The book is based on L.’s dissertation submitted to the University of Pennsylvania in 2010, and it forms the first volume of a new series, Alexander the Great and the Hellenistic World, the aim of which is ‘to bring new perspectives on the study of the people, culture, politics, art, or society of the Hellenistic world’. The theme of the study here is the sympoliteiai, representing the affiliation of two or more poleis, as a consequence of which the weaker partner was usually absorbed into the more powerful one. Geographically, the study is confined to Karia.
In the introduction L. outlines his historical picture, characterised by socio-historical approaches, and organises his study into the areas of regional history or the history of individual social groups. At the same time he distances himself from earlier investigations: these had attempted to explain the emergence of sympoliteiai, focusing primarily on the overriding Hellenistic powers and thereby stressing the desire for protection and growth by means of conquest and/or centralisation. In contrast to these earlier approaches, L. aims to pay much more attention to the poleis which, according to his opinion, acted with substantially greater independence. He combines this approach with a whole series of questions: what caused a community to desire territorial expansion? To this end, why was the instrument of sympoliteiai chosen instead of military conquest or an alliance? And: which individuals within a community were interested in a sympoliteia, and for what grounds?
With this last question in particular, L. makes it clear that his interest in this investigation lies in the motives for these operations and the roles of the predominant interest groups within the poleis; rapidly and less surprisingly, he identifies these with the respective prosperous elites.
The first chapter attempts to provide an outline of the relevant historical background. Whereas a first section summarises Karian history at the level of rulers and foreign powers, a second section offers a broad overview of local developments with particular consideration of the diplomatic activities of eight of the poleis that entered into sympoliteiai. The reason for this limitation is to be sought in the lack of an extensively informative historical tradition, which in itself constitutes a certain fundamental problem of the study. It is therefore not surprising that the historical sketches of the individual poleis are occasionally extremely concise.
The greater part of the sympolitieai fell in the period between c. 230 and the second century ce. With reference to the concept of peer polity interactions, L. identifies local interest groups as providing the driving force behind the aspirations of the poleis towards increased autonomy in the sense of an independent external policy, and towards alliances and expansion of their territories. These groups interacted with each other and were bound to each other by a common system of values. The manner of their interaction allows the conclusion of a stable and uniform system as a foundation, and within this system it is also comprehensible why the weaker polis wanted to be subsumed within the stronger one: it wanted to become part of a larger and more prestigious network. With this suggestion, L. admittedly does not propound any inference of his own from his overview of historical observations, but rather presents beforehand a hypothesis, which he hopes to prove in the following chapters.
In the second chapter L. has compiled the fourteen cases of sympoliteiai in Karia attested thus far by corresponding inscriptions. These he analyses according to an unvarying scheme: introductory explanations, primarily dealing with the location and the territories of the respective poleis (and in part exhibiting overlaps with the outlines of local history contained in the first chapter), are given after each textual edition. These explanations are followed by a translation, a commentary and additional interpretations, which, in keeping with the aims of the study, attempt to pursue above all the motives for the coalition of the individual poleis. It becomes apparent that the motivations are always similar and primarily of a general nature. Thus they revolve around such factors as security requirements, increase of the population, the gaining of agriculturally exploitable land, access to the sea or the expansion of privileges and networks of differing types, as well as occasionally, and somewhat more specifically, access to a sanctuary with more than regional importance. The problem is clearly not the similarity and a certain banality, but rather far more the lack of evidence for such motivations in the texts themselves. L. confirms this on numerous occasions: ‘Several motives will appear in our analysis frequently, due to their general applicability to any circumstance in which a larger state and a smaller state combine to form one political entity centered on the former’ (p. 75), ‘a discussion of the motives of Mylasa … is based more on plausibility than textual inference’ (p. 117) or ‘Unfortunately, given the state of the evidence, it is impossible to go beyond these generalized considerations in discussing motives’ (p. 129). In light of such general validity of the motives, it seems completely justified to pose the fundamental question of what actually deterred the remaining Karian poleis from entering into a sympoliteia.
A lack of evidence pertains furthermore to the assertion that no Hellenistic ruler was involved in the majority of the fourteen sympoliteiai. Even if the contrary can hardly be claimed, at least in the examples of Pidasa and Latmos it can be shown that here L. can only make the case for a sympoliteia, presumably controlled primarily by Latmian interests and practically imposed on Pidasa, because he completely excludes the satrap Asandros, as initiator, from the discussion. (Regarding Asandros, see the interpretation of M. Wörrle, which is based significantly more on the text and the political situation: ‘Inschriften von Herakleia am Latmos III. Der Synoikismos der Latmioi mit den Pidaseis’, Chiron 33 [2003], 121–43, esp. 125, which scarcely allows any leeway for individual interests on the part of both poleis.)
In contrast, in the majority of the fourteen known cases, L. would like to see diverse men belonging to the elites of the polis as the prime initiators behind the endeavours to enter into sympoliteiai. They apparently were the beneficiaries, providing the cause for the origin of their actions. This indeed is hardly a new result from the texts discussed in the second chapter, and for this reason the author can first attempt a corresponding argument in the third chapter.
Prosopographical considerations form the foundations for this attempt, in which L., however, must limit himself to inscriptions concerning only four poleis. At Mylasa and Olymos, access to the important sanctuary in the territory of the smaller partner seems to have been a significant motive for the elites of larger Mylasa. On the other hand, at Miletus and Pidasa, the profiteers are to be sought in the circumstances concerning access to the extensive networks on the part of Pidasa. All of this is without doubt certainly conceivable. The question whether we can thereby grasp the actual main motivating factors of particular individuals or are only confronted with later concomitant phenomena does not, however, emerge from the texts. In addition it needs to be noted that a number of the proposed kin relationships, upon which the further considerations regarding motive are based, are extremely speculative.
The overall evaluation of L.’s study must remain ambivalent. On the one hand, the idea of subjecting the Karian sympoliteiai to a profound consideration in the form of a monograph must be welcomed. A particular approach to the theme as well as a number of not unimportant individual observations have certainly succeeded in making L.’s work a valuable reference point for future studies. On the other hand, L. is able only in a very general way to arrive at answers to his initial questions. Equally it can be questioned whether his approach of strengthening the role of the individual poleis as opposed to that of the Hellenistic rulers – thereby taking up a contrasting standpoint to what he calls ‘top-down approaches to the history of the period’ – really brings him closer to the actual relationships in Hellenistic Karia. The charge that L. is not treading on solid ground here can only tentatively be laid at his door, as he himself recognises. In other locations he has described himself as a ‘victim’ of ‘the difficulty … in connecting motives to actual evidence’ (L., BMCR 2016.10.18).
