John Ma’s book is a milestone. It traces the development of the Greek polis (geographical focus: Greece, the Aegean islands, the Black Sea region, Asia Minor) from its earliest beginnings in the Bronze Age to late antiquity; it develops criteria for an overarching definition of the polis that spans more than a millennium and yet takes into account the constant dynamics of its evolution; it treats the polis at different levels, thus arriving at a highly differentiated overall picture; it brings together descriptive and analytical approaches in a thoroughly productive way; it not only takes stock of previous research, but also formulates new, original theses and arguments that will shape discussion for years to come.
Only a brief outline of some aspects of the main argument can be offered here (leaving out, for reasons of space, many issues and problems discussed in the course of 554 pages). The monograph is divided into seven main sections. In the first part, the author examines the question of the definition of the polis, discussing various approaches and criteria (cf. p. 8: “the polis as a political form…, as a social form…, and as a social relation”), whereby Ma assigns a central role to stateness, manifested in the interaction of institutions and the claim to autonomy. All other criteria and characteristics discussed in the context of the concept of polis are, in his view, to be regarded merely as secondary phenomena. All in all, the author is committed to an Aristotelian approach, which leads him—in contrast to many other scholars—to locate the main phase of the polis not in the archaic and classical period, but rather in the period after the convergence of different forms of polis since the middle of the fourth century BCE; p. 18: “This polis, whose emergence Aristotle witnessed, was a pervasive, normative form of political and social organization during an extended period, 350 BCE to 100 BCE, which might be considered a ‘long classical’ period. It endured, with modifications and simplifications, into the Roman empire, down to 400 CE”.
This “great convergence” after ca. 350 BCE is one of the central axes around which the book is structured, and it is impressively substantiated. The historical overview in chapters two to five offers some further stimulating theses. Ma traces the development from the end of the Mycenaean palaces to the early Archaic period and places the emergence of Dark Age “clustervilles”, in which local elites had to come to terms with non-elite inhabitants on specific territories, still “before the polis” (p. 21). The tense relationship between elites and non-elites, which is already analyzed in detail in this section (“Community and would-be elite emerge at the same time…and their emergence is mutually dependent”, p. 50), is a leitmotif of the book, culminating in the description of the “tragedy of the elites” in Roman times (see below). Ma assumes that essential features of the polis had already emerged around 1100-700 but had not been fully developed until the sixth century: “the polis itself should be viewed as a historical process, and a fortiori as a historical development in which certain paths evolved or emerged” (p. 21).
In the Homeric epics and the poems of Hesiod, we still encounter “a fluid society with competitive claims to status….single rule, primus inter pares, competitive conflict between Big Men” (p. 57), but “the polis as a nucleated settlement” (p. 59) is already recognizable, for example in the existence of public assemblies and the concept of the public good. Communities gradually crystallized—sometimes in violent conflict—but the question of how exactly this process took place remains unclear. From around 700, however, a “core geography” of several communities emerges (pp. 64-66), which admittedly still appears quite diverse. “The diversity reflects the political choices that communities would have to make in the following centuries” (p. 68).
With the ‘Law of Dreros’, we are already confronted with a world that was fundamentally different from the Homeric conditions. It reflects a communal ideology and a trust in institutions and laws, “suggesting a shift to a form of stateness sometimes before the appearance of written law” (p. 79). In the seventh century, the polis also becomes more clearly recognizable in its subdivisions (which remain of central importance to the end of the polis). Urbanization and institutionalization now make significant progress. The polis of the seventh century was “a set of local relations between nucleated communities, articulated through the following means. Firstly, political institutions and law. Secondly, invented (yet organic) forms of kinship, alongside various networked social groups. Thirdly, ideological images and symbolic gestures promoting unity” (p. 94-95).
Processes of consolidation (often also in the form of “conflict, competition, elite claims”, p. 144) as well as increased reflection characterize the development in the sixth century. Peer-polity interaction, but sometimes also increasing competition, characterized the relationship between the communities.
The enormous innovative power of Ma’s book is based not least on a new proposal for periodization. This includes the conceptualization of the period ca. 464-362 BCE as a “Hundred Years’ War” (p. 157)—a phase of almost permanent violent conflict in which individual groups within the poleis struggled for control of institutions and entitlement to public goods (bloody alternation between oligarchic and democratic regimes in different poleis), in which, moreover, hegemony and autonomy were fought for between the poleis. Ma has good reasons to describe this phase as a great tragedy and relativizes the widespread thesis that the democratic order forced Athens’ hegemonic ambitions by referring to other democratically constituted poleis that had developed differently.
Under the pressure of large supralocal monarchies, which limited the hegemonic ambitions of individual poleis, and the generalization of demokratia, an overarching process of “great convergence” took place from around 350 BCE onwards: conflicts between the city-states were replaced by networks and cooperation, internal tensions and civil wars (staseis) were contained (though not completely eradicated) by the general acceptance of ‘democracy’ and the end of oligarchic regimes. One of the consequences was an economic boom, but, more importantly, an overarching type of polis now emerged, characterized by a unified institutional framework and a unified political culture, which Ma describes as the actual ‘classical’ type. It is marked by political stability (cf. p. 251: “The ideological and institutional setup prevented elite capture and hence precluded any possibility for elite distinction to serve as the basis for the dismantling of the democratic control and redistribution”); by limited autonomy within overarching monarchical structures; by the integration of the elites as benefactors into the institutional and ideological framework (above all through honorific decrees); and by largely peaceful competition and peer-polity interaction. This made the polis model attractive even to non-Greek communities and it was adopted in many cases.
Consequently, Ma rejects the traditional assessment of Hellenism as a period of decline for the polis, and instead speaks of “the time of strong civic governance and agency, in the aftermath of the great convergence and thanks to a bundle of historically favorable contingencies” (p. 230).
Rome’s expansion eastward, sometimes by extremely violent means, led to the end of the Hellenistic monarchies and the regional leagues of poleis. Since the new leading power abolished the subordination of individual poleis, promoted local freedom even in the context of provincialization and supported the institutions of the city-states, an “Indian summer” of the polis unfolded in the years c. 150-86 BCE (pp. 269ff.)—this is another central argument of the book (and Ma uses the metaphor of the Indian summer as a comparative foil for subsequent developments). Local identities were thus strengthened, but at the same time also linked to the empire. “The second-century BCE moment thus echoes the energy of the polis world ca. 300 BCE, when the removal of Achaemenid taxation and the end of hegemony-centered big polis struggles led to renewed confidence and prosperity” (p. 275). At the same time, “a distinct ruling class” (p. 282) arose, whose emergence is reflected in long biographical inscriptions, among other things, and who once again had to balance their relationship with the non-elite citizens. From now on, however, politics was always linked to Rome. Each polis tried to establish a good relationship with Rome, while Roman officials ensured that the city-states fulfilled their economic and administrative function for the empire, “a generalization of subordination, albeit masked by the vitality of the poleis’s Indian summer” (p. 294).
In the imperial period, the polis reemerged as a structural unit (building boom of the second century CE, cf. p. 302). The self-government of the cities was preserved with a vibrant political culture (including the continued existence of public assemblies), albeit with the integration of the ruler cult. Because of the important role of the cities as instruments of governance (Ma adopts Fergus Millar’s petition-and-response model), the imperium Romanum encouraged the establishment of more poleis, so that the city-state model experienced a further upsurge. Political power was replaced by cultural identity (p. 328), with competition for privileges granted by the emperor. “The story of Greek polis and Roman empire remains ambiguous and incomplete, a story of imperial power and local agency. It is a qualitative story, of the balance between the pressures from above and below, and the resulting social and cultural history” (p. 333).
Ma identifies a threefold Roman interest in the cities of the east: (1) “an imperial tendency to leave local cultures and polities as they were”; (2) “the fiscal need to keep elites in a particular place where they were visible and subject to extraction, on terms that preserved local institutions”; and (3) “the democratic tendencies of the Roman Republic” (p. 361). Within this matrix, however—according to another of the author’s central arguments—the elites were ultimately crushed, as they found themselves increasingly forced to make further financial commitments over and above the institutionalized and (semi-)compulsory elite contributions (and it is only this that Ma wishes to describe as ‘euergetism’)—“a ‘tragedy of the elites’” (p. 361). Overall, however, “the Roman-era city, with its colonnaded streets, great building works, and distributions of money, was not the result of a weak public sphere, but a reflection of the continued vitality of the polis as democratic form” (p. 367).
A sharp caesura is recognized in the crisis-ridden developments of the third century by the author, cf. p. 396: “The takeover of much of local administration by the Late Roman state did away with civic officeholding (which vanishes during the fifth century CE) and the decision-making role of the Assembly. The outcome was the disappearance of local euergetism as the preserve of the local super-elite and civic politics. The last honorific decrees, and indeed the last formal meetings of the assemblies, must have happened at the end of the third century CE”. Although some elements of urban life survived, in Ma’s view late antiquity (to which only a few pages are devoted) should be seen as a period of decline. According to the author, the polis came to an end in the fifth-sixth centuries—a view that can be agreed with within the model developed by the author and with regard to the type of polis he identifies after the great convergence, but which can be debated outside this model.
One of the great strengths of the book is the fact that Ma does not stop at this description of the history of the polis, but instead adds systematic considerations in the last 150 pages (Part VI), which are based on modern theoretical concepts from the historical and social sciences. This includes, not least, a theoretical foundation for the central arguments, especially the new periodization, which finds its crucial anchor point in the “great convergence”, as well as the assumption of a uniformity of the phenomenon of the polis over time, regardless of the diversity of the individual sub-phenomena. Furthermore, the approach of starting from the institutions and their meaning and considering other aspects such as subdivisions, rituals, performed identities, statuses and gender as “functions of the Aristotelian polis of political institutions and debates about power between mass and elite” is justified once again. “Moreover, I am arguing that these functions were metaphorical, and hence ideological” (p. 432). With Aristotle, Ma sees the polis (and its citizens—including the elites) centered on a higher good (p. 447)—an idealistic view, indeed, which is then dialectically related to negative aspects: “structural conflict and violence”, “power imbalances as consequence of economic inequality”, “the pervasive impacts of exclusion as one of the constitutive elements of membership” (p. 480 ff.).
All in all, Ma’s book is a great research achievement and will prove to be not only a brilliant synthesis, but also an inspiring, thesis-rich, provocative and highly stimulating account that will shape the discussions for years to come. The author creates an extraordinarily rich and vivid picture of the polis, looking not only at political developments but also at social aspects, in particular the complex relationship between elite and non-elite inhabitants. He deals with economic developments as well as religious and cultural phenomena always taking into account the ‘ideological’ level of the polis. The book is based on a vast array of written and archaeological sources. Again and again, complex phenomena are illustrated and discussed by means of illuminating examples (mostly from inscriptions) in which the author lets the sources speak for themselves. A wealth of international research in various languages forms the basis for interpretations, evaluations and theses. Ma’s “Polis” is one of the most important books to come out of the field of ancient history in recent years and will remain so for the foreseeable future.