Epigraphic Culture in the Eastern Mediterranean in Antiquity 0367456222, 9780367456221

Citation preview

Epigraphic Culture in the Eastern Mediterranean in Antiquity

This book investigates the epigraphic habit of the Eastern Mediterranean in antiquity, from the inception of alphabetic writing to the seventh c. CE, aiming to identify whether there was one universal epigraphic culture in this area or a number of discrete epigraphic cultures. Chapters examine epigraphic culture(s) through the quantitative analysis of 32,062 inscriptions sampled from ten areas in the Eastern Mediterranean, from the Black Sea coast to Greece, western to central Asia Minor, ­Phoenicia to Egypt. They show that the shapes of the epigraphic curves are due to different factors occurring in different geographical areas and in various epochs, including the pre-Greek epigraphic habit, the moment of urbanization and Hellenization, and the organized Roman presence. Two epigraphic maxima are identified in the Eastern Mediterranean: in the third c. BCE and in the second c. CE. This book differs from previous studies of ancient epigraphic culture by taking into account all categories of inscriptions, not just epitaphs, and investigating a much broader area over the broadly defined classical antiquity. This volume is a valuable resource for anyone working on ancient epigraphy, history or the cultures of the Eastern Mediterranean. Krzysztof Nawotka is an ancient historian, Greek epigrapher and classicist educated in Wrocław, Poland; Oxford, UK; and Columbus, USA; Ph.D. (1991), The Ohio State University. He is currently Professor of Ancient History at the University of Wrocław, Poland, and previously held positions as Honorary Research Fellow at the University of Liverpool, Visiting Scholar at Brown University and Visiting Professor at Xiamen University. Since 2015 he has been a member of the Academia Europaea. He has published on Greek cities on the coast of the Black Sea, Greek legislation, Miletos, ­Alexander the Great and the Alexander Romance. His most recent publication is The Alexander Romance by Ps.-Callisthenes: A Historical Commentary (2017). At present he co-ordinates a research project at the University of Wroclaw entitled “Greek City in the Hellenistic and Roman Age and Territorial Powers”, funded by the National Science Centre, Poland.

Routledge Monographs in Classical Studies

Un-Roman Sex Gender, Sexuality, and Lovemaking in the Roman Provinces and Frontiers Edited by Tatiana Ivleva and Rob Collins Robert E. Sherwood and the Classical Tradition The Muses in America Robert J. Rabel Text and Intertext in Greek Epic and Drama Essays in Honor of Margalit Finkelberg Edited by Jonathan J. Price and Rachel Zelnick-Abramovitz Animals in Ancient Greek Religion Edited by Julia Kindt Classicising Crisis The Modern Age of Revolutions and the Greco-Roman Repertoire Edited by Barbara Goff and Michael Simpson Epigraphic Culture in the Eastern Mediterranean in Antiquity Edited by Krzysztof Nawotka Proclus and the Chaldean Oracles A Study on Proclean Exegesis, with a Translation and Commentary of Proclus’ Treatise On Chaldean Philosophy Nicola Spanu Greek and Roman Military Manuals Genre and History Edited by James T. Chlup and Conor Whately For more information on this series, visit: https://www.routledge.com/ classicalstudies/series/RMCS

Epigraphic Culture in the Eastern Mediterranean in Antiquity Edited by Krzysztof Nawotka

First published 2021 by Routledge 2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN and by Routledge 52 Vanderbilt Avenue, New York, NY 10017 Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business © 2021 selection and editorial matter, Krzysztof Nawotka; individual chapters, the contributors The right of Krzysztof Nawotka to be identified as the author of the editorial material, and of the authors for their individual chapters, has been asserted in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers. Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and explanation without intent to infringe. British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Names: Nawotka, Krzysztof, editor. Title: Epigraphic culture in the Eastern Mediterranean in antiquity / edited by Krzysztof Nawotka. Identifiers: LCCN 2020012483 (print) | LCCN 2020012484 (ebook) | ISBN 9780367456221 (hardback) | ISBN 9781003025306 (ebook) Subjects: LCSH: Inscriptions, Greek—Mediterranean Region. | Inscriptions, Latin—Mediterranean Region. | Mediterranean Region—Antiquities. Classification: LCC CN340 .E56 2020 (print) | LCC CN340 (ebook) | DDC 938—dc23 LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2020012483 LC ebook record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2020012484 ISBN: 978-0-367-45622-1 (hbk) ISBN: 978-1-003-02530-6 (ebk) Typeset in Times New Roman by codeMantra

Contents

List of maps List of graphs List of tables List of contributors Acknowledgements Introduction: epigraphic habit, epigraphic culture, epigraphic curve: statement of the problem

vii viii xii xiii xv

1

K R Z YSZ T OF NAWO T K A

1 The epigraphic curve in Boiotia

31

ŁU K A SZ SZ E L ĄG

2 The epigraphic curve at Delphi

52

D OM I N I K A GR Z E SI K

3 Epigraphic culture in Olympia

68

PAU L I NA KOM A R

4 The epigraphic curve in the Black Sea region: a case study from North-West Pontus

81

JOA N NA P ORUC Z N I K

5 The epigraphic curve in the Northern Black Sea region: a case study from Chersonesos and the Bosporan Kingdom

102

M IC H A Ł H A L A M US

6 Epigraphic curves in Western Asia Minor: the case studies of Miletos, Ephesos and Pergamon K R Z YSZ T OF NAWO T K A

118

vi Contents 7 The epigraphic curve in Phrygia and its borderlands

144

NAOM I CA R L E S S U N W I N

8 The epigraphic curve in the Levant: the case study of Phoenicia

166

PIO T R G Ł O G OWSK I

9 The epigraphic curve in Egypt: the case study of Alexandria

184

AGN I E SZ K A WOJC I E C HOWSK A

10 The epigraphic curve in the Fayum Oasis

201

JOA N NA K A ROL I NA W I L I MOWSK A

Conclusions: one or many epigraphic cultures in the Eastern Mediterranean

215

K R Z YSZ T OF NAWO T K A , W I T H NAOM I CA R L E S S U N W I N , PIO T R G Ł O G OWSK I , D OM I N I K A GR Z E SI K , M IC H A Ł H A L A M US , PAU L I NA KOM A R , JOA N NA P ORUC Z N I K , ŁU K A SZ SZ E L ĄG , JOA N NA K A ROL I NA W I L I MOWSK A A N D AGN I E SZ K A WOJC I E C HOWSK A

Index locorum Index

247 259

Maps

0.1 The Eastern Mediterranean with cities/territories whose epigraphic output is tabulated in this book 16 7.1 Map of central Anatolia (P. Aykaç) 145

Graphs

0.1 Papyri from Egypt tabulated by century 3 0.2 Papyri from Egypt tabulated by quarter-century 4 0.3  Honorific and building inscriptions of the Roman Empire (Mrozek 1973, 114) 6 0.4  Tombstone inscriptions from Africa (MacMullen, Ramsay. “The Epigraphic Habit in the Roman Empire.” American Journal of Philology 103:3 (1982), Fig. IV. © 1982  Johns Hopkins University Press. Reprinted with permission of Johns Hopkins University Press, after Lassère 1973) 7 0.5 Frequency of inscriptions from Thessaloniki (Meyer, E.A., ‘Explaining the Epigraphic Habit in the Roman Empire: The Evidence of Epitaphs’, The Journal of Roman Studies vol. 80 (1990), p. 92, fig. 5. © Cambridge University Press. Reproduced with permission of the Licensor through PLSclear) 7 0.6 Epitaphs from Lugdunum (Meyer, E.A., ‘Explaining the Epigraphic Habit in the Roman Empire: The Evidence of Epitaphs’, The Journal of Roman Studies vol. 80 (1990), p. 90, fig. 4. © Cambridge University Press. Reproduced with permission of the Licensor through PLSclear) 9 0.7 Epitaphs from Athens (Meyer, E.A., ‘Explaining the Epigraphic Habit in the Roman Empire: The Evidence of Epitaphs’, The Journal of Roman Studies vol. 80 (1990), p. 92, fig. 6. © Cambridge University Press. Reproduced with permission of the L ­ icensor through PLSclear) 10 0.8 E  pigraphic curve for Sicily, all datable inscriptions (J.R.W. Prag, ‘Epigraphy by Numbers: Latin and the Epigraphic Culture in Sicily’, in: A.E. Cooley et al. (eds.), Becoming Roman, Writing Latin? Literacy and Epigraphy in the Roman West, JRA Suppl. 48, 2002, fig. 2.1, by permission) 11 0.9 Epigraphic curve for Sicily, Punic, Greek, Latin inscriptions (J.R.W. Prag, ‘Epigraphy by Numbers: Latin and the Epigraphic Culture in Sicily’, in: A.E. Cooley et al. (eds.),

Graphs  ix Becoming Roman, Writing Latin? Literacy and Epigraphy in the Roman West, JRA Suppl. 48, 2002, fig. 2.2, by permission) 11 0.10 Attic inscription by quarters and less (Hedrick 1999, fig. 2; courtesy of the Trustees of the American School of Classical Studies at Athens) 12 0.11 Decrees from Ionia, Aiolis, Karia up to 300 BCE 13 1.1 Boiotia – inscriptions by century 34 1.2 Boiotia, Thespiai, Tanagra, Thebes, Oropos – inscriptions by century 35 1.3 Boiotia – public inscriptions by century 35 1.4 Inscriptions from Boiotia – by quarter-century 36 1.5 Inscriptions from Thespiai – by century 40 1.6 Inscriptions from Thespiai – by quarter-century 41 1.7 Inscriptions from Thebes – by century 42 1.8 Inscriptions from Thebes – by quarter-century 42 1.9 Inscriptions from Oropos – by century 44 1.10 Inscriptions from Oropos – by quarter-century 44 2.1  Inscriptions from Delphi by century (sixth century BCE – fourth century CE) 54 2.2  Inscriptions from Delphi by quarter-century (sixth century BCE – fourth century CE) 55 2.3 Inscriptions from Delphi during the Third Sacred War 56 2.4  Inscriptions from Delphi by Roman emperors (without manumissions). Only inscriptions that can be dated to the reign of particular emperors are included 59 2.5 Public and private inscriptions from Delphi (third – fourth century CE) 61 2.6 Honorific inscriptions from Delphi vs. other inscriptions 62 3.1 Inscriptions from Olympia by quarter-century 69 3.2 Inscriptions from Olympia by century 70 4.1 Inscriptions from Olbia by century 82 4.2 Inscriptions from Olbia by quarter-century 83 4.3 Inscription from Istros by century 87 4.4 Inscriptions from Istros by quarter-century 88 4.5 Inscriptions from Kallatis by century 91 4.6 Inscriptions from Kallatis by quarter-century 92 4.7 Inscriptions from Mesambria by century 94 5.1 Inscriptions from Chersonesos by half-century 104 5.2 Latin inscriptions from Chersonesos by half-century 106 5.3 Inscriptions from the Bosporan Kingdom by half-century 107 5.4 Inscriptions from the Asiatic Bosporos by half-century 109 5.5 Inscriptions from the European Bosporos by half-century 109 5.6 Lists of names from the Bosporan Kingdom by half-century 111 5.7 Inscriptions from Chersonesos and the Bosporan Kingdom by half-century 113

x Graphs 6.1 Inscriptions from Miletos by century 121 6.2 Inscriptions from Miletos by quarter-century 122 6.3 Public inscriptions from Miletos by quarter-century 124 6.4 Private inscriptions from Miletos by quarter-century 124 6.5 Inscriptions from Ephesos by century 127 6.6 Inscriptions from Ephesos by quarter-century 128 6.7 Inscriptions from Pergamon by century 132 6.8 Inscriptions from Pergamon by quarter-century 133 6.9 Greek, Latin and bilingual inscriptions from Ephesos 135 7.1 Epigraphic curve for each city by century 146 7.2 Epigraphic distribution at Aizanoi 149 7.3 Epigraphic distribution at Eumeneia 150 7.4 Epigraphic distribution at Laodikeia 151 7.5 Epigraphic distribution at Pessinous 153 7.6 Epigraphic distribution at Aphrodisias 154 7.7 The public/non-public distribution at Aizanoi 156 7.8 The public/non-public distribution at Eumeneia 156 7.9 The public/non-public distribution at Laodikeia 156 7.10 The public/non-public distribution at Pessinous 157 7.11 The public/non-public distribution at Aphrodisias 157 7.12 The overall proportion of funerary/other texts from Aizanoi 158 7.13 The overall proportion of funerary/other texts from Eumeneia 158 7.14 The overall proportion of funerary/other texts from Laodikeia 158 7.15 The overall proportion of funerary/other texts from Pessinous 159 7.16 The overall proportion of funerary/other texts from Aphrodisias 159 8.1 Inscriptions from the most important cities in Phoenicia by century 170 8.2 Tyre. Categories of inscriptions by century 171 8.3 Sidon. Categories of inscriptions by century 171 8.4 Languages in inscriptions of Phoenicia by century 172 8.5 Categories of inscriptions in Phoenicia by century 172 8.6  Public and other inscriptions in Phoenicia by century in ­ reco-Roman period 174 the G 8.7  Categories of inscriptions in Phoenicia by quarter-century in the ­Greco-Roman period 175 8.8  Tyre. Categories of inscriptions by quarter-century in the Greco-Roman period 175 8.9  Sidon. Categories of inscriptions by quarter-century in the Greco-Roman period 176 8.10  Berytos & Heliopolis. Categories of inscriptions by century in the G ­ reco-Roman period 176 8.11  Berytos & Heliopolis. Categories of inscriptions by quarter-century in the Greco-Roman period 177 9.1 Public and private inscriptions from Alexandria by century 187 9.2 Public inscriptions from Alexandria by century 188 9.3 Private inscriptions from Alexandria by century 189

Graphs  xi 9.4 Public and private inscriptions from Alexandria by quarter-century 189 9.5 Latin/bilingual inscriptions from Alexandria by century 193 9.6 Latin/bilingual inscriptions from Alexandria by quarter-century 194 10.1 The number of inscriptions from Fayum per century 202 10.2 The number of inscriptions from Fayum by quarter-century 202 10.3 The number of Greek, bilingual and Egyptian inscriptions from Fayum per century 203 10.4  The number of Greek, bilingual and Egyptian inscriptions from Fayum by quarter-century 204 10.5 The number of public inscriptions from Fayum per century 207 10.6 The number of public inscriptions from Fayum by quarter-century 207 10.7 The number of non-public inscriptions from Fayum per century 208 10.8 The number of non-public inscriptions from Fayum by quarter-century 208 11.1 Epigraphic curves in all cities/regions by century 222 11.2 Cumulated epigraphic curve for cities/all regions 226

Tables

1.1 Number of inscriptions from Boiotia datable by century 32 1.2 Number of inscriptions from Boiotia datable by quarter-century 32 2.1 Categories of inscriptions at Delphi 53 4.1 Inscriptions from Western and North-Western Pontus 81 5.1 Inscriptions from Chersonesos and the Bosporan Kingdom 103 5.2 Categories of inscriptions from Chersonesos and the Bosporan Kingdom 104 6.1 Inscriptions from Miletos, Ephesos, Pergamon 119 7.1 Inscriptions from Phrygia and the borderlands – breakdown of data sets by city 147 7.2 Numbers of texts in Phrygian in the area around Midas City 147 8.1 The percentage of inscriptions from Phoenicia dated by quarter-century among inscriptions datable to a century 167 9.1 Inscriptions from Alexandria 185 10.1 The number of inscriptions from Fayum according to language 203 10.2 Categories of inscriptions from Fayum 204 11.1 Inscriptions, dates and languages 217 11.2 Epigraphic maxima 220 11.3 Epigraphic minima between 300 BCE and 300 CE 225

Contributors

Naomi Carless Unwin is a research fellow at the University of Warwick. She has a long history of working on the history and culture of Anatolia, and her first book, Caria and Crete in Antiquity: cultural interaction between Anatolia and the Aegean, was published in 2017. Piotr Głogowski  is a PhD student in Ancient History at the University of Wrocław, Poland, interested in Ancient Greek literature and epigraphy; Achaemenid studies; and Greco-Roman Phoenicia, which is the subject of his dissertation. Among his publications is “Cyrus the Younger and his Persians: The Dynamics of Power”, GRBS 60 (2020): 165–191. Dominika Grzesik  is an ancient historian and Greek epigrapher educated in Wrocław, Poland, and Liverpool, UK; PhD (2015), University of Wrocław. She is currently a postdoctoral fellow at the University of Wrocław. Her research focusses on Hellenistic and Roman Delphi, Greek honorific culture and statue habit. Her most recent book The Honorific Culture at Delphi in the Hellenistic and Roman Periods has been submitted for publication. Michał Halamus is an ancient historian educated in Wrocław, Poland and Liverpool, UK; PhD (2020), University of Wrocław. His research focusses on the history of the Bosporan Kingdom, the Black Sea area in antiquity and the phenomenon of public munificence. His most recent paper is “Annexing the Near East and the Long-Lasting Bosporan Autonomy” Eos 105 (2018): 221–238. Paulina Komar  is an archaeologist educated in Warsaw, Liverpool and Wrocław; PhD (2015), University of Wrocław. She is currently an Assistant Professor at the Cardinal Stefan Wyszyński University in Warsaw. Her primary research interest is trade in wine in antiquity. Her book Eastern Wines on Western Tables: Consumption, Trade and Economy in Italy is forthcoming. Krzysztof Nawotka is an ancient historian, Greek epigrapher and classicist educated in Wrocław, Poland; Oxford, UK; and Columbus, USA; PhD (1991), The Ohio State University. He is currently Professor of Ancient

xiv Contributors History at the University of Wrocław, Poland. and previously held positions as Honorary Research Fellow at the University of Liverpool, Visiting Scholar at Brown University and Visiting Professor at Xiamen University. Since 2015 he has been a member of the Academia Europaea. He has published on Greek cities on the coast of the Black Sea, Greek legislation, Miletos, A ­ lexander the Great and the Alexander Romance. His most recent publication is The Alexander Romance by Ps.-Callisthenes: A Historical Commentary (2017). At present he co-ordinates a research project at the University of Wroclaw entitled “Greek City in the Hellenistic and Roman Age and Territorial Powers”, funded by the National Science Centre, Poland. Joanna Porucznik received her PhD from the University of Wrocław, Poland (2015). She is an Assistant Professor at the University of Opole, Poland. Her main research interests are history and archaeology of the Black Sea area. Her book Cultural Identity within the Northern Black Sea Region in Antiquity: (De)constructing Past Identities is forthcoming. Łukasz Szeląg is an ancient historian, classicist and Greek epigrapher educated in Wrocław, Poland; Thessaloniki, Greece; and Liverpool, UK. He is now a PhD Student at the University of Wrocław. His research focusses on ancient Boiotia. He published a paper on early Boiotian federalism entitled “Beocja w wojnach perskich–postawa poleis beockich wobec najazdu Kserksesa w kontekście kształtowania się federalizmu beockiego”, SAMAI 2 (2017): 6–36. Joanna Karolina Wilimowska is an ancient historian and papyrologist, educated in Wrocław and Liverpool; PhD, University of Wrocław, 2019. She is now a postdoctoral fellow at the University of Wroclaw. Her research focusses on the social and economic history of Ptolemaic Egypt, in particular temples in the Fayum Oasis (“Benefactions toward Temples in the Ptolemaic Fayum”, JARCE 54 (2018): 187–292). Agnieszka Wojciechowska is an ancient historian and egyptologist, educated in Wrocław and Liverpool; PhD, University of Wrocław, Poland (2008). At present she is Assistant Professor at the University of Wrocław. She published on Egypt (From Amyrteus to Ptolemy: Egypt in the Fourth Century BC, 2016) and Alexander the Great (Alexander the Great and Egypt: History, Art, Tradition, 2014, and The Alexander Romance: History and Literature, 2018).

Acknowledgements

This book would have never been conceived, let alone completed, without pioneering works which introduced into the scholarship the idea of studying the chronological distribution of ancient inscriptions on stone. Therefore, we should first acknowledge papers of Stanisław Mrozek (“À propos de la répartitions chronologique des inscriptions latines dans le Haut-Empire”, Epigraphica 35 (1973): 113–118) and Ramsey MacMullen (“The Epigraphic Habit in the Roman Empire”, The American Journal of Philology 103 (1982): 233–246) as our original source of inspiration in undertaking the task of counting inscriptions from the Eastern Mediterranean and placing the epigraphic curves within the social and political history of the region. Our work on the epigraphic culture started almost four years ago with a presentation at a seminar in Wrocław of Krzysztof Nawotka’s paper on the epigraphic habit of Miletos. A very positive assessment of this initial work and friendly encouragement from Professor John K. Davies, FBA, FSA (Liverpool), prompted us to continue with the work. The project then progressed to encompass ten distinct case studies throughout the Eastern Mediterranean. It was first intended to be a series of papers to be published in the Mediterranean Historical Review, but the size and shape that this project attained resulted in our submitting its outcome as a book to Routledge. We would like to acknowledge both the assessment of the earlier version of our work by the editorial board of the Mediterranean Historical Review (Professor Irad Malkin, Professor Zur Shalev, Professor Youval Rotman) and that of its final form by Routledge. We would like to thank readers for Routledge, Dr. Ulrike Roth (Edinburgh) and Dr. Dan Dana (Paris), for their insightful and detailed comments, which allowed us to correct many smaller shortcomings of the book and encouraged us to strengthen discussion in some of its crucial areas. It is our pleasure to acknowledge as well the very professional and friendly attitude of Routledge’s editorial staff, particularly Amy Davis-Poynter and Ella Hallstead. Research conducted by most of us was supported by a generous grant from the National Science Centre (Poland), UMO-2014/14/A/HS3/00132. In addition Dominika Grzesik profited from the Scholarship of the Ministry of Science and Higher Education (Poland) for young scientists (2018–2021), and

xvi Acknowledgements Joanna Wilimowska benefited from the doctoral scholarship program E ­ tiuda 5 of the National Science Centre (Poland), UMO-2017/24/T/HS3/00206. Apart from our home universities, a large part of our research was conducted in various libraries, whom we would like to thank for allowing us access to their resources: the American University of Beirut, Institut français du Proche-Orient (Beirut), University of Oxford (especially Bodleian and Sackler Libraries), British School at Athens, American School of Classical Studies at Athens, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven (especially Artes Erasmushuis and University Library), University of Liverpool, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, British Institute at Ankara and Bilkent University (Ankara). Earlier versions of some chapters of this book were presented at various conferences, and their authors benefitted greatly from lively discussion at these academic meetings: Melammu 11 “Evidence Combined – Western and Eastern Sources in Dialogue” (American University of Beirut, 3–6 April 2017), “Boiotia and the Outside World” (University of Fribourg, 7–9 June 2017), “Recent Research in Black Sea Studies in Canada and Beyond” ­(University of Waterloo, 12 November 2018), Melammu 13 “The Ancient Near Eastern Legacy and Alexander vs. Alexander’s Legacy to the World” (University of Wrocław, 13–16 May 2019), “Alexander the Great’s Egypt: from Demosthenes to the Epigraphic Curve” (University of Sydney, 5 June 2019), “Black Sea Study Day: The Northern Black Sea Coast on the Fringes of the Roman Empire” (University of Gdańsk and University of W ­ aterloo, Sopot, 2 August 2019), GIREA 42 “The Contemporary Readings of ­Slavery: Issues, Methodologies and Analyses since the 1990s” (University of Wrocław, 4–5 September 2019), XX Powszechny Zjazd Historyków P ­ olskich (Lublin 18–20 September 2019) and “NACGLE 2020” (Georgetown University, Washington DC, 5–7 January 2020). We benefitted much from support in collecting materials and from conversations with numerous scholars: Dr Colin Adams (University of Liverpool); Dr Bilal Annan (École Pratique des Hautes Études, Paris); Dr ­Elizabeth ­Baynham (University of Newcastle, Australia); Dr Graeme Bourke ­(University of New England); Prof. John K. Davies, FBA, FSA (University of Liverpool); Prof. Charles Gates (Bilkent University); Prof. Nikos ­Giannakopoulos ­(National and Kapodistrian University of Athens); Prof. Andrzej Łoś (University of Wrocław); Prof. Paul McKechnie ­(Macquire University); Prof. Graham Oliver (Brown University); Dr Adam Pałuchowski (University of Wrocław); and Dr Wojciech Pietruszka (University of Wrocław). Finally we would like to thank Mr Lee Richards, MA, for undertaking the laborious task of correcting English in the chapters written by non-­ native speakers of English.

Introduction Epigraphic habit, epigraphic culture, epigraphic curve: statement of the problem1 Krzysztof Nawotka Epigraphic habit This book attempts to study the epigraphic habit in the Eastern Mediterranean in (mostly classical) antiquity. The idea of linking the chronological distribution of inscriptions with political events and constitutional transformation in antiquity was first raised by Benjamin Meritt,2 while the term ‘epigraphic habit’ owes its enormous following in modern scholarly literature to a 1982 article by Ramsay MacMullen.3 This paper, as well as pioneering works by Mrozek and the paper by Hedrick on the epigraphic habit in Athens, has been a source of inspiration for this book.4 They have all noted the uneven chronological distribution of ancient inscriptions and offered a variety of explanations, linking the shape of the epigraphic curve with historical events and processes. The chronological distribution of inscriptions is tied to other important issues regarding ancient history, such as the reasons for inscribing, the level of literacy, the birth and demise of democracy, and the end of the classical city. This book will not attempt to solve any of these issues, focussing instead on patterns regarding the chronological distribution of ancient inscriptions in the hope of contributing to other, more comprehensive discussions of classical antiquity. It covers a wider range of territories than MacMullen’s paper, all in the Eastern Mediterranean. It will not try to get involved in polemics with earlier studies, by MacMullen and inspired by MacMullen, which are concentrated on epitaphs, mostly Latin. Epitaphs are the dominant form of inscriptions in the West, but this is not the case in the East; therefore this book takes into account all categories of inscriptions over a much broader period than most papers concerned with Latin epitaphs, which limit their scope to the Early Empire. By its very nature, this study, like any other, can tabulate only surviving inscriptions, without knowing what proportion of the original epigraphic output survived to the modern age, even in its most mutilated form.5 Duncan-Jones estimates that the survival-rate of non-funerary public documents is 5%, but this is conjectural and accused of being too generous.6 The end result of tabulating inscriptions is the so-called ‘epigraphic curve’, now a generally accepted term for a linear or other graphical representation of

2  Krzysztof Nawotka the chronological distribution of inscriptions.7 The strictly factual part of the project ends with the epigraphic curves; however the shape of the curves will be analyzed in order to offer probable explanations of epigraphic minima and maxima, and to ascertain whether any prevailing trends existed with regards to the chronological distribution of inscriptions in the Eastern Mediterranean, i.e. to identify any epigraphic habits in this area. It is generally accepted that the chronological distribution of surviving inscriptions, Greek and Latin alike, is not even from the ninth c. BCE, when Greek alphabetic scripture is first attested, until the end of antiquity. The lower chronological limit will vary, place to place, from the tenth to the fourth c. BCE since we tabulate not only Greek inscriptions in an area under consideration but also Latin, Phrygian, Semitic and Egyptian, the latter as a rule preceding the Greek. The only exception to this is the case study of the Fayum Oasis, in which inscriptions are tabulated from the twentieth c. BCE. This enables the epigraphic production of the later age to be placed in its proper Egyptian context, where the same categories of hieroglyphic inscriptions attested in pharaonic times continued to be executed well into the Imperial age. The epigraphic curves in this volume show that there is very little datable epigraphic output after the reign of Justinian. Indeed, we might symbolically place the end of classical antiquity somewhere in his reign, coinciding with both the abolishment of the/boulai in late antiquity (attributed to Anastasius) and the reduction of civic financial autonomy under Justinian. This impacted the epigraphic habit as investment in public buildings and payment for spectacles was no longer made in the time-honoured way which had been attested to in thousands of inscriptions.8 However, since the early date for abolishment of the boulai is not generally accepted today, and since no obvious calamitous incident can be identified as affecting (post-) classical cities under Justinian, we can advance the upper terminus. This closing date falls in the ca. mid-seventh c. CE, symbolically coinciding with the Arab and Slavic raids, which occurred so soon after the devastating war with Sasanian Persia that no meaningful reconstruction of urban life was possible.9 What followed was a fundamental change within the post-Roman eastern Mediterranean, which in the seventh c. completed its shift towards a new, centralistic, bureaucratic, militarized and rural Byzantine empire.10 In a sense, this upper chronological limit is in line with the dominant modern perception of the end of antiquity, marked by the events of the first half of the seventh c. CE.11 The chronological distribution of ancient Greek inscriptions has been out of interest of most influential introductions to epigraphy, with the valuable exception of Bodel, who pointedly differentiates between ‘The Roman epigraphic habit’ and, in the plural, ‘Greek epigraphic cultures’.12 This distinction stems from juxtaposing the seemingly well-defined epigraphic habit of the Roman Empire (below) with the local peculiarities of the Greek world. Due to the previous work in identifying the epigraphic habit/ epigraphic culture in the classical world (or in the Roman empire, at the very

Introduction  3 least), a sobering number of local peculiarities that do not conform to the trend have been spotted, which poses the question of whether any single trend in the chronological distribution of ancient inscriptions can be identified.13 Since the publication of MacMullen’s paper, scholars have viewed inscribing as a cultural choice, not as a matter of routine. This of course advances our appreciation of ancient inscribed monuments as a means to study history, mentality and local cultures.14

Past studies of the chronological distribution of ancient documents Questions pertaining to the chronological distribution of ancient written sources have been asked many times in modern scholarship. This issue was first approached with respect to published papyri and ostraca in Roman Egypt. Past studies have showed that here, when tabulated in 20-year periods, the number of dated papyri and ostraca peaked in the Antonine age, between 120 and 160 CE, then dropped sharply after 160 CE (especially after 220 CE) and remained very low throughout the remaining part of the third c. CE. The numbers recovered slightly under Diocletian, only to continue to decline in later antiquity. The distribution of private and public papyri and ostraca differs somewhat in specific 20-year time slots, but the general picture of peaks and declines is much the same. Calculations regarding the numbers of surviving papyri were carried out in 1925, 1965 and 1980, each time on a bigger scale, yet they yielded very similar results, which seems to suggest that we have a true representation of the temporal distribution of surviving Imperial-age papyri, even if it is only based on ca. 3500 papyri and ostraca.15 Graphs based on the Trismegistos database show a similar picture.16 When papyri are tabulated according to a century (Graph 0.1), there are

18000

Number of papyri

16000 14000 12000 10000 8000 6000 4000 2000 0 8th c. 7th c. 6th c. 5th c. 4th c. 3rd c. 2nd c. 1st c. 1st c. 2nd c. 3rd c. 4th c. 5th c. 6th c. 7th c. 8th c. BCE BCE BCE BCE BCE BCE BCE BCE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE

Graph 0.1 Papyri from Egypt tabulated by century.

4  Krzysztof Nawotka 3000

Number of papyri

2500 2000 1500 1000

0

800-776 BCE 750-726 BCE 700-676 BCE 650-626 BCE 600-576 BCE 550-526 BCE 500-476 BCE 450-426 BCE 400-376 BCE 350-326 BCE 300-276 BCE 250-226 BCE 200-176 BCE 150-126 BCE 100-76 BCE 50-26 BCE 1-25 CE 51-75 CE 101-125 CE 151-175 CE 201-225 CE 251-275 CE 301-325 CE 351-375 CE 401-425 CE 451-475 CE 501-525 CE 551-575 CE 601-625 CE 651-675 CE 701-725 CE 751-775 CE

500

Graph 0.2 Papyri from Egypt tabulated by quarter-century.

two peaks: the primary peak under the Antonines and the secondary peak or plateau in the early to mid-Hellenistic age. When papyri are tabulated in quarter-century brackets, the primary peak falls in the second quarter of the second c. CE, the secondary peak in the first quarter of the third c. BCE and the tertiary peak in the third quarter of the second c. BCE; there is also a noticeable, albeit low, uptick in the third quarter of the third c. CE, following a long and pronounced decline in number of surviving papyri after the mid-second c. CE (Graph 0.2). MacMullen noticed that the same invariably applied to other categories of written sources, with a rough count of the attested names of pagan Greek authors showing the distribution rising from a low figure in the archaic age to a much increased number in the classical age, with its peak occurring in the early Hellenistic age. In the second c. BCE the number of attested authors drops sharply to remain almost even until the first c. CE, then recovers slightly in the second c. CE, remaining far below the figures attested for the classical age. These figures certainly do not represent the real literary output as they do not take into account the number of works created by these authors, let alone their length, nor do they say anything about how many literary works have survived from various centuries. The numbers, however, do show how uneven our knowledge is regarding Greek authors who worked between the sixth c. BCE and the second c. CE, with an obvious bias towards classical authors who are quoted and listed by name in later ages, much more often than the later Greek writers, whose names have been cast into oblivion.17 Even assuming that the surviving written evidence from a given period is roughly in equal proportion to the actual amount produced in that period, one important caveat needs to be made before using MacMullen’s graphs as an illustration of document production in Greek and Roman antiquity: the evidence of papyri and ostraca is restricted to only certain

Introduction  5 parts of the Mediterranean world, primarily Egypt but also Palestine, and, to a much lesser degree, Syria, with minimal numbers surviving elsewhere. Apart from coins, the only category of written evidence to be encountered everywhere, albeit not in equal territorial distribution, are inscriptions, mostly in stone.18 Both the geographical universality of the epigraphic phenomenon in classical antiquity and the fact that different categories of documents have survived as inscriptions than have survived as papyri or ostraca merits further study of the chronological distribution of ancient inscriptions. So far, the bulk of research on the chronological distribution of ancient inscriptions has been concerned with Latin epigraphy. After the pioneering studies of Jean-Marie Lassère on epitaphs in Roman Africa and Stanisław Mrozek on the frequency of inscriptions throughout the early Empire,19 the real interest of scholarship in understanding the temporal distribution of ancient inscription has been generated by the classical paper of Ramsay MacMullen, which circulated the term “epigraphic habit”.20 Although it is gradually being superseded by the term “epigraphic culture”, allegedly more reflective of the social context in which inscriptions were commissioned than the dedicator,21 MacMullen’s paper is still the principal point of reference for any study of the chronological distribution of ancient inscriptions. He posed more questions than answers, but his lasting contribution includes drawing attention to the very uneven chronological distribution of inscriptions as well as promoting the idea of inscriptions as cultural phenomena and not exclusively as sources of text.22 Graphs from pioneering Mrozek’s (Graph 0.3) and Lassère’s (Graph 0.4) papers, as well as those produced by MacMullen for Roman Lydia and by Meyer for Thessaloniki (Graph 0.5), have been widely used to explain the stunning clustering of inscriptions in the second half of the second c. CE. Saastamoinen’s curve of Latin building inscriptions in Africa shows a broadly similar picture: the peak in the second half of the second c. CE, with almost no decline in the first half of the third c. CE, followed by a sharp decline in the following half-century.23 What has been raised in the discussion is the opinion that inscriptions, epitaphs in the first place, were cut in order to “fix an individuals’ place within history, society and the cosmos”24 and that they coincide with and reflect changes within Roman society, in particular reflecting the coveted Roman inheritance law that was spreading throughout the provinces, resulting in a growing number of Roman citizens.25 Since allegedly only Roman citizens could make a valid will, the introduction of a universal franchise under Caracalla meant that the importance placed upon being a Roman citizen was diminished, which, in turn, led to the sharp drop in the total epigraphic production rate of the third c. CE.26 Those who study the Roman epigraphic habit/epigraphic culture either admit that what can be deduced from Latin inscriptions is applicable to Italy and the West or apply a universal nature to their study.27 This alleged universal nature of the epigraphic habit in the Roman empire needs to be

6  Krzysztof Nawotka Number of inscriptions per year 0 Augustus Tiberius Caligula Claudius

5

'\

Nero

l

Vespasian

«::

Nerva Trajan

/

'

>i '-

I'--.

Hadrian

'-I

\

Antoninus Pius Marcus Aurelius

Septimius Severus

...

Valerian, Gallienus 268–284

\

\

' - ---- r---

Commodus

Caracalla Macrinus, Elagabalus, Alexander Severus Maximin, Gordian III Philip Decius

15

)

.........

Titus, Domitian

10

I/

,- -

_..

--- --

-

1---

:::,e

j,

I;'

Graph 0.3 Honorific and building inscriptions of the Roman Empire (Mrozek 1973, 114).

confronted with evidence derived from a representative sample of Greek inscriptions in order to confirm or reject this hypothesis. The preoccupation of epigraphers with Imperial-age inscriptions is understandable, if only due to the huge discrepancy between the number of extant Republican-age (ca. 4500) and early Imperial Latin inscriptions (ca. 300,000 until the end of the third c. CE). This also applies to the prominent position of tombstone inscriptions in the graphs as this category of inscriptions dominates in Latin epigraphy, with some 70% of all surviving Latin

Introduction  7 80 70

AVERAGE NUMBER OF EPITAPHS PER YEAR

60 50 40 30 20 10 A.D. 20

40

60

80

100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300

Graph 0.4  Tombstone inscriptions from Africa (MacMullen, Ramsay. “The ­Epigraphic Habit in the Roman Empire.” American Journal of Philology 103:3 (1982), Fig. IV. © 1982  Johns Hopkins University Press. Reprinted with permission of Johns Hopkins University Press, after Lassère 1973).

200

all inscriptions n=935

Number of inscriptions

180 160

epitaphs n=651

140

Roman citizens

120 100 80 60 40 20 25

25

50

75

100

125 150 175 200

225 250 275 300

325

350 375 A.D.

Graph 0.5  Frequency of inscriptions from Thessaloniki (Meyer, E.A., ‘Explaining the Epigraphic Habit in the Roman Empire: The Evidence of Epitaphs’, The Journal of Roman Studies vol. 80 (1990), p. 92, fig. 5. © Cambridge University Press. Reproduced with permission of the Licensor through PLSclear).

8  Krzysztof Nawotka inscriptions being epitaphs.28 Indeed, some Roman imperial studies exclusively use the epigraphic material from Rome, or, at best, from Italy, underrepresenting the Eastern Mediterranean.29 The value of the graphs used here from various other papers is very uneven because of the way in which they were composed. Mrozek drew his graph (Graph 0.3 in this book) based on 1,860 inscriptions listed in various important modern scholarly works, not on his systematic study of corpora and related publications.30 But even if his graph correctly reflects the chronological distribution of Latin inscriptions, it is dominated by tituli honorarii and building inscriptions which mention the names of emperors, and this is a narrow selection, to that probably biased towards overrepresentation of the age of the Severi.31 Both Mrozek and Lassère illustrate that well-known difficulty facing any Latin ­epigrapher: i.e. the fact that the overwhelming majority of Latin inscriptions do not bear dates and that those dates that are assigned to them by editors are based on letter-shapes. In order to be able to draw a meaningful epigraphic curve, MacMullen had to establish a model with which to make those dates recorded by editors more precise. He thus summarizes his dating model, which was applied to Lassère’s data: 4,160 texts, only two datable to a single year, the rest in 25 categories that touch on the empire, for example, ‘Augustus,’ 25 texts, where I have divided that number by the years of the reign, 25- (27 B.C. to A.D. 14 = 41) =.61 texts per year over A.D. 1–14. There is also ‘end of Republic/Trajan,’ 602 texts running from 40 B.C., the date somewhat arbitrarily chosen, down to A.D. 117, i.e. 157 years = 3.83 per year. For a specific single year, e.g. A.D. 2, I would add 3.83 to .61 to produce the total for that year, and add still more from other overlapping categories. To the categories ‘early’, ‘mid’, and ‘late’ I assign the values 0–9, 40–60, and 90–99.32 Hence, some graphs showing the epigraphic curves of Latin inscriptions are models and nothing more, with the remarkable exception being ­MacMullen’s graph for Lydia.33 What seems to be generally agreed upon is that there was a pattern to the chronological distribution of (Latin) inscriptions from the early Empire. But is this true? The pattern of the chronological distribution of epitaphs, established principally by Lassère’s study of seven cities in Roman Africa, and to a degree confirmed by Meyer’s epigraphic curve for Thessaloniki (Graph 0.5), was not identical, not even within other Latin-writing provinces. The graph representing epitaphs from Lugdunum (Graph 0.6) shows a peak between 75 and 100 CE, much earlier than in Africa, without a steep decline until almost the end of the third c., almost a century (sic!) after decline was identified in Africa and in the number of papyri and ostraca from Egypt. Also, the curve created by MacMullen on the basis of dated inscriptions from Lydia is very different from the model-based curve for Africa.34 ­MacMullen’s model and its elaboration by Meyer, with the additional emphasis on the paramount

Introduction  9

50

Number of inscriptions

40

30

20

10

A.D.

25

50

75

100 125 150 175 200 225 250 275 300 325

Graph 0.6  E  pitaphs from Lugdunum (Meyer, E.A., ‘Explaining the Epigraphic Habit in the Roman Empire: The Evidence of Epitaphs’, The Journal of Roman Studies vol. 80 (1990), p. 90, fig. 4. © Cambridge University Press. Reproduced with permission of the Licensor through PLSclear).

importance of the exclusive right of R ­ oman citizens to write a valid testament as the factor influencing both the Antonine peak and the decline of the epigraphic curve after the Constitutio Antoniniana, have been criticized in the subsequent scholarship both for the soundness of linking epitaphs with the Roman inheritance law and for the reliability of the very model of tabulating undated inscription into 25-year brackets.35 The sample of precisely datable epitaphs is much too small to produce any sound statistical analysis.36 The pronounced dissimilarity in epigraphic curves established by various scholars and on different methodological principles is perhaps not enough to question the whole model of explaining the rise and fall in the number of inscriptions per year in the Roman Empire, but surely it advocates a broader study that takes into account all categories of dated inscriptions over an extended period so that suggested hypotheses can be tested. This is compounded by the fact that the chronological distribution of epitaphs from Athens, drawn by Meyer from an unusually large amount of evidence (8,135 with 7,480 dated) from between the fifth c. BCE and the fourth c. CE, does not match any other epigraphic curve (Graph 0.7). The curves for Sicily, drawn by Prag, show a nuanced picture. The first (Graph 0.8), combining all datable inscriptions, i.e. Punic, Greek, Latin and others, has two peaks: one

Number of inscriptions

900

750

600

450

300

150

75

50

25

25

50

75

100

125

150

175

200

225

250

275

300

325

350

375

Graph 0.7  E  pitaphs from Athens (Meyer, E.A., ‘Explaining the Epigraphic Habit in the Roman Empire: The Evidence of Epitaphs’, The Journal of Roman Studies vol. 80 (1990), p. 92, fig. 6. © Cambridge University Press. Reproduced with permission of the ­Licensor through PLSclear).

450 425 400 375 350 325 300 275 250 225 200 175 150 125 100

10  Krzysztof Nawotka

Introduction  11 140

Number of inscriptions

120

100

828 inscriptions out of 1,617 i.e. 51.2%, of which: 484 Greek 285 Latin 5 Bilingual 51 Punic 3 Oscan

80

60

40

20 0 C7 BC C6 BC C5 BC C4 BC C3 BC C2 BC C1 BC C1 AD C2 AD C3 AD C4 AD C5 AD C6 AD C7 AD

Graph 0.8  E  pigraphic curve for Sicily, all datable inscriptions (J.R.W. Prag, ‘Epigraphy by Numbers: Latin and the Epigraphic Culture in Sicily’, in: A.E. Cooley et al. (eds.), Becoming Roman, Writing Latin? Literacy and Epigraphy in the Roman West, JRA Suppl. 48, 2002, fig. 2.1, by permission).

in the archaic age and the other in the fourth c. CE, when, according to some, epigraphy almost disappeared. The graph, which splits the total output into three curves (Graph 0.9), each reflecting one language, shows the strength of Punic inscriptions only in the archaic age, a bell-shaped Latin curve with a peak in the second c. CE, and a Greek curve with three peaks, in the sixth c. BCE, a markedly smaller one in the second c. BCE and one in the fourth c. CE, which represented the highest number of inscriptions attested of any century. 100 90

Number of inscriptions

80 70

820 inscriptions out of 1,617 i.e. 50.7%, of which: 484 Greek 285 Latin 51 Punic Latin

60 50 40 30

Greek

Punic

20 10 0 C7 BC C6 BC C5 BC C4 BC C3 BC C2 BC C1 BC C1 AD C2 AD C3 AD C4 AD C5 AD C6 AD C7 AD

Graph 0.9  E  pigraphic curve for Sicily, Punic, Greek, Latin inscriptions (J.R.W. Prag, ‘Epigraphy by Numbers: Latin and the Epigraphic Culture in Sicily’, in: A.E. Cooley et al. (eds.), Becoming Roman, Writing Latin? Literacy and Epigraphy in the Roman West, JRA Suppl. 48, 2002, fig. 2.2, by permission).

12  Krzysztof Nawotka 800

I=

700

Quarters Less

600 500 400 300 200 100

350

300

250

200

100

150

1

50

–50

–100

–150

–200

–250

–300

–350

–400

–450

–500

–550

–600

–650

–700

–750

–800

0

Graph 0.10 Attic inscription by quarters and less (Hedrick 1999, fig. 2; courtesy of the Trustees of the American School of Classical Studies at Athens).

Hedrick drew an epigraphic curve for Athens using the PHI database, with all its deficiencies: doublets, omission of numerous inscriptions, inconsistent dating. Yet despite these shortcomings the PHI database still contains the largest collection of dated Athenian inscriptions. Bearing in mind the importance of Athenian epigraphy in general, Hedrick’s graphs are of primary value to any student of Greek epigraphy. His graph (Graph 0.10 in this book), drawn by quarter-century, shows the very pronounced epigraphic maximum ca. 325 BCE and a secondary peak ca. 125 CE.37 Broadly speaking, Hedrick’s curve of all inscription categories and Meyer’s curve of Attic epitaphs are quite similar. The curves of both Athens and Sicily seem to indicate very strong local factors, mitigating the discernible trend in (some) western parts of the Roman empire38; indeed Meyer had already pointed out the presence of pre-Roman cultural conditions, which were strongly influencing the epigraphic habit in some cities of Roman Africa.39 A broader analysis is needed to establish what sort of event(s) might influence the epigraphic curve throughout the Roman empire, be it a rise or fall in local economic prosperity, war, constitutional transformation or some other factor. Mrozek advocates the wars of the mid-third c. CE and the general crises of the imperial administration of that age as factors which led to the near demise of inscribing ca. 250 CE.40 In a previous paper I gathered evidence for the near universal transformation from oligarchy to democracy in Ionia, Aiolis, and in the old Greek cities of Karia, brought about by Alexander the Great in 334 BCE. One argument for this transformation is the sudden proliferation of inscribed decrees in these cities from 334 BCE onward, coupled with the fact that inscribing decrees was the habit of a democratic polis as opposed to the secrecy typical of oligarchs and tyranny.41 Graph 0.11 is based on figures quoted in this paper.

100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0

Before the 4th c. BCE

,ill

_

ffl

•

n

,Jl

II

l

-

.

,J

m

!I r rl I

400-334 BCE 334-300 BCE

Ephesos Erythrai Magnesia/Maeander Kolophon Priene Teos Phygela Klazomenai Miletos All Ionia Kyme (Aiolis) Knidos Stratonikeia Tralles Koranza Amyzon Iasos Mylasa Halikarnassos All Karia Ionia/Aiolis/Karia

Number of decrees

Introduction  13

Graph 0.11 Decrees from Ionia, Aiolis, Karia up to 300 BCE.

The inscriptions This project follows in the footsteps of earlier projects regarding the chronological distribution of ancient evidence by limiting its scope to the published source material as this is the only viable road one can take. An attempt to systematically study photographs of inscriptions, let alone the stones, would have extended it to many years, perhaps even derailed the project entirely. Our understanding of inscriptions is narrow. It agrees with the prevailing epigraphic convention, and it has been adopted because of our desire to make the results of this project comparable with earlier attempts at drawing epigraphic curves. An inscription is understood as a piece of text carved by the human hand onto a durable material, like stone, metal or plaster, which is addressed to a wide audience and often presented to the public.42 Most of them meet the criteria of Eck’s Memorialinschriften, the most typical category of ancient inscriptions cut in stone: ‘this durable material… selected almost exclusively for an enduring public memorial of events, deeds and people’.43 Both criteria are important: a durable material and the (perceived) intention of making an inscription a monument for some sort of public display.44 There is ample evidence of texts written on perishable material, papyrus or wooden planks (σανίς and λεύκωμα, among others) meant for public display, yet they cannot be included in an epigraphic study precisely because the overwhelming majority of them have been destroyed.45 It seems that in most cases the decision regarding what parts of royal and Imperial letters and Roman regulations, let alone of local legislative production, should be published in stone was made by local communities.46 Thus, they all belong to the epigraphic culture of cities and territories where they were inscribed to be seen and remembered, not necessarily to be read. The

14  Krzysztof Nawotka function of inscriptions as vehicles of extending memory of human life and deeds for eternity was not lost on ancient authors47; hence, selecting for this epigraphic study (primarily) inscriptions meant for display concords with the attested meaning of inscription in antiquity. We exclude Roman diplomata miltaria because they were produced and distributed centrally; hence, they do not represent the epigraphic habit of the place in which they were found. Ancient inscriptions stamped onto a durable material, such as coin inscriptions as well as stamps on amphorae and tiles, are also excluded. This is as much a matter of convention, which makes studying coin inscription the domain of numismatists, as of provenance and purpose. The place in which pottery (or fragments of pottery) is eventually found often differs from its place of origin; thus, inscribed pottery says nothing about the epigraphic habit of the place where it was unearthed. Inscriptions on tiles were never meant for public display. Furthermore, the sheer quantity of pottery inscriptions (some 200,000 from Rhodes alone) and stamps on tiles would, in some places, distort the overall picture of the local epigraphic habit.48 For instance the number of inventoried fragments of stamped amphorae in Athens is close to 40,000, exceeding the number of inscriptions in stone.49 The same can be said about some places studied in this book: 157 inscriptions tabulated for Berytos and Heliopolis need to be juxtaposed with the 110 Rhodian amphora stamps identified in Berytos50; the enormous quantity of stamped amphora uncovered in Pergamon overshadows the epigraphic production in this city.51 Also disregarded are other inscriptions on pottery – ostraca, graffiti and dipinti – while inscriptions on small objects, so-called instrumentum domesticum, as well as private lead letters and curse tablets (defixiones) have been included.52 Inscriptions from the last two categories, although not meant for display, are generally published with inscriptions of a more public character, and their importance in relation to the study of social and religious history determines their inclusion. In the areas under consideration in this book they are not numerous enough to influence the general picture of epigraphic curves. Graffiti painted on or cut into walls, stone or rock have also been included, without going into the minutiae of which examples should be dignified with the term ‘inscription’ and which should be cast into the more humble realm of ‘graffiti’.53 This goes hand in hand with the habit established by major epigraphic corpora and is necessary if we want to obtain meaningful data on local epigraphic production. This decision, viable and necessary for most places in the Greek world, excludes certain categories of informal inscriptions popular in various places of interest within this project, e.g. ostraca, very common in Egyptian writing culture; Phoenician clay bullae, or inscriptions which once accompanied documents written on perishable materials which are no longer extant; and graffiti on ceramic votive deposits in various sanctuaries. This approach could be called into question if Athens was the subject as it would exclude over 10,500 sherds used in the ostracism process; however in the cities and regions under consideration in this book, no such meaningful category of pottery inscriptions exists.54

Introduction  15 Cuneiform and early alphabetic Semitic inscriptions are also excluded, including thousands of clay tablets from Ugarit. There are reasons for this. Most of the tablets from Ugarit were never meant for public display, unlike most inscriptions in stone. Notwithstanding the geographical classification as a Phoenician or Syrian site, the principal reason for excluding the tablets from Ugarit is their age; they generally precede the twelfth c. BCE. Since Greek inscriptions dominate among inscriptions from the Eastern Mediterranean, the much earlier material has been excluded as no relevant to make comparison with Greek alphabetic inscriptions, all of which date from the eighth c. BCE until (for the purpose of this project) the seventh c. CE. By the same token, Linear A inscriptions found in Miletos are not included. Since epigraphy is not an exact science, occasionally we diverge from this principal, most obviously in the case of the Fayum. Graphs from the Fayum include pre-Greek Egyptian inscriptions dating from the twentieth c. BCE in order to present a clear picture of the local epigraphic culture during the Greco-Roman period, set in its proper, dominant Egyptian context. Most of the inscriptions dealt with in this book are Greek, but, depending on area, there is a component in other languages, including Latin, Aramaic, Egyptian and Phrygian. Some inscriptions will be referred to in this book as bilingual. The issues of bilingualism, code-switching, borrowing, grammar modified based on the influence of other language and using loan words in the ancient world have been discussed profusely in recent decades.55 Not going into the minutiae of this debate, we are trying to apply here a broad definition, considering bilingual any inscription containing words in more than one language but not counting as bilingual inscriptions containing calques of grammar modified (or corrupted) in translation or through other forms of language influence.

Case studies Since counting all the inscriptions from the Eastern Mediterranean would be beyond the endurance of this (and perhaps any) research team, we sampled a broad area in order to cover most of the territories that had a significant epigraphic output. The following ten discrete areas were selected for case studies regarding the chronological distribution of inscriptions: (1)  Boiotia, with individual studies of Thebes, Tanagra, Thespiai and Oropos; (2) Delphi; (3) Olympia; (4) the west and north-west coast of the Black Sea, with individual studies of Mesambria, Kallatis, Istros and Olbia; (5) the north coast of the Black Sea, with individual studies of the Bosporan Kingdom and Chersonesos; (6) western Asia Minor, with individual studies of Miletos, Ephesos and Pergamon; (7) central Asia Minor (mostly Greater Phrygia), with individual studies of Eumeneia, Laodikeia, Pessinous, Aizanoi and Aphrodisias (Karia); (8) Phoenicia; (9) Alexandria; and (10) the Fayum Oasis.

16  Krzysztof Nawotka

-V A Berytosl'~■n Heliopolis Sidon /I ~

Tyre

I

I 00 200 300 km

Map 0.1 The Eastern Mediterranean with cities/territories whose epigraphic output is tabulated in this book.

As Map 0.1 shows, the areas selected as case studies cover most of the Eastern Mediterranean, from the northernmost stretch of Greek colonization to Upper Egypt. Many of the cities under scrutiny were among the largest in their respective areas and are very well documented, thanks to extensive archaeological excavations; this reduces the importance of chance finds of clusters of inscriptions as a mitigating factor in the overall pattern. The issue of economy and connectivity also influenced our selection of case studies. Whilst discussing the dissimilarity between the epigraphic curve for Athenian epitaphs and the curves of African cities, Meyer argues that Athenian epigraphic tradition, a lack of “the Roman flavor” as well as the comparative backwardness and conservatism (“not exactly a city ‘untouched by time’”)

Introduction  17 and the semi-antiquarian status of Roman Athens (“quaint academic backwater”) were all underlying factors.56 No matter how accurate her assessment of Athens is, most of the cities under consideration were anything but that: in the Hellenistic and Roman age, Miletos, Ephesos, Pergamon, Aphrodisias and the cities of Phoenicia and Alexandria all displayed strong economic dynamics, and their citizens are known to have interacted with Hellenistic kings and Roman magistrates on a considerable scale. The effort was made to tabulate inscriptions from contrasting areas: highly urbanized (Boiotia, western Asia Minor) and rural – devoid of cities until later antiquity (the Fayum); prosperous and already brimming with inscriptions in the archaic age (Olympia and, to a degree, Delphi), and those which became urbanized and prosperous in the late-Hellenistic and Roman age (Aphrodisias); cities with an unmistakably Greek background (continental Greece and old colonial settlements) and those which became Hellenized early in the Hellenistic age (Karia, Phrygia and Phoenicia); territories whose earliest discernible epigraphic tradition is Greek (continental Greece, the Black Sea area, western Asia Minor) and those with a very strong pre-Greek epigraphic tradition, which co-existed for some time alongside the Greek epigraphic habit (Phoenicia, the early Fayum, Karia, Phrygia); cities which were free for most of their history (Miletos) and those which hosted royal courts (Pergamon, Alexandria, Pantikapaion in the Bosporan Kingdom); and cities which, at various points, were annexed by Rome (most of the cities in this study) and those which stayed outside of the Roman Empire (cities of the Bosporan Kingdom, Chersonesos, most probably Olbia). An assessment will be attempted concerning the relative importance of major temples, oracles and games as factors that influenced the shape and composition of the epigraphic curve, primarily in Delphi and Olympia but also in Ephesos, Milesian Didyma and Pergamon. All of these distinguishable features could have influenced the shape of the epigraphic curve and, of even more importance, the composition of the epigraphic output throughout the ages.57 A critical reader could point to the conspicuous gaps in the areas sampled in this project, most notably Athens, Macedonia and the islands. However, the obvious reason for these omissions is the desire to make the project manageable. The sheer size of the Athenian epigraphic output, comparable to the combined number of inscriptions from all cities studied in this project, and its complexity is probably the reason why, so far, no attempt has been made to draw a proper epigraphic curve for Athens. Had this been done in this project the massive Athenian epigraphic output would have dominated the overall picture, unduly skewing the result in the direction of making the Athenian maximum of the mid-fourth c. BCE the absolute maximum for all areas under consideration, while we know that the epigraphic maxima in most other places fell in very different periods. There are, however, epigraphic curves drawn by Hedrick based on the material available in the early version of the PHI database, despite how limited and imperfect it was.58 Meyer drew curves of epitaphs from Athens and Thessaloniki.59

18  Krzysztof Nawotka Chaniotis has written a study on the epigraphic habit in central Crete during the Hellenistic and Roman age, thanks to which the epigraphic culture of this most important of Greek islands does not remain terra incognita.60 Thus, the epigraphic habits of Athens, Thessaloniki and Crete, territories that are of critical importance in the study of Greek epigraphy, have already been partially assessed. If one had to deselect an area while drawing the framework for this study, the choice to leave out Athens, Macedonia, Thessaloniki and the islands seems to be at least partially justified.

Territorial attribution of inscriptions We attribute an inscription to the city in which it originated, even if it was commissioned by a foreigner or a foreign entity. For example, an inscription honouring Miletos/Milesians set up in Miletos by other states counts as a Milesian inscription and is classified in accordance with the rules set out below. Inscriptions found in areas other than an actual city but in a place controlled by the polis are counted together with those found within the city walls, e.g. inscriptions from Didyma belong to Miletos, inscriptions from the Helikon sanctuary of the Muses form part of the total epigraphic output of Thespiai and inscriptions from the sanctuary of the Kabiroi belong to the epigraphic output of Thebes. The same principle applies to inscriptions found in the rural territory of a city (chora), but only to inscriptions on stone and metal. This is for the sake of consistency, even if it means excluding many informal inscriptions, such as graffiti and dipinti on pottery, which were quite plentiful in certain rural areas, particularly on the north-western and northern coast of the Black Sea, with Böttger and Šelov’s corpus alone having 2,233 entries.61 Sometimes it is impossible to associate a place of worship with any city, as is the case with a number of mountain sanctuaries in Phoenicia, whose epigraphic output is simply part of the surviving epigraphic production of Phoenicia in toto.62

Categories of inscriptions While tabulating the inscriptions we divided all datable specimens into two broad categories: public and private. Private inscriptions comprise those which we know are private as well as those which cannot be verified as being public. This may seem vague as a definition, but since this project does not rely on computer-based counting of inscription, each and every document in cities/territories under consideration was read by an epigrapher who made every effort to identify its feature constituent of the commissioning entity. If it could not be positively identified (outside of square brackets in the restored text) as a public body, king, emperor or magistrate, the inscription is counted as private. Public inscriptions are those that were cut due to a (most probably) recorded decision by one of the following types of officialdom: a public body or association of the polis; king; satrap; emperor; leagues and

Introduction  19 koina; the Senate; or individuals, such as administration officials, magistrates and priests (but not their family members).63 Therefore letters of kings and emperors are by definition public, no matter who decided to have them inscribed. Included are lists of citizens, new and old, as well as lists detailing the names of public officials, priests and association members as they presumably conduct some form of public activity.64 Included among the public inscriptions are building inscriptions as well as building (and other) accounts. Building inscriptions are often, outside of their proper archaeological context, indistinguishable from some other categories of inscriptions, dedications and tituli honorarii in the first place. They are, however, much more widespread in the West than in the East, so they are not singled out as a separate category in this book.65 It may be argued that in some cases inscriptions were commissioned by magistrates or priests who were acting in a private capacity; however, if their official position is included in the inscription it is counted as public, thus avoiding the risks associated with second-guessing the capacity in which an individual acted 2,000 years ago. Examples of this are the Milesian inscriptions commissioned by prophetai, hydrophoroi and tamiai at the end of their term of office, which are intended to commemorate them and, often, their illustrious ancestry. According to the editor (Rehm) they are private as no official civic board was visibly involved in their commission66; for us they are public as the individuals who commissioned them were highly prestigious public officials. Tabulation has been performed for every city and region in accordance with the stated rules; however the results will not always be displayed via specific graphs detailing private and public inscriptions. For the sake of clarity, and to avoid cluttering individual chapters with unnecessary graphs, separate graphs for public and private inscriptions will be included only when they bring meaningful variations to the wider picture of the chronological distribution of inscriptions. In each and every city/territory five categories of inscriptions are distinguished: almost always epitaphs and almost always decrees and tituli honorarii, plus one additional category which is best suited to the local conditions, selected because it is diagnostic of some local development. In one area under consideration, Phoenicia, there are virtually no surviving decrees – therefore the category inscriptions forestières replaces decrees. No ancient cemetery has been identified in Delphi; hence, few epitaphs from this city are extant – this category is not included and is replaced by manumissions. ‘Decrees’ are always classified as public. All other categories are either public or private, depending on the commissioner. An example of a typical decree (psephisma) of the demos is the early-Hellenistic document from Miletos: [ἔδοξε τῶι δήμ]ωι, γνώμη πρυτανέων, [ — c.10–12 — —]χου εἶπεν· ἐπειδὴ Θύσ[σος — c.6 — Μυ]λασεὸς εἰσήγαγε πυ-

20  Krzysztof Nawotka [ρῶν πλέον χιλί]ων μεδίμνων βουλόμε[νος εὐωνότερ]ον̣ ὠ[νε]ῖσθα[̣ ι] τ ̣οὺς π ̣[ο]λ[ί]τ ̣α ̣[ς] [καὶ πρόθυμον ἑα]οτὸν ̣ [παρέσχετο πρ]ὸ ̣ς [τὰ χρήσιμα τῆς πόλ]εως, [δεδόχθαι] τ ̣ῶ ̣ι [δήμωι δεδό]σθα[̣ ι μὲν αὀτῶι] πολιτεί[αν] [καὶ μετου]σ[ίαν ἱερῶν κ]α ̣ὶ ἀρχείων καὶ [τῶν ἄλλων] ὧν [καὶ Μ]ιλήσιοι μετέχου[σιν αὀτῶι καὶ τοῖς ἐκ]γόνοις [α]ὐτοῦ, [τοὺς δὲ πρυτάνεις ἐπικληρ]ῶσα[̣ ι α]ὀτὸν [ἐπὶ φυλήν· τὸ δὲ ψήφισμα] τόδ ̣ε ἀναγράψα[ι] [εἰς στήλην καὶ στῆσαι ε]ἰς τὸ [ἱερὸν] [τοῦ Ἀπόλλωνος]. The people have resolved, on the motion of the prytaneis, tabled by son of [- -]chos. Because Thyssos from Mylasa brought to Miletos more than a thousand medimnoi of wheat wishing to sell it to the citizens of Miletos at a discount price and thus showed himself eager to be serviceable to the city, the people decided that citizenship and the right to participate in religious worship and to assume public office and other privileges which the Milesians enjoy be conferred upon him and on his descendents, and that the prytaneis will assign him by lot to a phyle. This decree is to be inscribed in a stele which is to be placed in the temple of Apollo.67 The category of titled decrees in this project is much broader than is usually accepted, i.e. apart from the regular decrees, most often beginning with the formula ἔδοξε τῆι βουλῆι καὶ τῶι δήμωι or similar, we include all other acts adopted by legislative bodies: abbreviated decrees; documents accepted by vote by phylai, associations etc.; as well as laws (nomoi) and sacred laws, however rare these last two categories might be.68 The very designation ‘sacred laws’ has been disputed in recent decades, but we decided to keep it here for lack of a better word to refer to Greek legal documents containing (mostly) sacrificial and ritual norms.69 Some sacred laws and nomoi take the form of a decree, but even if they do not, we still classify them as decrees because they are normative acts of a polis or other bodies, dealing with religious matters.70 Surely the most numerous category is abbreviated decrees, especially common in Delphi and Miletos. An abbreviated decree conveys the will of the people, usually in matters of bestowing honours or conferring citizenship, but it does not contain the elaborate motivation (ἐπειδή clause) and many formulae typical of a regular decree.71 An example of an abbreviated decree is the mid-third c. BCE document from Delphi: Δελφοὶ ἔδωκαν Ἐργοίται Ἀνδροκλέος Μαντινεῖ αὐτῶι καὶ ἐκγόνοις προξενίαν, προμαντείαν, προεδρίαν, προδικίαν, ἀσυλίαν, ἀτέλειαν πάντων καὶ τἆλλα ὅσα καὶ τοῖς ἄλλοις προξένοις καὶ εὐεργέταις. ἄρχοντος Κλεώνδα, βουλευόντων Ἄνδρωνος, Ἀρχιάδα, Ἀλεξάρχου.

Introduction  21 The Delphians bestowed upon Ergoites son of Androkles from Mantineia and upon his descendents proxeny, right of consulting the oracle, privilege of front sits, priority of trial, right of asylum, exemption from public burdens, and other privileges as have been granted to other proxenoi and benefactors. Passed when Kleondas was archon, and Andron, Archades and Alexarchos were bouleutai.72 The next category is tituli honorarii; in most cases these are cut into the bases of statues erected for deserving benefactors, but sometimes they are engraved on walls or stones which never supported a statue. We give preference to the Latin name tituli honorarii instead of the equally common ‘honorific inscriptions’ since the latter may be somewhat misleading, bearing in mind that many decrees which convey honours on benefactors could also be called honorific inscription. Many (most?) tituli honorarii convey the name of the honorand in the accusative and the name of those who honour him in the nominative without a verb, e.g.: βασιλῆ Ἄτταλον βασιλέως Ἀττάλου ὁ δῆμος ὁ Μιλησίων ‘To king Attalos son of king Attalos, the boule and and demos of the Milesians (dedicated it)’.73 In this category we also include inscriptions if they convey honours granted to a deserving individual or relate to them in some other form.74 In many places honorific inscriptions are public; however there is also a substantial sub-category of private tituli honorarii, often commissioned by a family member of the honorand – in fact up to 40% of all tituli honorarii from Delphi and 70% from Olbia are private.75 In most cases the additional category for each city is designated as ‘dedications’. This includes a broad range of inscriptions of religious significance, including votive inscriptions, and some building inscriptions as well as inscriptions related to imperial cult.76 A typical dedication has the name of a god in the dative and the name of the dedicator in the nominative (if a dedicator is named at all), as in the early-Imperial inscription from Didyma: Τειμόθεος Ἀντιόχου Ἀπόλλωνι Διδυμεῖ καὶ τοῖς Σεβαστοῖς, ‘Teimotheos son of Antiochos (dedicates) to Apollo of Didyma and to Augusti’.77

22  Krzysztof Nawotka This broad category also comprises inscriptions on altars, with the name of a god often in the genitive, as, for example, on an Hellenistic altar from Miletos: Ἀπόλλωνος Διδυμέως Σωτῆρος ‘(Altar) of Apollo of Didyma, the Saviour’.78 Again, in classification in the category of dedications, the contents of the inscription are more important than grammar. In this project epitaphs include all inscriptions that are related to death and burial, including inscriptions on sarcophagi, urns and monumental tombs, in addition to regular tombstone inscriptions. Most epitaphs are private, with the exception of inscriptions, which say expressly that they were commissioned by public bodies. The fifth category, ‘other’, is inevitably difficult to define. It is comprised of all those inscriptions which cannot be placed into another category. These include, depending on the city, letters (including those from Emperors, kings and governors), building inscriptions, lists detailing names, dedications (only in those case studies in which dedications are not a separate category), votive inscriptions, oracles, topoi, curse tablets, milestones, acclamations and various other types of inscriptions.

Dates In this chapter datable inscriptions are those whose dates can be established with precision either on the basis of internal information (e.g. by the name of an eponymic magistrate, king, emperor, etc.) or through palaeographic or other criteria. In most cases we accept the dates established by the editors or epigraphers who re-studied the published inscriptions. The Lexicon of Greek Personal Names was very useful in dating some inscription left undated in epigraphic corpora.79 Sometimes but rarely the archaeological context allowed to propose dates to inscriptions undated by the editor.80 The number of datable inscriptions in the areas covered in this book is (usually) far bigger than it is in most other places for which epigraphic curves have been drawn, with the exception of Athens. When one compares the numbers of inscriptions that are dated precisely, i.e. 1,472 from Miletos and 828 from Sicily, with just two epitaphs from the cities of Roman Africa studied by MacMullen, there is little doubt that, even using this cursory comparison, completely divergent epigraphic habits existed in the Eastern and Western Mediterranean. With a large number of datable inscriptions identified in this project, it was possible to draw epigraphic curves, not taking into account inscriptions that are dated by the editors as “Hellenistic” or “Imperial”. The contributors to this book decided not to apply MacMullen’s or

Introduction  23 indeed any statistical model which presupposes a more or less equal distribution of inscriptions per year in either of the broad dating categories (e.g. ‘Augustus’ or ‘early Empire’). Our charts, based on real dates, often show tremendous differences in the epigraphic output of a particular city over a period of 25 years, let alone a century. This necessitates the use of caution in applying a statistical model, one that calculates yearly epigraphic production by dividing the total number of inscriptions from a given period by the number of years in that period, which may very easily produce invalid data and is, to quote Cherry, ‘little more than informed guess-work’.81 One needs to note that Meyer’s curve, based on real figures from Athens (7,480 dated epitaphs), differs markedly from curves drawn using model-based dating.82 In a way this project will test the relative importance or unimportance of epitaphs as an indicator of the chronological distribution of inscriptions in the East. In numerical terms alone, epitaphs in the Eastern Mediterranean are much less important than they are in the Latin-writing world, and certainly Meyer’s statement “Epitaphs constitute the bulk of all provincial inscriptions” is not valid for cities and territories studied in this book.83 This book also aims to answer the question of whether there was a universal epigraphic curve for the whole of the Mediterranean,84 or at least for a its eastern part, or if local factors determined the shape of the epigraphic curve in each and every city.

Presentation of material Wherever possible, inscriptions are tabulated in 25- and 100-year brackets. In those cases in which too few inscriptions can be assigned to quarter-centuries (Bosporan Kingdom, Chersonesos, Phrygia) the graphs are arranged in 50-year brackets; in the case of Mesambria a graph arranged in 100-year brackets is the only feasible option. Presenting material in 25-year brackets is akin to MacMullen’s 20-year brackets; the 25-year brackets of Le Bohec, Meyer, Cherry and Hedrick; and Hochscheid’s arrangement of archaic and classical sculpture in Athens.85 This division of material is not only a matter of convention. It stems primarily from the desire to interpret minima and maxima of the epigraphic curve with reference to historical events evolving within a generation or within the reign of a king or emperor who might have affected epigraphic production in a particular city.86 Graphs drawn on the basis of tabulation by century present a flatter image and are less susceptible to historical interpretation. Methodological premises of a fruitful study of the epigraphic habit, as formulated by Chaniotis, contain a preference for qualitative over quantitative research, including taking into account the nature of the documents; their spatial distribution within the region under consideration; their spatial distribution within a community; the gender and social position of the dedicators and honorands; and, finally, the textual aspects of inscriptions.87 This project agrees with much of what Chaniotis says, excluding, however, his views on pottery inscriptions and inscriptions on tiles (above). This volume does not

24  Krzysztof Nawotka provide separate graphs that reflect the gender and social position of dedicators and honorands – as these would be composed of very few inscriptions, some tituli honorarii, some dedications and some decrees – only those which were commissioned by or refer to individual people. Bearing in mind that many inscriptions in these categories are anchored in the activities of the polis, tribes, ephebes and various other associations, the gender relevance of the dedicators cannot be seriously approached. By not taking into account spatial distribution of inscriptions within a community and gender-related issues this project is less comprehensive than what Chaniotis advocates as a proper study of epigraphic habit. It is, on the other hand, more comprehensive in chronological and, to a degree, geographic terms. Chaniotis limits his study of the Cretan epigraphic habit to central Crete in the Hellenistic and Roman age. This project attempts to sample all of the Eastern Mediterranean, from the beginning of Greek alphabetic writing to the mid-seventh c. CE.

Abbreviations FdD Fouilles de Delphes. Tome III: Épigraphie (Paris 1922–1976) I.Didyma Didyma, II: Die Inschriften (1958) IGBulg Inscriptiones Graecae in Bulgaria repertae (Sofia 1956–1997) Milet Inschriften von Milet (1908–2006)

Notes 1 My research on this topic was supported by the National Science Centre (Poland) under Grant no. UMO-2014/14/A/HS3/00132. 2 Meritt 1940, 91: “the democratic habit of inscribing things on stone”. 3 MacMullen 1982. 4 Mrozek 1973; Mrozek 1988; Hedrick 1999. 5 See Hedrick’s (1999, 393–395) pessimistic remarks on the practical impossibility of estimating the proportion, even in the case of Athenian decrees, the most studied category of ancient inscriptions. 6 Duncan-Jones 1982, 63, 361. See critical remarks in Saastamoinen 2015, 457–458. 7 See, e.g., section “Epigraphic corpora and epigraphic curves” in Trout 2009. 8 Lyd. Mag. III.49 and I.28; Procopius, Historia arcana 26.6–10; Evagr. H.E. III 42. Maas 1992, 18–19. The recent volume The Epigraphic Cultures of Late Antiquity defines Late Antiquity as the period from the end of the third until the end of the sixth century, albeit with a caveat that in many regions the ancient epigraphic habit continued until the eighth century (Bolle, Mechado and Witschel 2017, 15 note 1). 9 Foss 1979, 103–105. 10 On the importance of the seventh century as the turning point in the history of the late Roman/Byzantine society see, e.g., Mango 1981, 48–49; Haldon 1997; Mango 2002, 2–5; Treadgold 2002, 142–150. 11 E.g. Volume XIV of The Cambridge Ancient History ends its narration just prior to the Arab invasion. Muhammad is also the final point of The Oxford Handbook of Late Antiquity (see the succinct explanation of its rationale: Inglebert 2012, 4–7). 641 is the end-date of The Prosopography of the Later Roman Empire and Mitchell 2015.

Introduction  25

































26  Krzysztof Nawotka

























Introduction  27

Bibliography Adams, J.N. (2003), Bilingualism and the Latin Language, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Adams, J.N., M. Janse and S. Swain (eds.) (2002), Bilingualism in Ancient Society: Language Contact and the Written Text, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Aubert, C. (2004), ‘Le commerce antique en Phénicie d’après les amphores locales et importées de Beyrouth’, in: J. Eiring and J. Lund (eds.), Transport Amphorae and Trade in the Eastern Mediterranean: Acts of the International Colloquium at the Danish Institute at Athens, September 26–29, 2002, Aarhus: Aarhus University Press, pp. 31–41. Beltrán Lloris, F. (2015), ‘The ‘Epigraphic Habit’ in the Roman World’, in: C. Bruun and J. Edmondson (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Roman Epigraphy, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 131–148. Berkowitz, L. (1977), Thesaurus Linguae Graecae: Canon of Greek Authors and Works from Homer to A.D. 200, Costa Mesa, CA: TLG Publications. Bodel, J. (2001), ‘Epigraphy and the Ancient Historian’, in: J. Bodel (ed.), Epigraphic Evidence: Ancient History from Inscriptions, London and New York: Routledge, pp. 1–56. Boeckh, A. and E. Bratuscheck (ed.) (1877), Encyklopädie und Methodologie der ­philologischen Wissenschaften, Leipzig: Teubner. Bolle, K., C. Machado and C. Witschel (2017), ‘Introduction: Defining the Field – The Epigraphic Cultures of Late Antiquity’, in: K. Bolle, C. Machado and C. Witschel (eds.), The Epigraphic Cultures of the Late Antiquity, Heidelberg: Steiner, pp. 15–30. Börker, C. and J. Burrow (1998), Die hellenistischen Amphorenstempel aus Pergamon, Berlin and New York: De Gruyter. Böttger, B. and D.B. Šelov (1998), Amphorendipinti aus Tanais, Moscow: Paleograph. Carbon, J.-M. and V. Pirenne-Delforge (2012), ‘Beyond Greek ‘Sacred Laws’’, Kernos vol. 25, pp. 163–182. Chaniotis, A. (2004), ‘From Communal Spirit to Individuality: The Epigraphic Habit in Hellenistic and Roman Crete’, in: M. Livadiotti and I. Simiakaki (eds.), Creta romana e protobizantina: atti del congresso internazionale (Iraklion, 23–30 settembre 2000), Padova: Bottega d’Erasmo, pp. 75–87. Cherry, D. (1995), ‘Re-Figuring the Roman Epigraphic Habit’, The Ancient History Bulletin vol. 9, pp. 143–156. Cherry, D. (1998), Frontier and Society in Roman North Africa, Oxford: Clarendon Press. Cooley, A.E. (2012a), The Cambridge Manual of Latin Epigraphy, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Cooley, A.E. (2012b), ‘From Document to Monument: Inscribing Roman Official Documents in the Greek East’, in: J. Davies and J. Wilkes (eds.), Epigraphy and the Historical Sciences, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 159–182. Duncan-Jones, R. (1974), The Economy of the Roman Empire: Quantitative Studies,2 Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Eck, W. (1998), ‘Inschriften auf Holz. Ein unterschätztes Phänomen der epigraphischen Kultur Roms’, in: P. Kneissl and V. Losemann (eds.), Imperium Romanum. Studien zur Geschichte und Rezeption. Festschrift für Karl Christ zum 75. Geburtstag, Stuttgart: Steiner, pp. 203–217.

28  Krzysztof Nawotka Eck, W. (2009), ‘The Presence, Role and Significance of Latin in the Epigraphy and Culture of the Roman Near East’, in: H.M. Cotton, R.G. Hoyland J.J. Price and D.J. Wasserstein (eds.), From Hellenism to Islam: Cultural and Linguistic Change in the Roman Near East, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 15–42. Foss, C. (1979), Ephesus after Antiquity: A Late Antique, Byzantine, and Turkish City, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Gočeva, Z. and M. Opperman (1979), Corpus Cultus Equitis Thracii, I: Monumenta orae Ponti Euxini Bulgariae, Leiden: Brill. Hainzmann, M (2012), ‘‘Kleininschriften’ versus ‘Monumentalinschriften’? Alte und neue Ordnungskriterien für epigraphische Texte’, in: M.E. Fuchs, R. Sylvestre and C. Schmidt Heidenreich (eds.), Inscriptions mineures: nouveautés et réflexions (Actes du premier Colloque Ductus, Lausanne 2008), Bern: Lang, pp. 449–459. Haldon, J.F. (1997), Byzantium in the Seventh Century: The Transformation of a Culture, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Harris, W.V. (1993), The Inscribed Economy. Production and Distribution in the Roman Empire in the Light of Instrumentum Domesticum, Ann Arbor: University of Michigan. Hedrick, C.W. Jr. (1999), ‘Democracy and the Athenian Epigraphical Habit’, Hesperia vol. 68, pp. 387–439. Hochscheid, H. (2015), Networks of Stone: Sculpture and Society in Archaic and Classical Athens, Oxford: Lang. Inglebert, H. (2012), ‘Introduction: Late Antique Conceptions of Late Antiquity’, in: S.F. Johnson (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Late Antiquity, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 1–28. Kearsley, R.A. with the collaboration of T.V. Evans (2001), Greeks and Romans in Imperial Asia: Mixed Language Inscriptions and Linguistic Evidence for Cultural Interaction until the End of AD III, Bonn: Habelt. Koehler, C.G. and P.M. Wallace Matheson (2004), ‘Knidian Amphora Chronology, Pergamon to Corinth’, in: J. Eiring and J. Lund (eds.), Transport Amphorae and Trade in the Eastern Mediterranean: Acts of the International Colloquium at the Danish Institute at Athens, September 26–29, 2002, Aarhus: Aarhus University Press, pp. 163–169. Larfled, W. (1907), Handbuch der griechischen Epigraphik, I-II, Leipzig: O.R. Reisland. Lassère, J.-M. (1973), ‘Recherches sur la chronologie des épitaphes païennes de l’Africa’, Antiquités Africaines vol. 7, pp. 7–152. Lassère, J.-M. (2007), Manuel d’épigraphie romaine,2 Paris: Picard. Le Bohec, Y. (1989), La troisième légion Auguste, Paris: Éditions du CNRS. Ma, J. (2013), Statues and Cities: Honorific Portraits and Civic Identity in the Hellenistic World, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Maas, M. (1992), John Lydus and the Roman Past: Antiquarianism and Politics in the Age of Justinian, London and New York: Routledge. MacMullen, R. (1982), ‘The Epigraphic Habit in the Roman Empire’, The American Journal of Philology vol. 103, pp. 233–246. MacMullen, R. (1986), ‘Frequency of Inscriptions in Roman Lydia’, Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik vol. 65, pp. 237–238. Mango, C. (1981), ‘Discontinuity with the Classical Past in Byzantium’, in: M. Mullett and R. Scott (eds.), Byzantium and the Classical Tradition: University of Birmingham Thirteenth Spring Symposium of Byzantine Studies 1979, Birmingham: Centre for Byzantine Studies, University of Birmingham, pp. 48–57.

Introduction  29 Mango, C.A. (2002), ‘Introduction’, in: C.A. Mango (ed.), The Oxford History of Byzantium, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 1–16. McLean, B.H (2002), An Introduction to Greek Epigraphy of the Hellenistic and Roman Periods from Alexander the Great down to the Reign of Constantine (323 B.C.A.D. 337), Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Meritt, B.D. (1940), Epigraphica Attica, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Meyer, E.A. (1990), ‘Explaining the Epigraphic Habit in the Roman Empire: The Evidence of Epitaphs’, The Journal of Roman Studies vol. 80, pp. 74–96. Meyer, E.A. (1993), ‘Epitaphs and Citizenship in Classical Athens’, The Journal of Hellenic Studies vol. 113, pp. 99–121. Migeotte, L. (2002), ‘Information et vie politique dans la cité grecque’, in: J. Andreau and C. Virlouvet (eds.), L’information et la mer dans le monde antique, Rome: École française de Rome, pp. 21–32. Mitchell, S. (2015), A History of the Later Roman Empire, AD 284– 641, Chichester: Wiley–Blackwell. Mrozek, S. (1973), ‘À propos de la répartitions chronologique des inscriptions latines dans le Haut-Empire’, Epigraphica vol. 35, pp. 113–118. Mrozek, S. (1988), ‘À propos de la répartitions chronologique des inscriptions latines dans le Haut-Empire’, Epigraphica vol. 50, pp. 61–64. Mullen, A. (2013), Southern Gaul and the Mediterranean: Multilingualism and Multiple Identities in the Iron Age and Roman Periods, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Mullen, A. and P. James (eds.) (2012), Multilingualism in the Graeco-Roman Worlds, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Nawotka, K. (1999), ‘Graffiti and dipinti of Nymphaion 1993–1997’, Archeologia vol. 49 (1998) [1999], pp. 85–98. Nawotka, K. (2003), ‘Freedom of Greek Cities in Asia Minor in the Age of Alexander the Great’, Klio vol. 85, pp. 15–41. Nawotka, K. (2014), Boule and Demos in Miletus and Its Pontic Colonies, Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Panagou, T. (2016), ‘Patterns of Amphora Stamp Distribution: Tracking down Export Tendencies’, in: E.M. Harris, D.M. Lewis and M. Woolmer (eds.), The Ancient Greek Economy: Markets, Households and City-States, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 207–229. Panciera, S. (2012), ‘What Is an Inscription? Problems of Definition and Identity of an Historical Source’, Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik vol. 183, pp. 1–10. Parker, R.C.T. (2004), ‘What Are Greek Sacred Laws?’, in: E.M. Harris and L. Rubinstein (eds.), The Law and the Courts in Ancient Greece, London: Duckworth, pp. 57–70. Perry, M.J. (2014), Gender, Manumission, and the Roman Freedwoman, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Prag, J.R.W. (2002), ‘Epigraphy by Numbers: Latin and the Epigraphic Culture in Sicily’, in: A.E. Cooley et al. (eds.), Becoming Roman, Writing Latin? Literacy and Epigraphy in the Roman West, Portsmouth, RI: Journal of Roman Archaeology L.L.C., pp. 15–31. Prakken, D.W. (1943), Studies in Greek Genealogical Chronology, Lancaster, PA: Lancaster Press. Rhodes, P.J. (2001), ‘Public Documents in the Greek States: Archives and Inscriptions’, Greece and Rome vol. 48, pp. 1–2, 33–44, 136–153.

30  Krzysztof Nawotka Rochette, B. (1997), Le latin dans le monde grec. Recherches sur la diffusion de la langue et des lettres latines dans les provinces hellénophones de l’Empire romain, Brussels: Latomus. Saastamoinen, A. (2002), ‘On the Problem of Recognising African Building Inscriptions’, Arctos vol. 33, pp. 79–96. Saastamoinen, A. (2015), ‘Roman Building Inscriptions as Historical Sources: Methodological Questions and Reflections’, in: P. Ruggeri et al. (eds.), L’Africa romana. Momenti di continuità e rottura: bilancio di trent’anni di convegni L’Africa romana. Atti del xx Convegno Internazionale di studi Alghero – Porto Conte Ricerche, 26–29 settembre 2013, Rome: Carocci, pp. 445–465. Saller, R.P. and B.D. Shaw (1984), ‘Tombstones and Roman Family Relations in the Principate: Civilians, Soldiers and Slaves’, The Journal of the Roman Studies vol. 74, pp. 124–156. Saprykin, S.Y. and A.A. Maslennikov (2007), Graffiti i dipinti khory antichnogo Bospora, Simferopol and Kerch: ADEF - Ukraina. Schmidt, M. (2011), Einführung in die Lateinische Epigraphik,2 Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft. Solomonik, E.I. (1984), Graffiti s khory Khersonesa, Kiev: Naukova Dumka. Taylor, C. (2011), ‘Graffiti and the Epigraphic Habit: Creating Communities and Writing Alternate Histories in Classical Attica’, in: J.A. Bird and C. Taylor (eds.), Ancient Graffiti in Context, New York and London: Routledge, pp. 90–109. Treadgold, W.T. (2002), ‘The Struggle for Survival (641–780)’, in: C.A. Mango (ed.), The Oxford History of Byzantium, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 129–150. Trout, D.E. (2009), ‘Inscribing Identity: The Latin Epigraphic Habit in Late Antiquity’, in: P. Rousseau and J. Raithel (eds.), A Companion to Late Antiquity, Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell, pp. 170–186. Węcowski, M. (2018), Dylemat więźnia. Ostracyzm ateński i jego pierwotne cele, Toruń: Wydawnictwo Naukowe UMK. Woodhead, A.G. (1981), The Study of Greek Inscriptions,2 Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Woolf, G. (1996), ‘Monumental Writing and the Expansion of Roman Society in the Early Empire’, The Journal of the Roman Studies vol. 86, pp. 22–39.

1

The epigraphic curve in Boiotia Łukasz Szeląg

Material and methodology Sources The fundamental problem regarding Boiotian inscriptions is finding and identifying them. Unfortunately, there is no modern epigraphic corpus for all of Boiotia.1 There are two modern corpora: Les Inscriptions des Thespies by P. Roesch, G. Argoud, G. Vottéro and A. Schachter (2nd edition, 2009), and Hoi epigraphes tou Oropou by V. Petrakos (1997).2 There is also the seventh volume of W. Dittenberger’s Inscriptiones Graecae (1891), which covers the whole region.3 Dittenberger’s volume contains 4,269 texts; however many of these texts either do not originate from Boiotia (coming from Megaris and other parts of Central Greece) or are listed as graffiti. The majority of texts are undated. Other sources used for collecting material include the following journals: Supplementum Epigraphicum Graecum, Bulletin épigraphique, L’Année épigraphique and Teiresias Epigraphica. Additionally, G. Vottéro’s catalogue of dialectal inscriptions4; various prosopographic works5; and the PHI,6 EDH7 and EDCS8 databases were consulted for collecting inscriptions and their dates. Several hundred texts inscribed on ceramics have been excluded from the study; the reason for their exclusion can be found in the “Introduction” to this volume. Number and dates of texts Unfortunately, only the minority of Boiotian documents are dated in terms of absolute chronology (mostly public documents, such as decrees, tituli honorarii, lists of names and a few dedications). Most texts are dated using palaeographic criteria. In general, those dates proposed by the editors of the various publications – the corpora, SEG and LGPN – as well as those proposed by G. Vottéro have been used.9 If there are differences regarding a specific date, the latest proposal (generally Vottéro’s for dialectal and the SEG or LGPN for the rest) is accepted. Generally, Vottéro’s dating is more exact; therefore a great number of dialectal texts, including epitaphs, are

32  Łukasz Szeląg Table 1.1 Number of inscriptions from Boiotia datable by century All inscriptions Boiotia Thespiai Tanagra Oropos Thebes

5,280 1,189 1,119 710 596

Decrees

Tituli honorarii

Lists of names Epitaphs

Other

515 47 33 285 10

291 113 11 56 38

335 108 11 17 21

928 199 13 162 96

3,211 722 1,051 190 431

Table 1.2 Number of inscriptions from Boiotia datable by quarter-century

Boiotia Thespiai Tanagra Oropos Thebes

All Decrees inscriptions

Tituli honorarii

Lists of names

Epitaphs

Other

2,785 477 675 365 283

186 69 6 36 24

228 56 6 16 12

1,445 222 620 11 181

506 94 10 80 56

420 36 33 222 10

precisely dated, sometimes to within a quarter-century. Contrary to this, many non-dialectal texts, especially post-second c. BCE examples, are described as “Roman”, “Imperial”, “Byzantine” or “Christian”. For manumissions I have accepted the dates proposed by C. Grenet.10 In total, 6,167 texts were studied: 5,280 are dated to a century (Table 1.1) and 2,785 are dated to a quarter-century (Table 1.2), 887 inscriptions cannot be classified (even to a century), 280 are classified as “Imperial” or “Roman” and 20 are described as “Christian” or “Byzantine”.11 Selected cities In addition to the graphs representing the whole of Boiotia, graphs representing the cities of Thespiai, Tanagra, Thebes and Oropos are included. Documents from these poleis are numerous – Thespiai provide 1,189 texts, Tanagra 1119 and Oropos 710, whilst 596 examples originate from Thebes. The curves from Thebes and Tanagra are not particularly revealing as the majority of inscriptions are epitaphs. The shape of the curve for Thebes would be very different if inscriptions on ceramics were included – the majority of Theban inscriptions are dedications made on vases and kantharoi, mainly found in sanctuaries in Kabeireion and Herakleion. The peak of their frequency was in the fifth c. BCE. Beyond the high number of texts, these poleis were chosen due to the role they played in Boiotian history. Thebes was the largest city in the Archaic and Classical periods, and dominated the region for over 200 years. Thespiai

The epigraphic curve in Boiotia  33 and Tanagra were important settlements from the Archaic period onwards, especially during Hellenistic and Roman times – both also had “free city” status and were described by Strabo as the only real cities in Boiotia during his time.12 Oropos is a different case entirely. First, it was not a “pure” Boiotian settlement but a colony settled by Ionians from Eretria. Second, during certain periods this polis was not formally a part of Boiotia but was independent or under Athenian control.13 Notwithstanding this detail, Oropos has been included as part of Boiotia. This area was very important for the Boiotian League – mainly due to the sanctuary of Amphiaraos, where the koinon erected many federal decrees. Oropos was also part of the Boiotian koinon during the time when epigraphic activity in both the city and the region was greatest. This city is also important due to its non-Boiotian origin. As we can see from the graphs, despite fact that the Oropians did not use the Boiotian dialect and were not part of the Boiotian ethnos initially, the epigraphic curve for the city is similar to that of the rest of Boiotia.14 The composition of the Oropian epigraphic material is also interesting. More decrees were found in Oropos than in the rest of Boiotia, and they provide over half of the datable documents from this polis (most decrees were inscribed when Oropos was part of Boiotia, not at the time of Athenian domination). Categories of inscriptions The extra category adopted for this case study, in addition to decrees, tituli honorarii, epitaphs and ‘other’, is ‘lists of names’. Included in this category are military catalogues, lists of festival’s victors, lists of ephebes, lists from gymnasia and lists of magistrates and public officials. These texts are an effect of public activity by poleis, koina or associations; we can compare their frequency against other public inscriptions, such as decrees or honorific texts. Catalogues of names were very popular in Boiotia, from the Hellenistic period through to the late Imperial Period; examples from as late as the third c. CE have been found. I have not counted in this category the lists from polyandria as they can be classified as public epitaphs.15 All these lists of polyandria are from the last quarter of the fifth or the fourth c. BCE, except IThesp 487, which is from the second half of the third c. BCE. This type of inscription appeared before other lists of names, but later these two types of texts occurred simultaneously. In the category “other”, dedications are most common. This form of epigraphic activity was very popular in Boiotia from the Archaic period through to the cessation of the epigraphic culture in this region; the number of texts has survived from the sixth and even the seventh c. BCE. The majority of these texts were found in various Boiotian sanctuaries, including the Vale of Muses in Thespiai and sanctuaries in Akraiphian Ptoion, A mphiareion (in the territory of Oropos) and Theban Kabeireion. Manumissions are also included in this category; most of them are from the city of Chaironeia and are dated in the second and first c. BCE.16

34  Łukasz Szeląg Latin inscriptions Only 12 Latin or bilingual texts have been found. Five are bilingual epitaphs – one originates from Thespiai,17 two from Anthedon,18 one from Lebadeia19 and one from Koroneia.20 There are two Greek-Latin texts; the nature of the specimen from Lebadeia is not clear,21 the other is a building inscription from Thespiai, dated to 87 CE.22 There are also two Latin milestones from Koroneia, erected in 115/116 CE23 (they were later recycled as honorific inscriptions dedicated to emperors in the fourth c. CE); a fragment of the Latin version of a Diocletian price edict from 301 CE found in Plataiai (Greek versions have also been found in Boiotia); a dedication to the emperor commissioned by a Roman citizen in Ptoion; and, finally, a Latin document dated to 14 CE and dedicated to an emperor (either Augustus or Tiberius) – this document was probably commissioned by the association of Roman negotiatores from Thespiai.24 Earlier inscriptions erected by this body are in Greek, which suggests that in general the Romans in Boiotia did not inscribe their documents in their own language unless they were dedications to the emperor.25

Commentary The shape of the curve – Boiotia (Graphs 1.1–1.4) There is one Oropian inscribed instrumentum from the eighth c. BCE and some Boiotian texts from the seventh c. BCE, but the real epigraphic activity 2500

Number of inscriptions

2000

All inscriptions

1500

Decrees Tituli honorarii Lists of names

1000

Other Epitaphs 500

0 8th 7th 6th 5th 4th 3rd 2nd 1st 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th BCE BCE BCE BCE BCE BCE BCE BCE CE CE CE CE CE CE

Graph 1.1 Boiotia – inscriptions by century.

The epigraphic curve in Boiotia  35 2500

Number of inscriptions

2000

1500

All inscriptions Thespiai Thebes

1000

Tanagra Oropos

500

0 8th 7th 6th 5th 4th 3rd 2nd 1st 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th BCE BCE BCE BCE BCE BCE BCE BCE CE CE CE CE CE CE

Graph 1.2  Boiotia, Thespiai, Tanagra, Thebes, Oropos – inscriptions by century.

700 600

Number of inscriptions

500 All inscriptions 400

Decrees Tituli honorarii

300

Lists of names Other

200

Epitaphs

100 0 7th 6th 5th 4th 3rd 2nd 1st BCE BCE BCE BCE BCE BCE BCE

1st CE

2nd 3rd CE CE

Graph 1.3  Boiotia – public inscriptions by century.

4th CE

5th CE

6th CE

36  Łukasz Szeląg 900

Number of inscriptions

800 700 600 500

Other

400

Epitaphs

300

Lists of names Tituli honorarii

200

Decrees

100 351-375 CE

301-325 CE

251-275 CE

201-225 CE

151-175 CE

101-125 CE

1-25 CE

51-75 CE

50-26 BCE

100-76 BCE

150-126 BCE

250-226 BCE

200-176 BCE

300-276 BCE

350-326 BCE

400-376 BCE

450-426 BCE

500-476 BCE

600-576 BCE

550-526 BCE

650-625 BCE

0

Graph 1.4  Inscriptions from Boiotia – by quarter-century.

occurred in the region during the sixth c. BCE, during which time 97 inscriptions were produced; these were mostly epitaphs and private dedications.26 Although there are many more fifth-c. BCE documents than sixth-c. (over five times more), we can observe that the growing trend in the epigraphic production observable at the end of the sixth and beginning of the fifth c. BCE ceased in the second quarter of the fifth c. BCE.27 Presumably, the growth of the number of texts in the fifth c. BCE could be higher if the tendency from the turn of the century continued after the first quarter. It did not happen because of the Persian Wars. Boiotia was a battlefield during the war of 480–479 BCE. Thespiai and Plataiai decided to fight Xerxes, and were destroyed after the battle of Thermopylai.28 Thespiai also lost 700 men in the battle, probably its whole hoplite corps.29 Thebes, along with other cities, joined the Persians and fought with them at Plataiai. After the battle, Thebes was besieged. There were two major consequences of the war: first, the reconstruction of the most important cities was necessary, and second, the population of the region was dramatically reduced due to war and expulsion (to Persia).30 Also, the process of the federalization of the region under the hegemony of Thebes ceased, resulting in a loss of Boiotian influence in the region, which had been present for several decades.31 In the fourth c. BCE the growing trend was maintained. This is not observable in the quarter-century graphs as many inscriptions are vaguely dated as “fifth/fourth” or “fourth/third c. BCE”. One could expect larger growth in the fourth c. BCE as this was the time of political and military domination for Boiotia in mainland Greece. However, we must remember that this domination was short-lived. Its cost was high; the independence of important poleis, such as Thespiai, Plataiai and Orchomenos, was crushed;

The epigraphic curve in Boiotia  37 32

and a number of citizens were expelled. The hegemon of Boiotia – Thebes – were destroyed by Alexander the Great in 335 BCE and rebuilt by Kassander 19 years later. Had the most important city of Boiotia not been destroyed in the third quarter of the fourth c. BCE, and three other cities deprived of the status of polis, the growth in the frequency of inscriptions would have been significantly higher. In the case of Thebes, the number of texts in the fourth c. BCE is lower than it was in the fifth c. BCE; hence, the effect of the destruction of the city is more visible in the epigraphic curve than was its earlier domination. It is interesting that democracy changed the composition of the material from this city (occurrence of the decrees and lists of names), but the number of documents did not increase.33 In Oropos, the fourth c. BCE was in fact when the epigraphic culture of the city began (see “The shape of the curve – Oropos”). In the fourth c. BCE we can observe a major diversification in the types of produced documents, especially in public. This is when the first Boiotian decrees appeared, a consequence of the establishment of the democratic koinon (the constitution of the Boiotian League dissolved by the Peace of Antalkidas, and described in Hellenica Oxyrhynchia,34 was oligarchic). Some scholars suggest that democracy was established in some Boiotian poleis as early as the fifth c. BCE, the time of the Athenian domination after the battle of Oinophytai.35 However, there is no knowledge of a Boiotian decree inscribed before the introduction of the “Theban League”; the only fifth c. BCE inscription included in the category “decrees” is a lex sacra from Oropos.36 In the fourth c. BCE, the first non-public tituli honorarii appeared in Boiotia, and the first public honorific texts appear in the third c. BCE; however, they were infrequent. The peak of the epigraphic curve throughout Boiotia, and in the selected cities, occurs in the third c. BCE, especially in its second half, after the defeat at Chaironeia in 245 BCE (the Boiotian army was reorganized around this time).37 The majority of Boiotian decrees, most of them proxenies, belong in the second half of the third c. BCE.38 The non-proxenic decrees pertain to land-leasing; honoring of citizens; and the organization of, or participation in, festivals, such as the Mouseia festival of Thespiai. Growth can be observed in all categories; also, a peak occurs in all but tituli honorarii (the peak for this category occurs in the first c. BCE). Otherwise the third c. BCE was not a golden age of Boiotia. The political power of the region was weak, and whilst Boiotia remained an active player in the foreign policy of mainland Greece,39 it was no longer a dominant participant in this due to various alliances and treaties struck in the Hellenistic age.40 Generally, the beginning of this age was also the beginning of the process of the political and military decline of Boiotia. The establishment of the new form of the koinon in the third c. BCE had a large impact on public epigraphic production connected with diplomacy (proxenies), war (military catalogues) and cultural activity (festival organization and financial support, even by the Hellenistic kings). In this new

38  Łukasz Szeląg koinon there was no hegemon, as there had been in Thebes before Alexander the Great – after 287 BCE Boiotia was divided into seven districts (tele): three for the largest poleis (Thebes, Thespiai, Tanagra), four for the rest.41 The new capital of the koinon became the sanctuary of Poseidon at Onchestos in the territory of the not-so-important city of Haliartos.42 However, the peak of the third c. BCE is not solely due to public activity as numerous private dedications, including an extremely high number of epitaphs, were produced. The third c. BCE might not be the “golden age” of Boiotia in other fields, but it was certainly the golden age of its epigraphic culture. So, despite the weak international position of Boiotia in the Greek world, the public structure of its cities and koinon, as well as its economic stability, enabled the production of a large number of inscriptions connected with various sections of both public and private life. Throughout the history of the independent Boiotian League, the Hellenistic koinon proved to be the most durable – lasting over 150 years – while no previous system lasted more than a century. The stability of the League and the Boiotian civic institutions likely influenced the epigraphic output during this period. The composition of the epigraphic material from the following century is similar. There remains plenty of variety within both public and private epigraphic production. Acts of manumission (tabulated here in the ‘other’ category) appear in the third and frequently in the second c. BCE. They were found in many Boiotian settlements, most of them in Chaironeia.43 In this respect Boiotia is similar in principal but not in scale to Delphi. Proliferation of manumission inscription and similarity in decrees are common features of these two areas in Central Greece.44 In the second c. BCE, the curves throughout the whole region (including in the four selected cities) decrease, which seems to be connected with the beginning of the Roman presence in Greece. How did this affect the epigraphic activity of the Boiotians? From the beginning of the fifth to the beginning of the second c. BCE only 2 quarters produced less than 50 inscriptions: 450–426 BCE and 375–351 BCE. In the case of the latter this is not surprising as this period oversaw the brutal process of regional unification under the new democratic koinon, which included the destruction of important settlements; there is no reasonable explanation for the minimum of 450–426 BCE. After 176 BCE, no quarter produced more than 34 inscriptions. This is most likely due to the fact that epitaphs from the late Hellenistic and Roman period are dated less precisely than other texts, but still, they were much less frequent in this time than they were in the Classical and Hellenistic periods. The advent of Rome changed the political landscape in Greece. The Boiotian koinon was dissolved in 172/1 BCE (and was re-established before 34/3 BCE).45 Roman supremacy weakened and indeed eliminated independent the international policy of Boiotian poleis; hence, we see a substantial decrease in proxeny decrees (previously the most frequent subject of Boiotian decrees). There was no longer a federal Boiotian army and no formal federal activity;46 incidentally, even without the koinon

The epigraphic curve in Boiotia  39 the Boiotians still cultivated federal traditions within their cultural activity.47 The power of Hellenistic kings was crushed, in stark contrast to the end of the third c. BCE (when a Ptolemaic donation was given to support the Mouseia); no financial assistance from them flew to Boiotian festivals. The political decisions of the Boiotians suggest that they did not fully understand the differences between Rome and other dominant third-century powers. They simply chose the wrong side to support in many cases: e.g. Antiochos III, Achaians and Mithridates. The first 150 years of relations between the Boiotians and Rome were catastrophic to the descendants of Boiotos. Besides the dissolution of the koinon Boiotian cities were either destroyed (Haliartos) or reduced territorially (Thebes).48 In the first c. BCE we can observe a growth within two categories – tituli honorarii and “other” – whilst decrees and lists of names decrease, never to rise again (the fall in the frequency of lists of names and epitaphs ceases in the second c. CE, declining again in the third c. CE).49 The growth in the number of honorific inscriptions is caused by the formation of relationships between Boiotians and their new masters, the Romans. The honorification of emperors and other members of the Roman elite is a well-attested phenomenon.50 Boiotia erected statues for the Roman generals in the first c. BCE; there were close connections between Thespiai and the Statilii Tauri family (even the cult), the benefactors of Thespiai.51 We can also observe the activities of the local elite – such as Epaminondas of Akraiphia or the family of Phileini of Thespiai.52 The third c. CE is the beginning of the end of the epigraphic culture of Boiotia – the frequency of materials, stabilized in the second c. CE, falls and remains sporadic throughout late antiquity (the growth in the first quarter of the fourth c. CE is caused by the reproduction of numerous copies of Dioclectian’s price edict). In addition to five inscriptions from the fifth c. CE and one from the sixth c., there are 20 texts classified as “Christian” or “Byzantine”, but generally the epigraphic culture in Boiotia ends in the fourth c. CE. The political events are not, however, the only, or even the main, factor affecting the shape of the epigraphic curve. Generally, the climax of the Boiotian demography and cities’ size as well as agricultural production occurs in the Classical and early-Hellenistic period (especially in the fourth c. BCE); a decline is observable after 200 BCE, especially in the lateHellenistic-early Roman period.53 The period of the economic and demographic climax is also that of the greatest epigraphic activity in the region, but the epigraphic maximum in the second half of the third c. BCE cannot be explained by this alone. The fall in the epigraphic output takes place at the same time as the beginning of the demographic and agricultural decline. However, this process could explain the fact that during the time of Roman domination over Greece, even during the Imperial period, the frequency of Boiotian inscriptions is much lower than it was in earlier periods. The general decline of the region is attested to in literary sources such as Strabo.54

40  Łukasz Szeląg This decline was also noticed by Pausanias in the ninth book of the Periegesis, which lists 10 out of 35 settlements deserted (these cities are also not mentioned in Ptolemy’s catalogue of Boiotian cities). Thus, the epigraphic curve for the Roman period, as well as archaeological records, supports the literary tradition regarding Boiotia’s decline. We observe the revival of the Boiotia in the late Roman period in the archaeological records; however it was not connected with the full revival of the towns – for example Thespiai in this period remained much smaller than it was in the Classical or Hellenistic periods.55 Demographical and economic regeneration of the region did not result in the revival of its epigraphic culture. The shape of the curve – Thespiai (Graphs 1.2, 1.5, 1.6) The history of Thespiai in the Classical period is marked by disasters, including the death of the city’s hoplites at Thermopylai, the subsequent destruction of the city by the Persians, the death of many soldiers in the battle of Delion in 424 BCE, the destruction of the city walls by the Thebans one year later, the massive death toll in the battle of Nemea and the destruction of the polis by the Thebans after the battle of Leuktra.56 Despite all this, the number of inscriptions in the fifth and fourth c. BCE grows; still, if we look at quarter-century graphs we can observe two visible decreases: in the second and third quarters of the fifth c. BCE (after the Persian Wars), and in the second and third quarters of the fourth c. BCE (after the destruction of the city by the Thebans). In fact, there are no public inscriptions for the 400 350

Number of inscriptions

300 250

All inscriptions Decrees

200

Tituli honorarii Lists of names

150

Other Epitaphs

100 50 0 7th 6th 5th 4th 3rd 2nd 1st BCE BCE BCE BCE BCE BCE BCE

1st CE

2nd 3rd CE CE

Graph 1.5 Inscriptions from Thespiai – by century.

4th CE

5th CE

6th CE

The epigraphic curve in Boiotia  41 120

Number of inscriptions

100 80 Other 60 40 20

Epitaphs Lists of names Tituli honorarii Decrees

0

Graph 1.6  Inscriptions from Thespiai – by quarter-century.

years 350–326 BCE, and no texts are dated precisely enough to be attributed to the years 375–351 BCE (inscriptions that may derive from this quarter are classified by the editors as originating in the “first half of the century”).57 The shape of the curve supports the theory that the polis as a political entity was destroyed, but most of its citizens stayed in the chora, as suggested by the archaeological evidence.58 The beginning of Roman activity in mainland Greece also sees a decrease in Thespian epigraphic activity: 228 texts exist from the last quarter of the third c. BCE, 89 exist from the next quarter and 26 are datable to 176–51 BCE. This trend continued until the end of the second c. BCE. After a slight growth in the first quarter of the first c. BCE, the number of inscriptions decreases after the Mithridatic Wars, then the numbers increase during the civil wars and the reign of Augustus. This phenomenon is caused by the activity of the Roman generals and magistrates who became the benefactors of the city, especially the family of Statilii Tauri.59 We can also identify two important phenomena during the Imperial Period. The first is growth in epigraphic output during the last quarter of the first c. CE, in the age of the Flavians, when important Thespian families was granted Roman citizenship.60 The number of texts remains at this level until the end of the second c. CE, then a significant decrease occurs at the beginning of the third c. CE. The number of texts grows in the last quarter of the third c. CE and remains at a similar level until the end of the fourth c. CE. But the epigraphic output never reached the pre-crisis level, either in terms of quantity or in terms of diversity. The majority of third- and fourth-c. CE inscriptions are tituli honorarii dedicated to Emperors; this category also experienced a slight growth in the fourth c. CE.

42  Łukasz Szeląg The shape of the curve – Thebes (Graphs 1.2, 1.7, 1.8) The first difference between the shape of curve for Thebes and the whole region and other towns is the secondary peak of the fifth c. BCE, which is smaller than that of the third c. BCE. If the graphs included inscriptions on ceramic material, the peak of the fifth c. BCE would mark the epigraphic maximum.61 In fact, despite the fourth c. BCE being the “golden age” of Thebes in a political and military sense, the number of documents from

180 160

Number of inscriptions

140 120

All inscriptions

100

Decrees Tituli honorarii

80

Lists of names

60

Other

40

Epitaphs

20 0 7th 6th 5th 4th 3rd 2nd 1st BCE BCE BCE BCE BCE BCE BCE

1st CE

2nd 3rd CE CE

4th CE

5th CE

6th CE

Graph 1.7  Inscriptions from Thebes – by century. 60

Number of inscriptions

50 40 30 20 10 0

Graph 1.8  Inscriptions from Thebes – by quarter-century.

Other Epitaphs Lists of names Tituli honorarii Decrees

The epigraphic curve in Boiotia  43 this century is lower than it was in the fifth and third c. BCE, which probably resulted from the destruction of the city by Alexander the Great. The epigraphic curve of Thebes restored in 316 BCE by Kassander shadows the curves of other Boiotian cities, with a peak in the third c. BCE and a fall after the advent of Rome. The epigraphic curve of Thebes shows us the consequences of the destruction of the city in the short term, and some slight differences between them and rest of Boiotia in long-term tendencies (e.g. in the frequency of the decrees). The fact that the number of Theban inscriptions on stone is much lower than those in Thespian or Tanagran is not connected to the destruction of the city – the peak of the epigraphic activity of Thebes occurs at the same time as in the rest of region, in the second half of the third c. BCE. Even in the time of Theban domination in the fifth and fourth c. BCE the epigraphic production of Thebes was not greater than that of Thespiai and Tanagra (Graph 1.2).62 The shape of the curve – Tanagra (Graph 1.2) Separate graphs for Tanagra are not included; the curve for this city only appears in the second graph. The reason for this is that, despite the great number of Tanagran inscriptions, they are mostly Classical and Hellenistic epitaphs. This is an effect of nineteenth c. CE excavations searching for Tanagran figurines.63 Many are precisely dated (by G. Vottéro) to the second half of the third c. BCE. The decrees are similar to those of Thespiai in relation to their quantity, type and frequency. We know from various sources that Tanagra was a strong and important settlement during Roman times and existed at least to the sixth c. CE.64 Only a very small number of inscriptions, albeit very interesting ones, derive from late antiquity (four documents from the fourth and fifth c. CE). The case of Tanagra is interesting – the decline of the polis in Roman times was relatively gentle, but this is hardly visible in the shape of the curve.65 The good condition of the city did not cause great epigraphic activity. The shape of the curve – Oropos (Graphs 1.2, 1.9, 1.10) Oropos became part of Boiotia what is generally considered to be late – its citizens used a different dialect, and the city was dominated (and influenced) by Athens in the Classical Age; the shape of Oropos’s curve is similar to that of the rest of the region. Contrarily, the structure of the Oropian corpus is very different from other Boiotian poleis. The first difference is the number of decrees. We have a similar number of decrees from Oropos and from the rest of Boiotia combined (decrees are the most frequent category of inscriptions in Oropos). However, the shape of the curve for this category is in fact the same as it is in other cities. The frequency of Oropian inscriptions, including decrees, is very different than it is in Athens, where the peak is observable in the fourth c. BCE.66 We can also observe a significant decrease

44  Łukasz Szeląg 400 350

Number of inscriptions

300 250

All inscriptions Decrees

200

Tituli honorarii Lists of names

150

Other Epitaphs

100 50 0 8th 7th 6th 5th 4th 3rd 2nd 1st 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th BCE BCE BCE BCE BCE BCE BCE BCE CE CE CE CE CE CE

Graph 1.9  Inscriptions from Oropos – by century. 100 90 Number of inscriptions

80 70 60

Other

50

Epitaphs

40

Lists of names

30

Tituli honorarii

20

Decrees

10 750-726 BCE 725-701 BCE 575-551 BCE 500-476 BCE 475-451 BCE 425-401 BCE 400-376 BCE 375-351 BCE 350-326 BCE 325-301 BCE 300-276 BCE 275-251 BCE 250-226 BCE 225-201 BCE 200-176 BCE 175-151 BCE 150-126 BCE 125-101 BCE 100-76 BCE 75-51 BCE 50-26 BCE 25-1 BCE 126-150 CE 151-175 CE 201-225 CE 226-250 CE

0

Graph 1.10  Inscriptions from Oropos – by quarter-century.

in frequency in all categories of inscriptions after the advent of Rome. The first growth in epigraphic production after the second half of the third c. BCE occurs in the first quarter of the first c. BCE. We can also observe, as throughout the rest of Boiotia, the growth of tituli honorarii in this century. The oldest inscription from Oropos is an inscribed fishing weight from the

The epigraphic curve in Boiotia  45 second half of the eighth c. BCE, but the real beginning of Oropian epigraphic culture occurred in the fourth c. BCE.67 Less than seven texts have been attested prior to the fourth c. BCE, whereas 113 were produced in this century, clearly a result of Athenian influence.68

Conclusions The epigraphic curve in Boiotia shows that the frequency of epigraphic material is not always connected with the political situation in the city or region and climax of political power does not result epigraphic maximum in this period. On the other hand, sweeping changes in the geopolitical landscape, especially the advent of Rome, significantly impacted the epigraphic culture and frequency of material. The shapes of the epigraphic curves throughout the region (including the selected cities) are generally similar – the epigraphic maxima occur in the second half of the third c. BCE. Thereafter, the composition of the material changes: decrees become rare; the number of epitaphs, lists of names and other inscriptions falls; and, in contrast, tituli honorarii become more popular. We can observe slight growth of the epigraphic curve from the late Flavian to Antonine periods, but this cannot be compared with the “golden age” of the Boiotian epigraphic culture in the early-Hellenistic age. Some trends common to other localities in Central Greece are also observable, such as the peak in number decrees in the third c. BCE, their fall during the Roman period (simultaneous with the growth of honorific inscriptions) and the proliferation of acts of manumission in the second and first c. BCE. It is therefore possible to say that the “golden age” of the Boiotian epigraphic culture, both in terms of variety and frequency of material, was the first 150 years of the Hellenistic period, particularly the second half of the third c. BCE, and the decline of the epigraphic culture was strongly connected with the demographic, economic and political crisis which begun in Boiotia in the second c. BCE.

Abbreviations BCH Bulletin de Correspondance Hellénique, École franςaise d’Athènes, 1877–. CEG Carmina Epigraphica Graeca, P.A. Hansen (ed.), Berlin: De Gruyter, 1983–1989. IG VII Inscriptiones Graecae VII, W. Dittenberger (ed.), Berlin, 1892. IOrop Οί επιγραφές του Ωρωπού, V. Petrakos (ed.), Αθήναι: Βιβλιοθήκη της εν Αθήναις Αρχαιολογικής Εταιρείας, 1997. IThesp Les inscriptions des Thespies, P. Roesch (ed.), Lyon: Maison de l’Orient et de la Méditerranée Jean Pouilloux, 2009. LGPN Lexicon of Greek Personal Names = Fraser P.M, Matthews E. (eds.) A Lexicon of Greek Personal Names vol. III B. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2004. SEG Supplementum Epigraphicum Graecum, Brill, 1923–.

46  Łukasz Szeląg

Notes 1 Work of this corpus is in progress https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5646149ce4b0f7b0d0d97bab/t/579b5d79d482e9bb2607059e/1469799823948/Teiresias+2016-1. pdf [accessed: 10.01.2020]. 2 IThesp and IOrop. 3 IG VII. 4 Vottéro 2001. 5 LGPN; Κουμανούδης 1979. 6 https://epigraphy.packhum.org/regions/1702 [accessed: 05.01.2020]. 7 https://edh-www.adw.uni-heidelberg.de/home [accessed: 05.01.2020]. 8 http://db.edcs.eu/epigr/epi.php?s_sprache=en [accessed: 05.01.2020]. 9 Other publications used for collecting and dating the inscriptions include inter alia Ducat 1971; Eitenne, Knoepfler 1976; Roesch 1982; Habicht 1987; Fossey 1991; Knoepfler 1992; Schachter 1981–1994; Darmezin 1999; Fossey 2014; Pitt 2014. 10 Grenet 2014. 11 Additional graphs and tables with bibliographical references to the texts will be published in my forthcoming PhD thesis. Some will also be published in my two other papers on Boiotian epigraphic habit – Szeląg forthcoming a; Szeląg forthcoming b. From the general number 6,167 of studied documents I excluded all inscriptions made on material other than stone or metal (vide ‘Introduction’ to this volume, there are at least 700 inscriptions on ceramics); unpublished (but mentioned) texts; and “inscriptions perdues”, like IThesp 1207–1223, 1239–1243bis. 12 Str. IX 2.5. Status of the “free city”- Plin. Nat. IV 12. 13 Problem of relation of Oropos between this city and Athens and Boiotia – Buckler 2000, 326–326; Knoepfler 2001c; Hansen 2004, 448–449. Reintegration of Oropos with Boiotia in the Hellenistic period – Müller 2011, 266–267; Knoepfler 2014, 70. 14 Boiotian ethnos and its beginning vide Larson 2007. 15 List of casualties – IThesp 484–488, IG VII 585. Regarding this phenomenon in Thespiai and Boiotia – vide Kalliontzis 2014, 346–349; Papazarkadas, 2016, 125–126; Osborne 2017, 220–221. 16 Dates – Grenet 2014. I will study this category of texts in the context of epigraphic curve in another paper – Szeląg forthcoming b. 17 IThesp 1273. 18 IG VII 4186–7. 19 IG VII 3132. 20 SEG 63.349. 21 IG VII 3164. 22 SEG 63.361. 23 SEG 63.346–7. 24 For more on negotiatores vide: Roesch 1982, 171–177; Müller 2017, 236–237. 25 Earlier inscriptions by negotiatores – IThesp 352, 373. 26 Oropian instrumentum – IOrop 769. Texts dated in the seventh c. BCE –IG VII 2729, 3593; CEG I 326; IThesp 273, BCH 20.1896.242 (date of this one by Vottéro 2001, 132). 27 As well as at Athens – Hedrick 1999, 392 (fig. 2). 28 Hdt. VIII 50. 29 Hanson 2009, 208. 30 D.S. XVII 110.4. 31 This paper is not the right place to discuss the problems surrounding the existence of the koinon before the mid-fifth c. BCE; however I generally agree with H. Beck’s opinion that, “By the late Archaic period, the ethnos of the

The epigraphic curve in Boiotia  47

32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40

41 42 43 44

45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53

54 55 56 57

Boeotians had reached the maximum level of trans-local integration that was thinkable in its times” (Beck 2014, 40–41). I discuss the problem of the Boiotians in Persian Wars in another paper – Szeląg 2017 (English summary – 6; bibliography – 32–36). Roesch 1965, 46. Structure of the koinon and form of the Theban hegemony in this period – Beck 2000. Contra tragic fate of Thespiai and Orchomenos in the period of the “Theban League” – Schachter 2016, 113–114. Democratic institution of the koinon – Beck 2000, 333–336. Contra democracy in the “Theban League” – Rhodes 2016. Hell. Oxy. D. 16.2.4 (Bartoletti). Buck 1979, 153; Bintliff, Farinetti, Slapšak, Snodgrass 2017, 205–206. IOrop 276. For more on this type of texts vide: Papazarkadas 2016, 128–130. Bintliff, Farinetti, Slapšak, Snodgrass 2017, 216. Great study on Boiotian proxenies – Fossey 2014, 3–82. Knoepfler 2014; Bintliff Farinetti, Slapšak, Snodgrass 2017, 214–218. Boiotian treaties and alliances of the Hellenistic period were studied by P. Roesch, although he focused mostly on the problem of Boiotian institutions and procedures of the koinon observable in these treaties – Roesch 1982, 355–377. Hellenistic koinon as “passive victim and involuntary host of the warring armies” – Bintliff, Farinetti, Slapšak, Snodgrass 2017, 214–215. New structure of the koinon and reintegration of Thebes with it – Knoepfler 2001a, 2001b, Müller 2011. About Hellenistic koinon vide Mackil 2014, 59–60. Archaic or even older roots of the system of tele – Schachter 2016, 64–64. Roesch 1965, 125. For more on these inscriptions in Boiotia vide: Darmezin 1999; Grenet 2014. The acts of manumission appear in Boiotia before Delphi – in Delphi none is earlier than the second c. BCE, while the first Boiotian texts are from Thespiai and date to the second half of the third c. BCE. I discuss the problem of this category of texts in Szeląg forthcoming b. The last moments of the Hellenistic koinon – Roesch 1982, 372–377, Bintliff, Farinetti, Slapšak, Snodgrass 2017, 217. Re-establishing the koinon – Müller 2014. Vide Müller 2017, 232. Müller 2014, 130–136. Summary of this period – Müller 2017, 231–234. Second half of the first c. BCE as a time of stability and peace for Boiotia – Schachter 2016, 265. The same opinion about the time of Pausanias (second c. CE) – Schachter 2016, 146–147. See Fossey 1991, 112–118 on honorifications of Emperors. Kajava 1989; Marchand 2013. Jones 1976. Symeonoglou 1985, 149–151, 156–157, 204, 206–207 (Thebes); Bintliff-Snodgrass 1989, 288–289; Bintliff 2005, 5–11; Bintliff, Howard, Snodgrass 2007, 132, 151–182 (mostly Thespiai); Farinetti 2011, 84 (Koroneia), 105 (Chaironeia), 123–124 (Hyettos), 141–142 (Akraiphia), 149–153 (Haliartos), 174, 177 (Chorsiai), 204–205 (Anthedon), 221 (Tanagra), 241; Bintliff 2013; Snodgrass 2016, 21 (Thespiai); Bintliff, Farinetti, Slapšak, Snodgrass 2017, 90–116, 207–215 (mostly Thespiai); Stissi 2017, 313–315 (Thespiai). Str. IX 2.5, 25. Bintliff, Farinetti, Slapšak, Snodgrass 2017, 117–120. Tuplin 1986. The best summary of history of Thespiai from the Archaic to Hellenistic periods – Bintliff, Farinetti, Slapšak, Snodgrass 2017, 199–218. Battles of Thermopylai, Delion and Nemea – Hanson 2009. Contra Schachter 2016, 114.

48  Łukasz Szeląg













The epigraphic curve in Boiotia  49 Darmezin L. (1999) Les affranchissements par consécration en Béotie et dans le mone gre hellénistique, Nancy: Association pour la diffusion de la recherche du L’Antiqué. Ducat J. (1971) Les Kouroi du Ptoion, Paris: Bibliothèques de l’Ecole française d’Athènes et de Rome. Etienne R., Knoepfler D. (1976) Hyettos de Béotie et la chronologie des archontes fédéraux entre 250 et 171 avant J.-C., Athénes: Suppléments au Bulletin de la Correspondance Hellénique. Farinetti M. (2011) Boeotian Landscapes. A GIS-based Study for the Reconstruction and Interpretation of the Archaeological Datasets of Ancient Boeotia, Oxford: BAR International Series. Fossey J.M. (1988) Topography and Population of Ancient Boeotia, Chicago: Arbs Publishers. Fossey J.M. (1991) Epigraphica Boeotica I, Studies in Boiotian Inscriptions, Amsterdam: Brill. Fossey J.M. (2014) Epigraphica Boeotica II, Further Studies on Boiotian Inscriptions, Leiden/Boston: Brill. Grenet C. (2014) ‘Manumission in Hellenistic Boeotia, New Considerations on the Chronology of the Inscriptions’, in: N. Papazarkadas (ed.), The Epigraphy and History of Boeotia: New Finds, New Prospects, Leiden/Boston: Brill, pp. 395–442. Habicht Ch. (1987) ‘Fremde Richter im ätolischen Delphi?’ Chiron 17, pp. 87–95. Hansen M.H. (2004) ‘Boiotia’, in: M.H. Hansen, T.H. Nielsen (eds.), An Inventory of Archaic and Classical Poleis, Oxford/New York: Brill, pp. 431–461. Hanson V.D. (2009) ‘Hoplite Obliteration. The Case of the Town of Thespiai’, in: J. Carman, A. Harding (eds.), Ancient Warfare. Archeological Perspectives, Gloucestershire: The History Press, pp. 203–217. Hedrick Ch. W. Jr. (1999) ‘Democracy and the Athenian Epigraphical Habit’, Hesperia: The Journal of the American School of Classical Studies at Athens 68, no. 3, pp. 387–439. Jones C.P. (1970) ‘A Leading Family of Roman Thespiae’, Harvard Studies in Classical Philology 74, pp. 223–255. Kajava M. (1989) ‘Cornelia and Taurus at Thespiae’, Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 79, pp. 139–149. Kalliontizs Y. (2014) ‘Digging in Storerooms for Inscriptions: An Unpublished Casualty List from Plataia in the Museum of Thebes and the Memory of War in Boeotia’, in: N. Papazarkadas (ed.), The Epigraphy and History of Boeotia: New Finds, New Prospects, Leiden/Boston: Brill, pp. 332–372. Knoepfler D. (1992) ‘Sept annés de recherches sur l’épigraphie de la Béotie (1985–1991)’, Chiron 22, pp. 411–503. Knoepfler D. (2001a) ‘La fête des Daidala de Platés chez Pausanias: une clef pour l’histoire de la Béotie hellénistique’, in: D. Knoepfler, M. Piérart (eds.), Éditer, traduire, commenter, Pausanias en l’an 2000, Actes du colloque de Neuchâtel et de Fribourg (18–22 septembre 1998), Genève: Droz, pp. 343–374. Knoepfler D. (2001b) ‘La réintegration de Thèbes dans le Koinon béotien après son relèvement par Cassandre, ou les surprises de la chronologie épigraphique’, in: R. Frei-Stolba, K. Gex (eds.), Recherches récentes sur le mone hellénistique. Actes du colloque international organisé à l’occasion du 60º anniversaire de Pierre Ducrey (Lausanna, 20–21 novembre 1998), Bern: Peter Lang AG, pp. 11–26.

50  Łukasz Szeląg Knoepfler D. (2001c) ‘La date des proxénies d’Oropos en dialecte érétrien et la cession de l’Oropie à Athènes par le roi de Macédoine’, in: D. Knoepfler (ed.), Eretria. Fouilles et recherches XI. Décrets érétrien de proxénie et de citoyenneté, Lausanne: Payot, pp. 367–389. Knoepfler D. (2014) ‘ΕΧΘΟΝΔΕ ΤΑΣ ΒΟΙΩΤΙΑΣ: The Expansion of the Boeotian Koinon towards Central Euboia in the Early Third Century BC’, in: N. Papazarkadas (ed.) The Epigraphy and History of Boeotia: New Finds, New Prospects, Leiden/Boston: Brill, pp. 68–94. Κουμανούδης Σ.Ν. (1979) Θηβαϊκή Προσωπογραφία, Αθήναι: Βιβλιοθήκη της εν Αθήναις Αρχαιολογικής Εταιρείας. Larson S.L. (2007) Tales of Epic Ancestry, Boiotian Collective Identity in the Late Archaic and Early Classical Periods, Stuttgart: Stainer-Verlag. Mackil E. (2014) ‘Creating a Common Polity in Boeotia’, in: N. Papazarkadas (ed.), The Epigraphy and History of Boeotia: New Finds, New Prospects, Leiden/Boston: Brill, pp. 45–67. Marchand F. (2013) ‘The Statilii Tauri and the Cult of the Theos Tauros at Thespiai’, Journal of Ancient History 1, no. 2, pp. 145–169. Müller Ch. (2011) ‘ΠΕΡΙ ΤΕΛΩΝ, Quelques réflexions autour des districts de la Confédération béotienne á l’époque hellénistique’, in: N. Badoud (ed.), Philologos Dionysios, Mélandes offerts au professeur Denis Knoepfler, Genève: Droz, pp. 262–282. Müller Ch. (2014) ‘A Koinon after 146? Reflections on the Political and Institutional Situation of Boeotia in the Late Hellenistic Period’, in: N. Papazarkadas (ed.), The Epigraphy and History of Boeotia: New Finds, New Prospects, Leiden/Boston: Brill, pp. 119–146. Müller Ch. (2017) ‘The Roman Fate of Thespiai (171 BC – Fourth century AD)’, in: Bintliff et al. 2017, pp. 231–240. Osborne R. (2017) ‘Thespiai: The Epigraphic City Down to 171 BC’, in: Bintliff et al. 2017, pp. 219–230. Papazarkadas N. (2016) ‘The Epigraphic Habit(s) in Fourth-Century Boiotia’, in: S.D. Gartland (ed.), Boiotia in the Fourth Century B.C, Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, pp. 121–146. Pitt R. (2014) ‘Just as It Has Been Written: Inscribing Building Contracts at Lebadeia’, in: N. Papazarkadas (ed.), The Epigraphy and History of Boeotia: New Finds, New Prospects, Leiden/Boston: Brill, pp. 373–394. Rhodes P.J. (2016) ‘Boiotian Democracy?’ in: S.D. Gartland (ed.), Boiotia in the Fourth Century B.C, Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, pp. 59–64. Roesch P. (1965) Thespies et la confédération béotienne, Paris: Éditions E. de Boccard. Roesch P. (1982) Études béotiennes, Paris: Éditions E. de Boccard. Roller D. (1989) Tanagran Studies I: Sources and Documents on Tanagra in Boiotia, Amsterdam: J.C. Gieben Publisher. Roller D. (1993) ‘The Kaphisas Family of Tanagra’, in: J.M. Fossey (ed.), Boeotia Antiqua III, Amsterdam: Brill, pp. 57–67. Schachter A. (1981–1994) Cults of Boiotia vol. 1–4, London: University of London, Institute for Classical Studies. Schachter A. (2016) Boiotia in Antiquity, Selected Papers, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Snodgrass A. (2016) ‘Thespiai and the Fourth-Century Climax in Boiotia’, in: S.D. Gartland (ed.), Boiotia in the Fourth Century B.C, Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, pp. 9–31.

The epigraphic curve in Boiotia  51 Stissi V. (2017) ‘The Pottery of the Early Iron Age to the Hellenistic Periods’, in: Bintliff et al. 2017, pp. 287–216. Symeonoglou S. (1985) The Topography of Thebes from the Bronze Age to Modern Times, Princeton: Princeton University Press. Szeląg Ł. (2017) ‘Beocja w wojnach perskich – postawa poleis beockich wobec najazdu Kserksesa w kontekście kształtowania się federalizmu beockiego’, SAMAI 2017/2, pp. 6–36. Szeląg Ł. (2019a) ‘Early-Hellenistic Boiotia – Philip’s or Alexander’s Heritage?’, in: Post-conference Publication in Progress – Paper Presented on Conference ­‘Melammu 13: The Ancient Near Eastern Legacy and Alexander vs. Alexander’s Legacy to the World’, Wrocław, 13–16 May 2019. Szeląg Ł. (2019b) ‘Boiotian ‘Acts of Manumission’ in the Context of the Epigraphic Curve of This Region’, in: Post-conference Publication in Progress – Paper Presented on Conference ‘GIREA 42: The Contemporary Readings of Slavery: Issues, Methodologies and Analyses since the 1990s’ Wrocław, 4–5 September 2019. Tuplin C.J. (1986) ‘The Fate of Thespiae during the Theban Hegemony’, Athenaeum 64, pp. 321–341. Vottéro G. (2001) Le dialecte béotien (7e s.-2e s. av. J.-C.) II, Répertoire raisonné des inscriptions dialectales, Nancy: Association pour la diffusion de la recherche sur l’Antiquité.

2

The epigraphic curve at Delphi1 Dominika Grzesik

Introduction At minimum, there are about 3,728 Delphic inscriptions that still exist today.2 Two hundred fifty-one texts (7%) are too fragmentary to provide any clarity on their date or type; therefore, this chapter focusses on 3,477 documents. Inscriptions analyzed within this chapter are divided into the following categories: (1) laws and decrees; (2) tituli honorarii; (3) dedications; (4) manumission records; and (5) other inscriptions that are not represented enough to have their own categories, such as letters, building inscriptions, and sculptors signatures. Until recently, Delphi had not yielded a substantial number of funerary inscriptions; hence, epitaphs are not distinguished as a separate type. Instead, for the purposes of this chapter, both dedications and manumissions have been included as distinct categories, given their volume and significance in the epigraphic output from Delphi. All datable material is catalogued by century and, when possible, quarter-century (Table 2.1). All inscriptions discussed within the paper are in Greek, except 17 texts that are in Latin.3 Delphi is remarkable, both for its large amount of epigraphic material in comparison with other poleis and for a surprisingly high percentage of datable texts. Athens produced more inscriptions than any other Greek polis due to several factors, including the extensive use of suitable marble, the rapid spread of democracy, the city’s role as center of the empire, and the large extent of excavation (and survival) of inscribed material.4 The main reason for such a vast output from Delphi is the text’s being inscribed not on free-standing stelai but on built surfaces, such as buildings, pillars, and the polygonal wall.5 All these monuments have been preserved in Delphi, and in relatively good condition, due to the fact that the later urban development at the sanctuary proved to be short-lived, with the site already abandoned in the early seventh c.6 Furthermore, the Delphic territory has been well excavated, even though the whereabouts of Delphi’s foremost necropoleis and Greek agora remain unknown.7 The fact that text was inscribed on buildings more or less in chronological order impacts the dating of preserved texts.

The epigraphic curve at Delphi  53 Table 2.1 Categories of inscriptions at Delphi Type of inscriptions

No. of inscriptions

No. of inscriptions dated by century

No. of inscriptions dated by quarter-century

Decrees

1,198 (34,5%)a

1,099 (91%) (+ 28 from the Imperial period) 1,161 (96%) 265 (94%) (+ four from the Imperial period) 203 (93%) 524 (90%) (+ 23 from the Imperial period) 3,252 (93,5%) (+ 55 from the Imperial period)

965 (80%)

Manumission records 1,197 (34,5%) Tituli honorarii 281 (8%) Dedications Other

218 (6%) 583 (17%)

Total

3,477

958 (80%) 236 (83%) 151 (69%) 425 (73%) 2,735 (78%)

a The vast majority of decrees granted by the Delphic polis are in abbreviated form, see Grzesik 2013, 157–162.

Moreover, many of the ca. 2500 decrees and manumissions include dating formulae that has allowed us to re-create the lists of Delphic eponymous ­ archons and priests, which has improved the dating of inscriptions from other categories.8 One of the central arguments pursued is that the epigraphic habit at Delphi differed from that of other poleis in many important ways and can thus be defined as a subject of its own. The epigraphic culture of Delphi is unique due to the large amount of preserved material and the fact that it can be explored from a bipolar view. It can be discussed as a habit of an individual polis or within an international, Panhellenic context. The territory of Delphi served not only as a place where the local civic bodies and private individuals displayed their epigraphic culture but also as a trans-regional sanctuary.9 For instance, statues set up by Delphic citizens constituted only 45% of portrait production, the remaining 55% being set up by foreign communities, koina, and private individuals. The unique duality, both local and international, is the main feature of the epigraphic habit at Delphi. The aim of this chapter is to document and discuss the diversity and wealth of its epigraphic culture. It is an attempt at understanding the various global and local trends that impacted upon the epigraphic output at Delphi for nearly ten centuries, from the early sixth c. BCE to the late fourth c. CE. The Delphic epigraphic habit was certainly not static during this period, as we can see from the fluctuations in the graphs that chart the number of datable inscriptions by century (Graph 2.1) and quarter-century (Graph 2.2). The earliest three inscriptions found in Delphi are dated to ca. 600 BCE. (Graphs 2.1 and 2.2). They are dedications inscribed on bronze

54  Dominika Grzesik 1200

Number of inscriptions

1000

800

600

400

200

0

6 BCE

5 BCE

4 BCE

3 BCE

2 BCE

1 BCE

1 CE

2 CE

3 CE

Manumissions

0

0

0

0

765

240.5

154.5

1

0

4 CE 0

Other

42

19.5

162

71

91

22.5

21.5

64

16.5

14

Tituli honorarii

0

6

27

20.5

82.5

22

36.5

48.5

16

6

Decrees

1

5.5

169.5

540

181

73

44

67.5

17.5

0

Dedications

23

64

69.5

30

12.5

1.5

1.5

1

0

0

Graph 2.1  I nscriptions from Delphi by century (sixth century BCE – fourth ­c entury CE).

cauldrons, although the provenance and dedicators are uncertain.10 The first significant peak in Delphic inscriptions is discernible in the third quarter of the sixth c. BCE. This development in the epigraphic habit should be linked to changes in local topography and the erection of the first treasuries, which built up the available space and were later used as a surface for inscriptions.11 The earliest public inscriptions concern the erection of the Knidian12 and Korinthian13 treasuries, whilst 40 texts of ca. 530–520 BCE (catalogued as “other”) derive from the frieze of the Siphnian treasury.14 The number of surviving inscriptions from this period is small; therefore any conclusions should be very tentative. It seems right, however, to state that the Delphic epigraphic habit spread when surfaces for writing upon (building walls) and people (dedicators) appeared. The inauguration of the Pythian Games in 586 BCE ensured a steady stream of recurring visitors to Delphi. As a consequence, the sanctuary became an excellent showground for dedications, honorific monuments, and decrees throughout the following centuries.

The epigraphic curve at Delphi  55 350

300

Number of inscriptions

250

200

150

100

50

0

Dedications

■ Decrees

Tituli honorarii

■ Other

■ Manumissions

Graph 2.2 Inscriptions from Delphi by quarter-century (sixth century BCE – fourth century CE).

The sacred and international character of the area and its surroundings impacted the categories of inscriptions engraved on Delphic walls. In the fifth c. BCE, we encounter dedications as a predominant type among inscriptions. The changes in epigraphic culture cannot be isolated from the political history of the region and beyond it: the victory over the Persians and the rivalry between Athens and Sparta preceding the Peloponnesian War are mirrored in the temenos in the form of spolia looted from the enemies,15 new buildings, and outstanding votive offerings.16 Whilst in the sixth c. BCE Olympia acted in Greece as an international arena for all types of booty, from the fifth c. onwards, Delphi provided a Panhellenic showcase for military triumphs and personal achievements.17 It seems that in this century Delphic self-awareness became stronger. In the second half of the fifth c. BCE, the first public regulations regarding religious matters were attested to, revealing the activity of the Delphic civic bodies.18 The fourth c. BCE, two centuries after the first appearance of inscriptions, is another significant period for the Delphic epigraphic habit. In the first quarter of the fourth c., the number of decrees had already risen steeply,

56  Dominika Grzesik

Number of inscriptions

although the greatest increase occurred after 350 BCE. This rapid growth can be attributed to the spread of democracy in Delphi at the midpoint of the fourth c. Gauthier’s studies on governance at Delphi indicate that, at least throughout the entire second c. BCE, and perhaps even already in the third c. BCE, Delphi had a democratic system.19 Analysis of the formulae of Delphic public documents offers a few further insights. From the midfourth c. BCE, all Delphic citizens were equal, were entitled to the same prerogatives, and had a privileged position within the sanctuary.20 The Delphic assembly was the ultimate civic body, with legislative prerogatives, while the council most probably acted only as an advisory board as any bouleumatic or probouleumatic decrees are attested before the end of the first c. CE.21 All this points to the spread of democracy after 350 BCE. In 373 BCE, the temple of Apollo at Delphi was destroyed in an earthquake, and therefore after 350 BCE, the amount of building inscriptions rose precipitously (Graph 2.2). The peak in the third quarter of the fourth c. BCE may be a surprise due to the fact that between 356 and 346 BCE, the Third Sacred War took place on Delphic territory; hence, one might have expected a fall in the number of texts. A graph presenting inscriptions from every decade in the fourth c. reveals this trend (Graph 2.3). During the war, there was a growth in the number of inscriptions as compared to the preceding decade; however, when the conflict ended, the number of texts doubled. It must be noted in this context that the relevant tituli operum publicorum are dated by the publisher to ca. 350 BCE: the present findings encourage by contrast a reassessment of this dating, also taking into account the fact that the naopes gathered in Delphi again in 346 BCE, once peace had been restored.22 Dedications from the Third Sacred War period illustrate the phases of the conflict: in 355–353 BCE, the Phokians dedicated spolia looted from the Thessalians in the sanctuary,23 whilst in 346 BCE, the Amphictyony made a votive offering from booty secured after victory over the Phokians.24 Nevertheless, the restoration of peace accelerated the development of the epigraphic culture at Delphi, which, from the second half of the fourth c. BCE onward, gained a strong Macedonian flavor. The honorific portraits of Philip II25; Archon of Pella the satrap of Babylonia,26 and Alexandros, son of Polyperchon,27 together with numerous honorific 80 60 40 20 0 366-357 BCE

356-346 BCE

345-336 BCE

335-326 BCE

Graph 2.3 Inscriptions from Delphi during the Third Sacred War.

The epigraphic curve at Delphi  57 28

decrees for high-ranking Macedonians, reflect the strong Macedonian impact on fourth c. Delphi that was evident after the Third Sacred War.29 The most striking observations that appear in the evidence from the third century BCE, especially its second quarter, is that it was the golden age of the Delphic culture of honoring. Not before nor after did the polis grant as many honorific decrees: nearly 45% of all decrees come from the third century. Ma30 and Jones31 have argued convincingly that the two centuries after the death of Alexander were an age of city-states. Greek poleis created a strong network of self-governing states that cooperated with one another in the form of inter-state arbitration, the recognition of asylia, the dispatch of theoroi, and the practice of asking for arbitrators from other cities. Ninety-nine percent of all Delphic decrees are proxeny decrees reflecting these peer polity integrations of the Greek poleis.32 Hundreds of texts from this period concern honors for foreign judges, sacred envoys or their hosts (theorodokoi), ambassadors, and foreign benefactors. In the Hellenistic period, Delphi was a Hellenic center in which Greek communities could advertise their Greekness and project their identity. These factors contributed to the largest number of decrees dated to this period. By the third c. BCE, the Macedonian flavor had been replaced by the Aitolian flavor. After repulsing the Gallic invasion from Delphi in 279 BCE, the League of the Aitolians took control over the Delphic territory, festivals, sanctuary’s officials, and the Amphictyonic council.33 Between 279 and 190 BCE, 53% of all honorific portraits raised at Delphi were granted by the Aitolians.34 No other community has ever dared to impose its control over the foreign public land the way the Aitolians did in Delphi. The Aitolian domination over Delphi affected the topography of the sanctuary as monuments relating to Aitolia were concentrated at the west end of the temple terrace, changing the appearance of the entire landscape.35 The epigraphic record of the second c. BCE presents the largest number of inscriptions, mainly due to the considerable number of manumission records that appear in this century. More than 1,200 slaves were manumitted in Delphi between 201 BCE and 100 CE, representing part of a global phenomenon. The majority, 71%, were set free in the second c. BCE by both Delphic citizens and foreigners; 20% were set free in the first c. BCE, and only 9% were set free in the first c. CE, mostly by local individuals.36 The limitation of recorded manumissions to these centuries is puzzling. Many scholars who have debated the issue see an explanation in the advent of Rome and the economic situation of Greece at that time.37 Does the high number of manumitted slaves in Delphi in the Late Hellenistic period indicate that slave-owners were very wealthy or, on the contrary, that they were impoverished and could no longer afford to hold slaves?38 Or does the fall in the number of manumissions in the first c. CE reflect economic decline in the region or in Greece in general, as Rostovtzeff has argued?39 Neither Vogt nor others who have debated the issue appear to have adduced that perhaps the legal procedure of manumission changed during the late third/

58  Dominika Grzesik early second c. BCE, and from then on, the act had to be engraved on stone. Perhaps the Delphic assembly (or the Amphictyony) passed a law regulating the whole procedure: this particular field of inquiry, too, deserves detailed scrutiny, taking full account of the epigraphic developments in the city presented in this chapter. What is important for us is that the number of manumissions distorts the total texts from the second c. BCE and offers a false impression of the largest peak ever, while the number of decrees voted on in this period fell by 65% compared to those in the previous century. At the same time, there was a significant increase in the number of tituli honorarii. This situation must be considered from several angles. The removal of Aitolian control at Delphi after the battle of Magnesia in 190 BCE fueled the development of the local statuary habit, as reflected in the significant rise of civic benefactors praised in the early second c. BCE.40 The vast majority of statues was granted to members of the Delphic upper class, attesting to the ever-growing influence of the civic elite within the Delphic community.41 At the same time, however, a considerable number of statues of Roman officials appeared at Delphi. The second c. BCE was a difficult period for Greek poleis. The Second Macedonian War seems to have been the most destructive event, especially for Athens, as not one decree from these years is present.42 The battle of Pydna changed the political situation in the region. Greece witnessed the fall of the Hellenistic monarchs and the rise of a new empire. The citizens of Greek cities had to find a way to cooperate with the new power that was taking control of Greece. The easiest way to gain Roman favor was through honors. All high-ranking Roman generals of the first half of the second c. BCE (M’. Acilius Glabrio,43 T. Quinctius Flamininus,44 L. Aemilius Paulus45) were commemorated at Delphi with honorific monuments. This foreshadows a change of the entire epigraphic habit at Delphi, which now concentrated on prominent Romans. Neither Roman officials nor Roman emperors needed the kinds of honors granted in decrees. The only way for such figures to be pleased was to erect an outstanding honorific portrait. That explains the decline in the number of inscribed decrees and the increase in the amount of tituli honorarii. Whilst engaging with Rome, Delphic interactions with the wider Greek world seem to have shrunk: the number of foreigners that were honored at Delphi diminished by 40%. Furthermore, among the beneficiaries of Delphic honors, we find mainly inhabitants of Mainland Greece, with an almost total absence of citizens from Asia Minor or Africa, who were granted with many honours in the preceding centuries.46 In the Late Hellenistic period, the regionalization of Greece replaced panhellenization, and the once international Delphic sanctuary became a much more local place. The economic and political recession of Greece in the wake of the Mithridatic Wars is mirrored in the reduced number of inscriptions in the first c. BCE.47 War always increased the demand for food and manpower, interrupted trade, and destroyed infrastructure.48 The Pythian Games of 86 BCE were cancelled due to ongoing war, which prevented people from travelling to Delphi.49

The epigraphic curve at Delphi  59 The years following the Mithridatic Wars (75–50 BCE) were some of the lowest points in the epigraphic habit at Delphi. The number of inscriptions remained low until the Flavian dynasty. Sometime between the mid-first c. BCE and the mid-first c. CE, there was a significant change, and Delphic democracy gradually took an oligarchical turn.50 The honorific decree granted to Telesagoros of Abai bears witness to the fact that already in the mid-first c. CE, the citizen body was divided into two hierarchical groups: the damiourgoi, who had exclusive access to the highest civic offices and priesthood, and the rest of the common inhabitants, who were unable to perform these prestigious functions.51 The decree also reveals the problem of depopulation at Delphi in the first c. CE.52 The problem, attested to in many other documents from this time, must have been significant as Claudius remarks on the issue in his letter addressed to the Delphic citizens.53 The depopulated city had to face the new established order in Greece under Augustus: the formation of a new Roman province; the foundation of Nikopolis and its inclusion in the Amphictyony; the creation of the “Actia”, a new festival enrolled into the circuit of Greek Panhellenic Games; and the spread of the Imperial cult. New religious and festival centers reduced both the fame of Delphi and the numbers visiting the sanctuary. Fewer visitors meant less money, which resulted in the impoverishment of the whole community. The epigraphic habit, like a mirror, reflected these difficulties. The Imperial period can be explored through the quarter-century graph (Graph 2.2) or through the chart dating the number of inscriptions according to the reign of particular emperors (Graph 2.4). This separation of inscriptions into periods that are not chronologically equal enables one to detect changes that may have been overlooked in the quarter-century graph. 45

Number of inscriptions

40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0

Graph 2.4 I nscriptions from Delphi by Roman emperors (without manumissions). Only inscriptions that can be dated to the reign of particular emperors are included.

60  Dominika Grzesik Here, we can see that a peak in the last quarter of the first c. CE should be attributed not to the entire Flavian dynasty but to Domitian. Vespasian was declared emperor by the Senate after a tumultuous year in Rome.54 Titus, who succeeded his father, ruled for only two years, yet the number of inscriptions from this period grows. The peak between 76 and 100 CE should be linked with Domitian’s (and Nerva’s) building activities throughout the empire.55 At Delphi, the aqueducts, a fountain, the house of Pythia, the library, and the structorium were re-built, increasing the amount of inscribed texts.56 Moreover, Domitian himself was involved in the reconstruction of the temple of Apollo.57 The Antonine peak, widely attested elsewhere, is also discernible in Delphi.58 It may seem that during Nerva’s reign, there was a marked decline in the number of inscriptions; however, he was emperor for only two years, and therefore, the total amount of inscription inscribed per year during his reign is still higher than the number of texts inscribed during Domitian’s emperorship of 15 years. Over 60% of all inscriptions in the Antonine period consist of official letters between the Delphic city and Rome,59 and the honorific statues of the ruling family.60 In the last quarter of the first and the entire second c. CE, we encounter the highest point of decrees, in comparison with preceding centuries. This is due to the fact that oligarchy had finally settled in Delphi, and Greece as a whole was experiencing a period of peace and prosperity.61 Another drop in the epigraphic habit occurred during the reign of M. Aurelius and Commodus. Some scholars are of the opinion that the fall was caused by the Antonine plague.62 It is not known, however, how widespread the Antonine plague was in Greece. It seems that it did not cause a manpower shortage in Central Greece, although Athens had been a major victim of the plague.63 There is no doubt that the plague caused great harm to Rome and the entire Apennine Peninsula, and to the wider economic system of the Empire, and therefore, it might be considered a reason for the drop in the epigraphic habit at Delphi. The epigraphic culture was always linked to the economic situation of the city and the region. Every peak can be connected with a prosperous moment in civic life, and every fall is related to financial and civic crisis. Another rise in the epigraphic curve is discernible under Septimius Severus and Caracalla, when the temple was renovated by Cn. Claudius Leonticus.64 While at the beginning of the third c. CE, we still have the entire spectrum of both public and private inscriptions (albeit in small numbers), it was in the second half of the third c. that significant change took place (Graph 2.5). Tituli honorarii granted exclusively by the Delphic polis could be found later, but the private epigraphic tradition died at this time. Additionally, decrees ceased to be inscribed after 250 CE. The rapid increase in inscriptions at the beginning of the fourth c. CE was due to 13 bilingual inscriptions appearing along with the text of the Edict of Diocletian,65 while the peak in 326–350 CE was caused by four statues of Constantine the Great and his

Number of inscriptions

The epigraphic curve at Delphi  61 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0

■ Other-Public

;; Tituli honorarii -Public

. H H

-"

---.

■ Decrees-Public

Other-Private ■ Tituli honorarii -Private

201-225 226-250 251-275 276-300 301-325 326-350 351-375 376-400 CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE

Graph 2.5 Public and private inscriptions from Delphi (third – fourth century CE).

relatives.66 Images of Valens and Valentinian I of 365 CE are not only the last honorific monuments set up within the temenos at Delphi but also the final inscriptions that belong to the epigraphic habit of the site in antiquity.67 Some Christian texts were found in Delphi, like the epitaph of the Christian deaconess; however, their character belongs to a different epigraphic tradition, and therefore, they will not be interpreted here.68 The end of the epigraphic habit at Delphi was the climax of a long-term process that had already began at the start of the first c. BCE, when the first significant ebb occurred. With the ongoing regionalization and pauperization during Imperial times, the end of the epigraphic culture was slow but approaching. Among the catalysts that accelerated the process, one should mention the political crisis within the empire in the third c. CE, caused by external enemies and civil wars; hyperinflation that led to economic recession69; and Valentinian and Valens’ new regulation regarding the transferring of two-thirds of civic funds to the Imperial fisc, which weakened the financial situation of Greek cities.70 Nevertheless, the gradual expansion of Christianity transformed late antique society and was the final factor to affect Delphi’s epigraphical output, which was always linked to the sanctuary and the city’s urban life.71 The decline of civic traditions foreshadowed the moribund of the entire honorific practice. The famous edict of Theodosius banned religions other than Christianity; closed all oracular shrines; and forbade the organization of the ancient games, considering them a relic of paganism.72 After this regulation, the kind of epigraphic culture that had characterized Delphi in the preceding centuries came to its final end.

Conclusion Many elements impacted the epigraphical output and types of preserved inscriptions at Delphi: the extent of excavation, the type of material onto which texts were engraved, and the character of the site. Among the global factors that influenced the epigraphic habit at Delphi, one should mention

62  Dominika Grzesik

■ Honorific inscriptions ■

Other inscriptions

Graph 2.6 Honorific inscriptions from Delphi vs. other inscriptions.

historical events in the region and beyond, such as the Persian Wars, which increased the data of votive offerings in the fifth c. BCE; the Macedonian and Mithridatic Wars, which led to financial recession throughout Greece; and the third-c. crisis. The earthquake of 373 BCE, Aitolian dominance, and the oligarchization of the city are local elements that contributed to the ups and downs of Delphic epigraphy. The extraordinary number of manumission texts should also be brought forward as a local phenomenon. A very important part of the ancient epigraphic habit (and habits) were honorific practices.73 In Delphi, all types of honorific texts constituted nearly 44% of all inscriptions (Graph 2.6).74 The character of the epigraphic habit is therefore honorific, just like in Olympia, Miletos, Ephesos, and Pergamon.75 In Delphi, however, proxeny decrees constitute the vast majority of honorary texts, while in the four aforementioned case studies, tituli honorarii prevail. Two factors are decisive in the culture of honoring: those who grant honors and those who receive them. Delphic honorific culture first focused on gods: dedications are the first type of inscription to appear, and they dominate in the fifth c. BCE. From the fourth c. BCE, the category of honorands changed from gods to foreign benefactors. This is reflected in the large number of proxeny decrees, especially in the third c. BCE. Decrees, typical of the Hellenistic times, were largely replaced by tituli honorarii in the Imperial era. The decisive factor for the changing nature of the evidence must have been the growing preference for monumental honorary forms among the Romans and municipal elites. This case study illustrates the enormous diversity of the epigraphic culture within one well-defined city-state. This study on epigraphical output is just an introduction to further discussion on the epigraphic habit at Delphi, a phenomenon that deserves greater attention, equipping us with interesting research questions for the future.

Abbreviations BCH Bulletin de Correspondance Hellénique. CID Corpus des Inscriptions de Delphes. FdD Fouilles de Delphes.

The epigraphic curve at Delphi  63 IG Inscriptiones Graecae. Syll3 Sylloge inscriptionum graecarum, ed. W. Dittenberger, 3rd edn. SEG Supplementum Epigraphicum Graecum.

Notes 1 This work was supported by the National Science Centre under grant no. UMO-2014/14/A/HS3/00132. 2 The collection discussed within the chapter goes beyond the texts that can be found in the Packard Humanities Institute database. It includes inscriptions from FdD, CID, SEG, Syll3, and those published in journals, mainly in the BCH and Klio. It does not comprise inscriptions from the long-awaited, unpublished volumes of CID. 3 Although the number of Latin texts is low in comparison with Greek documents, it must be remembered that the Latin inscriptions were of great prestige. Most of them were placed in the Delphic ἐπιφανεστάτωι τόπῳ, and they overwhelmed visitors with their monumental form. 4 Hedrick 1999, 387–439; Meyer 2013, 74–93. 5 Pétridis demonstrates the transition of sacral Delphi into the secular early Christian city. Pétridis 1997, 684–685. 6 Grzesik 2013, 157. 7 Jacquemin 1999, 20–21; Jacquemin 2000. 8 Daux 1936. 9 Rousset 2002. 10 SEG 30.503–505. 11 Partida 2000. 12 FdD 1.289, 550–525 BCE. 13 FdD 3.153, ca. 540 BCE. 14 BCH 109.1985.79–103. 15 Partida 2000, 48–70; Bommelaer and Laroche 2015, 151–166. 16 For dedications and treasuries at Delphi in the Archaic and Classical periods see Vatin 1991; Jacquemin 1999; Partida 2000; Scott 2010, App. A-F; Krumeich 2017, 211–251. 17 See Komar in this volume. 18 CID 1.4–6. 19 Gauthier 2000, 109–139. 20 The equality of all Delphians is proven by the formulae found in proxeny decrees, e.g. ἀτέλειαν πάντων καθάπερ Δελφοῖς (BCH 19.1895.393, ca. 340 BCE, BCH 23.1899.520,6, 350-300 BCE); ἀτέλειαν πάντων ὡς καὶ τοῖς ἄλλοις πολίταις (SGDI 2607, 240/239 BCE); θύειν πρώτοις μετὰ Δελφοὺς (FdD 2.18, 300–200 BCE). 21 Grzesik 2018a, 117–139. 22 E.g. CID 2.15, 2.17–22, 2.30. Bomelear 2008, 237. 23 Syll3 202B. 24 Syll3 223. 25 Syll3 221C; BCH 73.1949.258–260. 26 BCH 83.1959.155–166. 27 FdD 4.464. 28 The citizens of Delphi honored Poulydamos (Tataki 1998, no. 13) and Polyperchon (BCH 1899.23.508.24; Arnush 1995, 95–99; Tataki, 1998, no. 6). Cf. Grzesik 2018b, 23–42. 29 Miller 2000, 263–281; Arnush 2001, 293–307. 30 Ma 2003, 9–39, especially 14.

64  Dominika Grzesik

































The epigraphic curve at Delphi  65

66  Dominika Grzesik Grzesik, D. (2018b) ‘The Power of Space and Memory: The Honorific Statuescape of Delphi’, Antichthon vol. 52, pp. 23–42. Grzesik, D. (2019) ‘The Honorific Statues of Delphi’, Historia vol. 68, pp. 200–217. Harper, K. (2017) The Fate of Rome. Climate, Disease, and the End of an Empire, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Harris, W.V. (2012) ‘The Great Pestilence and the Complexities of the Antonine-Severan Economy’, in: E. Lo Cascio (ed.) L’Impatto della “Peste Antonina”, Bari: Edipuglia, pp. 331–338. Hedrick, Ch.W.Jr. (1999) ‘Democracy and the Athenian Epigraphical Habit’, Hesperia vol. 68, pp. 387–439. Hopkins, K. (1978) Conquerors and laves, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Jacquemin, A. (1999) Offrandes monumentales à Delphes, Athènes: École française d’Athènes. Jacquemin, A. (ed.) (2000) Delphes cent ans après la Grande Fouille. Essai de bilan. Actes du colloque organisé par l’EFA, 17–20 Septembre 1992, BCH Supplément vol. 36. Jones, A.H.M. (1964) ‘The Hellenistic Age’, Past and Present vol. 27, pp. 3–22. Jones, Ch.P. (2012) ‘Recruitment in Time of Plague: The Case of Thespiae’, in: E. Lo Cascio (ed.) L’Impatto della “Peste Antonina”, Bari: Edipuglia, pp. 79–85. Jongman, W.M. (2012) ‘Roman Economic Change and the Antonine Plague: Endogenous, Exogenous or What?’, in: E. Lo Cascio (ed.) L’Impatto della “Peste Antonina”, Bari: Edipuglia, pp. 253–263. Krumeich, R. (2017) ‘La vie des statues-portraits Grecques dans les sanctuaires Panhelléniques d’Olympie et de Delphes’ in: F. Queyrel and R. von den Hoff (eds.) La vie des portraits Grecs. Statues-portraits du Ve au Ier siècle av. J.-C. Usages et re-contextualisations, Paris: Herman, pp. 211–251. Kyriakidis, N. (2014) ‘Les Delphiens au miroir de leurs offrandes monumentales: élite sociale et notabilité politique dans une petite cité de Grèce Centrale (IVe-Ier s. av. J.-C.), BCH vol. 138, pp. 103–129. Ma, J. (2003) ‘Peer Polity Interaction in the Hellenistic Age’, Past and Present vol. 180, pp. 9–39. Mack, W. (2015) Proxeny and Polis: Institutional Networks in the Ancient Greek World, Oxford: Oxford University Press. McGing, B.Ch. (1986) The Foreign Policy of Mithridates VI Eupator King of Pontus, Mnemosyne Bibliotheca Classica Batava, Supplementum no. 89. Meyer, E.A. (2013) ‘Inscriptions as Honors and the Athenian Epigraphic Habit’, Historia vol. 62, pp. 454–505. Millar, F. (1993) ‘The Greek City in the Roman Period’, in: M.H. Hansen (ed.) The Ancient Greek City-State: Symposium on the Occasion of the 250th Anniversary of the Royal Danish Academy of Sciences and Letters, July 1–4 1992, Copenhagen: Munksgaard, pp. 232–260. Miller, S.G. (2000) ‘Macedonians in Delphi’, in: A. Jacquemin (ed.) Delphes cent ans après la Grande Fouille. Essai de bilan. Actes du colloque organisé par l’EFA, 17–20 Septembre 1992, BCH Supplément vol. 36, pp. 263–281. Morgan, G. (2006) 69 A.D.: The Year of Four Emperors, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Mulliez, D. (1992) ‘Les actes d’affranchissement delphiques’, Cahiers du Centre Gustave Glotz vol. 3, pp. 31–44.

The epigraphic curve at Delphi  67 Mulliez, D. (1997) ‘Les deniers dans les actes d’affranchissement delphiques’, Topoi vol. 7, pp. 93–102. Partida, E.C. (2000) The Treasuries at Delphi: An Architectural Study, Jonsered: Paul Åströms Förlag. Pawlak, M. (2011) Rzymski Peloponez: greckie elity polityczne wobec Cesarstwa, Krakow: Historia Iagellonica. Pétridis, P. (1997) ‘Delphes dans l’antiquité tardive: première approche topographique et céramologique’, BCH vol. 121, pp. 681–695. Remijsen, S. (2015) ‘The End of the Ancient Olympics and Other Contests: Why the Agonistic Circuit Collapsed in the Late Antiquity’, JHS vol. 135, pp. 147–164. Rostovtzeff, M. (1941) The Social and Economic History of the Hellenistic World, Oxford: Clarendon Press. Rousset, D. (2002) Le territoire de Delphes et la terre d’Apollon, Athènes: École française d’Athènes. Sartre, M. (1991) L’orient Romain: provinces et sociétés provinciales en méditerranée orientale d’Auguste aux sévères (31 avant J.-C-235 après J.- C.), Paris: Seuil. Schmidt-Hofner, S. (2006) ‘Die städtische Finanzautonomie im spätrömischen Reich’, in: H.U. Wiemer (ed.) Staatlichkeit und politisches Handeln in der römischen Kaiserzeit, Berlin: De Gruyter, pp. 209–248. Scott, M. (2010) Delphi and Olympia: The Spatial Politics of Panhellenism in the Archaic and Classical Periods, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Sifakis, G.M. (1967) Studies in the History of the Hellenistic Drama, London: Athlone Press. Tataki, A.B. (1998) Macedonians Abroad: A Contribution to the Prosopography of Ancient Macedonia, Athens: Kentron Hellenikēs kai Rōmaikēs Archaiotētos. Tracy, S.V. (2015) ‘Athens in Crisis: The Second Macedonian War’, in: J. Bodel and N. Dimitrova (eds.) Ancient Documents and Their Contexts: First North American Congress of Greek and Latin Epigraphy (2011), Leiden: Brill, pp. 13–26. Vatin, C. (1991) Monuments votifs de Delphes, Roma: G. Bretschneider. Vogh, J. (1975) Ancient Slavery and the Ideal of Men, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Ward-Perkins, B. (2016) ‘The End of the Statue Habit, A.D. 282–620’, in: R.R.R. Smith and B. Ward-Perkins (eds.) The Last Statues of Antiquity, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 295–308. Wassink, A. (1991) ‘Inflation and Financial Policy under the Roman Empire to the Price Edict of 301 A.D.’, Historia vol. 40, pp. 465–493. Westermann, W.L. (1955) The Slave Systems of Greek and Roman Antiquity, Philadelphia, PA: American Philosophical Society (reprinted, 1957). Zelnick-Abramovitz, R. (2005) Not Wholly Free: The Concept of Manumission and the Status of Manumitted Slaves in the Ancient Greek World, Leiden: Brill.

3

Epigraphic culture in Olympia Paulina Komar

Introduction This study presents an analysis of the epigraphic habit of Olympia based on epigraphic curves resulting from 705 datable inscriptions (out of 1,106) provided by the sanctuary.1 These inscriptions were predominantly Greek (1,093); Latin examples (13) were extremely scarce. The majority of the inscriptions (686) were of a non-public nature; public inscriptions numbered 420. In total, there were 77 decrees, 198 dedications, 357 tituli honorarii and 5 epitaphs. The largest category, labelled ‘other’ (469), includes building inscriptions, cult and victors lists as well as the names of sculptors and owners. As everyone is perfectly aware Olympia was an interurban sanctuary and not a residential settlement,2 and it was administered by the polis of Elis (situated around 36 km to the north-west) from at least 550 BCE until the fifth c. CE, with a short interruption between 365 and 362 BCE. Elis was an urban centre, the home of the Hellenodikai (at least from the first half of the fifth c. BCE) and possessed a bouleuterion. These same public buildings, accompanied by a prytaneion, have also been discovered in Olympia. Numerous cult buildings (altars, temples, a Theokoleon) as well as sporting facilities and tourism infrastructure have been excavated, whereas no cemeteries have been discovered around the sanctuary (thus far).3 Therefore, the character of the site, as well as its excavated state, must influence the numbers and categories of inscriptions attested, favouring dedications and victors lists, while neglecting epitaphs. Decrees, leges sacrae and nomoi should be expected, as should tituli honorarii, given the fame of the sanctuary and its international character, which made it a perfect spot for displaying honorific monuments.

Epigraphic curve analysis The beginnings of the epigraphic culture in Olympia date to the eighth c. BCE: private dedications were the first inscriptions attested (Graph 3.1). This indubitably resulted in the function of Olympia as a sanctuary of Zeus, developed already in the eleventh c. BCE.4 The earliest votive offerings, often in the form of war booty, date to around 900 BCE.5 During the eighth

Epigraphic culture in Olympia  69 50

•Other •Dedications Tituli honorarii •Decrees

25

401-425

351-375

301-325

251-275

201-225

151-175

51-75

101-125

1-25

49-25 BCE

99-75 BCE

149-125 BCE

199-175 BCE

249-225 BCE

299-275 BCE

349-325 BCE

399-375 BCE

449-425 BCE

499-475 BCE

549-525 BCE

0

599-575 BCE

13

650-625 BCE

Number of inscriptions

38

Graph 3.1 Inscriptions from Olympia by quarter-century.

c. BCE their numbers increased considerably, which illustrates the transformation of the site “from a rural shrine into a Panhellenic sanctuary”. Private cult activities preceded public customs – no pottery that could be associated with communal activities (e.g. ritual meals) from the eighth c. BCE has so far been attested. This changed during the subsequent century, when pottery appeared, and dedications of spolia became less frequent,6 which coincides with the appearance of public documents at the end of the seventh c. BCE. The greatest peak in the curve occurred between the end of the sixth and the middle of the fifth century BCE; this was a time of gradual growth for Olympia that started with the beginning of the Olympic Games during the sixth c. BCE, a more probable date than 776 BCE, the date given by Hippias of Elis,7 and was crowned by the construction of the Temple of Zeus during the first half of the fifth c. BCE.8 It is possible that during the Archaic period up to the second half of the fifth c. BCE, Elis was regarded as the ‘sacred land of Zeus’, which meant that war could not take place on her territory and that the polis itself should refrain from taking part in military conflict.9 This factor ensured uninterrupted growth and prosperity, which might have influenced the number of epigraphic documents. It is clear that inscription numbers diminish after 450 BCE; this period is when Elis lost asylia (around the end of the fifth c. BCE),10 which, along with the development of Delphi, which became the most important and famous oracle in Greece, might have caused the diminution of the Olympian position.

70  Paulina Komar The number of Olympian inscriptions grew again during the first half of the fourth c. BCE, decreased shortly after and remained considerably lower throughout the Hellenistic age. It thus must be mentioned that the Peloponnesian Wars (460–446/5 and 431–404 BCE) caused the sharp fall in the curve, while the post-war period between 399 and 350 BCE saw a small rise. The low number of epigraphic documents between 375 and 350 BCE may also be attributed to the earthquake of 373 BCE, which affected Olympia,11 as well as the bloody battles between Pisa (supported by the ­Arkadian League) and Elis in 365–362 BCE.12 A small peak in public inscriptions between 325 and 300 BCE may be due to Alexander’s restoration of the Olympian position by announcing his famous ‘Decree on the Exiles’ during the games in September 324 BCE.13 Peer polity interactions between Greek cities in the Hellenistic age,14 which had a positive impact on the development of epigraphic culture (e.g. in Delphi), seem to have bypassed Olympia as the deepest ebbs in the epigraphic curves occurred during the third and second c. BCE. These ebbs may have been associated with the growing role of Delphi, which flourished during the Hellenistic age.15 Inscription numbers in Olympia grew again with the arrival of Rome. Curiously, it seems that Sulla’s raid of the temple treasures in 85 BC had no impact on local epigraphic production.16 Having analysed the important historical events that may have influenced the Olympian epigraphic curve up to the end of the first c. BCE, we should now look closer at the categories of attested inscriptions (Graph 3.2). The peak in the number of inscriptions during the sixth and fifth centuries BCE was mainly due to dedications, which were particularly numerous during this period; however, they decreased considerably in the second half 175

•Others Tituli honorarii Epitaphs

Dedications Decrees

105

70

Graph 3.2 Inscriptions from Olympia by century.

501-600

401-500

301-400

201-300

101-200

199-100 BCE

299-200 BCE

399-300 BCE

499-400 BCE

599-500 BCE

700-600 BCE

800-700 BCE

0

1-100

35

99-0

Number of inscriptions

140

Epigraphic culture in Olympia  71 of the fourth c. BCE. A general fall in dedications in the form of tropaia and war booty started around 440 BCE in most Greek sanctuaries and may be seen as evidence of a new policy that forbade the commemoration of victories over Greeks in such a way.17 Sanctuary dedications of fellow Greek-captured weapons were considered a manifestation of ill will that could cause pollution (μίασμα).18 It cannot be excluded, however, that real spolia were substituted with bronze weights and bars made from melted war booty19; numerous bronze weights with dedicatory formulae from the fifth and fourth c. BCE were discovered in Olympia (480) outside of the Altis. These disappear in the middle of the fourth c. BCE.20 This phenomenon is not restricted to Olympia – votive bronze jewellery, bronze helmets and lead votive figurines appeared in numerous quantities during the Archaic age; the sanctuary of Artemis Orthia outside Sparta and the Temple of Isthmia have provided the most examples. The Classical period saw their decline, together with that of terracotta, ivory and faience votives.21 The change in the number of bronze votive objects may reflect the changing status of the aristocracy at the end of the Archaic period,22 the shift in religious practices from Olympian gods to ‘assisting deities’, post-depositional processes (which affected Classical objects more severely) or the shift from cheaper ‘raw’ (spolia) to more expensive ‘converted’ (figurines, statues, inscriptions) objects. The high value of Classical dedications made them more sensitive to post-depositional processes, such as reuse or theft.23 However, while observing the epigraphic curves of Olympia we may notice that the decline in dedications correlates with the increase in the number of tituli honorarii. The earliest honorific inscriptions appeared at the end of the fourth century BCE, after the Macedonian conquest of Greece. Honorific statues were made for the new Macedonian kings, Antigonos and Demetrios,24 as well as for other Hellenistic rulers,25 probably as a way of showing loyalty. Sixtythree contain the phrase Διὶ Ὀλυμπίωι/Διὶ Ὀλυμπίῳ,26 which means that the statues were dedicated to the Olympian Zeus. Therefore, we can view them not only as honorific statues but also as dedications, even though the inscriptions on their bases are classified as tituli honorarii.27 This means that dedicatory practices did not totally disappear in the fourth c. BCE; however their form became more sophisticated and more difficult to classify. Honorific statutes that bear a dedicatory formula for Zeus still appeared during the second c. CE. Decrees began to appear at the beginning of the sixth c. BCE, and their numbers grew considerably during the subsequent century. The overall number of decrees (77) is rather low compared with those of other regions.28 Their development may have been associated with the beginning of the Olympic Games, which required numerous regulations,29 as well as with the formation of the Eleian polis. As noted in several other chapters in this volume, decrees usually appeared in democratic constitutions as this type of governance required visible acts and laws.30 For example, a large number of decrees have been discovered from fifth-c. Athens, when its democratic

72  Paulina Komar constitution blossomed; conversely, these numbers fell in the late fourth c. BCE, during the oligarchic reign of Demetrios of Phaleron.31 Democracy was established in Elis during the late sixth c. or early fifth c. BCE, before the synoikism of 471 BCE and Themistokles’ exile, which is indicated by the numerous mentions of democratic institutions, such as the damos, the damos plethron (plenary assembly) and the awlaneos (council of 500) in the epigraphic material.32 Such a conclusion may also be drawn from the fact that Elis joined Argos (a democratic polis) to fight against Sparta.33 Democracy survived until the end of the fifth c. BCE, losing support during the fourth c. BCE.34 A number of Eleian decrees found in Olympia support this analysis. Among these 77 decrees, 12 are of foreign origin, 21 are of unknown origin and 44 were issued by the Eleians.35 The majority date to the sixth (13) and fifth (20) c. BCE.36 It should be mentioned that these numbers also include six ϝράτραι, which cannot be treated as typical decrees and hence as evidence of a democratic constitution; however, for the purposes of this project they are classified as such. In fact, they were official statements (‘pronunciamento’)37 or ‘words of Zeus’ (‘parole del dio’)38 regarding agreements or covenants39 between Elis and its neighbours.40 The fourth c. BCE saw a considerable decline in the number of decrees (only 5) as well as a change in their content – most of them regard proxeny.41 During the Hellenistic age, decrees issued by the polis of Elis wane, appearing only occasionally during the Roman age. If the high number of decrees is associated with democracy, then the ebb in their numbers would signify an ‘escape from democracy’. On the other hand, the Eleian democratic institutions might have simply moved from Olympia to Elis in the Hellenistic period; during this time Delphi blossomed as the most important Greek sanctuary, while Olympia remained the seat of the games but lost its role as an important centre for displaying public documents. Evidence from other parts of the Greek world suggests that democracy flourished during the Hellenistic age, only to undergo later decline, most likely due to Roman pressure.42 The disappearance of decrees in Olympia and the simultaneous increase of tituli honorarii occurred in the second c. BCE; however, this growth was slight. A considerable increase in honorific inscriptions occurred during the first c. BCE and continued until the mid-third century CE. Tituli honorarii were actually shortened versions of honorary decrees, but unlike decrees, which usually concerned other Greeks, tituli honorarii were mainly issued to Romans, who were not satisfied with anything less than a statue. The first titulis honorarius for a Roman official was granted to Flamininus, who was honoured for his favourable attitude towards Greek poleis.43 After this, honouring representatives of the Roman state became common, and the Eleians realised that their sanctuary could serve as a useful tool for advancing relationships with Roman magistrates. The policy of honouring Roman rulers in Olympia was consolidated in the late first c. BCE and early first c. CE.44 Lo Monaco noticed that during the second c. BCE inscriptions frequently honoured Roman officials, but none regarded local elites. This changed in

Epigraphic culture in Olympia  73 the subsequent century: the Eleian polis produced numerous inscriptions for members of its elite, especially those associated with cults. Similarly, prominent families issued numerous tituli honorarii for members who held high-office, often placing their statues in the most important locations.45 It seems, therefore, that the drop in the number of decrees and the increase in tituli honorarii issued by urban elites reflect a gradual change in the governance of Elis during the second and first c. BCE: a change from democracy to oligarchy. Political and social power was transferred from the hands of democratic institutions into the hands of elites. This process, followed by the hierarchisation of urban society, started during the late Hellenistic period, but it was catalysed under Roman rule, reaching its apogee during the second c. CE.46 The highest members of the Eleian elite almost monopolised the political and high cultic offices. By financing magnificent monuments for Roman emperors, magistrates or members of their families, especially at the time of the Olympic Games, took the opportunity to perpetuate their names and strengthen their privileged positions.47 The attempt to promote a family name via association with the imperial family is visible in the construction of the Nymphaeum of Herodes Atticus, who decided to place representations of his own family members alongside the statues of emperors.48 It seems significant that the number of inscriptions, especially tituli honorarii, grew slightly during the second half of the first c. CE under Nero and the Flavian dynasty, which may have been due to their building activity. A Guild Hall was constructed during the rule of Nero and Domitian, while the Leonidaion was probably constructed under Domitian.49 Moreover, this increase in inscriptions coincided with the peak in Italian terra sigillata imports into Olympia,50 and high numbers of imported pottery usually indicate vital commercial relations as well as economic prosperity. Given that monuments erected in Olympia during the Roman age indicate that the prominence of the sanctuary continued,51 the peak in the epigraphic curve could be further confirmation of the prosperity of Olympia under Roman rule. Nonetheless, the low number of inscriptions issued under Trajan is surprising since this emperor was particularly concerned with the organisation of the road network in the eastern half of the empire. Evidence of this comes in the form of milestones dating to his rule, which are abundant in the east. One such milestone was discovered in modern Epitalion (40 km from Olympia and 18 km from Elis), which indicates that the area must have been a strategically important point for traffic.52 A sharp increase between 125 and 150 CE during the rule of Hadrian and Antoninus Pius occurs during the so-called peak of the Antonine age, which saw inscriptions increase in numerous regions of the Roman Empire and probably reflected the general prosperity of the ‘golden age’ under the rule of ‘good emperors’.53 However, in Olympia the high number of inscriptions from this period should be attributed to Herodes Atticus and the construction of the famous Nymphaeum, ­ which provided the most numerous tituli honorarii from this period (19 out of the total 42 inscriptions).

74  Paulina Komar The abrupt ebb in the epigraphic curve during the Late Antonine age may be linked to the plague, which decimated the rural population, making rural production unstable and elite incomes insecure, as well as to climatic change. Even though the plague was not completely devastating, and Central Greece did not suffer considerable population shortages,54 it is unlikely that the pestilence left no trace in Olympia, given that the empire suffered an aggregate mortality estimated at 20%. The so-called Roman Climate Optimum, which indicated that climatic conditions were favourable for human prosperity and economic development, ended around 150 CE, while the following century saw climatic instability, which ended with global cooling around the midthird century CE.55 On the other hand, since the peak of 125–150 was due to the actions of Herodus Atticus, it is possible that inscription output fell again after 150, reverting back to its average. Olympian epigraphic tradition declined considerably after 250 CE, and all important categories of inscriptions disappeared completely after 275 CE, despite the fact that in some places in the eastern Mediterranean the epigraphic tradition continued into the fifth and even early sixth century.56 The observed patterns may support the idea of the Third Century Crisis,57 when external and civil wars led to financial and social problems, as well as to the decay of the Roman administration system, which might have influenced the number of inscriptions, particularly those from urban settlements (and their elites). Hyperinflation made prices jump alarmingly, and taxes increased; therefore the elite had less money to spend on liturgies, building activities and benefactions, which limited the number of inscriptions accompanying such activities.58 At the same time, centralisation processes in the administration, especially Valentinian and Valens’ regulations,59 deprived the Greek poleis of income. Euergetism, weakened by the pauperisation of the elites and the process of centralisation, lost its meaning when service to the emperor became an important factor conferring social status.60 The negative attitude of Christians towards agonic contests, which were perceived as manifestations of paganism,61 must have influenced sanctuaries like Olympia. It seems, however, that the famous edict of Theodosius from the end of the fourth c. CE, banning all religions apart from Christianity and demanding the closure of sanctuaries and the abandonment of games,62 had little to do with the epigraphic curve from Olympia, which almost ended before the edict came into force.63 Nonetheless, the Olympian Guild Hall was still in use at the end of the fourth c. CE, and the Olympic Games continued at least until 385 CE, which moves the period for the end of cult practices to at least the late fourth c. CE.64

Conclusions The main aim of this chapter was to determine the likely factors that influenced the shape of the epigraphic curves from Olympia. Two categories may be distinguished: namely universal – observed throughout the Greek world or the Roman Empire – and local – characteristic only of Olympia or Elis.

Epigraphic culture in Olympia  75 Both categories affected the number and type of inscriptions from the main sanctuary of Zeus. Universal factors may be observed in the increase in tituli honorarii and the fall in the numbers of decrees at the beginning of the Roman age, which was seen as the oligarchization of Greek poleis and associated with the Roman conquest of the East. Members of the elite held the most important offices and gained more power (than democratic institutions) by monopolising the highest administrative and cultic positions. This process was encouraged by the Romans, who could rely more on the elites than on the democratic institutions. Furthermore, in Olympia, as in other regions of the empire, the highest increase in the number of inscriptions occurred during the second c. CE, the time of the Antonine dynasty. However, the peak of the Antonine age in the epigraphic curve of Olympia is very short: it dates to the second quarter of this century and coincides with the construction of the Nymphaeum of Herodes Atticus. Finally, the rapid fall in the Olympian epigraphic curve after 250 CE also coincides with a general drop in the number of inscriptions throughout the Roman Empire, which may be associated with, on the one hand, the so-called Third Century Crisis and, on the other hand, the development of Christianity. However, it is impossible to claim that the acts of Theodosius were the final nail in the coffin for Olympian inscriptions since their culture had begun to dwindle a century earlier. Local trends were probably responsible for the high number of inscriptions during the sixth and fifth c. BCE. This refers in particular to decrees, which were associated with the development of the Olympian sanctuary, and the Games as well as with the formation of democracy in Elis, all three of which demanded legal regulations. The special function of Olympia and the beginning of its fame as the most important place for both the Olympic Games and the cult of Zeus were factors that were most likely responsible for the peak in dedications during the late Archaic and early Classical period. However, a similar pattern in the number of votives may be observed in other Greek sanctuaries; therefore comparative studies of inscribed dedications from other Greek sanctuaries are necessary to shed more light on this issue. Similarly, the low number of epigraphic documents from Olympia during the Hellenistic age cannot be compared with any other area, which also suggests a local trend. Summing up, the shape of the epigraphic curve in Olympia depended on events that occurred within the sanctuary and its neighbourhood, but it was also influenced by political and social changes within the Greek world and subsequently the Roman Empire. It seems that local factors had more of an impact during the Archaic, Classical and Hellenistic periods, while the advent of Rome might have exposed the Olympian epigraphic habit to wider pan-Hellenic or even pan-Roman epigraphic trends.

Abbreviations IvO Die Inschriften von Olympia (1896) NIO Neue Inschriften von Olympia: die ab 1896 veröffentlichten Texte (2013)

76  Paulina Komar

Notes 1 Excluding pottery and brick stamps, graffiti, dipinti, bronze weights and inscriptions found outside of the sanctuary. The number includes inscriptions published in IvO, NIO, Siewert 2013, 2014, 2018 and Siewert, Taita 2014. 2 Pedley 2005, 40. There might have been a residential area in Olympia; however, this is unproven, Zoumbaki 2001, 44. 3 Scott 2010, 186, 221; Roy 2013a, 108. According to Nielsen 2007, 48–53 the Olympian boule is in fact the boule from the Eleian polis; however, it was referred to as the Olympike when it convened in the sanctuary. Bourke 2018, 101 states that the Olympian and Eleian boule were different institutions. 4 Roy 2009, https://chs.harvard.edu/CHS/article/display/6096 accessed 30.01.2018. 5 Baitinger 1999, 125; Barringer 2015, 20, 24–25. 6 Pedley 2005, 120–122. 7 Pedley 2005, 131–134. This date agrees with the beginning of other games, e.g. in Delphi 582 BCE, Isthmia 581 BCE, Nemea 573 BCE. 8 Whitley 2001, 305; Pedley 2005, 124; Krumeich 2017, 214. 9 About asylia, see Bourke 2011, 413–430; Bourke 2018, 216–218; contra Roy, 2013b, 224–226; Roy 2013a, 110. 10 Bourke 2011, 430. 11 Scott 2010, 218. 12 Nielsen 2007, 37. 13 D.S. XVIII 8.2–7. 14 Ma 2003, 9–39. 15 See Grzesik this volume. 16 Meyer 1990, 74–96; Beltrán Lloris 2015, 144. 17 Siewert 1996, 147. 18 Pl. R. 469e7–470a3. 19 Siewert 1996, 145–146; Barringer 2015, 31. 20 Hitzl 1996, 97–104; Siewert 1996, 144. 21 Snodgrass 1989–90, 260–263; Whitley 2001, 311–312, tab 12.2. 22 Bremmer 1994, 34. 23 Snodgrass 1989–90, 264–266. 24 IvO 304, 305. 25 IvO 308, 310. 26 This formula appears in both private and public tituli honorarii dated between the fourth c. BCE and the second c. AD, numbering per century as follows: 1, 6, 3, 17, 14, 3. 27 For dedicatory formula in tituli honorarii see McLean 2011, 236; Ma 2013, 24–30. 28 Miletos: 74 decrees and 109 abbreviated decrees, see Nawotka 2014, 5; Delphi: approximately 200 decrees and 800 abbreviated decrees, see Grzesik 2013, 157. 29 E.g. NIO 2 and 3. 30 Hedrick 1999, 387–407. 31 Nawotka 2003, 18–22. 32 O’Neil 1981, 339–340; O’Neil 1995, 37; Robinson 1997, 108–111. 33 Robinson 2011, 29, Thuc. V 29.1–31.6. 34 O’Neil 1995, 79–81; Robinson 2011, 31. 35 The Eleian decrees are those that were issued by Eleian institutions, were written in the Eleian dialect or included the names of Eleian magistrates or private individuals. 36 Dating of inscriptions in the Eleian dialect after Minon 2007. 37 Minon 2007, 486–487 translates the term as ‘decision pour’; Zunino 2014, 11. 38 Mello 2008, 50–66; Zunino 2014, 18.

Epigraphic culture in Olympia  77























78  Paulina Komar Carlsson, S. (2010) Hellenistic Democracies: Freedom, Independence and Political Procedure in Some East Greek City-States, Stuttgart: Steiner. Duncan-Jones, R.P. (1996) ‘The Impact of the Antonine Plague’, JRA vol. 9, pp. 108–136. Eckstein, A.M. (2008) Rome Enters the Greek East, Oxford: Blackwell Publishing. Grzesik D. (2013) ‘Abbreviated Decrees of Delphi’, ZPE vol. 186, pp. 157–162. Harper K. (2017) The Fate of Rome, Princeton, NJ/Oxford: Princeton University Press. Harris W.V. (2012) ‘The Great Pestilence and the Complexities of the Antonine-Severan Economy’, in: E. Lo Cascio (ed.), L’impatto della “Peste Antonina”, Bari: Edipuglia, pp. 331–338. Hedrick, Ch.W.Jr. (1999) ‘Democracy and the Athenian Epigraphical Habit’, Hesperia vol. 68/3, pp. 387–439. Hitzl, K. (1996) Die Gewichte griechischer Zeit aus Olympia, Berlin: W. de Gruyter. Højte, J.M. (2005) Roman Imperial Statue Bases. From Augustus to Commodus, Aarhus: Aarhus University Press. Jones Ch.B. (2012) ‘Recruitment in Time of Plague: The Case of Thespiae’, in: E. Lo Cascio (ed.), L’impatto della “Peste Antonina”, Bari: Edipuglia, pp. 79–85. Krumeich, R. (2017) ‘La vie des statues-portraits grecques dans les sanctuaires panhelléniques d’Olympie et de Delphes’, in: F. Queyrel and R. von den Hoff (eds.), La vie des portraits grecs. Statues-portraits du Ve au Ier siècle av. J.-C. Usages et re-contextualisations, Paris: Hermann, pp. 211–251. Liebeschuetz, W. (2007) ‘Was There a Crisis of the Third Century?’ in: O. Hekster, G. de Kleijn and D. Slootjes (ed.), Crises and the Roman Empire: Proceedings of the Seventh Workshop of the International Network Impact of Empire, Nijmegen, June 20–24, 2006. Leiden/Boston, MA: Brill, pp. 11–20. Lo Monaco, A. (2003) ‘L’élite elea ad Olimpia nel I sec. a.C.’, in: M. Cébeillac-Gervasoni (ed.), Autocélébration des élites locales dans le monde romain: contextes, images, textes (IIes. av. J.C. – IIIe ap. J.C.); Clermont-Ferrand: Presses Universitaires Blaise Pascal, pp. 287–305. Ma, J. (2003) ‘Peer Polity Interaction in the Hellenistic World’, Past & Present vol. 180/1, pp. 9–39. Ma, J. (2013) Statues and the City. Honorific Portraits and Civic Identity in the Hellenistic World, Oxford: Oxford University Press. MacMullen, R. (1982) ‘The Epigraphic Habit in the Roman Empir’, AJPh vol. 103, pp. 233–246. Martin, A. (2006) ‘Italian Sigillata in the East: Two Different Models of Supply (Ephesos and Olympia)’, in: D. Malfitana, J. Poblome and J. Lund (eds.), Old Pottery in a New Century Innovating Perspectives on Roman Pottery Studies, L’Erma di Bretschneider, pp. 175–187. McLean, B.H. (2011) An Introduction to Greek Epigraphy of the Hellenistic and Roman Periods from Alexander the Great to the Reign of Constantine (323 B.C.-A.D. 337), Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Meiggs, R. and Lewis, D. (1969) A Selection of Greek Historical Inscriptions to the End of the Fifth Century B.C., Oxford: Clarendon Press. Mello, F. (2008) Ἁ ϝράτρα τοι ̑ ς ϝαλείοις. Rhetra e le wratrai olimpiche’, ZPE vol. 167, pp. 50–66. Meyer, E.A. (1990) ‘Explaining the Epigraphic Habit in the Roman Empire: The Evidence of Epitaphs’, JRS vol. 80, pp. 74–96.

Epigraphic culture in Olympia  79 Millar, F. (1993) ‘The Greek City in the Roman Period’, in: M.H. Hansen (ed.), The Ancient Greek City-State. Symposium on the Occasion of the 250th Anniversary of the Royal Danish Academy of Sciences and Letters, [Copenhagen] July 1–4, 1992, Copenhagen: Det kongelige danske videnskabernes selskab, pp. 232–260. Minon, S. (2007) Les inscriptions éléennes dialectales (VIe-IIe siècle avant J.-C.), Genève: Droz. Nawotka, K. (2003) ‘Freedom of Greek Cities in Asia Minor in the Age of Alexander the Great’, Klio vol. 85, pp. 15–41. Nawotka, K. (2014) Boule and Demos in Miletus and Its Pontic Colonies, Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Nielsen, T.H. (2007) Olympia and the Classical Hellenic City-State Culture, Copenhagen: Det Kongelige Danske Videnskabernes Selskab. O’Neil, J.L. (1981) ‘The Exile of Themistokles and Democracy in the Peloponnese’, CQ vol. 31, pp. 335–346. O’Neil, J.L. (1995) The Origins and Development of Ancient Greek Democracy, Lanham, MD/London: Rowman & Littlefield. Pedley, J.G. (2005) Sanctuaries and the Sacred in the Ancient Greek World, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Remijsen, S. (2015) ‘The End of Ancient Olympics and Other Contests: Why the Agonistic Circuit Collapsed in the Late Antiquity’, JHS vol. 135, pp. 147–164. Robinson, E.W. (1997) The First Democracies: Early Popular Government Outside Athens, Stuttgart: Steiner. Robinson, E.W. (2011) Democracy beyond Athens: Popular Government in the Greek Classical Age, Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University Press. Roy, J. (2009) ‘Elis’, in: P. Funke and N. Luraghi (ed.), The Politics of Ethnicity and the Crisis of the Peloponnesian League, Washington, DC, https://chs.harvard.edu/ CHS/article/display/6096, accessed 30.01.2018. Roy, J. (2013a) ‘Olympia, Identity and Integration: Elis, Eleia, and Hellas’, in: P. Funke and M. Haake (eds.), Greek Federal States and Their Sanctuaries: Identity and Integration, Stuttgart: Steiner, pp. 107–121. Roy, J. (2013b) ‘Response to Bourke on Elean asylia’, Hermes vol. 141, pp. 224–226. Sauer E. (2014) ‘Milestones and Instability (Mid-Third to Early Fourth Centuries AD)’, Ancient Society vol. 44, pp. 257–305. Scott, M. (2010) Delphi and Olympia: The Spatial Politics of Panhellenism in the Archaic and Classical Periods, Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University Press. Siewert P. (1996) ‘Votivbarren und das Ende der Waffen- und Geräteweihungen in Olympia’, AM vol. 111, pp. 141–148. Siewert, P. (2013) ‘Archaische Bronzeplatte eines unteritalischen Proxenos der Eleer’, Tyche vol. 28, pp. 147–161. Siewert, P. (2017) ‘Hocharchaische Opfervorschrift für das Kronos-Fest in Olympia’, Tyche vol. 32, pp. 189–223. Siewert, P. (2018) ‘Fragment einer hocharchaischen Bronzetafel aus Olympia’, Tyche vol. 33, pp. 177–182. Siewert, P. and Taita, J. (2014) ‘Funktionäre Olympias auf einem hoch-archaischen Bronzeblech (BrU 6)’, Tyche vol. 29, pp. 183–191. Sinn, U. (2014) ‘Olympia and the Curia Athletarum in Rome’, in: T.F. Scanlon (ed.), Sport in the Greek and Roman Worlds 2. Greek Athletic Identities and Roman Sports and Spectacle, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 182–188.

80  Paulina Komar Snodgrass, A. (1989–90) ‘The Economics of Dedication at Greek Sanctuaries’, Scienze dell’antichità. Storia, archeologia, antropologia vol. 3, pp. 287–294. Stevenson, T. (2007) ‘What Happened to the Zeus of Olympia?’ AHB vol. 21/1–2, pp. 65–88. Ward-Perkins, B. (2016) ‘The End of the Statue Habit, A.D. 282–620’, in: R.R.R. Smith and B. Ward-Perkins (eds.), The Last Statues of Antiquity, Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 295–308. Whitley, J. (2001) The Archaeology of Ancient Greece, Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University Press. Zoumbaki, S.B. (2001) Elis und Olympia in der Kaiserzeit: das Leben einer Gesellschaft zwischen Stadt und Heiligtum auf prosopographischer Grundlage, Athen: Centre de recherches de l’Antiquité grecque et romaine/Paris: De Boccard. Zuiderhoek, A. (2009) The Politics of Munificence in the Roman Empire: Citizens, Elites and Benefactors in Asia Minor, Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University Press. Zunino, M.L. (2014) ‘Parola del dio, scrittura del δᾶμος, norme panelleniche. Ripensando l’iscrizione elea IvO 7’, Revue Internationale des Droits de l’Antiquité vol. 61, pp. 9–28.

4

The epigraphic curve in the Black Sea region A case study from North-West Pontus Joanna Porucznik

Introduction The epigraphic material gathered in this chapter includes stone and metal inscriptions that have been found in the North-West Pontic Greek cities of Olbia Pontike, Istros, Kallatis and Mesambria.1 These particular poleis were chosen due to the fact that they represent two separate groups of Black Sea apoikiai: namely Ionian and Doric. The Ionian settlements of Olbia and Istros were both founded by Miletos, whereas the Doric settlement of Mesambria was founded by Kalchedon and Megara (or by refugees from Kalchedon and Byzantion); its fellow Doric settlement Kallatis was founded by another Black Sea Megarian apoikia, Herakleia Pontike.2 The total number of inscriptions that have been recorded and collected in this chapter is 1,432, of which the most numerous group comprises the Olbian material (558; Table 4.1).3 It is possible to date 87% of the epigraphic material to a particular century; only these inscriptions have been included in the graphs. The material has been arranged by century and quarter-century in order to detect any local trends and/or global phenomena in the epigraphic habit of the cities. Due to the fact that only 17.6% of Mesambrian inscriptions are possible to date by quarter-century, a single graph representing the epigraphic material by century has been provided for this city. The inscriptions are divided into five categories: (1) decrees and leges sacrae, (2) tituli honorarii, (3) dedications, (4) epitaphs and (5) other inscriptions (which include letters, defixiones, building inscriptions, milestones, horothesiai, Table 4.1 Inscriptions from Western and North-Western Pontus City

No. of inscriptions

No. of public inscriptions

No. of datable No. of inscriptions dated inscriptions by quarter-century

Olbia Istros Kallatis Mesambria Total

558 454 261 159 1,432

256 (45.8%) 241 (53%) 118 (45.2%) 46 (28.9%) 657 (45.9%)

433 (77.6%) 431 (95.2%) 246 (94.3%) 136 (85.5%) 1,247 (87%)

176 (31.7%) 150 (33.2%) 106 (40.6%) 28 (17.6%) 460 (32.1%)

82  Joanna Porucznik inscriptions of a military nature and inscribed metal instrumenta domestica). As a rule, ca. 50% of the inscriptions are of a public nature. However, this figure drops to 28.9% in the case of Mesambria. This is caused by a relatively high percentage of epitaphs that date to the third c. BCE (Graph 4.7).

Olbia The city of Olbia was founded in the middle of the sixth c. BCE and was situated in the Lower Southern Bug area on the right bank of the Bug Estuary, near the present-day village of Parutino, Ukraine. Its foundation 120

100

·=·=··· :•:•::::

········ :::::::: •:•:•:•:

-- ~

Number of inscriptions

80

~

60

40

20

0

6 BCE

5 BCE

4 BCE

3 BCE

2 BCE

1 BCE

1 CE

2 CE

Other

6

4

35

28.5

5

3

7.5

16.5

9.5

Epitaphs

1

7

10

3

2.5

3

1.5

13.5

9.5

Tituli honorarii

0

0

3

4

1

1

2

1.5

0.5

Decrees

0

3

20

23

11

4.5

5.5

10.5

12.5

Dedications

0

12.5

15.5

9.5

4

3

12.5

71

36

Graph 4.1 Inscriptions from Olbia by century.

3 CE

Epigraphic curve in the Black Sea region  83 16 14

Number of inscriptions

12 10 8 6 4 2

550-526 BCE 525-501 BCE 500-476 BCE 475-451 BCE 450-426 BCE 425-401 BCE 400-376 BCE 375-351 BCE 350-326 BCE 325-301 BCE 300-276 BCE 275-251 BCE 250-226 BCE 225-201 BCE 200-176 BCE 175-151 BCE 150-126 BCE 125-101 BCE 100-76 BCE 75-51 BCE 50-26 BCE 25-1 BCE 1-25 CE 26-50 CE 51-75 CE 76-100 CE 101-125 CE 126-150 CE 151-175 CE 176-200 CE 201-225 CE 226-250 CE 251-275 CE 276-300 CE

0

•Dedications

Decrees

•Tituli honorarii

Epitaphs

•Other

Graph 4.2 Inscriptions from Olbia by quarter-century.

was preceded by the establishment of an earlier settlement at Berezan’ in the second half of the seventh c. BCE.4 It is assumed that Olbia became a polis around 530 BCE,5 whereas Olbian chora reached its final form in the Lower Bug region in the late sixth/early fifth c. BCE.6 The earliest Olbian inscriptions carved on stone and metal date to the middle of the sixth c. BC and are of a private nature. Dedications to Apollo Delphinios and Apollo Ietros made by private individuals, epitaphs and private lead letters are the most usual epigraphic finds dating to the period between the mid-sixth and mid-fifth c. BCE. Notably, the relatively low number of epitaphs in comparison to other studied cities is not caused by the lack of excavated Olbian cemeteries.7 This phenomenon can be explained by the local burial tradition, which did not include the use of epitaphs (instead, anthropomorphic and zoomorphic sculptures, terracotta figurines or marble and limestone steles were placed on the grave) and/or by the poor state of preservation.8 The honorary decrees date from the middle of the fifth c. BCE onwards.9 There are four decrees from the fifth/early fourth c. BCE, and all four include the granting of a proxeny. This may point to the gradual development of Olbia into an important inter-regional centre as two of the decrees honour citizens of Sinope (I.Olbia 1) and Herakleia Pontike (I.Olbia 2). The number of proxeny decrees increased to 18 in the fourth c. BCE and numbered 14 in the third c. BCE, which is an exceptionally high number for the North-West Pontic region.10 Notably, the first decrees were issued in an

84  Joanna Porucznik abbreviated form, a phenomenon that can also be found in the mother city Miletos, where such documents are attested during the Hellenistic period, as well as in two other Black Sea Milesian apoikiai: Istros (SEG 50.681; late fifth/early fourth c. BCE) and Dionysopolis (IGBulg I2 13(2) fourth/third c. BCE).11 It was during the early fourth c. BCE that evidence of a democratic constitution appeared in the Olbian epigraphic material, which corresponds to both an increase in the number of inscriptions in the first quarter of the century and the appearance of the first public dedications.12 However, a considerable increase in decrees can be observed a quarter-century earlier, which is likely to suggest that a change in the political constitution of Olbia took place around that time. The archaeological material suggests that the siege of Olbia in 331 BC by Zopyrion (a general of Alexander) did not disrupt the development of the city, which seems to be reflected in a large number of inscriptions during the second half of the fourth c. BCE, reaching its height in the third quarter of the century.13 The second half of the century was also the time when the first regular, non-abbreviated decrees started to be issued in the city; this points to a new trend in the Olbian epigraphic habit, which was perhaps prompted by the economic prosperity of the city and/or by the successful development of Olbia as a democratic polis and the subsequent establishment of its legislative procedures. Tituli honorarii constitute only ca. 2.7% of all inscriptions (this includes two inscriptions from the Roman period that cannot be dated accurately enough to include in the graphs: IOSPE I2 192 and 193). They are attested as early as the last quarter of the fourth c. BCE and are mostly of a private nature: five are public, and ten are private. They were frequently issued by women and/or for women (SEG 46.948; IOSPE I2 190, 192, 193, 200). Four inscriptions were issued by family members of the honorand (SEG 46.948; IOSPE I2 189, 193, 200), with four other inscriptions honouring a priest or a priestess (IOSPE I2 190, 191, 192, 194). As can be assumed, honorific decrees played a more important role in the city’s public sphere than tituli honorarii, which were clearly preferred for personal displays of gratitude in familial and religious contexts. As far as the archaeological material is concerned, the period between the fourth and the middle of the third c. BCE is considered the height of the economic, demographic and territorial expansion of Olbia, with the estimated population reaching ca. 13–16,000 in the city and 30–40,000 in the chora.14 This, however, does not fully correspond with the epigraphic output of Olbia during that period. The archaeological material points to an economic crisis that arose during the third c. BCE in the northern Black Sea region, resulting in the gradual decline of Olbia and a considerable reduction in the number of Olbian rural settlements during the middle of the century. However, the epigraphic as well as numismatic material from the third c. BCE suggests that Olbia was already in financial trouble at the beginning

Epigraphic curve in the Black Sea region  85 of the century. Notably, a considerable fall in the production of inscriptions during the first half of the third c. BCE closely corresponds with a rapid reduction in coin weight and an increasing proportion of a base metal being used in the alloy, a phenomenon that is also visible in other cities of the North Pontic region.15 The financial crisis in Olbia in the early third c. BC is also attested to by epigraphic sources. As pointed out by Stolba, a decree honouring the sons of Apollonios, a Chersonesean citizen, dates to ca. 275–250 BCE and mentions a loan of 3,000 gold pieces that Apollonios had previously granted the city, a sum that the city was still not able to repay (SEG 39.702).16 The monetary crisis as well as other factors, such as climatic changes, military and political instability in the steppe, and pressure from the peoples both West and East, undoubtedly contributed to a drastic reduction in rural settlements in the middle of the century and the economic decline of the city. A noticeable rise in the number of honorific decrees during the second half of the third c. BCE may reflect the tendency to commemorate the act of euergesia during the crisis, the Protogenes inscription being an example (IOSPE I2 32). It must be taken into account that public munificence did not necessarily have to be combined with the distribution of goods, which in fact constituted only 10% of all types of benefactions recorded out of 140 inscriptions collected from the North-West Pontic region.17 Other services rendered to the polis may have involved holding public office.18 Commemorating public service in office was particularly popular during the Roman period, when oligarchic and aristocratic features were apparent in the political life of the city.19 The epigraphic output of the second c. BCE likely demonstrates that after the crisis, the city never regained its former condition. However, it has to be borne in mind that the scarcity of material from that period that is datable to a quarter-century (ca. 17%) results in the underrepresentation of second-century inscriptions in the “quarter-century” graph. Therefore, the graph divided by centuries appears to be more informative, showing that the number of decrees from that century in fact exceeds the number of decrees issued in Olbia throughout the next three centuries. After the attack of the Getai in the middle of the first c. BCE, Olbia was destroyed and abandoned for several decades, which is reflected in its lack of epigraphic material from the third quarter of the first c. BCE.20 It is argued that the citizens started to return to Olbia and rebuild it at the end of the first century BCE. A newly published Olbian dedicatory inscription suggests that Olbia may have been rebuilt with the support of Rome.21 At the turn of the first c. BCE/first c. CE the revival of the chora can also be observed in the archaeological material. Defensive structures and the strategic placement of settlements reflect the unstable political situation in the region during that time.22 As can be observed, the period between 100 and 250 CE was the time of the epigraphic maximum, a phenomenon that can also be found in Istros

86  Joanna Porucznik and, to some degree, in Kallatis (despite a fall around 225 CE). Public dedications made by archons, strategoi and priests to Achilles Pontarches and Apollo Prostates (the two main city cults that emerged during the Roman period) constitute a substantial part of the epigraphic material of the second and third c. CE. Dedications have frequently been found in the chora, where they may have demarcated the city’s territory. This, in turn, may demonstrate the importance of public dedications in displaying the city’s identity, an act rooted in Greek tradition, connected with the archaic cults of Apollo and Achilles, whose new epithets provided a conceptual link between the past and the present. The presence of a Roman garrison in the city can be traced to the second half of the second c. CE and is well attested by Latin inscriptions discovered in Olbia. They include three dedications and eleven Latin epitaphs as well as two inscriptions of a military nature. The epitaphs reveal that Roman soldiers lived in Olbia with their families23 and that the garrison functioned to at least the middle of the third c. CE.24 The decrease in epigraphic material after 250 CE (a phenomenon that also occurs in the other poleis) can certainly be associated with economic decline. The last Olbian coins displaying the image of Alexander Severus and his mother Julia Mamaea date to 222–235 CE, which is roughly contemporary with a monetary crisis occurring in the Roman Empire, followed by political instability and invasion by barbarian tribes.25 The chora ceased to exist after the Gothic invasions in the middle of the third c. CE, during which both the city and the chora were destroyed.26 The city seems to have functioned throughout the third c. CE, which is supported by the discovery of Roman coins and by the epigraphic material. It is assumed that the settlement at Olbia ceased to exist after the third quarter of the third c. CE.27

Istros Istros is situated near the Danube Delta on the western shore of the Black Sea. The oldest archaeological layer in Istros dates to the last quarter of the seventh/beginning of the sixth c. BCE and is located in the western part of the site.28 Between 560 and 500 BCE, the spatial structure of that part of the settlement reached its final shape, which covered ca. 30 ha, with the population also reaching its maximum around the same time.29 The epigraphic evidence from the sixth and fifth c. BCE is rather scarce and mostly represented by private dedications, which does not reflect the actual development of the city during that period. The archaeological material shows that the sixth and fifth c. BCE was an important period for the city’s spatial development.30 The beginning of the fifth c. BCE is also when coins were first issued in Istros.31 The following century saw a period of economic growth prompted by agriculture, local production and trade.32 This is reflected in the archaeological material from an Istrian

Epigraphic curve in the Black Sea region  87 160

140

120

Number of inscriptions

100

80

I-

60

I-

I

t .q • - --1111 ! II Ii¼!!•

40

~ ~0

rl'~·n,.. , I ~ 1

20

0 ■ Other ■ Epitaphs ■ Tituli honorarii jij

Decrees

& Dedications

:,;A

~~

IP• Ja r:IM¥i w

I

. '

6 BCE 5 BCE 4 BCE 3 BCE 2 BCE 1 BCE 1 CE

2 CE

3 CE

4 CE

5 CE

1

1

9.5

10.5

8.5

6.5

5

52

34

0

0

6 CE 1

0

0

16.5

14.5

5

2.5

2.5

30

24

1

0

0

0

0

0

3

1

0

2

7.5

8.5

0

0

0

0

0.5

1.5

24

34.5

5.5

2

3

1

0

0

0

1.5

2.5

8.5

13

9

2.5

2

52

22

1

0

0

Graph 4.3 Inscription from Istros by century.

necropolis, in which fifth-century graves containing rather poor assemblages were replaced by richer graves containing jewellery and coins (the fourth c. to the first half of the third c. BCE).33 It is worth noting that public inscriptions recorded in Istros before the third c. BCE are very rare. Epigraphic sources from that period include epitaphs; defixiones; dedications made by private individuals; and a dedication made by the sons of Hippolochos to Apollo Ietros, located on the architrave of his temple (IScM I 144). This inscription indicates that the priest of Apollo Ietros was the eponymous official of the city.34 Other epigraphic

88  Joanna Porucznik 30

Number of inscriptions

25

20

15

10

5

0

Dedications

■

Decrees

■ Tituli honorarii

Epitaphs

■ Other

Graph 4.4 Inscriptions from Istros by quarter-century.

evidence shows that at the time the magistracy was occupied by members of an influential family who erected several expensive monuments to Apollo Ietros, which highlights the fact that the initial political constitution of Istros had an oligarchic character.35 The prosopographical analysis of the city’s officials based on IScM I 144, 169, 170, 236, 237 has suggested that a democratic constitution was probably introduced in Istros around the middle of the century, having been preceded by a transitional period that had a more relaxed oligarchic character (Graphs 4.3 and 4.4).36 It should not be ruled out that the democratization of the city’s constitution had an impact on its epigraphic habit, causing a steep rise in inscriptions during the fourth c. BCE, even though such a rise is caused by material of a non-public nature, such as epitaphs, defixiones (all derived from a private collection) and private dedications. The earliest known public document issued by the city is a heavily restored proxeny decree (issued in an abbreviated form) which has been dated to the late fifth/early fourth c. BCE (SEG 50.681). It is reasonable to assume that such abbreviated decrees represented the style of decrees issued in the period before the introduction of democracy.37 Another early decree, dated to the late fourth c. BCE (IScM I 62), was issued by the Milesians and pertained to the relationship between the metropolis and its apoikia.

Epigraphic curve in the Black Sea region  89 The epigraphic habit of Istros changed considerably in the third and second c. BCE, during which at least 57 non-abbreviated decrees and the earliest four public tituli honorarii were issued in the city. A noticeable rise in public inscriptions during this century and the introduction of a non-abbreviated formula of decrees may suggest an increasing significance of the display of public life to the citizens, resulting from an established democratic system. A considerable number of decrees and tituli honorarii from this period honour public benefactors, showing their importance to the city.38 In addition to performing public duty and providing financial support,39 benefactors also acted as ambassadors.40 The third and the second c. BCE was also a time of conflict with Thracian tribes, resulting in attacks on the chora, as mentioned in IScM I 15. The city attempted to deal with the unstable situation via negotiation, which also included suing for peace.41 A drastic reduction in the number of inscriptions in the first c. BCE and the first c. CE can be associated with political events and military activities in the region. Istros and other West Pontic cities came under control of Mithridates VI Eupator. As a consequence, in 72 BCE the Western Pontus was invaded by a Roman army under the command of M. Terentius Varro, which resulted in the establishment of garrisons in Mesambria and Dionysopolis.42 Another Roman expedition led by C. Antonius Hybrida in 62 BCE turned out to be unsuccessful, which weakened Roman rule in the region and prompted the establishment of a tribal state of Getai ruled by Burebista.43 Like Olbia, Istros and its rural territory was destroyed by the Getai, which is clear from both archaeological and epigraphic material. An honorary decree for Aristagoras (IScM I 54) mentions the plundering of the chora as well as economic decline and plans to rebuild fortifications.44 By 54 CE, Istros (and likely other West Pontic cities) was incorporated into the Roman province of Moesia. The position of Istros in the Roman administrative system is attested to by a horothesia issued by governor M. Laberius Maximus (100 CE; IScM I 68).45 This resulted in a sharp rise in epigraphic output during the second and third c. CE in Istros, reaching its height in the second c. CE, which demonstrates the rapid development of the city during this time. The second and third c. CE was a time of intense building activity, which is well attested in the epigraphic material46; new construction and restoration projects were often sponsored by local benefactors.47 A significant number of inscriptions from this period are private and public dedications to Roman emperors. The imperial cult is well attested to, not only in Istros but also in Kallatis, Dionysopolis and Odessos.48 It is also noticeable that during this period, the gradual reduction of decrees issued by the city is followed by an increase in the number of public tituli honorarii. A sudden fall in inscriptions after 250 CE appears to be a common phenomenon, similar to what can be observed in Olbia around the same time. Surprisingly, one can use the traditional explanatory model of the socalled “Third Century Crisis” to interpret the decrease in the number of

90  Joanna Porucznik inscriptions in Istros; however, it is not certain to what extent it can be used with regard to the two other cities in the western Black Sea area – Kallatis and Mesambria. As will be demonstrated later, around the same time the epigraphic curves of these two cities do not seem to have been so significantly affected by the difficult socio-economic situation in the Roman Empire. This likely suggests that the factors responsible for the shape of the epigraphic curve in this region may have differed between cities. Alternatively, the same socio-economic and political factors may have affected the cities in different ways. At any rate, adopting a single and seemingly obvious explanation for the epigraphic habits of north-western Black Sea cities is problematic. Epigraphic material from after 250 CE is very scarce and points to the collapse of the Istrian epigraphic habit. Inscriptions are attested until the sixth c. CE, but the city was definitely abandoned at the beginning of the seventh c. CE, soon after the fall of the Danubian limes and the migration of the Slavic population to the Byzantine Empire.49

Kallatis Kallatis is situated near modern Mangalia, ca. 44 km south of Constanţa, Romania. The exact date of its foundation is still a matter of debate50; however, the earliest pottery found at the site and in the first settlements in the chora date to the beginning of the fourth c. BCE, which is contemporary with the earliest epigraphic evidence.51 The second half of the fourth c. BCE is when the city started to first issue coins,52 which corresponds with the earliest recorded decrees (Graphs 4.5 and 4.6). The decrease in epigraphic material during the first and second quarters of the third c. BCE is likely a consequence of the revolt against Lysimachos in 313 BCE, which was followed by a long-lasting siege of the city, as attested by Diodorus (XIX 73.1–2; XIX 73.5–9). In 308 BCE, king Eumelos of Bosporos allowed 1,000 citizens of Kallatis who had escaped the prolonged siege to settle in his territory.53 It is assumed that the final subjugation of the Western Pontic cities took place before 302 BCE and lasted until Lysimachos’ death in 281 BCE.54 The rise in epigraphic material is attested in the middle of the century and consists of a substantial number of honorific decrees granting a proxeny. The material from the second c. BCE is underrepresented on the graph displaying quarter-centuries, which is mostly due to the prevailing number of epitaphs that are difficult to date. What is evident is a considerable fall – 60% – in the number of decrees compared to that in the previous century, which may perhaps suggest a troublesome period in the city’s public life. Around 100 BCE55 Kallatis signed a treaty of alliance with Rome (IScM III 1), which is the only document of this type attested in West Pontus. It is not certain what impact the treaty had on the city’s history; however, the rise of public inscriptions during the first c. BCE (when Olbia and Istros

Epigraphic curve in the Black Sea region  91 90

80

70

Number of inscriptions

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

4 BCE

3 BCE

2 BCE

1 BCE

1 CE

2 CE

3 CE

1

0

5

0

4

30.5

15.5

5.5

13

13

2.5

1.5

14.5

Tituli honorarii

0

1

0.5

1.5

1

12.5

Decrees

1

17

5.5

12.5

9

2

2.5

0.5

1

6.5

■ Other

Epitaphs

■ Dedications

• 4 CE

5 CE

6 CE

2

0.5

0.5

20.5

1.5

0

0

3.5

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

24.5

13

0

0

0

Graph 4.5 Inscriptions from Kallatis by century.

experienced a noticeable fall in epigraphic material) is noteworthy, even though a general fall in inscriptions can be observed in this century, especially during the second and third quarters. The fall was most likely caused by the Getic campaign around the middle of the century, although there is no archaeological evidence proving that the city was destroyed by Burebista. A couple of decrees mention a prominent citizen and benefactor named Ariston, who is described as a “founder of the city” (IScM III 44, 12–15 CE) and “the second founder of the city” (IScM III 45, shortly after 15 CE; cf. IScM I 191 from Istros).56 However, it is possible that this title had a

92  Joanna Porucznik 18 16

Number of inscriptions

14 12 10 8 6 4 2

400-376 BCE 375-351 BCE 350-326 BCE 325-301 BCE 300-276 BCE 275-251 BCE 250-226 BCE 225-201 BCE 200-176 BCE 175-151 BCE 150-126 BCE 125-101 BCE 100-76 BCE 75-51 BCE 50-26 BCE 25-1 BCE 1-25 CE 26-50 CE 51-75 CE 76-100 CE 101-125 CE 126-150 CE 151-175 CE 176-200 CE 201-225 CE 226-250 CE 251-275 CE 276-300 CE 301-325 CE

0

•Dedications

Decrees

•Tituli honorarii

Epitaphs

•Other

Graph 4.6 Inscriptions from Kallatis by quarter-century.

more figurative meaning and should be associated with the incorporation of Kallatis into the Roman Empire and its status as a civitas foederata.57 A series of decrees issued by a Dionysiac thiasos in honour of Ariston and his son constitutes a noticeable rise in inscriptions between 25 BCE and 25 CE (IScM III 40–45), and shows the intense euergetic activity of this family during that time. The years that followed (26–50 CE) witnessed a considerable reduction in the number of inscriptions; in fact this period experienced the steepest fall in any period between 25 BCE and 275 CE. The increase after 51 CE might have been connected with the introduction of the imperial cult (which is attested in IScM I 31 and 32), perhaps in exchange for economic privileges. The rich epigraphic material from the second and third c. CE demonstrates how the city functioned under the Roman administration. The material includes milestones and horothesiai, inscriptions associated with the imperial cult, and a letter from a governor of Moesia Inferior (IScM III 56). IScM I 97–100 (172 CE) mention the raising of a tax (exactio pecuniae) in order to restore the city wall, which may have been damaged during the Costoboci invasion in 170 CE.58 The period between 151 and 175 CE is when

Epigraphic curve in the Black Sea region  93 Kallatis reached its epigraphic maximum, mostly due to the aforementioned series of building inscriptions that mention restoration of the city walls and to milestones that are precisely datable to a year. Interestingly, all honorific inscriptions from Kallatis are of a public nature, and they became more popular during the second and third c. CE, when decrees disappear. It has to be noted that the drop in inscriptions between 201 and 175 CE was caused by epitaphs that are difficult to date to a quarter-century and should not be interpreted as a considerable decline of the epigraphic habit of Kallatis. Notably, such a decline does occur after 275 CE, which is a quarter-century later than this happened in Olbia and Istros. The last inscriptions recorded in Kallatis date to the fifth/sixth c. CE; the city ceased to exist at the beginning of the seventh c. CE, shortly after the fall of the Byzantine limes on the Danube.59

Mesambria The city of Mesambria was founded as a Dorian apoikia at the end of the sixth c. BCE and is located on a peninsula (island in antiquity) in modern Nesebar, Bulgaria.60 The earliest epigraphic material consists of epitaphs and dates to the fifth c. BCE, which is contemporary with the occurrence of the first Mesambrian coins (silver drachms) (Graph 4.7).61 The number of epitaphs increased considerably in the fourth c. BCE, reaching its peak in the third c. BCE: epitaphs constitute approximately 50% of the epigraphic material from that century. The first recorded dedication appears during the fourth c. BCE and is of a private nature (SEG 59.742). The end of the fourth/beginning of the third c. BCE is when the first decree honouring a priestess was recorded (IGBulg V 5095). The epigraphic maximum in the third c. BCE is undoubtedly combined with a prosperous period in the history of the city, both in an economic and in a political sense. A considerable amount of epigraphic material from that century consists of honorary decrees, especially those granting a proxeny. They were issued by the boule (e.g. IGBulg I2 308 (12)) as well as by both the boule and demos (e.g. IGBulg I2 308 (4)). However, other kinds of evidence, such as public architecture, imported objects and elaborate graves, suggest that in fact the whole Hellenistic period should be considered a thriving time in the city’s history.62 Therefore, the peak in inscriptions during the third c. BCE should perhaps be interpreted in terms of local trends. Such discernible trends could be detected in the display of wealth through rich, ornamented gravestones as well as in a rise in the city’s political activities, as commemorated in public inscriptions. One of the earliest recorded political activities was an honorary decree for Sadalas, a local Thracian dynast ruling a small kingdom around 281–277 BCE; the inscription mentions a treaty which included paying a tribute to the king (IGBulg I2 307 = IGBulg V 5086). The epigraphic output of the second c. BCE suggests that a local conflict which is recorded in an Istrian inscription (IGBulg I2 388 (2) = IScM I 64),

94  Joanna Porucznik 60

50

Number of inscriptions

40

30

I•

■----------

20 1---

0

n 1-• Lr