polis does not end ca. 338 B.C. On the contrary,
that is in fact where it begins, viz. after autonomia had lost its original meaning
of independence and could be taken to signify self-government only (CPCActs
1: 18-20; CPCPapers 2: 21-43; CPCPapers 3: 113-36; 30 CSC 172-3).
(46) Dependent poleis existed in many different shapes and sizes, and
certain types of dependent poleis were common in some regions but virtually
non-existent in others. So far, we have isolated the following fifteen different
types of dependency: (1) A polis situated inside the territoryof a larger polis.
(2a) A polis in the peraia controlled by an island or, conversely, (2b) an island
controlled by a mainlandpolis. (3) An emporion organised as a polis dependent
on a larger polis. (4) A colony being a polis dependent on its mother-city. (5)
An Athenian klerouchy. (6) A perioikic polis in Lakedaimon. (7) A polis that is
a member of a hegemonic federation. (8) A polis that is a member of a
hegemonic league (symmachia) which has developed into an "empire"(arche).
(9) A polis that persists as a polis after a sympoliteia with anotherpolis. (10) A
polis that persists as a polis after a synoikismos. (I 1) A polis that, together with
other poleis, makes up a "tribal state". (12) A polis which is controlled by a
foreign monarch. (13) A polis founded as a fortress. (14) A polis which is a
major port of an inland polis. (15) A polis that is at the same time a civic
subdivision of another polis. - There is, of course, a considerable overlap
between the different types (CPCPapers 4: 29-37; Inv).
(47) Coins issued by a polis should not be seen primarily as a symbol of
independence or autonomia or even civic pride of that city. Many poleis were
happy to use the coins of other poleis and never cared to set up their own mint
(CPCActs 2: 257-91). Conversely, coins were often issued by dependentpoleis,
e.g. member states of a federation (CPCActs 2: 20-21). By the use of city-
ethnics as legends to identify the issuing authority, coins struck by a polis are
fairly easy to distinguish from coins issued by a sanctuary, a district, a federa-
tion, or a ruler etc., and such coins are accordingly a very good indication of the
polis status of the issuing authority (CPCActs 2: 10-1 1; Inv).

Civic Subdivisions
(48) The self-government of a polis must be contrasted with the activities and
powers exercised by civic subdivisions such as a phyle, a kome or a demos: like
a polis (dependent or independent) a civic subdivision could have its own
temples, including a theatre, its own cults and its own festivals. It could have its
own assembly, in which both laws (nomoi) and decrees (psephismata) could be
passed and taxes and liturgies imposed; there could be separate local magis-
trates and a local court. But, in contradistinction to a polis (dependent or
independent), a civic subdivision had no prytaneion, no bouleuterion, no boule,
and no desmoterion; its members were citizens of the polis of which the
subdivision was a part, and were not citizens of the civic subdivision as such; a
local assembly had no right to pass citizenship decrees and proxeny decrees;
and a local court could impose fines but was not empowered to pass a sentence
of death or exile. A civic subdivision did not have its own coins, and it had no
right to send out envoys or to enter into relations with foreign states. The
members of a civic subdivision could form a unit of the army of the polis, but
would not operate as a separate army (CPCPapers 4: 31; 30 CSC 603-9).
(49) Many poleis had no civic subdivisions and, in particular,the territorial
civic subdivisions are not well attested at all. In the Archaic and Classical
periods civic subdivisions are unattested in Boiotia, Thessaly, Lesbos and
Aiolis, i.e. in the Aiolic-speaking regions of Hellas. The demos and the kome
were the two principal types of territorial subdivisions. But demoi were con-
fined to a few prominent poleis, principally Athens, Euboia, Rhodes and Ka-
lymna, and in the Archaic and Classical periods komai are attested as civic
subdivisions in two poleis only: Megara and Mantinea (Inv).
(50) It is commonly held that the civic subdivisions show a high degree of
permanence and that almost all innovations took place during the Age of the
Tyrants. Yet, a closer look at the attested reforms indicates that civic subdivi-
sions were subject to constant transformations and with the passage of time
became more and more artificial - a typical instance of the Greeks' conscious
and continuous remodelling of their society and institutions. Reforms and
revisions of civic units are so frequently attested throughout the period that a
system attested in Hellenistic sources can only exceptionally be retrojected
back into the Classical period (Inv).
Stasis
(51) Our investigations support those historians who argue that most poleis
were split up into what in the sources is called two opposing poleis, i.e. two
factions among the citizens. The two opposing factions were often one of the

rich (supporting oligarchy) and one of the poor (supporting democracy), but
sometimes they were two different ethnic groups living side by side as citizens
of the same polis, usually a colony, or two subfactions of wealthy citizens in an
oligarchy (Inv;Articleno. 4).
(52) The goal of each faction was to control and (if necessary) to reform the
political institutions of the polis. The opposition between the two factions
within a polis entailed a constant tension and discord resulting in repeated
outbursts of civil war, during which each faction was prepared to collaborate
with a congenial faction in a neighbouring polis, or in a distant but hegemonic
polis. The members of each faction were, in fact, willing to sacrifice the
freedom (eleutheria) and independence (autonomia) of their polis if only they
could get the upper hand of the opposing faction (Inv; Article no. 4).
(53) By giving up autonomy in the sense of independence, a faction could
keep what was much more important to its members, namely the self-govern-
ment of one's polis exercised by one's own faction. If the opposing faction
came to rule the polis it would impose its will in all matters, day in and day out.
If one's own faction ruled it would be in control of almost all decisions that
mattered in everyday life. By sacrificing the autonomia of the polis one would
have to pay tribute, but not necessarily a large one; in times of war one might
have to assist the hegemonic polis. But essentially the polis was left as a
dependent, but still self-governing community. Dependent status became a
nuisance only if a polis had to suffer a foreign garrison on its acropolis, or if its
self-government was constantly interfered with by outside harmosts or episko-
poi. On the other hand, apart from the help from the neighbouring polis to
subdue the opposing faction, there might be a bonus, namely that a small polis
could have the hegemonic polis as its protector, and so be safe from being
attacked by neighbours who might be a more severe threat than the, perhaps,
more distant, hegemonic polis (Inv; Article no. 4).
(54) What endangered the prosperity and well-being of a polis was not so
much the loss of autonomia as the lack of homonoia. Accordingly, what the
Greeks prayed for was not autonomia but homonoia and freedom from stasis.
As far as we know, autonomia was never deified in any polis and made object of
a cult, whereas homonoia became a goddess whose cult was venerated all over
the Greek world, especially from the fourth century onwards (Inv; Article
no. 4).
Types of Constitution
(55) A basic classification of constitutions as tyrannis, oligarchia or demokra-

tia is attested both in Athenian and in non-Athenian sources, both in inscrip-
tions and in literature, and in all types of prose: history, rhetoric and philoso-

phy. The subdivision of each of the three basic types into a positive and a
negative variant is peculiar to the Athenian philosophers. Apart from the rulers
of barbariankingdoms (Persia) and remote colonies (Kyrene), basileia is usual-
ly treated as an obsolete historical form of constitution and contemporary
monarchs are called tyrannoi or monarchoi. Also, aristokratia as a positive
form of the rule of the few seems to be invented by Sokrates and taken over by
the Socratic philosophers: Plato, Xenophon and Aristotle. Aristokratia is unat-
tested in inscriptions, in speeches delivered before the assembly or the court
and in historians, apart from Thucydides (Inv).
(56) According to Aristotle, oligarchia and especially demokratia were
overwhelmingly the commonest constitutions in Greece in his own time; basileia
had virtually disappeared and tyrannis was no longer a common form of
constitution. The evidence contradicts his views about tyrannis. It was not only
found in remote regions such as Sicily or the Pontos. After a low point in the
Greek homeland in the fifth century, tyrannies re-appearedin the fourth century
all over the Hellenic polis world, and tyrants ruled poleis in the Peloponnese, in
Euboia, in Thessaly and in Lesbos etc. (Inv).
The Polis as an Urban Centre
(57) Almost all towns (poleis in the urbansense) had a population of over 1,000
inhabitants but very few surpassed a population of 10,000, probably some 24
altogether (23 with walls enclosing an area of over 150 ha plus Sparta). The
archaeological surveys conducted since ca. 1980 (Northern Keos, Southern
Argolid, Central Boiotia, Methana, Melos, Asea etc.) as well as written sources
show that small and middle-sized Classical poleis had a large urbanand a much
smaller rural population. There was no sharp division between townsmen and
countrymen but a continuum in which the gap between town and country was
bridged by a large numberof people who lived in the city but worked as farmers
in the hinterland(Ackerburger).And the urbanclass of "landowners"was small
as against a majority consisting of farmers, fishermen, artisans and traders. To
have a sizable part of the population settled in the hinterland was a characteris-
tic of a few large poleis, and it was here an oppostion between town and country
emerged and was felt. Thus, in Classical Greece the degree of urbanisationwas
inverted proportional to the size of the poleis: the smallest poleis had the
highest degree of urbanisation, whereas the few large poleis had a higher
percentage of its population permanently settled outside the major urbancentre,
its polis in the urban sense (CPC Acts 4: 25-31, 44-47, CPCPapers 7).
(58) Asty and polisma, the two other common terms meaning "town" or
"city", are used only about urban centres which could also be called polis. In
Archaic sources asty is sometimes used in the sense of community, and the

derivative astos (man of the "asty") is never used in the sense of "townsman"
but only in the sense of "citizen" (by birth). Polisma is mostly used about urban
centres in border areas where Greeks and non-Greeks lived together (for polis-
ma, see CPCPapers 2: 129-32; for asty, see CPCActs 4: 58-60).
(59) Although the ancient Greeks showed a tendency towards clustering
together in towns, it is a curious fact that they never coined a word to denote the
urban population. The term polites (citizen) is almost invariably linked to the
concept of polis in the political sense. The word designates the adult male
citizen and is only very exceptionally used in the sense of townsman (CPCActs
4: 10-12). The feminine form politis is sometimes used of females of citizen
birth. There is no attestation of politis signifying a woman exercising political
rights (30 CSC 166 with n. 286).
(60) It is commonly held that the polis as a state can be traced back to ca.
700 B.C. or even earlier, whereas the polis as an urbancentre emerged as late as
the late sixth century. The archaeological record, however, especially recent
excavations of, e.g., Eretria, Miletos, Megara Hyblaia and Sicilian Naxos,
indicate that urbanisation often took place as early as the first half of the 7th
century and, consequently, was contemporary or almost contemporary with
state formation (30 CSC 160-61).
(61) It is well known that in the Archaic period many poleis were not
protected by a circuit of walls, but the numberof walled Archaic poleis is much
larger than usually believed (forthcoming thesis by Rune Frederiksen), and by
the fifth century almost every polis we know of (except Spartaand a few others)
was protected by city-walls, and a circuit may now be regarded as an essential
characteristic of a polis (CPCActs 2: 245-56). Furthermore,references to city-
walls in Homer, Alkaios and other early texts show that walls seem to have been
an importantelement in the concept of polis already ca. 600 B.C. (CPCActs 3:
22; CPCActs 4: 52-53).
(62) A polis kata komas oikoumene is not (as usually believed) apolis in the
political sense that is settled in komai and has no urbansettlement as its centre.
The two key passages are Thuc. 1.5.1 and 1.10.2 where he uses polis in the
urban sense, and by a polis kata komas oikoumene he understandsan unwalled
town consisting of a cluster of komai instead of being one unified settlement
around an akropolis. Thus, the polis (in the urban sense) is here a conurbation.
Sparta was a polis with such an urban centre and is duly described in our
sources as a polis in the urban sense and also as a polisma and as an asty
(CPCPapers 2: 55; CPCActs 4: 34-36).
(63) Grid-plannedpoleis are much earlier than commonly believed. The per
strigas system of townplanning is copiously attested in the Sicilian and Italian
poleis of the Archaic period, and Archaic grid-plannedtowns are found in other
regions as well. The Grid-plannedpolis seems to have emerged in the western
Greek colonies as early as ca. 700 and it spread to the Greek homeland in the

following period. Thus, there is no essential connection between grid-planning

and democracy (CPCActs 3: 317-73).
(64) There was virtually no monumental political architecture before the
Hellenistic period. The palaces which many modern historians ascribe to the
tyrants of the Archaic period are at present without support in written or
archaeological evidence. Prytaneia and bouleuteria were mostly plain buildings
of modest dimensions and cheap materials. The people's assembly was con-
vened either in the agora or in a theatre, connected with a sanctuaryconstructed
primarily for dramatic performances etc. Genuine ekklesiasteria are exception-
al. Dikasteria met in the agora or in buildings erected for other purposes (e.g.
stoai). Again, in the Archaic and Early Classical periods both the gymnasion
(with palaistra, stadion and hippodromos) and the theatre were simple con-
structions which in most poleis have left no trace whatsoever. Down to the
second half of the fourth century B.C. virtually all monumental architecture
was sacred, and consequently it is extremely difficult to determine from re-
mains of buildings alone whether or not a nucleated settlement was a polis (with
a prytaneion and a bouleuterion) or some kind of second-order settlement
(CPCPapers 1: 23-90; CPCActs 4: 103-16; 30 CSC 162-65).
(65) Whereas every polis seems to have had at least one urbanor extra-urban
monumental temple (CPCActs 4: 109), the theatre (sometimes extra-urban)was
a type of building to be found in a fairly small number of mostly fairly large
poleis and especially in some regions. In other regions, e.g. Crete, there were no
theatres before the late Hellenistic or Roman periods (CPCPapers 6: 65-124).
(66) In our analysis of the concept of emporion we distinguish between (I)
a community that had an emporion, and (2) a community that was an emporion.
In the first case the emporion was a polis' centre of foreign trade and was
distinct from the agora, which was the centre of local trade. In the second case
the emporion was a community, and the traditionalview has been to distinguish
an emporion (a trading-station) from an apoikia (a colony), and to hold that an
apoikia was organised as a polis whereas an emporion was not a polis. But,
apartfrom the toponym Emporion (attested ca. 530-500 as apolis in Spain) and
Herodotos' classification of Naukratis as an emporion of the seventh century,
there is no evidence earlier than ca. 450 B.C. that the Greeks had developed the
concept of emporion; all emporia mentioned in Classical sources were in fact
poleis that had an emporion, perhaps even including the inland emporion
Pistyros in Thrace. The distinction between a community that had an emporion
and one that was an emporion seems to vanish, but not quite. First, in poleis
such as Athens the emporion was not the whole polis but only a partof the polis.
In the settlements identified as being emporia the centre for international trade
may have been the paramountfeature of the settlement, where the majority of
the citizens worked and from which the polis obtained almost all its revenue.
Furthermore,all the sites classified as being emporia are colonial settlements

and centres of trade between Greeks and barbarians.Finally, a site classified as

both a polis and an emporion seems to have been a specific type of dependent
polis, namely one in which the port was the dominant part of the settlement
(CPCPapers 4: 83-105; updated and revised treatment forthcoming in Brill's
volumes on Greek colonisation).
(67) A comparison of the concept of emporion with the concept of agora
shows that every polis had an agora. In Archaic poetry the agora is described as
the place where the people had the sessions of the assembly. In the Classical
period almost all traces of the agora as an assembly place have vanished, and
the agora was now primarily the market place. Conversely, the earliest evi-
dence we have of the economic functions of the agora is a reference in the
Gortynian law of ca. 480-60 B.C. We must seriously consider the possibility
that the concentration of local trade in the agora and of long-distance trade in
the emporion was a phenomenon to be dated in the late Archaic and early
Classical periods and to be connected with the development of the institutions
of the polis (CPCActs 4: 60-61; 102-5).
(68) "Civic space", in the sense of space reserved for citizens, is a mislead-
ing concept invented by modern historians. There was no civic space to which
only citizens were admitted. What is attested is an opposition between private
property and publicly owned property. Sacred precincts were usually open to
everybody (except atimoi) and so were the agora and other publicly owned
areas. But public space could, when required, be used for gatherings of adult
male citizens from which women, metics and slaves were excluded (CPCActs
4: 12-17).
Territory and Settlement Pattern
(69) The words for an urbancentre and its hinterlandform a pair of antonyms in
most European languages, e.g. city/country (English), Stadt/Land (German),
cite/pays (French), by/land (Danish) etc. In ancient Greek it was the word for
city (polis) that came to denote the political community, whereas in modem
European languages it is invariably the word for country that is also used
synonymously with state. The most likely explanation is that most poleis had
one urban centre only which was also the political centre of the community,
whereas the emerging mediaeval European states had many towns but no
political centre. The king and his court moved from castle to castle and from
town to town (CPCActs 1: 15; 30 CSC 153).
(70) Whereas a territory is an essential element in the modem concept of
state, it was a less important aspect of the ancient polis than the people (hoi
politai); but the frequent use of exile as a penalty is enough to show that every
polis had a territory, sometimes marked with horoi (boundary stones). The

concept of Poleis ohne Territoriumis basically misleading. For most poleis the
territorywas no largerthanthe immediatehinterlandof the polis town (CPCActs5:
53-56).
(71) Some 60% of the poleis had a territoryof max. 100 km2, and close to
80% had a territoryof max. 200 km2. Only 10%had a territoryof over 500 km2
and only thirteen poleis one of over 1,000 km2. Both the mode and the median
fall between 25 and 100 km2. The mean, however, is ca. 150 km2. This shows
that a mean can be a dangerous simplification and that the Normalpolis may be
a misleading concept. On the whole colonies had larger territoriesthanpoleis in
the Greek homeland. Only four poleis had so large a territorythat it took more
than one day to walk from the periphery to the urban centre, viz. Syracuse,
Sparta, Pantikapaionand Kyrene. In the great majority of poleis it was possible
to get from the border to the urbancentre and back again in one day (Inv).
(72) Modem archaeological analysis of the settlement pattern of ancient
Greece is based on a three-tier hierarchy: (a) first-order settlements: (towns/
cities), (b) second-order settlements (villages/hamlets), and (c) third-orderset-
tlements (isolated farmsteads); the fundamental distinction is between nucleat-
ed settlement (a + b) and dispersed settlement (c). We have shown that the
Greeks had a clear terminology for (a), namely: polis, polisma or asty; a
defective terminology for (b), namely kome or, to some extent, demos, but no
clear terminology for (c); the fundamentaldistinction was between polis (a) and
chora or ge (b + c). To conclude: the Greeks emphasised the polis and the
distinction between polis and chora, but they had a defective perception of the
settlement pattern and showed little interest in whether settlement in the chora
was nucleated or dispersed (CPCActs 4: 20-25).
(73) Any small urbancentre that is not a polis is traditionally classified as a
kome (in Athens and a few other poleis as a demos). This model implies that in
Classical Greece there must have been thousands of komai in addition to the
hundreds of poleis. But whereas some 447 urban centres are explicitly called
polis in our sources, there are only some 30 known localities that are explicitly
called kome in Archaic and Classical texts. The identification of all the other
small nucleated settlements as komai is either without any foundation in our
sources or based upon an anachronistic projection back into the Classical period
of the terminology found in Strabo and Pausanias. In contemporary sources
komai are only attested in some regions and mostly in the socio-economic
sense. Megara and Mantineia are the only unquestionable attestations of kome
used constitutionally as the designation of a civic subdivision of a polis (CPC-
Papers 2: 45-81).
(74) In many parts of the Greek world, e.g. Boiotia, Arkadia, Chalkidike,
the number of poleis constituted a very large percentage of all nucleated
settlements. Together with some other regions Attica is exceptional in having

over one hundred nucleated centres, only one of which was a polis. Regions
settled in poleis with none or very few villages between the poleis seem to be
the rule ratherthan the exception (CPCActs 3: 73-8; 30 CSC 154-55).
Polis Religion
(75) Since Fustel de Coulanges it has commonly been claimed that religion was
the dominant aspect of community life and that religion was the very centre of
the Greek polis. We find that this holistic view of the polis is skewed. The
opposition between the sacred and the secular is well attested in the sources.
Religion was indeed extremely important, but constituted one aspect of polis
life only, and not necessarily the focal one, which was the polis as a community
of politai. Both as a political and as a military organisation the polis was a male
society from which women were excluded. Religion was different.Women took
part in the rites and cults of the polis. Most goddesses were served by priestess-
es. In religion women were insiders. Again, in many poleis the priests (hiereis)
and priestesses (hiereiai) who performed the sacrifices and rituals were not
technically polis officials (archai), and religious specialists such as manteis
(prophets) and kathartai (purifiers) were marginalised in the polis, and not at all
well organised. A person who escaped into a sanctuaryor held onto an altar was
protected against violence. Even when the suppliant was a criminal, the puni-
tive authority of the polis stopped at the threshold of the temple. Polis religion
was extremely importantbut not necessarily the core of the polis. On the other
hand, there was no institutionalised and organised religious sphere distinct from
and, sometimes, opposed to the polis sphere. In the Greek world there was
nothing like the Mediaeval opposition between two competing power organisa-
tions: the Crown and the Church (CPCPapers 2: 20 1-10; 30 CSC 167-69).
(76) Instead of the monistic and holistic view of polis religion, we prefer a
dualistic view (religion and polis as two overlapping but distinguishable as-
pects of society). Thus, we subscribe to the following tripartiteanalysis of the
relationship between polis and cults: (a) the polis makes use of religion, (b) the
polis makes decisions about religion, especially by organising all the cult
festivals and (c) the polis makes religion, e.g. by introducing new and some-
times specific political cults (CPCPapers 2: 201-10; 30 CSC 167-69).
(77) Some poleis had no patron god or goddess at all whereas others had
several simultaneously. The cults of Athena Polias and Zeus Polieus were
originally connected with polis in the sense of akropolis,and should not invaria-
bly be interpreted as cults of the polis in the sense of political community
(CPCActs 2: 292-325).
(78) To appoint theorodokoi to host theoroi sent out to announce a Panhel-
lenic festival was a political act performedby a polis or, sometimes, a ruler, and

in the preserved lists of theorodokoi names of towns followed by a personal

name are importantevidence of the polis status of the towns listed (CPCActs 2:
1 13-70; Inv).
Emergence and Disappearance of Poleis
(79) A new polis emerged either by natural growth or by foundation. Founda-

tion of a polis took place either by colonisation or by synoecism. Most poleis in
Hellas itself seem to have emerged by natural growth, usually a slow and
imperceptible process so that it is impossible to trace when and how the people
of a given community became conscious of being a polis. Due to lack of sources
it is no surprise that polis formation by growth is unattested in the Archaic
period. It is more surprising that the formation of poleis by growth is equally
unattested during the Classical period. Even in the large corpus of sources
relating to the fourth century, there is not one single attested instance of the
formal creation or recognition of a pre-existing community as becoming, from
now on, a polis (30 CSC 149).
(80) The disappearance of poleis has been one of the neglected problems of
Greek history. According to whether the polis is seen as a city or as a state, we
can distinguish between two basic types: (a) a polis disappears as a political
community (but may persist as a nucleated settlement); (b) a polis disappears
both as a political and as an urban centre as a result of the population being
killed, moved or sold into slavery, and sometimes the urbancentre is destroyed.
The following variants are frequently attested: (1) Destruction by which all men
are killed, whereas women and children are sold into slavery (andrapodismos).
(2) The whole population of a polis is expelled or moved by force to another
polis (anastatos polis). (3) The population of a polis is dispersed over a number
of villages (dioikismos). (4) A polis disappears when the whole population
emigrates and founds a polis in a different place. (5) A polis disappears when
the whole population joins in a synoecism of another polis. (6) A polis has its
status changed from polis to kome, vel sim. (7) A polis disappears because of a
cataclysm or a similar catastrophe (30 CSC 150-2).
(81) In most cases an andrapodismos was not a complete but only a partial
eradication of a community. It has been demonstrated that plundering and
destruction of the territory of a polis in a war was less devastating than
traditionally assumed. Similarly, a survey of all sources shows that the andrapo-
dismos of the population of a polis did not usually entail an annihilation of the
community. Mostly the community was re-established and the settlement re-
built after a short period. And many of the new settlers were refugees who had
escaped the andrapodismos (Inv).

Synoecism
(82) The distinction between political and physical synoecisms should be

changed into a distinction between the political and the physical aspects of a
synoecism. The purely political synoecism is a mythological fiction, known
only from Thucydides' account of Theseus' unification of Attica. Physical
relocation of communities was the central aspect of all attested synoecisms,
sometimes accompanied by the setting up of a new polis in the political sense
(CPCPapers 2: 55-56).
(83) A synoecism resulted only occasionally in the disappearance of the
contributing communities. In the majority of cases the synoecism was partial
and the contributing settlements, mostly small poleis, persisted or re-appeared
shortly afterwards,and usually with their status of polis preserved (CPCPapers
2: 60).
(84) Synoecism is found in the following four forms: (a) a polis is created
by merging a number of komai or demoi (Kassopa, mid-fourth century); (b) a
polis is created by merging two or more poleis (Rhodes 408/7); (c) a polis is
reinforced by absorbing one or more neighbouring komai or demoi (Lepreon
mid-fifth century); (d) a polis is reinforced by absorbing one or more neigh-
bouring poleis (Thebes 431); (e) possible variants are a combination of (a) and
(b), and a combination of (c) and (d). Types (a) and (c) are rarely attested
whereas (b) and (d) are the two common variants (CPCPapers 2: 57-58).
Ethnos
(85) Contraryto a commonly accepted subdivision of Greek political communi-

ties into poleis and ethne, it can be shown than an ethnos was conceived
principally as a people, not as a state. Most poleis in Greece were integratedinto
the differently based ethnos structure. Thus polis and ethnos must be seen as
two different but often overlapping forms of organisation, not as two clearly
separable and distinct types of political unit. Before the Hellenistic period the
common phrase poleis kai ethne should not be taken to mean "polis-states and
ethnos-states", but rather"states and peoples" (CPCActs 5: 68).
(86) It has commonly been held that it was a characteristic of the ancient
Greek federations that they were based on larger regions such as Boiotia;
however, the study of the Mainalians has shown that so-called tribal states
could be formed inside a larger region, and that these tribal states were not just
ethne but composed of several poleis united in a political organisation resem-
bling a federation (CPCPapers 3: 100-3; CPCActs 3: 132-43).
(87) The regional structure of mainland Greece was not a static phenom-
enon inherited from the Dark Ages; a study of the Triphylians shows that

Triphylia was a region with its own ethnic identity emerging around 400 B.C.
but swallowed up by Arkadia a generation later (CPCPapers 4: 129-62).
(88) Hegemonic leagues were much more common than usually realised; in
addition to the Spartan-led Peloponnesian League, there existed in the fifth-
century Peloponnese smaller hegemonic leagues headed by Elis, Mantineiaand
Tegea; Archaic Sybaris,too, was the head of such a league (CPCPapers 3: 79-87).
Colonies and Poleis outside the Greek Homeland
(89) The traditional view is that the formation of the polis preceded colonisa-
tion. In recent years this view has been challenged by the opposite hypothesis:
that the polis emerged in consequence of colonisation and that the colonies
influenced polis formation in the homeland. We suggest that the polis emerged
in the homeland and in the colonies more or less simultaneously; but in the
colonies the new startand the proximity of an indigenous and sometimes hostile
population speeded up the formation of the polis both as a walled town and as a
political community so that, in some regions, the fully-fledged polis emerged
more rapidly in the colonies than in the homeland (CPCPapers 1: 15-16; 30
CSC 147-48).
(90) Not every Hellenic polis outside the Greek homeland was a colony
settled with a contingent of immigrants sent out by a metropolis. Many settle-
ments were indigenous communities which became Hellenised by accultura-
tion. Such settlements were neither founded by Greek settlers nor conquered
and taken over by Greeks. They became Hellenised over a long period through
immigration of individual Greek settlers and through regular contacts with
neighbouring Hellenic communities (Inv).
(91) Many of the major Hellenic colonies were indeed founded by mother
cities situated in "Hellas" but others were founded by the colonies themselves, a
phenomenon called secondary colonisation. In some cases even tertiarycoloni-
sation is attested. In overviews of Greek colonisation secondary colonisation is
often mentioned in passing, but hardly ever discussed as an essential element of
colonisation, and the ubiquitous distinction between colony and mother city
does not always take into account that the colony becomes a metropolis when
secondary colonies are founded. Secondary colonisation was particularly im-
portant in Sicily, Italy, Illyria and Libya where colonies founded by colonies
outnumber colonies founded by poleis in "Hellas" (Inv).
(92) It is true that most colonies were founded outside the Greek homeland
but it must not be forgotten that quite a few colonies were placed in "Hellas"
(Inv).
(93) The extent of colonisation during the Classical period is mostly under-
estimated. Yet it appears that, including Athenian klerouchies, no less than 72

colonies were either founded or refounded in the fifth and fourth centuries, and
it is also worth noting that the big metropoleis in this period were no longer
Chalkis or Corinth or Miletos, but Syracuse and Athens (Inv).
(94) All the evidence we have supports the view that, with very few
possible exceptions, every colony was founded as a polis or became a polis not
long after its foundation. Furthermore,there is no basis in the sources for the
traditional distinction between apoikiai which were poleis and emporia which
were not. Almost all, perhaps even all the communities of the Archaic and
Classical periods that are described as emporia in the sources are attested as
poleis as well (CPCPapers 4: 83-105; Article no. 3).
(95) The common claim that a Greek colony was independent of its metro-
polis must be modified. It is well known that the Athenian klerouchies and
colonies remained dependencies of Athens, but many of the Corinthiancolonies
were dependentpoleis too, and so were the secondary colonies founded by, e.g.,
Syracuse, Sinope and Kyrene (CPCPapers 4: 32-34; Inv, see also nos. 45-46
supra).
Copenhagen Polis Centre Mogens Herman Hansen


Franz Steiner Verlag

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Franz Steiner Verlag

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

95 Theses about the Greek "Polis" in the Archaic and Classical Periods.

This content downloaded from 205.133.226.104 on Mon, 22 Jul 2013 11:32:16 AM

The Acts Series

This content downloaded from 205.133.226.104 on Mon, 22 Jul 2013 11:32:16 AM

The Papers Series

CPCPapers 1 = D. Whitehead (ed.), From Political Architecture to Stephanus

The City-State Series

30 CSC = M.H. Hansen (ed.), A Comparative Study of Thirty City-State Cul-

This content downloaded from 205.133.226.104 on Mon, 22 Jul 2013 11:32:16 AM

P&P = P. Flensted-Jensen, T. Heine Nielsen, L. Rubinstein (eds.), Polis and

No. I = M.H. Hansen, "Aristotle's Two Complementary Views of the Greek

The Concepts of City-State and City-State Culture

(1) We have introduced and defined "city-state culture" as a concept to be

This content downloaded from 205.133.226.104 on Mon, 22 Jul 2013 11:32:16 AM

This content downloaded from 205.133.226.104 on Mon, 22 Jul 2013 11:32:16 AM

(9) A city-state culture ceases to exist either (9a) by the (temporary)dis-

This content downloaded from 205.133.226.104 on Mon, 22 Jul 2013 11:32:16 AM

The Concept of Polis

This content downloaded from 205.133.226.104 on Mon, 22 Jul 2013 11:32:16 AM

This content downloaded from 205.133.226.104 on Mon, 22 Jul 2013 11:32:16 AM

This content downloaded from 205.133.226.104 on Mon, 22 Jul 2013 11:32:16 AM

This content downloaded from 205.133.226.104 on Mon, 22 Jul 2013 11:32:16 AM

This content downloaded from 205.133.226.104 on Mon, 22 Jul 2013 11:32:16 AM

This content downloaded from 205.133.226.104 on Mon, 22 Jul 2013 11:32:16 AM

political centre of a polis. Erroneousclassifications and "ghost cities" are found

Membership of the Polis. The Concept of Citizenship

(40) Modem historians disagree about which of the inhabitantsof a community

This content downloaded from 205.133.226.104 on Mon, 22 Jul 2013 11:32:16 AM

membership of an individual in a state whereby the member (in the modem

The Concept of the Dependent Polis

(45) In most modern accounts of ancient Greek society independence (often

This content downloaded from 205.133.226.104 on Mon, 22 Jul 2013 11:32:16 AM

This content downloaded from 205.133.226.104 on Mon, 22 Jul 2013 11:32:16 AM

This content downloaded from 205.133.226.104 on Mon, 22 Jul 2013 11:32:16 AM

(55) A basic classification of constitutions as tyrannis, oligarchia or demokra-

This content downloaded from 205.133.226.104 on Mon, 22 Jul 2013 11:32:16 AM

The Polis as an Urban Centre

This content downloaded from 205.133.226.104 on Mon, 22 Jul 2013 11:32:16 AM

This content downloaded from 205.133.226.104 on Mon, 22 Jul 2013 11:32:16 AM

following period. Thus, there is no essential connection between grid-planning

This content downloaded from 205.133.226.104 on Mon, 22 Jul 2013 11:32:16 AM

and centres of trade between Greeks and barbarians.Finally, a site classified as

Territory and Settlement Pattern

This content downloaded from 205.133.226.104 on Mon, 22 Jul 2013 11:32:16 AM

This content downloaded from 205.133.226.104 on Mon, 22 Jul 2013 11:32:16 AM

This content downloaded from 205.133.226.104 on Mon, 22 Jul 2013 11:32:16 AM

in the preserved lists of theorodokoi names of towns followed by a personal

Emergence and Disappearance of Poleis

(79) A new polis emerged either by natural growth or by foundation. Founda-

This content downloaded from 205.133.226.104 on Mon, 22 Jul 2013 11:32:16 AM

(82) The distinction between political and physical synoecisms should be

(85) Contraryto a commonly accepted subdivision of Greek political communi-

This content downloaded from 205.133.226.104 on Mon, 22 Jul 2013 11:32:16 AM

Colonies and Poleis outside the Greek Homeland

This content downloaded from 205.133.226.104 on Mon, 22 Jul 2013 11:32:16 AM

Copenhagen Polis Centre Mogens Herman Hansen

This content downloaded from 205.133.226.104 on Mon, 22 Jul 2013 11:32:16 AM

You might also like