The development of the polis as a social and political structure was a fundamental aspect of ancient Greek civilisation. The opportunity for regional organisation and control offered by the development of the polis shaped the course of Greek history in the ancient world. Though the polis, communities could be united, armies could be rallied and both political and military ambitions could be realised. Further to regional organisation and control, the concept of the polis was underpinned by political equality and transparency previously unseen in the ancient world. In the course of this essay, I will further unpack the concept of the polis before analysing physical remains of multiple ancient Greek poleis in an attempt to draw conclusions about their differing social and political organisation.
The ancient greek polis revolves around the concept of a self-governing political community comprising of a town and the land surrounding it. This surrounding land is often referred to as the hinterland or chora. The term polis is widely translated and understood to take on the meaning of ’city-state’. In addition to referring to the physical settlement, the polis can be considered to refer to the body of citizens who occupy the polis as well as the political entity of the polis itself. Due to the fact that there was typically only one main urban community within a polis and each individual polis was independent in terms of political organisation, judicial operation and religious practice, each polis effectively operated like an individual state.
At a seminal level, the polis was the typical structure of community in the ancient Greek world. A polis typically consisted of an urban centre which could be fortified to varying degrees in addition to a sacred centre built on a natural high ground. Around these key centres of community was the hinterland, a more rural community comprising of agricultural families closely linked to the polis for trade and political involvement. In terms of size, most poleis were large enough that not all inhabitants would recognise each other by sight but the vast majority of the adult male population would associate as a ‘face-to-face’ community. In terms of development, communities of the ancient Greek world evolved into communities which historians would identify as poleis over a sustained process from 8th century BC to a peak in the 4th century BC. At the the start of this gradual process, in roughly 700BC, Hesiod describes the world around him as small, self sufficient villages reliant upon agriculture for their existence. However as far as Thucydides was concerned, the polis was not the product of an evolutionary process that began in the eighth century; it was instead the primeval unit of Greek society. While the physical features of poleis are often relied upon to define the nature of communities within the ancient Greek world, it must be remembered that the identity of an individual polis is determined by those that inhabit it. At its core, a polis is a political community and it is often cited that ‘men make the polis’. In other words, the political and social organisation of the inhabitants of a polis can be considered to have more of a defining effect on the community than the layout and physical assets of a settlement. This reality is reflected in the writings of Thucydides in ‘The Peloponnesian War’, “Suppose, for example, that the polis of Sparta were to become deserted and that only the temples and foundations of buildings remained, I think that future generations would, as time passed, find it very difficult to believe that the place had really been as powerful as it was represented to be.
Although individual poleis each had their own specific identity and the political and industrial practices exercised within individual communities varied widely, there still existed commonality between ancient Greek poleis. Importantly, the vast majority of the population of a polis lived in the central urban environment of the city rather than being spread across smaller agricultural communities in the hinterland. Also, a sacred centre built on some high ground, as previously mentioned, was a common feature across ancient Greek poleis. From the 8th century BCE these sacred centres were usually the most architecturally impressive building in the polis although it should be noted that these sacred centres could potentially be external from the central urban area of the polis in order to exploit impressive natural surroundings such as rocky outcrops or high ground, the acropolis at Athens is a defining example of this. Throughout the subsequent development of poleis as the widely adopted organisation of community through the 7th and 6th centuries, further common features of poleis began to emerge. City walls became a common feature of poleis adding fortification and potential acting as a deterrent to would-be invaders, Sparta was a notable exception. In addition, the introduction of the agora, a space for societal industrial activity was a key commonality among poleis. When I go on to examine the implications of differing physical remains of poleis, the placement and nature of the agora will be a factor I will consider in particular. When we think about the political organisation of the polis, a clearer impression of the character of ancient Greek communities can be uncovered.
As previously mentioned, the underlying concept of the poleis was that all adult male citizens had an equal right to political involvement based on the ownership of property. However, in reality, irrespective of the political system adopted by a particular polis political power was historically dominated by a handful of wealthy aristocratic families who took positions of power throughout the community whether it was within the military or political sphere.
A significant amount of the information surrounding the polis historians have available comes from physical remains analysed by archaeologists. Importantly, the differences that we can identify in the physical remains of different ancient Greek poleis lead us to conclude that there were various key differences between communities throughout the ancient Greek world. I will now identify examples of these differences in archaeological remains and hypothesise what theses differences can tell us about differences in Greek communities.
For the purpose of this discussion, I will primarily focus on the poleis of Sparta and Athens. I will subsequently describe and discuss the features of the physical remains of these cities in order to extrapolate conclusions regarding the political and social organisation of each society. I will discuss Sparta first. Sparta was a key polis in Ancient Greece. Historically, the city-state was known as Lacedaemon, while the name Sparta referred to its main settlement on the banks of the Eurotas River in Laconia, south-eastern Peloponnese. Sparta’s culture revolved around war. Dedication to discipline, training and physical development allowed Sparta’s accession to military prominence. Around the year 650 BC, Sparta ascended to become the dominant military land-power in ancient Greece. As a result of Sparta’s strong military tradition, it was regarded as the spearhead of the Greek offensive during the Persian wars. During the Peloponnesian wars, Sparta was the direct target of Athens until the Athenian demise in 404 BC. Little remains physically of Sparta despite the considerable cultural impact it brought to the Ancient Greek world. At the early 20th Century, archaeologists had limited knowledge of ancient Spartan buildings. For example, the only considerable archaeological remains existing in Sparta are that of the retaining walls of a theatre built by Romans in around 30 BC
near the ancient shrine of Athena Chalkioikos, patron of Sparta,the tomb of Leonidas, the foundations of a bridge crossing the Eurotas and some later Roman fortifications. It can be concluded by the comparatively sparse remains of the city that Spartan culture was not one that encouraged grand architectural endeavour compared to, say, Athens at a similar point in History. We can therefore determine that projects of aesthetically motivated construction were not held in high priority by Spartan authorities. It seems likely to me that the obvious reason for this frugality was a prioritisation of military preparation and the concentration on the production of armament by an establishment organised in a militaristic fashion. Furthermore, the remains of Spartan inscriptions serve to paint a fuller picture of Spartan social and political structure. Inscriptions serve as a primary source of evidence of the Spartan social and political structure due to a notable lack of recorded historical evidence. For example, Thucydides tells us he is unable to describe Spartan military, and therefore political, structure due to the fact that the Spartan constitution is kept secret. However, Strabo the Greek geographer, philosopher, and historian refuses to describe Spartan military and political organisation as it so well known. Subsequently, we look to physical inscription to gain further knowledge. Following excavations at Sparta, the fundamental discovery of a large number of inscriptions of the Principate period allows historians increased awareness of Spartan societal structure. In later Spartan inscriptions, there is consistent mention of ‘privileged families’ as well as distinct class divisions. These class divisions are seemingly derived from a feudal tradition. Ephorus recorded the existence of a Hippias, a militaristic aristocratic class derived from a cavalry tradition and the ability to equip oneself with a horse and appropriate weaponry, class in Sparta as well as in Crete. Spartan inscriptions’ reference to ‘privileged families’ (KMT Chrimes, 1999, Ancient Sparta: A reexamination of the evidence, pp. 227) appears to hold many similarities with Ephorus’ description of the Spartan Hippias and subsequently, we can conclude that such a class probably existed within Spartan society. As a result of this, we can draw the conclusion that social organisation was entirely hierarchal and somewhat linked to military prowess and leadership. This conclusion would somewhat reinforce the concept that Spartan society was entirely focussed on military organisation. Further information regarding Spartan social organisation can be attained from inscription. The same inscriptions that offered us evidence of the class of ‘privileged families’ (KMT Chrimes, 1999, Ancient Sparta: A reexamination of the evidence, pp. 227) go on to describe a hierarchical system of social division consisting 3 or potentially 4 classes beneath a pair of ruling kings. Interestingly, the right to gain for political power is noted to be restricted to higher social divisions. “Below the class of Hippies both in Crete and Sparta we are now in a position to distinguish at least two social grades,” (KMT Chrimes, 1999, Ancient Sparta: A reexamination of the evidence, pp. 227-228). It seems clear then, that Spartan society was socially organised by class, potentially derived from a feudal tradition. This organisation also importantly appears to determine political involvement. Following discussion of physical evidence of the city of Sparta, a clearer picture is attained of a state run by an inflexible, highly focussed military regime, whose people were organised in clearly distinct social groups relating, at least partly, to military role and prowess as well as feudal status.
Athens is one of the oldest established cities in History. Athens is often named as the source of aspects of modern civilisation with the development of democracy in particular being attributed to Athenians. In comparison to Sparta, society was less frugal and unsurprisingly less militaristic. In stark contrast with Sparta, there is considerable surviving and archaeological evidence of the Athenian city. Archaeologists are able to contribute sufficient data in order for a street plan to be recognised, allowing historians an opportunity to understand the organisation of Athenian society. Specifically, the acropolis and in particular the Parthenon exist as some of the best preserved examples of Ancient Greek architecture and the Athenian agora is a significant area of archeological activity. I will now go on to discuss specific physical remains and their impact on historians’ understanding of Athenian society. Some of the most common artefacts recovered from excavations of the agora in Athens are ostraka. Ostraka were relatively small sections of pottery that were used as a means for voting on an Ostracism, a demarcating banishment from the city. Ostraka were pre inscribed and available for members of the Athenian political class (adult males) to purchase in order to exercise their democratic right. It follows therefore, that historians can conclude a degree of democratic organisation within Athenian society. Further evidence for Athenian democracy comes from a stone box containing bronze discs that was excavated from a site of an expected law court (although the precise location of the courts remains in question). These disc are generally regarded by Ancient historians to be an instrument used to vote on trials of prosecution. This again seems to be a fairly unquestionable indicator or the existence of democracy in ancient Athens. Furthermore, a considerable quantity of inscriptions form ancient Athens have been recovered and translated, allowing a clear insight into Athenian lawmaking, accounting and festivals. Specifically, inscriptions recovered from Athens detail the prohibition of those who attempt to become tyrants, the practice of torture and the accession to power of any peisistratid descendant. In addition, the prevalence of trade between poleis is confirmed through remains of account records. From the array of physical remains available in Athens, historians can confirm the existence of a society that developed and exercised democracy.
In summary, I feel it rational to conclude that the differences evident between physical remains of Greek poleis allow clear insight into the variation of their corresponding social and political organisation. As seen through examination of certain remains left at Sparta and Athens, we can distinguish clear contrasts in where authorities prioritised development and how citizens interacted with the legal and lawmaking institutions.