The Encyclopedia of Ancient History (13-Volume Set) 140517935X, 9781405179355

Citation preview

1

Abantes JESSICA PRIESTLEY

Abantes is the name used by HOMER and Hesiod for the inhabitants of EUBOEA (Il. 2.536–9; Hes. fr. 204.52–3 West, cf. Hes. fr. 296) and by later writers referring to the early Euboeans. The Abantes in Homer sent forty ships to Troy under the leadership of Elephenor, and are described as “long-haired at the back” and “eager spearmen” (Il. 2.536–45). It was later explained that their hair was kept short at the front to prevent opponents holding it when fighting at close-quarters (Plut. Thes. 5.2–4). The Abantes’ reputation for close fighting has been highlighted as a possible reflection of martial practices in Euboea around the time of the LELANTINE WAR (Archil. fr. 3 West; Strabo 10.1.12; Donlan 1970, cf. Wheeler 1987). Strabo credits Aristotle with the view that the Abantes were Thracians from Phokian Aba who settled Euboea, but adds that others derive the name from a hero (Strabo 10.1.3; cf. Steph. Byz. s.v. “Abantis”). Although not Ionian, they were said to have participated in the Ionian migration (Hdt. 1.146.1; Paus. 7.2.4). Pausanias relates a tradition that a group of Abantes returning from Troy founded the city of Thronion in Thesprotia (Paus. 5.22.4; SEG 15.251; cf. [Scymn.] 441–3; Malkin 1998: 78–80; 2001: 191–4). Another tradition connects the Abantes with Chios: some Carians

and Abantes came to the island during the reign of Oinopion, but both groups were later killed or forced to depart (Paus. 7.4.9–10). In historical times there is a record of a phyle in Chalcis called Abantis (CIL XII 9, 946). Pausanias also records a monument and inscription (ca. 450 BCE) commemorating the victory of the Apollonians at “the limits of the land Abantis” (Paus. 5.22.3), apparently referring to the Bay of Valona region (where Thronion was situated), which was perhaps settled by Euboeans in the mid-eighth century BCE (Malkin 1998: 78–80; 2001: 191–4). SEE ALSO:

Eretria; Ionian migration.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Donlan, W. (1970) “Archilochus, Strabo and the Lelantine War.” Transactions of the American Philological Association 101: 131–42. Kirk, G. S. (1985) The Iliad: a commentary, books 1–4. Cambridge. Malkin, I. (1998) The Returns of Odysseus. Berkeley. Malkin, I. (2001) “Greek ambiguities: between ‘Ancient Hellas’ and ‘Barbarian Epirus.’” In I. Malkin, ed., Ancient perceptions of Greek ethnicity: 187–212. Cambridge, MA. Visser, E. (1997) Homers Katalog der Schiffe. Stuttgart. Wheeler, E. L. (1987) “Ephorus and the prohibition of missiles.” Transactions of the American Philological Association 117: 157–82.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print page 1. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah02001

1

Abaris (FGrH 34) CRAIGE B. CHAMPION

Abaris (FGrH 34) is probably a fictitious writer, included as a real historian in FELIX JACOBY’S collection of fragmentary Greek historians. The Abaris story is known principally from HERODOTUS (4.36). Abaris (if he indeed is historical) was a SCYTHIAN, or Hyperborean, who may have furthered an interest in PYTHAGOREANISM in the sixth century BCE, during the heyday of Greek colonization movements and Greek

interest in the far north (Dowden 2015). Jacoby included him in his collection of fragmentary Greek historians as a writer whose work will have constituted “Genealogie und Mythographie.” SEE ALSO:

Colonization, Greek; Historiography, Greek and Roman.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Dowden, K. (2015) “Abaris (34).” In I. Worthington, ed., Brill’s New Jacoby. Brill Online.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner. © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Published 2015 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah26147

1

Abas CRAIGE B. CHAMPION

Abas (BNJ 46 T 1) is a poorly attested historian of the first century BCE, excluded from Die Fragmente der griechischen Historiker by FELIX JACOBY on the grounds of meager source evidence. We have only a brief notice in the SUDA, the lexicon of the tenth century CE (s.v. Abas a 20 Adler). This source says Abas left historical

commentaries and a rhetorical handbook. The anonymous Scholia on Staseis also mentions an Abas (Walz 1833). SEE ALSO:

Historiography, Greek and Roman.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Walz, C. (1833) Rhetores Graeci 7.1: 203. Stuttgart.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner. © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Published 2015 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah26148

1

Abdera LOUISA LOUKOPOULOU

A Greek colony first established ca. 654 BCE by Klazomenians under Timesios, Abdera was refounded in 544 by Teians. It was situated in the moorlands of the Nestos River estuary, and had direct access to fertile arable land in the alluvial plain and to precious mineral resources, probably in the neighboring mountains and in the Thracian hinterland. The colony’s early history records ferocious fighting against the Thracian hosts, but also the unremitting enmity of her island neighbor, THASOS. Abdera rose rapidly to great prosperity, as evidenced by the magnificent, widely circulating, silver coinage struck probably soon after the middle of the sixth century BCE and bearing the griffin as the city emblem. First conquered by the Persians in 513 under Darius I, Abdera safeguarded its prosperity through opportunistic dealings during the Persian wars and throughout the fifth century when, as a member of the DELIAN LEAGUE, the city was regularly assessed with exceptionally high yearly tribute at fifteen talents. The financial and political importance of Abdera was further enhanced by the promotion, through the Abderitan Nymphodoros, of close relationships with the rising power of the Odrysian kingdom. Abdera’s prosperity was brought to an end by a massive Triballian invasion in 376/75, which caused devastation and enormous losses. Archaeological evidence indicates that the city was eventually refounded by PHILIP II OF MACEDON, who occupied the city ca. 350. During the Hellenistic period, Abdera shared the troubled destiny of the rest of the Aegean Thrace. Although the city was declared free by the Romans after the debacle of PHILIP V OF MACEDON in 197, it was sacked by the Roman general Lucius Hortensius in 170, presumably for its allegiance to the Macedonian Dynasty. Following the final dissolution of the Macedonian kingdom after the Roman victory at

Pydna (168 BCE; see PYDNA, BATTLE OF), Abdera, like Maroneia and Ainos, was declared free and autonomous. Epigraphic evidence attests to the close relationship persistently entertained between Abdera and her metropolis, TEOS. The colony seems to have adopted most metropolitan civic and religious institutions; as in Teos, a board of timouchoi shared the executive authority. The poliad deity of Abdera was probably DIONYSOS, while the eponymous official was the priest of Apollo, revered under the epithet Derainos. Classical Abdera earned proverbial renown for its affluence, but also for the stupidity of its citizens, although it boasted having given birth to important philosophers, such as DEMOCRITUS, PROTAGORAS, and ANAXARCHOS OF ABDERA. Archaeological research north of Cape Bouloustra has brought to light remains of Abdera’s Archaic (seventh to sixth century BCE) necropolis, parts of the Archaic and Classical city, with two phases of the circuit wall protecting the city’s portuary installations, and other public and private buildings. The city was relocated and apparently grid-planned ca. 350 further south, where excavations have brought to light several insulae of Hellenistic and Roman dwellings, traces of the theater, and the western city gate with large sections of well-constructed fortifications, enclosing an extended area of ca. 112 ha. REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Chryssanthaki-Nagle, K. (2007) L’histoire mone´taire d’Abde`re en Thrace: VIe s. av. J.-C. – IIe s. ap. J.-C. Athens. Isaac, B. (1986) The Greek settlements in Thrace until the Macedonian conquest. Leiden. Loukopoulou, L. (2004) “Thrace from Nestos to Hebros.” In M. H. Hansen and T. H. Nielsen, eds., An inventory of Archaic and Classical poleis: 870–84. Oxford. Loukopoulou, L. et al. (2005) Inscriptiones antiquae partis Thraciae quae ad ora Maris Aegaei sita est: 148–260. Athens.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 1–2. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah14001

1

Abduction CHARLOTTE SCHUBERT

Abduction was a leitmotif in Greek representations of their earliest history. In HERODOTUS, for example, the rape of Io by Phoenician traders marks the beginning of the friction between Hellenes and barbarians, and Paris’ abduction of Helen from Sparta results in the Trojan War. It is mainly women who are depicted as victims of thieves and warriors, but the kidnapping of Eumaeus shows that boys were also abducted, sold, and enslaved. The experience of abduction and its variations in Greek thought exceeded literary representation; it was rooted deep in the consciousness of the people. Death was seen and pictured as the “great kidnapper,” for example, in the well-known myth of the rape of Demeter’s daughter, Persephone-Kore, by Hades. The descent of the stolen girl into the dominions of death became the proto- and archetype for the death of young women, who were imagined, just like Demeter’s daughter, as kidnap victims of the god of death. Zeus was pictured as the abductor of the handsome boy Ganymede. For Greeks and Romans alike, the boy who ascended into the heavens was the archetype for their own dead and synonymous with a blissful life after death. The two mortals, one carried off to Olympus, the other to Hades, served the gods in an erotic manner (Persephone-Kore as companion of Hades and Ganymede as Zeus’ lover). In Archaic Greece and Early Rome, abduction was carried out for the purposes of rape or enslavement, either to increase the abductor’s own workforce or to profit by selling those abducted (cf. the treaties between Rome and Carthage, in which both parties granted the voyagers of their communities the right to raid, kidnap, and deport people). Sometimes campaigns were officially licensed: for example, Solonian Law, a well-known law of the early to the Late Archaic period, allowed the demes, phratries, cult associations, and

syssitiae to undertake trading voyages and to pillage. But in Archaic Greece as well as Early Rome, such campaigns were rather uncommon. Deportations of large numbers of people were another way of acquiring cheap labor; however, they were also used to radically weaken defeated enemies or eliminate potential threats, depending on the circumstances. In Rome, a person dealing in the trade of free men or women was guilty of human trafficking (plagium). In Late Antiquity, there are barely any documented cases of the abductions and enslavement of free people in the area where Roman law was operative. Yet there are many cases of bride kidnapping, where a man would abduct a young woman in order to marry her against her parents’ will. The increasing frequency of Germanic invasions of the Imperium Romanum took the threat of abductions and deportations to a whole new level; so did thrusts of other barbarian peoples from the fringe of the ancient world. SEE ALSO: Deportation; Myth; Persephone, Kore; Slavery, Greece; Slavery, Rome.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Cohen, A. (2007) “Gendering the age gap: boys, girls, and abduction in ancient Greek art.” In A. Cohen and J. B. Rutter, eds., Constructions of childhood in the ancient world. Princeton. Devereux, G. (1965) “The abduction of Hippodameia as the aition of a Greek animal husbandry rite.” Studi e Materiali di Storia delle Religioni 36: 3–25. Evans-Grubbs, J. (1989) “Abduction marriage in antiquity: a law of Constantine (CTh IX.24.1) and its social context.” Journal of Roman Studies 79: 59–83. Heinen, H., ed. (2008) Menschenraub, Menschenhandel und Sklaverei in antiker und moderner Perspektive. Stuttgart. Topper, K. (2007) “Perseus, the maiden Medusa, and the imagery of abduction.” Hesperia 76: 73–106.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 2–3. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah22001

1

Abgar Legend IRMA KARAULASHVILI

The plot of the apocryphal Legend of Abgar revolves around the story of the first royal conversion to Christianity. The legend, the importance of which was underlined first by citing a letter supposedly written by Jesus to King Abgar (which soon became regarded as a protective amulet), and later by inclusion of an account of an image of Christ not made by human hands, became so popular in the Christian world that it constituted part of its historical writings and ecclesiastical collections, and several separate versions of the legend developed. The oldest written evidence for the Abgar Legend is preserved in the Historia Ecclesiastica (1.13) of EUSEBIUS OF CAESAREA (fourth century) and in the Syriac Doctrina Addaı¨ (fourth or fifth century). Here the narrative develops around the story of the correspondence between Jesus and Abgar, ruler of the city of EDESSA or Urha (the capital of the little Hellenistic country of OSRHOENE); the arrival of the Apostle Thaddeus in Edessa, and his preaching of Christianity; and the baptism of the king. There is no reference to the image of Christ in Eusebius. It first appears in the Doctrina Addaı¨, which mentions the portrait of Jesus as having been painted by the messenger of Abgar, Hanan or Anania. Both the Doctrina Addaı¨ and the Historia Ecclesiastica contributed to the further development of the “Abgar Legend cycle,” within which were created the independent stories of an Edessan image of Christ (known as the MANDYLION). Three versions of the legend were developed in Greek; the earliest seems to be the Epistula Abgari (fifth–seventh century). The next text is the Acta Thaddei, dated to the sixth or seventh century. The last and the most elaborated version of the legend is attributed to CONSTANTINE VII PORPHYROGENITUS and titled Narratio de imagine Edessena. The creation of

this text was occasioned by the transfer of the Mandylion from Edessa to Constantinople in 944 CE. A commemorative feast was established and the Narratio included in ecclesiastical collections. These texts are treated as separate versions of the Abgar Legend. Other texts are either translations of, or excerpts from, one of these narratives, or independent stories that sometimes even go beyond the scope of the plot of the original Abgar Legend. The Syriac-based traditions concentrated mainly on the story of the correspondence between Abgar and Christ, while the Byzantine-based ones developed the story of the Mandylion. The motif of the image became very widespread in Byzantium, and was used in the arguments during the Iconoclastic Controversy. The history of the relics of Christ presented in the Abgar Legend contributed to the proliferation of the narrative in the Christian world. Translations of the various versions of the legend and amulets related to it are preserved in Latin, Georgian, Armenian, Arabic, Coptic, Ethiopic, Old Church Slavonic, AngloSaxon, and Dutch. Most probably the earliest translation of the Abgar Legend was made into Latin. It was the translation of the Historia Ecclesiastica of Eusebius by Rufinus, at the beginning of the fifth century, that prompted dissemination of the legend in the west. The Eastern Christian tradition is twofold. The Armenian, Arabic, Coptic, and Ethiopic narratives blend the Syriac and Byzantine patterns. Note that there exists only one translation of the Syriac Doctrina Addaı¨, which is Armenian and plausibly seventh–eighth century, approximately of the time that Armenian tradition ascribed Armenian origin to Abgar. The Georgian and Slavonic traditions prefer the Byzantine pattern. The story of the miraculous emergence of the Mandylion, which by some is associated with the Shroud of Turin, still keeps the Abgar Legend alive. SEE ALSO:

Amulets, Christian.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 3–5. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah05001

2 REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Brock, S. P. (1992) “Eusebius and Syriac Christianity.” In H. A. Attridge and G. Hata, eds., Eusebius, Christianity and Judaism: 212–34. Detroit. Cameron, Av. (1983) “The history of the image of Edessa: The telling of a story.” In Okeanos. Festschrift for I. Sevcenko. Harvard Ukrainian Studies 7: 80–94. Drijvers, H. J. W. (1980) Cults and beliefs at Edessa. Leiden. Drijvers, H. J. W. (1987) “Abgarsage.” In W. Schneemelcher, ed., Neutestamentliche ¨ bersetzung, vol. 1: Apokryphen in deutscher U Evangelien: 389–95; (1989) vol. 2. Apostolische Apokalypsen und Verwandtes: 436–7. Tu¨bingen.

Geerard, M. (1992) Clavis Apocryphorum Novi Testamenti, Corpus Christianorum, Series apocryphorum. Turnhout. Karaulashvili, I. (2004) “King Abgar of Edessa and the concept of a ruler chosen by God.” In A. al-Azmeh and J. Bak, eds., Monotheistic kingship: the medieval variants: 173–90. Budapest. Kessler, H. and Wolf., G., eds. (1998) The holy face and the paradox of representation. Bologna. Segal, J. (1970) Edessa: “The blessed city.” Oxford. Weitzmann, K. (1960) “The Mandylion and Constantine Porphyrogenetos.” Cahiers arche´ologiques 11: 163–84.

1

Abgar Legend IRMA KARAULASHVILI

Ilia State University, Georgia

The apocryphal Legend of Abgar, the importance of which was underlined first by citing a letter of the Savior to king Abgar, and later (supposedly after the epistles had been declared apocryphal) by the inclusion of an account of an image of Christ not made by human hands, became so popular in the Christian world that it constituted a part of its historical writings and ecclesiastical collections. The plot of the Legend revolves around the story of the first royal conversion to Christianity. The oldest written evidence for the Abgar Legend is preserved in the Historia Ecclesiastica (HE 1.13–2.1:5–7) of EUSEBIUS OF CAESAREA (fourth century CE) and in the Syriac Doctrina Addaï (DA, fourth or fifth century CE). The core narrative in both accounts develops around the story of the correspondence between Jesus and Abgar, ruler of the city of EDESSA (the Syriac counterpart: Urhaï), the capital of the little Hellenistic country of OSRHOENE. As the story goes, the king, who is suffering from an incurable disease, sends a messenger to the Savior with the epistle, in which Abgar asks the Lord to come and cure him. Christ answers him and promises to send one of His apostles to Edessa. After the Crucifixion, the Apostle Thaddeus, one of the seventy (Syriac counterpart: Addaï, one of the seventy two) arrives in Edessa, heals the king and preaches Christianity. Eventually the king, together with his entire household, is baptized. The DA also contains the apocryphal story about the finding of the True Cross by a fictional wife of the emperor CLAUDIUS, named Protonike. It includes the text of the correspondence between Abgar and Tiberius, the accounts about the building of the churches in Edessa and districts of Oshroene by Addaï, the ordination of his successor, the death of the Apostle, and the martyrdom of Aggaï, the head of the church of Edessa, who was

martyred by one of the Abgar’s rebellious sons. At the very end of the narrative, the author identifies himself as Labubna, the son of Senaq, himself son of Abshadar, the scribe of the king. Among the questions traditionally discussed in scholarly literature with respect to the content of these texts are the following: which of the four kings named Abgar bar Manu (son of Manu) can be identified with the Abgar of the Legend, and did the original version of the text contain information about the image of the Savior? More specific issues, important mainly for the historical development of the Legend, include rather particular matters, such as: was the letter cited in the text written by Jesus Christ himself (as in the HE), or merely dictated by Him (as in the DA)? Was the passage in which Christ promises that the city of Edessa will be impenetrable to enemies included in the original version of the Legend? Does inclusion of this passage entail transformation of the epistles into a protective (apotropaic) amulet? Does the archetypal text of the apocryphon, which the authors of both texts use and name as a part of the Edessan archives, have any notion of the image of Christ? This is of importance as the DA first mentions the portrait of Jesus as having been painted by the messenger of Abgar, Anania (Syriac counterpart: Hanan), but there is no mention of it in HE? When does the so-called Seven Seals of Christ (heptasphragidon) and their explanation begin to be attached to the epistle of Jesus? When and where does the specific narrative related to the acheiropoiētos image of Christ (known as the Mandylion) originate? Both the DA and the HE contributed to the further development of the “Abgar Legend cycle,” within which were created the independent stories about the Edessan image of Christ (Mandylion) and its brick copy/ies (Keramidion). Three versions of the Legend that inform us about the miraculous origin of the acheiropoiētos were developed in Greek. The earliest seems to be the Epistula Abgari (EA, fifth–seventh

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History. Edited by Andrew Erskine, David B. Hollander, and Arietta Papaconstantinou. © 2021 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Published 2021 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah05001.pub2

2 century CE). The next text is the Acta Thaddei (ATH), dated to the sixth or seventh century CE. The last and the most elaborated version of the Legend is attributed to Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus and titled Narratio de imagine Edessena. The creation of this text was occasioned by the transfer of the Mandylion from Edessa to Constantinople in 944. A commemorative feast was established and the Narratio included in ecclesiastical collections. These three pieces of evidence, together with the DA and HE, are treated as separate versions of the Abgar Legend. It should be noted here that usage of the title—the Epistula Abgari—in scholarly literature could be manifold and sometimes even confusing. It could refer to the textual tradition related to the correspondence of Abgar and Christ in general, as well as the aforementioned distinct version of the Abgar Legend in particular. Therefore, it is always highly advisable to make a clear distinction between these two different phenomena within the textual tradition of the Legend. To my mind, it is also reasonable to modify the title of one of the versions of the Legend from the Epistula Abgari to the Epistula Abgari et historia de imagine Edessena, in order to avoid confusion and to be precise about the subject of scrutiny. The history of the relics of Christ presented in the Abgar Legend contributed to the proliferation of the narrative in the Christian world. Among the variety of multilingual translations and independent, often “nationalized” developments of the Legend, a general trend is still discernible. If the Syriac-based traditions focus mainly on the story of the correspondence between Abgar and Christ, the Byzantinebased ones generally develop the story about the Mandylion. Such a focus on the motif of the image seems to be prompted by the fact that it was used as one of the major arguments during the iconoclastic controversy and thus became very widespread in the Byzantine oikumene. Hence representations of the Mandylion are as widespread in the Byzantine-oriented world as are the images of Veronica (the

counterpart of the Edessan image) in the Latin world. Translations of different versions of the Legend and independent developments based on it, as well as a great variety of epistle–amulets, are preserved in Latin, Georgian, Armenian, Arabic, Coptic, Ethiopic, Old Church Slavonic, Anglo-Saxon, Dutch, and so on. The earliest translation of the Abgar Legend was most probably made into Latin. It could have been the translation of the HE of Eusebius by Rufinus, at the beginning of the fifth century, that prompted dissemination of the motifs related to the Legend, especially of the so-called Epistola Salvatoris, in the Latin west. There exists only one translation of the Syriac DA, which is Armenian and is traditionally dated to the fifth century. In fact, it seems to plausibly be a product of the seventh or eighth century, slightly earlier than the date ascribed by the Armenian tradition to the origin of Abgar. In general, the Eastern Christian translations of the Legend (mainly of the Epistula Abgari) either follow the Byzantine pattern (Georgian and Slavonic), or blend the Syriac and Byzantine ones (Armenian, Arabic, Coptic, and Ethiopic). Sometimes these renditions are enriched with new motifs or episodes, such as the story of the Seamless Tunic of Christ (Khiton) and Judas’ Thirty Pieces of Silver in the Syriac, Arabic, and Armenian traditions. There is also the story of the translation of the Keramidion to Georgia in Georgian tradition, or the story of the painting of the Image of Christ by Luke the Apostle in Old Church Slavonic tradition. Various stories or episodes, based on or related to the Abgar Legend that are found in Christian historiographical and ecclesiastical traditions, tend mainly to highlight the aspects related either to the concept of the ruler chosen by God, or claims of the apostolic origin of a particular church, simultaneously strengthening its position, or serving as an argument favoring the iconodule position. One of the main relics mentioned in the Abgar Legend, namely the Mandylion, which by some is erroneously associated with the Shroud of Turin based on some philological

3 details found in the ATh, still keeps the Abgar Legend alive. SEE ALSO:

Amulets, Christian; Byzantine era.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS “Legenda Abgari Regis Edessae.” In Geerard, M. (1992) Clavis Apocryphorum Novi Testamenti, Corpus Christianorum, Series apocryphorum (CANT). Turnhout. Nr. 88–9: 65–70. “Acta Thaddaei.” in CANT, Nr. 299: 185. Brock, S. P. (1992) “Eusebius and Syriac Christianity.” In H. A. Attridge and G. Hata, eds., Eusebius, Christianity, and Judaism: 212–34. Detroit. Cameron, A. (1983) “The history of the image of Edessa: the telling of a story.” In Okeanos. Festschrift for I. Sevcenko. Harvard Ukrainian Studies 7: 80–94. Debié, M. (2010) “Les apocryphes et l’histoire en syriaque.” In F. Briquel-Chatonnet and M. Debié, eds., Sur les pas des Araméens chrétiens. Mélanges offerts à Alain Desreumaux: 63–76. Paris. Desreumaux, A. (1993) Histoire du roi Abgar et de Jésus. Apocryphes 3. Turnhout. Drijvers, H. J. W. (1980) Cults and beliefs at Edessa. Leiden. Drijvers, H. J. W. (1987) “Abgarsage.” In W. Schneemelcher, ed., Neutestamentliche Apokryphen in deutscher Übersetzung, vol. 1: Evangelien: 389–95; (1989) vol. 2: Apostolische Apokalypsen und Verwandtes: 436–7. Tübingen.

Drijvers, J. W. (1997) “The Protonike Legend, the Doctrina Addai and bishop Rabulla of Edessa.” Vigiliae Christianae 51/3: 298–315. Greisiger, L. et al., eds. (2009) Edessa in hellenistischrömischer Zeit. Religion, Kultur und Politik zwischen Ost und West. Beirut. Griffith, S. (2003) “The Doctrina Addai as a paradigm of Christian thought in Edessa in the fifth century.” Hugoye 6/2: 269–92. Karaulashvili, I. (2004) “King Abgar of Edessa and the concept of a ruler chosen by God.” In A. alAzmeh and J. Bak, eds., Monotheistic kingship: the medieval variants: 173–90. Budapest. Karaulashvili, I. (2019) “The so-called Seven Seals of Christ and their explanation as presented by various versions of the Abgar legend and the miniature of the Edessan image from the Oxford Menologion (Codex gr. th. f.1 (S.C. 2919), Bodleian Library.” Apocrypha 29 (2018): 137–82. Kessler, H. and Wolf., G., eds. (1998) The holy face and the paradox of representation. Bologna. Мещерская (1984) Легенда об Авгаре˗раннесирийский литературный памятник (Исторические корни эволюции апокрифической легенды). Moscow. Segal, J. (1970) Edessa: “The blessed city.” Oxford. Weitzmann, K. (1960) “The Mandylion and Constantine Porphyrogenetos.” Cahiers archéologiques 11: 163–84.

1

Abgig ANGELA HUSSEIN

Abgig is a town located in the Fayyum oasis about 3 km southwest of modern Fayyum City (ancient Crocodilopolis-Arsinoe). From ancient descriptions we know that the region was home to large agricultural estates, but Abgig itself remains unexcavated so the character of the ancient town is not very well understood. In the Middle Kingdom, the 12th Dynasty king Senwosret I (1971–1926 BCE) established a temple at the site. Of this monument nothing can be seen today except a granite stele carved presumably to commemorate the temple’s foundation. The stele, sometimes referred to as an obelisk, is around 13 m high, 2.5 m wide, and 1.5 m thick. It is trapezoidal in shape, the upper edge is rounded in profile, and the top of the front

face has a notch, which possibly held a statue. On the front are ten different images of the king honoring different gods that were important in the region. The inscriptions at the top of the front of the stele and the inscriptions on each side list the names and titles of the king, while the second part can no longer be read. Once broken in two, the stele has been restored and reerected at the northern entrance of Fayyum City. SEE ALSO: Fayyum; Middle Kingdom, Egypt; Senwosret (Sesostris) I–IV.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Hewison, R. N. (2001) The Fayoum: history and guide. Cairo. Zecchi, M. (2005) “Il monumento di Abgig: rapporto preliminare del survey fotografico.” Aegyptus 85: 375–81.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print page 5. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah15007

1

Abinnaeus archive COLIN E. P. ADAMS

Flavius Abinnaeus was a Roman cavalry officer in the reign of Constantius II, in charge of the fort at Dionysias in the FAYYUM. We are particularly well-informed about him and his dealings due to an archive of some eighty-two documents preserved on papyrus. The archive was acquired by various collectors during 1892–3, and is held in several libraries, principally the British Library and the University of Geneva. He took up command of the fort in March 342 CE towards the end of what seems to have been a long and successful military career. He had enlisted in 304/5 at the age of eighteen, quickly rising to the rank of ducenarius, and his career break came when he was selected to escort prisoners to the emperor in Constantinople. After this he became a protector, and by petition obtained from the emperor the command of the cavalry ALA at Dionysias as a praefectus, but was dismissed from duty in 344. After petitioning the emperor, he recovered his position by 346 and served until 351. The documents in the archive vary in nature, and comprise, inter alia: orders, ration lists, letters, and petitions. Many concern complaints made to Abinnaeus about the behavior of his soldiers. The texts yield much information on the military functions of Abinnaeus. Not surprisingly, most activity involved the maintenance of law and order, since there were no real military threats. Indeed, the principal role of the ala was the protection of civil administration. To this end, it provided military escorts for officials and tax collectors; the protection of revenue collection was of paramount importance. Other roles included the suppression of brigandage and smuggling. The role of Abinnaeus as commanding

officer came down to overseeing recruitment, ensuring the administration of ANNONA, and the administration of justice. Abinnaeus’ role in recruitment involved recording details and the forwarding of new recruits to civil officials, who allocated them to their units. Many of the documents concern the annona, a system of taxes in kind intended to supply the army and imperial administration. Abinnaeus oversaw the collection of annona for consumption at Dionysias and by other units. Soldiers represented the ultimate sanction of civil power within provinces, but officers such as Abinnaeus were also responsible for the direct administration of justice. Abinnaeus received petitions from individuals. Normally military authority extended only over penal cases and those involving abuse by soldiers, but it seems likely that, in practice, military authority extended, in place of civil authority, over those villages and communities that lay close to military bases. The archive provides good evidence for Abinnaeus and his correspondents. It shows formal and informal interaction, formulas of address, the working of patronage, and how a commanding officer interacted with his men. Civilians contacted Abinnaeus in order to secure favors. The archive shows how, on a local level, a senior officer was a bigwig. Indeed, it is of singular importance in illustrating relations between soldiers and the society in which they lived in fourth-century Egypt. SEE ALSO:

Army, Roman Empire.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Bell, H. I. et al. (1962) The Abinnaeus archive: papers of a Roman officer in the reign of Constantius II. Oxford.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 5–6. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah13001

1

Ablabius (FGrH 708) CRAIGE B. CHAMPION

Frakes 2015). He probably wrote sometime between 380 and 500 CE. SEE ALSO:

Ablabius (FGrH 685) was a Late Antique writer who composed a History of the Goths. Other than that fact, little is known of the man and his work. JORDANES mentions Ablabius’ Gothic history in his De origine actibusque Getarum (ca. 551 CE). Scholars have argued about Ablabius’ precise dates (see

Historiography, Greek and Roman; Historiography, Late Antique.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Frakes, R. M. (2015) “Ablabius (708).” In I. Worthington, ed., Brill’s New Jacoby. Brill Online.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner. © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Published 2015 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah26149

1

Aborigines FEDERICO RUSSO

Ancient tradition considered the Aborigines to be one of the most ancient populations of Italy, associated particularly with Latium (Livy 1.1.5; Dion. Hal. Ant. Rom. 1.10; Strabo 5.3.29; Plin. HN 3.9.56). Already in antiquity there was disagreement on their origin: numerous explanations, based upon the different etymological interpretations of the ethnonym, have been collected and commented by DIONYSIUS OF HALICARNASSUS (1.10; 13.3) and by the author of the Origo gentis Romanae (4.1–2). For some, the Aborigines were the most ancient autochthonous population of Latium, as the population’s name itself would indicate, derived from the fusion of the words ab and origo. Others believed the Aborigines reached Latium from a different place of origin, the correct ethnonym being Aberrigines, characterizing the people as wanderers. One part of the tradition associated the ethnonym with the Greek term oros, mountain, along with the Latin preposition ab, to demonstrate they were thus called because they customarily lived in the hills. After discarding some of these hypotheses, modern scholars propose various solutions: emphasizing the fact that the ethnonym appears in the Alexandra (5.1253) of LYCOPHRON (Boreigonoi), they connect the origin to the terms oros or boreios, suggesting that the name and image of the Aborigines of Latium, or of Italy in general, were born in a Greek context and subsequently adopted in the Latin context. Others, drawing on what appears to be the most reliable of the ancient traditions, maintain that the concept of Aborigines is a genuine Latin formulation, indicating the autochthony of the populations of Latium.

In one isolated tradition, usually associated with the historiographic circles of Dionysios the Elder of Syracuse, the Aborigines were Ligurian colonists in Latium. The Aborigines also appear in the Trojan saga of Rome. From the third century BCE sources attest AENEAS’ meeting with the Aborigines on reaching Latium. The most ancient information is found in Kallias of Syracuse (FGrH 564 F5), where Latinus, king of the Aborigines, welcomed Aeneas and married a Trojan woman, Rhome. The author of the Historia Cumana (Festus 328L) believed the Aborigines, originally from Athens and thus called because they were considered a population of wanderers, reached Latium and founded the city of Valentia on the PALATINE, later renamed Rhome by Aeneas. In VERGIL, the connection between the Aborigines and Aeneas is depicted more explicitly (Aen. 3.170; 7.181; 7.657). In the Latin context, CATO THE ELDER is the first author to dwell at length on the Aborigines, but we cannot exclude their mention also by FABIUS PICTOR, NAEVIUS, or ENNIUS. However, Cato’s testimony is controversial, since the fragments attributed to him do not always seem consistent. Despite some uncertainty, it is believed that Cato considered the Aborigines autochthonous. SEE ALSO:

Latins, Latium.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Godel, R. (1978) “Virgile, Naevius et les Aborige`nes.” Museum Helveticum 35: 273–82. Golvers, N. (1989) “The Latin name Aborigines: some historiographical and linguistic observations.” Ancient Society 20: 193–207. Martı´nez-Pinna, J. (2003) “Il Lazio prelatino.” Atene e Roma 48: 63–77.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 6–7. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah20001

1

Abortion THOMAS K. HUBBARD

While abortion was not subject to explicit legal regulation by the state until the third century CE, it was the object of considerable ethical problematization by Greek and Roman authorities. Ancient abortion technologies were neither reliable nor safe, and women were likely to resort to them only in desperate and morally compromising circumstances, such as the need to conceal an adulterous affair or to continue their trade as a prostitute (see PROSTITUTION). A number of herbs or plant derivatives were thought to possess abortifacient properties, including cyclamen, clover, mountain rue, white hellebore, calamint, and Cretan poplar. These might be administered orally, as vaginal suppositories, or abdominal ointments. Most of these could be toxic to the woman as well as the fetus. Surgical abortion through vaginal dilation and curettage was difficult and risky, usually reserved for cases where the woman’s life was in danger from an already dead fetus. Some sources recommend inducing a spontaneous abortion through vigorous physical exertion such as jumping or riding in carriages. The Hippocratic Oath explicitly forswears either giving information about poisons or abortifacient suppositories (the most effective technique of administration). Many later medical writers interpreted this to ban all abortion methods as incompatible with the physician’s duty to preserve rather than destroy life. However, the first-century CE gynaecologist SORANUS (1.60) asserted that some Hippocratics did not disapprove of inducing abortion through violent motions or shaking, methods that carry less risk to the mother. Soranus himself believed abortion was ethical only to save the life or health of the mother, but disapproved of it for cosmetic reasons or to conceal adultery. Plato (Resp. 460a–1c) and Aristotle (Pol. 1335b19–26) both allow abortion for eugenic or demographic reasons in the ideal state, but there is no evidence it was ever actually

practiced for such purposes, given the severe risks it entailed. Aristotle specifies that abortion should occur only before the fetus achieves sensation; other sources, probably including Plato (Tht. 149c–d), regarded the critical dividing line as when the fetus begins to take on a recognizably human shape with developed organs, a process that most ancient medical writers posited at around forty days. Their support for abortion was therefore limited to the earliest stages of fetal development, after which it could be seen as the taking of a human life. There is no reliable evidence that abortion was a matter for regulation in either Solon’s or Lycurgus’ legal codes, despite vague references in Musonius Rufus 15 and a late treatise found in the corpus of Galen (19.179). Testimonia concerning a lost oration of Lysias (frr. 19–24 Carey) suggest that an ex-husband attempted to prosecute his wife for homicide because of an abortion, but the Areopagos did not accept his argument; that he had to use a novel legal theory to justify the prosecution suggests that there was no specific Athenian law against abortion in the early fourth century BCE. However, various inscriptions (from Cyrene, Kos, Delos, Eressos, and Ptolemais) do attest abortion as a concern of those states’ sacred laws: abortion was considered a pollution comparable to the death of a family member and should prevent entering a sanctuary for a fixed term, usually forty days. On the other hand, it was not as polluting as homicide, which entailed permanent banishment from sacred spaces. The first clearly attested state regulation of abortion comes in imperial edicts of Septimius Severus and Caracalla in the early third century CE, specifying that a woman should be exiled by the provincial governor if she has an abortion (Digest 48.8.8), although other comments suggest this may have applied only in cases where a husband was defrauded (Digest 47.11.4, 48.19.39). Some have suggested that Roman attitudes toward abortion gradually hardened under the empire because of demographic concerns over the failure of the upper classes to

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner. © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Published 2015 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah26100

2 reproduce. However, hostile philosophical or literary texts such as Musonius Rufus 15, Ovid Am. 2.13 and 2.14, and Juvenal 6.594–600 need to be interpreted with caution. MUSONIUS RUFUS, a popularizing Stoic of the Neronian period, advocated a restrained sexual economy based solely on legitimate procreation. As is well known, both OVID and JUVENAL adopted extreme literary personae capable of expressing stereotypical misogynistic or patriarchal views that need not be imputed to the authors themselves. We find the fiercest condemnation of abortion in early Christian writings, which equated it with homicide (Barnabas 19:5; Apoc. Petr. 8.1–9; Didache 2:2; Athenagoras Apol. Leg. 35.6; Clement Paed. 2.10.96.1; Tert. Apol. 9.8, De exhortatione castitatis 12.5; Min. Fel. Oct. 30.2). The background to their views may lie in the ancient Near East rather than in Greco-Roman influence. As reconstructed by Olmstead (Kapparis 2002: 152), the law of Achaemenid Persia strictly forbade abortion in the same terms as homicide. It is interesting that our strongest Hellenistic evidence for severe punishment of abortion comes from areas of Asia Minor that were long under Persian domination: an inscription from a sanctuary of Dionysos in Lydian Philadelphia (Syll.3 985; SEG 31.1002) permanently bans anyone who has either used or advised another person about abortifacients or even contraception. This is a punishment comparable to that for homicide, and in contrast to the forty-day ban common in the sacred laws of other holy places. Similarly, Cicero (Clu. 32) attests seeing a woman sentenced to death in Miletos after having aborted

her child due to a bribe from heirs who stood to profit if her husband were childless. Hellenistic Judaism also adopted a harsh view of abortion, as is clear in Josephus (Ap. 2.24.202), who equates it with infanticide, and Sibylline Oracle 2.281–5, which lists it among other crimes that provoke apocalyptic punishment; see also Ps.-Phocylides 184. The Mishnah interpreted Genesis 9:6, which prescribes death for shedding “the blood of a man within a man,” as pertinent to any killing of embryonic life (Sanhedrin 57b). The Septuagint translation of Exodus 21:22–3 added to the Hebrew original the Greek medical distinction between the unformed and formed fetus; although the immediate context concerns punishment of a man who causes a woman to miscarry by striking her, who is said to deserve death if the fetus is formed, the distinction also influenced Jewish thought concerning the seriousness of aborting a formed fetus. SEE ALSO:

Childbirth; Infanticide.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Dickison, S. K. (1973) “Abortion in antiquity.” Arethusa 6: 159–66. Kapparis, K. (2002) Abortion in the ancient world. London. Laale, H. W. (1993a) “Abortion in Greek antiquity.” Classical and Modern Literature 13: 157–66, 191–202. Laale, H. W. (1993b) “Abortion in Roman antiquity.” Classical and Modern Literature 13: 297–308; 14: 25–42. Nardi, E. (1971) Procurato aborto nel mondo greco romano. Milan.

1

Abraxas ELIZABETH ANN POLLARD

Abraxas, also called Abrasax, is a solar deity found in Greco-Egyptian magical papyri, on magical amulets, and in Gnostic thought. The numerological value of Abraxas is 365 (using the standard numerical equivalents for the Greek letters that make up his name), equaling the number of days in a year and also the numerological value of Meithras, another solar power in antiquity (Leclercq 1907: 132). Invocations, a fever amulet, and love spells from the magical papyri dating from the third to fourth centuries CE emphasize Abraxas’ solar connection and the numerological value of his name: PGM 23.34–6 addresses Abraxas as the “demon celebrated for your cosmic name, director of the earth’s axis” (see also PGM 1.303–4); the so-called “Book of Moses” equates Abraxas as “the number of the days of the year” (PGM 13.156 and 466; cf. 8.43–5); a fever amulet invokes Abraxas six times, presumably to warm shivering fits (PGM 89); a recipe for a binding love spell in a grimoire directs the user to tie 365 knots in a thread while chanting “Abraxas, hold her fast” (PGM 4.131; cf. lines 331–2). Abraxas often occurs in spells in lists with Jewish divine names, such as Iao, Adonai, Sabaoth, Michael, and Gabriel (PGM 1 and 12.14–95).

Abraxas is sometimes identified with a god appearing on Greco-Egyptian amulets with the head of a rooster (often wearing a solar/radiate crown), a snake-like lower body, sometimes holding a shield in left hand (occasionally inscribed with “Iao”) and a whip or short sword in the raised right hand (Delatte and Derchain 1964; Le Glay 1981). For the mid-second century CE Gnostic thinker Basilides, Abraxas was the name for the numbering of the heavens and even the archon of the 365 heavens (Irenaeus Adversus Haereses 1.24.3–7; Hippol. Haer. 7.14; Epiph. Haer. 7.1 and 24.1; Jer. Epist. 75.3). SEE ALSO: Amulets, Greece and Rome; Charms, spells, Greece and Rome; Iao; Magic, Greece and Rome; Magical papyri, Greek; Mithras and Mithraism; Sun gods, Greece and Rome.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Barb, A. (1957) “Abrasax-Studien.” Hommages a` W. Deonna: 67–86. Brussels. Delatte, A., and Derchain, Ph. (1964) “L’Anguipe`de Alectoroce´phale.” In Les intailles magiques gre´co-e´gyptiennes: 23–42. Paris. Le Glay, M. (1981) “Abraxas.” LIMC I.1: 3–7 and I.2: 6–14. Zurich. Leclercq, H. (1907) “Abrasax.” Dictionnaire d’arche´ologie chre´tienne et de liturgie: 127–55. Paris.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print page 7. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah17001

1

Abu Gurob MIROSLAV BA´RTA

Abu Gurob is an Old Kingdom site lying about 20 km south of Cairo with two 5th Dynasty sun temples. The site is located immediately to the north of the Abusir pyramid field, the burial place of four kings of the 5th Dynasty. Except for some Early Dynastic cemeteries, Abu Gurob now features only two significant monuments: the so-called sun temples of kings Userkaf and Niuserre. According to contemporary written sources preserved on papyri and seals, and in the tombs of high officials, however, this was originally the site of six 5th Dynasty sun temples: Userkaf ’s Stronghold of Re, Sahura’s The Field of Re, Neferirkare’s Re’s Pleasure, Raneferef ’s Offering Table of Re, Niuserre’s Delight of Re, and Menkauhor’s Horizon of Re. Each of the sun temples consisted of three principal components that resembled a royal burial monument of the Old Kingdom: valley temple, causeway, and an “upper” temple. The “upper” temples in sun temples consisted of a large open courtyard with a huge central altar, many smaller altars, and a large rectangular podium to the west of the court, upon which stood a truncated OBELISK, which replaced the original wooden pole in the reign of Neferirkare. This indicates that the concept of the sun temple changed and developed over the course of the 5th Dynasty, although throughout they maintained their close connection with the cult of the sun god Re, whose principal cult place was located in Heliopolis, on the Nile’s east bank. Scholars have speculated that a visual connection existed between the Abu Gurob temples and that of Heliopolis, but this is ruled out by the curvature of the earth. The first king to initiate the building of sun temples was Userkaf, founder of the 5th Dynasty. According to the Palermo stone, he established a daily offering for Re consisting of two oxen and two geese. The Abusir

archives, found in the mortuary temples of Neferirkare and Raneferef at Abusir, show that most of the offerings for celebrating the daily cult of the Abusir kings were sent through the sun temples in Abu Gurob, where they were “solarized” and subsequently forwarded to the mortuary temples in Abusir. The Palermo stone also makes it clear that the cult of Re peaked during the 5th Dynasty, as attested by rich donations made by several kings of that period. Niuserre’s sun temple is the best-preserved example of that genre. In addition to the main “upper” temple, excavations revealed a mud brick model boat to the west, probably a symbolic means of transportation for the sun god in the sky. Niuserre’s upper temple comprises a huge travertine altar lined at all four cardinal points with blocks shaped to imitate the sign of hetep, symbolizing an offering plate. Many smaller altars were also placed within the court. The limestone platform surmounted by an obelisk stood to the west of this principal altar. The top of the platform was accessible by means of a corridor starting in the south. The corridor, also known as the Room of the Seasons, or Weltkammer, was decorated with scenes relating to the principal agricultural activities during the three seasons of the Egyptian year. The corridor also contained heb-sed scenes, showing the celebration of the king’s thirty years of rule and his ritual renewal. It is these scenes that attest to the principal significance of the sun temples for the Egyptian world and the maintenance of kingship – the sun god Re was the god that created this world and kept it in operation. The king was to maintain his cult (similar to his own) and also acted as his deputy on earth. This is also supported by the fact that in the sun temple of Niuserre (seal imprint Berlin 20386) the triad of Re, Hathor, and the king was venerated, emphasizing the dependence of the king on his mythological father. The tradition of building the sun temples disappears with King Djedkare, who did not continue the tradition. This may be interpreted

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 7–9. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah15008

2 as a major shift in the political and religious milieu of the time and the vanishing importance of the Abusir royal necropolis, and was perhaps also a consequence of the rising cult of Osiris during his reign. SEE ALSO:

Heliopolis, Ain Shams/Matariya;

Obelisk.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Bissing, F. W. von, ed. (1905) Das Re-Heiligtum des Ko¨nigs Ne-user-re, vol. 1: Der Bau. Leipzig.

Edel, E. and Wenig, S. (1974) Die Jahreszeitenreliefs aus dem Sonnenheiligtum des Ko¨nigs Ne-user-re. Berlin. Kaiser, W. (1956) “Zu den Sonnenheiligtu¨mern der 5. Dynastie.” Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archa¨ologischen Instituts, Abteilung Kairo 14: 104–16. Quirke, S. (2001) The cult of Ra: sun-worship in ancient Egypt. London. Ricke, H. (1965–9) Das Sonnenheiligtum des Ko¨nigs Userkaf, vol. 1: Der Bau; vol. 2: Die Funde. Cairo. Verner, M. (2002) Abusir: realm of Osiris. Cairo. Winter, E. (1957) “Zur Deutung der Sonnenheiligtu¨mern der 5. Dynastie.” Wiener Zeitschrift fu¨r die Kunde des Morgenlandes 54: 222–33.

1

Abu Mina DARLENE L. BROOKS HEDSTROM

Abu Mina was the largest Christian pilgrimage site in Egypt during the Late Antique period (480–700 CE) and is located about 45 km south‐west of Alexandria. The extensive pilgrimage city, identified in sources only as the Church of St. Menas in Maryuˆt, is associated with the relics of St. Menas (d. 296 CE), a Roman soldier who was martyred under DIOCLETIAN. By the end of the sixth century, Abu Mina contained the largest stone basilica and pilgrimage center in Egypt and the Near East. The earliest structure at Abu Mina is the fourth-century tomb of St. Menas, now covered by the Martyr Tomb Church. The central building for the city is the late fifth-century stone Great Basilica, which was built and remodeled twice. The Great Basilica is part of the composite Martyr complex and abuts the later sixth-century tetraconch Martyr Tomb Church of St. Menas, a baptistery, and residences associated with the healing cult of the saint. During its greatest popularity, the pilgrimage city was occupied mostly by a Greek or Greco-Egyptian population. The importance of St. Menas fostered significant building additions to Abu Mina to accommodate visitors. Several pilgrimage flasks, or ampulae, from Abu Mina bear the image of St. Menas. The flasks are found throughout the Mediterranean world, reflecting the importance of the city for Late Antique Christian religious tourism. The site was heavily damaged during the Persian Conquest of 619 CE, and the Greek inhabitants fled the city (see PERSIANS IN EGYPT). However, Abu Mina recovered under the control of the Coptic Church and thrived until the ninth century. The settlement was reoccupied briefly during the Fatimid period (tenth–eleventh century CE) with the building of a market, several shops, and bakeries. Knowledge of the relics was lost until the thirteenth century; the relics were transferred to Alexandria in the fourteenth

century. The site is now adjacent to the modern monastery of St. Menas in Maryuˆt, which was established by Pope Kyrillos VI in 1959. Archaeological work at Abu Mina began in 1905 with a German mission led by C. M. Kaufmann. Excavations resumed in the 1960s and continued under the direction of Peter Grossmann on behalf of the Deutsches Archa¨ologisches Institut. Reconstruction of the site reveals a complex city with architectural parallels to Alexandria. Abu Mina is divided into two main sections. First, the pilgrimage and ecclesiastical center is located in the south, with a semi-circular residential plaza for pilgrims and separate residences for clergy. Second, the civic quarters extend to the north and east from the Martyr complex with workshops, rest houses, and domestic residences. The two areas are connected by a wide 600 m long colonnaded street, which ends in an open square courtyard for gathering pilgrims. One enters the Martyr Tomb Church from the Pilgrimage Square, and then turns east to enter the renovated fifth-century Great Basilica, the largest church ever built in Egypt. The sixth-century baptistery, located to the west, is an octagon with niches and included several small rooms for the preparation of the newly baptized. The Martyr complex and Basilica include two stories of incubation rooms where severely ill pilgrims resided. In the civic quarters of Abu Mina, the sixthcentury colonnaded central street bisects the city gardens, pottery kilns, several wine-presses, two public bath complexes, and domestic residences adjoin side streets to create small neighborhoods. The Peristyle House, for example, is a rest house believed to house poorer travelers. Wealthier residents of Abu Mina built private tomb chapels adjacent to their large homes. The Portico House was richly decorated with Alexandrian styled wall paintings in the sixth century. The Ostraca House, another domestic structure, located to the east of the Double Baths, was later used as a dumping area for 1,443 Greek ostraca in the seventh century. The majority of the texts detail wine production

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 9–10. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah12002

2 at Abu Mina and provide brief references to three hundred inhabitants in Abu Mena. The city’s cemetery is located beyond the main city walls. Three smaller churches (the North Basilica, the East Church, and the West Church) and two-roomed residences, or hermitages, are also located outside the city walls. The North Basilica has a tripartite sanctuary, a residential lined courtyard, a small baptistery, and a small chapel. The East Church, likely built to serve the nearby hermits, followed the model of a Syrian two-shelled tetraconch building and had a small baptistery. Abu Mina was never an important location for Egyptian monasticism in contrast to the nearby communities at Kellia and Sketis. SEE ALSO: Architecture, Byzantine; Church architecture; Kellia and Sketis, monasticism at; Pilgrimage.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Drescher, J. (1946) Apa Mena. A selection of Coptic texts relating to St. Menas. Cairo. Grossmann, P. (1989) Abu Mina. I. Die Gruftkirche und die Gruft. Mainz. Grossmann, P. (1998) “The pilgrimage center of Abu Mina.” In D. Frankfurter, ed., Pilgrimage and holy space in Late Antique Egypt: 281–302. Leiden. Grossmann, P. (2002) Christliche Architektur in ¨ gypten. Leiden. A Grossmann, P. (2004) Abu Mina. II. Das Baptisterium. Mainz. Kaufmann, C. M. (1906–8) Die Ausgrabung der Menas-Heiligtu¨mer in der Mareotiswu¨ste. Cairo. Litinas, N. (2008) Greek ostraca from Abu Mina (O. Abu Mina). Berlin. McKenzie, J. (2007) The architecture of Alexandria and Egypt c. 300 BC to AD 700. New Haven.

1

Abu Rawash (Abu Roash) MICHEL BAUD

Abu Rawash is a wide archaeological area situated west of the Nile, close to the apex of the Delta. It is named after what was in the nineteenth century a small hamlet but has now become a rather large town, a satellite of Cairo. This development has proven highly destructive for ancient remains. The area consists of small hills cut by large wadis belonging to the strip of semi-arid land (ancient Egyptian zmyt) between floodplain and desert usually dedicated to cemeteries. Known mostly for its destroyed pyramid of King Djedefre, the third king of the 4th Dynasty, and the most northern site of the Memphite necropoleis, the area holds a rich inventory of funerary and cultic sites dating from the Early Dynastic to the Coptic period. Most, however, are poorly known and barely recorded (Baud et al. 2003).

THE EARLY DYNASTIC PERIOD: MODEST TOMBS AND ELITE CEMETERIES Excavations in the low sandy plain by Adolf Klasens (Klasens 1957–8) and Zahi Hawass (Hawass 1980) have revealed several cemeteries of commoners dug in simple oval pits or small mud brick mastabas dating to the Naqada IIIB–D periods. A recent survey has shown that most, if not all, have now been destroyed by mechanical leveling for land reclamation. The only preserved area is situated on a small hill fringing the Nile Valley, excavated by Pierre Montet in 1913–14 (Montet 1938–46), by Klasens, and recently by Yann Tristant (2008). On the east side of the hill lies a group of large mastabas (up to 25 m long) dating to the 1st Dynasty, designated “M” after its first excavator, Montet. The position of the tombs, immediately overlooking the river, is reminiscent of the historical topography of the contemporary SAQQARA

necropolis, although those mastabas are larger. Most of the tombs date to the reign of King DEN, as established by seal impressions on jar stoppers found there. The size of the tombs, the remnants of rich grave goods, and the presence of subsidiary burials in parallel lines to the main tombs, possibly belonging to sacrificed retainers, indicates that this is an elite necropolis. These mastabas display an important step in the ancient Egyptians’ mastery of stone cutting, as their deep rectangular shafts (up to 5 m) and lower chambers are cut in the local limestone. These shafts were obviously covered with wooden beams topped with mats and mud-brick roofing; the whole superstructure was also built in mud brick, some of the fac¸ade walls adopting the design of the royal “palace” decoration with niches (serekh fac¸ade).

THE OLD KINGDOM: THE ROYAL NECROPOLIS OF RADJEDEF The most glorious period of Abu Rawash’s history is certainly that of the Old Kingdom, specially the 4th Dynasty. The highest hill in the area (160 m high) was used as the site for the pyramid of King Djedefre, the immediate successor of his father, Khufu (see KHUFU (CHEOPS/KHEOPS)). Following the tradition of early Old Kingdom rulers, Radjedef chose a new site for his pyramid – contrary to his brother and successor Khafre (see KHAFRE (CHEPHREN)), who decided to rest close to Khufu at GIZA, some 8 km south of Abu Rawash. In the funerary complex E´mile Chassinat found in 1901 a large collection of very fragmentary red quartzite statues – originally more than twenty in number – of which the head in the Louvre Museum (E 12626) is certainly one the most vivid portrayals of a monarch of these times. Recent excavations of the pyramid by Michel Valloggia (1995–2007; see, e.g., Valloggia 2004) have challenged earlier views regarding this monument. It has a square base, with sides

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 10–13. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah15009

2 106 m long, and was originally 68 m high, about the size of Menkaure’s pyramid (see MENKAURE (MYCERINUS)); it was built with about the usual 51 degree slope, and encased largely in red granite (but to an unknown original height). Intense quarrying activities from Roman times to the late nineteenth century have almost reduced the pyramid to the original low rock knoll (about 12 m high) that constitutes its core. The rock was cut vertically in the shape of a T to accommodate the descending corridor and the underground chambers, now almost completely destroyed. The pyramid is part of a large and unusual complex – like all the funerary complexes of the 4th Dynasty, which predate the “classical” layout of the later Old Kingdom. The satellite pyramid displays an unusual number of rooms accessed by a shaft, not a descending corridor; this was later converted into a queen’s burial – not an unusual phenomenon at the time. The causeway, which is certainly the longest ever built (originally over 2 km), is situated on the northern, rather than the eastern, side of the tomb; thus, the funerary temple and open court developed on an unusual north–south axis. Houses for priests, workshops, and magazines that are common close to the valley temple were also found near the pyramid itself. This royal complex is associated with an elite necropolis called F, situated 1.5 km to the northeast, on the same hill as the 1st Dynasty tombs (Bisson 1924–5). Wrongly dated to the Late Old Kingdom and considered a provincial necropolis, this cemetery holds at least forty mastabas. The largest measure up to 50 m long and are placed in front of small groups of minor tombs organized in rows, on a model very similar to that found at DAHSHUR and Giza. Recent excavations by Baud (since 2001; see, e.g., Baud et al. 2003) have shown that these tombs date to the 4th Dynasty, and at least three were occupied by princes, presumably sons of Djedefre. This is clearly demonstrated at least for Hornit, whose scribe statues were found in an annex to the pyramid temple of his father. Two other sons of

Djedefre, namely Bakai and Setkai, are also thought to be buried in necropolis F, as indicated by fragments of titularies, which, however, are anonymous. Within area M, dedicated to the Early Dynastic mastabas, tombs of minor officials were also built (Baud 2007). One at least belongs to a funerary priest of Djedefre. Owing to lack of interest on the part of the “monarchs of Abusir,” the site was largely ignored during the 5th Dynasty. As is proved by the absence of pottery at the funerary temple, no trace of cultic activity took place in the complex of Radjedef, and only minor tombs were still being built in necropolis F (Marchand and Baud 1996). The area was eventually revived in the 6th Dynasty, when a small mud brick sanctuary was erected close to the pyramid, indicating that the kings of this period were showing some interest in reviving the cults of their 4th Dynasty royal ancestors – whatever the blood link was between the two royal lines. Similar activities are attested at Dahshur and Giza.

THE LATE PERIOD REVIVAL: THE ANIMAL SANCTUARIES As in many necropoleis of the Old Kingdom, the First Intermediate Period left no trace of activity apart from small, isolated tombs and the possible destruction of the pyramid of Djedefre. No revival is attested either in the Middle Kingdom, contrary to what occurred at other Memphite cemeteries; the so-called “fort” built in the Nile Valley close to the Abu Rawash hills (Macramallah 1932) certainly belongs not to this period but to the first millennium BCE: see below. The date of another indisputably royal pyramid close to the valley, called Lepsius I and extensively surveyed by Nabil Swelim (1987), remains debated; only a stepped rock-cut knoll remains and a descending corridor leading to a funerary chamber. It has been attributed to the 3rd Dynasty on uncertain grounds. Isolated rockcut tombs are known from the New Kingdom

3 on a hill adjacent to cemeteries F–M; intrusive burials of this date in the earlier mastabas of necropolis F are also known. Significant monuments are, all in all, absent before the revival of the very end of the Late period. Two major monuments do belong to these times, but they are incompletely excavated and recorded. One is the above-mentioned “fort,” in fact an impressive mud brick enclosure wall (or rather sections of this wall) whose east side measures 280 m long and whose north side measures at least 205 m. The brick courses are laid not horizontally but in a wavy line typical of Late period constructions. The wide enclosed area and the location of the building lead one to assume that this is the enclosure wall of a sacred (animal?) complex. Another large complex, or, rather, group of rock-cut galleries, was discovered by Bisson de La Roque in the nearby Wadi Qaren (Bisson 1924–5). They are strongly reminiscent of the sanctuaries and resting places for animal mummies that are found in Saqqara, for example; like those, they are situated either adjacent to the Nile Valley (on the east) or in a local wadi (on the north). Contrary to the opinion of its excavator, the largest complex of galleries, 75 m long, is not a quarry but a place where animal mummies were accumulated in apparently huge quantities. Small wooden and bronze “sarcophagi” of shrews (not miniature crocodiles) were found there, and a black deposit of resins and oil riddled with tiny bones is still visible on the floor of some galleries. A large quantity of these animals, as well as ibises, raptors, and ichneumons, was recently discovered in a mastaba in cemetery F (Ikram and Charron 2008). Chronologically these remains belong to the 30th Dynasty, and the building of the largest gallery at least can be attributed to Nektanebo II, thanks to the evidence of a decorated block. This monument also mentions the falcon god of Letopolis (Khem), the nearby (10 km) capital of the second NOME of the Delta. He is a blind and seeing god associated with the above-mentioned animals in specific ways, e.g., day–night aspects for the duo ichneumon–shrew mouse.

ROMAN AND COPTIC TIMES No further remains are found until Roman times, although the Ptolemaic period might have continued the Late period cultic practice. Apart from large cemeteries of largely unrecorded small shaft tombs, activity in the first and third centuries CE is almost entirely concentrated on Djedefre’s pyramid plateau. This monument was then extensively quarried and may also have served as a military watch point (burgus) controlling Wadi Qaren, an important caravan route to Alexandria, and also the traffic at the apex of the Delta (Jones 1996). From the fifth century onwards, a large monastery, Deir Nahya, was erected at the opening of the same wadi (Jones 1995). It was constructed using some of the material from Djedefre’s complex, such as (now lost) granite columns. SEE ALSO: First Intermediate Period, Egypt; Middle Kingdom, Egypt; Naqada (Nagada); New Kingdom, Egypt; Old Kingdom, Egypt.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Baud, M. (1999) “E´tudes sur la statuaire de Reˆdjedef. I: Rapport pre´liminaire sur la collection de l’IFAO.” In C. Ziegler, ed., L’Art de l’ancien empire e´gyptien: 35–61. Paris. Baud, M. (2007) “Un de´cor de tombeau remis en contexte: le ‘scribe au travail’ du Louvre (E 14 321) et le mastaba M IX d’Abou Roach.” Revue d’E´gyptologie 58: 145–71. Baud, M. et al. (2003) “Le Cimetie`re F d’Abou Roach, ne´cropole royale de Reˆdjedef (IVe dynastie).” Bulletin de l’Institut Franc¸ais d’Arche´ologie Orientale 103: 17–71. Bisson de La Roque, F. (1924–5) Rapport sur les fouilles d’Abou-Roasch. Cairo. Chassinat, E´. (1921-2) “A` propos d’une teˆte en gre`s rouge du roi Didoufri (IVe Dynastie).” Fondation Euge`ne Piot: Monuments et Me´moires 25: 56–64. Hawass, Z. (1980) “Archaic graves recently founded at north Abu Roash.” Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archa¨ologischen Instituts, Abteilung Kairo 36: 229–44.

4 Ikram, S. and Charron, A. (2008) “The animal mummies of Abu Rawash.” KMT 19, 2: 34–41. Jones, M. (1995) “El-Deir el-Nahya.” Bulletin de la Socie´te´ d’Arche´ologie Copte 34: 33–51. Jones, M. (1996) “A Roman station at Abu Rawash.” Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archa¨ologischen Instituts, Abteilung Kairo 52: 251–62. Klasens, A. (1957-8) “The excavations of the Leiden Museum of Antiquities at Abu-Roash.” Oudheidkundige Mededelingen uit het Rijksmuseum van Oudheden 38: 58–68; 39: 20–55. Macramallah, R. (1932) “Une forteresse du Moyen Empire (?) a` Abou-Rawaˆch.” Annales du Service des Antiquite´s de l’E´gypte 32: 161–73.

Marchand, S. and Baud, M. (1996) “La Ce´ramique miniature d’Abou Rawash: un de´poˆt a` l’entre´e des enclos orientaux.” Bulletin de l’Institut Franc¸ais d’Arche´ologie Orientale 96: 255–88. Montet, P. (1938-46) “Tombeaux de la Ire et de la IVe dynasties a` Abou-Roach.” Keˆmi 7: 11–69; 8: 157–227. Swelim, N. (1987) The brick pyramid at Abu Rawash number “I” by Lepsius. Alexandria. Tristant, Y. (2008) “Les Tombes des premie`res dynasties a` Abou Roach.” Bulletin de l’Institut Franc¸ais d’Arche´ologie Orientale 108: 325–70. Valloggia, M. (2004) “Le Complexe fune´raire de Reˆdje´def a` Abou Rawash: e´tat des travaux apre`s dix campagnes (1995–2004).” Bulletin de la Socie´te´ Franc¸aise d’E´gyptologie 161: 12–27.

1

Abu Simbel One of the finest temples of New Kingdom Egypt lies only a few kilometers from the Sudanese border and in ancient times was located in Lower Nubia, which was a province of Egypt during that period. The Great Temple at Abu Simbel was built by Rameses II during the first half of his reign and was dedicated to the king and the gods Amun-Re and Re-Harakhti. Rameses II also built a smaller temple at the same site dedicated jointly to his first chief wife, Nefertari, and the goddess Hathor. Both of these rock-cut temples were salvaged during the UNESCO-sponsored Nubian Rescue Campaign in the 1960s and now stand 65 m above their former positions, each covered with an artificial mountain to replicate their original locations. The fac¸ade of the Great Temple is adorned with four colossal seated statues of the king, each carved out of the natural rock and measuring 20 m high. Smaller statues of members of the royal family are interspersed between the colossi. Inside, the temple comprises two pillared halls and a vestibule leading to the sanctuary, which contains statues of Rameses and three of the principal gods of Egypt, Amun, Re-Harakhti, and Ptah. In the first pillared hall, the central aisle is flanked with

statues of the king in front of the pillars, and scenes on the walls depict the military achievements of the king, particularly the battle of Kadesh against the Hittites, which covers the entire north wall. Scenes in the inner parts of the temple are of a religious nature, showing the king participating in various rituals. Twice a year, on February 21 and October 21, the rays of the rising sun shine directly into the temple and gradually illuminate the statues in the sanctuary. It is not known whether the temple was deliberately positioned in order that this should happen on those specific dates, as there are no ancient records to support the modern theories that these were the birth date and accession date of Rameses II. The Small Temple has a more feminine aspect than the Great Temple, although statues of the king outnumber those of the queen on the fac¸ade, his four to her two. Several reliefs inside the temple show Queen Nefertari offering to various goddesses, and the only military scenes are the traditional smiting scenes of the pharaoh on the east wall of the pillared hall. The pillars are carved with the Hathor-headed sistrum, a reminder of the goddess’s role as the patroness of music. In the sanctuary, the head and shoulders of the Hathor cow protrude from the rock face as if she is emerging from the sacred

Figure 1 Abu Simbel, fac¸ade of the Great Temple. Photograph by Jocelyn Gohary.

Figure 2 Abu Simbel, the Small Temple. Photograph by Jocelyn Gohary.

JOCELYN GOHARY

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 13–14. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah15010

2 mountain, and a figure of the king stands in front of her. The reliefs in the two temples are colored predominantly red, yellow, and black, the pigments which were readily available in that remote part of Nubia, red and yellow derived from red and yellow ocher, and black from charcoal or soot. SEE ALSO: New Kingdom, Egypt; Nubia; Rameses I–XI.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Gohary, J. (1998) Guide to the Nubian monuments on Lake Nasser. Cairo. Kitchen, K. A. (1982) Pharaoh triumphant: the life and times of Ramesses II. Warminster. Porter, B. and Moss, R. (1995) Topographical bibliography of ancient Egyptian hieroglyphic texts, reliefs, and Paintings, vol. 7: Nubia, the deserts and outside Egypt. Oxford. Sa¨ve-So¨derbergh, T. (1987) Temples and tombs of ancient Nubia. London.

1

Abu Sir MIROSLAV BA´RTA

One of the large cemeteries of the Old Kingdom kings, located approximately 30 km south of Cairo, on the western bank of the Nile. To the south Abu Sir adjoins the area known as SAQQARA and forms a natural northerly extension of this rich and unique cemetery. Together in antiquity they formed a single site. The development of the Abu Sir necropolis was linked with the existence of the ancient capital of unified Egypt, called White Walls (later Mennefer or Memphis) (Ba´rta and Krejcˇı´ 2000; Verner 2002). The archaeological history of Abu Sir begins during the Early Dynastic Period, when a cemetery developed in its southeastern portion. It primarily featured simple shaft and pit tombs of lesser officials of Memphis (Bonnet 1928). The building activities in Abu Sir South continued throughout the 3rd to early 4th Dynasty, when several large mastaba tombs were built here. With the rise of the 4th Dynasty all building works were transferred to Giza, but activity at Abu Sir was revived at the beginning of the 5th Dynasty. The first of the new tomb builders was an official known as Kaaper, a priest, scribe, and soldier of the rank of general, and the overseer of all the king’s works. The beginning of the 5th Dynasty witnessed also the foundation of the royal necropolis of Abu Sir by King Sahure. His pyramid complex is the best preserved on the site, and the most illustrative example of royal mortuary complexes from the 5th and 6th Dynasties (Borchardt 1910), which became a canon of architectural design in terms of its concept and structure. The entrance to the complex was formed by the valley temple, which was accessible from the east and south. An ascending causeway connected the valley temple with the pyramid temple. The causeway was originally roofed, and its walls were decorated with mythological and

court scenes, dominated by images of the Egyptian king. The preserved reliefs include numerous representations of the ruler, the bringing of foreign captives, hungry Bedouins, dancing scenes, sea boat journeys, scenes connected with the construction of the pyramid complex, and many others (El-Awady 2009). The pyramid temple itself was entered via a monumental granite gate, which led to the so-called House of the Great. Its name derives from the fact that the high officials of the country assembled here in order to pay their last respects to the deceased ruler. This room opened into the corridor running around the columned court and to the court itself. The court was paved with basalt blocks, and its roof was supported by sixteen red granite columns with palmiform capitals. The western part of the temple consisted of a room with five niches, which originally contained five statues of the king. To the north and south lay magazines, where the cultic equipment and offerings for the daily cult of the king were stored. In the westernmost part of the temple, at the very foot of the pyramid, was the chapel. The east–west oriented room had an alabaster floor, dado of red granite, and walls of limestone blocks covered with relief decoration. The western wall contained the so-called false door, through which the spirit of the king returned from the other world in order to participate in the offering rituals performed in the chapel. The false door was of red granite covered with copper or gold foil. The entrance to the pyramid’s substructure was situated at the foot of its northern side. A descending corridor opened into a vestibule, which was located directly under the apex of the pyramid. Further west lay the east–west oriented burial chamber, with a triple gabled ceiling built of large limestone blocks. The burial chamber may have originally contained a basalt sarcophagus. The next pyramid builder at Abu Sir was the possible brother of Sahure, Neferirkare (Borchardt 1909). His pyramid was in the first building stage conceived as a six-stepped one

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 15–17. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah15011

2 with a base of 72 m. Later, the core was extended to eight steps, the walls were cased smooth, and a true pyramid was created. Its side measured 104 m, and its height reached 52 m, which made it the greatest pyramid in the Abu Sir and Saqqara necropolis. The substructure of the pyramid of Neferirkare was, just like the other elements of his complex, very similar to those of Sahure. The pyramid temple of Neferirkare was built in several construction stages, and it was finished only after the king’s death. Neferirkare’s wife was Queen Khentkaus II, whose burial place is located to the south of the pyramid of her husband. Her pyramid was probably built in three steps, and a small pyramid temple adjoined its eastern side. As a unique feature, it included a cult pyramid (Verner, PosenerKrie´ger, and Ja´nosi 1995). Neferirkare’s reign was probably followed by the short reign of the relatively unknown King Shepseskare. His pyramid complex, the construction of which had hardly started, is commonly placed to the area between the pyramid of Sahure and the sun temple of Userkaf at Abu Ghurab. After Shepsekare, Neferirkare’s older son Raneferef ascended to the throne, although he too reigned only for a very short time, perhaps for approximately two years. Due to the early death of the king, the overall conception of the pyramid had to be changed, and instead of a true pyramid, a mastaba-like structure was built, called iat (“hill”) by the Egyptians. During the life of the king, his architect managed to finish only the basic components of the pyramid’s substructure – the descending corridor followed by a horizontal corridor leading to the vestibule, which opened to the east–west oriented burial chamber. Raneferef’s sarcophagus was made of red granite, and during the excavation of his burial chamber remains of the mummy of the king were discovered, as well as fragments of his funerary equipment. Most of the mortuary temple was built using mud brick; the construction of the valley temple and causeway was never started (Verner et al. 2006).

The true heyday of the necropolis may be dated to the time of King Niuserre, the younger son of Neferirkare and brother of Raneferef. This king was the last one to build his funerary complex in Abu Sir (Borchardt 1907). He also arranged the completion of the complexes of his mother Khentkaus II, his father Neferirkare, and his brother Raneferef. Tombs of contemporary high officials, including some members of the royal family, were built around Niuserre’s pyramid complex. The time of Niuserre’s reign also witnessed an unprecedented rise of the power of men of non-royal origin. One such man was Ptahshepses. The building stages of his mastaba, which is located to the northeast of the pyramid of Niuserre, map the gradual rise of this high official, who started his career as a simple royal hairdresser and was ultimately appointed to the office of vizier, probably as a consequence of his marriage with a daughter of the king (Krejcˇı´ 2008). Tombs of the same period are built to the southeast of the pyramid of Neferirkare, the mastaba of Nebtyemneferes, mastaba of Nakhtsare (son of Raneferef), and pyramid complex Lepsius no. 24 (so-called twin-pyramid), and tomb complex Lepsius no. 25 (Krejcˇı´, Verner, Callender, et al. 2008). After the death of Niuserre, Djedkare moved his cemetery to South Saqqara. However, several tombs for the members of his family and the court (Verner, Callender, and Strouhal 2006) were still built at Abu Sir. The tradition of building sun temples in Abu Ghurab, so significant for the politics, economy, and religion of the 5th Dynasty kings, also ceases at this time. The center of the development of the Abu Sir necropolis moved back to Abu Sir South at the same period, during the reign of Djedkare (Ba´rta 1999). The tomb complex of the Vizier Qar and his family represents the earliest building activities from the 6th Dynasty. These tombs were richly decorated, and their burial chambers offer a large variety of costly burial equipment. They illustrate the period that preceded the demise of the Old Kingdom (Ba´rta et al. 2009). Abu Sir is also well-known as the find-spot for several papyrus archives that describe

3 various aspects of the daily royal cults and illustrate many aspects of the ancient Egyptian royal cult and its redistributive economy. These come from the complexes of Neferirkare, Khentkaus (II), and Raneferef (Posener-Krie´ger 1976; Verner, PosenerKrie´ger, and Vymazalova´ 2006). Only one post-Amarna tomb (Myna´rˇova´ 2006) has been found from the New Kingdom period. The site became important again during the 26th Dynasty, when several unique shaft tombs located to the southwest of the pyramid field were built. These consisted of a monumental central shaft, at the bottom of which was built a small burial chamber. Most of them were fully decorated, contained large sarcophagi, and in the case of the tomb of Iufaa, the burial chamber was found intact. The tombs belonged to significant historical personalities, such as the overseer of the navy Udjahorresnet (Baresˇ, Smola´rikova´, and Strouhal 1999), priest Iufaa (Baresˇ and Smola´rikova´ 2008), Padihor (Coppens and Smola´rikova´ 2008), and overseer of the army Menekchibnekau. Their superstructures consisted of a large rectangular enclosure above the shaft (possibly featuring a primeval mound inside) and contained a small offering chapel on the east. To the south and/or west of the principal shafts were situated smaller “service” shafts. The tomb of Iufaa featured a small mud-brick “temple” to the east of the chapel. Most of these tombs were built within a relatively short time span of 530–525 BCE. SEE ALSO:

Abu Gurob; Memphis, Pharaonic.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Baresˇ, L., Smola´rikova´, K., and Strouhal, E. (1999) Abusir IV: the shaft tomb of Udjahorresnet at Abusir. Prague. Baresˇ, L. and Smola´rikova´, K. (2008) Abusir XVII: the shaft tomb of Iufaa, vol. I: archaeology. Prague. Ba´rta, M. (1999) Abusir V: the cemeteries at Abusir South I. Prague.

Ba´rta, M. and Krejcˇı´, J. (2000) Abusir and Saqqara in the year 2000. Prague. Ba´rta, M. et al. (2009) Abusir XIII: tomb complex of the Vizier Qar, his sons Qar Junior and Senedjemib, and Iykai. Prague. Bonnet, H. (1928) Ein fru¨hgeschichtliches Gra¨berfeld bei Abusir. Leipzig. Borchardt, L. (1907) Das Grabdenkmal des Ko¨nigs Neuserre. Leipzig. Borchardt, L. (1909) Das Grabdenkmal des Ko¨nigs Neferı´rkere. Leipzig. Borchardt, L. (1910) Das Grabdenkmal des Ko¨nigs Sahure. Leipzig. Coppens, F. and Smola´rikova´, K. (2009) Abusir XX: lesser Late Period Tombs at Abusir: the Tomb of Padihor and the Anonymous Tomb R3. Prague. El-Awady, T. (2009) Abusir XVI: decorated blocks from the causeway of the king Sahure. Prague. Krejcˇı´, J. (2008) Abusir XI: the architecture of the mastaba of Ptahsepses. Prague. Krejcˇı´, J., Verner, M., and Callender, V. G. (with contributions by V. Cˇerny´, E. Strouhal, H. Vymazalova´, and M. Zˇaloudkova´-Kujanova´) (2008) Abusir XII: minor tombs in the royal necropolis I (the mastabas of Nebtyemneferes and Nakhtsare, pyramid complex Lepsius no. 24 and tomb complex Lepsius no. 25). Prague. Myna´rˇova´, J. (2006) “Abusir in the New Kingdom: current research by the Czech Institute of Egyptology.” In R. J. Dann, ed., Current research in Egyptology: proceedings of the Fifth Annual Symposium which took place at the University of Durham, January 2004: 112–17. London. Posener-Krie´ger, P. (1976) Les archives du temple fune´raire de Ne´ferirkareˆ-Kakaı¨: les papyrus d’Abousir. Cairo. Verner, M. (2002). Abusir: realm of Osiris. Cairo. Verner, M., et al. (2006) Abusir IX: the pyramid complex of Raneferef, the archaeology. Prague. Verner, M., Posener-Krie´ger, P., and Ja´nosi, P. (1995) Abusir III: the pyramid complex of Khentkaus. Prague. Verner, M., Callender, V. G., and Strouhal, E. (2002) Abusir VI: Djedkare’s family cemetery. Prague. Verner, M., Posener-Krie´ger, P., and Vymazalova´, H. (2006) Abusir X: the pyramid complex of Raneferef: the papyrus archive. Prague.

1

Abydenos (FGrH 685) CRAIGE B. CHAMPION

Almost nothing is known about the life of Abydenos (FGrH 685). His terminus post quem is 80–40 BCE, since he reworked the Chaldaika of Alexander Polyhistor. Eusebius, who cites Abydenos, provides a terminus ante quem of ca. 300 CE. Abydenos probably wrote during the so-called Second Sophistic (second/third

centuries CE). His work was titled On the Assyrians, treating Babylonian and Assyrian history (DeBreucker 2015). SEE ALSO:

Historiography, Greek and Roman.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS DeBreucker, G. (2015) “Abydenos (685).” In I. Worthington, ed., Brill’s New Jacoby. Brill Online.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner. © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Published 2015 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah26150

1

Abydos, Egypt LAUREL BESTOCK

The site of Abydos is located in southern Egypt on the west bank of the Nile, in the ancient Upper Egyptian Eight nome, or province. The site is large and has many components, including urban areas, temples, and cemeteries; it was occupied for effectively all of Egyptian history. Abydos was the burial place of kings in the Early Dynastic period and received large amounts of royal attention at various later points in its history. The site also became strongly associated with the god OSIRIS, who had a major temple and procession at Abydos from at least the Middle Kingdom on, if not earlier, and thus held mortuary significance for all Egyptians. As such, Abydos was and is one of the most important sites in Egypt and has been subject to extensive excavation, which is still ongoing.

GEOGRAPHY The multiple components of Abydos and their transformations over time can best be seen as an interaction between place and people to form a sacred landscape. Because of this, the geography of Abydos is central to the meaning of the site. The known archaeological remains cover an area of approximately 8 km2. These remains are found on the low desert in a broad bay formed by the cliffs of the Western Desert. These cliffs serve as a dramatic visual backdrop to the site, and a cleft that splits them in this region was probably regarded as a passage to the west, the land of the dead. The Nile Valley in this part of Egypt is wide, so that Abydos itself is approximately 9 km from the river. The urban center of the site lies at the junction between cultivation and desert, as do the major temples; the cemeteries of Abydos are located in the low desert. While most of the cemeteries are near the urban elements of the site, some are farther away, closer to the cliffs. The earliest

of these cemeteries, called Umm el-Qa’ab, is located next to the shallow wadi, or valley, that descends from the dramatic cleft in the cliffs. This wadi formed a processional way, possibly for the early tombs at Umm el-Qa’ab and more certainly for the later Osiris festival. Because of the importance of this processional way, it is necessary to understand movement as well as built forms as they contributed to the sacred landscape of Abydos. CHRONOLOGY Predynastic–First Intermediate Period (ca. 4000–2055 BCE)

A continuous sequence of archaeological remains at Abydos is present from the Naqada I period (ca. 4000–3500 BCE on). This period is represented by tombs at Umm elQa’ab (Dreyer et al. 1998: 46–80), and most of the earliest remains are known from that part of the site. Over the succeeding course of the Predynastic period, Umm el-Qa’ab became an increasingly restricted necropolis, housing only elite tombs and, by Dynasty 0, only burials of kings. Tomb U-j, dated to approximately 3200 in the Naqada III period, is justly one of the best known tombs from early Egypt. This subterranean mud-brick structure had eleven chambers that, while disturbed, contained large amounts of original grave goods. These included ceramic vessels, some inscribed and some imported from the Levant; ivory tags with brief inscriptions; mud seal impressions; and ivory objects, including one that the excavator interpreted as a scepter (Dreyer 1998: 146–50). The unique size and structure of this tomb, as well as its artifacts, indicate that it belonged to a ruler. The presence of inscriptions – the earliest yet known from Egypt – indicates that writing was already being utilized for administrative and ceremonial purposes at this time. The somewhat later tombs of Dynasty 0 are some of our most important evidence for the Protodynastic period, a time when Egyptian kingship was evolving and Egypt itself moved towards

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 18–22. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah15012

2 being a single political entity. The best-known of the kings buried here is NARMER (Kaiser and Dreyer 1982). The kings of the 1st Dynasty (ca. 3000–2890) were also buried at Umm el Qa’ab, despite the adoption of Memphis as a national administrative center at this time. This provided a degree of continuity with past traditions at the very beginning of the Dynastic era. The 1st-Dynasty royal tombs are massive mud-brick constructions of which only the subterranean portions survive. These rulers also built large monuments closer to the town and cultivation at Abydos in what is now known as the North Cemetery. Made of mud brick and consisting of thick, niched walls enclosing large, open-air rectangular spaces, these buildings are usually called funerary enclosures. Inside each is a smaller closed building; traces of what appear to be cultic offerings in these chapels suggest that the enclosures should probably be interpreted as mortuary temples for the kings who built them (Bestock 2008). The 1st Dynasty royal monuments at Abydos are surrounded by sacrificial subsidiary burials. The last two kings of the 2nd Dynasty (ca. 2890–2686) were also buried in subterranean tombs at Umm el-Qa’ab and likewise had monumental enclosures in the North Cemetery, though the monuments of this time were not provided with subsidiary graves. The known funerary enclosures were destroyed down to their foundations, probably not long after their construction, except for that of KHASEKHEMWY. His enclosure, known now as the Shunet ez-Zebib, is still an imposing monument that visually dominates the North Cemetery. In the Old Kingdom (ca. 2686–2125), Abydos remained an important regional center. Cemeteries are still the best preserved elements of the site for this period, with elite cemeteries of the 4th–6th Dynasties known. Among those buried in these cemeteries were people involved in the national administration, including Weni, whose famous autobiography records some of his adventures in the king’s court and in his role of Overseer of Upper Egypt. Djau, a vizier related by marriage to the royal family of the 6th Dynasty, was also buried at Abydos.

Excavations in the town site have revealed some urban and temple remains of the Early Dynastic Period to the First Intermediate Period at Abydos. The major temple at this time was dedicated to the god Khentiamentiu, for whom there is evidence here from the 1st Dynasty through the Old Kingdom. While the temple itself was largely destroyed or built over by later constructions of the Osiris temple in the same location, a series of buildings that are probably to be understood as royal ka-chapels attest to the resumption of royal interest in Abydos in the late Old Kingdom (O’Connor 1992; Kemp 1968). The beststudied urban remains of the main town site date to the First Intermediate Period into the Middle Kingdom. These buildings exhibit a high degree of social complexity and may have housed people associated with the nearby temple (Adams 2004). Middle Kingdom (ca. 2055–1650 BCE)

During the Middle Kingdom, Abydos was defined by its association with Osiris. This association may date somewhat earlier, as indicated by passages in the Pyramid Texts. Osiris was thought to be buried at Abydos, and one of the 1st Dynasty royal tombs at Umm el-Qa’ab was specifically identified as his grave. This probably reflects a memory of the importance of the site to early Egyptian kingship and indicates a degree of mixing of history and myth. In the town site, the old Abydos temple was razed and a new Osiris temple built on its site in the early 12th Dynasty (ca. 1985–1773). This was the starting place for an annual ritual procession celebrating Osiris’ kingship, death, and resurrection, which ended at Umm el-Qa’ab. The 12thDynasty stela of Ikhernofret gives veiled reference to these rituals. The path of the procession itself was kept free of monuments, but the adjacent areas closest to the town site became crowded with memorial chapels set up by private individuals in the Middle Kingdom. A stela in each chapel eternally associated the dedicator and his family with Osiris during his procession.

3 One Middle Kingdom king paid extraordinary attention to Abydos: Senwosret III built a tomb and associated temple to the southeast of the main town. The tomb consists principally of a very long passage, straight and then curved, carved beneath the cliffs of the high desert. The temple, located at the edge of the cultivation, was built of white limestone and had an orthogonally planned supporting town that was occupied for generations. While Senwosret III also had a pyramid at Dahshur, many scholars believe he was buried in the Abydos tomb (Wegner 2007). New Kingdom

New Kingdom Abydos maintained its importance as a premier cult place of Osiris and continued to receive sporadic, more intense royal attention. The Osiris temple was rebuilt. Various kings of the New Kingdom, including Ahmose, Amenhotep I, Thutmose III, and Amenhotep III, as well as later kings to Rameses III, built what appear to be chapels in association with the main Osiris temple (O’Connor 2009: 110–14). Some of these kings also built elsewhere at Abydos. The first king of the 18th Dynasty, Ahmose, constructed an extensive mortuary complex including multiple temples; this is located southeast of the Senwosret monuments and likewise has elements both at the base of the cliffs and on the line between the cultivation and the low desert. Ahmose built a pyramid near the cultivation – the last royal pyramid in Egypt. Relief decoration of the associated temple includes images of chariots and other aspects of warfare related to Ahmose’s triumph over Levantine enemies (Harvey 1998). The royal women, Tetisheri and Ahmose Nefertiry, also received monuments within Ahmose’s complex. Thutmose III also built at Abydos apart from the main Osiris temple; his chapel outside the main town site, in the same general area as the Middle Kingdom private chapels, appears to link him specifically to the procession of Osiris (Pouls Wegner 2002).

The best preserved and hence probably the best known single monument at Abydos belongs to the 19th-Dynasty king Sety I (ca. 1290–1279). His massive limestone temple is located to the southeast of the main town, approximately half-way between the urban core and the Senwosret III monuments. This temple is best understood as dedicated to Sety-as-Osiris and was complementary to the main Osiris temple in the town site (O’Connor 2009: 43). The temple includes seven chapels dedicated to Sety and various gods either related to the Osiris cycle or of other national significance. The temple is decorated with some of the most exquisite reliefs preserved from ancient Egypt. One important relief shows Sety and his son, Rameses II, giving offerings to a list of previous kings of Egypt. Behind the Sety temple and part of the same complex is a somewhat enigmatic building known as the Osireion. This sunken construction composed of megaliths includes a central platform, pillars, a series of small peripheral chambers, and a long tunnel. A trench around the central platform is currently filled with water and was probably intended to be so anciently. The Osireion has elements in common with royal tombs of the New Kingdom and may be modeled on the mythical tomb of Osiris. The temple begun by Sety was completed by his son, Rameses II, who also built a temple of his own to the northwest of his father’s monument. This is less well preserved than Sety’s temple but does retain an impressive amount of color in its reliefs. The exterior of this temple has one of the series of reliefs depicting Rameses’ fight against the Hittites at Qadesh. Rameses also completed a temple begun by Sety in the cultic zone just outside the main town; this may be related to earlier royal chapels more directly adjacent to the Osiris temple (O’Connor 2009: 117). The Rameses temple near the town directly covered many of the Middle Kingdom private chapels and thus, ironically, aided their preservation. This is one of the innumerable examples that can be pointed to in discussing the complex nature

4 of Abydos’ archaeology and the constant reworking of its sacred landscape. All of the royal monuments at Abydos in the Middle and New Kingdoms connect the kings who built them in some way to Osiris. The importance of this site to both kings and private individuals demonstrates the key role that Osiris played in Egyptian religious thought and practice. Post-New Kingdom

The post-New Kingdom history of Abydos is somewhat more difficult to piece together than earlier periods. This is largely due to the near cessation of monumental royal building activity. The site continued to be a very active religious center, perhaps not increasing in importance until Osiris became an even more vital part of the national pantheon. Our sources for post-New Kingdom Abydos include the archaeology of its several parts and a very rich inscriptional record that gives insight particularly into the personnel associated with the Osiris cult. The key components of Abydos remained the same through the end of Dynastic Egypt. The Osiris temple itself was of utmost importance, with the New Kingdom structure apparently maintained and undergoing renovations. In the 30th Dynasty, Nektanebo I entirely razed and rebuilt the temple. This was the last major construction of this monument, and Nektanebo’s massive limestone pylon is still partly visible today (Marlar 2010). Umm el-Qa’ab also remained a focus of worship as the site of the tomb of Osiris through the 31st Dynasty. Inscriptions from the Third Intermediate Period and Late Period make clear the national importance of both the temple and tomb. Connecting the two, the processional way was also venerated and maintained throughout the Dynastic period. The cemeteries on either side of the processional route were popular places of private burial, chiefly in coffins simply placed in the ground during the Third Intermediate Period, but with a resumption of large mud-brick tombs starting in the

Late Period. The New Kingdom royal temples overlooking the procession, notably those of Thutmose III and Rameses II, also continued to be used through this period (O’Connor 2009: 125). The temple built by Sety remained in active use, though the smaller monuments of earlier kings, such as the Ahmose complex, had fallen out of use by the end of the New Kingdom. One new element of worship characteristic of the Late Period was the introduction of animal cemeteries. The animals buried at Abydos relate to Osiris or associated deities, for instance, dogs for Wepwawet and Anubis, hawks for Horus, and ibises for Thoth. These cemeteries were sometimes quite informal, consisting simply of collections of pots containing animal mummies buried in the desert. In other cases they were more formal, either utilizing older, abandoned buildings or having new monuments built for them. While Abydos remained a key site for Osiris worship during the Ptolemaic and Roman periods, this was a turbulent time for Upper Egypt in general and Abydos in particular. At least once during the Ptolemaic period, in the second century, Abydos was besieged following a rebellion. Patterns of worship and landscape use at the site also changed dramatically. Most important, the association of Umm el-Qa’ab with the burial of Osiris seems to have ceased, probably replaced by a belief that the tomb was within the cult complex itself. With this shift, the processional way fell out of use and for the first time was filled with burials, both human and animal. One notable feature of some of the late constructions at Abydos is the care their builders took to both be close to and yet respect earlier monuments. This is clearly true for the renovation of the Osiris temple, but has also been noted in the construction of new monuments adjacent to Early Dynastic funerary enclosures in the North Cemetery (Knoblauch and Bestock, forthcoming) and Old Kingdom tombs in the Middle Cemetery (Richards 2002). This respect for earlier monuments and continued renegotiation of sacred space highlight the ways in which Abydos was simultaneously an idea and

5 a location, a place where history, geography, and practice intersected to form one of Egypt’s holiest sites. SEE ALSO:

Rameses I–XI; Thutmose I–IV.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Adams, M. D. (2004) “Community and society in Egypt in the First Intermediate Period: an archaeological investigation of the Abydos settlement site.” PhD diss. University of Pennsylvania. Bestock, L. (2008) “The Early Dynastic funerary enclosures of Abydos.” Arche´o-Nil 18: 42–59. Dreyer, G., Hartung, U., Hikade, T., Ko¨hler, E. C., Mu¨ller, V., and Pumpenmeier, F. (1998) “Umm el-Qaab: Nachuntersuchungen im fru¨hzeitlichen Ko¨nigsfriedhof, 9/10. Vorbericht.” Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archa¨ologischen Instituts, Abteilung Kairo 54: 77–167. Harvey, S. (1998) “The cults of king Ahmose at Abydos.” PhD diss. University of Pennsylvania. Kaiser, W. and Dreyer, G. (1982) “Umm el-Qaab: Nachuntersuchungen im fru¨hzeitlichen Ko¨nigsfriedhof, 2. Vorbericht.” Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archa¨ologischen Instituts, Abteilung Kairo 38: 211–69. Kemp, B. (1968) “The Osiris temple at Abydos.” Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archa¨ologischen Instituts, Abteilung Kairo 23: 138–55.

Kemp, B. (1975) “Abydos.” In W. Helck and E. Otto, ¨ gyptologie, vol. 1: 28–31. eds., Lexikon der A Wiesbaden. Knoblauch, C. and Bestock, L. (forthcoming) “Four thousand years in Abydos: a preliminary report on the architecture and ceramics of the 2004/5 excavations in the North Cemetery, West.” Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archa¨ologischen Instituts, Abteilung Kairo. Marlar, M. (2010) “The Osiris temple at Abydos: an archaeological investigation of the architecture and decorative elements of two temples.” PhD diss. Institute of Fine Arts, New York University. O’Connor, D. (1992) “The status of early Egyptian temples: an alternative theory.” In B. Adams and R. Friedman, eds., The followers of Horus: studies in memory of Michael Allen Hoffman: 83–98. Oxford. O’Connor, D. (2009) Abydos: Egypt’s first Pharaohs and the cult of Osiris. London. Pouls Wegner, M.-A. (2002) “The cult of Osiris at Abydos: an archaeological investigation of the development of an ancient Egyptian sacred center during the Eighteenth Dynasty.” PhD diss. University of Pennsylvania. Richards, J. (2002) “Time and memory in ancient Egyptian cemeteries.” Expedition 44, 3: 16–24. Richards, J. (2005) Society and death in ancient Egypt: mortuary landscapes of the Middle Kingdom. Cambridge. Wegner, J. (2007) The mortuary temple of Senwosret III at Abydos. New Haven.

1

ABZU (apsuˆ) NICOLE BRISCH

The Sumerian term ABZU (Akkadian apsuˆ) denotes a large underground body of water, the abode of Enki (Akkadian Ea), god of wisdom and incantations (see EA (ENKI)). The ABZU, a key part of ancient Mesopotamian cosmic geography, was located somewhere between the surface of the earth and the underworld. In the Mesopotamian imagination it was inhabited by fish. Although some scholars have held that the ABZU was filled with sweet water (as opposed to the salty water of the ocean), according to more recent views it also contained salt water (Lambert 2000). In literary texts the ABZU is also referred to as ENGUR, with no discernible difference in meaning. The Sumerian literary tale “Enki and Ninmah” describes the goddess Ninmah taking clay from the top of the ABZU to create the first

(imperfect) human beings, and in the tale “Inanna and Enki” it is said that Enki controlled the ME, the divine powers, in the ABZU (see ME (SUMERIAN TERM)). In Akkadian literature, in particular in the “Babylonian Epic of Creation” (see ENUMA ELISH), the apsuˆ is one of two primordial elements, together with TIAMAT, the personified ocean (Horowitz 1998: 335). The city of Babylon is said to have been founded on top of the apsuˆ. REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Edzard, D. O. (1965) “Abzu.” In H. W. Haussig, ed., Go¨tter und Mythen im Vorderen Orient, Wo¨rterbuch der Mythologie, vol. 1: 38. Stuttgart. Horowitz, W. (1998) Mesopotamian cosmic geography. Winona Lake, IN. Lambert, W. G. (2000). “The apsuˆ.” In L. Milano et al., eds., Landscapes, territories, frontiers and horizons in the ancient Near East: 74–7. Padua.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print page 22. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah24001

1

Academy EMIDIO SPINELLI

The Academy is the school founded by PLATO, most probably after his first trip to Syracuse (387–385 BCE). The school was located in “a gymnasium outside the walls, in a grove named after a certain hero, Hekademos” (Diog. Laert. 3.7). There Plato acquired a house and garden, about six stadia from Athens and not far from Kolonos. Features of modern universities cannot, however, be anachronistically attributed to the Academy. The school was linked to the cult of the MUSES (without being strictly a cult “association,” or thiasos), with properties at the disposal of its members, and even with “affiliates” outside Athens (e.g., Assos in Asia Minor). The school did not follow rigid or narrow precepts but was open to philosophical discussion in accordance with a “life lived in common” (synousia, syzen: see Plat. Ep. 7. 341c8–9), not without Pythagorean influences, i.e., a life dedicated to the practice of “thinking together” (symphilosophein), and to “political training” according to key Platonic ideas, such as those expounded in the republic. It was Plato himself who, from the beginning, introduced discussions on philosophical issues for his friends and students, often emphasizing mathematical, geometric, and cosmological investigation (hence the legendary inscription at the entrance of the Academy, that no one who does not know geometry should enter the premises). We may identify at least three of the major topics discussed – perhaps also the subject of Plato’s courses or public lectures – as: 1

2

3

the need to “save the phenomena,” in order to account for the irregular motion of the planets; the justification of the existence and nature of Ideas or Forms, and their relation to ulterior realities as their first principles; and the ethical status to be attributed to pleasure as part of the good life.

It is difficult to reconstruct a complete list of the first members, disciples, colleagues, and regular or occasional visitors of the school. Among the disciples were Philip of Opus, Plato’s “secretary” and probable author of Epinomis; ARISTOTLE, and maybe even THEOPHRASTUS; and two women named Lasthenia and Axiothea. Among “colleagues” were the scientists and mathematicians EUDOXOS OF KNIDOS, Theaitetos of Sounion, and HERAKLEIDES OF PONTOS, the latter temporarily in charge of the school in 361/360; the orators HYPERIDES and Lycurgus; and the Pythagorean “doctor” Philistion of Lokri (see LYCURGUS, ATHENIAN ORATOR). Between the fourth and first centuries the Academy was institutionally represented by the head of the school or scholarch. The periodic division of the history of the school may be conceived in different ways. Besides the traditional tripartite division into old, middle, and new Academy, a classification into five phases is possible with the addition of a fourth and a fifth Academy (Sext. Emp. PH 1. 220 and ps.-Gal. Hist. Phil. 2 ¼ Dox. Gr. 600, 3–4). An important name from the old Academy is that of SPEUSIPPOS (ca. 408–339/338), indicated by Plato himself as his successor (348/347–339). Without entirely refuting the value of physics, Speusippos favored an allegorical reading of the Timaeus and insisted on the cognitive value of reasoned or educated perception (epistemonike aisthesis). He focused primarily on the doctrine of principles, the One and the Many, on eliminating Ideas, on emphasizing the role of mathematical entities, and on defining reality at all levels as determined by similarity (homoiotes) with the Principles. With regard to ethics (and perhaps attacking the hedonism of Eudoxos) Speusippos denied the value of pleasure and instead defended an ideal state of absence of both pain and pleasure (aochlesia). His successor was Xenokrates (396/395–314/313), head of the Academy from 339/338–315/314. Xenokrates inaugurated the tripartite division of philosophy into logic, physics, and ethics,

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 23–26. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah09001

2 which later became canonical. He attempted to reconcile the doctrine of Ideas (identified with ideal numbers, and linked in some way to dimensions of space) and that of their Principles, the One-Monad (or Intellect) and the Dyad, thus intending to remain faithful to Plato’s teachings. Xenokrates is credited with the physical-geometric doctrine of indivisible lines (attested in the pseudo-Aristotelian de lineis insecabilibus), with a theological scheme including daimones as part of his philosophical system, and with a doctrine of the soul as “a number that moves by itself ” (T. 165 Isnardi Parente). The next scholarch was Polemon (314/ 313–270/269). He devoted himself primarily to ethics, addressing questions of purpose (to live in accordance with nature, secundum naturam vivere: Cic. Fin. 4. 14), and of the first principles of nature (prota kata physin). Polemon also focused on physics: presumably he offered a literal (unlike his predecessors’ allegorical) interpretation of the Timaeus, while Krantor probably wrote the first systematic commentary on that Platonic dialogue, once again adopting the allegorical reading. Krantor also wrote a treatise On grief, which became a source of inspiration for the later literature of consolatio. After Polemon and the premature demise of Krantor (276/275), Krates became the next scholarch (270/269–268/ 264). After Krates, Arkesilaos of Pitane (316/ 315–241/240) became scholarch when Sokratides (who was apparently in line for the position) stepped down. With Arkesilaos begins the so-called “Middle Academy.” He left nothing in writing, but under him the school underwent a profound change, known as the phase of Academic skepticism. The roots of Arkesilaos’ philosophy in Pyrrhonism and his alleged esoteric and dogmatic teaching are a matter of debate, but the Socratic foundation of his thought seems clear. This manifests in his use of aporia, the discussion of two opposing views on a subject, which is typical of Socrates in the early Platonic dialogues (but also present in later ones, e.g., the Theaetetus). Arkesilaos,

in searching for truth, while at the same time insisting on the limited nature of human cognitive abilities, challenged with equal force (isostheneia) opposing views on the same theme, and proposed a generalized suspension of judgment (peri panton epechein). His attacks on STOICISM and its assumption of a “cognitive representation,” which he considered incapable of attaining true knowledge, must be seen in this light. Conversely, in response to the Stoics’ accusation that he practiced unopinionated apraxia (“inaction”), he proposed a moral theory for which the model of behavior to follow is one that pursues (by natural means or physikos) the good, considered as what is proper or familiar (oikeion). This behavior relies on right action which, once accomplished, can be explained rationally according to the criterion of the “reasonable” (eulogon) that justifies the action after the event. The skeptical phase of the Academy does not end with Arkesilaos. After a series of barely known scholarchs (Lakydes of Cyrene, head from 241/240–225/224; Telekles, who died in 167/166, Evander; Hegesinos), the most famous proponent of Academic skepticism and founder of the New Academy was Karneades (214/213–129, scholarch 156/ 155–137/136). He too left nothing in writing; to reconstruct his positions we have to rely on later sources, which in turn depend on the lost writings of his pupil Kleitomachos. Famed for his skills in dialectic (see the episode of his embassy to Rome in 155, along with the Stoic Diogenes of Babylon and Kritolaos the Peripatetic), Karneades attacked many fundamental Stoic positions, focusing on their theory of knowledge. He especially critiqued Chrysippos, head of the stoa (see CHRYSIPPOS OF SOLOI). However, Karneades did not accept Arkesilaos’ thesis of a generalized suspension of judgment. Instead he acknowledged that the wise man could occasionally grant assent on the basis of what presents to him as persuasive (pithanon), according to a sliding scale of representations divided thus: (1) persuasive; (2) persuasive and not contradicted; and

3 (3) persuasive, not contradicted, and well considered. By adhering to strongly persuasive (and probable) representations, one can obtain a reference point or criterion that regulates ethical actions at all times. Interpretations of the general position of Karneades took different directions. His successors, after the scholarchs Karneades the Younger (137/136–131/130) and Krates of Tarsos (131/130–127/126), divided into two groups. The one led by Kleitomachos (187/186–110, scholarch 127/126–110/109), saw Karneades as champion of radical skepticism, militantly opposed to the rival Stoic dialectic. The other, linked to Metrodoros of Stratonikeia (born in 170 and still active in 110, but never appointed scholarch) recognized some positive attitudes in Karneades’ philosophy, especially in his acknowledgement that the wise man may occasionally assent to some opinions. According to this second group, informed assent mitigates Karneades’ skepticism. Along with Charmadas (164/163–91), another disciple of Karneades and colleague of Kleitomachos, Philo of Larissa (154/ 153–84), scholarch from 110/109 until his death, is not to be forgotten. Since we rely on later interpretations of his works (none of which are extant), his positions are difficult to interpret. He seems to represent a new turning point and thus is considered the initiator of the so-called “Fourth Academy.” Philo did not accept the radical thesis of the complete impossibility of true knowledge (or akatalepsia), but argued that “as far as the Stoic standard (i.e., apprehensive appearance) is concerned objects are inapprehensible, but as far as the nature of objects themselves is concerned they are apprehensible” (Sext. Emp. PH 1. 235, tr. Annas-Barnes). The apparent decline of skepticism within the Academy largely coincided with the disappearance of the school as an institution, due to the conquest and sack of Athens by Sulla (in March 86). This crisis was exacerbated on the philosophical level by the dogmatic reaction of Antiochos of Askalon (ca. 130/120–68/67). He never

became scholarch, but instead he opened his own school (Cic. Luc. 70), which may be termed (albeit unsuitably) the “Fifth Academy.” Antiochos entirely abandoned Academic skepticism to return to the roots of the Old Academy. He also attempted to integrate into it Peripatetic and Stoic positions, which according to him were essentially those of the Old Academy with minor differences in terminology (Cic. ND 1. 16). REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Barnes, J. (1989) “Antiochus of Ascalon.” In M. Griffin and J. Barnes, eds., Philosophia Togata, vol. I. Essays on philosophy and Roman society: 51–96. Oxford. Berti, E. (2010) Sumphilosophein. La vita nell’ Accademia di Platone. Rome. Billot, M.-F. (1989) “Acade´mie. Topographie et arche´ologie.” In R. Goulet, ed., Dictionnaire des philosophes antiques, vol. 1: 693–789. Paris. Brittain, C. (2001) Philo of Larissa. The last of the academic sceptics. Oxford. Cherniss, H. (1945) The riddle of the early Academy. Berkeley (repr. 1980). Dancy, R. M. (1991) Two studies in the early Academy. Albany. Dillon, J. (2003) The heirs of Plato. A study of the old Academy (347–274 BC). Oxford. Dorandi, T. (1991) Filodemo: Storia dei filosofi. Platone e l’Academia. Naples. Dorandi, T., (1999) “Chronology” and “Organization and structure of the philosophical schools.” In K. Algra, J. Barnes, J. Mansfeld, and M. Schofield, eds., The Cambridge history of Hellenistic philosophy: 31–62. Cambridge. Fortenbaugh, W. W. and Pender, E., eds. (2009) Heraclides of Pontus. Discussion. London. Gigante, M. (1976) “Polemonis Academici Fragmenta.” Rendiconti dell’Accademia di Archeologia, Lettere e Belle Arti Napoli 51: 91–144. Glucker, J. (1978) Antiochus and the late Academy. Go¨ttingen. ¨ lterer Pyrrhonismus-Ju¨ngere Go¨rler, W. (1994) “A Akademie-Antiochos aus Askalon.” In H. Flashar, Die Philosophie der Antike, vol. 4, 2: 717–989. Gottschalk, H. B. (1980) Heraclides of Pontus. Oxford.

4 Ioppolo, A. M. (1986) Opinione e scienza. Il dibattito tra Stoici e Accademici nel III e nel II sec. AC. Naples. Ioppolo, A. M. (2009) La testimonianza di Sesto Empirico sull’Accademia scettica. Naples. Isnardi Parente, M., ed. (1979) Studi sull’Accademia platonica antica. Florence. Isnardi Parente, M. (1980) Speusippo. Frammenti. Naples. Isnardi Parente, M., ed. (1982) Senocrate. Ermodoro. Frammenti. Naples. Isnardi Parente, M. (1989) L’eredita` di Platone nell’Accademia antica. Milan. Isnardi Parente, M., ed. (1995) Supplementum Academicum. Per l’integrazione e la revisione di Speusippo, Frammenti e Senocrate – Ermodoro, Frammenti, “La scuole di Platone” I e III (collezione diretta da M. Gigante) 249–309. Rome. ¨ ltere Akademie.” In Kra¨mer, H. J. (20042) “Die A H. Flashar, ed., Die Philosophie der Antike, vol. 3: 1–165. Basel. Lasserre, F., ed. (1966) Die Fragmente des Eudoxos von Knidos. Berlin.

Lasserre, F., ed. (1987) De Le´odamas de Thasos a` Philippe d’Oponte. Te´moignages et fragments. Naples. Lynch, J. P. (1972) Aristotle’s school. A study of a Greek educational institution. Berkeley. Metry, A. (2002) Speusippos. Zahl – Erkenntnis – Sein. Bern. Mette, H. J. (1984) “Zwei Akademiker heute: Krantor von Soloi und Arkesilaos von Pitane.” Lustrum 26: 7–94. Mette, H. J. (1985) “Weitere Akademiker heute Von Lakydes bis zu Kleitomachos.” Lustrum 27: 39–148. Schu¨trumpf, E. (2008) Heraclides of Pontus. Texts and translation, trans. P. Stork, J. van Ophuijsen, and S. Prince. London. Tara´n, L., ed. (1981) Speusippus of Athens. A critical study with a collection of the related texts and commentary. Leiden. Tarrant, H. (1985) Scepticism or Platonism? The philosophy of the fourth Academy. Cambridge. Thiel, D. (2006) Die Philosophie des Xenokrates im Kontext der Alten Akademie. Munich. Trampedach, K. (1994) Platon, die Akademie und die zeitgeno¨ssische Politik. Stuttgart.

1

Acca Larentia ROGER D. WOODARD

By the name Acca Larentia, the Romans denoted two separate figures of mythic tradition. One of these was identified as the foster mother of Romulus and Remus; the other was a prostitute and benefactress of the Roman people: this ambiguity is explicitly noted in the ancient calendar from Praeneste (CIL I2 pp. 238, 338), attributed to the learned scholar Verrius Flaccus. Livy (1.4.6–8), like other Roman historians, records the tale of how the abandoned twins Romulus and Remus were suckled by a she-wolf until they were found by the shepherd Faustulus, who took the babes home to be nursed by his wife Larentia. These same historians, however, facilitate a conjunction of the “two Larentias,”noting that the shepherd’s wife had a reputation for promiscuity. Dionysius of Halicarnassus (1.84.4–5) thus writes that this Larentia was nicknamed Lupa (“She-Wolf ”), because she had been a prostitute formerly (the Latin word lupa can denote “prostitute”), and that it was this nickname that

gave rise to the mythos of the nursing she-wolf. Plutarch reports this same tradition and also relates the tale (Rom. 4.5; Quaest. Rom. 35; cf. Macrob. Sat. 1.10.12–15) of how “another Larentia” – an openly practicing prostitute – had provided sexual services to Herakles in his temple one night; as a reward, she became the lover or wife of a wealthy man and recipient ofhis property upon his death, which she subsequently bequeathed to the Roman people. Acca Larentia was commemorated annually at the festival of the Larentalia (December 23). SEE ALSO: Arval Brothers; Mater Larum; Praeneste; Romulus and Remus.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Boyle, A. J. and Woodard, R. D. (2004) Ovid: Fasti. Rev. ed. London. Dume´zil, G. (1970) Archaic Roman religion, trans. P. Krapp. Chicago. Scheid, J. (1990) Romulus et ses fre`res. Rome. Wissowa, G. (1912) Religion und Kultus der Ro¨mer, 2nd ed. Munich.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 26–27. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah17002

1

Acclamations CHARLOTTE ROUECHE´

Acclamations – phrases shouted out in unison – are particularly valuable in pre-literate societies or in any situation where the views, particularly the assent, of a large group of people are required. They often form part of religious ceremonials – whether the Hebrew “Amen” or the salutation “Great is Artemis of the Ephesians.” This acclamation was shouted for two hours by a crowd in Ephesos, who gathered in the theater at Ephesos to protest at the activities of the Christian Apostle Paul in the first century CE (Acts 19:23–41). They were a normal part of religious and public ceremonials in the ancient Near East, and in the GrecoRoman world, but the actual process is seldom considered worth recording. We know of titles for benefactors and rulers which were bestowed by acclamation – city-loving, Savior, even Imperator – but the procedure was too normal to describe. Our understanding of these processes, and their recording, changes in the Late Antique period. The emperor Constantine ruled that acclamations, favorable or hostile, of provincial governors should be reported to the central government (CT 1.16.6, of 331 CE). At about the same time we start to find acclamations being inscribed on stone, and this becomes increasingly common in Late Antiquity (for a sixth-century example, see Roueche´ 2004, commentary). From Late Antiquity we also have the verbatim accounts of the church councils; these provide an invaluable record of acclamations and their use in large meetings (Roueche´ 2009). Perhaps the most striking example of their importance comes

from the Law Code compiled on the orders of the emperor THEODOSIUS II. The text includes a list of the acclamations of the Senate which greeted its publication in 443, giving both the text of each acclamation and the number of times that it was repeated. Acclamations continued to be an important part of imperial ceremonial well into the Byzantine period, and they are carefully recorded in the Book of Ceremonies compiled for the tenth-century emperor CONSTANTINE VII PORPHYROGENITUS. Such collections show a rhythmic and repetitive quality which facilitated their chanting; some of these characteristics were absorbed into the liturgies of both the eastern and the western churches. REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Balance, M. and Roueche´, C. (2001) “Three inscriptions from Ovacik.” In M. Harrison, Mountain and plain: from the Lycian Coast to the Phrygian Plateau in the Late Roman and Early Byzantine period: 87–112. Ann Arbor. Potter, D. (1996) “Performance, power and justice in the High Empire.” In W. J. Slater, ed., Roman theater and society: E. Togo Salmon papers, vol. 1: 129–60. Ann Arbor. Roueche´, C. (1984) “Acclamations in the later Roman Empire: new evidence from Aphrodisias.” Journal of Roman Studies 74: 181–99. Roueche´, C. (2004) Aphrodisias in Late Antiquity, No. 23, online second edition available at http://insaph.kcl.ac.uk/ala2004/inscription/ eAla0 83.html. Roueche´, C. (2009) “Acclamations at the Council of Chalcedon.” In R. Price and M. Whitby, eds., Chalcedon in Context: church councils 400–700 : 169–77. Liverpool. Wiemer, H.-U. (2004) “Akklamationen im spa¨tro¨mischen Reich.” Archiv fu¨r Kulturgeschichte 86: 27–73.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print page 27. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah12003

1

Accounting, Egyptian ANNETTE IMHAUSEN

Written evidence for Egyptian accounting (most notably the Abusir and Gebelein papyri) dates back as far as the Old Kingdom (about 2686–2181 BCE). The Egyptian “treasury,” the so-called “White House,” is attested since Early Dynastic times (about 3000). Over the length of pharaonic history, accounts are attested from pharaonic administration, temples, and private individuals. From the Old Kingdom on, accounts could take the form of a table with clearly defined columns and lines. Apart from evidence in the form of actual accounts, a variety of administrative titles indicates the complex system of accountancy on which the Egyptian king relied and which constituted the foundation of the cultural achievements of ancient Egypt. The most general title of an Egyptian official, “scribe,” might also be translated as “accountant.” Preparation of accounts must have comprised a substantial percentage of Egyptian scribal work, judging by the numerous depictions in tombs as well as the extant sources on papyri and ostraca. Handling accounts of course required literacy as well as numeracy. It can be argued that the needs of accountancy prompted at least in part the invention of writing as well as the number system. Scribes documented commodities (grain, grain products, vegetables, meat, fish,

and others) but also work and work-related items such as tools. The fact that the people involved in the assessment of commodities had a variety of titles points to a complex system of control. This is also obvious in some of the depictions of scribes in tombs. Within this system, establishing an account was the work of several officials working together (e.g., one measuring, one counting, one writing), and their work would be checked by a superior scribe. Tomb depictions also show punishment (beating of scribes), if the superior judged the accounts to be unsatisfactory. SEE ALSO: Mathematics, Egyptian; Scribes, Egypt.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Imhausen, A. W. (2003) “Calculating the daily bread: rations in theory and practice.” Historia Mathematica 30: 3–16. Imhausen, A. W. and Rossi, C. (2010) “Papyrus Reisner I: architecture and mathematics in the time of Sesostris I.” In S. Ikram and A. Dodson, eds., Festschrift for Barry J. Kemp: 440–55. Cairo. Quirke, S. (1990) The administration of Egypt in the Late Middle Kingdom: the hieratic documents. New Malden. Quirke, S. (2004) Titles and bureaux of Egypt 1850–1700 BC. London. Quirke, S. and Collier, M. (2006) The UCL Lahun Papyri: accounts. Oxford.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 27–28. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah21003

1

Accounting, Greece and Rome SERAFINA CUOMO

Accounting has two main aspects: ascertaining through calculation either quantities of money, goods, or people, and making that information available. For instance, accounting in ancient Athens consisted not only in calculating how many ships the allies of Athens provided in the common war effort against the Persians, but also in carving that information on stone slabs and displaying them in the Athenian AGORA. Thus, accounting is also about accountability – while the techniques may not have changed much throughout antiquity, the ways in which accounts were or were not made accessible, and to whom, varied widely, depending on political, economic, and social context. The two main accounting technologies were the abacus and finger counting. An abacus could be a slab of stone, with or without engraved lines and symbols for numbers and money units, or a frame with beads running on threads. Beads or tokens were grouped together and shifted between different lines or up and down a line, to perform the four basic operations. Different positions designated units, tens, and hundreds. Accounting was an exquisitely manual practice (Netz 2002). Writing appears to have been used for records of the outcome of calculations, rather than for the calculations themselves. We know little about specific training. Ancient accountants are often assumed to have been inevitably slaves or freedmen, but the question is not so simple. First, it is not clear how numerate the average educated person was, or whether accounting knowledge was exclusive to specialists. Any Athenian citizen could be chosen by lot to be a public accountant in the fifth century BCE, and several powerful Roman figures, including PLINY THE YOUNGER, seem to have been able to at least check accounts. Secondly, while many of the people producing accounts, especially in the

Roman period, were indeed of low social status (although in some cases very wealthy), Cicero describes the scribae of the late Roman Republic as a powerful group. Indeed, there is ambiguity as to how much control could be exerted over accountants by someone who did not share their expertise. We have one short treatise, addressed to MARCUS AURELIUS, where the author, a jurist called Volusius Maecianus, claims that knowledge of some accounting basics is appropriate even for an emperor (Cuomo 2001). Extant accounts come in various forms. Many, mostly from Egypt, are on papyrus, both from public administrative contexts, and from the large estates of private citizens. Many survive as stone inscriptions from Athens and other parts of Greece, their public character aligned with the democratic principles of accountability even when their contents document the domination by Athens of other Greek communities, as in the case of the so-called tribute lists. In sum, ancient accounts convey messages to their intended audiences and to modern historians, that may have been as complex as their arithmetical content was, deceptively, simple. SEE ALSO:

Literacy, Byzantine; Literacy, Greco-Roman Egypt; Literacy, Greece; Literacy, Pharaonic Egypt; Literacy, Rome and provinces; Numbers, Egyptian; Numbers, Greek; Numbers, Mesopotamian; Numbers, Roman.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Cuomo, S. (2001) Ancient mathematics. London. De Ste. Croix, G. E. M. (1956) “Greek and Roman accounting.” In A. C. Littleton and B. S. Yamey, eds., Studies in the History of Accounting: 14–74. Homewood, IL. Netz, R. (2002) “Counter culture: towards a history of Greek numeracy.” History of Science 40: 321–52. Scha¨rlig, A. (2001) Compter avec des cailloux: le calcul e´le´mentaire sur l’abaque chez les anciens Grecs. Lausanne.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 28–29. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah21004

1

Accounting, Mesopotamian DUNCAN J. MELVILLE

Writing and mathematics developed in Mesopotamia in response to a need to manage the storage and movement of goods, that is, accountancy. In the late fourth millennium BCE, officials began impressing shapes and incising marks into lumps of clay to document the amounts and types of goods under their control. Soon this developed into a complex collection of signs representing a wide variety of items and their quantities, as well as signs that appear to represent either the names or titles of the officials in charge. This collection of some 1,200 signs, called proto-cuneiform, is the first writing in Mesopotamia, and the quantity symbols and their manipulation the first mathematics. At first, the surface of the clay tablets was divided into small regions, which we call cases, each containing a discrete piece of information – usually a quantity symbol and a sign representing the good. At the end a total might be given. There is evidence of standard ratios being used, such as ratios of grain to jugs of beer. The tablets range from simple receipts to large, complex transactions. Few of these early tablets come from a secure archaeological context, and it is difficult to interpret their precise functions (see Nissen et al. 1993 for a more detailed discussion). During the next thousand years, the writing system developed and the metrological systems were streamlined. In some cases, bureaucratic convenience seems to have driven metrological innovation, for example in altering grain measurement units to simplify computing monthly rations from daily quantities. Along with this increased abstraction of the accounting system came the development of theoretical work-norms, amounts of work a worker was expected to do in a day, from clearing ditches and plowing fields to weaving cloth. By the Ur III period (ca. 2100–2000 BCE)

(see UR III DYNASTY), an extensive bureaucracy kept detailed accounts of the flow of goods and work done and compared them to target amounts. An overseer was responsible for the output of his workgroup, and if they did not achieve enough in a year, it was carried as a debt to the state on the overseer’s personal account. Such detailed accounting required several levels of documentation. Van de Mieroop (1999–2000) analyzes a twelve-column tablet from late Ur III summing all the deliveries to the king’s craft workshop in Ur over the course of a year, compiled from the daily delivery data. Most accounts were drawn up in lists with totals. Robson (2008) has shown that tabular accounting, as in spreadsheets with both row and column totals, was a rare innovation that made an appearance several times, but never became very common. By its nature, the evidence tends to reflect the economy of the state and large temples, those organizations employing scribes to track their goods, and sheds less light on private enterprise. In contrast, a collection of letters and other business documents from the Old Assyrian period in the early second millennium reveals the dealings of Assyrian traders who traveled long distances and were away for months while leaving their home affairs in the hands of their wives. SEE ALSO: Accounting, Egyptian; Administration, ancient Near East; Mathematics, Mesopotamian.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Nissen, H. J., Damerow, P., and Englund, R. (1993) Archaic bookkeeping: early writing and techniques of the economic administration in the ancient Near East. Chicago. Robson, E. (2008) Mathematics in ancient Iraq. Princeton. Van de Mieroop, M. (1999–2000) “An accountant’s nightmare: the drafting of a year’s summary.” Archiv fu¨r Orientforschung 46–7: 111–29.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 29–30. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah21005

1

Acculturation DAVID CHERRY

In the broadest sense, the term refers to the process of continuous first-hand interaction between two or more autonomous culture systems and the sociocultural change that results (Redfield, Linton, and Herskovits 1936: 149). In its application to the ancient Mediterranean world, it is often understood, inexactly, to describe the adoption or imitation of ways of thought, behavior, construction, or manufacture. So the acculturation of the frontier provinces of the Roman Empire has been represented to be “the acceptance and adoption of Roman civilization and its values” (Hanson 1989: 58). Very little survives in the written record to describe the process. Probably our earliest reference is Plato’s observation that the intermixture of travelers from different states can lead to the creation of new cultural forms (Leg. 949E). He goes on to recommend (Leg. 950A–3D) that foreign travel should be carefully regulated, so as to preserve the integrity of a well-governed state. In the almost complete absence of written accounts, most of the models that have been developed to measure acculturation in the ancient world, like Ramsay MacMullen’s “odd little list” of “gods, pots, and Latin” (1990: 61), are broadly archaeological, both in the methods and the materials they employ. It is far from certain, however, that scholars can actually solve the methodological and inferential problems inherent in measuring the extent or effect of acculturation, in any period. For while the processes are easily identified in the material record – in badly written Latin inscriptions at the edges of the Roman Empire, for example, or in deposits of Romanmade dinnerware beyond the Rhine – the evidence we possess rarely describes the assimilation (or even the imitation) of ideas or artifacts that are, in anthropological terms,

culturally embedded, and therefore not readily acculturated. Probably the most common method of measuring acculturation in the provinces of the Roman Empire involves tracking the distribution of goods that were of Roman manufacture or style, like the Roman-style flat plates and foot rings that were incorporated into locally produced pottery-ware in Upper Germany in the period between 100 BCE and 69 CE (Okun 1989: 46–7). The problem is that there is no way of knowing whether products like these were adopted or imitated because they were thought to be culturally superior, or simply because they were cheaper or better adapted to the requirements of large-scale production. As David Breeze once remarked (1989: 230), the presence of Roman-style button-and-loop fasteners and glass bangles at native sites in northern Britain may be evidence, not of acculturation, but of “fast sales talk.” Another serious obstacle to measuring acculturation is the virtual absence of evidence for the intentions or aspirations of the acculturated. What little evidence we do possess describes almost exclusively the habits and attitudes of the wealthy, literate, and mostly urban elites. The cultural life and appetites of the poor (the large majority of the population everywhere, and in every period) are undocumented. SEE ALSO: Pottery, Roman Empire; Roman Empire, regional cultures; Romanization; Rome, resistance to (cultural); Trade, Greek; Trade, Roman.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Barnett, H. G. et al. (1954) “Acculturation.” American Anthropologist 56: 973–1000. Barrett, J. C., Fitzpatrick, A. P., and Macinnes, L., eds. (1989) Barbarians and Romans in north-west Europe: from the later Republic to Late Antiquity. Oxford. Bee, R. L. (1974) Patterns and processes: an introduction to anthropological strategies for the study of sociocultural change. New York.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 30–31. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah22002

2 Breeze, D. J. (1989) “The impact of the Roman army on North Britain.” In Barrett, Fitzpatrick, and Macinnes, eds.: 227–34. Hanson, W. S. (1989) “The nature and function of Roman frontiers.” In Barrett, Fitzpatrick, and Macinnes, eds.: 55–63. MacMullen, R. (1990) Changes in the Roman Empire: essays in the ordinary. Princeton.

Okun, M. L. (1989) “An example of the process of acculturation in the early Roman frontier.” Oxford Journal of Archaeology 8, 1: 41–54. Redfield, R., Linton, R., and Herskovits, M. J. (1936) “Memorandum for the study of acculturation.” American Anthropologist 38: 149–52. Woolf, G. (1997) “Beyond Romans and natives.” World Archaeology 28, 3: 339–50.

1

Accusatio MICHAEL C. ALEXANDER

The Romans depended on private citizens to initiate and pursue a criminal charge, since the Roman system of justice had no public prosecutor. In the standing criminal courts (quaestiones perpetuae) of the Late Republic, when the private citizen brought his charge to the relevant official, such as a praetor, he requested permission to bring the charge (postulatio), taking an oath not to engage in a malicious accusation (calumnia). If the magistrate determined that this individual had the right to bring the charge, that is, was not disqualified by a specific disability (such as a prior conviction for calumnia), the magistrate wrote the accuser’s name on an album (“register”), and set a day on which anyone else who desired to bring the same charge could compete with the accuser in a divinatio, such as the contest between Cicero and Caecilius for the right to prosecute Verres. This hearing was held before jurors, but not those who would eventually decide the verdict. Possibly different from the divinatio is the iudicium de accusatore (“proceeding concerning the prosecutor”) that decided whether to grant the ius accusandi (“right of prosecution”). If the outcome was positive, the next step was the nominis delatio (“reporting of the name”), the formal initiation of the charge. First the prosecutor, through the in ius eductio (“bringing to court”), stated the charge in front of the defendant and questioned him (interrogatio legibus, “questioning according to the laws”); the defendant could either fail to answer, in which case he was considered to have been convicted, or deny the charge; if the latter,

then a date was set for the formal initiation of the accusation (Pseudo-Asconius Verrines 207 St, Scholia Bobiensia 170 St). If, as a result of these proceedings, the magistrate decided that a trial was to take place, he would write down the basic elements of the charge, along with the names of the prosecutor, his assistants (subscriptores, “underwriters”), and the defendant (Moreau 2000: 706–12). At this point, called the nominis receptio (“the receipt of the charge”), the accused became officially a reus (“defendant”). The accusator (“prosecutor”) had the right to summon witnesses as part of his official investigation (inquisitio). In the empire, this complex process was simplified by the lex Iulia iudiciorum publicorum (17 BCE), whereby the would-be prosecutor submitted the charge in a libellus (Paulus Digest 48.2.3 pr.). SEE ALSO: Calumnia; Delatio nominis; Iudicium; Lex Acilia; Libellus; Quaestio perpetua; Reus.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Greenidge, A. H. J. (1901) The legal procedure of Cicero’s time: 456–72. New York. Harries, J. (2007) Law and crime in the Roman world: 18–20. Cambridge. Jones, A. H. M. (1972) The criminal courts of the Roman Republic and principate: 60–66, 110–11. Totowa. Moreau, P. (2000) “Quelques aspects documentaires de l’organisation du proce`s pe´nal re´publicain.” Me´langes de l’Ecole franc¸aise de Rome Antiquite´ 112: 693–721. Santalucia, B. (2009) “Le formalita` introduttive del processo per quaestiones tardorepubblicano.” In B. Santalucia, ed., La repressione criminale nella Roma repubblicana fra norma e persuasione: 93–114. Pavia.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 31–32. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah13002

1

Achaemenid Dynasty DAVID STRONACH

The Achaemenid Persian Dynasty begins, strictly speaking, with the accession of Darius I (r. 522–486 BCE) and ends, nearly two hundred years later, with Alexander of Macedon’s conquest of Iran in 330 (see ALEXANDER III, THE GREAT). It is traditional, however, to refer to Cyrus II (r. 559–530), who descends from a separate royal line, as the founder of the Achaemenid Empire. Accordingly, this entry will not only examine important aspects of the reign of Darius I, as well as key achievements of his successors, but will include essential reference to both Cyrus and his son, Cambyses II (r. 530–522). The word Achaemenid is first encountered in the opening lines of the BISITUN inscription, carved in or near 519, where Darius identifies an eponymous ancestor, Achaemenes, as the founder of his dynastic line. In this text, inscribed in Elamite, Akkadian, and Old Persian, Darius defines his genealogy in the following terms: “My father was Hystaspes; Hystaspes’ father was Arsames; Arsames’ father was Ariaramnes; Ariaramnes’ father was Teispes; and Teispes’ father was Achaemenes.” For this reason, Darius declares, “we are called Achaemenids.” In Darius’ genealogy we find one unexpected name: that of Teispes, whom Cyrus identifies, in another context, as the founder of his dynasty. From this it may be inferred that one of the principal aims of Darius’ stated genealogy was to arrogate to his own lineage the patrilineal forebears of Cyrus. This act of appropriation was subsequently reinforced at PASARGADAI, the unfinished capital of Cyrus, where Darius chose to erect a number of fraudulent first-person inscriptions reading “I, Cyrus, the king, an Achaemenid.” Palpably, this terse wording does not reflect an altruistic wish to honor Cyrus’ memory; instead it may be assumed that the text’s main purpose was to make Cyrus appear to affirm his Achaemenid

identity. If these first-person trilingual inscriptions (written in Old Persian, Elamite, and Akkadian) were indeed erected near 515, as is now commonly supposed, they would stand near the beginning of an interesting evolution in the ways in which Darius chose to treat the memory of his eminent near-predecessor. That is to say that, while Cyrus is not given a title of any kind in the Bisitun text, he is characterized as “king” in the just-mentioned first-person inscription. Then, at a time when the offspring of the marriages that Darius had contracted with the daughters of Cyrus were no doubt starting to lend new legitimacy to Darius’ progeny, Darius elected to erect elegant doorway images of Cyrus in the still unfinished fabric of Palace P at Pasargadai. From the testimony of various details in the rendering of Cyrus’ pleated costume, this initiative can be dated to ca. 510 – a date that must then also be ascribed to the accompanying legend, “Cyrus, the Great King, an Achaemenid,” that originally appeared on each of these once part-gilded reliefs.

CYRUS II (THE GREAT) One reason why Darius may have found it tempting to introduce these specific additions at Pasargadai is because this evocative site was still without any visible inscriptions or indeed any visual representation of its founder at the time of Cyrus’ premature death in 530. The only known record of Cyrus’ extended royal lineage occurs, in fact, in the “Cyrus Cylinder,” a foundation document that was drawn up in BABYLON soon after the city fell to Cyrus’ arms in 539. Amid striking references to the just nature of his rule, Cyrus presents himself as an adherent of MARDUK, the chief god of Babylon (and by the same token he omits any definition of his personal religious convictions). In the text of the Cylinder, which was written in Akkadian, the tribes of Iran are referred to by such locally familiar terms as the GUTI and the UMMAN-MANDA; and, in what could have

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 32–36. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah01001

2 been a further local accommodation, Cyrus describes each of his named forebears – Cambyses (I), Cyrus (I), and Teispes – as a “great king, king of Anshan.” With this title he appears to have evoked the storied (if no longer vibrant) city of Anshan in southwestern Iran, whose name would still have resonated in the historical memory of a Mesopotamian audience. Thus, while Cyrus and his forebears may indeed have called themselves “kings of Anshan,” only the future discovery of authentic inscriptions of Cyrus from within southwestern Iran can be expected to reveal this ruler’s “home titulary” and, hence, his preferred view of his own identity. In general terms, Cyrus’ building program at his capital, Pasargadai, can be said to reflect the milestones of his singular career. Thus, the city’s location, in the present-day Dasht-e Morghab (“the Plain of the Water Bird”) in northern Fars, appears to have been dictated by the fact that this was the scene of his decisive victory over Astyages, the last king of Media, in ca. 550. Subsequently, following an outbreak of hostilities between Cyrus and Croesus of Lydia (see CROESUS), Cyrus advanced westwards and seized the Lydian capital, SARDIS, which probably fell in 547 or not long thereafter. This enabled Cyrus to bring highly skilled planners, architects, and stonemasons back to Iran to begin work on his gleaming, partly stone-built capital. Within this spacious site he experimented with various new forms of columned hall, the two latest examples of which, known as Palace S and Palace P, no doubt helped to inspire the quintessential reception hall of the Achaemenid Empire: namely the APADANA, introduced by Darius. Otherwise Pasargadai is perhaps most notable for Cyrus’ finely preserved, upstanding tomb and for the “Takht,” a monumental stone platform (on which Cyrus may have intended to erect his private palace). Indeed, the latter structure may have been inspired by an important palace-related platform at Lydian Sardis – and it may have given rise to aspects of the design of the great terrace at PERSEPOLIS.

Insofar as Cyrus’ surviving buildings and doorway reliefs do not accord with the “mature” Achaemenid style that first becomes evident during the reign of Darius, the art and architecture of the time of Cyrus is usually said to represent an “archaic” phase of Achaemenid design (although several researchers are beginning to consider a new label referring to the canons of “Teispid art”). It may also be noted that the one intact doorway relief from Gate R at Pasargadai is of distinct historical interest. Based on earlier models of supernatural Neo-Assyrian guardians, it shows a winged figure clad in an Elamite robe and wearing an Egyptian hm-hm crown. Following Cyrus’ capture of Babylon and the submission of all Babylon’s former western territories, this last exotic detail was doubtless meant to reflect the extension of Cyrus’ power throughout the Levant, whether or not it was also meant to signal his intention to add Egypt to his dominions – an ambition that was realized, in 525, by his son and heir, Cambyses II. While all Classical authors follow Herodotus in referring to the madness and impiety of Cambyses during his years in Egypt, important archaeological evidence paints a very different picture. In sharp contrast to the tradition of the murder of the Apis bull by Cambyses (Hdt. 3.29), contemporary inscriptions from Memphis indicate that, when the Apis bull died and was laid to rest in 524, Cambyses was careful to follow – much as his father might have done in like circumstances – the expected, reverent role of an Egyptian monarch (cf. Briant 2002: 57).

DARIUS I (THE GREAT) When news of a rebellion in Persia reached Egypt in the spring of 522 BCE, Cambyses at once took steps to return home. While he was still in Syria, in the course of his homeward march, he is said to have accidentally wounded himself. Gangrene set in (Hdt. 3.66) and, not long thereafter, his relatively brief, somewhat enigmatic reign came to its bizarre end.

3 According to Darius’ version of events, carved into the cliff at Bisitun, the kingship had fallen into the hands of a usurper, Gaumata the Magian (see MAGI, PERSIAN), who claimed to be Cyrus’ second son, Bardiya. In Darius’ own words, “There was not a man, neither Persian nor Mede, nor anyone of our family” who could wrest the kingdom from the imposter. This impasse set the stage for the overthrow of “Gaumata” and, in the view Darius promulgated, the restoration of the Achaemenid Persian line on its time-honored foundations. Perhaps in reality Darius seized the throne in a violent coup that cost Cyrus’ one surviving son his life, and perhaps the widelyheld conviction that this was indeed the case accounts for the scale of unrest that shook even the home provinces of the empire during the first year of the reign of Darius. Nevertheless, the new sovereign quickly displayed unerring strategic instincts that allowed him to overcome all opposition and to embark on a long and productive reign. In keeping, moreover, with Darius’ distinct pride in his Persian identity, his home capital – present-day Persepolis (ancient Parsa) – was erected in the very heart of the Persian homeland. The reign of Darius was characterized by innovation. He introduced the Old Persian cuneiform script, he designed the first Achaemenid coins, and, apart from his vaunted administrative skills, he sponsored a new, evolved style in Achaemenid art and architecture that successfully absorbed and transformed the many separate traits that contributed to its formation. In this latter connection Nylander has remarked that, “most, if not all, Achaemenian works of architecture, sculpture, relief [and] toreutic . . . partake of the same refined aesthetic language, saturated with beauty of line, and a calm, serious dignity not devoid of a subdued emotion”; he goes on to note that “this unity is maintained for almost two centuries, a fact indicating some degree of congruence between the art and the society that created and used it” (Nylander 1970: 17). Noteworthy among the artistic and architectural accomplishments of his reign are

the peaceful scenes of gift-giving that Darius selected for the monumental reliefs that adorn the socle of the Apadana at Persepolis. However, with scant regard for the testimony of Darius’ inscriptions, which draw explicit attention to the feats of “the Persian man,” many modern interpreters of the reliefs have persisted in believing that, while individuals in pleated court dress represent Persians, those in riding dress represent Medes. This unwarranted assumption has been thought to attest the Medes’ superior riding skills (and even a faint possibility that some form of Persian and Median “co-regency” persisted from the time of Darius onwards). Fortunately, however, a long overlooked detail from one of the side panels of Darius’ great funerary relief at nearby Naqsh-e Rustam has revealed the flaws in this line of reasoning. Here Aspathines, one of Darius’ foremost Persian followers, is shown dressed in riding attire beneath an inscription that identifies him by name as the bearer of the king’s battle-axe. It follows that all the leading figures in riding dress at Persepolis, from the “parade-marshal” to the king’s featured weapon-bearer (not to mention the various ushers and assembled nobles who also wear trousers) probably represent highranking Persians in attendance at the royal court. As for the considerations that may have persuaded Darius to represent the Persians in two distinct costumes, it may be suggested that he used these two contrasted forms of “parade dress” at his court to draw attention to his kingdom’s dual inheritance, in which the pleated costume reflected the Achaemenid empire’s southerly, Persian heritage, while the tight-fitting riding dress of the Persians evoked the empire’s equally vital holdings in Iranian and neighboring territories to the north and northeast.

FROM XERXES (R. 486–464) TO DARIUS III (R. 336–330) As the first of Darius’ sons to have been born in the purple, Xerxes proved to be a dutiful

4 successor. Thus, while the best-known event of Xerxes’ reign remains his ill-fated campaign against Greece, he clearly adhered to his father’s veneration of AHURA MAZDA, he completed many of his father’s major building projects, and, following the dizzying pace of conquest under Cyrus and Cambyses, he may be said to have done much to carry through his father’s project of consolidating the far-flung Achaemenid Empire. Indeed, it is not a little remarkable that successive Persian monarchs maintained effective military and administrative control over an area that stretched from the first cataract on the Nile to the banks of the Jaxartes in the far northeast for the better part of 200 years. During this time there is no proof that the worship of Ahuramazda was forcefully imposed on any territories within the bounds of Achaemenid control. In addition, Cyrus’ well-attested respect for local beliefs and traditions appears to have served, by and large, as a model for later kings. Xerxes’ son and successor Artaxerxes I (r. 464–425) is unanimously hailed in classical sources as a capable monarch. Apart from overcoming a serious challenge to Persian rule in Egypt, he completed the greater part of the major building program at Persepolis, and, in 449/448, he apparently approved the “Peace of Callias” with the Athenians. A severe crisis arose early in the reign of Artaxerxes II (r. 404–359), the grandson of Artaxerxes I, when his elevation to the throne came to be contested by his brother, Cyrus the Younger (d. 401). When the armies of the two siblings met at the battle of CUNAXA, not far from Babylon, the issue could well have gone either way. However, Cyrus’ decision to lead a direct attack on the position occupied by his brother proved, by a narrow margin, to be a fatal miscalculation. It was an event that obliged Cyrus’ stranded ten thousand Greek mercenary troops to undertake their epic five-month retreat to Greece, a march immortalized in Xenophon’s Anabasis (see XENOPHON). With regard to his building activities, Artaxerxes II is known especially for a number of initiatives at SUSA. There he laid out an entirely

new palace on the right bank of the Shaur River, and, in what was almost certainly intended as a timely gesture to refurbish one of the more vivid symbols of the enduring repute of his great-great-grandfather, Darius I, he took steps to restore the famed apadana at Susa, which had long stood unused following a fire in the mid-fifth century. Artaxerxes III (r. 359–338) was able to demonstrate something of the still considerable resilience of the Achaemenid empire by restoring Persian authority over Egypt after an interval of nearly sixty years. Other threats loomed. In particular, the almost unchallenged progress of the Ten Thousand through the very heart of the dominions of the Great King can hardly have done anything but provoke, among Greeks, visions of extended conquest far to the east. In keeping with such inviting horizons, Alexander of Macedon crossed the Hellespont in 334. His further progress, punctuated by comprehensive victories at the battles of ISSOS (333) and GAUGAMELA (331), brought him, late in 331, to the gates of Babylon, Susa, and, not least, Persepolis. The subsequent, infamous fire that engulfed most of the major buildings on the terrace at Persepolis in May of 330 may well serve as an incontestable mark of the demise of Achaemenid power, even if the final days of Darius III (r. 336–330), the last of the Achaemenids, only ended, not long afterwards, on a distant road to the east where the unfortunate king was fatally wounded at the instigation of the satrap, BESSOS. SEE ALSO: Medes, Media; Persian, Persians; Zoroastrianism.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Briant, P. (2002) From Cyrus to Alexander: A history of the Persian Empire, trans. P. T. Daniels. Winona Lake, IN. Kent, R. G. (1953) Old Persian: Grammar, texts, lexicon, 2nd ed. New Haven. Kuhrt, A. (2007) The Persian Empire: A corpus of sources from the Achaemenid Period, 2 vols. London.

5 Nylander, C. (1970) Ionians in Pasargadae: Studies in Old Persian architecture. Uppsala. Potts, D. T. (2005) “Cyrus the Great and the Kingdom of Ansˇan.” In V. S. Curtis and S. Stewart, eds., Birth of the Persian Empire: 7–28. London. Stronach, D. (1978) Pasargadae. Oxford. Stronach, D. (1997) “Anshan and Parsa: Early Achaemenid history, art and architecture on the

Iranian Plateau.” In J. Curtis, ed., Mesopotamia and Iran in the Persian Period: Conquest and imperialism 539–331 BC: 35–53. London. Stronach, D. (2011) “Court dress and riding dress at Persepolis: New approaches to old questions.” In J. Alvarez-Mon and M. B. Garrison, eds., Elam and Persia: 475–87. Winona Lake, IN. Waters, M. (2004) “Cyrus and the Achaemenids.” Iran 42: 91–102.

1

Achaia YVES LAFOND

The historical region of Achaia covered the northern coast of the PELOPONNESE and can be divided into three large and geographically distinct areas: the central area, dominated by the Panachaikon massif, which acts as a natural border between east and west; the mountain ranges of Erymanthos and of Aroania to the south; and the Gulf of Corinth to the north (see CORINTHIAN GULF). Mighty limestone rises extend northward from the mountains to the sea and create a number of small, almost entirely separate, coastal plains. The ACHAIANS arrived here, probably in connection with the so-called Doric migration, and took over the whole of the region, where they settled, according to ancient literary sources (Hdt. 1.145; Strabo 8.7.4; Paus. 7.6.1), in twelve parts (me´rea, me´re¯): Pellene, Aigeira, Aigai, Bura, Helice, Aigion, Rhypes, Patrai, Pharai, Olenus, Dyme, and Triteia. Due to various reversals, which are reflected by other authors, and to the lack of epigraphic evidence, the history of Achaian political organization and territorial construction in Archaic and Classical times becomes mostly a study of the way in which Achaian historical and ethnic consciousness expresses itself in later periods. At the beginning of the history of Achaia, between 720 and 670 BCE, colonists were sent to the region around the Gulf of Tarentum with Metapontium, Sybaris, Croton, and Caulonia. Although Aigai (minting authority 500–370) and Pellene (FGrH 105 fr. 2) at times occupied a special position, Achaia formed an ethnically based, integrated, political whole, with the sanctuary of Zeus Hamarios or Amarios as its cultural center. Achaia was not involved in the Persian War and initially did not join the PELOPONNESIAN LEAGUE. The old ACHAIAN LEAGUE had reached its heyday at a time when Achaia was closely allied with SPARTA. From 360 to 320,

confederate coins were minted in Achaia, thus proving that, in line with Aitolia at that time, it had adopted the characteristics of a KOINON. Achaia’s history as a Hellenistic koinon began anew in 281/280, with the amalgamation of the western cities of Triteia, Dyme, Pharai, and Patrai under the leadership of the last (Pol. 2.41). Achaia’s rise to supremacy within Greece was the consequence of its closer links with Rome from 198 onward, but was based, however, on a complete misjudgment as to the leeway that Rome would tolerate. The capture of CORINTH by L. Mummius in 146 (see MUMMIUS, LUCIUS), and the subsequent punishment of Rome’s enemies, spelled the end of the confederacy which lived on only as a purely sacral koinon. In 67 BCE, on the orders of Pompey, Dyme became a settlement for Cilician pirates and, in 27 BCE, a colonia Iulia Augusta. In 14 BCE, Patrai became a Roman colonia, its territory enlarged by the coastline opposite, including also the territories of Dyme, Rhypes, Pharai, and Triteia. Achaia was put under the administration of the provincial governor of Macedonia. Achaian prosperity in the imperial period is shown by small coastal settlements in the eastern part, villae rusticae in the western part of Dyme, and also near Aigion and Aigeira. SEE ALSO:

Achaian War.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Lafond, Y. (1993–4) “Espace et peuplement dans l’Achaı¨e antique.” Studi Urbinati di Storia, Filologia e Lettere 66: 219–63. Morgan, C. and Hall, J. M. (2004) “Achaia.” In M. H. Hansen and T. H. Nielsen, eds., An inventory of Archaic and Classical poleis: 472–88. Oxford. Rizakis, A. D. (1995) Achaı¨e I: sources textuelles et histoire re´gionale. Athens. Rizakis, A. D. (1998) Achaı¨e II: la cite´ de Patras: e´pigraphie et histoire. Athens.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 36–37. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah14005

1

Achaia Phthiotis RYAN BOEHM

Achaia Phthiotis is the name of one of the perioikic regions of Thessaly, distinct from the Thessalian tetras (district) of Phthiotis. Achaia Phthiotis encompassed the Othrys mountains, the Almiro´s (Krokian) and Sou´rpi plains, and extended north to Pelasgiotis, west to Phthiotis and Thessaliotis, and east to the Pagasitic gulf. In the Homeric tradition, the ACHAIANS were ruled by ACHILLES, listed alongside the Myrmidons and Hellenes (Hom. Il. 2.684), and in myth held a much wider territory. Achaia Phthiotis was politically dependent on THESSALY by the end of the sixth century BCE, and required to provide tribute and military service to the Thessalian League (Arist. Pol. 1269b6; Thuc. 8.3.1; Xen. Hell. 6.1.9–19). However, the Achaians remained a distinct political community and sent representatives to the Delphic Amphictyony (Harpokrates s.v. Amphiktyones; Pausanias 10.8.2), were listed separately in Herodotus’ list of Persian sympathizers (7.132.1), struck their own coinage, and independently gave money and hostages to SPARTA in 413/12 (Thuc. 8.3.1). Following the defeat of ALEXANDER OF PHERAI, Achaia Phthiotis was handed over to the BOIOTIAN LEAGUE (Diod. Sic. 15.80.6). In 346, PHILIP II OF MACEDON destroyed the Achaian polis Halos (see HALOS IN THESSALY), handing its territory over to Pharsalos,

and in 342 gave Echinos to MALIS. The poleis of Achaia Phthiotis, with the exception of Phthiotic Thebes, supported the alliance against Macedonia during the LAMIAN WAR (Diod. Sic. 18.11.1). Halos was rebuilt on a new site, probably by DEMETRIOS I POLIORKETES ca. 302, when an ACHAIAN LEAGUE was probably established, as coins bearing the monogram ΑΧ suggest. In the third century, Achaia Phthiotis joined the AITOLIAN LEAGUE, and inscriptions attest to Achaians calling themselves Aitolians (e.g., Syll.3 444.10). In 196, Achaia Phthiotis was declared free and autonomous by Rome (Polybius 18.46), became part of the Thessalian League, and Achaians begin referring to themselves as Thessalians in inscriptions (e.g., IG IX 2.89a14). SEE ALSO:

Koinon; Perioikoi.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Bernert, E. (1941) RE 20: 955–8, s.v. Phthiotis. Helly, B. (1995) L’E´tat thessalien: Aleuas le Roux, les te´trades et le “Tagoi.” Lyon. Reinders, H. (1988) New Halos: a Hellenistic town in Thessalia, Greece. Utrecht. Reinders, H., ed. (2004) Prehistoric sites at the Almiro´s and Sou´rpi Plains. Assen. Sprawski, S. (1999) Jason of Pherai. Krakow. Sta¨hlin, F. (1924) Das hellenische Thessalien. Stuttgart. Westlake, H. (1935) Thessaly in the fourth century B.C. London.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 37–38. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah14004

1

Achaian League JAMES ROY

The Achaian League was an important federal state in southern Greece in the third and the first half of the second century BCE. In the classical period the Achaian cities on the south shore of the Gulf of Corinth (see CORINTHIAN GULF) united in a federal state (KOINON). As with such federal states generally in classical Greece, membership was based on the ethnos (the common identity of the Achaians), but the koinon also took in the non-Achaian communities Kalydon and NAUPAKTOS on the north side of the Gulf. This koinon broke up for unknown reasons sometime after 324. Then in 281/0, Tritaia, DYME, Pharai, and PATRAI in western ACHAIA formed a new koinon, commonly known as the Achaian League. The other Achaian cities joined the reestablished koinon in the 270s, but the league became important in interstate politics when, in 251, the non-Achaian city SIKYON entered it. The koinon then continued to recruit members from outside Achaia until, at its height in the second century BCE, it included the whole PELOPONNESE. It thus became, like the AITOLIAN LEAGUE (which expanded outside Aitolia), much stronger than any previous Greek federal state. Our evidence for the Achaian League comes above all from literature, especially from the historian POLYBIUS, himself an Achaian politician: there are relatively few inscriptions, though some are important, and interesting coins (see Warren 2007; Benner 2008), especially those of the second century BCE. The members of the koinon were individual city-states, which retained some independence (e.g., each had its own law code); Polybius (2.37–8) exaggerates uniformity within the koinon. Some cities were more influential than others; an inscription from the end of the third century BCE listing Achaian nomographoi (legislative officials) shows some bigger cities with three representatives, others with two, and the smallest with one; and a newly discovered

inscription of 191–182 (Rizakis 2008: no. 116) shows the same system, though with a different distribution of membership. Furthermore, some cities provided more leading statesmen than others, notably “old Achaia” (Tritaia, Dyme, Pharai, and Patrai), Sikyon, and MEGALOPOLIS (O’Neil 1984–6). From 255 on the koinon had a single leading official (strategos): the office could not be held in successive years, but some outstanding figures held it numerous times, especially Aratos (see ARATOS OF SIKYON) and PHILOPOIMEN. Besides its officials, the koinon had a federal council and a federal citizen assembly: there has been great debate, still unresolved, to decide how democratic the assembly was, though it is clear that the leading roles in the koinon’s politics were played by wealthy men like Aratos, Philopoimen, and Polybius. The member-states provided troops for the federal army. The sanctuary of Zeus Homarios at Aigion in Achaia was important to the koinon, and meetings of the federal assembly were held there until in 189/8 it was decided to hold them in member-cities; we hear of meetings in various of the larger cities, where there would be adequate facilities, though it is not clear how meeting places were chosen. In the third century and in the first half of the second, interstate politics in the Peloponnese were complex and dangerous, with several major powers taking an interest: besides the Achaians themselves, both the Aitolian League and SPARTA, particularly under Kleomenes III (235–222) and Nabis (207–192), played a major part (see KLEOMENES III OF SPARTA; NABIS OF SPARTA). The Antigonid Dynasty in Macedon (see ANTIGONIDS) and the Ptolemies in Egypt were also heavily involved. The Achaian League could not match the power of the major kingdoms, but its size and resources gave it political and military significance. In 243, in a surprise attack, Aratos seized the citadel of ACROCORINTH, which had been garrisoned by the Antigonids, and brought CORINTH into the koinon. This weakened Macedonian influence in the Peloponnese

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 38–40. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah09002

2 and allowed the koinon to recruit numerous new members, although in doing so compromises were reached with tyrants like Lydiadas of Megalopolis and Aristomachos of Argos, who laid down their tyrannies and took their cities into the koinon (Aristomachos subsequently broke away again and joined Kleomenes against the Achaians). However, by the mid-220s, the threat from Kleomenes led Aratos to negotiate with ANTIGONOS III DOSON, who campaigned in the Peloponnese from 224 and, together with the Achaians, defeated Kleomenes at Sellasia in 222 (see SELLASIA, BATTLE OF). The price of Antigonid support was the return of Acrocorinth to Antigonid control. The Achaians maintained their alliance with Macedon throughout Rome’s first war against Macedon (212–205); during that conflict Philopoimen was Achaian strategos for the first time (208/7) and rose to prominence. In Rome’s Second Macedonian War (200–196), the Achaians finally decided in 198, despite bitter internal disagreements, to break with Macedon and ally with Rome; they were also worried by Nabis of Sparta. Rome’s decisive victory over Macedon made it the strongest power in Greece, and for the following half-century the Achaians had to decide how independent they could allow themselves to be of Rome’s wishes. While Rome was engaged in war with the Seleucid Antiochos III (192–188) (see ANTIOCHOS III MEGAS), the Achaians succeeded in bringing ELIS, Messenia, and Sparta into the koinon, though at the cost of Roman displeasure, and also with continuing disputes within the koinon over Messenia and Sparta. Roman success against Antiochos left Rome even more powerful in the eastern Mediterranean and eliminated from interstate politics the Aitolians, who had backed Antiochos. Although the Achaians maintained diplomatic

contact with, for instance, the Attalids of PERGAMON, relations with Rome were now the major issue in Achaian politics. After the Third Macedonian War (171–167) Roman distrust of those in Achaia less favorable to Rome led to the capture of 1,000 Achaian hostages (including Polybius), who were taken to Italy. Finally in 146, in circumstances that are unclear, war broke out between Rome and the koinon: Rome’s victory led to the break-up of the koinon and the destruction of Corinth. A smaller version of the Achaian League was subsequently reconstituted and continued for centuries, but was never a major political force. SEE ALSO:

Ethnos; Macedonian wars; Strategoi.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Beck, H. (1997) Polis und Koinon. Stuttgart. Benner, S. M. (2008) Achaian League coinage of the 3rd through 1st centuries BCE. Lancaster, PA. Corsten, T. (1999) Vom Stamm zum Bund. Munich. Larsen, J. A. O. (1968) Greek federal states: their institutions and history. Oxford. O’Neil, J. L. (1984–6) “The political elites of the Achaian and Aitolian Leagues.” Ancient Society 15–17: 33–61. Rizakis, A. D. (2008) Achaie III. Les Cite´s ache´ennes: e´pigraphie et histoire. Athens. Roy, J. (2003) “The Achaian League.” In K. Buraselis and K. Zoumboulakis, eds., The idea of European community in history, vol. 2: Aspects of connecting poleis and ethne in ancient Greece: 81–95. Athens. Walbank, F. W. (2000) “Hellenes and Achaians: ‘Greek nationality’ revisited.” In P. FlenstedJensen, ed., Further studies in the ancient Greek polis: 19–33. Stuttgart. Warren, J. A. W. (2007) The bronze coinage of the Achaian Koinon: the currency of a federal ideal. London.

1

Achaian War ELIZABETH KOSMETATOU

The Achaian War (146 BCE) was a conflict between Rome and the ACHAIAN LEAGUE which culminated in the sack of CORINTH by the army of the consul Lucius Mummius (Polyb. 38.9–18; 39.2–6; Paus. 7.9–16). It is often seen as marking the end of Greek independence. After the Battle of Pydna in 168 (see PYDNA, BATTLE OF) that led to the dissolution of the Macedonian kingdom and the suppression of the pretender ANDRISKOS in 148, Rome had become the ultimate authority in Greece. The origins of the clash between the Achaian League, which had previously been a loyal Roman ally, and its masters are still debated, but social pressures, a presumed strong antiRoman sentiment in Greece, rivalry, even Roman provocation, have all been cited as factors. Achaian–Roman relations, however, were already strained in the 160s and 150s due to internal conflicts within the league, especially attempted secessions by some of its members that were backed by Rome, repeated Roman refusals to allow the return of the Achaians who had been deported to Italy after Pydna, and the arbitrary exercise of senatorial power. A renewed Spartan wish to secede in 150–149 triggered a chain-reaction: Achaian leaders miscalculated their ability to settle the Spartan problem by themselves and ignored the advice of the propraetor Caecilius Metellus to consult the Roman embassy led by L. Aurelius Orestes. In 147 Orestes conveyed the Roman Senate’s message that Sparta,

Corinth, Argos, Herakleia, and Orchomenos could leave the Achaian League. The Achaians, led by Kritolaos (see KRITOLAOS, ACHAIAN) and Diaios, defied Roman orders, believing that reaction was unlikely during the Roman campaigns in Spain and Africa. Moreover, in recent years the Roman Senate had been preoccupied with Macedonia but not with the Peloponnese. The Achaians therefore declared war on Sparta and found themselves at war with Rome instead. The league army moved against Herakleia and was defeated easily by Metellus. Further Achaian defeats culminated in the sack and total destruction of Corinth in 146 by L. Mummius (Paus. 7.16–17). While Roman imperium in mainland Greece was now undisputed and the Achaian League was dissolved, the region did not immediately become a Roman province as was previously thought. SEE ALSO:

Mummius, Lucius; Sparta.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Fuks, A. (1970) “The Bellum Achaicum and its social aspect.” Journal of Hellenic Studies 90: 78–89. Gruen, E. (1976) “The origins of the Achaean War.” Journal of Hellenic Studies 96: 46–69. Kallet-Marx, R. (1995) Hegemony to Empire. The development of the Roman imperium in the east from 148 to 62 BC: 42–96. Berkeley. McGing, B. (2003) “Subjection and resistance: to the death of Mithradates.” In A. Erskine, ed., Blackwell’s Companion to the Hellenistic World: 73–84. Oxford.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print page 40. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah09003

1

Achaians BIRGITTA EDER

The name of the Achaians appears to refer to the population of the region ACHAIA from Archaic times onwards, when we can trace the development of a regional identity in the northwestern Peloponnese (Morgan 2002; see ACHAIAN LEAGUE). Achaians from Achaia figure in the settlement of southern Italy in the late eighth and seventh centuries BCE in the course of the so-called Greek Colonization (see COLONIZATION, GREEK). In HOMER, however, the name is never used to describe a local ethnic group but is applied to the collective of Greek forces fighting in the mythical Trojan War under the leadership of AGAMEMNON (see TROY). Less frequently, the Achaians are called alternatively Danaans or Argives, but never HELLENES (the Greek self-description from Archaic times onwards). The name of the Achaians thus carries the weight of (mythical) history and the sense of being ancient and indigenous. These Homeric Achaians have been seen as related to a land called AHHIYAWA, which figures in documents of the Hittite Empire of the fourteenth and thirteenth centuries BCE as neighbor in a variable relationship. Here the king of Ahhiyawa is at least once addressed as co-equal to the Hittite king, and appears as partner and sometimes as enemy. The identification of this country with the contemporary

Mycenaean (Late Bronze Age) Greek mainland (or parts of it) is a matter of dispute, but it is presently favored by the majority of scholars (Heinhold-Krahmer 2007; Niemeier 2007: 68–73). The name of the Homeric Achaians may hence possibly derive from an ethnic group of Late Bronze Age Greece. SEE ALSO: Colonization, Greek; Hittite, Hittites; Troy.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Heinhold-Krahmer, S. (2007) “Zu diplomatischen Kontakten zwischen dem Hethiterreich und dem Land Ahhiyawa.” In E. Alram-Stern and G. Nightingale, eds., Keimelion. Elitenbildung und elita¨rer Konsum von der mykenischen Palastzeit bis zur homerischen Epoche, Akten des internationalen Kongresses vom 3. bis 5. Februar 2005 in Salzburg: 191–207. Vienna. Morgan, C. (2002) “Ethnicity: the example of Achaia.” In E. Greco, ed., Gli Achei e l’ identita` etnica degli Achei d’occidente, Atti del Convegno Internazionale di Studi, Paestum, 23–25 febbraio 2001: 96–116. Paestum-Athens. ¨ ga¨is Niemeier, W.-D. (2007) “Westkleinasien und A von den Anfa¨ngen bis zur Ionischen Wanderung: Topographie, Geschichte und Beziehungen nach dem archa¨ologischen Befund und den hethitischen Quellen.” In J. Cobet, V. von Graeve, W. D. Niemeier, and K. Zimmermann, eds., Fru¨hes Ionien: eine Bestandsaufnahme, PanionionSymposion Gu¨zelc¸amli, 26. September – 1. Oktober 1999: 37–96. Mainz am Rhein.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print page 41. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah02002

1

Achaios ROLF STROOTMAN

Achaios, the son of Andromachos, was a kinsman and general of SELEUKOS III KERAUNOS and ANTIOCHOS III MEGAS. He is best known for his rebellion against Antiochos III, which allowed him to become king of a short-lived empire in Asia Minor in the late third century BCE. The history of Achaios is relatively wellknown through the work of POLYBIUS (in Books 4, 5 and 8). Achaios accompanied Seleukos III in his campaign in Asia Minor in 223. When the king was assassinated, Achaios executed the murderers and took command of part of the royal army to continue the war against ATTALOS I of Pergamon. Despite the army’s encouragement to become king, he decided to accept Seleukos’ succession by the king’s younger son, Antiochos III, who made him viceroy of Asia Minor. Achaios defeated Attalos and recovered most of Seleucid Anatolia. Elated by his success, Achaios proclaimed himself king in 221/0; this move was legitimized by his victory over Attalos and his family’s connection with the Seleucid house. His coins stress his prestige as a Seleucid, showing, for example, Apollo, Apollo’s tripod, and a horse on the reverse. He made an alliance with the Ptolemies and began building up a small empire based on Lydia, creating “the most imposing and formidable of all the kingdoms and principalities of Asia Minor at that time” (Polyb. 4.48.12). When he advanced to Syria to claim the Seleucid throne, however, his Macedonian troops mutinied and refused to march against the legitimate king, Antiochos,

whose vassal Achaios still formally was. He retreated to southern Pisidia. While Antiochos III and Ptolemy IV fought the Fourth Syrian War (219–217) (see SYRIAN WARS), Achaios continued his pursuit of an Anatolian empire by subjugating (parts of) Pisidia, Pamphylia, Lydia, Ionia, and the Troad – this time also at the expense of the Ptolemaic king. However, several Seleucid garrison cities along the Royal Road presumably remained loyal to Antiochos (Kosmetatou 1997: 23–4). A coalition of Pergamon and Bithynia against him (218) remained unsuccessful until Antiochos made peace with Ptolemy and in 216 crossed the Taurus Mountains with his army and joined forces with Attalos. Surrounded by enemies, and confronted with the full force of the Seleucid imperial army and the charisma of the rightful king, Achaios fled to the citadel of SARDIS, where he was kept under siege until he was betrayed and captured in 213. Convicted of treason by the royal council, Achaios was executed and underwent a damnatio memoriae marked by the ritual mutilation of his body. SEE ALSO:

Seleucids.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Grainger, J. D. (1997) A Seleukid prosopography and gazetteer: 5. Leiden. Kosmetatou, E. (1997) “Pisidia and the Hellenistic kings from 323 to 133 BC.” Ancient Society 28: 5–37. Ma, J. (2002) Antiochos III and the cities of western Asia Minor, new edition. Oxford. Schmitt, H. H. (1964) Untersuchungen zur Geschichte Antiochos’ des Großen und seiner Zeit: 30–1, 158–74. Stuttgart.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 41–42. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah09004

1

Acharnai CLAIRE TAYLOR

Acharnai (Menidi/Acharnes) was, during the Classical period, the largest deme in Attica (contributing twenty-two councilors to the BOULE; this was increased to twenty-five in the reorganization of 307/6). It was a strategic point within Attica, controlling access to the roads leading to ATHENS, Thria, Dekeleia, and Phyle, which presumably explains in part why ARCHIDAMOS camped here in 431/0 (Thuc. 2.20–3). For this reason it also became by the end of the fourth century an important ephebic center, and the ephebic oath was set up here on a stele that also recorded the oath taken at PLATAIA in 479 (SEG 21.519). As a deme Acharnai appears to have had its own distinct character: literary sources in the Classical period describe the Acharnians as successful in athletic contests and bellicose, but also imply that they are formidable rural farmers, even comparing them with donkeys (Pind. Nem. 2.16; Thuc. 2.21; Ar. Ach. 994–9, 609, Ar. Lys. 61–3). The area also seems to have been well known for charcoal production (Ar. Ach. 212–14, 331–5), but Acharnians are found as carpenters, architects, mine operators, bankers, and owners of slaves who work as shield-makers, wool-workers, traders, cobblers, farmers, and carriers (IG I3 475; SEG 21.121; Dem. 36.4; IG II2 1554–9). Viticulture was also an important part of the local economy (Ar. Ach. 512). Inhabitation in the area can be traced back to the Mycenaean period, as is demonstrated by the tholos tomb and nearby settlement. Rescue excavations since the 1980s have uncovered classical houses, a large cemetery

dating from the early seventh century to the third century CE, a fourth-century theater (only previously attested epigraphically), and a subterranean aqueduct (third quarter of the fourth century). There is little Hellenistic material (e.g., a roadside sanctuary with a Hellenistic building phase), but the Roman remains include an early Roman workshop, a bath-house, and a late Roman (fourth/fifth century CE) farm complex. Acharnai had a rich cultic history. PAUSANIAS (1.31.6) mentions cults of Apollo Agyieus, Athena Hygeia, Athena Hippias, Dionysos Melpomenos, and Dionysos Kissos, but there was also a fourth-century altar (no temple has been found) to Athena Areia and ARES (SEG 21.519), a sanctuary of HERAKLES (HERCULES) (BCH 1960: 655–8), and evidence for HERO CULT at the Mycenaean tholos tomb from the late eighth century BCE onwards. The deme celebrated the Rural DIONYSIA at the end of the fourth century (SEG 43.26), and made dedications to the emperor Augustus together with Ares in the first century CE (IG II2 2953). SEE ALSO: Demes, Attic; Eleusis, Attica; Local histories; Menidi in Attica; Thorikos.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Jones, N. (2004) Rural Athens under the democracy. Philadelphia. Mersch, A. (1996) Studien zur Siedlungsgeschichte Attikas von 950 bis 400 v. Chr. Frankfurt. Platonos-Giota, M. (2004). Αwarnaί: istοrikή kai tοpοgrajikή episkόpZsZ ton arwaίon Αwarnώn, ton geitοnikώn dήmon kai ton οwurώseon tZς PάrnZyaς. Athens. Whitehead, D. (1986) The demes of Attica, 508/7–ca. 250 BC. Princeton.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 42–43. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah14006

1

Achilles MARIA MILI

Achilles, son of THETIS and Peleus, was the mightiest hero of the Trojan War. His kingdom included Phthia, Hellas, and Pelasgian Argos in Thessaly, and he ruled over the Myrmidons, Hellenes, and Achaians (Hom. Il. 2.681). As a young boy he was educated by the centaur Chiron (Hes. Fr. 204.87–9 M-W; Pind. Nem. 3. 43), or by Phoenix (Hom. Il. 9.440). His close relationship with Patroklos was proverbial (Pl. Symp. 179e). He also had several other romantic relationships: with Troilos (Schol. Lycoph. Alex. 307), perhaps Antilochos (Hom. Od. 24.78), Medea (Ibycus fr. 10 Page), Helen (Cypria, Proklos; Paus. 3.19.13), and Penthesileia (Aithiopis, Proklos); while by Deidameia, the daughter of Lykomedes, king of Skyros, he begat Neoptolemos. According to one tradition, Thetis had hidden him on Skyros, dressed as a girl, in order to prevent him from going to TROY and a predestined early death (Paus. 1.22.6). Other stories told how Peleus stopped his wife from dipping young Achilles in a cauldron of water, or in a fire, hoping to make him immortal (Hes. Fr. 300 M-W; Ap. Rhod. Argon. 4. 869). The tradition that had only his ankle being vulnerable is explicitly stated only in Roman sources, but some believe that it may go back to earlier times (Burgess 2009). It was with the complicity of Apollo that Paris finally managed to kill Achilles (Hom. Il. 22.358; Pind. Pae. 6.78). The theme of the enmity between Apollo and Achilles can also be traced in the stories concerning Achilles slaying Troilos (Schol. Lycoph. Alex. 307) or Tennes (Plut. Mor. 297d–f) in the sanctuaries of the god. Achilles was buried at Troy (Hom. Od. 24. 45). Although in the Odyssey he has a shabby existence in Hades, another popular tradition told how Thetis transferred his dead body to the island of Leuke, and that he was finally made immortal (Aithiopis, Proklos). Achilles was widely worshipped from the sixth century BCE onwards in the area of the

BLACK SEA at Berezan, Beikush, and mostly on the island of Zmeinyj, which was identified with Leuke. By Roman times his important Olbian civic cult as Pontarches focused on Berezan. But the city of Olbia seems also to have been involved earlier in the important cult at Zmeinyj. His worshippers were mainly Greek settlers, but he also appealed to native locals and travelers from all over the Greek world. Protection over sea travel was one of his main functions (Hupe 2006). By the time of Herodotus (5.94; 7.43; see also Strabo 13.1.39), a tumulus in the Hellespont may have been identified with the grave of Achilles. It was visited by Alexander the Great (Diod. Sic. 17.17.3), but it is from Philostratus (Heroic. 53.8) that we first hear about regular worship there by the Thessalians, supposedly from ancient times. Greeks regarded Achilles as a prototype of athletic and military valor (cf. Pindar’s Epinicians and the “New Simonides”), and his myths were popular in art, particularly in Attic pottery. He may have been worshipped widely, but his cults, at Sparta (Paus. 3.20.8; 3.24.5), Elis (Paus. 6.23.3), Kroton (Schol. Lycoph. Alex. 857), Taras ((Arist.) Mir. Ausc. 840a), Tanagra (Plut. Mor. 299c), Epirus (Plut. Pyrrh. 1.2), and Erythrai (IErythrai II. 201), are mostly known from late sources. However, sixth century BCE evidence has now been found on Thera (SEG 51, 1031–46).

SEE ALSO:

Hero cult; Homer.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Boedeker, D. and Sider, D., eds. (2001) The new Simonides. Contexts of praise and desire. Oxford. Burgess, J. S. (2009) The death and afterlife of Achilles. Baltimore. Hupe, J., ed. (2006) Der Achilleus-Kult im no¨rdlichen Schwarzmeerraum vom Beginn der griechischen Kolonisation bis in die ro¨mische Kaiserzeit. Rahden. Nagy, G. (1979) The best of the Achaeans. Concepts of the hero in Archaic Greek poetry. London.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 43–44. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah17003

1

Achilles Tatius REGINE MAY

Achilles Tatius of Alexandria (late second century CE) wrote the extant novel Leukippe and Kleitophon (eight books) and perhaps treatises on the sphere of heaven (fragments survive in a commentary on Aratos’ Phaenomena), etymology, and a miscellaneous history of illustrious men (both no longer extant). The Suda’s information (where he is called Achilles Statius) that he converted to Christianity and became a bishop is probably fictitious (see HELIODORUS), but the idea was later extended to the novel’s protagonists (Patrologia Graeca 116.94). The racy novel narrates the adventures in love of the cousins Leukippe and Kleitophon, two beautiful young Phoenicians, portrayed as Greeks in language, education, and character. Typical of the genre are the initial separation of the couple and their travels through the Mediterranean. Divine apparitions in dreams (e.g., of ARTEMIS) direct and foreshadow the action. The novel, however, toys knowingly with the conventions of the genre: only Kleitophon falls in love at first sight, Leukippe after some courtship; her continued virginity is accidental, since the couple’s attempts at love-making are interrupted only just in time by her mother; Leukippe at first does not value her chastity as highly as other novel heroines, although she defends it spiritedly after Artemis’ intervention, and it becomes a major issue in the novel’s last two books. Kleitophon has sexual experiences with prostitutes before the events of the novel; during it, he has sex with Melite, a sympathetically portrayed love rival, as a therapeutic measure against her love sickness, although at that point of the story both know that her husband and Leukippe are alive when previously both had been thought dead. Both Melite and Leukippe pass farcical chastity tests (Melite on a technicality). Kleitophon also avoids telling the complete truth about his relationship with Melite.

Unusually, the story is told to a stranger by its protagonist Kleitophon as his autobiography; the stranger is the actual narrator, although neither frame is picked up at the end, leaving the ultimate fate of the couple uncertain. This focalization through Kleitophon as the narrator allows for scenes with limited viewpoints to enhance the suspense; for example, Leukippe’s two staged “false deaths,” which utilize special effects from contemporary drama and are only later explained by Kleitophon. The characterization is often stereotypical (with some notable exceptions; e.g., the amorous yet sympathetically drawn Ephesian widow Melite), although the heroine is more resourceful and active than the hero. The language varies between plain and rhetorical Atticistic Greek and a playful, poeticmanneristic Second Sophistic style. Style and content function to display the author’s learning. Digressions and ekphraseis (ranging from art and animals, such as the phoenix, hippopotamus, and crocodile, to the panpipe) are skillfully woven into the novel’s texture, and function both as ornament and as prolepseis of the plot. Expositions of the nature and power of emotions in philosophical language are frequent, but the narrator keeps a mischievous and humorously distant point of view, playing intertextually with PLATO; for example, Phaedrus and Symposium (e.g., discussion of hetero- vs. homosexuality; pastiches of Platonic mythos). SEE ALSO: Alexandria (Egypt); Chariton; Greekness; Longus.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Bartsch, S. (1989) Decoding the ancient novel: the reader and the role of description in Heliodorus and Achilles Tatius. Princeton. Morales, H. (2005) Vision and narrative in Achilles Tatius’ Leucippe and Clitophon. Cambridge. Plepelits, K. (1996) “Achilles Tatius.” In G. Schmeling, ed., The novel in the ancient world: 387–416. Leiden. Whitmarsh, T. and Morales, H. (2001) Achilles Tatius, Leucippe and Clitophon, trans. T. Whitmarsh. Oxford.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 44–45. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah10002

1

Acilius Glabrio, Manius ELIZABETH KOSMETATOU

M. Acilius Glabrio was a general and statesman of the Roman Republic. He was a plebeian, a homo novus (Livy 35.57.10–12), and a prote´ge´ of SCIPIO AFRICANUS, the continuation of whose command in Africa he supported in his capacity as tribune of the plebs in Rome in 201. He thereafter rose in power, becoming one of the decemviri sacrorum in 200, aedilis in 197, while as praetor he suppressed a slave rebellion in Etruria in 196 (Livy 33.36.1–3). Glabrio was elected consul alongside P. Scipio Nasica in 191 and, despite his relatively limited military experience, was given command of the east during the Antiochene War in Greece (Livy 36.1.5–36.2.1). The same year, he defeated ANTIOCHOS III MEGAS’s troops at Thermopylai and engaged in rigorous diplomatic and further military activities for which he made liberal use of T. Quinctius Flamininus’ advice (Livy 36.34.6–36.35.2; Plut. Flam. 15.4–16.2). As punishment for their support of Antiochos III, Glabrio fought the Aitolians, besieged Amphissa and Naupaktos, and “liberated” DELPHI from the control of the AITOLIAN LEAGUE. He also reproached the Boiotians for honoring Antiochos III with a statue, a sign of lack of gratitude for Rome’s beneficia (Livy 36.20.4; cf. 36.22.2). Like Flamininus, Glabrio opposed the expansionism of the ACHAIAN LEAGUE and attended negotiations that secured the Roman acquisition of the island of Zakynthos, but dealt unsuccessfully with the return of Spartan exiles to their native city after their expulsion by NABIS (Livy 33.16–17; 36.35.7; Plut. Phil. 17.4). Glabrio cultivated the image of liberator of the Greeks, a long-standing slogan Roman leaders had inherited from the Hellenistic kings since Flamininus, while in the same breath he would also boast of the dawn of a new era of Roman dominion stretching from Gades to the Red Sea and ruling the entire world (Livy 36.17.14–15).

Immediately after the Battle of Thermopylai of 191, Glabrio authorized the priests at Delphi to fix the boundaries of their sacred land (CID IV 119E; Rousset 2002: 85–91 no. 6, 137–43, 250–69) and also restored or donated to the sanctuary properties that had been seized from Aitolians (Syll.3 609–10). His interest in Delphi continued the following year during his tenure as proconsul. The Delphians hoped to regain exclusive control over the sanctuary and the Pythian Games and to prevent the restoration of the old AMPHICTYONY that once controlled the sanctuary of Apollo at Delphi. In a surviving letter to the city, Glabrio pledged his assistance to the city, promising autonomy, safeguarding of ancestral privileges (Syll.3 609), and protection from all foes, a ruling that was upheld, thanks to his influence, by senatorial decree in 189, guaranteeing Delphic freedom, autonomy, self-government, and non-tributary status (Syll.3 612). Glabrio’s activities at Delphi can be reconstructed on the basis of the epigraphic evidence that is associated with the base of the statue, which the grateful city set up in his honor. For his military successes in Greece, Glabrio was awarded a TRIUMPH in 190, which he duly celebrated with great pomp (Livy 37.46.2–6). In 189, he attempted to run for CENSOR but was forced to withdraw his candidature after being accused by tribunes of having appropriated part of the spoils from the war, when his legates testified against him and the nobiles did not support him (Livy 37.57.9–15). Glabrio has been credited with introducing the Lex Acilia de intercalando that gave the pontifices power over intercalation of the calendar (see CALENDAR, ROMAN). SEE ALSO: Flamininus, Titus Quinctius; Freedom (eleutheria).

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Gruen, E. (1984) The Hellenistic world and the coming of Rome. Berkeley.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 46–47. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah09005

2 Habicht, C. (1987) “The role of Athens in the re-organization of the Delphic Amphictiony after 189 BC.” Hesperia 56: 59–71.

Michaud, J.-P. (1977) “Nouvelle inscription de la base de M’ Acilius.” E´tudes delphiqiues: 125–36. Rousset, D. (2002) Le territoire de Delphes et la terre d’Apollon. Paris.

1

Acilius, Gaius SIMON NORTHWOOD

Gaius Acilius was the senator who acted as interpreter for the three Greek philosophers, Karneades, Diogenes, and Kritolaos, who in 155 BCE appealed to Rome on behalf of Athens. Nothing more is known about Acilius’ public career, and nothing secure about his ancestry. Some think him to have been a son or nephew of Manius Acilius Glabrio, but the absence of a cognomen in the sources makes this less likely. He is almost universally held to be the Acilius known to PLUTARCH, LIVY, DIONYSIUS OF HALICARNASSUS, and the author of the Paradoxographus Vaticanus as the writer of a history of Rome in Greek (only Plutarch and Dionysius give his praenomen). This identification is plausible but not certain. The historian Gaius Acilius seems to have written sometime in the second or early first century BCE, since the last datable fragment of his work refers to 193 BCE (terminus post quem) and he was used as a source by the historian Claudius Quadrigarius writing in the earlier first century BCE (terminus ante quem). The periocha of Livy book 53 may in fact give the publication date of his history (ca. 143–141) if Madvig’s emendation of the manuscripts’ C. Iulius to C. Acilius is correct. This date would fit neatly the identification of the historian with the senator. Only six secure and two possible fragments survive from the history. This allows us to say little about the character or size of the work, save that it went back to the foundation of Rome (and even further back to the arrival of Aeneas if the possible fragments are genuine) and was probably in more than one volume (Livy refers

to Graeci libri). The secure fragments deal with the origin of the Luperci (Romulus’ and his men’s naked search for their lost flocks (Plut. Rom. 21.9)); the senators captured at Cannae who attempted to avoid their oath to return to Hannibal if they failed to effect a ransom of prisoners (Cic. Off. 3.113, 115); battle casualties, booty, and miracles associated with the eques L. Marcius’ victory in Spain in 211 BCE (Livy 25.39.12–13, 16–17); a conversation between Hannibal and Scipio Africanus in which Hannibal listed Alexander, Pyrrhos, and himself as the greatest generals in that order (and himself greatest if he had defeated Africanus: Livy 35.14.5–12); the origin of the name of Rhegion (Par. Vat. 39 p. 342 Giannini); the censors’ letting out of a contract worth one thousand talents for the clearing and repairing of sewers (Dion. Hal. Ant. Rom. 3.67.5) The paucity of fragments and Livy’s knowledge of Acilius only through an intermediary (the same may be the case for Plutarch) suggest that the history quickly fell out of fashion. SEE ALSO: Historiography, Greek and Roman; Kritolaos of Phaselis.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Badian, E. (1966) “The early historians.” In T. A. Dorey, ed., Latin historians: 6–7. London. Beck, H. and Walter, U., eds. (2001) Die fru¨hen ro¨mischen Historiker, vol. 1: 232–41. Darmstadt. Chassignet, M., ed. (1996) L’Annalistique romaine, vol. 1: lxxxvi–lxxxviii, 62–5. Paris. Cornell, T. J., ed. (forthcoming) The fragments of the Roman historical writers. Klebs, E. (1893) “Acilius (4).” RE 1: 251–2. Peter, H. (1914) Historicorum Romanorum Reliquiae, vol. 1, 2nd ed.: cxxi–cxxiii, 49–52. Leipzig.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 45–46. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah20002

1

Acilius, Gaius SIMON NORTHWOOD

Charterhouse, United Kingdom

Gaius Acilius was the senator who acted as interpreter for the three Greek philosophers, Karneades, Diogenes, and Kritolaos, who in 155 BCE spoke before the Senate on behalf of Athens (Plut. Cato mai. 22.5; Gell. NA 6.14.9; Macrob. Sat. 1.5.16). Nothing more is known about Acilius’ public career, and nothing secure about his ancestry. Some think him to have been a son or nephew of Manius Acilius Glabrio, but the absence of a cognomen in the sources makes this less likely. He is almost universally held to be the Acilius known to PLUTARCH, LIVY, DIONYSIUS OF HALICARNASSUS, and the author of the Paradoxographus Vaticanus as the writer of a history of Rome in Greek (only Plutarch and Dionysius give his praenomen). This identification is plausible but not certain. The historian Gaius Acilius seems to have written sometime in the second or early first century BCE, since the last datable fragment of his work refers to 193 BCE (terminus post quem) and he was used as a source by the historian Claudius Quadrigarius (Livy 25.39.12; 35.14.5) writing in the earlier first century BCE (terminus ante quem). The periocha of Livy book 53 may in fact give the publication date of his history (ca. 143–141 BCE) if Madvig’s emendation of the manuscripts’ C. Iulius to C. Acilius is correct. This date would fit neatly the identification of the historian with the senator. Only six secure and two possible fragments survive from the history. This allows us to say little about the character or size of the work, save that it went back to the foundation of Rome (and even further back to the arrival of Aeneas if the possible fragments are genuine) and was probably in more than one volume (Livy refers to Graeci libri). The secure fragments deal with the origin of the Luperci

(Romulus’ and his men’s naked search for their lost flocks (Plut. Rom. 21.9)); the senators captured at Cannae who attempted to avoid their oath to return to Hannibal if they failed to effect a ransom of prisoners (Cic. Off. 3.113, 115); battle casualties, booty, and miracles associated with the eques L. Marcius’ victory in Spain in 211 BCE (Livy 25.39.12–13, 16–17); a conversation between Hannibal and Scipio Africanus in which Hannibal listed Alexander, Pyrrhos, and himself in that order as the greatest generals (and himself greatest if he had defeated Africanus: Livy 35.14.5–12); the origin of the name of Rhegion (Par. Vat. 39 p. 342 Giannini); and the censors’ letting out of a contract worth one thousand talents for the clearing and repairing of sewers (Dion. Hal. Ant. Rom. 3.67.5). The authorship of the uncertain fragments is attributed to Acilius on the basis of textual emendation. Strabo 5.230 says that he claimed Rome was founded by Greeks, based on the fact that the annual sacrifice to Hercules was in Greek form. OGR 10.1-2 lists Acilius as one of the authors who claimed that the island of Prochyta was named after a female relative of Aeneas whom he buried there. The paucity of fragments and Livy’s knowledge of Acilius only through an intermediary (the same may be the case for Plutarch) suggest that the history quickly fell out of fashion. SEE ALSO: Claudius Quadrigarius, Quintus; Diogenes of Babylon; Historiography, Greek and Roman; Karneades of Cyrene; Kritolaos of Phaselis.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Badian, E. (1966) “The early historians.” In T. A. Dorey, ed., Latin historians: 6–7. London. Beck, H. and Walter, U., eds. (2001) Die frühen römischen Historiker, vol. 1: 232–41. Darmstadt. Bucher, G. S. (2010) “Acilius (813).” In I. Worthington, ed., Brill’s New Jacoby: 813. Leiden.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History. Edited by Andrew Erskine, David B. Hollander, and Arietta Papaconstantinou. © 2021 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Published 2021 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah20002.pub2

2 Chassignet, M., ed. (1996) L’annalistique romaine, vol. 1: lxxxvi–lxxxviii, 62–5. Paris. Cornell, T. J., ed. (2013) The fragments of the Roman historians, vol. 1: 224–6; vol. 2: 272–81; vol. 3: 185–91. Oxford. Klebs, E. (1893) “Acilius (4).” In A. Pauly, G. Wissowa, and W. Kroll, eds., Realencyclopädie

der classischen Altertumswissenschaft 1: 251–2. Stuttgart. OGR = Origo Gentis Romanae. Peter, H. (1914) Historicorum Romanorum Reliquiae, vol. 1, 2nd ed.: cxxi–cxxiii, 49–52. Leipzig.

1

Acrocorinth KLAUS FREITAG

Located in the territory of Corinth, Acrocorinth is the name of Table Mountain on which a strong fortification was built. Because of its height of 575 m, it is visible from all directions. The significance of the fortification was immense in ancient times. Most of the mountainside drops away steeply and represents a natural protection. In addition, Acrocorinth was improved step by step. The nearby urban center of Corinth could be kept under control and roads in the region could be guarded from Acrocorinth. These overland routes led to the Peloponnese across the Isthmus. Probably the Corinthian tyrants built the primary fortifications in the sixth or seventh centuries BCE. During the Hellenistic period, Acrocorinth was mostly secured by garrisons of Hellenistic kings. It can be

Figure 1

assumed that Philip II and Alexander stationed forces there, as well as the Hellenistic rulers Antipater, Polyperchon, Ptolemy (in 308/7 BCE), Cassander, Demetrios Poliorketes, and Antigonos Gonatas (Table in Wiseman 1979). Acrocorinth was one of the “fetters of Greece,” besides Chalkis and Demetrias (Polyb. 7.12; 18.45). Aratos of Sikyon expelled the Macedonian garrison from Acrocorinth in 243 BCE. This resulted in Corinth becoming part of the Achaian League. The surrender of Acrocorinth was the price Aratos was compelled to pay for an alliance with Antigonos III Doson in 223 (Plut. Cleom. 19; Arat. 41; Polyb. 2.52.2–3). One year before, the Spartan king Kleomenes had captured Corinth and Acrocorinth. After the battle of Sellasia in 222, he had to give up Acrocorinth, but the fortification continued to be controlled by the Macedonians. In 196, Corinth was again turned over to the Achaian League after the battle of Kynoskephalai. The Macedonian forces were replaced by the

The entrance and stone walls of Acrocorinth, Greece. Photograph © Richard Nowitz / Getty.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 47–48. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah14007

2 Romans, who remained there until 194. Before the Romans withdrew, the fortifications were almost razed; further damage followed in 146, when the Romans, under L. Mummius, were fighting against the Achaians. The famous sanctuary of Aphrodite of Acrocorinth stood on the highest point. According to Strabo, the temple was rich, with more over one thousand sacred prostitutes dedicated to Aphrodite (Strabo 8.6.20). This idea has been challenged recently with good arguments (Budin 2009). A house with a fountain was situated below the sanctuary, in a hollow to the south of the peak. It was named in imperial times, “Upper Peirene” or “Great Peirene” (Paus. 2.4.4–6). Strabo emphasizes the pure quality of the drinking water from the fountain. Furthermore, he describes impressively the view of the surrounding area from Acrocorinth (Strabo 8.6.21). As a result of the structural alterations of the fortification, it can be assumed that Acrocorinth was even used in the Byzantine, Venetian, and Turkish periods.

The present remains represent a mainly medieval phase, with the influence of Ottoman architecture. An ancient tower has been preserved within the entrance of the fortification. An important sanctuary of Demeter and Kore is situated in the east of the great north ravine of Acrocorinth (Paus. 2.4.6). REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Budin, S. L. (2009) The myth of sacred prostitution in antiquity. Cambridge. Carpenter, R. M. and Bon, A. (1936) Corinth, vol. 3, part 2: The defenses of Akrokorinth and the lower town, with a contribution by A. W. Parsons. Cambridge, MA. Merker, G. S. (2000) Corinth, vol. 18, part 4: The sanctuary of Demeter and Kore: terracotta figurines of the Classical, Hellenistic and Roman periods. Princeton. Wiseman, J. (1978) The land of the ancient Corinthians. Go¨teborg. Wiseman, J. (1979) “Corinth and Rome.” ANRW II.7.1: 438–548. Berlin.

1

Acropolis JEFFREY M. HURWIT

Of all Greek acropoleis, the Athenian Acropolis (lit., “high city” or “city on the heights”) was culturally and historically (if not geologically) the most impressive. Natural springs at its base attracted inhabitants as early as the Neolithic period, and clusters of huts probably dotted its slopes and summit by the fourth millennium BCE. But it was not until the Late Bronze (or Mycenaean) Age that the monumental history of the site began. A palace was built on a series of terraces on the north side of the summit: like the megaron-palaces of MYCENAE and TIRYNS (which it must have resembled), it was defended by a thick, high wall of “Cyclopean masonry” constructed around 1250 BCE – a wall that remained the Acropolis’ principal defense for almost eight centuries.

Figure 1

If self-serving Athenian legend is to be believed, the Acropolis escaped the destructions that befell other Mycenaean citadels in the twelfth century. But what it looked like after that, in the so-called “Dark Age” (1100–760), is uncertain, though the palace was probably left to ruin and a humble village grew up in its place. By ca. 700 a small Temple to Athena Polias (Athena, Guardian of the City, embodied in an olivewood statue that would always remain the holiest image on the Acropolis) probably stood somewhere within the footprint of the earlier palace. This “Geometric Temple” was succeeded by another modest structure in the seventh century. But in the sixth century two monumental temples were constructed as expressions of Athens’ rising prosperity and increasing importance. One temple was possibly built on the south side around 560 (its foundations are no longer visible, but building blocks, column capitals, and painted limestone pedimental sculptures testify to its existence). By the end of the

General view of the Acropolis from the southwest. Photograph by Jeffrey Hurwit.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 48–52. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah04002

2

The Erechtheion. Photograph by Jeffrey

Figure 3 The Theater of Dionysos on the south slope. Photograph by Jeffrey Hurwit.

sixth century another large limestone temple stood atop extant foundations on the north side of the summit: one pediment was filled with a marble Gigantomachy. The date of this Archaios Neos (or “Old Temple of Athena Polias”) is controversial, but it may have been the first great building project of the young Athenian democracy, founded in 508/7. Soon after the battle of MARATHON in 490, the so-called Older Parthenon was begun on the south side of the Acropolis atop deep and massive foundations, but it never rose very high: like the Archaios Neos and hundreds of statues and dedications, it was destroyed by Persian invaders who at Xerxes’ command sacked the Acropolis in 480. The Early Classical Acropolis (480–450) saw more architectural and votive activity than is often thought: new citadel walls were built (the north pointedly displayed parts of the Archaic temples destroyed by the Persians), innovative statues like the Kritios Boy were dedicated, and a huge BRONZE statue of Athena, by Pheidias, was set up near the entrance of the citadel by the 450s. Still, Athena lacked a monumental temple until 449, when the citizens of an increasingly democratic and increasingly imperial Athens voted to finance PERIKLES’ massive building program, intended to make Athens and its Acropolis visibly “the school of Hellas.” The centerpiece was the PARTHENON, built by Iktinos and Kallikrates between 447 and 432: largely consisting of marble originally cut for the

Older Parthenon (on whose podium it also stood), the Periklean building was in a real sense a resurrection of it. Loaded with marble sculptures (akroteria, pediments, metopes, and frieze), the Parthenon displayed within it a huge statue of Athena Parthenos by Pheidias, an echo in GOLD and IVORY of the sculptor’s earlier Bronze Athena looming over the entrance of the sanctuary. The Periklean building program also included the truncated Propylaia (“Gateways”), built by Mnesikles on rising ground between 437 and 432; the even more asymmetrical and multi-leveled Erechtheion (the Classical Temple of Athena Polias and other deities, 430s–406); and, on a bastion protruding from the west slope, the small but sculpturally loaded Temple of Athena Nike (ca. 425/4). There were other sacred precincts on the crowded Classical summit, including sanctuaries of Artemis Brauronia and Zeus Polieus, and the south slope boasted the Odeion (Concert Hall) of Perikles, a modest Theater of Dionysos (it took on grandiose proportions only in the fourth century), and a healing sanctuary of ASKLEPIOS (founded in 420/19). There were impressive additions to the summit and slopes in the Hellenistic and Roman periods (including the huge Stoa of Eumenes on the south slope, a great Pergamene victory monument set up within the citadel wall southeast of the Parthenon, a small circular Temple to Roma and Augustus set on axis east of the Parthenon, and the Odeion of Herodes Atticus on

Figure 2 Hurwit.

3

Figure 4 Plan of the Acropolis. From Ogden, D., Companion to Greek Religion (2007: 407, fig. 26.5), after J. Travlos.

the southwest slope). But the layout of the Acropolis remained essentially that designed by Perikles and his architects.

Late Antiquity was not kind to the Acropolis. In 267 CE, the Parthenon was severely damaged and the statue of Athena Parthenos

4 almost certainly destroyed by invading Herulians. The building was repaired and the Athena replaced, but the Parthenon was not what it once had been. By the early fifth century CE the cult of Athena Polias, still focused in the Erechtheion, began its decline: the sacrosanct olivewood image had probably already deteriorated. By the late fifth century Pheidias’ two monumental statues of Athena were gone: the Bronze Athena was probably shipped to Constantinople, and Christians destroyed the last Athena Parthenos. By ca. 600 the Parthenon had become the Church of the Blessed Virgin, and the Erechtheion the Church of Mary, Mother of God. And they remained churches until the Turks seized the citadel in 1458 and made a mosque of one and a harem of the other. On September 26, 1687, during a siege laid by the Venetian general F. Morosini, a shell lobbed into the Parthenon ignited a huge gunpowder magazine: the explosion blew out the center of the building.

But the Acropolis remained Ottoman until 1833, when, at the end of the Greek War of Independence, Bavarian soldiers displaced the last Turkish defenders and bivouacked inside the Parthenon. The new King Otto declared the Acropolis an archaeological site the next year, and the excavation and restoration of the Classical monuments began. A major restoration project continues as this is written. SEE ALSO:

Athena; Athens; Persia and Greece.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Economakis, R., ed. (1994) Acropolis restoration: the CCAM interventions. New York. Hurwit, J. M. (1999) The Athenian Acropolis: history, mythology, and archaeology from the Neolithic era to the present. Cambridge. Hurwit, J. M. (2004) The Acropolis in the age of Pericles. Cambridge. Neils, J., ed. (2005) The Parthenon from antiquity to the present. New York.

1

Acta KAJA HARTER-UIBOPUU

Acta in a legal and technical sense were written records of actions and decisions of magistrates, courts, and other public authorities; by Late Antiquity they could also include private documents if these were read into the acta, which would have occurred to ensure enforcement, verification, and proof (Steinwenter 1915: 3–8). Among the records of public authorities the acta senatus could have been a very important historical source for ancient historians like Tacitus, although none before Late Antiquity survive to us (Wenger 1953: 388–95). Caesar allegedly ordered the complete minutes of the meetings to be published in the acta diurna (Suet. Iul. 20.1, but see White 1997). These protocols of the sessions of the Senate, even when functioning as a court, were recorded and preserved through Late Antiquity (CT praef.). There is still discussion about the content and legal status of the acta Caesaris, unpublished documents that Caesar had drawn up which had not been posted officially and were ratified only after his death (Matijevic 2006). In the same way all the decisions of the emperor (see CONSTITUTIONES) were registered and filed in archives (Wenger 1953: 438–9). If necessary, they could be rescinded after the death or the deposition of an emperor (acta rescindere, Suet. Div.Iul. 82.4; acta subvertere, Tac. Ann. 13.5; still one has to bear in mind the possibility that these terms were used in a nontechnical sense). Further

acta are attested for the provincial governors (Euseb. Hist. eccl. 5.18.9; Haensch 1992), municipal authorities (CIL VIII Suppl. 15497; CIL XI 3614), and procuratores. All documents produced as evidence during a court hearing and thus having been read into the protocol as well as the protocol of the hearing itself, the written version of a verdict, and any private transaction that had been certified by a court this way could be called acta as well, although from the third century CE the term GESTA was more common. The acta urbis, which informed the public regularly about civic and court events and other news of the day, by contrast developed no legal significance. Kept by the procurator ab actis, they existed until the third century CE (Kubitschek 1895: 290–5). SEE ALSO:

Commentariis, a.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Haensch, R. (1992) “Das Statthalterarchiv.” Zeitschrift der Savigny-Stiftung fu¨r Rechtsgeschichte (Romanistische Abteilung) 109: 209–317. Kubitschek, W. (1895) “Acta.” RE I 1: 285–301. Stuttgart. Matijevic, K. (2006) “Cicero, Antonius und die ‘acta Caesaris’.” Historia 55: 426–50. Steinwenter, A. (1915) Beitra¨ge zum o¨ffentlichen Urkundenwesen der Ro¨mer. Graz. Wenger, L. (1953) Die Quellen des ro¨mischen Rechts. Vienna. White, P. (1997) “Julius Caesar and the publication of acta in late republican Rome.” Chiron 27: 73–8.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print page 52. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah13003

1

Acta Martyrum BOUDEWIJN DEHANDSCHUTTER

THE DOCUMENTS The Acta Martyrum are documents that figure prominently among the abundant evidence of persecutions of Christians in Antiquity (including pagan evidence as well as Christian sources such as church histories, homilies, and panegyrics) because of their historical value as direct contemporaneous information (acta sincera). Chronologically these texts deal with events situated from the middle of the second century CE onwards, concentrating on the time of Decius (see TRAJAN DECIUS (GAIUS MESSIUS QUINTUS TRAIANUS DECIUS AUGUSTUS)), who is considered to have been the first ruler to have “systematically” persecuted Christians (about 250 CE), as well as in the period of the “great persecution” inaugurated about 303 CE by Diocletian (see DIOCLETIAN (GAIUS AURELIUS VALERIUS DIOCLETIANUS AUGUSTUS)). There are several categories of sources: the acta, stricto sensu, being court records; the martyria or passiones, giving a narrative presentation of the persecution and the martyr death of a Christian or Christians; and finally the fictitious “legends” especially focused on the person of the martyr. The first category would come closest to the historical facts by representing the official record of the interrogation and the condemnation of the martyrs. One can still find examples which seem quite close to this genre, for example, Passio Scillitanorum, Acta Carpi, Acta Justini, Acta Cypriani, and Acta Apollonii. It has been argued that these texts were written under the influence of pagan examples such as the “Pagan Acts of the Martyrs” (Acta Alexandrinorum). However, it is difficult to maintain that the Christian texts can be derived directly from these trial records, although they may have been only more or less inspired by the pagan examples. Other scholars have insisted on the dialogue form of these witnesses and have

therefore seen their origin in the literary dialogue. This literary form also gave rise to the development of apologetics: the Martyrium Pionii is composed of acta elements which took the shape of an apologetic argument, and in the Acta Apollonii the dialogue also grew into apologetic discourses from the martyr’s side. These texts illustrate at least the necessity of Christian polemics (doctrine of God, doctrine of creation) against Roman religion, which is not without parallels in the writings of the Christian apologists (Justin, Athenagoras, Tatian, Minucius Felix). The acta form as a rule focuses on the trial and not so much on the execution; other texts have combined this with narration about the death of a martyr or martyrs, introducing the idea of the “eyewitness” (Martyrium Polycarpi) or even by way of autobiography (Passio Perpetuae). However, this does not imply that the martyria have been only an elaboration of the trial records; one could even imagine a literary process the other way round: that in a story about the death of a martyr the interrogation by a Roman official simply has to be present even if it is without any direct historical basis. As a consequence, it becomes difficult to distinguish whether it is the acta or the second, more narrative, category of the martyria, which is historically most valuable. It has been argued that these narratives also developed out of “pagan” models, such as the Exitus illustrium virorum, or that these models were combined with Jewish examples of martyr stories (e.g., Martyrium Isaiae, 2 Macc, 4 Macc). The Hellenistic acta genre, emphasizing the trial, combined with the Jewish martyr story, also interpreting the meaning of the facts, would thus constitute the basic form of the Christian martyrium. Nevertheless, the Acta Martyrum must be read as Christian evidence, as they refer to belief in Jesus Christ. His death and that of his followers served directly as the source of Christian martyria: the comparison with the Passion story cannot be explained away

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 52–56. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah05002

2 in the Martyrium Polycarpi or Martyrium Lugdunensium (cf. the influence of the death of Stephen, Acts 6–7, in Acta Carpi 39–41, Mart. Lugd.). The biblical exemplar, with the appropriation of Old Testament models and eventually with direct quotation of passages from the New Testament texts on persecution, was interpreted as prophecies being fulfilled, and thus became constitutive for the description of Christian martyrdom. Moreover, the critical form and literary analysis of the texts point to different genres and contexts, causing the reader to recognize the Acta Martyrum as “mixed” texts that incorporate different traditions, including the imagery of athletic language which was already assimilated in early Christian writings. Sometimes the result is very complex: for example, the Passio Perpetuae combines an autobiographical framework with diary aspects, the image of the stadion, visions and apocalyptic elements, as well as theological (specifically Montanist) interpretations. The epistolary framework of some martyria can be situated in the same way. As the letter was the usual way of communication between Christian communities (see 1 Clement), texts such as Martyrium Polycarpi (Letter of the Christians of Smyrna to those of Philomelium) and Martyrium Lugdunensium (Letter of the Christians of Lyon and Vienne to those of Asia and Phrygia) communicate the “story” of the martyrs to the “brothers” far away by letters so that they would be read and the brothers would “praise the Lord” (M. Pol. 20; the church in Philomelium had asked the Smyrnaeans for news). Eusebius included both texts in his Church history as important documents about Christian martyrdom (Hist. eccl. 4.15, 5.1–4); he later inserts a Letter by Dionysius of Alexandria to Fabius of Antioch on Alexandrian martyrs (Hist. eccl. 6.41–2), but this is a letter between bishops.

ADAPTATIONS OF THE TEXTS Texts that gained historical reliability gained prominence, such as judicial acts and

narrations based on eyewitnesses’ testimony, and as a rule were contrasted to more “legendary” treatments with, for example, excessive attention to the tortures suffered by the martyrs, the martyr’s resistance, and the miracles following after the martyrdom. However, contemporary research has pointed out that almost all the more “reliable” texts show traces of adaptation due to textual transmission as well as editorial intention: these texts are known mainly through a reception which is less interested in the historical detail than in the hagiographical image of a martyr or in the theological qualification of martyrdom. It does not mean that historical detail is absent, except for texts of pure imagination (every Christian community claimed its own martyr) or falsifications (see Martyrium Ignatii). But one observes, for example, that the Passio Scillitanorum, usually taken as a very early text (the earliest document in Christian Latin) dating from 180 CE and very near to the record of the trial, shows in its transmission some hesitation about the list of the martyrs. The early Acta Carpi are quite different in their Greek and Latin versions: in the former it is Carpus and Papylus who are brought before the proconsul in Pergamon. A third character, the woman Agathonike, associates herself with the death of the others by a sudden act of voluntary martyrdom. In the Latin version all three of them are arrested and brought before the proconsul (perhaps in order to rule out the idea that Christian martyrdom could be a suicidal act). The Acta Justini are actually known in three recensions, the earliest of which dates to probably not before 300 CE (Ruhbach 1965: 137). In the Acta Maximiliani, concerned with an African military martyr, Maximilian, we read that a matron, Pompeiana, takes the body of the martyr and buries it near the grave of Cyprian, the famous martyr-bishop of Carthage. Thereafter she is buried herself at the same location. No doubt we find here an addition inspired by the inhumatio ad sanctos, which presumably did not belong to the “original” Acts of Maximilian. From these examples one may conclude that the liturgical

3 reception of these texts in early Christian communities gave rise to significant adaptations. The cult of the martyrs and their celebration in the (growing) liturgical calendar had a performant influence on the texts: they could take the shape of readings during the commemoration of the martyr’s dies natalis. The “apostle-martyria” (the death of Peter, Paul, Thomas, Andrew, etc.) also had their place. Moreover, the insertion of these documents into larger literary units such as a church history (cf. Eusebius, apart from the writings indicated earlier, and the De martyribus Palestinae, see also Martyrium Potamiaenae et Basilidis, in Hist. eccl. 6.5, Martyrium Marini in Hist. eccl. 7.15), apologetic writings (Martyrium Ptolemaei et Lucii in Justin, Apologia Secunda), or “apocryphal acts,” would have lasting effects. It can be held that martyrological texts, which in their original contexts were consoling and exhorting documents offering examples of how to behave in times of oppression, develop into hagiographical documents praising and commemorating the Christian heroes of the past. However, this “hagiographical” shift should not be considered per se as a phenomenon of a “later” period but may be present in the earliest texts as well. The Martyrium Polycarpi is a good example to demonstrate that a text written in the middle of the second century can already contain a developed comparison with the story of Jesus’ Passion, liturgical elements (the prayer of Polycarp), and evidence of the yearly celebration of the martyr, without the necessity to remove these elements from the original text or to accept a later date for the writing.

IMPLICATIONS AND PROBLEMS The reception of these sources does not only imply a transformation of an “original” document through “expansion” and/or translation, but also that earlier models influenced later texts. Thus it is undeniable that the Martyrium Polycarpi had some influence on later martyria, not only Martyrium Lugdunensium, but also

on the Martyrium Sabae, about a fourthcentury martyr from Gothia. The famous Passio Perpetuae also had a deep influence on Carthage martyr texts: Acta Cypriani, Martyrium Mariani et Jacobi, Martyrium Montani et Lucii (Delehaye 1966). All this makes it the more important to distinguish, on the one hand, between the person of the martyr, the date of his or her death, and the historical circumstances, and its literary – that is, hagiographic – expression on the other. But even the most obvious historical question to be asked, that of the date, is often very difficult to establish on the basis of the Acta, even for “early” martyrs. If it is possible to argue in the case of Polycarp for a date about 156, or for the Scillitan martyrs 180, it is already less clear for the Acta Carpi. The Greek version gives no direct information, but Eusebius connects the martyrdoms with the time of Lucius Verus (and Marcus Aurelius). The problem is that the church historian is often fluid with dates and tries to associate Christian martyrdom with certain emperors. The Latin version of Acta Carpi indicates without hesitation “Decio imperatore.” This indicates a discrepancy between a second- or third-century date. The same is true for Martyrium Pionii: Eusebius associates his martyrdom with that of Polycarp, but scholarship has made a choice for the Decian persecution. Often the tendency to associate the death of a martyr with a well-known period of persecution, such as the Decian or Diocletianic, is evident in both historical and hagiographical sources, and thus the story risks in many cases becoming anachronistic and schematic, or totally devoted to the propagation of a certain view on martyrdom. The literary presentation of the martyr went far beyond the limits of Christian Greek and Latin sources. Christians in Egypt, Ethiopia, Persia, Syria, and Armenia created their own traditions. Although one can find in the papyri documents which relate quite safely to historical facts (to be situated during the “great persecution,” cf. Acta Phileae; now the Coptic papyrus Duke inv. 438), one must accept that the many

4 Coptic martyrological texts are “legends,” illustrating the imperishable life of the saint whose body remains intact despite many cruel tortures (Baumeister 1972). In the Syriac tradition, the Acts of the Persian Martyrs (under Shapur II, fourth century, and later those of the fifth century), illustrating the confrontation of Christianity with the Zoroastrian religion, occupy an important place. In Ethiopia, Armenia, and Georgia as well these martyr traditions became immensely popular. SEE ALSO: Apologists; Martyrdom and martyrs, Christian.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Barnes, T. (1984) “Pre-Decian Acta Martyrum.” In, idem, Early Christianity and the Roman Empire: 509–31. London. Bastiaensen, A. A. R., ed. (1987) Atti e passioni dei martiri. Milan.

Baumeister, T. (1972) Martyr invictus. Der Ma¨rtyrer als Sinnbild in der Legende und im Kult der fru¨hen koptischen Kirche. Zur Kontinuita¨t des a¨gyptischen Denkens. Mu¨nster. Dehandschutter, B. (2007) Polycarpiana. Studies on martyrdom and persecution in early Christianity. Collected essays. Leuven. Delehaye, H. (1966) Les passions des martyrs et les genres litte´raires. Brussels. Musurillo, H. (1954) The acts of the pagan martyrs. Oxford. Musurillo, H. (1972) The acts of the Christian martyrs. Oxford. Ruhbach, G., ed. (1965) Ausgewa¨hlte Ma¨rtyrerakten. Neubearbeitung der Knopfschen Ausgabe. Tu¨bingen. Seeliger, H. R. (2000) “Martyrs, Acts of the.” In S. Do¨pp and W. Geerlings, eds., Dictionary of early Christian literature: 405–12. New York. Van Minnen, P. (1995) “The earliest account of a martyrdom in Coptic.” Analecta Bollandiana 113: 13–38.

1

Actia SINCLAIR BELL

The “Actian games” comprised several sports festivals that were held to commemorate AUGUSTUS’ victory over Marcus ANTONIUS and CLEOPATRA VII at the sea battle off Cape Actium in 31 BCE. The primary venue for their celebration was NIKOPOLIS, a victory city newly constructed by Augustus on his former camp site, which sat 10 km to the north of Actium (across the Ambracian Gulf). There he established games with competitions in honor of his protector deity APOLLO, who had been the focus of earlier, biennial games at the same site organized by the AKARNANIAN LEAGUE. Celebrated at both Nikopolis and Rome for the first time on 2 September 27 BCE, the anniversary of the battle, the Actia were thought to herald a new age, to be measured in Actiads (in imitation of the Olympiads). The quadrennial games were integrated into the Greek circuit of sacred crown games (periodos) whose program they largely followed: the classical triad of athletic, equestrian, and musical competitions, plus occasional boat races. There may also have been chariot racing.

There were three age-classes of male competitors (boys, youths, and adults) and victors were awarded wreaths of reeds (associated with Poseidon). Artistic competitions (e.g., orators, flute players) appear to have been particularly prominent (Stat. Silv. 2.2.6–8), perhaps due to their connection to Apollo. The games at Nikopolis were held outside the city walls in a precinct dedicated to Apollo, which included a stadium, gymnasium, and theater. The latest secure date for their celebration is 275 CE. SEE ALSO: Actium; Antonius, Marcus (Mark Antony); Festivals, Greece and Rome; Nikopolis; Sport.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Gurval, R. A. (1995) Actium and Augustus: The politics and emotions of civil war. Ann Arbor. Klose, D. O. A. (1997) “Zur Entstehung der Preiskronen. Das Beispiel der Aktischen Spiele.” Jahrbuch fu¨r Numismatik und Geldgeschichte 47: 29–45. La¨mmer, M. (1986–87) “Die Aktischen Spiele von Nikopolis.” Stadion 12/13: 27–38. Tidman, B. M. (1950) “On the foundation of the Actian games.” Classical Quarterly 44: 119–23.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print page 56. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah10003

1

Actio MATTHEW J. PERRY

An actio (“action” or “legal action”) was a form of legal remedy granted to individuals under Roman private law. It was a mechanism for correcting various wrongs done to one’s person, family, and goods, and as such was a foundational procedural element of Roman jurisprudence. The term actio may also have implied an individual’s right to exercise this legal remedy, although the existence of a concept of “legal rights” in ancient Rome has been debated by modern scholars (Q. I. 3.6.77; Schultz 1951: 24–6; Nicholas 1962: 19–20). In the Early Republic, Roman law was highly ritualized and formalized, and as such recognized only a handful of rigidly defined actiones (see LEGIS ACTIO). Around the second century BCE, a more expansive and flexible formulary system developed that allowed for the creation of new types of legal actions to correct recognized offenses (see FORMULA). In order to advise citizens of their available legal remedies, the urban PRAETOR issued an edict each year to list the specific actiones that he would allow (see EDICT, PRAETOR’S). Edicts – and thus the actions available to litigants – grew increasingly standardized as praetors borrowed wholesale from

their predecessors. To initiate an actio, a litigant needed personally to summon the defendant to appear together with him before the praetor, who would then decide whether or not an action was warranted (see IN IUS VOCATIO). Roman law grouped actiones into two basic categories: those against a person (in personam), which involved obligations, and those for property (in rem), which involved issues of ownership and use (Gai. I. 4.1–4). The fundamental distinction between the two was a critical conceptual issue in Roman jurisprudence: whereas an actio in personam considered a relationship between two individuals, an actio in rem considered the relationship between an individual and an object. SEE ALSO: Actor (accusator, petitor); Cognitio; Iudicium; Litis contestatio.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Buckland, W. W. (1963) A textbook of Roman law from Augustus to Justinian, 3rd ed. Cambridge. Jolowicz, H. F. and Nicholas, B. (1972) Historical introduction to the study of Roman law, 3rd ed. Cambridge. Nicholas, B. (1962) An introduction to Roman law. Oxford. Schultz, F. (1951) Classical Roman law. Oxford.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 56–57. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah13004

1

Actium BORIS RANKOV

The promontory of Actium lies in Akarnania in northwestern Greece, on the southern side of the mouth of the Ambrakian Gulf, opposite the modern town of Preveza. Probably from the sixth century BCE, it was the site of an important temple of Apollo Aktios. The temple and promontory overlooked the site of the naval battle of Actium, fought outside the gulf in 31 BCE, where Octavian (see AUGUSTUS) defeated the forces of CLEOPATRA VII of Egypt and his rival Mark Antony (see ANTONIUS, MARCUS), and effectively established himself as ruler of the Roman world. Antony had concentrated his military and naval forces in and around the Gulf of Ambrakia. In the spring of 31, Octavian had crossed from Italy to Corfu and then advanced on the gulf from the north. He camped across from Actium on the site of the later city of NIKOPOLIS, founded after the battle to celebrate his victory (Dio 51.1.3). Meanwhile, his fleet under Marcus Agrippa (see VIPSANIUS AGRIPPA, MARCUS) captured the island of LEUKAS ten miles to the south and blocked the exit of Antony’s fleet from the gulf. The unhealthy conditions in Antony’s camp caused illness and desertions amongst his troops and senior officers, and when some of his remaining advisors favored the abandonment of the fleet and the withdrawal of his army to Macedonia, Cleopatra insisted on fighting a naval battle. Antony agreed and put to sea on September 2 with 230 vessels, including sixty supplied by Cleopatra (Oros. 6.19.9 and 11; cf. Flor. 2.21.5); they are said to have had their sails aboard, which suggests that the intention was to break out and get away. Octavian’s forces, numbering more than four hundred ships (Flor. 2.21.5; contra, Plut. Ant. 61.2; Oros. 6.19.8),

were deployed across the mouth of the gulf to prevent their escape. Antony led his right wing against Agrippa, and a fierce battle ensued until Cleopatra’s squadron, bringing up the rear, made a run for the south. On seeing this, Antony boarded a small vessel and went after her. His remaining ships were destroyed or captured, and his land forces surrendered several days later. The lovers eventually escaped to Egypt, where they were once again defeated and committed suicide in 30. After the battle, Octavian rebuilt the temple of APOLLO on a grander scale, and revived the Actian Games, to be held every four years (see ACTIA); at the foot of the hill below the temple, he built ship sheds in which he dedicated one ship of each type that had fought in the battle, but these were accidentally destroyed by fire a few years later (Strabo 7.7.6; Suet. Aug. 18.2; Dio 51.1.2). At Nikopolis, he constructed a great monument, decorated with bronze rams probably representing a tithe of the ships captured in the campaign (Strabo 7.7.6; Philippus in Anth. Pal. 6.236; Plut. Ant. 65.3; Suet. Aug. 96.2). The monument was surveyed in 1986, when it was found to have sockets of different sizes for between thirtythree and thirty-five rams, thus suggesting that around 350 ships had been taken (Murray and Petsas 1989).

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Carter, J. M. (1970) The battle of Actium. London. Chrysos, E., ed. (1984) Nicopolis I: proceedings of the First International Symposium on Nicopolis (23–29 September, 1984). Preveza. Murray, W. M. and Petsas, P. M. (1989) Octavian’s campsite memorial for the Actian war. Philadelphia. Stilwell, R., MacDonald, W. L., and McAllister, M. H., eds. (1976) The Princeton encyclopedia of classical sites: 28. Princeton.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 57–58. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah19001

1

Actor (accusator, petitor) MATTHEW J. PERRY

Actor, accusator, and petitor were titles used in Roman law to describe the plaintiff or prosecutor in a court case. In both civil and criminal law, the actor drove the proceedings; he was responsible for initiating charges, obtaining and analyzing evidence, and even ensuring the defendant’s attendance. To strengthen their cases, actores regularly enlisted the services of trained advocates to present and explain material in court. An individual wishing to initiate civil proceedings was required to lodge a specific charge before the Praetor in the presence of the accused (see IN IUS VOCATIO). The actor was responsible for ensuring the participation of the defendant, and was authorized to use force if the defendant otherwise refused to comply with a summons. It was also common for an actor to seek a monetary guarantee for the defendant’s attendance (see VADIMONIUM). In civil matters, which dealt with issues of ownership, obligation, and damage, only an individual with a direct interest in the matter at hand could bring charges. There were certain cases, however, where the law allowed representatives to bring charges on behalf of another, such as a tutor on behalf of his ward (Buckland 1963: 708–11).

While Roman law treated criminal cases as a public matter, criminal trials nonetheless still relied on private initiative. According to the procedures of the criminal courts established in the mid‐second century BCE (see QUAESTIO), an actor first obtained permission to prosecute from the magistrate presiding over the relevant court and then lodged a specific charge against the defendant (see DELATIO NOMINIS). Any adult male citizen could bring a criminal charge, although in situations where multiple individuals sought to prosecute, the magistrate decided who had the best claim (see DIVINATIO). SEE ALSO:

Actio; Cognitio; Delator.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Buckland, W. W. (1963) A textbook of Roman law from Augustus to Justinian, 3rd ed. Cambridge. Crook, J. A. (1967) Law and life of Rome, 90 B.C.–A.D. 212. Ithaca. Crook, J. A. (1995) Legal advocacy in the Roman world. Ithaca. Harries, J. (2007) Law and crime in the Roman world. Cambridge. Johnson, D. (1999) Roman law in context. Cambridge. Metzger, E. (2005) Litigation in Roman law. Oxford. Robinson, O. F. (1995) The criminal law of ancient Rome. Baltimore.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 58–59. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah13005

1

Actor, actress ALEXANDER PUK

According to ancient tradition, a first acting performance was introduced by Thespis in the sixth century BCE by adding dialogue to purely choral parts (see TRAGEDY, GREEK). Later, from SOPHOCLES onwards, a play at the DIONYSIA consisted of three male actors on stage with a chorus and non-speaking actors such as attendants or soldiers, and with masks and costumes emphasizing gesture and various vocal techniques. Actors and writers would come from prominent families of the polis, and stage business became increasingly popular, as attested on vase-painting scenes, for example (Csapo and Slater 1995: 53–78). In the fourth century BCE acting became a professional occupation and performers began to form associations (see TECHNITAI ) including all dramatic genres with first and secondary actors as well as musicians and poets (Sifakis 1967: 92–3). Thus, with the number of festivals and contests increasing all over the Hellenistic world, the actor’s business came to be a competition for prizes and civic honors while also offering free performances to honor the gods or reciting excerpts of tragedies in private settings. Such groups of wandering actors seem to have evolved into the mime in republican Italy, now including actors and actresses. Professional performers of the Roman comedy and mime organized themselves into collegia, and emperors later even kept their own body of imperial artists, the summum choragium. Several Latin designations of stage entertainers reflect the fact that Roman performers virtually had to be all-rounders, mastering singing, dancing, grimaces, artistic effects, and improvisation, although members of wandering groups (Petron. 80.9) seem to have specialized in a certain repertoire of roles and would be hired ad hoc or for certain annual occasions (cf. P.Oxy. VII 1025). During the High Empire mime actors and solo performers of

pantomime were also admitted to compete in eastern festivals (see PANTOMIME, ROMAN). Political manifestations or defamations on stage were quite common, and through their business some performers could acquire great wealth or gain prizes and social privileges at contests in east and west (IK 16, 2070–1; Leppin 1992: 81–106), yet most ordinary actors presumably led rather humble lives. Throughout Roman history, however, actors enjoyed a “paradoxical status” (Webb 2008: 45): many were slaves or freedmen, and despite the business’ popularity, performing on stage could lead to a certain infamy (Nep. Praef. 5) and usually implicated legal disadvantages in inheritance and civil rights as well as in the occupation of public offices. During Late Antiquity, most Christian authors and bishops agitated against the immorality of theatrical presentations and excluded actors from communion and baptism. On the other hand, imperial legislation tried to guarantee a sufficient supply of performers for public stages by making it difficult to abandon their profession (CT 15.7). In the fifth century performers were included into the organization of CIRCUS FACTIONS, and JUSTINIAN I even married the former actress Theodora. Stage business thus continued well into Byzantine times, whereas in the west after the downfall of municipal stage buildings, actors appeared on the street or at private shows, thus foreshadowing the medieval troupers. SEE ALSO: Associations, Greek and Roman; Collegia; Comedy, New; Festivals, Greece and Rome; Imitation (mimesis, imitatio); Infamia.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Csapo, E. and Slater, W. J., eds. (1995) The context of ancient drama. Ann Arbor. Easterling, P. E. and Hall, E., eds. (2002) Greek and Roman actors: aspects of an ancient profession. Cambridge.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 59–60. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah22003

2 Leppin, H. (1992) Histrionen: Untersuchungen zur sozialen Stellung von Bu¨hnenku¨nstlern im Westen des Ro¨mischen Reiches zur Zeit der Republik und des Principats. Bonn. Roueche´, C. (1993) Performers and partisans at Aphrodisias in the Roman and late Roman periods. London.

Sifakis, G. M. (1967) Studies in the history of Hellenistic drama. London. Webb, R. (2008) Demons and dancers: performance in Late Antiquity. Cambridge, MA.

1

Acts of the Apostles RICHARD I. PERVO

“Acts of the Apostles” is the traditional name (since ca. 175 CE) for the fifth book in the Christian New Testament. This narrative begins at Jerusalem shortly after the crucifixion of Jesus and follows the early community, initially led by Peter, through its rapid expansion into the eastern Mediterranean and Aegean regions. By chapter 13, the gentile mission has been inaugurated, Peter recedes into the background, and Paul emerges as the central character. The last quarter (chapters 21–8) recounts Paul’s legal travails, ending at Rome without an announcement of his fate. The external form of the work resembles a historical monograph. Its techniques include authorial anonymity and omniscient narration, both characteristic of biblical histories. Leading features are an episodic format, focusing upon miraculous events, legendary stories, and fictitious material evidently composed by the author. This is “popular” history unashamed of its non-elite character. Parallels include the Alexander romance and the Jewish historian Artapanos (see ARTAPANOS), as well as 1–3 Maccabees. Affinities with Greco-Roman historiography are apparent. The most direct antecedent is the Gospel of Mark. Successors include the Acts of Paul and other Apocryphal Acts. The style may be designated “middlebrow koine Greek.” The author conforms to the practice of imitating an earlier model (mimesis), here the Greek Bible (Septuagint). “Luke,” his traditional name, derives from second-century attempts to link the person who wrote the third of the canonical Gospels and Acts to Paul. Acts is a sequel to the Gospel of Luke; alternatively, the second part of a two-volume narrative. Christians have always treated them as separate books. The work probably

lacked an original title. The term Praxeis (“acts,” “deeds”) associates it with the exploits of important leaders. “Of the apostles” overlooks the non-apostolic status of the chief character, Paul. The received title is a clue to how the book was viewed in the late second century. Although Acts has long been dated ca. 85 CE by critical scholars, support for a date ca. 110–120 is gaining ground (Pervo 2006). Acts derives from the Aegean region, most probably from Ephesos. Two major forms of a textual tradition can be identified: the “Alexandrian,” which most hold as generally closer to the original, and the “Western” or “D-Text,” which contains numerous secondary pedantic revisions, with many expansions, occasional abbreviation, and some dogmatic alterations. Acts is a “legitimating narrative” that seeks to demonstrate the acceptability of the Christian missions that embraced gentiles and largely abandoned Torah as the valid repository of the ancient faith of Israel. It confronts this problem: if Jesus of Nazareth was the promised savior of Israel, why have most Jews failed to accept him while some gentiles did? Acts battles both those who would expunge links to the Israelite tradition and opponents of the validity of emergent gentile Christianity. Although the author utilized some good sources, including Paul’s letters, the value of the book for reconstructing the early history of the Jesus movement is limited. REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Marguerat, D. (2007) Les Actes des Apoˆtres (1–12). Geneva. Pervo, R. I. (2006) Dating Acts: between the evangelists and the apologists. Santa Rosa, CA. Pervo, R. I. (2009) Acts. A commentary, H. W. Attridge, ed. Minneapolis. Schneider, G. (1980–82) Die Apostelgeschichte, 2 vols. Freiburg.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 60–61. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah05003

1

Adad (Haddu) MARIA GRAZIA MASETTI-ROUAULT

The storm god, who was called Adad in Akkadian, Isˇkur in Sumerian, Haddu or Adda in West Semitic dialects, Tesˇsˇub in Hurrian, and Tarhunza in Hittite, was prominent in almost all the cultures and religions of the ancient Near East. In later Syrian tradition, Adad/Haddu was sometimes identified as the son of DAGAN, also an important god of agriculture and weather. His role in official and national pantheons transcends the simple representation of the powers of tempest, wind, rain, lightning, and thunder, from which his name probably derives. The cultures of northern Mesopotamia and the Levant, where successful agriculture depends on the weather, have myths describing how the storm god assumes a special position as lord, “Ba’al,” of the world. The narrative associates the god of storms with conceptions of legitimate kingship and political systems based thereon. These myths represent the storm god as a young warrior who becomes king of the divine assembly and of the country, after having agreed to use rain, thunder, and winds to fight different chaotic or barbaric powers that menace the world; the enemies the storm god must vanquish are often described as snakes, dragons, or monsters coming from the wilderness, the Salt Sea, or the far-away mountains. After his victory, having established his authority, the storm god proceeds to the organization of nature and the construction of culture. His activity thus becomes a paradigm of successful kingship. In central and southern Mesopotamia, where agriculture depends mainly on irrigation, Adad retains his functions as controller of the hydrological system and god of divination but does not acquire supremacy in the pantheon. Babylonian mythological compositions of the second millennium BCE attribute that role to

other gods, such as ENLIL, NINURTA, and later MARDUK, god of Babylon, who eventually came to rule all the cosmos. While they are not registered as “storm gods” according to the theological lore, these gods, the offspring of legitimate kings of the gods of the previous generation, do go to battle against the same kinds of enemies, using the same kind of weapons, as the storm gods of the northern and western traditions. However, in Marduk’s mythology the warrior god’s accession to kingship is clearly connected with the creation of the cosmos itself, a motif lacking in the Syro-Mesopotamian narrative of the storm god. SEE ALSO:

Enuma Elish.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Annus, A. (2002) The god Ninurta in the mythology and royal ideology of Ancient Mesopotamia. Helsinki. Fronzaroli, P. (1997) “Les combats de Hadda dans les texts d’Ebla.” Mari 8: 283–290. Lambert, W. G. (1986) “Ninurta mythology in the Babylonian epic of creation.” In K. Hecker and W. Sommerfeld, eds., Keilschriftliche Literaturen, Ausgewa¨hlte Vortra¨ge des XXXII. Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale: 55–60. Berlin. Schwemer, D. (2001) Die Wettergottgestalten Mesopotamiens und Nordsyriens im Zeitalter der Keilschriftkulturen. Materialen und Studien nach den schriftlichen Quellen. Wiesbaden. Vanel, A. (1965) L’iconographie du dieu de l’Orage dans le Proche-Orient ancien jusqu’au VIIe sie`cle avant J.-C. Paris. Wyatt, N. (1998) “Arms and the king. The earliest allusions to the Chaoskampf motif and their implication for the Ugaritic and Biblical traditions.” In M. Dietrich and I. Kottsieper, eds., Und Moses schrieb dieses Lied auf. Studien zum Alten Testament und zum Alten Orient, Festschrift fu¨r Oswald Loretz zur Vollendung seines 70. Lebensjahres mit Beitra¨gen von Freunden, Schu¨lern und Kollegen: 834–82. Mu¨nster.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 61–62. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah24002

1

Adad-guppi SARAH C. MELVILLE

Adad-guppi was the mother of NABONIDUS, the last ruler of the Neo-Babylonian Dynasty. Her extraordinary 104-year life was recorded in a posthumous pseudo-autobiography (Longman 1991) on twin funeral steles displayed at the Ehulhul, the temple of SIN in Harran (Pognon 1907; Gadd 1958). Born in 649/648 BCE in Harran, Adad-guppi survived the violent overthrow of the Assyrian Empire, including her city’s destruction. Afterwards she and Nabonidus were taken to BABYLON, where they allegedly served at court for over fifty years until Nabonidus became king himself in 556. A life-long and fervent devotee of the god Sin, Adad-guppi contributed to the reconstruction of the Ehulhul, although she did not live to see it completed (Beaulieu 1989; 2007). More than an encomium to a beloved mother, Adad-guppi’s “autobiography” served Nabonidus’ political and theological purposes. By using his mother’s voice and by emphasizing their devotion to the god Sin, Nabonidus established his legitimacy and promoted his concept of a new divine order, in which Sin, rather than MARDUK, reigned supreme. The text

offered an additional benefit by attributing the destruction of Ehulhul to divine abandonment rather than human agency (e.g., the Babylonians), therefore absolving them of a terrible crime. SEE ALSO: Assyrian kings, Neo-Assyrian period; Nabopolassar and the Chaldaean Dynasty; Queens, ancient Near East.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Beaulieu, P.-A. (1989) The reign of Nabonidus King of Babylon 556–539 BC. New Haven. Beaulieu, P.-A. (2007) “Nabonidus the mad king: a reconsideration of his steles from Harran and Babylon.” In M. Heinz and M. Feldman, eds., Representations of political power : 137–68. Winona Lake, IN. Gadd, C. J. (1958) “The Harran inscriptions of Nabonidus.” Anatolian Studies 8: 35–92. Longman, T. (1991) Fictional Akkadian autobiography. Winona Lake, IN. Melville, S. C. (2006) “The autobiography of AdadGuppi.” In M. Chavalas, ed., The ancient Near East: historical sources in translation: 389–93. Oxford. Pognon, H. (1907) Inscriptions se´mitiques de la Syrie, de la Me´sopotamie, et de la re´gion de Mossoul. Paris.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print page 62. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah24003

1

Adad-nirari III MORDECHAI COGAN

Adad-nirari III, son of Shamshi-Adad V and Sammuramat (the SEMIRAMIS of Greco-Roman legend), was king of Assyria (r. 810–783 BCE). The extant fragmentary texts from his poorly documented reign highlight military activities in the west, especially around DAMASCUS. These campaigns took place between the years 805 and 803 (possibly also 802), according to the Assyrian Eponym Chronicle, and they marked Assyria’s return to the area after an absence of thirty years, since the time of Shalmaneser III. The restoration of Assyrian dominance freed local dynasts (e.g., ZAKKUR OF HAMATH) from the pressure of HAZAEL and his son Ben-Hadad, kings of Damascus. In 796, Adad-nirari laid siege to “Mari’, king of Damascus, in Damascus,” forcing him into surrender (Mari’, an Aramaic word meaning “lord,” was a honorific title given to kings of Damascus). It was at this juncture that Joash of SAMARIA (i.e., king of Israel) became subject to Assyria and delivered tribute (COS 2. 272–277; cf. 2 Kgs 13:5). Adadnirari also campaigned in Babylonia, whose kings entered into a vassal relationship with Assyria.

The reign of Adad-nirari was marked by the rise of strong, independent provincial governors who usurped monarchic prerogatives, enlarging their territorial domains, memorializing their deeds in inscriptions written in royal style, and engaging in independent diplomacy. Most intriguing is the question of the position of the queen mother, Sammuramat, who seems to have had considerable influence during her son’s reign. She appears alongside her son in several inscriptions, which is unusual, but there is no evidence to support the postulate that she was regent during Adad-nirari’s first four years (supposedly the period of his minority; Schramm 1972). SEE ALSO: Aram, Aramaeans; Assyrian kings, Neo-Assyrian period.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Millard, A. R. (1973) “Adad-Nirari III, Aram, and Arpad.” Palestine Exploration Quarterly 105: 161–64. Millard, A. R. and Tadmor, H. (1973) “Adad-Nirari III in Syria.” Iraq 35: 57–64. Schramm, W. (1972) “War Semiramis assyrische Regentin?” Historia 21: 513–21. Tadmor, H. (1973) “The historical inscriptions of Adad-Nirari III.” Iraq 35: 141–50.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 62–63. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah24004

1

Adaeratio COLIN E. P. ADAMS

In the Roman Empire, adaeratio was the term used to describe the process of commuting tax payments in kind into cash equivalents. There seems to have been no formal procedure, as practices varied over time and place. It is a process normally associated with the later Roman period, for which the traditional view of taxation holds that more taxes in kind were collected as part of the ANNONA. Commutation was normally into gold, and decisions about it were made by government officials and tax collectors, although it seems that taxpayers could make application for adaeratio. The commutation of tax payments in staple goods – grain,

wine, oil, and meat – was more carefully controlled, so as to avoid potential supply difficulties. Adaeratio, while certainly a feature of the later empire, was present in earlier periods, as is shown by Greek papyri from Egypt. Here it was carefully controlled, and permission to commute was taken at a high administrative level, rather than by local strategoi, to ensure adequate grain supply. SEE ALSO: Money, Greco-Roman; Strategoi; Taxation, Roman.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Jones, A. H. M. (1964) The later Roman Empire, 284–602, 2 vols. Oxford. s.v. commutation.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print page 63. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah06002

1

Adaima BEATRIX MIDANT-REYNES

The site of Adaima is crucial for understanding the Predynastic cultures of Upper Egypt. Located 8 km south from the modern city of Esna, Adaima occupies an area of 35 ha and consists of a large settlement and two necropoleis. It was occupied from the end of Naqada I (ca. 3900 BCE) to the 3rd Dynasty (ca. 2700). The site was discovered in 1908 by Henri de Morgan and revisited in 1972 by the French Institute of Archaeology (IFAO). Between 1989 and 2005, it was the focus of seventeen French missions in the framework of an interdisciplinary research program, which concentrated on several points:

• • •

the quest of settlement structures that had been hitherto ignored; paleo-environmental research, which includes geomorphology, archaeobotany, and archaeozoology; examination of the necropoleis, including physical anthropological studies, archaeological research, and DNA analysis.

The most recent series of excavations have opened large areas in the settlement, and 881 graves have been excavated from both cemeteries. Understanding the Predynastic settlement is difficult, particularly in sandy areas because of the kind of structures concerned: hearths, small wooden postholes, and storage pots. Thanks to the study of the pottery, it was possible to show that the cemeteries and the settlements evolved in tandem and that the burials were all of local people. In a climate slightly more humid than today, the economy of Adaima was essentially based on agriculture (emmer wheat, barley, flax) and livestock (pigs, cattle, ovicaprines). Fishing was widely practiced throughout the year, but hunting and harvesting of shellfish were marginal activities. Over a span of six hundred years,

Figure 1 Child’s grave in the southern part of the Eastern Cemetery. Photograph by Luc Staniaszek.

changes in the way of settlement and funeral practices were observed. In particular, a contraction of the settlement near the floodplain seems to have occurred, which may have been due in part to ecological and economic reasons. The Western Cemetery extended from the top of a small sandy hill that marks the highest point (þ 86 m), on the border of an ancient wadi. Here, 301 tombs were excavated out of a total that remains unknown. The bodies – all adults – were buried in simple pits in the sand, generally one per grave, but sometimes with two or three people in the same grave. Several graves were very disturbed, no doubt due to ancient robbers. Indeed, the work of the archaeologists and anthropologists determined that in many cases, these robberies occurred three to thirty years after the burial. A small group of tombs, dating from Naqada Ic, located at the top of the sandy hill, marks the beginning of the cemetery. One tomb could be viewed as the “founder” of the cemetery, as it shows unique funeral practices, which were found neither in the western cemetery nor in the eastern one. Here, six individuals were buried at the same time in the area of a great hearth, along with specific grave goods, including small ovoid pots with zig-zag patterns made with charcoal. In the Naqada IIc phase, the burial space increased, suggesting social organization, with elites having larger tombs than their lower class contemporaries. This is the phase of maximal

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 63–65. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah15014

2 extension of the cemetery as well as of the domestic occupation. From the Naqada IId period, the Western Cemetery was progressively deserted, and several parts of the settlement were abandoned. However, a little further west, a children’s cemetery was found. The Eastern Cemetery spreads from the south to the north along the border of a small wadi. A total of 580 tombs were excavated here, the majority of which are intact. The most ancient burials date from Naqada IIc–d. They are located in the southern part of the cemetery and exclusively consist of children’s graves. Here, very young children, sometimes even fetuses, were buried in large ceramic storage vessels, placed in pits. The presence of varied ornaments and cosmetic utensils (palettes and pigments) represents a remarkable feature of funeral deposits in this sector. During the following period, Naqada IIIa–b, the cemetery spread to the north, and adults started to be buried among the children. New funeral practices are marked by inhumation in mud coffins, and bone manipulations (e.g., skulls alone in the pits, bones taken away, traces of sticks on the cervical vertebrae). These practices have been found in other Predynastic cemeteries, such as Naqada and Hierakonpolis.

One of the most important discoveries in Adaima concerns the evidence for tuberculosis. DNA analysis of bone lesions on a Predynastic skeleton from the western necropolis shows the presence of bone tuberculosis, perhaps one of the earliest examples of this disease. Thus, the excavations conducted at Adaima have brought new light on the population, the economy, the environment, the social evolution, the health, and the ritual activity of a small community of Upper Egypt during the crucial phase of the emergence of the State in Egypt. SEE ALSO:

Naqada (Nagada).

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Crube´zy, E., Janin, T., and Midant-Reynes, B. (2002) Adaima 2. La ne´cropole pre´dynastique. Cairo. Crube´zy, E., Legal, L., Fabas, G., Dabernat, H., and Ludes, B. (2006) “Pathogeny of archaic mycobacteria at the emergence of urban life in Egypt (3400 BC).” Infections and Genetic Evolution 6: 13–21. Midant-Reynes, B. and Buchez, N. (2002) Adaima 1. Economie et habitat. Cairo. Newton, C. and Midant-Reynes, B. (2007) “Environmental change and settlement shifts in Uppper Egypt during the predynastic: charcoal analysis at Adaima.” The Holocene 17, 8: 1109–18.

1

Adapa JACK SASSON

Adapa was one of seven apkallus, primordial and antediluvian sages in cuneiform lore who came out of the sea to instruct humankind and remained in Mesopotamian consciousness for over two thousand years. Adapa was a resident of ERIDU, the first city to receive kingship. Several compositions, among them a series on celestial omens, were attributed to him, and he is the protagonist of a parable known from many sources spanning a millennium. The fullest and best-known exemplar of this story is the one found at Tell el-Amarna (fourteenth century BCE; see AMARNA), which served to teach Egyptian scribes CUNEIFORM. On a calm day, as Adapa fishes on behalf of his patron god EA (ENKI), the South Wind blows, capsizing his boat. Adapa curses it, breaking its wings and so, presumably, interrupting the course of nature. When Adapa is summoned before the god ANU (the sky god), Ea instructs him on conducting himself before the divine tribunal: “They will offer you food of death (mu¯tum), but you must not eat; they will offer you water of death, but you must not drink.”

What Anu offers Adapa, instead, is “food/water of life (bala¯t:um).” But Adapa, following Ea’s instruction, refuses them and so loses the opportunity for immortality, for himself and perhaps also for his species. The bibliography on Adapa is rich in discussion of whether and why Ea gives Adapa false information; whether or not Anu is lying about what he is giving Adapa; and whether or not the story is echoed in Adam’s failure to stay in paradise. Answers for each issue have been many: Ea deceives because gods need humans to remain mortal; Adapa misunderstood Ea’s instruction, he was to avoid eating only if offered deadly fare; Anu was in fact seeking to kill Adapa, and it is a good thing he did not eat; Anu was not intentionally deceiving, the food he was offering was fit for gods, but perhaps not for humans. Or perhaps neither god deceived Adapa: he failed to recognize the pun in Ea’s word, for mutum meant both “death” and “humanity,” depending on the length of its first vowel. REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Izre’el, S. (2001) Adapa and the South Wind: language has the power of life and death. Winona Lake, IN.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print page 65. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah24005

1

Adeia ELISABETTA PODDIGHE

The Greek term adeia corresponds to the concept of immunity as a special permission, such as safe conduct when passing through enemy territory (Plut. Alc. 23), as well as to the “immunity vote” granted in Athens by the assembly (ekklesia) allowing discussion of a subject that otherwise could not be discussed. The immunity vote was prescribed when persons who had a statement to make were debarred from addressing the assembly (e.g., slaves, metics, women, criminals), or when the statement concerned an entrenched matter. In both cases an assembly competent to grant an adeia required definition as to the voting method (two votes at separate meetings before the action could be taken) and attendance (a quorum of 6,000 votes: Dem. 24.45). When the adeia was granted to a criminal who was prepared to turn informer for the prosecution, he could not be prosecuted as an accomplice: this was the case of the slave Menon against Pheidias (Plut. Per. 31) and of the metic Teukros against ALKIBIADES (Andoc. 1.15). An adeia was granted as a general amnesty in 405 BCE when the assembly enacted a law that all the disenfranchised (atimoi) and public debtors could propose measures in the assembly with impunity (Andoc. 1.77). The abuse of adeia as indemnity may explain its late usage with the meaning of “impunity” (Dem. 19.190, 272; McElwee 1975).

When it concerned an entrenched matter, the adeia served as a device to confer authority on the assembly’s decisions, as shown by Kallias’ second financial decree dating from 434 to 418 (?). The decree specified that the proposal of a property tax (eisphora) and that of using monies from the treasury of Athena in excess of 10,000 drachmas were governed by similar penalties as those governing the man who put the proposal to the vote, unless an immunity vote was passed – a vote that served to protect the proposal itself (IG I3 52B.12–19; Schwartzberg 2004; Poddighe 2010). SEE ALSO:

Amnesty; Atimia; Democracy, Athenian; Eisphora.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Goldstaub, M. (1889) De adeias notione et usu in iure publico attico. Breslau. Lewis, D. M. (1974) “Entrenchment-clauses in Attic decrees.” In D. W. Bradeen and M. F. McGregor, eds., Phoros: Tribute to Benjamin Dean Meritt. 81–9. Locust Valley, NY. McElwee, L. A. (1975) Adeia, amnesty and immunity at Athens from Solon to Demosthenes. Albany, NY. Poddighe, E. (2010) “Riflessioni sul fondamento etico-legale e sul carattere finanziario dell’eisphora ateniese tra V e IV sec. a.C.” In A. Greco and G. Mariotta, eds., Strumenti e tecniche della riscossione dei tributi nel mondo antico: 97–117. Padua. Schwartzberg, M. (2004) “Athenian democracy and legal change.” American Political Science Review 98: 311–25.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 65–66. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah04003

1

Adeia ELISABETTA PODDIGHE AND ALBERTO ESU

Università degli Studi di Cagliari, Italy and Universität Mannheim, Germany

The Greek term adeia means literally “absence of fear” and in Athenian Law indicates a special authorization or immunity from prosecution. The Athenian Assembly granted adeia to authorize deliberation on an entrenched piece of legislation, and about atimoi and public debtors or to confer immunity from legal prosecution in criminal investigation (Esu forthcoming). The word refers to the semantic field of fear, and cognates are already used in HOMER (Il. 8.117; 21.481). The first literary attestation of the abstract noun is found in HERODOTUS with the meaning of “safety” or “security” (Hdt 2.121; 8.120; 9.42). As a legal institution, adeia seems to have originated in the context of Archaic legislative ideology that discouraged or forbade legal change through the use of entrenchment clauses envisaging severe penalties for the wrongdoers (Lewis 1997). The procedure of adeia allowed for an ad hoc suspension of such penalties in exceptional circumstances. In line with this ideological context, the first epigraphic attestation is found in the second decree of Kallias (434 BCE) regulating the spending from the treasury of Athena (IG I3 52B = Osborne and Rhodes 2017: no. 144, 12–19). Adeia is required to authorize any derogation of the decrees’ entrenchment clause which sets a limit of 10,000 drachmas for expenditure from this fund. The decree specifies that the levy of the property tax (eisphora) and that of expenditures from the treasury of Athena in excess of 10,000 drachmas are protected by similar penalties, unless adeia is passed (IG I3 52B. 12–19; IG I3 370 15, 30, 63–6; Poddighe 2010). A preliminary grant of adeia was also necessary to authorize the introduction of a motion about atimoi and public debtors in the Athenian Assembly. In both cases the

Assembly granted adeia through a special vote by secret ballot requiring a quorum of 6,000 votes before the motion was discussed (Dem. 24.45; Canevaro 2013). Adeia could also be used to grant immunity from prosecution for those involved in a crime who were willing to provide information about their accomplices. It was extensively used during the investigation following the profanation of the Eleusinian Mysteries and the mutilation of the HERMS in 415 BCE (Andoc. 1; Thuc. 6.27). The Athenian Boule was in charge of the investigation and granted adeia to several people, such as two slaves, ANDOCIDES, and the metic Teukros who brought accusations against many prominent Athenians including ALKIBIADES (Andoc. 1.11–17). Informants giving false information under the legal protection of adeia were sentenced to death (Andoc. 1.19). Abuse of this procedure is attested under the Thirty (see THIRTY TYRANTS, AT ATHENS), who used it to encourage false charges against their political enemies (Lys. 13.55–56). ALSO: Atimia; Democracy, Athenian; Eisphora; Eleusis, Mysteries of.

SEE

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Canevaro, M. (2013) The documents in the Attic orators: laws and decrees in public speeches of the Demosthenic corpus. Oxford. Esu, A. (forthcoming) “Adeia in fifth-century Athens.” Journal of Hellenic Studies 141. Goldstaub, M. (1889) De adeias notione et usu in iure publico attico. Wroclaw. Lewis, D. M. (1997) “Entrenchment-clauses in Attic decrees.” In P. J. Rhodes, ed., Selected papers in Greek and Near Eastern history: 158–72. Cambridge. Osborne, R. and Rhodes, P. J. (2017) Greek historical inscriptions, 478–404 BC. Oxford. Poddighe, E. (2010) “Riflessioni sul fondamento etico-legale e sul carattere finanziario dell’eisphora ateniese tra V e IV sec. a.C.” In A. Greco and G. Mariotta, eds., Strumenti e tecniche della riscossione dei tributi nel mondo antico: 97–117. Padua.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History. Edited by Andrew Erskine, David B. Hollander, and Arietta Papaconstantinou. © 2021 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Published 2021 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah04003.pub2

1

Adeimantos SARAH BOLMARCICH

Adeimantos was the commander of the Corinthian fleet during the second Persian invasion of Greece (480 BCE). Little is known of his background except his father’s name, Ocytus. We first hear of him at the battle of Artemision, when according to Herodotus he had to be bribed (along with the other Greek admirals) by THEMISTOKLES to hold his place in the line of battle (Hdt. 8.5). At Salamis, he first opposed Themistokles’ plan to remain in the straits between Salamis and the PIRAEUS and fight (Hdt. 8.61), and then, according to the Athenians, fled at the beginning of the battle with the rest of the Corinthians. In flight, as they passed the temple of Athena Skiras on Salamis, a boat manned by no visible presence appeared, and the Corinthians took it as a divine sign that they should return to battle.

The Corinthians and the rest of the Greeks denied this story, however, and it may represent an Athenian slander in revenge for Adeimantos’ opposition to Themistokles (Hdt. 8.94; Plut. Them. 11). Adeimantos is perhaps most famous today for his jibe at Themistokles prior to Salamis, namely that the Greeks should pay no attention to the Athenian’s advice because he was apolis, a man without a city (Hdt. 8.61). SEE ALSO: Persia and Greece; Salamis, island and battle of.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Bowen, A. (1992) The malice of Herodotus. Warminster. Bowie, A. M. (2008) Herodotus: Histories book VIII. Cambridge. How, W. W. and Wells, J. (1912) A commentary on Herodotus, vol. 2. Oxford.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 66–67. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah04004

1

Adfinitas ANN-CATHRIN HARDERS

The Latin term adfinitas/affinitas describes both the specific relationship and the broader kinship group that a person acquires by entering a marriage. The modern derivative “affinity” is still used in this sense in law, as well as in cultural and social anthropology. In classical Athens, the affine kinship group was called the kedesteia; an in-law was classified as kedestes, an affine of one’s affined was known as synkedestes. Together with the male members of the anchisteia, the bilateral kinship group, affines were obligated to perform certain tasks such as avenging a kinsman’s murder (IG I 3 104.22; see ANCHISTEIA). The relationship between an Athenian and his in-laws was supposed to be close and friendly. The kedesteia was called upon frequently for support, especially in court (Humphreys 1986: 76–85). In Roman society, affine kin were a heterogeneous group: the Roman jurist Modestinus defines the adfines as the cognate relations of the husband and wife and specifically mentions the father- and mother-in-law (socer/ socrus), son- and daughter-in-law (gener/ nurus), stepfather and stepmother (vitricus/ noverca), and stepson and stepdaughter (privignus/privigna); adfines were not distinguished by grades (Mod. Dig. 38.10.4.3–5). These adfines formed a legally defined group of relations: they are mentioned, for instance, in an imperial revision of the republican lex Cincia on donations. Adfines and cognates to the sixth degree were allowed to compensate their relatives for pleading their cases in court (Frag. Vat. 302). In social practice, collateral cognates (i.e., a wife’s nephew), stepkin, and even adfines’ adfines were included. Adfinitas was seen as “a combination of diverse lineages, cognatio, marriage, adfinitas, gentilician structures” (Moreau 1990: 12; see AGNATIO; COGNATES, COGNATIO). Adfinitas was announced upon betrothal and did not necessarily end upon dissolution of marriage: affine

relationships could continue to exist between families, especially if children were involved who constituted a common posterity (e.g., Cic. Quinct. 6.25; Sest. 3.6; Moreau 1990: 16–18; for a prosopographical overview, see Zmeskal 2009). On a social level, adfinitas was seen as a means of extending the kinship group by marriage. Roman society opted for exogamy and not only prohibited marriage between cognates and agnates to the sixth, and later to the fourth, degree, but also between adfines. Marriage to one’s stepchildren, children-inlaw, and parents-in-law was prohibited, even after the spouse who had brought about adfinitas had died or had been divorced (Gai. Inst. 1.63; Pap. Dig. 23.2.15; Mod. Dig. 38.10.4.7; see EXOGAMY; MARRIAGE, GREECE AND ROME). During the fourth century CE, marriage prohibitions were extended to collateral affine kin of the first degree, i.e., the brother’s wife or the wife’s sister (CT 3.12.2). Levirate marriage (Hebrew yibbum), which obliged a man to marry the widow of his brother in the event that his brother died childless, was practiced in Judaism and mandated by the Torah (Deut 25: 5–10); however, it was prohibited in Christian communities. Levirate marriage can be compared in structure to the Greek practice of marriage to an epikleros, i.e., marriage to a brotherless heiress, since it enforced endogamous tendencies and guaranteed the continuity of the patrilineage (see EPIKLEROS). On an abstract level, Cicero describes family and affinity as the birthplace of a community (Cic. Off. 1.54): the first bond of union is that between husband and wife; the next that between parents and children; then we find one home, with everything in common. And this is the foundation of civil government, the nursery, as it were, of the state. Then follow the bonds between siblings, and next those of first and then second cousins; and when they can no longer be sheltered under one roof, they go out into other homes as into colonies. Conubia (i.e., the right to intermarry) and

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 67–68. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah13006

2 affinitates follow; and from that propagation and succession states have their beginnings.

Cicero’s emphasis on conubia et affinitates must be understood as a Roman peculiarity. These concepts are not mentioned by the Greek philosopher ARISTOTLE in the passage on the origins of society on which Cicero obviously draws (cf. Arist. Pol. 1252a–b). The creation of affinity is presented as a strategy to integrate the basic units of familia and domus into a greater context: Cicero concludes that by interlinking isolated households through marriage, the state emerges. However, modern analyses that view adfinitas as a means of creating stable political alliances and factions (Scullard 1973; Zmeskal 2009) are too reductive and do not consider the social significance of affinity in the Roman Republic (Harders 2008: 31–44; 51–9). SEE ALSO: Conubium; Endogamy; Gens; Kinship; Marriage, Jewish; Matchmaker.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Guarino, A. (1939) Adfinitas. Milan. Harders, A.-C. (2008) Suavissima Soror. Untersuchungen zu den Bruder-SchwesterBeziehungen in der ro¨mischen Republik. Munich. Humphreys, S. C. (1986) “Kinship patterns in the Athenian courts.” Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies 27: 57–91. Moreau, Ph. (1990) “Adfinitas. La parente´ par alliance dans la socie´te´ romaine (Ier sie`cle av. J.-C. – IIe sie`cle ap. J.-C.).” In J. Andreau and H. Bruhns, eds., Parente´ et strate´gies familiales dans l’antiquite´ romaine. Actes de la table ronde de 2–4 octobre 1986: 3–26. Rome. Schmitz, W. (2007) Haus und Familie im antiken Griechenland. Munich. Scullard, H. H. (1973) Roman politics 220–150 BC. Oxford. Treggiari, S. (1991) Roman marriage. Iusti coniuges from the time of Cicero to the time of Ulpian. Oxford. Zmeskal, K. (2009) Adfinitas. Die Verwandtschaften der senatorischen Fu¨hrungsschicht der ro¨mischen Republik von 218 – 31 v.Chr., 2 vols. Passau.

1

Adiabene STEFAN R. HAUSER

Adiabene (Greek/Latin, derived from Aramaic Hdyab; Syriac Hɘdayyab) was the name of a ¯ ˙ ¯ geographical region and a dependent kingdom within the Arsacid and Sasanian empires in present-day northern Iraq (see SASANIANS). The term could be used in a narrower geographical sense for the area between the Upper Zab (Lycos) and the Lower Zab (Caprus), east of the Tigris River. In a wider sense, the name also served to describe the area of political as well as Christian and Zoroastrian religious administration, bordering in the north on ARMENIA, on the ZAGROS MOUNTAINS and MEDIA ATROPATENE in the east, on Babylonia (called Aso¯resta¯n in the Sasanian period) in the south, and the Hatrean Kingdom of the Arabs or Sasanian Arbayesta¯n in the west. As such, it was largely identical to Assyria proper (“Aturia”), and both names were used by ancient western authors (Strabo 16.1.1–3 and 19; Ptol. 6.1.1–2; Plin. HN 5.66, 6.25, 28, 41, 44, 114; Amm. Marc. 23.6). In the Sasanian period, the province was eventually called No¯dh-Ardashı¯raka¯n, which might have developed from the Parthian and Armenian name Norshı¯raka¯n. Its main cities were its capital Arbela (modern Erbil) and NINEVEH. The name Adiabene is first attested for the kingdom (or province) within the realm of the Arsacid (Parthian) king of kings. In the first century CE, the ruling family converted

to Judaism (see ADIABENE, RULING DYNASTY OF). TRAJAN occupied Adiabene in 116–17 CE, incorporating it into a new province “Assyria” (Rufius Festus Breviarium 3, 14). Septimius Severus in 195, Aurelian in 272 (?), the four Tetrarchs in 298, Constantine I before 315, and Constans II in 343 received the victory title Adiabenicus (maximus) after victorious battles on its borders. In 216, CARACALLA conquered Adiabene and plundered the royal tombs at Arbela, before he was forced to retreat. Throughout these events, Adiabene remained a loyal province of the Arsacid and later Sasanian empires, although its population was probably mostly Christian and Jewish. Christian metropolitan bishops of Hɘdayyab, ¯ ˙ ¯ which included various bishoprics of greater Adiabene, are well attested at Arbela from the fourth to the eighth century (Morony 1982: 10–14). The report in the Chronicle of Arbela that the first bishop was already ordained in 104 is of uncertain credibility. A Zoroastrian mago¯pat was also present at Arbela, which remained the administrative center of the Sasanian province until the early seventh century. REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Kawerau, P., ed. (1985) “Die Chronik von Arbela.” Corpus scriptorum Christianorum orientalium, 467–8; Scriptores Syri 199–200. Louvain. Morony, M. G. (1982) “Continuity and change in the administrative geography of late Sasanian and early Islamic al-’Iraq.” Iran 20: 1–49.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 68–69. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah14008

1

Adiabene, ruling dynasty of WITOLD WITAKOWSKI

Adiabene (Hadyab, Syriac: H : edayyab) was a minor kingdom in northern Mesopotamia, east of the Tigris, between the Upper and Lower Zab, its main city being Arbela. It occasionally included other areas to the west, north (Gordyene), and northwest (NISIBIS). Its rise was probably a result of the dissolution of the Seleucid empire and the growing pressure of the Parthians, as a vassal state of the latter. In the beginning of the first century BCE it was overpowered by Tigranes the Great, king of ARMENIA (Strabo 11.14.15), but after his submission to Rome (Pompey) it was ceded in about 64 BCE to PARTHIA. It remained within the Parthian sphere with its own dynasty of Iranian origin (to judge by the names; Frenschkowski 1990: 216–17). The main source for Adiabene’s history during the first century CE is JOSEPHUS’ Jewish Antiquities (AJ 20.2–4.17–96). The first king of Adiabene that we know by name is Monobazos Bazaios, called Talmay (Ptolemy) in the midrash Bereshit/Genesis Rabba (46.10), who, according to an Iranian custom, married his sister Helena. Monobazos I apparently had other sons by other wives, but only two by Helena: Monobazos II (Bereshit/Genesis Rabba: Munbaz) and Izates (Zawitos/Zoytos), the latter envisaged as the successor to hi father. In order to protect Izates from the jealousy of the other sons his father sent him to Abennergios, the king of Charax Spasinou (southern Mesopotamia; see SPASINOU CHARAX), whose daughter, Samacho, Izates married. After Monobazos I’s death (36 CE) his elder son, Monobazos II, acceded to the throne, but to honor his father’s wish he stepped down when Izates arrived, while the queen widow secured the consent of the Adiabenian aristocracy for Izates’ accession (36–60 CE). The other brothers were sent away as hostages to Rome and to the king of Parthia, Artabanos.

Furthermore Josephus informs us (AJ 20.3.34) that when still in Charax Spasinou, Izates, under the influence of a Jewish merchant, Ananias, converted to Judaism but postponed his circumcision. Back in Adiabene, under the influence of another Jew, Eleazar, but against the advice of Helena and Ananias (who were afraid that people would resent their king’s introduction of foreign religious customs) he was circumcised. Josephus’ account is corroborated (although with different details) by Bereshit/Genesis Rabba 46.11 (Schiffman 1987: 301–2). Monobazos II, apparently still as a prince, also converted to Judaism. Independently, Izates’ mother, Helena, accepted Jewish religion as well (AJ 20.3.35); she is also known in Tannaitic sources, for example, Mishna Nazir 3.6 and Tosephta Sukka 1.1 (Schiffman 1987: 298–99). Around 46 CE she went to JERUSALEM, but since the city was at that time suffering from famine she started relief work importing food from Egypt and Cyprus, while Izates sent money (AJ 20.2.51–3). When the conspiracy of Parthian nobles threatened King Artabanos III (12–ca. 38 CE), he took refuge with Izates. He helped Artabanos to regain his throne by diplomatic action, a favor repaid with various privileges and with the transfer of the district of Nisibis from the control of the Parthian vassal king of Armenia to that of Adiabene. Izates’ position within the Parthian Empire became so powerful that he could refuse to participate in the war that king Vardanes (ca. 39–47/8) had planned against Rome. The Adiabenian nobles, disliking Izates’s new religion, tried to remove him by arranging an attack on Adiabene by an Arab king, Abias. Izates defeated him and punished the treacherous nobles with death. He was also lucky in avoiding another attempt at his removal, by Vologases I of Parthia (51–ca. 78), since the latter, although already leading troops against Adiabene, had to turn his attention elsewhere due to the invasion of Scythian tribes.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 69–71. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah11001

2 After Izates’ death his brother Monobazos II became the king again (60 CE). He sent the bodies of his mother and brother to be buried in Jersualem. He had to face attacks from Tigranes V, the king of Armenia who had been appointed by the Romans (see CORBULO, GNAEUS DOMITIUS), until Rome and Parthia concluded peace (63). He probably sent gifts to the temple in Jerusalem and was memorialized for it in the Tannaitic sources (unless his name is substituted there for that of Izates; see Schiffman 1987: 300). Judaism became the permanent religion of the Adiabenian royal family, as can be inferred from Josephus’ mention that two members of the royal family, Monobazos (not the king) and Kenedaios fought valiantly in the Jewish war against Rome 66–70 (BJ 2.520). When the war was lost they and other members of the royal family were sent by TITUS to Rome as hostages (BJ 6.357). Monobazos and Helena had palaces built in Jerusalem (BJ 5.252) and were eventually buried there. Josephus also mentions a palace of a female relative of Izates, Grapte (BJ 4.567), as well as a tomb (“monument”) of Helena (BJ 5.55, 119, 147). Around 113 Adiabene was incorporated entirely into the Arsacid empire together with other North Mesopotamian states, OSRHOENE and Gordyene (Wolski 1993: 89). In 116 it was seized by TRAJAN. Cassius Dio (68.22.2–3) reports a king Mebarsapes (though it is uncertain whether he belonged to the Izates Dynasty) who defended Adiabene against Trajan’s onslaughts but was defeated. In the occupied territories Trajan organized the provinces of Mesopotamia and Assyria, but the Roman rule did not last for long. From the Syriac Chronicle of Arbela (26/ transl. 44) we know of king Narsai in the 180s, who refused to join the Parthian army in a war. The Parthians (Vologases IV 147.8– 190.1) therefore devastated Adiabene and

drowned Narsai in the Greater Zab. In a new Roman-Parthian war, in 195, Adiabene was seized by SEPTIMIUS SEVERUS, who then struck coins calling himself on the occasion Adiabenicus. The Romans withdrew four years later. Still another king of Adiabene, Shahrat, is reported by the Chronicle of Arbela (28f/tr. 49) as a member of the coalition that brought about the fall of the Parthian monarchy and the rise of the SASANIANS (224). It was also the end of the kingdom of Adiabene. The same chronicle also tells of the very early progress of Christianity in the region (ca. 100), but its reliability is a matter of debate. SEE ALSO: Arsaces; Parthian, rulers; Revolts, Jewish; Temple, Jewish, in Jerusalem; Tigranes II–IV of Armenia.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Broer, I. (1994) “Die Konversion des Ko¨nigshauses von Adiabene nach Josephus (Ant XX).” In C. Mayer, K. Mu¨ller, and G. Schmalenberg, eds., Nach den Anfa¨ngen fragen: Herrn Prof. Dr. theol. Gerhard Dautzenberg zum 60. Geburtstag am 30. Januar 1994: 133–62. Gießen. Frenschkowski, M. (1990) “Iranische Ko¨nigslegende in der Adiabene: Zur Vorgeschichte von Josephus: Antiquitates XX, 17–33.” Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenla¨ndischen Gesellschaft 140: 213–33. Kawerau, P. et al. (1985) Die Chronik von Arbela. Louvain. Neusner, J. (1964) “The conversion of Adiabene to Judaism: a new perspective.” Journal of Biblical Literature 83: 60–6. Schiffman, L. H. (1987) “The conversion of the royal house of Adiabe`ne in Josephus and Rabbinic sources.” In L. H. Feldman and G. Hata, eds., Josephus, Judaism, and Christianity: 293–312. Detroit. Theodor, J., ed. (1912) Bereschit Rabba, mit kritischem Apparat und Kommmentar, vol. 1, Parascha I–XLVII. Berlin. Wolski, J. (1993) L’Empire des Arsacides. Louvain.

1

Adlocutio MICHAEL NG

During the imperial period, an important feature of relations between the Roman army and their emperors was the adlocutio, a formal speech given to the soldiers during special circumstances. This speech had its origins in similar addresses to soldiers given by generals before battle during the republican period. These were intended to encourage soldiers before battle or to justify decisions made by the commanding officer, and they became a regular feature of relations between emperors and the army (particularly with the Praetorian Guard in Rome). Emperors could use these formal occasions to address the soldiers’ skills and their loyalty. When HADRIAN inspected Legio III Augusta and the auxiliary troops at LAMBAESIS, he praised their readiness and skill, as well as

the quality of the troops present (ILS 2487). In other examples, the adlocutio to the troops could be used by both reigning emperors and usurpers to rally their soldiers to them or, in the case of Galba in 69 CE, they could present their heirs to the army in a formal manner in the camp (Tac. Hist. 1.17). Most importantly, the adlocutio highlighted the emperor as the commander-in-chief of the army and, in giving the speech, it made him visible to the army. The adlocutio, which could often use terms such as COMMILITO (fellow soldier) to address the soldiers, was used by emperors to increase the range of contact with their men and to remind them where their loyalty lay. REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Campbell, J. B. (1984) The emperor and the Roman army: 31 BC–AD 235: 69–88. Oxford.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print page 71. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah19002

1

Administration, ancient Near East MICHAEL JURSA

The invention of writing, mathematics, and metrology in the ancient Near East at the end of the fourth millennium BCE is owed to the exigencies of (public) administration and control under conditions of increasing social and economic complexity. The precursors of writing (systems of accounting based on the use of “tokens” and seals) that are attested in the region document the need for complex administrative practices already at a much earlier period (Nissen, Damerow, and Englund 1991). For historical periods, ancient Near Eastern administrative systems can be studied through numerous “archives” of cuneiform tablets. Such documents were found, and therefore usually also kept, physically together as a group and belonged to individuals, families, or institutional households. Administrative matters are normally reflected best in institutional archives. Heuristically, it is useful to make a distinction according to the reach of bureaucratic systems: they may deal with an institutional household (a palace or temple) only, with administration on a local level, or they may belong to the sphere of royal or state administration. However, the borders between these three categories are sometimes indistinct and generally differ from period to period. The principal purpose of ancient Near Eastern bureaucratic systems is that of keeping track of obligations, i.e., of fulfilling what Moses Finley (1981) called a “police function”: administrations were chiefly interested in monitoring the performance of their dependants. Planning and prognostication of future economic performance within an administrative context were achieved less by rational and systematic data collection and extrapolation than by the application of simplifying models or “rules of thumb” (“one plow team will cultivate such-and-such a surface area every year; this surface area will yield such-and-such a quantity of barley”).

This means that administrative recordkeeping was never comprehensive. Written documentation was only required for transactions implying an obligation that could potentially be referred to in the future (van de Mieroop 1997; Jursa 2004). The “style” of individual administrative systems could vary considerably. Some systems, such as the bureaucracy in the state of the Third Dynasty of Ur (southern Mesopotamia, at the end of the third millennium BCE), display an interest in maximizing the “reach” of centralized administration and book-keeping, aiming at a near-comprehensive documentary coverage. At other times direct administrative control was restricted to a very narrow range of transactions, while many aspects of the institutional household economy, even important ones such as the administration of institutional agricultural production, were entrusted as franchises to private businessmen. These men took care of the day-to-day business while institutional administrators limited their activities to auditing the fulfillment of the businessmen’s obligations (Postgate 2001). Administrative archives usually can be assigned to one of three categories: institutional household administration, local or city administration including local jurisdiction, and royal administration (for a survey of archives of the later second and first millennium, see Pederse´n 1998). Most well-documented institutional households are temple households: complex economic structures whose nominal head was the chief deity residing in the temple in question. The principal topics treated in temple archives include the management of the temples’ estates, personnel management (ration lists, personnel rosters, and the like), craft production, including inventories of objects of value and cultic implements, and, importantly, the organization of the preparation of the regular food offerings presented to the gods of the temple (e.g., Bongenaar 1997). The dayto-day business of institutional administration was in the hands of scribes; higher-ranking

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 71–73. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah01002

2 administrators and priests (who were usually able to read and write) came from the ranks of the local elite families or were appointed by the king. The archives of palace administrations, or rather administrations of the extended households of rulers and members of the elite, are structurally similar to temple archives (Postgate 2004, with further references). Military matters tend to be of greater importance, while religion and cult are less frequent topics (but they are by no means absent). Professional scribes and members of the royal household who were not blood-relatives of the ruler (“courtiers,” in Assyria perhaps frequently eunuchs) formed the backbone of the administrative personnel. Institutions of local government are frequently connected with institutional households (chief priests can also act as heads of judicial assemblies, for instance) and with theroyal establishment, but they are nevertheless clearly distinguished from these other spheres of administrative control. City governors, mayors, as well as chief merchants rank among the principal city authorities. Their responsibility typically extended over matters of local jurisdiction and government, public building activities, the maintenance of irrigation installations, and military levies on behalf of the king. Many aspects of local government seem to have been transacted orally and involved various assemblies of citizens (Barjamovic 2004; Seri 2005). Royal or state administration refers to those aspects of state business that transcend the management of the kings’ extended households, the palaces. Genuine “state archives” in this sense have been found in particular at MARI (eighteenth century BCE) and in NINEVEH (eighth and seventh centuries BCE). Both text groups contain large epistolary archives documenting the communication between the sovereigns and their various governors, agents, military commanders, scholars, and family members on the one hand, and between the sovereigns and their foreign counterparts on the other. Lists of personnel, tax and tribute lists, and similar

documentation referring to state revenue are also present (Durand 1987; Fales 2001). SEE ALSO: Accounting, Mesopotamian; Alphabets and scripts, ancient Near East; Archives; Assyria; Eunuchs, ancient Near East; Law, ancient Near East; Mathematics, Mesopotamian; Palace economy; Temple economy, Greek and Roman.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Barjamovic, G. (2004) “Civic institutions and self-government in southern Mesopotamia in the mid-first millennium BC.” In J. G. Dercksen, ed., Assyria and beyond: studies presented to Mogens Trolle Larsen: 47–98. Istanbul. Bongenaar, A. C. V. M. (1997) The Neo-Babylonian Ebabbar Temple at Sippar: its administration and its prosopography. Istanbul. Durand, J.-M. (1987) “L’organisation de l’espace dans le palais de Mari: Le te´moignage des textes.” In E. Le´vy, ed., Le Syste`me palatial en Orient, en Gre`ce et a` Rome: 39–110. Leiden. Fales, F. M. (2001) L’impero assiro. Storia e amministrazione (IX–VII secolo a.C.). Bari. Finley, M. (1981) Economy and society in ancient Greece. London. Jursa, M. (2004) “Accounting in Neo-Babylonian institutional archives: structure, usage, implications.” In M. Hudson and C. Wunsch, eds., Creating economic order: record-keeping, standardi zation, and the development of accounting in the ancient Near East: 145–98. Bethesda. Nissen, H. J., Damerow, P., and Englund, R. K. (1991) Fru¨he Schrift und Techniken der Wirtschaftsverwaltung im alten Vorderen Orient. Informationsspeicherung und -verarbeitung vor 5000 Jahren, 2nd ed. Bad Salzdetfurth. Pederse´n, O. (1998) Archives and libraries in the ancient Near East 1500–300 BC. Bethesda. Postgate, J. N. (2001) “System and style in three Near Eastern bureaucracies.” In S. Voutsaki and J. Killen, eds., Economy and politics in the Mycenaean palace state: 181–94. Cambridge. Postgate, J. N. (2004) “Palast. Einleitung.” Reallexikon der Assyriologie 10, 3/4: 195–200. Seri, A. (2005) Local power in Old Babylonian Mesopotamia. London. Van de Mieroop, M. (1997) “Why did they write on clay?” Klio 79: 1–18.

1

Administration, Byzantine MEREDITH L. D. RIEDEL

Government administration in the Byzantine world was large, competent, and highly centralized. It was engaged in adjudicating disputes, performing public works, building roads, minting coinage, regulating trade, and maintaining a postal service, transport system, tax regime, and standing army. Fiscal, judicial, ecclesiastical, and military offices were assigned to perform the various administrative duties; curiously, there was no dedicated diplomatic or foreign service to maintain relations with neighboring states. Ambassadors were usually high-ranking civil servants or clerics, temporarily seconded for specific journeys to foreign courts. From the beginning, the Byzantine state held a monopoly on the production of coinage through the output of a dozen imperial mints and oversaw a highly monetized economy for most of its history. In the fifth century, primary civil authority was given to the praetorian prefects, military commanders who oversaw the empire in four regions, respectively, according to the Notitia Dignitatum, Gallia, Italy, Illyricum, and Oriens. Their main task was to levy and collect the land-tax, either in cash (if available) or in kind (usually grain or other foods, which then formed part of the annonae). Out of this they paid administrative salaries, oversaw public works like roads and bridges, and maintained arms and weapons factories. Two other administrative bodies – the “sacred largesses” (sacrae largitiones) and the private fisc (res privata) – were responsible for operating mints and managing income from imperial lands, respectively. From the reign of Constantine (r. 306–37), administrative duties were gradually divided between civilian and military officials (see PROVINCIAL ADMINISTRATION, BYZANTINE), with more duties being taken on by civilian officials in order to limit the military power of

individual commanders. Constantine also created the office of the magister officiorum, or master of offices, in 320 CE to be the head of the civil administration, with no military responsibilities. One of Constantine’s most enduring innovations was to establish the gold solidus (nomisma or nomismation in Greek), a coin struck at seventy-two to the pound, replacing the smaller, thicker gold aureus, which had been struck at sixty to the pound. The nomisma retained extraordinary stability as international currency until the eleventh century (see COINAGE, BYZANTINE). Under Justinian (r. 527–65), civil and military offices were combined, partly to streamline the collection of taxes needed to support his numerous and expensive military campaigns. Justinian also moved to standardize and reform administration in the Byzantine Empire (see JUSTINIAN I). Between 528 and 534, he commissioned a revision of all laws from Hadrian to Theodosius (see CODEX JUSTINIANUS); this was first promulgated in 529 and updated in 534. It opened with a decree that the security of the state proceeded from two sources: the force of arms, and the force of law. It was also written to conform to an explicitly Christian worldview and imposed legal penalties on adherents of other religions. It emphasized the divinely granted power of the emperor as vicegerent with God, a concept that was to have a long life in Byzantium. Justinian also commissioned a summary of Roman jurisprudence (Pandects, or Digest), and a textbook on the principles of law. These three works were written in Latin; to them, Justinian later added approximately 150 new laws (Novels), written in Greek to update older legislation, including inheritance rights and property laws. The primary reforms instituted by Justinian included legislation prohibiting the sale of offices, reforming the administrative structure of the provinces, and giving provincial judges authority to hear appeals. He also legislated extensively on marriage (more freedom) and divorce (outlawed, but the prohibition repealed a few years later), male homosexuality

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 73–75. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah03001

2 (punishable by castration), and brothels (outlawed in Constantinople). In the early seventh century, HERAKLEIOS (r. 610–41) centralized imperial minting, closing most provincial mints and maintaining in addition to Constantinople only those in Ravenna, Carthage, and Alexandria. The loss of Palestine and Syria by 640 to the Muslims may have precipitated this contraction of imperial resources. In the seventh century, the administrative system underwent farreaching changes, principally the establishment of themata, with the military general in charge of each theme responsible for both military and civil administration (see THEMATA). This represented a radical change from the Justinianic system of municipal authorities outside Constantinople, designed to concentrate power in the capital. Later rebellions in the eighth and ninth centuries were put down and the themata divided into smaller, less powerful units, so that the hegemony of the center could not be challenged. Another development in the seventh century was the establishment of the secretariats (logothesia), which replaced the older res privata and praetorian prefectures to administer the fiscal system, that is, to levy and collect taxes. By the ninth century, these officials were based solely in Constantinople. There appears to have been a regular land survey that took place every thirty years. Byzantium’s legal system underwent extensive updating under Basil I and Leo VI in the late ninth century; these emperors sponsored revisions of the Justinianic legislation, with the latter writing 113 new laws that reflected contemporary concerns (see LEGISLATION, BYZANTINE). The hierarchical structure of Byzantine bureaucracy in the middle centuries is detailed by the Kletorologion of Philotheos, a list of precedence establishing rank for seating at imperial banquets, promulgated in 899 CE. Eighteen offices are listed, plus eight for “beardless men” or eunuchs. Some of these are merely titles, conferred by the gift of an insignia (brabeion, in Greek) rather than legitimate offices, which were granted by appointment (literally, by a word). The real power

lay with the Logothete of the Drome, under whom the other secretariats (logothesia) were responsible for various financial departments. Political power of an office could be measured by proximity to the emperor. The Kletorologion also lists dozens of military offices and court administrators, all of whom were appointed and dismissed by the emperor personally. This codification of administrative procedure and order continued apace: in the tenth century, the Book of the Eparch gives evidence that the Byzantine administration included detailed regulations on trade and trade guilds. Titles and practices changed in the closing centuries of the Byzantine state (thirteenth to fifteenth centuries), with the contraction of lands under Byzantine hegemony; administration, particularly fiscal, was decentralized, and the coinage significantly devalued. SEE ALSO: Army, Byzantium; Basileus/ autokrator, Byzantine; Byzantium, political structure; Caesaropapism; Church architecture; Church institutions; Court (imperial), Byzantine; Court (law), Byzantine; Economy, Byzantine; Institutiones, of Justinian; Procopius; Taxation, Byzantine.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Ahrweiler, H. (1960) “Recherches sur l’administration de l’empire byzantin aux IXe–XIe sie`cles.” Bulletin de Correspondance helle´nique 84: 1–109. Antonopoulos, P. T. (1992) “The less obvious ends of Byzantine diplomacy.” In J. Shepard and S. Franklin, eds., Byzantine diplomacy, papers from the twenty-fourth spring symposium of Byzantine studies: 315–20. Aldershot. Beck, H.-G. (1970) Res publica Romana. Vom Staatsdenken der Byzantiner. Munich. Cameron, A. (2006) “Ruling the Byzantine state.” In The Byzantines: 78–95. Oxford. Delmaire, R. (1989) Largesses sacre´es et “res privata”: L’aerarium impe´rial et son administration du IVe au VIe sie`cle. Rome. Fo¨gen, M. T. (1994) “Legislation in Byzantium: a political and a bureaucratic technique.” In A. E. Laiou and D. Simon, eds., Law and society in

3 Byzantium, ninth–twelfth centuries: 53–70. Washington. Ireland, R., ed. (1999) Notitia dignitatum. Leipzig. Jones, A. H. M. (1964) The later Roman Empire 284–602. A social, economic and administrative survey, 3 vols. Oxford.

Koder, J., ed. (1991) Das Eparchenbuch Leons des Weisen. Vienna. Oikonomide`s, N., ed. (1972) Les listes de pre´se´ance byzantines des IXe et Xe sie`cles: introduction, texte, traduction, commentaire. Paris. Whittow, M. (1996) The making of orthodox Byzantium, 600–1025: 53–68, 104–126. Berkeley.

1

Administration, Greece JAMES P. SICKINGER

The collapse of Mycenaean civilization in the twelfth century BCE was accompanied by the disappearance of the centralized bureaucracies that had characterized its palace-based kingdoms. When settled conditions started to return to the Greek world ca. 1000 BCE, most Greeks lived in small, scattered villages ruled by powerful families and their leaders, called basileis, who controlled and administered the business of their communities as judges, priests, and war leaders. Administrative needs were few, but as villages grew in size and the more complex POLIS type of community began to emerge in the eighth century, decisionmaking increasingly devolved to aristocratic councils and broader-based assemblies of citizens, while the conduct of state matters was entrusted to magistrates selected from the citizen body. The numbers, duties, and methods of appointment of these officials varied from polis to polis, but in most places their tenure was limited and their powers restricted, practices that prevented the development of administrative specialists and entrenched bureaucracies throughout ancient Greece. Our most detailed information comes from Athens, which because of its size, democratic government, and hegemonic status was far from typical. The Athenian people (demos) had near absolute power to make decisions on all state matters, but individual magistrates and boards of officials oversaw the implementation of policy and day-to-day operations of government. Most important was the BOULE, or council of 500, created by Kleisthenes ca. 507 BCE (see KLEISTHENES OF ATHENS). It had general supervisory responsibility over all state officials and oversaw public finances, the navy, cavalry, and other civic matters. It selected some officials from its own membership, but most came from the citizen body at large. The vast majority were chosen by lot and served on boards of ten, with one member drawn from

each of Athens’ ten tribes. Tenure was normally for one year and iteration in the same office typically prohibited. An exception was made for military officials, who were elected annually and for whom reappointment was possible (see STRATEGOI). Related administrative responsibilities were often spread among several offices to prevent corruption and undue concentration of power. Thus, several boards and magistrates oversaw the administration of state finances. Ten treasurers supervised the treasury of Athena, which included not only dedications to the city’s patron goddess but also coined money. The Athenians drew on these funds, and those of other deities, to pay for many state expenses, ranging from military campaigns to public works. State revenues also came from leases of state-owned and sacred lands, and from farming out the collection of customs duties and taxes. Officials called POLETAI (“sellers”) drew up and sold contracts for leases and tax collection to private citizens, and these individuals made payments on fixed dates to other officials, the APODEKTAI (“receivers”), who disbursed the funds to still other officials for the performance of their duties. Public sacrifices and state festivals, for example, required considerable expenditure and were administered by assorted officials, ranging from the basileus and chief archon to boards of hieropoioi and athlothetai. The fourth century saw increasing attention paid to state finance, with an elected board overseeing a theoric fund that subvented the costs of attending festivals for poorer citizens but whose surpluses were also eventually used to finance other public projects; likewise, a single elected official administered the stratiotic fund (stratiotika), which financed military operations. In the 330s the statesman Lycurgus assumed broad control over Athens’ finances, but centralization of administrative responsibilities in this way was the exception in the Classical period. Athenian magistrates received some administrative help from secretaries who assisted them with tracking their income and expenditures and with keeping records of other

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 75–77. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah04005

2 business that came before them. The chief state secretary was the secretary of the boule, who was elected from the current year’s councilors and held office for a single prytany; from the 360s he was chosen by lot to serve an entire year and was not a member of the boule. This secretary was assisted by several subordinates and maintained records of newly enacted laws, decrees, and other matters that came before the boule and assembly. Other boards sometimes chose their own secretaries from their own members, but co-secretaries (syngrammateis) and undersecretaries (hupogrammateis) are also attested. In the middle of the fifth century these could serve the same board repeatedly (IG I3 269, 270, 437–50), but by the end of the fifth century a pool of undersecretaries who could not serve the same magistracy more than once was in place (Lys. 30.29). The Athenians also employed publicly owned slaves (demosioi; huperetai) to handle some state matters. One served the boule with its record keeping (Dem. 19.129; [Arist.] Ath. Pol. 47.5, 48.1); others assisted the archons in allotting citizens for jury duty ([Arist.] Ath. Pol. 63–5), tested silver coinage for purity (SEG 26, 72.36–44), and guarded official copies of public weights and measures (IG II2 1013.37–43). Aristotle put the number of domestic Athenian magistrates at 700 in the middle of the fifth century BCE ([Arist.] Ath. Pol. 25), but even that quantity could not carry out all aspects of civic administration. Athens lacked a police force and a public prosecutor, and the administration of justice depended on private citizens taking initiative to arrest and prosecute wrongdoers and in some instances to enforce legal decisions (see BOULOMENOS, HO). Individuals also contributed to state administration by their performance of liturgies (see LITURGY, GREECE AND ROME). These were a form of public service by which wealthy individuals supplied financial and logistical support for specific functions. Thus, festival administration involved wealthy citizens who undertook the expense of outfitting and training choruses that performed in dramatic and other contests (see CHOREGIA). The operation of the Athenian

navy also relied on individuals who served as trierarchs, in which capacity they commanded a TRIREME and provided funds for its outfitting and upkeep. Still other functions were left to local or non-central civic bodies. Although the ten generals and their assistants were responsible for recruiting citizens for military service, Athens lacked a central register of those eligible for hoplite service, and call-ups for individual campaigns could also involve the boule and the demarchs (Christ 2001). Registration of citizens was also the responsibility of local demes, each of which enrolled new citizens, maintained lists of their members (lexiarchika grammateia), and conducted reviews when required (Whitehead 1986). Civic administration in poleis other than Athens was undoubtedly less complex, although information is limited and our knowledge correspondingly less complete. Some principles, like an annual tenure of office and restrictions on reappointment, were widely respected (found, for example, even at Sparta) but not necessarily universal. In the late sixth century BCE a Cretan community not only named a certain Spensitheos as its “recorder and rememberer” (poinikastas kai mnamon), but also gave him and his descendants this office for as long as they wanted (SEG 27.531; see Jeffery and Morpurgo Davies 1970). The recent discovery of bronze tablets recording payments to and from sacred treasuries at ARGOS, on the other hand, promises to shed more light on the financial administration of that polis in the early fourth century and may provide hints at the extent to which other poleis employed Athenian-style practices (Kritzas 2006). SEE ALSO: Archon/archontes; Aristotle, Constitution of the Athenians; Demes, Attic; Democracy, Athenian; Finance, Greek; Lycurgus, Athenian orator; Navies, Greek; Sortition, Greece; Theorika, Theoric Fund.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Christ, M. (2001) “Conscription of hoplites in Classical Athens.” Classical Quarterly 51: 398–422.

3 Gabrielsen, V. (1994) Financing the Athenian fleet: public taxation and social relations. Baltimore. Hansen, M. H. (1999) The Athenian democracy in the age of Demosthenes, 2nd ed. Norman, OK. Jeffery, L. H. and Morpurgo Davies, A. (1970) “Pοinikistάς and Pοinikάzein: BM 1969. 4–2.1. A new Archaic inscription from Crete.” Kadmos 9: 118–54.

Kritzas, Ch. (2006) “Nouvelles inscriptions d’Argos: les archives des comptes du tre´sor sacre´ (IVe s. av. J.-C.).” Comptes rendus de l’Acade´mie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres: 397–434. Rhodes, P. J. (1972) The Athenian boule. Oxford. Samons, L. J., II (2000) Empire of the owl: Athenian imperial finance. Stuttgart. Whitehead, D. (1986) The demes of Attica 508/ 7–ca. 250 BC: a political and social study. Princeton.

1

Administration, Hellenistic VOLKER GRIEB

Administration in the ancient world was regarded as a means of ruling and therefore has to be understood as a form of government. In Hellenistic times, the variety of states and communities with state-like structures – kingdoms, city-states (poleis), leagues (koina), and sanctuaries – led to diverse forms of administration. Military, financial, religious, and economic matters would all have been included. In contrast to Classical times, it was kingdoms that dominated the Hellenistic era. With the exception of MACEDONIA these Greek kingdoms emerged out of Alexander’s conquest of the Persian Empire and so ruled territory well beyond the traditional confines of the Greek world. Within the kingdoms, independent development and individual adoption of regionally established administrative structures can be observed (see SELEUCIDS; ANTIGONIDS; PERGAMON). However, sources for royal administration are rare and leave many details uncertain. Only for Hellenistic Egypt do we have extensive knowledge due to the large number of local sources (see ADMINISTRATION, PTOLEMAIC EGYPT). Within the Hellenistic monarchies, the king (basileus) embodied the state and was identical with it. In addition to a standing mercenary army, his main source of power was a considerable and hierarchically structured administration of which he was the head (see Allen 1983; Hatzopoulos 1996). High officials were mostly chosen directly or indirectly by the king himself. The chief minister in the Seleucid Empire, for example, was called ho epi ton pragmaton, or “the one in charge of affairs” (later also in Pergamon). Candidates usually had close relation with the king’s family or had been friends of the king himself (see FRIENDS OF THE KING). The central authorities (e.g., the central archives, departments of finance and

military, and royal office) were located in the centers of the kingdom (e.g., Pergamon for the Attalids; and Antioch, Seleukeia, or Babylon for the Seleucids). In the kingdom’s provinces, usually a strategos was head of administration (a satrap in the Seleucid satrapies). He was obliged to the king and had military as well as civil duties. Instead of laws – common in Greek city-states – in Hellenistic kingdoms, the royal office issued instructions to express the will of the king; these were called diagrammata (regulations) (see DIAGRAMMA), prostagmata (orders by the king and his officials), or epistolai programmata (dispositions). In principle, the aim was to subjugate everything within the royal territory to the will of the king and thereby to consolidate his power. The Seleucids in particular founded many new cities and military colonies that were directly controlled by the king (see FOUNDATIONS (HELLENISTIC)). In independent as well as dependent citystates, democracy (see DEMOCRACY, HELLENISTIC) was the most common form of political organization in Hellenistic times. Therefore the administration was also organized democratically and was in the hands of the citizen-body – but not in the hands of professional officials as in monarchies. The city’s duties (military, economic, or religious) were assigned to different offices of which only a few required specific skills (e.g., strategos) or financial qualifications (for financial administration in Hellenistic cities, see Migeotte 2006; Rhodes 2007), while most of the administration could be assigned to all citizens. A large number of offices existed in each city-state (e.g., astynomoi, agonothetai, and choregoi; see POLIS; cf. Dmitriev 2005; Fro¨hlich 2004); a distinction between political and administrative offices in the modern sense was unknown. Several inscriptions with largescale inventories (e.g., for treasuries, subscriptions, or ship arsenals) show that extensive record keeping can be assumed. Local administration in subdivisions of the polis (e.g., phylai or demoi) could also be extensive and was exercised by the citizens (see Jones 1987). Territorial possessions that were not integrated

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 77–79. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah09006

2 into the community of the city-state usually kept their former regional administrative structures, and the polis’ domination was secured by local governors (strategoi) elected by and from the citizens (cf. Rhodes and its supremacy in Caria and Lycia). In this sense, city-states controlled their subject territory in the same way as the kings did. Established city-states that were of importance for and dominated by kings usually retained their own administration. The king’s influence was ensured by officials, who were obliged to him and could intervene in the city’s policies (e.g., Athens under Macedonian rule). Within the Hellenistic leagues (see Larsen 1968), poleis maintained their local administration, while the KOINON was responsible for the higher officials. The structure of the administration was similar to that of city-states and included the league’s assembly, its council, and several officials with administrative duties in the fields of foreign policy, military, finance, or legislation (e.g., strategoi, hipparchoi, grammateus, tamiai, and nomographoi); their names could vary from koinon to koinon (see ACHAIAN LEAGUE; AITOLIAN LEAGUE). Every citizen had the right to participate in the league’s assembly, where officials were elected for one year. Assemblies met only a few times per year (e.g., four times in the Achaian League), so that citizens had less political influence and administrative participation in their league than they had in their city-state – this was also due to the larger population and distances that needed to be traveled. In general, administration was much more representative and less direct in koina than it was in poleis. Distinctive administrative structures can also be noted in Hellenistic sanctuaries, especially the larger ones. Beside their religious importance, sanctuaries could also have political influence and function as an economic center, all of which required appropriate administrative structures (see TEMPLE ECONOMY, GREEK AND ROMAN; TEMPLE TREASURIES (TAMIEION,

TAMIAI)).

Delos, for instance, gives us one of the most significant examples of extensive administrative organization in the Hellenistic Greek world. The sanctuary’s organization was similar to that of a polis, and written records reveal numerous offices while there was only a small number of citizens (Vial 1984; see DELOS). However, the administration of sanctuaries varied from place to place and depended on the community that was responsible for it; DIDYMA, for instance, was administered by Miletos, and DELPHI was controlled by the Delphic AMPHICTYONY and later by the Aitolian League. Under Roman rule in the Greek East, administration remained without significant changes during the late Hellenistic period but was subsequently dominated by a small group of Roman magistrates, who executed the will of the Roman Senate (Dmitriev 2005; see PROVINCIAL ADMINISTRATION, ROMAN REPUBLIC).

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Allen, R. A. (1983) The Attalid Kingdom: a constitutional history. Oxford. Dignas, B. (2002) Economy of the sacred in Hellenistic and Roman Asia Minor. Oxford. Dmitriev, S. (2005) City government in Hellenistic and Roman Asia Minor. Oxford. Fro¨hlich, P. (2004) Les cites grecques et le controˆle des magistrates (IVe–1er sie`cle av. J.-C.). Geneva. Hatzopoulos, M. B. (1996) Macedonian institutions under the kings I–II. Athens. Jones, N. F. (1987) Public organization in ancient Greece: a documentary study. Philadelphia. Larsen, J. A. O. (1968) Greek federal states. Oxford. Migeotte, L. (2006) “La haute administration des finances publiques et sacre´es dans les cite´s helle´nistiques.” Chiron 36: 379–94. Rhodes, P. J. (2007) “DiοίkZsiς.” Chiron 37: 349–62. Vial, C. (1984) De´los inde´pendante (314–167 avant J.-C.). E´tude d’une communaute´ civique et de ses institutions. Paris.

1

Administration, Hittite TAYFUN BILGIN

Available Hittite written documents, which are entirely a product of the state bureaucracy, reveal that like its neighbors, the Hittite state possessed a highly centralized administration. The king and the royal family were at the center of a large officialdom, about whom the Hittite sources provide hundreds of different titles and occupations. Administrative records were written in cuneiform script, which must have been reintroduced to central Anatolia through scribes brought from Syria during the reigns of the earliest Hittite kings. Consequently, the early period records of the state were written in Akkadian. It was probably during the reign of King TELEPINU that the cuneiform script was adapted for Hittite and became the administrative language of the state. The extent of the administration’s utilization of the native hieroglyphic script, which is encountered mainly on seals and monumental stone inscriptions, remains unknown. By the empire period, the Hittite domain was comprised of three concentric regions. At the core was HATTI, the central Anatolian region, with the capital HATTUSA at its center. Surrounding Hatti were territories that were converted into appanage kingdoms ruled by the cadet branches of the royal family, such as CARCHEMISH, Tarhuntassa, Isuwa, and Tumanna. In the outer circle were the internally independent vassal kingdoms, such as those in western Anatolia and northern Syria. Certain appanage kings acted as Hittite viceroys to administer the activities of vassal kingdoms in their respective territories, particularly the kings of Carchemish, who played an important role in Syria. The central territory was divided into smaller administrative units composed of provinces, border districts, and cities. Some of those units were large provinces like the Upper Land and the Lower Land, which more or less covered the two halves of central Anatolia, while there

were smaller border districts under the management of frontier governors. City administrators also had certain independent responsibilities. Detailed instruction texts reveal that all territorial governors had a comprehensive range of duties and were directly responsible to the king. The highest officials of the administration included the so-called “Great Men” and “Lords,” who were military commanders and the heads of various offices. Like the provincial governors, almost all of these officials were members of the extended royal family. Many of the high offices lacked specialization, and their responsibilities could vary over military, cultic, and administrative duties. However, day-to-day activities of the state were largely in the hands of the lower-level functionaries. A key role was played by the scribes, many of whom were members of prominent families. Buildings that served as the chancery of the administration were also used for scribal training and as locations of archives. State-maintained “palaces” in various cities of Anatolia, in addition to serving as royal residences, functioned as administrative centers. Along with hundreds of other governmental structures, such as the “seal houses,” storehouses, and granaries, as well as institutions of the state cult such as temples, rock sanctuaries, and “stone houses,” they were part of a large network that facilitated the collection and distribution of resources and the management of services. Although exemptions could be granted, all free men had tax and corvée labor obligations. People paid tax in the form of agricultural products and provided corvée service by working on public construction projects or as farmers/ shepherds on state-owned lands. The state also owned a slave labor force and often replenished it with prisoners of war as well as with civilian captives relocated from conquered lands. Precious goods and livestock acquired through warfare and tribute collected from vassals were additional sources of wealth. State employees received rations and goods, and some higher officials even received a share

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, and Andrew Erskine. © 2018 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Published 2018 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah30543

2 of tribute. Numerous land grant documents testify that many high- and low-ranking officials lived off the revenues from state-assigned estates. The king could grant large amounts of land – along with the property and households of people living on them – to his officials, who in turn were responsible for gathering the tax and corvée associated with the population of these lands. Although such grants were referred to as “gifts” and the descendants of the grantee were given inheritance rights, the king still maintained the authority to take them back at any time.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Beckman, G. (1995) “Royal ideology and state administration in Hittite Anatolia.” In J. Sasson,

ed., Civilizations of the ancient Near East: 529– 43. New York. Beckman, G. (1995) “Hittite provincial administration in Anatolia and Syria: the view from Maşat and Emar.” In O. Carruba, M. Giorgieri, and C. Mora, eds., Atti del II congresso internazionale di Hittitologia, Pavia 28 giugno–2 luglio 1993: 19–37. Pavia. Bryce, T. (2002) Life and society in the Hittite world. New York. Collins, B. J. (2007) The Hittites and their world. Atlanta. Imparati, F. (1999) “Die Organisation des Hethitischen Staates.” In H. Klengel, ed., Geschichte des Hethitischen Reiches: 320–87. Leiden. Miller, J. (2013) Royal Hittite instructions and related administrative texts. Atlanta. van den Hout, T. P. J. (2011) “Administration and writing in Hittite society.” Studia Mediterranea 23: 41–58.

1

Administration, Late Antique Egypt BERNHARD PALME

Late Antique Egypt exhibits the typical post-Diocletian fragmentation into smaller administrative units and the division between civilian and military authority that had been in effect since approximately 308 CE throughout the empire. The civil administration was still in the hands of the praefectus Aegypti, residing in Alexandria, but around 298 Upper Egypt (the Thebais) became a separate province under a praeses Thebaidis ranking below the praefectus. In the course of the fourth century the arrangement of the provinces underwent several changes. While the Thebais with Antinoopolis as capital and Philai as southern border remained a single province, Lower Egypt was divided into Aegyptus Iovia (western Delta) and Aegyptus Herculia (eastern Delta) in 314–15. In 322 Aegyptus Mercuriana, resembling the old Heptanomia (Middle Egypt), was split from the Herculia. A praeses headed each of the four provinces, although as early as 324 the bipartite model of Thebais and Aegyptus under a praefectus returned. A major change came in 341, when the eastern part of the Delta and the Heptanomia became the province Augustamnica, governed by a praeses in Pelusium, while the western Delta (Aegyptus ipsa) remained under the praefectus and the Thebais under the praeses. These three Egyptian provinces, up to then part of the dioecesis Oriens, were organized as an independent diocese from around 381 (Lallemand 1964; Palme 1998). By 398 (P.Flor. I 66) the new province Arcadia, with Oxyrhynchos as its capital, was created by separating the Heptanomia again from the Augustamnica (Keenan 1977). This arrangement is found in the NOTITIA DIGNITATUM (Or. 23, 1–14), the pars Orientis of which can be dated to around 400, and it remained in place for a considerable time: in 448 the Laterculus of Polemius Silvius reports the situation as being unchanged.

Each province was under the authority of a praeses, apart from Augustamnica, which now had a corrector. All governors were subject to the praefectus Augustalis, who, having the rank of vicarius, was responsible for the whole diocese (Palme 2007). As for the military organization, since the Tetrarchy (AE 1934, 7–8 from 308–09) all troops stationed permanently in Egypt (the limitanei) had been under the command of a single dux. Probably soon after the creation of the diocese (381), the military command was also remodeled: since 391 (CT 16.10. 11) a comes limitis Aegypti is attested as being responsible for Aegyptus, Arcadia, and Augustamnica, to whom a dux Thebaidis in charge of Upper Egypt was subject (Zuckerman 1998: 138). From the middle of the fifth century the military commander of Upper Egypt was also promoted from dux Thebaidis to comes Thebaici limitis (I.Philae II 194, dating 449–68). Some papyri and CT 6.28.8 from 435 indicate that the authority of the comes Aegypti was not limited strictly to the military field but occasionally extended to civilian duties (Carrie´ 1998). From around 470 examples appear of the combination of civil and military authority with the title dux Aegypti (or Aegyptiaci limitis) et praefectus Augustalis, which marks a departure from Diocletian’s principle of the separation of powers. Justinian continued this trend further in his Edict 13 of 539, in which he fundamentally reformed the Egyptian diocese, intending to strengthen those officials representing the central, imperial power (Demicheli 2000). Civilian and military authority in Aegyptus, Augustamnica, and Thebais, which had been subdivided before the Edict, was once again held in a single hand. Aegyptus I and II, as well as Thebais superior (in the south) and inferior (in the north), and presumably also Augustamnica I and II, were governed respectively by a dux et Augustalis, to whom a civilian praeses was subordinated. However, an overall authority for the whole of the diocese similar to the earlier praefecus Augustalis no longer existed.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 82–85. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah07001

2 The authority of the governors was evident in the administration of justice and taxation. The governors resided not merely in their capitals but occasionally also in secondary residences (e.g., P.Oxy. LIX 3986 from 494). In addition, officials journeyed to the villages to solve pending administrative problems (e.g., P.Lips. I 45–55 from 371–5; P.Ant. I 33 from 465). Although in the fourth century few Egyptians rose to the office of governor, by the sixth century at the latest more and more governors were drawn from the provincial e´lite. Finally, Justin II’s Novella 149 from 569 ordered the provincial aristocracy to name the governors from among them. According to Justinian’s Edict 13, the office of the dux et praefectus Augustalis contained 600 officials. If these figures are extrapolated, we arrive at hardly more than 2,000 officiales for the offices of all the governors of Egypt in total. The titles and hierarchy of the officiales, who were part of the militia and organized in a paramilitary way, were divided into a financial and a judicial branch (Palme 1999: 103–08). Tradition and routine guaranteed a certain measure of professional expertise in the bureaucracy. At the local level, the old division of Egypt into districts (nomoı´ ) with an elaborate hierarchy of mostly liturgical personnel was replaced by the civitates (usually the former metropoleis of the nomoı´ ) and their territory, as in the rest of the empire. During the first half of the fourth century the strategoi were restyled as exactores, interacting more closely with the civitates and the members of the curiae (city councils), who had to perform various administrative tasks as munera. At their regular meetings, the curiae had to manage a wide range of tasks. In addition to tax collections, the richest among the curiales had to perform functions in the security system (riparii) and jurisdiction (defensores civitatis). The territories of the civitates were subdivided in 307 into pagi under the direction of praepositi pagi, responsible for taxation. In the villages, the komarchai and various liturgical officials maintained the bureaucratic services.

Toward the end of the fourth century, members of the curial class attempted to escape the increasingly onerous burdens imposed on them by entering the imperial service. The fifth and sixth centuries witnessed the polarization of the curiales into those becoming progressively impoverished and those becoming richer. Those attaining influential offices in the imperial administration acquired higher social status and more economic power by the accumulation of landed property. As pagarchoi, who in the mid-fifth century replaced the former officials (above all the exactores and the praepositi pagi) under circumstances that are not quite clear (Mazza 1995), local potentates became the most important authority in the course of the sixth century. Responsible for at least the administration of taxes, the pagarchoi appear to be the most powerful officials of the Egyptian countryside toward the end of the sixth and in the seventh centuries. The intertwining of state power and the personal power of great landlords was once seen as evolving feudalism at the cost of imperial administration (Gelzer 1909). However, Gascou (1985) demonstrated that the great households (oikoi) did not usurp state power but were rather entrusted with it by the government. In many cases the landlords took over responsibilities from the curiae. This is reflected by the composition of the curiae, in which the traditional functions and titles were replaced in the course of the fifth century by a less clearly defined group of proteuontes, who now dominated the civitates (Laniado 2002). With the decrease in municipal administration and the liturgical system, the imperial government relied increasingly on the landowners, whose estates and influence grew. A good part of tax administration was “outsourced” to those social strata, which were economically in a position to perform bureaucratic duties as long-term munera. Provincial administration was efficient in as much as it was able to ensure the administration of justice and to raise sufficient taxes to support Constantinople, the army, and the civil service.

3 A snapshot of troop deployment in around 400 is offered by the Notitia Dignitatum, which lists 31 limitanei units under the command of the comes Aegypti (Or. 28, 13–46) and 44 units under the dux Thebaidis (Or. 31, 22–67). The number of soldiers is estimated as approximately 22,000 (Mitthof 2001: vol. 1, 217–31), somewhat higher than in the second and third centuries. Under Justinian, changes are evident in terms of old units disappearing and new (elite) ones appearing (Mitthof 2008). The strategic concepts and background to these changes remain hidden from us. The Egyptian evidence suggests that we cannot speak in terms of either the militarization of society or of an extensive bureaucracy. However, the army could not overcome the attacks by the Sasanians (619–29) and the Arabs (640–41). The short phase of the Byzantine restoration (629–41) remains obscure in institutional terms. Arcadia now also received a dux et Augustalis (P.Prag. I 64, dated 636) and apparently quite exceptional powers over Lower Egypt, in both fiscal and administrative areas, lay in the hands of CYRUS, the archbishop of Alexandria (and possibly praefectus Augustalis). It is proof of the efficiency of the administration that it outlived even the Byzantine retreat from Egypt. Both the Persians and the Arabs retained the civilian administrative apparatus without fundamental changes. A reorganization did take place between 655, when there still was a dux Arcadiae (CPR XIV 32), and 669 (P.Mert. II 100), when a dux Arcadiae et Thebaidis occurs. The Arabs, therefore, merged Middle and Upper Egypt into one administrative unit or tax assessment area. Until well into the eighth century, Greek remained the language of the administration and the accounting system.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Carrie´, J.-M. (1998) “Se´paration ou cumul? Pouvoir civil et autorite´ militaire dans les provinces d’E´gypte de Gallien a` la conqueˆte arabe.” Antiquite´ Tardive 6: 105–21. Demicheli, A. M. (2000) L’Editto XIII di Giustiniano in tema di amministrazione e fiscalita` dell’Egitto bizantino. Turin. Gascou, J. (1985) “Les grands domaines, la cite´ et l’E´tat en E´gypte byzantine.” Travaux et Me´moires 9: 1–90. Gelzer, M. (1909) Studien zur byzantinischen ¨ gyptens. Leipzig. Verwaltung A Keenan, J. G. (1977) “The provincial administration of Egyptian Arcadia.” Museum Philologum Londiniense 2: 193–201. Lallemand, J. (1964) L’administration civile de l’E´gypte de l’ave`nement de Diocle´tien a` la cre´ation du dioce`se (284–382): Contribution a` l’e´tude des rapports entre E´gypte et l’empire a` la fin du IIIe et au IVe sie`cle. XIV 32 Brussels. Laniado, A. (2002) Recherches sur les notables municipaux dans l’Empire protobyzantin. Paris. Mazza, R. (1995) “Ricerche sul pagarca nell’Egitto tardoantico e bizantino.” Aegyptus 75: 169–242. Mitthof, F. (2001) Annona militaris: Die ¨ gypten. Florence. Heeresversorgung im spa¨tantiken A Mitthof, F. (2008) “Das Dioskoros-Archiv und die milita¨rischen Reformen Justinians in der Thebais.” In J.-L. Fournet, ed., Les archives de Dioscore d’Aphrodite´ cent ans apre`s leur de´couverte. Histoire et culture dans l’E´gypte byzantine: 247–59. Paris. Palme, B. (1998) “Praesides und correctores der Augustamnica.” Antiquite´ Tardive 6: 123–35. Palme, B. (1999) “Die officia der Statthalter in der Spa¨tantike. Forschungsstand und Perspektiven.” Antiquite´ Tardive 7: 85–133. Palme, B. (2007) “The imperial presence: government and army.” In R. S. Bagnall, ed., Egypt in the Byzantine World 300–700: 244–70. Cambridge. Zuckerman, C. (1998) “Comtes et ducs en E´gypte autour de l’an 400 et la date de la Notitia Dignitatum Orientis.” Antiquite´ Tardive 6: 137–47.

1

Administration, Late Antique SEBASTIAN SCHMIDT-HOFNER

From Diocletian onwards, the Roman imperial administration rapidly expanded to become the largest and most complex bureaucracy in the history of the ancient world, with an estimated number of 30,000–40,000 imperial officials (excluding those of the cities). The structure, responsibilities, and social implications of this bureaucratic machine are amply documented in sources such as the legal codes of the era, the NOTITIA DIGNITATUM or the works of JOHN LYDUS. The basic work of reference remains Jones (1964).

STRUCTURE Late Roman imperial administration consisted of three major branches. The first was the central administration attached to the imperial court, which itself was administered internally by the Majordomo (castrensis) and the Great Chamberlain (praepositus sacri cubiculi); the latter came to dominate eastern politics by the late fourth century. The central administration (Delmaire 1995) comprised two financial departments with large staffs headed by the Count of the Privy Purse (comes rerum privatarum), responsible for revenue from imperial domains, and the Count of the Imperial Largesses (c. sacrarum largitionum), responsible for taxes raised in precious metals, the minting of coins, and the production of silver objects or medallions for the imperial donatives (Delmaire 1989). The third major department of the central administration was directed by the Master of the Offices (magister officiorum), who over time acquired a wide range of responsibilities including, among other things, the handling of embassies, supervision of imperial POSTAL SERVICES (cursus publicus), and responsibility for the bureaus for imperial correspondence. Alongside these

three major departments, the Quaestor of the Imperial Palace (quaestor sacri palatii) drafted imperial pronouncements and laws (Harries 1988); and the notaries, originally secretaries of the imperial consistory (the imperial Privy Council), formed a socially exclusive corps of special commissaries employed for various extraordinary business (Teitler 1985) (see NOTARY). The second branch of the late Roman government was the regional administration, which had, by the mid-fourth century, acquired the structure of a multi-layered pyramid. At the bottom stood the provinces (see PROVINCIAL ADMINISTRATION, ROMAN REPUBLIC), doubled in number and much smaller than their predecessors under the High Empire. At the next level, vicars (vicarii) administered groups of several provinces called dioceses, and above them a varying number of praetorians prefects presided over prefectures of several dioceses (see PRAETORIAN PREFECT). A hierarchy of provincial and diocesan representatives of the two financial comites ran parallel to the regional administration (Delmaire 1989). The cities of Rome and Constantinople had their own, multi-leveled administration under urban prefects equal in rank to praetorian prefects (Chastagnol 1960; Dagron 1974). The third branch of the administration was the army; its administration was similarly structured, though probably smaller in size (see ARMY, ROMAN EMPIRE). Discrepancies in the number, nomenclature, and rank of similar office-holders, inconsistencies within the hierarchy, as well as illdefined, often competing responsibilities, show that the entire administrative system emerged gradually out of a series of ad-hoc measures and small-scale reforms and was never fully systematized (Migl 1994). Some of these inconsistencies seem to have been deliberately preserved or even encouraged, to allow emperors closer control over the bureaucratic apparatus or to reaffirm their superiority (Kelly 2004) or, in the case of the imperial judiciary, to prove imperial omnipresence as the ultimate source of law (Schmidt-Hofner 2010). Administrative

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 79–82. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah12004

2 procedure meanwhile reached a high degree of formality, incorporating an impressive amount of paperwork on all levels. The ambivalent picture of the administration that thus emerges is symptomatic of the Roman bureaucratic system, which has often been compared to that of modern states but must be understood on its own terms (for nuanced discussion Eich 2010).

RESPONSIBILITIES Office-holders on all levels had an officium at their disposal, a regular staff of subaltern officials (Stein 1962; Palme 1999). Each officium consisted of two major departments (scrinia), financial and judicial. This division reflects the two main preoccupations of the late Roman bureaucracy: the extraction of financial resources for the needs of the army and the emperor – undoubtedly the driving factor behind the emergence of the whole apparatus (Eich 2005) – and the dispensation of justice in the name of the emperor, which was pivotal for the legitimacy of the Roman monarchy (Millar 1992). Most other areas of public administration were left to the cities, professional associations, or other subsidiary entities. When emperors did occasionally interfere in other areas, such as religious matters, they relied on ad-hoc commissaries drawn from the AGENTES IN REBUS, notarii or other special delegates. Although Late Roman government achieved greater administrative penetration throughout the empire and became more active in character than that of the High Empire (Schmidt-Hofner 2008), the range of its regular responsibilities remained limited in comparison to modern bureaucratic systems. SOCIAL IMPLICATIONS Almost all administrators above the municipal level were technically members of the imperial militia; they wore insignia of their military status, often bore military titles and, above all, enjoyed the privileges of the soldiery,

such as exemption from curial and other liturgies under certain conditions. They received a stipend but also profited from fees (sportulae) collected, for example, for the issuing of judicial documents and for various other administrative business. On retirement, they were often paid a considerable sum by their successors. While none of these practices were regarded as illegal as such, bribery and other forms of corruption were widespread (even though the phenomenon was certainly exaggerated in earlier scholarship). Financial rewards were only one attraction of the imperial militia. Not only magistrates but also higher officials in the officia and even subaltern units such as the silentiarii (ushers of the consistory) or the palace guard steadily rose in rank and social prestige, ultimately receiving senatorial rank. Service in the higher-ranking positions thus became desirable, in economic as well as in social terms. Its spell was felt in particular by the curial aristocracy; in the almost complete absence of a formal admissions procedure and professional qualifications for service, a classical education, sometimes combined with training in Roman law, made the municipal elite the main recruitment reservoir for higher positions. The late Roman emperors, who needed both the curiae and the militia, found themselves trapped in a conflict of interests: legislation repeatedly recalled bureaucrats of curial origin to their duties and bound them to their status, while at the same time a constant influx of curiales filled the imperial service. Only the positions of ordinary clerks in provincial and other low-ranking officia were less attractive; consequently, service in them was made hereditary. Roman bureaucrats, particularly those of higher rank, developed a strong corporate identity characterized inter alia by a deep appreciation of bureaucratic ceremony, by a preoccupation with questions of hierarchy, precedence, and administrative procedure, and by jealous competition for power and rank among rival departments of the administration. Altogether, bureaucrats thus came to form a class of their own in Late Roman society (Kelly 2004).

3 SEE ALSO: Army, Late Antiquity; Court (imperial), Roman; Decurions.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Chastagnol, A. (1960) La pre´fecture urbaine a` Rome sous le Bas-Empire : 290–423. Paris. Dagron, G. (1974) Naissance d’une capitale. Constantinople et ses insitutions de 330 a` 451. Paris. Delmaire, R. (1989) Largesses sacre´es et res privata. L’aerarium impe´rial et son administration du IVe au VIe sie`cle. Rome. Delmaire, R. (1995) Les Institutions du BasEmpire romain de Constantin a` Justinien I: les institutions civiles-palatines. Paris. Eich, P. (2005) Zur Metamorphose des politischen Systems in der ro¨mischen Kaiserzeit. Die Entstehung einer “personalen Bu¨rokratie” im langen dritten Jahrhundert. Berlin. Eich, P. (2011) “Bu¨rokratie, Autokratie, Aristokratie. Antagonismen als dynamische Elemente in der spa¨tro¨mischen Gesellschaft.” In P. Eich, S. Schmidt-Hofner, and C. Wieland, eds., Der wiederkehrende Leviathan. Staatlichkeit und Staatswerdung in Spa¨tantike und Fru¨her Neuzeit. Heidelberg. Harries, J. (1988) “The Roman Imperial Quaestor.” Journal of Roman Studies 78: 148–72. Jones, A. H. M. (1964) The later Roman Empire 284–602. A social, economic and administrative survey. Oxford.

Kelly, C. (2004) Ruling the Later Roman Empire. Cambridge, MA. ¨ mter. Migl, J. (1994) Die Ordnung der A Pra¨torianerpra¨fektur und Vikariat in der Regionalverwaltung des Ro¨mischen Reiches von Konstantin bis zur Valentinianischen Dynastie. Frankfurt. Millar, F. (1992) The emperor in the Roman world. London. Palme, B. (1999) “Die officia der Statthalter in der Spa¨tantike. Forschungsstand und Perspektiven.” Antiquite´ Tardive 7: 85–133. Schmidt-Hofner, S. (2008) Reagieren und Gestalten. Der Regierungsstil des spa¨tro¨mischen Kaisers am Beispiel der Gesetzgebung Valentinians I. Munich. Schmidt-Hofner, S. (2011) “Staatswerdung von unten. Justiznutzung und Strukturgenese in der Ro¨mischen Kaiserzeit.” In P. Eich, S. SchmidtHofner, and C. Wieland, eds., Der wiederkehrende Leviathan. Staatlichkeit und Staatswerdung in Spa¨tantike und Fru¨her Neuzeit. Heidelberg. Stein, E. (1962) Untersuchungen u¨ber das Officium der Pra¨torianerpra¨fektur seit Diokletian. Amsterdam. Teitler, H. C. (1985) Notarii and exceptores: An Inquiry into Role and Significance of Shorthand Writers in the Imperial and Ecclesiastical Bureaucracy of the Roman Empire (from the Early Principate to c. 450 A.D.). Amsterdam.

1

Administration, Pharaonic Egypt DAVID A. WARBURTON

INTRODUCTION There was no unified “administration” in Egypt, but rather several interlocking systems – of the state and provinces, the military, the cults of the gods, etc. The Egyptian state of the Bronze Age evolved over two millennia, during which time there were considerable changes: on the one hand, the temples (see TEMPLES, PHARAONIC EGYPT) and the army (see ARMY, PHARAONIC EGYPT) became increasingly important, while on the other, the importance of the provincial aristocracy changed significantly, depending on the power and interests of the central government. Furthermore, individual kings could promote favorites, altering the functions associated with the posts (see HATSHEPSUT; SENENMUT) or appointing friends (see AMENHOTEP (AMENOPHIS) I–III). Hitherto scholars have attributed to the state administration a monolithic role, controlling the economy, arts and sciences, and the cults, etc. Yet the reality is that the documentation is primarily derived from the state or its dependents. Our view is thus skewed in favor of the state, yet ironically, documents reveal that the state had difficulties assuring deliveries for its own most important institutions – and provide little evidence that more than a small fraction of the population was directly related to the state, except through taxes and corve´e. The difficulties of understanding the administration arose due to the nature of the documentation and its analysis. Study commenced with the impression of an overwhelming role for the state – as witnessed by the pyramids and temples. The study of the texts rapidly demonstrated that throughout Egyptian history, administrative titles and institutions were abundant, seemingly confirming the monolithic conception of the state. The rare administrative documents (see ABU SIR; EL-LAHUN; WILBOUR

PAPYRUS)

– which throw considerable light on the limits of the institutions – have not been studied with the same optic. Thus, despite the evidence, the earlier stress continues to allow scholars to project the preserved material into an over-arching model of an administration controlling society. In reality, the titles reflect the prestige of the title holders (and not all of them are state titles), while biographies and deeds confirm the narrow range of state interests: projects and rituals. Certainly, these required substantial material support, and this enabled a bureaucracy to prosper. However, the reality was far more mundane, as the documents confirm that supplies failed to appear – betraying the image of the tomb inscriptions, where one only hears the success stories.

GOVERNMENT AND PROVINCIAL ADMINISTRATION Nominally, Egypt was divided into several different units. At the highest level was the bipartite division into Upper and Lower Egypt (Nile Valley and Delta, respectively). In general, there was one official at the apex of the administration: the vizier directly answerable to Pharaoh. At times (e.g., in the New Kingdom), there were two viziers, one each for Upper and Lower Egypt, but in practice, one was probably viewed as being senior. Of nearly equal importance were the Overseers of the Royal (“state”) Treasuries and Granaries. Each of the two halves of the kingdom was divided into units termed nomes (provinces or districts), some with important cities. Whereas the nomes played an important role in the Old and Middle Kingdoms, administratively, certain cities may have been more important in the New Kingdom. Nomarchs were responsible for their nomes and mayors for the cities, with the former more important in the Middle Kingdom and the latter more important in the New Kingdom. During the Old Kingdom, the central state administration could dispatch Upper Egyptian officials to

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 85–88. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah15015

2 assume responsibilities in the Delta. Yet the capacity of the state to extend its dominance was limited. On the one hand, provincial families gradually appropriated power in their own domains, as they claimed hereditary rights to posts. Eventually, the kings could only exercise their authority by favoring officials and/or families (see KINGSHIP, PHARAONIC EGYPT), rather than exerting their will through control. There were numerous other sub-divisions and categories, such as foundations, domains, khato-lands, wabet, and phylae, the roles of which were transformed in the course of history (and confusion increases given the Egyptological tendency to use the same words to designate institutions that had different names in Egyptian, for example, the rnmy.t-domains of the New Kingdom and the Hwt-domains of the Old Kingdom are completely different). Transfers

As noted, the performance of state projects (construction projects, military expeditions, the performance of rituals, creation of cult images, jewelry, etc.) required that manpower and materials be placed at the disposal of the officials entrusted with the responsibility for carrying out their projects. Most of our actual documentation concerns such aspects of the state administration. In general, specific institutions were associated with specific producers; there was no central organization collecting materials due to the state and redistributing them according to local needs. Instead, goods collected from both individuals and state institutions were earmarked for specific institutions, for storage or consumption; producers need not have been located near intended recipients, and thus logistical management was required to assure their delivery. The central task of the state administration was assuring that taxes paid ended up where they should, and that workers appeared on relevant state construction projects. In principle, this was relatively simple, since state and temple dependents received plots of land from which they derived their income and paid a nominal

tax or rent to the state. Although monthly rations are known from temple and expedition records, with the exception of the workers at DEIR EL-MEDINA steady annual wages are rarely documented. Deliveries, such as obelisks and grain, dominated the concerns of the institutions, but these were relatively insignificant as part of the overall economy – which was not the concern of the state. Logistical management assured grain for workers on expeditions in the deserts; accounting kept track of obligations – and those temples and temple dependents exempted from taxation; the annual inundation could cause havoc with markers in the fields; some fields would not be touched by the inundation; boats had to be constructed to transport obelisks, etc. Justice and laws

Such difficulties demanded reliable and energetic bureaucrats: it is hardly surprising that even for major state institutions, deliveries rarely met expectations. Furthermore, the provisions of the Decree of Horemhab (Kruchten 1980) and the Nauri Decree (David 2006) demonstrate that officials would frequently abuse their powers. Beyond carelessness and abuse of office, the Tomb Robbery Papyri (see THEBES, WEST) and other sources (Demare´e 2006) demonstrate that official dishonesty and corruption added to such complications, meaning that supervision was required to assure that the system functioned correctly. In general, the officials in office would be expected to take care of complaints and rectify errors; only exceptionally would officials be delegated as magistrates to investigate or judge misbehavior (see LAW, PHARAONIC EGYPT). The only real checks on irregularities were that: (1) the king and the highest officials might punish misbehavior which touched their interests; and (2) the system would break down if officials were totally unreliable. There were laws, but these are not cited in judicial proceedings, which appear to have been resolved by establishing the facts and relating these to principles rather than precedent or law. Thus, the exercise of justice was a matter of official pragmatics and principles rather than

3 law; there was no independent legal system and the magistrates were ordinary officials. Study of the administration

Hitherto scholars have compounded the difficulties of understanding the role of the administration by identifying all titles as state titles and by projecting state activity into all domains of the economy and arts, etc. However, the documentation clearly reveals the limits of state interests and the inability of the bureaucracy to meet even these limited demands. Furthermore, state and private documentation clearly confirms the limited role of the state and the larger nature of the economy (Warburton 2007).

the Middle Kingdom, a series of forts was established along the frontiers facing the Levant and along the Nile in Nubia, requiring permanently stationed troops and officers. During the New Kingdom, aggressive military campaigning in Syria required an officer corps as the skeleton of what was effectively a militia army (since the soldiers were effectively farmers who tended the fields from which they received their income). The growth of the army was not matched by the emergence of a corresponding bureaucracy, and thus the requirements of the military were met through the civil administration, meaning that the military assumed an increasingly important role in the state administration by the end of the 18th Dynasty.

OFFICIALS TEMPLES The growth of the administration is traced through chains of titles or autobiographies. A private stele with numerous titles reveals that by the end of the 1st Dynasty, a single official in the capital served gods and palace. Metjen (beginning Old Kingdom) reveals that provincial administration was staffed by officials named by the state. The autobiography of Weni (see ABYDOS, EGYPT) shows that towards the end of the Old Kingdom, individual officials could perform military, judicial, administrative, and expeditionary functions. Khnumhotep (see BENI HASAN) confirms that during the Middle Kingdom, the provincial aristocracy managed to secure royal recognition for the inheritance of the highest provincial positions. Rekhmire (see THEBES, WEST) demonstrates that in the early New Kingdom, even the post of vizier was maintained by a family; later favorites were advanced; in general, military officials advanced through the ranks, and could even end their careers in the highest priestly offices.

MILITARY During the Old Kingdom, warfare was conducted on an ad hoc basis, with officials delegated to lead expeditionary forces. During

During the Old Kingdom, the kings created temples for themselves and equipped the temples of provincial gods. Since the beginning of the Middle Kingdom, the state supported the construction of stone temples for the gods throughout the land, and this led to the emergence of clergies independent of the kings. Cult images, rituals, and offerings had to be organized. In general, ordinary priests were farmers and local state officials responsible for the priesthoods of provincial temples; most such temples were supplied locally. However, during the New Kingdom, kings appointed the high priests of the most important gods; such temples had their own state support, and likewise merited the attention of the vizier.

SUMMARY The main function of the bureaucracy was assuring that the needs of the state were satisfied by seeing that taxes were paid, rituals performed, temples built, palaces staffed and maintained, soldiers trained, etc. By assuring that landed property was recognized and bureaucratic zeal rewarded, civil servants could prosper. In practice, performance was rarely optimal, yet under

4 strong kings (when the state was unified), requirements were satisfied so long as the officials perceived that their own interests coincided with those of the state and the people. SEE ALSO: Accounting, Egyptian; Economy, Pharaonic; Land and landholding, Pharaonic Egypt; Taxation, Pharaonic Egypt.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Baer, K. (1960) Rank and title in the Old Kingdom. Chicago. Boorne, G. P. F. van den (1988) The duties of the Vizier. London. David, A. (2006) Syntactic and lexico-semantic aspects of the legal register in the Ramesside royal decrees. Wiesbaden. Demare´e, R. (2006) The Bankes late Ramesside papyri. London. Gnirs, A. M. (1996) Milita¨r und Gesellschaft. Heidelberg. Go¨decken, K. B. (1982) “Metjen.” Lexikon der ¨ gyptologie, vol. 4: 118–20. Wiesbaden. A Grajetzki, W. (2000) Die ho¨chsten Beamten der a¨gyptischen Zentralverwaltung zur Zeit des Mittleren Reiches. Berlin. Gundlach, R. and Klug, A., eds. (2006) Der a¨gyptische Hof des Neuen Reiches: Seine Gesellschaft und Kultur. Wiesbaden.

Kanawati, N. (1980) Governmental reforms in Old Kingdom Egypt. Warminster. Kemp, B. J. (2006) Ancient Egypt: anatomy of a civilisation. London. Kruchten, J.-M. (1980) Le De´cret d’Horemhab. Brussels. Leprohon, R. J. (1979) “Some remarks on the ‘administrative department’ (waret) of the Late Middle Kingdom.” Journal of the Society for the Study of Egyptian Antiquities 10: 161–71. Martin, G. (1971) Egyptian administration and private name seals. Oxford. Posener-Krie´ger, P. (1979) “Les Papyrus d’Abousir et l’e´conomie des temples fune´raires de l’Ancien Empire.” In E. Lipinski, ed., State and Temple economy in the ancient Near East, vol. 1: 133–51. Louvain. Quirke, S. (1990) The administration of Egypt in the Late Middle Kingdom. New Malden, UK. Strudwick, N. (1985) The administration of Egypt in the Old Kingdom. London. Warburton, D. A. (2007) “Texts, translation, lexicography, and society: a brief note.” Lingua Aegyptia 15: 263–79. Ward, W. (1982) Index of Egyptian administrative and religious titles of the Middle Kingdom. Beirut. Wilkinson, T. A. H. (1999) Early dynastic Egypt. London. Wilkinson, T. A. H. (2007) The Egyptian world. London.

1

Administration, Ptolemaic Egypt ARTHUR VERHOOGT

The administration of Ptolemaic Egypt was an amalgam of Egyptian, Saite, Persian, and Greek administrative practices. Its development was a slow, continuous, and flexible process in which the main actors were the regional and local state representatives rather than the central state itself. This allowed for considerable chronological and local administrative variations, which should be taken into account when studying the administration of Ptolemaic Egypt. Central to the administration was the assessment and collection of wealth, both in kind and in money, and the process of registering and documenting this. A wide variety of men with official titles and varying functions were active in this administration, all linked in a fairly direct hierarchical system to the royal court in Alexandria, from where the appointments of officials in even the tiniest villages seem to have been made (Verhoogt 1998). The basic unit of administration was the NOME, as it had been in the Pharaonic and Persian periods. There was a varying number of nomes during the Ptolemaic period, their number hovering in the low forties. Each nome had its administrative center, where nome officials and archives were based. Each nome, in turn, was divided into toparchies and tax districts. The Arsinoite nome (modern Fayyum) formed a special case in that it was divided into three districts (merides), the Polemon meris, Herakleides meris, and Themistos meris. These districts were then divided into toparchies and tax districts as elsewhere (Clarysse and Thompson 2006: 102–3). In all nomes, the smallest unit of administration was the village. The administration of the three socalled “Greek cities,” (Alexandria, Naukratis, and Ptolemais) followed more traditional Greek urban administrative patterns.

Nome officials had a fair amount of autonomy in making administrative decisions, although they were held accountable to the outcome of their decisions by the central administration. To ensure accountability, officials were required to check the work of other officials, while at the same time their own work was being checked. In addition, residents of Egypt could (and did) petition the king directly, or any administrative or police official, in case they perceived that state representatives were wronging them, and the petitioned did take action (with varying degrees of success). All lines of information ended up in the capital, Alexandria, where final decisions would be made which then flowed back to the lower levels. Here resided various officials whose competency stretched out over the whole country. Central among these was the dioiketes, the chief economic official of Egypt, appointed directly by the king (see DIOIKETES (EGYPT)). The Ptolemies continued many administrative functions from earlier periods, but also added new functions to the mix. At the nome level, for example, the traditional offices of nomarch (traditionally in charge of agricultural production), OIKONOMOS (in charge of finances), and basilikos grammateus (in charge of keeping records) were continued, but added to these was the office of strategos (chief commander; see STRATEGOS, EGYPT). The organic nature of Ptolemaic administration shows in the development of the relationship between these offices. The strategos, originally a plain military function, soon developed into the main civil office of the nome, and overtook the functions of the nomarch. At the same time, the office of basilikos grammateus grew closer to those of the strategos and oikonomos, eventually replacing the latter, and becoming more defined in relation to the former (Falivene 2009). These developments seem to have happened gradually, without any apparent effort from the state to formally reform the offices, or intentionally abandon the offices of nomarch and oikonomos. At the village level, the traditional offices of komarch and

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner. © 2012 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2012 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

2 komogrammateus remained important, but the Ptolemies added an epistates (“overseer”) with various functions (such overseers were also added in other areas of interest to the administration such as the Egyptian temples). Ptolemaic innovations were quite farreaching and had direct consequences for administrative practices. For example, the settlement of soldiers on land by giving them a plot in return for military service resulted in a new administrative line of officials dealing with this category of land, whose relation to the traditional administrators of land (the basilikos grammateus and his assistants, the topogrammateus and komogrammateus) was left to develop over the course of the next three centuries. The introduction of a monetary economy from which revenues flowed to the state also required the institution of new offices, or the adjustment of traditional offices in order to deal with the administration of this new income (with eventually the basilikos grammateus replacing the oikonomos in this respect, see above). In addition, the introduction of Greek as the administrative language required all who wanted to be active in the administration to acquire sufficient language skills to be able to function in the administration. The introduction of tax farming as a means to secure income for the state resulted in a continuous adjustment of relations between the state, its agents, tax farmers, and the producers of crops, as is apparent in the third century BCE REVENUE LAWS. Literacy was the basis of Ptolemaic administration, more than it had been in earlier periods, and all officials were required to be literate. That this was a fundamental aspect of Ptolemaic administration is clear from the fact that the first Ptolemies employed Egyptians and allowed the administration to be run in Demotic Egyptian, due to the lack of a

sufficient number of Greek speakers (Thompson 1996). Active language policies (including tax breaks for teachers and those living on the Greek side of society) established a sufficient number of people fluent in Greek to be able to run the administration in Greek within 150 years of Alexander the Great (although Demotic did not disappear as a written language until the Roman period). The resulting documentary output of those active in the Ptolemaic administration forms the core of surviving documents from Ptolemaic Egypt. SEE ALSO: Administration, Pharaonic Egypt; Administration, Roman Egypt; Taxation, Greco-Roman Egypt.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Bingen, J. (2007) Hellenistic Egypt: monarchy, society, economy, culture. Edited and with an Introduction by R. S. Bagnall. Berkeley. Clarysse, W. and Thompson, D. J. (2006) Counting the people in Hellenistic Egypt. Volume 2: historical studies. Cambridge. Falivene, M. R. (2009) “Geography and administration in Egypt (332 BCE–642 CE).” In R. S. Bagnall, ed., The Oxford handbook of papyrology: 521–40. Oxford. Manning, J. G. (2003) Land and power in Ptolemaic Egypt: the structure of land tenure. Cambridge. Thompson, D. J. (1996) “Literacy and power in Ptolemaic Egypt.” In A. K. Bowman and G. Woolf, eds., Literacy and power in the ancient world: 67–83. Cambridge. Van’t Dack, E. (1988) Ptolemaica Selecta. E´tudes sur l’arme´e et l’administration lagides. Studia Hellenistica, 29. Leuven. Verhoogt, A. M. F. W. (1998) Menches, Komogrammateus of Kerkeosiris: the doings and dealings of a village scribe in the Late Ptolemaic period (120–110 B.C.E.). Leiden.

1

Administration, Roman Egypt THOMAS KRUSE

The administration of Egypt after the Roman conquest in 30 BCE developed in two opposing directions: the continuity of administrative institutions of the former Ptolemaic kingdom on the one hand, and the introduction of new elements by the Romans on the other. One should keep in mind, however, that in contrast to a thesis uttered for the first time by Theodor Mommsen, and thereafter quite influential among a great part of scholars in the past, there was no continuity between the Ptolemaic and the Roman rule over Egypt; that is to say, the Roman princeps by no means assumed the kingship of the Ptolemies, and his governor (the praefectus Aegypti) was not a viceroy (such as the governor of British India) who allegedly governed the country as a sort of crown domain. In fact, the analysis of the numerous documentary papyri dating from the Roman principate confirm a statement of the geographer Strabo (17.1.12 [797], a contemporary of Augustus) that after its conquest by the first Roman princeps Egypt became an eparcheia – in other words, it was a Roman provincia like any other Roman province, and it did not possess any exceptional legal status. Elements of continuity can be found, first, at the lower levels of the administrative hierarchy among the institutions of the local administration in the Egyptian chora. The Romans left intact the ancient (and actually pre-Ptolemaic) administrative division of the country with the NOME (Greek nomos) as its basic unit, administered by authorities who resided in the nome capital (metropolis) with the nome-strategos (strategos tou nomou) as the head of the nome administration. In the long run, of course, this administrative structure evolved through the process of “municipalization” initiated by the Romans, which aimed at strengthening the administrative role of the nome capitals.

It first established municipal honorary offices (archai) in these towns (like the gymnasiarchos), and thereby created a local urban elite from which the new town councils (boulai) in the nome capitals were recruited from around 200 CE, after the emperor Septimius Severus had granted the nome capitals the privilege of town councils. Thereafter the boulai assumed an increasing level of responsibility in the local administration. The nome strategoi were recruited from the indigenous Greek-speaking elite of the country and were, as in the Ptolemaic period, placed above the lower administrative officials in the nome metropolis and in the territory of the nome, which was subdivided into toparchies (headed by a topogrammateus) and villagedistricts (komogrammateiai), each of them administered by a komogrammateus. More significant were the changes at the level of the central administration of the province. When Egypt was first integrated into the Roman Empire, Augustus preferred to entrust its administration to members of the equestrian order, which he had reorganized and whose members solely depended on him, with no interference from the Roman Senate. This solution was also meant to prevent a potential senatorial rival of the emperor from using the wealthy province as a base from which he could conquer the throne. Although this never materialized, the administration of the country by Roman knights proved successful, and was therefore maintained by the succeeding emperors. At the head of the country’s administration stood the governor of Egypt, called “prefect of Alexandria and Egypt” (praefectus Alexandriae et Aegypti). After the praetorian prefecture, this was the highest office a Roman knight could reach, and a special law granted him powers equal to those of a governor of senatorial rank (Ulp. Dig. 1.17,1). In Greek his title was eparchos Aigyptou, but in most of our documents he is simply called hegemon. He resided in Alexandria, as did the chiefs of the other departments of the province’s central

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 95–98. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah07003

2 Prefect (praefectus Aegypti/ eparchos Aigyptou)

Iuridicus Legal adviser

Chief Priest Admin. of temples

Dioiketes Finance officer

Idios Logos I/C 'Private Account'

Procurators Financial admin.

Military Commanders

Epistrategoi 4 regional administrators Roman equestrian officials, appointed by the emperor.

Accountant of nome (eklogistes) residing with and responsible to central administration

Greco-Egyptians, appointed by the prefect.

Strategos Admin. of nome

Local executive magistrates, 'elected' or co-opted. Local officials appointed to compulsory public services.

Scribes of the nome metropoleis [grammateis (metro)poleos]

Royal Scribe (basilikos grammateus) Secretary of nome, deputy strategos

District Scribe (topogrammateus) Village Scribe (komogrammateus)

Magistrates and Town Councillors (from 201 CE)

Village Elders (presbyteroi)

Liturgists

Liturgists

Figure 1 The administrative system of Roman Egypt.

administration, all of them Roman knights of procuratorial rank. The financial administration was headed by the dioiketes (procurator ad dioikesin) in charge of the regular government revenue (state-land, taxes, customs-duties, and other such taxes); the Idios Logos (thus called because the office developed out of a “special account”) oversaw irregular state income, like confiscations or fines. Both administrative posts were already in existence under the Ptolemies. A new office in the financial administration was that of the procurator usiacus who administered the ousiakos logos, a specific branch of the provincial fiscus which incorporated the former private estates of members of the Julio-Claudian Dynasty and their freedmen; those estates had been confiscated by the Flavians after 69 CE.

The iuridius was responsible for the administration of justice and legal issues. The “High Priest (archiereus) of Alexandria and all Egypt” was another new official introduced by the Romans. He had control over the Egyptian temples and their priests, who were subjected to strict supervision by the government in the imperial period. In spite of his title, his role was obviously more administrative than religious. Other procuratorial offices existed for the administration of the big granaries in Alexandria, where the grain destined for the supply of Rome, Italy, and the Roman army was stored. Apart from being the head of the civil administration of the province, the prefect was also the commander in chief of the troops in the country. These were the Roman legions

3 garrisoned near Alexandria, the auxiliary forces stationed all over the country, and the provincial fleet (classis Alexandrina). An extensive lower level administrative staff was attached to the office of the prefect. The most important of these were the eklogistai (accountants). Each one was responsible for a single nome, and had to review its accounts on taxes and revenues, check the actions of its administrative officials, and report on these matters to the prefect. Between the provincial and local administration there were the three to four epistrategoi in charge of Lower Egypt, the Heptanomia (Middle Egypt), and the Thebais. Their position in the administrative chain of command is still unclear, but it is fairly certain that they did not constitute any sort of a regular middle administrative instance between the Alexandrian offices and those of the nome administration; the prefect and the heads of the other central offices corresponded directly with the nome strategoi, and not through the epistrategoi. The prefect’s primary duty was to take care of the regular flow of taxes and grain out of the province into the Roman treasury, because the supply of the people of Rome and a great part of the Roman army in the east depended on Egyptian grain. Furthermore he, like any other Roman governor, was responsible for maintaining law and order in his province. To this effect, he acted as chief-judge, who could (as the papyri show very clearly) be petitioned by any person who considered himself/herself to be wronged. He also controlled the actions of the officials at the lower administrative levels, mainly to prevent any unlawful extortion of taxes from the province’s inhabitants, which is a major theme of several prefectural edicts and decrees. To this end, he held a conventus (dialogismos) every year in the course of which he visited various parts of the country, presiding over a court where plaintiffs and defendants summoned by him had to appear, together with local officials.

SEE ALSO: Administration, Ptolemaic Egypt; Prefect of Egypt; Strategos, Egypt.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Bowman, A. K. and Rathbone, D. (1992) “Cities and administration in Roman Egypt.” Journal of Roman Studies 82: 107–27. Demougin, S. (2006) “Archiereus Alexandreae et totius Aegypti: un office profane.” In A. Vigourt et al., eds., Pouvoir et religion dans le monde romain. En hommage a` Jean-Pierre Martin: 513–19. Paris. Geraci, G. (1983) Genesi della provincia romana d’Egitto. Bologna. Haensch, R. (1997) “Zur Konventsordnung in Aegyptus und den u¨brigen Provinzen des ro¨mischen Reiches.” In Akten des 21. Internationalen Papyrologenkongresses, Berlin 1995: 320–91. Stuttgart. Hagedorn, D. (1985) “Zum Amt des diοikZtής im ¨ gypten.” Yale Classical Studies 28: ro¨mischen A 167–210. Jo¨rdens, A. (1999) “Das Verha¨ltnis der ro¨mischen ¨ gypten zu den ‘Sta¨dten’ in Amtstra¨ger in A der Provinz.” In W. Eck, ed., Lokale Autonomie und ro¨mische Ordnungsmacht in den kaiserzeitlichen Provinzen vom 1.–3. Jahrhundert : 141–80. Munich. Jo¨rdens, A. (2009) Statthalterliche Verwaltung in der ro¨mischen Kaiserzeit. Studien zum praefectus Aegypti. Stuttgart. Kupiszewski, H. (1953/54) “The Iuridicus Alexandreae.” Journal of Juristic Papyrology 7/8: 187–204. Para´ssoglou, G. M. (1978) Imperial estates in Roman Egypt. Amsterdam. Rigsby, K. (1985) “On the high priest of Egypt.” Bulletin of the American Society of Papyrologists 22: 279–89. Stead, M. (1981) “The High Priest of Alexandria and All Egypt.” In R. S. Bagnall et al., eds., Proceedings of the Sixteenth International Congress of Papyrology, New York 1980: 411–18. Chico, CA. Swarney, P. R. (1970) The Ptolemaic and Roman Idios Logos. Toronto.

1

Administration, Roman PETER EICH

The rise of the modern state is closely related to the administrative development of the political systems of Europe since 1500 CE. Ancient political systems relied to a much lesser degree than modern ones on formal administrative structures to achieve social cohesion, accumulate basic resources, or provide the elites with sufficient monitoring capacities. This general remark certainly holds true for the Roman Republic. Throughout the republic, Roman administration was minimal. There were, of course, a slowly but steadily growing number of magistrates (Kunkel 1995). But even after the Sullan reforms of the late 80s BCE, their number was inadequate for the management of urban affairs, not to mention the administration of the empire. Even more importantly, Roman magistrates relied much more on an institutionalized charisma and the deeply rooted obedience of the Roman people than on generally accepted procedures and written rules (Flaig 2003). Much has been written on the clerical and sub-clerical staff of the Roman magistrates (Jones 1960). While the magistrates were supported by a number of attendants, with the exception of the scribes their tasks consisted mainly in assisting these officials in their public appearances and public decision-making. The scribes seem to have acted rather independently at times. But our sources make it very clear that this independence was due to a lack of oversight, not to any formalized administrative powers. The scribes were certainly not meant to form an independent government agency to provide continuity in the administration of the empire. The administration of the republic was in fact non-bureaucratic to an astonishing degree. This does not mean that its agents did not have to deal with a substantial number of written documents (Nicolet 1991), but most of them concerned the census, and the information was provided by the subjects themselves.

Ancient aristocracies were hardly able to direct a complex administrative apparatus that, as a rule in pre-modern times, required a monocratic structure to enable effective monitoring by the political leadership. But Roman nobles could not accept an arrangement whereby one of their members took charge of such an organization, as that would have disturbed the balance of power within the aristocracy. Nor were they prepared to leave outsiders in control of an effective administration. Roman nobles therefore opted against such potentially dangerous forms of organization. Some of the more important financial tasks of the republic, such as the collection of various taxes or customs dues, were at least from the later second century BCE outsourced to private enterprises. The overseeing of finances and foreign policy, as well as more important domestic affairs, remained with the Senate, the representative body of the whole aristocracy. However, it would be wrong to conclude that republican rule was inefficient. The power elite had devised effective means of controlling their domains. First, Rome was at war nearly all the time; the center relied heavily on the armed forces as the spinal column of its developing empire (Eich and Eich 2005). Second, the Roman elite made use of various types of solidarity, family ties, friendship, or client ties, as well as various economic forms of dependence, to make their power felt all over the Roman commonwealth (Wallace-Hadrill 1989). Both methods proved to be highly effective ways of governing the empire. The provinces were ruled by magistrates (i.e., praetors and consuls) and pro-magistrates (i.e., those standing in for magistrates) until the reforms of SULLA, and later only by promagistrates, i.e., by proconsuls and propraetors. Governors as a rule had only a few apparitores (subordinates) at their disposal. From the first, they were supported by members of their familia (freedmen and slaves) and friends (Schulz 1997). In the Late Republic, powerful pro-magistrates drew on private and semi-private personnel to complement

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 90–95. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah18001

2 their official assistants on a completely transformed scale. Proconsuls, such as POMPEY or JULIUS CAESAR, used some of their liberti and servi (freedmen and slaves), officers with various assignments, private entrepreneurs, or equestrian friends to improve their communication with the political center and to achieve personal control over the supply of their armies (Erdkamp 1998). After Caesar had become Rome’s sole ruler, his personal staff moved from the periphery to the center and seems to have been in control of most day-today political and administrative decisionmaking (Jehne 1984). But Caesar does not appear to have institutionalized his private entourage. After his assassination, the triumvirs relied on their own personal administrations, modeled it seems, on Caesar’s staff. Octavian (AUGUSTUS)’s victory in the civil wars certainly transformed the political system of the Roman res publica decisively. But the overall principles of administration remained basically unchanged. Clearly, the establishment of a single ruler facilitated the development of a much bigger and more sophisticated administrative apparatus. But this potential was realized only very slowly. In the early and high principate, the emperors relied heavily on the forces of the social order to hold onto their position without changing the pre-existing balance (Millar 1991). Many of the changes introduced by Augustus or his immediate successors concerned the administration of Rome or Italy. The early emperors created a whole new range of senatorial offices, including the curatores aquarum (managers of aqueducts: Peachin 2004), the curatores operum publicorum (managers of public works), and the curatores viarum (managers of roads in Italy: Eck 1979; 1995). A few more posts were later added to the roster, including the curatores alvei Tiberis (officials in charge of the maintenance of the River TIBER: Bruun 2006). Likewise, the prefecture of the city seems have been established on a permanent basis only by TIBERIUS. In the course of time, this prefecture accumulated various administrative assignments, especially in the administration of

justice and the “policing” of the city (Wojciech 2010). Augustus established a public transport and communication system (cursus publicus) that was effective but proved to be a heavy burden on the inhabitants of the empire who had to provide the necessary services and infrastructure (Eck 1979). These new structures and institutions helped to make the administration of Rome and Italy more effective, but the senatorial administration remained completely non-bureaucratic in nature. The Senate as a whole functioned as a very important coordinating body for many standard procedures in the administration of the city and the empire (Brunt 1984), and aristocratic tradition pervaded the conduct of official business not only in the city of Rome but very often in the provinces as well (Lendon 1997). To return to provincial administration, some provinces were still governed by promagistrates. From an early date the canonical number of these provinces was ten; the title of the governors was proconsul, though only the governors of Asia and Africa were consular in rank (see ASIA, ROMAN PROVINCE OF; AFRICA PROCONSULARIS). The administration of these provinces more or less followed the republican example. The princeps, who ruled the larger part of the empire as proconsul from 23 BCE onwards, administered his provinces through consular or praetorian legates with propraetorian rank. These legates were supported by soldiers on secondment, mostly drawn from the military units stationed in the respective province. At least in the third century, proconsuls also had a military staff of this sort. These so-called officia helped the governor to dispense justice in his province, but most of their duties seem to have been military in nature (Haensch 1997). Something similar to the modern idea of civil service was created to administer the provinces only in the later part of the third century. The only exception to this was Egypt, where the Romans found a highly developed patrimonial bureaucracy and kept it in place; though, of course, they adapted it to their own ideas and standards (Eich 2007). By a special arrangement, Egypt was placed under an

3 equestrian prefect by Augustus. A host of other procurators, whose titles are known only from Egypt, supported him in overseeing the local administrators, dispensing justice, and collecting the taxes destined for Rome (Bowman 1996). From the reign of the emperor CLAUDIUS, some other minor provinces were governed by equestrian procurators. But this change in the status of the governor did not have a decisive impact on the principles of administration. So far, this discussion has been concerned mostly with senatorial office-holders. But during the principate, the senatorial administration was supplemented by other administrative agents, who in the course of time became increasingly important. Like every other estateholder of the elite, Augustus was supported in his official tasks by his freedmen and slaves who were versed either in administering the landed property of their master or in running some similar, related trade. But Augustus’ freedmen and slaves operated at the administrative center of the empire, where the princeps made use of them for a wide spectrum of activities (Boulvert 1970). We do not know how many of these agents were active in administrative tasks in the proper sense of the word. However, it is clear that their number rose constantly throughout the early and high principate. In the traditional sphere of Roman public activity, as defined by the republican heritage, they served in two tasks. First, they were responsible for the emperor’s public financial affairs. In addition, they were responsible for administering the emperor’s real estate which, ever since Augustus’ reign, surpassed everyone else’s (especially as no other person controlled larger mines or quarries, whatever legal title the emperor had to such assets; see MINES, MINING, GREEK AND ROMAN; QUARRIES). Second, until the second half of the first century CE, the imperial secretariat was exclusively staffed by them. From that period onward, the liberti, who had been heads of the various departments (the a rationibus (keeper of accounts), the a libellis (secretary for petitions), and the ab epistulis (secretary for correspondence) being the

most important), were slowly superseded by equestrian procurators (Eck 2000). Whether the agents of the princeps recruited from his household are to be deemed private or public is almost impossible to say. Likely, they soon gained a specific status not covered by this older social dichotomy (Winterling 1999). The regime of the emperor’s properties certainly added a new dimension to what may be called imperial administration. As the emperor’s estates expanded continuously, their managers became some of the most visible imperial agents throughout the empire (Thompson 1987). But as this regime largely followed the earlier example of private estate-management, the overall conduct of administration remained essentially unchanged. From the period of the Late Republic, senatorial promagistrates increasingly employed equestrian agents in various capacities to support them in their tasks. Augustus continued this practice. At that time, the changes he introduced can hardly have been considered dramatic. At the end of his reign, some thirty-five equestrian agents were employed in the civil administration. Augustus certainly did not plan simply to supersede the senatorial administration with a new equestrian one. His most spectacular measures, the establishment of high-ranking equestrian prefectures in Rome, came only after the princeps had tried to cope with various pressing problems of the city and his own position in it via more traditional approaches (Eck 1995a, b). He chose an equestrian prefect only late in his principate to head the newly established fire brigades (praefectus vigilum), and appointed two equestrian commanders of his personal body guard (praefecti praetorio). The praetorian prefects became the most powerful political players in the Roman political configuration in the course of the next two hundred years (see PRAETORIAN PREFECT). But their portfolio (beyond commanding the guard) was perhaps not defined in any meaningful sense before the third century (Eich 2005). The newly established posts certainly changed the dynamics of politics and administration

4 in Rome but, with the exception of the praetorian prefects, they were still compatible with the tradition and principles of republican administration. However, at two crucial points in the new political system, Augustus had already laid the groundwork for a new type of administration. In both cases, the demands of substantial numbers of citizens had to be met, since their discontent would have threatened the stability of the emperors’ position. The emperors had to make sure that Rome was supplied continuously. Supply crises in the capital always caused major upheavals in the Roman political system. For this task, another powerful equestrian praefectship, the praefectura annonae, was established by Augustus late in his rule (Pavis d’Escurac 1976; see ANNONA). More importantly, Augustus had decided to establish a professional army, thereby putting a severe strain on the Roman finances (Duncan-Jones 1994). The army of the principate was to some extent a self-sufficient organization (Eich 2010). But some staples had to be supplied by outside sources, and the troops had to be paid. These tasks were handed to equestrian procurators, who were also responsible for tax collection and the regime of the emperors’ private properties; in public provinces, their portfolio included only the supervision of imperial properties (Pflaum 1950). The procurators represented a new type of agent. They were not subject to the control of senatorial office-holders. In addition, their salaries (officially styled “indemnities”) were a larger motive for them to enter a career in the imperial service than for the typical member of a senatorial family. In time, the supply of the capital and especially that of the army became the most important tasks of the whole imperial administration. As in many other political systems (Tilly 1975), the personnel responsible for these tasks (together with the praetorian prefects) became the nucleus of a new administrative system that took over most assignments in Roman administration from senatorial officeholders during the second half of the third century.

While the administrative system of the republic underwent important changes in the principate, many of the principles of imperial governance typical of the republic were still active in the first and second century CE. Formalized hierarchies were often avoided where high-ranking officials were involved. Much of the internal communication between administrators seems to have been oral only. Spheres of responsibilities of administrators were illdefined, and the files of the government (except perhaps the archives for census material) seem often to have been in disarray. Some organizational framework was certainly needed to make the work of the imperial slaves and freedmen feasible. In Rome, there existed central bureaux of many of the various branches of the imperial administration in the provinces and Italy, but we have a limited knowledge of how these actually functioned (France 2007). However, we do know that the internal structuring of the imperial family was based almost entirely on ascriptive criteria, and not on contracts or skills. This segment of the imperial administration may be considered to have formed a sort of patrimonial bureaucracy. But this concept is ill defined, and even if we apply it to the Roman case, it has to be stressed that this patrimonial bureaucracy remained rudimentary throughout the high principate (Eich 2005). However, there are indications that the overall principles of administration changed after the late second century. This development mostly concerned the procuratorial service and the high-ranking prefectures in Rome. A handful of inscriptions and papyri, and some remarks in the literary tradition and the juridical literature, suggest, during this period, more clearly demarcated spheres of responsibility, tentatively defined by a set of abstract rules, hierarchies based on such spheres of competence, and a better recording of internal administrative actions came into being (Eich 2005). These are functional mechanisms of a historical bureaucracy (Weber 1978; Eisenstadt 1969). At the end of the third century, the two types of surrogates for full-time civil

5 administrators, soldiers on secondment, and imperial slaves and freedmen, were slowly replaced by freeborn, professional agents, who were only nominally members of the army. It has to be admitted that the evidence of this transformation is slight. But the historical background of the period under consideration lends plausibility to the proposed change. The empire faced ever-growing pressure from its enemies, and civil strife became endemic in the third century (Johne 2008). Army costs were rising, and the accumulation of sufficient resources (especially money, food, recruits, or communication) became ever more important for the empire as well as for individual emperors (Mitthof 2001; Lo Cascio 1997). The rise of historical bureaucracies, largely designed to extract such war-related resources, is a historical pattern witnessed throughout history (Kiser and Cai 2003) but especially in early modern Europe (Tilly 1990; Reinhard 2002). It is very likely that in the third century CE, the Roman administration underwent a similar transformation. SEE ALSO: Administration, Roman Egypt; Army, Roman Empire; Consuls; Freedmen and freedwomen; Law, Roman; Police, Greece and Rome; Praefectus; Praetor; Provincial administration, Roman Republic; Provincial capitals; Taxation, Roman.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Boulvert, G. (1970) Esclaves et affranchis impe´riaux sous le Haut-Empire romain. Naples. Bowman, A. K. (1996) “Egypt.” Cambridge Ancient History, vol. 10: 676–702. 2nd ed. Cambridge. Brunt, P. (1984), “The role of the Senate in the Augustan regime.” Classical Quarterly 34: 423–44. Bruun, C. (2006) “Die Kaiser und die stadtro¨mischen curae.” In A. Kolb, ed., Herrschaftsstrukturen und Herrschaftspraxis: 89–114. Berlin. Duncan-Jones, R. (2004) Money and government in the Roman Empire. Cambridge. Eck, W. (1979) Die staatliche Organisation Italiens in der hohen Kaiserzeit. Munich.

Eck, W. (1995a) “Augustus’ administrative Reformen: Pragmatismus oder systematisches Planen?” In W. Eck, Die Verwaltung des Ro¨mischen Reiches in der Hohen Kaiserzeit I: 83–102. Basel. Eck, W. (1995b) Cura viarum und cura operum ¨ mter im fru¨hen publicorum als kollegiale A Prinzipat: 283–90. Basel. Eck, W. (2000) “Government and Civil Administration.” In Cambridge Ancient History, vol. 11, 2nd ed., The high empire AD 70–192: 195–292. Cambridge Eich, A., ed. (2010) Die Verwaltung der ro¨mischen Armee in der Kaiserzeit. Stuttgart. Eich, P. (2005) Zur Metamorphose des politischen Systems in der ro¨mischen Kaiserzeit. Berlin. Eich, P. (2007) “Die Administratoren des ro¨mischen ¨ gyptens.” In R. Haensch and J. Heinrichs, eds., A Herrschen und Verwalten: 378–99. Cologne. Eich, A. and Eich, P. (2005) “War and state-building in Roman Republican times.” Scripta Classica Israelica 24: 1–33. Eisenstadt, S. N. (1969) The political systems of empires. Toronto. Erdkamp, P. (1998) Hunger and the sword. Amsterdam. Flaig, E. (2003) Ritualisierte Politik. Go¨ttingen. France, J. (2007) “Fiscalite´ et socie´te´ romaine.” In J.-P. Genet, ed., Rome et l’E´tat moderne europe´en: 365–380. Rome. Haensch, R. (1997) Capita Provinciarum. Mainz. Jehne, M. (1984) Der Staat des Diktators Caesar. Cologne. Johne, K.-P., ed. (2008) Die Zeit der Soldatenkaiser. Berlin. Jones, A. H. M. (1960) “The Roman civil service.” In A. H. M. Jones, Studies in Roman government and law: 151–75. Oxford. Kiser, E. and Cai, Y. (2003) “War and bureaucratization in Qin China.” American Sociological Review 68: 511–39. Kunkel, W. (1995) Staatsordnung und Staatspraxis der ro¨mischen Republik II. Munich. Lendon, J. E. (1997) Empire of honour. Oxford. Lo Cascio, E. (1997) “Prezzi in oro e prezzi in unita` di conto tra il III e il IV sec. d. C.” In J. Andreau et al., eds., E´conomie antique: prix et formation des prix dans les e´conomies antiques: 161–82. Saint-Bertrand-de-Comminges. Millar, F. (1991) The emperor in the Roman world. 2nd ed. Oxford. Mitthof, F. (2001) Annona Militaris. Florence.

6 Nicolet, C. (1991) Space, geography, and politics in the early Roman Empire. Ann Arbor. Pavis d’Escurac, H. (1976) La pre´fecture de l’annone. Rome. Peachin, M. (2004) Frontinus and the curae of the curator aquarum. Stuttgart. Pflaum, H.-G. (1950) Les procurateurs e´questres sous le Haut-Empire romain. Paris. Reinhard, W. (2002) Geschichte der Staatsgewalt. Eine vergleichende Verfassungsgeschichte Europas von den Anfa¨ngen bis zur Gegenwart. 3rd ed. Munich. Schulz, R. (1997) Herrschaft und Regierung. Paderborn.

Thompson, D. J. (1987) “Imperial estates.” In J. Wacher, ed., The Roman world: 555–67. London. Tilly, C., ed. (1975) The formation of the national states in Western Europe. Princeton. Tilly, C. (1990) Coercion, capital, and European states: 990–1990. London. Wallace-Hadrill, A., ed. (1989) Patronage in ancient society. London. Weber, M. (1978) Economy and society, C. Roth and C. Wittich, eds. Berkeley. Winterling, A. (1999) Aula Caesaris. Munich. Wojciech, K. (2010) Die Stadtpra¨fektur im Prinzipat. Bonn.

1

Adolescence MARK GOLDEN

Greeks and Romans recognized adolescence, a stage of life between childhood and full maturity. Imprecise in its vocabulary and chronological range, it extended from physiological puberty (generally set around fourteen) to marriage, but varied according to social class and (especially) gender. Girls (Greek: korai, parthenoi, Latin: virgines) were thought to reach puberty rather earlier and everywhere married young, in their mid- and later teens. Their adolescence was therefore short and, since sexual desire and fertility were thought to dawn with the signs of puberty, carefully controlled. Male adolescents (Greek: ko(u)roi, meirakia, neaniskoi, Latin: adulescentes, iuvenes) were likely married by their midtwenties, by thirty at the outside. They were indulged to some degree in the weaknesses and mistakes that characterized this stage of life. Both puberty and marriage came sooner for the better-nourished elite; the need to work shaped adolescence for the mass of the population. Adolescents are sometimes portrayed distinctively in art. On Classical Greek vases, for example, male adolescents are somewhat shorter than adults, slimmer and more lithe, with down on their faces and a hint of pubic hair; girls have small breasts outlined beneath their clothes and wear their hair long and loose or in braids. Their emotional and

intellectual traits likewise placed them in transition. Most stress shortcomings: extravagance, pugnacity, rashness, sexual excess, frivolity, drunkenness, inexperience, instability, lack of self-control. The warmth of their bodies made them passionate, their strength made those passions perilous. At the same time, their warm hearts caused adolescents to be generous and forgiving. Their vigor and courage were desirable in soldiers and their spontaneity and beauty desirable in themselves. (Roman law put citizen boys as far off limits as girls, but the adolescent sons of Greek citizens were pursued as passive partners in homosexual pairs. The full growth of their beards prompted them to move on to the active role.) Exceptional members of the elite, of ruling families above all, might be given political posts and administrative responsibilities usually reserved for their elders. SEE ALSO:

Adulthood; Childhood, Greece and Rome; Marriage, Greece and Rome.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Eyben, E. (1993) Restless youth in ancient Rome. New York. Garland, R. (1990) The Greek way of life from conception to old age. London. Harlow, M. and Laurence, R. (2002) Growing up and growing old in ancient Rome. New York. Kleijwegt, M. (1991) Ancient youth: the ambiguity of youth and the absence of adolescence in Greco-Roman society. Amsterdam.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner. © 2012 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2012 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

1

Adonis J. D. REED

In Greek and Roman mythology, a mortal favorite or lover of Aphrodite/Venus. He and the ritual lament for him, the Adonia, are most plausibly derived from the Mesopotamian Tammuz (see DUMUZI (TAMMUZ)), via West Semitic speakers, as his name – from adon, “lord” – suggests (Burkert 1979: 105–8). The very diverse myths tend to reflect his eastern affinities and to explain his “death.” Panyassis of Halikarnassos (fr. 27 Bernabe´; early fifth century BCE) makes Adonis’ mother Smyrna (“myrrh,” an eastern import to Greece); his division of Adonis’ time between Aphrodite and Persephone adapts a Mesopotamian myth of Tammuz, Ishtar, and Ereshkigal. A later myth has him killed by a boar as he is hunting, as in our fullest extant version (Ov. Met. 10.503–739). The scattered evidence on the Adonia usually points to celebrations by women outside the official calendars. Its first attestation (Sappho fr. 140 Voigt) suggests a responsive performance. The Athenian rites appear in comedy as an uproarious party held on rooftops by women, both citizen and

non-citizen. Attested customs include funeral rites for an effigy and the “gardens of Adonis,” seedlings sprouted specially for the festival, which became proverbial for “things that do not come to fruition.” Cults of Adonis attested in the Piraeus, Byblos, Alexandria, and elsewhere – often performed by men and under official sponsorship – are undoubtedly syncretistic, applying the Greek name to various objects of ritual lament associated with a great goddess. In Late Antiquity pagan writers make Adonis a symbol of the cycles of agriculture, and Christian writers re-identify him with Tammuz. REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Atallah, W. (1966) Adonis dans la litte´rature et l’art grecs. Paris. Burkert, W. (1979) Structure and history in Greek mythology and ritual. Berkeley. Reed, J. D. (1995) “The sexuality of Adonis.” Classical Antiquity 14: 317–47. Reed, J. D. (2000) “Arsinoe’s Adonis and the poetics of Ptolemaic imperialism.” Transactions of the American Philological Association 130: 319–51. Winkler, J. J. (1990) “The laughter of the oppressed: Demeter and the gardens of Adonis.” In The constraints of desire: 188–209. New York.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print page 99. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah17004

1

Adoption DAVID D. DRY

Adoption refers to a legal transfer of familial affiliation. Ancient adoption was often distinct from modern adoption and fostering in that it did not involve nurturing, took place between free, adult males, and was undertaken for economic or political purposes rather than emotional or humanitarian considerations. Adoption was one of the primary means by which ancient societies were able to restructure the family by allowing the incorporation of outsiders and the alteration of an existing familial configuration. Adoption was practiced in most ancient societies and was variously utilized to supply childless couples with social progeny, pass on a family name, and afford an individual a specified heir to their property (Lindsey 2009). In ancient Mesopotamia, adoption was uniquely conceived of as the nurturing of a child, and children were often adopted for the emotional benefits of parentage. Adoptions were only valid if the adopted family treated the child as their own, and if adopted children persistently sought out their biological parents they were returned to them. One of the economic incentives for adoption was that the children, usually boys, were expected to provide for their fathers in old age. In cases where an individual lacked an heir, an additional motivation included the need to transfer property that could only be passed to close relatives, which often led to the adoption of more distant kin or sons-in-law. At Nippur, extant adoption contracts underscore the dual social and economic attachments of Mesopotamian adoption (Stone and Owen 1991; Huebner 2007; Lindsay 2009). Greek and Roman society provide the most detailed accounts of adoptive practices. Adoption in ancient Greece generally occurred between adult, male citizens, not children, and centered on the needs of the adopter, not the well-being of the adoptee. Both individuals had to be free citizens, generally of the upper class, and the adopter could not have any living

sons. Adoption was a primary means by which a sonless adult Greek male could provide himself with an heir and ensure the continuation of his family name. It also allowed a man to secure care for himself during his old age. The adoptee benefited by obtaining rights to the inheritance of the adopter. Often heirless males adopted kin in order to keep this inheritance within the extended family. As a prerequisite to receiving the inheritance, the adoptee had to be formally entered into the deme (see DEMES, ATTIC) and PHRATRY of his adopted father. After adoption, all legal ties of the adoptee to his natural father, were severed. Adoption did not forge a relationship with the spouse of an adopted father, as adoption was solely a binding arrangement between the adopting father and the adopted son. However, it was extremely common and often expected that an adopted son would marry the natural daughter of his adoptive father. This was not considered incest, and the union provided a means for a father to secure the future well-being of his daughter. Legal proscriptions protected the rights and obligations of both parties. The adopted son was required to care for the father in the same manner expected of natural sons. An adoptee was entitled to inherit from his adopted father and, even if the father subsequently had natural sons, the adoptee still received his share of the inheritance (Rubinstein 2000). Adoption in ancient Greece could take place through a number of different processes. An inter vivos adoption was one which occurred during the lifetime of the adopter. It was a public process in which the adopted individual had to be accepted into his adoptive father’s phatry and deme. It was meant to effectively replicate the relationship of a natural father and son. This was the least contestable form of adoption due to its public nature. Adoptions by will, or testamentary adoptions, were less secure. In this form, a will dictated the individual who was to be adopted. As opponents often challenged the authenticity of wills, the will and the prospective adoptee had to be approved by the people’s court; only then

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 100–102. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah22005

2 could he go through the rites of affiliation and receive the inheritance. An additional form of adoption was one conducted in response to a vacant estate (Rubenstein 2000; Lindsay 2009). If there were no direct heirs and no will, the people’s court would appoint an heir based on the rules of intestate succession. While most have seen the latter as a separate form of adoption, Rubinstein (2000) holds that this view results from examining Greek adoptions in light of Roman adoption practices. She argues that the same principles were operative in this form and testamentary adoptions and classifies both as “posthumous adoptions.” Roman adoptions were similar to their Greek counterparts. An adopted individual was expected to take his adopter’s nomenclature, and Roman adoptions often took place among close relatives. However, Roman hostility toward ENDOGAMY (see EXOGAMY) led to the prohibition of marriages between adopted siblings, although the practice may have continued in Roman Egypt (see BROTHER–SISTER MARRIAGE). In order to adopt, a Roman had to be an independent male in possession of PATRIA POTESTAS. As they were unable to possess patria potestas, women were excluded from adopting. While motivations for adopting varied, they were primarily undertaken to provide heirs for upper-class Romans who were sonless late in life. Often political connections supplied a powerful motive for adoptions. Adoption helped cement familial alliances and expanded social associations, as an adoptee’s relations with former kin were often maintained even after their legal relationship had been terminated. Famously, Octavian was posthumously adopted by Caesar in a symbolic political act which allowed Octavian to garner the financial resources and military support previously held by Caesar. Imperial adoption allowed for the clear designation of an heir and was employed extensively in the Early Empire; however, it did not guarantee imperial succession (Corbier 1991; Gardner 2000; Lindsay 2009). Adoption in Roman society could be accomplished through a variety of methods. Adrogatio

or public adoption was required when the individual was sui iuris or legally independent, a PATERFAMILIAS in possession of patria potestas. The comitia curiata, the oldest Roman assembly, had to approve the adoption after considering the age and status of both individuals, and the purpose of the adoption. Private adoptions, adoptio, were conducted when a free male adopted a person still under the authority of a paterfamilias. These adoptions still needed to be performed before a magistrate. The patria potestas of the natural father had to be broken, and a praetor would then declare the authority of the new father. The two paterfamiliases negotiated the adoption and held legal authority even though the adoptee was often of a mature age. Testamentary adoption was also common in the Roman world. These are often not considered true adoptions since, as they were conducted posthumously, the individual was never under the patria potestas of his adopter. The adoptee also had the option to reject the adoption and generally was uninformed about the potential adoption until after the adopter’s death when the will was read. Roman testamentary adoption was essentially an appointment of an heir on the condition that the adoptee took the adopter’s name (Lindsay 2009). Ancient adoption was distinctly different from modern notions of adoption. In most ancient cultures adoptions were undertaken for the benefit of the adopter. It was used to restructure inheritance, provide a means to convey a family name, and form political alliances. Women were not permitted to adopt and only rarely, when there was no other means to pass on inheritance, were women adopted. As adoption was restricted to free citizens, there were severe limitations on adopting slaves, manumitted slaves, and illegitimate children; adoption seldom provided a means of social advancement. Modern adoptions most often take place between a child and an unrelated set of parents and are for the purpose of nurturing. Ancient adoption was a legal reaffiliation which generally took place between adult relatives; however, some ancient practices more closely resemble

3 the nurturing aspects of modern of adoption (see FOSTERING, FOSTER CHILD). SEE ALSO:

Testamentum.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Corbier, M. (1991) “Divorce and adoption as Roman familial strategies.” In B. Rawson, ed., Marriage, divorce, and children in ancient Rome: 47–78. New York. Corbier, M., ed. (2000) Adoption et fosterage. Paris. Dixon, S. (2000) “The circulation of children in Roman society.” In Corbier, ed.: 249–62. Gardner, J. F. (2000) “Status, sentiment and strategy in Roman adoption.” In Corbier, ed.: 63–80. Huebner, S. R. (2007) “Brother–sister marriages in Roman Egypt: a curiosity of humankind or

a widespread family strategy?” Journal of Roman Studies 97: 21–49. Huebner, S. R. and Ratzan, D. M., eds. (2009) Growing up fatherless in antiquity. Cambridge. Kunst, C. (2005) Ro¨mische Adoption: zur Strategie einer Familienorganisation. Hennef. Lindsay, H. (2009) Adoption in the Roman world. Cambridge. Prevost, M. H. (1949) Les adoptions politiques a` Rome. Paris. Rubinstein, L. (2000) “Adoption in classical Athens.” In Corbier, ed.: 45–62. Salomies, O. (1992) Adoptive and polyonomous nomenclature in the Roman Empire. Helsinki. Stone, E. C. and Owen, D. I. (1991) Adoption in old Babylonian Nippur and the archive of MannumMesu-Lissur. Winona Lake, IN.

1

Adoptionism EARL LAVENDER

Adoptionism is a term used by later historians to identify various forms of teachings in the early centuries of Christianity that suggested that Jesus was a mere human being, who, because of his righteous life, was at some point “adopted” as God’s son. Closely associated with “dynamic monarchianism,” it was an attempt to explain the relationship of the human and divine natures of Jesus Christ in an understandable way. Perhaps first advanced by the Ebionites, of whom we know little, adoptionism was more fully developed by the Monarchians, most notably Theodotus of Byzantium (late second century) and Paul of Samosata (ca. 260–70). Theodotus, according to Hippolytus (7.35), taught that Jesus was a normal man who lived a virtuous life until his baptism. At that point, “the Christ” (or the Holy Spirit) descended on him and he was able to perform miracles, having been “adopted” as the son of God. Others of this group believed that Jesus was not deified until after his resurrection. Paul of Samosata, bishop of Antioch, was condemned by the Council in Antioch in

268 for supposedly refusing to confess that “the Son of God came down from heaven,” but rather came “from below.” There are reasons to believe, however, that these charges against him may not have been true. There are traces of what might be considered adoptionistic Christology in the canonical texts as well. The apostle Paul appears to quote an early creedal statement in Romans 1:3–4 which speaks of Christ Jesus “being appointed” the son of God at his resurrection. Paul’s speech in Acts 13 quotes the second Psalm and speaks of Jesus as “begotten.” Others have suggested that Mark’s Gospel assumes such a CHRISTOLOGY by ignoring the birth of Jesus and pronouncing Jesus as God’s son at his baptism. However, Christologies that imply any sense of adoptionism have consistently been condemned by the church throughout the centuries. REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Ehrman, B. (1993) The Orthodox corruption of scripture: 47–118. Oxford. Hilgenfeld, A. (1894) Die Ketzergeschichte des Urchristentums, Urkundlich dargestellt: 609–15. Leipzig. Kelley, J. N. D. (1958) Early Christian doctrines: 115–19, 158–60. London.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print page 102. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah05004

1

Adramyttion ERAN ALMAGOR

Adramyttion (modern Edremit) was a flourishing city in MYSIA, opposite LESBOS, overlooking the gulf to which it gave its name. Said to have been founded by Adramys, brother of CROESUS (Aristotle ap. Steph. Byz. s.v. Adramyteion) and reported to have been the seat of Croesus before his accession (Nic. Dam. FGrH 90 F 65), the city was considered Lydian in origin (Strabo 13.1.65, 613). Its Greek character was enhanced by Athenian presence (Strabo 13.1.51, 606). Delian exiles were permitted to settle there in 422 BCE by the Persian satrap Pharnakes (Thuc. 5.1.1), but their chief men were massacred by Tissaphernes’ general Arsakes (Thuc. 8.108.4) soon after (411). The city’s advantageous geographical location made it an attractive site to take by siege – as did Autophradates in 366 (Polyaen. Strat. 7.26), Prepelaos in 302 (Diod. Sic. 20.107.4), and ANTIOCHOS III MEGAS in 190 (Livy 37.19.7–8) – or to make an administrative center in times of peace – as in the

Attalid kingdom and in the Roman conventus (Plin. HN 5.122). After the city had sided with Mithradates VI in 84 BCE (App. Mith. 23), it was the local Xenokles who pleaded for his country before the Senate (Strabo 13.1.66, 614). In the Roman rearrangement of the area, the city became the seat of administration of customs, portorium (lex portus Asiae, SEG 39.1180). The silted-up harbor and the city were gradually deserted, so that by the twelfth century CE it was impossible to tell it had ever been inhabited (Anna Comnena Alex. 3.143). SEE ALSO: Lydia; Mithradates I–VI of Pontos; Peloponnesian War.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Cottier, M. et al., eds. (2008) The customs law of Asia. Oxford. Cramer, J. A. (1832) A geographical and historical description of Asia Minor, vol. 1. Oxford. Rubinstein, L. (2004) “Aiolis and south-western Mysia.” In M. H. Hansen and T. H. Nielsen, eds., An inventory of Archaic and Classical poleis: 1038. Oxford.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 102–103. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah04006

1

Adrasteia LYNN E. ROLLER

The name Adrasteia was used in different contexts. In one, Adrasteia was a nymph, sister of Ide and the Kouretes, who helped protect Zeus from his father Kronos after his birth on Mount Ida on Crete; she clashed cymbals to muffle the infant’s cries. The story does not appear in Hesiod’s Theogony, but was known in the Hellenistic period (Callim. Hymn 1.47; Apoll. Rhod. 3.133; Apollod. 1.1.6), and may reflect an Orphic cosmogony. The name also appears in Asia Minor to designate a topographical landmark, either a plain in northwestern Asia Minor, near Kyzikos (Hom. Il. 2.828; Strabo 12.8.11; 13.1.13) or a place near Mount Ida at Troy (Aesch. Niobe, fr. 158 TGF). During the Roman era the two traditions were blended when Adrasteia, shown dancing with her cymbals, appeared on coins from Phrygia. In a different context, the name can mean “inescapable,” and as such was associated with Nemesis, or divine justice. Adrasteia was an

alternative form of Nemesis worshipped in Kyzikos (Strabo 13.1.13) and also in Boiotia, according to Demetrios of Skepsis (Harpokration, s.v. Adrasteian), who reports that she was the daughter of Adrastos, one of the Seven against Thebes. Adrasteia and Nemesis were worshipped jointly on the island of Kos (Sokolowski 1969: nos. 160 and 161). Plato (Phaedr. 248c) uses the expression “law of Adrasteia” (thesmos Adrasteias) to denote absolute authority. The name could be proverbial; Aeschylus (PV 936) and Plato (Rep. 451a) use the expression “I bow to Adrasteia” to mean “I accept this as inevitable.” SEE ALSO: Ida, Mount; Idaean Cave; Kouretes; Kyzikos; Orpheus and Orphism.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Grunauer-von Hoerschelmann, S. (1981) “Adrasteia.” LIMC I.1: 230–1. Zurich. Sokolowski, F. (1969) Lois sacre´es des cite´s grecques. Paris. West, M. L. (1983) The Orphic poems. Oxford.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print page 103. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah17005

1

Adrastos of Aphrodisias ALAN C. BOWEN

Peripatetic philosopher active ca. 100 CE (Martin 1849: 74–9), author of commentaries on ARISTOTLE’s Nicomachean Ethics, Categories, and Physics, as well as of a study On the Order of Aristotle’s Works cited several times by SIMPLICIUS. None of these works survives. Adrastos is not the author of the anonymous commentary on Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics (Gottschalk 1987: 1155 n. 363), though this work may draw on one that he did write. According to ATHENAEUS OF NAUKRATIS, Adrastos also wrote five books on THEOPHRASTUS’ Characters. Adrastos is best known for his lost commentary on PLATO’s Timaeus, a work cited extensively by THEON OF SMYRNA and Calcidius after him, as well as by PORPHYRY (Waszink 1975). It is typically held that the citations by Theon are reliable and even that they are “transcriptions” of Adrastos’ own words. Yet Theon’s use of Adrastos was more likely creative – his remarks about Dercyllides, his other main authority, suggest considerable intervention on his own part. Moreover, Theon’s citations of Plato, to take another example, are so divergent from the received Platonic text that they cannot be explained by supposing that Theon was relying on a textual tradition which has not survived or by dismissing them as careless. In truth, Theon’s aim was to find the roots of contemporary harmonic science and astronomy in

Plato’s thought – he even asserts that Plato knew of the epicyclic hypothesis but held that epicyclic circles, not spheres, carried the planets (Hiller 1878: 188.25–189.6). Thus, the question of Theon’s fidelity to Adrastos’ words, meaning, and purpose is important and should not be ignored. Calcidius’ own use of Adrastos’ commentary is complicated by the fact that he does not mention Adrastos and that his citations of Adrastos are known only through comparison with Theon’s text. SEE ALSO: Commentariis, a; Neoplatonists; Peripatetics.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Barker, A. D. (1989) Greek musical writings: II. Harmonic and acoustic theory. Cambridge. Gottschalk, H. B. (1987) “Aristotelian philosophy in the Roman world from the time of Cicero to the end of the second century AD.” ANRW II.36.2: 1079–174. Berlin. Hiller, E. (1878) Theonis Smyrnaei philosophi platonici expositio rerum mathematicarum ad legendum Platonem utilium. Leipzig. Martin, T. (1849) Theonis Smyrnaei platonici liber de astronomia cum Sereni fragmento. Paris. Moraux, P. (1984) Der Aristotelismus bei den Griechen von Andronikos bis Alexander von Aphrodisias, vol. 2: 294–332. Berlin. Waszink, J. H. (1975) Timaeus a Calcidio translatus commentarioque instructus. Plato Latinus 4. Leiden.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print page 104. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah21006

1

Adria KATHRYN LOMAS

Adria (Adria: Hecat. FGrH 1 F 90; Strabo 5.1.8, 214; Atria: Ptol. 3.1.26) was a port on the Adriatic coast of Italy, between the deltas of the Po and Adige rivers. It lay on important communications routes between Italy, continental Europe, and Greece and controlled an area of fertile territory. Later the harbor silted up and Adria was linked to the sea by a canal (Strabo 5.1.8, 214; Plin. HN 3.16.120–1). Some ancient writers described Adria as an Etruscan settlement while others refer to it as a Greek, possibly Aeginetan, colony (Livy 5.33.8; Just. Epit. 20.1.9; Steph. Byz. s.v. Adria), but archaeology indicates an ethnically mixed community. The ancient city lies underneath the modern town, but excavation of cemeteries along the Canal Bianco and to the south of the town has revealed burials, some buildings, and a possible sanctuary. Venetic pottery of the seventh to sixth centuries BCE suggests it may have been a Venetic settlement in origin, but little is known about the earliest phases of occupation. In the sixth century it expanded rapidly into an important emporion with a substantial Greek and Etruscan population, a development contemporary with an expansion of Etruscan settlement throughout the Po valley, around Bologna, and at Spina on the Po delta. Finds include large quantities of Greek and Etruscan objects of the sixth to fourth centuries, and high-quality Attic pottery was a particularly prominent import in the late sixth and fifth

centuries. Greek and Etruscan inscriptions confirm the multi-ethnic nature of the inhabitants of Adria (Rix 1991: Ad 1.1–6.1), and a Greek cult of APOLLO is attested by Greek votive inscriptions, using the Aiginetan alphabet. During the fourth century Greek imports decreased but the Etruscan presence remained strong, with close connections with Volterra. From this point, however, Adria diminished in size and importance as the harbor silted up. It fell under Roman control by the second century BCE, gaining Latin status in 89 BCE and becoming a municipium of the tribus Camilia (CIL V 2394, 2315, 2343) in 49 BCE. Inscriptions provide evidence of municipal administration, including an ordo decurionum, quattuorviri iure dicundo, and a collegium nautarum. SEE ALSO: Adriatic Sea; Aigina; Emporion; Etruria, Etruscans; Po.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Donati, L. and Parrini, A. (1999) “Resti di abitazioni di eta` arcaica ad Adria: gli scavi di Francesco Antonio Bocchi nel Giardino Pubblico.” In O. Paoletti, ed., Protostoria e storia del “Venetorum angulus”: atti del XX convegno di studi etruschi ed italici: 567–614. Pisa. Fogolari, G. and Scarfı`, B. M. (1970) Adria antica. Venice. Rix, H. (1991) Etruskische Texte. Editio Minor, 2 vols. Tu¨bingen. Wilkes, J. and Fischer-Hansen, T. (2004) “Adria.” In M. H. Hansen and T. H. Nielsen, eds., An inventory of Archaic and Classical poleis: 326–7.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 104–105. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah04007

1

Adrianople, battle of A. D. LEE

The battle of Adrianople (August 9, 378 CE), in which a Roman army suffered a crushing defeat by Gothic forces (see GOTHS) and the emperor VALENS died, was described by one contemporary as the worst Roman defeat since Cannae (Amm. Marc. 31.13.19; see CANNAE, BATTLE OF). It is usually seen as an important step in the hemorrhaging of Roman power during late antiquity, although there are dangers of oversimplifying its significance. The battle was the culmination of events which began two years earlier when Valens agreed to a Gothic request to cross the Danube en masse and settle in the northern Balkans. Roman exploitation of the immigrants provoked a Gothic revolt which local Roman forces struggled to contain, prompting Valens to return from the eastern frontier with elite army units in the summer of 378. Despite being urged by some to await the arrival of his co-emperor Gratian from the west with reinforcements, Valens decided to tackle the Goths on his own in the Thracian plain, 150km west of Constantinople – a fatal decision influenced partly by faulty intelligence which underestimated the size of dispersed Gothic forces, but also by Valens’ apparent determination not to share the kudos of anticipated victory with Gratian. Much uncertainty surrounds the details of the battle itself, even though it forms the climax of the best source for this period, AMMIANUS MARCELLINUS’ history; his classicizing pretensions and his concern to use Adrianople as a foil to the emperor Julian’s achievements in another battle (Strasbourg, 357; Kelly 2008: 313–16), resulted in a battle description which does not lend itself to tactical analysis. The two sides apparently engaged by accident before either was fully ready, and the Roman left wing then advanced too far, and was isolated and destroyed, leaving the left flank of the

Roman center vulnerable. Gothic pressure constricted the fighting space to the point where Roman troops were too densely packed to fight effectively. By nightfall, Valens was dead and two-thirds of the Roman forces had been slaughtered (Amm. Marc. 31.13.18) – but two-thirds of what number? Conservative estimates put Valens’ army at no more than twenty thousand Roman troops, but data for units missing after 378 imply a figure closer to forty thousand (Lenski 2002: 339), which is also more consistent with the manpower problems evident in the following years. Gothic numbers are also problematic, but are unlikely to have been significantly larger than Roman forces. The defeat owed more to poor decisionmaking by Valens than to any deterioration in the quality of Roman troops, and the empire still had substantial armies deployed elsewhere. However, the loss of so many experienced troops could not be made good quickly, and Valens’ successor THEODOSIUS I proved unable to defeat the Goths, eventually reaching an agreement in 382 which allowed them to settle in the Balkans in return for providing units for the Roman army. Crucially, the Goths retained a degree of independence not previously conceded to such immigrants which, within a decade, was to create increasing problems for the empire (see ALARIC). SEE ALSO:

Army, late antiquity.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Burns, T. S. (1973) “The battle of Adrianople: a reconsideration.” Historia 22: 336–45. Heather, P. (1991) Goths and Romans, 332–489: 122–56. Oxford. Kelly, G. (2008) Ammianus Marcellinus: the allusive historian. Cambridge. Kulikowski, M. (2007) Rome’s Gothic wars from the third century to Alaric: 123–43. Cambridge. Lenski, N. (2002) Failure of empire: Valens and the Roman state in the fourth century A.D.: 320–67. Berkeley.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner. © 2012 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2012 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

1

Adriatic Sea FRANCESCO IACONO

The Adriatic is located in the northernmost part of the Mediterranean Sea. The name derives from the Greek-Etruscan city of Adrias, which was located in the north, close to the Venetian Gulf. The use of the name “Adriatic,” in order to define the whole basin, is rather late. Traditionally, Greek authors conceived the whole sea as subdivided into two entities, the southern part corresponding to the Ionian Sea (Ionos kolpos or poros) and the northern part that constituted the Adriatic as originally intended (Adrias kolpos), Strabo being the first to acknowledge that the two parts were the same (2.46) (Coppola 2002). During ancient times, regions around the Adriatic Sea were densely occupied by various populations (e.g., the Piceni and Daunians). There was a noteworthy degree of interaction between local communities as well as with other areas of the Mediterranean since the Bronze Age. Dated to this period are some of the earliest attestations of transAdriatic contact, as exemplified by the diffusion of various bronze items, as well as by the Aegean frequentation of the area at different times and different intensities along both coastal areas, particularly in the south (Lenzi 2003). After the fall of Aegean polities, during the final part of the second and the early part of the first millennium BCE, the Adriatic was still at the center of a number of networks, such as the diffusion of Daunian pottery recovered as far away as Slovenia. By the seventh–sixth centuries BCE, the Adriatic, and in particular its southern half, was within the political

sphere of Corinth, as suggested by the retrieval of large amounts of Corinthian pottery (D’Andria 1994). Etruscan presence was also strong, eventually leading to the creation of centers such as Spina. A number of Greek colonies were eventually founded on the eastern Adriatic coast in a relatively late timeframe (many of them by DIONYSIOS I of Syracuse) (Sassatelli 1990). During Hellenistic and Roman times, the Adriatic Sea constituted an important seaway and as a consequence was infested by pirates. Decisive Roman intervention (ultimately leading to the ILLYRIAN WARS) improved the situation, and throughout the empire the whole area was thriving with important centers such as Brundisium, Aquileia, Pola, and Zara, as shown by the numerous wrecks found throughout the region (Lenzi 2003). Under Odovacar (402 CE), the Adriatic center of Ravenna became the capital of the western empire. SEE ALSO:

Adria; Albania.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Coppola, A. (2002) “I nomi dell’Adriatico.” Hesperia 15: 101–6. D’Andria, F. (1994) “Corinto e l’Occidente. La costa Adriatica.” Corinto e l’Occidente. Atti del trentaquattresimo convegno di studi sulla Magna Grecia, Taranto Ottobre 7–11, 1994: 457–508. Taranto. Lenzi, F., ed. (2003) L’Archeologia dell’Adriatico dalla preistoria al Medioevo. Florence. Sassatelli, G. (1999) “Splina e gli Etruschi padani.” In L. Braccesi and S. Graciotti, eds., La Dalmazia e l’altra sponda. Problemi di archaiologhı´a adriatica: 71–107. Florence.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 106–107. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah14009

1

Adrogatio FRED K. DROGULA

Adrogatio was the process of ADOPTION by which a man SUI IURIS (that is, a PATERFAMILIAS who was not under another man’s potestas) could give up his independence and come under the potestas of an adoptive father (a different process called adoptio was used to adopt individuals in potestate parentum). The best primary sources for adrogatio include Cicero (Dom. 34–8), Aulus Gellius (NA 5.19.1–16), the jurist Gaius (Inst. 1.97–108), and Justinian’s Digest (esp. 1.7.1–46). Through this process, the man being adopted (the adrogatus) transferred all of his property – including any persons under his potestas – to the potestas of his new adoptive father (the adrogans) (cf. Gai. Inst. 2.98). Since the adoptee lost his independent status (capitis diminutio), any will he had written was voided and control over his business affairs was transferred to his new father. Adrogatio, therefore, represented the termination of a family branch, since the adoptee (a paterfamilias) transferred himself and his entire familia into the potestas and familia of the adopter. In law, the adrogatus was in every way the son of the adrogans, and therefore he not only possessed full rights of inheritance, but also would carry on the name, legacy, and sacra of his adoptive father. A primary purpose of adrogatio, therefore, was to enable a man to provide himself (in law) with a son. Since adrogatio only created a relationship between the adrogans and the adrogatus, the latter did not become the legal son of his new father’s wife. Females were not adopted by adrogatio. In the republic, the college of pontiffs controlled adrogationes, which suggests that adrogatio was a process of great antiquity. An action of adrogatio began with an investigation by the pontiffs into the circumstances of the two men – the adrogans and the adrogatus – to ensure that both had good grounds and intentions (iusta bona causa) for the adoption. The adrogans had to be childless and too

advanced in age to have reasonable hopes for fathering a child of his own, and he could not be acting out of greed for the property of the man he would adopt. The adrogatus was required to accept the diminishment of his status from sui iuris to in potestate parentum, to renounce the sacra of his current family (detestatio sacrorum), and to accept the sacra of his new family. Since the Romans held that the sacra of a family were perpetual (Cic. Leg. 2.47–8), adrogatio was an important method for childless men to ensure the continuation and observance of family rites. Indeed, it is likely that the college of pontiffs controlled the process of adoption by adrogatio specifically, because it involved the maintenance of important sacra privata. If the pontiffs approved the application for adoption, the pontifex maximus presented it as a bill (rogatio) to the comitia curiata (later the comitia calata). Since this comitia only met in Rome, adrogatio adoptions could only take place in Rome during the republic. A popular vote was required to approve the adoption, probably because adrogatio involved the diminution of a citizen’s status from sui iuris to in potestate parentum, and the Twelve Tables (9.1–2) stipulated that such a change in status could only be accomplished by a vote of the people. Since the adrogans had to be questioned during the process, it is unlikely that adrogatio could be accomplished through one’s will, although Augustus seems to have claimed as much by following adrogatio procedures when completing his testamentary adoption by his greatuncle Caesar (App. B Civ. 3.14, 3.94; Cass. Dio 45.5.3). The most famous and best documented case of adrogatio in the republic was that of the patrician P. Clodius Pulcher, who had himself adopted by a plebeian in order to qualify for election to the plebeian tribunate (Cic. Att. 2.7.2–3; Dom. 34). Augustus adopted Tiberius through adrogatio, by which process Tiberius and his sons (including GERMANICUS, whom Tiberius had adopted previously through adrogatio) came under Augustus’ potestas

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 107–108. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah13007

2 (Suet. Tib. 15.2; Tac. Hist. 1.15). In later periods, adrogatio could also be completed by imperial rescript after an initial investigation by a praetor or by a provincial governor, making it possible for adrogationes to be performed outside Rome. In 286 CE, Diocletian declared that imperial rescript was the only acceptable method for carrying out an adrogatio (CT 8.48.2). SEE ALSO:

Familia Caesaris; Rescriptum.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Botsford, G. (1909) The Roman assemblies: 160–2. New York. Jolowicz, H. and Nicholas, B. (1972) Historical introduction to the study of Roman law: 120. Cambridge. Lindsay, H. (2009) Adoption in the Roman world. Cambridge. Watson, A. (1971) Roman private law around 200 BC : 30–1. Oxford.

1

Aduˆ PIERRE VILLARD

The word adeˆ (aduˆ), a plurale tantum possibly of West Semitic origin, denotes a formal agreement sworn before the gods. It became one of the most important terms in the Neo-Assyrian Empire’s political vocabulary. While the word is attested in Aramaic, in the stelae of Sfire that record treaties between Assyria and the king of Arpad (eighth century BCE), most of the extant documentation of adeˆ agreements is in Akkadian. Thirteen tablets recording adeˆ agreements are known, spanning a period of two centuries from 823 (reign of ShamshiAdad V) to 623 BCE (reign of Sin-shar-ishkun); such agreements are also mentioned in Assyrian annals, letters, and queries to the sun-god. In Assyrian theory, the adeˆ represented a unilateral agreement: the Assyrian king granted a favor (t:a¯btu) to the other party, who in return acknowledged his subordination. In practice, some adeˆ were bilateral treaties concluded between parties of equal status. Sargon II (r. 721–705; see SARGON II OF ASSYRIA) concluded such an agreement with the Chaldean ruler Marduk-apla-iddin II in 720. This treaty was clearly binding upon both parties, for the propagandistic text called “The Sin of Sargon,” written during the reign of ESARHADDON (r. 680–669), imputes Sargon’s untimely death to his breach of the “adeˆ of

the gods’ king.” However, most of the foreign rulers involved in adeˆ-treaties were vassals of Assyria. A good example is the treaty imposed by Esarhaddon on the kingdom of Tyre in 676 BCE. King Ba‘lu of Tyre, swearing before both Phoenician and Mesopotamian gods, had to agree to major concessions, including Assyrian supervision of his kingdom’s trade and foreign affairs. Finally, the adeˆ could also take the form of loyalty oaths imposed on the Assyrian population, especially upon the accession of a new king or the appointment of the crown prince. In these cases, the adeˆ required that every Assyrian subject pledge loyalty to the ruling king and his heirs, undertaking to denounce any seditious activities. SEE ALSO: Assyrian kings, Neo-Assyrian period; Oaths, ancient Near East; Treaties, ancient Near East.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Durand, J.-M. and Lemaire, A. (1984) Les inscriptions arame´ennes de Sfire´ et l’Assyrie de Shamshi-ilu. Geneva. Parpola, S. and Watanabe, K. (1988) Neo-Assyrian treaties and loyalty oaths. Helsinki. Villard, P. (1997) “La re´ception des conventions jure´es dans les messages des serviteurs d’Assarhaddon.” Me´diterrane´es 10–11: 147–61. Watanabe, K. (1987) Die adeˆ-Vereidigung anla¨ßlich der Thronfolgeregelung Asarhaddons. Berlin.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 108–109. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah24226

1

Adultery ANN-CATHRIN HARDERS

Greco-Roman societies regarded adultery as a crime next to RAPE and the seduction of unmarried women such as virgins and widows. For a man to have sexual intercourse with a married woman other than his wife was considered a threat to the authority of the adulteress’s husband and the sanctity of his home. Both in Greece and Rome, male infidelity was not actionable in regard to a man’s own wife but only concerning another man’s marriage (see PROMISCUITY). In Athens, adultery was not a specifically defined sexual offense, since any premarital or extramarital relation with a woman of respectable social status was forbidden and termed as moicheia (see Schmitz 1997: 124–32; Patterson 1998: 114–25). To enter the house and bed of another man in secret was a grave offense against the honor of the KYRIOS and his OIKOS; in case of adultery, it also was a threat to the legitimacy of his children. The different ways and proceedings to punish the moichos are best described in Lysias’ speech On the Murder of Eratosthenes (Lys. 1): Euphiletos caught Eratosthenes in the act of adultery with his wife and killed him; he later had to defend his rash actions in court. A duped husband was not obliged to put to death both moichos and wife, but if he chose to do so, he would face impunity in most of the Greek poleis (Lys. 1.1; Dem. 25.53; Xen. Hiero 3.3; cf. Arist. Frg. 593F) unless it could be proven that he had plotted to kill the moichos and therefore lured him to enter his house. Apart from killing, the kyrios could either detain the moichos in his house and postulate a monetary fine or hand him over to the authorities. Proven guilty the moichos would face a fine or public humiliation, for example, rhaphanidosis, public anal penetration with a radish, and paratilmos, the plucking of scalp, pubic hair, or beard (Aristoph. Nub. 1083-5; Suda mu 1360; see Kapparis 1996 and

Schmitz 1997: 91–115). A husband also had to divorce his adulterous wife in order to repudiate accusations of pandering and to keep his status as citizen (see DIVORCE, GREEK); the adulteress suffered atimia (dishonor) and was barred from public and religious life (Aeschin. 1.183). Even her father and brother did not need to house her, but were allowed to sell her into slavery (Plut. Solon 23.2; see Schmitz 1997: 85–91). In Roman society, illicit sexual relations were termed as stuprum; Roman jurists later specified sexual encounters with a married woman as adulterium, confining stuprum to intercourse with virgins, widows, and divorcees (Pap. Dig. 48.5.6.1; Mod. Dig. 50.16.101). A general law on adultery in the republic has not survived, and it is disputed whether, as in Athens, a nomos moicheias existed (see Treggiari 1991: 277). Adultery by a wife was grounds for divorce with the option of retaining a fraction of her dowry for compensation (see DIVORCE, ROMAN). Her kinsmen and her husband were also expected to take action against her: the PATERFAMILIAS was allowed to condemn her to death (see IUS VITAE NECISQUE) and a husband who killed wife and lover in the heat of the moment would go free. Similar to Greek societies, adulterers suffered painful indignities and humiliations (Cato in Gell. 10.23.2–5; Cat. 158.19; 21.13; Hor. Sat. 1.2.37-44; Val. Max. 6.1.13; Juv. Sat. 10.317; see Treggiari 1991: 267–73; Schmitz 1997: 101). In 18 BCE, as part of the MARRIAGE LEGISLATION OF AUGUSTUS, adultery became a sexual offense, dealt with by a standing tribunal (lex Iulia de adulteriis coercendis). A husband had to divorce and prosecute his adulterous wife within sixty days of discovering her unfaithfulness – after that every citizen was granted the right to accuse the adulterers as well as the husband for procuring. Thus adultery from then on was no longer an offense to be dealt with at the family council, but a public crime (Ulp. Dig. 48.5.2.4–5). The adulterous pair had to face relegation to separate islands and the confiscation of a portion of their property.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 109–110. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah22006

2 Furthermore, an adulteress was forbidden to remarry and suffered social disgrace: as an infamis, she shared the same civil status with a prostitute (see Treggiari 1991: 277–90; McGinn 1998: 140–7; see PROSTITUTION). Judaism and Christianity repudiate adultery on the grounds of the seventh commandment (Ex. 20.14); in Leviticus 20.10 the death of both the adulterer and adulteress is stipulated. In Christian communities adultery was seen, next to disparity of cult, as the only reason for the dissolution of a marriage (Matt 5: 32; Justin Apol. 2.4). Under the growing influence of Christianity, Constantine I passed stricter laws on marriage and divorce. Adultery was one reason to obtain divorce – at first, it was only for the husband to claim (CT 3.1.6.1; see Evans Grubbs 1995: 203–60). From 449 CE on, a wife could file for divorce on the grounds of her husband’s adultery too (CJ 5.17.8.2); however, in 542 this was revoked (Just. Nov. 117).

SEE ALSO:

Homicide, Rome; Marriage, Greece and Rome; Marriage, Jewish; Patria potestas; Sex and sexuality, Greece; Sex and sexuality, Rome.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Evans Grubbs, J. (1995) Law and family in Late Antiquity. The Emperor Constantine’s marriage legislation. Oxford. Kapparis, K. (1996) “Humiliating the adulterer: the law and the practice in Classical Athens.” Revue internationale des droits de l’antiquite´ 43: 63–77. McGinn, T. (1998) Prostitution, sexuality, and the law in ancient Rome. Oxford. Patterson, C. B. (1998) The family in Greek history. Cambridge, MA. Schmitz, W. (1997) “Der nomos moicheias – Das athenische Gesetz u¨ber den Ehebruch.” Zeitschrift der Savigny-Stiftung fu¨r Rechtsgeschichte, Romanistische Abteilung 104: 45–140. Treggiari, S. (1991) Roman marriage. Iusti coniuges from the time of Cicero to the time of Ulpian. Oxford.

1

Adulthood MARK GOLDEN

Only a free male (Greek aner, Latin vir) ever became fully adult. A slave could always be called a boy (Greek pais, Latin puer). Free boys themselves might put on the toga virilis in their mid-teens (in Rome) or be enrolled in their father’s deme at seventeen or eighteen (in ATHENS) or enter the army at the end of their teens and marry in their twenties (in SPARTA). But they would still be under the supervision of a Roman tutor until twenty-five, unable to hold office in Athens’ democracy or sleep in their own home in Sparta until thirty. Greek women always remained under the authority (kurieia) of an adult male, the kurios, even if only a son or an older relative far away (in contrast, an adult male exercised control over his children and came to depend on them only when past adulthood, in old age). Even a wealthy and influential Roman woman who was sui iuris, free from her father’s and husband’s control, no longer subject to a tutor because she had given birth to three children, and identified as a matrona by her distinctive dress and hairstyle, was as ineligible as a Greek to vote or hold political office or

serve as a juror. In practice, married women of every class managed their households, the poorer majority worked on their land and outside their homes, and queens ruled. But only free men, it was believed, had bodies which were as warm and dry as they should be and only they had characteristically adult qualities: rationality, self-restraint, a balance of physical, emotional, and intellectual maturity. Adolescents made rash and daring soldiers; adult men, calm as well as courageous, could command too. Adulthood was the product of experience as well as of physiological development. It reached its peak (Greek akme) at forty. SEE ALSO:

Adolescence.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Foxhall, L. and Salmon, J., eds. (1998a) Thinking men: masculinity and its self-representation in the Classical tradition. New York. Foxhall, L. and Salmon, J., eds. (1998b) When men were men: masculinity, power and identity in Classical antiquity. New York. Rosen, R. M. and Sluiter, I., eds. (2003) Andreia: studies in manliness and courage in Classical antiquity. Leiden.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 110–111. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah22007

1

Adventus SHELLEY C. STONE

The Latin word adventus, “arrival,” was often used to designate the arrival of an important person (Verg. Aen. 6.798) or a god (Cic. Nat. D. 1.105; Sen. Apocol. 5). By the late first century CE (see Joseph. BJ 7.68-72; Cancellaria Frieze B), the Adventus had become a public holiday to welcome the emperor (or another grandee) to a city. Its format derived in part from the triumph (e.g., Livy 5.23.3–4), but also from ceremonies welcoming Hellenistic monarchs (e.g., Polyb. 16.25-6) and from the celebrations at Rome when Augustus returned from the provinces (Cass. Dio 54.10.3, 54.25.3-4). In the Adventus of the high imperial period (Plin. Pan. 22–3; Cass. Dio 75.1.3–5) the population, organized according to rank and class, met the emperor, who wore civilian garb and a laurel crown, outside a gate (the occursus), and processed into the city bearing torches and censors. A sacrifice then took place in the civic center (in Rome, at the Capitol). The following day saw public games. The Adventus appears on many imperial reliefs and coins because it celebrated the emperor’s beneficent presence

(as a savior and manifest god, praesens deus) and indicated the universal consensus and piety of the citizenry (see PIETAS). By the Late Empire it had largely replaced the triumph in demonstrating the unity of commander, army, and state. Since the term Adventus was also used for the second coming of Christ (Matt 24: 3, 28: 20) and other Christian themes (such as Jesus’ entry into Jerusalem: Iuvencus 2.523–4), in the fourth century CE the quasireligious meaning of the public ceremony was modified into a celebration of military ascendency. SEE ALSO:

Triumph.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Dufraigne, P. (1994) Adventus Augusti, adventus Christi : recherche sur l’exploitation ide´ologique et litte´raire d’un ce´re´monial dans l’antiquite´ tardive. Paris. Kleiner, D. (1992) Roman sculpture: figs. 158, 186, 189, 258, 308, 310, 388, 411–13. New Haven. Lehnen, J. (1997) Adventus Principis: Untersuchungen zu Sinngehalt und Zeremoniell der Kaiserankunft in den Sta¨dten des Imperium Romanum. Frankfurt am Main. MacCormack, S. (1981) Art and ceremony in Late Antiquity: 1–89. Berkeley.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print page 111. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah17006

1

Adversus Iudaeos ANDREW S. JACOBS

The body of literature “against the Jews” may refer narrowly to specific treatises so entitled (by their authors or later editors) that responded to real or imagined Jewish accusations against Christ, Christians, and Christianity. Texts entitled Adversus Iudaeos were written by, or later attributed to, Tertullian, Cyprian of Carthage, Gregory of Nyssa, John Chrysostom, Ambrosiaster, Augustine, and Theodoret of Cyrus. Although varying in format (from sermon to formal treatise to lists of testimonia, or “proof-texts,” drawn from the Old Testament), these treatises shared common arguments: Jesus’ messiahship according to scripture, God’s repudiation of Jews as the chosen people, and the rejection of Jewish Law in light of a new, spiritual revelation. Adversus Iudaeos literature may also refer more broadly to any text (including martyrologies, letters, literary dialogues, apologetic works, and biblical commentaries) that aggressively differentiated Christianity from Judaism to establish the former’s superiority. Peter Scha¨fer traced many of the anti-Jewish themes found in Christian adversus Iudaeos literature to pre-Christian polemical works against Jews, particularly Egyptian Hellenistic writings. These polemics anticipated later Christian accusations of Jewish exclusivism and misanthropy (Scha¨fer 1998; see APION; MANETHO, EGYPTIAN HISTORIAN; JOSEPHUS). John Gager, however, pointed out the ambivalent attitudes of Greeks and Romans toward the venerable, yet odd, customs of Jews (Gager 1985). Rosemary Radford Ruether argued that the attitudes of adversus Iudaeos literature are not only unique to Christian thought, but were theologically embedded in the earliest layers of Christianity (Ruether 1974). Early texts, such as the New Testament Epistle to the Hebrews and the noncanonical Epistle of Barnabas (see BARNABAS, EPISTLE OF), emphasized a supersessionist theology: Christianity is the

“new Israel” chosen by God over the Jews, with a new, universal interpretation of the old covenant and scriptures. MELITO OF SARDIS, in a later second-century homily, On Easter, introduced additional themes that would become common in adversus Iudaeos literature: the culpability of Jews for the murder of Jesus, the continued persecution of Christians, and the persistent refusal of Jews to accept the spiritual truth of their own scriptures. The idea of Jews as persecutors was taken up in several early Christian martyrologies, such as the Martyrdom of Polycarp. By the second century, the dialogue emerged as a potent form of adversus Iudaeos literature, framing the dispute between Jews and Christians as a literal debate. Celsus (a secondcentury pagan critic of Christianity) referred to a now-lost Dialogue of Jason and Papiscus that likely influenced later Jewish–Christian dialogues (cited by Origen C. Cels. 4.52). Justin Martyr’s Dialogue with Trypho the Jew portrayed Justin the Christian philosopher in a two-day debate with Trypho, a refugee from the Bar Kokhba revolt (see JUSTIN MARTYR). Much of the Dialogue consisted of debates over biblical interpretation, such as the famous interpretation of Isaiah 7:14 as a prophecy of the virgin birth. Justin chastised Trypho for not recognizing in Jesus the fulfillment of his own scriptures, and intransigently sticking to overly literal interpretation of ritual laws. The common patrimony of the Old Testament was frequently at issue in adversus Iudaeos texts. Some scholars suggest that real debates between Jews and Christians lie behind adversus Iudaeos literature (Simon 1986: 173–4). Tertullian and ORIGEN in the third century both referred to public dialogues between Jews and Christians (Tert. Adv. Iud. 1.1; Origen C. Cels. 1.45, 1.55). However, later literary dialogues, such as the Altercation of Simon and Theophilus, the Dialogue of Timothy and Aquila, and the Teaching of Jacob, Recently Baptized, were much more stylized. David Olster argued that, in the Byzantine period, the “imagined Jews” of these later literary dialogues served

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 111–113. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah05005

2 to embody anxieties over power and loss for seventh-century Christians (Olster 1994). It is likely that, whatever “real world” conflicts prompted the production of adversus Iudaeos texts, they functioned throughout the early Christian period to channel and process internal concerns as well as respond to perceived attacks from Jews (see APOLOGISTS). Some anti-Jewish Christian writing paradoxically relied on Jewish sources, exemplifying the complex of fears and desires that characterized mainstream Christian attitudes toward Jews and Judaism throughout this period (see Jacobs 2008). Both Origen (d. ca. 254) and JEROME (d. ca. 420) produced voluminous biblical commentaries in which they simultaneously decried Jewish interpretation as overly “fleshly” and “literal” and cited Jewish instructors who taught them Hebrew language and rabbinic midrash. By construing Jews as inherently scriptural, Christians could simultaneously demonize Jews and make a place for them in a Christian world. Such doubled appreciation and repudiation of Jews reached its pinnacle in the so-called “witness theology” of Augustine (d. 430): Jews must remain in Christendom, marginalized and inferior, in order to bear witness to the truth of Christian scriptures and their superiority (De civ. D. 18.46). Some adversus Iudaeos texts, such as the homilies of John Chrysostom (d. ca. 407) or treatises of Cyril of Alexandria (d. 444), portrayed Judaism as a theological threat hovering at the margins of Christian society, threatening to infect the Christian religious body with error. Well into the fifth century, it seems, many Christians consulted Jews to calculate the date of Easter (decried as so-called Quartodecimanism) or attempted to integrate the practice of Jewish Law into Christian life (decried as so-called Ebionism). Daniel Boyarin has suggested that the social reality of “Judaeo-Christianity” may have been much messier on the ground than our sources suggest: adversus Iudaeos literature, on this reading, seeks to impose clean and utter distinction where it did not exist (Boyarin 2004).

The fierce rhetoric of adversus Iudaeos literature was highly effective. Scholars continue to debate whether adversus Iudaeos literature reflects a social reality of religious competition and vibrancy throughout the ancient period or vigorous internal anxiety and debate (Wilken 1983; Simon 1986; Taylor 1995; Jacobs 2008: 170–3). By the Middle Ages, the Christian image of the Jew – intransigent, murderous, misanthropic, diabolical, and deicidal – had hardened into the chilling stereotype that would eventually feed into the racialized antiSemitism of the modern era. SEE ALSO: Ebionites; Moses, Jewish and pagan image of.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Boyarin, D. (2004) Border lines: the partition of Judaeo-Christianity. Philadelphia. Gager, J. (1985) The origins of anti-Semitism: attitudes toward Judaism in pagan and Christian antiquity. Oxford. Jacobs, A. (2008) “Jews and Christians.” In S. A. Harvey and D. Hunter, eds., The Oxford handbook of early Christian studies: 169–85. Oxford. Olster, D. (1994) Roman defeat, Christian response, and the literary construction of the Jew. Philadelphia. Ruether, R. (1974) Faith and fratricide: the theological roots of anti-Semitism. New York. Scha¨fer, P. (1998) Judeophobia: attitudes toward Jews in the ancient world. Cambridge, MA. Simon, M. (1986) Verus Israel: a study of the relations between Christians and Jews in the Roman Empire, trans. H. McKeating: 135–425. Oxford. Taylor, M. (1995) Anti-Judaism and early Christian identity: a critique of the scholarly consensus. Leiden. Wilken, R. (1983) John Chrysostom and the Jews: rhetoric and reality in the late fourth century. Berkeley. Williams, A. L. (1935) Adversus Judaeos: a bird’s-eye view of Christian Apologiae until the Renaissance. Cambridge.

1

Aediles ERIC J. KONDRATIEFF

Two plebeian aediles were established, according to tradition, during the first secession of the plebs (494 BCE). Their title may derive from their function as supervisors of the temples (aedes) of CERES and Diana. They also assisted the tribunes of the plebs (see TRIBUNI PLEBIS), keeping records of the plebeian assembly’s transactions and storing them in the temple of CERES. Whether they were sacrosanct, or inviolable, is debated. In 367, two curule aedileships were created to compensate patricians for having yielded one consulship to the plebeians in the Licinian–Sextian rogations. Eventually, curule and plebeian aediles held similar functions – as supervisors of various aspects of city life that chiefly affected the urban plebs – but the former used the curule chair (sella curulis) of Roman magistrates. As magistrates of the whole Roman people (albeit without lictors or imperium), curule aediles were elected by the comitia tributa populi under the presidency of a senior magistrate and entered office on the same day as the consuls and praetors; plebeian aediles were elected in the comitia tributa plebis under the presidency of a tribune (Greenidge 1901: 208–9). The curule aedileship thus counted as the first step on the cursus of Roman magistracies, conferred the ius imaginum, or right to have one’s mask among those of his noble ancestors, and membership in the Senate (ibid.). Its prestige likely factored into further compromises: by the late third century BCE, the office was opened in alternate years to plebeians; by the early first century BCE, it was open every year to plebeians. The continual preoccupation of the consuls and praetors with wars, and of the tribunes with legislation, meant that aediles were the chief administrators of the city’s infrastructure, markets, food and water supply, hygiene, and funerals; they also supervised the tresviri

capitales – men in charge of watching for fires, keeping order, and arresting malefactors – but had no direct “police” responsibilities of their own (Lintott 1999: 130–1). Nevertheless, they had prosecutorial duties and undertook public trials (see IUDICIUM POPULI) against transgressors of laws regulating Rome’s infrastructure, commercial life, and agrarian activity (Lintott 1999: 131–33 with nn. 41–7). Fines collected from condemned malefactors were generally used to erect or repair temples or other buildings (e.g., Livy 33.42.10). Aediles are perhaps best known for putting on Rome’s series of annual games: the curule aediles produced the ludi Romani and Megalenses, while plebeian aediles produced the ludi plebeii, the Cerealia, and the Floralia. Since aediles could derive much political good will from games magnificently produced, those with the means to do so often chose to run for this office – instead of the tribunate – as a stepping stone to higher magistracies. The intense political competition of the republic’s last decades encouraged aediles to put on increasingly remarkable and extravagant games and shows. AUGUSTUS, however, eventually transferred the responsibility for the games to the praetors, and reduced the aediles’ responsibilities to oversight of four of Rome’s fourteen regions (Cass. Dio 55.8.7), supervision of the markets, and related commercial and sumptuary matters. SEE ALSO: Consuls; Cursus honorum, Roman; Plebeians; Praetor; Roman Republic, constitution.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Greenidge, A. H. J. (1901) Roman public life: 208–12. New York. Lintott, A. W. (1999) The constitution of the Roman Republic: 34–6, 129–33, 153–4. Oxford. Mommsen, T. (1887) Ro¨misches Staatsrecht, vol. 2, 3rd ed.: 470–522. Leipzig. Sabbatucci, D. (1954) L’edilita` romana, magistratura e sacerdozio. Rome.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 113–114. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah20003

1

Aediles ERIC J. KONDRATIEFF

Ancient sources claim that the first aediles were created by the PLEBS in the first secession (494/ 493 BCE: see STRUGGLE OF THE ORDERS). DIONYSIUS OF HALICARNASSUS (6.90.2–3) reports that they assisted the tribunes of the plebs (see TRIBUNI PLEBIS) in judicial matters; recorded transactions of the plebeian assembly (see COMITIA AND CONCILIA); maintained those records in the temple of CERES; and oversaw the markets and their provisioning. As with all of Rome’s early history, the aediles’ origins and duties – including the derivation of their title from their oversight of the temples (aedes) of Ceres and DIANA, or whether they were sacrosanct (as in Liv. 3.55.7, 449 BCE) – are debated (Cornell 1995: 263–5, Lintott 1999: 129–30, Forsythe 2005: 170–7). In 366, to compensate patricians for opening one consulship to PLEBEIANS (see LEGES LICINIAE SEXTIAE), the curule aedileship was created for patricians only (Liv. 6.42.12–14; 7.1.2 and 5–6). Like CONSULS and PRAETORS, curule aediles were distinguished from plebeian aediles by their sella curulis (ivory chair, hence “curule”) and red-striped TOGA praetexta (plebeian aediles wore a plain white toga and used a bisellium, or bench for two). As magistrates of the Roman people (though without LICTORES or IMPERIUM), two curule aediles were elected annually by the COMITIA tributa populi under the presidency of a senior magistrate, entering office on the same day as consuls and praetors; plebeian aediles were elected in the comitia tributa plebis under the presidency of a tribune, sometimes on the same day as their curule counterparts (Plut. Marius 5.1–2). The curule aedileship, considered the first step on the CURSUS HONORUM (career path) of Roman magistracies, conferred the IUS IMAGINUM – the right to display one’s mask among those of his noble ancestors – and membership and rank in the Senate (Cic. Verr. 2.5.14.36). As such, it was restricted by the leges annales of the second and first centuries BCE to men aged thirty-

six or older at the time of election. The prestige and power of the curule aedileship – including its ius edicendi, or right to promulgate edicts (Gai. Inst. 1.6; see EDICT, MAGISTRATE’S) – engendered further compromise: by 216 BCE, it was opened in alternate years to plebeians (cf. Livy 23.30.16, 24.43.6–8); by the 90s BCE, it was open every year to plebeians. The continual preoccupation of consuls and praetors with warfare, and of tribuni plebis with legislation, meant that aediles became Rome’s de facto administrators, managing aspects of city life that chiefly affected the urban plebs. They were responsible for maintaining Rome’s infrastructure (temples, public buildings, roads, sewers, and aqueducts); private water rights and distribution; public hygiene (they inspected BATHS, brothels and prostitutes; see PROSTITUTION); and distributions of grain (subsidized or free) to the plebs. They also regulated public markets, ensuring adherence to established weights, measures, sumptuary and financial regulations (see FENERATOR). Helping the aediles with their work was a small host of apparitores (assistants), including scribae (secretaries, bookkeepers), viatores (footmen, messengers), praecones (heralds), and more. To complete required maintenance, repairs and construction, aediles engaged redemptores or mancipes (contractors) whose labor forces completed the actual work. Aediles were also responsible for public order in the city. Although they had no direct police responsibilities, they did supervise the tresviri Capitales – men in charge of watching for fires, keeping order, and arresting criminals (Lintott 1999: 130–1) – and independently prosecuted transgressors of laws regulating, for example, lending practices, immorality, or the use of Rome’s public lands (Lintott 1999: 131–33 with nn. 41–7; see IUDICIUM POPULI, AGER PUBLICUS). Aediles often used fines collected from the condemned to erect or repair temples and shrines (e.g., Livy 33.42.10), to provide valuable votive offerings to the gods, or to produce games (Livy 10.23.11–13). Indeed, curule and plebeian aediles are probably best known for producing annual games

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and David Hollander. © 2018 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Published 2018 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah20003

2 (see LUDI) involving theatrical shows, chariot races, GLADIATORS, wild beast hunts, athletic contests, and religious feasts (see IOVIS EPULUM), along with elaborate temporary viewing accommodations (Pliny HN 36.113–4; see ARENA; THEATER, GREEK AND ROMAN). Plebeian aediles produced games for the plebs (FLORALIA, Cerealia, ludi plebeii); curule aediles produced games for the entire Roman people (Megalensia, ludi Romani). It is demonstrable that games magnificently produced yielded tremendous political capital; in the intensely competitive atmosphere of the late republic, ambitious, wealthy men competed hard – often illegally – to win the aedileship and, once in office, produced increasingly spectacular entertainments. Perhaps to alleviate pressures on the current aedileships and/or provide more opportunities to hold the office, in 45 BCE Caesar created the aediles cereales (Suet. Iul. 41) to take charge of the grain supply and produce the Cerealia (Dig. 1.2.2.32; see ANNONA). AUGUSTUS, unsurprisingly, eliminated the potential for aediles to generate popular support by taking over supervision of temples and rites, transferring the games to the praetors, and distributing other duties to new

functionaries, such as the urban prefect and superintendents of roads and aqueducts (see CURA, CURATOR; VIGILES). Meanwhile, he relegated aediles to the administration of four of Rome’s fourteen regions and supervision of markets, baths, brothels, and so on. According to Cassius Dio (55.8.8, 55.24.9) the office lost so much prestige that few, if any, sought it thereafter. SEE ALSO:

Roman Republic, constitution.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Baumann, R. A. (1974) “Criminal prosecutions by the Aediles.” Latomus 33, 2: 245–64. Cornell, T. J. (1995) The beginnings of Rome: 256–71. London. Forsythe, G. (2005) A critical history of early Rome: 170–7. Berkeley. Greenidge, A. H. J. (1901) Roman public life: 208–12. New York. Lintott, A. W. (1999) The constitution of the Roman Republic: 34–6, 129–33, 153–4. Oxford. Mommsen, T. (1887) Römisches Staatsrecht, vol. 2, 3rd ed.: 470–522. Leipzig. Sabbatucci, D. (1954) L’edilità romana, magistratura e sacerdozio. Rome.

1

Aedituus LORA L. HOLLAND

An aedituus (older form aeditumnus, also aeditimus) is an official caretaker for a building (aedes) that houses a deity, that is, an aedes sacra or temple. The social status of the aedituus ranges from freeborn to slave; duties can encompass sacral procedures as well as menial labor. The earliest sacristan on record is the legendary keeper of Diana’s temple on the Aventine who performed a sacrifice (Ru¨pke 2008: 631 s.v. Cornelius (1); cf. Livy 1.45). Some sacristans for Jupiter Capitolinus put the cult instruments in storage (Gell. NA 2.10.4). The first century BCE poet Valerius Aedituus presumably held the post. Aeditui are, however, seldom mentioned in literature, although they must have been ubiquitous in Roman culture. Inscriptions of the imperial period provide most of our evidence. Sacristans are attested for many deities, from Jupiter and Mars to Diana and Concordia, including several “Romanized” gods such as Magna Mater (see CYBELE) and Isis. The office is not attested in Rome after 290 CE, though the Greek word for temple attendant, neokoros, is found up to 384 CE.

Only two female attendants, aedituae, are known, both from inscriptions in Rome. The name and offices (aeditua and ministra) of Lollia Urbana, a freedwoman, are given without mention of a deity (CIL VI 2213). Ru¨pke suggests she may have served a private establishment (2008: 774, no. 3). Doris, slave of Asinius Gallus, was caretaker for a temple of Diana (CIL VI 2209), perhaps the one on the Vicus Patricius which men were forbidden to enter (Plut. Moralia 264 C). SEE ALSO: Cult attendants, Roman; Neokoros; Temples, Roman.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Cavazza, F. (1995) “l significato di aeditu(m)us, e dei suoi presunti sinonimi e le relative mansioni.” Latomus 54: 58–61. della Corte, F. (1935) “Per l’identita` di Valerio Edituo con Valerio Sorano.” Rivista di filologia e di istruzione classica 63 (n.s. 13): 68–70. Ho¨lscher, T. (2004–2006) “Rom und der Westen des ro¨mischen Reiches.” In Thesaurus cultus et rituum antiquorum (ThesCRA), vol. 5: Personnel of cult, cult instruments: 155–60. Los Angeles. Ru¨pke, J. (2008) Fasti sacerdotum, trans. D. Richardson. Oxford.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 114–115. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah17007

1

Aedituus LORA L. HOLLAND GOLDTHWAITE

University of North Carolina at Asheville, USA

An aedituus/aeditua (older form aeditumnus, also aeditimus and aeiditumus) is an official caretaker or guardian for a building (aedes) that houses a deity, that is, an aedes sacra or temple (see TEMPLES, ROMAN). In Christian cult the preferred term for this function is ostiarius. Aeditui are seldom mentioned by name in literature although they must have been ubiquitous in Roman culture. There was even an Atellan farce called Aeditumus by a certain Pomponius (Gell. NA 12.10.1). The social status of the aedituus ranges from free to slave and freedperson; duties include everyday actions such as opening and closing the temple, sacral procedures such as approval of an offering (Panciera 1991: no. 36) and providing access to the cult statue (Sen. Epist. 41.1), as well as the menial labor involved in the cleaning and upkeep of the building. The earliest aedituus on record is the legendary keeper of Diana’s temple on the Aventine who performed a blood sacrifice, that is, a priestly function (Rüpke 2008: 631 s.v. Cornelius (1); cf. Livy 1.45). Varro says he was invited to a festival by an aedituus of the goddess Tellus, and that this attendant had a freedman (RR 1. 69), which may suggest a hierarchy of duties. Some sacristans for Jupiter Capitolinus put the cult instruments in storage (Gell. NA 2.10.4). The first century BCE poet Valerius Aedituus presumably held, or an ancestor had held, the post. Servius (ad Aen. 9. 645) asserts that during the Republic aeditui were held in higher esteem than during the empire.

Inscriptions of the imperial period provide most of our evidence. Aeditui are attested for many deities, from Jupiter and Mars to Diana, Fortuna, and Concordia, including several “Romanized” gods such as Magna Mater (see CYBELE) and Isis. The office is not attested in Rome after 290 CE, though the Greek word for temple attendant, NEOKOROS, is found up to 384 CE. Only two female attendants, aedituae, are known by name, both from inscriptions in Rome. The name and offices (aeditua and ministra) of Lollia Urbana, a freedwoman, are given without mention of a deity (CIL VI 2213). Rüpke suggests she may have served a private establishment (2008: 774, no. 3). Doris, slave of Asinius Gallus, was caretaker for a temple of Diana (CIL VI 2209), perhaps the one on the Vicus Patricius which men were forbidden to enter (Plut. Moralia 264 C). SEE ALSO:

Cult attendants, Roman.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Cavazza, F. (1995) “Il significato di aeditu(m)us, e dei suoi presunti sinonimi e le relative mansioni.” Latomus 54: 58–61. Hölscher, T. (2004–2006) “Rom und der Westen des römischen Reiches.” In Thesaurus cultus et rituum antiquorum (ThesCRA), vol. 5: Personnel of cult, cult instruments: 155–60. Los Angeles. Panciera, S. (1991) “ILLRP,” In Epigrafia. Actes du colloque international d’épigraphie latine en mémoire de Attilio Degrassi: 241–91. Rome. Pietri, L. (1988) “Pagina in pariete reserata: Épigraphie et architecture religieuse.” In A. Donati, ed. La terza età dell’epigrafia. V. Colloquio AIEGLBorghesi 86: 137–57. Bologna. Rüpke, J. (2008) Fasti sacerdotum, trans. D. Richardson. Oxford.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History. Edited by Andrew Erskine, David B. Hollander, and Arietta Papaconstantinou. © 2019 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Published 2019 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah17007.pub2

1

Aedui JAMES THORNE

The Aedui were arguably the most powerful people of Gaul at the end of its independence, and most prominent until the end of the empire. This was chiefly due to their situation at a premier communication node in western Europe (the watershed of the Seine, Loire, and Rhoˆne/Saoˆne/Doubs basins), and their early alliance with Rome (no later than the First Transalpine War, 125–121 BCE). By Caesar’s arrival in 58 BCE, they had consolidated a large territory, and aimed at Gallic hegemony. The Aeduan OPPIDA have yielded tens of thousands of republican amphorae, testifying to exceptional Roman links. Their food supplies and cavalry were important to Caesar, and their brief defection to VERCINGETORIX (summer 52) was perilous. The chief oppidum, Bibracte, gave way from ca. 12 BCE to a new foundation: low-lying Augustodunum, 25 km away. The Aedui led the Three Gauls in the following ways: first to have a Roman city wall (Augustodunum, ca. 12 BCE); first priest of Rome and Augustus at Lugdunum (Iulius Vercondaridubnus, ca. 10 BCE); first senators (under Claudius, 48 CE). More notoriously, an Aeduan, Julius Sacrovir,

co-led the Gallic revolt of 21 CE. They are named by Mela (3.20) as the most famous people of Celtica (i.e., Lugdunensis) and in Pliny’s Natural history (4.107) as one of only four with federate status in the Three Gauls. The history of the Aedui under the empire is mainly the history of Augustodunum, center of culture and elite education in Gaul. In the course of the fourth century, the civitas Aeduorum lost much of its territory; in 466 CE it came under Burgundian, and in ca. 534 under Frankish control. SEE ALSO: Augustodunum (Autun); Bibracte (Mont Beuvray); Gaul (Tres Galliae); Lugdunum (Lyons); Rome, resistance to (Gaul).

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Crumley, C. and Marquardt, E., eds. (1987) Regional dynamics: Burgundian landscapes in historical perspective. San Diego. Fichtl, S. (2004) Les Peuples Gaulois, IIIe–Ier sie`cles avant J.-C. Paris. Goudineau, C. and Peyre, C. (1993) Bibracte et les Eduens: a` la de´couverte d’un peuple gaulois. Paris. Loughton, M. E. (2003) “The distribution of republican amphorae in France.” Oxford Journal of Archaeology 22: 177–207.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print page 115. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah20150

1

Aegean Sea (Bronze Age) ANTONIS KOTSONAS

The Aegean Sea lies between Greece and Asia Minor (western Anatolia) and is traditionally known as the Archipelagos in Greek. The ancient Greeks derived its name variously from Aegeus, the father of Theseus, who drowned himself in it; from Aegea, queen of the Amazons, who was drowned in it; or from the Macedonian city of Aigai. The Aegean has a jagged and lengthy coastline and is dotted with islands of varying size; hence the sea diachronically was a formative element for Greek culture. The islands of the Archipelagos, particularly those of the Cyclades, served as stepping-stones in the ventures of seamen in the Upper Mesolithic and Neolithic periods. The mobility of people brought about the exchange of artifacts and the circulation of ideas. The sea, however, along with the mountains, divided the landscape into relatively small geographic units, which regularly developed into autonomous polities and did not form part of an extensive state. Human settlement and activity are documented in various sites around the Aegean from the Upper Paleolithic (if not earlier). Habitation in the islands starts, however, from the Mesolithic and becomes widespread in the Neolithic. By around 6000, people in the Aegean engaged in the cultivation of cereals and the domestication of animals. Bronzeworking was introduced ca. 3000, at which time wider cultural changes occurred. Following these changes, a distinctive culture emerged in the Cyclades and other Aegean islands during the third millennium. Marble figurines of abstract style are the hallmark of this culture. In the early second millennium, a palace-based civilization named “Minoan” after the legendary king Minos emerged in CRETE and spread to several areas of the southern Aegean. The Minoan civilization is renowned for its monumental stone buildings, fine arts, overseas connections, and written records (LINEAR A script).

An amalgam of Minoan and Cycladic culture is represented at the time in the prosperous site of AKROTIRI, on THERA, which was buried from the eruption of the island’s volcano before the mid-second millennium and has thus been remarkably preserved. Developments were slower on the mainland side of the Aegean. The cultural changes that occurred, however, ca. 2000 are usually taken as evidence for the arrival of the Greeks. Documents bearing the Greek language (LINEAR B tablets) are only known from the third quarter of the second millennium and are one of the hallmarks of the Mycenaean culture that spread through much of the Aegean from 1600. This culture, which is named after the site of MYCENAE, is celebrated for its monumental palaces, fortifications and tombs, as well as its organized bureaucracy. The collapse of the Mycenaean administration ca. 1200 brought about increased instability, overall decline, and fragmentation of the political landscape. Following some centuries of steady recovery, during which ironworking technology spread, complex society was reestablished in the Aegean. This time, however, it was not based on palaces, but on a high number of city-states which modeled the culture of archaic and classical Greece. SEE ALSO: Aegean Sea (Classical and later); Cyclades islands; Dark Age Greece; Minoan society and culture; Mycenaean society and culture.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Dickinson, O. (1994) The Aegean Bronze Age. Cambridge. Dickinson, O. (2006) The Aegean from Bronze Age to Iron Age: Continuity and change between the twelfth and eighth centuries BC. Oxford. Lemos, I. S. (2002) The Protogeometric Aegean: the archaeology of the late eleventh and tenth centuries BC. Oxford. Shelmerdine, C. W., ed. (2008) Cambridge Companion to the Aegean Bronze Age. Cambridge.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 115–116. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah02003

1

Aegean Sea (Classical and later) GARY REGER

The Aegean Sea is the body of water bounded by Greece on the west and north, Turkey on the east, and the island of Crete on the south. It encompasses approximately 214,000 km2 (83,000 square miles). The sea was formed in the Miocene period by tectonic forces that generated volcanic events at Thera, Melos, Nisyros, and elsewhere; although volcanic activity seems now to have subsided, earthquakes continue to shake the region from time to time. Ancient sources report many tales about the origin of the name: Theseus’ father Aigeus, said to have thrown himself into the sea; a rock called Aix lying between Tenos and Chios; a mountain on the Turkish coast; or the town of Aigai on Euboia. The geographer Pseudo-Skylax refers to the Aegean as “our sea,” expressing presumably a common Greek view. Many thousands of islands are strung across the Aegean, especially through its central portion and along the west coast of Turkey (Asia Minor). The largest islands include Crete, Rhodes, and Lesbos, but even some of the smallest were inhabited in antiquity. Habitation began in the Neolithic on some islands and persisted into Late Antiquity and after. Important Bronze Age remains occur on Crete, Melos, Thera, and others (see AEGEAN SEA (BRONZE AGE)). The islands of the central Aegean seem to have reached their acme of population and prosperity in the fifth through third centuries BCE. These islands served as stepping-stones for sea-borne communication between especially Greece in the west and Asia Minor. The Aegean was regarded generally as navigable between late April/early May and mid-October, when

the region is subject to a meteorological regime producing north or northeasterly winds (the “Etesians”) and generally fair weather, although conditions often arise that trapped vessels in harbors, sometimes for days at a time. During the winter season navigation was unsafe due to storms and unpredictable weather, and merchants seem mostly to have avoided sailing; military sailings are however attested for this season. Control of the Aegean was a central policy aim of many powers on its shores, beginning, according to Thucydides, with king Minos of Crete, who established a “thalassocracy.” During the Archaic period, the islands of Paros and Naxos exercised considerable authority over the central part of the sea; later the Persians, Athenians, Spartans, Macedonians, and Ptolemies imposed control over more or less of the sea. In the second century BCE the Aegean fell under Roman authority and remained part of the Roman state until the end of antiquity. Economic activities supported by the Aegean included fishing (its productivity as a fishery is debated), commerce, and piracy. SEE ALSO: Mediterranean; Minos; Piracy; Thalassocracy.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Cline, E. H. (1994) Sailing the wine-dark sea. International trade and the late Bronze Age Aegean. Oxford. Denham, H. M. (1963) The Aegean. A sea-guide to its coasts and islands. London. Koder, J. (1998) Tabula Imperii Byzantini, 10. ¨ ga¨is). Vienna. Aigaion Pelagos (die no¨rdliche A Reger, G. (2004) “The Aegean.” In M. H. Hansen and T. H. Nielsen, An inventory of archaic and classical poleis: 732–93. Oxford.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 116–117. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah14010

1

Aegeus GABRIELA CURSARU

Father of THESEUS, Aegeus is doomed to be replaced by POSEIDON insofar as the “national hero” requires a more illustrious ascendance. The brighter becomes Theseus’ image, the paler his father’s. Aegeus is constantly confronted with problems of both filiation and paternity. As the eldest son (or adopted son) of Pandion II and of Pylia, Aegeus succeeds Pandion and divides Athens into four parts. As none of his wives bore him any children, he ascribes his sterility (and his sisters’) to Aphrodite Ourania, whose cult he thus introduces in Athens (Paus. 1.14.7). According to an old Attic tradition, Aegeus consults the Delphic oracle about his own sterility, which weakens his royal position. Discouraged by an obscure answer, he visits the wise Pittheus of Troizen. Although Pittheus understands the oracle, who advised Aegeus to not have intercourse before returning to Athens, he introduces him to his daughter Aithra, who gives birth to Theseus. Leaving for Athens just after the intercourse, Aegeus hides a pair of sandals and a sword – typical of IndoEuropean royal enthronement rites – under a rock. When the boy becomes strong enough to lift the rock, he will find the objects in order to be recognized by his father. Meanwhile, in Athens, Aegeus marries Medea, therefore facilitating her revenge against Jason. She cures Aegeus with her pharmaka and gives birth to Medos. Although denounced by Aristotle for its alogia (Poet. 1461b20), the Aegeus episode from Euripides’ Medea (663–763) has a long history of criticism (Page 1938: xxix–xxx). When the kouros Theseus comes before the king, Medea, considering him a rival to Medos, plots his assassination. Her intrigues lead

Aegeus to send him to capture the Marathonian bull. After an aborted attempt at poisoning, Aegeus acknowledges Theseus as his heir and expels Medea. Shortly afterward, Theseus defeats his uncle Pallas and his fifty sons, who have long been plotting against Aegeus, whom they consider a bastard. One year, Theseus is included in the tribute to be sent every ninth year to the Knossian MINOTAUR. Aegeus tells him to replace the black sail of his ship with a white one if he returns home safely. Theseus forgets about the signal, thus driving his father to suicide: Aegeus hurls himself from the Acropolis onto a spot later venerated by the Athenians, or into the sea: the AEGEAN SEA is thus named after him. His death is mourned by the runners of the festival of Athena Sciras on their way back to Athens from Phaleron: carrying boughs, they mix cries of joy and sorrow to express their feelings “at the coming of Theseus and the death of Aegeus.” Aegeus was honored as one of the eponymous heroes of Attica, had his heroon at Athens, and one of the Attic tribes (Aegeis) derived its name from his. SEE ALSO:

Erechtheus/Erichthonios; Kekrops.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Calame, C. (1990) Thésée et l’imaginaire athénien. Lausanne. Kearns, E. (1989) The heroes of Attica. London. Page, D. L. (1938, repr. 1961) Euripides: Medea. Oxford. Turner, S. (2014) “Who’s the daddy? Contesting and constructing Theseus’ paternity in fifth-century Athens.” In N. Mac Sweeney, ed., Foundation myths in ancient societies: dialogues and discourses: 71–102. Philadelphia. Wernicke, K. (1894) “Aigeus I.” In Paulys Realencyclopädie der classischen Altertumswissenchaft, I: 952–5.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner. © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Published 2016 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah30112

1

Aegyptus LIVIA CAPPONI

On his arrival in Alexandria on August 1, 30 BCE, Octavian addressed the crowd in the hippodrome and demonstrated his clemency by saying that he would spare the city because of its beauty, its founder Alexander, and as a mark of respect for the philosopher Areius, an Alexandrian who had taught him in Rome. A new city, Nikopolis (“Victory City”), was founded on the site of the Roman military camp, as a memorial to the victory in the war against Antony and Cleopatra. Soon after the conquest, Augustus imposed a new calendar based on the era “of the dominion of Caesar, the son of God” – that is, the (adoptive) son of the divus, Julius Caesar. Octavian also instituted a cult of himself in the Kaisareion of Alexandria – the temple built by Cleopatra and dedicated to Julius Caesar – which was converted into a Sebasteion, from Sebastos, “Augustus” in Greek. “I added Egypt to the imperium of the Roman people,” Augustus claimed in the Res Gestae. Still, until the 1970s, scholars were certain that Egypt was an atypical province, set apart from the rest of the empire and governed as a private possession of the emperor. More recently, however, numerous studies have shown beyond doubt that Egypt after 30 BCE was a Roman province, governed by Roman officials and subject to Roman army, taxation, and law. Egypt appears peculiar to scholars because the main source of information about it is a gigantic body of documents, preserved on papyrus, that have been lost or destroyed in other provinces of the empire. The fundamental characteristic of the province was its major role as a producer of wheat for Rome and Italy. Additionally, Egypt was a major tax-exporting province, with its revenues flowing into the imperial treasuries, and, according to economic historians, stimulating trade. Egypt also played a decisive role in long-distance trade, as its caravan routes in the

Eastern Desert and the Red Sea ports linked Rome with the Far East as far as India. Although Augustus radically changed the institutions of Egypt, he often chose to retain Ptolemaic titles and names, perhaps to avoid giving the impression that he was imposing new, foreign rules on a country that had traditionally greatly resented foreign masters. As was the case with other eastern, Greek-speaking provinces, Greek, rather than Latin, remained the official language of bureaucracy in Egypt throughout the Roman period. Augustus’ structuring of Egyptian administration and taxes remained substantially unchanged until the late third century CE. The Roman administration of the local communities was based on a system of compulsory services and corve´es – called “liturgies” in the Greek fashion – in part continuing from the Ptolemaic period, so that the richest members had to take up the most burdensome offices and pay for the related expenses. This process culminated in 202 CE with the institution of city councils (boulai) and the placement of liturgical councilors in every town. Compulsory services, corve´e labor, and taxation were often too heavy a burden for the farmers, who frequently fled from their villages in order to avoid tax officials and registrations on official tax and census lists; this form of evasion, called anachoresis, is a phenomenon typical of Egypt, which continued from Pharaonic times up to the Roman period. From the Roman conquest, a Roman knight, the prefect, took over the position and functions of the old king, while Roman officials with equestrian status obtained the top magistracies in the province based in Alexandria. Ptolemaic-style officials were relegated to the local administration of the administrative districts or nomes: the governor of the nome was called strategos, and was assisted by local secretaries who often knew both Greek and Egyptian. Temple archives were replaced in the Roman period by the grapheion, answerable to the office of the strategos. An important novelty of the Augustan period was the yearly conventus, an itinerant assize court in which

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 117–120. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah07004

2 the prefect and his entourage responded to petitions and adjudicated cases. New archives were created in Alexandria to speed up and centralize the collection and storage of public and private documents, and a new legal code was published, the Gnomon of the Idios Logos, some copies of which have been preserved from the Antonine period (BGU V 1210; P.Oxy. XLI 3014). Power was centralized in the capitals of the nomes, and Greek gymnasia – the educational and recreational centers of the elite – often became administrative and judicial centers. Augustus introduced rigid social and fiscal barriers between Egyptians, Greeks, and the Alexandrian elite. The Alexandrian citizens and the Greeks were used as the new governing body of the country, while the Egyptians were excluded from the administration and even the army, with the exception of its lowest division, the fleet. Greeks paid reduced taxes and could hope to achieve Alexandrian citizenship, the prerequisite in order to eventually obtain Roman citizenship. The number of Greeks and Alexandrians in Egypt was strictly monitored by the Roman authorities. The most important fiscal privilege of the Greeks was the partial or total exemption from the provincial poll tax – the laographia or “registration of people,” the equivalent of the tributum capitis (“tax per head”) in other provinces – paid by all adult males aged fourteen to sixty-five. A house-to-house census assessed the liability to this and other taxes, every fourteen years under Tiberius, and possibly every seven years under Augustus. Egypt had a long history of insurrections against Rome and imperial power. The “Year of the Four Emperors,” 69 CE, drew the population’s attention to the arcanum imperii (Tac. Hist. 1.4), that is, the Roman emperor could be elected outside Rome, when Vespasian was acclaimed as the new emperor by the troops in Alexandria. In 116/117, Egypt was the site of a violent revolt when the Jews rose up against the Greeks, Egyptians, and at the same time against the Roman government. Under Hadrian’s successor Antoninus in 153,

new riots broke out in Alexandria, in which the Prefect L. Munatius Felix was killed, and under Marcus Aurelius in 172, there was a major insurrection – the so-called “Revolt of the Boukoloi” (“herdsmen”) – guided by the priest Isidoros. After the important reforms of the Severans (such as the Constitutio Antoniniana, or “Caracalla’s Edict,” granting Roman citizenship to all adult males), in the third century Egypt went through a financial crisis, precipitating the diffused social discontent which led to revolts in the villages. Many emperors, from Philip the Arabian to Aurelian and Probus, tried to introduce fiscal reforms and to revive agriculture through an improved system of irrigation, but were unable to resolve the crisis. Provoked by fiscal and social oppression, an anti-imperial revolt broke out in Egypt around 297, and its leader Domitius Domitianus was declared emperor and controlled the country for almost a year, until the emperor Diocletian personally went to Egypt to quell the revolt. In 284, Diocletian (284–305) undertook a comprehensive reform that divided the empire into eastern and western divisions. This is the date generally held by scholars to mark the end of “Roman Egypt,” and the beginning of “Byzantine” or “Christian” Egypt. Diocletian introduced a bipartite division between Egypt and the Thebaid which lasted until about 314, at which point Aegyptus was divided into Aegyptus Herculia, including the East Delta and the old Heptanomia, and Aegyptus Iovia, which included the Central and West Delta and Alexandria. Diocletian and his co-emperors (303–11) launched the most violent persecution of the Christians: a decree of Diocletian in 303 ordered a systematic destruction of churches and sacred books and a general enslavement of Christians, so that this period has come down to us as the “Age of the Martyrs” – in part because of the special role that Alexandria played in the rise of Christianity, serving as it did as a vibrant center of scholarship for a number of scholars, mystics, heretics, and saints, including Origen, who worked on commentaries of the Old and New Testament, and St. Antony, who left

3 his home around 270 and took refuge in the Western Desert (see DESERTS, EGYPT). In 322, Aegyptus Herculia was split into a province called Mercuriana, which consisted of the territory once called Heptanomia. However, this lasted only until Constantine defeated Licinius in 324, when the pre-314 situation was reestablished. In 357, Egypt was divided again into three parts, or provinces: Augustamnica, including the East Delta and Heptanomia, Aegyptus, including the Central and West Delta, and the Thebaid, which went as far north as Hermopolis and Antinoopolis. From 381, a four-part structure was established, which once again substantially restored the third-century structure, with the addition of the province of Arcadia, which took part of the old area of Heptanomia. Each province was under a governor called praeses, while a prefect of Egypt, called Augustal Prefect, administered the entire country. SEE ALSO: Administration, Roman Egypt; Alexandria (Egypt); Boukoloi.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Bagnall, R. S., ed. (2007) Egypt in the Byzantine World, 300–700. Cambridge. Bagnall, R. S. and Rathbone, D. W. (2004) Egypt from Alexander to the early Christians: an archaeological and historical guide. Los Angeles. Bowman A. K. (1986) Egypt after the Pharaohs: 332 BC–AD 642: from Alexander to the Arab Conquest. London. Bowman, A. K. (1996) “Egypt.” In A. K. Bowman, E. Champlin, and A. W. Lintott, eds., The Cambridge ancient history, 2nd ed., vol. 10: 676–702. Cambridge. Butler, A. J. (1978 [1902]) The Arab Conquest of Egypt and the last thirty years of the Roman dominion, 2nd ed., rev. by P. M. Fraser. Oxford. Capponi, L. (2010) “Roman Egypt.” In A. Lloyd, ed., A companion to ancient Egypt. London. Capponi, L. (2010) Roman Egypt. London. Gascou, J. (2008) Fiscalite´ et socie´te´ en Egypte byzantine. Paris.

1

Aelia Capitolina J. CHRISTOPHER WEIKERT AND KONSTANTIN M. KLEIN

Aelia Capitolina was a Roman colony founded in the wake of the Bar Kokhba revolt (132–135/6 CE) by the emperor HADRIAN at the site of the ancient city of JERUSALEM. The city’s name referred to Hadrian’s GENS, the Aelii, a common component in names of Roman cities, and to Iuppiter Capitolinus, to whom the Jews had to pay a special tax (fiscus Iudaicus) since the first Jewish Revolt (Joseph. BJ 7.218). During the reign of SEPTIMIUS SEVERUS the city received the additional name Commodiana (cf. AE 1984, 914). In 70 CE, after the first Jewish Revolt, Jerusalem was destroyed by the Romans under the command of TITUS (cf. Jos. BJ 7.1–2). According to Josephus, the legio X Fretensis was stationed at the southwestern hill of the ruined city (BJ 7.5). However, the exact position of the camp is unclear today; it is also open to question whether the legion was left there as a whole or merely contingents of it (see VEXILLATIO). It is likely that in the aftermath of the revolt a hybrid form of CANABAE and VICUS evolved in the vicinity of the legion’s encampment (cf. Bieberstein 2007: 137; Isaac 1980–1: 47). Both Cassius Dio and Eusebius connect the foundation of Aelia Capitolina with the second Jewish Revolt (see BAR KOKHBA, SHIME’ON), but disagree on the date. While Eusebius states that Aelia Capitolina was founded after the revolt as a punishment for the seditious Jews (Hist. eccl. 4.6.4), Dio claims that the foundation, which he claims was the cause of the revolt, took place during Hadrian’s visit to the province of Iudaea in 130 (Cass. Dio 69.12.1). Although the epigraphic and numismatic evidence points to a Hadrianic presence in Jerusalem in that year (cf. AE 2004, 1424; Kindler 2000–2) and thus supports the chronology of Dio, no further sources state what Hadrian actually did in Jerusalem during his visit.

Christian writers, including Eusebius, report a prohibition against Jews entering Aelia Capitolina after the revolt (Euseb. Hist. eccl. 4.6.3). A temple of the CAPITOLINE TRIAD was erected within the colony though not at the location of the destroyed Jewish Temple (as mentioned by Cassius Dio), but rather in the area of today’s Church of the Holy Sepulchre (cf. Hieron. Ep. 58.3). According to several Christian authors, the Temple Mount was laid waste with the exception of two imperial statues (Origen Commentary on Matthew 24.15; Itin. Burd. 591; Hieron. In Isah. 2.9). The Chronicon Paschale mentions several public buildings in the city; however, it seems impossible to prove their location archaeologically. Only the so-called Ecce Homo Arch and today’s Damascus Gate can be dated to the time of Roman Aelia Capitolina. Both were free-standing city gates, the latter situated on an oval plaza with a column in its center. From there the two most important streets branched off: the Cardo maximus and the Cardo valensis, crossing the Decumanus maximus close to the spot of the Capitol. Aelia Capitolina remained quite insignificant and developed slowly. In the late third century, during the reign of DIOCLETIAN, the X Fretensis legion was transferred to Aila (Aqaba) and the extent of the city was enlarged to the south. It was only now that a city wall was erected (as depicted on the sixth-century Madaba Map). With the onset of Christian pilgrimage and after the emperor CONSTANTINE I’s conversion to Christianity and his victory over Licinius in 324 CE, the character of the city was changed from pagan into Christian. SEE ALSO: Camps, military; Capitol; Revolts, Jewish; Temple, Jewish, in Jerusalem.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Bieberstein, K. (2007) “Aelia Capitolina.” In Z. Kafafi and R. Schick, eds., Jerusalem before Islam: 134–68. Oxford. Geva, H. (1993) “Jerusalem. The Roman period.” In E. Stern, ed., New encyclopaedia of

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 120–121. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah11002

2 archaeological excavations in the Holy Land, vol. 3: 758–67. New York. Isaac, B. (1980–1) “Roman colonies in Judaea: the foundation of Aelia Capitolina.” Talanta 12/13: 31–54. Kindler, A. (2000–2) “Was Aelia Capitolina founded before or after the outbreak of the Bar

Kokhba War? A numismatic evidence.” Israel Numismatic Journal 14: 176–9. Ku¨chler, M. (2007) Jerusalem. Ein Handbuch und Studienfu¨hrer zur heiligen Stadt. Go¨ttingen. Meshorer, Y. (1989) The coinage of Aelia Capitolina. Jerusalem.

1

Aelianus, Claudius LUCI´A RODRI´GUEZ-NORIEGA GUILLE´N

Even though Claudius Aelianus (ca. 170–ca. 230 CE) was a Roman, and probably never left Italy, he produced all his works in Greek, being a member of the so-called Second Sophistic movement. The Suda (vol. I 2, p. 168 Adler) says that he was born in Praeneste and held a post as a chief priest. He was a pupil of Pausanias of Caesarea, who occupied the chair of Greek rhetoric in Rome from 190 to 197, but our main source of information is from Philostratus (VS 2.31.624f.), who says that Aelianus’ most admired rhetorical model was HERODES ATTICUS, Pausanias’ teacher. For some time Aelianus devoted himself to the production and public declamation of pieces of oratory. But later, considering himself unequal to the task (rightly so, according to Philostratus), he abandoned this occupation and took up writing, an activity that he performed in an Atticist Greek style (see ATTICISM), much praised by a critic as strict as Philostratus, and which made him famous in his lifetime. Like Philostratus, Aelianus was a member of the literary circle of JULIA DOMNA, Septimius Severus’ wife. Nothing remains of Aelianus’ rhetorical production, and only three of his literary works have survived, On the nature of animals, the Historical miscellany, and the Rustic letters, besides a couple of epigrams (Epigr. Gr. 1084, 1085), and some fragments belonging to the treatises On providence and On divine manifestations, both showing the influence of Stoic thought, and consisting of a series of stories, which press the idea of the punishment inflicted by the gods on unbelievers. He also wrote a pamphlet against ELAGABALUS (published after the latter’s death) entitled Indictment of the effeminate. Aelianus’ most important work is On the nature of animals, in seventeen books. It consists of a very long series of short stories arranged in no apparent order, most of them entertaining and curious,

some odd and extraordinary, aiming to demonstrate the Stoic idea of the superiority of animal conduct (guided by Nature) to human (guided by reason). The fourteen books of the Miscellany start with natural history, but consist mainly of historical and biographical anecdotes, some with a distinctly erotic character, which resembles the Milesian tales. The Rustic letters are twenty pieces which, like those of Alciphron, try to reproduce the atmosphere of Attic country life in Classical times; they show many literary influences, particularly from comedy. The works of Aelianus reveal the characteristic urge of his time for the erudite compilation and transmission to posterity of as much information about the learned Greeks of the past as possible. From a literary point of view, the most striking characteristic of Aelianus’ production is his voluntary renunciation of any systematic plan, and his taste for erudition, diversity, variety, and originality. His style, as Philostratus described it, is simple but endowed with grace and vigor. Aelianus’ popularity and influence, both direct and indirect, was long lasting, as can be seen for instance in the medieval Bestiaries, but also in many later literary works. SEE ALSO: Rhetoric, Greek; Septimius Severus Pertinax Augustus, Lucius.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Benner, A. R. and Fobes, F. H. (1949) The letters of Alciphron, Aelian and Philostratus. Cambridge, MA. Kindstrand, J. F. (1998) “Claudius Aelianus und sein Werk.” ANRW II.34.4: 2954–96. Berlin. Rodrı´guez-Noriega Guille´n, L. (2005) “Aelian and Atticism: critical notes on the text of De Natura Animalium.” Classical Quarterly 55: 455–62. Scholfield, A. F. (1958–9) Aelian: On the characteristics of animals, 3 vols. Cambridge, MA. Wilson, N. G. (1997) Aelian, historical miscellany. Cambridge, MA.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 121–122. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah21007

1

Aelianus, Claudius LUCÍA RODRÍ GUEZ-NORIEGA GUILLÉN

Claudius Aelianus (ca. 170–ca. 230 CE) was born in PRAENESTE (Suda, αι 178 Adler, s.v. Aἰλιανoς), and although he probably never left Italy, he produced all his works in Greek. He was an exponent of the Second Sophistic movement. His teacher was Pausanias of Caesarea, who occupied the chair of Greek RHETORIC in Rome from 190 to 197, although his most admired rhetorical model was HERODES ATTICUS, Pausanias’ teacher (Philostratus, VS 2.31.624 f.). Originally a professional orator, he abandoned this occupation, considering himself unequal to the task (rightly so, according to Philostratus), and took up writing. Aelianus’ Atticist Greek style (see ATTICISM) was much praised by a critic as strict as Philostratus, and made him famous in his lifetime. Aelianus, in the “Epilogue” of On the characteristics of animals, claims to have renounced a position in the upper spheres of society for the sake of independence. He did however hold the post of high priest. Nothing remains of Aelianus’ rhetorical production, and only three of his literary works survive, besides a couple of epigrams (Epigr. Gr. 1084, 1085), and some fragments from his On providence and On divine manifestations, both comprising a series of stories stressing the punishments the gods inflicted on unbelievers. He also wrote a pamphlet against ELAGABALUS, published after the latter’s death, entitled Indictment of the effeminate. Aelianus’ most important work is On the characteristics of animals, in seventeen books. It consists of a very long series of short stories arranged in no apparent order, most of them entertaining and curious, some odd and extraordinary, aiming to demonstrate the Stoic idea of the

superiority of animal conduct (guided by nature) to human (guided by reason). The fourteen books of the Historical miscellany start with natural history, but consist mainly of historical and biographical anecdotes, some with a distinctly erotic character, which resembles the Milesian tales. The Rustic letters are twenty pieces, which, like those of Alciphron, try to reproduce the atmosphere of Attic country life in Classical times; they show many literary influences, particularly from comedy. Aelianus’ selection of themes was conditioned by his moralizing and didactical interests, according to his particular and rather eclectic ideology. A philosophical-religious orientation is patent in his work, partially rooted in Platonic and Aristotelian thought, though mostly related to contemporary Stoicism; some of his ideas are also close to those of other Socratic schools. From a literary perspective, the most striking characteristic of Aelianus’ production is his renunciation of any systematic plan, and his taste for erudition, diversity, variety, and originality. His style, as Philostratus described it, is simple but endowed with grace and vigor. Aelianus’ popularity and influence, both direct and indirect, was long lasting, as can be seen for instance in the medieval Bestiaries, but also in many later literary works. REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Kindstrand, J. F. (1998) “Claudius Aelianus und sein Werk.” Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt II.34.4: 2954–96. Berlin. Rodríguez-Noriega Guillén, L. (2005) “Aelian and Atticism: critical notes on the text of De Natura Animalium.” Classical Quarterly 55: 455–62. Smith, S. D. (2014) Man and animal in Severan Rome: the literary imagination of Claudius Aelianus. Cambridge.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and David Hollander. © 2018 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Published 2018 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah21007

1

Aelius Aristides CHARLES WEISS

Publius Aelius Aristides (117–ca. 180 CE) was an Antonine Sophist active in Asia Minor, and is by far the best preserved of those catalogued by Philostratus in his Lives of the Sophists. His multi-faceted corpus gives us a detailed glimpse of intellectual and political life in the Antonine age, particularly from a Greek perspective. There is a great deal of autobiographical information in Aristides, particularly in the Sacred Tales (Hieroi logoi), counted as one of the earliest ancient autobiographies. Aristides was born in Hadriani in MYSIA to one Eudaimon, a priest of ZEUS. After studying under the leading teachers of the day, he toured widely as a Sophist but was based mainly in Asia Minor, particularly in SMYRNA and PERGAMON. He was successful (we hear of statues and have some archaeological evidence) and gained imperial audience; Philostratus records (VS 2.9) that Marcus Aurelius was fond of him, and that it was because of Aristides’ moving speeches on behalf of earthquake-struck Smyrna that the emperor approved the rebuilding of the city. But the biographer also tells us that Aristides had few students (apparently improvisation was not his forte), so there may have been family wealth, and we also hear of his struggles to obtain immunity (see ATELEIA). His Sacred Tales retail a myriad of illnesses and a fervent devotion to the cult of ASKLEPIOS. Beyond Philostratus, we find mention of Aristides in GALEN, PHRYNICHOS, Menander Rhetor, and LIBANIUS; he was quite popular in Late Antiquity, valued for his sophisticated and pure Attic style (see index and articles in Harris and Holmes 2008). The extant œuvre can be outlined accordingly: (1) Declamations on historical or fictional themes (meletai): as was the custom here, the Sophist will place himself back in time in order to advise, for instance, the Athenians to make peace with SPARTA, or to

urge Achilles to return to fighting; in all of this, Aristides grapples closely with what were for him and his audience the old masters: THUCYDIDES, Demosthenes, and HOMER. Similarly, with (2) polemic: a range of speeches (or essays) fall here; we find Aristides attacking unnamed contemporaries for sundry criticisms, or agonistically taking on the greats again, notably PLATO’s attack on rhetoric, or HERODOTUS’ researches into the Nile. (3) Aristides’ panegyrics, the Panathenaic and On Rome, also bristle with references to ISOCRATES and POLYBIUS respectively, but in (4) his occasional speeches, we find Aristides in the world of everyday life (e.g., Birthday Speech for Apellas); even more so with (5) his symbouleutic oratory, urging, for instance, the cities of Asia Minor to peaceful relations. Aristides moves to the transcendental with (6) his brief prose hymns, a form he claims to have invented, but nowhere more so than with (7) the Hieroi logoi. Full of colorful dream imagery, this text stands sui generis as a lesser-known masterpiece of religious self-representation. The standard editions of the œuvre are Keil (1898) and Behr and Lenz (1976–80), though a few new editions of some pieces have appeared (see Harris and Holmes 2008). SEE ALSO: Marcus Aurelius (Marcus Aurelius Antoninus Augustus); Philostrati; Sophists, Roman Empire.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Behr, C. A., trans. (1981) P. Aelius Aristides: the complete works, vol. 2. Leiden. Behr, C. A., trans. (1986) P. Aelius Aristides: the complete works, vol. 1. Leiden. Behr, C. A. and Lenz, F. W., eds. (1976–80) P. Aelii Aristidis opera quae exstant omnia. Leiden. Harris, W. V. and Holmes, B., eds. (2008) Aelius Aristides between Greece, Rome, and the Gods. Leiden. Keil, B., ed. (1898) Aelii Aristidis Smyrnaei quae supersunt omnia, vol. 2: Orationes XVII–LIII continens. Berlin.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 122–123. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah10004

1

Aelius Dios (FGrH 629) CHARLES GOLDBERG

Aelius Dios was a historian and author of a multi-volume work, On Alexandria, written in Greek. He can be confidently dated only to sometime before the late fourth century CE, when his work was mentioned by the rhetorician Sopatros (BNJ 629 T 1). A terminus post quem may be suggested for the late second century CE, if his first name reflects a Hadrianic influence. The only fragment surviving from the On Alexandria (BNJ 629 F 1) is a mention of Skylax of Karyanda’s naval expedition to Egypt during the reign of Darius I (Hdt. 4.44). Jacoby (FGrH 629: Aelius Dios) and

Cohn’s entry in the RE (5, col. 1080, no. 12) identify him with Dios, a grammarian and student of HARPOCRATION of Alexandria in the late second century CE, although Kaldellis cautions against the assumption that this is the same man. SEE ALSO:

Alexandria (Egypt); Local histories.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Cohn, L. (1903) “Dios (12).” RE 5: col. 1080. Stuttgart. Jacoby, F. (1923–) “Aelius Dios.” Die Fragmente der griechischen Historiker 629. Leiden. Kaldellis, A. (2007–) “Ailios Dios.” Brill’s New Jacoby 629. Leiden.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner. © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Published 2015 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah25031

1

Aemilian (Marcus Aemilius Aemilianus Augustus) KENNETH W. HARL

Aemilian (Marcus Aemilius Aemilianus Augustus), Roman emperor for three months in 253, was born at Girba, Africa (modern Gerba, Tunisia) between 207 and 213 CE (Aur. Vict. Epit. 31. 3). He likely entered a senatorial career late in the reign of SEVERUS ALEXANDER (222–35), and attained sufficient distinction that he was appointed by TREBONIANUS GALLUS (251–3) to command Roman forces along the Middle and Lower Danube frontier in the aftermath of the Battle of Abrittus in 251. The nature of Aemilian’s command is uncertain, but he apparently was charged with the defense of the two Moesiae, Pannonia Inferior, and perhaps Dacia (Zos. 1. 28. 1–2). Attacks by Capri, GOTHS, and Herulians between 238 and 251 forced Aemilian’s appointment as commander of the region. Aemilian might have commanded as many as seven legions as well as auxiliary units. The composition of Aemilian’s field army is uncertain, but in 235, seven legions were divided among five provinces: Dacia Porolissensis, Dacia Apulensis, Pannonia Inferior, Moesia Superior, and Pannonia Inferior. The legions V Macedonica and XIII Gemina were posted at Potaissa (Dacia Porolissensis) and Apulum (Dacia Apulensis), respectively. At Singidunum (Belgrade) in Pannonia Inferior was stationed IV Flavia; a second legion, II Adiutrix, was posted at Aquincum (Budapest) on the Upper Danube. In Moesia Superior was stationed VII Claudia at Viminacium; in Moesia Inferior were stationed two legions, I Italica at Novae and XI Claudia at Durostorum. At Abrittus (in the modern Dobrudja) in 251, TRAJAN DECIUS and his son Hostilian had been lured onto unfavorable ground by the Goths, so that the Roman army was surrounded and slaughtered. Trajan Decius and

his son Hostilian fell fighting. Trebonianus Gallus was accused of treachery, for he failed to lead the cavalry in support of the emperor’s attack. Trebonianus Gallus treatied with the Goths, promising a subsidy and allowing the Goths to retire with their booty and captives across the Danube. It was before departing for Rome that Trebonianus Gallus appointed Aemilian to command forces on the Lower and Middle Danube. The Battle of Abrittus was more of a humiliation than a turning point. The defeat and death of Trajan Decius was a clades (“massacre”) comparable to defeats suffered at Carrhae in 53 BCE, or Teutoburg Forest in 9 CE (see CARRHAE, TEUTOBURGIENSIS SALTUS), but this disaster had been suffered on Roman soil and, for the first time, an emperor was slain in battle. Trebonianus Gallus, instead of avenging the defeat, concluded a disgraceful treaty with the Goths so that he could secure the imperial throne. Hence, Gallus’ actions were perceived by literary sources as even more shameful than the treaty and subsidy which Philip had concluded with King Shapur I of Persia in 244. Goths learned the lesson that defiance of Rome worked. In 252, Goths under King Kniva, who demanded payment of arrears in the promised subsidy, invaded Moesia and Thrace (Jord. Getica 105). The Goths raided widely, laying siege to THESSALONIKE but failing to capture the city. Reports of Goths in Macedonia struck panic in the cities of Greece. The Athenians repaired their walls, and the Peloponnesians built a wall across the Isthmus of Corinth (Zos 1. 28-1-3 and Zon. 12. 23). It is uncertain whether a Gothic fleet simultaneously entered the Propontis (Sea of Marmora), and raided the Hellespontine shores of Asia Minor, and then sailed through the Hellespont (Dardanelles) to raid Greek cities on the Aegean shore of Asia Minor as far south as Ephesos. Zosimus (1. 28. 1–2) reports that the Goths attacked the Bithynian cities of Nicaea, Nicomedia, Prusa, and some Goths raided into Galatia and Cappadocia, attacking the Phrygian sanctuary of Cybele

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 123–124. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah19005

2 at Pessinous. However, Zosimus has likely confused his dates so that he was reporting details of the invasion of 262. In late June or July 253, Aemilian, commanding a field army of Moesian and Pannonian legions, moved against the Goths in the Balkans, inflicting a decisive defeat on a major Gothic force. The legions, encouraged by their commander’s supporters, saluted Aemilian as emperor (Zon. 12.21). Trebonianus Gallus was discredited not only by his treaty with the Goths but also his failure to take action against the invasion of Syria by the Persian king Shapur I. In late summer 253, Aemilian invaded Italy, advancing so swiftly that Trebonianus Gallus, at Rome, was unable to receive reinforcements from loyal legions on the Upper Danube and Rhine frontiers. In late August 253, Aemilian defeated the army of Trebonianus Gallus at Interamna Nahars (Terni), on the Via Flaminia (Aur. Vict. 31.1; Eutrop. 9. 5). Trebonianus Gallus and his son Volusian escaped, but they were murdered by their soldiers soon afterwards. Aemilian was recognized by the Senate at Rome in late summer 253, and the imperial mint at Rome struck a substantial coinage of gold aurei and base silver antoniniani in the

name of Aemilian and his wife Cornelia Supera (who is otherwise unknown). At least six cities in the Balkans and Asia Minor minted fractional bronze coins in the name of Aemilian. In September 253, P. Licinius Valerianus, commanding the army in Noricum and Rhaetia, was declared emperor by the western legions and invaded Italy. Aemilian was murdered by his own soldiers between Narnia and Spoletium the same month. The new emperor VALERIAN, entrusting the west to his son and co-Augustus P. Licinius Egnatius Gallienus (253–68), took the field against the Persians. SEE ALSO: Danube; Legions, history and location of; Moesia; Pannonia; Persia and Rome.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Potter, D. S. (2004) The Roman Empire at bay AD 180–395. London. Price, J. M. (1973) “The lost year: Greek light on a problem of Roman chronology.” Numismatic Chronicle 7, 13: 75–86. Salamon, M. S. (1971) “The chronology of Gothic incursions into Asia Minor in the IIIrd century AD.” Eos 59: 109–39.

1

Aemilius Lepidus Paullus, Lucius DYLAN BLOY

Lucius Aemilius Lepidus Paullus (ca. 93–after 42 BCE) was a prominent patrician senator during the last generation of the Roman Republic and older brother of the triumvir Marcus AEMILIUS LEPIDUS. His name recalls his famous collateral ancestor, whose triumph over the Macedonian king PERSEUS he evoked on the reverse of coins he issued ca. 62. A supporter of Marcus Tullius Cicero, he played a role in uncovering the Catilinarian conspiracy in 63 (Sall. Cat. 31.4), setting the stage for Cicero’s speech before the Senate, and in 57 cosponsored a bill that allowed Cicero’s return from exile (Cic. Fam. 15.13). He was named by the informer Lucius Vettius in 59 as one of a number of young aristocrats conspiring to assassinate POMPEY, but the Senate disbelieved the accusation because he was serving as quaestor in Macedonia at the time of the alleged plot (Cic. Vat. 25; Att. 2.24.2). He undertook a major building campaign in the Forum Romanum, probably as curule aedile in 56, which included the rebuilding of the Basilica Fulvia, thereafter known as the Basilica Paulli. Cicero wrote in 54 that “Paullus has already nearly roofed the basilica in the middle of the forum using the same old columns, but that one for which he leased the contract he is making most splendid” (Att. 4.16.8). This is clear evidence for two buildings, one nearly finished, and another being built more lavishly, but scholars cannot agree on which was the Basilica Paulli or where the other basilica was. Paullus was praetor in 53, an office severely shortened by election problems (Cic. Mil. 24). Elected consul for 50, Paullus disappointed expectations that he would support Pompey and impeded his colleague’s attempts to appoint a successor to Julius Caesar’s Gallic command (Cic. Fam. 8.4.4; Att. 6.3.4). An attempt to rationalize Paullus’ behavior as consul may be behind the story that he accepted

a large bribe from Caesar to finance construction of his basilica, attested only by imperial authors (Plut. Caes. 29; Suet. Iul. 29; App. B Civ. 2.26). Gruen (1974) suggests that Caesar held out to Paullus hope of a proconsular command, an aspiration mentioned by Cicero (Att. 6.1.7), and paints Paullus as an implacable enemy of Pompey, who had a hand in the deaths of his father and older brother. It is perhaps easier to see Paullus as a committed republican, conditioned by such civil violence during his childhood to avoid bloodshed at any cost; this would also explain his apparent neutrality during the civil war. After the death of Caesar, the Senate sent Paullus to Sextus Pompeius at Massilia, seeking help against Marcus Antonius (Cic. Phil. 13.13). He sponsored the bill declaring his brother and Antonius public enemies, for which he was marked down for execution when they established the triumvirate (Vell. Pat. 2.67.3; Plut. Ant. 19; App. B Civ. 4.12). Allowed to escape, he fled east, ending up in Miletos, where he remained despite his recall by the triumviri (App. B Civ. 4.37). SEE ALSO: Antonius, Marcus (Mark Antony); Basilica; Catilinarian conspiracy; Cicero, Marcus Tullius; Civil war, Roman; Pompeius Magnus Pius, Sextus.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Broughton, T. R. S. (1951, 1952, 1986) Magistrates of the Roman Republic, 3 vols. New York. Gruen, E. (1974) The last generation of the Roman Republic. Berkeley. Steinby, E. M. (1987) “Il lato orientale del Foro Romano: proposte di lettura.” Arctos 21: 139–84. Weigel, R. (1979) “The career of L. Paullus, cos. 50.” Latomus 38: 637–46. Weigel, R. (1992) Lepidus: the tarnished triumvir. New York. Wiseman, T. P. (1993) “Rome and the resplendent Aemilii.” In H. D. Jocelyn and H. Hurt, eds., Tria lustra: essays and notes presented to John Pinsent: 181–92. Liverpool. = (1998) Roman drama and Roman history: 106–20. Exeter.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 126–127. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah20005

1

Aemilius Lepidus, Marcus JOHN T. RAMSEY

Marcus Lepidus (ca. 90–13/12 BCE) was the younger son of the consul of 78, who died in Sardinia in 77 after fomenting an unsuccessful rebellion against the reforms of SULLA. His wife Iunia Tertia was the half-sister of the tyrannicide Marcus Iunius BRUTUS. He was a man who always played a supporting, rather than a leading, role. He lacked decisiveness and a driving ambition to grasp power for himself. Yet the important assignments entrusted to him by JULIUS CAESAR in the Civil War (49–45) demonstrate that he was not without talent. As praetor in 49, Lepidus was the most senior elected official to remain behind when Caesar’s invasion caused POMPEY to evacuate Italy with the consuls and many leading senators (March 17). Caesar, therefore, left Lepidus in charge of Rome when he departed in early April to gain control of Pompey’s armies in Spain. Lepidus passed legislation enabling Caesar to be named DICTATOR (Caes. B Civ. 2.21.5) so that upon his return (ca. December 2) Caesar could preside over his own election to a consulship for 48 (Caes. B Civ. 3.1.1). In 48 and 47, Lepidus governed Nearer Spain, and when he returned in late 47, Caesar permitted him to celebrate an undeserved TRIUMPH (Cass. Dio 43.1.2). Caesar further honored Lepidus by naming him his chief deputy as Master of the Horse (47–44) in succession to Mark Antony. And Lepidus was elected Caesar’s colleague as consul in 46. During Caesar’s absences on his African campaign (December 47–July 46) and Spanish campaign (November 46–October 45), Lepidus was Caesar’s principal official deputy in Rome. On the night before Caesar’s murder on the Ides (15th) of March 44, Caesar dined at Lepidus’ house (Suet. Iul. 87), but for some reason Lepidus apparently was not present in the Senate when Caesar was murdered the following morning (App. B Civ. 2.118; Cass. Dio 44.19.2; contra Plut. Caes. 67.2). Lepidus,

because he was on the point of leaving to govern his provinces, was in the unique position of being the only one in Rome to have troops at his disposal. He deployed his soldiers in the Forum on the night of March 15/16, while the conspirators barricaded themselves on the Capitoline (Cass. Dio 44.22.2; cf. Nic. Dam. Vit. Aug. 27.103). Mark Antony, Caesar’s consular colleague, took the lead in calling a meeting of the Senate on March 17 to bring about a peaceful resolution of the crisis, and he secured Lepidus’ cooperation by arranging for him to be elected chief priest (pontifex maximus) as Caesar’s successor (Cass. Dio 44.53.6–7). In April 44, Lepidus left Rome to govern Nearer Spain and Narbonese Gaul. Antony commissioned him to negotiate, if possible, a peaceful settlement with Pompey’s sole surviving son Sextus, who commanded substantial rebel forces in Spain (see POMPEIUS MAGNUS PIUS, SEXTUS). Lepidus reached an agreement with Sextus (summer/autumn 44), and the Senate voted a supplicatio (November 28th) and a gilt statue (January 43) to honor this achievement. In 43 the Senate strove to win Lepidus’ loyalty in its armed struggle with Mark Antony, who was besieging D. Brutus in the Cisalpine town of Mutina, but in March, Lepidus wrote urging the Senate to make peace with Antony (Cic. Phil. 13.7). In April, when two major defeats forced Antony to flee across the Alps with the tattered remains of his army, Lepidus was poised to play a decisive role with his seven legions to the north. The Senate under the leadership of Cicero could not press its advantage over Antony because both consuls perished in the military action, and the army refused to obey the Senate and pursue Antony under the command of Caesar’s murderer, D. Brutus. Despite initial professions of loyalty to the Senate’s cause, Lepidus did not hinder his soldiers from uniting with those of Antony, and so the Senate declared him a public enemy on June 30 (Cic. Fam. 12.10.1). In the autumn, Antony and Lepidus met with Octavian near

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 124–126. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah20004

2 Bononia (modern Bologna) in Cisalpine Gaul, and after reconciling their differences, the three dynasts formed a coalition known as the (Second) Triumvirate. The lex Titia (November 27) invested them with absolute power for five years as a board of three, ostensibly for the restoration of the Roman state (tresviri reipublicae constituendae). Lepidus and his two colleagues proceeded to carry out a bloody purge of their enemies to exact revenge and to raise much needed cash to pay their troops. Lepidus even put the name of his brother (cos. 50) on the proscription list. In 42, Lepidus held a second consulship and governed Nearer and Farther Spain and Narbonese Gaul through legates. He remained in Rome to look after the interests of the triumvirs, while Octavian and Antony led their combined military forces against the armies of the tyrannicides Brutus and Cassius, who controlled the eastern half of the Roman Empire. After their victory at Philippi in Greece (Oct./Nov.), Antony and Octavian deprived Lepidus of his provinces on the grounds that he had colluded with Sextus Pompey (App. B Civ. 5.3). Antony took Narbonese Gaul, while Octavian took Spain. As compensation Lepidus was later assigned the province of Africa, where he eventually went in ca. 40. In 36, Octavian called upon Lepidus to bring his forces to Sicily to aid in the warfare against Sextus Pompey. When Lepidus received the surrender of Pompey’s legions and incorporated them into his army, he tried, but failed, to seize control of Sicily from Octavian. Octavian stripped him of all power but

permitted him to keep his wealth and remain pontifex maximus. Lepidus lived out his days under close watch in the coastal town of Circeii, south of Rome, and died in late 13 or early 12 BCE (Cass. Dio 54.27.2). He was not implicated in the failed plot of his son Marcus to murder Octavian in 30, when Octavian returned to Rome from his victory over Antony and Cleopatra. SEE ALSO: Aemilius Lepidus Paullus, Lucius; Antonius, Marcus (Mark Antony); Cicero, Marcus Tullius; Civil war, Roman.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Badian, E. (1991) “M. Lepidus and the second triumvirate.” Arctos 25: 5–16. Evans, R. J. (1990) “The moneyership of Marcus Lepidus triumvir.” Acta Classica 23: 103–8. Gowing, A. M. (1991) “Lepidus, the proscriptions and the Laudatio Turiae.” Historia 41: 283–96. Hayne, L. (1971) “Lepidus’ role after the Ides of March.” Acta Classica 14: 109–17. Hayne, L. (1974a) “M. Lepidus and his wife.” Latomus 33: 76–9. Hayne, L. (1974b) “The defeat of Lepidus in 36 BC.” Acta Classica 17: 59–65. Simpson, C. (2006) “M. Aemilius Lepidus: brief speculations on his appointment and continued tenure as Pontifex Maximus, 44–13 BC.” Latomus 65: 628–33. Weigel, R. D. (1974) “Lepidus reconsidered.” Acta Classica 17: 67–73. Weigel, R. D. (1992) Lepidus: the tarnished triumvir. London. Welch, K. E. (1995) “The career of M. Aemilius Lepidus 49–44 BC.” Hermes 123: 443–54.

1

Aemilius Paullus, Lucius ANDREW ERSKINE

Lucius Aemilius Paullus (ca. 228–160 BCE) was one of the leading Roman generals of the second century BCE, celebrated in particular for his victory over the Macedonian king Perseus (see PERSEUS, MACEDONIAN KING). He came from a distinguished and well-connected family; his father, the consul of 216, also called L. Aemilius Paullus, had died in battle at CANNAE, and his sister was married to the conqueror of Hannibal, Scipio Africanus (see CANNAE, BATTLE OF; SCIPIO AFRICANUS (PUBLIUS CORNELIUS SCIPIO AFRICANUS)).

Twice consul (182, 168) and later censor (160), his life is relatively welldocumented; not only does he feature prominently in the histories of POLYBIUS (who was a friend of his son Scipio Aemilianus) and of LIVY, but he is also the subject of a life by PLUTARCH (see SCIPIO AEMILIANUS (PUBLIUS CORNELIUS SCIPIO AEMILIANUS AFRICANUS NUMANTINUS). Fluent in Greek (Livy 45.8) and interested in Greek culture, he is an important figure in modern discussions of Roman PHILHELLENISM. As curule aedile in 193, Paullus, together with his colleague L. Aemilius Lepidus, developed port facilities on the Tiber beneath the Aventine Hill, which included the construction of the Porticus Aemilia (Livy 35.10.12). Elected to the praetorship shortly after, he campaigned in Spain from 192 until 189 (Livy 37.46, 37.57, Plut. Aem. 4, ILS 15¼ILRRP 514). On his return he went to Asia as one of the ten commissioners to oversee the settlement that followed the war with ANTIOCHOS III MEGAS (Livy 37.55). In 182, his first consulship took him to northern Italy, where he won a victory over the Ingauni, a Ligurian tribe in the area of Genoa (see GALLIA CISALPINA/ITALIA TRANSPADANA). This was advertised as a campaign against piracy but in practice it was an extension of Roman power (Plut. Aem. 6, Livy 40.18.4, 40.28.7; awarded triumph: Livy 40.34.8). According to Plutarch, Paullus had hopes for a second consulship, but initially failing in

this goal he concerned himself instead with his role as augur (held since 192) and with the education of his sons, an education that combined Roman tradition with Greek culture (Aem. 6). Paullus’ opportunity for a second consulship came with the Third Macedonian War (171–168) (see MACEDONIAN WARS). Plutarch presents the Roman people as dissatisfied with the performance of their commanders and as turning to an aging Paullus to bring the war to a successful conclusion (Aem. 7). However, in Livy’s account, apart from greater urgency there is little to distinguish this election and the subsequent distribution of provinces from any others (44.17). As the consul of 168, Paullus took over the command against Perseus and defeated the king decisively at Pydna later the same year (see PYDNA, BATTLE OF). He then oversaw the dismantling of the kingdom of Macedon and its replacement by four republics (Livy 45.29). The end of the kingdom of Alexander was a powerfully symbolic moment for Greeks and Romans alike. Nor was Paullus’ role in it to be forgotten. When he visited Delphi, Paullus saw a tall marble pillar which was to have been topped by a statue of Perseus. He ordered that his own statue be placed there instead, saying that it was right for the conquered to make way for the conquerors (ILS 8884¼ILRRP 323; Plut. Aem. 28.3, Livy 45.27). The aftermath of victory was marked by the brutal assertion of Roman power in Greece; deportations, killings, and mass enslavement were rife. Our Greek sources are uncomfortable with this and try to excuse Paullus (cf. Polyb. 30.13.11, Plut. Aem. 29–30.1). More welcome was Paullus’ sightseeing tour of Greece (Livy 45.27–8) and the spectacular games he held at AMPHIPOLIS. These latter, in the tradition of the great games of Greece, drew admiration from Greeks and prompted the Seleucid king ANTIOCHOS IV EPIPHANES to try to outdo Paullus with his own games at Daphne (Livy 45.32, Polyb. 30.25.1). In spite of (or perhaps because of) his achievements, it was

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 127–129. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah20156

2 with some difficulty that Paullus was awarded a triumph back in Rome. We can get a sense of this impressive triumph from Plutarch’s detailed description; it lasted three days, parading through Rome not only the captured wealth of Macedon but the king himself, together with his court and children (Plut. Aem. 32–4, cf. Livy 45.40). Unusually for a Roman aristocrat of this period, our knowledge of Paullus extends beyond his political and military career. This is due in part to Plutarch’s biography but also because of Polybius’ familiarity with the family. Paullus had four sons, two of whom were by his first wife Papiria, daughter of the consul of 231, C. Papirius Muso. These elder sons, at some point after his second marriage, were adopted into two other noble families, the eldest becoming Q. Fabius Maximus Aemilianus and his younger brother becoming P. Cornelius Scipio Aemilianus (see FABII, FAMILY OF; CORNELII SCIPIONES, FAMILY AND TOMB OF). Such family-planning did not in the end work out well. A few days before his great triumph, one of his remaining sons died and the other a few days afterwards, leaving Paullus legally childless. Paullus’ dignity in the face of such adversity became a model of how a Roman should behave (Plut. Aem. 35–7, Livy 45. 40–2, Val. Max. 5.10.2). Of his daughters, Tertia married the son of Cato the Elder, while another married Q. Aelius Tubero (see CATO, MARCUS PORCIUS (CATO THE ELDER)). When Paullus died in 160, his two surviving sons organized funeral games, for which they

commissioned Terence’s play, Adelphoe (The Brothers) (see TERENCE (PUBLIUS TERENTIUS AFER)). Paullus is represented in the tradition as a model of virtue and integrity, an aristocrat who did not use his military success as an opportunity to enrich himself, in contrast to some of his contemporaries and successors. His heirs even had to sell off some of the family property to return the dowry to his widow (Polyb. 18.35.4–6, 31.22, Livy Per. 46). Apart from the literary record, he was further memorialized by his inclusion among the great men (viri summi) whose statues decorated the FORUM AUGUSTUM. SEE ALSO: Adoption; Imperialism in the Roman Empire (east); Macedonia.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Ferrary, J.-L. (1988) Philhelle´nisme et impe´rialisme. Aspects ide´ologiques de la conqueˆte romaine du monde helle´nistique, de la seconde guerre de Mace´doine a` la guerre contre Mithridate: 531–65. Rome. Gruen, E. S. (1992) Culture and national identity in republican Rome: 141–5, 245–8. Ithaca. Ka¨hler, H. (1965) Die Fries vom Reiterdenkmal des Aemilius Paullus in Delphi. Berlin. Reiter, W. (1988) Aemilius Paullus: conqueror of Greece. London. Russell, A. (2012) “Aemilius Paullus sees Greece: travel, vision and power in Polybius.” In C. J. Smith and L. Yarrow, eds. Imperialism, cultural politics and Polybius: 154–69. Oxford.

1

Aemilius Paullus, Lucius ANDREW ERSKINE

University of Edinburgh, UK

Lucius Aemilius Paullus (ca. 228–160 BCE) was one of the leading Roman generals of the second century BCE, celebrated in particular for his victory over the Macedonian king PERSEUS. He came from a distinguished and wellconnected family; his father, the consul of 216, also called L. Aemilius Paullus, had died in battle at CANNAE and his sister was married to the conqueror of Hannibal, SCIPIO AFRICANUS. Twice consul (182, 168) and later censor (160), his life is relatively well documented; not only does he feature prominently in the histories of POLYBIUS (who was a friend of his son SCIPIO AEMILIANUS) and of LIVY, but he is also the subject of a life by PLUTARCH. Fluent in Greek (Livy 45.8) and interested in Greek culture, he is an important figure in modern discussions of Roman PHILHELLENISM. As curule aedile in 193, Paullus, together with his colleague L. Aemilius Lepidus, developed port facilities on the Tiber beneath the Aventine Hill, which included the construction of the Porticus Aemilia (Livy 35.10.12). Elected to the praetorship shortly after, he campaigned in Spain from 192 until 189 (Livy 37.46, 37.57, Plut. Aem. 4, ILS 15=ILRRP 514). On his return he went to Asia as one of the ten commissioners to oversee the settlement that followed the war with ANTIOCHOS III MEGAS (Livy 37.55). In 182, his first consulship took him to northern Italy, where he won a victory over the Ingauni, a Ligurian tribe in the area of Genoa (see GALLIA CISALPINA/ITALIA TRANSPADANA). This was advertised as a campaign against piracy but in practice it was an extension of Roman power (Plut. Aem. 6, Livy 40.18.4, 40.28.7; awarded triumph: Livy 40.34.8). According to Plutarch, Paullus had hopes for a second consulship, but initially failing in this goal he concerned himself instead with his role as augur (held since 192) and with the education of his sons, an education that combined Roman tradition with Greek culture (Aem. 6).

Paullus’ opportunity for a second consulship came with the Third Macedonian War (171–168) (see MACEDONIAN WARS). Plutarch presents the Roman people as dissatisfied with the performance of their commanders and as turning to an aging Paullus to bring the war to a successful conclusion (Aem. 7). However, in Livy’s account, apart from greater urgency there is little to distinguish this election and the subsequent distribution of provinces from any others (44.17). As the consul of 168, Paullus took over the command against Perseus and defeated the king decisively at the battle of PYDNA later the same year. He then oversaw the dismantling of the kingdom of Macedon and its replacement by four republics (Livy 45.29). The end of the kingdom of Alexander was a powerfully symbolic moment for Greeks and Romans alike. Nor was Paullus’ role in it to be forgotten. When he visited Delphi, Paullus saw a tall marble pillar which was to have been topped by a statue of Perseus. He ordered that his own statue be placed there instead, saying that it was right for the conquered to make way for the conquerors (ILS 8884=ILRRP 323, see Figure 1; Plut. Aem. 28.3, Livy 45.27). The aftermath of victory was marked by the brutal assertion of Roman power in Greece; deportations, killings, and mass enslavement were rife. Our Greek sources are uncomfortable with this and try to excuse Paullus (cf. Polyb. 30.13.11, Plut. Aem. 29–30.1). Important contemporary evidence comes in the form of two inscribed letters of Aemilius Paullus to the Thessalian city of Gonnoi, which were found in 2008 (SEG 64.492). Probably written by Paullus himself, the letters adopt a strikingly aggressive tone in demanding that the rather uncooperative city carries out his instruction that land be given to Demophilus, a citizen of a neighboring city and friend of the Romans. More welcome was Paullus’ sightseeing tour of Greece (Livy 45.27–8) and the spectacular games he held at AMPHIPOLIS. These latter, in the tradition of the great games of Greece, drew admiration from Greeks and prompted the Seleucid king ANTIOCHOS IV EPIPHANES to try to

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History. Edited by Andrew Erskine, David B. Hollander, and Arietta Papaconstantinou. © 2021 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Published 2021 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah20156.pub2

2

FIGURE 1 Inscription from the base of Paullus’ pillar at Delphi, which reads: L. Aimilius L.F. inperator de rege Perse Macedonibusque cepet (Lucius Aemilius, son of Lucius, imperator, took this from King Perseus and the Macedonians). Photograph by Shane Wallace.

outdo Paullus with his own games at Daphne (Livy 45.32, Polyb. 30.25.1). In spite of (or perhaps because of ) his achievements, it was with some difficulty that Paullus was awarded a triumph back in Rome. We can get a sense of this impressive triumph from Plutarch’s detailed description; it lasted three days, parading through Rome not only the captured wealth of Macedon but the king himself, together with his court and children (Plut. Aem. 32–4, cf. Livy 45.40). Unusually for a Roman aristocrat of this period, our knowledge of Paullus extends beyond his political and military career. This is due in part to Plutarch’s biography but also because of Polybius’ familiarity with the

family. Paullus had four sons, two of whom were by his first wife Papiria, daughter of the consul of 231, C. Papirius Muso. These elder sons, at some point after his second marriage, were adopted into two other noble families, the eldest becoming Q. Fabius Maximus Aemilianus and his younger brother becoming P. Cornelius Scipio Aemilianus (see FABII, FAMILY OF; CORNELII SCIPIONES, FAMILY AND TOMB OF). Such family planning did not in the end work out well. A few days before his great triumph, one of his remaining sons died and the other a few days afterwards, leaving Paullus legally childless. Paullus’ dignity in the face of such adversity became a model of how a Roman should behave (Plut. Aem.

3 35–7, Livy 45. 40–2, Val. Max. 5.10.2). Of his daughters, Tertia married the son of CATO THE ELDER, while another married Q. Aelius Tubero. When Paullus died in 160, his two surviving sons organized funeral games, for which they commissioned TERENCE’s play, Adelphoe (The Brothers). Paullus is represented in the tradition as a model of virtue and integrity, an aristocrat who did not use his military success as an opportunity to enrich himself, in contrast to some of his contemporaries and successors. His heirs even had to sell off some of the family property to return the dowry to his widow (Polyb. 18.35.4–6, 31.22, Livy Per. 46). Apart from the literary record, he was further memorialized by his inclusion among the great men (viri summi) whose statues decorated the FORUM AUGUSTUM. SEE ALSO: Adoption; Imperialism in the Roman Empire (east); Macedonia.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Bouchon, R. (2014) “Démophilos de Dolichè, PaulÉmile et les conséquences de la troisième guerre de Macédoine à Gonnoi.” TOPOI 19: 483–513. Burton, P. J. (2017) Rome and the Third Macedonian War. Cambridge. Ferrary, J.-L. (1988) Philhellénisme et impérialisme. Aspects idéologiques de la conquête romaine du monde hellénistique, de la seconde guerre de Macédoine à la guerre contre Mithridate: 531–65. Rome. Gruen, E. S. (1992) Culture and national identity in republican Rome: 141–5, 245–8. Ithaca. Kähler, H. (1965) Die Fries vom Reiterdenkmal des Aemilius Paullus in Delphi. Berlin. Reiter, W. (1988) Aemilius Paullus: conqueror of Greece. London. Russell, A. (2012) “Aemilius Paullus sees Greece: travel, vision and power in Polybius.” In C. J. Smith and L. Yarrow, eds., Imperialism, cultural politics and Polybius: 154–69. Oxford. Thornton, J. (2016) “Le lettere di Emilio Paolo a Gonnoi e la rivincita di Polibio su Carope d’Epiro.” Mediterraneo Antico 19: 217–52.

1

Aeminium PEDRO C. CARVALHO

During the Iron Age the region now occupied by the city of Coimbra (Portugal) was fairly well populated. Archaeological surveys conducted in its historical center (the “Alta de Coimbra,” the upper part of the city) have uncovered traces of this proto-historical settlement,

but these have not yet been thoroughly studied. The first contact with the Romans is believed to have occurred in 137 BCE, at the time of Decimus Iunius Brutus’ military campaign along the western coastal region of Hispania, but an effective Roman presence was not felt until the end of the first century BCE. Under Augustus, the oppidum of Aeminium achieved civitas capital status. Its name, Aeminium, very likely pre-Roman, was retained. The

FIGURE 1 View of the cells of the upper floor of the cryptoporticus (Arq. Fot. MNMC, in Alarcão et al., 2009: 79). The Encyclopedia of Ancient History. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner. © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Published 2016 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah30078

2

FIGURE 2 3D view of the cross-section of the monument (cryptoporticus and a forum) (P. Bastos, in Alarcão et al., 2009: 86).

FIGURE 3 Head of Agrippina Major (Arq. Fot. MNMC, in Alarcão et al., 2009: 72).

first major urban renovation dates from this period, around the change of era. Recent excavations have revealed the presence of a FORUM dating from the reign of Augustus as well as some buildings surrounding it. A few decades later, under Claudius, this earlier forum was completely remodeled, making space for a new building more in accordance with the importance of the city – even if the juridical promotion of the city from oppidum stipendiarium to municipium would only eventually occur under the Flavians. The only remaining part of the Claudian forum is the cryptoporticus, over which the forum was built. With two levels of vaulted galleries, this cryptoporticus – one of the best preserved in the Roman Empire – was conceived as a support structure, and it was built to level the steep slope in that central area of the old city. The forum had an unusual design, with two-tiered porticoes – its main façade, overlooking the river, reaching almost 30 meters – shaped like a basilica with an apse, which served as a shrine for the imperial cult (aedes Augusti). An important set of sculptures also remains, consisting of imperial busts, currently displayed in the cryptoporticus, which is now part of the Machado de Castro Museum.

3 This central public space of the Roman city (possibly designed by Gaius Sevius Lupus, Architectus Aeminiensis, the architect of the Roman lighthouse at Corunna, in Spain) was built right at the intersection of the cardo and the decumanus maximus. Recent excavations have exposed other remains of the urban fabric, namely sections of the sewer as well as fragments of a few buildings surrounding the forum, including a possible fullonica, and a wealthy domus located in the Paço das Escolas (the main university complex). Aerial photographs, documented references, and other archaeological findings (namely epigraphic references) reveal the existence of other public and private buildings to be expected in a city with this status. Mentioned by several classical authors (Plin. HN 4.113; Ptolemy Geographia 2.5), the importance of Aeminium in this westernmost part of LUSITANIA is undeniable, and it is clearly demonstrated by the monumentality of its forum. This importance was fostered by its geostrategic location: it was near the sea, on the banks of the Mondego (Munda, in antiquity), an important and partly navigable river, and on the road connecting important southern cities, such as Olisipo (now Lisbon), with those of the north, such as BRACARA AUGUSTA (Braga). In the sixth century, Aeminium was a “parish” in the Suevic diocese of CONIMBRIGA (Condeixa-a-Velha). The cathedral of that diocese is thought to have been transferred to

Aeminium when the Suevi were conquered by the Visigoths in 585. However, the bishop kept the title of episcopus Conimbrigensis, and Aeminium thus began to be known as the city of the bishop of Conimbriga, and gradually it evolved from Conimbria to Colimbria, and finally Coimbra.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Alarcão, J. (2008) Coimbra, a montagem do cenário urbano. Coimbra. Alarcão, J., et al. (2009) The forum of Aeminium. The search for the original design. Lisbon. Carvalho, P. C. (1998) O Forum de Aeminium. Lisbon. Carvalho, P. C., et al. (2010) “Caminhando em redor do forum de Aeminium (Coimbra, Portugal).” In T. Nogales Basarrate, ed., Ciudad y Foro en Lusitania Romana: 69–88. Mérida. Filipe, S. (2006) “Arqueologia urbana em Coimbra: um testemunho na Reitoria da Universidade.” Conimbriga 45: 337–57. Mantas, V. (1992) “Notas sobre a estrutura urbana de Aeminium.” Biblos 68: 487–513. Silva, R. (2014) “O quarteirão urbano a poente do forum de Aeminium (Coimbra, Portugal): a sua configuração ao longo do séc. I d. C.” Conimbriga 50: 79–99. Silva, R., et al. (2014) “Contextos e cerâmicas tardoantigas do fórum de Aeminium (Coimbra).” Revista Portuguesa de Arqueologia 18, 1: 237–56.

1

Aeneas KEVIN MUSE

Aeneas is one of the foremost Trojan warriors in the Iliad, son of the goddess Aphrodite and the mortal Anchises. When rescuing him from the hands of Achilles, Poseidon says that Aeneas and his descendants are fated to rule the Trojans after Troy’s fall (Il. 20.307–8; cf. Hom. Hymn Aphr. 196–7). Poseidon’s prophecy does not preclude travel: numerous locations in the Mediterranean claimed a connection with Aeneas, but how and when his legend came to Latium and Rome is a vexed question. Aeneas’ piety was known in Etruria by ca. 500 BCE, if not earlier, as vase paintings (and a scarab) depicting Aeneas carrying his father show. (The figurines from Veii are of uncertain date.) Dionysius of Halicarnassus (late first century BCE) has the richest collection of the Greek traditions about Aeneas’ travels (Ant. Rom. 1.45–73), including a story attributed to the fifth-century mythographer Hellanicus (F 84, Jacoby¼Ant. Rom. 1.72.2) alleging that Aeneas founded Rome and named the city after Rhome, a Trojan woman who had burned his ships (but see Horsfall 1987: 15–16). The famous Tabula Iliaca Capitolina, an inscribed marble relief of the early first century CE from near Bovillae, may possibly illustrate scenes from Stesichorus’ Sack of Troy (Iliou Persis; mid-sixth century BCE), but it is questionable whether Stesichorus recounted Aeneas’ departure for “Hesperia” (Horsfall 1987: 14–15). The Troy legend was associated with Lavinium by the latter half of the fourth century BCE, the period of Rome’s conquest of Latium. Timaeus (ca. 350–260) described sacra of the Trojan Penates at Lavinium (Varro Ling. 5.144); a seventhcentury tomb of an augur at Lavinium seems to have been converted into a hero shrine at around the same time (see HERO CULT), but whether it is to be identified with the heroon for Aeneas (as Pater Indiges) described by Dionysius is debated (Ant. Rom. 1.64.5; Livy 1.2.6). By the third century the Trojan origin of

Rome was a topic of propaganda. In 281 Pyrrhos, “descendant of Achilles,” undertook to conquer the “Trojan colonists” (Paus. 1.12.1); the poet Naevius is thought to have added to the legend Aeneas’ ill-fated stay in Carthage as an aetiology for the First Punic War. The Romans vaunted their Trojan pedigree as they conquered the east in the second century BCE (cf. Plut. Flam. 12.6–7). Chronology required reconciliation of the legends of Aeneas and Romulus, and so a line of Alban kings to bridge the four centuries between Aeneas and Romulus was assembled, perhaps by Rome’s first native historian (see FABIUS PICTOR, QUINTUS). The Troy legend thereafter was a rich field for Roman historians (see ANNALISTS, ROMAN). Patrician families claimed Trojan ancestry. The Julian clan (see GENS) boasted descent from Venus through Aeneas’ son Iulus. Vergil’s Aeneid (19 BCE) was thus an ideal means of celebrating Augustus’ rule. Aeneas’ devotion to his family and gods mirrored Augustus’ self-presentation as devoted son of Caesar and restorer of Roman values and religion. Vergil’s epic brought Aeneas to the schoolroom, where for centuries the hero would preside over the mythical past of a heterogeneous empire. SEE ALSO: Annales Maximi; Hellanicus of Mytilene;

Ilion; Latins, Latium; Naevius, Gaius, Bellum Punicum; Penates, di penates; Timaeus of Tauromenium; Vergil (Publius Vergilius Maro). REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Erskine, A. (2001) Troy between Greece and Rome: local tradition and imperial power. Oxford. Galinsky, G. K. (1969) Aeneas, Sicily and Rome. Princeton. Horsfall, N. M. (1987) “The Aeneas legend from Homer to Virgil.” In J. N. Bremmer and N. M. Horsfall, Roman Myth and Mythography: 12–24. London. Perret, J. (1942) Les origines de la le´gende troyenne de Rome. Paris. Smith, P. M. (1981) “Aineiadai as Patrons of Iliad XX and the Homeric Hymn to Aphrodite.” Harvard Studies in Classical Philology 85: 17–58.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 129–130. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah17009

1

Aeneas Tacticus NADEJDA V. POPOV-REYNOLDS

Aeneas Tacticus (fl. mid-fourth century BCE), assumed to be the general at STYMPHALOS mentioned in XENOPHON’s Hellenica (7.3.1), is the earliest Greek writer on military science. He is the author of several military treatises, of which one – On the Defense of Fortified Positions – survives. In it Aeneas also mentions his other works: On Military Preparations (7.4 and 21.2), On Procurement (14.2), and On Admonitions (38.5). His work is of unique importance as a source of information on siege warfare in the fourth century BCE and as the only extant military treatise directed primarily at non-combatants. Aeneas’ Defense is a manual aiming to provide military advice for non-military personnel in a besieged city. The mere existence of such a manual suggests greater involvement in warfare on the part of non-combatants – or at least in siege warfare – than is typically assumed. Oldfather points to the organization of the treatise into six sections, each addressing a different aspect of living, surviving, and fighting while under siege (1923: 10–12): how to select troops and station them throughout the city (1–10.24); how to keep up the morale of citizens and prevent revolutions or betrayal of the city by rival citizen factions (10.25–14); how to repel sudden forays (15.1–16.15); how to prevent attacks, and any betrayal of the city gates, during religious processions outside the city (16.16–20); how to guard the city walls and prevent armor smuggling by revolutionary factions (22–31); and how to resist enemy attacks on the fortifications (32–40). Notably Aeneas’ advice reveals a greater concern for betrayal of the city from within, by rival factions, than for any other factor. He goes so far as to say that his advice on how to act under siege differs according to whether the city’s citizens are engaged in civic strife (e.g., 8) or are united (22.21–4). The treatise is, therefore, a fascinating

document for the study of STASIS within the Greek POLIS (Winterling 1991). Aeneas’ advice stems both from experience and from a thorough knowledge of recent and contemporary Greek history: each piece of advice in the work is followed by one or more historical anecdotes as proof, and his vocabulary is technical and precise (Handford 1926). He is well familiar with HERODOTUS, from whom he borrows several anecdotes, as well as with THUCYDIDES, whom he uses as a source for the siege of PLATAIA. Thucydides’ influence is also visible in Aeneas’ prose style. His use of contemporary sieges to illustrate his own advice narrows down the date for the composition of Aeneas’ treatise to ca. 350 BCE (Whitehead 1990: 8–10). While Aeneas’ target audience in the extant treatise appears to consist of non-combatants, his works became popular among Hellenistic commanders – including Pyrrhos, at whose behest Cineas prepared an epitome of Aeneas’ works in the third century BCE (see PYRRHOS, KING). Finally, Aeneas’ works influenced later writers on tactics through the Byzantine period: POLYBIUS, ONASANDER, Claudius Aelianus, Philo Mechanicus, and Iulius Africanus. SEE ALSO: Aelianus, Claudius; Iulius Africanus, Sextus; Sieges and siegecraft, Classical and Hellenistic Greece; Warfare, Greece; Warfare, technology.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Anderson, J. (1970) Greek military theory and practice in the age of Xenophon. Berkeley. Bengtson, H. and Bengtson, H. (1962) “Die griechische Polis bei Aeneas Tacticus.” Historia 11: 458–68. Brown, T. (1981) “Aeneas Tacticus, Herodotus and the Ionian revolt.” Historia 30: 385–93. David, E. (1986) “Aeneas Tacticus, 11.7-10 and the Argive revolution of 370 B.C.” American Journal of Philology 107: 343–9. Handford, S. (1926) “The evidence of Aeneas Tacticus on the balanos and the balanagra.” Journal of Hellenic Studies 46: 181–4.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 130–131. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah00081

2 Oldfather, W. A., ed. (1923) Aeneas Tacticus, Asclepiodotus, Onasander, with an English translation of the Illinois Classics Club. London. Whitehead, D. (1990) Aineias the Tactician: how to survive under siege. Oxford.

Winterling, A. (1991) “Polisbegriff und Stasistheorie des Aeneas Tacticus. Zur Frage der Grenzen der griechischen Polisgesellschaften im 4. Jahrhundert v. Chr.” Historia 40: 193–229.

1

Aequi FEDERICO RUSSO

The Aequi were an Italian tribe of the UmbroSabellian stock, settled in the Simbruni mountains, in the valleys of the Aniene, Salto, and Imella rivers. The Aequi were traditionally known as belligerent; they were famous for their warfare against Rome (Florus 1.11 defines them as pervicacissimi et quotidiani Romanorum hostes). After the peace treaty struck by TARQUINIUS SUPERBUS (Livy 1.55.1), the Aequi fought against the Romans for the first time in 494 BCE, together with the Sabines and the Volsci (Livy 2.30). In 458, they waged war against the Romans on Mount Algidus, a campaign that brought to fame the heroic endeavor of L. Quinctius Cincinnatus, who freed the consul Minucius’ army when it was attacked by the Aequi under the leadership of Gracchus Cloelius (Livy 3.25–9; Dion. Hal. Ant. Rom. 10.22–5). In 431, the consul A. Postumius Tubertus forced the Aequi, led by Vettius Messius, to flee from Mount Algidus (Livy 4.27–9; Diod. Sic. 12.64). The Aequi, forced to break their truce with the Volsci, were pushed back beyond Praeneste. The day of the victory over the Aequi (June 19th) was recorded in the Roman calendar as a faustus or fortunate day (Ov. Fasti 6.721–2). The Aequi were defeated in 389 by CAMILLUS (Livy 6.2.14) and they repeatedly sent help to the Samnites during the second Samnite war. In 304, thirty-one oppida of the Aequi (Livy 9.45; forty, according to Diod. Sic. 20.101) were defeated by the Romans. The Aequi rebelled once again (without success) in 302, when they tried to capture Alba Fucens, a Latin colony that the Romans had recently settled in their territory.

The ancient tradition also includes the Aequicoli, whose relationship with the Aequi is not well defined. Some literary sources (Diodorus Siculus and Vergil) and inscriptions of the imperial age reveal connections between the Aequi and the Aequicoli. Modern critics believe that the Aequicoli represent a small group of the original tribe of Aequi (perhaps split off through a ver sacrum): according to some “Aequi” is the name of the more evolved group in the Aniene Valley, while Aequicoli was the group that had remained on the other side of the Tyrrhenian ridge in the valleys of the Imelle-Salto and Turano rivers. The correspondence between Aequi and Aequicoli is suggested, even in accounts of the origins of the ius fetiale. Livy (1.32.2) and an inscription found on the Palatine (ILLRP 447) mention a king of the Aequi (Aequicoli in the inscription), who at the time of Ancus Marcius had handed down the ius fetiale to the Romans. Regarding the settlements in the Aequan territory, besides some that had disappeared, Pliny (HN 3.12 and 25.8.86) mentions the towns of Cliternia and Nersae; the latter was the most important center of the res publica Aequiculanorum, a municipality only epigraphically attested. SEE ALSO: Ancus Marcius; Cincinnatus, Lucius Quinctius; Sabines and Samnites; Umbrians; Ver sacrum; Volscians.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Ampolo C. (1972) “Fertor Resius Rex Aequicolus.” Parola del Passato 27: 409–12. Colonna G. (1995) “Appunti su Ernici e Volsci.” Eutopia 6: 3–20. De Luigi A. (2003) “L’immagine degli Equi nelle fonti letterarie.” Studi Etruschi 69: 145–79.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 131–132. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah20144

1

Aequitas KAIUS TUORI

Aequitas is a Roman moral and legal term meaning fairness and justness. Aequitas may refer to: (1) equity in general as a virtue or moral quality; (2) the technical legal term aequitas; or (3) the personification of the virtue, the goddess Aequitas. Aequitas as a concept of equity was a moral concept first recorded by Plautus in the phrase bonum et aequum (Curc. 1.1.65, Men. 4.2.579), meaning justness and humanity in dealings between men. The concept of aequitas was used extensively in philosophical works by Cicero, whose influence led to its spread into legal usage. Cicero defined aequitas as a natural right to one’s own property, and to revenge (Top. 23.90). However, elsewhere Cicero understood aequitas as fairness and juxtaposed aequitas and a strict following of the letter of the law, clearly preferring the first. The strict observance of law could lead to unreasonable outcomes, which should be corrected by applying the more general sense of aequitas as fairness in legal interpretation (Off. 3.16.67). The concept of aequitas was used in Stoic philosophy and relied on an idea of natural justice independent of law (Greek epieikeia), but there was and currently is controversy over how much Roman aequitas owed to Greek influence (Harries 2006: 71). Jurists had incorporated aequitas into legal theory by the late Republic. Classical jurisprudence saw it as a safeguard against unjust law and against injustices created by the strict application of law (Gai. Inst. 3.18, 3.25). Law was seen as the ars boni et aequi (the art of

the good and fair) by Celsus (Dig. 1.1 pr), while Pomponius linked aequitas to natural law (Dig. 50.17.26). In some cases, jurists even held that aequitas could override law (Dig. 4.1.7 pr). Aequitas was often cited as a motivating factor in imperial constitutions (CJ 2.1.4, 2.1.8., 2.3.12, 4.2.1, 2.1.3, 6.46.2, 5.17.1; Coriat 1997: 538–9). The goddess Aequitas is equated with Iustitia in some sources, such as an inscription found in the Temple of Fortuna Primigenia in Praeneste (CIL XIV 2860), but the cult of Aequitas alone is attested only in Arnobius (4.1). The image of Aequitas was used widely by Hadrian and subsequent emperors in coins (Vogt 1951). While scholarship has generally seen the roots of aequitas – as a virtue and a legal concept that gave the sense of justice priority over formalities – in Hellenistic rhetorical theory, its use shows a transformation of the Roman way of thinking about the power of law (Kaser 1971: 194–5). SEE ALSO: Cicero, Marcus Tullius; Coinage, Roman Empire; Constitutiones; Jurisprudence, Greek and Roman; Law, natural; Law, Roman; Law, sources of (Greek and Roman); Praeneste; Stoicism.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Coriat, J.-P. (1997) Prince le´gislateur. Rome. Harries, J. (2006) Cicero and the jurists. London. Kaser, M. (1971) Das ro¨mische Privatrecht I. Munich. Vogt, H. (1951) “Hadrians Justizpolitik im Spiegel der ro¨mischen Reichsmu¨nzen.” In H. Niedermeyer and W. Flume, eds., Festschrift Fritz Schulz II: 193–200. Weimar.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 132–133. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah13009

1

Aerarium RACHEL MEYERS

The Aerarium, or treasury, was the depository for money, documents, and other valuables of the Roman state. It was located inside the Temple of Saturn, god of agriculture and protector of wealth, at the foot of the Capitoline Hill in the Forum of Rome. The temple was constructed around the beginning of the republic and was dedicated, according to Livy among others, in 497 BCE (Livy 2.21.1; Richardson 1992: 52). The structure was rebuilt or repaired extensively by Munatius Plancus in 42 BCE (Suet. Aug. 29) and restored again in the fourth century (CIL VI 937¼ILS 3326). Corbier’s work (1974) remains the standard reference for the evolution of the aerarium and its administration during the Late Republic and Empire. Her study draws on epigraphic and literary evidence in order to elaborate on the functions of the aerarium and the careers of the treasury officials. Others have carried out in-depth archaeological analyses with the goal of understanding the physical structure and operation of the treasury. During the republic the aerarium was under the control of two quaestors, who managed a group of scribae quaestorii. Julius Caesar appointed two aediles instead in 45 BCE, and in 29 BCE Octavian permitted the Senate to appoint two praefecti of praetorian rank. He made another change in 23 BCE such that the praefecti were chosen by lot. Under Claudius quaestors were once again put in charge, though with the emperor’s choosing, until Nero in 56 CE revised the system again. He selected the two praefecti from the body of ex-praetors, and this was the practice throughout the imperial period, until around the middle of the fourth century when the last known praefectus aerarii held office (Millar 1964: 34). The position of praefectus aerarii must have been an important one. Pliny the Younger moved directly from this post to the consulship. The main duties of the praefecti aerarii included the disbursement and receipt of

payments, although only the Senate could authorize payments, even in the imperial period (Polyb. 6.13; Millar 1964: 39). The treasury disbursed funds, an ornare provinciam, to magistrates setting out to their provincial commands, which was intended to cover their expenses. Pompey was granted one thousand talents a year as proconsul of Spain (Plut. Caes. 28). Upon finishing his term, the pro-magistrate was required to submit a report of finances to the aerarium. Foreign embassies registered with the aerarium in the republic so that the praefecti could take care of ambassadors. The officials sent gifts to ambassadors, but by Plutarch’s time this practice ceased due to the large number of embassies coming to Rome (Plut. Quaest. Rom. 43). There were no significant changes in the functions of the aerarium or duties of the praefecti from the republic to the empire. However in the imperial period we hear of the emperor’s fiscus, or more correctly, fisci, which, by the time of Hadrian, were treasuries controlled by the emperor himself. The distinction between the money of the state and the money of the emperor may have begun even with Augustus, who is said to have repaired the Via Flaminia with his own funds, while encouraging senators to undertake repairs of other roads (Cass. Dio 53.22.1–4). In addition to coin and bullion, the treasury housed state valuables. Military signa (standards), for example, were kept here in the Early Republic (Millar 1964: 39). Non-financial documents were also preserved in the aerarium. A number of ancient authors testify to the presence of state documents in the Temple of Saturn. In order for laws and senatorial decrees to become valid, copies of leges and senatus consulta had to be deposited in the aerarium. Marcus Aurelius established a birth register, which was also kept in the temple under the care of the praefecti aerarii. The aerarium also maintained lists of debtors, drawn up by the censors at the end of their terms (Millar 1964: 35). Vespasian, Hadrian, and Marcus Aurelius canceled debts owed to the state. Records and documents were also likely stored in the TABULARIUM, nearby on the western edge of the Forum.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 133–134. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah06005

2 SEE ALSO: Aerarium militare; Economy, Roman; Finance, Roman.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Corbier, M. (1974) L’Aerarium Saturni et l’Aerarium Militare. Administration et prosopographie se´natoriale. Rome.

Jones, A. H. M. (1950) “The Aerarium and the Fiscus.” Journal of Roman Studies 40: 22–9. Millar, F. (1964) “The Aerarium and its officials under the empire.” Journal of Roman Studies 54: 33–40. Richardson, L. (1992) A new topographical dictionary of Ancient Rome Baltimore.

1

Aerarium militare RACHEL MEYERS

The aerarium militare was established in 6 CE by Augustus as a detachment of the Roman state treasury (see AERARIUM). The three prefects of the military treasury, which may have been located on the Capitoline hill (Millar 1986), were chosen by lot from the body of senatorial ex-praetors to serve a three-year term. Under Claudius the three officials began to be chosen by the emperor instead (Corbier 1974: 703). A good epigraphic record of officials in charge (praefecti aerarii militaris) of the aerarium militare exists for the period from its inception until the time of the Severans. The last recorded prefect could be from the mid-third century (Corbier 1974: 570–3). Unlike the state treasury, the aerarium militare was managed by former praetors for the whole of its existence. Several individuals, such as Pliny the Younger, served as prefect of the military treasury and then prefect of the state treasury (Corbier 1974: 574). The sole function of the aerarium militare was the distribution of the retirement

pension for veterans (praemia militiae). Retired members of the praetorian guard received twenty thousand sesterces, and other veterans of the legions received twelve thousand sesterces under Augustus (Cass. Dio 55.23.1). Augustus established the new treasury with one hundred and 70 million sesterces of his own money at its initiation, but afterwards the aerarium militare operated on income from the vicesima hereditatum (a 5 percent tax on inheritances and bequests) and the centesima rerum venalium (a 1 percent tax on auctions) (Sutherland 1945: 157; Corbier 1974: 664). SEE ALSO: Army, Roman Empire; Finance, Roman; Taxation, Roman.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Corbier, M. (1974) L’Aerarium Saturni et l’Aerarium Militare. Administration et prosopographie se´natoriale. Rome. Millar, F. (1986) “Italy and the Roman Empire: Augustus to Constantine.” Phoenix 40: 295–318. Sutherland, C. H. V. (1945) “Aerarium and Fiscus during the Early Empire.” American Journal of Philology 66, 2: 151–70.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print page 134. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah06006

1

Aerarium militare RACHEL MEYERS

Iowa State University, USA

The aerarium militare was established in 6 CE by AUGUSTUS as a separate treasury for the distribution of the retirement pension for veterans (praemia militiae). Retired members of the praetorian guard received 20,000 sesterces, and other veterans of the legions received 12,000 sesterces under Augustus (Cass. Dio 55.23.1). Augustus established the new treasury with 170 million sesterces of his own money at its initiation, but afterwards the aerarium militare operated on income from the vicesima hereditatum (a five percent tax on inheritances and bequests) and the centesima rerum venalium (a one percent tax on auctions) (Sutherland 1945: 157; Corbier 1974: 664). The three prefects of the military treasury, which may have been located on the Capitoline Hill (Millar 1986), were chosen by lot from the body of senatorial ex-praetors to serve a threeyear term. Under CLAUDIUS the three officials began to be chosen by the emperor instead

(Corbier 1974: 703). A good epigraphic record of officials in charge (praefecti aerarii militaris) of the aerarium militare exists for the period from its inception until the time of the Severans. The last recorded prefect could be from the mid-third century (Corbier 1974: 570–3). Unlike the state treasury, the aerarium militare was managed by former praetors for the whole of its existence. Several individuals, such as PLINY THE YOUNGER, served as prefect of the military treasury and then prefect of the state treasury (Corbier 1974: 574). SEE ALSO: Army, Roman Empire; Finance, Roman;

Taxation, Roman.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Corbier, M. (1974) L’Aerarium Saturni et l’Aerarium Militare. Administration et prosopographie sénatoriale. Rome. Millar, F. (1986) “Italy and the Roman Empire: Augustus to Constantine.” Phoenix 40: 295–318. Sutherland, C. H. V. (1945) “Aerarium and Fiscus during the Early Empire.” American Journal of Philology 66, 2: 151–70.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History. Edited by Andrew Erskine, David B. Hollander, and Arietta Papaconstantinou. © 2021 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Published 2021 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah06006.pub2

1

Aerarium RACHEL MEYERS

Iowa State University, USA

The Aerarium, or treasury, was the depository for money, documents, and other valuables of the Roman state. It was located inside the Temple of Saturn, god of agriculture and protector of wealth, at the foot of the Capitoline Hill in the FORUM OF ROME. The temple was constructed around the beginning of the republic and was dedicated, according to LIVY, in 497 BCE (Livy 2.21.1; Richardson 1992: 52). The structure was rebuilt or repaired extensively by Munatius Plancus in 42 BCE (Suet. Aug. 29) and restored again in the fourth century (CIL VI 937=ILS 3326). Corbier’s work (1974) remains the standard reference for the evolution of the aerarium and its administration during the Late Republic and Empire. Her study draws on epigraphic and literary evidence in order to elaborate on the functions of the aerarium and the careers of the treasury officials. During the republic the aerarium was under the control of two quaestors, who managed a group of scribae quaestorii. JULIUS CAESAR appointed two aediles instead in 45 BCE and in 29 BCE Octavian permitted the SENATE to appoint two praefecti of praetorian rank. He made another change in 23 BCE such that the praefecti were chosen by lot. Under CLAUDIUS quaestors were once again put in charge, though with the emperor’s choosing, until NERO in 56 CE revised the system again. He selected the two praefecti from the body of ex-praetors, and this was the practice throughout the imperial period, until around the middle of the fourth century when the last known praefectus aerarii held office (Millar 1964: 34). The position of praefectus aerarii must have been an important one; PLINY THE YOUNGER moved directly from this post to the consulship. His letters detail the tasks carried out by the prefect and the functions of the aerarium. The main duties of the praefecti aerarii included the disbursement and receipt of

payments, although only the Senate could authorize payments, even in the imperial period (Polyb. 6.13; Millar 1964: 39). The treasury disbursed funds to magistrates setting out for their provincial commands, which was intended to cover their expenses (ornare provinciam). POMPEY was granted one thousand talents a year as proconsul of Spain (Plut. Caes. 28). Upon finishing his term, the promagistrate was required to submit a report of finances to the aerarium. Foreign embassies registered with the aerarium in the republic so that the praefecti could take care of ambassadors. The officials sent gifts to ambassadors, but by Plutarch’s time this practice ceased due to the large number of embassies coming to Rome (Plut. Quaest. Rom. 43). There were no significant changes in the functions of the aerarium or duties of the praefecti from the republic to the empire. However, in the imperial period we hear of the emperor’s fiscus, or more correctly, fisci, which, by the time of HADRIAN, were treasuries controlled by the emperor himself. The distinction between the money of the state and the money of the emperor may have begun even with AUGUSTUS, who is said to have repaired the Via Flaminia with his own funds, while encouraging senators to undertake repairs of other roads (Cass. Dio 53.22.1–4). In addition to coin and bullion, the treasury housed state valuables. Military signa (standards), for example, were kept here in the Early Republic (Millar 1964: 39). Non-financial documents were also preserved in the aerarium. A number of ancient authors testify to the presence of state documents in the Temple of Saturn. In order for laws and senatorial decrees to become valid, copies of leges and senatus consulta had to be deposited in the aerarium. MARCUS AURELIUS established a birth register, which was also kept in the temple under the care of the praefecti aerarii. The aerarium also maintained lists of debtors, drawn up by the censors at the end of their terms (Millar 1964: 35). Though Tuori (2018) concludes that the physical size of the Temple of Saturn was sufficient for storage of these various

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History. Edited by Andrew Erskine, David B. Hollander, and Arietta Papaconstantinou. © 2021 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Published 2021 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah06005.pub2

2 documents, Mazzei (2009) reasons that some functions took place in nearby buildings as well. Records and documents were also likely stored in the TABULARIUM, nearby on the western edge of the Forum. The terms Aerarium and Tabularium are used almost interchangeably by ancient literary sources. SEE ALSO:

Aerarium militare; Economy, Roman; Finance, Roman.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Corbier, M. (1974) L’Aerarium Saturni et l’Aerarium Militare. Administration et prosopographie sénatoriale. Rome.

Culham, P. (1989) “Archives and alternatives in Republican Rome.” Classical Philology 84: 100–15. Jones, A. H. M. (1950) “The Aerarium and the Fiscus.” Journal of Roman Studies 40: 22–9. Mazzei, P. (2009) “Tabularium – aerarium nelle fonti letterarie ed epigraphife.” Atti della Accadmeia Nazionale dei Lincei, Classe di Scienze morali, storiche, e filologiche. Rendiconti. Ser. 9, Vol. 20, 2: 275–378. Millar, F. (1964) “The Aerarium and its officials under the Empire.” Journal of Roman Studies 54: 33–40. Richardson, L. (1992) A new topographical dictionary of Ancient Rome. Baltimore. Tuori, K. (2018) “Pliny and the uses of the Aerarium Saturni as an administrative space.” Arctos 52: 199–230.

1

Aes alienum PHILIP WADDELL

Aes alienum is a Latin term for financial debt; literally, it means “someone else’s money.” The opposite, being in credit, was known as aes suum, “one’s own money.” Debt played a major part in Roman history, especially under the republic. Under the Early Republic, citizens could put up their own persons as collateral for a loan, in a process called nexum (cf. Livy 2.23.1). If the debtor defaulted on the loan, he could become the slave and legal property of the lender under the law of the TWELVE TABLES (Twelve Tables 3.1–3). Unrelieved debt was one of the main causes of the Conflict of the Orders (Livy 2.23.1; 2.24.6–8; 2.27), in which the plebeians rebelled against the wealthy landowners for political power as well as for economic “relief from debts and from arrest, imprisonment, and slavery because of debts” (Frank 1975: 10, 14). Following the Gallic sack, debt became such a significant problem that new legislation was set up to reduce principal owed (Livy 6.35.4–5). The PLEBEIANS, however,

were still struggling under the harsh effects of debt in 326 BCE when the Lex Poetelia-Papiria was passed, ending the use of nexum (Frank 1975: 31–2). Debt, however, continued to be problematic into the Late Republic, when it reached dangerous levels. Many aristocrats incurred gigantic debt in order to pursue their political ambitions. Relief from debt became not only a source of manpower for Catiline’s plots (Sall. BC 14, 16), but also a rallying cry for the conspirators (Sall. BC 21). Among the aristocrats who piled up huge debts in the course of their senatorial careers was C. Julius Caesar, whose debts may have indirectly led to his attack on the republic and the creation of the empire (Suet. Iul. 13, 18.1). SEE ALSO: Credit; Debt, Greece and Rome; Loan, Greek and Roman.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Finley, M. (1973) The ancient economy. Berkeley. Frank, T., ed. (1975) An economic survey of Ancient Rome, vol. 1: 10–14, 26–32. New York.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print page 135. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah06008

1

Aeschines EDWARD M. HARRIS

Aeschines was born around 390 BCE and was the son of Atrometos, an Athenian citizen. Aeschines reports that his father was once wealthy enough to pass his time exercising in the gymnasium, but lost his property during the PELOPONNESIAN WAR and worked as a mercenary. DEMOSTHENES (ORATOR) claims that his father was a poor schoolteacher and his mother Glaukothea a former prostitute who acted as a priestess performing strange rituals, but this may be no more than courtroom slander. The tombstone of Glaukothea’s brother Kleoboulos has been found in Attica and shows that Aeschines’ uncle was a seer and a soldier who distinguished himself in battle. Aeschines fought at the battles of NEMEA (366), MANTINEA (362), and Tamynai on EUBOEA (348), at which action he was commended for his valor. He also served as secretary for various officials and was eventually elected Secretary of the Council. Probably in the 350s Aeschines became an actor and appeared on stage alongside the famous Aristodemos. Although Demosthenes portrays Aeschines as an incompetent actor, he admits that he had a powerful voice and a forceful delivery. Aeschines entered politics in 348 after the fall of OLYNTHOS, when he spoke in support of a proposal by EUBOULOS to send embassies to the Greeks asking them to form an alliance against PHILIP II OF MACEDON. When this policy failed to produce results, Aeschines was elected in 346 as one of the ambassadors who negotiated the Peace of PHILOKRATES with Philip. Despite their later disagreements, Demosthenes appears to have joined Aeschines in supporting the treaty and convincing the Assembly to ratify it during the spring of 346. When the two men went to Pella to receive the oaths from Philip, they disagreed violently about Athenian policy: Aeschines wanted to urge Philip to attack Thebes and liberate Boiotia, but Demosthenes argued that this would upset the balance of

power in Central Greece and bring the king perilously close to Attica. When the embassy returned, Demosthenes and Timarchos charged Aeschines with bribery. Before they could bring their case to trial, Aeschines struck back in late 346 and convicted Timarchos on the charge of addressing the Assembly after being a male prostitute. Demosthenes brought his case to court in 343 after Philokrates, the author of the treaty with Philip, fled into exile after being charged with treason. Demosthenes tried to exploit growing Athenian hostility to Philip in his accusation and failed to convict by only thirty votes, despite the absence of any firm evidence against Aeschines. After his acquittal Aeschines found himself in a weak position. The suspicions raised by Demosthenes and by his defense of the spy Antiphon caused the AREOPAGOS to remove him from the task of representing Athens in a dispute about DELOS, probably in late 343. After war broke out with Philip, Aeschines was a member of the sacred embassy sent to Delphi in spring of 339. At a meeting of the Amphictyonic Council, Aeschines defended Athens against a charge of impiety brought by the Lokrians and charged the Lokrians of AMPHISSA with sacrilege for cultivating sacred land (see WARS, SACRED). Demosthenes alleges that Aeschines did this to create a pretext for Philip to enter Central Greece and attack Athens, but the allegation is implausible because Philip was far away in Scythia at the time. In fact, the Fourth Sacred War that followed as a result of Aeschines’ charge caused a serious split among Philip’s allies and made the Thebans eager to listen to Demosthenes’ bid for an alliance later in 339. After Philip defeated the Greeks at CHAERONEA in 338, Aeschines helped to negotiate the peace treaty with the king. In 336 Aeschines accused the politician KTESIPHON of proposing an illegal decree of honors for Demosthenes. He waited to bring his case to court until 330, when Alexander’s final victory over the Persian king Darius appeared to make Demosthenes vulnerable to attack for his policies. Aeschines seriously

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 135–137. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah04008

2 miscalculated and did not gain even one fifth of the votes cast by the judges. The ancient biographies of Aeschines give different accounts of his activities after his defeat. According to one biography, he started a school of rhetoric on Rhodes. Three of Aeschines’ speeches have survived. Against Timarchus (346) contains three main parts: a discussion of the laws about the morality of children and youths and the laws regulating the moral conduct of politicians, a lengthy account of the defendant’s life, and a response to points raised by his opponents. Aeschines portrays himself as a virtuous citizen who is genuinely shocked by Timarchos’ alleged debauchery and relies mainly on rumor and innuendo to prove his charges. The speech is a valuable source for Athenian attitudes about male homosexuality. In On the false embassy (343), Aeschines defends himself against Demosthenes’ charges of treason on the Second Embassy to Philip in 346. As in Against Timarchus, Aeschines combines narrative and proof to refute his opponent’s charges, describing events in strict chronological order with few digressions. He also attacks Demosthenes for his hypocrisy in supporting the treaty with Philip at first, then opposing it. The speech is notable for its clear exposition and vivid characterization. His last speech, Against Ktesiphon, suffers by comparison with Demosthenes’ famous reply. The speech begins with an analysis of the laws relevant to the case, but his legal case relies on dubious interpretations of

key clauses, which are easily refuted by Demosthenes. The main part of the speech is an account of Demosthenes’ career divided into four sections. Aeschines denounces Demosthenes for his dishonesty and corruption to show that he does not deserve the honors granted by Ktesiphon’s decree. Aeschines’ style is very different from that of his enemy Demosthenes. Aeschines aims for clarity and organizes his points into wellmarked sections. At his worst he can sound pompous and bombastic; Demosthenes rightly criticizes his prayer to “Earth and Sun and Excellence and Intelligence and Education” in the peroration of Against Ktesiphon. He lacks his rival’s forceful antitheses, emotional intensity, and biting sarcasm. QUINTILIAN says that his oratory has more flesh and less muscle. SEE ALSO: Alexander III, the Great; Democracy, Athenian; Diplomacy, Greek; Homosexuality (male); Orators, Attic.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Dover, K. J. (1978) Greek homosexuality. Cambridge, MA. Fisher, N. R. E. (2001) Aeschines: Against Timarchus. Oxford. Harris, E. M. (1995) Aeschines and Athenian politics. New York. Kindstrand, J. F. (1982) The stylistic evaluation of Aeschines in antiquity. Stockholm.

1

Aeschines (Aischines) EDWARD M. HARRIS

University of Durham, United Kingdom

Aeschines was born around 390 BCE and was the son of Atrometos, an Athenian citizen. Aeschines reports that his father was once wealthy enough to pass his time exercising in the gymnasium but lost his property during the PELOPONNESIAN WAR and worked as a mercenary. DEMOSTHENES (ORATOR) claimed that his father was a poor schoolteacher and his mother Glaukothea a former prostitute who acted as a priestess performing strange rituals, but this is only courtroom slander. The tombstone of Glaukothea’s brother Kleoboulos has been found in Attica and shows that Aeschines’ uncle was a seer and a soldier who distinguished himself in battle. Aeschines fought at the battles of NEMEA (366), MANTINEA (362), and Tamynai on EUBOEA (348), at which action he was commended for his valor. He also served as secretary for various officials and was eventually elected Secretary of the Council. Probably in the 350s Aeschines became an actor and appeared on stage alongside the famous Aristodemos. Although Demosthenes portrays Aeschines as an incompetent actor, he admits that he had a powerful voice and a forceful delivery. Aeschines entered politics in 348 after the fall of OLYNTHOS, when he spoke in support of a proposal by EUBOULOS to send embassies to the Greeks asking them to form an alliance against PHILIP II OF MACEDON. When this policy failed to produce results, Aeschines was elected in 346 as one of the ambassadors who negotiated the Peace of PHILOKRATES with Philip. Despite their later disagreements, Demosthenes appears to have joined Aeschines in supporting the treaty and convincing the Assembly to ratify it during Elaphebolion (spring) of 346. When the two men went to PELLA to receive the oaths from Philip, they disagreed violently about Athenian policy: Aeschines wanted to urge Philip to attack THEBES and liberate BOIOTIA but Demosthenes argued

that this would upset the balance of power in central Greece and bring the king perilously close to Attica. When the embassy returned, Demosthenes and Timarchos charged Aeschines with bribery when he presented his accounts as ambassador. Before they could bring their case to trial, Aeschines struck back in late 346 and convicted Timarchos on the charge of addressing the Assembly after being a male prostitute. Demosthenes finally brought his case to court in 343 after Philokrates, the author of the treaty with Philip, fled into exile after being charged with treason and was convicted in absentia. Demosthenes tried to exploit growing Athenian hostility to Philip in his accusation and failed to convict by only thirty votes, despite the absence of any firm evidence against Aeschines. After his acquittal Aeschines found himself in a weak position. The suspicions raised by Demosthenes and by his defense of the spy Antiphon caused the AREOPAGOS to remove him from the task of representing Athens in a dispute about DELOS, probably in late 343. After war broke out with Philip, Aeschines was a member of the sacred embassy sent to DELPHI in spring of 339. At a meeting of the Amphictyonic Council, Aeschines defended Athens against a charge of impiety brought by the Lokrians and charged the Lokrians of AMPHISSA with sacrilege for cultivating sacred land (see WARS, SACRED). Demosthenes alleges that Aeschines did this to create a pretext for Philip to enter central Greece and attack Athens, but the allegation is implausible because Philip was far away in SCYTHIA at the time. In fact, the Fourth Sacred War that followed as a result of Aeschines’ charge caused a serious split among Philip’s allies and made the Thebans eager to listen to Demosthenes’ bid for an alliance later in 339. After Philip defeated the Greeks at the battle of CHAERONEA in 338, Aeschines helped to negotiate the peace treaty with the king. In 336 Aeschines accused the politician Ktesiphon of proposing an illegal decree of honors for Demosthenes. He waited to bring his case to court until 330, when Alexander’s final victory

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History. Edited by Andrew Erskine, David B. Hollander, and Arietta Papaconstantinou. © 2023 John Wiley & Sons Ltd. Published 2023 by John Wiley & Sons Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah04008.pub2

2 over the Persian king Darius appeared to make Demosthenes vulnerable to attack for his policies. He brought three charges against Ktesiphon: (1) Ktesiphon proposed the honors before Demosthenes presented his accounts for his office as supervisor of the construction of the walls, (2) Ktesiphon proposed that his honors be announced in the theater when this was illegal, and (3) Ktesiphon made false statements in his decree. Aeschines’ interpretation of the laws in the first two charges is contradicted by the evidence of inscriptions and his third charge was politically motivated and tendentious. Aeschines seriously miscalculated and did not gain even one fifth of the votes cast by the judges. The ancient biographies of Aeschines give different accounts of his activities after his defeat. According to one biography, he started a school of rhetoric on RHODES. Three of Aeschines’ speeches have survived. Against Timarchos (346) contains three main parts: a discussion of the laws about the morality of children and youths and the laws regulating the moral conduct of politicians, a lengthy account of the defendant’s life, and a response to points raised by his opponents. Aeschines portrays himself as a virtuous citizen who is genuinely shocked by Timarchos’ alleged debauchery and relies mainly on rumor and innuendo to prove his charges. The speech is a valuable source for Athenian attitudes about male homosexuality. In On the False Embassy (343), Aeschines defends himself against Demosthenes’ charges of treason on the Second Embassy to Philip in 346. As in Against Timarchos, Aeschines combines narrative and proof to refute his opponent’s charges, describing events in strict chronological order with few digressions. He also attacks Demosthenes for his hypocrisy in supporting the treaty with Philip at first, then opposing it. The speech is notable for its clear exposition and vivid characterization. His last speech, Against Ktesiphon,

suffers by comparison with Demosthenes’ famous reply. The main part of the speech is an account of Demosthenes’ career divided into four sections. Aeschines denounces Demosthenes for his dishonesty and corruption to show that he does not deserve the honors granted by Ktesiphon’s decree. Aeschines’ style is very different from that of his enemy Demosthenes. Aeschines aims for clarity and organizes his points into wellmarked sections. At his worst he can sound pompous and bombastic; Demosthenes rightly criticizes his prayer to “Earth and Sun and Excellence and Intelligence and Education” in the peroration of Against Ktesiphon. He lacks his rival’s forceful antitheses, emotional intensity, and biting sarcasm. QUINTILIAN says that his oratory has more flesh and less muscle. SEE ALSO: Alexander III, the Great; Amphictyony, Delphic; Democracy, Athenian; Diplomacy, Greek; Homosexuality (male); Orators, Attic.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Dover, K. J. (1978) Greek homosexuality. Cambridge, MA. Fisher, N. R. E. (2001) Aeschines: Against Timarchos. Oxford. Harris, E. M. (1995) Aeschines and Athenian politics. New York. Harris, E. M. (2017) “Applying the law about the award of crowns to magistrates (Aeschin. 3.9–31): epigraphic evidence for the legal arguments at the trial of Ctesiphon.” Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 202: 105–17. Harris, E. M. (2019) “The Crown trial and Athenian legal procedure in public cases against illegal decrees.” Dike 22: 81–111. Kindstrand, J. F. (1982) The stylistic evaluation of Aeschines in antiquity. Stockholm. Paulsen, T. (1999) Die Parapresbeia-Reden des Demosthenes und des Aischines: Kommentar und Interpretationen zu Demosthenes, Or. XIX und Aischines Or. II. Trier.

1

Aeschylus ˜ O AND MARIA DO CE´U G. Z. FIALHO DELFIM F. LEA

Aeschylus (ca. 525/4–456/5 BCE), son of Euphorion (Vit. Aesch. 1; Hdt. 2.156.6), was born at Eleusis, an important religious center. The same Life that records this detail also maintains that he was of aristocratic origin; although not improbable, this kind of biographical information, which sometimes depends on anecdotes and on caricatures by poets such as ARISTOPHANES, has to be used with caution. He belonged to the celebrated generation of those who opposed the Persian invasion by fighting at MARATHON and possibly at Salamis. The fact that the epitaph recorded in the Life represents him as a warrior and not as a poet is significant of his dedication to the Hellenic cause. He had two brothers, Kynegeiros and Ameinias; the first is said to have died bravely at Marathon (Hdt. 6.114), while the second seems to have distinguished himself at Salamis (Diod. Sic. 11.27.2). Aeschylus’ lifetime was marked by important constitutional changes at Athens. He witnessed the end of the Peisistratid tyranny, the establishment of the democratic regime by Kleisthenes, and EPHIALTES’ reforms of the AREOPAGOS, which stripped the ancient aristocratic council of its most significant powers and thus opened the path to radical democracy. As a dramatist Aeschylus was both prolific and successful. The sources attribute to him a production varying from seventy to ninety plays. The first play was presented around 499 and he won his first victory in 484 (Marm. Par.), a feat that he would accomplish thirteen times during his lifetime (Vit. 13) and possibly even more often after his death (thus explaining the figure of twenty-nine victories in the Suda). Of this impressive production, only seven plays and a large number of fragments have survived. Persians (472, with no thematic link to the plays produced with it) is the only surviving tragedy deriving from events of contemporary history: the Greek victory over the Persians and the return of the defeated king Xerxes.

Seven against Thebes (467) belonged to a trilogy that dealt with the house of the Labdacids, beginning with Laius and Oedipus, whose fate was treated in the first two and now lost plays. The surviving drama covers the siege of Thebes and the fratricide of OEDIPUS’ sons (Eteokles and Polyneikes), who were fighting on opposite sides and whose mutual killing put an end to the conflict. With Suppliants (later than the Seven, although the exact date is uncertain), Aeschylus won a victory over SOPHOCLES (P.Oxy. 2256.3). The play was the first or second part of a trilogy that explored the myth of the Danaids, who fled to ARGOS to seek asylum. The Oresteia, Aeschylus’ last production in Athens (458), dealt with the effects of the Trojan War and is a masterpiece of Greek theater. It is the only surviving thematic trilogy and comprises Agamemnon, Libation Bearers (Choephori), and Eumenides (the satyr-play Proteus is lost). The central motif of exacting justice (dike) adapted itself well to the form of the trilogy – a structure probably invented by Aeschylus – since it allowed for the presentation of a problem whose resolution unfolded along successive generations of the same family, thus clarifying the nexus of guilt and penalty, and the inexorable action of divine justice. Aeschylus decided to make the trial of ORESTES intersect with the mythical origins of the Areopagos, perhaps partly because, a few years earlier (in 462/1), Ephialtes had proposed a series of measures that affected its legal reach. After the Oresteia, Aeschylus went to Sicily, where he had already been in the past, and died at GELA in 456/5. Prometheus Bound, if in fact by him, could have been written there and presented posthumously. It formed a trilogy (together with Prometheus Unbound and Prometheus the Fire Carrier) devoted to the punishment of the Titan by Zeus for having brought fire to humankind. Aeschylus was a particularly innovative poet. Aristotle (Poet. 1449a15–16) attributes to him the invention of the second actor, and in the production of the Oresteia he already used a third one (introduced by Sophocles), and possibly the ekkyklema and the mechane.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 137–138. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah04009

2 He is also a master in exploring liminal spaces. The connection between the individual and the polis, humans and gods, the course of time and the inexorable application of justice is also typical of his plays. SEE ALSO:

Democracy, Athenian; Dike, dike; Kleisthenes of Athens; Peisistratos; Persia and Greece; Salamis, island and battle of; Theater, Greek and Roman; Tragedy, Greek.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Gagarin, M. (1976) Aeschylean drama. Berkeley.

Harris, E. M., Lea˜o, D. F., and Rhodes, P. J., eds. (2010) Law and drama in ancient Greece. London. Meier, C. (1988) Die politische Kunst der griechischen Trago¨die. Munich. Podlecki, A. J. (1966) The political background of Aeschylean tragedy. Ann Arbor. Silva, M. de F. (2005) E´squilo. O primeiro dramaturgo europeu. Coimbra. Sommerstein, A. H. (1996) Aeschylean tragedy. Bari. Taplin, O. (1977) The stagecraft of Aeschylus: the dramatic use of exits and entrances in Greek tragedy. Oxford. West, M. L. (1990) Studies in Aeschylus. Stuttgart.

1

Aesculapius STEVEN M. OBERHELMAN

Aesculapius is the Roman name for the Greek healing god ASKLEPIOS. Like his father APOLLO, who was introduced as Apollo Medicus into Rome after a plague in 433 BCE (Livy 4.25), Aesculapius arrived in Rome during a time of extended pestilence. After three years of plague, in 293 BCE the Sibylline Books were consulted; it was determined that the plague would cease only when Asklepios was brought from Epidauros. In 292, an embassy from the Senate went to Greece and brought to Italy a sacred serpent (symbolizing the god himself). As the ship neared Rome, the snake slithered overboard and swam to Tiber Island. A temple was built on that spot, dedicated on January 1, 291 (Valerius Maximus 1.8.2; Ov. Met. 15.622–44). The sanctuary was extra pomerium, placed there not because of the cult’s foreign status but because the island was a healthy environs, accessible to water, and open to breezes; the sick could congregate there without fear of inflicting pollution; and a tradition of healing already existed (Veiovis, an early Roman god of healing, had a temple on the island). The rites on Tiber Island replicated exactly those at Epidauros (the senatorial embassy was instructed in the ritual): the patient underwent INCUBATION and either was cured miraculously by the god or was given a dream that offered a cure or regimen. Inscriptions of wondrous cures survive, while thousands of anatomical votive offerings have been recovered (although not all may be connected to the Aesculapian healing cult, since Tiberinus was a healing god too). The Italian deity Salus was assimilated as Asklepios’ daughter HYGIEIA and played a prominent role in the Aesculapian cult. The cult of Aesculapius, while robust in Rome, was not popular in the rest of Italy, where for centuries there had existed healing cults and healing deities. Numerous Italian and Etruscan deities such as Menrva (Veii), Diana

(Aricia, Nemi), and Juno (Gabii) were worshipped at healing sanctuaries; tens of thousands of anatomical votive offerings have been recovered at nearly a hundred healing sites in northern and central Italy alone (Comella 1981 and 1982–3). Many of these sanctuaries “specialized” in ailments; for example, that at Ponte di None emphasized healing of feet, hands, and eyes (Potter 1985), and that at Veii sexual organs (Vagnetti 1971). Even at Rome, anatomical healing votive offerings were dedicated to Minerva Medica well before Aesculapius’ arrival. Because every Italian village had an active and efficacious healing shrine before the Asklepian cult was introduced, this explains the paucity of Asklepeia in Italy (even the Fragellae center was an older Italian healing site given an Asklepian makeover). Southern (Greek) Italy and Sicily had embraced Asklepios much earlier than Rome did and probably inspired the northern and central Italian tradition of anatomical votive offerings. During the imperial period, Aesculapius was popular in the provinces, often grafted onto local healing cults. Sanctuaries were established in Germany, Switzerland, Gaul, and Britain, and grateful suppliants dedicated thousands of anatomical votive offerings to the healing god. SEE ALSO:

Asklepieion sanctuary; Isola Sacra.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Comella, A. (1981) “Tipologia e diffusion dei complessi votive in Italia in epoca medio-e tardo-repubblicana.” Me´langes de l’E´cole franc¸aise de Rome, Antiquite´ 93: 717–803. Comella, A. (1982-3) “Riflessi del culto di Asclepio sulla religiosita` populare etruscolaziale e campana di epoca medio- e tardo-Repubblicana.” Annali della facolta` di lettere e filosofia dell’Universita` degli studi di Perugia 20: 217–44. Edelstein, E. J. and Edelstein, L. (1998) Asclepius: a collection and interpretation of the testimonies, 2 vols. Baltimore. Green, C. M. C. (2007) Roman religion and the cult of Diana at Aricia. Cambridge.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 138–139. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah21008

2 Jackson, R. (1988) Roman doctors and diseases in the Roman Empire: 138–69. Norman, OK. Potter, T. W. (1985) “A republican healing sanctuary at Tor di Nona near Rome and the Classical

tradition of votive medicine.” Journal of the British Archaeological Association 138: 23–47. Vagnetti, L. (1971) Il deposito votive de Campetti a Veio. Rome.

1

Aesculapius STEVEN M. OBERHELMAN

Texas A&M University, USA

Aesculapius is the Roman name for the Greek healing god ASKLEPIOS. Like his father APOLLO, who was introduced as Apollo Medicus into Rome after a plague in 433 BCE (Livy 4.25), Aesculapius arrived in Rome during a time of extended pestilence. After three years of plague, in 293 BCE the Sibylline Books were consulted; it was determined that the plague would cease only when Asklepios was brought from Epidauros. In 292, an embassy from the Senate went to Greece and brought to Italy a sacred serpent (symbolizing the god himself ). As the ship neared Rome, the snake slithered overboard and swam to Tiber Island. A temple was built on that spot, dedicated on January 1, 291 (Valerius Maximus 1.8.2; Ov. Met. 15.622–44). A tradition of healing already existed (Veiovis, an early Roman god of healing, had a temple on the island). We do not know for sure how healing was carried out on Tiber Island. Epigraphic and literary evidence are inconclusive whether INCUBATION was practiced as at Epidauros. That evidence, however, is clear that people did receive, through dream-oracles, instructions from Aesculapius on what drugs, regimen, and other measures that they should take to become cured. In Rome healing sanctuaries of Aesculapius also existed on the Esquiline Hill (near the Baths of Trajan) and north of Rome near the Milvian Bridge (Renberg 2017). Dozens more public and private shrines in Rome (over thirty) show the extent of the Aesculapian cult in Rome, although not all sites may have dealt with healing (Renberg 2006/2007). The cult of Aesculapius, while robust in Rome, was not popular in the rest of the Italian peninsula, where for centuries local healing cults and healing deities (see HEALING DEITIES, HEALING CULTS, GREECE AND ROME) had already existed. Italian and Etruscan deities such as Menrva (Veii), Diana (Aricia, Nemi), and Juno

(Gabii) were worshiped at healing sanctuaries; tens of thousands of anatomical votive offerings have been recovered at nearly a hundred healing sites in northern and central Italy alone (Comella 1981, 1982–3). Many of these sanctuaries “specialized” in ailments; for example, that at Ponte di None emphasized healing of feet, hands, and eyes (Potter 1985), and that at Veii of sexual organs (Vagnetti 1971). Even at Rome, anatomical healing votive offerings were dedicated to Minerva Medica well before Aesculapius’ arrival. Because every Italian village had an active and efficacious healing shrine before the Asklepian cult was introduced, this explains the paucity of Aesculapian cult places in Italy (even the Fregellae Aesculapius center was an older Italian healing site given a makeover). Southern (Greek) Italy and Sicily had embraced Asklepios much earlier than Rome did and had probably inspired the northern and central Italian tradition of anatomical votive offerings. During the imperial period, Aesculapius was popular in the provinces, often grafted onto local healing cults. Sanctuaries were established in Germany, Switzerland, Gaul, and Britain, and grateful suppliants dedicated thousands of anatomical votive offerings to the healing god (Jackson 1988). As at Rome, Aesculapius was popular among the military (van der Ploeg 2018). SEE ALSO:

Asklepieion sanctuary; Isola Sacra.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Comella, A. (1981) “Tipologia e diffusione dei complessi votive in Italia in epoca medio-e tardorepubblicana.” Mélanges de l’École française de Rome, Antiquité 93: 717–803. Comella, A. (1982–3) “Riflessi del culto di Asclepio sulla religiosità populare etruscolaziale e campana di epoca medio- e tardo-Repubblicana.” Annali della facoltà di lettere e filosofia dell’Università degli studi di Perugia 20: 217–44. Green, C. M. C. (2007) Roman religion and the cult of Diana at Aricia. Cambridge. Jackson, R. (1988) Roman doctors and diseases in the Roman Empire: 138–69. Norman, OK.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History. Edited by Andrew Erskine, David B. Hollander, and Arietta Papaconstantinou. © 2019 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Published 2019 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah21008.pub2

2 Potter, T. W. (1985) “A republican healing sanctuary at Tor di Nona near Rome and the Classical tradition of votive medicine.” Journal of the British Archaeological Association 138: 23–47. Renberg, G. H. (2006/2007) “Public and private places of worship in the cult of Asclepius at Rome.” Memoirs of the American Academy in Rome 51/52: 87–172.

Renberg, G. H. (2017) Where dreams may come: incubation sanctuaries in the Greco-Roman world. 2 vols. Leiden. Vagnetti, L. (1971) Il deposito votivo di Campetti a Veio. Rome. van der Ploeg, G. (2018) The impact of the Roman Empire on the cult of Asclepius. Leiden.

1

Aesop LAURA GIBBS

Aesop is an ancient folkloric figure associated with the genre of “Aesop’s fables.” Approximately six hundred fables have survived in ancient Greek and Roman sources. Herodotus refers to Aesop as a logopoios, a story-maker (Hist. 2.134–5). Although the historical evidence for Aesop is scanty (see Kurke 2010 for a complete analysis of the evidence), Aesop’s fables were widely known throughout the Greek and Roman worlds, with Aesopic-type fables appearing in archaic Greek poetry by HESIOD and ARCHILOCHOS), the classical comedies of ARISTOPHANES, and various other literary genres prior to the collections of fables, which were first assembled in the Hellenistic era (see van Dijk 1997 for a complete inventory). Some of these fables are still well-known today, such as “The tortoise and the hare” (Perry #226) or “The town mouse and the country mouse” (Perry #352). In general, Aesop’s fables are tiny stories that tell the story of a foolish mistake and the lesson to be learned from that mistake. The hare, for example, confident that he could outrace the tortoise, foolishly napped during the race, allowing the tortoise to win. Many of the fables feature talking animals, but there are also fables with human characters, as well as fables involving the Greek and Roman gods. Although the fables are now regarded as children’s fare, this was not the case in the ancient world. Like proverbs, the fables served as a kind of cultural shorthand, conveying warnings and criticism in a humorous, indirect form. Because of their functional resemblance to the parables of the New Testament, Aesop’s fables continued to be widely read and imitated in medieval monastic culture, both in western Europe and in the Greek east (Jacobs 1889). The earliest collection of Aesopic fables, assembled by the Hellenistic scholar DEMETRIOS OF PHALERON (345–283 BCE), has not survived. The oldest extant collection of Aesop’s fables, dating to the early years of the first century CE,

consists of Latin poems, written in iambic trimenter, by an otherwise unknown “Phaedrus.” The fables of Phaedrus, approximately one hundred in number, have survived only in part (Henderson 1999), although a more complete edition circulated in prose paraphrase during the Middle Ages under the name “Romulus” (Hervieux 1894). In addition, Niccolo` Perotti (1429–80) transcribed thirty more fables from a Phaedrus manuscript that is now lost. Two other verse collections of fables have survived from antiquity: approximately 120 Greek fables in choliambic verse attributed to “Babrius” probably dating to the third century CE, and approximately forty Latin fables in elegiac couplets attributed to “Avianus” dating to probably the late fourth century CE, although the identity of both poets remains uncertain (see Holzberg 2003: 51–62 for Babrius; 2003: 62–71 for Avianus). The bulk of the ancient fable corpus, approximately 350 fables, is attested in various Greek prose collections (for the Greek texts, see Perry 1952). There are also a number of fables embedded in the Greek prose novel known as The life of Aesop, which narrates the fictional life of Aesop as a slave endowed by the gods with the gift of storytelling (see Hansen 1998 for an English translation). SEE ALSO:

Proverbs, Greek.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Gibbs, L. (2002) Aesop’s Fables: a new translation. Oxford. Hansen, W. F. (1998) Anthology of ancient Greek popular literature. Bloomington. Henderson, J. (1999) “Phaedrus’ fables: the original corpus.” Mnemosyne 52: 308–29. Hervieux, L. (1894) Les Fabulistes Latins depuis le ˆ ge, sie`cle d’Auguste jusqu’a` la fin du Moyen A vol. II: Phe`dre et ses anciens imitateurs. Paris. Holzberg, N. (2003) The ancient fable: an introduction. Bloomington. Jacobs, J. (1889) The fables of Aesop, vol. 1: Introduction. London.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 139–140. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah09007

2 Kurke, L. (2010) Aesopic conversations: popular tradition, cultural dialogue, and the invention of Greek prose. Princeton. Perry, B. E. (1952) Aesopica. Urbana.

Perry, B. E. (1965) Babrius and Phaedrus. Cambridge. van Dijk, G.-J. (1997) Ainoi, Logoi, Mythoi: fables in archaic, Classical, and Hellenistic Greek literature. Leiden.

1

Aesthetics JAMES I. PORTER

DEFINITIONS AND OBSTACLES The task of establishing the reach of aesthetic thought, experience, and reflection in ancient Greece and Rome immediately runs up against two formidable challenges. First, the word aesthetics was introduced as a calque on the Greek terms ai᾽ syZtά and e᾽pistήmZς ai᾽ syZtik~ Zς by Baumgarten in 1735 to label “the science of perception, or aesthetics (aestheticae)” (Meditationes philosophicae }116). The word in this sense was unknown in Greece and Rome, nor do any obvious equivalents come to mind. The question of anachronism, or at the very least of a disparity between modern analytical frameworks and ancient objects of analysis, inevitably looms large. Second, the discipline of aesthetics, being a modern invention, has come to shape, and to a large extent limit, how we conceive of aesthetic subject matter. Even assuming one could justify the enquiry into ancient aesthetics, how could anyone hope to think past our contemporary blinkers about what counts as art and aesthetics? Both of these worries are probably overstated. The absence of a modern category from Greek or Roman antiquity (literature, the self, the body) does not mean that this category was lacking in the past either conceptually or in practice. And only by assessing the history of the emergence of aesthetic enquiry in the modern world can one learn to acknowledge, if not surmount, the constraints of modernity. A third problem rides on the first two: it is the challenge, raised in some quarters today, that prohibits all enquiry into ancient aesthetics on the grounds that there simply was no such field of enquiry in antiquity, and that not even the faintest concept of aesthetics was available before the early to mid-eighteenth century (so Kristeller 1951–2 and a great many others in his wake). On this view, aesthetic theory is closely tied to the rise of the

fine arts, which, once emancipated from their “intellectual, moral, religious and practical function or content” and from the artisanal crafts (Kristeller), could finally be appreciated, either for themselves or in the abstract, as Art. At this moment, aesthetic autonomy was born. And so, too, was the theory that could embrace this novel phenomenon, labeled by Kristeller as “the modern system of the arts”– namely, aesthetics, which is to say the idea and the philosophy of art. This picture suffers from two major defects. Not only does “the modern system of the arts” appear to lack any real historical instantiation. So, too, does the concept of aesthetic autonomy. Art, utility, morals, politics, and cultural ideology were, and have always been, closely intertwined. The notion that modernity creates a rupture with the antique past around the notion of aesthetics, so conceived, simply does not fly. Other definitions of aesthetics lead to more nuanced and more rewarding accounts. One such alternative is to return to the root meaning of the term, which recalls the activity of sensuous perception. This was, after all, Baumgarten’s inspiration. Aesthetic inquiry arguably arose in the eighteenth century thanks to a surge of interest in empiricism in Britain, France, and Germany. On the empiricist view, what constitutes aesthetic problems, discourse, and experience is an original confrontation with sensation and then a decision either to remain within the realm of sensation and dwell upon it attentively or to move to a realm beyond – to transfigure the sensory given, to idealize it, and, ultimately, to surpass it altogether. Once the history of aesthetics is framed in these terms, one no longer has to wait until 1750 for the official starting-point of aesthetics. Indeed, a case made in the past, whether by artists (e.g., B. Newman), philosophers (J. Dewey or F. Sibley), or classicists (K. J. Dover), is that aesthetics – the concept of art – is both logically and historically contemporaneous with, or even prior to, art. This has often been held up against canonical histories that look back to PLATO and

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 140–144. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah10088

2 as either the founding fathers of western aesthetics or else as deterrents to aesthetic speculation in the modern sense. Neither version is completely accurate. There are further impediments to conducting aesthetics within classical studies. First, aesthetic enquiry was once a booming enterprise in classics, but no longer is. Specialization in art and archaeology led away from larger philosophical vistas. Such overviews were mainly the province of handbooks; for example, Overbeck (1868), Schlikker (1940), Carpenter (1959), and Pollitt (1974). The recent turn to cultural studies in classics may have only reinforced the turn away from aesthetic enquiry, on the false assumption that these are divergent paths (though see Tanner 2006 for an attempt at a rapprochement). Second, it was imagined that the aesthetic languages of antiquity were impoverished when measured against the phenomena that they were meant to capture. Such a view is fostered by an overly narrow reading of the sources, and of what constitutes aesthetic language itself.

ARISTOTLE

THE LANGUAGES OF ART Aesthetic encounters and proto-aesthetic reflection existed in ancient Greece for as long as art left a record behind: the one can be inferred from the other, not indubitably, but with some degree of certainty, simply given the nature of the works of art themselves. Whether Cycladic sculptures, dedicatory objects, or verse forms (inscribed or transmitted orally and then in writing), these works show the traces of human attention to the manufacture, appearance, and beholding of materials endowed with either ordinary or extraordinary significance (see Philipp 1968; Neer 2010). The notion that a statue must be set on a pedestal and removed from practical circulation like a museum object in order to be appreciated on aesthetic grounds is a modern assumption, and one whose universal validity has been contested even in modernity. Not that such musealizing tendencies cannot be found

in antiquity. Pliny (HN 35.81–3) discusses a collaborative work by APELLES and Protogenes that was set out to view for its own sake. Trophies and other dedications, which exemplify a larger culture of display, have the same effect, though not as overtly. But then, culture tended to be itself on display, rather than ear-marking sites for the display of art alone. It arguably still is, merely in less obvious ways. A more useful definition of aesthetics will allow that attention to features that attract the senses and enhance the perception of objects can simultaneously sustain a wider range of functions than those that belong to museum culture. The felt properties of a votive object (its colors, shape, and sheen) merge into the activities in which that object is dynamically inserted. Under the right circumstances, the vocal intonations of a text when read aloud take on the aura of classicism and can be used to support that ideology (say, in the classroom). Shoes or house utensils arranged in rows conjure up the image of a chorus of dancers ordering rhythm (Xen. Oec. 8.19–21). Such experiences run a gamut, from the aesthetics of religion to the aesthetics of the everyday. Do they lie on a continuum? Or are they part and parcel of a single pool of sensations and experiences that was available to anyone within a given society at certain historical moments and function like a common coin that could be cashed out in different domains thanks to a shared language that captured such experiences to begin with (Porter 2010)? It is a relatively safe assumption that art and aesthetics are, and have always been, embedded in cultural and social practices (Baxandall 1988). Indeed, they are one of the most powerful ways in which cultures and societies express themselves, make themselves literally felt, sensed, enjoyed, palpable, visible, audible, and generally accessible to the mind via the vital experience of the senses. One could go further and hold that the most basic sensate emotions are themselves aesthetically felt by social agents, which is to say that pain and pleasure, to take these two basal experiences, come

3 already aesthetically tinged. Hence, the distance between the aesthetics that accompany sensation in ordinary contexts (and, a fortiori, in particular cultural contexts) and those that accompany art is minimal at best: the latter may be at most an intensification or further elaboration of the former. The point is essential for anyone who seeks to understand the relationship between modern vocabularies and premodern societies like those of Greece and Rome. Epiphanies of gods in stone sculpture, ekphrases of armor in epic, rhetorical flourishes by statesmen, massive inscriptions set up to public view, temples, porticoes, and mirrors all operate on the senses, and the very same senses, luring and captivating them, engrossing them, and focusing them. This is the source of aesthetic attention, which lies at the foundation of any aesthetic response. The tendency of all these examples is to speak in the same language, to appeal to an identical set of aesthetic devices (stylistic, rhythmic, repetitive, symmetrical) familiar to a given age and culture across a wide range of contexts and domains (domestic, religious, civic, political), many of which can overlap. Theater productions are a good case in point, as these simultaneously involve religious, civic, and political functions, distinctions which in situ would have been either irrelevant or taken for granted for the original participants but which for us today, at an historical and sensory remove from the original settings, are frequently invisible. Aesthetic responses are deeply embedded in all these contexts and at all levels of sensation. That they were so was a commonplace from even before ARISTOPHANES and GORGIAS down to HORACE, Longinus, and LUCIAN. In reality, when we collate the language of ancient literary critics with that of philosophers, medical writers, historians, and poets, and when we throw in other primary records, including inscriptional material and vases, an embarrassment of riches in the sources, not any impoverishment, becomes apparent. An elaborate range of verbal expressions existed to capture aesthetic responses, from pain and pleasure to

form and shape, surfaces, luminosity, hues and colors, rhythm, sounds, aromas, palpability, the very sense of time, or any aesthetic category you please (the beautiful, shapely, pleasing, ugly, wonder, or sublime) – all of which happened to be both in good supply in the ancient world and found in places where art was not directly discussed. What was being discussed whenever such topics were on the table, on the other hand, was a matter of experience, which is to say, what passes through the mind and senses in the face of vivid phenomena – the primary features of sentience. Thus, ancient treatments of sentience, wherever these appear, turn out to be rich and unexpected sources of evidence for ancient views of aesthetics. And, in fact, attention to the root problems of aesthetics is just now beginning to flourish (see Suggested Readings).

ANCIENT TRAJECTORIES: MATERIALISM AND IDEALISM However ancient aesthetic thought first arose, its historical evolution can be plotted along two co-existing but competing strands, the one roughly materialist (or phenomenalist), the other roughly idealist (or formalist), with the caveat that these two strands could at times overlap and in their extreme forms tended to converge again. Intellectuals took the lead in elaborating concepts, but they were as often responding to popular developments, to judge from our available sources. In Greek antiquity, matter was first named conceptually by the PreSocratics, who took up an aesthetic stance toward matter and phenomena, and as it were sought to “paint” appearances with their richly descriptive accounts of the world and the universe. Prior to this, materiality existed, but intuitively. HOMER’s world is densely material, crowded with things; his art is marked by a pleasure in materials. Bodies, objects, things, and their properties furnish a sense of materiality – of what is hard, resistant, or malleable, subject to agency, alteration, and destruction. Notably lacking is any sense

4 of the immaterial and the incorporeal (gods are fleshly, souls are bits of breath). Homer is therefore arguably the first materialist in the west, albeit an intuitive one. Over the next few centuries, a new sense of materiality gradually emerged, in tandem with a growing sense of the immaterial (the rare, the incorporeal, the empty), and eventually of form as an immutable substance or essence (witness Parmenides’ immaterial sphere and Plato and Aristotle’s forms). Stoics and Epicureans perpetuated the earlier PreSocratic materialist traditions, while Peripatetics and Neoplatonics refined Aristotle and Plato’s essentialism. And yet, what seems to have brought the concept of matter into existence was the thought of its opposite, the immaterial. The two matured together, but also convergently. Thus, we see the atomists and other pluralists going off in search of the ultimate constituents of physical being in the realms of the unseen and the unapparent, at times hinting at the (material) sublime. Similarly, Plato’s experience of Forms borrows, precisely, from the realm of experience and is conveyed in language. For all its transcendental yearnings, it remains marked by its origins in the empirical, phenomenal, and material realms. Its asceticism and anorexia in the face of the senses are, oddly (and betrayingly), insatiable. In the Hellenistic era, visual artists, poets, and scholars were torn between an allegiance to the refined (leptos) and the grandeur that served as its contextual setting. This tension could be productive of sublimity. Euphonist critics were enraptured as much by audible sounds as by the promise of a pleasure that no language could materially deliver. Greco-Roman antiquity thus rehearsed, from early on, what would eventually become a staple of western aesthetics. Here, matter and appearances were revealed, as it were in the nude, and they were adored, only to be disgraced and then secretly fetishized again. So, too, the allures of sensation as often led to an abandonment of the senses and a reversion to the insensate, or to a yearning for the immaterial sublime on the pretense of matter’s abandonment – an impossible scenario, for as the

Greek language taught, and as the ancient experience showed (and as later art and aesthetics confirm), art is a matter of aesthetic experience, and by the same token a matter of matter and its appearances. SEE ALSO: Art; Beauty; Colors and color perception, Greece and Rome; Deformity; Music; Paint and painting, Greece and Rome; Sound.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Baxandall, M. (1988) Painting and experience in fifteenth-century Italy: a primer in the social history of pictorial style, 2nd ed. Oxford. Carpenter, R. (1959) The esthetic basis of Greek art of the fifth and fourth centuries B.C. Bloomington, IN. Destre´e, P. and Murray, P., eds. (forthcoming) A companion to ancient aesthetics. London. Kristeller, P. O. (1951–2) “The modern system of the arts.” Journal of the History of Ideas 12: 496–527; 13: 17–46. Martindale, C. (2004) Latin poetry and the judgment of taste: an essay in aesthetics. Oxford. Neer, R. (2010) The emergence of the classical style in Greek sculpture. Chicago. Overbeck, J. A. (1868) Die antiken Schriftquellen zur Geschichte der bildenden Ku¨nste bei den Griechen. Leipzig. Philipp, H. (1968) TEKTONON DAIDALA: Der bildende Ku¨nstler und sein Werk im vorplatonischen Schrifttum. Berlin. Pollitt, J. J. (1974) The ancient view of Greek art: criticism, history, and terminology. New Haven. Porter, J. I. (2010) The origins of aesthetic thought in ancient Greece: matter, sensation, and experience. Cambridge. Schlikker, F. W. (1940) Hellenistische Vorstellung von der Scho¨nheit des Bauwerks nach Vitruv. Berlin. Scranton, R. L. (1964) Aesthetic aspects of ancient art. Chicago. Sibley, F. (2001) “Arts or aesthetics: which came first?” In J. Benson et al., eds., Approach to aesthetics: collected papers on philosophical aesthetics: 135–41. Oxford. Tanner, J. (2006) The invention of art history in ancient Greece: religion, society and artistic rationalisation. Cambridge.

1

Aestimatio litis ¨ LO ¨ NEN JANNE PO

Aestimatio litis is the pecuniary assessment of award that completed, when needed, the trial phase of the Roman legal process. In the oldest civil action, that by oath, the sentence of the IUDEX – actually the magistrate – deciding the matter of right was followed by the appointment of private arbitrator(s) to assess the amount of compensation or damages, a procedure called arbitrium liti aestimandae (Magdelain 1995: 130–43). In Classical times, the magistrate delegated both judgment and assessment to a private adjudicator called the iudex or arbiter, indicating to him either the exact amount or the possible range of condemnation in a FORMULA (Roebuck and de Loynes de Fumichon 2004). Accordingly, the adjudicators’ task in the Flavian LEX IRNITANA comprises both iudicatio and litis aestumatio. It is a peculiar feature of civil law that condemnation was never for a specific thing but for its monetary equivalent (Thomas 2002: 1457). The judge could pressure the defendant to restore the object of litigation by accepting the plaintiff’s evaluation of it under oath: IUSIURANDUM in litem (Watson 1991). Only the imperial COGNITIO procedure allowed, if

possible, the enforced recovery of the thing in question. The criminal procedures for extortion and embezzlement were modeled on the civil action. According to the LEX ACILIA repetundarum of 123–122 BCE, the jury court was to proceed, after conviction, to the assessment of damages: ioudicatio leitisque aestumatio esto. Pliny’s letters show that under the empire, the pecuniary estimation of compensation for the victims of extortion remained an integral part of condemnation (Brunt 1961; Robinson 2007). SEE ALSO: Legis actio; Quaestio perpetua; Procedure, legal, Greek and Roman.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Brunt, P. A. (1961) “Charges of provincial maladministration under the early principate.” Historia 10: 189–227. Magdelain, A. (1995) De la royaute´ et du droit de Romulus a` Sabinus. Rome. Robinson, O. F. (2007) Penal practice and penal policy in ancient Rome. London. Roebuck, D. and de Loynes de Fumichon, B. (2004) Roman arbitration. Oxford. Thomas, Y. (2002) “La valeur des choses: le droit romain hors la religion.” Annales Histoire, Sciences Sociales 57: 1431–62. Watson, A. (1991) “Iusiurandum in litem in the Bonae Fidei Iudicia.” In idem, Studies in Roman Private Law: 223–41. London.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 144–145. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah13011

1

Aeternitas MELISSA BARDEN DOWLING

Aeternitas, “Eternal Time,” appeared in Roman literature in the Late Republic, was connected to the emperor on coinage of Tiberius, and received PERSONIFICATION in the coinage of Vespasian. The quality increased in popularity through Late Antiquity. In an age of intense interest in astrology, cosmology and temporality, Aeternitas embodied changeless, endless, indivisible eternity, in contrast to other ancient conceptions of cyclical, divisible time. This development was related to the widespread interest in an eternal afterlife from the Late Republic on. Roman emperors invoked Aeternitas to suggest the eternal continuity their regimes provided. In the second century CE, along with Roma Aeterna, Aion and the Seasons, Aeternitas was advertised in public monuments (e.g., the Apotheosis of Sabina, now in the Palazzo dei Conservatori in Rome), and in private art and literature (e.g., the cosmological mosaic from the Casa del Mithraeum, Merida). Both spatial and temporal dimensions were included in Aeternitas: an immutable cosmos existed across endless time. The iconography of Aeternitas derived from earlier Roman personifications: a draped woman stood holding the sun and the moon (an image echoed in Severan dedications,

CIL II 259.1–5) or a phoenix perched on a globe (alluding to the rebirth of an endless golden age). In the Severan age, winged male figures representing cosmic eternity appeared, and in the third century CE the imagery of Aeternitas merged with that of Helios or Aion. Aeternitas entered imperial titulature during the Tetrarchy, indicating that the emperor himself embodied the eternal stability and prosperity of the state. SEE ALSO:

Saeculum; Time, measurement of.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Belloni, G. G. (1981) “Aeternitas.” LIMC I.1: 244–9. Zurich. Charlesworth, M. P. (1936) “Providentia and aeternitas.” Harvard Theological Review 29: 107–32. Dopico Caı´nzos, M. D. (1998) “Le concept de l’ ‘eternitas’ de Rome: sa diffusion dans la socie´te´ romaine.” Les ´etudes classiques 66(3): 259–79. Dopico Caı´nzos, M. D. (1999) “‘Aeternitas’ o desaparicio´n de Roma?: dos visiones de la sociedad romana.” Quaderni urbinati di cultura classica 63: 139–61. Fears, J. R. (1981) “The cult of virtues and Roman imperial ideology.” ANRW II.17.2: 827–948. Berlin. Foucher, L. (1986) “Aioˆn et Aeternitas.” In P. M. Martin and C. M. Ternes, eds., La mythologie, clef de lecture du monde classique: hommage a` R. Chevallier, vol. 1: 131–46. Tours.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 145–146. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah17010

1

Aethlios of Samos (FGrH 536) CRAIGE B. CHAMPION

Aethlios of Samos (FGrH 536) was a historian, probably of the late fifth century BCE, who wrote the Samian Chronicles, in at least five books (see, e.g., Ath. 14.63, 650d). The Alexandrian poet and scholar KALLIMACHOS may have read Aethlios’ work (Clem. Prot. 4.46.3). This would give a terminus ante quem for Aethlios’ Samian Chronicles of the fourth century BCE, and some scholars (Schwartz 1894; Fowler 1996: 68) have argued for a late-fifth-century date. Aethlios’

dating cannot be fixed with greater precision (D’Hartcourt 2015). SEE ALSO:

Historiography, Greek and Roman; Samos.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS D’Hartcourt, A. (2015) “Aethlios of Samos (536).” In I. Worthington, ed., Brill’s New Jacoby. Brill Online. Fowler, R. (1996) “Herodotos and his contemporaries.” Journal of Hellenic Studies 116: 62–97. Schwartz, E. (1894) “Aethlios (2).” In A. Pauly, G. Wissowa, and W. Kroll, eds., Realencyclopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft 1: 639. Stuttgart.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner. © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Published 2015 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah26154

1

Aetios of Amida ALAIN TOUWAIDE

A physician of the sixth century CE, and author of a medical encyclopedia (Biblia iatrika ekkaideka). Very few details are known about his life. In the manuscripts, he is qualified as Amidenos, meaning that he came from Amida in upper Mesopotamia. He used the encyclopedia of ORIBASIOS (fourth century) and has been supposed to have cited a preparation bearing the name of Cyril, bishop of Alexandria (bishop 412–444) in book 9 (Ieraci Bio 2009). The reference appears at the end of a series of formulae for medicines that are most probably additions in one manuscript (Prag, Nar. Knik., Lobk. Roudn., VI Fc 37, p. 198, ll. 15–16 corresponding to 9.24 Zervos) and is not necessarily authentic (the manuscript was the model of the Renaissance Latin translation by Janus Cornarius; for the formula here, see col. 562.25 (cbc) in the Lyon, 1549 edition). On the other hand, Aetius is supposedly quoted by Alexander of Tralles (De febribus, book 7¼1.437.25 Puschmann; in this sense, see Ieraci Bio 2009: 31; the passage (1.437.25–438 Puschmann) corresponds to Aetius 5.90 = 2.69.14–70.23 Olivieri). As Brunet 1936 pointed out (2.98 n.22), Alexander’s passage is not necessarily authentic and may be an addition at the end of the treatise. In the formula of some medicines Aetius refers to practicing medicine in ALEXANDRIA (1.131¼1.65.4–5 Olivieri; 1.132¼1.67.1–2; 2.121¼1.197.25) or to the name which people in Alexandria call a plant (4.22¼1.368.28 Olivieri; see also and for instance 8.48¼ 2.470.30 and 471.22). Probably on this basis, he is traditionally credited with a medical education in the school of Alexandria, though such evidence is weak. In the title of the sunopsis of his work in MS. Paris, BnF, suppl. gr. 1240 (eleventh century) he is identified as komes tou opsikiou. Although the opsikion is known as one of the four original themes in Asia Minor perhaps as early as 620, Aetius’

title is usually understood as referring to a function in the court in Constantinople during JUSTINIAN’s time, although this is without supporting evidence. Because of the place – considered important – of gynecology in his work (Bk. 16) and the number of formulae for contraceptives and abortifacients, which are supposedly unusually high, he has been credited with a role as personal physician to the empress Theodora (Scarborough 2008: 38), though again there is little evidence. In modern historiography (see for example J. C. G. Ackermann, Institutiones Historia Medicinae, 1792, p. 240 and note h), he has also been considered a Christian on the basis of a magic formula referring to Jesus Christ and the resurrection of Lazarus (8.54¼2.488.19–20 Olivieri) (for other such formulae, see 13.54¼ 290.3 Zervos 1905; 16.15 still unpublished, but see Mercati 1917: 44). As Mercati (followed by Della Cappana 1969) suspected, these are most probably additions that were typical in medieval medical literature and are not conclusive for Aetius’ biography (contrary to Zervos 1909 or Ieraci Bio 2009 for example). The 16 Medical Books deal with the following: 1. materia medica: plants; 2. materia medica (ctd.): mineral and animal; medicines by action; 3.physical exercise, bleeding, purgation, cups, plasters; 4. diet, including pediatrics, dietetics, and disturbances of the upper digestive system; 5. semiotics and general pathology; 6. the head and nervous disorders; 7. ophthalmology; 8. cosmetics, mouth, and respiratory system; 9. stomach and lower digestive system; 10. liver, spleen, dropsy; 11. diabetes, kidneys, bladder, and sexual organs; 12. sciatic, arthritis, weakness, and pathologies of joints; 13. venoms and poisons; 14. pathologies and medicines of the anus and perineum; wounds and skin affections; feet and hands, fingers, and nails; 15. swellings and hardness; 16. gynecology. Aetius relied heavily on earlier literature, which he excerpted without necessarily mentioning the sources. Also, he included many data from personal experience.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 146–147. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah21009

2 The work was translated into Arabic (Sezgin 1970: 164–5 and Ullmann 1970: 84–5); this version seems to be lost. During the Renaissance, books 8–13 were published in Latin translation by Janus Cornarius (ca. 1500– 1558) in 1533. In 1534, a part of the Greek text (bks. 1–8) was printed by the heirs of Aldo Manuzio (Venice) and translated into Latin by Cornarius in collaboration with Gian-Battista da Monte (1498–1551) (with a re-edition in 1535 followed by a complete translation by Cornarius only in 1542 (with some re-editions)). With twentieth-century erudition and the creation of the Corpus Medicorum Graecorum, books 1–8 have been published anew (2 vols., 1–4 [1930] and 5–8 [1935]) by Alessandro Olivieri (1872–1950). Books 9–16 have been in preparation since. SEE ALSO:

Medicine, Byzantine.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Della Capanna, G. (1969) “Alcune ricette di Aezio d’Amida e l’ambiente superstizioso del V-VI sec. D.C.” Scientia Veterum 135: 6–49. Durling, R. (1986) “Addenda lexicis, primarily from Aetius of Amida and Paul of Aegina.” Glotta 64: 30–36. Ieraci Bio, A. M. (2009) “Aezio di Amida.” In Radice, P., Medaglia, S., Rossetti, L., and Sconocchia, S., eds., Dizionario delle scienze e delle tecniche di Grecia e Roma. vol. 1: 31. Pisa and Rome. Matino, G. (1999) “Il lessico fitonimico nella tradizione manoscritta del libro XIII di Aezio Amideno.” In A. Garzya and J. Jouanna, eds., I testi medici greci. Tradizione e ecdotica. Atti del III Convegno Internazionale, Napoli 15–18 ottobre 1997: 393–402. Naples. Olivieri, A. (1935) Aetii Amideni Libri medicinales I–IV (Corpus Medicorum Graecorum VIII 1). Leipzig.

Olivieri, A. (1950) Aetii Amideni Libri medicinales V–VIII (Corpus Medicorum Graecorum VIII 2). Berlin. Philianos, S. and Skaltsa-Diamantidis, H. (1993) “Sur les morsures et les venins d’animaux (13e`me discours d’Aetius d’Amide).” Atti e memorie della Accademia Italiana di Storia della Farmacia 10: 30–39. Rialdi, G. and Crosio, M. L. (1969) “Alcune ricette di Aezio d’Amida e l’ambiente superstizioso del V–VII secolo.” In La rafania: Contributo alla storia dell’ergotismo. Pisa. Ricci, J. V. (1950) The gynaecology and obstetrics of the VIth century A.D. Translated from the Latin ed. of Cornarius, 1542, and fully annotated. Philadelphia. Romano, R. (2006) “Aezio Amideno.” In A. Garzya, ed., Medici bizantini Oribasio di Pergamo, Aezio d’Amida, Alessandro di Tralle, Paolo d’Egina, Leone medico: 253–553. Turin. Scarborough, J. (2008) “Aetios of Amida (500–550 CE).” In P. Keyser and G. L. Irby-Massie, eds., The encyclopedia of ancient natural scientists. The Greek tradition and its many heirs. 38–9. London. Sezgin, F. (1970) Geschichte des arabischen Schrifttums, Band III: Medizin, Pharmazie, Zoologie, Tierheilkunde bis ca. 430. Leiden. Tartaglia, L. (1966) “Intorno alla traduzione latina di Aezio curata da Ianus Cornarius.” In A. Garzya and J. Jouanna, eds., Storia e ecdotica dei testi medici greci. Atti del II Convegno Internazionale, Parigi 24–26 maggio 1994: 417–38. Naples. Ullmann, M. (1970) Die Medizin im Islam. Leiden. Zervos, S. (1905) “AETIOY AMIDHNOY PΕΡΙ DΑΚΝΟΝΤON ZOON KAI IOBOLON HTOI LΟGOS DEKATOS TPITOS.” AYΗNA 18: 241–302. Zervos, S. (1911) “AETIOY AMIDHNOY LΟGOS ENATOS.” AYΗNA 23: 265–392.

1

Aetna, poem LIBA TAUB

The identity of the author of the Latin poem known as Aetna is unknown. In the earliest manuscripts, it is ascribed to Vergil (see VERGIL (PUBLIUS VERGILIUS MARO)), but this is not now accepted. The dating of the poem is also not secure, but many scholars argue that it must have been written before the devastating eruption of Vesuvius in 79 CE, as that event is not mentioned in the work. The first-century CE author Seneca, who was interested in meteorological and what are now regarded as geological phenomena, asked his friend Lucilius (in his Epistle 79.5) to include Aetna the modern (the modern Mount Etna) in his poem about Sicily, as Vergil, Ovid, and the Augustan poet Cornelius Severus had done in poems of their own. Nevertheless, it is not clear that Lucilius composed Aetna, and the author remains anonymous. The Aetna poet chose verse as his medium while being very critical about the fiction that poets publish. He seeks to set himself apart from other poets, who rely on mythological gods to explain Nature. He has several aims, including offering an explanation of the volcano as natural, rather than as anything associated with the gods of mythology; furthermore, he hopes to encourage others to participate in the study of natural phenomena, and offers advice and examples regarding good practice for such study. His poem may be regarded as a work of natural philosophy, as well as didactic poetry, similarly to LUCRETIUS’ On the nature of things (De rerum natura). According to the poet, the principal cause of Aetna’s eruptions is wind moving at high pressure in narrow subterranean channels; the volcanic fire is nourished from lava-stone. Nevertheless, in a way similar to that of EPICURUS, the Aetna poet was happy to entertain a number of possible explanations of the same phenomenon. While some of his ideas resonate

with those of the Epicureans, he also shares values in common with other ancient authors interested in explaining related phenomena, including ARISTOTLE, THEOPHRASTUS, and Seneca, for example, by his continual call for observations to support explanations. While the poet emphasizes the usefulness of observation as well as analogies to familiar experiences, as aids to understanding, he cautions that some relevant natural activities may be hidden from view within Aetna, and are therefore unobservable. The poet warns against believing the false views conveyed by myths, yet he closes the poem by recounting a legend about two brothers who saved their parents from an eruption of Aetna; by his account, Nature shielded the family from harm, while the god Pluto awarded them a special place in the underworld. Even though the overall ambition of the Aetna poet is to explain the phenomenon of the volcano naturally, without recourse to mythological deities, there is room in his world for beneficent gods to reward good deeds, especially towards parents. Seneca, in his Natural Questions, repeatedly emphasized morality; the closing of Aetna is similarly a moral exhortation. SEE ALSO: Seneca the Younger (Lucius Annaeus Seneca); Volcanoes.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Duff, J. W. and Duff, A. M. (1935) Minor Latin poets, 2 vols., rev. ed.: 358–419. Cambridge, MA. Hine, H. M. (1996) “Aetna.” In S. Hornblower and A. Spawforth, eds., The Oxford classical dictionary, 3rd ed.: 31. Oxford. Paisley, P. B. and Oldroyd, D. R. (1979) “Science in the Silver Age: Aetna, a Classical theory of volcanic activity.” Centaurus 23: 1–20. Taub, L. (2009) “Explaining a volcano naturally: Aetna and the choice of poetry.” In L. Taub and A. Doody, eds., Authorial voices in Greco-Roman technical writing: 125–41. Trier. Volk, K. (2008) “Introduction to Robinson Ellis’ Aetna.” In R. Ellis, ed., Aetna. Bristol.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 147–148. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah21010

1

Afrati in Crete VYRON ANTONIADIS

Afrati is a modern village located in the district of Pediada in central Crete. Investigation in the area began in the late nineteenth century and recovered traces of Bronze Age to Hellenistic habitation. The most important site is an extended settlement situated on the slopes of Profitis Ilias hill above Afrati that dates from the ninth to the fifth century BCE. On the eastern slopes of the hill were houses dating mostly to the eighth and seventh centuries BCE and a paved road. A sanctuary (ninth to seventh century BCE) and houses of later date (sixth to fifth century BCE) were discovered on the southeastern slopes of the hill. In the two cemeteries (800–600 BCE) on the western slopes, inurned cremation was the dominant rite. Most burials are individual urns, but there were also corbel-vaulted tombs with numerous inurned cremations and chamber tombs with inhumations. A comparison has been drawn between a type of inurned cremation practiced at Afrati and a type found at CARCHEMISH, North Syria. The settlement at Afrati was a major bronzeworking and pottery production center. This is

demonstrated by the bronze objects and pottery found, not only in the site itself, but also in the nearby sanctuary of Hermes and Aphrodite at KATO SYMI (Viannou). Additionally, drinking cups of the early sixth century, probably produced in Afrati, were discovered at Tocra and CYRENE in North Africa. The settlement suffered a major reverse in the late fifth century BCE, probably at the hands of the people of Lyktos, and one of the excavated houses shows clear signs of destruction. It has been proposed that Afrati could be identified with the ancient communities of Arkades or Dattala, which are documented in written sources.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Erickson, B. L. (2002) “Aphrati and Kato Syme: pottery, continuity, and cult in Late Archaic and Classical Crete.” Hesperia 71: 42–90. Levi, D. (1927–9) “Arkades: una città cretese all’alba della civiltà ellenica.” Annuario della Scuola archeologica di Atene e delle Missioni italiane in Oriente 10–12: 1–710. Prent, M. (2005) Cretan sanctuaries and cults: continuity and change from Late Minoan IIIC to the Archaic period. Leiden.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner. © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Published 2015 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah25065

1

Africa Proconsularis ORIETTA DORA CORDOVANA

Following the destruction of CARTHAGE in 146 BCE, the Romans created the first nucleus of a directly administered province in North Africa, i.e., the province of Africa, making Utica its capital. The area of the province was confined to the urban territory and immediate hinterland of the Punic metropolis, the pertica of Carthage, which acquired the legal status of AGER PUBLICUS and was the property of the Roman people. The peasants and former Carthaginian landowners were deprived of their rights of ownership and possession of the land, which could, as ager publicus, be leased or distributed to new tenants or owners, or used for the foundation of new urban centers. This first provincial nucleus remained unaltered for some time. Even after the Jugurthine war in 105 BCE, the Romans preferred not to annex Numidian land to the province. The western part of Numidia was incorporated into the kingdom of MAURETANIA governed by Bocchus, to reward him for his assistance during the war against Jugurtha. The client kingdom NUMIDIA continued to exist under a pro-Roman sovereign, but it is difficult to be certain of its southern and eastern boundaries, which remained to some extent indefinite. To the east, the cities of Tripolitania – SABRATHA, OEA, and LEPCIS MAGNA (which were emporia) – maintained their formal independence. Literary sources show that, until the turn of the first century BCE, the kings of Numidia repeatedly attempted to include these emporia in their territory, occasionally even forcing them to pay tribute, but there is no question of political and geographical annexation in the strict sense (Polybius 15.18; 31.21; Livy 34.62; Bell. Afric. 97.3; Caesar Bell. Civ. 2.38.1; Appian Pun. 54). This political geography changed completely after the civil wars between JULIUS CAESAR and POMPEY, which also extended to North Africa. Following the battle of THAPSOS in 46 BCE, Caesar reorganized Rome’s directly governed

African territories. He added Africa Nova to the province of Africa Vetus (the former territory of Carthage), consisting of Numidia and new lands taken from the kingdom of Mauretania. Both client kingdoms were thus punished for having supported the senate and the Pompeians against Caesar. The emporia of Tripolitania remained formally independent cities at this period, although they were included in the territory of the province, in a unique relationship vis-a`-vis Roman power (Cordovana 2007: 37–60). Africa Proconsularis derived from the fusion of Africa Vetus and Africa Nova during the reign of Augustus. The new province, like the province of Asia, was governed by a proconsul of consular rank, normally at the end of his career, who was also in charge of the sole legion stationed in the territory, the legio III Augusta. However, under CALIGULA, for the first time the military power of the proconsul was undermined, as a legatus was sent at the head of the legio III Augusta and the powers of the proconsul were limited to administrative and judicial matters (Tac. Hist. 4.48; Cass. Dio 59.20.7). To perform these duties, the governors would travel around the provincial territory, stopping in the main cities for periodical meetings, i.e., conventus, during which they chaired provincial assemblies for both civic and criminal cases. These occasions, often linked to religious festivities, drew many people from the hinterland to the city, with a consequent upsurge in economic activity. For this reason, to be the location of a conventus was a very important privilege for a city. This privilege, awarded by the emperor himself, also fostered a crucial link between the local population and the Roman government. As bureaucratic systems developed, the conventus came to denote an administrative district (dioecesis), which had the city that held the conventus at its center. In Africa Proconsularis, the main location of conventus was the capital Carthage. Between the second and third centuries CE, the literary sources also give evidence of conventus in other important cities of the province, such

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 149–152. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah18002

2 as Utica, Theveste, Thysdrus, Hadrumetum, and Sabratha. When creating a new province, rather than rigidly demarcating the territory within precisely marked political boundaries, the Romans would draw up the formula provinciae, a list of all the cities, tribes, and villages included in the province’s territory, which also defined their legal status in terms of taxation. In the case of Africa, it is believed that traces of this document are to be found in the African section of the fifth book of the Elder Pliny’s Natural history, which gives an account of all the cities, tribes, and villages of Africa under Roman rule in the first century CE (Desanges 1980). There has been much debate concerning the date of the establishment of the Augustan province. It was originally held that Africa Proconsularis had been unified between 27 and 7 BCE or 14 CE, since in his general administrative reorganization of the empire, Augustus used the information collected by Agrippa, publishing it after the latter’s death in 12 BCE (see VIPSANIUS AGRIPPA, MARCUS). Recently, Brent Shaw and Duncan Fishwick have attempted to pin down the chronology of the creation of Africa Proconsularis more precisely. Their starting point was the thesis of Leo Teutsch, who dated the compilation of the formula Africae provinciae to 46 BCE in the Caesarian period, but before the destruction of Vaga by Juba of Mauretania, since that city appears in Pliny’s list among the oppida libera. The later studies of Shaw, and especially of Fishwick, have adduced new arguments and evidence in favor of the date of 40–39 BCE for the de facto unification of Africa Proconsularis, under the proconsulship of Marcus AEMILIUS LEPIDUS, which ended in 36 BCE. The joint administration of Africa Nova and Vetus is first attested for 42 BCE, when Octavian had himself replaced by Fuficius Fangus as governor of both provinces previously allotted to himself by the terms of the second triumvirate. Only with the proconsulship of Lepidus came a period of relative tranquillity, during which the official establishment of the province of Africa

Proconsularis, and therefore the compilation of the list used by Pliny, could have taken place. The capital of the new province was Carthage, founded as a Roman colony by Augustus. Between the first and second centuries CE, Africa Proconsularis (modern Algeria, Tunisia, and western Libya) comprised the former kingdom of Numidia, the Byzacene region, and Tripolitania as far as the Arae of the Phileni in the Sirtis desert to the east, which marked the boundary with the province of Cyrenaica (see CYRENE AND CYRENAICA). On the west it bordered the kingdom of Mauretania, which was reduced to the status of a province under Caligula in 40 CE. The southern boundaries of these provinces were never fixed, since they were coincident with the “mobile” areas of the limes, the frontier in North Africa. Throughout the imperial period, Africa Proconsularis was strongly characterized by urbanization and economic success rooted in the exploitation of the land. Thanks to far-sighted imperial economic policies, African agricultural production was improved to meet overseas demand for exports. The inscriptions of the BAGRADA valley (central Tunisia) give extraordinary evidence of the management of land and production in the central part of the province. These texts refer to imperial laws dating from the time of Trajan to that of the Severans, but are based on an earlier lex Manciana of the Flavian age (CIL VIII 25902, 25943, 10570, 26416 ¼ FIRA 12, 100–3). Both abandoned private lands and areas of imperial estates could be farmed by coloni (farmers) by virtue of a special land-lease system (similar to that of locatio-conductio contracts) for five years or more, on condition that specific products, such as olive oil, figs, and vines, were produced. Depending on the crop, both entrepreneurs (conductores) and simple farmers (coloni), if so entitled by the contract, could farm free of duty for five or ten years. After this period, they could chose to pay taxation to the imperial fiscus in cash or in kind under the supervision of the imperial procuratores, officers of the local administration of various ranks recruited from among freedmen, and

3 equites Dispensatores, vilici, and actores of slave condition were also part of this administrative staff and at the service of the procuratores. Often the contracts of the land-lease system placed conductores in positions of considerable power and privilege, acting as the principal intermediaries between government and the farmers. It is clear in the Bagrada inscriptions that they were involved in the collection of taxes on agricultural production, by contrast – in this period and these areas – with the republican system involving companies of PUBLICANI. The conductores, who were probably members of the local urban elites, were in charge of managing the production and supervising the farm manpower. They collected the quotas of products from the coloni and then delivered them to the imperial fiscus, i.e., the procuratores. During the first and second centuries CE, the role of the latter was limited to administrative and fiscal duties, but with the development of the imperial bureaucracy, they became the main agents of the direct tax collection system throughout Late Antiquity. From the Bagrada inscriptions, it is evident that they also arbitrated in disputes between farmers and entrepreneurs, acting as representatives of the official Roman government in the province and safeguarding the interests of the imperial estate. However, at the same time it is also clear that they often colluded with the conductores against the coloni. This restructuring of the management of land production was also an important stimulus toward urbanization and demographic growth in North Africa. The original Punic, Numidian, and Libyo-Phoenician cities changed their legal status in the course of time, in accordance with their economic importance and prestige, and acquired Roman status as municipia, coloniae, or coloniae iuris italici. The province was always of great economic and political importance to Rome and the empire, as it was a principal center for the export of grain (together with Sicily and Egypt) and of oil (together with Baetica). For this reason, emperors always made sure of their control of Africa Proconsularis in their dynastic struggles

over the succession (e.g., Caesar Bell. Civ. 2.32; Historia Augusta Severus 8.7, 8.12, 18.3). In the administrative reorganization of SEPTIMIUS SEVERUS between 198 and 208 Africa Proconsularis was separated from Numidia, which became a province in its own right, with Cirta as its capital. Behind this provision were reasons of political and military order, as well as the desire to create a centralized bureaucratic structure beyond the reach of possible local usurpers by means of the division of powers. The proconsul of Africa maintained an administrative and religious role, while the supreme command of the army was officially entrusted to a legate whose principal base was in Numidia. Under the TETRARCHY, a similar bureaucratic restructuring led DIOCLETIAN to separate Tripolitania and Byzacene from Africa Proconsularis, and Numidia Cirtensis from Numidia Militiana. However, these were later reunified by Constantine. SEE ALSO: Administration, Roman; African War (Bellum Africum); Berbers and Moors; Frontiers, Roman; Taxation, Roman.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Broughton, T. R. S. (1929, re-print 1968) The Romanization of Africa Proconsularis. Westport. Bullo, S. (2002) Provincia Africa. Le citta` e il territorio dalla caduta di Cartagine a Nerone. Rome. Cordovana, O. D. (2007) Segni e immagini del potere. I Severi e la provincia Africa Proconsularis. Catania. Desanges, J. (1980) Pline l’Ancien. Histoire Naturelle, livre V, 1–46, Iere partie (l’Afrique du Nord. Paris. Fishwick, D. and Shaw, B. D. (1977) “The formation of Africa Proconsularis.” Hermes 105: 369–80. Fishwick, D. (1993) “On the origins of Africa Proconsularis I: the amalgamation of Africa Vetus and Nova.” Antiquite´s Africaine´s 29: 53–62. Fishwick, D. (1994) “Dio and the province.” In Y. Le Bohec, ed., L’Afrique, la Gaule, la religion a` l’e´poque romain, Me´langes a` la me´moire de Marcel Le Glay: 116–28. Brussels.

4 Fishwick, D. (1994) “On the origins of Africa Proconsularis II: the administration of Lepidus and the commission of M. Caelius Phileros.” Antiquite´s Africaines 30: 57–80. Fishwick, D. (1996) “On the origins of Africa Proconsularis III: the era of the Cereres again.” Antiquite´s Africaines 32: 13–36. Flach, D. (1978) “Inschriftenuntersuchungen zum ro¨mischen Kolonat in Nordafrika.” Chiron 8: 441–99. Kolendo, J. (1991) Le colonat en Afrique sous le Haut-Empire. Paris. Lepelley, C. (2001) “Les sie`ges des conventus judiciaires de l’Afrique Proconsulaire.” In C. Lepelley, Aspects de l’Afrique romaine. Les cite´s, la vie rurale, le christianisme: 55–68. Bari.

Mattingly, D. J. and Hitchner, R. B. (1991) “Fruits of empire. The production of olive oil in Roman Africa.” National Geographic Research and Exploration 7: 36–55. Pflaum, H. G. (1950) Les procurateurs e´questres sous le Haut-Empire romain. Paris. Pflaum, H. G. (1960/1) Les carrie`res procuratoriennes e´questres sous le Haut-Empire romain. Paris. Shaw, B. D. (1995) “The Elder Pliny’s African geography.” In B. D. Shaw, Rulers, nomads and Christians in Roman North Africa: 424–71. Aldershot. Teutsch, L. (1962) Das ro¨mische Sta¨dtewesen in Nordafrika in der Zeit von C. Gracchus bis zum Tode des Kaisers Augustus. Berlin.

1

Africa, Byzantine MARIA KOUROUMALI

The Roman province of Africa became a prefecture for the first time under Constantine I between 332 and 337 CE. Geographical knowledge of the continent was limited in Byzantine times. With the exception of the northern coast and some sections of the western and eastern coasts as well as Egypt, Nubia, and Axum in the interior, the Byzantines had not explored or had access to the rest of Africa. Procopius of Caesarea and Kosmas Indikopleustes only describe the Red Sea coastal area as far as Axum. After the loss of North Africa to the Vandals (429–534), the reestablishment of Byzantine sovereignty was undertaken by JUSTINIAN I and his general Belisarius in 533. Justinian’s Pragmatic Sanction of 534 set out the revived prefecture of Africa and the duties of its prefect. It included the provinces of Africa Proconsularis, Byzacena, Tripolitania, Numidia, Mauretania I–II, and Sardinia. By 549, despite continuing skirmishes with native Berber tribes and local Byzantine mismanagement, the prefecture of Africa was relatively stable and produced sufficient revenues for the empire. Archaeological evidence from Spain, Gaul, and Italy also supports its prosperity, as there was continuing trade in oil, wine, and pottery, at least until the early seventh century. Toward the end of the sixth century, the prefecture of Africa was

replaced by the Exarchate of Carthage. The exarch was originally a military official, superior to the prefect, but later also combined the latter’s civil authority. Carthage was home to the seventh-century emperor HERAKLEIOS, whose father was the exarch at the time and led the revolt against the usurper Phocas. The continuing Arab expansion eventually drained the financial resources of the exarchate, which fell into Muslim hands in 687. The last cities under Byzantine rule, Carthage and Septem, were seized in 698 and 711 respectively, thereby ending the Byzantine presence in Africa. SEE ALSO:

Africa Proconsularis; Carthage.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Caillet, J. P. and Carrie´, J. M., eds. (2003) L’Afrique vandale et byzantine. Turnhout. Christides, V. (2000) Byzantine Libya and the march of the Arabs towards the west of North Africa. Oxford. Diehl, C. (1896) L’Afrique byzantine: histoire de la domination byzantine en Afrique (533–709). Paris. Kaegi, W. (2010) Muslim expansion and Byzantine collapse in North Africa. Cambridge. Pringle, D. (2001) The defense of Byzantine Africa from Justinian to the Arab conquest: an account of the military history and archaeology of the African provinces in the sixth and seventh centuries. Oxford. Salama, P. (1981) “The Roman and post-Roman period in North Africa, Part II: From Rome to Islam.” In UNESCO general history of Africa, vol. 2: 459–510. Berkeley.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 148–149. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah03002

1

African War (Bellum Africum) MIHAIL ZAHARIADE

The Bellum Africum, or Africanum as it appears in some manuscripts, deals chronologically with the military operations in Africa in 46 BCE, from the time that JULIUS CAESAR left Lilybaeum until his return to Rome. The author remains unknown (HIRTIUS or ASINIUS POLLIO seems to be excluded), as in the case of the Alexandrian war, but certainly he must have been an officer in the Roman army in Africa. The work in fact continues the account of Caesar’s conflict with the republicans, with which the events related in the Alexandrian war have no direct connection. Some North African territories came to be controlled by the senatorial party in 49, after POMPEY’s defeat at Pharsalos. Among the republican commanders who had regrouped here after Caesar’s delay in the east were some notable figures, such as Scipio, Afranius, Labienus, and later Cato; their forces were augmented by some twenty thousand belonging to the Numidian king Juba. Meanwhile, Sextus Pompeius, the son of Pompey the Great, retreated to Spain with a view to raising support there. Caesar landed at Hadrumentum (Sousse) on December 28, 47. Although he failed to take the town, he occupied Leptisminus (Lamta) and immediately turned Ruspina (Monastir) into a military base. The movement of his forces was frustrated by Labienus’ powerful cavalry. But the successful siege of Thapsos (near Mehdia), the republican supply base, and the surprisingly swift victories against Scipio’s and Juba’s forces in early April 46, as well as the taking of UTICA, spread confusion among Caesar’s adversaries. Cato, Juba, and Scipio committed suicide. The territories of Numidia, where military operations had been carried out, were turned into a Roman province, Africa Nova, from where Caesar hoped to draw a hundred thousand hectoliters of wheat for the supply of Rome.

He designated as commander of the new province SALLUST, who would later make the Numidian king JUGURTHA the subject of a monograph, while the western part of the Numidian kingdom was assigned to Bocchus, the king of the Moors, and to Sittius, an adventurer and an old accomplice of Catiline in 66 BCE. The Bellum Africum has an undeniable historical value. The facts related in the account are certainly to be trusted and are authenticated by other independent and reliable sources. The author is sincere in what he relates and lacks the talent and art of dissimulation which we see in Caesar. The author is a convinced Caesarian partisan, and even if he commits exaggerations in order to detract from his adversaries, his vocabulary has the exactness of a high ranking officer. However, the partiality towards Caesar is more than obvious. The author is more concerned to praise his commander’s clemency than to condemn the soldiers’ crimes against the unarmed Pompeian soldiers. In any event, the work does not alter the truth. The Bellum Africum remains of exceptional importance for the events during the civil wars and the action of the Roman army in the field. SEE ALSO: Africa Proconsularis; Alexandrian War (Bellum Alexandrinum); Berbers and Moors; Cato, Marcus Porcius (Cato the Younger); Pompeius Magnus Pius, Sextus.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Haywood, R. M. (1941) “The oil of Leptis.” Classical Philology 36: 246–56. Mu¨ller, M. (2004) Das Bellum Africum: Ein historisch-philologischer Kommentar der Kapitel 1–47. Trier. Schanz, M. (1979) Handbuch der Altertumswissenschaft. Geschichte der ro¨mischen Literatur, vol. 8.1: Die ro¨mische Literatur in der Zeit der Republik. Munich. Schneider, R. (1962) Bellum Africanum. Berlin.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 152–153. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah20006

1

Africanus (Sextus Caecilius Africanus) CARLA MASI DORIA

Sextus Caecilius Africanus was a Roman jurist active in the middle of the second century CE (Rodríguez Ennes: ca. 120 – ca. 175; D’Ors, Liebs: born in 115). His full name is given only in Dig. 25.3.3.4 (Ulpian); elsewhere, one finds, apart from Africanus, Sextus and/or Caecilius. He was a younger contemporary and student of Salvius Iulianus (JULIAN), a prominent exponent of the Sabinian school of jurists. Modern scholars have postulated an African origin on the basis of his cognomen (Sex. Caecilii are found at Thuburbo Minus, in Africa Proconsularis), so from the same province as his teacher Julian (Kunkel). Our jurist is very likely to be identified with the Sex. Caecilius praised for his notable legal expertise in Gell. NA. 20.1, who debates with the philosopher Favorinus of Arles on the value of the XII Tables (so the Gloss as well as Cuiacius, Jörs, and Kunkel). His most important work was the Quaestiones in nine books (Index Florentinus XVI; fragments in Lenel, Pal. I.2–35, nos. 2–122 = L.2 nos. 2–122). The order of the topics discussed (whether deriving from the ius civile or from the ius honorarium) is beyond recovery, as is the work’s precise date, but it must be later than Julian’s edition of the Praetor’s Edict. Scholars no longer accept the view (advanced by Kalb) that the version of the Quaestiones utilized by Justinian’s compilers was the fruit of a revision made in the time of Modestinus. The structure of the Quaestiones is peculiar. Africanus reports opinions by an unnamed jurist (using verbs such as respondit, ait, putat, inquit, that are sometimes merely implied), who must be Julian himself. These same opinions are in fact ascribed to Julian in other sources; indeed the Byzantine jurist Dorotheus – as observed by Mommsen following the Spanish humanist Antonio Agustín – explicitly attributes to Julian views that in the DIGESTA are

introduced solely by ait or respondit. Sometimes however Africanus does name him. This referencing of his teacher might reflect a practice of oral instruction in which Julian went about resolving concrete cases which Africanus recorded by taking notes (in the surviving fragments, in contrast to numerous verbs suggesting oral communication, one never finds scribit: Buhl, Jörs). The point however is not simply to transmit Julian’s views: the author not infrequently adds his own reflections (through the use of existimo, puto, i.e., in the first person and segments in which Africanus employs direct discourse, although even these passages – or at least some of them – might be ascribed to Julian, even without postulating the intervention of the compilers, even as recent scholarship is more inclined to recognize traces of Africanus’ originality). What does not emerge, to be sure, is an explicitly critical debate between student and teacher (Jörs), even though in the other work of Africanus known to us, the Epistulae (in at least twenty books), a quaestio of his is preserved by ULPIAN who invokes Julian as the source of the information (Dig. 30.39 pr.). The genuine status of the text has been – wrongly – suspected precisely owing to the citation by the teacher of his student, though modern interpretations of its contents vary. Kalb, on the other hand, proposes that the Quaestiones is simply a revision of Julian’s Epistulae, an idea that has not found broad acceptance. Mommsen argues for the existence of a work entitled libri de adulteriis (on the basis of nos. 123, 127–9 L.) and of monographs ad SC. Tertullianum (no. 126 L.) and de fideicommissis (no. 130 L.), but this theory too has not persuaded many. The terse style of the prose evinced by the surviving fragments, laden at the same time with tensions of a practical nature (Rodríguez Ennes 2004) has inspired – in the tradition of the ius commune (at least beginning with Bartol. in L. cum quis. in princ. ff. de Sol. = Dig. 46.3.38 pr.) – the quip “Lex Africani est, ergo difficilis” (“The rule is by Africanus, so it’s difficult”).

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and David Hollander. © 2018 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Published 2018 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah30608

2 SEE ALSO:

Jurisprudence, Greek and Roman; Law, Roman.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Buhl, H. (1881) “Afrikans Quaestionen und ihr Verhältniss zu Julian.” Zeitschrift der Savigny-Stiftung für Rechtsgeschichte (Romanistische Abteilung) 2: 180–99. Casavola, F. (1980) Giuristi adrianei: 1–23, 75–105, 324–6. Naples. Cerami, P. (1971) “Considerazioni sulla cultura e sulla logica di Cecilio Africano (A proposito di D. 35.2.88 pr.).” Iura 22: 127–37. Cuiacius, J. (1658) “Ad Africanum.” In Opera omnia 1: 1285–576. Paris. D’Ors, Á. (1997) Las “Quaestiones” de Africano. Rome. Honoré, A. M. (1964) “Julian’s Circle.” Tijdschrift voor Rechtsgeschiedenis 32: 1–44. Jörs, P. (1899) “Caecilius (29).” In A. Pauly, G. Wissowa, and W. Kroll, eds., Realencyclopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft 3: 1192–5. Stuttgart. Kalb, W. (1890) Roms Juristen nach ihrer Sprache dargestellt: 66–71. Leipzig.

Kunkel, W. (1967) Herkunft und soziale Stellung der römischen Juristen, 2nd ed.: 172–3. Graz. Lenel, O. (1889) Palingenesia iuris civilis: 1.2–35. Leipzig (= L.). Lenel, O. (1931) “Afrikans Quästionen: Versuch einer kritischer Palingenesie.” Zeitschrift der Savigny-Stiftung für Rechtsgeschichte (Romanistische Abteilung) 51: 1–53 (= L.2). Liebs, D. (1997) “Sextus Caecilius Africanus.” In Handbuch der lateinischen Literatur der Antike, vol. 4: Die Literatur des Umbruchs: Von der römischen zur christlichen Literatur, K. Sallmann, ed.: 106–8. Munich. Mommsen, T. (1905) “Ueber Julians Digesten.” In Gesammelte Schriften, vol. 2: Juristische Schriften: 13–7. Berlin (originally published in Zeitschrift für Rechtsgeschichte 9 (1870): 90–3). Rodríguez Ennes, L. (2004) “Sexto Cecilio Africano.” In R. Domingo, ed., Juristas Universales. 1: 176–8. Madrid-Barcelona. Schulz, F. (1961) Geschichte der römischen Rechtswissenschaft: 124–5, 291–2. Weimar. Wieacker, F. (2006) Römische Rechtsgeschichte. 2: 66, 101. Munich.

1

Afterlife, Greece and Rome CHARLES W. KING

Greek and Roman religion presented numerous afterlife scenarios. Some focused on models of where the dead dwelled and on the processes (like posthumous judgment) that could affect them. Others emphasized potential patterns of interaction between the dead and the living in the human world. Greek and Roman religious rituals tended to reinforce the latter more than the former. All the scenarios had variations, and modern interpretations have sometimes viewed the abundance of variants as evidence of general lack of interest in the afterlife. One should, however, recognize that equating sincerity of interest with theological uniformity is a position more compatible with Christianity than with Greek and Roman religion, where there was no mechanism for asserting a standardized doctrine. The sheer frequency of references to the afterlife and of rituals pertaining to the dead shows a recurring interest in the afterlife in both the Greek societies and Rome. The earliest surviving Greek version of an afterlife is that found in the Homeric poems, particularly in the lengthy description of a land of the dead (Od. 11 passim; 24.1–204). Although it was only partially located underground (Od. 11.36), Homer’s scenario provides certain details (the names of rivers, a judge named Minos) that would be commonplace in later Greco-Roman accounts of the underworld. The dead, though, were gathered in a morally neutral way, with no overall judgment of their lives (Bernstein 1993: 21–33; Sourvinou-Inwood 1995: 10–94). Significantly too, they seem to have had little contact with the world, and most dead were unaware of events occurring among the living. A few passages suggest the poet was aware of scenarios that emphasized posthumous judgment (Il. 3.276–80; Od. 4.561–70, 11.576–600) or of special dead humans with godlike attributes (Od. 11.601–4). These elements are quite

marginal to the Homeric afterlife but would become more important in later centuries. Later Greek texts more firmly placed the land of the dead underground. There was never a fully standardized version of its layout. Post-Homeric poets of the archaic period, notably Hesiod, supplied many topographic details that later authors would invoke. By the classical period, and even more so by the Hellenistic and Roman periods, there was a familiar repertory of underworld features from which authors could select, but they were free to pick, choose, and modify to fit their respective agendas (Edmonds 2004). There were some widespread general features. The dead lived in an underground space, which one reached by crossing a river, and over which the gods Hades and Persephone presided in some general way. Other details were in flux. A wide variety of subdivisions of the underworld appeared in some models, sometimes but not always linked to posthumous judgment, while a variety of superhuman beings could also be present, using the underworld as their base of operations. No two models of the underworld were ever exactly identical. A lack of Roman texts from the Early Republic makes it unclear exactly when the Romans came to adopt Greek underworld models for their own use. Images of the Greek underworld appeared in the tomb art of Rome’s Etruscan neighbors at the time of the early Roman Republic (Krauskopf 1987; Roncalli 1996). It seems reasonable to assume from Etruscan familiarity with Greek ideas, and from archaeological evidence of other Roman borrowings from Greek religion in the same era, that the Romans learned of the Greek afterlife at the same time as the Etruscans to their north. There is thus no reason to think that Greek underworld models were newly arrived in Rome in the first century BCE era of Vergil’s Aeneid. Unfortunately, there is also no way to trace the early history of these ideas in Rome due to a lack of useful texts or artwork.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 153–156. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah17011

2 One feature of later Greek underworld models and their Roman counterparts is a significant role for the idea of posthumous judgment (Bernstein 1993: 50–83; Stilwell 2005). The dead were judged and then segregated into zones of punishment (Tartaros) and reward (Elysion) in courts presided over by underworld judges like Minos. Greek theories of posthumous judgment probably drew upon Egyptian thought (Griffith 2001; Stilwell 2005), but there is insufficient evidence to establish the chronology of that transmission. It may have been in the archaic period, as posthumous judgment appears frequently in literature by the classical period. As with the topography, variations abound. In some cases the guilty dead appear to be punished by other dead persons that they had mistreated in life (as in the painting by Polygnotos described by Pausanias 10.28); in other cases erinyes (see FURIES) or other categories of underworld deities act on behalf of those with grievances to punish dead wrongdoers. Sometimes the division of the dead is not merely two-fold, but there also exist other zones containing specific categories of the dead, such as dead newborns or those who died in a particular manner. Such divisions are less a matter of moral judgment than a classification into categories. In more complex models, authors would combine both the zones of moral judgment and the zones of non-moral classification, an approach used most famously in Book 6 of Vergil‘s Aeneid. The degree to which the Greeks or Romans believed in posthumous judgment doubtless varied, but the existence of belief should not be dismissed out of hand. Pindar (Ol. 2.53–80) could invoke posthumous reward in a poem intended for public performance, and Athenian dramatists could do the same with posthumous punishment (e.g., Aesch. Supp. 225–31), suggesting that audiences would not greet the concepts with derision. Plato (Rep. 330d–e, 364e–65a) not only could present fear of posthumous punishment as a common feature of old age, but described ritual specialists whom Athenians could consult to ward off

the danger. Wiseman (1992) collected passages about Roman “prophets” (vates) who predicted posthumous punishment. Lucretius (3.41–54) claimed that even those who professed not to believe had a fear of Tartarus when faced with a crisis. Menander Rhetor (2.414.15, 2.421.15) advised public speakers to mention Elysion in funeral orations to console the survivors. It is difficult to see how either fear of posthumous punishment or a consolatory role for Elysion would be possible without at least a section of the population accepting the possibility of posthumous judgment, whether or not they accepted all the elaborate details that poets provided (King 1998: 167–223; Stilwell 2005). Concern about posthumous judgment was but one aspect of the afterlife, and, in religious practice, it was perhaps a secondary priority. The majority of known Greco-Roman ceremonies relating to the dead concern interactions with the dead in the living world, not a desire to reach Elysion. The dead of the post-Homeric Greek world could enter the physical world as beings of power. Most prominent were the heroes, a small group of the exceptional dead whom Greek towns granted special shrines and individual festivals, invoking their divine assistance (see HERO CULT). Ordinary dead persons also had a potential to be present in the living world. Greek terminology (daimones, elasteroi, etc.) stopped short of calling them “gods,” but they had power to affect the living. Greek communities had festivals to placate them, such as the Athenian Anthesteria and Argive Agriania, as well as rituals performed by individuals. The living had a concern to keep the dead pacified and honored through rituals, so as to prevent them from wandering and taking hostile action against the living. Likewise, the dead could invoke other underworld powers such as erinyes to pursue their grievances against the living, so that the living would need to ward off their wrath. In placating the dead, Greeks could also call upon their power for positive purposes, so that the community of the dead could benefit the living (Pulleyn 1997: 116–31; Johnston 1999).

3 The Romans went farther than the Greeks in deifying ordinary dead citizens. Roman dead became manes, deities toward whom the Romans regularly applied the overt terminology of godhood (di, dei, dii) and worship. Despite the plural-only form of the word manes, Roman worship often focused on specific named dead at their particular graves or within home shrines. Although manes, like other gods, could avenge neglect, Roman funerary cult was less focused on keeping the dead dormant than on invoking their power to aid their worshippers. Romans prayed to the dead to extend their life spans, advise them in dreams, and witness oaths, while state priests could invoke them to assist Roman armies or protect Rome’s grain seed supply. The criteria determining who worshipped which dead relied upon inheritance and ties of family loyalty, criteria that would, in practice, have included most of the population (King 1998: 225–492; 2009). It is important therefore to include interactions between the living and the dead as part of the category of “afterlife,” for the living would have died with an expectation that they would remain relevant to their surviving family and communities and would receive posthumous honor (Greece) or worship (Rome) from them. Greco-Roman models of the dwellings and posthumous judgment of the dead were important, but not more so than the question of what the dead could do in the living world. SEE ALSO: Afterlife, Pharaonic Egypt; Anthesteria; Apotheosis and heroization; Funerary cult,

Greek; Funerary cult, Roman; Hades; Homer; Manes, di manes; Parentalia; Persephone, Kore; Religion, Etruscan.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Bernstein, A. E. (1993) The formation of hell: death and retribution in the ancient and early Christian worlds. Ithaca. Edmonds, R. G. (2004) Myths of the underworld journey: Plato, Aristophanes, and the “Orphic” gold tablets. Cambridge. Griffith, R. D. (2001) “Sailing to Elysium: Menelaus’ afterlife (Odyssey 4.561-569) and Egyptian religion.” Phoenix 55: 213–43. Johnston, S. I. (1999) Restless dead: encounters between the living and the dead in ancient Greece. Berkeley. King, C. W. (1998) The living and the dead: ancient Roman conceptions of the afterlife. PhD diss., University of Chicago. King, C. W. (2009) “The Roman manes: the dead as gods.” In Mu-chou Poo, ed., Rethinking ghosts in world religions: 95–114. Leiden. Krauskopf, I. (1987) Todesda¨monen und Totengo¨tter im vorhellenistischen Etrurien. Florence. Pulleyn, S. (1997) Prayer in Greek religion. Oxford. Roncalli, F. (1996) “Laris Pulenas and Sisyphus: mortals, heroes and demons in the Etruscan underworld.” Etruscan Studies 3: 45–64. Sourvinou-Inwood, C. (1995) “Reading” Greek death: to the end of the classical period. Oxford. Stilwell, G. A. (2005) Afterlife: post-mortem judgments in ancient Egypt and ancient Greece. New York. Wiseman, T. P. (1992) “Lucretius, Catiline, and the Survival of Prophecy.” Ostraka 1: 275–86.

1

Afterlife, Judaism and Christianity JAIME CLARK-SOLES

Ancient Judaism and Christianity reflect a wide variety of views on the afterlife. One finds both linear and parallel development with different ideas waxing and waning. Due to the multitudinous cultural influences (including Ugaritic, Canaanite, Egyptian, Persian, Greek, and Roman), the span of centuries, and the different kinds of evidence available (e.g., texts, epigraphy, graves, art), systemization remains impossible.

JUDAISM: FROM NEUTRAL DEATH TO MORAL DEATH The Hebrew Bible, for the most part, envisions a neutral death; all die and descend to Sheol, the pit (LXX “Hades”). Sheol is synonymous with “grave” (cf. Ps 16:10 and Gen 37); it is subterranean (Ps 63:10), shadow-like (Isa 14:9), and its inhabitants do not think of the living (Job 21:21) or of God (Ps 88). Everyone, the moral and the wicked alike, descends to Sheol (Ps 89:49). The emphasis is upon being gathered to the ancestors and the corporate element is strong. People were buried in ancestral tombs, and there was little focus on the individual person. Necromancy also appears, for example in 1 Sam. 28:7. Some Israelites practiced the cult of the dead and ancestor worship. Typically, such behavior was castigated by those in power since it placed primary loyalties not upon the governmental or religious rulers, but upon family, clan, and tribe. In the postexilic period, the good and bad are moved to different compartments in Sheol (1 Enoch 22). In the second century BCE Sheol is supplemented by Gehenna, the fiery valley south of Jerusalem. Gehenna represented the place where children had been sacrificed (Jer 7:32) and eventually the place where

sinners would be judged. In postexilic Judaism old and new coexisted. Inscriptions and literature, however, show that the older view, which lacked a vigorous afterlife for anyone, continued to be found in the first century. By the time of the late Hebrew Bible literature, such as Daniel 7–12, a more otherworldly eschatology appears. The individual takes center stage and the corporate aspect of judgment evanesces. During the intertestamental period apocalyptic literature was produced that offered new cosmologies and specific descriptions of post-mortem existence in heaven or hell. In these texts, one goes to heaven as a reward and hell as a punishment, so that one’s existence after death depends upon moral evaluation. Satan, called by various names and aided by armies of demons, develops into a robust figure during this period (see DEVIL/SATAN). While Sadducean Jews denied it, by the first century CE Pharisaic Jews taught resurrection of the body, which the faithful Jew received either at death or at a later time. Resurrection takes place at the Mount of Olives, and all who rise undergo judgment. The faithful attain some sort of heavenly existence identified often with the temple or courts. The resurrected may live in Jerusalem or in paradise. Paradise comes from the Persian pairidaeza, which referred to the gardens of the king of Persia. The connection between Paradise and the Garden of Eden comes only in the second century BCE, when the Septuagint translated both pardes and Eden as paradeisos. Paradise becomes the opposite of Gehenna. Elijah (2 Kings 2:11–12), Enoch (Gen 5:24), and sometimes Moses are presented as figures who have already attained resurrection. Philo (20 BCE–ca. 50 CE; see PHILO JUDAEUS) interprets the Jewish tradition largely through the lenses of Middle Platonism (see PLATO), which combines Platonism with other ideas, especially STOICISM. Early Stoics had no doctrine of afterlife. Later Stoics held that some souls remained after death until the ekpyrosis, the last stage of the universe’s recurring cycle of

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 156–161. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah05006

2 birth, life, and death. Either way, immortality was not a prominent belief in Stoicism. So during Philo’s lifetime Platonism and Stoicism were similar in that both had a place for afterlife, though very differently conceived. In Stoicism, the soul was viewed as having eight parts; in Platonism, three; in Aristotelianism, five. The terms Hades and Tartarus are used by Philo metaphorically to refer to a certain quality of life: “But it is not that mythical place of the impious in Hades. For the true Hades is the life of the bad, a life of damnation and blood-guiltiness, the victim of every curse” (Congr. 57). For Philo, death entails a separation of the soul from the body; the individual undergoes a post-mortem judgment. JOSEPHUS (37–ca. 94 CE) claims that the Pharisees place the souls of both the just and unjust in the underworld, whereas he, though a Pharisee, assigns the unjust to Hades and the righteous to heaven until the final resurrection. Josephus’ eschatology envisions a post-mortem judgment where the soul, the essential part of a human being, gets a new life if it is good, but punishment in the netherworld if it is bad. Josephus may have believed in a final eschaton and destruction by fire, but he provides little information. Lester Grabbe (1995) concludes that both Philo and Josephus believe that the soul is an immortal, incorruptible divine fragment imprisoned in the body. Death is a separation of the soul from body. Josephus may have believed that all such souls are reborn. Philo eschews resurrection as would any good Platonist who hates the body. Neither man exhibits complete consistency in his view of the afterlife.

JUDAISM: RABBINIC VIEWS As with all of the early evidence related to the afterlife, Rabbinic Judaism is not monolithic in its estimations. The evidence adduced emerges from legal rulings (halakah) and folkloric traditions (haggadah) and is not systematic. The earliest rabbinic material comes from the Mishnah, a collection of legal rulings

stemming from the early rabbis known as the Tannaim, whose era concluded in about 220 CE. Mishnah Sanhedrin 10 provides some of the only direct consideration of afterlife. The third–seventh-century CE commentary on the Mishnah is known as the Gemarah, and the rabbis of that era are referred to as the Amoraim. Finally, the Babylonian and Palestinian Talmuds became the authoritative texts for Judaism (see MISHNAH AND TOSEFTA; TALMUD, PALESTINIAN AND BABYLONIAN). In general, the rabbis expressed belief in “a world to come, resurrection of the dead, Messianic deliverance, divine recompense for corporate and individual deeds, [and] the efficacy of repentance, all of which characterize the covenant between themselves and God” (Segal 2004: 599). Daniel 12 looms large in the vision of the rabbis. The rabbis discuss “the world to come” (olam ha-ba), synonymous with heaven, in which the struggles of this present world are resolved. Hell is not a primary feature of rabbinic theology. The rabbis disagreed about whether or not righteous Gentiles could be saved. Rabbinic Judaism discouraged martyrdom whenever possible. Rabbinic musings on the afterlife tend to concentrate on the following passages: Exodus 6:4, 15:3; Numbers 15:31; Deuteronomy 4:4, 11.21; 31:16, 32:39, 33:6; Joshua 8:30; Psalms 34:5, 72; Song 7:9; Isaiah 25:9, 26:19, 35, 52:8, 65:20; Daniel 12:2, 12:13; Ezra 37 (Segal 2004: 615).

CHRISTIANITY: SNAPSHOTS OF VARIETY IN THE NEW TESTAMENT Ancient Christians did not agree about the afterlife. Some maintained an apocalyptic eschatology, others a more realized eschatology. Some insisted upon a doctrine of resurrection, others inclined more toward Platonic notions of immortality. Some never mention hell as a part of the afterlife, while others appear to relish the notion. Space does not permit attention to each of the New Testament texts, so we must choose samples. The apostle Paul provides the earliest evidence. The Gospel

3 of Matthew is apocalyptic like Paul but adds a lot of language for hell. The Gospel of John is included as a helpful counterpoint: it is a Gospel, like Matthew, but it represents a nonapocalyptic form of early Christianity and, like Paul, has no mention of hell. In addition, the Pauline and Johannine material comprises a large part of the New Testament. The apostle Paul maintained an apocalyptic eschatology and painstakingly enunciated a doctrine of Resurrection in contradistinction to entrenched Platonic notions of immortality (cf. 1 Cor 15). Paul envisioned a person as a unitary being who dies and remains in the grave until the sudden arrival of the Judgment Day, which will be marked by the return of Jesus. It is unclear whether Paul imagined a person being conscious during the period between death and resurrection or in a state of “soul sleep.” He has no doubt that the Christian is still connected to Christ during death (Rom 8:38–9; Phil 1:21–3). At this Day of the Lord, heralded by trumpet blast and archangel call, the dead in Christ will rise first (1 Thess 4:16–17) and the living Christians will join them and ascend to meet Christ. Christians will then be granted imperishability. Jesus is the only person to date who has attained resurrection. Death is the “last great enemy to be destroyed” (1 Cor 15:26). God will vanquish all that opposes God, every ruler, power, and authority such that, in the end, God will be “all in all” (or “everything to everyone”). Paul’s cosmology is influenced by Stoicism, and he envisions layered heavens (2 Cor 12); he never speaks of hell. For Plato, the soul is inherently immortal, and upon death it happily separates from the prison of the body. For Paul, the whole person is mortal; death is a powerful enemy force. For the Platonist, death is a liberation. If a person, or some part of a person, were inherently immortal, then Jesus’ work on the cross would not have resulted in the ultimate destruction of death; it would merely have had the benefit of tacking on a spiritual body to an already immortal soul. Hence, Paul insists on resurrection for the Christians to whom he writes his letters.

The fact that he must do so, however, implies that some Christians sympathized with Platonic concepts of the afterlife. This would remain true for centuries to come. Paul does not directly address the fate of non-Christians. He may envision universal salvation (1 Cor 15:28; Rom 3:22b–25a, 5:18; Phil 2:10–11) or he may imagine nonChristians simply ceasing to exist (Rom 9:22). The Gospel of Matthew (ca. 85 CE), like the book of Revelation (ca. 90 CE), shares Paul’s apocalyptic worldview, including the imminent eschaton and Judgment Day, but adds hell (variously referred to in the NT as “Gehenna” (geenna), “Hades,” “the outer darkness” (to skotosto exoteron), “consign to Tartarus” (tartaroo), “Abaddon,” “abyss”(abyssos), and “Apollyon”). All will be raised and judged; the righteous will receive eternal life in heaven and the wicked eternal fiery punishment (Matt 25:46). The Queen of the South (Matt 12:42) and the people of Nineveh (Matt 12.41) participate in judging and condemning, as do the disciples (Matt 19.28), God, Jesus, and the angels (Matt 13:37–43). Matthew 24 outlines the eschaton in much detail. Both Matthew and Christian funerary art conceive of heaven as a Messianic banquet. Unique to Matthew is the story of the saints who are resurrected and appear in the Holy City after Jesus’ resurrection (27:53); Matthew may also teach that Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob have already been resurrected (Matthew 22:32). Matthew assumes that the afterlife will be embodied but in the way that angels are; there will be no marriage. In contrast to Paul and Matthew, the Gospel of John has a realized eschatology that emphasizes the present rather than the future aspects of salvation. Instead of an apocalyptic future Judgment Day – when the General Resurrection occurs, one’s fate is decided, and one receives the concomitant rewards or punishments – the Gospel of John views judgment as occurring presently: “Very truly, I tell you, anyone who hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has already transferred from death to

4 life” (5:24). The perfect tense of the verb “has transferred” (metabebeken) indicates that the action has been fully completed with continuing effects in the present. The moment somebody believes in Christ, that person receives eternal life which, for John, refers to a certain quality of life characterized by peace, joy, love, and intimate friendship with Christ and other believers. Though the verses in John 5:28–9 may seem to affirm the Synoptic notion of a future resurrection of the dead and undermine 5:24, the careful reader will note that John actually combats that very notion in the course of the narrative itself. The “last day” has already come in the package of Jesus’ incarnation, death, and resurrection. Thus Jesus says, “Very truly, I tell you, the hour is coming, and is now here when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God, and those who hear will live” (5:25; emphasis added). At 5:28, Jesus declares that “the hour is coming when all who are in the tombs (mnemeion) will hear his voice”; the next time the word mnemeion appears, it is in the story of Lazarus, who hears Jesus’ voice and comes out of his tomb into the resurrection of life. He has been raised from the dead. In narrative time, of course, this resurrection is incomplete, because Lazarus, unlike the postresurrection reader, does not yet have access to the Holy Spirit, since Jesus has not yet been glorified. In contrast to an end of the world scenario where believers ascend to meet Christ in the air (1 Thess 4), John depicts God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit always “coming into the world” (Jn 1:9, 11:27) to make their dwelling place with people (Jn 1:14, 14:23). In the narrative, Jesus promises to return (Jn 14:1–3); he does just that at the conclusion of the narrative where he forms the followers into a household of God and bestows the Holy Spirit upon them so that they may have eternal life, which is to say, the inspirited life. In other words, Jesus’ “Second Coming” occurs in the narrative itself. Certainly the Fourth Evangelist envisions believers living forever, but argues that every

gift of God that matters is already available since believers are one with Jesus as Jesus is with God (17:20–23). Like Paul, the Gospel of John never uses hell language. Judgment for unbelievers involves having God’s wrath remain upon them rather than living in unity with God. The consequences of not believing, like that of believing, inhere immediately. CHRISTIANITY: PATRISTIC VIEWS The Patristic age extends to the end of the seventh century. The literature produced during this period is voluminous and varied (including philosophical treatises, apologetic material, sermons, poetry, autobiography), the geographical representation vast, and the languages including at least Latin, Greek, and Coptic. The period saw the rise of orthodoxy and the centralization of ecclesiastical power becoming lodged in those who led the “Latin west” and the “Greek east.” Numerous church councils were held, and Christians found themselves persecuted and martyred. In no century did interest in eschatology wane, and the considerations included attention to cosmology, the intermediate state, the resurrection of the body, judgment for saints and sinners, the nature of the self as an individual and member of a group, and the nature of time itself. In general, the individual Christian could ultimately expect to be resurrected, as was Jesus, and live forever in the presence of God. In writers with an apocalyptic bent (e.g., Lactantius, ca. 240–ca. 320; see Daley 1991: 68), we see the familiar idea that Christ’s Second Coming (Parousia) marks the Day of Judgment and the inauguration of a millennium with some number of resurrections. Finally, Christians are welcomed into eternal bliss and non-Christians are consigned to eternal punishment. But other thinkers disagree. Some argue that judgment occurs at the time of death. Some argue that the dead are conscious before the resurrection, others not. Some imagine “hell” to be a temporary state with purgative properties such that humans continue to progress even after their earthly

5 life is done, while others imagine that one’s fate is entirely sealed during one’s earthly sojourn. Some argue that only Christians will be saved, while others argue universal salvation for all of humankind (e.g., Origen and Gregory of Nyssa). As Christianity forged its way in the Hellenistic world it had to contend with the ubiquitous Platonic notion of the immortality of the soul. It did so largely by insisting on some sort of physical (even fleshly) resurrection of the body (recall the fascination with physical body parts of the saints – locks of hair, skulls, foreskin, etc). As soon as one fixates on bodies, of course, the question of gender arises. It is not surprising, then, to see the (exclusively male) authors earnestly laboring to discern where women fit in (if at all). Orthodox Christianity denigrates the female body and associates it with sin, sex, and death. Can the female body then attain resurrection? Must it become male in some way? Perhaps people will be like angels (apparently angels are asexual, Gabriel and Michael notwithstanding), such that women can finally overcome their femaleness. The discussions are lively, if sometimes far-fetched. Certainly Christian Gnosticism causes consternation on all of these eschatological fronts (resurrection, immortality, gender) for the Orthodox fathers. Though the details regarding afterlife may vary slightly or profoundly within and across religions, all presentations of the subject are, finally, for the benefit of the living and are aimed at hope. Afterlife material functions politically, pastorally, liturgically, ethically, apologetically, theologically, and socially.

SEE ALSO: Apocalypses, Christian; Apocalypses, Jewish; Eschatology, Jewish.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Avery-Peck, A. and Neusner, J., eds. (1995) Death, life-after-death, resurrection and the world-tocome in the Judaisms of antiquity. New York. Bauckham, R. (1998) The fate of the dead: studies on the Jewish and Christian apocalypses. Leiden. Bernstein, A. (1993) The formation of hell: death and retribution in the ancient and early Christian worlds. Ithaca. Bremmer, J. (2002) The rise and fall of the afterlife. London. Clark-Soles, J. (2006) Death and the afterlife in the New Testament. Edinburgh. Daley, B. E. (1991) The hope of the early church: a handbook of patristic eschatology. Cambridge. Davies, J. (1999) Death, burial and rebirth in the religions of antiquity. London. Grabbe, L. (1995) “Eschatology in Philo and Josephus.” In Avery-Peck and Neusner, eds.: 163–85. New York. Hallote, R. (2001) Death, burial, and afterlife in the biblical world : how the Israelites and their neighbors treated the dead. Chicago. McDannell, C. and Lang, B. (2001) Heaven: a history. New Haven. Russell, J. (1997) A history of heaven: the singing silence. Princeton. Segal, A. (2004) Life after death: a history of the afterlife in western religion. New York. Setzer, C. (2004) Resurrection of the body in early Judaism and early Christianity: doctrine, community, and self-definition. Leiden.

1

Afterlife, Pharaonic Egypt FAYZA HAIKAL

INTRODUCTION Resurrection and afterlife for the Egyptian were a fact, evidenced by the movement of the stars, the daily cycle of the sun, and the yearly cycle of the flood and vegetation. Ever since Egyptian burials were found, funerary equipment, indicating the belief in an afterlife where the deceased might need such objects, accompanied the body. Thus the question was not whether afterlife existed, but rather what it was like, how to prepare for it, communicate with it, reach it, and survive in it eternally. AFTERLIFE AS PART OF DAILY LIFE During their lifetime, Egyptians, whether kings or ordinary humans, all had to interact with the Otherworld in one way or another. While kings had to perform rituals in temples to help fulfill the cosmic cycle through the daily rising of the sun god, ordinary humans often had to appeal to their dead ancestors to intercede for them with the gods, to help them solve their daily problems. Indeed, letters to deceased relatives were found as early as the Old Kingdom, written on all kinds of funerary equipment. PREPARING FOR THE AFTERLIFE Egyptians knew that they would die and that the physical components of their selves would disintegrate, although they were well aware that they were not just a body. Among the invisible components that made them human was the ba-soul that manifested itself at the moment of death, as it left the body, and was represented as a human-headed bird to underline the fact that it could fly freely in the afterlife, or even return to earth to visit the places and people that it had loved. The

idea of souls appearing as birds passed into Egyptian folklore, and we still find it today in the form of special basins placed in gardens or in front of houses for the soul-bird to drink from, since the soul may be thirsty after having flown to us. This conception of the soul as a bird is quite common in Mediterranean cultures: water and seed basins on tombs for soulbirds can also be found in Morocco and Turkey. Another component of the soul was the ka, an invisible “twin” that was born with each child and lived with him, and continued to live in his tomb after his death (see KA). The ka needed food to survive in the after life, and offerings are presented specifically to him. The Egyptians’ concept of the ka is difficult to grasp, and it is still discussed among scholars. For many of them, the ka is the part of the global energy that each person carries and transmits to his offspring and beloved. The embrace represented by the two arms with which the word ka is written symbolizes this transmission of care and life. After the deceased become divinized in the afterlife, they reach the ultimate status of akh-spirit, to which all aspire, and for which all funerary rituals are performed. Thus, at the moment of death, their soul would go to heaven, their body would be buried in the ground – either in an elaborate or a simple tomb – and their memory would remain upon earth, as it is often mentioned in religious and literary texts, and their afterlife would start from there. However, the Egyptians could not conceive of the survival of these spiritual components of the self without a support to hold them together, as the decay of the body would otherwise eventually cause them to disintegrate. For this reason they created mummification, with reliefs and statues of the deceased providing a back up for the body. To allow the body to be reanimated so it could eat, drink, be clothed, move, hear, speak, and have sexual interaction, a special ritual, the “Opening of the Mouth,” had to be performed on the mummy prior to burial. The tomb and the

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 161–166. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah15016

2 mummy were equipped with regular offerings and recitations of specific spells for the spirit’s welfare. People who could afford it would endow the tomb with fields and a priest to take care of the daily funerary rituals, in addition to more important ones on specific feasts. If, on account of their divinity, the afterlife of kings seemed to be a given, that of ordinary people had to be gained through living a “good” life upon earth. The criteria for this “good” life are expressed in private tombs as early as the Old Kingdom.

VISIONS OF THE AFTERLIFE The earliest description of an afterlife in ancient Egypt deals with the afterlife of the divine, and thus inherently immortal, king in the Pyramid Texts. Indeed, when the Pyramid Texts began to be inscribed in pyramids at SAQQARA at the end of the 5th Dynasty (ca. 2350 BCE), the titulary of the kings had already acquired all the official titles that underscored their affiliation with the gods. They were not only HORUS, the son of OSIRIS, and legitimate heir to the throne of Egypt, but were also Horus the great god of the sky, and the sun god Re at the moment of rising (see RE AND RE HORAKHTY). Furthermore, Papyrus Westcar, a literary text, possibly composed in the Old Kingdom but best known from a Middle Kingdom version, clearly states that the kings of Egypt were the biological sons of the sun god. Thus, it was only normal that they shared his destiny after having merged with him at the moment of death. It was fairly easy to perceive the destiny of the sun-god Re during the daytime as he could be seen sailing the sky, enlivening his creation with his light and warmth, but determining what happened after he had set in the western horizon, leaving the world in darkness and gloom “in the manner of death,” was a different matter. Death was thus equated with the setting of the sun, and resurrection to its rising. Most of the descriptions of the royal Hereafter, from the Pyramid Texts to the compositions of the Greco-Roman

period, focused on this part of the cycle of the sun: from sunset to sunrise, when he traverses the Duat, that is, the invisible world of the Hereafter. Among the main gods mentioned in the Pyramid Texts are the Ennead of Atum-Re, Shu, TEFNUT, GEB and NUT, Osiris, Isis (see ISIS, PHARAONIC EGYPT), SETH, NEPHTHYS, and Horus, namely, the divine ancestors and immediate family of the king, who help him rise from death after his burial in order for him to ascend to heaven. The king flies like a falcon to the sky, where he becomes an eternal, immutable spirit, an akh among the akh-gods (Pyramid Texts 1566d–67a), who can mingle with the imperishable stars (Pyramid Texts 1123a), become Orion like Osiris, or even travel across the sky like the sun god himself (130d). In the Pyramid Texts, the geography of the Hereafter, or the Duat, and its precise location remain indeterminate. It seems to have been located essentially in the sky. It contained many dangerous obstacles that the deceased king had to pass with the help of the divinities and his own magical powers. It also contained lakes and waterways, so that the services of a ferryman were needed to traverse it. It included pleasant places as well, like the “Fields of Reeds” and the “Fields of Offerings,” equated with the Elysian Fields by the Greeks, that guaranteed the necessary provisions for the welfare of the blessed. Despite this, the Hereafter was not always conceived of as a pleasant place to stay. In it, the sun god himself felt “in fetters” (Pyramid Texts 254 no. 285), and only sunrise could free him. Many spells in the Pyramid Texts describe rituals for fighting enemies of different sorts. Echoes from some of these spells, such as “smashing the red pots” (Pyramid Texts 244), for example, are still heard today in Egyptian folkloric beliefs and rituals. Fighting enemies in the Hereafter is an important theme in later compositions describing the Otherworld, since it is this triumph over their enemies that allowed first Osiris, and then all the divinized dead, to become part of the cosmic cycle like Re, and, like him, be resurrected each morning.

3 In the Pyramid Texts, the Fields of Reeds were still reserved for the divinized kings and gods, and they represented, in death, the distance that existed in life between the king and his subjects, who, according to Assman (2009: 80), would simply sink in the earth where they were buried. Their survival would rather be in the memory of people upon earth, and in their tombs or “houses of eternity,” built in stone and equipped with the best funerary equipment they could afford, as opposed to their normal houses built with mud bricks. As early as the 6th Dynasty (ca. 2300 BCE), however – if not before – officials mention their good deeds in their tomb autobiographies, or in appeals to visitors, asking them to recite prayers for their soul, because they were worthy officials who did good deeds upon earth. This stress on their good deeds implies that survival of their memory upon earth depended on reputation, possibly even on public judgment, as early as the Old Kingdom. It is not very clear yet who the judge was, although the Instructions of Ptahhotep (a text that Egyptians claimed to have been written in the Old Kingdom, although the earliest surviving copy dates clearly to the Middle Kingdom) always warns about what god likes or dislikes, but it is evident that the judgment of one’s contemporaries and that of posterity were important. The ethics presented are identical to those recommended much later by monotheistic religions, not only in their general content, but also in their specific formulation. These standard texts make no reference to an afterlife with the gods. All they aspire to seems to be the honor of being well remembered by posterity. They read as follows: I spoke truly, I did right . . . I rescued the weak from one stronger than him, as much as was in my power. I gave bread to the hungry, beer to the thirsty, clothes to the naked. I brought the boat-less to land, I buried him who had no son, I made a boat for him who lacked one [meaning I helped him who needed it, the boat here being a metaphor for the means to succeed]. I respected my father, I pleased my mother. . . (see Lichtheim 1973: 17, and also Paul’s Epistle to the Romans).

Although, due to the accident of archaeology, there is little evidence of burials of poorer classes, there is nothing to contradict the idea that they too hoped to be remembered, at least by their immediate relatives. The precise nature of their afterlife is a matter of some debate, and presumably changed throughout the course of Egyptian history, as did that of the elites. With the demise of the Old Kingdom (ca. 2100 BCE), the Duat was no longer a prerogative of royalty. To be with the gods and be resurrected as an Osiris depended now on a person’s integrity and behavior upon earth. This is evidenced by the “Coffin Texts,” which reused and developed spells of the Pyramid Texts as early as the end of the Old Kingdom, eliminating the royal prerogative over the afterlife by inscribing these texts on the coffins of high officials. The Coffin Texts deal with the journey of the sun god in the sky from sunrise to sunset; they also include a map on certain coffins, to direct the deceased to the underworld. Apart from a more elaborate description of the Hereafter, with its positive and negative spaces already mentioned in the Pyramid Texts, new concepts are introduced, such as Apophis, the serpent and arch-enemy of the sun god. The end of creation is also mentioned in Coffin Text 1130, where, in a magnificent monologue, the creator god foretells that after millions of years only he and Osiris (his counterpart, or the body of which he is the soul) will survive the end of time (a similar idea is expressed in Islam, where it is said that only “the face of God” is eternal). The Coffin Texts also present human emotions and a religious maturity that is less explicit in the Pyramid Texts. To encounter one’s family in the afterlife, for example, or “to see the God,” becomes the major purpose of the deceased, because “whoever gazes on Osiris cannot die” (Coffin Text VII 302e). This type of longing for god became increasingly frequent as time progressed, and its formulation increasingly closer to what we find in later monotheistic religions.

4 Following this trend in religious texts, didactic royal texts of the First Intermediate Period began to mention a tribunal of the gods that would judge all the dead. Thus we read in the Instructions to King Merikare: The Court that judges the wretch, you know they are not lenient, on the day of judging the miserable, in the hour of doing their task. When a man remains over after death, his deeds are set beside him as treasure, and being yonder lasts forever. A fool is he who does what they (the gods) reprove! He who reaches them without having done wrong will exist there like a god. Free-striding like the lords forever! (Lichtheim 1973: 101)

Middle Kingdom royal burials are too poorly preserved to tell us much about royal destinies after death. Since kings of the 12th Dynasty were still buried in pyramids (DAHSHUR and the FAYYUM), it is possible that they thought of their afterlife as being the same as that of their royal predecessors. With the advent of the New Kingdom, (ca. 1500 BCE), a whole series of new texts began to decorate the walls of royal tombs that were now hewn in the cliffs of the VALLEY OF THE KINGS. The oldest of these books, the Book of the hidden chambers, best known as the Imy-Duat or Book of what is in the underworld, is first found on the walls of the tomb of Thutmose I in the early 18th Dynasty. Toward the end of the same dynasty, the Book of gates appeared in the tomb of HOREMHEB. In the Ramesside period, more compositions arose, such as the Book of Cavern, the Litany of the Sun (in which the king is more explicitly mentioned), and a number of other books known as the Books of the Otherworld. These differ radically from the previous compositions because they are entirely illustrated, and these illustrations play as important a role as the text for the understanding of the content. These first visual representations of the Otherworld deal with the voyage of the sun god in the underworld during the twelve hours of the night. There, the sun god not only has to fight

his own enemies, in the form of the serpent Apophis, and to reunite with Osiris to fulfill his own regeneration, but he also has to deal with the destiny of the mortals who have passed away. The good ones were rewarded with new cycles of life, provided with all their needs, and enjoyed seeing the sun god and Osiris. As akhspirits, they even joined in the maintenance of the cosmic cycle by means of their glorification of the god. Among the mortals were those who failed the judgment of the god because of their evil behavior upon earth, and thus had to bear all the punishments of hell, being burnt by fire or cooked in cauldrons, impaled or decapitated, or forced to walk on their heads and eat their excrement forever. While the course of the sun god decorated royal tombs because the king’s destiny was linked to that of his divine father, the afterlife of ordinary humans in the New Kingdom was represented in their tombs and on richly illustrated Books of the Dead, deposited in the tombs in special containers, or placed between the legs of the mummy. Such works descend more directly from the Coffin Texts, with evidence of developments, in the same way as the Coffin Texts descended from the Pyramid Texts. In addition to the increasing maturity and religious fervor expressed in these texts, one of their major innovations is the depiction of the judgment of the dead as the “Negative Confession” of the deceased in chapter 125. In this chapter, the deceased, escorted by ANUBIS and Horus, arrives in the Hall of Justice, and stands before the tribunal of Osiris. There, in front of the gods, he denies having committed any crime during his earthly life. The list is long and very elaborate, including an equivalent of the “ten commandments,” and much more. Then the deceased stands before Osiris, the great god, and a scale is erected, with the feather of Maat/ Truth, order, justice, and equilibrium on one platter, and the heart of the deceased, seat of his conscience, on the other. The god THOTH oversees the weighing operation in order to ensure that everything is correct, and to record the verdict of the god. A monster, Ammit, who stands ready to swallow the heart of the

5 deceased in case he is condemned, thereby annihilating his existence forever, is also present at the foot of the balance. This image represents the relationship between the human being, symbolized by his heart, and the knowledge and will of god, symbolized by Maat. A similar image exists in Christianity, where the Archangel Michael weighs the souls, while, in Islam, it is simply stated that the good actions of the deceased are weighed against his bad deeds to establish his real moral worth. The concept of death as a threshold to eternity and a precondition to see god – and the possibility of salvation this brings – even for people who are not perfect, is one of the features of ancient Egyptian religion that draw it closer to later monotheistic religions. The Book of the Dead also illustrates life in the “Fields of Reeds” that has been promised to the deceased kings and other divine entities since the Pyramid Texts. Many other vignettes decorate or complement the different chapters of the book. They often depict the deceased adoring the gods or transforming himself into different entities to travel in the Otherworld, or return briefly to this world. These delightful illustrations, with their vivid colors, enliven the texts in a way that is reminiscent of illustrations that can be found in the later manuscripts of the different religions of the world. After the New Kingdom, the differentiation between the destiny of royal and ordinary individuals after death becomes less evident. New spells continued to be created to support

the deceased’s voyage across eternity, and no matter whether he was a fervent believer in the afterlife or skeptical of its existence, at the moment of burial he was ready with all the necessary equipment and knowledge “to walk through eternity.” SEE ALSO:

Atum; Funerary cult, Pharaonic Egypt; Gods, Egyptian; Mummies and mummification.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Allen, T. G. (1974) The Book of the Dead or going forth by day. Chicago. Assman, J. (1989) “Death and initiation in the funerary religion of ancient Egypt.” In W. K. Simpson, ed., Religion and philosophy in ancient Egypt. Oakville, CT. Assman, J. (2009) L’Egypte ancienne, entre me´moire et science. Paris. Faulkner, R. O. (1969) The ancient Egyptian Pyramid Texts. Oxford. Faulkner, R. O. (1973–8) The ancient Egyptian Coffin Texts, vols. 1–3. Warminster. Hornung, E. (1992) Die Unterweltsbu¨cher ¨ gypter. Zurich; D. Lorton, trans. (1999) der A The ancient Egyptian books of the afterlife. Ithaca. Ikram, S. (2003) Death and burial in ancient Egypt. Harlow. Lichtheim, M. (1973, 1976, 1980) Ancient Egyptian literature, vols. 1–3. Berkeley. Quirke, S. (1992) Ancient Egyptian religion. London. Smith, M. (1993) The Liturgy of opening the mouth for breathing. Oxford. Taylor, J. H. (2001) Death and the afterlife in ancient Egypt. London.

1

Agaklytos (FGrH 411) CRAIGE B. CHAMPION

Agaklytos (FGrH 411) is known only from a single reference in the ninth-century CE excerptor and polymath Photios of Constantinople, which is quoted in a lemma in SUDA (Suda, s. v. Kypselidon anathema). In discussing a statement in PLATO’s Phaedrus (236a) concerning a wrought colossus dedicated at OLYMPIA, this lemma cites Agaklytos’ work On Olympia (Peri Olympias), which allegedly attributed the

dedication of a gold colossus in the temple of to the Corinthian tyrant KYPSELOS (see Anderson 2015 for variants of this story that attribute the dedication to PERIANDER). HERA

SEE ALSO:

Corinth; Historiography, Greek and Roman; Tyranny.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Anderson, G. (2015) “Agaklytos (411).” In I. Worthington, ed., Brill’s New Jacoby. Brill Online.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner. © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Published 2015 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah26155

1

Agamemnon NIKOLETTA KANAVOU

Homeric hero, king of Mycenai or Argos, leader of the Greek forces at Troy. His scepter was handed to him by Zeus himself (Hom. Il. 9.98-9). Son (or grandson) of Atreus and the Cretan Aerope (Eur. Hel. 390–1), brother of Menelaos, husband of Clytaemnestra and father of Orestes and of three daughters: Chrysothemis, Laodike, and Iphianassa (Il. 9.145; in other versions, the last two seem to be replaced with Elektra and Iphigeneia/Iphimedeia respectively). In some versions (e.g., Aeschylus), he is held responsible for the sacrifice of Iphigeneia to appease Artemis’ wrath (caused by his boasting) and allow the ships to sail to Troy. In the Iliad, he is mainly characterized by his extreme selfishness (causing a rift with Achilles that provides the basic plot of the Iliad), but also by his supreme power and prowess in battle; this last notion is reflected in his name, which is etymologized from menein, “to endure,” in Plato (Cra. 395a). Aeschylus implies that his arrogance (claiming for himself an equal share with the gods in the sack of

Troy) is the cause of his sad fate. According to the myth he was killed (along with his Trojan captive Kassandra) by his wife and her lover Aigisthos on his return from Troy. His death was avenged by Orestes. This story, alluded to by Homer (Od. 3.192-8, 248-312) and Pindar (Pyth. 11.31-9), was dramatized in a number of classical tragic plays (e.g., Aeschylus’ Oresteia). In historical times he received cults in Lakonia (Sparta-Amyklai claimed to have the real tomb: Hdt. 7.159; Paus. 3.19.6), Tarentum, Klazomenai, Chaeronea (where sacrifices to his scepter were made), and Mycenae (heroon and tomb, described by Paus. 2.16.6). Depictions of him in art mostly relate to the Trojan War. SEE ALSO:

Hero cult; Iphigeneia; Mycenae;

Orestes. REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Auffarth, C. (1996) “Agamemnon.” New Pauly 1: 228–9. Farnell, L. R. (1921) Greek hero cults and ideas of immortality. Oxford. Touchefeu, O., and Krauskopf, I. (1981) ‘Agamemnon’. LIMC I.1: 256–77. Zurich.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print page 166. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah17012

1

Agape THOMAS M. FINN

The Greek noun agapeˆ means “love.” Although the verb (agapaˆn) is fairly common in classical Greek, the noun, occasionally found in inscriptions, is seldom found except in Hellenistic Jewish and early Christian literature. In the former it has a variety of meanings: romantic love (Song of Songs), piety (Letter of Aristeas), the love of Wisdom personified (Wis 6:17–20), fear and love of God (Philo Unchangeableness of God 14.69), and the love of neighbor expressed in philanthropy (1 Sam 6:2 LXX). In the New Testament, agape generally means “self-giving love,” as distinct from philia, “affection,” and eroˆs, “passionate love.” The epistles of Paul (1 Cor 13; Gal 5; Rom 12) and the Gospel and letters of John (Jn 15; 1 Jn 4; 2 Jn) propose a distinctive theology of agape: God, who is love, is embodied in Christ, who, in turn, is embodied in the community of believers, the church, especially in giving of themselves to others. In early Christian literature subsequent to the New Testament, agape reflects the variety of meanings in Hellenistic Judaism, yet self-giving love (Latin caritas) underlies its use, as is evident in the paean on agape in First Clement (Holmes 1999: 49–50), the earliest extant document outside the New Testament (95–97 CE), and in the letters of Ignatius of Antioch, a decade later (110), where agape embodies the unity between Christ and the churches he addresses (Ephesians 1–4; Holmes 1999: 137–9). This usage continues to underlie the literature of the early centuries. Agape also appears in early Christian rites of worship, especially the sacred meal called variously “the breaking of the bread” (klasai arton, Acts 2:42–7), “eucharist” (eucharistia, 1 Cor 11:20–34), and “love feast” (agapeˆ, Jude 12), which commemorated the Last Supper of Jesus with his disciples and their

post-resurrection meals recounted in the Gospels of Luke (24) and John (20–1). A core tradition among early Christians from the outset, the Supper was rooted in the Jewish fraternal meals celebrating fellowship (haburah) and the Passover (pesach), underscored by Jude speaking of it as an agapeˆ. When transported into the Hellenistic world of the diaspora, however, the supper was subjected to troubling abuses found in the meal traditions of cities like Corinth, which proved to be anything but fraternal or worshipful (1 Cor 11:17–22). Nonetheless, towards the end of the century, the Supper is linked with a meal in the earliest (ca. 85 CE) of the books of church order and practice, the Didache 9–10 (Holmes 1999: 260–2). Eventually the abuses resulted in the separation of the Supper and the fraternal meal which, during the next two centuries, came to be held for the needy, especially for the poor and for widows, and to be called agape (Apostolic Tradition 26; Bradshaw, Johnson, and Phillips 2002). From mid-third century the agape and the Supper, formally called “eucharist” since the end of the first century (Ignatius Smyrnaeans 8; Holmes 1999: 188), had gone their separate ways, and by the sixth century the agape for the needy had fallen into disuse. SEE ALSO:

Eucharist; Rites of passage.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Bradshaw, P., Johnson, M., and Phillips, L., eds. (2002) The apostolic tradition. Minneapolis. Hamman, A. (1992) “Agape and Eucharist.” In A. Di Bernardino, ed., Encyclopedia of the early church: 292–3. New York. Holmes, M. (1999) The apostolic fathers: Greek texts and English translations. Grand Rapids, MI. Keating, J. (1901) The agape´ and the eucharist in the early church. London. Spic, C. (1963–5) Agape in the New Testament, 2 vols. St. Louis.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 166–167. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah05007

1

Agatharchides of Knidos SCOTT FARRINGTON

Agatharchides, born in KNIDOS, flourished in the last half of the second century BCE and authored works of historiography, ethnography, and geography. His masterwork, On the Erythraean Sea, was a direct source for DIODORUS OF SICILY. In his youth Agatharchides may have served Kineas (on whom see Polyb. 28.19.1) as a threptos, a pupil of servile rank. Later he was secretary and reader to HERAKLEIDES LEMBOS in Alexandria (Phot. 213). During this period he embraced Peripatetic thought (Strabo 14.2.15). Photius attributes to him an epitome of Antimachos of KOLOPHON’s Lyde, a collection of wonder tales, a historical digest, a work on friendship, and two histories: Asian affairs (in 10 books) and European affairs (in 49 books). A few fragments of the histories survive. Much more remains from the first and fifth books of On the Erythraean Sea. The first book contains a critical survey of theories regarding how the sea took its name and a programmatic rejection of MYTH in historical works. A geographic and ethnographic survey of Egypt follows. The fifth book describes the Nubian gold mines and presents descriptions of the peoples of the region (see NUBIA). Agatharchides closes the work by explaining that it will be his last one, on account of his old age and because the troubles in Egypt prevent him from studying

hypomnemata (“notes”), presumably those held in the royal archives. Whether he refers to the purge of intellectuals by PTOLEMY VII NEOS PHILOPATOR in 145 BCE or to the events surrounding PTOLEMY VIII EUERGETES II’s return to power in 132 is unclear. Nevertheless, we hear no more of Agatharchides. SEE ALSO: Commentarii and hypomnemata; Ethnography and ancient history; Geography; Historiography, Greek and Roman; Peripatetics; Polybius; Red Sea; Strabo of Amaseia.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Alonso-Nu´n˜ez, J. M. (2001) “Bulletin de bibliographie critique: historiographie helle´nistique postpolybienne.” Revue des E´tudes Grecques 114: 604–13. Ameling, W. (2008) “Ethnography and universal history in Agatharchides.” In T. C. Brennan and H. I. Flower, eds., East and West: papers in ancient history presented to Glen W. Bowersock: 13–59. Cambridge, M.A. Burstein, S. M. (1989) Agatharchides of Cnidos: On the Erythraean Sea. London. Engels, J. (2004) “Agatharchides von Knidos’ Schrift ¨ ber das Rote Meer.” In H. Heftner and U K. Tomaschitz, eds., Ad fontes! Festschrift fu¨r Gerhard Dobesch: 179–92. Vienna. Verdin, H. (1990) “Agatharchide de Cnide et les fictions des poe`tes.” In H. Verdin, G. Schepens, and E. de Keyser, eds., Purposes of History: studies in Greek historiography from the 4th to the 2nd centuries B.C.: 1–15. Leuven.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 167–168. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah08002

1

Agatharchides of Samos (FGrH 284) CRAIGE B. CHAMPION

Agatharchides of Samos (FGrH 284) is known from the pseudo-Plutarchan texts On rivers and Parallela minora. The first of these cites Agatharchides’ work Persian stories (Persika); the second a title, Phrygian stories (Phrygiaka). The pseudo-Plutarchan On rivers also mentions a treatise, On stones, in at least four books (Ceccarelli 2015). Some scholars (e.g.,

Schlereth 1931: 97–9) have questioned Agatharchides of Samos’ very existence, arguing that “Samian” is an error for “Knidian” (Agatharchides of Knidos, FGrH 86). SEE ALSO:

Historiography, Greek and Roman.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Ceccarelli, P. (2015) “Agatharchides of Samos (284).” In I. Worthington, ed., Brill’s New Jacoby. Brill Online. Schlereth, J. (1931) De Plutarchi quae feruntur Parallelis minoribus. Freiburg.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner. © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Published 2015 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah26156

1

Agathias MARIA KOUROUMALI

Agathias (ca. 532–582 CE) was born in Myrina, Asia Minor. He studied law in Alexandria and spent most of his life in Constantinople, where he practiced as a lawyer (scholasticus). He wrote nine lost books of erotic poetry in hexameters (the Daphniaca) and many epigrams on traditional themes, which were included in his collection of epigrams known as the Cycle. This collection, including a hundred or so of his own poems as well as those of his friends and his possible father-in-law, PAUL SILENTIARIUS, was incorporated in the GREEK ANTHOLOGY, which Agathias re-edited and addressed to an emperor, either JUSTINIAN I or JUSTIN II. Agathias also wrote a History, meant as a formal continuation of the work of PROCOPIUS, in five books. He began writing probably around the 570s. The last dated event mentioned in his work was the death of CHOSROES I in 579. It seems that the composition of his History was cut short perhaps, as Averil Cameron suggests, by his death. Only seven years are covered in the five books of the History (552–559). The events narrated are the military campaigns in Italy and Lazica, which

were the final stages of Justinian’s wars against the Goths and Persians respectively. The History was written in the classicizing manner in imitation of Herodotus and Thucydides. Recent scholarship suggesting that Agathias was a pagan (Kaldellis 1999) has not gained wide acceptance. The omission of church issues should be viewed as a convention of classicizing historiography rather than as an indication of Agathias’ religious views. SEE ALSO:

Historiography, Late Antique.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Cameron, Av. (1970) Agathias. Oxford. Frendo, J. D., trans. (1975) Agathias: the histories. Berlin. Kaldellis, A. (1997) “Agathias on history and poetry.” Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies 38: 295–306. Kaldellis, A. (1999) “The historical and religious views of Agathias: a reinterpretation.” Byzantion 69: 206–52. Kaldellis, A. (2003) “Things are not what they are: Agathias Mythistoricus and the last laugh of classical culture.” Classical Quarterly 53: 295–300. Keydell, R. (1967) Agathiae Myrinaei Historiarum libri quinque. Berlin.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print page 168. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah03003

1

Agathokles of Kyzikos (FGrH 472) CRAIGE B. CHAMPION

Agathokles of Kyzikos (FGrH 472) was a Greek historian, but scholars have disputed his identification with other writers of the same name (Wilson 2003; Engels 2015). Our Agathokles therefore has spawned a number of prosopographical hypotheses. He may be the same man referred to in some sources as Agathokles “the Babylonian.” Some scholars further identify him with a homonymous Alexandrian grammarian and student of ZENODOTOS (Suda, s.v. Ptolemaios II 3035

Adler). There is no scholarly consensus on any of these questions. Two works have been attributed to Agathokles: On Kyzikos and Hypomnemata (Commentaries), the latter in at least seven books (see Cicero, On divination 1.50). SEE ALSO:

Historiography, Greek and Roman.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Engels, J. (2015) “Agathokles (472).” In I. Worthington, ed., Brill’s New Jacoby. Brill Online. Wilson, N. G. (2003) “Agathocles (2).” In S. Hornblower and A. Spawforth, eds., The Oxford Classical Dictionary, 3rd ed.: 37. Oxford.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner. © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Published 2015 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah26157

1

Agathokles of Samos (FGrH 799) CRAIGE B. CHAMPION

Agathokles of Samos (FGrH 799; Paradiso 2015) is an unknown author, except that he is credited with a work titled, Constitution of the Pessinountioi. The sole reference to him and his work is in the De Fluviis attributed to Plutarch (9.1). PESSINOUS was a temple-state in Asia Minor famous for its sanctuary of the mother of the gods. Some scholars have identified him as

Agathokles of Kyzikos or Agathokles of Miletos, but these associations cannot rise above the level of conjecture. Agathokles of Miletos is mentioned as the author of a work on rivers in De Fluviis 18.3 (Calderón et al. 2003). SEE ALSO:

Historiography, Greek and Roman.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Calderón Dorda, E., DeLazzer, A., and Pellizer, E., eds. (2003) Plutarco: fiumi e monti. Naples. Paradiso, A. (2015) “Agathokles of Samos (799).” In I. Worthington, ed., Brill’s New Jacoby. Leiden.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner. © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Published 2016 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah30178

1

Agathokles of Syracuse EFREM ZAMBON

Agathokles (361–289 BCE) was tyrant of Syracuse from 316 to 304, when he became the first to bear the title of king. Ancient judgments of his rule vary, depending on bias. TIMAEUS’ unfavorable verdict was influenced by the exile he had suffered at the hands of the tyrant (see TIMAEUS OF TAUROMENIUM). Kallias, a court historian, was thought by ancient historians to have been too flattering about his benefactor. The most unprejudiced commentary was that of Duris, whose lost narratives were the basis for Diodorus’ account, and this remains the most important source on Agathokles’ life (Diod. Sic. 19, 1–9; 65; 70–2; 102–4; 106–10: 20, 3–18; 29–34; 38–44; 54–72; 77–9; 89–90; 101: 21, 2–4; 8; 15–16) (see DURIS OF SAMOS; DIODORUS OF SICILY). Moving from his hometown Thermai to SYRACUSE in about 343, Agathokles became a distinguished commander of the Syracusan army. The leading oligarchs of Syracuse did not honor him for the success against the Bruttians in 330, so he tried to seize power with the help of his soldiers. He was banished, and after some adventures in southern Italy he returned to Sicily. He gathered some mercenary forces and went back to Syracuse, where he became the leader of the democratic party. When the oligarchs, who had been exiled to GELA, returned to Syracuse with the help of the Carthaginians, Agathokles was exiled again. Moving with his army from LEONTINOI, he attacked Syracuse: the oligarchs agreed to appoint him as general (strategos) and keeper of the peace, and let him come into the town. Supported by the army, Agathokles eliminated his political opponents; allegedly four thousand oligarchs were murdered, while six thousand escaped to Akragas. He tried then to strengthen his position: together with the popular assembly, he promoted the abolition of debts and a new distribution of the land, and thus he got the backing of the lower classes.

On these grounds, he was appointed strategos autokrator and general administrator of the city (316). In a short time, Syracuse became the leading town of eastern Sicily. Messene and Gela, with the support of the Carthaginians, joined Akragas and the Syracusan exiles in a military alliance against Agathokles. But when their leader Sosistratos was murdered, the allies had to come to terms with Agathokles. The peace treaty was signed with the mediation of the Punic leader Hamilcar: it divided the hegemony in Sicily between CARTHAGE and Syracuse, although a clause stated that the Greek cities had to be formally independent (Diod. Sic. 19.71.6; Staatsvertra¨ge III 424). The truce, however, was just a ploy, since the final aim of Agathokles was hegemony over Sicily. The Carthaginians themselves did not completely trust their rival, and they soon became openly hostile to him. At first they helped Akragas to withstand the assault of Agathokles’ army (312); then they marched eastwards, taking control of Cape Eknomo near Gela. When a new Punic army came ashore in Sicily in 311 and the main Greek towns sided with the Carthaginians, Agathokles found himself in a great danger; he escaped at first to Gela and finally to Syracuse, where he was besieged both by land and by sea (310). At this time Agathokles took the most ingenious decision of his life: to wage war in Africa. In the summer of 310 he assigned the defence of Syracuse to his brother Antandros, broke through the blockade, and set sail with sixty warships and fourteen thousand soldiers to North Africa. When he arrived, he ordered that the ships be burnt, thus forcing his men to aim for victory in case they wanted to return home; they fought bravely and the Syracusan army approached close to Carthage. News of success even came from Syracuse, where Antandros defeated the Punic forces. Agathokles then tried to find allies and new troops in Africa: he negotiated with Ophellas, the governor of CYRENE, and promised him complete control of North Africa in case of

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 170–172. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah09010

2 victory (Staatsvertra¨ge III 432). Ophellas accepted, but in 308 Agathokles treacherously killed him and took possession of his army; with these new forces he conquered Utica and Hippou Akra (Horse’s Cape) on the coast west of Carthage, with a fleet and a naval base. Despite these achievements, Agathokles could not finally capture Carthage: moreover, bad news came from Sicily, where many Greek towns rose up under the leadership of Akragas (307). Agathokles immediately left Africa, went to Sicily, and defeated the rebels. Meanwhile his son Archagathos, who had been left in command of the African expeditionary force, was defeated by the Carthaginians (Staatsvertra¨ge III 436); not even the new arrival of Agathokles could save the mission. Archagathos escaped back to Syracuse, while the men left in Africa were either killed or enslaved. Agathokles suppressed any effort made by his opponents to achieve autonomy from Syracusan control: above all, he defeated Deinokrates, the leader of the Syracusan exiles, and then signed a peace treaty with the Carthaginians (306; Staatsvertra¨ge III 437) on terms favorable to him. Agathokles could start to settle with the political opponents and to pacify Sicily. In 304 he proclaimed himself king, in imitation of the Successors, since he thought himself not inferior to them (Diod. Sic. 20.54.1). He tried to establish close relationships with some of them, being strengthened by marriage linkages: he married Theoxene, a daughter of PTOLEMY I SOTER of Egypt (300 BCE), while his daughter Lanassa married PYRRHOS, king of Epirus (295), bringing the island of CORCYRA as dowry – but later on she divorced him and became the wife of DEMETRIOS I POLIORKETES (291). In his last years Agathokles extended his influence in southern Italy (Staatsvertra¨ge III

457), fighting victorious campaigns against the Bruttians and the Lucanians. He never completely stopped thinking about his groundbreaking project of a war in Africa; Diodorus (21.16.1) says that he was planning a new offensive against Carthage in 289, even though he was troubled by serious health problems and by the dissent in his family about succession. The project remained unfinished, because soon afterwards Agathokles died: according to Diodorus (21.16.4), he was poisoned at the order of his grandson Archagathos; according to Justin (Epit. 23.2.3–5), he died of a disease. SEE ALSO:

Strategoi; Successors, wars of;

Syracuse. REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Berve, H. (1953) Die Herrschaft des Agathokles. Munich. Consolo Langher, S. N. (2000) Agatocle: da capoparte a monarca fondatore di un regno tra Cartagine e i Diadochi. Messina. Lehmler, C. (2005) Syrakus unter Agathokles und Hieron II. Die Verbindung von Kultur und Macht in einer hellenistischen Metropole. Frankfurt am Main. Meister, K. (1984) “Agathocles.” In The Cambridge ancient history, vol. 7, part 1: The Hellenistic world, 2nd ed.: 384–411. Cambridge. Schmitt, H. H. (1969) Die Staatsvertra¨ge des Altertums, vol. 3: Die Vertra¨ge der griechischro¨mischen Welt von 338 bis 200 v. Chr. Munich (¼Staatsvertra¨ge). Zambon, E. (2006) “From Agathocles to Hiero II: the birth and the development of basileia in Hellenistic Sicily.” In S. Lewis, ed., Ancient tyranny: 77–92. Edinburgh. Zambon, E. (2008) Tradition and innovation: Sicily between Hellenism and Rome. Stuttgart.

1

Agathokles, Ptolemaic minister RACHEL MAIRS

Agathokles (d. 203 BCE; Pros. Ptol. I 14¼III 4986¼IV 10061¼IV 10078¼V 13415) was a minister of the Ptolemaic king PTOLEMY IV PHILOPATOR (reigned 221–204) and served as guardian to and regent for his heir, PTOLEMY V EPIPHANES (reigned 204–181). His sister, Agathokleia (Pros. Ptol. VI 14714), was the mistress of Philopator. Both siblings were very influential in their day, but were eventually murdered by the Alexandrian mob. Agathokles’ reckless and dissolute behavior is emphasized in the ancient historical sources. Agathokles’ mother was named Oinanthe; his father’s name is not known, but it is probable that it was also Agathokles. Oinanthe may have been a HETAIRA (Pomeroy 1985:50), but it seems likely that the most extreme reproaches against her character, and against her family as a whole, stem from the later tradition. Little credibility, for example, should be given to PORPHYRY’S claim that Agathokles was Philopator’s catamite and his sister a harpplayer (Porph. Commentary on the Book of Daniel 45). Agathokleia served as kanephoros, an important priestess, in Alexandria in 213/12 (SB III 6289). Other, more circumstantial evidence exists to suggest that the family was of long-standing importance. Walbank suggests that it may have descended from an Agathokles who was epistates of Libya under PTOLEMY II PHILADELPHOS (Walbank 1967: 438). Our fullest account of Agathokles and his career comes from POLYBIUS (15.25–36; Ho¨lbl 2001: 127–36). He and his sister also play a key role in Justin’s (Epit. 30.1–2) briefer account of Philopator’s weakness and degeneracy. Agathokles was a boyhood friend of the king, and served as priest of Alexander in 216/15. He appears constantly in the

sources as the king’s adviser and companion in debauchery. Still more important than Agathokles was SOSIBIOS, who was responsible for murdering the most important members of the royal family on Epiphanes’ succession. On Philopator’s death in 204, Sosibios and Agathokles became the guardians of Ptolemy V Epiphanes, who was still a child. They had ARSINOE III, the young king’s mother, murdered in secret; but the truth that they were responsible for her death gradually became apparent. Arsinoe had been much loved in Alexandria, which served to make Agathokles all the more hated by the populace. Sosibios died not long after the succession of Epiphanes. Agathokles attempted to consolidate his position by making payments to the army and by sending important men away on diplomatic missions. Opposition to him grew, however, culminating in a revolt under the leadership of Tlepolemos, the strategos of Pelousion (see STRATEGOI). In late 203 Agathokles and his family were murdered by the Alexandrian mob and Tlepolemos took on the position of regent himself. Agathokles’ success in attaining such a position of power and influence was not, according to Polybius (15.34), due to any natural talents – nor even to skill in ingratiating himself with the royal family – but came about simply because of Ptolemy IV Philopator’s weaknesses as a ruler. It was for this reason that Agathokles was unable to take full advantage of the favorable position he found himself in after Philopator’s death. REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Ho¨lbl, G. (2001) A history of the Ptolemaic Empire. London. Pomeroy, S. B. (1985) Women in Hellenistic Egypt: from Alexander to Cleopatra. New York. Walbank, F. W. (1967) A historical commentary on Polybius, vol. 2: Commentary on books VII–XVIII. Oxford.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 168–169. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah09009

1

Agathokles, son of Lysimachos ¨ LLER SABINE MU

Agathokles was the son of LYSIMACHOS and Nikaia, daughter of Antipater, whom Lysimachos married around 320 BCE. Being Lysimachos’ heir apparent, Agathokles supported his campaigns at first. He was captured by the GETAE and said to have rescued his father from captivity (Paus. 1.9.6). Some time after 294/3, Agathokles married Lysandra, daughter of PTOLEMY I SOTER (Plut. Demetr. 31.5; Paus. 1.9.6). His successes in Asia Minor, which drove out DEMETRIOS I POLIORKETES in 286/5, strengthened his position. However, a dynastic crisis occurred about the same time, when he was alarmed by the support offered by Lysimachos to Ptolemy, Philip, and Lysimachos, his three younger sons by his wife Arsinoe, daughter of Ptolemy I (Just. Epit. 24.3; see ARSINOE II PHILADELPHOS). Presumably they profited from her dynastic prestige as full sister of PTOLEMY II PHILADELPHOS, who became co-regent in Egypt in 285. In 283/2 Agathokles died under uncertain circumstances. It is reported that Lysimachos killed his son, acting either alone (App. Syr. 64; Strabo 13.4.1) or together with Arsinoe (Just. Epit. 17.1.1–5; Paus. 1.10.3). Memnon blames her

half-brother Ptolemy Keraunos (FGrH 434, F 5; see MEMNON OF HERAKLEIA PONTICA) – mistaking him for her son Ptolemy, according to Heinen (1972: 7–12). The ancient evidence is strongly biased, stereotyping Lysimachos as a cruel tyrant and willing slave of Arsinoe, who in turn is depicted as femme fatale (Mu¨ller 2009: 38–50). Probably Agathokles had planned a coup d’e´tat, perhaps with help from SELEUKOS I NIKATOR (Lund 1992: 196–7). Agathokles’ widow Lysandra and her children fled to Seleukos, but this cannot be seen as the decisive fact leading to Seleukos’ war against Lysimachos. SEE ALSO:

Asia Minor, Hellenistic; Successors,

wars of. REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Dmitriev, S. (2007) “The last marriage and the death of Lysimachus.” Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 47: 135–49. Heinen, H. (1972) Untersuchungen zur hellenistischen Geschichte des 3. Jahrhunderts v. Chr. Zur Geschichte der Zeit des Ptolemaios Keraunos und zum Chremonideischen Krieg. Wiesbaden. Lund, H. S. (1992) Lysimachus: a study in early Hellenistic kingship. London. Mu¨ller, S. (2009) Die mediale Inszenierung des hellenistischen Ko¨nigspaars. Ptolemaios II. und Arsinoe¨ II. Berlin.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 169–170. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah09011

1

Agathon (FGrH 801) CRAIGE B. CHAMPION

Agathon wrote a work entitled Circumnavigation of the Black Sea, known only through a single citation in the scholiast of APOLLONIUS RHODIUS, Argonautika (2.1015; see Cuypers 2015). His place of origin and dates are unknown. Agathon may be identical with AGATHON OF SAMOS (FGrH 843; Cameron 2004: 127–34), referred to in the pseudo-Plutarchan On Rivers and Minor Parallels: On Rivers, 14.5. Alternatively, he may be Andron of Teos

(FGrH 802), with “Agathon” being a textual corruption of “Andron” (Müller 1851: 291–2). SEE ALSO:

Black Sea; Historiography, Greek and Roman.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Cameron, A. (2004) Greek mythography in the Roman world: 127–34. Oxford. Cuypers, M. (2015) “Agathon (801).” In I. Worthington, ed., Brill’s New Jacoby. Brill Online. Müller, K., ed. (1851) Fragmenta Historicorum Graecorum 4: 291–2. Paris.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner. © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Published 2016 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah30179

1

Agathon of Samos (FGrH 843) DENNIS ALLEY

Agathon of SAMOS (FGrH 843) was a Greek historian active before 100 CE. Several fragments attributed to him are contained in Pseudo-Plutarch’s De fluviis (14.4–5, 18.1–3) and Parallela minora (38A, p. 315B–C). Given the nature of the texts that cite Agathon, the fragments that come down to us seem to have been primarily concerned with geography and local mythographic traditions. All the extant citations of Agathon quote from a work titled Skythia; the highest book number cited is ten, so this work must have had at least ten books. Agathon was among the authors whom Felix Jacoby suspected of being an

invention of Pseudo-PLUTARCH (see Jacoby 1940); yet recently Ken Dowden has reassessed the problem of Jacoby’s Schwindelautor (bogus author) hypothesis with regard to Agathon and taken a generally more optimistic view (see Dowden 2014). SEE ALSO:

Historiography, Greek and Roman;

Plutarch. REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Berger, H. (1894) “Agathon 14.” In A. Pauly, G. Wissowa, and W. Kroll, eds., Realencyclopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft 1: 762. Stuttgart. Dowden, K. (2014) “Agathon of Samos 843.” In I. Worthington, ed., Brill’s New Jacoby. Brill Online. Jacoby, F. (1940) “Die Uberlieferung von Ps.Plutarchs Parallela minora und die Schwindelautoren.” Mnemosyne 8: 73–144.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner. © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Published 2015 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah26160

1

Agathos Daimon KATHARINA MARTIN

Agathos Daimon initially is an abstract concept of a “good spirit” that is active in various, mainly private, contexts: for example, fertility and prosperity, protection of the household, and burial. Aristophanes (Eq. 85 and 106, 424 BCE) mentions the ritual of pouring unmixed wine while appealing to Agathos Daimon, which can be seen as an allusion to an existing rite that was already well-established in Athens in his time. Epigraphic and archaeological remains in Greece, however, date back only to the fourth century BCE. Later, at least in Hellenistic times, his cult is widespread throughout the Mediterranean: veneration in the private sphere even extends to Spain, where an inscription from a mosaic pavement in a house in Ampurias welcomes the Good Spirit (Olmos-Romera 1989: 52–7). In dedications we find him associated with Agathe Tyche, “Good Fortune.” There is even a sacred building dedicated to the two divinities in Lebadeia (Paus. 9.39.5). The few archaeological representations in Greece depicting him as a personified deity are mostly anthropomorphic. His assimilation to Sarapis in anthropomorphic form is attested in early Hellenistic Asia ¨ zgan 2001: 144). AssimilaMinor (Bruns-O tions to different chthonic gods can only be assumed for this period. Although no concrete evidence has been found yet, the GrecoEgyptian serpent-form might already be anticipated in this context. In Greco-Roman Alexandria a specific cult developed in which Agathos Daimon is identified with the Egyptian Shaı¨: a tutelary deity with local and chthonic aspects as well as a god of fortune and fertility (Quaegebeur 1975: 160–6). The manifestation of Shaı¨ as a serpent is adopted for the Alexandrian Agathos Daimon, and different attributes illustrate his various characteristics: thus the Alexandrian assimilation with Sarapis is represented by a serpent with the head of Sarapis wearing a modius.

The association of Agathos Daimon with Agathe Tyche in the Greek world finds its Egyptian equivalent in the divine pair of Shaı¨ and Renenutet. In this combination Agathos Daimon is usually depicted as a “normal” serpent with a beard, Isis Thermoutis as a cobra/uraeus. In addition to being worshipped as a god of fertility and fortune, in his Alexandrian cult he is also connected with the civic cult of the city’s founder, Alexander the Great. Thus, Agathos Daimon becomes a protecting deity of the city, a genius loci, and his cult is integrated into that of the ruler, a process which is already anticipated by the previous identification of Shaı¨ with the pharaoh (Quaegebeur 1975: 109–15). This kingship dimension is mostly visualized by a double crown, the pharaonic symbol of ruling Lower and Upper Egypt. Roman emperors are especially assimilated to him: Nero, for example, is named Neos Agathos Daimon on Alexandrian coins, whereas Antoninus Pius is entitled “Shaı¨ of Egypt” in an inscription. His Alexandrian sanctuary mentioned by Pseudo-Kallisthenes (1.33.3) is shown on coins from the Antonine period (Bakhoum 1999: 147–8). SEE ALSO: Alexandria (Egypt); Demons, Greek and Roman; Genius; Isis in Greece and Rome; Personification; Renenutet; Sarapis; Tyche.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Bakhoum, S. (1999) Dieux e´gyptiens a` Alexandrie sous les Antonins. Recherches numismatiques et historiques: 137–54. Paris. ¨ zgan, Ch. (2001) “Tyche mit Agathos Bruns-O Daimon und den Horen.” Epigraphica Anatolica 33: 137–144. Dunand, F. (1981) “Agathodaimon.” LIMC I: 277–82. Zurich. Graf, F. (1996) “Agathos Daimon.” In New Pauly I: 242–3. Nilsson, M. P. (1974) Geschichte der griechischen Religion, vol. 2: Die hellenistische und ro¨mische Zeit, Handbuch der Altertumswissenschaft V 2, 2, 3rd ed.: 213–18. Munich.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 172–173. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah17013

2 Olmos Romera, R. (1989) “Hedykoitos y Agathos Daimon. Inscripciones en dos mosaicos tardohelenisticos de Ampurias.” In Mosaicos Romanos. Actas de la I mesa rodonda Hispano-

Francesa sobre mosaicos Romanos habida en Madrid en 1985: 43–59. Madrid. Quaegebeur, J. (1975) Le dieu ´egyptien Shaı¨ dans la religion et l’onomastique. Leuven.

1

Age JAN TIMMER

GENERAL Age is always both a universal physical process and a social construct. In the former sense, age, like gender or ethnicity, serves as a common starting point for social inequality and as a criterion for classifying communities; in the second, perceptions and evaluations of age, as well as the social roles associated with different stages of life, vary between different societies and across history (Hoppe and Wulf 1997). This ambivalence is evident in the evaluation of age in ancient societies, where the function and attributions of age differ. Even the question of when old age starts is controversial: different answers are sometimes current at the same time. The figures fluctuate between forty-two years (Hippoc. de hebdomadis 5 (Schol. ad Poll. Onom. 2.4)) and seventyseven years (Censorinus DN 14.5–6.10), with sixty as a favored caesura (Varro ap. Censorinus DN 14.2; Diog. Laert. 8.10). In several societies, this cut-off point is validated institutionally, for example, through the end of active military duty. As varied as the connection between chronological age and the attribution of old age are the interpretations that this stage of life receives. Thus, in the Homeric epics, old age seems to redound to a character’s honor, but it is not a sufficient criterion to qualify a person for the position of an elder (Ulf 1990: 70–83). Other necessary conditions are experience, physical and mental power, and finally one’s position within the oikos. In subsequent periods, the prestige of old age diminished. Early Greek lyric poetry paints a gloomy picture of old age, while extolling youth (cf. Anac. frg. 395 PMG; Thgn. 1131 f.). Similar considerations apply to Hesiod, who, in addition, focuses on the social marginalization of the elderly (Hes. Op. 113 f.). There were only very few divergences from this characterization

in Classical times (Baltrusch 2003). What is particularly noticeable is the low regard in which old age is held in comedy. This genre emphasizes the social marginalization of the elderly and continually deals with the contempt – sometimes entirely deserved – shown to old people by their descendants, albeit in an exaggerated manner (Ar. Ach. 676–91). In the fourth century BCE, we can identify contrary tendencies, especially in the framework of political philosophy, where the young are increasingly regarded in a critical light, and accused of a lack of self-control and a dependency on desires (Arist. Rh. 2.12 1389a 2–10). Old age, by contrast, is associated with desirable freedom from emotions (Timmer 2008: 131). A completely different picture emerges from the world of Sparta, where the order of age classes privileged the aged. They were regarded as the fathers of all younger people, as it were; they were treated with respect, which was expressed in symbolic forms of communication (David 1991). At Rome, the elderly had a similarly prominent position in society in the republican period. Age, like the holding of office or origin from a prestigious gens, conferred honor and esteem. Good sense, judgment, discretion, and the ability to speak in public were attributes with inseparable links to advanced age, which contrasted to the weakness of children or the indiscipline of youth (Cic. Cato 33). In the course of the Principate, the prestige of old men declined as a result of the weakened position of the PATERFAMILIAS and the loss of the political prerogatives attached to that status (Juv. Sat. 10.188–202; Stob. Flor. 4.50.85.9 f.), although, in contrast to Classical Athens, old age continued to be associated with prestige.

AGE EXAGGERATION The different perceptions of age also appear in the context of local customs of under- or overstatement. This is known both from literary sources – for example, the Cretan poet

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 173–178. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah22008

2 Epimenides is said to have died at the age of 157 years; Xenophanes of Kolophon at 154; and Aigimios, the Dorian king, at 200 (Minois 1989: 55 f., with a list of unusual ages). Extreme old age is not only ascribed to individuals: entire peoples were associated with longevity. Tribes of this kind were usually located at the edges of the known world, such as the Kynokephaloi, who were supposed to have lived to between 170 and 200 (cf. Plin. HN 7.48.153–49.164; for the Kynokephaloi cf. also Ktesias FGrH 688F 45.32) – and from epigraphic findings: for North Africa in particular, there was a tendency to exaggerate the age at death on tomb stones (Parkin 2003: 37 f.). AGE ROUNDING This tendency of under- or overstating one’s own age must be distinguished from the habit of rounding age specifications, especially on tombstones. It appears that with increasing age precise specifications of age cease to be given; instead, in the event that members of the community were unable to remember the birth of the deceased, rough rounding to fiveor ten-year intervals was employed (Parkin 1992: 14 f.).

community, which was accompanied by social marginalization; but the impact of this could vary depending on a man’s membership of social strata. Also, the structures of the political system did not produce any advantage for the aged: the nominally egalitarian democratic system of Athens did not privilege a particular group of persons; and in a majority system that produced collectively binding decisions, there was felt to be no need to improve the position of the aged. In this respect, the circumstances in Rome differ: the positive evaluation of persons of advanced age is directly correlated with the requirements of Rome’s political systems. The complex system of negotiation required agents who were sufficiently socialized to achieve a consensus, even when the conditions were difficult. Advanced age – that is, a long phase of socialization – was equated with successful socialization in Rome. During the Principate, this connection became increasingly loose. With respect to family structures, clear differences with Athens are also visible: a man could hold the position of paterfamilias for his whole life. Thus, a loss of status among the elderly as a result of transferring the family estate was not an issue in Rome.

AGE LIMITS FOR OFFICE STRUCTURES The divergent interpretations of different age stages are based on structural principles that are manifested especially in the order of the family, in the resulting distribution of economic resources, and in the distribution of power within the political system: in the Greek sphere, the transmission of the family estate during the father’s life is particularly relevant: at the age of about sixty, the father of the house transferred his property to his approximately thirty-year-old son and withdrew into retirement. After this point, he was dependent on the goodwill of his son within the oikos. At the same time, he lost his position as representative of the house within the

Age is significant in different ways in political systems. The first crucial aspects are fixed age boundaries for active and passive suffrage. In Greece, regulations of this kind emerged from the late seventh century BCE onward. The ability to participate in the ekklesia was conditional on a person being at least eighteen years old ([Arist.] Ath. Pol. 42.1). In the fourth century, this minimum age was raised, in practice through the introduction of obligatory participation in the ephebeia. It remains unclear whether this new age limit was determined formally, or whether it was a “side effect” of military service (Timmer 2008: 237–41). In addition, age was significant in the popular assembly in that the first

3 contribution was reserved for persons over fifty years old and contributions were ranged in the order of age (Aeschin. 1.23; 3.2). In the course of time this custom went out of fashion, although scholars do not agree about the time of this change, or about the question of whether the right to speak first was formally abolished or whether it merely became obsolete (on this discussion, see Timmer 2008: 29–32). With regard to passive suffrage, age limits can be determined for a majority of magistrates, but the source basis is thin (Develin 1985). We have direct evidence for an age limit of thirty years for archai in the fictitious constitution of Draco reported by Aristotle ([Arist.] Ath. Pol. 4.3). Elsewhere, we may conjecture a minimum age of thirty for most offices, especially since for many archai, one had to fall back on persons who already had the minimum age for membership of the boule, which was likewise stipulated as thirty years (Xen. Mem. 1.2.35). Divergent age limits were also established for individual offices: the Sophronists of the ephebes had a minimum age of forty ([Arist.] Ath. Pol. 42.2); the group of ephetai had to be at least fifty years old (Poll. 8.125); the diaitetai, who in the fourth century BCE functioned as arbitrators, and thus relieved the courts of Athens of some of their workload, had to be as old as fifty-nine years ([Arist.] Ath. Pol. 53.4). A parallel to the age limits applying to magistrates is found among the members of the dikasteria, where the limit was likewise set at thirty years ([Arist.] Ath. Pol. 63.3). In Sparta, there is also evidence for age limits for active and passive suffrage: membership of the apella required a minimum age of twenty years, which is very probably the age at which Spartans became liable to military service and started to participate in the syssitia (for this discussion, see Timmer 2008: 54–6). With regard to the stipulated age ranges for magistracies, the sources are few. It is usually assumed that thirty years was the minimum age for the ephorate and the other offices, but evidence for this is indirect: it is based on the

connection of a remark by Xenophon, which distinguishes between active and passive suffrage, with the caesura at the age of thirty mentioned in Plutarch, without any reference to the political system (Xen. Lac. 4.7; Plut. Lyc. 25). For kings, age was only relevant to the extent that a king had to have come of age. If he was not of age at the time of the death of his predecessor, he was given a male agnate relative as guardian (Xen. Hell. 3.3.2; Hdt. 9.10). As for Rome, the qualifying age for giving one’s vote in the popular assemblies was seventeen years. This limit is only attested directly for the comitia centuriata (Gell. NA 10.28). For all other popular assemblies, it is at least conceivable that the right of participation was conferred at the point of donning the toga virilis, so that a fixed age limit would have been waived. Age limits for passive suffrage in the Roman Republic developed in several stages: initially, there were no minimum age rules for officeholders (Cic. Phil. 5.47). This lack of rules was probably accompanied by the far-reaching powers exercised by the election supervisor to reject a candidate, including for reasons of age. The third century BCE saw the emergence of an accepted practice that required candidates to have taken part in ten annual campaigns (Polyb. 6.19). In 180 BCE, the first law prescribing age limits for at least the curule offices, the lex Villia, was passed. These age limits very probably corresponded to those known from the Late Republican period, that is, thirty-seven years for aediles, forty for praetors, and forty-three for consuls (Livy 40.44.1, discussed by Astin 1958; Timmer 2008). It is not certain whether the lex Villia defined age limits for quaestors and tribunes of the people; presumably the decem stipendia remained obligatory for first offices. The limits of thirty years for quaestors and thirty-five years for tribunes of the people were introduced either through an unknown law of the second century BCE or in the course of the reforms of Sulla. During the Principate, age limits were effectively abolished, as existing age limits

4 could be lowered through various measures such as the ius trium liberorum. The minimum age for quaestors was reduced to twenty-five years, that is, to the age of unrestricted legal competence according to the lex Plaetoria; the praetorship was now open from thirty years, and the consulship could be attained from the thirty-second year onward, although there were various exceptions (Parkin 2003: 93–137). In parallel to the abolition of age limits, age-related status in general came to be reduced in the political system. It became possible for senators to withdraw for reasons of age, but information about this age limit is inconsistent: Seneca the Elder gives it as sixtyfive years (Sen. (E) Controv. 1.8.4), while his son gives it as sixty (Sen. (Y) De brevitate vitae 20). These two statements can be reconciled if one postulates a reduction of the retirement age under Claudius (Parkin 2003: 127).

AGE AT MARRIAGE In societies with a high mortality rate, the age at marriage has a decisive impact on a couple’s ability to reproduce. The patterns of marital age in ancient societies correspond to a large extent with the “Mediterranean marriage pattern,” which is characterized by a comparatively high age of the husband and a low age of the wife. For Greece, this is already attested in Hesiod’s Works and Days (Hes. Op. 695 ff.). The poet advises men to marry at thirty, while women should marry about five years after puberty. Comparable specifications are found in the Classical period in Plato and Aristotle, who likewise stipulate that a man should marry at thirty; for a woman, they consider marriage appropriate shortly after the onset of puberty, at an earlier age than in the Archaic period (Pl. Leg. 4.71b; 6.722de; Arist. Pol. 1334b29 ff.). In this way, a man’s marital age coincided with the handover of the paternal estate. This connection is not surprising, since the economic basis for founding a household of one’s own was only attained upon receipt of the estate from one’s father.

An exception is presented by Sparta, where the bride’s age at marriage was probably slightly higher than the norm elsewhere in Greece. According to Xenophon, Spartan women married between the ages of eighteen and twenty (Xen. Lac. 1.6). This is consistent with indications in Plutarch (Plut. Lyc. 15.4). Among the Roman elite, marriage took place at a comparatively early age. Thus, Epictetus reports that women prepared for marriage from the age of fourteen (Epict. Enchiridion 40), while Plutarch records twelve years as a usual age for marriage (Plut. Num. 26). Men probably married between the ages of twenty-two and twenty-four. This, at least, may be deduced from the lex Iulia, which stipulates that the birth of the first child should take place before a woman’s twenty-first and a man’s twenty-fifth year, and rewards compliance with this norm with advantages in one’s political career. Outside the elite, the age of marriage was somewhat different. It is presumed that, as a rule, marriage took place at a later stage. On the basis of epigraphic evidence, in particular the analysis of dedicatees of tombstones, it is possible to reconstruct an average marriage age of seventeen among women, and of twenty-five among men. Comparable results are provided by papyrological findings from Egypt. The window within which women married opened shortly after their twelfth birthday, and sixty percent of women were married at the age of twenty. The average age at marriage for women was seventeen and a half years (Bagnall and Frier 1994: 114 n. 15). For men, an average marriage age of just over twenty-five years is to be assumed for Egypt (Bagnall and Frier 1994: 116).

AGE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN SPOUSES Thus, in all ancient societies the age difference between spouses was high, albeit to a varying extent. In Greece – with the aforementioned exception of Sparta – it was about fifteen years; in Roman society, it is safe to

5 assume that it still amounted to up to ten years. The main consequence of this great difference in age was the existence of a large number of widows in ancient societies, whose material situation was precarious. This raised the issue of remarriage (Bagnall and Frier 1994: 118–21). AGE AT FIRST CHILDBIRTH In general, it should be assumed that age at first childbirth differed only marginally from age at marriage. Exceptions are primarily to be conjectured for the Roman elite, where the marriage age of girls was so low that the menarche had not necessarily started at the time of marriage. In general, it needs to be emphasized, with regard to the demographic conditions of ancient societies, that because of the high mortality rate, a woman needed to give birth on average, five or six times. This meant that as a rule the first birth took place shortly after the menarche, and that children continued to be born until the start of the menopause. In this context it must be noted that in difficult nutritional conditions, the menarche was likely to have start later, and the menopause earlier, than is the case in modern societies (Bagnall and Frier 1994: 135–47). SEE ALSO: Adolescence; Adultery; Childbirth; Household, head of; Houses, housing,

household formation, Greece and Rome; Kyrios; Life expectancy; Patria potestas. REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Astin, A. E. (1958) The lex annalis before Sulla. Brussels. Bagnall, R. S. and Frier, B. W. (1994) The demography of Roman Egypt. Cambridge. Baltrusch, E. (2003) “An den Rand gedra¨ngt. Altersbilder im Klassischen Athen.” In A. Gutsfeld and W. Schmitz, eds., Am schlimmen Rand des Lebens? Altersbilder in der Antike: 57–86. Cologne. David, E. (1991) Old age in Sparta. Amsterdam. Develin, R. (1985) “Age qualifications for Athenian magistrates.” Zeitschrift fu¨r Papyrologie und Epigraphik 61: 149–59. Hoppe, B. and Wulf, Ch. (1997) “Alter.” In Ch. Wulf, ed., Vom Menschen. Handbuch Historische Anthropologie: 398–403. Weinheim. Minois, G. (1989) History of old age: from antiquity to Renaissance. Chicago. Parkin, T. (1992) Demography and Roman society. Baltimore. Parkin, T. (2003) Old age in the Roman world: a cultural and social history. Baltimore. Shaw, B. D. (1987) “The age of Roman girls at marriage. Some reconsiderations.” Journal of Roman Studies 77: 457–97. Timmer, J. (2008) Altersgrenzen politischer Partizipation in antiken Gesellschaften. Berlin. Ulf, Ch. (1990) Die homerische Gesellschaft: Materialien zur analytischen Beschreibung und historischen Lokalisierung. Munich.

1

Age-class (ephebes, neoi) ANDRZEJ CHANKOWSKI

The importance attached by the Greeks to youth finds its expression in the ritual role played by young men on the occasion of religious ceremonies and in the existence of different integration rites, the goal of which was to dramatize the passage from childhood to adulthood, as well as of educational institutions (see ADOLESCENCE). Different local terminology of age-class division was used in these various contexts during Archaic and Classical periods. A fragment of the lexicon About Age Terminology of ARISTOPHANES OF BYZANTIUM (ca. 257–180 BCE) enumerates several terms designating different age classes. After the age class commonly known as the paides, he mentions another one for which different names were used: pallakes, boupaides, antipaides, and mellepheboi. The next would be that of the epheboi, who were called triakatioi (“Three Hundreds”) in Cyrene and apodromoi in Crete. Thereafter he enumerates three age classes older than the epheboi: the meirakia (or meirakes), the neaniskoi, and the neaniai. Obviously, this was not a generally valid age-class system, but a gathering of various names used in the Greek world, which the author tried to classify in a coherent way. Unfortunately, apart from CYRENE and CRETE, he gives no information as to the cities and the institutional or ritual contexts from which these terms come. But even for Crete with its numerous cities, we know that apodromoi (“those who are not yet runners”; dromeus “runner” being a term for the adult man) was not the only term designating young men before integration into the community of adults: we hear also of azoˆstoi (“naked,” i.e., disarmed), panazoˆstoi (“entirely naked”), and egdyomenoi (“stripped”). The ritual character of these terms points to integration rites practiced in Cretan cities. The Spartan age-class system is known a little better. From the age of twelve or fourteen

years until the age of twenty, all young Spartans underwent a mandatory training in preparation for the role of adult citizen-soldier. During this period of training, they were divided into several age classes, each with its own specific name (see AGOGE). This very developed age-class system seems to be peculiar to SPARTA. Since it is attested in this form only in sources from Hellenistic and Roman periods, scholars debate as to whether it should be considered as a continuation of an older system, going back to the formation of the Spartan sociopolitical order, or as a creation of the period of the Spartan king Kleomenes III (see KLEOMENES III OF SPARTA). During the Hellenistic and imperial periods, one age-class system seems to have prevailed, spreading to many parts of the Greek world. Despite local variations, this system, attested in numerous cities, shows a great uniformity. Before full integration into the adult community, the young men, divided into three age classes (paides, epheboi, and neoi or neaniskoi), underwent physical and military training as they prepared for citizen tasks, especially on the military field. In some cities, this training was enriched by elements of intellectual education (such as lectures organized in the gymnasium), but these never had a regular character and played only a secondary role. The ephebes (i.e., those who had just reached hebe, the threshold of adulthood) were the most important class (see EPHEBE, EPHEBEIA). Symbolically, the very goal of the ephebeia was to integrate young men into the community of adults. The other groups of young people were defined in respect to the ephebes. The neoi, also called neaniskoi or (rarely) neoteroi (all three names signifying “young men”), were the ex-ephebes who, while already considered as adult citizens, continued to do physical and military exercises. Since in many poleis (such as ATHENS or Sparta), only the age of 30 gave full access to public functions and can thus be considered as the threshold of the definitive majority, one could belong to the group of the neoi

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 178–180. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah09012

2 until this age. Nevertheless, as shown by the gymnasiarchal law from the Macedonian city of Beroia (see GYMNASIARCHIC LAW (BEROIA)) (Gauthier and Hatzopoulos 1993) dated to the second century BCE, some cities tried to single out from this very large group of the neoi age classes and to bind them to training as regular as that of the ephebes. The group of the paides (“boys”), those who are before the threshold of majority, appears more rarely than the other two. In many poleis, education and training before the ephebeia were considered a private matter (see EDUCATION, GREECE AND ROME). Nevertheless, cities which had sufficient funds (such as MILETOS, where in the second century BCE a rich benefactor donated an important sum of money for financing the public education of the paides; Syll.3 577) organized a pattern of training for the paides which was oriented toward more literary and musical than military matters. Taking care of the paides, as well as providing a regular training for the neoi, shows the tendency of Hellenistic cities to extend the public preparation for the role of adult citizen over a larger part of the young generation than the ephebic class alone. During Hellenistic and imperial times, the ephebes and the neoi used the GYMNASIUM for their training. The earliest gymnasia known to us from the Classical period were private institutions used for sport and military exercises. In Hellenistic cities, gymnasia became increasingly transformed into public institutions: they were put under the control of a magistrate (usually called the gymnasiarchos) and were given a legal framework for their functioning (like the gymnasiarchal law from Beroia). Other subordinate magistrates, such as the hypogymnasiarchos or ephebarchos, may have helped the gymnasiarch. Although the gymnasium, a big consumer of oil, was usually supported by rich benefactors (who for this reason often took the office of the gymnasiarch), its regular funding was normally provided by the city budget. The paides, who were placed under the authority of a separate magistrate (paidonomos),

could either have a building of their own (palaistra) or use the city gymnasium. In the latter case, special measures were taken in order to protect the paides from sexual harassment by the older age classes. In addition to competitions and feasts organized in the gymnasium exclusively for its users (the most important of which was the feast that closed the training year, called Herakleia, Hermaia, or Hermaia kai Herakleia), the young men, divided into age classes, participated in the city’s religious celebrations, where they might compete in various games (agoˆnes). On the occasion of civic processions, they would march divided into age classes, making up a separate element of the symbolic image of the community. It was not uncommon for the first place to be taken by the ephebes (so disregarding the natural age order), something which shows their preeminence for the community. There was no uniform and universal system either concerning the time that was spent in a single age class or the age when one entered it. In fourth-century Athens, as a result of a reform providing the Athenian ephebeia with public funding (in 335 or 334), the ephebes served two years, but very soon (in 307/6 or shortly afterward) their service was limited to one year. One-year service is the most typical, although we know also of a two-year ephebeia and of a three-year one. In fourth-century Athens, one began the ephebeia at the age of eighteen. Elsewhere, we know of ephebes of sixteen, seventeen, twentyone, or even fourteen years old. In Beroia, one left the group of the neoi at the age of thirty. As for the paides, in Teos in the second century BCE a specific training was provided for boys one year and two years younger than the ephebes, but no absolute age is indicated. In a society with no birth registers, even an indicated absolute age was in fact not a natural age, but a socially recognized one. In this respect, being accepted into an age class played an important role. In late fourthcentury Athens, a young man was admitted to the ephebic service through a visual examination by his adult deme fellows; from

3 that moment on, he was considered as eighteen years old (whatever his actual age was), and the years of his ephebic service could be used as an age proof at later stages of his life. The origins of this age-class system are difficult to sketch out. In the case of the Athenian ephebeia, several scholars have tried to find a connection between the institution and initiation rites, which go back to very ancient times and whose survival can yet be found in the Classical period both in myth and in ritual. However, no such connection can be shown on the institutional level: the Athenian ephebeia was simply set up in the first half of the fourth century (or in the second half of the fifth century) by a legislative act. Nevertheless, on the symbolic level, the creation of the ephebeia resulted from the same conviction as that concerning initiation rites, which is that the youth represents an important part of the community and has to play a special role in it. There is no case of an ephebeia older than the Athenian one. The term epheboi itself is an Athenian technical term used to designate young men accomplishing their ephebic service and not a Panhellenic term drawn from the general vocabulary of age-class division. Until the late Hellenistic period, it preserves its exclusively institutional significance and is never used just to say “young men.” It is worth noting that Sparta, Cretan cities, and Cyrene, which had their own age-class vocabulary used in the framework of educational institutions which seem to be older than the Athenian ephebeia, had never (Sparta and Cretan cities) or very lately (Cyrene) introduced the word epheboi to their institutional vocabulary. Thus the terminology, as well as the uniformity of the age-class and training systems in Hellenistic cities, suggests the

spreading of the ephebeia from a common source and not a local development. The diffusion of the ephebeia and of the whole ageclass system takes part in the same process as the diffusion of democratic institutions in the Greek world that, notwithstanding local variations, reveal great resemblances pointing toward a common Athenian model. The increasing importance of the gymnasium and of training based on the age-class system is best demonstrated by the case of Toriaion in Phrygia (SEG 47.1745), which at the beginning of the second century BCE obtains the status of polis: the creation of these institutions comes to be essential for the very existence of a city. SEE ALSO: Gymnasium, Classical and Hellenistic times.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Chankowski, A. S. (forthcoming) L’e´phe´bie helle´nistique. E´tude d’une institution civique dans les cite´s grecques des ˆıles de la Mer E´ge´e et de l’Asie Mineure. Paris. Forbes, C. A. (1933) Neoi: A contribution to the study of Greek associations. Middletown, CT. Gauthier, P. and Hatzopoulos, M. B. (1993) La loi gymnasiarchique de Be´roia. Athens. Kah, D. and Scholz, P., eds. (2004) Das hellenistische Gymnasion. Berlin. Kennell, N. M. (2006) Ephebeia: A register of Greek cities with citizen training systems in the Hellenistic and Roman periods. Hildesheim. Kleijwegt, M. (1991) Ancient youth: The ambiguity of youth and the absence of adolescence in Greco-Roman society. Amsterdam. Vidal-Naquet, P. (1986) The black hunter: Forms of thought and forms of society in the Greek world, trans. A. Szegedy-Maszak. Baltimore.

1

Agentes in rebus BORIS RANKOV

The agentes in rebus appear to have been set up by DIOCLETIAN at the end of the third century CE to replace the corps of frumentarii – imperial couriers and secret policemen – whom he had abolished because of their abuses and unpopularity (Aur. Vict. Caes. 39.44). Like other civil servants of the Late Empire, they wore military uniform and were organized as a military unit, in their case a schola (Not. Dign. (or.) XI.11; (occ.) IX.9), with a hierarchy of cavalry ranks. They began their career as couriers (Lib. 2.58; 18.135; etc.), and were sometimes referred to as “dispatch riders” (veredarii; CT 8.5.17 (364 CE); Jer. On Abdias 18). They could then progress to overseeing the postal service (cursus publicus), two to each province and known as curagendarii or curiosi (CT 6.29.1 (355 CE); 2 (357 CE); etc.); Libanius (18.140) called them the “eyes of the emperor.” Eventually, they could be appointed as chiefs of staff (principes officii) to high officials such as provincial governors, frontier commanders (duces; see DUX), Praetorian Prefects (see PRAETORIAN PREFECT), and the Prefect of the City. By the fifth century, when they numbered nearly 1,200 (CT 6.27.23), they had come

under the overall control of the Master of the Offices (magister officiorum) and were known collectively as magistriani (IG XIV 949a (p. 694)). It is clear that they quickly became as unpopular as the frumentarii, often acting as informers and assassins. CONSTANTIUS II chided them for imprisoning the innocent (CT 6.29.1 (355 CE)), and the emperor Julian (see JULIAN, EMPEROR) remarked that they “know only how to snatch and not to receive” (Amm. Marc. 16.5.11). SEE ALSO:

Administration, Late Antique.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Austin, N. J. E. and Rankov, N. B. (1995) Exploratio: military and political intelligence in the Roman world from the Second Punic War to the battle of Adrianople: 219–20. London. Clauss, M. (1980) Der magister officiorum in der Spa¨tantike (4.-6. Jahrhundert): das Amt und sein Einfluss auf die kaiserliche Politik. Munich. Jones, A. H. M. (1964) The later Roman Empire 284–602: a social, economic and administrative survey: 578–82. Oxford. Paschoud, F. (1983) “Frumentarii, agentes in rebus, magistriani, curiosi, veredarii: proble`mes de terminologie.” In Bonner Historia-AugustaColloquium 1979/81: 215–43. Bonn.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 180–181. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah19006

1

Ager publicus PAUL B. HARVEY, JR.

Ager publicus, “public land,” was territory acquired by the Roman state through conquest or surrender. That land was the property of the Roman people as a whole, to be administered through lease-hold, by tenantfarmers, or lease-contractors (for pasturage), as authorized by Roman magistrates (especially, censors and consuls) (see CENSOR; CONSULS), and occasionally (as in the Gracchan era) by legislation requested by the plebeian tribunes (see TRIBUNI PLEBIS). Ager publicus could be ceded by the Roman people, through legal (legislative) action, to individuals on terms of limited possession or as private property enjoying full civil rights. Ager publicus was strongly distinguished from (1) ager privatus, private property of the Roman citizen, which could not be claimed by the state (except exceptionally when confiscated in time of civil war), from (2) ager sacer, land used for religious purposes, and from (3) land belonging to municipalities and colonies (public lands, especially pasturelands, which often were in origin ager publicus) (see COLONIES, ROMAN AND LATIN (REPUBLICAN)). Ager publicus included not just arable (agricultural) land, but also forests, pasturelands, mines, salt-works, lakes, and waterways. That is, ager publicus embraced all the natural resources within a specific tract of state land. Extensive tracts of ager publicus were acquired by conquest in Greece (around Corinth) (see CORINTH; ACHAIAN LEAGUE), North Africa (much of the territory of Carthage), western Anatolia, Spain, and wherever Roman power defeated a foreign enemy. In addition, extensive areas in southern Italy became ager publicus after the Hannibalic (Second Punic) War (see HANNIBAL; PUNIC WARS), when the Roman Senate punished, by confiscating their territories, various Italian cities for their sometime adherence to Hannibal.

Administration of the ager publicus was lax and erratic. Only in 165 BCE, for example, did the Roman Senate commission a magistrate to demarcate ager publicus from private land in CAMPANIA (see CAPUA). Much of the land confiscated after the Hannibalic war was officially occupied by “possessors,” recognized occupants, often those owning extensive herds; much land was also exploited by legallyunrecognized, but tolerated, squatters. Ager publicus was used for the foundation of new Roman settlements (colonies) and (especially in the first century BCE) for the settlement of veteran soldiers in Italy and in the provinces. Late in the second century BCE, the ager publicus played a significant role in Roman politics, when the Gracchan brothers (133– 121 BCE) (see GRACCHUS, TIBERIUS AND GAIUS SEMPRONIUS) established formal commissions to survey the ager publicus (especially in Italy) and assign plots of land to poor Roman citizens. Ager publicus is a frequent topic in the historical and rhetorical literature of Late Republican Rome. The phrase, however, appears in the documentary (epigraphic) record rarely. In the great epigraphic lex agraria of 111 BCE (?), a text resolving many anomalies in earlier Gracchan legislation, the various categories – Italian and provincial – of ager publicus are addressed and defined. Earlier, a Roman magistrate – probably Appius Claudius Pulcher, consul in 143 BCE – declared on a south Italian milestone, ca. 133/32, that he had forced “herdsmen to yield to farmers on the ager publicus.” By the end of the rule of Augustus (14 CE), most of the ager publicus in Italy had been assigned to veteran soldiers. The extensive tracts of ager publicus in provinces were now, in theory, the personal property of the emperor. SEE ALSO: Agriculture, Roman Republic; Augustus (Imperator Caesar Augustus); Carthage; Civil war, Roman; Sulla (Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix); Senate, Roman Republic and Empire.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 181–182. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah06009

2 REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Burdese, A. (1952) Studi sull’ager publicus. Turin. Campbell, B. (2000) The writings of the Roman land surveyors. London. Crawford, M. H., ed. (1996) Roman statutes, vol. I: 113–80. London. Lintott, A. (1992) Judicial reform and land reform in the Roman Republic: 34–65, 171–286. Cambridge.

Roselaar, S. T. (2010) Public land in the Roman Republic: a Social and economic history of the ager publicus, 396–89 BC. Oxford. Verbrugghe, G. P. (1973) “The Elogium from Polla and the First Slave War.” Classical Philology 68: 25–35. Weber, M. (2008) Roman agrarian history, translation of Ro¨mische Agrargeschichte (1891), by R. I. Frank. Claremont, CA.

1

Agesilaos MARCELLO LUPI

Agesilaos (ca. 444–360/59 BCE) was a Spartan king of the house of the Eurypontids (see SPARTAN KINGS). As the second son of ARCHIDAMOS he was brought up as a private citizen. Despite having a limp, he underwent Spartan education (see AGOGE) since only heirs to the throne were exempted (Plut. Ages. 1). After the death of his half-brother Agis II, probably in 400, Agis’ son Leotychidas was expected to succeed him, but rumors of his illegitimacy were ably exploited by LYSANDER, who had been Agesilaos’ lover, so that Agesilaos was chosen as king (Xen. Hell. 3.3.1–4). He soon freed himself of Lysander’s cumbersome tutelage and, through a wise policy of patronage (well exemplified in Xen. Hell. 5.4.20), became adept at steering Spartan politics for some decades and at marginalizing all the kings who succeeded on the other (Agiad) royal line. In 396, after sacrificing in AULIS like a new AGAMEMNON (Xen. Hell. 3.4.3), he crossed the Aegean and took command of the war that Sparta had undertaken against the Persians in the name of freedom for the Asiatic Greeks. The following year he defeated the Persians in the battle of SARDIS, which ancient sources present in very different ways (Xen. Hell. 3.4.20–4; Hell. Oxy. 14). Having received land and sea command, he entrusted the fleet to his brotherin-law Peisandros, who in 394 was defeated and killed in the battle of KNIDOS, while Agesilaos, after returning to Greece at the outbreak of the Corinthian War, gained an indecisive victory at KORONEIA. In the following years he led the Spartan military operations in the northeastern Peloponnese, with varied success, and was later, after the KING’S PEACE, the architect of a rigid interpretation of the principle of autonomy and of an aggressive policy, especially with regard to Thebes, which was occupied by a Spartan garrison from 382 to 379/8. When, in 371, the common peace was renewed at a congress held at Sparta (see COMMON PEACE (KOINE

EIRENE)),

Agesilaos prevented the Theban EPAMfrom swearing on behalf of all Boiotians (Xen. Hell. 6.3.18–20; Diod. Sic. 15.50.4). Boiotia was attacked, but Spartan defeat at Leuktra and the subsequent loss of Messenia marked the end of Spartan power; Agesilaos and his son Archidamos were now occupied in defending Sparta itself, invaded by Epaminondas in 370/69 and in 362. Finally, in 360 he was sent by Sparta to the Nile Delta, at the head of mercenary troops, to aid the Egyptian rebels in their resistance against the Persians. Here Agesilaos was involved in internal feuding among the resistance leaders and, on his way back to Sparta, died in Libya at the age of eighty-four (Plut. Ages. 40). An evaluation of Agesilaos’ policies is strongly affected by the eulogistic and apologetical portrait provided by Xenophon in the Hellenica and in the Agesilaus, and the recent notion that Xenophon’s criticism of Spartan imperialism in the years after the King’s Peace (see Hell. 5.4.1) also concerns Agesilaos, appears doubtful. Fortunately other sources, mostly those contributing to the Life that Plutarch dedicated to him, offer a different and less unbalanced image. In any case, his figure dominates Spartan, and indeed Greek, history during the first four decades of the fourth century, to the point of his being considered “by common consent the greatest and most illustrious man of his time” (Theopompos FGrH 115 F 321), and yet during his reign Sparta lost the hegemony established following its victory in the PELOPONNESIAN WAR and became a marginal power. Although this declining process was largely the outcome of the long-term crisis of the Spartan social system, the responsibility of Agesilaos is still an open question. INONDAS

SEE ALSO: Agis II and III of Sparta; Leuktra, battle of; Sparta; Xenophon.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Cartledge, P. (1987) Agesilaos and the crisis of Sparta. Baltimore.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 182–183. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah04010

2 Cawkwell, G. L. (1976) “Agesilaus and Sparta.” Classical Quarterly 26: 62–84. Hamilton, C. D. (1991) Agesilaus and the failure of Spartan hegemony. Ithaca. Schepens, G. (2005) “A` la recherche d’Age´silas: le roi de Sparte dans le jugement des historiens

du IVe sie`cle av. J.-C.” Revue des E´tudes grecques 118: 31–78. Tuplin, C. (1993) The failings of empire: a reading of Xenophon Hellenica 2.3.11–7.5.27. Stuttgart.

1

Agesilaos (FGrH 828) DENNIS ALLEY

the second-sophistic era. For a general discussion, see Jacoby (1940). SEE ALSO:

Agesilaos (FGrH 828) was an ancient Greek historian of unknown date and place of origin. Almost nothing can be said with certainty about him; all our knowledge stems from a single reference to him contained in Pseudo-Plutarch’s Parallela minora (29B, p. 312E). The fragment describes a mythographic tradition about the equine Roman goddess Epona that Pseudo-PLUTARCH attributes to the third book of Agesilaos’ Italian histories. Agesilaos was among the authors whom Felix Jacoby suspected of being inventions of

Myth; Historiography, Greek and Roman.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Horster, M. (2014) “Agesilaos (828).” In I. Worthington, ed., Brill’s New Jacoby. Brill Online. Jacoby, F. (1940) “Die Uberlieferung von ps.Plutarchs Parallela minora und die Schwindelautoren.” Mnemosyne 8: 73–144. Knaack, G. (1903) “Agesilaos (8).” In A. Pauly, G. Wissowa, and W. Kroll, eds., Realencyclopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft Suppl. 1: 27. Stuttgart.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner. © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Published 2015 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah26161

1

Agia Irini on Cyprus ARTEMIS GEORGIOU

The site of Agia Irini is situated within the bay of Morphou, close to the northwestern coast of Cyprus. Agia Irini is best known as a sanctuary site of the Iron Age. The sanctuary was excavated by the Swedish Cyprus Expedition in 1929–30. The excavators distinguished seven phases of activity, intermixed with flooding episodes (Gjerstad et al. 1935: 642–824). Phase 1 corresponds to a brief period of occupation in the Late Bronze Age. The architectural remains of this period combined religious and secular functions. Following a possible short period of abandonment, the sanctuary acquired a purely religious character during the CyproGeometric period (ca. 1050–750 BCE) (Fourrier 2007: 89, 104–6; Bourogiannis 2013: 38–9), and was used continuously until its abandonment in ca. 500 BCE (Phases 2–6). Phase 7 corresponds to a small-scale revival in the Hellenistic period. The period ca. 800–600 BCE (CyproGeometric III to the middle of Cypro-Archaic I) marks the peak in the use of the sanctuary. Its architectural layout consisted of an open-air temenos with an altar, which was surrounded by an enclosure wall. A compartment constructed nearby was interpreted as a “sacred tree” enclosure (Bourogiannis 2013: 40–1). The Agia Irini sanctuary is renowned for its impressive corpus of approximately 2000 terracotta figures and figurines, which includes small-scale to impressive life-size specimens. The majority were found in their original position, in a semi-circular arrangement around the altar. Nearly all specimens depict males and were probably offerings to a god. Early examples also portray bulls and hybrid creatures (“minotaurs” or “centaurs”). In the Cypro- Archaic period the votive offerings consist mostly of armed male figurines wearing

helmets or conical caps and occasionally holding weaponry. Chariot groups drawn by horses, horse-and-rider groups, and male figures presenting offerings are also popular (Winbladh 2003). Half of the figurines unearthed at Agia Irini are currently exhibited at the Medelshavsmuseet in Stockholm, while the other half are in the Cyprus Museum in Nicosia. The lack of written testimonies does not allow for the unambiguous identification of the god adored at the Agia Irini sanctuary. Judging by the proliferation of the figurines associated with male prowess, it is possible that the sanctuary was dedicated to a male fertility god of agrarian nature (Papantoniou 2016: 81–2). The sanctuary rose to prominence during a period of political competition among the emerging Iron Age polities of Cyprus and has been interpreted as an extra-urban sanctuary in the “frontier zone” between the citykingdoms of SOLOI and Lapithos (Fourrier 2007: 89–92; Ulbrich 2008: 378). REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Bourogiannis, G. (2013) “The sanctuary of Ayia Irini: looking beyond the figurines.” Pasiphae 7: 35–45. Fourrier, S. (2007) La coroplastie chypriote archaïque. Identités culturelles et politiques à l’époque des royaumes. Lyon. Gjerstad, E., Lindros, J., Sjöqvist, E., and Westholm, A. (1935) The Swedish Cyprus expedition, vol. 2: Finds and results of the excavations in Cyprus 1927–1931. Stockholm. Papantoniou, G. (2016) “Cypriot ritual and cult from the Bronze to the Iron Age: a longue durée approach.” Journal of Greek Archaeology 1: 73–108. Ulbrich, A. (2008) Kypris. Heiligtümer und Kulte weiblicher Gottheiten auf Zypern in der kyproarchaischen und kyproklassischen Epoche. Münster. Winbladh, M. L. (2003) “The open-air sanctuary at Ayia Irini.” In V. Karageorghis, ed., The Cyprus collections in the Medelhavsmuseet: 151–203. Nicosia.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, and Andrew Erskine. © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Published 2017 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah30457

1

Agia Irini on Keos JILL HILDITCH

Agia Irini was situated on a low promontory in northwest KEOS and was occupied almost continuously from the Late Neolithic (Period I) until the Late Mycenaean (Period VIII) period. From the earliest levels, strong material and ideological ties to other CYCLADES ISLANDS, as well as CRETE and the Greek mainland, are apparent. The Early Bronze Age settlement during Periods II and III was almost a hectare in size, with sixty houses, as indicated by the discovery of multiple ceramic hearths, each representing a single “household.” The period division corresponds to the earlier and later phases of the Early Bronze Age II period, with Period III containing Anatolianizing pottery of the Kastri/Lefkandi I phase (3200– 2100 BCE). The Middle Bronze Age levels are defined by reoccupation of the site during Period IV, after an apparent hiatus (Davis 1986), and the construction of fortifications around the site perimeter. Period IV is also associated with a substantial extramural cemetery, one of the few in the Aegean (2100–1700). Minoan influence increases significantly in Period V, marked by rebuilding of the fortifications and an expansion in settlement size following a seismic (?) destruction event, as seen by the introduction of the pottery wheel, Cretan-style wall-paintings, and Minoan weights. In addition, a Minoan roundel and an inscribed tablet in Cretan linear script have been found locally, alongside imported ceramic vessels

from Middle Minoan IIB/IIIA contexts (ca. 1800–1700). Continuous occupation into the Late Bronze Age (Periods VI, VII, and VIII) has been determined through the gradual appearance of Late Helladic I-style pottery from the Greek mainland. Numerous houses have been identified and population estimates suggest up to five hundred inhabitants (Schofield 1998). The temple at Agia Irini was built during this period, an almost unique building within the Cyclades during this time. Over thirty large terracotta female figurines were recovered from Period VII levels (ca. 1400) inside the temple, as well as a lone bronze male figurine and a bronze boat. The temple survived until the sixth century BCE, when it was documented as a shrine to Dionysos. It is considered to be one of the few Aegean sites with continuity in cult from the Late Bronze to the Archaic periods. SEE ALSO:

Dionysos; Lefkandi.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Caskey, J. L. (1962) “Excavations in Keos, 1960–1961.” Hesperia 31: 263–83. Caskey, M. E., Caskey, J. L., Bouzaki, S., and Maniatis, Y. (1986) Keos II: the temple at Ayia Irini part I: the statues. Princeton. Davis, J. L. (1986) Keos V: Ayia Irini Period V. Mainz. Schofield, E. (1998) “Town planning at Ayia Irini, Kea.” In L. Mendoni and A. Mazarakis-Ainian, eds., Kea – Kythnos: history and archaeology: 117–22. Athens.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 183–184. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah02005

1

Agia Triada in Crete KOSTIS S. CHRISTAKIS

Agia Triada is situated at the western end of the Mesara Plain, 4 km west of PHAISTOS. The site, settled late in the Neolithic period, became prosperous in Prepalatial times (3650–2000 BCE). Two tholos tombs, northwest of the settlement, were used for collective burial in that period. The town expanded further in the Old Palace period (1900– 1630). Early in the New Palace period (ca. 1650–1640), the “Villa,” a monumental complex, was built in the center of the town. The palatial architecture of the Villa and the rich finds show that it was the seat of an eminent ruling group. The “Villa” was originally considered the seaside palace of the lords of Phaistos. Recent studies, though, have demonstrated that the Villa and not the palace of Phaistos was the seat of power (La Rosa 2002). Stone vases, bronze figurines, finely decorated pottery, assemblages of storage containers, and nineteen copper ingots are the most significant finds of the complex. The sealings and LINEAR A tablets recording agricultural products and personnel are evidence for the extensive control that the central authority exercised in the fertile lands of the Mesara. The densely built town is divided by a long wall running east to west along the slope of the hill. A significant town building is the “Bastion,” a complex that may have been used for storage and workshop activities. Other important town buildings were the House of the Cauldron, with rich contents and an important group of Linear A tablets, the “House of the Oven,” the “House of the Clay Balls,” and the “House of the Figs.” These buildings were probably closely tied to the “Villa”. The remains of the town are much scarcer north of the long wall. It seems that the town was not destroyed simultaneously during Late Minoan

IB (1525–1450); the “Villa” and many other buildings were destroyed earlier than other complexes (Puglisi 2003). Extensive rebuilding took place in the succeeding period, especially after the destruction of KNOSSOS in ca. 1340–1330. The town underwent a monumental reconstruction and many complexes had a layout unique in Crete, sometimes inspired by Mycenaean architecture. Buildings erected in this period are the “Megaron,” built over the ruins of the “Villa,” the large Stoa with eight shops and the court in front of it, and the Shrine with a frescoed floor with octopus and dolphins. The famous sarcophagus of Agia Triada, a limestone coffin painted with funerary rituals, is dated to this period (ca. 1390–1370). The town gradually declined until its final abandonment in Protogeometric times (tenth–ninth centuries). A village and a shrine dedicated to Zeus Velchanos were built over the ruins of the Minoan town in Hellenistic times. Both village and shrine were destroyed by Gortynians in the second century BCE. Roman farms and workshops were built on the site, while, centuries later in the Venetian period (fourteenth– seventeenth centuries), a church dedicated to Agios Georgios and tombs were built on the southwest part of the site. SEE ALSO:

Gortyn; Phaistos.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS La Rosa, V. (1992) “Ayia Triada.” In J. W. Myres, E. E. Myers, and G. Cadogan, eds., The aerial atlas of Crete: 70–7. Berkeley. La Rosa, V. (2002) “Pour une re´vision pre´liminaire du second palais de Phaistos.” In J Driessen, I. Schoep, and R. Laffineur, eds., Monuments of Minos: rethinking the Minoan palaces: 71–97. Lie`ge. Puglisi, D. (2003). “Hagia Triada nel periodo Tardo Minoico I.” Creta Antica 4: 145–98.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 184–185. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah02006

1

Agias and Derkylos (FGrH 305) DENNIS ALLEY

Agias and Derkylos (FGrH 305) are two ancient Greek mythographers who worked between the fourth and the third centuries BCE. They were commonly glossed together by Hellenistic scholars. The extant fragments from their works are found, cited together, in scholia to Antimachos (FGrH 305: T1a, F4), to CALLIMACHUS (FGrH 305: T1b, F8, F8b), to PINDAR (FGrH 305: F9), and to EURIPIDES (FGrH 305: F7) and in the texts of CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA, Stromata (Patchwork) (1.21.104.1–2 = FGrH 305: F2) and ATHENAEUS OF NAUKRATIS, Deipnosophistae (Philosophers at dinner) (3.32.86 = FGrH 305: F3). The sources that cite from either author individually do not offer enough information for us to establish any characteristic difference between the two. To judge from the scholia that quote from them, Agias and Derkylos were preferred sources for erudite Hellenistic poets writing on the Argolid; in particular, they were used extensively by Callimachus in his Aetia. Both authors’ works appear

to be titled Argolika, but the exact number of books each contained is uncertain (F1; F2; F3). As is to be expected from ancient local histories, the quotations from these works show that their respective authors had an intense interest in Argive MYTH (see ARGOS), GEOGRAPHY, cult, and chronology. The ancient references to the two authors, however, obscure the nature of their works and their relative chronological positions. SEE ALSO:

Historiography, Greek and Roman.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Bethe, E. (1912) “Hagias.” In A. Pauly, G. Wissowa, and W. Kroll, eds., Realencyclopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft 14: 2205. Stuttgart. Cassio, A. C. (1989) “Storiografia locale di Argo e dorico letterario: Agia, Dercillo ed il Pap. Soc. Ital. 1091.” Rivista di Filologia 117: 257–75. Engels, J. (2014) “Agias and Derkylos (305).” In I. Worthington, ed., Brill’s New Jacoby. Brill Online. Schwartz, E. (1903) “Derkylos (2).” In A. Pauly, G. Wissowa, and W. Kroll, eds., Realencyclopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft 5.1: 243. Stuttgart.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner. © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Published 2015 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah26162

1

Agios Kosmas in Attica JILL HILDITCH

Agios Kosmas is an Early Bronze Age site in Attica, which lies on a promontory that extends into the Saronic Gulf. Architectural remains indicate four distinct phases of occupation, from the mid-third millennium to the fourteenth and twelfth centuries BCE (Mylonas 1959: 149). The main phase (Agios Kosmas I and II) shows early structures built upon bedrock and building foundations that are associated with an extramural Early Helladic cist-grave cemetery (3200–2800). Subsequent Late Bronze Age phases have been identified in the form of wall remnants (Agios Kosmas III), while Late Helladic II (2800–2300) and Late Helladic IIIC fill deposits (Agios Kosmas IV: 1200–1050) have also been located over parts of the site. Scarce remains from the Early Helladic settlement (Phase I) have been found. Eight rectangular, flat-roofed houses are, however, dated to the end of this period (around 2800). They are aligned along streets intersecting at right-angles, and have a courtyard. It has been suggested that these were simple one-storey buildings of the type similar to the larger corridor houses of the Early Helladic II culture. The ceramic finds correlate to the mainland Korakou culture, with no evidence

for finds of the subsequent TIRYNS culture (dated to Early Helladic III), suggesting that the site was abandoned at the end of the Early Helladic II period around 2300 (Caskey 1960). The Early Helladic cemetery consists of cist and built-graves, with strong parallels to the cemetery of CHALANDRIANI ON SYROS (Mylonas 1959: 153), though the use of graves for multiple burials does differ from the latter. Grave goods reinforce the Cycladic links with ceramic and marble vessels. Moreover, marble figurines, characteristic of the Early Cycladic I–II periods, have also been recovered. The concurrent appearance of forms from these two cultures is not, however, reflected on the islands themselves, revealing a sustained connection between these two areas. Cretan vessels are also attested within the grave goods of the cemetery, strengthening the importance of sea links for the activities of this significant Early Bronze Age settlement. SEE ALSO:

Keos; Korakou in the Argolid;

Manika. REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Caskey, J. L. (1960) “The Early Helladic period in the Argolid.” Hesperia 29: 285–303. Mylonas, G. (1959) Agios Kosmas: an Early Bronze Age settlement and cemetery in Attica. Princeton.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 185–186. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah02007

1

Agios Vasilios in Lakonia NEKTARIOS KARADIMAS

The archaeological site of Agios Vasilios occupies a low chain of hills on the plain of Sparta (Lakonia, Greece), on the west bank of the Eurotas River about 12 km south of the city of Sparta. The name of the site derives from the Byzantine church of Agios Vasilios that crowns the main hill. Research began in 2008 when a few LINEAR B tablets were found accidentally during terracing works. Systematic research began in 2010, with the establishment of the Agios Vasilios Archaeological Project, which is carried out under the auspices of the Archaeological Society at Athens and the direction of Ephor Emerita of Antiquities Adamantia Vasilogamvrou. The site was already inhabited in the Middle Helladic period (seventeenth century BCE) and continued to grow in size and importance during the Late Helladic period (sixteenth to fourteenth century BCE). A cemetery on the north edge of the hill consists of simple graves, cists, and pits, and dates from the late Middle Helladic and Late Helladic I period. South of the cemetery a Mycenaean palace is gradually being revealed. The palatial buildings are arranged around a monumental central court framed by alternating pillars and columns. A Linear B archive has been unearthed near the court. Cult practices are attested by the texts and finds, such as clay and ivory figurines and stone and clay ritual vases. These practices are connected with important feasting remains found together with clay and bronze vessels, knives, and a hoard of twenty-one bronze

FIGURE 1 Rhyton in the form of a bull’s head from Agios Vasilios (with the kind permission of Adamantia Vasilogamvrou).

swords. Preliminary study suggests that the palace was destroyed by a fire at the end of Late Helladic IIIA (end of the fourteenth century BCE). SEE ALSO:

Menelaion in Lakonia; Mycenaean archaeology; Vapheio in Lakonia.

REFERENCE AND SUGGESTED READING Aravantinos, V. and Vasilogamvrou, A. (2012) “The first Linear B documents from Agios Vasilios (Laconia).” In P. Carlier et al., eds., Études mycéniennes 2010. Actes du XIIIe colloque international sur les textes égéens: 41–54. Pisa.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner. © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Published 2016 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah30180

1

Agis II and III of Sparta DANIEL R. STEWART

Agis II (r. ca. 427–400 BCE) and Agis III (r. 338–ca. 330) were kings of Sparta from the Eurypontid line (see SPARTAN KINGS). Agis II was the son of Archidamos II (see ARCHIDAMOS) by his first wife and served as the junior king until Pleistoanax’s death in 409. He gained distinction as the victor of the battle of MANTINEA in 418 (Thuc. 5.64–75), restoring Spartan prestige throughout Greece. This was followed with success against ARGOS at HYSIAI in 417/16. In 413, after hosting the Athenian ALKIBIADES and amid growing scandal, he took command of Peloponnesian forces and occupied a permanent base within Attica at Decelea (Thuc. 7.19–20, 27). However, he played less of a direct role in the culmination of the war, providing support for Pausanias II (see PAUSANIAS II, SPARTAN KING) and LYSANDER in the siege of Athens in 404. After the victory he tried unsuccessfully to condemn the Agiad king Pausanias II (Paus. 3.5.2), due to the latter’s role in restoring democracy after the debacle of the thirty tyrants (see THIRTY TYRANTS, AT ATHENS) (Xen. Hell. 2.4.43). From 402 to 400 he was entrusted with campaigning against ELIS, which had seceded from the PELOPONNESIAN LEAGUE in 420. He died from illness in 400 (Xen. Hell. 3.3.1; cf. Plut. Lys. 22.6), sparking a crisis of succession that brought AGESILAOS to the throne. Agis III came to the throne after Sparta’s humiliation at the hands of PHILIP II OF MACEDON (see CHAERONEA, BATTLE OF). He continued the

Spartan preoccupation of rebuilding the city’s Peloponnesian hegemony, especially after Philip’s death (Arr. 1.1.2). Negotiations with Persia led to intervention in CRETE in 333, where he gathered a force of 8,000 Greek mercenary fugitives from ISSOS (Curt. 4.1.39; Diod. Sic. 17.48.2). With their assistance he launched a campaign for Greek liberty (Diod. Sic. 17.62.6), gaining the support of the ACHAIAN LEAGUE, Elis, and TEGEA and launching a siege of MEGALOPOLIS in 331. The Macedonian ANTIPATER amassed a massive force and relieved the siege (Curt. 6.1.6–20), killing Agis and crushing and debilitating Sparta. SEE ALSO: Alexander III, the Great; Mercenaries; Peloponnesian War; Sparta.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Badian, E. (1994) “Agis III: revisions and reflections.” In I. Worthington, ed., Ventures into Greek history: essays in honour of N. G. L. Hammond: 258–93. Oxford. Bosworth, A. B. (1988) Conquest and empire: the reign of Alexander the Great: 198–204. Cambridge. Cartledge, P. (1987) Agesilaos and the crisis of Sparta. London. Cartledge, P. (2002) Sparta and Lakonia: a regional history 1300–362 BC, 2nd ed.: 217, 230–3. London. Cartledge, P. and Spawforth, A. (1989) Hellenistic and Roman Sparta: a tale of two cities: 11–12, 21–4. London. Cooper, G. L., III (1978) “Thuc. 5.65.3 and the tactical obsession of Agis II on the day before the battle of Mantinea.” Transactions of the American Philological Association 108: 35–40.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print page 186. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah04011

1

Agis IV of Sparta IOANNA KRALLI

When the Eurypontid Agis IV (born ca. 262 BCE) came to the throne around 244, SPARTA urgently needed reformation, or even revolution. This Agis attempted to implement; it cost him his own life, in 241 (Plut. Agis). As ARISTOTLE observed (Pol. 1269b12– 1271a37), Sparta suffered from chronic oliganthropia – shortage of citizen-hoplite manpower. Fragmentation of landed property affected Spartan society profoundly: numerous Spartans were unable to contribute to the SYSSITIA (“common messes”) and thus, under Sparta’s strict rules of citizenship, were reduced to the status of hypomeiones (“inferiors”); Spartan citizenry had come to number about seven hundred men, less than one tenth of the fighting men in 479. Furthermore, many of the homoioi (“equals”) were indebted, and land had concentrated into the hands of a few families, especially women. The richest were Agis’ mother Agesistrata and his grandmother Archidameia, who offered him crucial help and were to pay for it later with their lives. Agis sought to remedy the state of oliganthropia by means of a radical change in land ownership, which he presented as a return to the egalitarian Lycurgan POLITEIA. He manipulated the political establishment: in 243/2, in order to counter the hostile reaction of the GEROUSIA, he had his fellow king Leonidas II deposed for illegal marriage. When the next board of EPHORS resisted his plans, Agis had them deposed too, claiming that the joint power of the two kings was superior to that of any other constitutional body. His bill passed; but implementation was a different matter. Agis’ first measure was the cancellation of debts – mainly mortgages that burdened the homoioi or former homoioi, including a few well-off Spartans who needed cash to finance their luxurious life. With Sparta’s traditional talent for visual propaganda at his service, he created a public bonfire of the wooden debt

markers (klaria). The next stage would be the redistribution of unencumbered civic land in equal allotments – 4,500 kleroi – to Spartans, but also to PERIOIKOI (free non-citizens) and XENOI (foreigners) fit to serve in the army. But this measure would mainly benefit the landless; it drew fierce resistance from the political establishment as well as from those Spartans who had benefited from debt cancellation but had no wish to share land with non-Spartans. Aiming to unify this heterogeneous new citizen body, Agis planned that the syssitia should be fewer (fifteen) and much larger, comprising two to four hundred members each. No less essential for the invigoration of Spartan society were the restoration of the AGOGE (traditional education) and of the ancestral austere lifestyle. At this juncture a military campaign led to Agis’ downfall. He led a Spartan force to help the then allied ACHAIAN LEAGUE against the Aitolians, only to face an insulting dismissal by the Achaian leader Aratos (see ARATOS OF SIKYON). Leonidas II was restored to the throne, while Agis was illegally condemned to death and executed. Agis had failed, but the process of social change could not be reversed: a few years later KLEOMENES III would undertake it much more effectively. SEE ALSO:

Hypomeion/hypomeiones (Sparta); Lycurgus, Spartan legislator; Plutarch.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Cartledge, P. and Spawforth, A. (2002) Hellenistic and Roman Sparta, 2nd ed.: 42–8. London. Hodkinson, S. (2000) Property and wealth in Classical Sparta: chs. 2: 43–64 and 13: 399–445. Swansea. Marasco, G. (1981, 1983) Commento alle biografie plutarchee di Agide e di Cleomene, 2 vols. Rome. Powell, A. (1999) “Spartan women assertive in politics? Plutarch’s lives of Agis and Kleomenes.” In A. Powell and S. Hodkinson, eds., Sparta: new perspectives: 393–419. Swansea.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print page 187. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah09013

1

Aglaosthenes (FGrH 499) DENNIS ALLEY

Aglaosthenes (FGrH 499) was a Greek historian of the late fourth to the early third century BCE. The earliest citation of this author comes from ERATOSTHENES’ Katasterismoi (Constellations – or rather an anonymous summary of that work), and almost all extant fragments stem from a work titled Naxika. These fragments and their contexts of citation do not specify book numbers, which makes the size of the text impossible to gauge. Not surprisingly, the fragments express a keen interest in the history and glorification of Naxos, a feature that some scholars have taken as evidence for Aglaosthenes’ Naxian heritage. His mythological interests are reflected in a story that ZEUS was born on CRETE and raised in NAXOS (BNJ 499: F2), accounts of miracles on Naxos involving DIONYSOS (BNJ 499: F4), and a story of Dionysus and the pirates (BNJ 499: F3). In addition to showing interest in mythography, he also attributes the creation of coinage to Naxians

(BNJ 499: F7), expresses interest in paradoxographic topics like the famed skiapods (BNJ 499: T2), and is cited as an authority on the noxious gasses emanating from the mouth of a cave sometimes described as “Aonis” or “Aonian” (BNJ 499: F8). Little else can be said about his work, but a pro-Ptolemaic ideology is conceivably based on Naxos’ reliance on the Ptolemies for independence through the League of the Islanders (Muller 2014). SEE ALSO:

Hellenistic period (concept of ); Historiography, Greek and Roman; Myth.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Muller, S. (2014) “Aglaosthenes 499.” In I. Worthington, ed., Brill’s New Jacoby. Brill Online. Selzer, C. (2002) “Aglaosthenes 344.” In H. Cancik and H. Schneider, eds., Brill’s New Pauly 1. Leiden. Wellmann, M. (1894) “Aglaosthenes.” In A. Pauly, G. Wissowa, and W. Kroll, eds., Realencyclopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft 1: 825. Stuttgart.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner. © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Published 2015 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah26164

1

Agnates ANN-CATHRIN HARDERS

Agnates are related to each other exclusively by patrilineal descent, that is, only through male ancestors. Agnatic kinship is unilateral as opposed to bilateral cognatic kinship. In Greek and Roman societies, agnates were at the center of kinship relations. The difference between agnates and cognates can be grasped in kinship terminology. Homeric Greek offers a distinct set of terms for the nuclear family and collaterals; uncles are distinguished depending on whether they stem from the mother’s or father’s side. Homeric kinship terminology thus stresses the difference between the descent groups. This type has been correlated with family organizations in which the basic unit is the patrilineal extended family. In contrast, Attic kinship terminology does not differentiate between agnates and cognates. Instead of taking note of a single descent group, it emphasizes the nuclear family over distant kin. Apparently, the emphasis of descent and ancestry lost significance during the Archaic period while the nuclear family and the OIKOS gained importance (see Anderson 1963: 3–14 on Greece, 33–6 in general). The legally defined kinship group, the anchisteia, was composed of relatives on both the father’s and the mother’s side. This shows that kinship in Athens was essentially seen as dual. However, agnates ranked higher than cognates when it came to performing certain tasks, such as vengeance or pardon of a kinsman’s murder (IG I3 104. 13–25), performance of death cults, as well as enjoying primacy in intestacy and marriage to the EPIKLEROS. Nonetheless, daily family life and interaction was focused on co-residents and the nuclear family unit, thereby neglecting the distinction between agnates and cognates. Roman society had developed a kinship terminology that emphasized patrilineal and matrilineal division; this bifurcation has been correlated with the patrilineal extended

family. Latin provides a system in which every category of relative is given a distinct term including cousins (see COUSIN (CONSOBRINUS, FRATER PATRUELIS)): paternal aunt and uncle, amita and patruus, are thus distinguished from their maternal counterparts, matertera and avunculus. Roman law, however, did not rely on biological paternity for specifying the agnati: Only free persons who were under the PATRIA POTESTAS of the PATERFAMILIAS, or would have been subject to it if the pater was still alive, were considered as agnati. Sons who had been emancipated or given into adoption were not considered agnates, but cognates. Adoptees entered the familia of the adoptive father and became agnati, but were not considered as cognati naturales (Gai. Inst. 1.156; 3.10; see EMANCIPATION; ADOPTION). Also, a mother was only a cognate to her children unless she entered the MANUS of her husband; upon leaving her natal agnatic family unit legally, she become agnata to her husband and children. In theory, a great-grandfather might have wielded his potestas over four or more generations; due to high mortality rates, however, the agnatio was usually composed of two generations (see DEMOGRAPHY, HISTORICAL (ANCIENT MEDITERRANEAN)). Roman laws of inheritance clearly favored agnates. In case of intestacy, those family members who became sui iuris with the death of the pater were privileged as sui heredes. Sons and daughters were given the same share and were specified as consanguinei. An uxor in manu was legally treated like a daughter (filiae loco; Gai. Inst. 3.1–7). After the sui, the proximi agnati were considered as heirs (XII Tab. 5.4). Following the logic of the lex Voconia in 169 BCE on female legacies, female agnates other than the consanguinei did not inherit. The praetorian bonorum possessio also recognized cognates as legitimate heirs, albeit only after considering agnates, emancipated sons, and gentiles first. Agnates were also considered as tutors for underage children (tutela impuberum) and for women (tutela mulieris). As legal guardians (tutor legitimus; see XII Tab. 8.20b), they had

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 188–189. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah22009

2 to take care of their charges unless a pater declared otherwise in his will (see TUTELA). Ritually, agnates formed a specific group. They participated in rites for the sacra familiae and remembered the divi parentes and the di manes (see PARENTALIA); the agnatically orientated Parentalia were complemented by rites for the Cara Cognatio or Caristeia on which the cognates assembled. Until the end of the third century BCE, agnates and cognates were not allowed to enter marriage within the sixth degree; it would have been considered as incestus. In contrast to Greece, where members of the anchisteia were preferred marriage partners, Roman society opted for exogamy and the building of large kinship groups (see EXOGAMY). It has been argued that agnates like patruus and amita had to behave in a specific “agnatic” way, adhering strictly to social norms in contrast to a more affectionate relationship between cognates (Bettini 1991, 2002). This concept has been called into question by doubts about the structural differentiation of family behavior (Saller 1997). However, agnates and cognates had to conform to social expectations, thereby demonstrating on the basis of their behavior their familial devotion (see PIETAS). SEE ALSO:

Adfinitas; Agnatio; Anchisteia; Cognates, cognatio; Marriage, Greece and Rome.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Anderson, R. T. (1963) “Changing kinship in Europe.” Kroeber Anthropological Papers 28: 1–47. Bettini, M. (1991) Anthropology and Roman culture: kinship, time, images of the soul. Baltimore. Bettini, M. (2002) “The metamorphosis of ‘texts’ into ‘sources’ in Roman social history: some examples from Richard Saller’s Roman kinship: structure and sentiment.” Quaderni di Storia 56: 199–226. Cox, C. A. (1998) Household interests: property, marriage strategies, and family dynamics in ancient Athens. Princeton. Humphreys, S. C. (1986) “Kinship patterns in the Athenian courts.” Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 27: 57–91. Saller, R. P. (1997) “Roman kinship: structure and sentiment.” In B. Rawson and P. Weaver, eds., The Roman family in Italy: status, sentiment, space: 7–34. Oxford. Thomas, Y. (1996) “Fathers as citizens of Rome, Rome as a city of fathers (2nd century BC – 2nd century AD).” In A. Burguie`re et al., eds., A history of the family: remote worlds and ancient worlds, vol. 1: 228–69. Cambridge. Wilgaux, J. (2006) “Les e´volutions du vocabulaire grec de la parente´.” In A. Bresson et al., eds., Parente´ et socie´te´ dans le monde grec de l’antiquite´ a` l’aˆge moderne: colloque international Volos (Gre`ce) 19–21 juin 2003: 209–34. Paris.

1

Agnatio ANN-CATHRIN HARDERS

Agnatio is defined as the group of persons related to each other exclusively by patrilineal descent. The expression originates from Roman law, but has found its way into modern ethnology and anthropology to define patrilateral kin groups (ethnology) or socially privileged kin groups (anthropology). Agnatio and cognatio represent two ways of structuring kinship groups. Whereas cognatio is defined as bilateral – lineage is traced through the mother as well as the father – agnatic filiation excludes maternal kin. In most agnatically structured societies, a woman upon entering marriage resides with her husband’s parents or nearby, so that the agnatio also forms a living unit. The differentiation between agnatic and cognatic kinship not only serves to constitute a group and to construct its identity, but also provides unambiguous rules for transferring property, name or title, and family cult within the kinship group. Because there is unilateral filiation, every individual can be assigned to a certain family unit and may not claim rights of any kind from another agnatic kinship group. This unambiguous classification of distinct family units is important for societies of a certain size and economic potential. Exclusively bilateral kinship groups are rare, but can be found in societies with smaller populations and limited economic prospects. In these societies, cognatio offers a flexible social system in which an individual has access to the help of as many kinsmen as possible in times of need (see COGNATES, COGNATIO). Whereas cognatic kinship groups are “horizontally” structured and emphasize the importance of side kin and kin by marriage (i.e., affinity), agnatio is oriented “vertically” in time and promotes the construction of long-lasting lineages that can also be followed in the nomenclature (see NAMES, PERSONAL, ROMAN). In Greek and Roman Antiquity, agnatio was the preferred kinship group.

There is no terminological differentiation between agnates and cognates in Attic Greek. Within the set of kinship terms, only the expressions for grandsons differ and highlight the agnatic lineage: a daughter’s son was thugatridous, a sons’ son huidious. The legally defined kinship group, known as the anchisteia, includes first cousins once removed, i.e., the uncle or aunt’s grandchildren. The anchisteia was supposed to avenge or to pardon murder (aidesis; see IG I 3 104, 13–25) and assume responsibility for burial and death cult. The relatives were also entitled to inherit in case a kyrios died without succession. Although cognate kin were included in the anchisteia, agnates had primacy. The agnatic principle is best presented in the case of the epikleros: in case an Athenian died without male progeny, his property was attached to his daughter, who was not entitled to inherit herself but had to marry the closest agnate. Thus the oikos was not diffused via females, but re-linked with the agnatic lineage (see ANCHISTEIA; EPIKLEROS; cf. Harrison 1968: 132–8; 143–9). In contrast to Greece, Roman society distinguished clearly between agnatio and cognatio, even in Latin terminology (see AGNATES). Roman civil law defined agnatio as a specific kinship group and distinguished it as cognatio legitima or civilis. True bilateral cognatio was ascribed to natural law instead (ius naturale ; see Gai. Inst. 1.56; Ulp. Dig. 1.4.24.1). Agnatic kinship was not established via the biological act of procreation, but was based on a legal concept: only those in the patria potestas of a paterfamilias, or who would have been subject to it if the pater were still alive, were considered agnates. The agnatio took priority over members of the GENS and cognates in laws of inheritance; in the context of certain family rituals for the divi parentes and the di manes, the agnatio was also considered an exclusive unit (see PARENTALIA; cf. Kaser 1971: 52–103). Because of the preference for agnatio in Roman law, modern scholarship has argued for its prevalence in social life as well, and has

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 189–191. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah13012

2 subordinated the role of cognatio. However, whereas the unambiguous unilineal principle of agnatio regulates descent and the transmission of property well, the important role of the (legally underprivileged) cognatio and adfinitas is demonstrated in the activities of daily family life, such as the raising of children and political and economic co-operation, embodied in family festivals such as the Matralia and the Cara Cognatio. Furthermore, agnatic familiae were interlinked by cognatio and adfinitas; Cicero (Off. 1.54) praises this social network as the foundation of Roman society, and this social network helps to account for Roman society’s extraordinary coherence (Harders 2008: 318–20). SEE ALSO:

Adfinitas; Adoption; Agnates; Family, Greek and Roman; Kinship; Paterfamilias; Patria potestas.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Cox, C. A. (1998) Household interests. Property, marriage strategies, and family dynamics in ancient Athens. Princeton.

Gardner, J. F. (1998) Family and familia in Roman law and life. Oxford. Hanard, G. (1980) “Observation sur l’adgnatio.” Revue international des droits de l’Antiquite´ 27: 169–204. Harders, A.-C. (2008) Suavissima Soror. Untersuchungen zu den BruderSchwester-Beziehungen in der ro¨mischen Republik. Munich. Harrison, A. R. W. (1968) The law of Athens, vol. I: The family and property. Oxford. Kaser, M. (1971) Das ro¨mische Privatrecht. Erster Abschnitt: Das altro¨mische, das vorklassische und klassische Recht. Munich. Martin, J. (2009) “Das Vaterland der Va¨ter. Familia, Politik und cognatische Verwandtschaft in Rom.” In J. Martin and W. Schmitz, eds., Bedingungen menschlichen Handelns in der Antike. Gesammelte Beitra¨ge zur historischen Anthropologie: 311–27. Stuttgart. Saller, R. P. (1994) Patriarchy, property and death in the Roman family. Cambridge. Schmitz, W. (2007) Haus und Familie im antiken Griechenland. Munich. Thomas, Y. (1986) “Pe`res citoyens et cite´ des pe`res. Rome, IIe sie`cle av. J.-C.-IIe sie`cle ap. J.C.” In A. Burguie`re and C. Klapisch-Zuber, eds., Histoire de la famille. Mondes lointains, vol. I: 195–230. Paris.

1

Agnostos Theos HEIDI MARX-WOLF

According to Pausanius (1.1.4), Philostratus (VA 6.3), and a number of other ancient sources, the Athenians used to worship a deity they called the “unknown god” (agnostos theos) or the “unknown daimon” (agnostos daimon). In his account of the life of the Pre-Socratic philosopher Epimenides, Diogenes Laertius explained the origins of this worship. Once when the Athenians were afflicted by plague, on the injunction of the priestess of Delphi to purify the city, they called upon Epimenides. The philosopher led black and white sheep up to the Areopagus, and allowed them to roam freely. Wherever an animal lay down, the Athenians were to sacrifice it to the god of that location. However, not all the sheep lay down in places associated with the traditional Athenian deities. Hence new altars to these unknown gods were established. Diogenes reports that in his time one could find different Athenian altars without names that continued the cult established in the time of Epimenides’ visit to the city (Diog. Laert. 1). One of the better known mentions of the Athenian cult of the unknown god occurs in the Acts of the Apostles (17:15–34).

According to the story, when Paul was preaching in the city, his teachings incited curiosity among some of the inhabitants about the nature of the god he was proclaiming. This curiosity was roused, according to the author of Acts, because “all the Athenians and the foreigners living there would spend their time in nothing but telling or hearing something new” (NRSV 1989: 17:21). In answer to their questions, Paul made the argument that the “unknown god” of the Athenians was really the god of the Jews. Although the ancient sources make note of the worship of the “unknown god,” they do not convey much information about the precise content of this worship.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Dodd, E. (1963) “The unknown god in Neoplatonism.” In Proclus, the elements of theology: 310–13. Oxford. Norden, E. (1913) Agnostos Theos: Untersuchungen zur Formengeschichte religio¨ser Rede. Leipzig, Berlin. van der Horst, P. W. (1998) The altar of the “Unknown god” in Athens (Acts 17:23) and the cults of “unknown gods” in the Graeco-Roman world. In Hellenism, Judaism, Christianity: essays on their interaction: 187–220. Leuven.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print page 191. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah17015

1

Agoge NIGEL KENNELL

Agoge (“upbringing”) is the name commonly given to the citizen training system at Sparta, which probably began in the sixth century BCE and survived, with interruptions, until the mid-fourth century CE. In the Classical period, young male Spartans aged seven to twentynine were divided into three age grades: paides (boys), paidiskoi (teenagers), and hebontes (young men). Within each of the two younger grades they trained together in companies (ilai) under the supervision of the paidonomos (superintendent of children), while the hebontes could attend the Spartiate common messes (see SYSSITIA) and served in the army. From this last group were also picked the 300 elite hippeis (knights), who fought on foot as the royal bodyguard. During their training youths were inculcated with the values of obedience and endurance through a series of contests and rituals in order to become model soldier-citizens. The best known was a mock battle in which one group of youths attempted to steal cheese from Artemis Orthia’s altar while another group warded them off with whips (Xen. Lac. 2–9). The agoge declined in the early Hellenistic period until KLEOMENES III OF SPARTA (235–222 BCE) restored it as the centerpiece of renewed Spartan power. The invigorated system survived Kleomenes’ defeat at Sellasia in 222 (see SELLASIA, BATTLE OF), only to be abolished by the victorious Achaian general PHILOPOIMEN

in 188. During the Roman period the agoge, once again revived, played a pivotal role in projecting Sparta’s civic identity as a city essentially unchanged since the Archaic period. Victory dedications were composed in an anachronistic pastiche of the obsolete Lakonian dialect, age-grades gained outlandish, archaic-sounding names, and the cheese-stealing ritual was transformed into the notorious Contest of Endurance, in which young Spartans endured a whipping at Artemis’ altar. While criticized for emphasizing physical endurance and ferocity in rearing citizens (Pl. Leg. 633b–d; Arist. Pol. 1271b), Classical Sparta was also praised as the only polis with a state-run citizen-training system (Arist. Pol. 1337a). The agoge likely inspired Athens to introduce a similar institution (ephebeia) in the fourth century, which led to training systems spreading to almost 200 Greek cities in the Hellenistic and Roman periods. SEE ALSO: Adolescence; Age-class (ephebes, neoi); Cheese; Ephebe, ephebeia; Sparta.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Cartledge, P. (2002) Sparta and Lakonia: a regional history 1300–362 BC, 2nd ed. London. Dawkins, R., Droop, J., et al. (1921) The Sanctuary of Artemis Orthia at Sparta. London. Ducat, J. (2006) Spartan education: youth and society in the Classical period. Swansea. Kennell, N. M. (1995) The gymnasium of virtue: education and culture in ancient Sparta. Chapel Hill.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 191–192. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah04012

1

Agon SOPHIA ANEZIRI

The contest (agon) is one of the main manifestations of the Greek way of life and expresses two basic constituents of the Greek spirit: competition and rivalry. It is interesting to note that, alongside Hermes Enagonios, Agon itself was personified and depicted in a statue at Olympia (Paus. 5.26.3 and 7). The arenas in which the ancient Greeks competed were almost as numerous as the many aspects of their lives (Isocr. 4.45; [Lys.] Epitaph. 80; Athen. 13.609e–610a), or as human skills (Plin.(E) HN 34.53, 35.72; Macr. 5.22; Athen. 15.697a; MAMA VIII 519). In the less common equestrian events (horse racing and chariot races), where the jockeys or charioteers were slaves (IG II2 2313; SEG 41.115), the horses were competing, but the contest was, in effect, between their owners, who belonged to the higher classes. The main manifestations of the Greeks’ competitive spirit were in any case the athletic (IG IV 428), musical (i.e., thymelic and/or dramatic) (CID IV 47), and equestrian (CIG 2758 ll. 10–17) contests, which took place during festivals in honor of the war dead (IG II2 1006 ll. 22, 26), gods (IG VII 1760), heroes (IG II2 960), or deified Hellenistic (SEG 28. 60 ll. 55–56) and Roman rulers (Livy 43.6; Syll.3 700 ll. 38–40), or to commemorate victories (IG II2 657; IPergamon I 223), birthdays (ICreticae III iv 4 ll. 11–13), and weddings (Diod. Sic. 16.92; Athen. 10.538e). These festivals and by extension the contests which took place during them were organized by Greek cities (Syll.3 557), demes (SEG 41.75), federations of cities such as the Boiotian koinon (SEG 3.367 l. 30) or the koinon of the cities of Asia (FD III 1, 550 ll. 17, 22), kings (Anth.Pal. 7.708; Theocr. 17.112), and Roman rulers (Plut. Sulla 19). Some contests, in which the gymnasium had a multifaceted role, gave boys, adolescents, and young men the opportunity to fulfill a part of their education

through participation (IG XII 6, 179–83; I. Beroia 1 B ll. 45–60). The earliest known Greek agones were the ones which accompanied the four big Panhellenic festivals: Olympia, Pythia, Nemeia, and Isthmia. They go back as far as the Archaic period or perhaps even earlier and constitute that “ancient circuit” (a᾽rwai ́an peri ́odon) (Moretti 1953: no. 85 ll. 16–17), to which the Actia (Moretti 1953: no. 62) and the Capitolia (IvO 243) in Rome were later also attributed. Later contests, which were of the same rank as these were described as “isopythian,” “isolympian” (CID IV 107 ll. 13–14), “isonemean” (FD III 1, 481 ll. 11–12), “isactian” (IBeroia 118), or “isocapitolean” (Ι.Perge 334). The program for these contests and the ages of the contestants were fixed, as were honors and rewards given to victors. Events and age groups were strictly defined in other contests, too: for example, paȋdeς ‘ prώt
ς, deutέraς, trίt
ς
likίaς (“boys of the first, second, and third ages”) in the Theseia in Athens (IG II2 956); ageneioi (“beardless youths”) in the Amphiaraia at Oropos (Ι.Oropos 520); and epheboi and neoi (“adolescents” and “young men,” respectively) in Sestos (Syll.3 246) and Teos (CIG 3088). The same applies to the prizes received by the winners, which were simple wreaths for the most prestigious contests (a᾽go n stejanίtZς) (Poll. 3.153 and 273; IG IV2 1, 68 l. 73) or amounts of money (a᾽ go n a᾽ rgurίtZς, yematίtZς [or yematikός], wrZmatikός, and talantiaȋος) (IG XII 5, 444 l. 53; Moretti 1953: nos. 70 l. 6 and 73 l. 16) – and, indeed, sometimes a combination of the two, like crowns made of gold (Calvet and Roesch 1966; Syll.3 1055 ll. 1 –22; cf. Pleket 2004). The fact that most of the festivals in which the agones were incorporated were held in honor of the gods makes them an inseparable part of the worship of the gods or later the cults of deified Hellenistic or Roman rulers. In this sense, most contests had a clearly sacred character and content. Nevertheless, only those which had a wreath as a prize could be

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 192–194. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah09014

2 termed not just stephanitai/stephanephoroi (ste’anȋtai/ste’an
’όrοi, “of a crown”) (IG IV2 1, 68 l. 73; Hdt. 5.102) or phyllitai/ phyllinoi (’ullȋtai/’ύllinοi, “of a wreath of leaves”) (Schol. Pind. Ol. 8.76; Diog. Laert. 7.41) but also hieroi (i῾ erοί, ‘sacred’) (IG II2 1042 l. 22; FD III 2, 161). The winners at these important agones celebrated and honored their home cities by their victories and in return were rewarded with some material quid pro quo (Cass. Dio 41.1.2; IEphesos 1415 ll. 13–15) and honors, such as a triumphal entry into the city (ei᾽ sέlasiς, thus the designation of these contests as ei᾽ selastikοί; ITralleis 82 and 143) and the erection of a commemorative statue (Petzl and Schwertheim; Vitruv. 9 praef.). Of course, at the same time the contests also celebrated the organizers. Along with the procession, the agones were the parts of the festival which allowed the greatest display of organization and wealth, while at the same time bringing together the largest number of visitors (as well as perhaps being the least prestigious commercial part of the festival). Depending on the distance from which the visitors and competitors came, something which was directly connected with the size of the area in which the envoys (οi῾ e᾽ paggέllοnteς yeorοί or simply οi῾ e᾽ paggέllοnteς/οi῾ yeorοί) moved when sending out invitations (SEG 53. 849), a contest (and, by extension, a whole festival) could be “ecumenical” (i.e., universal), Panhellenic, local, or supralocal, and, naturally, the organizing authority reaped prestige and recognition accordingly. Just like the other parts of the festival, organizing a contest meant involving a number of officials: a president of the contests, or agonothetes; a judge or steward in the contests (athlothetes); envoys (theoroi); and, in some cases, chief judges, who awarded the prizes (hellanodikai). It also meant financial planning to ensure the necessary funding, and strict rules for an impeccable result. In several cases, the costs were met (at least in part) by the agonothetes himself (ΙG II2 834; I.Priene 111 ll. 167 ff.) or by some other benefactor (SEG

38.1463), though there are instances where the agones and by extension the corresponding festival were founded and funded entirely by an individual, sometimes as part of a donation (Wo¨rrle 1988: 3–4). The frequency and the geographical range of the contests and festivals in general saw a striking increase from the fourth century BCE onward, a development which was directly connected with the political and social conditions of the period. The certamina graeca reached as far as Rome itself (Livy 39.22.2). As a consequence, the corresponding evidence (mostly inscriptions) also expanded significantly. For the most part, this means lists of victors (FD III 4, 125–8), honors granted by popular vote and honorific inscriptions for agonothetai (IG IV2 1, 652; IG VII 4148) or victors, and dedications made by agonothetai or victors (the material relating to the latter has been collected by Moretti 1953, IAG). Apart from ensuring the reputation and prestige of organizers and victors, the Greek agones also reinforced the competitive spirit and ensured physical fitness (important virtues in war until at least the late Classical period), and they provided opportunities for intellectual and artistic productivity and considerable scope for satisfying a basic characteristic of the Greek (i.e., the sense of honor). SEE ALSO:

Age-class (ephebes, neoi); Festivals, Greece and Rome; Isthmian Games; Nemea; Olympia; Pythian Games.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Bell, S. and Davies, G., eds. (2004) Games and festivals in Classical antiquity: Proceedings of the conference held in Edinburgh, 10–12 July 2000. Oxford. Calvet, M. and Roesch, P. (1966) “Les Sarapieia de Tanagra.” Revue arche´ologique 298: 23–42. Durand, M. (1999) La compe´tition en Gre`ce antique. Agon. Ge´ne´alogie, e´volution, interpre´tation. Paris. Ebert, J. (1972) Griechische Epigramme auf Sieger an gymnischen und hippischen Agonen. Berlin.

3 Klee, T. (1918) Zur Geschichte der gymnischen Agone an griechischen Festen. Leipzig. Manieri, A. (2009) Agoni poetico-musicali nella Grecia antica. Pisa. Moretti, L. (1953) Iscrizioni agonistiche greche (IAG). Rome. Palagia, O. and Spetsieri-Choremi, A., eds. (2007) The Panathenaiac Games: Proceedings of an international conference held at the University of Athens, May 11–12, 2004. Oxford. Petzl, G. and Schwertheim, E. (2006) Hadrian und die dionysischen Ku¨nstler: 49–50. Munich. Phillips, J. and Pritchard, D. (2003) Sport and festival in the Ancient Greek world. Swansea.

Pickard-Cambridge, A. (1988) The dramatic festivals of Athens, 2nd ed., rev. by J. Gould and D. M. Lewis. Cambridge. Pleket, H. W. (2004) “Einige Betrachtungen zum Thema ‘Geld und Sport.’” Nikephoros 17: 77–89. Scheliha, R. von (1987) Vom Wettkampf der Dichter. Der musische Agon bei den Griechen. Amsterdam. Weiler, I. (1974) Der Agon im Mythos. Zur Einstellung der Griechen zum Wettkampf. Darmstadt. Wilson, P., ed. (2007) The Greek theater and festivals: Documentary studies. Oxford. Wo¨rrle, M. (1988) Stadt und Fest im kaiserzeitlichen Kleinasien: Studien zu einer agonistischen Stiftung aus Oinoanda. Munich.

1

Agon SOPHIA ANEZIRI

National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Greece

The contest (agon) is one of the principal manifestations of the Greek way of life and expresses two basic constituents of the Greek spirit: competition and rivalry. The arenas in which the ancient Greeks competed were almost as numerous as the many aspects of their lives (Isoc. 4.45; [Lys.] Epitaph. 80; Athen. 13.609e–610a), or as varied as human skills (Pliny, HN 34.53, 35.72; Macr. 5.22; Athen. 15.697a; MAMA VIII 519). It is interesting to note that, alongside Hermes Enagonios, Agon itself was personified and depicted in a statue at Olympia (Paus. 5.26.3 and 7). The various facets of the agon in Greek culture and the forms it took in Greek sociopolitical and religious life are analyzed in Reid, Serrati, and Sorg (2020). The main manifestations of the Greeks’ competitive spirit were the athletic (Klee 1918), musical (i.e., thymelic and dramatic; Pickard-Cambridge 1988; Manieri 2009), and equestrian contests (Moretti and Valavanis 2019). In the equestrian events, which consisted of horse races and chariot races and where the jockeys or charioteers were slaves, it was the horses that were competing, but the contest was in effect between their owners, who belonged to the higher classes. The contests took place during festivals in honor of the war dead (IG II2 1006, lines 22–3), gods (I.Thespiai 172), heroes (IG II2 960) or deified Hellenistic (IG II3 911, lines 55–6) and Roman rulers (Livy 43.6; Syll.3 700, lines 38–40), or during festivals designed to commemorate victories (IG II3 877, lines 42–6; I.Pergamon I 223), birthdays (I.Creticae III iv 4, lines 11–13), and weddings (Diod. Sic. 16.92; Athen. 12.538e). These festivals – and, by extension, the contests that took place during them – were organized by Greek cities (Syll.3 557), demes (SEG 41.75), federations of cities and ethne such as the Boiotian

League (SEG 3.367, lines 30–1), the koinon (“federation, community”) of the cities of Asia (F.Delphes III 1, 550, lines 17, 22) or the Delphic Amphictyony (Nachtergael 1977: 404–24 nos. 2–10), Hellenistic kings (Anth. Pal. 7.708; Theocr. 17.112), and Roman rulers (Plut. Sulla 19). Some contests, in which the gymnasium had a multifaceted role, gave boys, adolescents, and young men the opportunity to fulfill a part of their education through participation (IG XII 6, 179–83; I.Beroia 1 B, lines 45–60). The earliest known Greek agones were the ones that accompanied the four big Panhellenic festivals: the Olympia, the Pythia, the Nemeia, and the Isthmia. They go back as far as the Archaic period or perhaps even earlier, and constitute an “ancient circuit” (archaian periodon) (Moretti 1953: no. 85, lines 16–17) to which at a later date the Actia (Moretti 1953: no. 62) and the Capitolia (IvO 243) in Rome were also attributed. Later contests of the same rank were described as “equal” with them or “equipowered” (isoi): isopythian, isolympian (CID IV 107, lines 12–14), isonemean (F.Delphes III 1, 481, lines 11–12), isactian (I.Beroia 118), or isocapitolean (I.Perge 334). The program for these contests and the ages of the contestants were fixed, as were the honors and rewards given to victors. Events and age groups were strictly defined in other contests as well: for example, paides protes, deuteras, trites helikias (“boys of the first, second, and third age”), epheboi, neaniskoi, andres (“adolescents, young men, men”) in the Theseia in Athens (IG II2 956 cols. I–III, lines 43 ff.); andres, paides, ageneioi (“men, boys, beardless youths”) in the Amphiaraia at Oropos (I.Oropos 520); epheboi and neoi (“adolescents” and “young men” respectively) in Sestos (Syll.3 246). The same applies to the prizes received by winners, which were simple wreaths for the most prestigious contests (agones stephanitai, “contests with a crown as a prize,” or phullitai, phullinoi “with a wreath of leaves as a prize”) (Hdt. 5.102; Schol. Pind. Ol. 8.76; Poll. 3.153 and 273; Diog. Laert. 7.41; IG IV2 1, 68, line 73) or amounts of money (agon thematites or thematikos “with a fixed prize to

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History. Edited by Andrew Erskine, David B. Hollander, and Arietta Papaconstantinou. © 2021 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Published 2021 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wwbeah09014.pub2

2 it,” argurites or chrematikos “with a money prize,” and talantiaios “with a talent for a prize”) (IG XII 5, 444, line 53; Moretti 1953: nos. 70, line 6 and 73, line 16) – and sometimes a combination of the two, for example crowns made of gold (Manieri 2009: 268–77; SEG 25.501, lines 22–42; IG II2 2311, lines 1–22). The fact that most of the festivals into which agones were incorporated were held in honor of various gods makes agones themselves an inseparable part of the worship of gods and, later, of the cults of deified Hellenistic or Roman rulers. In this respect, most contests had a clearly sacred character and content. Nevertheless, only those that had a wreath as a prize could be termed hieroi (“sacred”) (F. Delphes III 2, 161). The winners at these important agones celebrated and honored their home cities through their victories and, in return, were rewarded with some material quid pro quo (Cass. Dio 41.1.2; I.Ephesos 1415, lines 13–15) and honors such as a triumphal entry into the city (eiselasis – whence the designation of these contests as eiselastikoi: see I.Tralleis 82 and 143) or a commemorative statue (Vitruv. 9 praef.). Slater (2012) discusses the categories of contests in relation to their prizes. Of course, the contests also celebrated the organizers. Along with the procession, the agon was the part of the festival that allowed the greatest display of wealth and organizational capacity, while bringing together a large number of people – visitors and competitors alike. Depending on the distance from which these people came – which was directly related to the size of the area in which the envoys (hoi epangellontes theoroi, or simply hoi epangellontes or hoi theoroi (see THEORIA): e.g., IG XII 4, 220–2) moved when sending out invitations (SEG 53.849) – a contest (and, by extension, a whole festival) could be “ecumenical” (i.e., universal), Panhellenic, local, or supralocal; naturally, the organizing authority reaped prestige and recognition accordingly. Much like organizing the other parts of a festival, organizing the contest meant involving a number of officials: a president of the contests (the AGONOTHETES), a judge or steward in the

contests (the athlothetes), and in some cases chief judges who awarded the prizes (hellanodikai). It also meant financial planning by the organizers, who had to ensure the necessary funding (for interesting financial aspects of the contests, see Le Guen 2010), and strict rules for an impeccable result. In some cases the costs were met, at least in part, by the choregoi (see CHOREGIA), who financed the choruses in the choral and dramatic contests (Wilson 2000), and later, during the Hellenistic and Roman periods, by the agonothetes himself (IG II3 1160; I.Priene 111, lines 167 ff.) or by some other benefactor (SEG 38.1463). There are instances where the agones and, by extension, the corresponding festivals were entirely funded, and sometimes even founded, by individuals (Aneziri 2014). In the conduct of thymelic and dramatic contests, the associations of Dionysiac artists, who were music and drama professionals, were involved at various levels and in various ways (Aneziri 2007). The frequency and the geographical range of the contests and festivals in general saw a striking increase from the fourth century BCE onward, a development that responded directly to the political and social conditions of the period. Certamina graeca – the Greek agones – reached as far as Rome itself (Livy 39.22.2). In consequence, the corresponding evidence (mostly inscriptions) also expands significantly. For the most part, this means lists of victors (Nachtergael 1977: 475–85 nos. 58–68), honors for agonothetai (IG IV2 1, 652; IG VII 4148) or victors, and dedications made by agonothetai or victors (for material related to victors, see Moretti 1953 and Ebert 1972). Apart from securing the reputation and prestige of organizers and victors, the Greek agones reinforced the competitive spirit and safeguarded the idea of physical fitness; both had been important virtues in war until at least the late Classical period. They also created opportunities for intellectual and artistic productivity and allowed considerable scope for the manifestation of the sense of honor – a basic characteristic of ancient Greek culture. On the whole, the spirit of the competition

3 expressed through music and athletic contests, as well as the preparation, in body and mind, for these very contests contributed significantly to the development of the Greek polis and community life (Phillips and Pritchard 2003). ∗ Epigraphic corpora are cited in this entry according to the standard abbreviations of Supplementum epigraphicum graecum (SEG). SEE ALSO: Age-class (ephebes, neoi); Agonistic festivals, Roman Empire; Festivals, Greece and Rome; Isthmian Games; Music, Greece and Rome; Nemea; Olympia; Pythian Games; Ruler cult, Greek and Hellenistic; Theater, Greek and Roman.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Aneziri, S. (2007) “The organisation of music contests in the Hellenistic period and artists’ participation.” In P. Wilson, ed., The Greek theatre and festivals: documentary studies: 67–84. Oxford. Aneziri, S. (2014) “Stiftungen für sportliche und musische Agone.” In K. Harter-Uibopuu and T. Kruse, eds., Sport und Recht in der Antike: Beiträge zum 2. Wiener Kolloquium zur Antiken Rechtsgeschichte, Wien, 27.–28.10.2011: 147–65. Vienna.

Ebert, J. (1972) Griechische Epigramme auf Sieger an gymnischen und hippischen Agonen. Berlin. Klee, T. (1918) Zur Geschichte der gymnischen Agone an griechischen Festen. Leipzig. Le Guen, B., ed. (2010) L’argent dans les concours du monde grec. Actes du colloque international Saint Denis et Paris, 5–6 décembre 2008. Paris. Manieri, A. (2009) Agoni poetico-musicali nella Grecia antica, vol. 1. Pisa. Moretti, L. (1953) Iscrizioni agonistiche greche. Rome. Moretti, J. C. and Valavanis, P., eds. (2019) Les hippodromes et les concours hippiques dans la Grèce antique. Athens. Nachtergael, G. (1977) Les Galates en Grèce et les Sôtéria de Delphes. Brussels. Phillips, D. J. and Pritchard, D., eds. (2003) Sport and festival in the ancient Greek world. Swansea. Pickard-Cambridge, A. (1988) The dramatic festivals of Athens, 2nd edn., rev. by J. Gould and D. M. Lewis. Cambridge. Reid, H. L., Serrati, J., and Sorg, T., eds. (2020) Conflict and competition: agon in western Greece: selected essays from the 2019 symposium on the heritage of western Greece. Iowa. Slater, W. J. (2012) “The victor’s return, and the categories of games.” In P. Martzavou and N. Papazarkadas, eds., Epigraphical approaches to the post-classical polis: fourth century BC to second century AD: 139–63. Oxford. Wilson, P. (2000) The Athenian institution of the khoregia: the chorus, the city and the stage. Cambridge.

1

Agonistic festivals, Roman Empire ONNO M. VAN NIJF

Festivals with athletic, equestrian, dramatic, or musical competitions (agones) stood in a centuries-old tradition. The great festivals at OLYMPIA, DELPHI, ISTHMIA, and NEMEA had always been centers of the Greek world. Festivals had continued to flourish in the Hellenistic period, with the active support of Hellenistic rulers, but in many ways the golden age of the agonistic festivals was achieved under the Roman Empire. Old festivals continued, often restored with the support of local benefactors or Roman authorities. The traditional games flourished, and hundreds of new festivals were founded throughout the Greek-speaking provinces. Most of these were found in mainland Greece, and in western and southern ASIA MINOR, but they were also common elsewhere. In some regions, such as CRETE or SPARTA, they are a product mainly of the imperial period (Robert 1984; Spawforth 1989). Moreover, in the imperial period agonistic festivals spread to Italy, where Rome itself became host to a number of Greek-style festivals, including the Capitolia (Newby 2005). However, this agonistic culture did not catch on in the western provinces. The evidence for the continuing popularity of agonistic festivals is diverse: archaeologists have uncovered stadia, odea, theaters, and gymnasia that formed the material infrastructure for this agonistic culture. Literary texts display a fascination with the traditional Greek agonistic festivals, and are evidence for its continuing relevance for contemporary Greek culture (van Nijf 2003; Koenig 2005). The main sources, however, are numismatic and epigraphic. Greek cities continued to mint their own bronze coins, and on many of these we find the names and titles of local festivals, as well as athletic symbols, such as strigils and prize-crowns. Thousands of honorific inscriptions commemorate athletic

champions. Other texts record the foundation of festivals, providing us with details about the organization and funding of the festivals. Epigraphic and numismatic references fluctuate, but it is clear that the reigns of Augustus and Hadrian were particularly active periods. The highest number of new foundations is attested in the Severan age, which must reflect at least partly the changing preferences of individual cities and the class of benefactors who mostly funded the games (Mitchell 1990; Leschhorn 1998). When both types of evidence dry up in the course of the third century, this particular window on agonistic life begins to close, but it should not be assumed that agonistic life also came to an end. Local games persisted, and a bronze plaque found in OLYMPIA lists contestants from throughout the Greek world well into the fourth century. When the emperor THEODOSIUS I abolished the Olympic Games in 391 CE, he was acting against a living tradition, but even after this date agonistic festivals only gradually gave way to other types of entertainment. In many cities local festivals continued, despite Christian views that they corrupted morality. Emperors permitted them as they were held for the pleasure of the people. The final disappearance of the festivals was a triumph for Christians hostile to classical culture, but in the meantime agonistic imagery had slipped into the Christian literature: monks could be described as “athletes of God” (Roueche´ 1993). Agonistic festivals were not distinct from civic society, but closely integrated to other features of religious and cultural life. Religious festivals typically consisted of a procession (pompe), sacrifices (thusia), and sacrificial banquets as well as athletic, equestrian, dramatic, or musical competitions. The importance of a festival rested on all these elements, but the contests were the most spectacular and the most likely to be commemorated. The basic structure of these festivals did not change over time, nor did the major disciplines. The main athletic events were several running events,

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 194–198. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah18003

2 long-jumping, throwing the discus, wrestling, boxing, and a kind of freestyle wrestling called pankration. Some festivals had more specialized contests, such as the long footrace in armor (hoplitodromos) which was the centerpiece of the Freedom Games at PLATAIA. The combat sports commanded the highest social respect. Suggestions that they became more bloody under the influence of Rome, or that the increase in their number should be seen as pandering to lower-class tastes, are not supported in the evidence (Pleket 2001). Outside the big festivals the evidence for equestrian events is limited, but chariot races remained popular until Late Antiquity. In Classical Greece horse racing had been the preserve of wealthy individuals, but under Rome races were arranged by professional companies and later by “factions,” each named after a color. These events, however, were increasingly separated from the traditional Greek festivals. Dramatic competitions continued, but the prizes went to the performers of the “classic” plays, not to new playwrights. More creative activity was expected in the various musical and literary performances, where traditional Greek genres were still highly prized. However, it was a sign of the times that contests in prose or verse composition included subjects like the praise of the emperor. The victory lists created for successful athletes often took pains to establish a status hierarchy between different categories of contests, although in reality many of the distinctions would have been fluid. Contests were called “sacred” (hieroi) when they were held in honor of a deity, which must have been the majority of cases. But they were also celebrated in honor of local benefactors or Roman authorities. There was some differentiation in the prizes: symbolic prizes of wreaths were offered at the great games in Olympia (olive), ISTHMIA (pine), DELPHI (laurel), and NEMEA (wild celery), but the victors could expect a considerable financial reward upon their return home. Other “crown games” (stephanitai agones) offered crowns of precious

metal, the value of which was frequently specified. The least prestigious games offered only prize money (thematitai agones), but ordinary “crown games” must also have offered prize money if they wanted to attract the greatest stars (Pleket 2004). There has been a long-standing debate on the social and professional status of the ATHLETES. It is now orthodoxy that ancient athletes were never amateurs in a modern sense. Athletic champions were amply remunerated, which will have made it an attractive means of social mobility. The majority of the athletes seem to have belonged to the upper and middle classes, as is clear from the many honorific monuments that commemorated victors. They reveal that aristocratic values dominated the field to the end, but all athletes were happy to receive the money prizes that were on offer. Prize money (or valuables) were not perceived as wages but conceptualized as prestigious gifts. The prizes varied between the different disciplines, but the organizers tended to follow common conventions: in musical and dramatic contests the highest prizes were for tragedians and kitharoidoi (singers to the kithara), while in athletic agones the heavy athletes tended to receive higher prizes than runners. In addition, it is likely that famous stars could be tempted with a high reward for merely gracing a local festival with their presence (epideixis) (Pleket 2001). Dramatic or musical performers organized themselves in empire-wide associations of technitai, whose titles combined religious, political, and religious identities. The complexity of these organizations is a reflection of the importance of the empire-wide network of agonistic festivals. The imperial organizations grew out of the regional associations of technitai of the Hellenistic age. Athletic associations are only first attested in the imperial age, but they served similar ends, and eventually their associations were merged with those of the artists. Festival organizers negotiated the timing and prize levels with representatives of “the world-wide travelling organization of worshippers of DIONYSOS (performers) or Herakles

3 (athletes)” (see HERAKLES (HERCULES)). The associations thus secured income and privileges for their members, but also took responsibility for their members attending festivals. Associations had a presence at the festivals, where they helped to maintain order among the participants, and there were local branches that kept a register of individual members and their victories. Central headquarters were located in Rome, and the presidents of the associations became imperial appointees (van Nijf 2006). An inscription from the reign of Hadrian from Alexandria Troas shows the high levels of imperial control to which these associations were subjected (Petzl and Schwertheim 2006). Athletics was mainly a pastime for (young) men; a handful of texts suggests that women were occasionally able to compete. Apparently there were footraces for girls, which may have grown out of girls’ initiation rituals. An inscription from southern Italy that refers to a contest for daughters of councilors suggests that such occasions were socially selective (SEG 14.602). Female victors are more commonly recorded in the cultural or musical competitions. On the other hand, women are also on record as gymnasiarchs, or festival organizers (Lee 1988). Traditional festivals flourished under Roman rule. The big festivals attracted competitors from all over the OIKOUMENE, i.e., the civilized world, which became synonymous with the world ruled by Rome. New contests were introduced to the traditional circuit, such as the imperial games at ACTIUM. Moreover, locally organized Olympic, Pythian, or even Actian games capitalized on the reputation of their namesakes. In each Greek-speaking province agonistic festivals were added to the institutions of the imperial cult, which became an important driving force behind their increasing number. In some cases gladiatorial shows were held alongside the athletic competition. Permission for these events had to be sought from Rome, and such festivals were hence known as an imperial gift (dorea) and often bore the name of the emperor. Some titles persisted, but often the imperial name was replaced at the next

regime change. The agonistic festival was an important way of demonstrating a shared Greek culture in a world empire, but Rome itself was an important factor in their spread (Mitchell 1990; van Nijf 2003). Local festivals served above all the collective self-representation of the cities and their elites. They added considerably to the prestige of a city, and they were advertised on local coinage. Local gymnasium contests were widespread, but the greatest pride of the cities must have been the organization of one or more periodic contests that were open to external competitors. Festival organizers sent out formal invitations to other cities, and special seats were reserved for foreign guests in the stadia and theaters. A uniquely complete epigraphic dossier that records the foundation of a local festival under the emperor Hadrian in the small Lycian city of Oinoanda shows in detail the impact that such festivals could have on local life and local institutions (SEG 38.1462; Mitchell 1990). Festivals attracted relatively large numbers of participants and spectators to the city, and the economic activity associated with them also attracted traders, travelling sophists, street performers, quacks, and even prostitutes. On these occasions the population of the organizing city might have doubled, bringing other public life to a standstill. Cities appointed festival presidents (agonothetai) and other officials to keep the events under control, and panegyriarchs to fix (temporarily) the prices of foodstuffs and generally supervise the festival markets. Local festivals were part of the political culture too. The elite organizers used festivals to secure their own high status in society. Processions, seating arrangements, and formal banquets were organized along hierarchical lines. These represented a hierarchy of status groups in the community, with local magistrates and their families at the top. Funding for these festivals often came from private sources: wealthy benefactors stepped in where civic funds could not be found. They claimed patriotism as their motivation, but may have been equally concerned with securing their own reputation for posterity. The victors at prestigious

4 games could expect a prominent position in local processions and reserved seats in the stadia and theaters of their home towns. The most permanent records of their achievements, however, were the numerous honorific statues that were set up in the center of each city. Successful athletes were commemorated alongside priests, magistrates, and benefactors, to whom they were often related. Athletic excellence was thus presented as a class attribute (van Nijf 2001). Agonistic festivals were a core ingredient of the urban culture in the Roman provinces. SEE ALSO: Actia; Agon; Gladiators; Isthmian Games; Music, Greece and Rome; Processions, Greek; Pythian Games; Sport; Theater, Greek and Roman.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Koenig, J. P. (2005) Athletics and literature in the Roman Empire. Cambridge. Lee, H. M. (1988) “SIG(3) 802: did women compete against men in Greek athletic festivals?” Nikephoros 1: 103–19. Leschhorn, W. (1998) “Die Verbreitung von Agonen in den o¨stlichen Provinzen des ro¨mischen Reiches.” Stadion 24, 1: 31–57. Mitchell, S. (1990) “Festivals, games, and civic life in Roman Asia Minor.” Journal of Roman Studies 80: 183–93. Newby, Z. (2005) Greek athletics in the Roman world: victory and virtue. Oxford. Petzl, G. and Schwertheim, E. (2006) Hadrian und die dionysischen Ku¨nstler: Drei in Alexandria

Troas neugefundene Briefe des Kaisers an die Ku¨nstler-Vereinigung. Bonn. Pleket, H. W. (2001) “Zur Soziologie des antiken Sports.” Nikephoros 14: 157–21. Pleket, H. W. (2004) “Einige Betrachtungen zum Thema: ‘Geld und Sport.’” Nikephoros 17: 77–89. Robert, L. (1984) “Les Concours grecs.” In Actes du VIIIe Congre`s international d’e´pigraphie grecque et latine Athe`nes 1982: 35–45. Athens. Roueche´, C. (1993) Performers and partisans at Aphrodisias in the Roman and Late Roman periods: a study based on inscriptions from the current excavations at Aphrodisias in Caria. London. Spawforth, A. (1989) “Agonistic festivals in Roman Greece.” In S. Walker and A. Cameron, eds., The Greek Renaissance in the Roman Empire: 193–7. London. van Nijf, O. M. (2001) “Local heroes: athletics, festivals and elite self-fashioning in the Roman East.” In S. Goldhill, ed., Being Greek under Rome: 306–34. Cambridge. van Nijf, O. (2003) “Athletics and paideia: festivals and physical education in the world of the Second Sophistic.” In B. E. Borg, ed., Paideia: the world of the Second Sophistic: 203–28. Berlin. van Nijf, O. M. (2005) “Aristos Hellenoˆn: succe`s sportif et identite´ grecque dans la Gre`ce romaine.” Me`tis: Anthropologie des mondes grecs anciens n.s. 3: 271–94. van Nijf, O. M. (2006) “Global players: athletes and performers in the Hellenistic and Roman world.” In I. Nielsen, ed., Between cult and society: the cosmopolitan centres of the ancient Mediterranean as setting for activities of religious associations and religious communities. Hamburg.

1

Agonistic Festivals, Roman Empire ONNO M. VAN NIJF

University of Groningen, Netherlands

Festivals with athletic, equestrian, dramatic, or musical competitions (agōnes) stood in a centuries-old tradition. All Greek cities organized such festivals – but some, especially the great festivals at OLYMPIA, DELPHI, ISTHMIA, and NEMEA, occupied a special place in the Greek world. Festivals continued to flourish in the Hellenistic period, when cities and sanctuaries organized new games in great numbers, often with the active support of Hellenistic rulers; but in many ways the imperial period was the golden age of the agonistic festivals. Old festivals continued or were restored with the support of local benefactors or Roman authorities, and hundreds of new festivals were founded throughout the Greek-speaking provinces. Most of these were found in mainland Greece, and in western and southern ASIA MINOR, but they were also common elsewhere. In some regions, such as CRETE or SPARTA, they seem the product mainly of the imperial period (Robert 2010; Spawforth 1989). Moreover, in the imperial period, agonistic festivals became more common in Italy, where Rome itself became host to a number of Greek-style festivals, including the Capitolia (Newby 2005; Caldelli 1993). Together they formed an empire-wide agonistic network that was closely supervised by the emperors (van Nijf 2012). However, agonistic culture did not spread widely in the western provinces, although there is evidence for Greek-style athletics as far as GAUL and HISPANIA (Caballos Hornero 2004; Caldelli 1997). The evidence for the continuing popularity of agonistic festivals is diverse: archaeologists have uncovered stadia, theaters, and gymnasia that formed the material infrastructure for this agonistic culture. Literary texts display a fascination with the traditional Greek agonistic festival and show its continuing relevance for

contemporary Greek culture (König 2005; van Nijf 2003). The main sources, however, are numismatic, papyrological and, most of all, epigraphic (Pleket 2014). Greek cities continued to mint their own coins, and on many of these we find the names and titles of local festivals, as well as athletic symbols, such as strigils and prize-crowns. Thousands of honorific inscriptions commemorate athletic champions. Other texts record the foundation of festivals, providing us with details about the organization and funding of the festivals. The number of sources fluctuates, but it is clear that the reigns of AUGUSTUS and HADRIAN were particularly active periods. The highest number of new foundations is attested in the Severan age, which must reflect at least partly the changing preferences of individual cities and the class of benefactors who mostly funded the games (Leschhorn 1998; Mitchell 1990). When these types of evidence dry up in the course of the third century CE, this particular window on agonistic life begins to close, but it should not be assumed that agonistic life immediately came to an end. Agonistic festivals were not an autonomous sector of society but were closely integrated in its religious and cultural life. Religious festivals typically consisted of a procession (pompē), sacrifices (thusia), and sacrificial banquets as well as athletic, equestrian, dramatic, or musical competitions. The importance of a festival rested on all these elements, but the contests were the most spectacular, and the most likely to be commemorated. There could be regional variations, but the basic core of these festivals did not change much over time, nor did the major disciplines. The main athletic events included running events, long-jumping, throwing the discus, wrestling, boxing, and a kind of free-style wrestling called pankration. Some festivals had more specialized contests, such as the long footrace in armour (hoplitodromos) that was the centerpiece of the Freedom Games (Eleuthéria) at PLATAIA (Philostratus Gymn. 8). The heavy contests (barea athla), as the combat sports were known, commanded social respect. Suggestions that they became more bloody

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History. Edited by Andrew Erskine, David B. Hollander, and Arietta Papaconstantinou. © 2021 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Published 2021 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah18003.pub2

2 under the influence of Rome, or that the increase in their number should be seen as pandering to lower-class tastes, are not supported in the evidence (Pleket 2010). Outside the big festivals the evidence for equestrian events is limited, but chariot races remained popular until Late Antiquity. In classical Greece horse racing had been the preserve of wealthy individuals, but under Rome racing was arranged by professional companies and later by “factions” each named after a color. These events were, however, increasingly separate from the traditional Greek festivals. Dramatic competitions continued, but the prizes went to the performers of the “classic” plays, not to new playwrights. More creative activity was expected in the various musical and literary performances, where traditional Greek genres were still highly prized. However, it was a sign of the times that contests in prose or verse composition included subjects like the praise of the emperor. A novelty was the development of the genre of mime and pantomimes, which also became part of the world of the agōnes (Webb 2008). Although contests were similar, they were not equal. A certain hierarchy developed. Local contests were organized in the context of gymnasia, or as part of local religious festivals, but could also be celebrated in honor of local benefactors, or Roman emperors. Normally, money prizes were offered by organizers of local games to attract contestants. At the other end of the scale we find the traditional crown games at Olympia, Isthmia, Nemea, and Delphi, where wreaths were offered as symbolic prizes although the victors could expect a considerable reward upon their return home. Local festival organizers wanting to emulate their success insisted that a victory in their games should carry a similar privilege. Moreover, local Olympic, Pythian, or even Actian games were organized that tried to capitalize on the reputation of their namesakes. These festivals were called crown games (stephanitai) but in the Roman period they became known as sacred games (hieroi). They were supported by the emperors, and the emperor TRAJAN seems

to have introduced a special category of eiselastic games that offered victors the right of triumphal entry (eiselasis) in their hometown, as well as a financial reward (opsōnion, siterēsion) (Remijsen 2011). Egyptian papyri show that the monetary value could be considerable. Other games offered crowns of precious metal, the value of which was frequently specified. It is often said that ancient athletics differed from modern sport in that it lacked the contemporary preoccupation with records. Although there were no mechanisms for precise time-keeping, there were other types of record to be celebrated, such as being the first of their region or city to win in a particular festival (Young 1996). Knowledge about such records was widely shared, which presupposes that that they were systematically documented. And indeed, we find references to formal declarations of victory that were issued by cities and could be used by ATHLETES to claim privileges in their hometown (e.g., I.Ephesos 14; P. Agon 10). There has been a long-standing debate on the social and professional status of ancient athletes. It is now the orthodoxy that they were never amateurs in a modern sense (Pleket 2010). Athletic champions were amply remunerated, which will have made athletics an attractive avenue of social mobility to some. However, the majority of the athletes seem to have belonged to the upper and middle classes, as is clear from the many honorific monuments that commemorated victorious athletes. These texts reveal that aristocratic values dominated the field to the end, but all athletes were happy to cash in the money prizes that were on offer. These were not perceived as wages but conceptualized as prestigious gifts. The prizes varied between the different disciplines. The organizers tended to follow widely shared conventions: in musical and dramatic contests the highest prizes were for tragedians and kitharōidoi (singers to the kithara), while in athletic agōnes the heavy athletes tended to receive higher prizes than did runners. In addition, it is likely that famous stars could be tempted with a high reward for merely gracing a local

3 festival with their presence (epideixis) (Pleket 2010). Athletics was mainly a pastime for (young) men; a few texts suggest that women were occasionally able to compete. Women had of course long been allowed to enter chariot races in the contests at Olympia and elsewhere, but there were also foot races for girls, which may have grown out of girls’ initiation rituals. A rare but spectacular example is an inscription from Delphi that recorded the athletic and other victories of three girls at various location – the monument was set up by their proud father (FD 3.1, 534). Female participation was less rare in the cultural or musical competitions: there are female victors on record in these disciplines. On the other hand, women are more frequently on record as gymnasiarchs or festival organizers (Lee 1988). Athletes and dramatic or musical performers (technitai) organized themselves in empirewide associations, whose titles combined religious, political, and professional identities. The complexity of these organizations is a reflection of the growing importance of the empire-wide network of agonistic festivals. The imperial organizations grew out of the regional associations of the Hellenistic age. Athletic associations are only attested from the first century BCE onwards, but they served similar ends, and eventually they were merged. Festival organizers had to negotiate about timing and prize levels with representatives of the world-wide travelling organizations of worshippers of DIONYSOS (performers) or of HERAKLES (athletes). In some cases, they organized contests on their own. The associations thus secured income and privileges for their members, but they were also supposed to guarantee that their members showed up. Associations had a presence at the festivals, where they helped to maintain order among the participants, and there were local branches that kept a detailed administration of individual members and their victories. Central headquarters were eventually located in Rome, and the presidents of the associations became imperial appointees (van Nijf 2006). A recently found inscription from the reign of Hadrian shows

the high levels of imperial control to which these associations were subjected (Petzl and Schwertheim 2006 = SEG 56.1359). Local festivals served above all the collective self-representation of the cities and their elites. They added considerably to the prestige of a city, and they were advertised on local coinage. Gymnasium-contests were regularly organized, funded by the city treasuries, but the pride of the cities must have been the organization of one or more periodic contests that were open to competitors from outside the cities as well. Festival organizers sent out formal invitations to other cities, and special seats were reserved for foreign guests in the stadia and theaters. A uniquely complete epigraphic dossier that records the foundation of a local festival under the emperor Hadrian in the small city of Oinoanda shows in detail the impact that such festivals could have on local life and local institutions (SEG 38.1462; Mitchell 1990). Festivals attracted relatively large numbers of participants and spectators to the city, but economic opportunities also attracted traders, travelling sophists, street performers, quacks, and even prostitutes. As the population of the organizing city could be as much as doubled, all other public life may have come to a standstill. Cities appointed festival presidents (agōnothetai) and other officials to keep the events under control, and panegyriarchs to supervise the festival markets and fix the prices of foodstuffs. Agonistic festivals were a central ingredient of the urban culture in the Roman provinces. The elite organizers used festivals to secure their own high status in society. Processions, seating arrangements, and formal banquets were organized along hierarchical lines that represented the community as a hierarchy of status groups, with local magistrates and their families in top-position. Funding for these festivals often came from private sources: wealthy benefactors stepped in where civic funds could not be found. Benefactors claimed patriotism as their motivation, but they may have been equally concerned with securing their own reputation for posterity. The victors at prestigious games could expect a prominent position in

4 local processions, and reserved seats in the stadia and theaters of their hometowns. But the victors in local games were also honored. The permanent records of their achievements were the numerous honorific statues that were set up in the center of each city. Successful athletes were commemorated alongside priests, magistrates, and benefactors, with whom they were often related. Athletic excellence was thus presented as a class attribute (van Nijf 2001). The big festivals continued to flourish and attract competitors from all over the oikoumene, that is, the civilized world, which became synonymous with the world ruled by Rome. New games were written into the traditional circuit, such as the ACTIA, the imperial games at Actium that were founded by Augustus. In each Greekspeaking province agonistic festivals were instituted as part of the imperial cult, which became an important driving force behind the increase of agonistic festivals (see RULER CULT, ROMAN). In some cases, gladiatorial shows were held alongside the athletic competitions. Permission for these events had to be sought from Rome, and such festivals were hence known as an imperial gift (dōrea) and they often bore the name of the emperor. Some titles persisted, but often the imperial name was replaced at the next regime change. The agonistic festival was an important way of demonstrating a shared Greek culture in a world-empire, but Rome itself was an important factor in their spread (van Nijf 2003; Mitchell 1990). The popularity of agonistic festivals declined in Late Antiquity as we saw above. Yet, local games persisted, and a bronze plaque found in Olympia lists contestants from throughout the Greek world well into the fourth century CE. When the emperor THEODOSIUS I abolished the Olympic games with other pagan religious festivals in 391, he was acting against a living tradition, but even after this date agonistic festivals only gradually gave way to other types of entertainment. It is hard to say what exactly caused this decline, as it was most likely a combination of factors. The traditional idea that Christianity was largely to blame should

probably be abandoned but changing attitudes to the body will have played a part. At any rate, local elites, who had largely carried the burden of the agonistic structure, lost their interest in this costly way of gaining prestige. At the same time other types of mass entertainment (chariot races and gladiatorial games) were easier to organize and more in line with the imperial message. Yet Greek agonistic festivals seem to have long persisted in some places, as they did in Antioch (Remijsen 2015). The agonistic imagery had slipped into the Christian ideology as monks could be described as “athletes of God,” and askēsis, the Greek word for training, acquired the connotation of Christian selfdiscipline and renunciation of the body (Roueché 1993). Greek athletic ideals would largely disappear until they were resurrected in the nineteenth century as part of the rise of modern sport. SEE ALSO:

Agon; Agonothetes; Benefactors; Festivals, Greece and Rome; Gladiators; Gymnasium, Classical and Hellenistic times; Isthmian Games; Music, Greece and Rome; Processions, Greek; Pythian Games; Sport; Theater, Greek and Roman.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Caballos Hornero, A. (2004) Los espectáculos en la Hispania romana: la documentación epigráfica = Cuadernos Emeritenses, vol. 26. Mérida, Spain. Caldelli, M. L. (1993) L’Agon Capitolinus. Storia e protagonisti dall’istituzione domizianea al IV secolo. Rome. Caldelli, M. L. (1997) “Gli agoni alla greca nelle regioni occidentali dell’impero. La Gallia Narbonensis.” Memorie. Atti della Accademia nazionale dei Lincei. Classe di scienze morali, storiche e filologiche 9: 391–481. König, J. P. (2005) Athletics and literature in the Roman empire. Cambridge. Lee, H. M. (1988) “SIG (3) 802: Did women compete against men in Greek athletic festivals?” Nikephoros 1: 103–19. Leschhorn, W. (1998) “Die Verbreitung von Agonen in den östlichen Provinzen des römische Reiches.” Stadion 24: 31–57.

5 Mitchell, S. (1990) “Festivals, games, and civic life in Roman Asia Minor.” Journal of Roman Studies 80: 183–93. Newby, Z. (2005) Greek athletics in the Roman world: victory and virtue. Oxford. Petzl, G. and Schwertheim, E. (2006) Hadrian und die dionysischen Künstler: Drei in Alexandria Troas neugefundene Briefe des Kaisers an die Künstler-Vereinigung. Bonn. Pleket, H. W. (2004) “Einige Betrachtungen zum Thema: ‘Geld und Sport’.” Nikephoros 17: 77–89. Pleket, H. W. (2010) “Games, prizes, athletes and ideology: some aspects of the history of sport in the Graeco-Roman world.” In J. König, ed. Greek athletics: 145–74. Edinburgh. Pleket, H. W. (2014) “Inscriptions as evidence for Greek sport.” In P. Christesen and D. G. Kyle, eds. A companion to sport and spectacle in Greek and Roman Antiquity: 98–111. Oxford. Remijsen, S. (2011) “The so-called ‘crown games’: terminology and historical context of the ancient categories for agones.” Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 177: 97–109. Remijsen, S. (2015) The end of Greek athletics in Late Antiquity. Cambridge. Robert, L. (2010) “Opening address: Eighth International Congress of Greek and Latin Epigraphy.” In J. König, ed., Greek athletics: 108–119. Edinburgh. (= “Les Concours grecs.” In Actes du VIIIe Congrès international d’épigraphie grecque et latine Athènes 1982: 35–45. Athens, 1984) Roueché, C. (1993) Performers and partisans at Aphrodisias in the Roman and Late Roman periods: a

study based on inscriptions from the current excavations at Aphrodisias in Caria. London. Spawforth, A. (1989) “Agonistic festivals in Roman Greece.” In S. Walker and A. Cameron, eds., The Greek renaissance in the Roman Empire: 193–7. London. Young, D. C. (1996) “First with the most: Greek athletic records and ‘specialization’.” Nikephoros 9 175–97. van Nijf, O. M. (2001) “Local heroes: athletics, festivals and elite self-fashioning in the Roman East.” In S. Goldhill, ed., Being Greek under Rome: 306– 34. Cambridge. van Nijf, O. M. (2003) “Athletics and paideia: festivals and physical education in the world of the Second Sophistic.” In B. E. Borg, ed., Paideia: the world of the Second Sophistic: 203–28. Berlin. van Nijf, O. M. (2005) “Aristos Hellenôn: succès sportif et identité grecque dans la Grèce romaine.” Mètis: Anthropologie des mondes grecs anciens n.s. 3: 271–94. van Nijf, O. M. (2006) “Global players: athletes and performers in the Hellenistic and Roman world.” In I. Nielsen, ed., Between cult and society: the cosmopolitan centres of the ancient Mediterranean as setting for activities of religious associations and religious communities. Hamburg. van Nijf, O. M. (2012) “Political games.” In K. Coleman, J. Nelis-Clément, and P. Ducrey, eds., L’organisation des spectacles dans le monde: 47–88. Geneva. Webb, R. (2008) Demons and dancers: performance in Late Antiquity. Cambridge.

1

Agonothetes CLÉMENT SARRAZANAS

In the Greek world, an agonothetes was an official specifically in charge of organizing and managing competitions which took place during religious festivals. His primary task was “to set up the contests” (agonas tithenai or poiein), whether artistic, athletic, or hippic in nature. The term first appears in Herodotus (4.127), to describe the activities of a manager of contests generically. Agonothesia is attested for the first time as a proper civic institution in Greek cities from Bosphorus around 350 BCE (SEG 52.741). Civic agonothetai then appear at about the same time (ca. 315–300) in many cities from Aegean Greece including Athens, Chios, Rhodes, or Samos. The reasons for this phenomenon remain unclear. In Athens, the creation of agonothesia together with the removal of the civic liturgy of CHOREGIA are usually assigned to the rule of DEMETRIOS OF PHALERON (317–307). He allegedly created it from his oligarchic ideology in order to preserve private fortunes, but the argument is controversial (Wilson and Csapo 2012). Perhaps this innovation in the Greek world had more to do with the development of new festivals and the increased agonistic competition between the cities. Public funding managed by a civic official thus better secured the participation of the best professional performers at festivals held by a polis. Throughout the Hellenistic and Imperial periods, most civic or federal contests were ruled by one agonothetes or less frequently by a board of agonothetai (sometimes called athlothetai). The agonothetes was often elected by the demos of the city for one or more years, depending on the periodicity of the festival, but some life-term agonothetai (dia biou) also are attested in imperial times (e.g., I.Ephesos 730). At the end of his term, the agonothetes was required to formally submit accounts for his expenses and management of the contests (apologizesthai) before financial officials.

Although the range of responsibilities of an agonothetes could differ between cities, all agonothetai shared several basic duties. Before the festival, they prepared all elements necessary for the competitions to take place, including the setup or repair of the racetrack or the theater. They also oversaw the manufacture of the prizes for the winners (e.g., crowns or panathenaic amphorae in Athens). They usually took part in the sacrifice and the procession for the god(s) to whom the festival was dedicated. During the festival, agonothetai had much general authority over the competitions. They oversaw the admission process of the competitors who wished to take part in the competitions (Anth. Pal. 12.255). Agonothetai then personally presided over the contests, normally from a special seat (e.g., thrones in theaters or tribunes in stadiums). As a symbol of their higher status, they wore a distinctive garment dyed in purple, closed white shoes, a headband or crown, and carried a staff (Robert 1982: 258–66). Decrees often praise agonothetai for ensuring fair conditions of competition for all the contenders (e.g., IG II2 958, 7–8), but they usually were not judges of the contests. Maintaining good order between the competitors, as well as amongst the spectators was another duty, usually with the help of a team of stickor whip-bearers (rhabdophoroi or mastigophoroi). The agonothetes could have an athlete flogged if he had cheated, or even an artist if he had performed poorly (Luc. Ind. 9). In many cities, the agonothetes was also responsible for the official proclamation of the civic honors delivered by the polis. Agonothetai were very often prominent and wealthy citizens, who acted as euergetai during their time in office, many of whom covered the expenses from their own private coffers (ek ton idion; e.g., in I.Ephesos 9), or distributed food or wine to the spectators during the contests (e.g., IG VII 2712, 63–78; see also Quass 1993: 275–85 and 303–17). Many agonothetai commemorated their tenure by erecting a monument or building displayed in a public space (Agelidis 2009: 273–94). Generous

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, and Andrew Erskine. © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Published 2017 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah30470

2 agonothetai could be rewarded with civic honors voted by the demos. In some smaller cities, women and even children from great families could be chosen as agonothetes. Roman emperors occasionally held the office of agonothetes, like Hadrian in Athens. In general, holding an agonothesia was a good way to gain popularity and was a significant step for someone who wished to pursue a civic career. SEE ALSO: Agon; Agonistic festivals, Roman Empire; Festivals, Greece and Rome; Hellanodikai.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Agelidis, S. (2009) Choregische Weihgeschenke in Griechenland. Bonn.

Camia, F. (2011) “Spending on the agones. The financing of festivals in the cities of Roman Greece.” Tyche 26: 21–76. Papakonstantinou, Z. (2016) “The Hellenistic agonothesia: finances, ideology, identities.” In C. Mann, S. Remijsen, and S. Scharff, eds., Athletics in the Hellenistic world: 95–111. Stuttgart. Quass, F. (1993) Die Honoratiorenschicht in den Städten des griechischen Ostens. Untersuchungen zur politischen und sozialen Entwicklung in hellenistischer und römischer Zeit. Stuttgart. Robert, L. (1982) “Une vision de Perpétue à Carthage en 203.” Comptes-rendus de l’Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres 1982: 228–76. Wilson, P. and Csapo, E. (2012) “From choregia to agonothesia: evidence for the administration and finance of the Athenian theatre in the late fourth century B.C.” In D. Rosenbloom and J. Davidson, eds., Greek drama IV. Texts, contexts, performance: 300–21. Oxford.

1

Agora RYAN BOEHM

The agora (pl. agorai; from ageiro: to assemble) was originally an assembly of the entire free male population of a city, as well as the physical location of that assembly. However, with the development of the Greek polis, the agora evolved into the public center of the city, serving as a political, administrative, and religious center, market, and meeting place. The Homeric poems already demonstrate the centrality of the agora to the political and religious organization of the Greeks and show many of the features later associated with the Classical agora: The agora was distinct from the boule (council) of the gerontes (elders) as the locus of the popular assembly (Hom. Il. 2.93), and it was intrinsic to civilization, in contrast to the lack of organization of the Cyclopes (Hom. Od. 9.112). On the Shield of Achilles the agora is depicted as a place of judgment, with permanent stone seats for the council in a “sacred circle” (Hom. Il. 18.497–504; cf. Hom. Od. 8.5). The religious element of the Homeric agora is clear, as the Greek agora at Troy was also the location of altars of the gods (Hom. Il. 11.805–10), and the city of the Phaeacians had the temple of its main divinity, Poseidon, in the center of the agora. In Phaeacia the area of the agora is defined by stones and situated next to the harbor, as at many historical cities, stressing the early association of the agora with commerce and manufacture (Hom. Od. 6.260–70).

THE ARCHAIC AGORA Early agorai were often nothing more than a large, empty open space demarcated by boundary stones and frequently in close proximity to a religious structure. In the unplanned archaic city, the agora was not necessarily at the center of the settlement, but agorai were often closely linked to the network

of streets or gates of the city wall, arising at the intersection of important roads or being little more than the widening of a main street. Thus, at Emborio on Chios, at the end of the eighth century BCE the agora was probably located in a 5050 m space between a public building and a temple, on the main road, just within the gate of the acropolis. In contrast, at the early archaic site of Zagora on Andros, a large open space on the periphery of the settlement and next to a temple apparently served as the agora. In the period of Greek overseas colonization, the founding of new cities allowed for greater urban planning, often on a grid, and the integration of the agora into a more rational relationship with the overall city plan. In MEGARA HYBLAEA, a colony founded on Sicily in the late eighth century BCE, a large trapezoidal area 12080 m, located in a central area where two street grids on different orientations intersect, was left open for the agora when the city was laid out. Architectural definition of this space followed, and by the third quarter of the seventh century BCE, the space had become delimited into a 6364 m area flanked by colonnades, temples, and a hero-shrine. Megara Hyblaea also disproves claims that the agora only began to be embellished with public buildings in the sixth century. Other western colonies demonstrate similar siting of agorai, e.g., at Poseidonia, where the agora is located directly in the center of the city. However at Metapontum (beginning of the seventh century) and Selinous (end of the seventh century) the agora was peripheral to the settlement, though in these cases the agora became central as the city grew. On the Greek mainland, the building of structures in and around the agora proceeded at a slower pace, and few public structures date to before the sixth century. At Athens, the only definite archaic structures were the Southeast Fountain house and the Altar of the Twelve Gods significantly the epicenter of the city (Hdt. 2.7.1), constructed in the 520s, and the old Bouleuterion, the boundary stones, and possibly the Royal Stoa, established following

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 198–201. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah06010

2 the creation of the democracy (Camp 1992). The agorai at Corinth and Argos were similarly undeveloped in the archaic period. As a place of assembly, water supply was clearly an important feature of the agora, as the early construction of fountain houses and aqueducts at Athens and Corinth attests. Racetracks, processional ways (e.g., the Panathenaic way in Athens, which ran through the center of the agora), and orchestras for choral dance were all early and important aspects of the archaic agora. The agora served as a military training ground and locus for agonistic competition, and the early association of the agora as a place of assembly and ritual with the theater and the rise of drama has been demonstrated in detail by Kolb (1981). Many structures were temporary: wooden benches (ikria) were set up for seating and dramatic festivals, and commerce took place in movable stalls.

THE CLASSICAL AND HELLENISTIC AGORA By the fifth century, every Greek polis had an agora, and treatises like the fourth century How to Survive under Siege of AENEAS TACTICUS assume an agora in the average Greek city (Hansen 1997). Likewise, Athenian decrees could specify that copies of important documents be set up in the agorai of allied poleis (IG I3 1453; Kenzler 1999). However agorai were not limited to poleis. In the case of Athens, the rural demes could also have an agora of their own, as is evident from the agora at Rhamnous, which is delimited by a public building and a stoa, and had seats for a theater; or at Sounion, where a mid-fourth-century decree records the process of setting up an agora on land donated by a private citizen and the appointment of three surveyors to carry out the work (IG II2 1180). The urban demes in Athens also seem to have had their own agorai, even those in close proximity to the Athenian agora. Public buildings such as the council house (bouleuterion), town hall (PRYTANEION), court

(dikasterion), and stoas housing magistrates increasingly become apparent in the fifthfourth centuries in agorai. As the central public space of the city, the agora was also the natural place for setting up monuments, statue groups, and inscriptions. At the same time, the agora seems to decline as the central place of the official public assembly. Permanent theaters, increasingly built in the fifth and fourth centuries, often outside the agora, often became the meeting place of assemblies in the classical period. In fact, only the Gortynian law code mentions the agora as the place of public assembly in the classical period (I.Cret. 4.72 Col. X 34–5). As a center of commerce, the agora was the collection point for goods and produce and the venue for buying and selling. At Athens the mint was located in the agora, along with the agoranomeion, the office of the market overseers (see AGORANOMOI). Shops and stalls were located in and around the agora (e.g., Ar. Lys. 557). Stoas, housing permanent shops, became increasingly common in the fourth century. Kassope, founded in the mid-fourth century, had a planned market hall just to the north of the agora, the earliest structure of this kind. PRIENE also seems to have had a permanent food market just outside of the agora. In the fifth century, the application of political theory to ideas of urban planning brought important changes in the design of the agora. Miletos, laid out anew after the Persian wars (ca. 479 BCE), was organized around a large, central agora and allowed for a second, commercial agora near the harbor. HIPPODAMOS OF MILETOS, who was associated with the urban layout of the Athenian port PIRAEUS and the colony of Thourioi in Italy in the midfifth century, authored treatises on political theory and proposed that the city be divided into three sections: one sacred (hieros), one public (demosios), and one private (idios) (Arist. Pol. 2.1267b 24–1269a 29). The layout of Piraeus is anchored around a central agora, connecting two harbors on either side of the town, and a separate agora, probably reserved for public use, was located to the north.

3 Boundary stones have been found in Piraeus demarcating public areas of the city, confirming that it was physically organized along Hippodamos’ ideals (IG I2 887–96). Plato’s description of the ideal city layout called for the agora to be placed at the center along with the temples of the gods (Pl. Leg. 8.848c–d). Aristotle, in turn, called for one agora to be situated below the sanctuaries of the gods and dedicated to public magistracies and kept free of commerce and merchandise as well as traders and farmers, and a separate agora dedicated to trade and the housing of the city and market officials (Arist. Pol. 7.1331a–b). This separation of the commercial and political functions, which would become popular in Hellenistic cities, is evident in fourth-century Morgantina (Bell and Holloway 1988: 316). Architectural monumentalization of the agora began in the fourth century, as the open area of the agora was increasingly enclosed by public buildings and often framed by stoas housing permanent shops and providing public areas for shelter and meeting. Priene, laid out in the late fourth century, exemplifies an agora of this type, centrally sited and surrounded by colonnades on all sides, and adjacent to the main public buildings and sanctuaries of the city. In the Hellenistic period, the architectural development of the agora reached its peak, as agorai of existing cities continued to be embellished with colonnades and monuments, often through royal patronage, and the foundation of new cities often included a monumental agora. At PERGAMON, the Upper Agora was conceived as a monumental focal point, along with the royal palace and the sanctuaries, while the Lower

Agora was reserved for strictly commercial use. In the Roman period, the agora becomes an increasingly closed-off space, and at Athens buildings are built in the center of the agora itself and a separate, commercial agora was constructed in the area to the east of the agora. SEE ALSO: Assemblies, ancient Near East; Colonization, Greek; Demes, Attic; Horoi; Kassope; Polis; Theater, Greek and Roman.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Bell, M. and Holloway, R. (1988) “Excavations at Morgantina, 1980–1985. Preliminary Report, XII.” American Journal of Archaeology 92: 313–42. Billows, R. (2003) “Cities.” In A. Erskine, ed., The Blackwell companion to the Hellenistic world: 196–215. Oxford. Camp, J. (1992) The Athenian agora. London. Camp, J. (2001) The archaeology of Athens. New Haven. Hansen, M. H. (1997) “The polis as an urban centre: The literary and epigraphic evidence.” In M. H. Hansen, ed., The polis as an urban centre and as a political community: 9–86. Copenhagen. Ho¨pfner, W. and Lehmann, L., eds. (2006) Die griechische Agora. Mainz. Kenzler, U. (1999) Studien zur Entwicklung und Struktur der griechischen Agora in archaischer und klassischer Zeit. Frankfurt am Main. Kolb, K. (1981) Agora und Theater. Berlin. Martin, R. (1951) Recherches sur l’Agora Grecque. Paris. Martin, R. (1974) L’Urbanisme dans la Gre`ce antique. Paris. Morgan, C. and Coulton, J. (1997) “The polis as a physical entity.” In M. H. Hansen, ed., The polis as an urban centre and as a political community : 87–144. Copenhagen.

1

Agoranomoi RYAN BOEHM

Agoranomoi were officials responsible for overseeing the upkeep and regulation of the AGORA in Greek cities. Their duties included maintaining the order and cleanliness of the agora, imposing punishments or fines on those who violated the laws, and, in most cities, verifying weights and measures and seeing to the importation of grain supplies. They were also responsible for supervising temples and religious processions that took place in the agora (Syll.3 313; Plato Leg. 764b). The agoranomoi were under the supervision of the astynomoi, municipal officials who performed a similar function for the city as a whole (Syll.3 313 l.17–18). An official headquarters, the agoranomeion, is attested in some cities and was located in the agora (Syll.3 313 l. 11; IG XII.5 129 l. 44–45). Attested as early as the fifth century BCE, they are already envisioned as a necessary part of any market in Athenian comedy (Ar. Ach. 723), and Plato discusses their duties in several places in the Laws (764b; 849a–e; 917b–e).

In the case of Athens, Pseudo-Aristotle records that the agoranomoi were elected by lot, five in the city and five in the harbor of Piraeus (Ath. Pol. 51.1). At Athens the duties of the agoranomos were somewhat more restricted, with specialized officials, the METRONOMOI, testing the accuracy of weights and measures and other officials, the SITOPHYLAKES, supervising the importation of grain. In Egypt, the agoranomos served as a public notary in both the Ptolemaic and Roman periods (e.g., P.Grenf. 2.23 (2nd century BCE), P.Oxy. 99.2 (1st century CE)). In the Roman East, agoranomos was the translation of the Latin official aedilis (e.g., IG XIV 719). SEE ALSO: Aediles; Astynomoi, law of the (Pergamon).

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Garland, R. (1987) The Piraeus from the fifth to the first century B.C. London. Oehler, J. (1894) s.v. Agoranomoi. RE 1: 883–885. Stuttgart. Stanley, P. (1979) “Agoranomoi and metronomoi: Athenian market officials and regulations.” Ancient World 2: 13–19.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print page 201. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah06011

1

Agrapha Iesou WILLIAM D. STROKER

Agrapha Iesou refers to sayings of the earthly Jesus which are not included in the earliest versions of the canonical gospels (Hofius 1991: 336). Noncanonical and extracanonical sayings of Jesus are alternative designations. The term agrapha assumes that the sayings go back to the pre-written, oral stage of tradition, though that cannot be held for much of the material. The term refers to relatively short sayings but also to parables and sayings set in brief narrative settings. They may be grouped into standard form-critical designations (see Stroker 1989). Certain types of materials are usually excluded: (1) sayings of the child Jesus in the infancy gospels, (2) lengthy “revelatory discourses” of Jesus, (3) sayings of the preexistent or of the risen, ascended Christ. The varied sources of agrapha are: (1) New Testament writings other than the Gospels, (2) variant readings in later Gospel manuscripts, (3) quotations in various types of early Christian literature, (4) noncanonical writings usually designated New Testament apocrypha, (5) Manichaean and Mandaean writings, (6) ancient Jewish writings, and (7) the Qur’an and Muslim writings. Within (4) the Gospel of Thomas has special importance (see THOMAS, GOSPEL OF). It is a collection of more than 114 sayings of Jesus, with no extended narrative material. Several comprehensive collections are currently available: Crossan (1986), Funk (1985), Stroker (1989), Morrice (1997), and Meyer (1998). For original texts, as well as translations, see Stroker (1989). The possibility of finding “authentic” sayings of the historical Jesus cannot be viewed as the main value of the agrapha, though interest and serious work in this area continue. The Jesus Seminar’s work on sayings in the Gospel of Thomas remains important. Recent more extensive studies which have this search as an

important part of their purpose are Morrice (1997) and Meyer (1998). The importance of the agrapha rests more in broadening our understanding of the various ways in which the teachings of Jesus were shaped and transmitted within different groups in early Christianity and also in Judaism and Islam. In the canonical, as well as the noncanonical, traditions, the teachings of Jesus were shaped and transmitted by the theological and ethical concerns and perspectives of different communities. Investigations of the earliest stages of traditions of Jesus’ teachings should also include the agrapha. Critical scholarship has shown that the canonical tradition and its sources were not the only bearers of the earliest stages. Several of the sayings in The Gospel of Thomas seem best understood as coming from an early stage or collection independent of the canonical tradition. Several of the sayings and parables in Thomas seem preserved in an earlier stage than that represented by their canonical parallels. Further, many noncanonical versions of sayings show specific processes of modification of sayings of Jesus compared with earlier forms of the same saying. Among these are explanatory additions and other sayings formed on the pattern of earlier ones. Some agrapha also show that sayings already existing in other traditions became subsequently attributed to Jesus. These developments are also present within the canonical tradition, as synoptic studies frequently show. A full study of the processes of development and modification of the early stages of the Jesus tradition would thus necessitate inclusion of the agrapha or noncanonical sayings. Thus the agrapha are of considerable value, initially to scholars of the New Testament and early Christianity, but also, at least potentially, to the theologian.

SEE ALSO:

Apocrypha, Christian; Jesus.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 201–203. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah05008

2 REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Charlesworth, J. H. and Evans, C. (1994) “Jesus in the agrapha and apocryphal gospels.” In B. Chilton and C. Evans, eds., Studying the historical Jesus: evaluations of the state of current research: 479–534. Leiden. Crossan, J. D. (1986) Sayings parallels. Philadelphia. Funk, R. W. (1985) New gospel parallels, 2 vols. Philadelphia.

Hofius, O. (1991) “Unknown sayings of Jesus.” In P. Stuhlmacher, ed., The gospel and the gospels: 336–60. Grand Rapids, MI. Jeremias, J. (1964) Unknown sayings of Jesus, rev. ed. London. Meyer, M. (1998) The unknown sayings of Jesus. San Francisco. Morrice, W. (1997) Hidden sayings of Jesus. London. Stroker, W. D. (1989) Extracanonical sayings of Jesus: texts, translations, and notes. Atlanta.

1

Agraphoi nomoi ANDREW WOLPERT

References to agraphoi nomoi (unwritten laws) in Greek literature are varied and sporadic. They suggest that the ancient Greeks may have developed notions about unwritten law that have some, but only some, similarities to modern concepts. The most extensive discussion appears in Aristotle’s Rhetoric (1.10–15). Here, Aristotle classifies laws as either written or unwritten and either particular to a POLIS or common to all, so that he can then show how different classifications of laws are used in the argumentation of a speech. The oldest reference appears in Sophocles’ Antigone (442 BCE). In response to Creon’s order that her brother must remain unburied, Antigone declares that the unwritten nomima (rules) of the gods hold greater weight than the proclamations of Creon (S. A. 453–5). Since neither the unwritten orders of the gods nor the written commands of Creon are described in this passage as nomoi, there is reason to doubt whether the distinction here is between unwritten and written law. In Perikles’ funeral oration (431/0), the Athenians are said to observe unwritten laws out of a sense of shame (Thuc. 2.37.3), but the nature of such laws is not described explicitly. The only negative depiction of unwritten laws occurs in Andocides (1.85–7), but his discussion concerns specifically laws that were not to be included in the revised Athenian law code of 403/2. Since these laws were intentionally excluded so that they would no longer remain

in force, they differ formally from other unwritten laws. Elsewhere in Greek literature, unwritten laws are always viewed positively. Hirzel (1903) concludes that the Greeks developed a distinct concept of unwritten law that all people were required to observe. Ostwald (1973), by contrast, suggests that agraphoi nomoi differed in substance and only shared in common the formal fact that they were not written. As Harris (2004: 27–30) observes, some of these difficulties may stem from the fact that the Greeks never sought to separate church from state so that the unwritten laws of the gods were often incorporated into the written statutes of the polis. Xenophon, for example, believed that one was required by unwritten law to honor the gods, respect one’s parents, and repay a favor (Mem. 4.4.19–24), but such obligations were also enforced by Athenian law. Thus laws that were said to be unwritten and derived from the gods could also be part of a written code. SEE ALSO:

Law, “Greek”; Laws, sacred (Greek).

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Harris, E. M. (2004) “Antigone the lawyer, or the ambiguities of nomos.” In E. M. Harris and L. Rubinstein, eds., The law and the courts in ancient Greece: 19–56. London. Hirzel, R. (1903) Agraphos nomos. Leipzig. Ostwald, M. (1973) “Was there a concept agraphos nomos in classical Greece?” In E. N. Lee, A. P. D. Mourelatos, and R. M. Rorty, eds., Exegesis and argument: studies in Greek philosophy presented to Gregory Vlastos: 70–104. New York.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print page 203. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah13013

1

Agrarian laws ETHAN SPANIER AND DAVID B. HOLLANDER

Agrarian laws are laws regulating the possession and exploitation of agricultural land. Since all ancient economies were overwhelmingly agricultural, the ruling classes always had considerable incentive to establish such rules. Agrarian laws could form part of a general law code or legislative initiative or be independent sets of regulations specifically designed, for example, to organize a colony or deal with a particular agrarian problem. As early as Hammurabi’s eighteenth-century BCE law code, there are numerous regulations concerning property rights, the leasing of land, and liability for damage caused by, for example, a failure to maintain irrigation dams. Egyptian and Hittite royal decrees granting land to various individuals and demarcating boundaries also survive. The ancient Greek world closely connected land ownership with political enfranchisement, making agrarian laws central to political and cultural participation. Both Sparta and Athens possessed legislation that determined civic status based on land possession or production. Full membership in the Spartan polis required a possession of an ancestral unit of land called a kleros (Polyb. 6.48.3; Plut. Lyc. 8; Ages. 5.1–2). This inalienable plot bequeathed to eldest sons is imperfectly understood. We are better informed about Athenian legislation. SOLON’s SEISACHTHEIA of 594 BCE is perhaps the most famous example of Greek agrarian legislation. This law cancelled debts, abolished debt-slavery, and established a social ranking based on agricultural production. In the Hellenistic period agricultural land was often allotted by imperial decree (e.g., I. Ilion 33, RC 10–13). More often agrarian laws stipulated ownership of cleruchic land in exchange for military service, thereby conferring civic membership. A papyrus from the late second century BCE preserving evidence of land holdings in the Ptolemaic village of Kerkeosiris

serves as a case study (P.Tebt. IV 1103). Ptolemaic kings gave amounts of land to Greek colonists relative to their military role, with equestrian soldiers receiving more than three times as much land as their infantry counterparts (Bingen 2007: 123–4). Roman agrarian laws played an important role in the political and social development of the state. Rome’s interest in regulating agricultural land goes back at least to the TWELVE TABLES (ca. 450 BCE), which included several provisions relating to crops and vineyards as well as farm animals and buildings. The Leges Liciniae Sextiae of 367 BCE attempted to limit the amount of ager publicus a Roman could use (possessio) to 500 iugera. In the Late Republic agrarian legislation seems to have become more frequent and increasingly controversial. In 133 BCE Tiberius Gracchus overcame fierce opposition and passed a law to enforce the old legal limit on possession of ager publicus and redistribute remaining land. After his murder, the resulting land commission operated for only a few years. Tiberius’ brother Gaius sought further redistribution of land by founding colonies, a move that also cost him his life. Numerous attempts to reallocate land for colonists or veterans followed. Caesar, with the help of Crassus and Pompey, secured a land redistribution law in 59 BCE that allotted land to Pompey’s veterans (Cass. Dio 38.7.3), and included a clause requiring every senator to take an oath to abide by its statutes. The last mention of a lex agraria in Roman history is connected with the emperor NERVA AUGUSTUS, who bought large tracts of land with state funds and empowered commissioners to allot them to poor citizens (Dig. 47.21.3; CIL VI 1548; Plin. Ep. 7.31). SEE ALSO: Agriculture, ancient Near East; Agriculture, Byzantine; Agriculture, Greek; Agriculture, Pharaonic Egypt; Agriculture, Roman Empire; Agriculture, Roman Republic; Gracchus, Tiberius and Gaius Sempronius; Horoi; Land and landholding, ancient Near East; Land

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 203–205. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah06012

2 and landholding, Greco-Roman Egypt; Land and landholding, Greece; Land and landholding, Late Antiquity; Land and landholding, Pharaonic Egypt; Land and landholding, Rome; Landscapes, Greek; Landscapes, Roman. REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Billows, R. A. (1995) Kings and colonists: aspects of Macedonian imperialism. Leiden. Bingen, J. (2007) Hellenistic Egypt: monarchy, society, economy, culture. Edinburgh. de Ligt, L. (2004) “Poverty and demography: the case of the Gracchan land reforms.” Mnemosyne 57: 725–57.

Gargola, D. (1995) Land, laws, and gods: magistrates and ceremonies in the regulation of public lands in republican Rome. Chapel Hill. Lintott, A. W. (1992) Judicial reform and land reform in the Roman Republic: a new edition with translation and commentary, of the laws from Urbino. Cambridge. Stanley, P. V. (1999) The economic reforms of Solon. St. Katharinen. Taylor, L. R. (1951) “Caesar’s agrarian legislation and his municipal policy.” In P. R. ColemanNorton, ed., Studies in Roman economic and social history in honor of Allan Chester Johnson: 68–78. Princeton.

1

Agrarian writers, agronomists PENELOPE J. GOODMAN

Given the centrality of agricultural production to ancient life and the status accorded to the pursuit of farming, it is no surprise that ancient authors wrote extensively on the subject. The principal extant texts are Roman: they include the earliest complete surviving work of Latin prose, Cato’s De Agri Cultura, along with Varro’s Res Rusticae (30s BCE) and Columella’s De Re Rustica (60s CE). Before them, Greek philosophers and scientists had discussed the value of agriculture and compiled information about plants and animals: the main surviving examples are Xenophon’s Oeconomicus, Aristotle’s Historia Animalium and Partibus Animalium, and Theophrastus’ Historia Plantarum and De Causis Plantarum. The agricultural manual of Mago the Carthaginian, now lost, was also considered sufficiently important for the Senate to commission its translation into Latin after the destruction of Carthage. Agricultural writing flourished throughout the imperial era, leaving behind fragments such as Q. Gargilius Martialis’ third-century work De Hortis. In the Late Antique period it is represented by Palladius’ De agricultura (late fourth or fifth century); it was also at the roots of a Byzantine compilation known as the Geoponica and the work of the Arabic writer Ib’n-al-Awam of Seville. The farming manuals of Cato, Varro, and Columella have traditionally been defined as technical, rather than literary, texts. But the distinction should not be over-emphasized. Certainly, Columella did not see it: he includes Vergil in his list of Roman authorities on agriculture (Columella Rust. 1.1.12), cites him more than fifty times and moves into verse hexameter when treating the subject of horticulture as an explicit response to the Georgics (10.pr.3). Equally, Vergil drew freely on “technical” authorities like Varro and Theophrastus,

not merely for information, but via a process of rich textual interplay (Doody 2007). Cato’s unpolished style and idiosyncratic structuring have been viewed as symptomatic of an oral culture without an established literary tradition (Dalby 1998); but others have emphasized self-consciously literary devices such as the programmatic nature of his preface (Reay 2005). Finally, Varro’s interest in classification and his employment of dialogue form reflect a close relationship with the Greek philosophical and scientific writers, while the playful vignettes which introduce each book of his De Re Rustica may be read as an extended satire on Roman political life in the 30s BCE (Green 1997). The agronomists wrote above all for absentee landowners seeking to maximize their returns from large, slave-run estates in central Italy. For Cato, these estates were devoted chiefly to the production of olive oil and wine, though cereal crops and livestock are also treated (Cato Agr. 27–30, 34–7), as is suburban market-gardening (7–8). These priorities remained largely unchanged, but later writers reflect the growing size and complexity of aristocratic estates: a response to increased wealth and slave-ownership, and the demand for luxury produce. Varro devoted one book each to crop cultivation and animal husbandry, but also introduced the notion of pastio villatica (the raising in captivity of non-domesticated creatures such as fish, birds, and dormice), while Columella treated horticulture systematically for the first time (Columella Rust. 10.pr.1). In Palladius, occasional references to bad roads (Palladius 1.6.7) or deserted lands (3.18.6) appear to reflect the changed circumstances of the Late Antique era. From Cato onwards, agrarian writers looked back with nostalgia to a golden age of self-sufficient soldier-farmers, whose physical strength and good moral character had served the state in warfare and in politics (Cato Agr. preface; see CINCINNATUS, LUCIUS QUINCTIUS). This did not entirely square with the contemporary

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 205–206. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah06013

2 reality of city-based landlords whose fields were tilled by slaves; but the tension could be resolved by characterizing slaves as “tools” of their masters, who thus became the true cultivators of the land by proxy (Varro Rust. 1.17.1; Reay 2005). Meanwhile, landlords were encouraged to involve themselves directly with the concerns of their estate (Columella Rust. 1.1.18–2.2): in so doing, they simultaneously demonstrated and enhanced their suitability for managing the state. The ideal villa might offer voluptas, especially since this would attract the master to spend time there (Cato Agr. 4), but it should exist in harmony with utilitas (Varro Rust. 1.4.1; cf. also Vitr. Arch 6.6.5). Those who placed their own pleasure before profitable production attracted moral censure (Varro Rust. 1.13.7). SEE ALSO:

Cato, Marcus Porcius (Cato the Elder), Origines; Columella; Geoponica; Pliny the Elder (Gaius Plinius Secundus); Theophrastus; Varro, Marcus Terentius; Vergil (Publius Vergilius Maro); Vilicus.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Dalby, A. (1998) Cato on farming: De Agricultura. A modern translation with commentary. Blackawton. Doody, A. (2007) “Virgil the farmer? Critiques of the Georgics in Columella and Pliny.” Classical Philology 102: 180–97. Green, C. M. C. (1997) “Free as a bird: Varro De Re Rustica 3.” American Journal of Philology 118: 427–48. Martin, R. (1971) Recherches sur les agronomes latins et leurs conceptions e´conomiques et sociales. Paris. Noe`, E. (2002) Il progetto di Columella: profilo sociale, economico, culturale. Como. Reay, B. (2005) “Agriculture, writing, and Cato’s aristocratic self-fashioning.” Classical Antiquity 24: 331–61. Skydsgaard, J. E. (1968) Varro the scholar: studies in the first book of Varro’s De re rustica. Copenhagen. White, K. D. (1973) “Roman agricultural writers I: Varro and his predecessors.” In H. Temporini, ed., Aufstieg und Niedergang der ro¨mischen Welt I.4: 439–97. Berlin.

1

Agrarian writers, agronomists PENELOPE J. GOODMAN

Given the centrality of agricultural production to ancient life and the status accorded to the pursuit of farming, it is no surprise that ancient authors wrote extensively on the subject. The principal extant texts are Roman: they include the earliest complete surviving work of Latin prose, Cato’s De agri cultura, along with VARRO’S Res rusticae (30s BCE) and COLUMELLA’S De re rustica (60s CE). Before them, Greek philosophers and scientists had discussed the value of agriculture and compiled information about plants and animals: the main surviving examples are Xenophon’s Oeconomicus, Aristotle’s Historia animalium and Partibus animalium, and THEOPHRASTUS’ Historia plantarum and De causis plantarum. The agricultural manual of Mago the Carthaginian, now lost, was also considered sufficiently important for the Senate to commission its translation into Latin after the destruction of Carthage. Agricultural writing flourished throughout the Principate, leaving behind fragments such as Q. Gargilius Martialis’ third-century work De hortis. In the Late Antique period it is represented by Palladius’ De agricultura (late fourth or fifth century), now organized by months. It was also at the roots of a Byzantine compilation, the GEOPONICA, and the work of the Arabic writer Ib’n-al-Awam of Seville. The farming manuals of Cato, Varro, and Columella have traditionally been defined as technical, rather than literary, texts. But the distinction should not be over-emphasized. Certainly, Columella did not see it: he includes VERGIL in his list of Roman authorities on agriculture (Columella Rust. 1.1.12), cites him more than fifty times and moves into verse hexameter when treating the subject of horticulture as an explicit response to the Georgics (10.pr.3). Equally, Vergil drew freely on “technical” authorities like Varro and Theophrastus,

not merely for information, but via a process of rich textual interplay (Doody 2007). Cato’s unpolished style and idiosyncratic structuring have been viewed as symptomatic of an oral culture without an established literary tradition (Dalby 1998); but others have emphasized selfconsciously literary devices such as the programmatic nature of his preface (Reay 2005). Finally, Varro wrote with a keen awareness of genre, encompassing philosophy and satire as well as agronomy, and deployed and subverted the tropes of all three to create a work which may be read as an extended commentary on Roman political life in the 30s BCE (Green 1997; Nelsestuen 2015). The agronomists wrote above all for absentee landowners seeking to maximize their returns from large, slave-run estates in central Italy. For Cato, these estates were devoted chiefly to the production of olive oil and wine, though cereal crops and livestock are also treated (Cato Agr. 27–30, 34–7), as is suburban market-gardening (7–8). These remained priorities, but later writers reflect the growing size and complexity of aristocratic estates: a response to increased wealth, slave-ownership, and the demand for luxury produce. Varro devoted one book each to crop cultivation and animal husbandry, but also introduced the notion of pastio villatica (the raising in captivity of non-domesticated creatures such as fish, birds, and dormice), while Columella treated HORTICULTURE systematically for the first time (Columella Rust. 10.pr.1; Henderson 2004). In Palladius, occasional references to bad roads (Palladius 1.6.7) or deserted lands (3.18.6) may reflect the changed circumstances of Late Antiquity. From Cato onwards, agrarian writers looked back with nostalgia to a golden age of selfsufficient soldier-farmers, whose physical strength and good moral character had served the state in warfare and in politics (Cato Agr. preface; see CINCINNATUS, LUCIUS QUINCTIUS). This did not entirely square with the contemporary reality of city-based landlords whose fields

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History. Edited by Kai Brodersen, Andrew Erskine, and David Hollander. © 2019 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Published 2019 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah06013.pub2

2 were tilled by slaves; but the tension could be resolved by characterizing slaves as “tools” of their masters, who thus became the true cultivators of the land by proxy (Varro Rust. 1.17.1; Reay 2005). Meanwhile, landlords were encouraged to involve themselves directly with the concerns of their estate (Columella Rust. 1.1.18–2.2). In so doing, they simultaneously demonstrated and enhanced their suitability for managing the state; an association particularly strongly reflected in Varro’s settings, characters and metaphors (Nelsestuen 2015). For these reasons, the genre is highly moralizing, emphasizing the importance of tradition, moderation, and self-sufficiency, characterizing farming as the only respectable and serious form of economic activity, and censuring the indulgence of the ostentatiously unproductive estate. SEE ALSO:

Agriculture, Roman Republic; Agriculture, Roman Empire; Cato, Marcus Porcius (Cato the Elder), Origines; Pliny the Elder (Gaius Plinius Secundus); Vilicus.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Dalby, A. (1998) Cato on farming: De agricultura. A modern translation with commentary. Blackawton. Doody, A. (2007) “Virgil the farmer? Critiques of the Georgics in Columella and Pliny.” Classical Philology 102: 180–97. Green, C. M. C. (1997) “Free as a bird: Varro De re rustica 3.” American Journal of Philology 118: 427–48. Henderson, J. (2004) Hortus: The Roman book of gardening. London. Nelsestuen, G. A. (2015) Varro the agronomist: political philosophy, satire, and agriculture in the late republic. Columbus, OH. Reay, B. (2005) “Agriculture, writing, and Cato’s aristocratic self-fashioning.” Classical Antiquity 24: 331–61. Reitz, C. (2013) “Columella, De re rustica.” In E. Buckley and M. T. Dinter, eds., A companion to the Neronian age: 275–87. Malden. White, K. D. (1973) “Roman agricultural writers I: Varro and his predecessors.” In H. Temporini, ed., Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt I, 4: 439–97. Berlin.

1

Agri Decumates PETER S. WELLS

The term agri decumates was used by TACITUS in Germania 29.4 to designate the territory east of the upper Rhine, south of the Taunus hills, west of the modern town of Welzheim, and north of the Swiss border; most of it was in the modern state of Baden-Wu¨rttemberg. The meaning of the term is unclear and has been the cause of much debate. Tacitus implies that the land was sparsely populated before being settled by emigrants from Gaul and that it became incorporated into the expanding empire. In the centuries before the Roman conquest, this region was inhabited by late Iron Age peoples who used the material culture of the type known as LA TE`NE. Their political, social, and economic systems were similar to those of communities throughout the central regions of the European continent. Several large settlements of the type known as OPPIDA (after Caesar’s use of that word in reference to the fortified population centers in Gaul) existed in the region, for example at Altenburg, Heidengraben, and Zarten, but the great majority of the population lived in small villages. Caesar’s conquest of Gaul (58–51 BCE) brought the Roman Empire to the western bank of the Rhine, and in 15 BCE the armies of Tiberius and Drusus conquered the lands south of the Danube in what is today southern Bavaria. The peoples of the agri decumates had intensive contact with the Roman world as a result of these conquests, and the region came under the control of the Roman military. With the creation of the limes northern boundary during the second half of the first century CE, it became part of the province of Upper Germany. Much discussion has revolved around whether the population at the time of annexation was Gallic or Germanic, but modern understanding of the issues of cultural identity

in this part of Europe makes that debate largely moot. The idea of Gallic and Germanic as identities in this period was created mainly by Roman observers and not by the peoples themselves. The region thrived along with most of the empire during the second century CE. Around the middle of the third century, the situation changed. Based on the evidence of texts, investigators have written of “the fall of the limes” and portrayed a time of Germanic groups, especially ALAMANNI, attacking and penetrating the limes into the agri decumates, plundering and ultimately causing the Roman forces to abandon the forward boundary of the limes and to fall back to the earlier line along the upper Danube. However, recent archaeological studies have challenged that long-accepted picture, arguing that there is little direct evidence for destruction of the limes or of any of the forts associated with it, nor indication of large-scale damage to civilian settlements within the territory. Instead, researchers now consider a gradual process of immigration into the region as the more likely reason for the changes observed. SEE ALSO: Gaul (Tres Galliae); Germania (Superior and Inferior); Julius Caesar (C. Iulius Caesar); Tiberius (Tiberius Caesar Augustus).

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Filtzinger, P., Planck, D., Ca¨mmerer, B., and Alfo¨ldyThomas, S., eds. (1986) Die Ro¨mer in BadenWu¨rttemberg, 3rd ed. Stuttgart. Neumann, G., Timpe, D., and Nuber, H. U. (1984) “Decumates agri.” In H. Beck, H. Jankuhn, K. Ranke, and R. Wenskus, eds., Reallexikon der germanischen Altertumskunde, vol. 5: 271–86. Berlin. Wamser, L., ed. (2000) Die Ro¨mer zwischen Alpen und Nordmeer. Mainz. Wieland, G. (1996) Die Spa¨tlate`nezeit in Wu¨rttemberg. Stuttgart.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 206–207. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah16001

1

Agricola, Gnaeus Iulius ANTHONY A. BARRETT

Gnaeus Iulius Agricola (40–93 CE) was born on June 13, 40 into a senatorial family of Forum Iulii (Fre´jus) in Narbonese Gaul. About this time, his father, Iulius Graecinus, was executed by CALIGULA (Sen. Ben. 2.21.5; Tac. Ag. 4.1), and he was raised by his mother, Iulia Procilla. He studied in Massilia, then served as tribune in Britain under Gaius Suetonius Paulinus (58–61), after which he married Domitia Decidiana. A quaestorship in Asia (63–64) was followed by a term as tribunus plebis (66) and as praetor (68). After the death of NERO, he was favored initially by GALBA, but became an early and enthusiastic supporter of VESPASIAN. Perhaps through this powerful connection, he was appointed, in 70, legate of legio XX in Britain, where, under the energetic direction of Quintus Petillius Cerialis, he demonstrated considerable abilities as a military commander. His service successfully completed, he was made a patrician and appointed governor of Gallia Aquitania, probably 73–76, following which he held a suffect consulship. During this general period, his daughter married the historian TACITUS, who would go on to write his biography. Apart from a few brief and confused sentences in Dio (66.20, cf. 39.50.4), a probable but elliptical allusion to his conquests in Statius (Silv. 5.1.90–91), and inscriptions from VERULAMIUM (ST. ALBANS) (AE 1957, 169) and DEVA (CHESTER) (ILS 8704a), the Agricola is our only source of information on his life and career. Agricola’s third period of service in Britain was his major achievement. Arriving in 77 (or possibly 78), when the campaigning season was almost over, he crushed the Ordovices of north Wales and conquered the island of Mona (Anglesey). He followed this initial success with a major drive toward Romanization,

encouraging the building of Roman-style towns, and providing the sons of the local nobility with a liberal education based on the Roman model. Later seasons saw him advance into Scotland. In 81, he looked west across to Ireland, which he believed he could easily have conquered, but declined to make the attempt. Further campaigns followed against the Caledonians, north of the Forth. In 83, he defeated them in a major battle at the still unidentified site of Mons Graupius. Probably in this same year, he instructed his fleet to sail around Britain, confirming that it was indeed an island (Tac. Ag. 10.5–6, 28.4, 38.5; Cass. Dio 39.50.4, 60.20.2). Tacitus attributes Agricola’s recall in early 84 to jealousy on the part of DOMITIAN, afraid that the successes there might overshadow his own German victories (Tac. Ag. 39.1–2). Dio implies the same (60.20.3). On the other hand, Agricola did receive the ornamenta triumphalia and a triumphal statue, and it may well be that, Agricola’s talents notwithstanding, Domitian saw little to be gained from the conquest and pacification of Scotland. Agricola died in quiet retirement (although poison was suspected) on August 23, 93. SEE ALSO: Britannia, Roman Empire; Caledonia; Legions, history and location of.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Birley, A. R. (1999) Tacitus: Agricola and Germany. Oxford. Hanson, W. S. (1987) Agricola and the conquest of the north. London. Hanson, W. S. (1991) “Tacitus’ ‘Agricola’: an archaeological and historical study.” ANRW II.33.3: 1741–84. Berlin. Raepsaet-Charlier, M.-Th. (1991) “Cn. Iulius Agricola: mise au point prosopographique.” ANRW II.33.3: 1807–57. Berlin.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 207–208. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah19207

1

Agricola, Gnaeus Iulius ANTONY A. BARRETT

University of British Columbia, Canada

Gnaeus Iulius Agricola (40–93 CE) was born on June 13, 40 into a senatorial family from Forum Iulii (Fréjus) in Narbonese Gaul. His father,

Iulius Graecinus, was executed by CALIGULA (Sen. Ben. 2.21.5, Tac. Ag. 4.1), and Agricola was brought up by his mother, Iulia Procilla. He served as tribune in Britain under Gaius Suetonius Paulinus (58–61). He then served as quaestor in Asia (63–64), and as tribunus plebis (66) and praetor (68) in Rome. Following the suicide of NERO, he became an early and

FIGURE 1 Britannia. Drawn by Ancient World Mapping Center. The Encyclopedia of Ancient History. Edited by Andrew Erskine, David B. Hollander, and Arietta Papaconstantinou. © 2021 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Published 2021 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah19207.pub2

2 enthusiastic supporter of VESPASIAN. This powerful connection served him well, and in 70 he was appointed legate of Legio XX in Britain, where he demonstrated considerable talent as a military commander. On the successful completion of his term, he was made a patrician and became governor of Gallia Aquitania (probably 73–76). This was followed by a suffect consulship. His daughter married the historian TACITUS, who would become his biographer. Other than a few brief and at times incoherent sentences in Xiphilinus’ epitome of CASSIUS DIO (66.20), an elliptical allusion to his conquests in STATIUS (Silv. 5.1.90–91), and inscriptions from VERULAMIUM (ST. ALBANS) (AE 1957, 169) and DEVA (CHESTER) (ILS 8704a) (Figure 1), Tacitus’ Agricola is our only source of information on his life and career. Agricola’s third period of service in Britain was his major achievement, and Tacitus devotes almost half of his biography to it. The evidence produced from archaeological excavations suggests that much of the Roman activity in areas of Britain associated by Tacitus with Agricola predates his governorship, and Tacitus seems to have deliberately deemphasized the achievements of those commanders who preceded him. Arriving in 77 (this year is now generally favored, rather than 78), near the end of the campaigning season, Agricola defeated the Ordovices of North Wales and conquered the island of Mona (Anglesey). This military success was followed by a major thrust towards ROMANIZATION, and he encouraged the construction of Roman-style towns and provided the sons of the local nobility with a liberal education based on the Roman model. In subsequent seasons he advanced into Scotland (see CALEDONIA). In 81 he contemplated

an invasion of Ireland, which he believed he could easily have conquered, but decided against it. There were further campaigns against the Caledonians, north of the Forth. In 83 he defeated them in a major battle at Mons Graupius, still unidentified. In probably the same year, he ordered his fleet to circumnavigate Britain, and confirmed that it was indeed an island (Tac. Ag. 10.5–6, 28.4, 38.5, Dio 39.50.4, 60.20.2). Agricola was recalled in early 84, according to Tacitus because DOMITIAN feared that his own German victories might be overshadowed (Tac. Ag. 39.1–2, reflected also in Dio 60.20.3). That said, Agricola received the ornamenta triumphalia and a triumphal statue, and it could be that Domitian simply saw little benefit in the conquest and pacification of Scotland. Agricola entered a quiet retirement and died on August 23, 93. SEE ALSO: Britannia, Roman Empire; Legions, history and location of.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Birley, A. R. (2009) “The Agricola.” In A. J. Woodman, ed., The Cambridge companion to Tacitus: 47–58. Cambridge. Clarke, K. (2001). “An island nation: re-reading Tacitus’ ‘Agricola’.” Journal of Roman Studies 91: 94–112. Hanson, W. S. (1987) Agricola and the conquest of the north. London. Hoffmann, B. (2004) “Tacitus, ‘Agricola’ and the role of literature in the archaeology of the first century A.D.” In E. Sauer, ed., Archaeology and ancient history: breaking down the boundaries: 151–65. London. Woodman, A. J., ed. (2014) Tacitus: Agricola. Cambridge.

1

Agriculture, ancient Near East MICHAEL JURSA

Two fundamentally different regimes characterized ancient Near Eastern agriculture: a dry-farming regime based on the cultivation of cereals, and irrigation agriculture with cereals and dates as two leading crops. Dry farming was restricted mostly to Upper Mesopotamia, parts of the Jazirah and adjacent areas of northern Syria, as well as to the mountainous fringes of Mesopotamia in the northeast. Irrigation was (and is) indispensable in southern Mesopotamia and the lowlands of Iraq, but it is also attested in parts of northern Mesopotamia. The minimal requirement for successful barley cultivation is 200 mm of winter rainfall, but in practice larger settlements depending on dry farming are not found south of the 300 mm isohyet (e.g., Wirth 1962; Adams 1981; Postgate 1994: 3–21; Wilkinson 2003). The principal cereal crop in both regimes was barley. Especially after the end of the third millennium BCE, wheat, being less salt-resistant than barley, always played a minor role, as did emmer and millet. Grain was generally grown as a winter crop: plowing started after the beginning of the rainy season in autumn. Extensive grain farming could be complemented by more intensive forms of cultivation. In particular, sesame, an important source of fat, was grown as a summer crop. In the south, date gardening implied a far more intensive use of land (and water) than any other form of cultivation. Typically, date groves were also used for vegetable gardening, fruit trees, and sometimes even grain farming. Both yields and labor requirements were significantly higher than in the case of arable farming. Secondary crops include onions, garlic, cucumbers, and flax. The most frequently mentioned varieties of fruit are the vine (which was grown also in southern Mesopotamia), the fig, and the pomegranate (Reallexikon der Assyriologie 10: 167–83; Bulletin of Sumerian Agriculture, passim).

Technology varied little over the millennia. In the south as well as in the dry-farming north, the most important tool of cultivation was the animal-drawn seeder plow; oxen were the most efficient source of traction, but especially in the third millennium BCE, also the use of donkeys is attested. In the ancient Near East, horses were never used for plowing. The soil was also dug manually with hoes and spades; planting could also be done with a stick. The sickle was the principal tool for harvesting. The irrigation networks in southern Mesopotamia underwent considerable diachronic development. Three general types can be distinguished. The two older types (attested from the fourth to the early first millennium BCE) made extensive use of the natural system of bifurcating and rejoining river branches without changing it in its essence; only gradually did natural waterways assume a more canal-like form. From the mid-first millennium BCE onwards there is evidence for larger canal networks implying interregional, statecontrolled planning and cooperation. The gradual expansion of irrigation networks begun at that time culminated only in the Sasanian period. This development implies the large-scale use of water lifting devices to supplement gravity-flow canals. In earlier periods, bucket irrigation is the only frequently mentioned method of water lifting (Adams 1981: 204, 245–6; Jursa 2010: 52). The use of the seeder plow was decisive for determining the characteristics of grain farming especially in the southern alluvium of Mesopotamia. Long fields with widely spaced furrows and narrow fronts bordering on the canals maximized the efficiency of cultivation. This type of field layout made lavish use of land but economized on water, labor, and seed, scarce and therefore expensive resources. The average return on seed was therefore very high (twenty-fold and above), but ancient Near Eastern yields per surface area are roughly comparable to those achieved by traditional agricultural practice in the region in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. In this

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 208–210. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah01003

2 manner the seeder plow was instrumental in allowing the early urban civilizations of southern Mesopotamia to achieve the agricultural surplus that supported their developing social stratification (Liverani 1998: 45–51). Environmental conditions and the high initial costs of the principal means of production (plow and plow animals) favored large-scale institutional grain farming over individual smallholding: in southern Mesopotamia, arable land was always to a large extent (but never entirely) owned and cultivated by public institutions such as palaces or temples. Private landowners, especially those with an urban background, tended to favor small-scale, but also more labor-intensive and productive forms of land use, in particular date gardening: agriculture in southern Mesopotamia was (and still is) based on the cultivation of two leading crops, barley and dates. It is for this reason that Babylonian agriculture – given favorable demographic and political background conditions – always had considerable potential for structural change leading to a higher surplus within an essentially stable technical, climatic, and socioeconomic framework (Jursa 2010: 48–53 with further references). Owing to the lesser importance of irrigation, the northern Mesopotamian rural landscape was characterized by relatively irregular field shapes. Environmental conditions were more conducive to family based subsistence farming than in the south, but also in this region large-scale elite landownership developed already in the second millennium BCE. The crops were the same as in Babylonia (only the date palm is missing). Under

dry-farming conditions returns on seed were normally between three- and five-fold (but could also be as high as nine-fold); in irrigated areas, yields comparable to those in the south were achieved (Jas 2000). SEE ALSO: Barley; Economy, Near East (Hellenistic); Economy, Near East (Persian); Irrigation, ancient Near East; Land and landholding, ancient Near East; Legumes; Lifting devices; Murashu family and archive; Nutrition and malnutrition.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Adams, R. M. (1981) Heartland of cities: surveys of ancient settlement and land use on the central floodplain of the Euphrates. Chicago. Bulletin of Sumerian Agriculture (1984–95) 8 vols. Cambridge. Jas, R. M., ed. (2000) Rainfall and agriculture in northern Mesopotamia. Istanbul. Jursa, M. (2010) Aspects of the economic history of Babylonia in the first millennium BC: economic geography, economic mentalities, agriculture, the use of money and the problem of economic growth. Mu¨nster. Liverani, M. (1998) Uruk: la prima citta`. Bari. Postgate, J. N. (1994) Early Mesopotamia: society and economy at the dawn of history, 2nd ed. London. Reallexikon der Assyriologie 10, 3/4 (2004): 167–83 (“Pacht,” articles by H. Neumann, M. Stol, and M. Jursa). Wilkinson, T. J. (2003) Archaeological landscapes of the Near East. Tucson. Wirth, E. (1962) Agrargeographie des Irak. Hamburg.

1

Agriculture, Byzantine MICHAEL J. DECKER

Byzantine agriculture inherited traditions from the Hellenistic and Roman worlds and built substantially upon them. As with all preindustrial societies, agriculture was the foundation of the economy and the pursuit of the majority of the empire’s inhabitants. Most farmers would have lived at little better than subsistence level, but there were certainly many who were capable of producing surpluses and who advanced themselves materially throughout the empire’s history. Though scholars have commonly viewed agrarian production in Byzantium as stagnant or even backward, there is a considerable body of evidence that shows that, at certain times and places, considerable efforts were made to improve farming techniques and the land. During Late Antiquity, the eastern provinces of the empire witnessed a particularly strong demographic increase, which led to agricultural intensification. In Egypt, likewise, there was considerable investment in land in an effort to maximize production, due partly to demographic demands and the rise of a new imperial bureaucratic elite and also as a response to the deep monetization of the marketplace (Banaji 2001). In Egypt and throughout the eastern provinces, textual and archaeological data suggest widespread investment in land improvements, particularly in irrigation systems including underground channels (qanats), which in the fifth and sixth centuries allowed considerable expansion of sedentary populations into former desert territory (see IRRIGATION, GREECE AND ROME). In Egypt, the use of the saqiya expanded substantially; this was a geared-drive mechanism that translated horizontal power from a treading beast to a vertical wheel that raised water from wells and canals. Their use allowed for increased yields and for the extension of arable lands away from the Nile Valley. It is no coincidence that at this time new crops, such as

(known from papyri in the Western Desert) and sorghum (Decker 2009a), were increasingly grown in Egypt and the Levant. Since it is both expensive and labor intensive, irrigation was generally restricted to small areas improved out of necessity or the initiative of local grandees. Outside Egypt, WHEAT and BARLEY, the main cereal staples, could grow nearly everywhere without irrigation. DRY-FARMING of cereals, in which cropping depended on rainfall and tillage techniques, was ubiquitous throughout the empire, as evidenced in the agricultural encyclopedia the Geoponika, a tenth-century compilation that contains material collected in Late Antiquity (Decker 2009b). Farming was grueling work, with the requirements of tilling, care, and harvest of the crops dependent upon the muscle power of men, women, and children, all of whom had an important share in the hard labor necessary for survival. The uneven distribution of land ownership was a common feature of Byzantine life throughout the history of the empire, with most land concentrated in the hands of a few powerful landowners. Small landholders would have rarely possessed more than 0.1 ha, while a rich estate in Late Antique Magnesia possessed more than 7,000 ha (Decker 2009b). Free peasant farmers survived in all periods, though their material conditions varied tremendously. Free small farmers in Late Antique Egypt seem to have been less well-off than those in Syria, while the later Byzantine peasantry of Macedonia seems representative of a group whose prospects were bleak at best (Laiou 1977). The majority of Byzantine farmers seemed to have owned a plow ox, and oxen were often yoked in pairs for tilling the soil; cattle were usually reared as traction animals rather than as a source of meat and milk. There were exceptions; the ninth-century vita of St. Philaretos the Merciful (1.5) states that the saint once possessed six hundred head of cattle, apart from the yokes of oxen used for plowing (see PLOW) and transporting heavy loads. In the Middle Byzantine period, buffalo were introduced, apparently from Syria. Even small COTTON

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 210–212. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah03004

2 farms tended to have a range of domestic animals; sheep and GOATS were commonly tended and provided meat and wool, while their dung was collected and used for fuel in the plateau of ANATOLIA, and also provided fertilizer. PIGS were common; the thirteenthcentury monastic typikon of the monastery of the Mother of God at Skoitene near Philadelphia records that the community possessed three hundred pigs (Dennis 2000). The foundation also held beehives (see BEES), a common feature of most Byzantine farming communities. More rarely, farms held an abundance of horses and mules, which, though far from uncommon, were expensive to maintain and limited in usefulness, since the Byzantines did not harness horsepower for plowing or heavy transport. Wheat and barley formed the basis of the Byzantine diet in all periods (see DIET, PEASANTS); which of these one ate depended on geography and personal wealth. From the Roman period onwards, wheat bread dominated over much of the Mediterranean, and wheat is more nutritious and palatable than barley, which was generally consumed as gruel or in coarse bread. Olive oil (see OLIVES AND OLIVE OIL) was the second major part of the diet, though in the interior of Anatolia or in the colder highlands of the Balkans it was replaced by butter. Wine was another fundamental of the diet and was widely produced; vine-growing areas ranged from the PONTOS to the Adriatic and as far south as NUBIA. Despite their limited tolerance for cold, there were even vineyards on the Anatolian plateau that produced local vintages. A great variety of fruit crops were grown throughout the empire; the Geoponika contains sections that deal with the growing of plums, pears, peaches, apples, pistachios, figs, and quinces, to name a few. Likewise, kitchen gardens supplemented the basic, monotonous bread-based diet; vegetables commonly grown included lettuce, radish, beets, onions, garlic, rocket, artichokes, and cardamom.

The most agriculturally productive areas, where much innovation had occurred in the early centuries of the empire, were lost to the Muslims in the seventh century. After this period, change was slow and sporadic; the Byzantines did not widely embrace the potential of newer crops, such as sugar, that were introduced into the Mediterranean world, in part because of the considerable investment these plants required. At the end of the empire, new agricultural devices (e.g., the windmill) tended to come from outside the empire rather from within, and eventually the Byzantines lagged behind the intensive scientific farming of western Europe that they themselves had helped to disseminate. SEE ALSO:

Adriatic Sea; Agriculture, Greek; Agriculture, Roman Empire; Agriculture, Roman Republic; Fig.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Banaji, J. (2001) Agrarian change in Late Antiquity: gold, labour, and aristocratic dominance. Oxford. Decker, M. (2009a) “Plants and progress: rethinking the Islamic agricultural revolution.” Journal of World History 20, 2: 187–206. Decker, M. (2009b) Tilling the hateful earth: agricultural production and trade in the Late Antique east. Oxford. Dennis, G., trans. (2000) “Skoteine [Boreine]: testament of Maximos for the monastery of the Mother of God at Skoteine near Philadelphia.” In J. Thomas and A. Constantinides Hero, eds., Byzantine monastic foundation documents: 1176–95. Washington. Kaplan, M. (1992) Les Hommes et la terre a` Byzance du VIe au XIe sie`cle: proprie´te´ et exploitation du sol. Paris. Laiou, A. (1977) Peasant society in the late Byzantine empire. Princeton. Lemerle, P. (1972) The agrarian history of Byzantium from the origins to the twelfth century: the sources and problems. Galway.

1

Agriculture, Greek DANIEL JEW

Agriculture was central to the life of the thousand or so city-states which made up ancient Greece, and was the base upon which their economies and political cultures depended. Agriculture was affected by climate, land distribution, the socioeconomic status of households, and the issue of slave labor. Hesiod, Theophrastus, and Xenophon provide a good picture of specific crops farmed, the agricultural year, and slave-management, all from a relatively elite point of view. Scholars however debate the actual cropping strategies which more ordinary households may have adopted. Farming within most Greek communities took place within a broadly “Mediterranean” environment. There was however significant variation across localities as diverse as Spain, the Levant, the Black Sea, and North Africa. The Mediterranean climate of antiquity almost certainly followed the modern pattern of dry, hot summers and wet, mild winters (Hes. Op. 493–596). The wet season in modern Greece lasts from mid-September to April in many regions. The amount of rainfall received can vary considerably from both year to year and region to region, creating the risk of crop failure (see DRY-FARMING). Theophrastus affirms that different regions grew crops in ways suited to their particular soils and climates (Theophr. Hist. pl. 8.2). The main cereals grown in Greece were various hulled and free-threshing types of wheat (both emmer, triticum dicoccum, and durum, triticum durum, were common) and hulled barley (hordeum vulgare, both two-row and six-row). Barley was the more common staple, often taken in the form of gruel or barley-cakes (maza). Wheat, which could more easily be made into bread, was a higher status food. Wheat was also more susceptible to poor rainfall. Modern data suggests that wheat crops may have failed as often as once in four years in Attica, compared to once in ten

years for barley (Garnsey 1988: 10). Other key crops in the “Mediterranean quartet” were pulses (such as lentils, broad beans, and chick peas), vines, and olives. Olives yielded oil, and grapes wine; both the latter provided opportunities for trade. Fruit and vegetables, most importantly figs, were grown in “garden” plots in accessible locations. Many households seem likely to have combined agriculture with small-scale pastoralism by keeping some livestock (see PASTORALISM). Hesiod paints a picture of the agricultural year from the point of view of a middling household (Hes. Op. 415–617). It begins with the preparation of plows, oxen, and slaves in October. Plowing takes place in November, with vines pruned just before spring. The grain-harvest comes in May, followed by a time of relaxation and celebration in June. Winnowing, threshing, and storing follow in July. The grape-harvest and processing into wine occur in September, with the cycle beginning anew thereafter. We can add from other sources (mainly Theophrastus’ botanical writings) the provision for winter- and springsown crops, weeding and digging, second and third plowings, and the olive-harvest with its associated pressing in autumn. The sources also provide some limited mention of agricultural implements. These include the wooden plow (ard, at times iron-tipped), hoe and sickle, mortar and pestle, threshing-floor, and winnowing-basket and winnowing-shovel (see Isager and Skydsgaard 1992: 44–56). Socioeconomic status, patterns of landholding, and political ideologies each had their own effects on agriculture. The legal prescription that only the citizens of each polis could own land was commonplace. In Classical Sparta, citizens owned relatively large portions of land, perhaps averaging 18 ha for ordinary Spartiates and 44 ha for elites (Hodkinson 2000: 384). In comparison, holdings at Athens may have ranged from upwards of 20 ha for the very wealthy, 5–10 ha for middling households, and less than 5 ha for poorer citizens (Foxhall 1992: 157). Holdings in Greek cities

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 212–214. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah06014

2 were often fragmented into small plots due to practices of marriage and inheritance. This was the case for the holdings of two wealthy individuals in Athens, Adeimantos and Axiochos, in the fifth century BCE (found in the Attic Stelai, IG I3 422–430). The archaeological evidence for whether rural settlement was primarily nucleated (in village centers with outlying fields) or independent (in separate farmsteads) is open to differing interpretations. The self-sufficiency (autarkeia) of the household in terms of produce, and the occupation of the gentleman farmer, was a Greek aristocratic ideal (Xen. Oec. 6.9–10). However, some rich landowners at Athens seem to have grown cash crops specifically for market (Dem. 42). It seems likely that wealthy households made heavy use of slave labor, though the extent to which such labor was used at Athens is debated (Jameson 1992). Chios is known to have relied heavily on slaves (Thuc. 8.40). In Sparta, citizen holdings were farmed by the helots, the slave-like class tied to the land. Thessaly and Crete had similar dependent populations (Pl. Leg. 6.776D–E). For less elite Athenian households, a holding of 5 ha is widely seen as the minimum size for self-sufficiency. At this size it became viable to keep a pair of oxen, and to perhaps own a few slaves. Politically, this rough level of minimum holding may be associated with the ability to keep the hoplite panoply, and to go away on campaign. The poorest citizens in democratic Athens owned little or no agricultural land. Such households might have leased land as sharecroppers, or earned additional income through trade, craft, day labor, or jury- and assembly-pay. Some sources (e.g., Hes. Op. 462–4) imply that fields were often left fallow every other year. Half of the land would thus be left uncultivated, in a rotation system which helped preserve a good level of soil nutrients. The assumption that such biennial fallow was universally practiced has come under

sustained challenge by a “new model” of Greek agriculture (Halstead 1987; Cartledge 1993). This “new model” suggests that, under pressure to increase output and reduce the risk of crop failure, poorer households may have adopted a range of intensification and diversification strategies. Such strategies might include planting several types of crops together (intercropping) or in succession (multicropping) on the same plot within an agricultural year (Gallant 1991: 52–6). Particular crops might also be used as fertilizer. SEE ALSO: Barley; Ethnoarchaeology; Fig; Gardens, Greek; Grain supply and trade; Helots; Olives and olive oil; Slavery, ancient Near East; Wheat; Viticulture.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Cartledge, P. (1993) “Classical Greek agriculture: recent work and alternative views.” Journal of Peasant Studies 21: 127–36. Foxhall, L. (1992) “The control of the Attic landscape.” In B. Wells, ed., Agriculture in Ancient Greece: 155–9. Stockholm. Gallant, T. W. (1991) Risk and survival in Ancient Greece: reconstructing the rural domestic economy. Stanford. Garnsey, P. (1988) Famine and food supply in the Graeco-Roman world: responses to risk and crisis. Cambridge. Halstead, P. (1987) “Traditional and ancient rural economy in Mediterranean Europe: plus c¸a change?” Journal of Hellenic Studies 107: 77–87. Hanson, V. D. (1999) The other Greeks: the family farm and the agrarian roots of Western civilization. 2nd ed. Berkeley. Hodkinson, S. (2000) Property and wealth in Classical Sparta. London. Isager, S. and Skydsgaard, J. E. (1992) Ancient Greek agriculture: an introduction. London. Jameson, M. H. (1992) “Agricultural labor in Ancient Greece.” In B. Wells, ed., Agriculture in Ancient Greece: 135–46. Stockholm.

1

Agriculture, Pharaonic Egypt SALLY L. D. KATARY

The earliest evidence for agriculture in Egypt dates to the late sixth millennium in the Nile Delta (Merimde Beni-salame ca. 5000–4100 BCE) following the introduction of the first crops imported from the Near East as a supplement to the hunting and gathering lifestyle of the Neolithic (see FAYYUM). Lower Egypt witnessed the development of farming and permanent village life ca. 4100 BCE (el-Omari sites), with Upper Egypt a few centuries later (Badarian, Nagada I), as ideas and products gradually made their way along the Nile Valley through trade and communication (Wetterstromm 1999: 123–4). The ancient Egyptians quickly discovered ways to maximize the productivity of the fertile alluvial soil through their choice of crops, crop management, and a keen understanding of the annual Nile inundation and the agricultural cycle it entailed. The transformation of early agriculture into the backbone of the stable Pharaonic economy is poorly understood, because of the paucity of early farming sites (Wetterstromm 1993). Very few sites document the transition from hunting and gathering, and these are largely limited to the desert fringes. Although evidence is meager during the Early Dynastic period, once recordkeeping began, artistic and textual sources provide abundant details concerning both crop and food production and the farming systems employed in different ecological niches, together with plant remains and tools used for their cultivation. Agriculture depended upon the annual Nile inundation, which provided the basis for the Egyptian calendar with its three seasons of akhet “the flooding,” when the flood waters covered the fertile riverbanks and canals could be opened to water higher land; peret “the coming forth,” when plowing, sowing, and germination took place; and shemu

“drought(?),” when the harvest was gathered. The inundation was a regular environmental feature that made agriculture possible, despite some yearly variation in the height of the flood, which could have spelled disaster for the food supply had the Egyptians not been carefully monitoring the rising Nile with devices called Nilometers. As early as the late Predynastic period, basin irrigation was used to control the water that was naturally available when the Nile flooded. The annual inundation was the only source from which water reached the fertile soil, higher ground being irrigated by means of canals to take advantage of the short optimal period for cultivation. Low-lying poordraining lands unsuited for grain cultivation were salvageable for orchards or gardens. The earliest evidence of an attempt at flood control is possibly depicted on the late Predynastic Scorpion Macehead (AN1986–1980.E3632), where King Scorpion, hoe in hand, may be opening a dike to the floodwater. Egyptian farmers decided what land best suited agriculture, what land was good for horticulture, and what land should be given over to pasturage (Brewer 2007: 143–4). However, actual levels of land productivity are difficult to determine from existing documentation. Most of the crops sown in ancient Egypt originated in the Near East and arrived via the Levant and the Sinai, having been domesticated in southwestern Asia between 9000 and 7000. Emmer wheat (bdt) was grown for bread-making, replaced by durum by Roman times, and several varieties of barley used for beer making: bread and beer being the staples of the ancient Egyptian diet. Barley (it-m-it), a second grain crop sown on drier fields, was also used for bread and for animal fodder. Wall paintings document the methods of cereal cultivation: field-laborers use hoes and ox-drawn plows to till the soil, sowing the seeds and tamping them down using livestock. Men are depicted harvesting the crops with flint, copper, or bronze-bladed sickles and threshing the grain using cattle or donkeys.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 214–217. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah15017

2 Harvested grain was winnowed with large fans and additional sieving; the grain was then transported to granaries, where it was measured and stored under the authority of mayors and temple personnel for later distribution (Turin Taxation Papyrus). The 18thDynasty tombs of the mayor and scribe of the Treasury Paheri (El-Kab), the scribe of the fields Menna, and the scribe Nakht (Thebes) are richly illustrated with farming scenes. Model figures (ushabtis) made of wood, wax, or ceramic, depicting farm laborers at work, frequently occur in tombs, sometimes inscribed with their functions. Ramesside miscellanies contain literary accounts of farming. In P.Sallier I 4, 5–5.4, a scribe reports to his superior concerning the threshing, reaping, and gleaning in the fields, as well as the feeding of field laborers. Other miscellanies paint a dire picture of the sufferings endured by the impoverished farmer, terrified of the tax collectors and their bully men, who abuse his wife and children when he comes up short (P.Anastasi V 15, 6–17, 3). While this description is likely greatly exaggerated, the life of the farmer was certainly harsh and demanding (Haykal 2004). Flax (mh: y) was cultivated in the cool moist winter climate of the Delta as a third main crop, giving rise to the profitable linen industry and providing valuable oil for cooking and lighting. Before the Romans introduced cotton, textiles were made from flax. Both cereal grains and flax were planted in late autumn for a spring harvest, but the cultivation of flax was more demanding and time-consuming (Brewer 2007: 137). Other oil-producing crops included the castor-oil plant, sesame, and saffron. Horticulture was not only important for food production, but also for profitable cash crops (Brewer 2007: 137). Nutritious field peas and lentils were standard items in the Egyptian diet according to archaeological evidence, but seldom depicted in tomb art, in contrast to cereal crops. Fruits and vegetables, usually planted in small rectangular plots (Amarna) and depicted in tomb wall paintings, included

melons, lettuces, onion, leeks, garlic, broad beans, chickpeas, celery, radishes, and various herbs. Produce was valuable; therefore, arbitrary seizure of family garden produce by marauders was punishable under the postAmarna Edict of HOREMHEB. The earliest fruits and vegetables included grapes, dates, and figs. Viticulture, probably imported from Jordan, occurred as early as the 1st Dynasty (Poo 1995: 5ff.). Starting in the Delta fringes, viticulture spread to the oases in the Middle Kingdom and then into Upper Egypt, where it is well attested in 18th Dynasty Thebes and Tell el-Amarna. Wine production flourished in the 5th Dynasty, according to scenes in tombs beginning in the 4th Dynasty. These scenes continue into the Middle and New Kingdoms, wine-making providing popular decorative motifs in the tombs of nobles through the 18th Dynasty (Poo 1995: 7–11; Wilkinson 1998: 44). The hand watering and hand picking of the grapes were just the beginning of a complex process leading to fermentation and storage in stoppered and labeled clay wine jars. Various kinds of wine were consumed in the everyday life of the elite, used medicinally, and presented as an offering in both funerary and divine cults. Although wild date palms grew in Egypt as early as the sixth millennium BCE, intensive cultivation only began in the Middle Kingdom as artificial pollination greatly increased the date harvest (Brewer et al. 1994: fig. 5.2; 2007:139–40). In addition to fruit, date palms provided such secondary products as wood, bark, and fronds for basketry (Ta¨ckholm and Drar 1950). Doum-palm fruit was cultivated from Badarian times for fruit and wine, the pits utilized for buttons and beads, the wood for lumber (Ta¨ckholm and Drar 1950). Figs, including the more common sycamore fig and the “true fig,” occur in the archaeological record as early as the 1st Dynasty and are mentioned in the 3rd Dynasty tomb of Metjen, followed by references in the Pyramid Texts. In the Ramesside HARRIS PAPYRUS, which enumerates the benefactions of Rameses III to Egyptian temples, pharaoh donates 15,500

3 measures of figs to Amun-Re (Brewer 2007: 140). Figs in baskets occur as tomb offerings (Brewer et al. 1994), their harvesting frequently depicted in tomb wall paintings. Private and institutional estates usually possessed valuable orchards. Groves of fig, pomegranate, apple, and plum trees provided fruit, while carob trees produced seed pods used as a sweetener (P.Anastasi III, 2:3–4). Several fruit-producing evergreens, including Mimusops laurifolia (persea: ˇswb?), today border on extinction (Wilkinson 1998: 43). Olive cultivation came into Egypt from the Near East. Although evidence exists for olive tree cultivation in the Early Dynastic period (Wilkinson 1998: 43), plentiful documentation of the industry’s success comes from Amarna in the 18th Dynasty. Other valuable details derive from the Ramesside period, including the Harris Papyrus, a funerary stela of a royal butler, and an ostracon from DEIR EL-MEDINA. Although olives were certainly consumed as a food (dry measures noted), pharaonic olive oil was likely chiefly used for lighting, as seen in Rameses III’s donation of olive oil for temple lamps in the Harris Papyrus (27: 10–11). The Egyptians employed a variety of systems to work the land and monitored harvests with regular land surveys. While large royal estates employing vast numbers of peasant laborers provided the foci of institutional agriculture in the Old Kingdom, pharaoh’s gifts of land to favorites were the start of the decentralization of agriculture. Correspondence of the 12th Dynasty ka-priest HEKANAKHTE describes farming on a family estate consisting of numerous parcels, worked by family members and hired help under Hekanakhte’s guidance with minimal government interference. Farms might consist of several parcels obtained through inheritance, sale, rental, or in payment of services (e.g., awards to war veterans). The holders of some priestly offices received cultivable land as part of their remuneration (e.g., Hapdjefa, 12th Dynasty nomarch of Assiut). Since the ownership of cultivable land entailed access rights to the land and the harvest it produced after taxes, land ownership was much

prized. Since land was inherited, arguments over title frequently brought contending heirs into court. Agricultural work was also carried out by conscripted labor. The Middle Kingdom P. Brooklyn 35.144 describes the fate of men who fled their national service obligations and were sentenced to indefinite terms of compulsory labor on government plowlands. The Ramesside WILBOUR PAPYRUS and a few later field surveys document complex landholding. Wilbour describes both smallholding and large-scale institutional farming. Smallholders held plots, situated on the domains of temples and secular institutions, as small as 3 to 5 arouras, occasionally 10 or 20 arouras or more, and paid a very small percentage of their harvest as tax. Even 3 arouras produced enough grain to feed the average family. Larger holdings, also situated on temple and royal lands (h3–t3 and mint), were cultivated collec˘ tively under managers who controlled the operations of multitudes of anonymous field laborers. These plots were likely cultivated with emmer, but the production of fodder (wnmt) is also indicated. Extremely small smallholders’ plots are occasionally denoted as cultivated with vegetables (w3d) or flax, or left fallow ¯ (wsf ). The Third Intermediate period land register Papyrus Reinhardt details the cultivation of grain but also fodder (clover?) and vegetables (w3d, b3nt) on land, including ¯ corve´e-land (ih: t-bh: ), administered by the Theban House of Amun, and cultivated under a system similar to that of Wilbour. The Griffith and Louvre Fragments describe agricultural domains of various temples, where both smallholders and corve´e laborers toiled on the grain-producing parcels. Leases, particularly numerous in the Saite period, were typically drawn up following the harvest. They detail plot boundaries and land to be worked, and set out the responsibilities of lessor and lessee as regards the seed, labor, and harvest. Documents of the donation of land reveal how agricultural land might pass from individual to institutional management in mutually beneficial transactions. Thus, not only pharaohs but private individuals donated

4 cultivable land to temples, the greatest agrobusinesses of pharaonic Egypt. SEE ALSO: Administration, Pharaonic Egypt; Animals, domesticated; Economy, Pharaonic Egypt; Gardens, Pharaonic Egypt; Irrigation, Greco-Roman Egypt; Labor, ancient Near East; Law, Pharaonic Egypt; Nile; Nilometer; Slavery, Pharaonic Egypt; Taxation, Pharaonic Egypt.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Baum, N. (1988) Arbres et arbustes de l’E´gypte ancienne. La liste de la tombe d’Ineni (no. 81). Leuven. Brewer, D. (2007) “Agriculture and animal husbandry.” In T. Wilkinson, ed., The Egyptian world: 131–45. London. Brewer, D. J., Redford, D., and Redford, S. (1994) Domestic plants and animals: the Egyptian origins. Warminster. Eyre, C. J. (1993) “The water regime for orchards and plantations in ancient Egypt.” Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 80: 57–80. Eyre, C. J. (1995) “The agricultural cycle, farming, and water management in the ancient Near East.” In J. M. Sasson, ed., Civilizations of the ancient Near East, vol. 1: 175–90. New York. Germer, R. (1985) Flora des pharaonischen ¨ gypten. Mainz am Rhein. A Hartmann, F. (1923) L’agriculture dans l’ancienne E´gypte. Paris. Haykal. F (2004) “Le travail de la terre d’apre`s les textes litte´raires.” In B. Menu, ed., La de´pendance rurale dans l’Antiquite´ e´gyptienne et procheorientale: 37–49. Cairo.

Hugonot, J.-C. (1989) Le jardin dans l’E´gypte ancienne. Frankfurt am Main. Keimer, L. (1924, 1984) Die Gartenpflanzen im ¨ gypten, 2 vols. Berlin, Mainz am Rhein. alten A Meeks, D. (1993) “Ole´iculture et viticulture dans l’E´gypte pharaonique.” Bulletin de correspondance helle´nique Suppl. 26: 3–47. Montet, P. (1925) Les sce`nes de la vie prive´e dans les tombeaux e´gyptiens de l’Ancien Empire. Strasbourg. Murray, M. A. (2000) “Cereal production and processing;” “Fruits, vegetables, pulses and condiments;” “Viticulture and wine production.” In P. T. Nicholson and I. Shaw, eds., Ancient Egyptian materials and industries, 2nd ed.: 505–608. Cambridge. Poo, M.-C. (1995) Wine and wine offering in the religion of Ancient Egypt. London. Ta¨ckholm, V. (1974) Students’ flora of Egypt, 2nd ed. Beirut. Ta¨ckholm, V. and Drar, M. (1941, 1950) Flora of Egypt, vols. 1 and 2. Cairo. Wetterstromm, W. (1993) “Foraging and farming in Egypt: the transition from hunting and gathering to horticulture in the Nile Valley.” In P. Sinclair, T. Shaw, B. Andah, and A. Okpoko, eds., The archaeology of Africa: food, metal and towns: 165–226. London. Wetterstromm, W. (1999) “Agriculture, introduction of.” In K. A. Bard, ed., Encyclopedia of Ancient Egypt: 121–4. London. Wetterstromm, W. and Murray, M. A. (2001) “Agriculture.” In D. B. Redford, ed., The Oxford encyclopedia of Ancient Egypt, vol. 1: 37–44. Oxford. Wilkinson, A. (1998) The garden in ancient Egypt. London.

1

Agriculture, Roman Empire GEOF KRON

INTRODUCTION At the height of its development, the Roman Empire enjoyed an agricultural regime as intensive and diversified as any preindustrial society. The existence of broad and affluent urban markets for a wide range of non-staple foods, a superb transport infrastructure, security of trade, and ease of maritime transport stimulated impressive levels of agricultural production throughout the empire and beyond. The principal agronomic techniques of seventeenth-century Dutch or nineteenthcentury English high farming were applied on an impressive scale, with the widespread use of convertible husbandry, crop rotations, heavy manuring, drainage and irrigation (see IRRIGATION, GREECE AND ROME), pruning and grafting, and improved FODDER crops producing remarkably high yields and large livestock. Some regions, particularly northern France, Germany, Egypt, northwestern Spain, Palestine, and eastern Turkey, were less fully urbanized and not completely integrated into the Greco-Roman model of intensive mixed farming, but most experienced significant growth in their farm economies from new breeds of livestock (see STOCK REARING, ROMAN EMPIRE), new crops, and new agricultural techniques, and, most importantly, as a result of the great profits to be made from exporting agricultural produce into the core of the empire.

PRODUCTIVITY AND AGRONOMIC EXPERTISE The Late Republic and the reigns of the Julio-Claudian and Flavian emperors saw an impressive boom in intensive mixed agriculture in Italy, southern and western Spain, North Africa, and southern France, reflected

in a landscape packed with innumerable large villas and prosperous farmsteads (see VILLA). Although many of the techniques were first developed by earlier Greek and Carthaginian agronomists, the most impressive evidence for the sophistication and productivity of GrecoRoman agronomy comes from the extant works of the principate and empire: VERGIL, VARRO, COLUMELLA, PLINY THE ELDER, and, in Late Antiquity, Palladius. As in the early modern agricultural revolution, the key innovation was the thorough integration of livestock into arable farming through a system of intensive mixed farming, now known as convertible husbandry. Arable land was continuously cropped with a rotation of cereals and nitrogen-fixing leguminous fodder crops, and then left to recover its fertility through several years of long fallow as pasture or meadow. These much improved artificial pastures, or leys, supported significantly more livestock, thereby permitting heavier manuring and increased productivity for the arable as well as the pasture. Combining convertible husbandry, or ley farming, with a wider range of fodder crops, better manure management, improved drainage, thorough weeding, and improved seed selection, the Romans were routinely able to achieve cereal yields in Roman Italy and Africa of ten- to fifteenfold, comparable to yields for Italy as a whole in the 1970s, and significantly higher than those typically found in western Europe through most of the medieval or early modern period. Our sources give yields for wellmanaged vineyards which show that Roman winemakers were able to match the performance of their counterparts in mid-twentiethcentury France. Columella gives an estimate of 31.5 to 42 hl/ha as the normal yield of one of his middling vineyards, a figure that matches the productivity of French vineyards in the 1950s, when winemakers first began to fertilize their vines on a significant scale. Even his benchmark for the minimum yield acceptable for a vineyard before one ought to replant it, 21 hl/ha, matches the average productivity of nineteenth-century French viticulture. The productivity of animal

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 217–222. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah18004

2 husbandry, as explained below, was extremely high, as shown by the size of Roman livestock. Moreover, studies of the capacities of oil PRESSES and archaeobotanical evidence of large new FRUIT cultivars tend to confirm that olive (see OLIVES AND OLIVE OIL), fruit, and nut cultivation also saw significant development. The Romans’ skill in organizing labor, and their remarkable achievement in engineering drainage and irrigation works, also played an important role in boosting the productivity of agriculture. It facilitated the thorough exploitation of heavy clay soils and rich alluvial plains, as illustrated by the drainage of the PO valley and its centuriation using an elaborate system of roads and drainage ditches. Further improvements in productivity were likely achieved through the widespread introduction of professionally manufactured iron tools, including plows ranging from light ards to substantial wheeled mould-board plows with coulters, a range of toothed harrows, and even the vallus, a simple harvesting machine powered by oxen or equids.

ARABLE AGRICULTURE bread was the foundation of the Roman diet, and through the annona, the state distribution of free or subsidized bread (and eventually olive oil, wine, and pork) in Rome, Constantinople, and other large cities, the Roman state encouraged wheat production on a massive scale in North Africa, Sicily, and Egypt, thereby ensuring large surpluses and relatively low and stable prices. While the agronomists and many farmers saw greater profits in livestock, wine, olive oil, fruit, and vegetables, the cultivation of cereals and LEGUMES remained an important part of most intensive mixed farming. Alongside a range of soft bread wheats, carefully selected over time for quality, emmer and bulgur wheat, barley, millet, peas, broad and kidney beans, chickpeas, lentils, vetches, and lupins were all widely cultivated as field crops, either for human consumption or as fodder. WHEAT

ANIMAL HUSBANDRY AND PASTIO VILLATICA Domestic animals played a critical role in Roman farming as work animals and as a source of manure, and the sale of such animal products as WOOL, meat, milk and CHEESE, animal fats, hides for leather or parchment, even bones for craft industries, glue, or FERTILIZER, was a critical source of revenue and capital for Roman farmers. Steppes and mountain pastures were exploited to raise large flocks of hardy sheep and goats, often using a system of TRANSHUMANCE, and PIGS were often made to forage for pannage in forests, but the most productive method of animal husbandry was on mixed farms, as described in great detail by the agronomists. Expert knowledge of the best fodder crops, including alfalfa, shrub trefoil, clovers, medics, and vetches, along with selective breeding, carefully designed shelters, and good veterinary care, allowed the Romans to raise particularly large, healthy, and fertile livestock. Roman CATTLE were 20 cm taller at the withers than medieval or Bronze Age animals, and nearly twice as heavy; they were comparable to many modern breeds, and many sheep were as large, and possessed wool as fine, as the modern Merino. Roman animal husbandry was not restricted to the most common domestic animals familiar to medieval or modern farmers; many types of exotic game, fowl (see FOWLING), and fish were also raised in a sophisticated system of game and fish farming called pastio villatica. The evidence of Diocletian’s price edict and faunal assemblages in cities, towns, villages, villas, and farmsteads throughout the Roman Empire make it clear that the Romans enthusiastically embraced game and fish farming, bringing many exotic species within the budgets of very ordinary people. Many different breeds of chicken were raised, most as large as modern POULTRY. They were kept in welldesigned free-range coops for much of their life, with some eventually being fattened for slaughter in dark restrictive cages as in modern battery farming. Production was sufficiently

3 advanced that chicken eventually sold for less than half the price of the cheapest meats, beef and mutton. Duck, squab, goose, and venison were also available for no more, and often less, than pork. Eventually Roman tables were loaded with a vast array of wild game, much of it farmed, including red, roe, and fallow deer, elk, wild boar, hare, rabbit, dormouse, peafowl, pheasant, quail, grouse, partridge, thrushes, cranes, woodcock, swans, black capercaillie, flamingo, and ostrich. Comparison of the advice of the Roman agronomists with modern game farming manuals makes it clear that the habits and preferences of the most important species had been carefully investigated and were widely known. Geese were fattened on figs and cereals to produce fine foie gras, and many different types of snail were selected and farmed in elaborate enclosures as a popular delicacy. Fish and seafood were both popular and prestigious, making marine fish farming the most capital-intensive branch of pastio villatica, permitting a level of development unrivaled before the end of the twentieth century. Hydraulic concrete fish tanks would eventually be built all over the Mediterranean, but the densest concentration is in the Tyrrhenian Sea, along the coasts of Etruria, Latium, and Campania, with huge facilities at Torre Astura and La Grottace, not far from Rome. The European sea bass, gilthead sea bream, and grey mullet, euryhaline species that can tolerate brackish water and were widely esteemed for their taste, were the most popular, but many other species were also farmed, including the common and moray eel, wrasse, grouper, sole, turbot, tilapia, dentex, red sea bream, and the red mullet. A number of these species have yet to be investigated by modern fish farmers, or are still in experimental rather than commercial production. By ensuring the constant interchange of water in these marine tanks through carefully designed sluices and employing artificial feeding of trash fish bought from the fishermen who supplied the many fish salting plants, intensive fish farmers could vastly increase the number of fish raised compared to

earlier extensive systems exploiting natural lagoons. Sergius Orata, one of the most famous of Roman fish farmers, even developed a system for heating fish tanks, most likely to prevent what is now called winter disease from decimating the population of gilthead sea bream, the species that gave him his cognomen. This same Orata also did a great deal to advance and to propagandize for the farming of oysters in the Lucrine Lake near Baiae. The Romans raised oysters, mussels, scallops, and a range of other shellfish in large quantities and exported them throughout the empire. Oysters have been found in legionary camps and on more than a hundred sites in central Europe, imported vast distances from the sea.

VITICULTURE AND ARBORICULTURE Wine and olive oil were two of the most lucrative and highly developed cash crops in the Roman agricultural economy, and by the Mid-Empire, VITICULTURE and oleiculture were pushed to their environmental limits. The Greek east, North Africa, southern France, Spain, and even Egypt produced large quantities of olive oil, much of it for export, and vineyards were established throughout France and Germany, as far north as the Moselle River, all the way to Britain. Excavations and archaeological surveys throughout the empire have revealed thousands of torcularia, powerful wine or oil presses, in rural farms and villas. The complex at Kherbet Agoub in Mauritania had twenty-one presses and the capacity to store up to 5000 hl of wine. Olive oil, which was a luxury consumed in limited quantities in the medieval and early modern Mediterranean, was a staple of the diet for all classes in the Roman Empire. In Rome an entire hill, MONTE TESTACCIO, was formed from the millions of discarded amphoras once used to bring in Spanish olive oil for state distribution to the plebs. Inexpensive table wine was produced and exported in large quantities, but there was also keen competition to produce the next grand cru, something to compete with Greece’s

4 Thasian and Chian, or Italy’s Falernian, which could be sold for four times the price of ordinary wine, and even more for a prestigious vintage wine. A large inventory of up to eighty outstanding wine-grape cultivars was known to Pliny, and ambitious Italian, Gallo-Roman, Spanish, and North African winemakers took these vines from throughout the empire and carefully acclimatized, crossbred, and selected them to produce new varietals, some of which, like the Gallic Allobrogica and Biturica, became famous in their own right. Roman expertise in grafting, selecting, and breeding vines paid great dividends in other branches of arboriculture as farmers mastered the cultivation of a huge range of fruits and nuts, and learnt how to produce new varietals that were larger, hardier, and better tasting. Pliny lists forty-one popular varieties of pear, twentyeight types of FIG, and twenty-two different apples, many named for their creators, who range from freedmen to senators. One ambitious grower near Tivoli was supposedly skillful enough to graft together a tree that bore nuts, berries, grapes, pears, figs, pomegranates, and several types of apple. Pomegranates, peaches, nectarines, quinces, sweet cherries, watermelons, jujubes, carobs, damsons, and citrus fruit were all introduced into cultivation from Africa and the Near East, while others, such as dates and coconuts, were imported. Some novel crossbreeds were also created, such as the apple-pumpkin.

HORTICULTURE Fresh vegetables were inexpensive and consumed in large quantities even by relatively poor Romans, stimulating very heavy demand. The suburbium of Rome and most substantial towns were ringed with a dense ring of horti and market gardens growing fresh fruits, vegetables, and flowers. Ornamental or vegetable gardens and vineyards were even found in residential areas. Over 17 percent of the excavated territory within the walls at Pompeii was devoted to gardens, and those Romans who

could not afford a patch of garden in the suburbs would grow a few vegetables or herbs in window boxes (see GARDENS, ROMAN). Greece had long been famous for its produce, but by the Early Empire, Rome, the nearby towns of Ostia, Aricia, Amiternum, Tusculum, and Praeneste, as well as the Campanian towns of Capua, Cumae, Naples, Pompeii, and Herculaneum, had built up equally high reputations. Many different vegetables were grown, in numerous varieties and regional specialties. Pliny lists eighteen distinct varieties of onion, besides the red and white, including popular varieties from Egypt, Cyprus, Sardis, Africa, Gaul, and even Ascalon in Judaea. There was intense competition to produce larger and more appetizing varieties, with references to kale grown too large to fit on a table, or single asparagus stalks from Ravenna weighing nearly 100 gm. Gardeners created many new cultivars, which they could plant from February through November and which allowed them to harvest fresh produce throughout the year. The technical level of horticulture was extremely high, with heavy composting, manuring, and thorough soil preparation, the use of crushed terracotta at the appropriate depth to facilitate drainage, and clay or gravel to adjust moisture content. The soil was contoured into a system of ridges, called sulci, and depressions to facilitate irrigation and drainage and to reduce the amount of weeding required. Near Rome the urban aqueducts facilitated irrigation, and an impressive network of irrigation canals, cisterns, and rural aqueducts has been uncovered in central Italy, Lucania, Tunisia, Libya, and Spain. The Romans even developed greenhouses, first of selenite, and later, as Martial notes, of double-glazed glass, some heated with hot water in order to force the growth of vegetables and flowers in the off season. There was also an important trade in ornamental plants and flowers for decoration, garlands, and perfume, not just in the large cities, but also in smaller towns like Delos, Paestum, and Pompeii. SEE ALSO: Agrarian writers, agronomists; Animals, Greece and Rome; Barley; Birds, Greece and

5 Rome; Cato, Marcus Porcius (Cato the Elder); Dry-farming; Edict on prices, Diocletian’s; Famine and food shortages, Greece and Rome; Fish, fishing, Greece and Rome; Land and landholding, Rome; Latifundia/large estates; Pastoralism; Saltus; Winnowing. REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Billiard, R. (1913) La Vigne dans l’antiquite´. Lyon. Brun, J.-P. (2004) Arche´ologie du vin et de l’huile dans l’Empire romain. Paris. Farrar, L. (1998) Ancient Roman gardens. Phoenix Mill, Gloucestershire. Flach, D. (1990) Ro¨mische Agrargeschichte. Munich. Forni, G. and Marcone, A., eds. (2002) Storia dell’agricoltura italiana, vol. 1: L’eta` antica. 2. Italia romana. Florence. Frass, M. (2006) Antike ro¨mische Ga¨rten: soziale und wirtschaftliche Funktionen der Horti romani. Horn. Higginbotham, J. (1997) Piscinae: artificial fishponds in Roman Italy. Chapel Hill. Kolendo, J. (1980) L’agricoltura nell’Italia romana: tecniche agrarie e progresso economico dalla tarda repubblica al principato. Rome. Kron, G. (2008a) “The much maligned peasant: comparative perspectives on the productivity of the small farmer in Classical antiquity.” In S. Northwood and L. De Ligt, eds., People, land,

and politics: demographic developments and the transformation of Roman Italy 300 BC–AD 14: 71–119. Leiden. Kron, G. (2008b) “Animal husbandry: hunting, fishing and pisciculture.” In J. P. Oleson, ed., The Oxford handbook of engineering and technology in the classical world: 176–222. New York. Marcone, A. (1997) Storia dell’agricoltura romana: dal mondo arcaico all’eta` imperiale. Rome. Peters, J. (1998) Ro¨mische Tierhaltung und Tierzucht: eine Synthese aus archa¨ozoologischer Untersuchung und schriftlich-bildlicher ¨ berlieferung. Rahden. U Pleket, H. W. (1990) “Die Landwirtschaft in der ro¨mischen Kaiserzeit.” In F. Vittinghoff, ed., Europa¨ische Wirtschafts- und Sozialgeschichte in der ro¨mischen Kaiserzeit, vol. 1: 70–118. Stuttgart. Rathbone, D. W. (1991) Economic rationalism and rural society in third-century A.D. Egypt: The Heroninos archive and the Appianus estate. Cambridge. Sirago, V. A. (1995) Storia agraria romana, 2 vols. Naples. Spurr, M. S. (1986) Arable cultivation in Roman Italy c.200 BC–c.AD 100. London. Tchernia, A. (1986) Le Vin de l’Italie romaine: essai d’histoire e´conomique d’apre`s les amphores. Rome. White, K. D. (1970) Roman farming. London.

1

Agriculture, Roman Republic NATHAN ROSENSTEIN

Italy’s landscape and climates are quite diverse. Consequently farming practices vary considerably by region. No brief description of Italian agriculture can encompass all of its variations and this article must restrict itself to generalities. The most widely grown crops were grains, furnishing between 70 and 80 percent of calories in an ordinary person’s diet. Wheat was preferred, but barley, millet, and other grains were cultivated to feed animals and humans in times of need. Legumes of various sorts and a variety of fruits and vegetables, particularly oil, wine, and vinegar, rounded out the diet, supplemented by wild plants, fruits, nuts, and honey. Animals provided transportation and traction for plowing – oxen by preference but donkeys and even cows could be pressed into service – as well as being a source of food. Milk became cheese; meat was eaten only rarely. And animal manure was critical in sustaining the fertility of the soil in a world without access to chemical fertilizers. The agricultural year began in the fall. Plowing for grain crops usually commenced in September, with sowing a month later. The goal was to have the crop sown when the autumn rains began, providing the moisture necessary for seed germination. Grape and olive harvests also came in the fall. Work tapered off over the winter, picking up again with the spring-sown crops and culminating with the grain harvest. This occurred in the late spring in warmer regions and as late as July in cooler areas. Thereafter, farm work slackened until it was time to plow and plant again in the fall. A good harvest depended critically on the rains, which in the Mediterranean can vary greatly from year to year. Those years when not enough rain fell meant poor harvests or even crop failure, and starvation threatened. Families that depended on what they grew for

their livelihood therefore practiced several strategies to mitigate this risk. Farmers planted a variety of crops so that if one failed others might sustain the family until the next harvest. Storage was crucial. Crops saved from good years could see a family through a lean one. Wealth might be stored in assets like animals or jewelry or even cash, reserves to be drawn on in times of need. Social ties were also important: aiding neighbors in trouble created obligations that could be drawn on when the situation was reversed. And a young man’s military service both reduced the number of mouths a farm had to feed and offered the possibility of acquiring wealth through booty or donatives. However, for many years, scholars believed that the consequences of Roman warfare gradually undermined the viability of the smaller farms from which Rome drew its soldiers. As long as the republic’s wars were fought close to home and mainly in the summer, when there was little work to do on the farms, warfare did not adversely affect agriculture. But once armies had to be maintained year-round to fight wars overseas, agriculture in Italy began to suffer. The conscription of their men for long tours of duty deprived farms of essential labor. Simultaneously, conquests in the second century enriched the Roman and Italian upper classes, and lacking other outlets for their newly acquired capital they invested it in land. Lots of farms were now for sale since a lack of manpower had caused many to fail, so prices were low. To work the vast estates they were creating, the new owners also bought in slaves. An abundant and therefore cheap supply had been furnished by those who surrendered to Rome’s armies and were thereupon enslaved. And encouraged by the growth of Rome and other Italian cities where dispossessed farmers had migrated in search of work, estate owners focused on cash crops, especially wine and oil, to feed this burgeoning population. Those small farms that remained also now began to go bankrupt because they were unable to compete with the greater efficiency of the slave plantations. Or their owners were simply forced off their land

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 222–224. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah20007

2 by wealthy neighbors who coveted their property. By the mid-first century, large, slave-run estates, the so-called latifundia, dominated the rural landscape. Recently this reconstruction has sustained damaging criticism. The archaeological record does not reflect a big drop in the number of small farm-sites throughout second and firstcentury Italy. Also, commercial farms needed temporary labor for crucial operations like the harvest, so their owners had an interest in ensuring a source on nearby small farms rather than forcing their owners off their land. Transporting crops to market meant that commercial farms had to be located near a river, the sea, on a major road, or near Rome. Elsewhere, small farms faced little challenge from slave-run plantations. And small farms were largely subsistence operations, with only limited involvement in the marketplace; direct competition with commercial farms was minimal. Equally important, the size of the market dictated the extent of commercial agriculture. About 2 percent of Italian farmland supplied all the wine and oil Rome and the other Italian cities consumed in the Late Republic; in the second century when their populations were smaller, even less land was necessary. Grain required considerably more land, but much of what was needed came from farms in Sicily, Sardinia, and North Africa. Further, the urban market was divided among a substantial number of producers. The share each could obtain and hence the size of his farm was quite modest in most cases, on the order of tens of hectares rather than hundreds. Finally, because men married late but began their military service around age seventeen, few families lacked essential labor when sons went to war.

The problem on most small farms was too many workers, not too few. Fathers continued to work their farms. If they died or were incapable, substitutes could be found; if not, women were as able to plow as men. As a result, population growth rather than the rise of slave-based commercial agriculture appears to offer a better explanation for the social and economic turmoil of the Late Republic. SEE ALSO:

Cattle; Economy, Roman; Family, Greek and Roman; Grain supply and trade; Imperialism in the Roman Empire (east); Imperialism in the Roman Empire (west); Latifundia/large estates; Olives and olive oil; Slavery, Rome; Stock rearing, Roman Empire; Warfare, Roman.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Brunt, P. A. (1971) Italian Manpower, 225 BC–AD 14. Oxford. De Ligt, L. (2006) “The economy: agrarian change during the second century.” In N. Rosenstein and R. Morstein-Marx, eds., A companion to the Roman Republic: 590–605. Oxford. Frayn, J. (1979) Subsistence farming in Roman Italy. London. Hopkins, K. (1978) Conquerors and slaves. Cambridge. Rathbone, D. (1981) “The development of agriculture in the ‘Ager Cosanus’ during the Roman Republic: problems of evidence and interpretation.” Journal of Roman Studies 71: 10–23. Rosenstein, N. (2004) Rome at war: farms, families, and death in the Middle Republic. Chapel Hill. White, K. D. (1970) Roman farming. Ithaca.

1

Agrionia MATTHEW DILLON

A festival celebrated principally at Orchomenos but also at Chaeronea, both in central Greece. Plutarch in the second century CE provides the main details in an account of a specific celebration at Orchomenos (Plut. Mor. 299e–300a). In the myth of the festival, three sisters, daughters of Minyas of Orchomenos, became subject to mania (madness), the particular area of the god Dionysos. They craved human flesh and ripped apart alive and consumed one sister’s son in a situation that parallels the depiction in Euripides’ Bacchae of the women followers of Dionysos at Thebes, in which the maenads tear apart live animals and the king of Thebes with their bare hands. The madness of the daughters of Minyas was presumably sent upon them by Dionysos for not recognizing him as a god. At Orchomenos every year the women descendants of Minyas’

daughters, called Oleiai (“Murderesses”), were pursued in a ritual chase by the priest of Dionysos at the annual festival of the Agrionia. He pursued them with a sword – in contrast to their bare hands used for murder – and could kill any he caught. Clearly this was simply a ritual in which no one was meant to be hurt. In the celebration that Plutarch describes, the priest (Zoilos) caught one of the women and killed her. He died and Orchomenos suffered, so the priesthood was transferred to another family. The ritual hunt reflects male opposition in myth to women’s involvement in Dionysos’ cult; they are meant to escape and so have freedom to worship the god, whose cult the festival thus sanctioned. SEE ALSO:

Dionysos; Orchomenos in Boiotia.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Dillon, M. (2002) Girls and women in classical Greek religion: 152–3. London.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print page 224. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah17017

1

Agrippa I DANIEL R. SCHWARTZ

Agrippa I (ca.11/10 BCE–43/44 CE), king of various parts of PALESTINE from 37 CE until his death, was the grandson of HEROD THE GREAT and his Hasmonean wife, Mariamne (see HASMONEANS). After his father, Aristobulus, was executed by Herod in 7 BCE, his mother, Berenike, took Agrippa and his four siblings to Rome, where, especially due to her friendship with ANTONIA MINOR, they were raised in the highest circles of the imperial family. Agrippa, who was raised together with and close to Gaius (see CALIGULA), fell out of TIBERIUS’ good graces and was imprisoned late in that emperor’s reign. Upon Tiberius’ death in 37 CE, however, Gaius, upon his accession, not only released Agrippa from prison but also granted him a small kingdom – the parts of northeastern Palestine that had been ruled by Herod’s son Philip until his death in 34. Agrippa’s kingdom was enlarged in 39, when Gaius bestowed upon him the territories (GALILEE and Jewish Transjordan) hitherto ruled by another son of Herod, and yet again in 41, when Claudius, upon succeeding Gaius (with some help from Agrippa), gave Agrippa the heartland of Palestine (JUDAEA and SAMARIA) as well, which had been under direct Roman rule. Thus, in three successive steps, Agrippa was enthroned as the vassal king of the reunified kingdom of Judaea. This restoration, under the rule of a king who was Jewish and even one-quarter Hasmonean, apparently aroused nationalist enthusiasm among the Jews; but that was dashed when, upon Agrippa’s death after only a few years of rule, CLAUDIUS took the opportunity to restore direct Roman rule, this time of the entire kingdom. Thus the main historical function of Agrippa’s reign was to reunite all of Palestine under one regime – and then to disappoint those who experienced that by handing the entire country over to direct Roman rule. That disappointment probably played a role in the anti-Roman violence that characterized

Judaea in the decades after Agrippa’s death and eventually turned into the rebellion of 66–73. As a Jewish aristocrat who grew up in Rome, Agrippa mediated between the two poles of his life. Thus, for example, we hear of his intervention in 38–40 when there was anti-Jewish violence in Alexandria and the emperor himself proposed to desecrate the temple of Jerusalem. However, being in the middle also left Agrippa open to charges from both sides that he leaned too far toward the other. So we read, on the one hand, of Jewish criticism of him as being a “foreigner” and therefore illegitimate for kingship according to Deuteronomy 17:15, just as we also read, on the other hand, that when, as king of Judaea, Agrippa began building a new wall around Jerusalem, Claudius ordered him to desist. Virtually all of our evidence about Agrippa is supplied by JOSEPHUS, mainly in Books 18–19 of his Jewish Antiquities, which may be supplemented by the parallel but much briefer account in Book 2 of his Jewish War. Other sources are much more sporadic: his coins and the remains of the wall he began in Jerusalem; the reference to him (as “King Herod”) in chapter 12 of the Acts of the Apostles (where he persecutes the early church and therefore dies a horrible death); some scattered passages in PHILO JUDAEUS’ historical writings and in Roman literature; and some rabbinic passages in which his name seems to be used to connote a rich and well-meaning monarch interested in his own prestige and the externals of the Jewish religion. SEE ALSO: Agrippa II; Jews; Jews, in Alexandria; Revolts, Jewish; Temple, Jewish, in Jerusalem.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Kokkinos, N. (1998) The Herodian Dynasty: origins, role in society and eclipse: 271–304. Sheffield. Schwartz, D. R. (1990) Agrippa I: the last king of Judaea. Tu¨bingen. Wilker, J. (2007) Fu¨r Rom und Jerusalem: Die herodianische Dynastie im 1. Jahrhundert n. Chr. Frankfurt am Main.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 224–225. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah11003

1

Agrippa II DANIEL R. SCHWARTZ

Agrippa II (ca. 27/28 CE–ca. 93? 100?), was the son of AGRIPPA I. Educated in Rome, he remained there upon the death of his father in 43/44, CLAUDIUS preferring to reinstate direct Roman rule in JUDAEA. Hence it was only upon the death in 48 of his uncle, King Herod of Chalcis, that Agrippa began his public career when Claudius installed him as his uncle’s successor. Significantly, Claudius also endowed Agrippa with “custodianship” of the Temple, thereby indicating that this Herodian was to fulfill his family’s traditional role as mediator between Rome and the JEWS. The main expression of this was the right to appoint and depose high priests, and JOSEPHUS duly records how Agrippa did so over the next decades until the revolt of 66. In 53 Claudius moved things around, taking Chalcis from Agrippa and granting him, in its stead, a larger kingdom elsewhere in northern Palestine, and within a year or two NERO further expanded Agrippa’s kingdom by adding to it a part of Galilee, including the cities of TIBERIAS and Tarichaea next to the Sea of Galilee. Subsequent years seem to have witnessed further expansions as well, including in Transjordan. For his part, Agrippa played the role of a loyal vassal; thus, for example, Tacitus reports (Annales 13.7) that Nero asked Agrippa, in 54, to prepare for a possible invasion of PARTHIA, and around the same time a perplexed Roman governor of Judaea depended upon Agrippa (and his sister, Berenike) to help him in attempting to understand Paul and his preaching (Acts 25:13–22). By the 60s, however, Agrippa’s role became much more crucial, and he had to choose sides: he conscientiously attempted to bring the Jews to back away from rebellion, and when they did rebel he and his army were firmly on the Roman side. Whatever we may suspect about his hopes that Rome might seek a

compromise in which, instead of direct Roman rule, it would allow him to serve as a vassal king of the land as his father had been before him, his actions were clearly pro-Roman and only secondarily attempted to mitigate the Jews’ suffering. The slingshot wound he incurred when urging the defenders of GAMALA to submit to the Roman besiegers (Josephus Jewish War 4.14) indicates the degree of his success and of the rebels’ gratitude for his efforts. Following the war, VESPASIAN confirmed Agrippa in his kingdom and expanded it, apparently northward. Agrippa visited Rome in 75 and came away with some symbolic honors (the praetorian insignia), but after that he drops out of sight – apart from his coins. These continue into the reign of DOMITIAN, and the doubts concerning the era(s) they use are a major factor in the debate concerning the date of his death, for while a Byzantine source says he died in Trajan’s third year (100), the coins, and such additional literary and epigraphic evidence as there is, do not require a date later than the early 90s. SEE ALSO: Revolts, Jewish; Temple, Jewish, in Jerusalem.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Kokkinos, N. (1998) The Herodian dynasty: origins, role in society and eclipse: 317–41. Sheffield. Kokkinos, N. (2003) “Josephus, Justus, Agrippa II and his coins.” Scripta Classica Israelica 22: 163–80. Kushnir-Stein, A. (2002) “The Coinage of Agrippa II.” Scripta Classica Israelica 21: 123–31. Schu¨rer, E. (1973) The History of the Jewish people in the age of Jesus Christ (175 B.C.–A. D. 135), vol. 1, ed. G. Vermes and F. Millar: 471–84. Edinburgh. Wilker, J. (2007) Fu¨r Rom und Jerusalem: Die herodianische Dynastie im 1. Jahrhundert n. Chr. Frankfurt am Main.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 225–226. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah11004

1

Agrippa Postumus BRONWYN HOPWOOD

Agrippa Postumus (12 BCE–14 CE) was the last of five children born to MARCUS VIPSANIUS AGRIPPA (d. March, 12 BCE) and JULIA, the daughter of AUGUSTUS. Born June 26, Postumus entered Augustus’ household in 11 BCE, where he was raised alongside Germanicus, Claudius, and TIBERIUS’ son Drusus, and probably educated by Marcus Verrius Flaccus (Suet. Gram. et rhet. 17). Little is known until August 1, 2 BCE when, at the age of ten, he participated in the Troy Games to dedicate the Temple of Mars Ultor (Dio 55.10.6–7). Following the death of Gaius Caesar, Augustus adopted both Postumus and Tiberius before the comitia curiata on June 27, 4 CE (Vell. Pat. 2.103–4, 112; see ADROGATIO). Postumus received the name Agrippa Iulius Augusti f. Divi n. Caesar (CIL X, 405). Belatedly taking the toga virilis in 5 CE, he received none of the honors accorded to his older brothers (see GAIUS AND LUCIUS CAESAR). Postumus became hostile toward Livia, and accused Augustus of withholding the inheritance from Agrippa (Dio 55.32.1–2). Letters abusing Augustus were circulated in Postumus’ name by Iunius Novatus (Suet. Aug. 51). By 7 CE he was disinherited by Augustus and

sent to Surrentum, before the senate irrevocably relegated him to the island of Planasia under military guard (Suet. Aug. 65; Tac. Ann. 1.3). Postumus remained on Planasia until executed on Augustus’ death. Tiberius denied ordering the execution (Suet. Tib. 22; Tac. Ann. 1.6; Dio 57.3). Rumors of a clandestine visit to Planasia by Augustus, and plots to convey Postumus to the Germanic armies, abound (Tac. Ann. 1.5; Suet. Aug. 19). Postumus’ slave Clemens impersonated his master until captured and executed by Sallustius Crispus in 16 CE (Suet. Tib. 25; Tac. Ann. 2.39–40; Dio 57.16.3–4). SEE ALSO:

Julia the Younger.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Allen, W., Jr. (1947) “The death of Agrippa Postumus.” Transactions of the American Philological Association 78: 131–9. Jameson, S. (1975) “Augustus and Agrippa Postumus.” Historia 24, 2: 287–314. Levick, B. M. (1972) “Abdication and Agrippa Postumus.” Historia 21, 4: 674–97. Pettinger, A. (2012) The republic in danger: Drusus Libo and the succession of Tiberius. Oxford. Simpson, C. J. (1996) “Legal restriction and excusable elitism. Brief comments on the adoptions of 17 BC and AD 4.” Mnemosyne 49, 3: 328–34.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, and Andrew Erskine. © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Published 2017 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah30487

1

Agrippina the Elder BRONWYN HOPWOOD

Vipsania Agrippina (Maior) (ca. 14 BCE–33 CE), daughter of M. Vipsanius Agrippa (RE 2) and Julia (RE 550), granddaughter of AUGUSTUS (RE 132), married GERMANICUS (RE 138) in 5 CE and produced nine children (Suet. Cal. 7), six of whom survived infancy: Nero Caesar (RE 146), Drusus Caesar (RE 137), Gaius “CALIGULA” (RE 133), AGRIPPINA THE YOUNGER (Minor) (RE 556), Julia Drusilla (RE 567), and Julia Livilla (RE 575). Accompanying Germanicus to the Rhine (14–16) and the east (17–19), she helped end the mutiny of 14 CE, prevented the destruction of the Rhine bridge (15), received divine honors on Lesbos (17), and toured Egypt, thereby incurring TIBERIUS’ displeasure (Tac. Ann. 1.40–44, 69; 2.53–4, 59–61). On Germanicus’ death (19), Agrippina carried his ashes to Rome escorted by two cohorts of Praetorians and large crowds (Tac. Ann. 2.75; 3.1–6). Avenging Germanicus by prosecuting Cn. Calpurnius Piso and Plancina, Agrippina received the Senate’s thanks (20: Tac. Ann. 3.12–18), but came into conflict with Tiberius (24: Tac. Ann. 4.17). Angered by the prosecution of her supporters C. Silius, Sosia Galla,

and Claudia Pulchra, Agrippina reproached Tiberius for persecuting her, the true descendant of Augustus’ blood (26). Tiberius, insulted by her behavior and fearful of her aims, left her petition to remarry unanswered (Suet. Tib. 53; Tac. Ann. 4.52–4). Accused of insubordination (27), then tried in the Senate (29), Agrippina was relegated to Pandateria, where she committed suicide (October 18, 33) (Tac. Ann. 5.1–5; 6.25). Rehabilitated posthumously (37), Agrippina was reburied in Augustus’ Mausoleum, awarded annual games, a carpentum, and coins by Caligula (Suet. Cal. 15), and celebrated as the mother of Agrippina the Younger and sisterin-law of CLAUDIUS (Wood 1999). SEE ALSO:

Calpurnius Piso, Gnaeus (SC de Pisone patre).

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Bauman, R. A. (1992) Women and politics in ancient Rome. London. Shotter, D. C. A. (2000) “Agrippina the Elder: a woman in a man’s world.” Historia 49: 341–57. Wood, S. E. (1988) “Memoriae Agrippinae: Agrippina the Elder in Julio-Claudian art and propaganda.” American Journal of Archaeology 92: 409–26. Wood, S. E. (1999) Imperial women: a study in public images 40 BC–AD 68. Leiden.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 226–227. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah10098

1

Agrippina the Younger ANTHONY A. BARRETT

Agrippina the Younger (14–59 CE) was the daughter of Augustus’ ambitious granddaughter, AGRIPPINA THE ELDER, and of GERMANICUS, the highly popular nephew and adopted son of TIBERIUS. She would exploit these powerful family connections relentlessly. She was born in 14 CE on the Rhine frontier, where her mother had accompanied Germanicus. By 17 the family had returned to Rome, where Agrippina participated in her father’s TRIUMPH. She remained there when Germanicus went to Syria, where he died in 19. Germanicus’ family was thereafter targeted by the ambitious praetorian commander SEJANUS, and Agrippina’s mother and two older brothers died in detention, but her only recorded activity in this period was her marriage in 28 to Gnaeus Domitius Ahenobarbus. Her brother CALIGULA succeeded Tiberius in 37, and in that December her only child, Lucius Domitius, was born. Agrippina and her two sisters were much honored by Caligula at the outset of his reign, depicted on coins, and included in oaths. In 38, the youngest, Drusilla, died, and in the next year Agrippina and the third sister, Livilla, were accused of adultery with Lepidus, the late Drusilla’s husband. The charges were possibly connected to a conspiracy involving Gaetulicus, commander of the Rhine legions. Lepidus was executed and Agrippina forced to carry his ashes to Rome. She was then exiled, as was Livilla. Both sisters returned to Rome on Claudius’ accession. Domitius Ahenobarbus had in the meantime died, and Agrippina married the wealthy Crispus Passienus. He in turn died some time before 47, reputedly poisoned by her. In 48, the emperor Claudius’ wife Messalina was executed, and in 49 Claudius married Agrippina. Her son was speedily betrothed to Claudius’ daughter, then adopted by Claudius, acquiring the name Nero. In 50,

Agrippina received the title of Augusta, the first wife of a living emperor to do so, and was honored by the bestowal of her name on a new colony (Cologne; Tac. Ann. 12.26, 27; Cass. Dio 60.33.2a). Claudius died on October 13, 54, reputedly murdered by Agrippina, who engineered the smooth succession of Nero (Tac. Ann. 12.64–7; Suet. Claud. 43–4; Cass. Dio 60.34.1–3). She now enjoyed unprecedented prestige; her image appeared along with Nero’s on his coinage, and she was allowed to observe meetings of the Senate. But already by 55 her influence had yielded to that of Nero’s former tutor, Seneca, and of Burrus, commander of the guard. Little is known of her activities between then and 59, but by that year Nero had determined to murder her. He supposedly tried first to dispatch her by means of a collapsible boat. When she escaped, she was finished off by assassins at her villa. She received a humble burial. Nero

Figure 1 Bust of Agrippina the Younger. Musei Capitolini, Rome. © Photo Scala, Florence.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 227–228. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah10005

2 claimed publicly that she had been plotting his death in an effort to take over the state. For the ancients, Agrippina was an object lesson in the dangers presented by an ambitious woman, who would conspire and murder to exercise power through the men in her life. She wrote a memoir, but ancient writers made little use of it (Tac. Ann. 4.53; Plin. (E) HN 7.46). SEE ALSO: Claudius (Tiberius Claudius Caesar Augustus Germanicus); Colonia Agrippinensis (Cologne); Nero (Nero Claudius Caesar Augustus Germanicus); Seneca the Younger (Lucius Annaeus Seneca).

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Barrett, A. A. (1990) Caligula: the corruption of power. New Haven. Barrett, A. A. (1996) Agrippina: sex, power, and politics in the Early Empire. New Haven. Champlin, E. (2003) Nero. Cambridge, MA. Eck, W. (1993) Agrippina, die Stadtgru¨nderin Ko¨lns: Eine Frau in der fru¨hkaiserzeitlichen Politik. Cologne. Ginsburg, J. (2006) Representing Agrippina: constructions of female power in the early Roman Empire. Oxford. Griffin, M. T. (1985) Nero: the end of a dynasty. New Haven. Levick, B. (1990) Claudius. New Haven.

1

Agrippina the Younger ANTHONY A. BARRETT

University of British Columbia, Canada

Agrippina the Younger (14–59 CE), mother of NERO, (Figure 1) could boast a distinguished ancestry. Her mother was AGRIPPINA THE ELDER, AUGUSTUS’ granddaughter, and her father was GERMANICUS, grandson of Mark Antony (see ANTONIUS, MARCUS) and LIVIA and adopted son of the emperor TIBERIUS. Born in 14 CE on the Rhine frontier, she accompanied her family to Rome in 17 and participated in her father’s TRIUMPH. She remained there when her father was sent on a special commission to Syria. After Germanicus’ death in Syria in 19, his family was targeted by SEJANUS, a ruthlessly ambitious commander of the imperial guard. Agrippina’s mother and her two older brothers all died in detention. In the meantime, in 28 Agrippina was married to Gnaeus Domitius Ahenobarbus. Tiberius died in 37, to be succeeded by Agrippina’s youngest brother, CALIGULA, and in December of the same year her only child, Lucius Domitius, was born. Along with her two sisters, Drusilla and Julia Livilla, Agrippina was much honored by Caligula at the outset of his reign. They were depicted on coins and their names were included in oaths. Drusilla died in 38, and in 39 Agrippina and Livilla were both accused of adultery with their late sister’s husband Lepidus, the charge possibly masking a suspicion of involvement in a conspiracy. Lepidus was executed and Agrippina was reputedly forced to carry his ashes to Rome. She and Livilla were exiled. Agrippina and Livilla returned to Rome after the assassination of Caligula and the succession of his uncle CLAUDIUS in 41. Domitius Ahenobarbus had in the meantime died, and Agrippina was free to marry the very wealthy Crispus Passienus. He died some time before 47, reputedly poisoned by her. In 48 Claudius’ wife Messalina was put to death, and in the following year he married Agrippina. Soon afterwards her son was betrothed to Claudius’ daughter Octavia

and then adopted by Claudius, whereby he acquired his familiar name, Nero. In 50, Agrippina received the title of Augusta, the first wife of a living emperor to be honored in this way, and her name was bestowed on a new colony, COLONIA AGRIPPINENSIS (COLOGNE) (Tac. Ann. 12.26, 27; Cass. Dio 60.33.2a). In 54 Claudius died, supposedly helped on his way by a poisonous mushroom supplied by Agrippina, whose son Nero now became emperor (Tac. Ann. 12.64–7; Suet. Claud. 43–4; Cass. Dio 60.34.1–3). Agrippina enjoyed unprecedented prestige; she appeared on Nero’s coinage and was permitted to watch the proceedings of the Senate. But already in late 54 her influence began to wane, as she was eclipsed by Nero’s old tutor, the philosopher SENECA THE YOUNGER, and by Burrus, commander of the guard. Little is recorded of her activities between late 55 and 59, but by that later date Nero had decided to murder her.

FIGURE 1 Bust of Agrippina the Younger. Musei Capitolini, Rome. © Photo Scala, Florence.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History. Edited by Andrew Erskine, David B. Hollander, and Arietta Papaconstantinou. © 2021 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Published 2021 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah10005.pub2

2 He reputedly tried first to drown her in a collapsible boat. She escaped, but was finished off by assassins dispatched to her villa. She received a humble burial. Agrippina was the sister, wife, and mother of an emperor. She is depicted in the sources as a ruthlessly ambitious and dangerous woman with few positive qualities, willing to conspire and murder in order to exercise power indirectly, through her lovers, husbands, and son. Her actual contribution to events may well have been more positive. SEE ALSO: Conspiracies against emperors; Women,

Roman.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Barrett, A. A. (1996) Agrippina: sex, power, and politics in the Early Empire. New Haven. Barrett, A. A. (2017) “Nero’s women.” In S. Bartsch, ed., Cambridge Companion to the Age of Nero, 63–76. Cambridge. Eck, W. (1993) Agrippina, die Stadtgründerin Kölns: eine Frau in der frühkaiserzeitlichen Politik. Cologne. Ginsburg, J. (2006) Representing Agrippina: constructions of female power in the early Roman Empire. Oxford. Girod, V. (2015) Agrippina: sexe, crimes et pouvour dans la Rome impériale. Paris. Griffin, M. T. (2000) Nero: the end of a dynasty, 2nd ed. London.

1

Agroitas (FrGH 762)

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS

DENNIS ALLEY

Barti, N. (1988) “Scrittori greci e latini di ‘Libykà’: la conoscenza dell’Africa settentrionale dal V al I secolo a.C.” In M. Sordi, ed., Geografia e storiografia nel mondo classico: 145–65. Milan. Bethe, E. (1887) “Quaestiones Diodoreae Mythographae.” Diss., University of Göttingen: 76–9. den Boer, W. (1971) “Some striking similarities in pagan and Christian allegorical interpretation.” In Studi filologici e storici in onore di V. de Falco: 465–73. Naples. di Benedetto, V. (1960) “Il metodo mitograficoallegorico di Agretas.” Studi classici e orientali 15: 262–8. Meister, K. (2002) “Agroitas.” Brill’s New Pauly 1: 396. Leiden. Schwartz, E. (1894) “Agroitas (1).” In A. Pauly G. Wissowa, and W. Kroll, eds., Realencyclopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft 1.1: 903. Stuttgart. Williams, M. (2014) “Agroitas (762).” In I. Worthington, ed., Brill’s New Jacoby. Brill Online.

Greek local historian of an uncertain date before the first century BCE. Agroitas wrote a history of LIBYA (Libyka) which dealt with local geography, mythology, cult, and history. Agroitas was used extensively by DIODORUS in his historical library on North African history (F3b; F3c; F4b; F.6; F7a; Fb). Moreover, we can see from F.3 that he had an interest in myth rationalizing and etymologizing. His methods and interests, including the realistic interpretation of myth, share features with mid to late Hellenistic figures like EUHEMEROS, POLYBIUS, and POSEIDONIOS, which may suggest a possible time frame for his life and literary activity. SEE ALSO:

Historiography, Greek and Roman; Myth.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner. © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Published 2015 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah26165

1

Agron, Illyrian MARJETA SˇASˇEL KOS

Agron, son of Pleuratos (a common Illyrian name), came from the royal house of the Ardiaioi (Cass. Dio 12 fr. 49.1–7). In the period before 230 BCE, he reconquered southern Illyria, which had since Pyrrhos belonged to Epirus, and also brought under his dominion CORCYRA, Epidamnos, and Pharos. Agron, like other Illyrian kings before him, based his authority on the more or less reliable collaboration of several dynasts; two are known by name, DEMETRIOS OF PHAROS and SKERDILAIDAS. When describing the background of the First Illyrian War, POLYBIUS emphasized that Agron’s sea and land forces had been greater than those of any Illyrian king before him. His large-scale piratical attacks, as well as his alliance with the Macedonian King DEMETRIOS II, became a threat for all who navigated in the Adriatic. The siege of Akarnanian Medion by the Aitolians and their defeat by the Illyrians in 231 echoed throughout the Greek world, since the AITOLIAN LEAGUE was one of its strongest states (Polyb. 2.2.1–2.4.5). When much of

the Adriatic was threatened by his navy, ISSA resorted to the Romans for help. According to Appian, the Romans and Issaeans sent an embassy to Agron, which was attacked by the Illyrian ships. However, Agron had died in the meantime as a consequence of convivial excesses, leaving a small son, Pinnes, and his wife TEUTA as regent, although she was not the child’s mother (App. Ill. 7.17–19). The Illyrians killed the Roman ambassador L. Coruncanius and the Issaean Kleemporos, and this incident triggered an attack of the Roman state on Agron’s kingdom in 229. SEE ALSO: Adriatic Sea; Epidamnos/ Dyrrhachion; Illyria and Illyrians; Illyrian wars; Pharos, Adriatic island; Pyrrhos, king; Teuta, Illyrian queen.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Cabanes, P. (1988) Les Illyriens de Bardylis a` Genthios (IVe–IIe si (siecles) avant J.-C.). Paris. Sˇasˇel Kos, M. (2005) Appian and Illyricum. Ljubljana. Wilkes, J. (1992) The Illyrians. Oxford.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 228–229. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah09015

1

A-Group KATE LISZKA

The term A-Group, introduced by George Andrew Reisner in 1910, designates an archaeological tradition located primarily between the first and second cataracts in Egypt and Sudan, dating to ca. 3750–2800 BCE. Scholars have written a cultural history of the A-Group based on the presence, absence, and movement of this tradition. The cultural history has been divided into three archaeological phases, whose dates have been established based on Egyptian imports found in A-Group tombs. A-Group archaeological remains migrate southward over time. The Early A-Group (ca. 3730–3250) is contemporary with the Egyptian Naqada I–IId1. Remains have been found from Nag el-Qarmila to Sayala. The Classic or Middle A-Group (ca. 3250–3150) equates to Naqada IId2–IIIa2. Remains were found from Kubaniya southward. The Late or Terminal A-Group (ca. 3150–2800) equals Naqada IIIb to early 2nd Dynasty. Sites are primarily located from the first cataract to the Semna Gorge. However, A-Group evidence also existed at Kerma, a pottery depot existed in the Western/Sahara Desert at Bir Sahara, and trading or redistribution centers existed at Khor Daoud, Elephantine, and possibly Sayala. These sites indicate that some bearers of A-Group material culture participated in long‐distance trade (see ELEPHANTINE, PHARAONIC; KERMA). Numerous Egyptian imports also indicate A-Group trading practices. Settlements and cemeteries of the Late A-Group reflect a stratified, prosperous society. Extensive A-Group cemeteries demonstrate that this archaeological tradition should be associated with indigenous Nubians, who interacted heavily with the Egyptians and who used no written records of their own. They lived in small communities, practicing agriculture and animal husbandry. The archaeological traditions of the A-Group and the contemporary

Naqada culture (i.e., early Egyptians) share similar origins (ca. 3700), but grow distinct over time. The A-Group is recognized primarily by its diagnostic ceramics. These include delicate, handmade vessels, often with a polished red-slip exterior and black-slipped interior. Painted and incised geometric designs, often mimicking basketwork, are common. Blacktopped red wares are known, similar to Naqada vessels, but are distinguished through a cattledung temper found in most A-Group ceramics (see POTTERY, PHARAONIC EGYPT). A-Group tombs are oval or subrectangular pits, sometimes with an adjoining chamber. Bodies are typically interred in fetal position, on their right sides with their faces pointed west. They are buried with grave-goods including pottery, jewelry, seated female figurines, numerous Egyptian imports, and objects that indicate long‐distance trade like ostrich eggs, mollusk shells, and exotic hides. No superstructures are known for the tombs. The quality and abundance of the grave-goods denote social stratification; the tombs at Qustul in the Late Phase are the wealthiest discovered A-Group tombs. A-Group settlements include some house structures that resemble seasonal/ temporary campsites, which may indicate semi-nomadism. Yet houses at centers like Dakka, Qustul, Afia, and others have up to six rooms and are constructed with sandstone rubble in the Late Phase, which indicates a sedentary lifestyle for some bearers of A-Group culture. Around 2800, A-Group archaeological remains disappear, and no indigenous population is archaeologically visible in Lower Nubia until the rise of the C-Group (ca. 2400) (see C-GROUP). Scholars have attributed this disappearance to Egyptian military raids, supported by (1) the Gebel Sheikh Suleiman depiction of Egyptians removing bound prisoners; (2) the Egyptian name for Lower Nubia, “The Land of the Bow” (tʒ-sty), determined with a bound prisoner; and (3) the fortification of Buhen in the 2nd Dynasty. Some scholars argue that

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 229–230. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah15018

2 Egyptian raids removed so many cattle and people from Lower Nubia that they destroyed the A-Group economy, causing their disappearance. Sometimes scholars cite the Palermo Stone (see KING LISTS, PHARAONIC EGYPT), which notes that Sneferu took from Nubia “7,000 captives and 200,000 cattle and herds” (see SNEFERU). Nevertheless, 120 years separate the disappearance of the A-Group archaeologically from the reign of Sneferu. The cause(s) of the A-Group’s disappearance has not yet been determined. SEE ALSO: Early Dynastic Period, Egypt; Naqada (Nagada); Nubia; Predynastic Period, Egypt.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Davies, W. V. (1993) Egypt and Africa: Nubia from prehistory to Islam. London. Gatto, M. and Giuliani, S. (2007) “Survey between Aswan and Kom Ombo.” Egyptian Archaeology 30: 6–9. Midant-Reynes, B. (2000) The prehistory of Egypt: from the first Egyptians to the first pharaohs. Malden, MA.

Nordstro¨m, H.-A. (1972) Neolithic and A-Group Sites: Scandinavian Joint Expedition to Sudanese Nubia, 3. Stockholm. Nordstro¨m, H.-A. (2004) “The Nubian A-Group: perceiving a social landscape.” In T. Kendall, ed., Proceedings of the Ninth International Conference of the International Society of Nubian Studies: 134–44. Boston. Rampersad, S. (2000) The origin and relationships of the Nubian A-Group. Ottawa. Rampersad, S. (2003) “A re-analysis of A-Group habitation and settlement patterns.” Beitra¨ge zur Sudanforschung 8: 89–105. Raue, D. (2008) “Who was who in Elephantine of the third millennium BC?” British Museum Studies in Ancient Egypt and Sudan 9: 1–14. Reisner, G. A. (1910) The Archaeological Survey of Nubia: report for 1907–1908. Cairo. Takamiya, I. H. (2004) “Egyptian pottery distribution in A-Group cemeteries, Lower Nubia: toward an understanding of exchange systems between the Naqada Culture and the A-Group culture.” Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 90: 35–62. To¨ro¨k, L. (2009) Between two worlds: the frontier region between ancient Nubia and Egypt 3700 BC–500 AD. Leiden. Trigger, B. (1965) History and settlement in Lower Nubia. New Haven.

1

Agyrrhios ALFONSO MORENO

Agyrrhios of Kollytos (born ca. 450–440 BCE; secretary of the council, 403/2; general, 389/8) embodied the development of democratic politics in fourth-century, post-imperial ATHENS. He had reached political prominence by 405, when ARISTOPHANES attacked him (in Ran. 367–8, as interpreted by the scholiast) for lowering the pay of the comic poets, but well-established credentials as a staunch democrat are evident from his election to serve as secretary of the restored council in 403/2. His legacy as “a good man, a democrat, a zealous champion of our masses on repeated occasions” (Dem. 24.134) stemmed largely from continuing leadership in matters of finance, especially (in the 390s) his introduction of (and subsequent raise in) pay for attendance at the assembly, and (in 374/3) his legislation of a populist tax (in grain “for the people”) to be paid by Athenian landholders in Lemnos, Imbros, and Skyros (SEG 47.96; Rhodes and Osborne 2003: no. 26). He is also, not implausibly, connected with the origins of the theoric fund. His private activities (especially involvement in purchasing the

harbor tax in 402/1 and 401/0, and his contacts in banking and the Bosphoran grain trade) doubtless enriched his economic expertise. His policies may be seen as adaptations of democratic ideals to the realities of post-404 Athens: the distribution of state resources was still central, but now based not on the exploitation of allies but on intensive financial management, trade, and the resources of the rich, Athenian and foreign. The tributary mechanism of the Second Athenian Confederacy created by his nephew Kallistratos follows the same pattern. SEE ALSO: Athenian Confederacy, Second; Democracy, Athenian; Finance, Greek; Kallistratos, Athenian politician; Theorika, Theoric Fund.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Rhodes, P. J. and Osborne, R., eds. (2003) Greek historical inscriptions: 404–323 BC. Oxford. Strauss, B. S. (1987) Athens after the Peloponnesian War: class, faction, and policy, 403–386 BC. Ithaca. Stroud, R. S. (1998) The Athenian grain-tax law of 374/3 BC: 16–25. Princeton. Traill, J. (1994) Persons of ancient Athens, vol. 1: no. 107660. Toronto.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 230–231. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah04013

1

Ahab of Israel ERIC H. CLINE

Ahab ruled the northern kingdom of Israel from about 873–852 BCE. The son of Omri, an army commander who had seized the throne a decade or so earlier, Ahab was detested by the later writers of the Hebrew Bible (see BIBLE, HEBREW), though not necessarily by the people of Israel. The biblical writers, who devoted six chapters to Ahab (1 Kings 16–22), despised him in part because of his marriage to Jezebel, a princess of TYRE who, not surprisingly, worshipped gods foreign to Israel. Ahab ruled from the newly built capital city of SAMARIA, where he resided in a fabulous palace whose “beds of ivory” were later decried by the prophet Amos as symbols of needless luxury (Amos 6:4). Ahab’s existence and rule are confirmed by the Monolith Inscription of the NeoAssyrian king SHALMANESER III. Here Ahab is listed as a member of a coalition of local kings who fought Shalmaneser and his army to a standstill in 853 at the Battle of QARQAR, in modern-day SYRIA. Ahab is specifically recorded as having brought two thousand

chariots and ten thousand foot-soldiers, one of the largest contingents to participate in the battle. This raises the question of where he housed these men, chariots, and horses, and it has been suggested that the stables excavated at the site of MEGIDDO in the Jezreel Valley may have been built by Ahab, rather than by SOLOMON as previous archaeologists had proposed. According to the biblical text, Ahab was killed in battle; his death would have followed soon after his engagement with Shalmaneser III. SEE ALSO: Assyrian kings, Neo-Assyrian period; Israel and Judah; Jehu.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Grayson, A. K. (1996) Assyrian rulers of the early first millennium BC. Toronto. Miller, J. M. and Hayes, J. H. (2006) A history of Ancient Israel and Judah, 2nd ed. Louisville, KY. Pitard, W. T. (1987) Ancient Damascus: a historical study of the Syrian city-state from earliest times until its fall to the Assyrians in 732 BCE. Winona Lake, IN. Rainey, A. F. and Notley, R. S. (2006) The sacred bridge. Jerusalem.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 231–232. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah24006

1

Ahenobarbus, L. Domitius (cos. 54 BCE) JESPER CARLSEN

L. Domitius Ahenobarbus, son of Cn. Domitius Ahenobarbus (cos. 96 BCE), was born ca. 99 BCE. His political career was conventional, but the traditional dates of his quaestorship in 66 and aedileship in 61 have been questioned (Ryan 1995a and 1995b). Together with his brother-in-law, M. Porcius Cato Uticensis, he was among the opponents of the alliance between JULIUS CAESAR, POMPEY, and CRASSUS in the so-called first triumvirate. A praetor in 58, he had, according to Cicero (Att. 4.8a.2), been destined for the consulship from the cradle. In 56 he announced his candidature for the consulship and promised to relieve Caesar of his Gallic command. The renewal of the first triumvirate for another five years in 56 prevented him from being elected that year. He was consul in 54, pontifex and one of the leading politicians in Rome in the late fifties. He was nominated as the successor of Caesar in Gaul when civil war broke out in 49, but did not leave for Gaul immediately. Instead he

levied troops in the Abruzzi to resist Caesar’s rapid advance through Italy. He had organized more than thirty cohorts in Corfinium when Caesar forced him to surrender (Caes. B Civ. 1.16–23). Caesar pardoned him and his son, Cn. Domitius Ahenobarbus (cos. 32), but the mercy of Caesar did not diminish their resistance. He manned seven vessels with his own slaves, freedmen, and tenants from his estates near Cosa (Caes. B Civ. 1.34) and sailed to Massalia in Southern Gaul to stop Caesar’s advance toward Spain. He was besieged once again and escaped with only one ship (Caes. B Civ. 2.22). In the battle of Pharsalos, he was placed in command of the left wing and was killed in the defeat. REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Carlsen, J. (2006) The rise and fall of a Roman noble family: the Domitii Ahenobarbi 196 BC–AD 68. Odense. Ryan, F. X. (1995a) “The date of the quaestorship of L. Domitius Ahenobarbus.” Athenaeum 83: 270–4. Ryan, F. X. (1995b) “Senate intervenants in 61 BC and the aedileship of L. Domitius Ahenobarbus.” Hermes 123: 82–90. Syme, R. (1939) The Roman revolution. Oxford.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner. © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Published 2015 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah25015

1

Ahhiyawa GARY BECKMAN

The name Ahhiyawa denotes a Late Bronze Age kingdom located in mainland Greece and on the Aegean islands, whose people are known to scholars today as Mycenaeans. The native LINEAR B records provide little information on political organization, but archaeological considerations make it highly likely that the city MYCENAE was the capital of this realm. Tanayu (Tny) of 18th Dynasty Egyptian inscriptions probably refers to the same polity. Despite minor phonological difficulties, the name Ahhiyawa (earlier form Ahhiya), found only in Hittite cuneiform documents, must be equated with the ethnicon Achaian attested in the Homeric poems (see HOMER, ACHAIANS). Nonetheless, efforts to identify particular Ahhiyawans and western Anatolians mentioned in Hittite sources with characters in the Iliad or Odyssey are questionable. Practically all historical data regarding Ahhiyawa are provided by the Hittite archives, whose texts occasionally include its (always unnamed) ruler among the Great Kings of the age. From the early fourteenth century BCE on, HATTI and Ahhiyawa repeatedly came into conflict at the intersection of their spheres of influence: the western coast of ANATOLIA. Here the Mycenaeans had established a foothold on the mainland at MILETOS (Hittite Millawanda), from which their agents fomented unrest among and against Hittite vassals in the area. It seems, however, that direct confrontation between Hatti and Ahhiyawa was always avoided, since even when the Hittites captured Millawanda, the representatives and supporters of Ahhiyawa withdrew “across the sea.”

A thirteenth-century treaty between Hatti and her Syrian vassal AMURRU (in northern Lebanon) stipulates that the latter will cut off any trade between Ahhiyawa and Hatti’s enemy ASSYRIA that passes through its territory. Indeed, significant quantities of Mycenaean material, chiefly pottery, have been recovered from contemporary coastal sites in SyroPalestine. In contrast, there is very little archaeological or textual evidence for exchange between Hatti itself and Ahhiyawa. SEE ALSO:

Hittite, Hittites.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Beckman, G. (forthcoming) “Ahhijawa und kein ˘˘ Ende: The battle over Mycenaeans in Anatolia.” In A. Teffeteller, ed., Proceedings of the workshop on Mycenaeans and Anatolians in the Late Bronze Age held in Montreal, Quebec, January 4–5, 2006. Oxford. Bryce, T. (1989) “Ahhiyawans and Hittites: An Anatolian viewpoint.” Oxford Journal of Archaeology 8: 297–310. Bryce, T. (2003) “Relations between Hatti and Ahhiyawa in the last decades of the Bronze Age.” In G. Beckman et al., eds., Hittite studies in honor of Harry A. Hoffner, Jr. on the occasion of his 65th birthday: 59–72. Winona Lake, IN. Gu¨terbock, H. G. (1983) “The Hittites and the Aegean world.” American Journal of Archaeology 87: 133–43. Gu¨terbock, H. G. (1984) “Hittites and Akheans: A new look.” Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society 128: 114–22. Gu¨terbock, H. G. (1986) “Troy in Hittite texts? Wilusa, Ahhiyawa, and Hittite history.” In M. Mellink, ed., Troy and the Trojan war: 33–44. Bryn Mawr. Kelder, J. (2010) The kingdom of Mycenae. Bethesda. Latacz, J. (2004) Troy and Homer: Towards a solution of an old mystery. Oxford.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print page 232. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah24007

1

Ahhotep AIDAN DODSON

There remains scholarly debate over the question of whether there were one or two queens of Egypt named Ahhotep around the transition between the 17th and 18th Egyptian Dynasties (sixteenth century BCE). The basic problem is that two coffins have survived, and although the smaller seems incapable of fitting within the larger, it is not impossible that this may have been the result of a miscalculation on the part of the makers of the larger case, which is typologically the later of the two (Eaton-Krauss 1990, 2003). The smaller coffin names its owner as a King’s Great Wife, and was found buried in the rubble at the foot at Dra Abu’l-Naga (see THEBES, WEST) in 1859. The mummy found inside was destroyed by the local governor to remove its jewellery, but the latter and the rest of the deposit are now in the Cairo Museum. The larger, with the more extensive titles of King’s Great Wife, King’s Daughter, King’s Sister, King’s Mother, and God’s Wife, was found in 1881 in the Royal Cache (tomb TT320) near Deir el-Bahari (Thebes-West), containing the body of the much later King Pinudjem I (see THIRD INTERMEDIATE PERIOD, EGYPT; PSUSENNES). It is also now in Cairo. This larger coffin certainly belonged to the mother of King Ahmose I and his sister-wife, Ahmes-Nefertiry, as well as Prince Ahmose A and probably others. This Ahhotep was also the first God’s Wife (of Amun), a post that placed a senior member of the royal family alongside the High Priest at the head of the cult of the god Amun-Re. A stele of Ahmose I’s reign suggests that she may have rallied Egypt’s troops at a crucial moment, perhaps following the death of SEQENENRE TAA or his successor, KAMOSE. After her death she was, like many other members of the period’s royal family, deified as one of the gods of the Theban Necropolis. She is usually assumed to have been the sister-wife of King Seqenenre Taa,

and as such the daughter of Queen Tetisheri, although the identity of the latter’s husband is not certain: it is generally assumed that he was Senakhtenre Taa I. The mummy found in the smaller coffin included amongst its jewelry a chain of gold flies, normally a military decoration, which might argue for the equation of the two coffins’ owners. On the other hand it has been suggested, without proof, that the smaller coffin may have been owned by the otherwise unknown wife of Kamose. Ahhotep, mother of Ahmose I, was one of the early royal figures of the early New Kingdom to be worshipped at Thebes-West during the thirteenth and twelfth centuries BCE (19th and 20th Dynasties) as patron deities of the necropolis, especially in and around the workmen’s community of DEIR EL-MEDINA.

Figure 1 Votive stele (in limestone, 41 cm) depicting King Ahmose and Amenhotep I with their mothers Ahhotep and Ahmose Nefertiry, ca. 1300 BCE, Thebes West. Egyptian Museum, Cairo. © Interfoto/Alamy.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 232–234. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah15020

2 REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Blankenberg-van Delden, C. (1982) “A genealogical reconstruction of the kings and queens of the late 17th and early 18th Dynasties.” Giornale di Metafisica 54: 31–45. Dodson, A. and Hilton, D. (2004) The complete royal families of ancient Egypt: 123–8. London. Eaton-Krauss, M. (1990) “The coffins of Queen Ahhotep, consort of Seqeni-en-Re and mother of Ahmose.” Chronique d’E´gypte 65: 195–205. Eaton-Krauss, M. (2003) “Encore: the coffins of Ahhotep, wife of Seqeni-en-Re tao and mother of Ahmose.” In A. Blo¨baum, J. Kahl, and ¨ gypten-Mu¨nster: S. Schweitzer, eds., A ¨ gypten, dem Kulturwissenschaftliche Studien zu A

Vorderen Orient und verwandten Gebieten: 75–89. Mu¨nster. Gitton, M. (1984) Les divines e´pouses de la 18e dynastie: 9–23. Besanc¸on-Paris. Roth, A. M. (1999) “The Ahhotep coffins: the archaeology of an Egyptological reconstruction.” In E. Teeter and J. A. Larson, eds., Gold of praise: studies on ancient Egypt in honor of Edward F. Wente: 361–77. Chicago. Ryholt, K. (1997) The political situation in Egypt during the Second Intermediate Period ca. 1800–1550 BCE: 275–7. Copenhagen. Seipel, W. (1975) “Ahhotep I.” Lexikon der ˆ gyptologie, 1: 98–9. Wiesbaden. A Troy, L. (1979) “Ahhotep – a source evaluation.” Go¨ttinger Miszellen 35: 81–91.

1

Ahiqar JAMES M. LINDENBERGER

The wisdom text known as the “Words of Ahiqar” is the oldest known Aramaic literary work. The earliest exemplar is a fragmentary papyrus of fourteen columns (perhaps originally twenty-one). Found in 1907 in the ruins of a Jewish settlement on Elephantine Island in Upper Egypt, the papyrus is a copy dating from the late fifth century BCE. The text was probably composed a century or more earlier. Before the Elephantine discovery, Ahiqar was known in several much later versions, the most important being Syriac and Armenian (Harris, Conybeare, and Lewis 1913). The text contains two types of material. The first is a narrative, a vivid tale of intrigue set in the court of the Assyrian kings Sennacherib and Esarhaddon (eighth–seventh centuries BCE), and concerns a wise counselor named Ahiqar and his treacherous nephew, Nadin. The second is a collection of wisdom sayings (two collections in the late versions, one in the Aramaic). A longstanding debate about the correct order of the sayings appears to have been settled by a recent study rearranging them according to a partially erased undertext bearing a series of consecutive dates (Porten and Yardeni 1993). The wisdom portion of the Aramaic text comprises about a hundred sayings: aphorisms, riddles, instructions, etc., many incomplete. These show many parallels to the wisdom literature of other Near Eastern peoples, particularly Babylonia. Biblical parallels to the Aramaic are few; the later versions have more. The Aramaic text is non-Jewish in origin, but by the time of the composition of the book of Tobit (second century BCE?),

the story was known among Jews outside of Elephantine, and Ahiqar himself was depicted as a Jew (Tob 1:21–2, 2:10, 11:18, 14:10). A few examples: A blow for a serving-boy, / a rebuke for a slavegirl, / and for all your servants, discipline! A king is splendid to see as Shamash (the sungod) / and his majesty is glorious / to them that tread the earth in peace. I have carried straw and hauled salt, / but there is nothing more burdensome than [debt]. SEE ALSO: Aramaic and Syriac; Elephantine, Pharaonic; Wisdom literature, ancient Near East.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Contini, R. and Grottanelli, C. (2005) Il saggio Ahiqar: fortuna e trasformazioni di uno scritto sapienziale. Brescia. Harris, J. R., Conybeare, F. C., and Lewis, A. S. (1913) The story of Ah: ikar from the Aramaic, ˙ Syriac, Arabic, Armenian, Ethiopic, Old Turkish, Greek and Slavonic versions. Cambridge. Kottsieper, I. (1990) Die Sprache der Ahiqarspru¨che. Berlin. Lindenberger, J. M. (1983) The Aramaic proverbs of Ahiqar. Baltimore. Lindenberger, J. M. (1985) “Ahiqar.” In J. H. Charlesworth, ed., The Old Testament pseudepigrapha, vol. 2: 479–507. Garden City. Porten, B. and Yardeni, A. (1993) Textbook of Aramaic documents from ancient Egypt, vol. 3: 23–53. Jerusalem. Sachau, E. (1911) Arama¨ische Papyrus und Ostraca aus einer ju¨dischen Milita¨rkolonie zu Elephantine. Berlin. Weigl, M. (2009) Die arama¨ischen Achikar-Spru¨che aus Elephantine und die alttestamentliche Weisheitsliteratur. Berlin.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 234–235. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah01004

1

Ahiram of Byblos ALEXANDER VACEK

Ahiram is known only from an inscription on a sarcophagus, which was discovered in shaft grave V of the royal necropolis of BYBLOS in PHOENICIA in 1923. The inscription, which is carved on the sarcophagus and on its lid in two separate lines, was first published by Dussaud in 1924 and was re-edited by Lehmann in 2005. It mentions Ahiram and his son Ittobaal, king of Byblos, and warns against the violation of the tomb. Only Ittobal is designated as king in the inscription. The Bible (1 Kings 16:31, 5:15) mentions two kings by the same names, but has them ruling in different Phoenician cities: an Ittobaal at Sidon, and a Hiram = Ahiram at Tyre. The sarcophagus was elaborately decorated with banquet and mourning scenes, and displays north Syrian and Egyptianizing elements. The lid depicts either Ahiram twice, or him and Ittobaal. The date of the sarcophagus and its inscription has been controversial since its discovery. Even their contemporaneity has been questioned. Finds from inside the tomb suggest a date between the thirteenth and tenth centuries BCE (Porada 1973: 356–7), but it is unclear when they were deposited inside the grave since

it was apparently reopened several times for rituals. Stylistic analyses of the reliefs offer limited help with chronology due to the lack of securely dated comparisons. Although a thirteenth-century BCE date has been proposed (Rehm 2004: 67), a later date is more plausible (Porada 1973: 361–3). A paleographic examination of the inscription is equally difficult, since the few comparisons date to the tenth century BCE while examples of an earlier date are missing. Accordingly, a tenth-century BCE date is currently accepted (Lehmann 2005: 19). While Ahiram remains an elusive historical figure, his sarcophagus is perhaps the most important artistic monument of Early Iron Age Phoenicia. SEE ALSO: Alphabets and scripts, ancient Near East;

Bible, Hebrew. REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Dussaud, R. (1924) “Les inscriptions phéniciennes du tombeau d’Ahiram, roi de Byblos.” Syria 5: 135–59. Lehmann, R. G. (2005) Die Inschrift(en) des AhiromSarkophags und die Schachtinschrift des Grabes V in Jbeil (Byblos). Mainz. Porada, E. (1973) “Notes on the sarcophagus of Ahiram.” Journal of the Ancient Near Eastern Society of Columbia University 5: 355–72. Rehm, E. (2004) Der Ahiram-Sarkophag. Mainz.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner. © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Published 2016 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah30244

1

Ahmose I AIDAN DODSON

Nebpehtyre Ahmose (I) was a son of SEQENENRE and AHHOTEP, a grandson of TETISHERI and the immediate successor of KAMOSE. He married his own full sister AHMOSE NEFERTIRY, with whom he had at least five children, including his successor, Amenhotep I (see AMENHOTEP (AMENOPHIS) I–III). Ahmose may only have a been a child at his father’ death, perhaps explaining why Kamose’s reign interposed between that of Seqenenre and that of Ahmose, and why there is no record of military activity by Ahmose against the HYKSOS during the first decade of his reign. It has been suggested that Ahmose and Kamose may have been coregents for a short period (Ryholt 1997: 273). Notes on the Rhind Mathematical Papyrus, dated to a “Year 11” – probably of Ahmose I himself, but possibly of his Hyksos contemporary – state that Heliopolis and Tell Abu Sefa (Sile) were taken by “He of the South” (i.e., Ahmose I) that year (see HELIOPOLIS, AIN SHAMS/ MATARIYA). The latter city lay on the border with Sinai, thus constraining any retreat-route from the Hyksos capital of Avaris into Palestine (see AVARIS/TELL EL-DAB’A). The latter was then besieged, details of the campaigns being related in the autobiography of Ahmose, son of Ibana, a military officer from El-Kab. The siege was fairly drawn out, interrupted by the need to put down insurrections in already-liberated territory; it was finally being completed somewhere between regnal years 12 and 15. This was followed up by a three-year siege of the southwest Palestinian fortress of Sharuhen, whose surrender marked the end of the wars of liberation. A stela of Ahmose’s reign, ostensibly recording a great storm that devastated much of Egypt (Weiner and Allen 1998), may in fact have been a metaphorical retrospective of the Hyksos episode (Ryholt 1997: 144–45). Attention was then turned to NUBIA. While Kamose may have managed to regain territory up to the Second Cataract, Egyptian forces

TAA

now pushed further south, where a new civil administration was set up, headed by a Viceroy, the first of whom under Ahmose may have been Djehuty. The king’s absence in Nubia may have encouraged rebellions by former Hyksos-allies in Middle Egypt, particularly by Teti-en – conceivably the same man who had been a foe of Kamose over a decade earlier. Having resolved matters within Egypt and the “near-abroad,” Ahmose seems to have returned to Palestine to undertake a further campaign to extend the area of Egyptian power into Asia, although the evidence for this is somewhat equivocal. An allusion in a stela of Thutmose I might imply an advance as far as the Euphrates, thus laying the foundations for the later campaigns of Thutmose I and Thutmose III (see THUTMOSE I–IV). The king’s reign seems to have lasted for twentyfive years, but he may have associated his son Amenhotep I on the throne with him from at least Year 22 (Vittmann 1974). The king built an extensive funerary monument at Abydos, comprising a pyramid, subterranean tombs and temples both on the edge of the cultivation and at the foot of the cliffs over a kilometer to the west (see ABYDOS, EGYPT). The eastern temple included now-fragmentary scenes of battle that may have depicted episodes from the expulsion of the Hyksos. It is uncertain whether Ahmose was buried here or whether the complex was an elaborate cenotaph, especially as his mummy was found in the Third Intermediate Period cache of royal mummies at DEIR EL-BAHARI. It is possible that he may have originally been buried at Abydos but that the mummy was later moved to Thebes, especially as the tomb of his wife AhmoseNefertiry shows signs of having been extended to accommodate an additional burial. REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Harvey, S. (1994) “Monuments of Ahmose at Abydos.” Egyptian Archaeology 4: 3–5. Harvey, S. P. (2001) “Tribute to a conquering king. Battle scenes at Abydos honor a pharaoh’s

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 235–236. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah15021

2 triumph over Hyksos occupiers and his reunification of Egypt.” Archaeology 54, 4: 52–5. Navra´talova´, H. (2005) “The ‘Unwetterstele’ of Ahmose as a historical text.” In A. Amenta, M. M. Luiselli, and M. N. Sordi, eds., L’acqua nell’antico Egitto: vita, rigenerazione, incantesimo, medicamento: 81–3. Rome. Ryholt, K. S. B. (1997) The political situation in Egypt during the Second Intermediate Period, ca. 1800–1550 BC: 186–8, 273–4. Copenhagen.

Stasser, T. (2002) “La famille d’Amosis.” Chronique d’E´gypte 77: 23–46. Vandersleyen, C. (1971) Les Guerres d’Amosis, fondateur de la XVIIIedynastie. Brussels. Vittmann, G. (1974) “Was there a coregency of Ahmose with Amenophis I?” Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 60: 250–1. Wiener, M. H. and Allen, J. P. (1998) “Separate lives: the Ahmose stela and the Theran eruption.” Journal of Near Eastern Studies 57: 1–28.

1

Ahmose I AIDAN DODSON

Nebpehtyre Ahmose (I) was a son of SEQENENRE and AHHOTEP, a grandson of TETISHERI and Senakhtenre Ahmose the Elder, and the immediate successor of KAMOSE, ruling during the late sixteenth century BCE. He married his own full sister AHMOSE NEFERTIRY, with whom he had at least five children, including his successor, Amenhotep I (see AMENHOTEP (AMENOPHIS) I–III). Ahmose may only have been a child at his father’s death, perhaps explaining why Kamose’s reign interposed between that of Seqenenre and that of Ahmose, and why there is no record of military activity by Ahmose against the HYKSOS during the first decade of his reign. It has been suggested that Ahmose and Kamose may have been coregents for a short period (Ryholt 1997: 273). Notes on the Rhind Mathematical Papyrus, dated to a “Year 11” – probably of Ahmose I himself, but possibly of his Hyksos contemporary – state that HELIOPOLIS and Tell Abu Sefa (Sile) were taken by “He of the South” (i.e., Ahmose I) that year. The latter city lay on the border with Sinai, thus constraining any retreat-route from the Hyksos capital of AVARIS into Palestine. The latter was then besieged, details of the campaigns being related in the autobiography of Ahmose, son of Ibana, a military officer from El-Kab. The siege was fairly drawn out, interrupted by the need to put down insurrections in already-liberated territory; it was finally being completed somewhere between regnal years 12 and 15. This was followed up by a three-year siege of the south-west Palestinian fortress of Sharuhen, whose surrender marked the end of the wars of liberation. A stela of Ahmose’s reign, ostensibly recording a great storm that devastated much of Egypt – conceivably connected to the THERA eruption – (Wiener and Allen 1998; Ritner and Moeller 2014) has also been suggested as being a metaphorical retrospective of the Hyksos episode (Ryholt 1997: 144–45; Feinman 2015). TAA

Attention was then turned to NUBIA. While Kamose may have managed to regain territory up to the Second Cataract, Egyptian forces now pushed further south, where a new civil administration was set up, headed by a Viceroy, the first of whom under Ahmose may have been Djehuty. The king’s absence in Nubia may have encouraged rebellions by former Hyksos-allies in Middle Egypt, particularly by Teti-en – conceivably the same man who had been a foe of Kamose over a decade earlier. Having resolved matters within Egypt and the “near-abroad,” Ahmose seems to have returned to Palestine to undertake a further campaign to extend the area of Egyptian power into Asia, although the evidence for this is somewhat equivocal. An allusion in a stela of Thutmose I might imply an advance as far as the Euphrates, thus laying the foundations for the later campaigns of Thutmose I and Thutmose III (see THUTMOSE I–IV). The king’s reign seems to have lasted for twenty-five years, but it has been suggested that he may have associated his son Amenhotep I on the throne with him from at least Year 22 (Vittmann 1974, but see CO-REGENCY (EGYPT)). The king built an extensive funerary monument at Abydos (Harvey 1994, 2001, 2008), comprising a pyramid, subterranean tombs, and temples both on the edge of the cultivation and at the foot of the cliffs over a kilometer to the west (see ABYDOS, EGYPT). The eastern temple included now-fragmentary scenes of battle that may have depicted episodes from the expulsion of the Hyksos. It is uncertain whether Ahmose was buried here or whether the complex was an elaborate cenotaph, especially as his mummy was found in the Third Intermediate Period cache of royal mummies at DEIR EL-BAHARI. It is possible that he may have originally been buried at Abydos but that the mummy was later moved to Thebes, especially as the probable tomb of his son Amenhotep I shows signs of having been extended to accommodate an additional burial (Dodson 2010, 2013).

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History. Edited by Kai Brodersen, Andrew Erskine, and David Hollander. © 2019 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Published 2019 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah15021.pub2

2 REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Barbotin, C. (2008) Âhmosis et le début de la XVIIIe dynastie. Paris. Dodson, A. (2010) “The burials of Ahmose I.” In Z. Hawass and S. Ikram, eds., Thebes and beyond: studies in honour of Kent R. Weeks: 25–33. Cairo. Dodson, A. (2013) “On the burials and reburials of Ahmose I and Amenhotep I.” Göttinger Miszellen 238: 19–24. Feinman, P. (2015) “The tempest in the tempest: the natural historian.” Bulletin of the Egyptological Seminar 19: 253–62. Harvey, S. (1994) “Monuments of Ahmose at Abydos.” Egyptian Archaeology 4: 3–5. Harvey, S. P. (2001) “Tribute to a conquering king. Battle scenes at Abydos honor a pharaoh’s triumph over Hyksos occupiers and his reunification of Egypt.” Archaeology 54, 4: 52–5. Harvey, S. P. (2008) “Report on Abydos, Ahmose and Tetisheri Project, 2006–2007 season.” Annales du Service des Antiquités de l’Égypte 82: 143–55.

Navrátalová, H. (2005) “The ‘Unwetterstele’ of Ahmose as a historical text.” In A. Amenta, M. M. Luiselli, and M. N. Sordi, eds., L’acqua nell’antico Egitto: vita, rigenerazione, incantesimo, medicamento: 81–3. Rome. Ritner, R. K. and Moeller, N. (2014). “The Ahmose ‘Tempest Stela’, Thera and comparative chronology.” Journal of Near Eastern Studies 73: 1–19. Ryholt, K. S. B. (1997) The political situation in Egypt during the Second Intermediate Period, ca. 1800–1550 BC: 186–8, 273–4. Copenhagen. Stasser, T. (2002) “La famille d’Amosis.” Chronique d’Égypte 77: 23–46. Vandersleyen, C. (1971) Les guerres d’Amosis, fondateur de la XVIIIedynastie. Brussels. Vittmann, G. (1974) “Was there a coregency of Ahmose with Amenophis I?” Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 60: 250–1. Wiener, M. H. and Allen, J. P. (1998) “Separate lives: the Ahmose stela and the Theran eruption.” Journal of Near Eastern Studies 57: 1–28.

1

Ahmose II (Amasis) AIDAN DODSON

Khnemibre Ahmose (II) of the 26th Dynasty began his career as an official – probably a senior military officer – under Wahibre (see WAHIBRE (APRIES)); his mother was named Tashereniset, while his father may have been a certain Taperu. When Wahibre faced a revolt by the Egyptian army following defeat during a military operation into CYRENE in late 571 BCE, Ahmose was sent to deal with it. However, the army instead proclaimed Ahmose king and defeated Wahibre’s force of Carian and Ionian mercenaries west of Sais. Although Ahmose II was accepted as king by the beginning of February 570, Wahibre continued to be acknowledged as pharaoh further south, possibly maintaining a stronghold in his palace at Memphis. Finally, in October/November a decisive battle took place, after which Wahibre seems to have fled to Babylon. After Wahibre’s death during an abortive Babylonian invasion of Egypt in the spring of 567, Ahmose buried the former king in the royal cemetery at Sais, presumably to guarantee ritually the legality of his status as Wahibre’s successor. Continuity was also maintained by Wahibre’s sister Ankhnesneferibre remaining in the key southern post of God’s Wife of Amun at Thebes, although Ahmose’s own daughter, Neithaqerti (Nitokris) II, was adopted by her as eventual successor. The king had at least two wives, Tentkheta and Nakhubasterau, and perhaps a third, Tadiuser; apart from Neithaqerti II, he probably had at least one other daughter and three sons, Psamtik III (see PSAMTIK/PSAMMETICHUS I–III), Ahmose, and Pasenenkhonsu. The king’s commoner origins are probably reflected in folk-tales portraying him as lacking in regal demeanor and over-fond of alcohol, but his four-decade reign appears to have been successful. He allied with various Greek states as bulwarks against Babylonian (and later Persian) threats to Egypt’s independence,

reinforcing his alliances by donations to key Greek sanctuaries, including Delphi. In Egypt, Greek traders were given particular privileges at the northwestern Delta commercial center at NAUKRATIS, while Greek mercenaries remained an important part of the country’s military establishment. Ahmose II was an extensive builder, carrying out work throughout the Delta, including the capital city of Sais, as well as at Memphis and elsewhere in the Nile Valley – and in the Western Desert oases, including the building at Aghurmi in the SIWA OASIS that became the famous Temple of the Oracle, visited by Alexander the Great (Arnold 1999: 83–91; see ALEXANDER III, THE GREAT). The number of temples built there suggests that a particular interest was being taken in the development of that region. Ahmose II’s last years were clouded by the steady advance of the Persians, who had now long since disposed of Babylon, had conquered the Greek states of Asia, and were now the sole great power in the Levant. By the time of the king’s death in 526, Persian forces were bearing down upon Egypt and would overrun the country not long after the accession of his son Psamtik III. According to Herodotus, Ahmose II’s burial at Sais was desecrated by the Persian king Kambyses following the occupation. SEE ALSO: Memphis, Pharaonic; Sais, Sa el-Hagar.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Arnold, D. (1999) Temples of the last pharaohs. New York. De Meulenaere, H. (1951) Herodotos over de 26ste dynastie (II, 147-III, 15). Leuven. Edel, E. (1978) “Amasis und Nebukadrezar II.” Go¨ttinger Miszellen 29: 13–20. Hoffmeier, J. K. (1981) “A new insight on Pharaoh Apries from Herodotus, Diodorus and Jeremiah 46:17.” Journal of the Society for the Study of Egyptian Antiquities 11: 165–70. Leahy, A. (1988) “The earliest dated monument of Amasis and the end of the reign of Apries.” Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 74: 183–99.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 236–237. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah15027

2 Lloyd, A. B. (1975) Herodotus. Book II. Introduction. Leiden. Lloyd, A. B. (1976) Herodotus. Book II. Commentary 1–98. Leiden. Lloyd, A. B. (1988) Herodotus. Book II. Commentary 99–182. Leiden. Parker, R. A. (1957) “The length of the reign of Amasis and the beginning of the Twenty-

Sixth Dynasty.” Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archa¨ologischen Instituts, Abteilung Kairo 15: 208–14. Spalinger, A. J. (1979) “The civil war between Amasis and Apries and the Babylonian attack against Egypt.” In W. F. Reineke, ed., Acts: First International Congress of Egyptology: 593–604. Berlin.

1

Ahmose Nefertiry AIDAN DODSON

Ahmose-Nefertiry was a daughter of SEQENENRE and AHHOTEP, being nursed as a child by the Lady Rai. She subsequently became sisterwife of AHMOSE I, and mother of AMENHOTEP I, together with at least prince Ahmose-ankh and princess Sitamun (see AMENHOTEP (AMENOPHIS) I–III). In addition to holding the usual queenly titles, Ahmose-Nefertiry followed her mother in being God’s Wife (of Amun), making her the nominal female opposite number of the High Priest. Before taking this title, she seems to have held for a time the (normally male) office of Second Prophet of Amun. She was named on a number of monuments of her husband’s reign, including a text that gives her the title of King’s Mother during her husband’s reign, implying that Amenhotep I had assumed kingly status before Ahmose I’s death. Ahmose Nefertiry continued to be active into the reign of Amenhotep I and seems to have survived into at least Year 1 of Thutmose I (see THUTMOSE I–IV). She appears to have shared a funerary temple with her son in front of Dra Abu’l-Naga at THEBES, WEST. Her actual tomb

TAA

was found in 1914 by Howard Carter at the rear of Dra Abu’l-Naga; the queen’s mummy was found in the royal cache (TT320) near DEIR EL-BAHARI in 1881 and is now in the Cairo Museum. After her death, Ahmose Nefertiry became, with Amenhotep I, a patron deity of the Theban necropolis, the pair being shown frequently in tomb chapels, on funerary stelae, and in other mortuary contexts. They were in some cases joined by other late 17th/early 18th Dynasty royals, all known together as the “Lords of the West.” The earliest representations of Ahmose Nefertiry as such a deity date to the time of Thutmose I, and then run through to the end of the New Kingdom. Although found throughout the Theban Necropolis, such memorials of Ahmose Nefertiry are particularly common in and around the workmen’s community at Deir El-Medina, which was a center of the cult of the deified king and queen. Ahmose Nefertiry is also on occasion depicted in cult temples during the 19th and 20th Dynasties. REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Gitton, M. (1981) L’e´pouse du dieu Ahmes Ne´fertary, 2nd ed. Paris.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 237–238. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah15022

1

Ahmose-Nefertiry AIDAN DODSON

Ahmose-Nefertiry (late sixteenth century BCE) was a daughter of SEQENENRE TAA and AHHOTEP, being nursed as a child by the Lady Rai. She subsequently became sister-Great Wife of AHMOSE I, and mother of Amenhotep I, together with at least prince Ahmose-ankh and princess Sitamun (see AMENHOTEP (AMENOPHIS) I–III). In addition to holding the usual queenly titles, Ahmose-Nefertiry followed her mother in being GOD’S WIFE OF AMUN, making her the nominal female opposite number of the High Priest. Before taking this title, she seems to have held for a time the (normally male) office of Second Prophet of Amun. She was named on a number of monuments of her husband’s reign, including a text that gives her the title of King’s Mother during her husband’s reign, that has on occasion been taken as implying that Amenhotep I had assumed kingly status before Ahmose I’s death (see CO-REGENCY (EGYPT)). Ahmose-Nefertiry continued to be active into the reign of Amenhotep I and seems to have survived into at least Year 1 of Thutmose I (see THUTMOSE I–IV). She appears to have shared a funerary temple with her son in front of Dra Abu’l-Naga at THEBES, WEST. There has been considerable debate over the identity of her actual tomb. For many years it was identified with a sepulchre found in 1914 by Howard Carter at the rear of Dra Abu’l-Naga, but it now seems likely that this tomb was actually that of Amenhotep I (Dodson 2013), and that Ahmose Nefertiry’s actual burial place was TT320 near DEIR EL-BAHARI (Aston 2013, 2015), which was

later taken over by the 21st Dynasty high priest of Amun Panedjem II, and still later became a cache of royal mummies. The queen’s mummy was found there in 1881 and is now in the Cairo Museum. After her death, Ahmose-Nefertiry became, with Amenhotep I, a patron deity of the Theban necropolis, the pair being shown frequently in tomb chapels, on funerary stelae, and in other mortuary contexts. They were in some cases joined by other late 17th/early 18th Dynasty royals, all known together as the “Lords of the West.” The earliest representations of Ahmose-Nefertiry as such a deity date to the time of Thutmose I, and then run through to the end of the New Kingdom. Although found throughout the Theban Necropolis, such memorials of AhmoseNefertiry are particularly common in and around the workmen’s community at DEIR EL-MEDINA, which was a center of the cult of the deified king and queen. Ahmose-Nefertiry is also on occasion depicted in cult temples during the 19th and 20th Dynasties. REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Aston, D. A. (2013) “TT 320 and the k.3y of Queen Inhapi – a reconsideration based on ceramic evidence.” Göttinger Miszellen 236: 7–20. Aston, D. A. (2015) “TT 358, TT 320, and KV 39. Three early eighteenth dynasty queen’s tombs in the vicinity of Deir el-Bahri.” In Z. Szafranski, ed., Deir el-Bahari studies: special studies. Warsaw. Dodson, A. (2013) “On the burials and reburials of Ahmose I and Amenhotep I.” Göttinger Miszellen 238: 19–24. Gitton, M. (1981) L’épouse du dieu Ahmes Néfertary, 2nd ed. Paris.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History. Edited by Kai Brodersen, Andrew Erskine, and David Hollander. © 2019 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Published 2019 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah15022.pub2

1

Ahriman ALBERT DE JONG

Ahriman is the name of the Evil Spirit in ZOROASTRIANISM (Avestan angra mainyu, “the evil spirit”). In most versions of Zoroastrian theology, the supreme god AHURA MAZDA has an eternal uncreated opponent, who is his exact counter-image. The origins of this notion go back to the Gathas of Zarathushtra, although the name of Ahura Mazda’s opponent became fixed only in later Avestan times and the systematic juxtaposition of the two spirits – and the cosmic history of their struggle – was achieved only in the Achaemenid period. Ahriman is the personification of evil and ignorance, and has his domain in the depths, a cold realm of darkness populated by the evil beings he has spawned. In the beginning of time, he attacked the creation and brought

his own imperfections into it. Since humans are the only creatures who can choose between good and evil, Ahriman permanently attempts to seduce them to his side. At the end of time, he will be defeated and rendered powerless and all his imperfections will be purged from the world. REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Boyce, M. (1975) A history of Zoroastrianism I: the early period: 192–228. Leiden. De Jong, A. (1997) Traditions of the Magi: Zoroastrianism in Greek and Latin literature: 312–16. Leiden. Shaked, S. (1967) “Some notes on Ahreman, the Evil Spirit, and his creation.” In Studies in mysticism and religion presented to G. G. Scholem: 227–54. Jerusalem. Shaked, S. (1994) Dualism in transformation: varieties of religion in Sasanian Iran: 5–26. London.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print page 238. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah17018

1

Ahura Mazda ALBERT DE JONG

Ahura Mazda was the main deity of the Zoroastrian pantheon. Ahura Mazda (“the Wise Lord”) is first attested in the Gathas of Zarathushtra, the oldest Iranian texts in existence. The Gathas are dedicated wholly to him, for they praise him above all other spiritual beings. He is eternal and uncreated, the creator of everything and the maintainer of cosmic harmony. He is wholly good, and all evil is attributed to his opponent, Angra Mainyu. Although the two parts of his name are flexible in the Old Avestan texts, his name became fixed in the Younger Avesta. It occurs as a single name in the Old Persian inscriptions, which mention him frequently, as creator of heaven and earth, maintainer of truth, and protector of the Achaemenid king. One of the characteristics of ZOROASTRIANISM is the fact that it has only one elaborate religious narrative. According to this story, there were in the beginning two spirits: Ahura Mazda and Angra Mainyu, who are wholly opposed to each other. They are both uncreated and, therefore, eternal, but otherwise they do not share a single trait. Ahura Mazda is wholly good, Angra Mainyu wholly evil. They lived in discrete domains, separated by a void. They were evenly matched in power and permanence, but Ahura Mazda had one strategic advantage over Angra Mainyu: he had superior knowledge. Ahura Mazda was aware, therefore, of the existence of Angra Mainyu, whereas Angra Mainyu lived in ignorance. This gave Ahura Mazda the opportunity to prepare for battle. He did this by making the creation in a spiritual state, and when Angra Mainyu became aware of the existence of Ahura Mazda, Ahura Mazda was well prepared. The two spirits settled on a pact, according to which they would wage war against each other for a limited period, in

a limited reality: the world. This is a trap set for the evil spirit, for he will certainly be defeated at the end of time and be rendered powerless. Although Ahura Mazda made the world, Angra Mainyu brought some of his imperfections into it, and these will be removed after his final defeat. Creation was thought of in terms of seven elements – earth, sky, water, fire, plants, animals, and humans – and of these, humans were under the guardianship of Ahura Mazda himself. They are endowed with the possibility of choosing sides in the war between the spirits, and they will face the consequences of this choice. In order to assist them in this choice, Ahura Mazda invited Zarathushtra to his heavenly abode, where he gave him the revelation. Ahura Mazda is the main recipient of Zoroastrian devotion, for even when rituals are performed to honor other deities, he is always mentioned first, as their creator. He does not play a recorded active role in human history, however, at least according to the narrative, which has him reappear only at the end of time, when he will vanquish the Evil One. As a consequence, he is rarely depicted in art – with the significant exception of early Sasanian rock reliefs, where he is shown on horseback in scenes of investiture. SEE ALSO:

Ahriman.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Boyce, M. (1975) A history of Zoroastrianism I: the early period: 192–228. Leiden. De Jong, A. (1997) Traditions of the Magi: Zoroastrianism in Greek and Latin literature: 251–63. Leiden. Kuiper, F. B. J. (1976) “Ahura Mazda¯ Lord Wisdom?” Indo-Iranian Journal 18: 25–42. Shaked, S. (1994) Dualism in transformation: varieties of religion in Sasanian Iran: 5–26. London.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 238–239. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah17019

1

Ai Khanum JEFFREY D. LERNER

The Hellenistic site of Ai Khanum (Uzbek, “Lady Moon”) in eastern BACTRIA (northeastern Afghanistan), whose Greek name remains unknown, was founded perhaps in the late fourth or early third century BCE. The city, situated north of Bactra (modern Balkh) at the confluence of the OXUS and Kokcha, served a military and administrative function, although the inhabitants also derived their livelihood from agriculture, trade, and mining. The city was triangularly shaped, extending 1.8 km north to south and 1.5 km east to west with an acropolis 60 m high, surrounded by walls 7 m thick with square towers or rectangular bastions, and a main street running across the entire width of the city. Both the plain and the city were watered by an extensive network of irrigation channels (Leriche 2007: 130–1, 140–4). Although work at the site began in 1965 and was permanently interrupted in 1978, the excavations unearthed an array of buildings exhibiting a combination of Greek, Mesopotamian, and Central Asian features: two propylaea, a palace with courtyards and storerooms, a treasury, an arsenal, a gymnasium (the largest in the Greek world), a theater with a seating capacity of nearly five thousand, private homes, a stone fountain, and religious and funerary monuments, including a temenos with the remains of the city’s founder, Kineas. Bernard has conjectured that the city was founded during Alexander the Great’s Bactrian–Sogdian campaign (329–327 BCE) as ALEXANDRIA OXIANA and that later in the second century the Greek Bactrian king Eukratides I renamed it Eukratideia. In ca. 145 the city was abandoned due to a presumed invasion of nomads (Fussman 1996; Bernard 2001; cf. Bosworth 1995: 108–24). Recently, a revised chronology of the city’s early history was proposed. If correct, the city’s foundation would date to ca. 285 and its subsequent abandonment would be well

after the middle of the second century (Lerner 2003–4). Throughout the site pottery remains were collected, including many locally manufactured ceramics based on Mediterranean types, such as Megarian mold-made bowls, plates, and imitation kraters, while other objects are Greek in origin, like lamps, sundials, and ink-pots. Among the artistic objects found were a herm, an ephebe’s portrait on a funeral stele, and plaster molds of Greek deities. The palace treasury yielded numerous semi-precious stones and other luxury materials; many like lapis lazuli were of local origin, while others were imported from afar, such as ivory from India. Coins found at the site were of different origins, including Greek Bactrian, Indo-Greek, Indian, and Seleucid. Coins and olive oil were placed in vessels on the outside of which a Greek label(s) written in ink detailed the contents and the operation performed by the officials responsible for storing the items. One inscription details the work of a dokimastes, while another written in Aramaic found in the “temple with indented niches” records the delivery of wine. The inscriptions reveal twenty-seven Greek and Bactrian personal names. A room in the treasury, perhaps serving as a library, revealed ink impressions left in earthen clods from a papyrus containing a philosophical dialogue and a parchment recording a theatrical or poetic fragment (Rapin 1990). SEE ALSO:

Seleucids; Sogdia.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Bernard, P. (2001) “Aı¨ Khanoum en Afghanistan hier (1964–1978) et aujourd’hui (2001): un site en pe´ril. Perspectives d’avenir.” Comptes Rendus de l’Acade´mie des Inscriptions et Belles Lettres 2001: 971–1029. Bernard, P., Guillaume, O., Francfort, H.-P., et al. (1973–92) Fouilles d’Aı¨ Khanoum, vols. 1–8: Paris. Bosworth, A. B. (1995) A historical commentary on Arrian’s history of Alexander, vol. II Commentary on books IV–V. Oxford.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 239–240. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah14013

2 Fussman, G. (1996) “Southern Bactria and northern India before Islam: a review of archaeological reports.” Journal of the American Oriental Society 116: 243–59. Hiebert, F. and Cambon, P., eds. (2008) Afghanistan: hidden treasures from the National Museum, Kabul. Washington. Leriche, P. (2007) “Bactria, land of a thousand cities.” In J. Cribb and G. Herrmann, eds., After Alexander. Central Asia before Islam. Proceedings of the British Academy 133: 121–53.

Lerner, J. D. (2003–4) “Correcting the early history of Aˆy Kaˆnom.” Archa¨ologische Mitteilungen aus Iran und Turan 35–36: 373–410. Rapin, Cl. (1990) “Greeks in Afghanistan: Aı¨ Khanoum.” In J.-P. Descoeudres, ed., Greek colonists and native populations. Proceedings of the First Australian Congress of Classical Archaeology held in honour Sof Emeritus Professor A. D. Trendall, Sydney 9–14 July 1985: 329–42. Oxford.

1

Aidos

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS

AMY C. SMITH

Cairns, D. L. (1993) Aidos. The psychology and ethics of honour and shame in Ancient Greek literature. Oxford. Cairns, D. L. (1996) “Veiling, ai᾽ dώς and a red-figure amphora by Phintias.” Journal of Hellenic Studies 116: 152–8. Hani, J. (1980) “Aidos personifie´e et sa porte´e re´elle chez les Grecs.” In Mythe et personification. Actes du Colloque du Grand Palais (Paris), 7–8 mai 1977: 1–12. Paris. Richer, N. (1999) “Aidos at Sparta.” In A. Powell and S. Hodkinson, eds., Sparta. New perspectives: 99–115. London. Scott, M. (1980) “Aidos and Nemesis in the works of Homer and their relevance to social and co-operative values.” Acta Classica 23: 13–35. Stafford, E. J. (2000) Worshipping virtues. Personification and the divine in Ancient Greece. Swansea. Williams, B. (1993) Shame and necessity, rev. ed., 2008. Berkeley.

Aidos, an abstraction whose meaning ranges from shame to modesty, is personified in literature (Hani 1980) but not art (Cairns 1996). Homer contrasts aidos, personal shame, with Nemesis, public indignation (Scott 1980). Hesiod also pairs these two, beautiful forms in white robes that will leave man without defense against evil (Op. 200). By the fifth century BCE, aidos means a reverence that connotes modesty. Sophocles presents this Aidos, like Dike (Justice), as all-seeing (OC 133). Plato sees them as public virtues, necessary for political stability (Cairns 1993). They perhaps shared an altar at Athens with Eunomia (Good Laws) (Paus. 1.17.1; Stafford 2000: 204–5). Aidos was also worshipped at Sparta (Richer 1999). SEE ALSO:

Zeus.

Dike, dike; Eunomia; Personification;

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 240–241. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah17020

1

Aieluros (FGrH 528) DENNIS ALLEY

Greek historian of unknown date. The only mention of Aieluros comes from the Lindian Chronicle, in which he is referred to as the author of a history of the war against the Exagiads. Here his work is said to have contained descriptions of votive offerings made by HERAKLES.

SEE ALSO:

Historiography, Greek and Roman;

Lindos. REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Blinkenberg, C. (1941) Lindos: Fouilles de l’Acropole 1902–1914, vol. 2: Inscriptions. Berlin. Higbie, C. (2003) The Lindian Chronicle and the Greek creation of their past. Oxford. Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, U. (1883) “Phaethon.” Hermes 18: 396–432.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner. © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Published 2015 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah26167

1

Aigai LOUISA LOUKOPOULOU

Aigai, or Aigeai, the first capital and royal residence of the Macedonian kingdom under the Temenid Dynasty, was situated east of BEROIA, on the right bank of the Haliakmon River, on the northern slopes of the Pierian mountains. According to the legend, it was originally a city of the Bryges named EDESSA, renamed Aigai by its Macedonian conquerors, or a foundation of the Temenid Perdikkas or Karanos or Archelaos in the eighth or seventh century BCE, heading an army of Argive colonists. The identification with Aigai of the vast archaeological site near Vergina-Palatitsia, first excavated in the middle of the nineteenth century by L. Heuzey, was first proposed by N. G. L. Hammond and confirmed by more recent discoveries: the roughly triangular city circuit wall with towers at irregular intervals, enclosing the fortified acropolis on the summit of a steep hill (late fourth century BCE), the great palace (104.588.5 m, second half of the fourth century) with porticoed, peristyle central courtyard, a monumental entrance gate, a circular shrine dedicated to Herakles Patroos, and banquet halls with splendid floor mosaics; adjacent to the west, a smaller palace, presumably of earlier date; the city agora, enclosing a temple dedicated to the goddess Eukleia, dating from the middle of the fourth

century; a theater (second half of the fourth century) with two rows of stone benches, located immediately to the north of the great palace; a sanctuary of the Mother of the Gods; most importantly, an extensive Iron Age (eleventh to eighth century) cemetery with over three hundred small tumuli covering burials with rich offerings; further, monumental, undoubtedly royal, “Macedonian” tombs, richly decorated with magnificent wall paintings, among which was an unplundered tomb under the “Great Tumulus” (now transformed into a museum), including extraordinarily rich furnishings (pomp armor, precious vessels and wreaths, a solid 7,820 gram gold burial larnax containing the bones of the deceased) and paintings (a hunting scene over the tomb’s Doric fac¸ade), attributed most probably, yet not unanimously, to PHILIP II OF MACEDON and his wife Cleopatra. SEE ALSO:

Vergina.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Andronicos, M. (1984) Vergina. Athens. Hammond, N. G. L. (1972) A history of Macedonia, vol. 1. Oxford. Hammond, N. G. L. and Griffith, G. T. (1979) A history of Macedonia, vol. 2. Oxford. Hatzopoulos, M. B. (2004) “Makedonia.” In M. H. Hansen and T. H. Nielsen, eds., An inventory of Archaic and Classical poleis: 798–9. Oxford. Papazoglou, F. (1988) Les villes de Mace´doine a` l’e´poque romaine. Athens.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print page 241. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah14014

1

Aigeira ¨ TTER BIRGITTA EDER AND GEORG LADSTA

Aigeira eastern

is

located in the foothills of on the southern shore of the CORINTHIAN GULF. Evidence for human habitation reaches back to the Middle Neolithic (ca. 5700– 5300 BCE), and in the last period of the Bronze Age a small walled settlement occupied the summit of the so-called “acropolis” (LH IIIC, twelfth–eleventh centuries; cf. Alram-Stern and Deger-Jalkotzy 2006). Continuity of occupation into the historical periods is possibly indicated by some Early Iron Age pottery, and this site may be identified with Hyperesia, which is mentioned in the Homeric Catalogue of Ships (Il. 2.569–75). According to the foundation legend of the archaic and classical polis (Paus. 7.26.1–4), the goddess Artemis saved the city from an attack by neighboring SIKYON. A Late Archaic temple stood within a sanctuary on the top of the acropolis and was dedicated to a female deity, possibly Iphigeneia/Artemis (see ARTEMIS; IPHIGENEIA). Archaeological remains of classical Aigeira include a fortification wall and a public guest house of the late classical period. Aigeira flourished in the early third century BCE, and a newly planned town represents the completely new foundation of the city, when the acropolis became abandoned and cults were transferred to a lower plateau. With financial support by the ACHAIAN LEAGUE, the town was surrounded by an extensive fortification wall and an elaborate system of water supply was built. In addition, a small harbor served the town on the northeast coast of the Corinthian Gulf. The new public center in the southeast of the town was furnished with a canonical Hellenistic ACHAIA

theater (Gogos 1992) and several larger and smaller temples (Bammer 2001). Pausanias (7.26.4) refers to the importance of the cult of Zeus in Hellenistic Aigeira, and in fact an Ionic temple with the cult statue by the Attic sculptor Eukleides have been discovered there. During the Hellenistic period the political and cultic center of the town was furnished with more public buildings, of which one was dedicated to the cult of TYCHE (Paus. 7. 26.8). The modification of the theater in the time of Hadrian illustrates that the public center of Aigeira remained in continuous use into the second century CE. The third century CE is most likely a period of decline and abandonment. Evidence for a ceramic workshop in the ruins of the former Tycheion indicates the abandonment of the public center of the Hellenistic and Roman city of Aigeira (Alzinger et al. 1985, 1986a, 1986b). REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Alram-Stern, E. and Deger-Jalkotzy, S., eds. (2006) Aigeira I: Die Mykenische Akropolis. Vienna. Alzinger, W. et al. (1985) “Aigeira-Hyperesia und die Siedlung Pheloe¨ in Achaia I.” Klio 67: 393–451. Alzinger, W. et al. (1986a) “Aigeira-Hyperesia und die Siedlung Pheloe¨ in Achaia II.” Klio 68: 6–62. Alzinger, W. et al. (1986b) “Aigeira-Hyperesia und die Siedlung Pheloe¨ in Achaia III.” Klio 68: 309–47. Bammer, A. (2001) “Neue Heiligtu¨mer in Aigeira.” In V. Mitsopoulos-Leon, ed., Forschungen in der Peloponnes, Akten des Symposions anla¨ßlich ¨ sterreichisches der Feier “100 Jahre O Archa¨ologisches Institut Athen,” 5.3.–7.3. 1998: 95–105. Athens. Gogos, S. (1992) Das Theater von Aigeira. Ein Beitrag zum antiken Theaterbau. Vienna.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 241–242. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah02009

1

Aigina KRISTEN BAXTER AND THOMAS J. FIGUEIRA

The island of Aigina (85.9 km2) is located in the SARONIC GULF, about 29.6 km from the Piraeus. Archaic and early Classical Aigina was a strong commercial and naval power, with two harbors and an emporion (Dem. Against Aristocrates 211; Ephorus FGrH 70 F 176; cf. Ps.-Skylax Periplus 53). Aigina also pioneered in minting silver (from 580 to 540 BCE), its plentiful coinage playing an international role. Proximity to ATHENS drew Aigina into power politics, where it acted as a foil to Athens, profoundly influencing Attic policy. Domestic politics and foreign policy on Aigina were dominated by a wealthy aristocracy. Inhabited from the Late Neolithic, Aigina possessed notable Helladic remains (especially on the later acropolis). The island had strong ties with the Argolid, having been traditionally settled by Dorians from Epidauros (Hdt. 5.83.1–2; 8.46.1). During 700–640, Aigina was under Argive influence, claimed as part of the Argive “lot” of the Heraklid “founder” of Argos, Temenos. Argive hegemony was expressed through a cult league of Apollo Pythaieus (Hdt. 6.92.1–2). Tradition mistakenly assigned the early seventh-century (or late eighth-century) tyrant/king Pheidon of Argos credit for inaugurating coinage on Aigina (Ephoros FGrH 70 F 115). Thereafter, Epidauros exercised hegemony down through the reign of the Epidaurian tyrant Prokles. Circa 615, Aigina achieved independence through force, after achieving naval superiority over Epidauros (Hdt. 5.83.1–2). Its navy made archaic Aigina disproportionately powerful: the “thalassocracy list” reports the Aiginetans as thalassocrats during 490–480 (Diod. Sic. 7, fr. 11). Argos remained a key ally, offering aid during hostilities with Athens, while SPARTA loomed ever larger in polarized fifth-century international politics. Aiginetan commercial activity began in the late eighth century, likely connected with

piracy, slave trading, and itinerant peddling of aiginaia, petty retail goods. Aristotle notes the strong component of the Aiginetan population involved in commerce (Pol. 1291b24). From the eighth century, Aigina belonged to the Calaurian amphictyony of seafaring communities (Strabo 8.6.14). Eventually, the network of Aiginetan economic contacts throughout homeland Greece grew into longrange, non-intermediated trade, as evidenced by activity at Egyptian Naukratis and the profitable enterprises of Sostratos (e.g., in Etruria) (Hdt. 2.178.3; 4.152.3). This evolution meant that the colonial movement bypassed Aigina, although Late Archaic settlements are attested at Cretan Kydonia and Umbrian Adria (Hdt. 3.59; Strabo 8.6.16). Moreover, Aiginetan coins, the “turtles,” became an international monetary medium throughout the Peloponnese, central Greece, and the Cyclades, with the Aiginetic coin standard widely adopted. Commercial development, which stimulated craft production, permitted transcendence of a small insular resource base. For example, a succession of famous sculptors working in bronze were active on Aigina. Although the recorded numbers are untrustworthy, tradition also associated Aigina with a large slave population (Arist. fr. 475G); their descendants constituted a portion of the demos. Expensive projects, both secular (e.g., the military harbor) and sacred (the Aphaia sanctuary; facilities on the acropolis) demonstrate Aigina’s great wealth. Elite Aiginetans and their aristocratic lineages (patrai) were prominent among the patrons of Pindar for the epinician odes. Aigina’s relations with Athens were often hostile. HERODOTUS describes a mythologized beginning for this enmity in a struggle over the sacred images of the goddesses Damia and Auxesia (appropriated from Epidauros: Hdt. 5.82–89). A later conflict was the brutal “Heraldless war,” begun by Aiginetan raids in support of Thebes in 506. In 491, Aiginetan Medism was sufficiently alarming to involve the Spartan king, Kleomenes I, who extracted hostages for Athens from Aigina (Hdt. 6.49–50, 64, 73). Further

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 242–245. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah14015

2

Figure 1 The Aphaia Doric temple on Aigina. Photograph © Stockfolio/Alamy.

Aiginetan raiding motivated Attic backing for a populist coup, mounted by the exiled aristocrat Nikodromos (ca. 488). Rebellion by the Aiginetan demos was crushed, and the Athenians, who had defeated an Argive expeditionary force, were repelled (Hdt. 6.87–93). Athens absorbed rebel refugees, while Aigina harbored ostracized Attic leaders like Aristeides. This hostility, which stimulated the Themistoclean naval law, only terminated under a reconciliation brought about when both states joined the Hellenic League in 481 (Hdt. 7.145.1). In 480, the Aiginetans fought at Artemision, Salamis (with distinction: Hdt. 8.93), and Plataia. They also took in Athenian evacuees. After a troubled period of respite, Aigina became embroiled in the First PELOPONNESIAN WAR in 459/8 – PERIKLES having named the island the “eyesore of the Piraieus.” Aigina was defeated at sea, besieged, and forced to come to terms as a tributary ally of Athens (457/6), with the high assessment of thirty talents (Thuc. 1.105.2–4;

108.4; IG I3 259.VI.18). Secret Aiginetan complaints to Sparta over Athenian infringement of its autonomy (Thuc. 1.67.2), supposedly guaranteed by treaty (either that of the THIRTY YEARS’ PEACE or the Hellenic League), led to the inclusion of a demand on its behalf in the Spartan ultimatum on the eve of the Archidamian war (Thuc. 1.139.1; 140.3). Athens, blaming the Aiginetans for the war, expelled them, colonizing Aigina in 431 (Aristophanes being involved). Many Aiginetan refugees settled in the Thyreatis or at Kydonia (Thuc. 2.27.1–2). The Aiginetans were restored by Lysander in 405 (Xen. HG 2.2.9). Aigina never regained its fifth-century prosperity. The Aiginetans were, however, avid participants in pro-Spartan and (later) proMacedonian hostilities against Athens (Xen. HG 5.1.1–24, 29; 6.2.1; Demades fr. 67). During 390–360, the Athenians in turn made repeated attacks, including efforts to reconquer Aigina. After stretches of alliance with or

3 subjection to Cassander, the Antigonids, and the Aitolians, Aigina joined the Achaians in 229 (Plut. Arat. 34.7). In 211, captured by the Romans, Aigina was sold to the Attalids through the agency of the Aitolians (Polyb. 22.8.10). Bequeathed to Rome in 133 by Attalos III, Aigina was separated and attached to the province of Achaia in 129, when the Romans organized the province of Asia. SEE ALSO: Calauria and the Calaurian amphictyony.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS De Ste Croix, G. E. M. (2004) “But what about Aegina?” In D. Harvey and R. Parker, eds., Athenian democratic origins and other essays: 371–420. Oxford. Figueira, T. J. (1981) Aegina: society and politics. New York. Figueira, T. J. (1991) Athens and Aigina in the age of imperial colonization. Baltimore. Figueira, T. J. (1993) Excursions in epichoric history: Aiginetan essays. Lanham, MD. Welter, G. (1938) Aigina. Berlin.

1

Aigospotamoi, battle of LUCA ASMONTI

Aigospotamoi was a small river issuing into the HELLESPONT, north of Sestos. In late summer of 405 BCE it was the theater of a naval battle between the Spartan and Athenian fleets that marked the end of the PELOPONNESIAN WAR and of Athens’ naval imperialism. Konon, commander-in-chief of the Athenian forces, was trailing the Spartan admiral LYSANDER, who had seized the town of LAMPSAKOS and was now stationing in its port. Konon first reached Sestos, then settled at Aigospotamoi, halfway between Sestos and Lampsakos. The following morning, at dawn, the Athenians were deployed to attack the enemy, but Lysander refused to engage. The situation remained at a standstill for four days, during which time the Athenians fruitlessly tried to offer battle. At some point ALKIBIADES came from his Thracian estates and visited the Athenian camp to offer his advice and services, which the Athenian commanders declined (Xen. Hell. 2.1.25–6). On the fifth day, Lysander decided to attack and the Athenian fleet, taken by surprise, quickly capitulated. The two extant accounts of the events, Xenophon’s and Diodorus’, are

remarkably different. According to the former, no actual naval battle was fought at all: Lysander, sailing from Abydos, caught the Athenian ships on the beach while the troops were scattered looking for food after their daily sail against Lampsakos (Xen. Hell. 2.2.1). Diodorus has the strategos Philokles, commander of the day, sail out with thirty ships to attack the Spartans, the rest following him. Philokles was quickly defeated and the rest of the fleet was seized on the beach (Diod. Sic. 13.106). Only Konon managed to escape with nine ships and sought refuge at Salamis in Cyprus, while Lysander took Sestos and SAMOS. SEE ALSO:

Konon, Athenian strategos.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Andrewes, A. (1953) “The generals in the Hellespont, 410–407 BC.” Journal of Hellenic Studies 73: 2–9. Ehrhardt, C. (1970) “Xenophon and Diodorus on Aegospotami.” Phoenix 24: 225–8. Kagan, D. (1987) The fall of the Athenian empire. Ithaca. Strauss, B. S. (1983) “Aegospotami reexamined.” American Journal of Philology 104: 24–35.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print page 245. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah04014

1

Aineias of Samos (FGrH 543) CRAIGE B. CHAMPION

Aineias of Samos (FGrH 543) may be the invention of Ptolemaios Chennos, an Alexandrian grammarian of the late first to early second century CE, who is known to have invented some of his “sources” (Knaack 1903, col. 38). The title attributed to Aineias, Samiakoi Logoi (Samian Stories), is perhaps a fabricated variation of HERODOTUS’ Assyrioi Logoi and Libykoi Logoi (1.184, 2.161.3). The single surviving citation appears in the Scholia to Tzetzes, Historiarum Variarum Chiliades 1.144. Aineias and his work could well be Ptolemaios Chennos’ invention to support his version of

the Gyges–Kandaules story, known from Herodotus. The question of Aineias of Samos’ historicity must remain open, but at least Ptolemaios Chennos provides a terminus ante quem for him – first century CE – in the event that he existed (D’Hautcourt 2015). SEE ALSO: Historiography, Greek and Roman; Samos.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Knaack, G. (1903) “Aineias (3a).” In A. Pauly, G. Wissowa, and W. Kroll, eds., Realencyclopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft Suppl. 1: 38. Stuttgart. D’Hautcourt, A. (2015) “Aineias of Samos (543).” In I. Worthington, ed., Brill’s New Jacoby. Brill Online.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner. © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Published 2016 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah30181

1

Ainesidamos (FGrH 600) CHARLES GOLDBERG

BCE, though Cuypers

(2009) also suggests a date as late as the second century BCE.

SEE ALSO:

Ainesidamos (FGrH 600) (also Ainesidemos) was the author of the Teniaka – a history, in Greek, of a small island in the CYCLADES: TENOS, located northwest of MYKONOS. The only surviving fragment from this work, preserved in a scholium to APOLLONIUS RHODIUS’ Argonautica, mentions the death of the sons of Thracian Boreas on Tenos, at the hands of HERAKLES. If Ainesidamos is Apollonius’ source for the description of these sons’ tomb on Tenos, he might be dated to the end of the fourth century

Local histories.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Schwartz, E. (1893) “Ainesidemus (8).” In A. Pauly, G. Wissowa, and W. Kroll, eds., Realencyclopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft 1: 1023. Stuttgart. Jacoby, F. (1954) “Ainesidamos (600).” In F. Jacoby, ed., Die Fragmente der griechischen Historiker 3B: 731–2. Leiden. Cuypers, M. (2009) “Ainesidamos (600).” In I. Worthington, ed., Brill’s New Jacoby. Brill Online.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner. © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Published 2015 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah26169

1

Ainesidemos of Knossos ANNA MARIA IOPPOLO

Ainesidemos was a Greek philosopher who flourished in the first half of the first century BCE and who founded a new school of skepticism, which took its name from the late fourth century philosopher PYRRHO OF ELIS (Phot. Bibl. 169b 26–7). We know very little about his life and most of what we know is controversial. According to the evidence, we cannot say with any certainty the exact date of his birth or conclude whether he was born in Knossos (Diog. Laert. 9. 115–16) or Aigai (Phot. Bibl. 170a 39–41). It seems he began as a student at the skeptical Academy under PHILON OF LARISSA and that he abandoned it due to its increasing concessions to Stoic dogmatism. Since none of Ainesidemos’ works have survived, his philosophy is known to us only through secondary sources, primarily through a summary of his most important work Pyrrhonian Discourses in eight books, drawn up by Photius, and through several passages both in Book 9 of DIOGENES LAERTIUS and in SEXTUS EMPIRICUS’ works. Diogenes Laertius (9. 78) reports that Ainesidemos wrote various works: Outline Introduction to Pyrrhonism, where, according to ARISTOKLES OF MESSENE (ap. Euseb. Praep. evang. 14.18.11–12), he put forward the account of ten tropes for suspending judgment; Pyrrhonian Discourses; On Investigation; Against Wisdom (Diog. Laert. 9. 106 ). Photius tells us that Ainesidemos dedicated his Pyrrhonian Discourses to Lucius Tubero, who was a man of illustrious family, a friend of Cicero and perhaps, like him, a follower of the Academy. Photius’ summary of the first book shows that Ainesidemos was particularly concerned to set out the differences between the Academics and Pyrrhonists. The Pyrrhonists are aporetic and free of all dogma; they avoid all dogmatic claims by relativizing their assertions with the formula “no more,” or “sometimes,” or “for this person and not for that.” The Academics make positive claims about things, adopting Stoic doctrines to such an extent that

they seem to be “Stoics fighting against Stoics.” While the Pyrrhonist “determines absolutely nothing, not even this very claim that nothing is determined,” the Academics, especially Ainesidemos’ contemporaries, determine many things with assurance and claim to contest only cataleptic impressions (Phot. Bibl. 169b 36–170a 22). Photius also gives a brief summary of books 2–8, which contain the arguments Ainesidemos presented against the doctrines of the dogmatists on physics, logic, and ethics. These arguments cast doubt on causal explanations, first principles, generation and corruption, motions, truth, signs, sensations, and on various topics in ethics, such as the notions of goal, virtue, and happiness, with the aim of inducing epoche. Sextus also tells us that Ainesidemos took a position on whether PLATO was a skeptic, but a textual corruption in the transmission of the text (Pyr.1. 222) prevents us from knowing exactly what his position was on Plato’s skepticism, which is a problem that divided the ancient philosophers and still divides scholars today. Ainesidemos’ fame is especially related to the Ten Modes for suspending judgment, attributed to him by Sextus (Math. 7. 345) and which various accounts by several sources refer to (Sext. Emp. Pyr. 1. 36–113, Diog. Laert. 9. 78–88, Philo, De ebriet. 169–205, Aristokles ap. Euseb. Praep. evang. 14.18.11–12), each giving a different arrangement. We suppose that Ainesidemos did not simply invent the tropes, but he was perhaps the first to collect a considerable amount of older material systematically, from the Presocratics up to the skeptical ACADEMY. The purpose of the collection was to classify the various modes leading to suspension of judgment. Since we can know as things appear to us, but not as things are for themselves, we cannot go beyond appearances to determine how things really are. Starting from the conflicts of appearances, one finds out that they rest upon the different impressions that objects produce on different animals and humans, and on humans in different conditions or circumstances, and upon all the other considerations based on some form of relativity, such as

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History. Edited by Kai Brodersen, Andrew Erskine, and David Hollander. © 2019 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Published 2019 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah30493

2 traditions, customs, laws, cultural context, and so on. Another distinctive and more puzzling feature of Ainesidemos’ philosophy is his socalled Heracliteanism. Sextus tells us that “Ainesidemos and his followers said that the skeptical way is a route toward the philosophy of HERACLITUS since the idea that contraries appear to hold of the same thing precedes the idea that they actually hold of it” (Pyr. 1.220). Moreover, in several passages Sextus attributes dogmatic opinions to Ainesidemos, on topics such as time, intellect, truth, and so on, introducing them by the formula “Ainesidemos kata Herakleiton.” This difficult phrase has been understood in various ways by modern interpreters. What is disputed is whether Ainesidemos deemed Heraclitus himself to have been a skeptic, thus expressing a preference for Heracliteanism, or if he was exploiting it dialectically against the

Stoics and, in consequence, whether there is a gap or continuity between Ainesidemos’ and Sextus’ versions of Pyrrhonism. REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Bett, R. (2000) Pyrrho, his antecedents, and his legacy. Oxford. Hankinson, R. J. (2010) “Aenesidemus and the rebirth of Pyrrhonism.” In R. Bett, ed., The Cambridge companion to ancient scepticism: 105–19. Cambridge. Polito, R., trans. (2014) Aenesidemus of Cnossus. Testimonia. Edited with introduction and commentary. Cambridge. Schofield, M. (2007) “Aenesidemus: Pyrrhonist and Heraclitean.” In A. M. Ioppolo and D. Sedley, eds., Pyrrhonists, patricians and platonizers: Hellenistic philosophy in the period 155–86 BC: 271–338. Naples.

1

Aiolians CATHERINE M. DRAYCOTT AND ALAN M. GREAVES

“Aiolians” refers to a sub-group of Greeks inhabiting cities along the coast of western Anatolia north of IONIA, who spoke a dialect broadly called “Aiolic” and claimed common origins (see GREEK LANGUAGE AND DIALECTS (CLASSICAL TIMES)). The term, and the regional name “Aiolis,” could be used in connection with a wide area of the northeastern Aegean, including LESBOS, Tenedos, and cities in the TROAD (e.g., Strabo 13.1.4, 39), but in earlier literature it seems to be used for a more restricted group of cities around the Elaitic Gulf: Kyme, Aigai, Killa, Larissa, Temnos, Notion, Neonteichos, Aigiroessa, Pitane, Myrina, Gryneia, and originally Smyrna (Hes. Op. 635–8; Hdt. 1.149–51; see AIOLIS). Herodotus (1.49) says these cities formed an Aiolian League with a common cult meeting-place at the sanctuary of Apollo at Gryneion – a counterpart to the Panionion and Doric Hexapolis (see DORIANS; IONIAN TRIBES). The origins of the Aiolians are obscure; ancient authors recount various versions of a Dark Age tribal migration from mainland Greece to Asia Minor. The term “Aiolians” itself is attested in LINEAR B, although without geographic specification (Knossos Wm 1707). Herodotus and Thucydides speak of different places originally called “Aiolis” in mainland Greece (Hdt. 7.176.4; Thuc. 3.102.5). The Homeric Hymn to Apollo (37) makes the Lesbian king a descendant of an

“Aiolos,” a Thessalian king and son of Hellen (see HELLENES). Other sources say that the Aiolians came to Tenedos, the Troad, and Kyme from BOIOTIA and LOKRIS, led by Orestes or his son Penthilos (Rose 2008: 402). Intrusive Protogeometric pottery and gray wares distinctive of “Aiolis” have both been seen as confirmation of Aiolian migration and early settlements, but recent reassessments suggest that the “Aiolian” idea may have been the product of archaic- and classical-period ethnogenesis alongside the formation of other regional identities (Parker 2008; Rose 2008). SEE ALSO: Ethnicity, Greek and Roman; Ethnogenesis; Ionian Migration; Migration.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Gschnitzer, F. and Schwertheim, E.(1996) “Aioleis.” New Pauly 1: 336–41. Hertel, D. (2007) “Der aiolische Siedlungsraum ¨ bergang von der Bronze–zur (Aiolia) am U Eisenzeit.” In J. Cobet, V. von Graeve, W.-D. Niemeier, and K. Zimmermann, eds., Fru¨hes Ionien–Eine Bestandsaufnahme: 97–123. Mainz. Parker, H. N. (2008) “The linguistic case for the Aeolian migration reconsidered.” Hesperia 77: 431–64. Rose, C. B. (2008) “Separating fact from fiction in the Aeolian migration.” Hesperia 77: 399–430. Rubinstein, L. (2004) “Aiolis and south-western Mysia.” In M. H. Hansen and T. H. Nielsen, eds., An inventory of archaic and classical poleis: 1031–52. Oxford.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 245–246. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah02004

1

Aiolis KAAN IREN

Aiolis could be considered in two parts: island and land, which could also be divided into southern and northern Aiolis. Island-Aiolis consists of LESBOS, Nasos, and Tenedos. Southern Aiolis is, broadly speaking, between Smyrnean and Elaitic Gulfs, and Northern Aiolis is the offshore from Elaitic Gulf to Ilion. Etymological roots of the word could be found – with some uncertainty – in Mycenaean language. A dative plural form, Aiwoleusi, may be related to AIOLIANS. On the other hand, Aiwolos – an adjective appropriate to oxen and meaning dappled, glossy, vivid, and quick – may have become Aiolos, mythic progenitor of the Aiolians in later Greek (Jorro 1985: 141–2 s.v. a3-wo-re-u-si and a3-wo-ro). The region Aiolis ˙ was not mentioned during the Dark Age of Greece until the early seventh century BCE in “Works and Days” of Hesiod (lines 635–38) (Rose 2008: 401). Aiolian dialect is considered to be related to Boiotian and Thessalian dialects (Vanschoonwinkel 2006: 130); however, this relation is still open to discussion (Parker 2008). The earliest written Aiolic Greek is from the late seventh century BCE (Parker 2008: 433, 439). Aiolis was populated during the Bronze Age by the native – probably Luwian – tribes. Land-Aiolis is a part of the Seha Land and Wilussa according to the Hittite texts and had connection with Mycenaeans and Hittites. According to tradition, at the end of the Bronze Age different Greek clans departed from Boiotia and Thessaly to North Aegean. The first wave of immigrants arrived at Lesbos. The second wave settled later on the West Anatolian coast between Elaitic and Smyrnean Gulfs (Vanschoonwinkel 2006: 130–2). However, some reject this narrative (Rose 2008). The Aiolians living on Lesbos expanded soon to the northwards to Tenedos and the other minor offshore islands; also the coast of Troad

was already invaded by the Aiolians before the seventh century BCE. South Aiolians formed a league including twelve cities: which are Aigiroessa, Aigai, Killa, Larisa, Neontheichos, Gryneion, Myrina, KYME, Pitane, Notion, Temnos, and SMYRNA; they soon lost Smyrna, which was captured by Ionians according to ancient authors. The localization of the some Aiolian cities (e.g., Aigiroessa, Killa, and Notion) is still uncertain. The sanctuary of Apollo in Gryneion was the headquarters of the league, of which the date of establishment is obscure. Some cities, like Phokaia, Leukai, and Smyrna, were not considered Aiolian, although they were settled on the boundary of Aiolis. Except for Lesbos and possibly Kyme, the Aiolian regional economy was more agricultural than maritime. The Aiolians were generally willing to compromise when threatened by the neighboring Ionians, Phrygians, Lydians, and Persians. The Phrygian king MIDAS had an Aiolian wife, Demodike/Hermodike, who was the daughter of Agamemnon, the king of Kyme. Lydian kings also had good relationships with Kyme and at least Southern Aiolis was subjugated to the Lydian rule in the first half of the sixth century BCE without any resistance (Iren 2003: 43–6). After the fall of the Lydian Empire, Aiolians were subsumed under the Persian Empire. Aiolians put 60 (or 40) ships into the service of the Persian king Xerxes during his expedition against Greece in 480 BCE (Hdt. 7. 95; Diod. Sic. 11.3). After the defeat of Xerxes the Aiolian cities became members of the DELIAN LEAGUE. After the end of the Peloponnesian war, the Aiolian cities came again under the control of the Persian satrapies throughout the fourth century. At the end of the fourth century ANTIGONOS I MONOPHTHALMOS formed a League of the Aiolian cities with its center at ILION. Aiolis was the scene of a continuous conflict between Seleucids and Attalids until it became a Roman province in 129 BCE. Two successively stronger earthquakes, first in 17 CE and then 105,

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 246–248. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah14011

2

Imbros os

nik

a Gr

N Ilion

Tenedos

Hamaxitos Smintheion

Skepsis ndros a m Ska Neandria Kebrene Kolonai Lamponeia Antandros Gargara Assos

Sigia

AEGEAN SEA

Methymna

Adramytteion

Hekatonnesoi Nasos

Antissa

Arisba

Eresos Lesbos

Pergamon Pyrrha

Atarneus Mytilene

ikos Ka

Autokane Pitane Elaia Gryneion Aigai Myrina Kyme Larisa Temnos Phokaia

Neonteichos

He

rmo

s

Leukai Smyrna Aiolis

Chios Erythrai

Klazomenai

Scale 1 : 1.500.000 0 miles 0 km. 10

10

20 20

30

30 40

50

40 60

Figure 1 Aiolis and Aiolians.

severely damaged the Aiolian cities and the economy of the district (Tac. Ann. 2. 47; Oros. 7. 12. 5). Some of the Aiolian cities were already deserted in the Roman period (Plin. HN 5.121). Aiolis was incorporated after 395 CE in the Eastern Roman Empire, in which it was at the late fifth century CE a part of the dioecesis of Asia. Aiolians developed toward the end of the seventh century BCE a peculiar style of masonry with polygonal stones, a kind of column capital

with vertical rising volutes and distinctive decorations – like Lesbian and Aiolic kymations – in their architecture. Aiolian potters produced mainly gray ware and apparently started to paint their characteristic pottery toward the end of the eighth century BCE (Iren 2003, 2008). The most famous natives of Aiolis are ALKAIOS OF MYTILENE and SAPPHO in music and poetry, AUTOLYCUS OF PITANE in mathematics and astronomy.

3 SEE ALSO:

Architecture, Greek; Asia, Roman province of; Asia Minor; Kolophon; Mysia; Troad.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Dog˘er, E. (1998) ˙Ilk ˙Iskanlardan Yunan ˙I¸sgaline kadar Menemen ya da Tarhaniyat Tarihi. I˙zmir. Iren, K. (2003) Aiolische orientalisierende Keramik. Istanbul. Iren, K. (2008) “Dark Age pottery from southern Aiolis.” In D. Brandherm and M. Trachsel, eds., New dawn for the Dark Age? Shfting paradigms in Mediterranean Iron Age chronology. Proceedings

of XV. World Congress Lisbon 4–9 September 2006: 29–43. Oxford. Jorro, F. A. (1985) Diccionario Griego-Espan˜ol. Diccionario Mice´nico I. Madrid. Parker, H. N. (2008) “The linguistic case for the Aiolian migration.” Hesperia 77: 431–64. Rose, C. B. (2008) “Separating fact from fiction in the Aiolian Migration.” Hesperia 77: 399–430. Vanschoonwinkel, J. (2006) “Greek migrations to Aegean Anatolia in the early Dark Age.” In G. R. Tsetskhladze, ed., Greek colonisation. An account of Greek colonies and other settlements overseas I: 115–41. Leiden.

1

Aiskhylos of Alexandria DENNIS R. ALLEY

Aiskhylos of ALEXANDRIA is known from a single reference in ATHENAEUS’ Deipnosophistai (Ath. D.P. 13.72.599.E = FGrH 488, T1). Athenaeus cites him as the author of an epic poem on Messenia and calls him a well-educated man (ἀνὴρ εὐπαίδευτος). Aiskhylos’ date has remained elusive. Lloyd-Jones and Parsons (1983: 4) speculated that the author of the Messeniaka cited by Athenaeus may be the same included on a Thespian inscription dating to the late third century BCE (Syll.3 457 = IThesp. 156). Alan Cameron, however, supposes he might have been Roman in date (Cameron 1995: 301). If Lloyd-Jones’ identification of Aiskhylos with the figure named on the third-century inscription is correct, the content of his work would fit well into the Messenian cultural revival following the re-foundation of the city in the fourth century. As Ceclia Nobili has observed (2016: 34–40), poetry, particularly elegiac, seems to have played an important role in the formation of Messenian identity in the wake of their independence from Spartan rule.

Without confirmation of the author’s date, however, any time between the foundation of Alexandria and the second century CE must remain a possibility for his period of activity. For a text and commentary on the Athenaeus passage citing Aiskhylos see Bayliss (2016). SEE ALSO:

Scholarship, Hellenistic.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Alcock, S. (1999) “The pseudo-history of Messenia unplugged.” Transactions of the American Philological Association 129: 333–41. Bayliss, A. (2016) “Aischylos of Alexandria (488).” In I. Worthington, ed., Brill’s New Jacoby. Brill Online. Cameron, A. (1995) Callimachus and his critics. Princeton. Figueira, T. (1999) “The evolution of the Messenian identity.” In S. Hodkinson and A. Powell, eds., Sparta. New perspectives: 211–44. London. Lloyd-Jones, H. and Parsons, P. J., eds. (1983) Supplementum hellenisticum. Berlin. Nobili, C. (2016) “Choral elegy: the tyranny of the handbook.” In C. Carey and L. Swift, eds., Iambus and elegy: new approaches: 33–55. Oxford.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, and Andrew Erskine. © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Published 2017 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah30554

1

Aisopos (FGrH 187A)

SEE ALSO:

Mithradates I–VI of Pontos; Pontos.

CHARLES GOLDBERG

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS

Aisopos, according to the SUDA, was a scribal secretary of the Hellenistic king Mithradates VI Eupator of Pontos (123 or 120–63 BCE). He wrote an encomium to the king, from which nothing survives, as well as a work On Helen, from which the Suda provides a brief fragment.

Bucher, G. S. (2007–) “Aisopos.” Brill’s New Jacoby 187 A. Leiden. Jacoby, F. (1923–) “Aisopos.” Die Fragmente der griechischen Historiker 187 A. Leiden. Suda, s.v. “Aisopos.”

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner. © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Published 2015 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah26170

1

Aisymnetes ROBERT W. WALLACE

Aisymneteai were obscure, mainly Archaic officials or rulers seemingly associated with the demos and mediation; the etymology is unknown. Among Homer’s Phaeacians nine aisymnetai, demioi (“from the people”), “managed [presseskon] everything well in contests/ gatherings” (Od. 8.258–60). Homer’s imperfect verb indicates that they were not ad hoc; despite scholastic suggestions, nowhere do they arbitrate contests (contrast brabeus; Achilles in Il. 23.270–897). At Mytilene in 597/6 BCE, the demos chose Pittakos as aisymnetes for ten years, to govern and mediate between mass and elite. Quoting Pittakos’ enemy Alkaios (who slanderously brands him “tyrant”), Aristotle (Pol. 1285a) calls aisymnetai “elected tyrants accepted by a willing populace,” not hereditary, and with variable terms of office. Overthrowing MILETOS’ monarchy by 525 after murderous civic strife, “the demos elected” Epimenes aisymnetes (Nic. Dam. FGrH 90 F 53). Henceforward, one of the molpoi (an Apollonian music society) was chosen as eponymous aisymnetes. In fourth- or third-century NAXOS, two eponymous officials also bore this title. About 500, aisymnetai arbitrated strife at Selinous. An early fifth-century inscription from TEOS forbids the appointment

of an aisymnetes even if the majority (polloi) wish it. Established democratic poleis had little need for aisymnetai. Finally, according to Pausanias (7.20.1–2) the attendants of Dionysos Aisymnetes at Patras – a cult reinforcing the SYNOECISM of three communities – “number nine men whom the demos chooses from everyone.” Pausanias (1.43.3) garbles a tale that after the Megarians overthrew their king, Delphi told an aisymnetes they would prosper “if they took counsel with the majority.” About 650–560, MEGARA saw much popular turmoil. SEE ALSO: Alkaios of Mytilene; Mytilene; Stasis; Tyranny.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Faraguna, M. (2005) “La figura dell’aisymnetes tra realta` storica e teoria politica.” In R. W. Wallace and M. Gagarin, eds., Symposion 2001. Akten der Gesellschaft fu¨r griechische und hellenistische Rechtsgeschichte: 321–38. Vienna. Sherk, R. (1990, 1992) “The eponymous officials of Greek cities: mainland Greece and the adjacent islands.” Zeitschrift fu¨r Papyrologie und Epigraphik 84: 275–6 (Naxos); 93: 230–2 (Miletos), 235 (Olbia), 246 (Sinope). Wallace, R. W. (2009) “Charismatic leaders.” In K. A. Raaflaub and H. van Wees, eds., A companion to Archaic Greece: 411–26. Oxford.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 248–249. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah04015

1

Aithiopia: Appendix (FGrH 673) CRAIGE B. CHAMPION

Aithiopia: Appendix (FGrH 673) is a collection of ancient references to Aithiopia (ETHIOPIA) in ancient Greek and Latin texts, compiled by Felix Jacoby in Die Fragmente der griechischen Historiker. The Appendix is supplemented by the studies of Desanges (1962, 1978) and Burstein (1995), who also produced a new edition for Brill’s New Jacoby. It is composed of 166 fragments from a wide and diverse range of ancient Greek and Latin writers, from Homer to Photius in the ninth century CE. The ancient discourse on Aithiopia began in earnest with HERODOTUS, and interest in Aithiopia seems to have peaked in the second century CE. Greeks

and Romans were interested in both the historical Aithiopia (remote from them, geographically speaking) and the mythological and poetical Aithiopia (cf. Romm 1992). SEE ALSO:

Barbarians; Historiography, Greek and Roman; Nubia.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Burstein, S. M. (1995) Graeco-Africana: Studies in the history of Greek relations with Egypt and Nubia. New Rochelle. Desanges, J. (1962) Catalogue des tribus africaines de l’Antiquité classique à l’ouest du Nil. Dakar. Desanges, J. (1978) Recherches sur l’activité des méditerranéens aux confins de l’Afrique. Paris. Romm, J. S. (1992) The edges of the earth in ancient thought. Princeton.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner. © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Published 2016 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah30182

1

Aitia GEORGINA M. LONGLEY

Aitia means “cause,” “accusation,” “responsibility,” “reason/motive.” Derived from the adjective aitios, this noun appeared at a later date than to aition or the related verb aitiasthai. From the fifth century onwards it was associated with historical causation and explanation; it occurs in HERODOTUS’ preface and in the opening sections of THUCYDIDES (1.23.5). It frequently denotes the cause of an event, for instance a war or some other disaster (Thuc. 1.55.2; Dem. Phil. 3.3; Arist. NE 1109a5). Apart from “cause,” in this context aitia could also denote the reason or motive for an action (Hdt. 1.1, 7.213.3; Xen. Hell. 2.2.10). Thucydides also used the term prophasis for “cause” or “reason.” Occasionally this noun implies “alleged reason” or “pretext.” In his schema for analyzing events and their causes, POLYBIUS more explicitly distinguished the pretext

(prophasis) and the beginning – that is, the first event(s) (arche) – from aitia, which denotes the actual cause – what gave rise to the war or action being conceived (3.6). In a legal context aitia refers to the “charge/ accusation” or to “guilt” (Aesch. 3.139). This meaning is also to be found in a dramatic context, especially tragedy, emphasizing the responsibility and guilt of a character (e.g., Soph. Aj. 28). SEE ALSO: Aeschines; Aristotle; Causation, historical; Demosthenes, orator; Sophocles; Tragedy, Greek; Xenophon.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Darbo-Peschanski, C. (2004) “Αi᾽ tίa.” In Lexicon historiographicum graecum et latinum, vol. 1: 22–32. Pisa. Pearson, L. (1952) “Prophasis and aitia.” Transactions of the American Philological Association 83: 205–23.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print page 249. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah08003

1

Aitolia JOSEPH B. SCHOLTEN

Aitolia is a region in the west central Greek mainland. Inhabited by the late Paleolithic era, if not earlier, it had a large population by the Classical and Hellenistic ages (Thuc. 3.94.4). Aitolia’s rugged topography, however, had a profound impact on the sociopolitical development of these inhabitants – the Aitolians – whose behaviors were frequently seen by the outside Greek world as uncouth, and sometimes as un-Hellenic. The shifting boundaries of what constituted “Aitolia” underscore the fluidity of geographic and group identity in antiquity. The Homeric world considered Aitolia the central portion of the north coast of the CORINTHIAN GULF and its hinterlands, extending from the western end of the alluvial plain at the mouth of the Euvinos River eastward to Cape Antirrhion (or just beyond) and north across the Arakynthos coastal ridge to the Lake Trichonis basin. The narrow coastal plain held two notable settlements: Pleuron and Kalydon, the latter home to the hero Meleager and scene of the Boar Hunt of myth (Hom. Il. 2.638–44, 9.529). Thucydides, however, viewed “Aitolia” as the mostly mountainous hinterland north and east of its Homeric forebear. To the northeast, fifthcentury Aitolia stretched to the western faces of Mts. Oita and Gkiona, abutting the lands of the Oitaians, Dorians of the Metropolis, and the West (Ozolian) Lokrians. To the south, however, Aitolia now only reached the Arakynthos– Naupaktia mountain ridges; the Corinthian Gulf coast, including Pleuron, Kalydon, and a new site, NAUPAKTOS, near the mouth of the Daphnos (modern Mornos) River further east, were not “Aitolian.” The Kalydon–Pleuron region, in fact, had acquired a distinct identity: “Aiolis” (Bommelje´ 1988). The western and northern limits of fifth-century Aitolia are less clear. The central and eastern shores of Lake Trichonis were probably still Aitolian. The sanctuary of Apollo at Thermon, later site of the

annual gathering of the Aitolian assembly on the occasion of the autumn Thermika festival (Polyb. 5.8.5), was located on a plateau at the east end of the lake, and had received communal embellishment already in the Archaic era. The lake shore further west, however, which opened onto the lower Acheloos River valley, was – according to Thucydides – Akarnanian (Thuc. 2.102.2). Our fifth-century sources place the northern boundary of Aitolia in the Vardousia mountains that form the south edge of the Spercheios River valley west of Mount Oita, and whose highest peak is Mount Korax. Fourth-century reports add that, at the head of the Spercheios valley, the borderland turned north of Mount Tymphristos, embracing modern Karpenisi and the Karpenisiotis River valley, before turning west again to the upper reaches of the Acheloos and its tributaries (Ps.-Skylax 35 (GGM I.38); cf. Strabo 10.2.1 (¼ C450)). The territorial expansion of the AITOLIAN LEAGUE (koinon of the Aitolians) in the fourth and third centuries further complicates this picture. By Polybius’ day, the Corinthian Gulf coast from the Acheloos Delta to the Krissaic Gulf below Delphi was considered Aitolian, as were AMPHILOCHIA and Agraia in the middle and the upper Acheloos Valley (Polyb. 18.5.7; cf. Thuc. 3.106.3, 3.111.4, 3.114.2–3, 4.77.2). The resulting land mass was roughly triangular, with Tymphristos as its apex, and a line running from just west of AMPHISSA to the mouth of the Acheloos as its base. Later geographical writers such as Strabo distinguished between “ancient” (archaia) Aitolia and “annexed” (epiktetos) Aitolia – the former corresponding to Homer’s notions, the latter to Thucydides’ (Strabo 10.2.3–7). Our understanding of Aitolia’s internal structure is equally dependent on outside voices, and so incomplete. Thucydides, for example, says that Aitolia’s population was a nation (ETHNOS); that is, that it had a shared identity. The ethnos was made up of three large units: the Apodotai, the Ophiones, and the Eurytanians. Thucydides also names two subsections of the Ophiones: the Bomieis and Kallieis (Thuc.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 249–251. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah14012

2 3.94.5, 3.96.3). All these Aitolians, according to Thucydides, lived in scattered, unwalled villages (komai). Low-intensity archaeological survey indicates that in the more remote reaches of the Daphnos/Mornos and Euvinos River valleys, and in the northerly region around Karpenisi, Thucydides’ picture of Aitolia’s settlement pattern is accurate. Further, the fortifications found at so many Aitolian sites – especially those ringing Lake Trichonis such as Agrinion and the eponymous Trichonion – date from the Hellenistic era, while the size of these places in the Classical era is hard to judge. But Thucydides’ description of the settlement at Aigition suggests, and its extant remains confirm, that it was a central place for surrounding communities, and so no mere remote village. A century later and not many miles to the north of Aigition, another site had certainly reached the more sophisticated stage of development of a polis, as evidenced both by its remains and its name: Kalliopolis (that is, “polis of the Kallies,” sometimes rendered “Kallion”). Later writers and Aitolian documents both use the term polis when describing any significant settlement within Aitolia (Funke 1997). Comments on Aitolian behaviors by Thucydides and other writers are of equally mixed value. Thucydides (1.5.3–6.2) includes the Aitolians among those he censures for maintaining the archaic custom of carrying arms in public, and accepting brigandage as a normal, honorable economic activity. He also claims that a large segment of the Aitolian population is reputed to speak a form of Greek that is barely intelligible, and to practice culinary habits that are practically feral (Thuc. 3.94.4–5). Euripides shares Thucydides’ doubts about the full Hellenicity of the Aitolians (Phoen. 138, where the attire of the Aitolian Tydeus is described as “semi-barbarous”), while Aristophanes uses Aitolia as a touchstone for avarice (Eq. 79). Polybius heartily concurs with all these assessments of the Aitolians’ character (Polyb. 2.45.1, 4.3.1).

These are not unbiased witnesses, however (Antonetti 1990b) and their complaints amount to a claim that, on the spectrum of acceptable behaviors among Greeks, Aitolians lay closer to the Homeric than the Aristotelian end. Leading artists of the Hellenistic era did not disdain Aitolian patronage (Plin. (E) HN 36.4, 9–10). And the Aitolian communities of that age picked up the mantle of Greek political experimentation to produce in their koinon one of the most adaptable, sophisticated, and historically influential state forms from antiquity. At the end of the Roman civil wars of the Late Republic, AUGUSTUS relocated many of the communities of Aitolia to populate his new provincial center for west Greece, Nikopolis. The notion that Aitolia was thereafter a “deserted and untilled land,” however, is overdrawn, reflecting the same sort of unfamiliarity with Aitolia and its people among later Roman writers found in our sources for earlier stages in its history. SEE ALSO: Fulvius Nobilior, Marcus; Geography; Thermon.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Antonetti, C. (1990a) “Il santuario apollineo di Termo in Etolia.” In M.-M. Mactoux and E. Geny, eds., Me´langes P. Le´veˆque, vol. 4: 1–28. Paris. Antonetti, C. (1990b) Les E´toliens: image et religion. Paris. Bakhuizen, S. C. (1993–4) “Veloukhovo.” Archaeological Reports: 33–5. Bommelje´, L. S. (1988) “Aeolis in Aetolia: Thuc. 3.102.5 and the origins of the Aetolian ethnos.” Historia 37: 297–316. Bommelje´, L. S. and Vroom, J. (1995) “‘Deserted and untilled land’: Aetolia in Roman times.” Pharos 3: 67–130. Bommelje´, L. S., Doorn, P. K., Deylius, M., et al. (1987) Aetolia and the Aetolians. Utrecht. Funke, P. (1997) “Polisgenese und Urbanisierung in Aitolien im 5. and 4. Jh. v. Chr.” In M. H. Hansen, ed., Acts of the Copenhagen Polis Center, vol. 4: 145–88. Copenhagen.

3 Herbert, S. and Kase, E. (1977) “Kallion.” Αrwaiοlοgikο´n Delti´οn 32B: 114–15. Papapostolou, I. A. (1983–98) “Yέrmος.” Ergon. Pritchett, W. K. (1991–2) Studies in ancient Greek topography, Parts 7–8. Amsterdam.

Pritchett, W. K. (1996) Greek archives, cults, and topography. Amsterdam. Scholten, J. B. (2000) The politics of plunder: Aitolians and their koinon in the early Hellenistic era, ca. 279–217 B.C. Berkeley.

1

Aitolian League CLAUDIA ANTONETTI AND EDOARDO CAVALLI

The Aitolian League was a confederation of Greek tribes and cities, which flourished especially in the third century BCE; originally constituted on a territorial and ethnic basis (the Aitolian ethnos, Western Greece), after the death of Alexander the Great it gradually expanded in central Greece, eventually clashing with many of the great powers of the time – Rome included. Despite recent progress in archaeological research, too little is known of pre-Classical Aitolia: it is unclear whether the Aitolian League (koinon or ethnos ton Aitolon, hoi Aitoloi) already existed in the Archaic age, the time when the most relevant regional sanctuaries developed, those of Thermon (sacral center of the Aitolian ethnos, which from the fourth century BCE was the heart of the League’s financial and political administration: Polyb. 5.8; see ETHNOS) and Kalydon (Antonetti 1990), or what kind of relation, if any, connected the Aitolian interior and the coastal cities mentioned in the Catalogue of Ships (Hom. Il. 2.638–40: Pleuron, Olenos, Pylene, Chalkis, Kalydon; cf. Hellan. FGrH 4 F 118 and Strabo 10.2.3: the seacoast was the “Old Aitolia,” while the inland region was called “Aitolia epiktetos,” that is to say “acquired,” and extended east and north and towards the mountains). In the last quarter of the fifth century BCE Kalydon and Pleuron were independent and labeled as “Aiolic” (Thuc. 3.102.5; Antonetti 2005). In the 5th century BCE western Greece was a theater of hegemonic conflicts between CORINTH, SPARTA, and ATHENS: the latter tore Chalkis from Corinth’s hands in 455 (Thuc. 1.108.5); then, during the PELOPONNESIAN WAR, attacked Aitolia in 426 at the instance of the Messenians settled in Naupaktos, but suffered defeat near Aigition (Thuc. 3.94–8). According to Thucydides, on that occasion the Aitolians sent representatives of the League’s main tribes (ethne) – Apodotoi, Ophioneis,

and Eurytanes – to Corinth and Sparta asking for help (Thuc. 3.100; cf. 94.5), and the most faraway Aitolian ethne – Bomieis and Kallieis, minor tribal subdivisions of the Ophieis – joined resistance against Athens (Thuc. 3.96.3). Most scholars consider these passages as proof the League originally was a cantonal State (Stammesstaat: Funke 1997; Freitag, Funke, and Moustakis 2004), while others think Aitolia had always been a federal State (Bundesstaat), so the third-century Aitolian League would be the natural evolution of the fifth-century League (Sordi 1953). Scholars almost unanimously see a definite political and institutional development of the Aitolian League between the fifth and the fourth century, with clear consequences in interstate relations (Antonetti 2010). From the fifth century the Aitolians had tried to get access to the sea; in 426 they took possession of Molykreion (Thuc. 3.102.2; Ps.-Skylax 35) and during the fourth century they laid hands on the whole coast, from Achelous’ delta to Naupaktos. The final years of the fifth century saw a conflict with Sparta, due to the aid the Aitolians had given the Eleans during the Elean War (Diod. Sic. 14.17.9–10), which reveals the koinon’s autonomy in foreign relations and the actual political functionality of the mythic Aitolian-Elean kinship (syngeneia; Antonetti 2005: 60–1). Thereafter the Aitolian League realigned with Spartan policy during the Corinthian War. In 388 an alliance was made (Xen. Ages. 2.20), but ten years later the Aitolians were not to be found among Sparta’s allies (Diod. Sic. 15.31.2), and in 370, after the battle of Leuktra, they signed a treaty with the Thebans (Diod. Sic. 15.57.1; see EPAMINONDAS), which probably led to the annexation of Kalydon to the koinon (Diod. Sic. 15.75.2). Naupaktos came under Aitolian control probably after the battle of Chaeronea (see CHAERONEA, BATTLE OF), as a consequence of controversial negotiations with Philip II of Macedonia (Ps.-Skylax 35; Ps.-Skymnos 478–9; Strabo 3.4.7; Landucci Gattinoni 2004: 112–20; see

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 251–256. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah09008

2 PHILIP II OF MACEDON; NAUPAKTOS);

the seizure of Oiniadai in the 330s was the final step of the Aitolian occupation of the northern coast of the Western Corinthian Gulf. In 304 a preeminent Pan-Hellenic role was given the League, who acted, alongside the Knidians and Athenians, as an intermediary during the war between Demetrios Poliorketes (see DEMETRIOS I POLIORKETES) and Rhodes (Diod. Sic. 20.99.3). The narrowing of the cultural and ideological gap perceived in the fifth century between Athens and peripheral western Greek ethne, such as the Aitolians (Thuc. 1.5.3–6.2 and 3.94.4–5; cf. Antonetti 1990: 72–6, 78–86), was complete in the fourth century. In 367 the Athenians addressed an official protest to the League’s federal government, requesting that the Aitolian city of Trichonion release two sacral legates (spondophoroi) unfairly kept prisoner (Rhodes and Osborne 2003: 35): in the text of the decree the Aitolians are said to be sharing the Eleusinian cult and the Mysteries of the Goddesses, as true Hellenes (Antonetti 2010). Resisting Macedonian expansionism with every effort (Landucci Gattinoni 2004: 121–2), and opportunely making alliance with Athens (on two occasions at least: during the Lamian War, 323: Diod. Sic. 18.11.1; IG II2 370; Schmitt 1969: no. 413; and in the course of the campaigns CASSANDER led in central Greece: Paus. 1.26.3; IG II2 358; Funke 1997: 161, 182) and Boiotia (early third century: Schmitt 1969: no. 463 see Knoepfler 2007), by the first decade of the third century the League’s influence had stretched over the original borders of the koinon – in Western Lokris, at Herakleia Trachinia, at Delphi. How and when the Aitolians would “occupy” the Pythian sanctuary at Delphi is unclear. In 289 Demetrios Poliorketes declared war upon the League in order to “free” Apollo’s sanctuary from the invader (Plut. Demetr. 40.7–8; Pyrrh. 7.4). Demetrios’ campaigns involved PYRRHOS king of Epirus and ended in the same year with a peace treaty between the two monarchs (Plut. Demetr. 43.2; Pyrrh. 10.2–5). Aitolia too would

come to terms with Demetrios (Lefe`vre 1998); yet the Aitolians had been granted priority in consulting the oracle (promanteia) between 338/7 and 315 (FD 4.399¼SEG 50.503). It seems that the Aitolian approach to Delphi and the Amphictyony (see AMPHICTYONY, DELPHIC) was progressive and probably nearly pacific. Essential to the koinon’s successful debut on the political stage was a group of Gauls, who invaded Central Greece in 280: the Aitolian army stopped them near Kallipolis in 279, saving Delphi from plundering (Paus. 1.4.2; 16.2; 10.19–23). After this victory, the Aitolians dedicated at Delphi and at Thermon statues and other offerings (Paus. 10.15.2; 16.4; 18.7, Gallic arms), advertising their own role as saviors and gaining in return new respect from the Hellenistic powers (some fifty years later, the personification of Aitolia sitting on the trophies of the victory on the Gauls showed up on the gold and silver coins of the League; Tsangari 2007: 73–81, plates XXIII–XXVIII); for their part, the Amphictyons established in the sanctuary the Soteria, games in honor of Apollo Soter (i.e., “the Rescuer”; the traditional explanation of the name as the “games of salvation” is not to be accepted anymore; Champion 1995; Chaniotis 2005: 146, 228), which were to be reorganized by the Aitolians themselves by the mid-third century. Greek States were definitely well-disposed towards the koinon, concluding alliances with it (e.g., Athens: Schmitt 1969: no. 470) or directly joining it through treaties of isopolity (see ISOPOLITEIA), which granted federal citizenship to inhabitants of states that did not share a border with Aitolian territory, or else of sympolity (see SYMPOLITEIA), which created tighter federal links between the koinon and cities or confederations on the borders of Aitolia: such a mechanism enabled the League to progressively annex most of central Greece, while formally respecting political identities (see below). From the Aitolian seats attested within the Amphictyonic Assembly at Delphi we can infer that the koinon annexed in succession Dolopes, Malians, East-Lokrians,

3 Dorians, Phokians, and Phthiotic Achaians (Scholten 2000: 240–52). In 262 it was Akarnania’s turn to join the League (Schmitt 1969: no. 480) – and about ten years later the Aitolians shared the Akarnanian territory with Epirus, as the result of an alliance with Alexander II of Epirus (Polyb. 9.34.7; Schmitt 1969: no. 485) (see ALEXANDER II OF EPIRUS). By the end of the century the area controlled by the League was to be enlarged further, with the victory over the Boiotians at Chaeronea in 245 (Plut. Arat. 16; Polyb. 20.4–5), treaties with several cities of the Aegean Sea and of Asia Minor (Funke 2000; 2008), the final annexation of Ambrakia, Amphilochia and Kephallenia (IG IX I2 1: XXIII–XXV), finally the incursions into Arcadia and Achaia (Polyb. 4.34; 70; 77; 9.34). The Aitolian expansion caused tensions with Macedonia. About 270 Aitolia made an alliance with ANTIGONOS II GONATAS, which lasted till his death in 240 or 238, but in the next ten years the Aitolian League supported the Achaian League against Demetrios II of Macedonia; when he died the anti-Macedonian coalition gained a part of Thessaly, but in 228 Demetrios’ successor, ANTIGONOS III DOSON, won it back easily and invaded Phokis and Doris (SEG 38.1476 D). In 220 new Aitolian incursions into Achaian territory led to a conflict with the new king, PHILIP V OF MACEDON, and the states that had joined the HELLENIC ALLIANCE founded by Antigonos Doson: Philip chased the Aitolians away from the Peloponnese and in 218 and 207 attacked Thermon, totally unexpectedly (Polyb. 5.8; 11.7.2). In 212/1 the Aitolian League and Rome drew up a treaty which gave Akarnania back to the Aitolians (Livy 26.24; Schmitt 1969: no. 536; Hopital 1964; Antonetti and Baldassarra 2004: 27 and n. 63), hence opening a brand new door to Roman intervention in Greece: between 200 and 197 the Aitolian League asked the Romans for help against Macedon, providing decisive backing at Kynoskephalai (197: Polyb. 18.21–2) (see KYNOSKEPHALAI, BATTLE OF); but relations with Rome deteriorated rapidly: the partition of the territory after Kynoskephalai

left the Aitolians unsatisfied, for the Romans gave Phokis, Western Lokris, and Dolopia to the Aitolians, but not the other territories of Thessaly, which the Aitolians saw as an infringement of the terms of the treaty drawn up in 212 (Schmitt 1969: no. 536.15–20 to be confronted with Polyb. 18.38; Hopital 1964). So in 192 the Aitolians asked ANTIOCHOS III MEGAS for help in fighting the Romans (see DIKAIARCHOS, AITOLIAN). The Aitolian army was routed at Thermopylai, while Antiochos was defeated at Magnesia (Livy 30.1; 36.11; 38.7; Paus. 10.18.1). With the peace imposed by Manius Acilius Glabrio in 189 the Aitolian League lost its autonomy in foreign relations and Aitolian territory was drastically reduced – Ambrakia, Phokis, Malis, Dolopia, and Phtiotis were lost for good, as was Delphi (see ACILIUS GLABRIO, MANIUS). The heavy war reparations paid to Rome resulted in the collapse of the League’s economy, long since in the doldrums (Polyb. 21.32; Livy 41.25.1; 42.2, 4, 5.7, 12, 40; Syll. 2.643.8-11; see SKOPAS, AITOLIAN). In 167 BCE another peace treaty led to the reduction of Aitolia to her ancient tribal territory, Stratos included but without Oiniadai (Polyb. 21.32), and to the massive deportation of the enemies of Rome (Livy 45.28). The koinon survived in the 1st century 2 BCE (IG IX I 1, 139) but was totally ineffective: in 57/56 Dolopes and Agraeans assaulted Stratos, Arsinoeia, and Naupaktos, meeting no resistance (Cic. Pis. 91); in 49, 48 and 31 Aitolia was the scene of Roman civil wars (Caes. B Civ. 3.34–5) and suffered the consequences of Antonius’ defeat at Actium: at the behest of AUGUSTUS it was annexed to Provincia Achaia (Strabo 17.3.25), part of the Aitolian population being deported to NIKOPOLIS (Paus. 7.18.8); several Amphictyonic seats once in Aitolian hands were given to the new city (Paus. 10.8.4), and the coastal region was assigned to the Colonia Augusta Achaica Patrensis (see PATRAI), from which groups of veterans came and settled in Naupaktos and Kalydon (CIL III 509; SEG 25.621; CIL III Add. 255; Strauch 1993: 126–32, 187–9).

4 The main institution of the Aitolian koinon was the primary assembly, probably held twice a year (regularly in Thermon during the autumn Thermika festivals: IG IX I2 1, 187; Polyb. 5.8.5; and in spring by the Panaitolika: IG IX I2 1, 192; Livy 31.29.1; 35.32.7). All federal citizens could attend it. Beside this broader assembly there existed a council of delegates from Aitolian cities and tribes, the synedrion; this council was however still too huge to be really effective: a more restricted council, the apokletoi, acted as a permanent committee under the chairmanship of the strategos (Polyb. 20.1; Livy 35.34.2; 35.4; 36.28). We know little about federal magistrates: they were elected annually in autumn during the Thermika (Ephoros FGrH 70 F 122). The eponymous officer was the head of the army, the strategos; by his side (from the 260s) were the hipparchos, the head of the cavalry, and the grammateus, responsible for the archives of the League (from the late second century BCE there were two grammateis; Grainger 1999: 169–71); we know also of an agonothetes in charge of supervising the Soteria and of other magistrates, such as the boularchoi, the nomographoi, the tamiai, or the epilektarchoi, whose real responsibilities have not been made clear yet (IG IX I2 1, 3). We know even less about civic magistrates and institutions. Some honorific decrees from second-century Kallipolis show an Aitolian city – not the League – conferring proxenia (Rousset 2006: 387–406; 410–11); moreover, a little Kallipolitan depot of seals has been found, which permits us to piece together a wider net of connections between the family of two Kallipolitan strategoi of the Aitolian League, Hagetas and Lochagos, and the Hellenistic world – from Epirus to Crete and the kingdoms of Pergamon, Syria, and Egypt – from ca. 270–260 to ca. 170–160 (Pantos 1985: 427–43; Rousset 2006: 411–12). The prerogatives and the political range of Aitolian cities were probably more developed than ancient sources allow us to see. SEE ALSO: Aitolia; Demetrios II (Macedonian king); Koinon; Thermon.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Antonetti, C. (1990) Les E´toliens. Image et religion. Paris-Besanc¸on. Antonetti, C. (2005) “La tradizione eolica in Etolia.” In A. Mele, M. L. Napolitano, and A. Visconti, eds., Eoli ed Eolide tra madrepatria e colonie: 55–70. Naples. Antonetti, C. (2010) “Il Koinon etolico di eta` classica: dinamiche interne e relazioni interstatali.” In C. Antonetti, ed., Lo spazio ionico e le comunita` della Grecia nord-occidentale. Territorio, societa`, istituzioni. Atti del Convegno Internazionale (Venezia, 7-9 gennaio 2010): 163–80. Pisa. Antonetti, C. and Baldassarra, D. (2004) “Aggiornamento archeologico-epigrafico e nuove prospettive di ricerca per l’Etolia e l’Acarnania.” Epigraphica 66: 9–35. Champion, C. (1995) “The Soteria at Delphi: Aitolian propaganda in the epigraphical record.” American Journal of Philology 116, 2: 213–20. Chaniotis, A. (2005) War in the Hellenistic world: a social and cultural history. Oxford. Freitag, K., Funke, P., and Moustakis, N. (2004) “Aitolia.” In M. H. Hansen and T. H. Nielsen, eds., An inventory of archaic and classical poleis. An investigation conducted by the Copenhagen Polis Centre for the Danish National Research Foundation: 379–90. Oxford. Funke, P. (1997) “Polisgenese und Urbanisierung in Aitolien im 5. und 4. Jh. v. Chr.” In M. H. Hansen, ed., The polis as an urban centre and as a political community: 145–88. Copenhagen. Funke, P. (2000) “Zur Datierung der aitolischen Bu¨rgerrechtsverleihung an die Bu¨rger von Herakleia am Latmos (IG IX 12, 1, 173).” Chiron 30: 505–17. ¨ ga¨is. Funke, P. (2008) “Die Aitoler in der A Untersuchungen zur sogenannten Seepolitik der Aitoler im 3. Jh. v. Chr.” In E. Winter, ed., Vom Euphrat bis zum Bosporus. Kleinasien in der Antike. Festschrift fu¨r Elmar Schwertheim zum 65. Geburtstag: 253–67. Bonn. Grainger, J. D. (1999) The League of the Aitolians. Leiden. Hopital, R. G. (1964) “Le traite´ romano-e´tolien de 212 avant J.-C.” Revue historique de droit franc¸ais et ´etranger 42: 18–48. Knoepfler, D. (2007) “De Delphes a` Thermos: un te´moignage e´pigraphique me´connu sur le trophe´e galate des E´toliens dans leur capital

5 (le traite´ e´tolo-be´otien).” Comptes Rendus de l’Acade´mie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres: 1215–53. Landucci Gattinoni, F. (2004) “L’Etolia nel protoellenismo: la progressiva centralita` di una periferia ‘semibarbara.’” In G. Vanotti and C. Perassi, eds., In limine: ricerche su marginalita` e periferia nel mondo antico: 105–30. Milan. Lefe`vre, F. (1998) “Traite´ de paix entre De´me´trios Poliorce`te et la confe´de´ration e´tolienne (fin 289?).” Bulletin de Correspondance Helle´nique 122: 109–41. Pantos, P. A. (1985) Ta` sfrag i´ smata t~ Zς Αı᾽tolik~ Zς Κallipo´leoς. Athens. Rhodes, P. J. and Osborne, R., eds. (2003) Greek historical inscriptions: 404–323 BC. Oxford.

Rousset, D. (2006) “Les inscriptions de Kallipolis d’E´tolie.” Bulletin de Correspondance Helle´nique 130: 382–434. Schmitt, H. H. (1969) Die Staatsvertra¨ge des Altertums, vol. 3: Von 338 bis 200 v. Chr. Munich. Scholten, J. (2000) The politics of plunder. Aitolians and their koinon in the early Hellenistic era, 279–217 B.C. Berkeley. Sordi, M. (1953) “Le origini del Koinon etolico.” Acme 6: 419–45 [¼Sordi, M. (2002), Scritti di storia greca: 31–55. Milan]. Strauch, D. (1993) Ro¨mische Politik und griechische Tradition. Die Umgestaltung NordwestGriechenlands unter ro¨mischer Herrschaft. Munich. Tsangari, D. I. (2007) Corpus des monnaies d’or, d’argent et de bronze de la Confe´de´ration ´etolienne. Athens.

1

Aizanoi ¨ LDEN OLIVER HU

Aizanoi is situated in western PHRYGIA close to modern C¸avdarhisar. The name of the city traces back to Azan, the son of the Arcadian king Arkas and the nymph Erato (Paus. 8.4.3). About pre-Hellenistic Aizanoi, practically nothing is known. During the Hellenistic period, the town was alternately Bithynian or Pergamenian, but was won finally by PERGAMON in 183 BCE. Fifty years later it came under Roman rule and merged into the province of Asia. Since the time of Augustus, festivals are known to have been held every four years and financed by private persons. Under the reign of Hadrian, the city was a member of the Panhellenic League. During the Byzantine period, it was a bishop’s seat. Our knowledge of Hellenistic Aizanoi was improved by the German excavations of K. Rheidt (1991–2007). Of particular interest are remains of a house destroyed by fire in the mid-second century BCE. From a first temple of Zeus, probably built under ATTALOS I, nothing has been found, but the Hellenistic cult statue appears on Augustan coins. The well-preserved temple visible today is an Ionic pseudodipteros (Naumann 1979). Its previously accepted date in the second quarter of the second century BCE must now be replaced by a Flavian date in the year 92 CE on account of a recent reconstruction of the dedicatory inscription (Posamentir and Wo¨rrle 2006). Besides the temple, the extensive mostly Roman ruins of Aizanoi consist of a unique

combination of theater and stadium (whose first building phase is now dated to the second half of the first century CE), an agora with a heroon, a round building with the edict on prices by Diocletian, two large baths (one with a gymnasium), a long colonnaded street (the main axis of the city), four bridges, and diverse tombs in a spacious necropolis. Somewhat curious are at least two round buildings in combination with an extra-urban natural sanctuary of Meter Steunene (see CYBELE), which are attested by PAUSANIAS (Paus. 8.4.3; 10.32.3). They may have served for carrying out taurobolia. Research in Aizanoi continues to be carried out by R. von den Hoff and the German Archaeological Institute. SEE ALSO: Edict on prices, Diocletian’s; Taurobolium.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Naumann, R. (1979) Zeustempel zu Aizanoi. Nach den Ausgrabungen von Daniel Krencker und Martin Schede. Berlin. Posamentir, R. and Wo¨rrle, M. (2006) “Der Zeustempel von Aizanoi, ein Grobbau flavischer Zeit.” Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archa¨ologischen Instituts (Istanbul) 56: 227–45. Rheidt, K. (2006) “Aizanoi.” In W. Radt, ed., Stadtgrabungen und Stadtforschungen im westlichen Kleinasien. Geplantes und Erreichtes. Internationales Symposion 6.–7. August 2004 in Bergama (Tu¨rkei): 5–9. Istanbul. Rheidt, K., ed. (2010) Aizanoi und Anatolien. Mainz am Rhein.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 256–257. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah14332

1

Aizanoi OLIVER HÜLDEN

Austrian Archaeological Institute/Austrian Academy of Sciences, Austria

Aizanoi is situated in western PHRYGIA close to modern Çavdarhisar. The name of the city is said to derive from Azan, the son of the Arcadian king Arkas and the nymph Erato (Paus. 8.4.3). Very little is known about preHellenistic Aizanoi. During the Hellenistic period, the town was alternately Bithynian or Pergamenian, but was won finally by PERGAMON in 183 BCE. Fifty years later it came under Roman rule and was part of the province of Asia (see ASIA, ROMAN PROVINCE OF). Since the time of Augustus (see AUGUSTUS (IMPERATOR CAESAR AUGUSTUS)), festivals are known to have been held every four years and to have been financed by private individuals. Under the reign of Hadrian (HADRIAN (TRAIANUS HADRIANUS AUGUSTUS)), the city was a member of the Panhellenic League. During the Byzantine period, it was the seat of a bishop. After the discovery of the site by European travelers in the early nineteenth century, German excavations started in 1926 and continued, with interruptions, until 2009 (Rheidt 2010). The most prominent building is the well-preserved pseudo-dipteral temple of ZEUS, which is built in the Ionic order (Naumann 1979). A date in the second quarter of the second century BCE was previously accepted for this monument, but this was recently superseded by a Flavian date in the year 92 CE on account of a recent reconstruction of the dedicatory inscription (Posamentir and Wörrle 2006). Nothing was found from the previous

phase of the temple, which was probably built under ATTALOS I, but its cult statue appears on Augustan coins. Besides the temple, the extensive ruins of Aizanoi, which are mostly Roman, consist of a unique combination of theater and stadium (the first building phase of this monument is dated to the second half of the first century CE), an AGORA with a heroon, a round market building (macellum) inscribed with the edict on prices by Diocletian (see EDICT ON PRICES, DIOCLETIAN’S), two large bathhouses (one with a gymnasium, see GUMNASIUM, CLASSICAL AND HELLENISTCI TIMES), a long colonnaded street (which was the main axis of the city), four bridges, and diverse tombs in a spacious necropolis. Somewhat curious are at least two round buildings in combination with an extra-urban natural sanctuary of Meter Steunene (see CYBELE),which are mentioned by PAUSANIAS (Paus. 8.4.3; 10.32.3). They may have served for carrying out taurobolia (see TAUROBOLIUM, a ritual sacrifice, in which the blood of a bull was poured down onto a priest in a pit). Research in Aizanoi continues with a Turkish team under the direction of E. Özer (Pamukkale University, Denizli; see Özer 2013, 2016). REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Naumann, R. (1979) Zeustempel zu Aizanoi. Nach den Ausgrabungen von Daniel Krencker und Martin Schede. Berlin. Özer, E., ed. (2013) Aizanoi 1. 2012 yılı kazı ve araştırma raporları. Ankara. Özer, E., ed. (2016) Aizanoi 2. Ankara. Posamentir, R. and Wörrle, M. (2006) “Der Zeustempel von Aizanoi, ein Großbau flavischer Zeit.” MDAI(I) 56: 227–45. Rheidt, K., ed. (2010) Aizanoi und Anatolien. Mainz.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History. Edited by Andrew Erskine, David B. Hollander, and Arietta Papaconstantinou. © 2021 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Published 2021 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah14332.pub2

1

Ajax NIKOLETTA KANAVOU

Name (Greek Aias) borne by two Homeric heroes, known as greater Ajax, son of Telamon (and Periboia or Eriboia), and lesser Ajax, son of Oileus. Τhe Telamonian Ajax, by far the more illustrious of the two, was king of Salamis. His birth was marked by a divine sign (Zeus’ eagle: Hes. Cat. fr. 250 M-W; Pind. Isthm. 6.49–54). He was one of the great Homeric heroes, second only to Achilles (Hom. Il. 2.768–9). Among his attributes in the Iliad are his enormous size and his huge shield. He killed himself in a fit of madness, following his humiliation by Odysseus in the contest for the arms of Achilles (Little Iliad; the story was dramatized in Sophocles’ Ajax; cf. Hom. Od. 11.543–64). In historical times, Ajax was an important heroic figure, with cults in Salamis, Megara, Attica, the Troad, and Byzantium. He was alleged to have given help in the Persian wars (battle of Salamis in 480 BCE) through the Dephic oracle (Hdt. 7.189, 8.64). He had a shrine (Aianteion) on Salamis, where a festival (Aianteia) was celebrated in his honor, first attested in the Hellenistic period and involving athletic contests and a sacrifice. His Attic cult

(to be associated with the Athenian claim to Salamis, cf. Hom. Il. 2.557–8) was probably founded in the sixth century BCE, and he was made an Athenian tribal hero (tribe Aiantis) in the Kleisthenic reforms of 508/7 (Hdt. 5.66.2). He was sometimes even given an Athenian father (Aktaios, Theseus), and he was honored in the sanctuary of his son Eurysakes in Melite. He is often depicted on Attic vases. Other cultic associations of Ajax also reflect political ambitions (e.g., the Megarian cult of Athena Aiantis). The lesser Ajax was king of the Lokrians. Although a brave warrior praised for his speed, he met a disgraceful end, being drowned by Poseidon for blasphemy. The rape of Kassandra, which he committed, precipitated the disastrous Nostoi narrated by LYCOPHRON. A cult of Aias Oiliades is attested for the Lokrians, who carried it to Magna Graecia. SEE ALSO: Hero cult; Kleisthenes of Athens; Salamis, island and battle of.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Kron, U. (1976) Die zehn attischen Phylenheroen: 171–6, 275–6. Berlin. Tochefeu, O. (1981) “Aias I” and “Aias II.” LIMC I.1: 312–36, 336–51. Zurich.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print page 257. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah17021

1

Akakios, patriarch and schism F. K. HAARER

Akakios, Patriarch of Constantinople from March 472 to November 489, is best known for causing the eponymous schism with Rome that lasted from 484 to 519. However, Akakios began his patriarchate in a rather more conciliatory manner. He supported DANIEL THE STYLITE and the people of Constantinople against the usurper BASILISCUS, who had issued an edict abolishing the decisions of the Council of Chalcedon, and forced him to issue a counterencyclical (see CHALCEDONIAN CONTROVERSY). Akakios also initially sought an alliance with the pro-Chalcedonian Rome against the miaphysite Alexandria, and deposed the Patriarch PETER MONGOS. However, being persuaded of the greater political importance of unity among the eastern provinces, he reinstated Peter Mongos, and in 484 he composed, on behalf of Zeno, a letter (the Henotikon) to the patriarchate of Alexandria adopting a pro-miaphysite stance concerning the nature of Christ (see HENOTIKON; ZENO, EMPEROR). Rome was angered as much by Akakios’ doctrinal volte-face as by his presumption in dictating church policy from his Constantinopolitan see. Such a step implied the greater importance of the imperial capital over the other eastern sees, and even over Rome. Alerted to the seriousness of the situation by the Sleepless Monks

of Constantinople, the pope, Felix III, sent legates to Constantinople who, however, were trapped into receiving communion from Akakios. Meanwhile, in July 484, Felix held a synod at which Akakios and Peter Mongos were excommunicated and, in return, Akakios removed the pope’s name from the diptychs. The Akakian schism continued until 519, when JUSTIN I, desirous of healing the breach with Rome, brought it to a close. SEE ALSO:

Creeds, Christian.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Brooks, E. W. (1893) “The Emperor Zenon and the Isaurians.” English Historical Review 8: 209–38. Frend, W. H. C. (1972) The rise of the monophysite movement. Cambridge. Gray, P. T. R. (1979) The defence of Chalcedon in the east (451–553). Leiden. Meyendorff, J. (1989) Imperial unity and Christian divisions: the church AD 450–680. New York. Salaville, S. (1916–19) “L’Affaire de l’He´notique ou le premier schisme Byzantin au Ve sie`cle.” Echos d’Orient 18: 255–65; “L’He´notique de Ze´non et le premier schisme Byzantin au Ve sie`cle, II.” Echos d’Orient 18: 389–97. Salaville, S. (1920) “L’Affaire de l’He´notique ou le premier schisme Byzantin au Ve sie`cle, III.” Echos d’Orient 19: 49–68; “L’Affaire de l’He´notique ou le premier schisme Byzantin au Ve sie`cle, IV.” Echos d’Orient 19: 415–33.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 257–258. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah03005

1

Akanthos MARTIN PERRON

Akanthos is a Greek colony located on the eastern prong (Akte) of Chalcidice. The site stretches over three hills approximately 600 m southeast of the modern village of Ierissos. Its location near the metal ores of Mount Stratoniko and the isthmus separating the Strymonic and the Singitic gulfs rapidly favored its development into a major harbor in the north Aegean. According to Plutarch (Quaest. Graec. 30) and Eusebius (Chron. 95b), the colony was established in 655/654 BCE on a former Thracian settlement. The foundation is commonly attributed to colonists from Andros, but settlers from Chalcis may also have participated in the expedition. Excavations conducted on the Kastro hill have delivered pottery, structures, and an anthropomorphic stele dating to the Iron Age. Along the coast, a cemetery containing more than 14,000 tombs has been discovered. The burial customs include pit graves, enchytrisms, cremations, and sarcophagi covering the Iron Age through the Roman period. Iron Age handmade pottery of ThracoMacedonian tradition, and Euboean and wheelmade sub-protogeometric painted pottery from Chalcidice and the Thermaic Gulf, were found among the grave-goods or were used for jar burials. Imports from Corinth, Athens, Lakonia, and East Greece are attested for the eighth to sixth centuries BCE. “MACEDONIAN BRONZES,” silver jewelry, and weapons also figure among the offerings. By the late sixth century BCE onward, the prosperity of the city was confirmed by the circulation of its silver coins, its large (“hekatompedos”) temple, and its strong fortification wall. Herodotus (7.22–24) mentions that, in 480 BCE, the Persian king Xerxes stopped at Akanthos and forced the locals to accommodate his army and dig

a canal in preparation for his invasion of Greece. After the Persian defeat, Akanthos joined the DELIAN LEAGUE as a city-member. During the PELOPONNESIAN WAR, Akanthos fought beside BRASIDAS against its former Athenian ally. Akanthos was conquered by PHILIP II OF MACEDON in 348 BCE, but was spared from destruction. Several pottery kilns dating to the Classical, Hellenistic, and Roman periods have been found at the site, showing the ongoing dynamism of the city. A stoa and a large Hellenistic marble building were also uncovered on the northwest hill of the settlement. Akanthos was sacked by Rome and Pergamon in 199 BCE and was abandoned during the Late Byzantine period. SEE ALSO: Andros, topography and archaeology; Chalcidice, Chalcidian League; Colonization, Greek; Macedonia.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Filis, K. (2013) “Transport amphorae from Akanthos.” In L. Buzoianu, P. Dupont, and V. Lungu, eds., PATABS III. Production et commerce amphoriques en mer Noire. Actes de la Table Ronde Internationale de Constanţa, 6–10 octobre 2009: 67–88. Constanza. Kaltsas, N. E. (1998) Άκανθος Ι: Η ανασκαφή στο νεκροταφείο κατά το 1979. Athens. Trakosopoulou-Salakidou, E. (2006–07) “Aspects of the excavations at Acanthus: the Early Iron Age and the early Archaic period.” Mediterranean Archaeology 19–20: 45–54. Trakosopoulou-Salakidou, E. (2013) “Tοπική κεραμική από το νεκροταφείο της πρωτοϊστορικής Ακάνθου.” In P. AdamVeleni, D. Tsiafakis, and E. Kefalidou, eds., Pottery workshops in the Northern Aegean (8th – 5th century B.C.). Proceedings of the International Colloquium held at the Archaeological Museum of Thessaloniki, February 5, 2010: 143–56. Thessaloniki.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner. © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Published 2016 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah30197

1

Akarnanian League KLAUS FREITAG

It is not known for certain when the ETHNOS of the Akarnanians in northwestern Greece was formed. The Catalogue of Ships in the Iliad (2.484–759) does not mention the “Akarnanian people.” In the fifth century BCE the Akarnanians established a federal state, with STRATOS as the central polis (Thuc. 2.80; 3.107.2; IG IX 12.2.390; cf. Xen. Hell. 4.6.4; Arist. fr. 474). The Akarnanians and the Corinthian colonies in northwestern Greece traditionally viewed one another with hostility. In the mid-fifth century the Akarnanians cooperated to expel the Messenians from OINIADAI (Paus. 4.25; cf. Thuc. 1.111.2–4). The Akarnanians formed an alliance with Athens after 440. At the same time the Ambrakians tried to capture Argos Amphilochikon (Thuc. 2.68.4–8). After their victory over the Ambrakians, the Athenians and Akarnanians sent settlers to Argos Amphilochikon and established a common court of justice at Olpai. During the PELOPONNESIAN WAR the league succeeded in incorporating Corinthian colonies (Sollion, Anaktorion) situated on the coast of the mainland. Poleis that had been under Corinthian influence were similarly integrated (Oiniadai; see Thuc. 2.30.1; 33.1–2). In 389 the Spartan king AGESILAOS invaded Akarnania and forced the Akarnanians to join the PELOPONNESIAN LEAGUE (Xen. Hell. 4.6–7.1). It is uncertain whether the lists of theorodokoi from the fourth century provide any evidence about federal districts (Charneux 1966: 157; IG IV 12.95; SEG 36.331). In 314/313 the Macedonian Cassander persuaded some Akarnanians to move, in a form of SYNOECISM, to three poleis located in the central area (Diod. Sic. 19.67.3–5). The Acheloos River formed the frontier between Akarnania and AITOLIA in the fifth century (IG IX 12.1.3A). In the mid-third century the Akarnanian League was dissolved (Polyb. 9.34.7; Just. Epit. 18.1–3): the western part was given to EPIRUS and the eastern part became

Aitolian (Polyb. 2.45.1; 9.34.7). In about 230 a new Akarnanian League was formed (IG IX 12.2.583; SEG 18.261) around LEUKAS (Livy 33.17.1). In 216 the league entered into a contract with Anaktorion concerning the organization of a festival in honor of Apollo Aktios (IG IX 12.2.583). The Romans conquered Oiniadai in 212 (Livy 26.24.15; Polyb. 9.39.2). After that the polis was transferred to the Aitolians. In 197 the Akarnanians concluded an alliance with Rome (Livy 33.17.15; Polyb. 21.32.14). In 167 Leukas was excluded from the league by Rome (Livy 45.31.12). After 146 Thyrrheion obtained supremacy in Akarnania and in 94 formed an alliance with Rome (IG IX 12.2.242). According to an unpublished senatus consultum from Thyrrheion, there was a dispute with a polis called Nasos in which Rome was involved. Apart from a council (boule), a general assembly, also called the 1,000 (hoi chilioi), existed in the Hellenistic period. Seven strategoi, a hipparch, a grammateus, a nauarch, and a tamias are mentioned in the ancient sources. However, after 230 the constitution was changed. In later times the Akarnanians annually elected only one strategos. A hierapolos acted as the eponymous magistrate, supported by a promnamon, sympromnamones, and a grammateus after 167. It is not known when common coinage was introduced. In the fourth century many Akarnanian poleis struck coins after the Corinthian model. The head of the Acheloos River is found on federal coinage from the third century BCE. Common cults and festivals of the Akarnanians are not mentioned in the sources. The river god named Acheloos may have acted as a god of the ethnos in the ancient period. According to Thucydides, the founder Akarnan was Alkmaion’s son (Thuc. 2.102; see also Apollod. Bibl. 3.92; Paus. 8.24.9). Later, the Akarnanians used other myths to explain why they had not fought against the Trojans. In their relations with the Romans, the Akarnanians tried to exploit these stories for political purposes (Dion. Hal. Ant. Rom. 1.51.2). SEE ALSO:

Ambrakia; Koinon.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 258–259. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah04001

2 REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Charneux, P. (1966) “Liste argienne de the´arodoques.” Bulletin de Correspondence Helle´nique 90: 156–239. Corsten, T. (1999) Vom Stamm zum Bund. Gru¨ndung und territoriale Organisation griechischer Bundesstaaten. Munich. Dany, O. (1997) Akarnanien im Hellenismus. Geschichte und Vo¨lkerrecht in Nordwestgriechenland. Munich.

Funke, P., Gehrke, H.-J., and Kolonas, L. (1993) “Ein neues Proxeniedekret des Akarnanischen Bundes.” Klio 75: 131–44. Gehrke, H.-J. (1994–5) “Die kulturelle und politische Entwicklung Akarnaniens vom 6. bis zum 4. Jahrhundert v. Chr.” Geographia antiqua 3–4: 41–7. Gehrke, H.-J. and Wirbelauer, E. (2004) “Akarnania and adjacent areas.” In M. H. Hansen and T. H. Nielsen, eds., An inventory of Archaic and Classical poleis: 351–78. Oxford.

1

Akephalos ELIZABETH ANN POLLARD

The Greek adjective akephalos, literally “headless,” was used as the name or title of a divine power of the Greco-Egyptian magical tradition. Greco-Egyptian papyri and amulets, from the third to fifth centuries CE, mention a Headless One who appears to be efficacious in spells for revelation (PGM 2.1–64, 7.222–49, 8.64–110). Scholars have suggested that the Headless One be identified with Osiris or Besas, or seen as the product of Egyptian syncretism (Delatte and Derchain 1964: 42). Images of the Headless One appear on PGM 2.170 and perhaps 36.35–68, as well as on some amulets (Delatte and Derchain 1964: 49–52). A headless demon is among those controlled by Solomon in Test. Sol. 49. The word was also used of certain peoples thought to live on the margins of the GrecoRoman world; Herodotus and Pliny refer

to headless races with eyes on their chests, whom they locate in Libya and Ethiopia respectively (Hdt. 4.191; Plin. HN 5.44–6; Derrett 2002). SEE ALSO: Amulets, Greece and Rome; Charms, spells, Greece and Rome; Demons, Greek and Roman; Demons, Judaism; Magic, Greece and Rome; Magical papyri, Greek.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Delatte, A. (1914) “E´tudes sur la magie grecque. V. Akephalos Theos.” Bulletin de Correspondance Helle´nique 38: 189–249. Delatte, A., and Derchain, Ph. (1964) “Le Dieu Ace´phale.” In Les Intailles Magiques Gre´coE´gyptiennes: 42–54. Paris. Derrett, J. D. M. (2002) “A Blemmya in India.” Numen 49: 460–74. Dickie, M. W. (1999) “Bonds and headless demons in Greco-Roman magic.” Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies 40: 99–104.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 259–260. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah17022

1

Akesandros of Cyrene (FGrH 469) CHARLES GOLDBERG

Akesandros (or Acesander) of CYRENE (FGrH 469) was the author of On Cyrene, a local history of the ancient Libyan city. The surviving fragments, found mostly in scholiasts to PINDAR and to APOLLONIUS RHODIUS and in PLUTARCH’S Symposiaka (Quaestiones convivales, Table talk), all pertain to the mythological history of LIBYA. In the Symposiaka (5.2) Plutarch also attributes to him a work titled On Libya; but this may be a generic reference to the On Cyrene and

not a separate work (Nicolai 2007). The only possible dating for Akesandros is between the fourth and the second centuries BCE (Nicolai 2007; Schwartz 1894). REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Schwartz, E. (1894) “Akesandros.” In A. Pauly, G. Wissowa, and W. Kroll, eds., Realencyclopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft 1: 1162. Stuttgart. Jacoby, F. (1954) “Akesandros 469.” In F. Jacoby, ed., Die Fragmente der griechischen Historiker 3B: 423–5. Leiden. Nicolai, R. (2007) “Akesandros 469.” In I. Worthington, ed., Brill’s New Jacoby. Brill Online.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner. © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Published 2015 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah26174

1

Akestorides (FGrH 28) CHARLES GOLDBERG

Akestorides was a paradoxographer, or a writer of marvelous and unexplained occurrences. The ninth-century CE Patriarch of Constantinople, Photios, describes his only known work, On myths according to city, as being well written. He furthermore praises Akestorides for accurately classifying the events he described as “myth,” although Photios also notes that Akestorides offered arguments to prove the veracity of some of his stories. We have no evidence to suggest even a broad range of when he lived, and

Schwartz (1893) and Costa (2007–) have dismissed the identification of Akestorides with an Akestodoros of Megalopolis. SEE ALSO:

Constantinople (history and monuments); Myth; Patriarchs (Christian).

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Costa, V. (2007–) “Akestorides.” Brill’s New Jacoby 28. Leiden. Jacoby, F. (1923–) “Akestorides.” Die Fragmente der griechischen Historiker 28. Leiden. Schwartz, E. (1893) “Akestorides.” RE 1: col. 1167. Stuttgart.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner. © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Published 2015 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah26175

1

Akhenaten (Amenhotep IV) AIDAN DODSON

The second son of Amenhotep III and his wife Tiye of the 18th Egyptian Dynasty succeeded his father initially under the name of Neferkheperure-waenre Amenhotep (IV)-netjerheqawaset. There has been considerable debate as to whether the succession occurred on Amenhotep III’s death, or whether the two kings ruled as co-regents for up to a dozen years. The balance of evidence currently seems to support the former option, although the younger Amenhotep may have been proclaimed heir in Year 30, on the death of his elder brother, Thutmose (Dodson 2009b; Dorman 2009). Amenhotep IV seems to have married NEFERTITI shortly after his accession, and had Meryetaten, the first of their six daughters, not long afterwards. These girls – Meryetaten, Meketaten, Ankhesenpaaten, Neferneferuatentasherit, Neferneferure, and Setepenre – are depicted on many contemporary monuments, but there is only one potential mention of a son. This is on one of a pair of blocks found at Hermopolis Magna (Ashmunein) but originally from Amarna; this names the prince, Tutankhuaten, who ultimately became king as Tutankhaten/amun (see TUTANKHAMUN). The other block gave the name and titles of one of Akhenaten’s daughters. During his first years, the king was depicted in the traditional manner, but by his Year 4 he and his entourage were being shown in a distorted revolutionary style that is expressly stated in a text of his chief sculptor, Bak, to have been directed by the king. This was accompanied by a change of the iconography of the sun-god Aten (see ATEN/ATON) from a conventional anthropomorphic representation to an abstract one comprising a sun-disk, from which descended rays terminated in hands, the latter holding the sign of “life” to the nostrils of the royal family. This transition

was accompanied by a move to make the Aten supreme, if not yet sole, god – the first known experiment in Monotheism. Whether this was wholly a theological shift or had a political aspect of reducing the power of the priesthoods of the traditional pantheon – especially that of Amun – remains a matter for scholarly debate. At some point the names and images of a number of deities, especially those connected with Amun, were destroyed on a wide variety of monuments. This iconoclasm has been variously dated to the earlier part of the reign and to its very end, once again with a lack of scholarly unanimity, something that bedevils assessment of the whole reign and its aftermath. The earliest monument of this new style was a large temple to the Aten that was built to the east of the main temple complex at KARNAK. It was apparently built in a hurry, using much smaller blocks than those usually used in Egyptian temple-building. Known as talatat, many have been found reused in the filling of later

Figure 1 Carving from Amarna, depicting Amenhotep IV and his family presenting offerings to Aten. Egyptian Museum, Cairo. © Photo Scala, Florence.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 260–262. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah15023

2 buildings at Karnak. Reliefs in this temple commemorate at least one jubilee celebrated in the very earliest years of the reign (Gohary 1990). It remains unclear whether this was a jubilee of the king, of the king and the Aten, or simply of the Aten itself. Not long after the adoption of the new artistic style, the king changed his personal name from Amenhotep to Akhenaten, meaning something like “Effective Spirit of the Aten” – i.e., the god’s representative on Earth. Furthermore, a new city was founded at AMARNA, roughly half way between the old capitals of Memphis and Thebes, both as a dedicated cult-center for the Aten and as a new capital city for Egypt. The decision to build the city is recorded on the boundary stelae of the site, which date it to Year 4 (Murnane and van Siclen 1993). Apart from Amarna and Thebes, traces of buildings of Akhenaten’s reign have been found at various sites around Egypt. Somewhere around Year 9, there was a fundamental change in the full name of the Aten, which presumably reflected some kind of further theological reform. At some point during the next four years, a second wife of Akhenaten, Kiya, was disgraced; nothing is known of the reasons for this, nor the fate of her daughter. There is no substantive evidence for the frequent suggestion that Kiya was the mother of Tutankhuaten. A major international festival was held in Year 12, with gifts to the king being brought by representatives from much of the known world. Its significance is uncertain, one possibility being that it could have marked the formal completion of the city of Amarna. Soon afterward, a number of deaths occurred within the royal family, including Tiye and up to three of the king’s daughters. It has been suggested that a plague brought into Egypt by the Year 12 delegates may have been responsible. Information on Akhenaten’s foreign relations is provided by an archive of cuneiform tablets found at Amarna and known as the AMARNA LETTERS. These represent correspondence between the kings of the contemporary great powers and Egypt, as well as between

Egypt’s Levantine vassals and the royal court (Moran 1992). These have been variously interpreted as indicating a decline in Egyptian authority in Syria-Palestine resulting from royal neglect, and as simply reflecting an expected ebb and flow of affairs over a period of some two decades. However, it does seem clear that the reign saw increasing tensions in northern Syria related to the respective spheres of influence of Egypt and the empire of the Hittites. Soon after Year 12, Akhenaten appointed a co-ruler, Ankhkheperure Smenkhkare, of uncertain antecedents, but certainly a member of the wider royal family. He married Meryetaten, and is named on a number of inscribed items and monuments, but appears to have been short-lived. He was replaced as co-ruler by a woman, Ankhkheperuremerywaenre Neferneferuaten, who was almost certainly none other than Nefertiti. Akhenaten died in his Year 17 and was buried in his tomb at Amarna, which had previously received the interments of a number of his family. He was succeeded by Tutankhaten/ amun, but steps were soon taken to reverse Akhenaten’s religious revolution. As a result the king’s buildings around Egypt began to be dismantled, and after the death of Tutankhamun, Akhenaten’s names and images were mutilated on the monuments, and by the 19th Dynasty he and his immediate successors were being omitted from official lists of the kings of Egypt. The fate of Akhenaten’s mummy is uncertain; one possibility is that it was removed from the royal tomb at Amarna to tomb KV55 in the VALLEY OF THE KINGS during Tutankhamun’s reign, but was removed and destroyed soon after the latter’s death. Nevertheless, in modern times Akhenaten has become one of the best-known pharaohs, albeit with his career frequently distorted and manipulated for political, social, artistic, and religious reasons (Montserrat 2000). There is also a significant lack of scholarly consensus concerning many aspects of the reign, covering such aspects as chronology, genealogy, and the broader significance of events (compare

3 Aldred 1968, 1988; Dodson 2009a; Redford 1984; Reeves 2001). A number of mummies of the period were subject to DNA analysis in 2009 (Hawass et al. 2010); however, more work needs to be done before any firm conclusions can be reached on any need to revise the reconstruction set out above. SEE ALSO: Amenhotep (Amenophis) I–III; Amun-Re; Hermopolis Magna, Tuna el-Gebel (Pharaonic); Hittite, Hittites; Memphis, Pharaonic.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Aldred, C. (1968) Akhenaten, Pharaoh of Egypt. London. Aldred, C. (1988) Akhenaten, King of Egypt. London. Davies, N. de G. (1903–08) The rock tombs of El Amarna. London. Dodson, A. (2009a) Amarna sunset: Nefertiti, Tutankhamun, Ay, Horemheb and the Egyptian counter-reformation. Cairo. Dodson, A. (2009b) “On the alleged ‘Amenhotep III/IV coregency’ graffito at Meidum.” Go¨ttinger Miszellen 221: 25–8. Dorman, P. F. (2008) “The Long coregency revisited: architectural and iconographic conundra in the

tomb of Kheruef.” In P. J. Brand and L. Cooper, eds., Causing his name to live: studies in Egyptian epigraphy and history in memory of William J. Murnane: 65–82. Leiden. Freed, R. E., Markowitz, Y. J., and D’Auria, S. H., eds. (1999) Pharaohs of the sun: Akhenaten; Nefertiti; Tutankhamen. London. Gabolde, M. (1998) D’Akhenaton a` Toutaˆnkhamon. Lyon. Germer, R. (2001) “Die Mumie aus dem Sarg in ‘KV55.’” In G. Grimm and S. Schoske, eds., Das Geheimnis des goldenen Sarges: Echnaton und das Ende der Amarnazeit: 58–61. Munich. Gohary, J. (1990) Akhenaten’s Sed-Festival at Karnak. London. Hawass, Z. et al. (2010) “Ancestry and pathology in King Tutankhamun’s family.” Journal of the American Medical Association 303, 7: 638–47. Hornung, E. (1999) Akhenaten and the religion of light. Ithaca. Montserrat, D. (2000) Akhenaten: history, fantasy and ancient Egypt. London. Moran, W. L. (1992) The Amarna letters. Baltimore. Murnane, W. J. and van Siclen, C. C. III (1993) The boundary stelae of Akhenaten. London. Redford, D. B. (1984) Akhenaten: the heretic King. Princeton. Reeves, C. N. (2001) Akhenaten: Egypt’s false prophet. London.

1

Akhenaten (Amenhotep IV) AIDAN DODSON

The second son of Amenhotep III (see AMENHOTEP (AMENOPHIS) I–III) and his wife Tiye of the 18th Egyptian Dynasty succeeded his father initially under the name of Neferkheperure-waenre Amenhotep (IV)-netjerheqawaset, ruling in the later fourteenth century BCE. There has been considerable debate as to whether the succession occurred on Amenhotep III’s death, or whether the two kings ruled as co-regents for up to a dozen years. The balance of evidence currently seems to support the former option, although the younger Amenhotep may have been proclaimed heir in Year 30, on the death of his elder brother, Thutmose (Dodson 2009; Dorman 2009). Amenhotep IV seems to have married NEFERTITI shortly after his accession, and had Meryetaten, the first of their six daughters, not long afterwards. These girls – Meryetaten, Meketaten, Ankhesenpaaten, Neferneferuatentasherit, Neferneferure, and Setepenre – are depicted on many contemporary monuments, but there is only one apparent mention of a son. This is on one of a pair of blocks found at Hermopolis Magna (Ashmunein) (see HERMOPOLIS MAGNA, TUNA EL-GEBEL (PHARAONIC)) but originally from Amarna; this names the prince, Tutankhuaten, who ultimately became king as Tutankhaten/amun (see TUTANKHAMUN). The other block gave the name and titles of one of Akhenaten’s daughters. During his first years, the king was depicted in the traditional manner, but by his Year 4 he and his entourage were being shown in a distorted revolutionary style that is expressly stated in a text of his chief sculptor, Bak, to have been directed by the king. This was accompanied by a change of the iconography of the sun-god Aten (see ATEN/ATON) from a conventional anthropomorphic representation to an abstract one comprising a sun-disk, from which descended rays terminated in hands, the latter holding the sign of “life” to the nostrils of the royal family. This transition was

accompanied by a move to make the Aten supreme, if not yet sole, god – the first known experiment in Monotheism or possibly henotheism. Whether this was wholly a theological shift or had a political aspect of reducing the power of the priesthoods of the traditional pantheon – especially that of Amun – remains a matter for scholarly debate. At some point the names and images of a number of deities, especially those connected with Amun, were destroyed on a wide variety of monuments. This iconoclasm has been variously dated to the earlier part of the reign and to its very end, once again with a lack of scholarly unanimity, something that bedevils assessment of the whole reign and its aftermath. The earliest monument of this new style was a large temple to the Aten that was built to the east of the main temple complex at KARNAK. It was apparently built in a hurry, using much smaller blocks than those usually used in Egyptian temple-building. Known as talatat, many have been found reused in the filling of later buildings at Karnak. Reliefs in this temple commemorate at least one jubilee celebrated in the very earliest years of the reign (Gohary 1990). It remains unclear whether this was a jubilee of the king, of the king and the Aten, or simply of the Aten itself. Not long after the adoption of the new artistic style, the king changed his personal name from Amenhotep to Akhenaten, meaning something like “Effective Spirit of the Aten” – in other words, the god’s representative on Earth. Furthermore, a new city was founded at AMARNA, roughly half way between the old capitals of Memphis (see MEMPHIS, PHARAONIC) and Thebes, both as a dedicated cult-center for the Aten and as a new capital city for Egypt. The decision to build the city is recorded on the boundary stelae of the site, which date it to Year 4 (Murnane and van Siclen 1993). Apart from Amarna and Thebes, traces of buildings of Akhenaten’s reign have been found at various sites around Egypt. Somewhere around Year 9, there was a fundamental change in the full name of the Aten, which presumably reflected some kind of

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History. Edited by Kai Brodersen, Andrew Erskine, and David Hollander. © 2019 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Published 2019 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah15023.pub2

2 further theological reform. At some point during the next four years, a second wife of Akhenaten, Kiya, was disgraced; nothing is known of the reasons for this, nor the fate of her daughter. There is no substantive evidence for the frequent suggestion that Kiya was the mother of Tutankhuaten. A major international festival was held in Year 12, with gifts to the king being brought by representatives from much of the known world. Its significance is uncertain, one possibility being that it could have marked the formal completion of the city of Amarna. Soon afterward, a number of deaths occurred within the royal family, including those of Tiye and up to three of the king’s daughters. It has been suggested that a plague brought into Egypt by the Year 12 delegates may have been responsible. Information on Akhenaten’s foreign relations is provided by an archive of cuneiform tablets found at Amarna and known as the AMARNA LETTERS. These represent correspondence between the kings of the contemporary great powers and Egypt, as well as between Egypt’s Levantine vassals and the royal court (Moran 1992). These have been variously interpreted as indicating a decline in Egyptian authority in Syria-Palestine resulting from royal neglect, and as simply reflecting an expected ebb and flow of affairs over a period of some two decades. However, it does seem clear that the reign saw increasing tensions in northern Syria related to the respective spheres of influence of Egypt and the empire of the HITTITES. Soon after Year 12, Akhenaten appointed a co-ruler, Ankhkheperure Smenkhkare, of uncertain antecedents, but certainly a member of the wider royal family. He married Meryetaten, and is named on a number of inscribed items and monuments, but appears to have been short-lived. Following his death (if not before), Nefertiti began to wear a kingly crown, while retaining the titles of a queen, but seems to have transitioned to a fully-fledged co-regent, as Ankhkheperure-merywaenre Neferneferuaten, during her husband’s last year of rule (van der Perre 2014). Akhenaten died in his Year 17 and was buried in his tomb at Amarna, which had

previously received the interments of a number of his family. He was succeeded by Tutankhaten/amun, but steps were soon taken to reverse Akhenaten’s religious revolution. As a result, the king’s buildings around Egypt began to be dismantled, and after the death of Tutankhamun, Akhenaten’s names and images were mutilated on the monuments, and by the 19th Dynasty he and his immediate successors were being omitted from official lists of the kings of Egypt. The fate of Akhenaten’s mummy is uncertain; one possibility is that it was removed from the royal tomb at Amarna to tomb KV55 in the VALLEY OF THE KINGS during Tutankhamun’s reign, but was removed and destroyed soon after the latter’s death. Nevertheless, in modern times Akhenaten has become one of the best-known pharaohs, albeit with his career frequently distorted and manipulated for political, social, artistic, and religious reasons (Montserrat 2000). There is also a significant lack of scholarly consensus concerning many aspects of the reign, covering such aspects as chronology, genealogy, and the broader significance of events (compare Aldred 1968, 1988; Dodson 2018; Redford 1984; Reeves 2001). A number of mummies believed to belong to the family of Akhenaten were subject to DNA analysis in 2009, in an attempt to verify their identities and elucidate family relationships. However, the results remain controversial, both from a methodological point of view, and the fact that the publication (Hawass et al. 2010) was highly selective in its presentation of the potential genealogical implications of the raw data, omitting a number of viable alternatives to the preferred ones set out there (see Gabolde 2013; Dodson 2014: 163–7). SEE ALSO:

Amun-Re.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Aldred, C. (1968) Akhenaten, pharaoh of Egypt. London. Aldred, C. (1988) Akhenaten, king of Egypt. London. Davies, N. de G. (1903–8) The rock tombs of El Amarna. London.

3 Dodson, A. (2009) “On the alleged ‘Amenhotep III/ IV coregency’ graffito at Meidum.” Göttinger Miszellen 221: 25–8. Dodson, A. (2014) Amarna sunrise: Egypt from golden age to age of heresy. Cairo. Dodson, A. (2018) Amarna sunset: Nefertiti, Tutankhamun, Ay, Horemheb and the Egyptian counterreformation, rev. ed. Cairo. Dorman, P. F. (2009) “The long coregency revisited: architectural and iconographic conundra in the tomb of Kheruef.” In P. J. Brand and L. Cooper, eds., Causing his name to live: studies in Egyptian epigraphy and history in memory of William J. Murnane: 65–82. Leiden. Freed, R. E., Markowitz, Y. J., and D’Auria, S. H., eds. (1999) Pharaohs of the sun: Akhenaten; Nefertiti; Tutankhamen. London. Gabolde, M. (1998) D’Akhenaton à Toutânkhamon. Lyon. Gabolde, M. (2013) “L’ADN de la famille royale amarnienne et les sources égyptiennes.” Égypte Nilotique et Méditerranéenne 6: 177–203. Germer, R. (2001) “Die Mumie aus dem Sarg in ‘KV55.’” In G. Grimm and S. Schoske, eds., Das

Geheimnis des goldenen Sarges: Echnaton und das Ende der Amarnazeit: 58–61. Munich. Gohary, J. (1990) Akhenaten’s sed-festival at Karnak. London. Hawass, Z. et al. (2010) “Ancestry and pathology in King Tutankhamun’s family.” Journal of the American Medical Association 303, 7: 638–47. Hornung, E. (1999) Akhenaten and the religion of light. Ithaca. Montserrat, D. (2000) Akhenaten: history, fantasy and ancient Egypt. London. Moran, W. L. (1992) The Amarna letters. Baltimore. Murnane, W. J. and van Siclen, C. C. III (1993) The boundary stelae of Akhenaten. London. Redford, D. B. (1984) Akhenaten: the heretic king. Princeton. Reeves, C. N. (2001) Akhenaten: Egypt’s false prophet. London. van der Perre, A. (2014) “The Year 16 Graffito of Akhenaten in Dayr Abu Hinnis: a contribution to the study of the later years of Nefertiti.” Journal of Egyptian History 7: 67–108.

1

Akhmim JONATHAN ELIAS

Akhmim, a city located 470 km/290 miles south of Cairo, opposite Sohag, was in ancient times a center of worship of the fertility god Min, his consort Isis (local variant Aper-Set), and their child Horus. The settlement developed in Predynastic times upon the eastern bank of the Nile at a strategic bend. Its reputation for fertility may stem from the topographical fact that the cultivable valley in Akhmim’s vicinity is wider than the cliffbounded valley segments to the north and south. By virtue of its favorable position, Akhmim had emerged during the Old Kingdom as the capital of its district (ninth nome of Upper Egypt) and was a vital entrepoˆt for commerce moving in from Red Sea sources (245 km east). Its patron deity Min was intimately connected with this EASTERN DESERT region, and ultimately with the spice trade emanating from the Land of PUNT (possibly in the region of the Bab alMandeb). Coptos (160 km south), located at another trade route terminus from this desert, was similarly sacred to Min and linked to Akhmim as a sister-city with shared religious interests and traditions. Akhmim’s importance as a governmental center was established during the 5th and 6th Dynasties by powerful nomarchs of local origin. A 6th Dynasty incumbent named Tjeti-iqer (under Merenre-Pepi II) served at the capital, Memphis, before returning to Akhmim to govern (Franke 1993: 289). Horwey I of Akhmim was installed as vizier during the early 6th Dynasty (under Pepi I), possibly coming into prominence as a “superintendent of new towns,” a post held by other Akhmimic officials. With the collapse of the 6th Dynasty and the decline of Memphis, Akhmim entered a new orbit centered on Abydos and Coptos. In one of the Coptos Decrees, King Neferkauhor (late 8th Dynasty) places Akhmim in a bloc with Abydos and Coptos, Hiw (Diospolis Parva), and Dendera (Stock

1949: 33). In later conflicts of the First Intermediate Period, Akhmim’s position is unclear. The Herakleopolitan faction had links with Asyut (92 km north), and at one point raided Abydos (50 km south). Wahankh Intef II of Thebes mentions subduing Abydos and Aphroditopolis, but says nothing of Akhmim directly adjacent. Middle Kingdom remains at Akhmim are confined to rock cut tombs and rectangular wooden coffins found within. At Abydos, however, a group of late Middle Kingdom stelae attest a local interest in the deity Min-Hor-nakht, strongly referenced in terms of the god’s Akhmimic origins (e.g., Lange and Schafer 1902: 108). Akhmim was located well south of the zone of Hyksos penetration and emerged from the Second Intermediate Period in good order. Early New Kingdom developments are obscure, but under the late 18th Dynasty, royal estates (e.g., Djarukha) were founded nearby to benefit the powerful family of Tiy, principal queen of Amenhotep III. The activity of the 19th Dynasty Pharaoh Rameses II in Akhmim is attested by a colossus of the king himself (recently excavated) and an 11 m tall free-standing statue of his daughter/ spouse Meritamun (revealed in 1981), both of which were clearly intended to embellish the entrance to the New Kingdom temple. Later royal women (Istemkheb, sister/spouse of the 21st-Dynasty high priest Pinudjem II, and her stepdaughter Nesinebtasheru) held leading posts in the Akhmimic clergy. Min’s priesthood gained prestige in the seventh century BCE as Theban power receded. Its influence is evident at nearby Athribis (Hut-Repyt/Atripe), Abydos, and more distant Coptos. The place name Akhmim (variant spellings: Achmin, Ekhmim, and Ikhmim; Coptic Shmin) derives from Khent-Min “foremost [place] of [the god] Min,” which may be a parallel to the more widely used toponym khetyw-Min (“Terrace of Min”). This expression may have applied to Min’s temple only, as the broader city is usually called Ipu in hieroglyphic inscriptions. A secondary suburb called Senu/Senut also

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 262–264. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah15024

2 appears in hieroglyphic texts sporadically from the Old Kingdom through the Late Period. Herodotus (fl. 450 BCE) calls Akhmim “Chemmis” (2.91) maintaining that it was a cult place of the hero Perseus, by virtue of the latter’s descent from the Chemmites Danaus and Lynceus. In the Greco-Roman period, the city was called PANOPOLIS (from the identification of Min with the Greek god Pan). By the early eighteenth century, the Akhmim region was open to European travelers, who began publishing descriptive accounts, Lucas in 1724 and Pococke in 1743. The Danish cartographer Norden produced a detailed map of the region in 1738, published posthumously in 1755. The town site is still poorly understood. Min’s temple (Arabic al-Birba) remains deeply buried below the streets of the modern city. Accounts of Ibn Gubayr (1180s), ad-Dimashqi (1327), and Abulfida (d. 1331) agree that the temple was immense; the later accounts confirm it as still standing in the early fourteenth century. This was no longer the case at the time of Napoleon’s expedition (1799), when SaintGe´nis saw only broken fragments of once mighty temples. Archaeologically, Akhmim is best known for the extensive cemeteries of al-Salamuni and al-Hawawish located north and northeast of the city. High above late tombs of Roman Period date at al-Salamuni is the famous speos cut by the 18th-Dynasty Pharaoh Ay for his distant predecessor Thutmose III, rededicated in postPharaonic times. The decorated tombs of the Old and Middle Kingdom nomarchs are located in the high eastern cliffs of the al-Hawawish cemetery district known as “al-Medinah” (Newberry 1912; Kanawati 1980–9). The development of this area began in earnest during the reign of the 5th Dynasty ruler Djedkare (Isesi). The expansive “ridge cemetery” adjoining the floodplain (also part of the al-Hawawish area) is the remnant of a prehistoric river embankment of limestone topped by gravel and silt, into which hundreds of tombs were cut.

Mummies excavated here in large numbers and in haphazard fashion from March 1884 to the early 1890s (Maspero 1893; Kuhlmann 1983) represent the communities of late 20th Dynasty, Third Intermediate Period, Saite, Persian, and later times. They are lately the subject of CT-scan examinations (e.g., Chan et al. 2008). The area is the source of distinctive Akhmimic anthropoid sarcophagi, wooden coffins (Brech 2008), stelae, offering tables, Book of the Dead papyri (e.g., Mosher 2001), and other funerary artifacts that fill the museums of the world. REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Brech, R. (2008) Spa¨ta¨gyptische Sa¨rge aus Achmim. Hamburg. Chan, S., Elias, J. P., Hysell, M., and Hallowell, M. (2008) “CT of a Ptolemaic Period mummy from the ancient Egyptian city of Akhmim.” Radiographics 28, 7: 2023–32. Franke, D. (1993) “Review of N. Kanawati, The rock tombs of El-Hawawish, the cemetery of Akhmim, vols. 7–9 (1987–1989).” Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 79: 288–92. Kanawati, N. (1980–89) The rock tombs of ElHawawish: the cemetery of Akhmim, vols. 1–9. Sydney. Kuhlmann, K. P. (1983) Materialien zur Archa¨ologie und Geschichte des Raumes von Akhmim. Mainz am Rhein. Lange, H. O. and Scha¨fer, H. (1902) Grabund Denksteine des Mittleren Reichs. No. 2000120780. Catalogue du Muse´e du Caire. Berlin. Maspero, G. (1893) “Premier Rapport a` l’Institut E´gyptien sur les fouilles exe´cute´es en E´gypte de 1881 a` 1885.” In E´tudes de Mythologie et Arche´ologie E´gyptiennes, vol. 1: 212–20. Paris. Mosher, M. (2001) The Papyrus of Hor. Catalogue of the Books of the Dead in the British Museum, vol. 2. London. Newberry, P. (1912) “The Inscribed tombs of Ekhmıˆm.” University of Liverpool Annals of Archaeology and Anthropology 4: 99–120. ¨ gyptens. Stock, H. (1949) Die Erste Zwischenzeit A Rome.

1

Akhmim JONATHAN ELIAS

Akhmim, a city located 470 km/290 miles south of Cairo, opposite Sohag, was in ancient times a center of worship of the fertility god MIN, his consort ISIS (local variant Aper-Set), and their child HORUS. The place name Akhmim (variant spellings: Achmin, Ekhmim, and Ikhmim; Coptic Shmin) derives from Khent-Min “foremost [place] of [the god] Min,” which may be a parallel to the more widely used toponym khetyw-Min (“Terrace of Min”). This expression may have applied to Min’s temple only, as the broader city is usually called Ipu in hieroglyphic inscriptions. A secondary suburb called Senu/Senut also appears in hieroglyphic texts sporadically from the Old Kingdom through the Late Period. Herodotus (fl. 450 BCE) calls Akhmim “Chemmis” (2.91) maintaining that it was a cult place of the hero Perseus, by virtue of the latter’s descent from the Chemmites Danaus and Lynkeus. In the Greco-Roman period, the city was called PANOPOLIS (from the identification of Min with the Greek god Pan). By the early eighteenth century, the Akhmim region was open to European travelers, who began publishing descriptive accounts, Lucas in 1724 and Pococke in 1743. The Danish cartographer Norden produced a detailed map of the region in 1738, published posthumously in 1755. The town site is still poorly understood. Min’s temple (Arabic al-Birba) remains deeply buried below the streets of the modern city. Accounts of Ibn Gubayr (1180s), ad-Dimashqi (1327), and Abulfida (d. 1331) agree that the temple was immense; the later accounts confirm it as still standing in the early fourteenth century. This was no longer the case at the time of Napoleon’s expedition (1799), when SaintGénis saw only broken fragments of once mighty temples. The colossal 19th Dynasty statues may mark the forecourt of the main temple, but south of the area where they were found, in 2015 would-be looters revealed a Ptolemaic chapel sacred to the god ATUM (in

the form of a primordial snake) (Nasser, Baumann, and Leitz 2015). It suggests an even more extensive temple complex than previously expected and hints at what might be learned by controlled excavations. The settlement developed in PREDYNASTIC times upon the eastern bank of the Nile at a strategic bend. Its reputation for fertility may stem from the topographical fact that the cultivable valley in Akhmim’s vicinity is wider than the cliff-bounded valley segments to the north and south. By virtue of its favorable position, Akhmim had emerged during the Old Kingdom as the capital of its district (ninth nome of Upper Egypt) and was a vital entrepôt for commerce coming from Red Sea sources (245 km east). Its patron deity Min was intimately connected with this EASTERN DESERT region, and ultimately with the spice trade emanating from the Land of PUNT (possibly in the region of the Bab al-Mandeb). COPTOS (160 km south), located at another trade route terminus from this desert, was similarly sacred to Min and linked to Akhmim as a sister-city with shared religious interests and traditions. Akhmim’s importance as a governmental center was established during the 5th and 6th Dynasties by powerful nomarchs of local origin. A 6th Dynasty incumbent named Tjeti-iqer (under Merenre-PEPI II) served at the capital, MEMPHIS, before returning to Akhmim to govern (Franke 1993: 289). Horwey I of Akhmim was installed as vizier during the early 6th Dynasty (under PEPI I), possibly coming into prominence as a “superintendent of new towns,” a post held by other Akhmimic officials. With the collapse of the 6th Dynasty and the decline of Memphis, Akhmim entered a new orbit centered on ABYDOS and Coptos. In one of the Coptos Decrees, King Neferkauhor (late 8th Dynasty) places Akhmim in a bloc with Abydos and Coptos, Hiw (Diospolis Parva), and Dendera (Stock 1949: 33). In later conflicts of the FIRST INTERMEDIATE PERIOD, Akhmim’s position is unclear. The Herakleopolitan faction had links with ASYUT (92 km north of Akhmim), and at one point raided cemeteries of the eighth nome (either Abydos or Nag

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and David Hollander. © 2018 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Published 2018 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah15024

2 ed-Deir). Wahankh Intef II of Thebes mentions subduing Abydos and Aphroditopolis, but says nothing of Akhmim directly adjacent. MUMMIES of people who died violently during the First Intermediate Period have been excavated at Hagarsa, near Sohag (Kanawati et al. 1993). Middle Kingdom remains at Akhmim are confined to rock cut tombs and rectangular wooden coffins found within. At Abydos, however, a group of late Middle Kingdom stelae attest a local interest in the deity Min-Hornakht, strongly referenced in terms of the god’s Akhmimic origins (e.g., Lange and Schäfer 1902: 108). Akhmim was located well south of the zone of Hyksos penetration and emerged from the SECOND INTERMEDIATE PERIOD in good order. Early New Kingdom developments are obscure, but the emergence of Min priest and commander of chariotry Yuya suggests the presence of an important military base at Akhmim (by ca. 1400 BCE). Royal estates (e.g., Djarukha) founded nearby once his daughter TIY had become the principal queen of AMENHOTEP III, further benefited this powerful family, and may explain the presence of young TUTANKHAMUN in the area (suggested by the tomb of his retainer Sennedjem at nearby Awlad Azzaz) (Ockinga 1997), and the cliff shrine cut for King AY at al-Salamuni. The activity of the 19th Dynasty Pharaoh RAMESES II in Akhmim is attested by a colossus of the king himself (recently excavated and restored) and an 11 m tall free-standing statue of his daughter/ spouse Meritamun (revealed in 1981), both of which were clearly intended to embellish the entrance to the New Kingdom temple. Later royal women (Istemkheb, sister/spouse of the 21st-Dynasty high priest Pinudjem II, and her stepdaughter Nesinebtasheru) held leading posts in the Akhmimic clergy. Min’s priesthood gained prestige in the seventh century BCE as Theban power receded. Its influence is evident at nearby Athribis (Hut-Repyt/Atripe), Abydos, and more distant Coptos. Archaeologically, Akhmim is best known for the extensive cemeteries of al-Salamuni and alHawawish located north and northeast of the city. High above late tombs of Roman Period

date at al-Salamuni is the famous speos cut by the 18th-Dynasty Pharaoh Ay for his distant predecessor THUTMOSE III, rededicated in postPharaonic times. The decorated tombs of the Old and Middle Kingdom nomarchs are located in the high eastern cliffs of the al-Hawawish cemetery district known as “al-Medinah” (Newberry 1912; Kanawati 1980–9). The development of this area began in earnest during the reign of the 5th Dynasty ruler Djedkare (Isesi). The expansive “ridge cemetery” adjoining the floodplain (also part of the al-Hawawish area) is the remnant of a prehistoric river embankment of limestone topped by gravel and silt, into which hundreds of tombs were cut. Mummies excavated here in large numbers and in haphazard fashion from March 1884 to the early 1890s (Maspero 1893; Kuhlmann 1983) represent the communities of late 20th Dynasty, Third Intermediate Period, Saite, Persian, and Ptolemaic times. They are lately the subject of CT-scan examinations (e.g., Chan et al. 2008). Excavations mounted in 1986 and 1999 (El-Masry 2010) have helped to contextualize parts of the Ptolemaic Period cemetery for the first time, revealing the presence of a hypogeum containing the mummies of ibises and falcons. The area is the source of distinctive Akhmimic anthropoid sarcophagi, wooden coffins (Brech 2008; Elias and Mekis 2016), stelae, offering tables, Book of the Dead papyri (e.g., Mosher 2001), and other funerary artifacts that fill the museums of the world (DePauw 2002). REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Brech, R. (2008) Spätägyptische Särge aus Achmim. Hamburg. Chan, S., Elias, J. P., Hysell, M., and Hallowell, M. (2008) “CT of a Ptolemaic Period mummy from the ancient Egyptian city of Akhmim.” Radiographics 28, 7: 2023–32. DePauw, M. (2002) “The late funerary material from Akhmim.” In A. Egberts, B. P. Muhs, and J. Van der Vliet, eds., Perspectives on Panopolis. An Egyptian town from Alexander the Great to the Arab conquest, Papyrologica Lugduno-Batava. 31. Leiden.

3 Elias, J. and Mekis, T. (2016) “The yellow-on-black coffin of the Oracle Scribe Hor in the Swansea Museum.” Chronique d’Égypte 91: 227–63. El-Masry, Y. (2010) “The Ptolemaic cemetery of Akhmim.” Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 194: 173–84. Franke, D. (1993) “Review of N. Kanawati, The rock tombs of El-Hawawish, the cemetery of Akhmim, vols. 7–9 (1987–1989).” Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 79: 288–92. Hornung, E. (1999) Akhenaten and the religion of light, trans. D. Lorton. Ithaca. Kanawati, N. (1980–9) The rock tombs of El-Hawawish: the cemetery of Akhmim, vols. 1–9. Sydney. Kanawati, N. et al. (1993) The tombs of El-Hagarsa, vol. II. Australian Centre for Egyptology, Reports 6. Sydney. Kuhlmann, K. P. (1983) Materialien zur Archäologie und Geschichte des Raumes von Akhmim. Mainz. Lange, H. O. and Schäfer, H. (1902) Grab und Denksteine des Mittleren Reichs. No. 20001-20780. Catalogue du Musée du Caire. Berlin.

Maspero, G. (1893) “Premier rapport à l’Institut É gyptien sur les fouilles exécutées en Égypte de 1881 à 1885.” In Études de Mythologie et Archéologie Égyptiennes, vol. 1: 212–20. Paris. Mosher, M. (2001) The Papyrus of Hor. Catalogue of the books of the dead in the British Museum, vol. 2. London. Nasser, G. A., Baumann S., and Leitz, C. (2015) “A newly discovered edifice of Atum in Akhmim: part of the necropolis of the primeval gods?” ENIM: Égypte nilotique et méditerranéenne 8: 187–221. Newberry, P. (1912) “The inscribed tombs of Ekhmîm.” University of Liverpool Annals of Archaeology and Anthropology 4: 99–120. Ockinga, B. G. (1997) “A tomb from the reign of Tutankhamun at Akhmim.” Australian Centre for Egyptology: Reports 10. Warminster. Redford, D. (1984) Akhenaten: the heretic king. Princeton. Stock, H. (1949) Die Erste Zwischenzeit Ägyptens. Rome.

1

Akiba, Rabbi STEVEN FINE

Akiba (or Akiva), son of Joseph, was a Palestinian rabbinic leader and supposed supporter of the Bar Kokhba revolt (see BAR KOKHBA, SHIME’ON), as a result of which he was executed by the Romans (ca. 132 CE). Akiba is a towering figure in RABBINIC LITERATURE, his approaches to jurisprudence and biblical interpretation having been formative in the development of rabbinic culture. Akiba is credited with the systematization of rabbinic legal tradition into broad thematic categories, and in Tosefta Zavim 1.5 is described as “organizing laws” (mesadder halakhot) and teaching his students. His approach provided the undergirding of the Mishnah, the central book of the rabbinic canon, in which he and his students appear prominently. Akiba’s school prepared a series of midrashic collections based upon his principles of biblical exegesis and organized according to the order of scripture, most significantly the Mekhilta of Rabbi Simon son of Yohai on Exodus, Sifra on Leviticus, and Sifre on Deuteronomy. He is also said to have inspired Aquila, a proselyte, to create a deeply literal translation of scripture in Greek, fragments of which are extant (e.g., y. Megillah 1.9, 71c, Jerome to Isa 8:11). Central to Akiba’s hermeneutical approach is the notion that nothing in scripture is superfluous – not a letter, punctuation point, word, or lemma. Every element is meaningful, and available for interpretation and legal or exegetical expansion. His approach provided a sense that rabbinic enactments complied with biblical law while allowing for considerable elasticity in the development of Jewish law. Akiba is also described as participating in mystical speculation, the so-called maaseh merkavah (lit. “deeds of the chariot”) and appears prominently in the later Hekhalot literature, and particularly the Letters of Rabbi Akiva (Otiot de-Rabbi Akiva). Jerusalem Talmud Sheqalim 3.1, 47b refers to Akiba (together with Rabbi Ishmael son of

Elisha) as one of the “fathers of the world/ eternity [avot olam],” a description that well describes his position in rabbinic culture to the present day. The Amoraic and post-Amoraic strata of rabbinic literature (ca. 400–700) are particularly rich in traditions regarding Akiba’s life, much of which is hagiographic (see especially b. Nedarim 50a, Avot de-Rabbbi Nathan, version 1, ch. 6). Akiba is said to have been born a poor shepherd, who learned to read as an adult and was supported in his studies by his upperclass wife (whom he later rewarded with a golden crown in the shape of a city, a “Jerusalem of gold”). By the 90s CE he was clearly a junior member of the rabbinic community, student of Joshua son of Hananyah, Eliezar son of Hyrkanos, Tarfon, and others. The great influence of Akiba within the rabbinic community of the early first century is expressed in a wide range of sources, and hagiographically in the late claim that he had 24,000 pairs of students (b. Ned. 50a). His most prominent students included Meir, Yose son of Halafta, Judah son of Ilai, Simeon son of Yohai, Eleazar son of Shammua, and Nehemiah. Jerusalem Talmud Taanit 4.5, 68d, suggests that Akiba was a supporter of the Bar Kokhba revolt, declaring “This is the king messiah,” for which he was chastised. The historicity of this involvement is debated among scholars. His martyrdom in the war, however, is not, and is commemorated yearly in the course of the Yom Kippur “additional” morning prayers, where the “ten martyrs” of the Bar Kokhba revolt are venerated. Attempts to construct narrative biographies, most prominently Finkelstein’s Akiba: Scholar, Saint and Martyr (1936), while interesting from the standpoint of modern historiography, go beyond the limits of available evidence. SEE ALSO: Martyrdom and martyrs, Jewish; Mishnah and Tosefta; Rabbis.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Finkelstein, L. (1936) Akiba: scholar, saint and martyr. New York.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 264–265. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah11005

2 Friedman, S. (2005) “A good story deserves retelling: the unfolding of the Akiva legend.” In J. L. Rubenstein, ed., Creation and composition; the contribution of the Bavli redactors (stammaim) to the Aggada: 71–100. Tu¨bingen. Ginzberg, L. (1901) “Akiva ben Joseph.” In I. Singer, ed., The Jewish Encyclopedia: 304–10. New York.

Scha¨fer, P. (2003) “Bar Kokhba and the rabbis.” In P. Scha¨fer, ed., The Bar Kokhba war reconsidered; new perspectives on the second Jewish revolt against Rome: 1–22. Tu¨bingen. Strack, H. L. and Stemberger, G. (1991) Introduction to the Talmud and Midrash, trans. M. Bockmuehl. Edinburgh.

1

Akitu BEATE PONGRATZ-LEISTEN

The festival termed akitu is attested since the Sumerian period for every city god. In UR, for instance, the rites included a boat ride of the moon god to the rural sanctuary outside the city, offerings, a circumambulation of the fields combined with offerings to the standard of the moon god, an anointing of Nanna’s (see SIN (NANNA)) temple gate as of a purification rite, sports activities performed by athletes, and a tithe paid by the merchants for the temple treasury. Assyro-Babylonian culture adopts the term as well as the practice of the festival’s celebration in the first and seventh months of the year. Akitu-houses are attested for a variety of deities throughout Babylonia. MARDUK’s akitufestival in BABYLON, capital of the Babylonian Empire, was by far the most important. The ritual centers on two locations inside the city – the NABU temple and the Marduk temple – and the festival house outside the city walls. The festival stretched over twelve days. Central events were the reading of the epic ENUMA ELISH on the fourth day, recounting Marduk’s elevation to the rank of the chief deity of the Babylonian pantheon, his battle against TIAMAT and the creation of the cosmos out of her corpse; the king’s performance of the “negative confession” swearing that he did not destroy the city and temple of Babylon and that he did not harm the elite of the city, on day five;

the determination of destinies for Marduk performed by the divine assembly before the procession on day eight and after the procession on day eleven. During the procession, in addition to the gods and the king, prisoners would be led in the procession, and tribute and booty would later be presented to the gods. After the sacking of Babylon in 689 BCE, the Assyrian king SENNACHERIB reinvented the akitu-festival for the Assyrian chief deity Assur. The akitu-festivals celebrated in other cities of Assyria strategically located on the periphery focused on the procession of the king, who was represented by his garments in company with the patron deity to indicate control over the territory of the empire. The akitu-festival of Ishtar of Arbail could be combined with the triumphal procession of the king after his victorious campaign. REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Bidmead, J. (2002) The akı¯tu festival: religious continuity and royal legitimation in Mesopotamia. Piscataway, NJ. Pongratz-Leisten, B. (2006) “Prozession.” In Reallexikon der Assyriologie, vol. 11: 98–103. Berlin. Sallaberger, W. and Pongratz-Leisten, B. (1999) “Neujahr(sfest).” In Reallexikon der Assyriologie, vol. 9: 291–8. Berlin. Weissert, E. (1997) “Royal hunt and royal triumph in a prism fragment of Ashurbanipal.” In S. Parpola and R. M. Whiting, eds., Assyria 1995: proceedings of the 10th Anniversary Symposium of the Neo-Assyrian Text Corpus Project, Helsinki, September 7–11, 1995: 339–58. Helsinki.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 265–266. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah24008

1

Akkad (Agade)

SEE ALSO:

Akkadian language; Guti.

BENJAMIN R. FOSTER

Akkad was originally the name of an area and city near the confluence of the Diyala and Tigris rivers in Mesopotamia (Adams 1965; Weiss 1997). The meaning of the word is unknown. After it became the seat of the Sargonic Dynasty around 2300 BCE, Akkad as a territory expanded to mean northern Babylonia, from north of Nippur to Sippar. The city of the same name is first attested in the late Early Dynastic period, became an imperial capital in the Sargonic period, and was still occupied in the second millennium. By the mid-first millennium the city’s cults had been transferred elsewhere and the former capital was a famous ruin. In modern scholarship, the city is often distinguished from the region by calling it Agade. Its location has not been identified. The Akkadian or Sargonic Empire (Liverani 1993; Foster 1997; Westenholz 1999) that arose in this region was considered in later Mespotamian historical thinking as a turning point in history; the inscriptions of its kings were studied, even forged; literature was composed about them, the site of Agade was excavated, Assyrian and Babylonian rulers claimed to be heirs to its legacies. Why this should be so is a major historical problem for which the main evidence is commemorative inscriptions (Frayne 1993), administrative documents (Foster 1982, 1983), statuary, reliefs, and cylinder seals (Nagel and Strommenger 1968; Moortgat 1969; Amiet 1976; Collon 1982), and a rich historical memory in Sumerian (Cooper 1983) and Akkadian literature and scholarship (Glassner 1986; Westenholz 1997). Akkad gave its name to one of the major languages of Mesopotamia. During the second millennium, Akkadian meant both the natives of Akkad in particular and the non-Amorite inhabitants of Babylonia in general. By the first millennium, Akkad had become a historical name for all of Babylonia, including Sumer.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Adams, R. M. (1965) Land behind Baghdad: a history of settlement on the Diyala Plains. Chicago. Amiet, P. (1976) L’Art d’Agade´ au Muse´e du Louvre. Paris. Collon, D. (1982) Catalogue of the Western Asiatic Seals in the British Museum, Cylinder Seals II, Akkadian-Post Akkadian Ur III-periods. London. Cooper, J. (2001) “Literature and history: the historical and political referents of Sumerian literary texts.” Proceedings of the XLVe Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale (1998) 1: 131–147. Bethesda. Foster, B. (1982) “Archives and record-keeping in Sargonic Mesopotamia.” Zeitschrift fu¨r Assyriologie 72: 1–27. Foster, B. (1983) “Archives and empire in Sargonic Mesopotamia.” Compte rendu de la trentie`me Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale: 46–52. Foster, B. (1997) “Akkadians.” In Meyers, ed.: 49–54. Frayne, D. (1993) “Sargonic and Gutian periods (2334–2113 BC).” In D. Frayne, The royal inscriptions of Mesopotamia, early periods, vol. 2. Toronto. Glassner, J.-J. (1986) La Chute d’Akkade´: l’e´ve´nement et sa me´moire. Berlin. Liverani, M., ed. (1993) Akkad, the first world empire: structure, ideology, traditions. Padua. Meyers, E. M., ed. (1997) The Oxford encyclopedia of archaeology in the Near East, vol. 1. Oxford. Moortgat, A. (1969) The art of ancient Mesopotamia: the classical art of the Near East, trans. J. Filson. New York. Nagel, W. and Strommenger, E. (1968) “Reichsakkadische Glyptik und Plastik im Rahmen der mesopotamisch-elamischen Geschichte.” Berliner Jahrbuch fu¨r Vor- und Fru¨hgeschichte 8: 137–206. Weiss, H. (1997) “Akkade.” In Meyers, ed.: 41–4. Westenholz, A. (1999) “The Old Akkadian period: history and culture.” In W. Sallaberger and A. Westenholz, Mesopotamien: Akkade-Zeit und Ur III-Zeit. Go¨ttingen. Westenholz, J. (1997) Legends of the kings of Akkade: the texts. Winona Lake.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 266–267. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah01005

1

Akkadian language BENJAMIN R. FOSTER

Akkadian refers to the East Semitic language spoken and written in Mesopotamia from about 2400 BCE to the Christian era (Huehnergard and Woods 2004). The modern name is derived from Akkadu. Old Akkadian covers a small corpus of evidence prior to 2000 (Hilgert 2002; Hasselbach 2005). Thereafter, Akkadian (reference grammar von Soden 1969; textbook Huehnergard 2005; linguistic description Reiner 1966) is divided into Assyrian and Babylonian dialects. Assyrian, centered on the city of Assur in upper Mesopotamia, is divided into Old (2000–1750), Middle (1500–1000), and Neo-Assyrian (1000–600). Babylonian is divided into Old (1900–1500), Middle (1500–1000), Neo- (1000–600), and Late (600 BCE–first century CE). There were two literary dialects, both Babylonian in origin, the Hymnic-Epic dialect (1900–1500), and Standard Babylonian, from the mid-second millennium on. During the second half of the second millennium, Akkadian diffused throughout western Asia as a formal written language. Akkadian was written using the cuneiform writing system, using polyvalent signs to write syllables, words, and semantic indicators, and thus required significant schooling to read (Walker 1987). The writing was impressed on clay tablets using a stylus, though inscriptions on stone, metal, and waxed writing boards are also known. The phonology of Akkadian varies among dialects, with a tendency to reduce the core Semitic inventory of sounds owing to contact with other languages. Akkadian shares with the larger Semitic family a morphology based on irreducible nominal roots, such as kalb “dog,” and inflected verbal roots, plus uninflected particles, such as certain prepositions. The majority of verbal roots consist of three consonant sounds and an associated vowel, such as mqut “fall.” There are five marked grammatical cases, plus a vocative. Three prefixed forms of

the verb broadly correspond to present, perfect, and present-future in European languages; a suffixed form has no time value but often denotes a state or condition. There is a base stem and three or more derived stems of the verb, corresponding to such notions as plurality, causation, and passivity, as well as two internal markers for kinds of action, such as mutual or medio-passive and repetitive. There are three moods: indicative, asseverative-subjunctive, and wish or command (Edzard 1973). The most important linguistic contact with Akkadian was Sumerian, which contributed many loan words at all periods (Lieberman 1977), affecting morphology and syntax as well. With the internationalization of Akkadian came new loan words from West Semitic languages and Hurrian, and, during the first millennium, Akkadian was increasingly influenced by Aramaic, though Akkadian influenced these languages in turn (Kaufman 1974). Aramaic gradually replaced Akkadian as the spoken vernacular of Mesopotamia, though Akkadian was maintained as a written language of learning and science until early in the Christian era. The existence of Akkadian was forgotten until the decipherment of cuneiform writing in the nineteenth century, when it was often referred to as Assyrian. Because of this, the academic discipline focused on the Akkadian written tradition is referred to as Assyriology. SEE ALSO:

Semitic languages.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Edzard, D. (1973) “Die Modi beim a¨lteren akkadischen Verbum.” Orientalia 42: 121–41. Hasselbach, R. (2005) Sargonic Akkadian: a historical and comparative study of the syllabic texts. Wiesbaden. Hilgert, M. (2002) Akkadisch in der Ur-III Zeit. Mu¨nster. Huehnergard, J. (2005) A grammar of Akkadian, 2nd ed. Winona Lake, IN. Huehnergard, J. and Woods, C. (2004) “Akkadian and Eblaite.” In R. D. Woodard, ed.,

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 267–268. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah01006

2 The Cambridge encyclopedia of the world’s ancient languages: 218–87. Cambridge. Kaufman, S. A. (1974) The Akkadian influences on Aramaic. Chicago. Lieberman, S. J. (1977) The Sumerian loanwords in Old-Babylonian Akkadian. Missoula.

Reiner, E. (1966) A linguistic analysis of Akkadian. The Hague. von Soden, W. (1969) Grundriss der Akkadischen Grammatik samt Erga¨nzungsheft zum Grundriss der Akkadischen Grammatik. Rome. Walker, C. B. F. (1987) Reading the past: cuneiform. London.

1

Akko ALEXANDER VACEK

Akko was an important harbor city located 18 km north of Haifa. The settlement was situated at the crossroads of two important trading routes: the Via Maris, and another road leading from Akko to Syria and Transjordan. The site covers the area from Tell el-Fukhar, a mound positioned ca. 700 m inland, to Old Akko located on the coast. Bronze Age and Iron Age I–II occupation seems to have been confined to Tell el-Fukhar, with other areas of the site remaining unsettled until the Persian period. During the second half of the sixth century BCE the original harbor at the Na’aman river was replaced by a new one located at Old Akko (Raban 1993: 29). Although the Iron Age city is mentioned in the Bible and Assyrian texts, its political history at this time is difficult to reconstruct. However, it seems probable that Akko belonged to the “United Monarchy” under DAVID and SOLOMON, after which it may have been gifted to Hiram, king of TYRE (Dothan 1976: 1–2). Later, during the reign of SENNACHERIB, the city unsuccessfully rebelled against Assyrian rule. The city was probably destroyed and its inhabitants expelled by ASHURBANIPAL, and it was not until Cambyses that the town became important again (Dothan 1976). Archaeological results have not been published fully, but some evidence points to the arrival of a new group of people, generally associated with the “SEA

PEOPLES” (the Šrdn-Sherden mentioned in the Onomasticon of Amenope), during the Iron Age I (Dothan 1993: 21; Artzy 2013). The town was unfortified during this period, while the discovery of several kilns and remains of purple dye production attests to industrial activities. The excavations also revealed evidence for residential buildings dating from the Iron Age II to the Persian period (Dothan 1993: 21–2). SEE ALSO:

Israel and Judah.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Artzy, M. (1987) “On boats and Sea Peoples.” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 266: 75–84. Artzy, M. (2013) “On the other ‘Sea Peoples’.” In A. E. Killebrew and G. Lehmann, eds., The Philistines and other “Sea Peoples” in text and archaeology: 329–44. Atlanta. Dothan, M. (1976) “Akko: interim excavation report. First season, 1973/4.” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 224: 1–48. Dothan, M. (1993) “Tel Acco.” In Stern, Lev. inzonGilbo’a and Aviram, eds., The new encyclopedia of archaeological excavations in the Holy Land, vol. 1: 17–23. Jerusalem. Raban, A. (1993) “Maritime Acco.” In Stern, Lev. inzon-Gilbo’a and Aviram, eds., The new encyclopedia of archaeological excavations in the Holy Land, vol. 1: 29–31. Jerusalem. Stern, E., Lev.inzon-Gilbo’a, A., and Aviram, J., eds. (1993) The new encyclopedia of archaeological excavations in the Holy Land, vol. 1. Jerusalem.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner. © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Published 2015 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah26176

1

Akoe GEORGINA M. LONGLEY

Akoe means “hearing” or “thing heard.” HERODand POLYBIUS distinguished the eyes and the ears as the instruments of historical inquiry, but they considered the latter less reliable than the former (Hdt. 1.8.2, Polyb. 12.27.7; for eye-witnessing, see AUTOPSY). Enquiry by means of akoe included evidence obtained by questioning witnesses, secondhand accounts, and oral traditions: in short, hearsay as opposed to one’s own observation. Ancient writers were alive to the potential problems of evidence gathered by this method. Even with eyewitnesses, as THUCYDIDES was well aware, one encountered problems of memory and prejudice (1.22.3), so that there could be conflicting accounts of the same event from people who had been present to it (Thuc. 1.22.3; also Polyb. 12.4c.4–5; Lucian Hist. conscr. 47). Moreover, there was the problem of falsehood, which TACITUS knew well (Ann. 4.11.3). To some extent, however, the historian was always dependent on oral report. He could

OTUS

not see everything for himself – for instance Herodotus saw the Nile as far as Elephantine (or so he claimed), but he learned by means of akoe what was beyond (2.29); and he was entirely dependent upon others’ reports for the mythical or prehistorical period – as was, say, Thucydides writing on MINOS (1.4.1). Writing about the very distant past necessitated relaying akoe upon akoe, an unverifiable procedure in Polybius’ estimation and therefore not useful (4.2.2–3). SEE ALSO:

Akribeia; Lucian.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Betalli, M. (2004) “Akoe.” In C. Ampolo, U. Fantasia, and L. Porciani, eds., Lexicon Historiographicum Graecum et Latinum, vol. 1: 32–6. Pisa. Marincola, J. (1997) Authority and tradition in ancient historiography: 63–86. Cambridge. Marincola, J. (2001) Greek historians: 35–6. Oxford. Sacks, K. S. (1981) Polybius on the writing of history: 63–4. Berkeley. Thomas, R. (1992) Literacy and orality in ancient Greece. Cambridge.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 268–269. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah08004

1

Akousilaos DENNIS R. ALLEY

Akousilaos of Argos (FGrH 2) was an early Greek logographer of the late sixth or early fifth century BCE. The Suda records that he was the son of Kabas and an Argive. The Byzantine author then confusingly claims his home city was Kerkas near Aulis, and offers the puzzling detail that his Genealogies were based on bronze tablets which his father had exhumed in his house (Suda a 942, 1.87.20 Adler = FGrH 2, T1). Felix Jacoby suspected that the details included in the Suda biography are a composite of Akousilaus of Argos and a Boeotian Schwindelautor of the same name who was a Hellenistic invention (Jacoby 1940). Supporting this hypothesis, Jacoby, and more recently Alan Cameron, noted the propensity of Hellenistic forgers to attribute discovered documents that were contemporary with their subject to their creations (Cameron 1995: 124–66). Similar tendencies are seen in other Hellenistic and imperial Schwindelautoren such as Dionysius Skytobrachion, Dares of Phrygia, and Dictys Cretensis. Ancient testimonia agree that Akousilaos of Argos was a contemporary of Pherecydes of Athens and Hekataios of Miletos and part of the first generation of Greek prose authors (Dion. Hal. Thuc. 5.1 = FGrH 2, T2, Joseph. Ap. 1.13 = FGrH 2, T3). The only work attributed to him, the Genealogies, consisted of at least three books (Schol. (T) Il.23.296c = FGrH 2, F3). The earliest citation of the Argive logographer (Plat. Symp. 178.A–B = FGrH 2, F6) emphasizes the author’s cosmological interests. This citation and several others call attention to Akousilaos’ apparent dependence on Hesiod. Clement of Alexandria even went so far as to accuse Akousilaos of merely transcribing Hesiod’s Theogony into prose (Clem. Al. Strom. 6.26.8 = FGrH 2, T5). We possess too little of the Genealogies to judge the veracity of Clement’s claim; however, several sources cite his divergence from Hesiod in key details of various myths. Alan Cameron has alerted us to

the possibility that many later mythographers may be entirely reliant on second- or thirdhand information on the earliest authors (Cameron 1995). We, therefore, should entertain the possibility that Clement was reliant on epitomes of the Genealogies or similarly deficient material for his judgments. Despite limitations to our knowledge of the text, Clement’s suggestion may help us better understand some of Akousilaos’ aims. Given his scope and overlap with earlier epic genealogies, the Genealogies may represent the beginning of what we consider universal history in the Greek prose tradition. On this view, Akousilaos may have compiled his text in a similar way to Ephorus or Diodorus Siculus, drawing primarily from earlier epic sources. This would also accord with the testimonia of Cicero, who calls attention to the annalistic style of the Genealogies and compares Akousilaos with Pherecydes, Hellanikos, Cato Maior, Fabius Pictor, and L. Calpurnius Piso (Cic. De Oratore. 2.53 = FGrH 2, T8). Moreover, comments like those of THUCYDIDES on the use of Homer in Greek HISTORIOGRAPHY (Thuc.1.9.4) may demonstrate that the ancients were well aware of the limitations on using epic poetry as a source of history, but were forced to do so given the lack of surviving material from the earliest periods. On this point, HERODOTUS seems to be the more cynical about the potential for understanding history through poetry (Hdt. 2.119). The content of the extant fragments of the Genealogies ranges from earliest cosmology to myths involving several regional eponymous heroes. To judge from the considerable mention of Akousilalos’ work in Philodemus’ philosophical texts, Plato’s dialogues, the Katasterismoi, and others, the text’s cosmological interests seem to have been widely influential, and assumed an authoritative position at a relatively early period. We can observe that Akousilaos was not limited to the works of Hesiod from his inclusion of details concerning the Homeric epics and Epic Cycle generally (FGrH 2, F39–43). Scholiasts to Pindar include Akousilaos among the important works on the death of Asclepius and Apollo’s subsequent punishment by Zeus for lashing

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, and Andrew Erskine. © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Published 2017 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah30557

2 out and killing the Cyclopes after Asclepius’ death (Schol. BEFGQ in Pind. Pyth. 3.25C = FGrH 2, F17). The narrative structure and organization of the work beyond its rough chronological arrangement is lost. From the surviving fragments we cannot ascertain the extent of editorializing or authorial insertions in the text, or to what extent, if any, Akousilaos challenged the veracity of his sources. The surviving proem from Akousilaos’ contemporary, Hekataios of Miletus (FGrH1), makes a point of derisively dismissing “the tales of the Greeks” (οἱ γὰρ Ἑλλήνων λόγοι) as “manifold and laughable” (πολλοί τε καὶ γελοιοι, ὡς ἐμοὶ φαίνονται) (FGrH 1, F1). It may be possible that Hekataios has works like Akousilaos’ in mind when challenging these tales, particularly when Hekataios, unlike Akousilaos to judge from the fragments, was an advocate of myth rationalization. Our longest extant fragment of the Genealogies reveals important details about the earliest phase of Greek prose. FGrH 2, F22, P.Oxy. 13, 1611, fr.1, col. 2, 38–96, a fragment from an unknown commentary, contains sixteen continuous lines from the work detailing Poseidon’s relationship to Kaine/Kaineus. The quotation demonstrates that already by Akousilaos’ time Ionic had become the standard dialect of prose. However, like other authors

who composed in a dialect different from their own, Akousilaos seems to have retained several epichoric forms, such as his native Doric infinitive (Toye 2009 ad loc). The fragments of the text are collected in Fowler (2000), and a full text and commentary on the fragments can be found in Toye (2009). SEE ALSO:

Historiography, Greek and Roman.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Cameron, A. (1995) Callimachus and his critics. Princeton. Cameron, A. (2004) Greek mythology in the Roman world. Oxford. Fowler, R. (1996) “Herodotos and his contemporaries.” Journal of Hellenic Studies 116: 62–87. Fowler, R. (2000) Early Greek mythography, vol. 1. Oxford. Jacoby, F. (1940) “Die Überlieferung von Ps-Plutarch’s Parallela Minora und die Schwindelautoren.” Mnemosyne 8: 73–144. Schwartz, E. (1909) “Akusilaos.” In A. Pauly, G. Wissowa, and W. Kroll, eds., Realencyclopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft 6: 1222–3. Toye, D. L. (1995) “Dionysios of Halikarnassos on the first Greek historians.” American Journal of Philology 116, 2: 279–302. Toye, D. L. (2009) “Akousilaos of Argos (FGrH 2).” In I. Worthington, ed., Brill’s new Jacoby. Brill Online.

1

Akragas (Agrigentum) SPENCER POPE

Akragas (modern Agrigento), a Greek colony located on the southern coast of Sicily, was founded in 582 BCE by an expedition from GELA led by oikists Aristonous and Pystilos (Thucydides 6.4.4). The polis soon fell to the tyrant PHALARIS (ruled ca. 572–554), noted for his cruelty. In 488 THERON of the Emmenidai family became tyrant, politically aligned with his son-in-law GELON of Syracuse. The two tyrants led the victory over the Carthaginians at the Battle of Himera in 480, which ushered in the period of the city’s greatest prosperity: victory monuments included a number of temples and an aqueduct leading to an artificial pond in the middle of the city (kolymbethra). The wealth and luxury of the city were praised by Polybius (9.27.1–9) and Diodorus Siculus (13.81.4–5; 13.84.5–6) as well; Theron’s Pan-Hellenic victories were commemorated by PINDAR in Olympian 2 and 3. Following the brief rule of Theron’s son, Thrasydaios (r. 471–470), a democratic government that

Figure 1 Pope.

included the philosopher EMPEDOCLES came to power. Akragas was sacked by the Carthaginians in 406; although the city continued to be occupied, it was revived by TIMOLEON following the battle at the Crimisus River in 338. The city fell to the Romans in 262, at which point it became known as Agrigentum. Located about 3 km from the shore, the polis extends across a shallow depression bordered by a sharp ridgeline (Rupe Atenea) to the north; from the middle of the sixth century BCE a fortification wall enclosed an urban area of about 450 hectares; at the same time an urban grid consisting of six broad plateiai (streets 7 m wide) and numerous narrower stenopoi was established. The agora was located in the center of the urban grid and included both an ekklesiasterion and a bouleuterion for meetings of the assembly and council respectively. Agrigento is most notable archaeologically for the series of temples built on a ridge south of the city. The earliest is Temple A, conventionally identified as belonging to HERAKLES and dated to ca. 500 BCE. It has 615 columns. The temple may have had marble pedimental sculpture, possibly including the severe style

Temple F (“Temple of Concord”) at Agrigentum (ca. 430 BCE), west fac¸ade. Photograph by Spencer

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 269–270. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah16002

2 “Warrior of Akragas.” The colossal (11256 m) Temple of Olympian Zeus rivals only Temple G at SELINOUS for size, but its configuration is completely novel. In place of a peristyle, engaged half-columns (714) punctuate an exterior wall. Gigantic male figures (telamones) 7.65 m high were placed either on the exterior or lining the cella, which may have been open to the sky. The temple was undertaken shortly after 480 and was left unfinished in 406. Temple D, erroneously attributed to Hera Lacinia, and Temple F (so-called Temple of Concord), both dated to the fifth century, are more conventional in form (613 columns); the latter is one of the best preserved temples of the ancient world. To the west of the temples is the Sanctuary of Chthonic Deities. Greek-made votives at

the site predate the foundation and thus indicate colonial contact at a pre-existing indigenous sanctuary. SEE ALSO: Colonization, Greek; Colonization, Phoenician; Sicily.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Braccesi, L. and De Miro, E. (1992) Agrigento e la Sicilia greca. Rome. Cerchiai, L., Jannelli, L., and Longo, F. (2004) The Greek cities of Magna Grecia and Sicily: 240–55. Los Angeles. Fiorentini, G., ed. (1990) Gli edifici pubblici di Agrigento antica. Agrigento. Holloway, R. R. (2000) The archaeology of Ancient Sicily. London.

1

Akribeia GEORGINA M. LONGLEY

Akribeia means “accuracy” or “exactness.” THUCYDIDES was the first to make akribeia a core principle of historiography and its pursuit a central part of the historian’s task (1.22.1). Akribeia can also mean “precision” in the sense of military discipline or exactness of measurement (Polyb. 10.44.2). Historiographically speaking, the term was closely associated with autopsia, direct observation – which was the best way of achieving akribeia in the account of a place or event. Fabius Pictor and Cincius Alimentus are said to have written accurately on the events in which they were involved. In support of his claims, POLYBIUS cited documents he had seen (3.56.4, the Lacinian column). Correcting a previous historian’s akribeia could justify the writing or rewriting of history – so Polybius (1.14) on the First Punic War, or Thucydides (6.53.3–4.1) on the TYRANNICIDES. Akribeia can also denote

accuracy achieved through fullness of detail and the inclusion of different accounts, and consequently greater reliability. Omission could mar the striving for akribeia as much as plain inaccuracy. The remoteness of the Mythic period simply made the task harder (see Dion. Hal. Ant. Rom. 1.8.1 on historians who omit legends for this reason; and cf. Diod. Sic. 4.1.1–4 on the importance of myth in history). SEE ALSO: Akoe; Autopatheia; Autopsy; Autourgia; Cincius Alimentus, Lucius; Diodorus of Sicily; Dionysius of Halicarnassus; Fabius Pictor, Quintus; Punic wars.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Fantasia, U. (2004) “Akribes.” In C. Ampolo, U. Fantasia, and L. Porciani, eds., Lexicon Historiographicum Graecum et Latinum, vol. 1: 36–66. Pisa. Marincola, J. (1997) Authority and tradition in ancient historiography. Cambridge.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 270–271. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah08005

1

Akrotiri WILLIAM C. WEST III

Akrotiri is the modern name of the site of a Minoan palace, located on the south coast of the island of Santorini (see THERA), whose considerable remains date from the Middle Cycladic period (2000–1550 BCE) and later. The island was destroyed by a volcanic eruption ca. 1628, which created a tidal wave that caused destruction as far away as CRETE, some 70 km to the south. The eruption has been associated in mythology with the sinking of Atlantis, discussed in PLATO’s Timaeus and Critias. The palace of Late Minoan IA, in the period ca. 1700–1450, built on the ruins a Middle Cycladic settlement, was rediscovered by S. Marinatos in 1967. Impressive frescoes were discovered, depicting men, women, children, animal and marine life, various plants, ships, and other structures. Some of these are housed in the National Museum in Athens and others in a new museum in Phira, the capital of the island. Noteworthy examples include frescoes that are called by modern names: “Ladies”; “Children boxing”; “Fisherman”; “Antelopes”; “Blue monkeys”; and “Scenes of ships before the shore.” The fresco of “Scenes of ships before the shore” has a narrative character, as seen in the depiction of large sailing ships proceeding from a harbor on the left to another harbor on the right. The flagship of the admiral is appropriately decorated, and he sits in his cabin in the stern. On the shore people have climbed to rooftops to wave farewell. Some men have gone down to the shore, and others are following in small boats. At the other harbor, a welcome is waiting. The painting is also a source of information on the

techniques of ship-building. The fresco of “Ladies” depicts women who are almost lifesize, with long black hair and earrings, and faces painted with make-up, all beneath a starry sky. A priestess is shown approaching them, holding a brazier with burning charcoal, which she sprinkles with incense. In the fresco of “Blue monkeys,” they are shown scampering over rocks. Another wall-painting depicts large papyrus-like plants. The monumental graphic art constitutes Thera’s most significant contribution to our understanding of the prehistoric Aegean. These are the earliest examples of large-scale painting in Greece. Sufficient indication of the foundations of the rooms of the palace permitted extensive reconstruction, which eventually partly collapsed, thus preventing visiting of the site by the general public. At this point in time, restoration of the site is continuing. Several houses, together with thousands of local vases exhibiting a wide variety of decoration, and much coarseware, have been identified. SEE ALSO: Fresco, images and technique; Wall-painting, Greek and Roman.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Doumas, C. (1984) Santorini: a guide to the island and its archaeological treasures: 12–63. Athens. Immerwahr, S. (1990) Aegean painting in the Bronze Age: 39–75. University Park, PA. Sa¨flund, G. (1981) “Cretan and Theran questions.” In R. Ha¨gg and N. Marinatos, eds., Sanctuaries and cults in the Aegean Bronze Age: 189–208. Stockholm. Talbert, R. J. A. et al. (2000) Barrington atlas of the Greek and Roman world: 61A5. Princeton.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print page 271. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah14016

1

Akurgal, Ekrem KAAN İREN

Ekrem Akurgal (March 30, 1911 (Tulkarem) – November 1, 2002 (Izmir)) was one of the most prominent archaeologists of Turkey in the twentieth century. With the emergence of the Turkish Republic and the introduction of a new law on surnames, he took Akurgal as his family name. This name originally belonged to a Sumerian king and means “The Great Sea Land” in Sumerian. Having obtained a scholarship from the Turkish government, Akurgal began studying archaeology at the University of Berlin in 1933. He finished his doctoral studies on Lycian reliefs in 1939. He returned to Turkey the next year and in 1941 he became associate professor at the Ankara University with his thesis on the Harpy Monument. He received the title of professor in 1949, and of professor ordinarius (a title of distinction) in 1957. He was the Dean of the Faculty of Language and History-Geology at the same university in 1958 and 1959 and retired in 1981. Akurgal directed many excavations with extraordinary results in Turkey, at modern Zile (1945), SINOPE (1951–3), PHOKAIA (1953–7), KYME (1953–4), DASKYLEION (1954–9), KYZIKOS (1955–7), Ovabayındır (1956), Pitane (1959–65), Dirmil (1963), and ERYTHRAI (1964–77), but his longest project was Old SMYRNA (in cooperation with a British team in 1948–51, and as sole director in 1967–93). He wrote numerous archaeological studies and popularizing publications on

Anatolian civilizations, especially on the Lycians, Phrygians, Hittites, Urartians, and East Greeks. His emphasis on the Anatolian impact on the cultural roots of western civilization was met with suspicion by some scholars. However, he cautiously kept his distance from the ideologies of “Mavi Anadoluculuk” (Blue Anatolism) and Pan-Anatolism. Akurgal received permanent or honorary membership of many academies of sciences and archaeological institutes and obtained a wide range of awards, including the Légion d’honneur, the Goethe Medal, and I Cavalli d’Ora di San Marco. SEE ALSO:

Asia Minor.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Akurgal, E. (1993) Ancient Civilisations and ruins of Turkey, 8th edn. Istanbul. Akurgal, E. (1999) Bir arkeoloğun anıları. Türkiye Cumhuriyeti kültür tarihinden bir kaç yaprak. Ankara. Greenewalt, C. H. (2005) “Ekrem Akurgal, 1911–2002.” American Journal of Archaeology 109: 561–3. Işık, F. (2003) “In memoriam Ekrem Akurgal. 30. März 1911–1. November 2002.” Istanbuler Mitteilungen 53: 5–8 Özgünel, C. (2012) “Ankara Üniversitesi-Ekrem Akurgal ve arkeoloji.” In O. Bingöl, ed., Ord. Prof. Dr. Ekrem Akurgal 100 yaşında. Anatolia, Supplement 3.1: 147–53. Tok, G. (1997) “Ekrem Akurgal. Anadolu arkeolojisinden aldığı ışık dünya uygarlığını aydınlattı.” Bilim ve Teknik (Haziran [June]): 80–8.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner. © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Published 2015 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah25060

1

Al Mina ANTONIS KOTSONAS

Al Mina is an Iron Age site on coastal Syria. It is located at the mouth of the Orontes River and occupies the only outlet to the sea for the Amuq Plain (which is now part of Turkey). The plain was part of the neo-Aramaean kingdom of Unqi in the ninth to mid-eighth centuries BCE, at which point the Assyrians gained control of the area. Greek imports were reaching the plain in the ninth and perhaps the tenth century, but the earliest remains at Al Mina date from the early eighth century. Activity at the site was, however, intensified from the late eighth century onwards. After an interval under Babylonian domination through much of the sixth century, the site revived under the Persians and was rebuilt in a new city plan. The city flourished for a considerable time, despite two destructions caused by fire, but it was eclipsed by the foundation of SELEUKEIA in 301. Scholarship has been preoccupied with the early phases of Al Mina and their importance for Mediterranean interconnections; interpretations of the site have been highly varied and hotly debated in the last three decades. Al Mina was the first Levantine site with an abundance of Greek pottery to be excavated (in the 1930s) and still remains the find spot of the greatest quantity of early Greek pottery in the Near East. Although the Greek Geometric sherds represent an unknown percentage of the overall ceramic assemblage, their absolute figure, which rises to about 1,500, far outnumbers that for any other site in the wider region. On the basis of the profusion of Greek wares, Al Mina was initially considered as a Greek colony (apoikia) and was identified with the legendary Greek city of Poseideion founded by Amphilochos after the Trojan War (Hdt. 3.91). Postwar scholarship demonstrated that the identification of Al Mina with Poseideion was erroneous. It also suggested that much of the Greek pottery found at the site originated from the island of EUBOEA; this brought about the

widespread notion that Al Mina was a Euboean “base” in the eastern Mediterranean, comparable in function to the Euboean colony of PITHEKOUSSAI, which is located on the small island of Ischia, off the Bay of Naples, in the central Mediterranean. For reasons explained below, the relevant scholarship no longer treats Al Mina as a colony, but as a Greek emporion, a port of trade. Less popular is the assumption that the emporion emerged out of an encampment of Greek, largely Euboean, mercenaries. As a Greek emporion, Al Mina is also seen as an important gateway for the exportation of Near Eastern, more specifically north Syrian, artifacts, craftsmen, and techniques to the Aegean of the eighth and seventh centuries. Euboeans had a leading role in this in the eighth century, but, in the ensuing century, eastern Greek traders assumed the lead. The initial interpretation of Al Mina as a Greek colony was disposed of as soon as its architecture, house furniture, and kitchenware were shown to be of undeniably Levantine character. It was further shown that already in the eighth century Syrian and Cypriot pottery were represented at the site and were to be followed by Phoenician products. This picture lent support to a range of interpretations for the site. A few scholars argued that Al Mina was a Phoenician foundation; the argument, however, gained limited support because of the paucity of Phoenician artifacts in the earliest phases at the site. A more balanced view considers Al Mina as an emporion where different ethnic groups would engage in exchange, and this view is supported by Greek, Aramaean, and Phoenician graffiti discovered at the site. It remains unsettled, however, whether the cosmopolitan port was autonomous or was under the control of inland polities. In any case, Al Mina is of major importance for assessments of trade, long-distance contact, and colonization in the Mediterranean of the Iron Age. SEE ALSO: Apoikia (overseas settlement); Colonization, Greek; Emporion; Phoenicia, Phoenicians; Syria (pre-Roman).

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 272–273. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah02010

2 REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Boardman, J. (1990) “Al Mina and history.” Oxford Journal of Archaeology 9: 169–86. Boardman, J. (1999) The Greeks overseas: their early colonies and trade, 4th ed. London. Kearsley, R. A. (1999) “Greeks overseas in the eighth century BC: Euboeans, Al Mina and

Assyrian imperialism.” In G. R. Tsetskhladze, ed., Ancient Greeks west and east: 109–34. Leiden. Luke, J. (2003) Ports of trade, Al Mina and Geometric Greek pottery in the Levant. Oxford. Niemeyer, H. G. (2004) “Phoenician or Greek: is there a reasonable way out of the Al Mina debate?” Ancient West and East 3: 38–50.

1

Ala PAUL HOLDER

An ala (literally, “a wing”) during the Roman Republic was the name for a force of troops from allied states which was attached to a Roman legion. From the latter part of the fourth century BCE, an ala sociorum usually comprised an equivalent number of infantry to a legion, about 4,200 men, but there were up to three times as many cavalry as the three hundred of a legion. It appears that the infantry was organized in cohorts of about four hundred to six hundred men raised either from individual allied states or from a group of small states. The cavalry was organized in turmae of thirty men (see TURMA). Each ala was commanded by three praefecti sociorum chosen by Rome. In a consular army of two legions, there were two alae sociorum, called sinistra (left) and dextra (right). This arrangement continued until the Social War (91–88 BCE), after which the allies became Roman citizens and henceforward served in the legions. Between 88 and 31 BCE there are a few literary references to alae. They mainly refer to the period after the assassination of JULIUS CAESAR. It is also clear that the term has more than one meaning. Cavalry on the wings of an army could be meant (see CAVALRY, ROMAN), or a unit commanded by a senior officer. In Greek, ile might also be used to signify a turma of thirty men. By the death of AUGUSTUS, an ala was a unit of auxiliary cavalry commanded by a prefect (Saddington 1994). Each was evidently divided into sixteen turmae of thirty-two men but not including the DECURIO, its commander. The earliest record of an ala milliaria is on a diploma for Raetia of 86 CE (Eck and Pangerl 2007), although the origin of this nominally thousand-strong unit is apparently earlier. Each was divided into twenty-four turmae of uncertain strength. By the end of Trajan’s reign, seven milliary alae are attested; a further two are recorded later.

In the Flavian period, some eighty-five alae are attested, of which nearly four percent had been recruited in Gaul and Spain; the only other large ethnic recruiting area was Thrace. Initially, few were numbered. So, to assist identification, there developed the convention of naming alae after a particular commander (Birley 1988). Horse archers are attested from an early date. From the reign of TRAJAN, other specialist units are recorded. Also from this period onward, there is sculptural evidence revealing specialists such as CONTARII in preexisting alae. In the reign of Augustus, commanders might be senators, primipilares, legionary centurions, or equestrians. By the death of Claudius, the post of praefectus equitum alae was reserved for equestrians. The lists of the NOTITIA DIGNITATUM show that alae continued to be recruited to the limitanei throughout the fourth century. These units are likely to have been smaller in strength. Whether the 116 and 118 men present with Ala I Hiberorum in 298 and 300 CE represent its full strength or can be applied to other alae is unclear (Coello 1996: 33–42). SEE ALSO:

Army, Roman Empire; Auxilia; Legion, Roman republican; Socii; Warfare, Roman.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Birley, E. (1988) “Alae named after their commanders.” In E. Birley, The Roman army: papers 1929–1986: 368–84. Amsterdam. Coello, T. (1996) Unit sizes in the late Roman army. Oxford. Eck, W. and Pangerl, A. (2007) “Titus Flavius Norbanus, praefectus praetorio Domitians, als Statthalter Ra¨tiens in einem neuen Milita¨rdiplom.” Zeitschrift fu¨r Papyrologie und Epigraphik 163: 239–51. Erdkamp, P., ed. (2007) A companion to the Roman army. Oxford. Saddington, D. B. (1994) “A context for a dedication by five cavalry regiments to a Cornelius Scipio in Rome?” Zeitschrift fu¨r Papyrologie und Epigraphik 104: 73–7.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 273–274. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah19007

1

Alabanda ¨ MEL WOLFGANG BLU

Alabanda ((tα` ) Ἀlάbanda Strabo 14.2.22, 658) was an ancient city in CARIA, ca. 11 km west of C¸ine, situated on and below two adjacent hills extending northwards into the plain, its modern name being Dog˘anyurt (formerly Araphisar). According to its founding legend reported by Stephanus of Byzantium, Alabanda was named after Alabandos, the son of a Carian king; a further statement according to which “ala” meant “horse” in the Carian language and “banda” meant “victory” cannot be verified. Alabanda is first mentioned in 480 BCE (Aridolis, the city’s tyrant, who fought on the side of the Persians, having been captured by the Greeks: Hdt. 7.195). At the end of the third century, and in honor of ANTIOCHOS III MEGAS, the city was temporarily renamed “Antiocheia of the Chrysaorians” (of the Carians united in the identically named KOINON). Historically, Alabanda was of minor importance and shared the checkered history of the region under different rulers. In 40 BCE, after its inhabitants had killed the occupying troops left behind by Quintus Labienus, the city was sacked by his Parthian allies. Its inhabitants were said to be wealthy (St. Byz.) and happy-go-lucky (Strabo 14.2.26, 658). During Roman imperial times, Alabanda libera was the site of a conventus (Plin. 5.29.109). The city minted its own coins until the third century CE. In Byzantine times the city became a bishopric.

Among discoveries made by Turkish excavations in 1904/5 were city walls, a bouleuterion and agora, Roman baths, a theater, and the Temple of Apollon Isotimos (“equal in honor” with Zeus Chrysaoreus). Apart from the remains of the theater, the bouleuterion, and an aqueduct, there is nothing spectacular to be seen on the site. Inscriptions found on the ancient site and in the surrounding villages date from late Hellenistic to Roman imperial times. The road leading westwards out of the city crosses the vast ancient necropolis, where numerous tombs, all of sarcophagus type, have been preserved. The inscriptions on them, where still readable, give the names of the deceased and, remarkably, the wide spectrum of their professions. In recent times, there have been occasional excavation activities. REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Bean, G. E. (1971) Turkey beyond the Maeander: 180–9. London. Edhem Bey, H. (1905) “Fouilles d’Alabanda en Carie.” Comptes Rendus des se´ances de l’anne´e de l’Acade´mie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres: 443–54. Edhem Bey, H. (1906) “Fouilles d’Alabanda en Carie.” Comptes Rendus des se´ances de l’anne´e de l’Acade´mie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres: 407–19. Kaletsch, H. (1996) “Alabanda.” New Pauly 1: 426f. The Princeton encyclopedia of classical sites s.v., Princeton. RE I.1 1270 (Hirschfeld). Talbert, R. J. A. et al. (2000) The Barrington atlas map: 61 F2. Princeton.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print page 274. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah14017

1

Alabanda WOLFGANG BLÜMEL

Universität zu Köln, Germany

Alabanda ((τὰ) Ἀλάβανδα Strabo 14.2.22, 658) was an ancient city in CARIA, ca. 11 km west of Çine, situated on and below two adjacent hills extending northwards into the plain, its modern name being Doğanyurt (formerly Araphisar). According to its founding legend reported by Stephanus of Byzantium, Alabanda was named after Alabandos, the son of a Carian king; a further statement according to which “ala” meant “horse” in the Carian language and “banda” meant “victory” cannot be verified. Alabanda is first mentioned in 480 BCE (Aridolis, the city’s tyrant, who fought on the side of the Persians, having been captured by the Greeks: Hdt. 7.195). In the sixties of the third century, and in honor of Antiochos (see ANTIOCHOS II), the city was temporarily renamed “Antiocheia of the Chrysaorians” (of the Carians united in the identically named KOINON). Historically, Alabanda was of minor importance and shared the checkered history of the region under different rulers. In 40 BCE, after its inhabitants had killed the occupying troops left behind by Quintus Labienus, the city was sacked by his Parthian allies. Its inhabitants were said to be wealthy (see STEPHANUS OF BYZANTIUM) and happy-go-lucky (Strabo 14.2.26, 658). During Roman imperial times, Alabanda libera was the site of a conventus (Plin. 5.29.109). The city minted its own coins until the third century CE. In Byzantine times the city became a bishopric. Among discoveries made by Turkish excavations in 1904–5 were city walls, a bouleuterion

and agora, Roman baths, a theater, and the Temple of Apollon Isotimos (“equal in honor” with Zeus Chrysaoreus). Apart from the remains of the theater, the bouleuterion, and an aqueduct, there is nothing spectacular to be seen on the site. Inscriptions found on the ancient site and in the surrounding villages date from late Hellenistic to Roman imperial times. The road leading westwards out of the city crosses the vast ancient necropolis, where numerous tombs, all of sarcophagus type, have been preserved. The inscriptions on them, where still readable, give the names of the deceased and, remarkably, the wide spectrum of their professions. In recent years, there have been excavation activities.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Bean, G. E. (1971) Turkey beyond the Maeander: 180–9. London. Blümel, W. (2018) Inschriften aus Nordkarien, Inschriften griechischer Städte aus Kleinasien 71: 129–210. Bonn. Edhem Bey, H. (1905) “Fouilles d’Alabanda en Carie.” In Comptes rendus des séances de l’Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres: 443– 54. Paris. Edhem Bey, H. (1906) “Fouilles d’Alabanda en Carie.” In Comptes rendus des séances de l’Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres: 407– 19. Paris. Hirschfeld, G. (1893) RE I.1: 1270. Kaletsch, H. (1996) Der Neue Pauly 1: 426f. Stuttgart. Stillwell, R. (2017) The Princeton encyclopedia of classical sites. Princeton. Talbert, R. J. A. et al. (2000) Barrington atlas of the Greek and Roman world: 61 F2. Princeton. Treidler, H. (1975) Der Kleine Pauly 1: 1530f. Stuttgart.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History. Edited by Andrew Erskine, David B. Hollander, and Arietta Papaconstantinou. © 2022 John Wiley & Sons Ltd. Published 2022 by John Wiley & Sons Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah14017.pub2

1

Alalah EVA VON ˘ DASSOW The ancient city of Alalah , whose ruins are ˘ today called Tell Atchana, is located on the ORONTES River about 50 km upstream from the Mediterranean coast, at the river’s northerly bend through the Amuq plain. Alalah was ˘ inhabited throughout most of the second millennium BCE until its abandonment during the early Iron Age (twelfth–eleventh centuries), and the city functioned at times as a regional capital. During the 1930s and 1940s, the site of Alalah was excavated by Sir Leonard Woolley; ˘ excavations were recommenced in 2000 under the direction of Aslihan Yener and continue to the present day. Given its geographical location, Woolley expected Tell Atchana to yield evidence of Hittite culture and of connections between CRETE and the Aegean, on the one hand, and the Near East on the other (see HITTITE, HITTITES). It did, but these aspects of the site were soon overshadowed by the unexpected discovery of archives of CUNEIFORM tablets. The tablets derive principally from two periods: the seventeenth century, represented by Alalah ˘ Level VII, when the city and its territory formed part of the kingdom of HALAB (ALEPPO); and the fifteenth century, represented by Level IV, when Alalah was the capital of a king˘ dom within the MITTANI Empire. The archives represent mainly governmental or institutional record-keeping, not libraries or family archives, though some tablets pertaining to scholarly collections and family archives have also been found. The historical information the Alalah tablets yield is supplemented by ˘ the inscription on the statue of Idrimi, founder of the dynasty that ruled Alalah in the fifteenth ˘ century. Idrimi’s inscription relates a rather romantic tale of its subject’s career which, once its rhetorical and folkloric features are accounted for, offers a skeleton history of the region between the seventeenth and fifteenth centuries. Tell Atchana also provides

a continuous stratigraphic sequence through these centuries, thus archaeologically bridging a significant historical gap: the “dark age” of indeterminate length following the raid on BABYLON by the Hittite king MURSILI I that ended the dynasty of Hammurabi (see HAMMURABI OF BABYLON AND HIS DYNASTY). The earliest history of Alalah , first settled ˘ around 2000 BCE, is virtually unknown. It was situated in the land of Mugisˇ, which seems to have been roughly coextensive with the Amuq plain; there was also a city called Mugisˇ, yet to be identified archaeologically. While Mugisˇ is mentioned in Mesopotamian texts from the time of the UR III DYNASTY, Alalah first ˘ appears – under the form Alahtum – in the ˘ eighteenth-century archives of Mari (see MARI (TELL HARIRI)). At that time, Zimri-Lim, king of Mari (see ZIMRI-LIM OF MARI), sought to purchase Alahtum and its territory from the king of ˘ Halab, but the queen-mother thwarted his plans. A generation later the next king of Halab, Abban, granted the domain of Alalah ˘ to his younger brother Yarim-Lim. The installation of Yarim-Lim at Alalah was accompanied ˘ by new construction and the start of the phase archaeologically termed Level VII. This phase lasted until Hattusili I (see HATTUSILI I AND HIS DYNASTY), founder of the Hittite kingdom, destroyed Alalah in the course of a series of ˘ campaigns in Syria (see SYRIA, PRE-ROMAN). The next period of Alalah ’s history is vis˘ ible only in the rear-view mirror of Idrimi’s inscription, supplemented by scattered references in fragmentary Hittite texts. While Hittite armies succeeded in bringing down the once-great kingdom of Halab, the spoils were left to others on account of dynastic strife in HATTI. Into this vacuum stepped the emergent kingdom of Mittani. When the extant sources raise the curtain once again, Idrimi, supposedly the scion of Halab’s ancient dynasty, has conquered Alalah with a force of ˘ h abiru troops (see HABIRU), whom he has col˘ lected in CANAAN. However, to secure his throne, he is compelled to accept the suzerainty of Mittani, then under the rule of Parattarna.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 274–276. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah24009

2 After conducting a campaign against (apparently) KIZZUWATNA, Idrimi built the palace that, in Woolley’s assessment, defined Level IV of Alalah , and passed on his throne to his son ˘ Niqmepa. Under Mittani’s rule, the kingdom of Alalah ˘ comprised at least three regions: Mugisˇ, Ama’e, and Zalh e; the realm’s total extent is unknown. ˘ The government organized its citizenry into four classes, in a structure similar to the class organization simultaneously developed at NUZI in northeastern Mesopotamia. The principal class was the peasantry, denoted h upsˇu, a ˘ Semitic word that yielded the Hebrew adjective h: opsˇˆı, “free.” The noble class, who had the privilege of fighting from chariots rather than on foot when called to war, was denoted by the Hurrianized Indo-Aryan word Maryanni; despite the new label, this class consisted of the descendants of local nobility. Conscription was one of the purposes served by this explicit classification of the population, and the evidence indicates that at one point in Niqmepa’s reign Alalah mustered an army of ˘ about 2,500 men. The kingdom must have mustered a larger force when, two centuries after the visit of Hattusili I, Hittite armies attacked again. To no avail: the Level IV city was destroyed, first around 1400 BCE and again

in the mid-fourteenth century, when Alalah ˘ succumbed to the Hittite juggernaut led by SUPPILULIUMA I. Alalah and the realm of Mugisˇ then became ˘ a Hittite province, ruled by a Hittite governor. The city endured, its population gradually dwindling, until the Hittite Empire broke apart soon after 1200 BCE. Regional dominance then shifted across the (ancient course of the) Orontes River to Tell Tayinat, ancient Kunulua (biblical Calneh), capital of the Iron Age kingdom of Patina. REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Fink, A. S. (2010) Late Bronze Age Tell Atchana (Alalakh): stratigraphy, chronology, history. Oxford. Lauinger, J. (2008) “The temple of Isˇtar at old Babylonian Alalakh.” Journal of Ancient Near Eastern Religions 8: 181–217. von Dassow, E. (2008) State and society in the late Bronze Age: Alalah under the Mittani Empire. Bethesda, MD. ˘ Woolley, C. L. (1955) Alalakh: an account of the excavations at Tell Atchana in the Hatay, 1937–1949. London. Yener, A., ed. (2010) Tell Atchana, ancient Alalakh, vol. 1: The 2003–2004 excavations season. Istanbul.

1

Alamanni THOMAS CHRISTOPHER LAWRENCE

The Alamanni or Alemanni (“All Men”) was a loose confederation of Germanic groups, including the Lentienses, Bucinobantes, Brisigavi, Iuthungi, and the Suebi, first attested in the third century CE. As a Roman geographic designation, “Alamannia” served to indicate the general region that these tribes occupied, particularly the Agri Decumates, opposite Roman provinces on the upper Rhine-Danube frontier. Rising as a response to the Roman civil wars of the third century CE, the Alamanni had a symbiotic relationship with the Roman Empire that continued until the early sixth century CE. Conflict between the Alamanni and the Romans usually occurred during or as a result of political unrest in the empire (Drinkwater 2007). Raids during the political uncertainty of the third century CE led to punitive campaigns under the emperors Maximian and Constantius. The 356–61 campaigns of the emperor Julian against King Chnodomarius and his allies in the fourth century were also probably a response to a

Roman civil war. In the 360s, the emperor Valentinian launched major campaigns against the Alamannic king Macrianus. Valentinian’s son, the emperor Gratian, also fought an Alamannic campaign when his departure to aid the eastern emperor Valens resulted in raids into Roman territory. In 406, a group of Suebi crossed the frozen Rhine into imperial territory, along with groups of Vandals and Alans. During the course of the fifth century, this group established a short-lived kingdom in the province Gallaecia in Roman Spain. The general Aetius fought against the Iuthungi in Raetia in 430. Panegyrics and fragmentary sources mention further Alamannic raids into this province and Italy itself in the late 450s and 460s. In 496/7, the Franks defeated the Alammani at the Battle of Zu¨lpich, and over the course of the early sixth century, the Alamanni were gradually absorbed into the growing Frankish kingdom. REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Drinkwater, J. F. (2007) The Alamanni and Rome, 213–496. Oxford. Halsall, G. (2007) Barbarian migrations and the Roman west, 376–568. Cambridge.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 276–277. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah12005

1

Alans THOMAS CHRISTOPHER LAWRENCE

The Alans were a group of nomadic peoples originally located in the region of the River Don and the Sea of Azov. They first appear in sources from the first century, including Seneca’s Thyestes and Josephus’ Jewish Wars. Before the late fourth century, the Alans primarily figured in disputes between the Romans and the Parthians. However, sometime before 376, the Alans were the first people to fall to Hunnic expansion. After their defeat, groups of Alans fought on both sides of subsequent engagements between the Goths and the Huns. Alans were among the various barbarian peoples to seek asylum in the empire in 376, and some later fought on the side of Fritigern against the Romans at the Battle of Adrianople. In 406, the Alans, along with Sueves and Vandals, crossed the Rhine into imperial territory. By 411, they had entered Spain and divided the provinces for settlement. The Alans received the provinces of Lusitania and Carthaginiensis. In 416, Goths under Vallia agreed to subdue these tribes and focused

their attacks against the Alans and the Siling Vandals. Refugees from these groups joined the Hasding Vandals, and eventually moved to Africa in 429. A group of Alans under King Goar initially supported the ill-fated usurper Jovinus. These or others later allied to the Gothic confederation of Athaulf. In 414, the Alans turned against Athaulf and relieved the besieged inhabitants of Bazas. Later, they formed a sizable contingent in the army of the general Aetius. In 442, the Alans under Goar received land for settlement in the area of Armorica in return for good service. An Alannic contingent formed part of the Roman/barbarian alliance that defeated Attila’s invasion in 451. In the late fifth century, the Alans and their Gallic settlements were absorbed into the growing kingdoms of the Visigoths and the Franks. REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Halsall, G. (2007) Barbarian migrations and the Roman West, 376–568. Cambridge. Kuznecov, V. A. and Lebedynsky, I. (2005) Les Alains: cavaliers des steppes, seigneurs du Caucase, Ier-XVsie`cles apr. J.-C., 2nd ed. Paris.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print page 277. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah12006

1

Alaric THOMAS CHRISTOPHER LAWRENCE

Alaric was a Gothic general and perhaps a king. The first known episode in his career was an attack on the entourage of the emperor Theodosius at the River Hebrus in 391. When Alaric next appeared in 394, he was leading a contingent of Gothic auxiliaries in imperial service at the Battle of Frigidus against the western usurper Eugenius. On his return to the east in 395, Alaric rebelled after failing to win the promotion he believed he had earned. From this point, Alaric survived as essentially a third party in the power plays between the imperial regents of the young emperors Honorius and Arcadius, frequently becoming a target or ally in larger political schemes. After his revolt in 395, Alaric raided the Balkan and Greek provinces at will, while efforts to oppose him fell apart in the wake of political intrigue. In 395 and 397, the western regent Stilicho led troops against him in Greece, only to be foiled by the political machinations of the eastern court before Alaric could be brought to heel. Through negotiations with Arcadius’ regent Eutropius, Alaric received an official appointment in 397/8, likely MVM per Illyricum. In 401, Alaric invaded Italy for unknown reasons. Stilicho inflicted partial defeats on Alaric’s forces at the Battle of Pollentia, and later, at Verona, forcing Alaric to retreat into Noricum. In 405, Stilicho entered into an agreement with Alaric, appointed him to some unknown military command in Illyricum, and sent him to Epirus. Two years later, Alaric again appeared in the west, demanding

payment for his services. Stilicho, intending to use Alaric against the usurper Constantine III in Gaul, convinced the Senate and Honorius to grant Alaric’s demands of four thousand pounds of gold. However, Stilicho fell to a court coup before the payment could be made. The new regime in control of Honorius refused to honor the agreements made with Alaric. Alaric besieged the city of Rome for the first time in 408, cutting off the food supplies to the city and causing a famine. In the negotiations that followed, Alaric demanded the highest military position as well as money and supplies for his troops. The court agreed to the money and supplies, but denied Alaric a position in the military hierarchy. Alaric therefore returned to Rome and raised the senator Priscus Attalus to imperial rank. Attalus’ capacity for independent action, however, soon worked against Alaric’s interests, and Alaric deposed him. While en route to Ravenna for further talks, he was attacked by a rival Goth in imperial service named Sarus. Alaric took this as a sign of the hostility of the imperial court and besieged Rome for the final time. Rome fell to the forces of Alaric on August 24, 410. After sacking the city for three days, Alaric led his forces south into Campania. He attempted to cross into Sicily, but his efforts failed. While returning north, he died near the city of Consentia. He was succeeded by his brother-in-law, Athaulf. REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Heather, P. (1991) Goths and Romans, 332–489. Oxford. Kulikowski, M. (2007) Rome’s Gothic wars. Cambridge.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 277–278. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah12007

1

Alashiya KATERINA KOLOTOUROU

Alashiya is the name peoples of the eastern Mediterranean in the second millennium BCE may have ascribed to the island of CYPRUS. The place-name is attested in a number of royal texts and inscriptions (Knapp 1996). It first appears in nineteenth- to seventeenth-century CUNEIFORM tablets from MARI (TELL HARIRI); ALALAH, and Babylonia, which concern trafficking and transactions of copper or bronze originating from Alashiya. The majority of textual references to Alashiya come from economic and diplomatic documents of the seventeenth to twelfth centuries, although none of them was found on Cyprus. Many Akkadian cuneiform tablets found at UGARIT and Tell el-Amarna in the Nile Valley (see AMARNA LETTERS) refer to shipments of copper sent from the Alashiya region. Other royal correspondence substantiates Alashiya’s regular communications, trade emissaries, and diplomatic connections with Egypt, Ugarit, and Hittite Anatolia, while Hittite texts boast of having conquered the land of Alashiya. From diplomatic treaties and reciprocal agreements, Alashiya emerges as a high-ranking, unified polity ruled by a single king, at least during the fourteenth to thirteenth centuries, and as an important naval station among major eastern Mediterranean powers. Social and economic conditions at the well-populated, literate, and prosperous sites of Late Bronze Age Cyprus – producing and exporting copper and conducting extensive trade with east and west – made the island

a more attractive option for Alashiya than other coastal alternatives in CILICIA and northern Syria. Recent petrographic and chemical examinations of the Amarna letters sent from Alashiya indicate that these originated from the area on the margin of the Troodos mountains in Cyprus. These results present a tangible material link between the state of Alashiya and the island. The epithet Alasioˆtas mentioned on a fourth-century BCE bilingual inscription from Tamassos provides further confirmation for identification of Alashiya with Cyprus. In LINEAR B appear the ethnic adjectives/personal names “Alasijos” and “Kyprios,” plausibly suggesting that the two place-names were known for Cyprus, the former used in the east and the latter in the west. SEE ALSO: Copper; Diplomacy, ancient Near East; Trade, ancient Near East.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Goren, Y. et al. (2003) “The location of Alashiya: new evidence from petrographic investigation of Alashiyan tablets from El-Amarna and Ugarit.” American Journal of Archaeology 107, 2: 233–55. Holmes Y. L. (1971) “The location of Alashiya.” Journal of the American Oriental Society 91: 426–9. Knapp, A. B. (1996) Near Eastern texts and Aegean texts from the third to the first millennia BC: sources for the history of Cyprus. Altamont. Knapp, A. B. (2008) Prehistoric and protohistoric Cyprus. Oxford. Masson, O. (1990) “Un vieux proble`me: Alasia¼ Chypre.” Revue des e´tudes grecques 103: 231–5. Merillees, R. (1987) Alashia revisited. Paris.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 278–279. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah02011

1

Alba Longa JACLYN NEEL

Alba Longa is the legendary metropolis of Rome. Its site has been lost since antiquity; all sources place it near the Alban Lake, and most at the foot of the Alban Mount. Although multiple Paleolithic and Neolithic settlements ring the lake, modern opinion generally favors Castel Gandolfo as Alba Longa. The emperor Domitian later built a villa there. Archaeological evidence from these sites is typical of Latial cultures of the era (second/early first millennia BCE): cremation burials in hut-shaped urns. According to Roman mythic history, the city of Alba Longa is founded by AENEAS’ son Ascanius (Iulus), thirty years after the Trojans have arrived in Italy. Legend puts the foundation date of Alba Longa in the mid to late twelfth century BCE, which is not inconsistent with surviving archaeological evidence. The thirty-year interval is due to a prodigy seen by Aeneas upon landing in Italy: a white sow, who leads the Trojans to the site of their first foundation Lavinium and subsequently gives birth to thirty piglets (Dion. Hal. Ant. Rom. 1.56, 66; Livy 1.2–3). The sow gives the city part of its name (alba, from Latin “white”); longa seems to have related to the shape of the settlement. A fresco from the Esquiline depicts the building of the city’s walls (illustrated in Cappelli 1993). Following Ascanius, there are several kings of Alba Longa (the exact number varies; there is a chart in Grandazzi 2008: 124). These kings are not well elaborated in the tradition and were perhaps added to fill the chronological gap between Aeneas’ arrival (1152 BCE according to ERATOSTHENES) and the foundation date of Rome (mid eighth century BCE; our date of 753 was not established until VARRO); early Latin writers such as ENNIUS and NAEVIUS did not mention the “Alban kings.” The “invention of tradition” ascribed to FABIUS PICTOR, Rome’s first

native historian, is now generally considered false (see Alföldi 1965; Grandazzi 2008). The series of Alban kings comes to an end with Numitor and Amulius, the grandfather and great-uncle of ROMULUS AND REMUS. Their argument over the throne of Alba Longa both prefigures the foundation story of Rome and sets it in motion. To seize control of the city, Amulius forces Numitor into confinement, kills his son and heir, and makes his daughter Rhea (Ilia) a Vestal Virgin; when she is impregnated by Mars, Amulius exposes the children. Romulus and Remus subsequently kill Amulius and restore Numitor to the throne. After the twins depart Alba for Rome, little is known about the Alban system of government. The city continues to have a single leader (Dion. Hal. Ant. Rom. 5.74.4). Rome’s third king, Tullus Hostilius, destroys Alba due to the treachery of the dictator Mettius Fufetius (Livy 1.23–33; Dion. Hal. Ant. Rom. 3.23–31). This war, compared to a civil war because the Albans and Romans are so similar, features two notable mythic episodes: the duel of the Horatii and Curiatii, and the gruesome death of Mettius Fufetius. After the city’s destruction, the citizens of Alba Longa move to Rome and join the citizen body. This move echoes the waves of Sabine and Etruscan immigration to Rome, and is typical of Rome’s self-perception as a melting-pot of cultures. Prior to its destruction, Alba Longa was the chief city of the Latin League, a network of Latin cities. The league met annually to worship Jupiter Latiaris on the Alban Mount (modern Monte Cavo). The rite was continued after Alba’s destruction and the dismantling of the Latin League by Rome as the FERIAE LATINAE. A temple and perhaps an auguraculum (site for taking auspices and auguries) have been found on the hill. The Alban dictator was the functionary for these rites and can be compared to the Roman rex sacrorum. SEE ALSO:

Dionysius of Halicarnassus; Latins, Latium; Livy; Rome, city of.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner. © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Published 2015 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah25024

2 REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Alföldi, A. (1965) Early Rome and the Latins. Ann Arbor. Cappelli, R. (1993) “The painted frieze from the Esquiline and the Augustan myth of origins.” Museo Nazionale di Roma. Palazzo Massimo alle Terme, trans. G. Bailey: 51–8. Milan.

Cornell, T. J. (1995) The beginnings of Rome: 48–57; 70–5; 293–301. New York. Grandazzi, A. (2008) Alba Longa: histoire d’un légende. Rome. Holloway, R. R. (1996) The archaeology of early Rome and Latium. London. Pasquali, A., ed. (1996) Alba Longa: mito, storia, archeologia. Rome.

1

Albania FRANCESCO IACONO

The Albania region is a mountainous region on the southeastern coast of the Adriatic Sea. Involved in trade with the Aegean world already in the second millennium BCE (Bejko 2002), during Late Archaic times Albania was a target of Greek colonization, most notably with the foundation of colonies like Apollonia and Epidamnos (Cabanes 2008). In early Hellenistic times, Albania was quite densely populated, counting many flourishing centers particularly in the Chaonian area to the south (Cabanes 2008: 67–117). In the same period, the local inhabitants, named Illyrians, were reported to be in conflict with Macedonians and Epirotes on several occasions (Landucci Gattinoni 2003). The Illyrians were finally defeated by the Romans in 167 BCE (see ILLYRIAN WARS). During Roman rule, the area was divided into two provinces, MACEDONIA and

Illyricum (to the north and south of the Drin River), and enjoyed considerable prosperity as it constituted the western end of the Via Egnatia (Clementi 2008). SEE ALSO: Illyria and Illyrians; Illyricum and the Balkans, Roman conquest of; Via Egnatia.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Bejko, L. (2002) “Mycenean influence and presence in Albania.” In N. Cambi, S. Cace, and B. Kirigin, eds., Greek influence along the eastern Adriatic coast. Proceedings of the International Conference Held in Split from September 24th to 26th 1998: 9–24. Split. Cabanes, P., ed. (2008) Carte Arche´ologique de l’Albanie. Tirana. Landucci Gattinoni, F. (2003) “Gli Illiri e i Macedoni tra V e IV secolo a.C.: storia di una pacificazione impossibile.” In G. Urso, ed., Dall’Adriatico a Danubio. L’Illirico nell’eta` Greca e Romana: 23–52. Pisa. Wilkes, O. (1992) The Illyrians. Oxford.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print page 279. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah14018

1

Albinus HAROLD TARRANT

Albinus was an influential Platonist teacher and author eminent enough to have been sought out by the future imperial physician GALEN (Libr. Propr. 97.8–11) shortly after 149 CE. Though this is the only date known, his birth might well date from the first decade of the second century. One short work survives, usually known as the Prologue (Prologus) or Introduction (Eisagoge), but a key manuscript (Par. Gr. 1962) refers to a third book of a work On Plato’s Views and to an eleven-part Outlines of Platonic doctrines from the lectures of Gaius. The Prologue might have served as an introduction to this work, whose title suggests that Albinus was a pupil or associate of the Platonist Gaius honored in a Delphic inscription dating between 130 and 145 (FD III 4, 103). A similar title is attested by Priskian (Solut. ad Chosr., p. 42.8–10 Bywater). Albinus is not now, as often until late in the twentieth century, identified with Alkinoos, the author of an ordered collection of Platonic doctrines known as the Didascalicus. One other title attributed to Albinus is known from a Syriac source (Ephraim Syrus, Against Bardaisan’s Domnus, ed. and trans. C. W. Mitchell, p. iii): On the Incorporeal. Albinus seems to have approached Plato through the dialogues, interpreted in a fairly literal fashion as compared with his contemporary Numenius or with PROCLUS, who seems to have this literalism in mind when he refers to “the likes of Atticus and Albinus” (In Tim. III 234.17–18). These people regard the nonrational (mortal) parts of the soul, added to the rational part by the young Gods (Tim. 41d), as subject to destruction. Besides popular passages of Timaeus, there is evidence that Albinus interpreted the first argument (“from opposites”) from Plato’s Phaedo and the Myth of Er that closes the Republic. This range almost matches the preferred reading-course suggested in Prologue 5. The work’s primary purpose seems to be to introduce Plato’s dialogues, and to suggest stages

of education to which different groups of works are appropriate. Topics include the nature of a philosophic dialogue, eight types of dialogue and which dialogues belong to which types, inappropriate and appropriate reading orders, and the types of dialogue appropriate to each of five educational stages. Some topics, content, and technical vocabulary overlaps with what is found in an appendix on Plato’s works in DIOGENES LAERTIUS’ Life of Plato (3.48–66), some of which derives from Thrasyllus, whose arrangement Albinus rejects as dramatic rather than philosophical. The educational program for the preferred pupil consists of a dialogue from the second educational stage (Alcibiades I), followed by three from the third stage (Phaedo, Republic, Timaeus). This last dialogue already reveals the Platonist goal of assimilation to God. The first stage consists of purificatory elenchus not required by the ideal pupil; the second stage reawakens one’s natural notions; the third then hands down the ethical, political, physical, and theological doctrine. The remaining two stages are essentially methodological, using “logical” dialogues to reinforce this doctrine, and anti-sophistic dialogues to make one immune to sophistic counter-arguments. It is evident here that communication of doctrine was for Albinus a huge part of Platonic education. This agrees well with a report from Proclus (In Tim. I 340.23–341.4, on Tim. 29b4–5), according to which “followers of Gaius and Albinus” distinguished sharply between two ways in which Plato expounded doctrine, one for unchanging matters and another for things that change: the former unveils scientific fact, the latter likelihood. Proclus associates this with the exegetical principle that discourse must be appropriate to, and in a sense mirror, the entities discussed. For him this principle means that Timaeus’ contribution is an admixture of two types of discourse (In Tim. III 356.17–22), but the key point for Gaius and Albinus was that both kinds of discourse involved doctrine (dogmata), so that the imprecision associated with the physical world

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, and Andrew Erskine. © 2018 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Published 2018 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah30494

2 entailed no skepticism regarding physical theory. The two kinds of doctrinal discourse agree well with Albinus’ picture of an ungenerated world containing a principle of generation (In Tim. I 219.2–11), making it an unchanging entity embracing content that is subject to change. SEE ALSO:

Philosophy, Roman.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Fowler, R. C. (2017) Imperial Plato: Albinus, Maximus, Apuleius. Las Vegas. Gioè, A. (2002) Filosofi medioplatonici del II secolo d. C. Testimonianze e frammenti: Gaio, Albino,

Lucio, Nicostrato, Tauro, Severo, Arpocrazione. Edizione, traduzione e commento. Naples. Göransson, T. (1995) Albinus, Alcinous, Arius Didymus. Göteborg. Lakmann, M.-L. (2017) Platonici minores: 1. Jh.v. Chr.–2. Jh.n.Chr. Prosopographie. Fragmente und Testimonien mit deutscher Übersetzung. Leiden. Mitchell, C. W. (1921) Saint Ephraim’s prose refutations of Mani, Marcion, and Bardaisan, vol. II. The discourse called “of Domnus” and six other writings. London. Reis, B. (1999) Der Platoniker Albinos und sein sogenannter Prologos. Wiesbaden. Tarrant, H. (2007) “Platonist educators in a growing market.” In R. W. Sharples and R. Sorabji, eds., Greek and Roman philosophy 100 BC to 200 AD, vol. II: 449–65. London.

1

Albright, William F. (1891–1971) ABRAHAM WINITZER

Among the most significant scholars in ancient Near East studies in the twentieth century was William Foxwell Albright (1891–1971), whose astonishing scholarly range and output helped in shaping several of that field’s modern-day subdisciplines and venues, in particular those relating to the Bible. Born to American Protestant missionaries and raised into his second decade in Chile, Albright returned permanently with his family to their roots in the American Midwest. His higher education, which began at Upper Iowa University, culminated at Johns Hopkins in a PhD in 1916 with a thesis in Assyriology. Albright accepted a fellowship at the American Schools of Oriental Research in Jerusalem beginning in 1919, shortly thereafter becoming its director (1920–1; 1921–9, 1933–6). In that time, Albright gained considerable knowledge of the Holy Land, most meaningfully via a commitment to an archaeology heavily informed by biblical history. He participated in or conducted excavations at several sites, including at Tells el-Ful and Beit Mirsim, believing that he had matched both to biblical toponyms. By 1929, he was back at Johns Hopkins, from 1930 until 1958 as W. W. Spence Professor of Semitic Languages. During this time, he supervised many students working in areas even more varied than his own, a number of these becoming authorities in their respective disciplines. Albright’s work, which came to center on ancient ISRAEL, appealed to broader disciplines – including philology and linguistics, history and archaeology, even theology and philosophy – to chart a course for the historical study of the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament on the basis of the masses of extra-biblical data unearthed from the mid-nineteenth century on. This material, both philological and archaeological,

afforded the possibility of examining the biblical text with the aid of testimony from its original historical setting in ways previously unimaginable, the overall project of which Albright championed as unfailingly scientific. His focus concerned questions about the historicity of the early biblical traditions as well as the origins of Israel in terms of nation and cult, especially with respect to its immediate Canaanite ancestry. In pursuing this course Albright strongly rejected the idealism and ahistoricism of the prevailing literary-historical criticism in biblical studies. Less dismissive was his view of calls for the “conceptual autonomy” or selfsufficiency in contemporary approaches to Assyriology and Egyptology, though the functionalism of these, too, he saw as limited and leading to distorted interpretive judgments. Against these options, Albright stressed the interrelatedness of peoples, institutions, and cultures in the ancient Near East as the background for the appreciation of this world’s dynamic history of ideas. In contrast to prevailing opinions, however, this history was intended to stress neither the priority of prebiblical traditions on the one hand nor the Bible’s inferiority to Greek philosophy and logic on the other. Rather, its relevance was to be found in the conception of divine revelation witnessed in Israel’s writings and its inherent empiricism, along with the maturation of this thinking in the Gospels. For Albright, only an appreciation of this truth and its interplay with the human drama could offer a proper sense of history. REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Albright, W. F. (1957) From the Stone Age to Christianity: monotheism and the historical process, 2nd ed. Garden City. Albright, W. F. (1964) History, archaeology and Christian humanism. New York. Albright, W. F. (1968) Yahweh and the gods of Canaan. London.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and David Hollander. © 2018 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Published 2018 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah30400

2 Beaulieu, P.-A. (2002) “W. F. Albright and Assyriology.” Near Eastern Archaeology 65: 11–16. Freedman, D. N., ed. (1975) The published works of William Foxwell Albright: a comprehensive bibliography. Cambridge, MA. Davis, T. W. (2004) Shifting sands: the rise and fall of biblical archaeology. Oxford. Dever, W. G. (1993) “What remains of the house that Albright built?” The Biblical Archaeologist 56: 25–35. Feinman, P. D. (2004) William Foxwell Albright and the origins of biblical archaeology. Berrien Springs, MI. Long, B. O. (1997) Planting and reaping Albright: politics, ideology, and interpreting the Bible. University Park, MD. Machinist, P. (1996) “William Foxwell Albright: the man and his work.” In J. S. Cooper and G. M.

Schwartz, eds. The study of the ancient Near East in the 21st century: the William Foxwell Albright centennial conference: 385–403. Winona Lake, IN. Running, L. G. and Freedman, D. N. (1975) William Foxwell Albright: a twentieth century American genius. New York. Sasson, J. M. (1993) “Albright as an orientalist.” The Biblical Archaeologist 56: 3–7. Schloen, J. D. (2002) “W. F. Albright and the origins of Israel.” Near Eastern Archaeology 65: 56–62. Silberman, N. A. (1993) “Visions of the future: Albright in Jerusalem, 1919–1929.” The Biblical Archaeologist 56: 8–16. Van Beek, G. W., ed. (1989) The scholarship of William Foxwell Albright: an appraisal. Atlanta. Wright, G. E. (2002) “W. F. Albright’s vision of Israelite religion.” Near Eastern Archaeology 65: 63–8.

1

Album GEORGY KANTOR

Album (Latin “whitened board”) was a form of publication of official lists, calendars, and regulations in Rome from the republican to the late imperial period. The text was written on white-washed wooden boards in black ink (in atramento), with the section-headings in red, whence the term rubrica (Mayor 1886–8 on Juvenal 14.192–3; Nappo 1989: 88 n. 14). The term is commonly used in modern historiography to denote any Roman official list. The earliest publications on whitened boards (in albo or in tabula dealbata) mentioned in Roman historical tradition were the disclosure of the forms of legis actiones and of the civil calendar by Gnaeus Flavius in 304 BCE (Livy 9.46.5) and annual display of the ANNALES MAXIMI in the Middle Republican period (Cic. De or. 2.52; Servius ad Aen. 1.373; Macrob. Sat. 3.2.17). The first documentary reference comes from the Gracchan extortion law, which requires the Praetor to publish the list of extortion court jurors “on a tablet on the white background, written in black ink” (Crawford 1996: 1, line 14). In the Greek world, the use of whitened boards (Greek leukomata) for publication is attested even earlier (Wilhelm 1909: 246–7). The most important source of law published as an album in the Late Republican and imperial period was the Praetor’s Edict (Dig. 2.1.7.pr; 2.13.1.1; 43.1.2.3; Quint. 12.3.11); the Flavian municipal law in Baetica ordered city magistrates to display in public a similar album of the provincial governor (AE 1986, 333, ch. 85). Another common type of album was a list of members of a particular body in their official order, above all that of the Roman Senate (album senatorium: Cass. Dio 55.3.3; Tac. Ann.

4.42.3; CT 12.1.48), those of municipal decuriones modelled on it (Dig. 50.2.10; 50.3; CT 12.1.142; Nov. Maiorian. 7.18; Canusium, 223 CE: CIL IX 338; Timgad, 363 CE: Chastagnol 1978), and the roster of equestrian judges (CIL IV 1492c, 1493; Sen. (Y) Ben. 3.7.6; Suet. Claud. 16.2). Other examples include member-lists of collegia (CIL III 870, 6150; XI 1355; XIV 246, 250, 251, 256) and an album veteranorum (CIL VIII 2626). Lists of declarations to local authorities required by the TABULA HERACLEENSIS were to be published on an album (Crawford 1996: 13, lines 13–16), as were declarations of childbirth in Roman Egypt (Schulz 1942: 87–91) and perhaps other types of declarations to authorities. SEE ALSO: Decurions; Edict, aedile’s; Edict, magistrate’s; Edict, praetor’s; Legis actio; Lex Irnitana; Publication; Senate, Roman Republic and Empire.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Chastagnol, A. (1978) L’album municipal de Timgad. Bonn. Crawford, M. H., ed. (1996) Roman statutes, 2 vols. London. Mayor, J. E. B. (1886–8) D. Junii Juvenalis satiræ xiii. Thirteen satires of Juvenal, 2 vols. London. Meyer, E. A. (2004) Legitimacy and law in the Roman world. Cambridge. Nappo, S. C. (1989) “Fregio dipinto dal ‘praedium’ di Giulia Felice con rappresentazione del foro di Pompei.” Rivista di Studi Pompeiani 3: 79–96. Schmidt, J. (1894) “Album.” RE 1: 1332–6. Schulz, F. (1942) “Roman registers of birth and birth certificates.” Journal of Roman Studies 32: 78–91. von Schwind, F. (1940) Zur Frage der Publikation im ro¨mischen Recht: 49–53. Munich. Wilhelm, A. (1909) Beitra¨ge zur griechischen Inschriftenkunde: 239–49. Vienna.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 279–280. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah13014

1

Alburnus Maior BEATRICE CAUUET

Alburnus Maior (Ros¸ia Montana˘, Alba County, Romania) was an important settlement for GOLD mining in Roman DACIA Superior, in the Apuseni mountains. The ancient name is known from wax tablets found in the mines (IDR 1, 31. 39. 43). In the hills of Cetatea Mare and Cetatea Mica˘, traces are preserved of ancient Roman mines. The administrative center of the gold mining appears to have been located in Ampelum (Zlatna, Alba County), where the imperial gold mining administration (with the procurator aurariarum), an important commercial center, and probably customs office are attested. Under Trajan, Dalmatian colonists (Pirustae, Baridustae, Sardeates) settled here, each tribe dwelling in an individual settlement. Inscriptions and sculptures have been found, as well as mining and ore-washing equipment. The most recent excavations discovered a water-wheel, a water-lifting device, and a complex network of galleries. Twenty-five wax tablets (131–167 CE) provide information on mining, sale and purchase contracts, receipts of loans with interest,

sale of slaves, etc. Inscriptions and wax tablets attest not only Illyrians but also Greeks, Latins, and Dacians hired to work in the mines. They were organized in associations (e.g., collegia aurariorum, societas danistaria). The exact date of the abandonment of the Roman mines is not certain. At least seven necropoleis have been identified, some with funerary buildings with complex architecture. The funerary areas correspond to the small settlements with houses, sacred area, and contracted mine. SEE ALSO:

Mines, mining, Greek and Roman.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Ciongradi, C. (2009) Die ro¨mischen Steindenkma¨ler aus Alburnus Maior. Cluj-Napoca. Daicoviciu, C. (1958) “Les Castella Dalmatarum de Dacie. Un aspect de la colonisation et de la romanisation de la province de Dacie.” Dacia. NS 2: 259–66. Damian, P., ed. (2003) Alburnus Maior I. Bucharest. Pippidi, D. M. and Russu, I. I. (1975) Inscript¸iile Daciei Romane, vol. 1. Bucharest (¼IDR 1). Simion, M., Apostol, V., and Vleja, D. (2004) Alburnus Maior II – The circular funeral monument. Bucharest.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 280–281. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah16003

1

Alchemy CRISTINA VIANO

Like astrology, alchemy is a result of the encounter between the Greek and Egyptian cultures that flourished in Alexandria in the beginning of our era. Alchemy developed as the practice and theory of the transmutation of the noble metals between the first and the seventh centuries CE in Greco-Roman Egypt. It then spread within Byzantine culture, and subsequently in Arabic, where it received a more systematic and experimental orientation. The western Middle Ages had little knowledge of the Greek alchemists, as the texts would only be introduced in Italy in the Renaissance, and never experienced a wide diffusion. The Greek alchemists ascribed the creation of alchemy to ancient Egypt, and called themselves “philosophers.” PLATO and ARISTOTLE were considered as the ancient masters of the art, and some alchemists were considered to be “interpreters of Plato and Aristotle.” The origin of the word “alchemy” is obscure. Greek alchemists use the word chemeia rarely and late, preferring instead to refer to their art as the “holy science” or “holy and divine art.” The Latin word alchimia, which appears only in the twelfth century, is composed of the Arabic article al and a root whose meaning is controversial. The Greek alchemists talk about Chymes, as the author of a book Chemeu. Later on, chemeia was taken to derive from cheo (to melt), from chumos (vegetable juice), from the ancient name of Egypt, which is chemia in Plutarch, KHME or XHMI in Coptic (“black earth”), or from the Egyptian root km, which means “to achieve.” It has also been supposed that “black” was an allusion to the nigredo (l’ “oeuvre au noir”), the first stage of the Opera. The modern interest in alchemy was awakened by the works of Marcellin Berthelot, Les origines de l’alchimie (1885) and the Collection des anciens alchimistes grecs (1888–9), which he published in collaboration with Charles-Emile

Ruelle. Berthelot’s approach was essentially rationalist, and he considered Greek alchemy as the origin of experimental method and the beginning of modern chemistry. Our sources for Greek alchemy are the manuscripts and the testimonies of alchemists themselves. Works of Greek alchemists have been transmitted by two papyri dating from the third century CE, preserved in Leiden and Stockholm, as well as by a vast corpus collected in the Byzantine period, and transmitted in many manuscripts. The most important and beautiful of them is the Marcianus Graecus 299 (tenth or eleventh century), which belongs to Cardinal Bessarion’s (fifteenth-century) library. Greek alchemy has a very fragmentary literature. The interpolations and additions are numerous. In fact, it seems that copyists did not hesitate to interfere with texts to make comments or corrections. The Greek is frequently incorrect, and the vocabulary concerning substances and transformations is still to be decoded. External ancient testimonies from outside the alchemical corpus are rare and appear only in the fifth century, when PROCLUS (In remp 2.234.14–22) and Aeneas of Gaza (Theophr. 71 Barth), talk about alchemy as a current practice to make gold from other metals. Byzantine chroniclers (John of Antioch, fr. 165 Mu¨ller, Suda Delta 1156: s.v. Diokletianos; Khi 280: s.v. chemeia) speak of the destruction of books “on the alchemy of gold and silver” ordered by Diocletian with the aim of removing from Egypt a source of wealth and thus preventing them from competing with the Romans. This testimony is very interesting insofar as it shows that in the third century of our era the practice of alchemy was sufficiently important or familiar as to have drawn the attention of Romans and the destruction of books. Following its progressive development, the Greek alchemical literature may be divided into three categories. The first includes: the chemical recipes of Phusika kai Mustika attributed to a pseudoDemocritus (first–third century CE), the anonymous papyri of Leiden and Stockholm (about

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 281–284. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah21012

2 third–fourth century CE) and the brief treatises or quotations of the mythical “ancient authors” such as Hermes, Agathodaimon, Isis, Cleopatra, Mary the Jewess, Ostanes, Pammenes, and Pibechius (between the first and second centuries CE). The second period consists of named authors of treatises: ZOSIMUS of Panopolis, Pelagios, and Iamblichus (third–fourth century CE). Zosimus (250–300) appears to be the most important figure of Greek alchemy. The Suda says that Zosimus wrote chemical works in 28 books, arranged alphabetically, addressed to his “sister” Theosebeia, and called by some the Kheirokmeta (Things wrought by hand), as well as a biography of Plato, entirely lost. Among his most famous texts, we have the Visions, which describe the dreams which revealed to Zosimus the properties of metals. Other works under the name of Zosimus are also preserved in Latin, Arabic, and Syriac. Among the Syriac fragments, we find the only ancient recipe for the manufacture of the famous and mysterious “black bronze” of Corinth, much prized by the Romans and mentioned by PLINY THE ELDER. The third period consists of commentators: SYNESIUS (fourth century), who comments on the Phusika kai Mustika of Ps.-Democritus, Olympiodorus (sixth century), author of a commentary on Zosimus’ lost Kat’energeian, STEPHANUS OF BYZANTIUM (seventh century) author of nine Praxeis, and two anonymous commentators, called respectively “the Christian Philosopher” and “the Anepigraph” (between the sixth and seventh centuries). These authors aim essentially to clarify the thought of their predecessors and reflect the most advanced stage of speculation in Greek alchemy; to define and systematize Greek alchemy through the tools of Greek philosophy. The scholars early raised the question of the identification of Olympiodorus and Stephanos with their homonymous Neoplatonic commentators. Now the hypothesis of this identification is more widely accepted, which raises the question of determining the place and status of alchemy in relation to Neoplatonic philosophy.

The substances mentioned in the alchemical texts are numerous, often expressed in a codified language, difficult to understand. Furthermore these substances are never chemically pure. Among the substances that can be identified, the most important are certainly the metals: gold, silver, copper, mercury, iron, tin, lead. In general, they are called “bodies” (somata), in opposition to “incorporeal things” (asomata), which are the other minerals. Alloys are also “bodies,” for instance, claudianos (copper–lead) or electrum (goldsilver). The alchemists also used many native minerals, such as natron (native soda, a typical Egyptian ingredient, coming from Wadi Natrun and traditionally used for mummification), marble, salt, and sulfur. As to the production of the noble metals, the operations described in the texts concern essentially the production of alloys, containing sometimes gold and silver in variable proportions, and the treatments for coloring the surface of metals. Many alchemical instruments are described in the works of Zosimus, such as the alembic (in Greek ambix, then in Arabic, al-ambic, afterwards “alembic”), the ancestor of all apparatuses of distillation. The whole development of Greek alchemy is characterized by a dialectical tension between theory and practice. This tension is intimately connected to the ambiguous relationship between imitation and genuine production of gold, between aurifiction and aurifaction, to use the famous distinction by Needham. The first technical treatises aim to produce a dye which is an “imitation” of gold. The theoretical speculation makes progressive imitation into the ideal goal of the whole transformation. The idea of transmutation is grounded in the conception that all metals are composed of the same matter. It is necessary first to strip away the particular qualities of a metal and reduce it to the indeterminate first metallic matter, then to give it the properties of gold. The prime metallic matter is generally identified with lead by the Greek alchemists and with mercury by the medieval alchemists. For

3 Olympiodorus, as for Zosimus and other “ancient philosophers,” black lead (molubdos melas) is considered to be the “principle of the liquid substance.” Indeed, it is the “liquidity” of the lead which constitutes the matter of transmutation. This first stage of transmutation corresponds to “blackening” (melanosis: when lead became fluid, it “blackened” and lost all of its determinations). The production of gold is therefore the result of a synthesis between a prime metallic matter, common and receptive, and certain so-called qualities, namely substances. It is difficult to define the nature of the substances responsible for the coloring or transformation into gold. In general, coloring qualities are “sublimates,” spirits (peneumata), and “fugitive” and rarefied substances, deriving from the decomposition of metals that have to be fixed. Among these substances, the “divine water” or “sulfur water” (theion hudor) is very important. In the term theion (hudor) there is a fundamental ambiguity, often intentionally employed by alchemists, since the Greek theion signifies both sulfur and divine. This substance is frequently described as the one most responsible for transmutation (the efficient cause), and as the genuine aim of the investigation. The speculation on alchemical operations borrows its conceptual apparatus and its terminology from Greek philosophy. It is developed mainly by the commentators who declare the Presocratics, Plato, and Aristotle to be their precursors. Hence, the commentators are not unaware or passive recipients of their heritage but instead make deliberate and constructive use of that inheritance in view of the operations of alchemy and of the idea of transmutation (which postdates Plato and Aristotle). Olympiodorus refers the principles of transmutation to the principles (archai) of the Presocratics (such as Thales, Parmenides, Anaximander, and Heraclitus) who, he says, identified the unique principle of everything with one of the four elements. Stephanos derives from Plato’s Timaeus a geometrical model for sensible matter, as well as a notion of unshaped prime matter and the distinction

of the two physical states of water (namely liquid and solid). Yet the most important precursor is Aristotle. Indeed, within transmutation, which is the synthesis between prime metallic matter and dyeing qualities, one can easily discern two models from Aristotle’s philosophy: on the one hand, the metaphysical model of matter and form (and mainly of the indeterminate prime matter-substratum of the qualities), on the other, the physical model of mixis, the “chemical mixture,” which originates the homogeneous bodies such as metals. Indeed, the Aristotelian doctrines of the cyclical transformation of the elements, of mixture (De generatione et corruptione, Meteorologica 4) and of the constitution of metals and stones from the exhalations imprisoned in the earth (Meteorologica 3), constitute the physical world view of the majority of the Greek alchemists. But, if alchemy as the study of the metals and of their transformations may find its location from an epistemological point of view within an Aristotelian classification of the natural sciences, the idea of transmutation is incompatible with certain fundamental Aristotelian principles, such as (in the first instance) the immutability of species. Hence the famous passage from De congelatione et conglutinatione lapidum by Avicenna, attributed for a long time to Aristotle himself: “Therefore the alchemists must know that they cannot change the species of metals” (quare sciant artifices alkimie species metallorum mutare non posse). It is noteworthy, however, that, despite the theoretical obstacles, alchemy would continue to inform both its physical and metaphysical models through Aristotle. In fact, the whole of medieval alchemy would make an effort to negotiate with Aristotle the arguments which the “official” philosophy opposed to transmutation, namely the immutability of species, the fact that specific differences are otherwise unknown, and the supposed weakness of art in comparison with nature. This ambiguity comes to be one of the main features of alchemy throughout its history.

4 SEE ALSO: Aristotle, Physics; Metallurgy, Greece and Rome; Mineralogy; Neoplatonists; Physics.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Alexandrini, S. (n. d.) “De magna et sacra arte.” In J. L. Ideler (1841–2) Physici et medici graeci minores, vol. 2: 199–253. Berlin. Berthelot, M. (1885) Les origines de l’alchimie. Paris. Berthelot, M. (1889) Introduction a` l’e´tude de la ˆ ge. Paris. chimie des anciens et du Moyen A Reprinted Brussels, 1938 (¼Coll. des anc. alch. gr., vol. I). Berthelot, M. and Ruelle, Ch.-E. (1888–9) Collection des anciens alchimistes grecs. Paris. Reprinted Osnabru¨ck, 1967, 3 vols. Destrait-Colinet, A. (2000) Alchimistes grecs X: Anonyme de Zuretti. Paris. Festugie`re, A. J. (1944) La re´ve´lation d’Herme`s Trisme´giste, I: L’astrologie et les sciences occultes. Paris. Halleux, R. (1981) Alchimistes grecs I. Papyrus de Leyde, Papyrus de Stockholm, Fragments de recettes. Paris.

Hammer-Jensen, I. (1921) Die a¨lteste Alchymie. Copenhagen. Hershbell, J. P. (1987) “Democritus and the beginnings of Greek alchemy.” Ambix 34: 5–20. Hopkins, A. J. (1934) Alchemy, child of Greek philosophy. New York. Irby-Massey, G. L. and Keyser, P., eds. (2002) Greek science of the Hellenistic era: a sourcebook: 226–54. London. Lindsay, J. (1970) The origins of alchemy in GraecoRoman Egypt. London. Mertens, M. (1995) Alchimistes grecs IV: Zosime de Panopolis, Me´moires authentiques. Paris. Sherwood Taylor, F. (1930) “A survey of Greek alchemy.” Journal of Hellenic Studies 50: 109–39. Sherwood Taylor, F. (1937–8) “The alchemical works of Stephanus of Alexandria.” Ambix 1: 116–39 and 2 (1938): 39–49. Viano, C. (2000) "Quelques aspects the´oriques et me´thodologiques des commentaires alchimiques gre´co-alexandrins." In M.-O. Goulet-Caze´, ed., Le commentaire entre tradition et innovation: 454–64. Paris. Viano, C., ed. (2005) L’alchimie et ses racines philosophiques. Paris.

1

Alchemy, Late Antiquity TONIO SEBASTIAN RICHTER

Several types of contemporary sources provide first-hand evidence of alchemical thought and practice in Late Antiquity: archaeological finds, alchemical writings extant in papyri from Roman and Late Antique Egypt, alchemical writings in medieval Byzantine manuscripts, and drawings of instruments and devices transmitted in these manuscripts. Papyri from Egypt, datable to the third or early fourth century CE, provide the earliest evidence for the sacred art. The most important ones – P.Leid. X (inv. I 397 = TM 61300) and P.Holm. (Stockholm, Royal Library Dep. 45 = TM 64429), both edited by Halleux (1981) – formed part of the most comprehensive extant source of Greek (PMG) and demotic (PMD) magical writing (see MAGICAL PAPYRI, GREEK). The large papyrus assemblage known as the Theban Magical Library (Halleux 1981, 5f; Dosoo 2016a, b). P.Leid. I 397 and P.Holm is a compilation of recipes for the imitation of pearls, precious stones, purple, silver, and gold, very similar to those transmitted in the texts attributed to Pseudo-Democritus (see below). Some other Greek (P.Oxy. III 467 = TM 63300, first/second century CE; P.Iand. 85 = TM 63248, first/second century CE; P.Fior. = TM 65816, second century CE; P.Leid. V = J 384 = PGM XII = TM 55954, fourth century CE, all ed. Halleux (1981: 153–66)) and Coptic (P.Berlin inv. 8316 = BKU I 21 = TM 112403, seventh to eighth century CE) papyri provide single recipes of such kind. Three large Coptic papyri, Bodl.Mss.Copt. (P) a.1–3, dating to the ninth century CE or slightly later, provide recipes dependent upon early Arabic alchemy (Richter 2009, 2015); they are therefore beyond the scope of this entry. The Greek alchemical papyri from Leiden and Stockholm as well as the Coptic papyrus BKU I 21 come from magical libraries (Erman 1895; Dosoo 2016b), while the Coptic Bodl.Mss.Copt. (P) a.1–3 formed

part of an ancient library combining alchemical and medical texts (Richter 2018). The largest body of Late Antique alchemical writings has come down to us in Byzantine anthologies through medieval Greek manuscripts, notably Codex Marcianus (Venice, Biblioteca Marciana 299 (Ms. M, tenth or early eleventh century, Mertens [1995: xxii–xxix]), Codex Parisinus (Paris, BN inv.) 2325 (Ms. B, thirteenth century, Mertens [1995: xxix–xxxi]), Codex Parisinus (Paris, BN inv.) 2327 (Ms. A, AD 1478, Mertens [1995: xxxi–xxxviii]), as well as translations in Syriac (Berthelot and Duval 1893; Mertens 1995: lxx–lxxviii; Martelli 2013: 7–11) and Arabic (Ullmann 1972: 148; Vereno 1992; Mertens 1995: lxxviii–lxxxiii; Hallum 2008; van Bladel 2009). The extant corpus of Greek alchemical works is the result of a biased selection, heavy abridgement, and rearrangement of the original wealth of Late Antique alchemical books by Byzantine scholars (Mertens 2006). It was published in the edition and translation of Berthelot and Ruelle (1887/8) (= CAAG), which is unreliable but remains the only edition for many works. Only a few texts have been reedited since then (Mertens 1995; Martelli 2013). The writings wholly or partially contained in the compilation of Byzantine manuscripts cover a chronological range from the later first century up to the eighth century CE or even later in a three-layered “stratigraphy” (Halleux 1979: 61–4; Vereno 1992: 18–20; Letrouit 1995; Mertens 2002: 166 f.). The second, intermediate layer forms the backbone of its relative and absolute chronology, encompassing the writings of the prosopographically identifiable and datable personality of ZOSIMUS OF PANOPOLIS (Mertens 1995: xi–xix, 2002, 2008, floruit around 300 CE: Mertens 1995: xv–xvii). Only a small share of the writings of Zosimus survived in Byzantine manuscripts (Mertens 1995: xlvii–cv). One of them, entitled Γνήσια ὑπομνήματα (gnêsia hypomnêmata) “Authentic Memoirs,” was reedited by Mertens in 1995. Original writings of Zosimus in Arabic translation have been

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and David Hollander. © 2018 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Published 2018 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah30529

2 identified and edited by Hallum (2008). The first layer of the Byzantine manuscripts is constituted by writings assigned to authors such as Cleopatra, Mary the Jewess, Democritus, and others, who are quoted already by Zosimus and can therefore be dated from the first to third centuries CE. Probably, the earliest extant work of the divine art are the “Four books” of PseudoDemocritus (reconstructed by Martelli 2013), comprehensive collections of recipes for tincturing base metals with yellow (χρυσοποιία chrysopoeia “making of gold”) and white (ἀσήμου ποίησις asemou poiêsis, ἀργυροποιία argyropoeia “making of silver”), producing substitutes for purple dye, and imitating gems. Their date was recently pinned down to the second half of the first century CE (Martelli 2013: 29–31, a detailed refutation of their attribution to Bolos of Mendes: Martelli 2013: 36–48). The third, upmost layer (later fourth to eighth century) of writings in the Byzantine manuscripts are works attributed to SYNESIUS (fourth century), Olympiodorus (sixth century), STEPHANUS (seventh century), Christianus (seventh/eighth century), and to an anonymous author (eighth century), as well as some alchemical poems. These works comment on Zosimus and earlier adherents of the art (Mertens 2006). The CAAG contains not only written records but also technical drawings of alchemical devices (Mertens 2002 cxiii–clxix plus annex 237–61) which grant us valuable insight into the alchemical laboratory in Late Antiquity, its ovens and distillation apparatuses (Martelli 2011). Some of its most prominent devices, such as the alembic and the kerotakis, are likewise known from other métiers such as pharmacy and painting. Archaeological evidence for alchemy in Late Antiquity is extremely scarce and consists by now of more or less one single find in the ancient necropolis of ASYUT, Middle Egypt. This discovery was described by French Egyptologist Gaston Maspero (Berthelot 1885: 236 f.; Maspero 1886: 73–7) and dated by him, on grounds no longer verifiable, to the sixth to eighth centuries CE (cf. Richter 2018).

FEATURES OF ALCHEMY IN LATE ANTIQUITY As Martelli (2013) has shown, the earliest concept of sacred art as arising from PseudoDemocritus’ “Four Books” was closely centered around the manufacture of imitations of precious materials and the general idea of emulating nature. Already in its earliest testimonies, and certainly in the works of Zosimus and the later commentators, alchemy possessed affinity with Hermetic sciences (such as publication by act of divine revelation, rich metaphorical imagery, rhetorical means of obfuscation, and concealing knowledge, see HERMETIC WRITINGS) as well as with Neo-Platonic (see NEOPLATONISTS), Christian, and Gnostic (see GNOSIS) thought. The identification of Egypt as a cradle of alchemy so prominent in the texts themselves, seems to reflect historical reality; crafts and technologies affiliated to the temples of Graeco-Roman Egypt were possibly the kind of activity initially labeled as “divine” or “sacred art” (Daumas 1983; Derchain 1990; Mertens 1988, 1989, 2006; Martelli 2013: 63–9). REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Berthelot, M. (1885) Les origines de l’alchimie. Paris. Berthelot, M. and Ruelle, C. É. (1887/8) Collection des anciens alchimistes grecs. Paris. Berthelot, M. and Duval, R. (1893) La chimie au moyen-âge, vol. 2: L’alchimie syriaque. Paris. Daumas, F. (1983) “L’alchimie a-t-elle une origine égyptienne?” In Das römisch-byzantinische Ägypten. Akten des Internationalen Symposions 26–30. September 1978 in Trier. Aegyptiaca Treverensia II. Mainz: 109–18. Derchain, P. (1990) L’atelier des orfèvres à Dendara et les origines de l’alchimie. Chronique d’Égypte 129: 219–42. Dosoo, K. (2016a) “The history of the Theban magical library.” Bulletin of the American Society of Papyrologists 53: 251–74. Dosoo, K. (2016b) “Magical discourses, ritual collections: cultural trends and private interests in Egyptian handbooks and archives.” In T. Derda, A. Łajtar and J. Urbanik, eds., Proceedings of the 27th International Congress of Papyrologists,

3 Warsaw 29. July–3 August 2013. JJP Supplements 28: 699–716. Erman, A. (1895) “Ein koptischer Zauberer.” Zeitschrift für Ägyptische Sprache und Altertumskunde 33: 43–6. Halleux, R. (1979) Les textes alchimiques. Typologie des sources du moyen âge occidental, fasc. 32. Turnhout. Halleux, R. (1981) “Papyrus de Leyde, papyrus de Stockholm, fragments de recettes.” Les alchimistes grecs I. Paris. Hallum, B. (2008) “Zosimus Arabus. The reception of Zosimos of Panopolis in the Arabic/Islamic world.” PhD diss., University of London. Letrouit, J. (1995) “Chronologie des alchimistes grecs.” In D. Kahn and S. Matton, eds., Alchimie. Art, histoire et mythes. Actes du 1er colloque international de la Société d’étude de l’histoire de l’alchimie: 11–93. Paris. Martelli, M. (2011) “Greek alchemists at work: alchemical laboratory in the Greco-Roman Egypt.” Nuncius 26: 271–311. Martelli, M. (2013) The four books of Pseudo-Democritus. Sources of Alchemy and Chemistry 1. Leeds. Maspero, G. (1886) “Sur les fouilles exécutées en Égypte de 1881 à 1885.” Bulletin de l’Institut égyptien, Deuxième série, no 6, année 1885: 3–91. Cairo. Mertens, M. (1988) “Une scène d’initiation alchimique, la ‘Lettre d’Isis à Horus’.” Revue de l’histoire des religions 205: 3–23. Mertens, M. (1989) “Pourquoi Isis est-elle appellée προφήτις?” Chronique d’Égypte 64: 260–6. Mertens, M. (1995) “Zosime de Panopolis, Mémoires authentiques.” Les alchimistes grecs IV, 1. Paris. Mertens, M. (2002) “Alchemy, Hermetism and Gnosticism at Panopolis c. 300 A.D.: the evidence of Zosimus.” In A. Egberts, B. P. Muhs, and Jacques van der Vliet, eds., Perspectives on Panopolis. An Egyptian town from Alexander the Great to the Arab conquest: 165–75. Leiden. Mertens, M. (2006) “Graeco-Egyptian alchemy in Byzantium.” In P. Magdalino and M. Mavroudi, eds., The occult sciences in Byzantium: 205–30. Geneva.

Mertens, M. (2008) “Zosimos of Panopolis.” In N. Koertge, ed., New dictionary of scientific biography, vol. 7: 405–9. Detroit. Principe, L. M. (2013) The secrets of alchemy. Chicago. Richter, T. S. (2009) “What kind of alchemy is attested by tenth-century Coptic manuscripts?” Ambix. Journal of the Society for the History of Alchemy and Chemistry 56, 1: 23–35. Richter, T. S. (2015) “The master spoke: ‘take one of the “sun” and one unit of almulgam.’ Hitherto unnoticed Coptic papyrological evidence for early Arabic alchemy.” In A. T. Schubert and P. Sijpesteijn, Documents and the history of the early Islamic World. 3rd Conference of the International Society for Arabic Papyrology, Alexandria, 23–26 March 2006. Islamic History and Civilization. Studies and Texts 111: 158–94. Leiden. Richter, T. S. (2018) “Drei Alchemisten und ihre koptischen Rezeptsammlungen. Mit einem Anhang zur ‘Maschine der Weisen,’ dem frühesten bekannten solvens universale.” In P. Dils, et al., eds., Wissenschaft und Wissenschaftler im Alten Ägypten. Gedenkschrift für Walter Friedrich Reineke. Beihefte zur ZÄS. Ullmann, M. (1972) Die Natur- und Geheimwissenschaften im Islam. Leiden. van Bladel, K. (2009) The Arabic Hermes. from pagan sage to prophet of science. Oxford. Vereno, I. (1992) Studien zum ältesten alchemistischen Schrifttum. Auf der Grundlage zweier erstmals edierter arabischer Hermetica. Islamkundliche Untersuchungen 155. Berlin. Viano, C. (1998) “Alchimie gréco-alexandrine”. Dictionnaire critique de l’ésotérisme: 55. Paris. Viano, C., ed. (2005) “L’alchimie et ses racines philosophiques. La tradition grecque et la tradition arabe.” Histoire des doctrines de l’antiquité classique 32. Paris. Viano, C. (2011) “Les alchimistes gréco-alexandrins et leur savoir: la transmutation entre théorie, pratique et ‘expérience’.” In T. Bénatouïl and I. Draelants, eds., Expertus sum. L’expérience par les sens dans la philosophie naturelle médiévale: 223–38. Florence.

1

Aleria, Alalia KATHRYN LOMAS

Aleria was a settlement on the east coast of Corsica, at the mouth of the Tavignano River. There is evidence of Paleolithic and Neolithic occupation. In 565 and 545 BCE Phokaian Greeks settled there, but their activities as pirates caused tension (Hdt. 1.165–6; Ptol. 3.2.5). In ca. 540 they were defeated by an Etruscan and Carthaginian fleet, and the Greek population fled. Aleria fell under Etruscan control (Diod. Sic. 5.13.3–4) and until the third century had a mixed population of Etruscans, Phoenicians, and indigenous inhabitants, with a predominantly Etruscan culture. After a short period of Carthaginian rule, Aleria was conquered by the Romans under L. Cornelius Scipio in 259. A Sullan colony was founded there in 82–80 BCE, with a second colonization by Augustus between 36 and 27 BCE (Plin. HN 3.12.1). In the Early Empire, Corsica (previously ruled from SARDINIA) became a province in its own right, and Aleria became the seat of provincial government. The Greek/Etruscan city is badly documented, but traces of a street grid, houses, and

fortifications have been found beneath the Roman amphitheater. Large amounts of IRON waste attest to the importance of metalworking. More is known of the Roman city. The forum was trapezoidal in shape, and contained the governor’s praetorium and a capitolium. Part of the Roman city wall (ca. 50–30 BCE) has been located, as has the amphitheater. The pre-Roman cemeteries have been excavated, revealing chamber tombs containing rich grave goods, including Greek and Etruscan goods. SEE ALSO: Carthage; Etruria, Etruscans; Phokaia; Punic wars.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Camps, G. (1979) “La pre´histoire dans la region d’Ale´ria.” Archeologia Corsa 4: 5–21. Donati, L. (2004) “The Etruscans on Corsica.” In G. Camporeale, ed., The Etruscans outside Etruria: 274–9. Los Angeles. Jehasse, J. and Jehasse, L. (1973) La Ne´cropole pre´romaine d’Ale´ria (1960–1968). Paris. Lenoir, E. and Rebuffat, R. (1983-4) “Le rempart romain d’Ale´ria.” Archeologia Corsa 8–9: 73–102.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 284–285. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah04017

1

Alesia MICHEL REDDE´

Alesia, the oppidum Mandubiorum, was the location of JULIUS CAESAR’s famous siege and victory over VERCINGETORIX in 52 BCE (Bellum Gallicum 8.68). Little is known of the Mandubians, who lived between the Lingones (capital Langres) to the north, and the Aedui (capital BIBRACTE (MONT BEUVRAY)) to the south. The oppidum itself is one of the largest of central Gaul (ca. 98 ha) and occupies a steep limestone ridge rising between two streams. This natural stronghold is ringed by hills and overlooks a plain created by the confluence of two rivers. It was further strengthened by a fortification wall built in the technique of murus gallicus (dry stone masonry reinforced with internal timber beams). The wall and the earliest indigenous occupation (including evidence of iron and bronze working) date to the early first century BCE. At least two temples date to this period, one dedicated to Ucuetis, the other to Moritasgus (later to Apollo Moritasgus). Defeated in an initial cavalry engagement, Vercingetorix (overall leader of the rebel Gallic tribes) retreated to Alesia with eighty thousand warriors. Caesar installed camps on the surrounding hills and encircled the oppidum with a major barricade that had watchtowers, a ditch, and traps in the ground (a contravallation). He built a second wall behind his own troops (a circumvallation) to protect against an attack by Gallic troops coming to relieve Vercingetorix. Altogether, the total length of the Roman fortifications, including the camps, is some 40 km. Caesar too had a massive army of ten to twelve legions (at least forty thousand men). Once a relieving army arrived, the Gauls tried repeatedly but unsuccessfully to breach the Roman lines with a pincer movement. Finally, exhausted and out of food, Vercingetorix was forced to surrender, ending the massive revolt,

though not the war itself. All these events lasted just a few weeks in the late summer and fall of 52. Large-scale archaeological excavations sponsored by Napoleon III in 1861–5 identified the site and the topography of the siege. Fresh excavations by a Franco-German team have confirmed and elaborated these discoveries (1991–7). After the war, there are only two textual mentions of Alesia. A long inscription in a Gallic language (but Latin letters) confirms the name of the site (CIL XIII 2880). Pliny the Elder celebrated the skill of its bronze workers in silvering bronze (HN 34. 162–63). Moulds found in the excavations show that the site provided harness equipment for the Roman cavalry in the first century CE. Undoubtedly such artisans were the source of prosperity for the Gallo-Roman town, which developed without interruption after the Gallic oppidum. Although the town acquired Roman-style monumental buildings – a theater in the late first century CE, a forum flanked by a civil basilica in the early second century (at the earliest), and temples – it never became a city in the administrative sense. The town remained prosperous in the fourth century, when a Christian basilica dedicated to Saint Regina was constructed. Alesia declined in the fifth century but was never abandoned; the site is still occupied by the small town of AliseSainte-Reine, whose name derives from the ancient toponym. SEE ALSO: Gallic War (Bellum Gallicum); Gaul (Tres Galliae).

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Redde´, M. (2003) Ale´sia. L’arche´ologie face a` l’imaginaire. Paris. Redde´, M. and von Schnurbein, S., eds. (2001) Ale´sia. Fouilles et recherches franco-allemandes sur les travaux militaires romains autour du Mont-Auxois (1991–1997). Paris.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 285–286. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah16004

1

Aletheia AMY C. SMITH

The abstract concept Aletheia, Truth, is personified in literature as a daughter of Zeus (Pind. Ol. 10.3–4 and fr. 205) and nurse of Apollo (Plut. Symp. 657e). The only personification of Aletheia in visual arts is reported by Lucian, in the second century CE: Truth seems to have stood behind the accused in Apelles’ painting of Diabole (Slander) (fourth century BCE). Even Lucian fails to provide a description of her appearance (Cal. 5), which has been interpreted variously by subsequent artists. None of these personifications, literary or visual, give any sense of Aletheia being understood as a divinity, apart from her parentage. Plutarch’s suggestion that the Romans considered Saturn the father of Truth (Plut. Quaest. Rom. 11.267e) presupposes a conflation of Saturn’s Greek equivalent, Kronos, with Chronos (Time). Like her Latin equivalent, Veritas (Hor. Carm. 1.24.7), Aletheia was probably used ad hoc, for didactic purposes.

Aletheia is the realm of the Muses, according to Pindar (Ol. 10.3). The concept becomes more important in Late Antiquity (fourth century CE), when she is given a throne made of iron (Them. Or. 22.281c). Her significance grows in early Christian thought, and in turn the concept figures significantly in the works of later philosophers, such as Martin Heidegger (1927). Gnostics saw her, together with Autogenes (The Self-begotten Godhead), as an emanation from Ennoia (Thought) and Logos (Reason) (Irenaeus Adv. Haer. 1.19.2), or as a daughter of Sige (Silence), originating with Nous (Intellect) (Irenaeus Adv. Haer. 1.1; Hippol. Haer. 6.29.6–7; 6.44.1). SEE ALSO: Gnosis, gnostics, gnosticism; Kronos and Kronia; Muses; Personification.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Bultmann, R. (1956) Primitive Christianity in its Contemporary Setting. New York. Heidegger, M. (1927) Sein und Zeit. Niemeyer. Jonas, H. (1954) Gnosis und spa¨tantiker Geist 1. Go¨ttingen. Settis, S. (1981) “Aletheia.” LIMC 1: 486–7. Zurich.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print page 286. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah17023

1

Aleuadai SŁAWOMIR SPRAWSKI

The Aleuadai were Thessalian aristocrats of LARISSA in the Archaic and Classical period. The family traced its origins to HERAKLES (HERCULES) (Pind. Pyth. 10) and probably to Aleuas, his descendant. They were renowned as patrons of the poets BACCHYLIDES, PINDAR, and SIMONIDES. At least from the end of the sixth century they played a prominent role in the Thessalian League and had some authority to act on its behalf, particularly in external relations. In two preserved fragments of the Aristotelian Constitution of the Thessalians (frs. 497 and 498 Rose), Aleuas the Red is made responsible for introducing a new political and military organization of the League. Herodotus (7.6) mentioned Throax, Eurypylos, and Thrasidaios as both sons of Aleuas and kings (basileis) of the Thessalians. They entered into relations with Xerxes and supported him during his invasion of Greece. We have no direct information about their activities in the aftermath of the Persian wars, but it is supposed that they survived the punitive Spartan expedition launched by Leotychidas, probably in 478 BCE, and preserved much of their influence over the policy of Larissa and the Thessalian League (Hdt. 6.72.; Plut. Her. Mal. 859D; Paus. 3.7.9). Their position was secured by the enormous wealth for which Thessalian elites were legendary as well as by a network of relations with the leading families of Thessaly and other regions. The Aleuad Aristippos’ successful appeal in 404 to Cyrus the Younger for

mercenary pay suggests that the Aleuads maintained good relations with the Persian royal house. Their relationship with the Macedonian royal house was probably behind Thessalian support for Amyntas III in 391 (Diod. Sic. 14.92.3). The Aleuadai opposed the ambitions of JASON OF PHERAI and his family in their pursuit of leadership in Thessaly, requesting the intervention of ALEXANDER II OF MACEDON in 369 and PHILIP II OF MACEDON in the 350s (Diod. Sic. 15.56.3; 16.14.2). Simos, thought to be a powerful Aleuad from Larissa, was initially among Philip’s friends, but he reportedly fell out of favor in the 340s. The last evidence for the Aleuadai is a drachma coin minted in Larissa probably in the mid330s with the head of the hero Aleuas placed on the obverse. Later the Aleuadai disappeared from Thessalian history. SEE ALSO:

Tagos; Thessaly.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Buttmann, P. K. (1822–3) “Von den Aleuaden.” Abhandlungen der ko¨niglichen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin, historisch-philologische Klasse: 171–212. Helly, B. (1995) L’E´tat thessalien: Aleuas le Roux, les te´trades et les “tagoi.” Lyons. Sordi, M. (1996) “Larissa e la dinastia Alevade.” Aevum 70: 37–45. Stamatopoulou, M. (2007) “Thessalian aristocracy and society in the age of epinikian.” In S. Hornblower and C. Morgan, eds., Pindar’s poetry, patrons and festivals: from Archaic Greece to the Roman Empire: 309–41. Oxford. Westlake, H. D. (1935) Thessaly in the fourth century BC. London.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print page 287. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah04018

1

Alexamenos (inscription) JEFFREY S. SIKER

The Alexamenos GRAFFITO is a third-century roughly etched caricature of a man identified in the Greek inscription as “Alexamenos,” who is worshipping the figure of an ass-headed man being crucified. The inscription reads: AΛE ΞAMENOC CEBETE θEON, Alexamenos sebete theon, which can be translated as “Alexamenos worships [his] god.” The generally derisive idea is that: a man named Alexamenos is foolishly worshipping a crucified ass-man. The graffito was found in 1857 on the side of a building known as the domus Gelotiana in the

Palatine Hill of Rome, an area associated with houses of the emperor and the training of imperial servants. The graffito measures 0.39 meters in height and 0.35 meters in width (151/3 inches by 133/4 inches). It is one of several inscriptions etched on the plaster walls of the domus, including another denunciation of Alexamenos as a Christian. Pagan critics of Christianity had earlier leveled similar accusations against Jews as worshipers of an ass-head. The first-century Jewish historian FLAVIUS JOSEPHUS (ca. 37–ca. 100 CE) reported that Apion (an Egyptian grammarian of the first century CE) accused the Jews of worshipping the head of an ass as god, and that a gold head of an ass was set up in the Jerusalem Temple (Against Apion 2.7). Comments from

FIGURE 1 Illustration from F. Becker (1866) Das Spott-Crucifix der römischen Kaiserpaläste aus dem Anfange des dritten Jahrhunderts. Breslau: vi. (public domain). The Encyclopedia of Ancient History. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, and Andrew Erskine. © 2018 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Published 2018 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah30596

2 the Christian apologists Tertullian (ca. 155–ca. 240 CE) and Origen (ca. 185–ca. 254 CE) give evidence of similar pagan criticism of Christian worship. In his Apology (16.1, 12), Tertullian states that Roman critics accused Christians of engaging in the practice of onolatry, the worship of an ass: “For some of you have dreamed yourselves into a belief that an ass’s head is the Christians’ God.” Tertullian also states that he witnessed “a certain criminal hired to dodge wild beasts in the arena,” who displayed “a picture with an inscription: ‘Onokoites, the god of the Christians.’” Likewise, Origen states that the pagan philosopher Celsus accused Christians of worshipping a “creature in the form of an ass” (Contra Celsum 7.40). The figure of Alexamenos is depicted wearing a tunic (less formal than the toga), likely indicating that he was a slave or of the lower classes. The extension of the left arm in adoration towards the crucified “ass-man” marks a

further mocking of both figures, as the more traditional form of worship indicated the extension of one’s right arm towards the object of veneration. SEE ALSO:

Art, Roman; Christology; Crucifixion; Polemic; Prayer, Christian.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Becker, F. (1866) Das Spott-Crucifix der römischen Kaiserpaläste aus dem Anfange des dritten Jahrhunderts. Breslau. Cook, J. G. (2008) “Envisioning crucifixion: light from several inscriptions and the Palatine graffito.” Novum Testamentum 90: 262–85. Keegan, P. (2014) Graffiti in antiquity. New York. Matthews, T. F. (1999) The clash of gods: a reinterpretation of early Christian art, revised and expanded. Princeton.

1

Alexander DENNIS R. ALLEY

The identity of Alexander, a Greek historian who composed a history of CARIA, is uncertain. Felix Jacoby assigned him the number 739, believing him to be an author of whom nothing more survives than his name, mentioned in a scholiast to APOLLONIUS RHODIUS (Schol. In A.R. Arg. 1.195 = FGrH 739, T1). Others, however, have argued that the comment in the Apollonius scholia refers to Alexander of Miletos (Polyhistor), who was known to have written a history of Caria also. For a text and

commentary of the Apollonius scholia and an overview of the controversy on the author’s identity see Paradiso (2009). SEE ALSO:

Historiography, Greek and Roman.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Paradiso, A. (2009) “Alexander (FGrH 739).” In I. Worthington, ed., Brill’s New Jacoby. Brill Online. Schwartz, E. (1894) “Alexandros (n.89).” In A. Pauly, G. Wissowa, and W. Kroll, eds., Realencyclopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft: 1.2: 1452. Stuttgart.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, and Andrew Erskine. © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Published 2017 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah30558

1

Alexander Balas PANAGIOTIS P. IOSSIF

Alexander (ca. 170–145 BCE), born in SMYRNA, was probably of Semitic origin: his original name was “Balas,” a Greek form of the Semitic epithet Ba’al, the Lord (Just. Epit. 35.1.6–7). He was involved in Seleucid politics during the conflict between Demetrios I and ATTALOS II, when Attalos presented Alexander as the son of ANTIOCHOS IV EPIPHANES (Diod. Sic. 31.32a). The coalition formed around the person of Alexander gained the support of Rome: when Herakleides, brother of the usurper Timarchos and official of Antiochos IV (Savalli-Lestrade 1998: 55, 62, 76), came as an envoy to Rome (153), the Senate recognized Alexander as the son of Antiochos IV and legitimized his royal pretensions (Polyb. 33.18.6–14). The Roman support drew Demetrios’ enemies into the coalition (App. Syr. 67; Polyb. 3.5.3). Among these allies, PTOLEMY VI PHILOMETOR was of major importance and helped Alexander to land in Ptolemaı¨s (Ake) in 152 (Jos. AJ 13.35–6; 1 Macc 10:1). Taking advantage of Demetrios’ isolation, Alexander avoided a direct confrontation by consolidating his realm and possessions through an alliance with the JEWS (Jos. AJ 13.37–58). He conquered the military center of Apamea in 151/0 (Mørkholm 1983: 57–63; see APAMEA, SYRIA), and a year later Demetrios was defeated and killed (early June 150: Sachs and Hunger 1996: 149A rev. “6”; Jos. AJ 13.59–61; 1 Macc 10:48–50). Thus Alexander became the first usurper to occupy the Seleucid throne. His accession was sealed by his marriage to Cleopatra Thea, daughter of Ptolemy VI, celebrated in Ptolemaı¨s in 150 (Jos. AJ 13.81–2; 1 Macc 10:55–8). Through this alliance Ptolemy VI controlled the Seleucid kingdom (1 Macc 11:1–12). The marriage produced a son, Antiochos VI Dionysos.

The ancient sources are particularly critical of Alexander: in them the king is characterized by a particular taste for pleasures and a total indifference for the everyday affairs of the kingdom, entrusted to his ministers (Just. Epit. 35.2.; Ath. 5.211a). Alexander’s preoccupation with affairs in the west allowed the revolt and secession of several eastern provinces: the Arsacids conquered Media ca. 148, while the kingdom of Elymaı¨s conquered SUSA ca. 147. The same year, the exiled son of Demetrios I, Demetrios II, campaigned against Alexander with the help of Cretan mercenaries and took possession of Ptolemaı¨s (Jos. AJ 13.86–7; 1 Macc 10:67–8). Ptolemy VI campaigned in Coele Syria, officially to help Alexander. A plot of the latter against Ptolemy’s life made Ptolemy renounce his alliance and give his daughter in a second marriage to Demetrios. Antioch revolted against Alexander, who fled to CILICIA. Thus Ptolemy’s intentions became clear: he took the title of “king of Asia,” establishing a protectorate over Demetrios II as king (Diod. Sic. 32.9c; Jos. AJ 13.111–15). Alexander raised an army in Cilicia, but was defeated by Ptolemy in 145. He took refuge with his Arab allies, and was later assassinated. Ptolemy, heavily injured in the battle, died a few days later (Jos. AJ 13.116–19; 1 Macc 11:15–18). SEE ALSO: Demetrios I (Seleucid king); Demetrios II (Seleucid king); Medes, Media; Seleucids.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Ehling, K. (2007) Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der spa¨ten Seleukiden (164–63 v. Chr). Vom Tode des Antiochos IV. bis zur Einrichtung der Provinz Syria unter Pompeius: 148–64. Stuttgart. Houghton, A., Hoover, O. D., and Lorber, C. (2008) Seleucid coins: a comprehensive catalogue, part 2: Seleucus IV through Antiochus XIII: 209–56. New York.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 299–300. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah09016

2 Le Rider, G. (1965) Suse sous les Se´leucides et les Parthes: 344–51. Paris. Mørkholm, O. (1983) “A posthumous issue of Antiochus IV of Syria.” Numismatic Chronicle 147: 57–63.

Sachs, A. J. and Hunger, H. (1996) Astronomical diaries and related texts from Babylonia, vol. 3: Diaries from 164 BC to 61 BC. Vienna. Savalli-Lestrade, I. (1998) Les philoi royaux dans l’Asie helle´nistique. Geneva.

1

Alexander historians NADEJDA V. POPOV-REYNOLDS

(356–323 BCE) inspired many histories, both during his lifetime and in subsequent periods. Only brief fragments survive of histories written by his contemporaries; most are lost altogether. Compounding the problem, the earliest extant Alexander historian – DIODORUS OF SICILY – wrote in the third quarter of first century BCE. Overall, known historians of Alexander can be grouped into two categories: historians contemporary with Alexander, most of whom wrote over-romanticized histories, and later historians, who used those earlier works as primary sources. Some of them, especially Arrian, attempted to engage in source criticism, an endeavor that resulted in more accurate histories.

ALEXANDER III, THE GREAT

CONTEMPORARY ALEXANDER HISTORIANS Alexander is known for his thirst for fame and subsequent wish for the proper commemoration of his exploits. A significant number of his contemporaries appear to have answered the challenge; the majority of these had accompanied Alexander on his campaigns, and thus knew him and the events they were narrating at first hand. But, while these historians had a unique access to information, most of them took a romanticizing approach. Among these is KALLISTHENES OF OLYNTHOS, from whose sensationalist and overly flattering Exploits of Alexander only fragments survive. Following his refusal to perform PROSKYNESIS (kneeling) before Alexander he became a cautionary tale and was executed in 327. In consequence, his history did not cover Alexander’s final years. Other historians in this vein include Anaximenes of LAMPSAKOS (Rhetorica ad Alexandrum, as well as a history of Alexander), Chares of MYTILENE, Alexander’s chamberlain

(Stories of Alexander in at least ten books, mainly collecting gossip and observations on court life), and two Thessalians from LARISSA – Medeios, a trierarch in Alexander’s navy, and Polykleitos, who wrote memoirs. ONESIKRITOS OF ASTYPALAIA, chief steersman in Alexander’s navy, wrote an encomiastic work On How Alexander Was Educated, channeling XENOPHON’s Cyropaideia. An admiral, NEARCHOS of CRETE, documented Alexander’s voyage from the INDUS to the Euphrates. ARISTOBOULOS OF KASSANDREIA, an engineer and architect active during Alexander’s campaign in India, wrote an exceedingly flattering history of the king 20 years after his death. Also writing after Alexander’s death, PTOLEMY I SOTER composed an accurate but apparently uninspired account of Alexander’s campaigns, perhaps in an attempt to go against the romanticizing excesses of other accounts. Two Alexander historians who did not accompany Alexander on his campaigns are also known: KLEITARCHOS OF ALEXANDRIA authored an immensely popular history of Alexander in at least 12 books, possibly based on the previous work of Kallisthenes, while DIYLLOS OF ATHENS wrote a universal history covering the period 357–297 BCE (see UNIVERSAL HISTORY). Finally, Pseudo-Kallisthenes’ Romance of Alexander likely originates from this period. A historical fiction novel, it has its roots firmly in the romanticizing historical tradition developed during Alexander’s lifetime. Not the entire contemporary tradition was flattering toward Alexander, however: Ephippos of OLYNTHOS, an inspector active early on under Alexander’s rule, and an otherwise unknown Nikobule wrote hostile accounts, especially critical of Alexander’s drinking habits. Last but not least is the question of Alexander’s Royal Journals (Ephemerides), kept by EUMENES OF KARDIA and probably by several other authors. A day-to-day account of events happening wherever the king happened to be, these would have contained raw data about all the events of Alexander’s reign, and they were used by later historians, especially

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 300–302. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah08006

2 as a source of information on Alexander’s final days. The Journals do not survive, except in excerpts quoted by later authors, and their authenticity remains a subject of debate.

LATER ALEXANDER HISTORIANS The over-romanticizing and flattering nature of the histories composed during Alexander’s lifetime provided a good excuse for later historians to produce their own works and correct those defects. While the contemporary histories are not extant, later histories provide information about them, since each of the five extant historians admits reliance on one or more of Alexander’s contemporaries as his source: Diodorus of Sicily, writing ca. 60–30 BCE, uses Diyllos and Kleitarchos in his treatment of Alexander’s campaigns in Book 17 of his Library of World History. POMPEIUS TROGUS, writing in Latin in the Augustan age and known exclusively through Justin’s Epitome of his work (see JUSTIN, ROMAN HISTORIAN), relies on Kleitarchos, as seen from Books 11–12 of the Epitome. Curtius, writing in Latin in the first century CE, uses primarily Diyllos and Kleitarchos, but also draws on Onesikritos and Aristoboulos (see CURTIUS RUFUS, QUINTUS). Because of their common reliance on Kleitarchos, these three authors represent the so-called Vulgate Tradition. Arrian in the second century CE relies on Aristoboulos, Ptolemy, and the Ephemerides for his Anabasis Alexandrou and on Nearchos for his Indike (see ARRIAN (ARRIANUS, LUCIUS FLAVIUS)). Finally, PLUTARCH appears to use all available sources, including the Ephemerides, for his Life of Alexander. While apparently at liberty to pick and choose sources, the later historians, especially Arrian and Plutarch, bewail this burdensome task and the problem presented both by the multitude of earlier histories of Alexander and by the differences between them. The question of discerning the precise sources used by each extant author in specific

episodes is tackled by Hammond (1983 and 1993). While source differences account for different versions of the same events in the extant histories, each historian’s general approach to Alexander also varies by genre. Writing universal histories in the Late Republican and Augustan periods respectively, Diodorus (a Sicilian) and Trogus (a Narbonensian Gaul) are responding to the reality of their own day – the expanding empire of Rome, which has taken over their homelands. Alexander has a special significance to them as a pre-Roman conqueror of the farthest boundaries of the known world. By contrast, Arrian and Curtius focus on Alexander’s campaigns specifically, albeit with different results. While Curtius’ work reads like a sensationalist biography, Arrian certainly is the most historical of the extant Alexander historians and aspires to write the most historically accurate history of Alexander in his Anabasis. Finally, Plutarch’s work is a heroic biography rather than a historical monograph. Thus he admits to focusing on events and details that reveal Alexander’s character and personality rather than the historically most significant episodes. SEE ALSO: Ephemerides, historical; Euphrates and Tigris.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Baynham, E. (1998) Alexander the Great: the unique history of Quintus Curtius. Ann Arbor. Bosworth, A. B. (1971) “The death of Alexander the Great: rumour and propaganda.” Classical Quarterly 21: 112–36. Bosworth, A. B. (1988) From Arrian to Alexander: studies in historical interpretation. Oxford. Brown, T. (1949) “Callisthenes and Alexander.” American Journal of Philology 70: 225–48. Hammond, N. G. L. (1983) Three historians of Alexander the Great: the so-called Vulgate authors, Diodorus, Justin and Curtius. Cambridge.

3 Hammond, N. G. L. (1993) Sources for Alexander the Great: an analysis of Plutarch’s Life and Arrian’s Anabasis Alexandrou. Cambridge. Pearson, L. (1955) “The diary and letters of Alexander the Great.” Historia 3: 429–55. Pearson, L. (1960) The lost Histories of Alexander the Great. New York.

Schepens, G. (1971) “Arrian’s view of his task as Alexander-historian.” Ancient Society 2: 254–68. Yardley, J. C. and Heckel, W. (1997) Justin: Epitome of the Philippic History of Pompeius Trogus, vol. 1: Books 11–12: Alexander the Great. Oxford.

1

Alexander I of Epirus FRANCA LANDUCCI

Alexander I of Epirus (ca. 362–330 BCE), also known as Molossian, was the son of NEOPTOLEMOS and brother of OLYMPIAS, who in 357 was given as wife to PHILIP II OF MACEDON by her uncle Arybbas, king of the Molossians (on Alexander’s genealogy, Just. Epit. 7.6.10–11; 8.6.5–6; on Molossians and EPIRUS in the fourth century BCE, Funke 2000: 159–88). According to Diodorus (16.72.1), in 342/1 Alexander, supported by Philip II, became king of the Molossians after Arybbas’ death; according to Justin (Epit. 8.6.6–8), in contrast, Philip set the twenty-year-old Alexander on the throne of Epirus after expelling Arybbas. Confirming Justin’s account, an Athenian decree granted honors and hospitality to the exiled Arybbas and bade the strategoi to reinstate him (for the text, see Rhodes and Osborne 2003: no. 70; also Funke 2000: 168–74; Worthington 2008: 116–18). In 336 Alexander married Cleopatra, daughter of Olympias and Philip II, the latter murdered by Pausanias at the wedding ceremony

(Diod. Sic. 16.91.4–93.2; Just. Epit. 9.6.1–8; Worthington 2008: 172–86). Alexander returned to Epirus; soon after he embarked for Italy at the request of the Tarentines who, like other Italiots, felt menaced by the mounting pressures of native populations. After several inconclusive victories, Alexander died in Lucania, near Pandosia, on the banks of the Acheron, as the oracle of Dodona had predicted (Strabo. 6.3.4 [C 280]; Livy 8.24.1–17; Just. Epit. 12.2.1–15). SEE ALSO: Cleopatra, daughter of Philip II; Taras/Tarentum.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Funke, S. (2000) Aiakidenmythos und epeirotisches Ko¨nigtum: der Weg einer hellenischen Monarchie. Stuttgart. Heckel, W. (2009) Who’s who in the age of Alexander the Great: prosopography of Alexander’s empire. Oxford. Rhodes, P. J. and Osborne, R., eds. (2003) Greek historical inscriptions: 404–323 BC. Oxford. Worthington, I. (2008) Philip II of Macedonia. New Haven.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 287–288. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah00419

1

Alexander I of Macedon FRANCA LANDUCCI

Alexander I of Macedon (died ca. 452 BCE), also known as the Philhellene (Harp. s.v. Alexandros; schol. Thuc. 1.57.2; Dio. Chrys. 2.23), son of Amyntas I, is the first welldocumented king of MACEDONIA. Alexander, who came to the throne ca. 498, is often mentioned by HERODOTUS (5.19–22; 7.173–5; 8.136–44; 9.44–6), since the king’s enterprises are part of the history of relations between Persia and Greece at the beginning of the fifth century (on Herodotus and Alexander I, see Badian 1994). Scholarly communis opinio (Hammond and Griffith 1979: 98–104; Borza 1990: 98–115; Badian 1994) holds that Herodotus’ account aims at exalting Alexander’s Greekness and loyalty to the cause of Greek liberty, even when, for Realpolitik motives, he formally had to obey the Persian Great King (Macedonia was under Persian control probably from 510 to 478, when Xerxes’ army finally withdrew from Greece). To emphasize Alexander’s Greekness and ideal merits, Herodotus

(5.22.1–2) stresses that the king was permitted to participate in the Olympic Games, and that he was proxenos and benefactor of Athens (8.136.1). Herodotus details four episodes involving the king as protagonist (5.19–22: ca. 510, Alexander murders six Persian ambassadors; 7.173–5: spring 480, Alexander contacts the Greeks camped at Tempe; 8.136–44: winter 480/79, Alexander is sent to Athens as MARDONIOS’ ambassador; 9.44–6: September 479, in PLATAIA Alexander provides the Greeks with key information on the disposition of the Persians). After the Persian wars Alexander tried to live down his past relations with Persia by making sumptuous offerings to the sanctuaries of Delphi and Olympia (Mari 2002: 37–44). Alexander also tried to extend his authority over eastern territories in order to control activities in the STRYMON basin, where he clashed with Athenian expansion led by KIMON, who in 462 was brought to trial for receiving bribes from king Alexander (Plut. Cim. 14.2–4; see Hammond and Griffith 1979: 98–104; Borza 1990: 119–23). The date and circumstances of Alexander’s death are unknown; modern scholars place his death in

Figure 1 Silver octadrachm of Alexander I of Macedon. Obverse: Mounted man carrying two spears. Reverse: Goat, forepart within incuse square. Courtesy of the American Numismatic Society.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 288–289. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah04020

2 ca. 452 on the basis of the chronology of his successors (Hammond and Griffith 1979: 103–4). SEE ALSO:

Persia and Greece.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Badian, E. (1994) “Herodotus on Alexander I of Macedon: a study in some subtle silences.”

In S. Hornblower, ed., Greek historiography: 107–30. Oxford. Borza, E. N. (1990) In the shadow of Olympus: the emergence of Macedon. Princeton. Hammond, N. G. L. and Griffith, G. T. (1979) A history of Macedonia, vol. 2: 550–336 BC. Oxford. Mari, M. (2002) Al di la` dell’Olimpo: Macedoni e grandi santuari della Grecia dall’eta` arcaica al primo ellenismo. Athens.

1

Alexander II of Epirus SOPHIA ANEZIRI

Son of king

by Lanassa (daughter of born in 294/3 BCE (Diod. Sic. 22.8.2; Paus. 4.35.3; Plut. Pyrrh. 9), Alexander II had three children, Pyrrhos, Phthia, and Ptolemy, from his marriage to Olympias (Just. Epit. 28.22). Alexander accompanied his father on the expedition to Italy and became king of the Molossians in 272 after the death of Pyrrhos at Argos. He abandoned his father’s conquests in the Peloponnese, Macedonia, and Thessaly and also the military operations in the west. Around 270, Alexander became involved in a war against the Illyrian king Mytilos (Pomp. Trog. Prolog. 25) but succeeded in preserving Epirus’s boundaries as they had been in the reign of Pyrrhos. Later, during the CHREMONIDEAN WAR (ca. 264–262), he invaded Macedonia (Just. Epit. 26.2.9). The Macedonian defense strategy, planned by ANTIGONOS II GONATAS and implemented by his son Demetrios, expelled Alexander first from Macedonia and then from Epirus. He took refuge in Akarnania, but he soon (ca. 260) PYRRHOS

AGATHOKLES OF SYRACUSE),

regained his throne (Just. Epit. 26.2.9–12). Ca. 252 (?), he divided Akarnania with the Aitolians, keeping the western part (including Leukas) under his suzerainty (Polyb. 9.34.7; Just. 28.1; cf. Front. 3.4.5). The importance of Alexander’s kingdom is attested by the fact that he was one of several Hellenistic kings who received an embassy from the Indian king ASOKA (Cabanes 1976: 93 n. 14). On his death, ca. 250, his widow and half-sister Olympias acted as regent for his sons, Pyrrhos and Ptolemy (Just. Epit. 28.1). SEE ALSO: Demetrios II (Macedonian king); Epirus; Molossis.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Cabanes, P. (1976) L’Epire de la mort de Pyrrhos a` la conqueˆte romaine: 39–65. Paris. Hammond, N. G. L. (1967) Epirus: The geography, the ancient remains, the history and the topography of Epirus and adjacent areas: 588–91. Oxford. Heinen, H. (1972) Untersuchungen zur hellenistischen Geschichte des 3. Jahrhunderts v. Chr: 175–7. Stuttgart.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 289–290. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah09017

1

Alexander II of Epirus SOPHIA ANEZIRI

National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Greece

Son of king

by Lanassa (daughter of born in 294/3 BCE (Diod. Sic. 22.8.2; Paus. 4.35.3; Plut. Pyrrh. 9), Alexander II had three children, Pyrrhos, Phthia, and Ptolemy, from his marriage to his half-sister Olympias (Just. Epit. 28.22). Alexander accompanied his father on the expedition to Italy and became king of the Molossians in 272 after the death of Pyrrhos at Argos. He abandoned his father’s conquests in the Peloponnese, Macedonia, and Thessaly and also the military operations in the west. Around 270, Alexander became involved in a war against the Illyrian king Mytilos (Pomp. Trog. Prolog. 25) but succeeded in preserving Epirus’ boundaries as they had been in the reign of Pyrrhos. Later, during the CHREMONIDEAN WAR in the mid to late 260s, he invaded Macedonia (Just. Epit. 26.2.9). The Macedonian defense strategy, planned by ANTIGONOS II GONATAS and implemented by his son DEMETRIOS II, expelled Alexander first from Macedonia and then from Epirus. He took refuge in Akarnania, but he soon (ca. 260) regained his throne (Just. Epit. 26.2.9–12). Around 252 (?), he divided Akarnania with the Aitolians, keeping the western part (including LEUKAS) under his suzerainty (Polyb. 9.34.7; Just. Epit. 28.1; cf. Frontin. Str. 3.4.5). Meyer (2013: 29–37) revises the dating of seven Dodonian inscriptions and attributes them to the reign of Alexander II rather than, as previously assumed, to that of ALEXANDER I. PYRRHOS

AGATHOKLES OF SYRACUSE),

On the basis of this revision, Meyer proposes a reassessment of the structures, institutions, and, more generally, the history and development of the Molossian state in the third century BCE. The importance of Alexander’s kingdom is attested by the fact that he was one of several Hellenistic kings who received an embassy from the Indian king ASOKA in the mid third century BCE (Cabanes 1976: 93 n. 14 = Major Rock Edict 13; Thapar 1997: 255–7). On Alexander’s death, at an uncertain date (a little before 240?), his widow and half-sister Olympias acted as regent for his sons, Pyrrhos and Ptolemy (Just. Epit. 28.1). Pyrrhos became king (Pyrrhos II) and after him also Ptolemy, but they both died young, as did Pyrrhos III, grandson of Alexander II, signalling the end of the Aiakid Dynasty. SEE ALSO: Aitolian League; Akarnanian League; Dodona; Molossis.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Cabanes, P. (1976) L’Épire de la mort de Pyrrhos à la conquête romaine: 39–65. Paris. Cross, G. N. (1932) Epirus. A study in Greek constitutional development: 124–7. Cambridge. Dominguez, A. J., ed. (2018) Politics, territory and identity in ancient Epirus. Pisa. Hammond, N. G. L. (1967) Epirus: the geography, the ancient remains, the history and the topography of Epirus and adjacent areas: 588–91. Oxford. Heinen, H. (1972) Untersuchungen zur hellenistischen Geschichte des 3. Jahrhunderts v. Chr.: 175–7. Stuttgart. Meyer, E. A. (2013) The inscriptions of Dodona and a new history of Molossia: 22–37, 129–30. Stuttgart. Thapar, R. (1997) Asoka and the decline of the Mauryas, rev. ed. Oxford.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History. Edited by Andrew Erskine, David B. Hollander, and Arietta Papaconstantinou. © 2021 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Published 2021 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah09017.pub2

1

Alexander II of Macedon FRANCA LANDUCCI

Alexander II of Macedon (ca. 390–368 BCE), eldest son of Amyntas III and Eurydike, became king in 370 at his father’s death (Diod. Sic. 15.60.3; 16.2.4; see Hammond and Griffith 1979: 179–82; Borza 1990: 189–91; Errington 1990: 35–6). Soon after his accession to the throne, Alexander led his army to THESSALY against ALEXANDER OF PHERAI; he successfully gained control of LARISSA and Krannon, where he installed a garrison (Diod. Sic. 15.61.3–5, with Stylianou 1998: 422–3). The king was, however, forced to return to Macedonia, as his power was being threatened by his brother-in-law, Ptolemy of Aloros, husband of his sister Eurynoe. PELOPIDAS of Thebes was called in to arbitrate. He allied with Alexander, who handed over hostages, among whom was his youngest brother, later

to be known as Philip II (Diod. Sic. 15.67.3–4; Plut. Pel. 26.4–5; cf. Stylianou 1998: 456–7; Worthington 2008: 17–19). After Pelopidas’ departure, Alexander was murdered by Ptolemy of Aloros (Diod. Sic. 15.71.1–2; 16.2–4; Plut. Pel. 27.1–4). SEE ALSO:

Macedonia; Philip II of Macedon.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Borza, E. N. (1990) In the shadow of Olympus: the emergence of Macedon. Princeton. Errington, R. M. (1990) A history of Macedonia, trans. C. Errington. Berkeley. Hammond, N. G. L. and Griffith, G. T. (1979) A history of Macedonia, vol. 2: 550–336 BC. Oxford. Stylianou, P. J. (1998) A historical commentary on Diodorus Siculus, book 15. Oxford. Worthington, I. (2008) Philip II of Macedonia. New Haven.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print page 290. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah04021

1

Alexander III, the Great HANS-ULRICH WIEMER

Alexander III of Macedon (356–323 BCE), son of king PHILIP II OF MACEDON and of OLYMPIAS, conquered and transformed the Achaemenid Empire, creating a new and purely personal monarchy that quickly fell to pieces after his early death in BABYLON on June 10, 323 (see ACHAEMENID DYNASTY). His actions, and his death, had deep and lasting, but largely unintended, effects on the eastern Mediterranean and the Near East, causing the emergence of new monarchies ruled by kings of Macedonian descent, and the spread of Greek forms of life centered on the city-state to parts of the Near East and Middle East. In this sense his reign marks a break in the history of the ancient Near East and, since Johann Gustav Droysen, it is considered with good reason to be the beginning of the Hellenistic period (see HELLENISTIC PERIOD (CONCEPT OF)). Among the Greeks of the “old world,” however, Alexander encountered fierce opposition as long as he lived and only became popular after they had fallen under the domination of Rome. CAREER Youth

Alexander, born in July 356, grew up at the court of his father Philip, being taught by several tutors, one of whom was ARISTOTLE. At the age of 18 he commanded the Macedonian cavalry at the battle of Chaeronea (August 338; see CHAERONEA, BATTLE OF). Although he was the only son of Philip to be considered capable of succeeding to the throne, his position became precarious when his father took Cleopatra Eurydike as his wife in spring of 337. He and his mother fled the country, but son and father were reconciled soon afterwards. When Philip was killed at the wedding of his daughter Cleopatra in summer 336, Alexander was present and therefore able to claim the throne for himself immediately. Supported by

Figure 1 Hellenistic portrait of Alexander the Great. Photograph © Corbis.

some of Philip’s most influential advisers, he quickly succeeded in obtaining allegiance all over the country, winning over potential opponents and eliminating old enemies. After he had settled affairs in MACEDONIA, he secured his position as leader of the Greeks south of Olympus by having himself appointed archon of the Thessalians and hegemon (“leader”) of the Corinthian League (see LEAGUE OF CORINTH). In spring 335 he led a campaign against the Triballi in Thrace, crossing the DANUBE. On his way back he decisively defeated the Dardanians, who in his absence had invaded Upper Macedonia. Next he turned against the Thebans, who had revolted against the Macedonian domination in Greece and were in the act of forging a Panhellenic coalition. Thebes was stormed and destroyed, both physically and politically, in the autumn of 335.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 290–297. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah09018

2 Asian campaign

In the spring of 334 Alexander set out on a military expedition against the Persian Empire, leaving behind ANTIPATER as commander of the Macedonian forces in Europe. Crossing the HELLESPONT, Alexander waged a war that had been planned and begun by his father and formally declared by the Corinthian League. The stated purpose of the campaign was revenge for the wrongs that Xerxes had inflicted upon the Greeks roughly 150 years earlier. Alexander’s army was therefore made up of contingents that followed him for very different reasons: Macedonians who owed allegiance to their king, Thessalians who followed Alexander as leader of the Thessalian league, men from Balkan tribes who were bound to him by treaties of alliance, mercenaries hired and paid as individuals, and Greeks who served in units recruited by member states of the Corinthian League. Alexander, being short of funds when the campaign began, was lucky to win an early victory at GRANIKOS River, where in May 334 he defeated a Persian army commanded by the SATRAPS of western Asia Minor. He then led his army southwards, taking SARDIS and Ephesos without a fight. After the capture of MILETOS he disbanded his fleet, thereby ceding rule of the sea to the Persian fleet, which then launched a counteroffensive in the Aegean in spring 333. Alexander had meanwhile moved up the Taurus and on to GORDION in PHRYGIA, where he spent the winter; marching on to CAPPADOCIA he passed the Cilician Gates and descended into the Cilician plain. At ISSOS, in November 333, he encountered a large Persian army commanded by Darius III himself. Routing the Persian army again, Alexander now became master of all the satrapies west of the Euphrates. The Persian fleet dissolved and most of the coastal cities surrendered; only TYRE and Gaza put up resistance to Alexander – which led to their being besieged, stormed, and finally destroyed. In Egypt Alexander had no difficulty in being accepted as pharaoh, though whether he was formally crowned as such

is debated. In the Delta of the Nile he founded a city that was to bear his name, and then he went on a trip of more than 500 km, to the oracle of Amun at the SIWA OASIS (see AMUN-RE). The priests of the god greeted Alexander as son of Amun (or ZEUS, as the Greeks would have it), and the news soon spread that the king had been declared to be the son of a god. The third and decisive victory was won at the village of GAUGAMELA near the city of Arbela, where on October 1, 331 Alexander confronted a Persian army that was, again, led by Darius III himself. After that battle the rich cities of Mesopotamia opened their gates to the victor. Alexander now gained possession of the enormous riches hoarded in the Achaemenid palaces at BABYLON and SUSA, and he embarked on a new policy toward the defeated, for the first time confirming Achaemenid satraps in their office. From Mesopotamia Alexander marched on to the Persian heartland, the Persis; after fierce fighting at the socalled Persian Gates, he seized control of the Persian capital of PERSEPOLIS in January 330. There he received the news that a revolt of Greek states led by the Spartan king Agis III had been crushed by Antipater. In May, after the palace had gone up in flames, Alexander broke camp to chase down Darius, who was heading eastwards, hoping to build up a new army in BACTRIA. On the way, Darius was killed by his own men in July 330. The war, however, continued, as BESSOS, one of Darius’ murderers, had himself proclaimed king of kings under the name of Artaxerxes and was immediately recognized in the satrapies of eastern Iran. Artaxerxes rushed to his satrapy Bactria, where he hoped to gather forces against Alexander. Alexander reacted by declaring that, while the war of revenge against the Persians was over now, he would fight on to take revenge on Darius’ murderers. He also designed for himself a new costume, which combined elements of the Achaemenid regalia with Macedonian garments, wreathing a DIADEM around the flat cap that the Macedonians called kausia. He took over Achaemenid court personnel and gave

3 his companions purple coats to wear on ceremonial occasions. This policy, while appealing to the Iranian elites, led to tensions between the king and his Macedonian subjects. In winter 330/29 PHILOTAS, one of Alexander’s “generals” and close companions, was accused of being party to a conspiracy against the king’s life, condemned, and executed; his father PARMENION, from the “old guard” of Philip II, was then murdered without a trial, on Alexander’s orders. Alexander reached Bactria via Areia, Drangiane, and Arachosia, crossing the Hindu Kush in spring 329. Resistance collapsed quickly, as Bessos was deserted by his followers and in summer 329 handed over to Alexander, who had him executed in Achaemenid style. New enemies, however, were found soon. When the king began founding a fortified city of gigantic dimensions on the JAXARTES, a revolt broke out that was headed by the Sogdian nobleman Spitamenes, leader of a coalition of his fellow Sogdians (and some Bactrians) with Saka nomads from beyond the Jaxartes. A guerilla war ensued, which lasted two years and caused heavy losses to Alexander’s troops; to this the king reacted with a combination of swift action and relentless terror. The marriage to ROXANE, the beautiful daughter of a Bactrian nobleman, in the spring of 327 was to symbolize the reconciliation between the king and the local elites, who contributed large cavalry units to their overlord’s army. For the Macedonians, however, Alexander’s “orientalizing” ways were a cause of concern. The memory of Alexander killing Kleitos, a companion and friend, by his own hand in Samarkand, in the summer of 328, was still fresh (see KLEITOS (BLACK CLITUS); MARAKANDA/SAMARKAND). Then, in summer 327, a conspiracy among the royal pages against Alexander’s life was detected, and KALLISTHENES OF OLYNTHOS was accused of having instigated it. The accused were found guilty and lost their lives. After he had established his rule in Bactria and SOGDIA, Alexander marched on to Gandhara, receiving Indian princes in the Kabul Valley before he reached TAXILA in the winter of 327. Having crossed the INDUS

in the spring of 326, Alexander fought his last pitched battle when he defeated the Indian ruler Porus at the HYDASPES River in the summer of that year (see PORUS, INDIAN DYNAST). Learning about rich kingdoms beyond the Hyphasis, he intended to lead his army into the delta of the GANGES. This time, however, the soldiers would not follow his lead. Alexander had to abandon his plans of going further eastwards and turned back. Leading his troops down the Indus, he blazed a trail of destruction through the lands on both sides of the river, reaching the Indian Ocean in the summer of 325. After he had lost many men on a march through Gedrosia, Alexander returned to the Persian heartlands in the winter of 325/4, severely punishing satraps and other subordinates who had acted on their own authority during his long absence. In the following spring Alexander entered Mesopotamia. In Susa he married two Achaemenid princesses, while his companions married daughters of Iranian noblemen. He had 30,000 Iranian cavalrymen enrolled into the royal army to serve in units called Epigonoi (“Successors”). Dissatisfaction among the Macedonians about this policy of fusion came to a head when Alexander announced that Macedonian veterans who were unable or unwilling to fight on would be discharged with full compensation. The ensuing riot, often called, misleadingly, the “mutiny of Opis,” broke down quickly; but its termination was celebrated with a huge banquet, carefully designed to express the idea that both Macedonians and Persians would have a share in Alexander’s empire. After he had spent the winter of 325/4 in ECBATANA, Alexander returned to Mesopotamia, entering Babylon in the spring of 323. There he was met by embassies from Greek states that announced their intention of instituting cults for the king. While in Babylon, Alexander built a colossal grave monument for his friend Hephaistion, who had died the previous winter (see HEPHAISTION, MACEDONIAN), and he supervised the preparations for an amphibious invasion of Arabia. A huge fleet had been assembled, and the king’s army

4 was radically restructured through the division of the infantry into new tactical units, made up both of Macedonians and of Iranians. The campaign was to begin in early June, but Alexander caught a fever and died on June 10, 323, leaving an unborn son by Roxane (see ALEXANDER IV, SON OF ALEXANDER III). After his death, an assembly of Macedonian soldiers resolved not to carry out the program of conquering the western Mediterranean, as outlined in a document that Perdikkas claimed to comprise Alexander’s “last plans” (see PERDIKKAS, SON OF ORONTES). POLICIES Methods and aims

Due partly to the extraordinary nature of Alexander’s actions and partly to the limitations of the evidence, a consensus as to his aims is unlikely ever to emerge. While some believe that the king pursued long-term goals – such as the brotherhood of men, or the fusion of Macedonians and Iranians – and chose the means he believed were best suited to achieve them, others see his policies as constantly changing, partly in response to challenges that arose once the campaign had begun, partly from purely personal motives. It is beyond doubt, however, that after Gaugamela Alexander began to rely on Iranian satraps, and, after the Sogdian revolt, also on Iranian troops, and that he adopted Achaemenid forms of royal self-representation and took over the basic structure of the Achaemenids’ provincial administration, although Iranian satraps were never allowed to rule without supervision from Macedonian military commanders. In this sense, Alexander followed a policy of fusion between his old Macedonian subjects and the Iranian elites, on whose support he increasingly relied in Asia. Alexander did not, however, feel bound by the role model that Achaemenid kingship provided; nor was he content with conquering countries that had been under the Achaemenids’ rule. Since only death prevented him from invading Arabia, the truth of this

statement would be clear even if the so-called last plans ascribed to him after his death on Perdikkas’ authority are not authentic. His repeated attempts to be recognized as a superhuman being, by Greeks and Macedonians in particular, cannot satisfactorily be explained on the assumption that his actions were always calculated toward winning support from allies and subjects. Achievements

(De Alex. fort. 328E) tells us that Alexander founded more than seventy cities in Asia, and nineteenth-century scholarship tried to prove him right (Droysen 1877–8: 187–358). The most recent study (Fraser 1996) would credit him with no more than ten: Alexandria in Egypt; Alexandria in Aria (?); Alexandria in Arachosia (?); Alexandria in the Paropamisadai, possibly identical with Alexandria in Opiane; ALEXANDRIA ESCHATE, on the Jaxartes River; Alexandria–Boukephala on the Akesines River; Alexandria–Rambakia among the Oreitai; Alexandria in Susiana in the Persian Gulf, later known as Spasinou Charax; and the two cities named Nikaia, on the Kophen and on the Hydaspes. Other scholars would add some items to the list, including ALEXANDRIA OXIANA and ALEXANDRIA IN MARGIANA. Most of the cities whose foundation can securely be attributed to Alexander were located east of the Persian heartland, in regions that had put up particularly strong resistance to Alexander. With the exception of Alexandria in Egypt and Alexandria Susiana, their primary function was to serve as points of control for the surrounding countryside and for the main roads that connected the eastern satrapies. Their citizen population was formed by Greek and Macedonian settlers together with original inhabitants of those regions. While Alexander’s foundations on the Nile and on the Euphrates thrived in the Hellenistic period, the others made little impact on Greek civilization; they seem to have been absorbed by their environment quite soon. As the idea that Alexander founded cities to propagate the Greek way of life in the orient PLUTARCH

5 has been discarded by recent research, so has the view that he pursued a deliberate policy of monetizing economies formerly based on barter, or even that he tried to create something like a “world economy” (Le Rider 2003). To be sure, Alexander devised his own coin types, both in silver and in gold, and had minted out enormous amounts of precious metals, which the Achaemenids had hoarded in their palaces. He did not, however, set up mints in the eastern satrapies of his empire, and he made no attempt at unifying the currencies in those parts that already used coins. He issued new coin types to bolster his standing as king while his opponent Darius was still a threat, but he did not hesitate to pay in darics after the latter’s death. Alexander’s monetary policy was determined by political ambitions on the one hand and by immediate financial needs on the other. Pliny the Elder (HN 8.44) tells us that Alexander reported regularly to Aristotle about all the zoological discoveries that his men made on their campaigns, and modern scholarship has developed this note into a theory that Alexander’s army comprised a kind of scientific research group. There is, however, no reliable evidence that the considerable increase in botanical and zoological knowledge that resulted from Alexander’s conquest of the Achaemenid Empire is due to research sponsored by the king himself. Royal patronage was confined to the field of geography: there Alexander financed and directed some research because he was keenly interested in exploring countries that had remained almost unknown to the Greeks of his time and were thought to lie on the edges of the Earth.

SOURCES

17 of DIODORUS OF SICILY’s Universal history, was composed in the time of Julius Caesar. Later extant accounts comprise Strabo’s Geography, written under Augustus (see STRABO OF AMASEIA), which is heavily dependent, for the description of India, on writers who had themselves participated in Alexander’s campaigns; Curtius Rufus’ Latin History of Alexander (see CURTIUS RUFUS, QUINTUS); Plutarch’s Life of Alexander ; and Books 11 and 12 of Justin’s Epitome, a Latin summary in four books of the Philippic history of POMPEIUS TROGUS, written under Augustus (see JUSTIN, ROMAN HISTORIAN). While Diodorus, Curtius Rufus, and Justin draw on a common tradition known as the “vulgate,” which ultimately derives from KLEITARCHOS OF ALEXANDRIA, ARRIAN based his History of Alexander (Anabasis) on the contemporary accounts of Ptolemy – the future PTOLEMY I SOTER – and of ARISTOBOULOS OF KASSANDREIA, while in his book on India (Indike) he used a book written by Alexander’s “admiral” NEARCHOS. As the extant literary sources are based on contemporary accounts that can be, and partially have been, reconstructed (see ALEXANDER HISTORIANS), the problems inherent in using Greek and Roman literature as historical evidence have to be faced on two levels – that of the extant accounts and that of their lost sources: the cultural stereotypes that structured GrecoRoman discourses about the barbarian need critical analysis, as do the literary conventions, including the use of stock phrases and fictional elements, that shaped the way in which ideas about the past were conceived and expressed by writers with a long tradition of Greek and Latin historical writing behind them. Apart from the general characteristics of historical writing, the personal experiences, preferences, and capabilities of the individual authors also have to be taken into account.

Literary accounts

For information on Alexander’s life we are heavily dependent on Greek and Latin literary accounts written many centuries after the king’s death. The earliest surviving one, Book

Documentary evidence in Greek, Egyptian, Babylonian, and Aramaic

While in the literary accounts Alexander’s actions are buried beneath several layers of

6 interpretation, contemporary sources of a documentary kind provide a more direct access to his life and deeds. Greek inscriptions preserve a few documents drafted in Alexander’s name by his chancellery and bearing on his relations with the Greeks; other inscriptions shed light on the consequences that his measures had on various Greek states (Heisserer 1980 and several new texts). A rapidly growing body of inscriptions illuminates the social and political organization of pre-Roman Macedonia (Hatzopoulos 1996). Egyptian hieroglyphics illustrate how the Egyptian elites came to terms with a new ruler, foreign to their land. Alexander’s dealings with Babylonia are reflected in the so-called Astronomical diaries and a few other cuneiform texts (van der Spek 2003). Administrative documents from Bactria, written in Aramaic and covering the years 353–324, allow unexpected insights into a region where Alexander fought some of his most grueling campaigns (Shaked 2004).

Faun in POMPEII, which seems to be copied from a lost tableau painted by Philoxenos of Eretria for CASSANDER while Alexander was still alive (or at least not long after his death). It has always been known that Alexander created new coin types: a gold stater with a helmeted Athena on the obverse and a winged Nike on the reverse, and a silver tetradrachm showing Herakles (Hercules) in a lion’s skin on the obverse and a seated Zeus on the reverse – both with the legend “Alexandrou.” The organization, volume, and rhythm of minting, however, can now be seen much more clearly (Le Rider 2003). While Alexander’s gold coins might have been designed at the start of the campaign against Darius, the silver coins were first issued after the battle of Issos, and during his lifetime their circulation was limited to some of the western satrapies of the empire.

Sites and monuments, coins, and works of art

No figure of the Greco-Roman world has exerted an influence on posterity that has lasted as long and has reached as far as Alexander’s: his popularity by far outstepped the confines of the western world, spreading to many Muslim countries, and it lasts to the present day (Stoneman 2008). In a unique process of metamorphosis, Alexander has come to embody a wide array of characters, from resourceful trickster and valiant knight to pious Christian and Muslim sage. For almost 2,000 years the most important medium to transmit these widely differing images of Alexander was what is known as “the Alexander romance,” a collection of fantastic tales of heroic deeds, roguish tricks, and exotic miracles, which originated in Roman Egypt but over the centuries was constantly rewritten and translated into many languages. Modern scholarship on Alexander begins with the Geschichte Alexanders des Großen by the Prussian historian Johann Gustav Droysen, first published in 1833. Droysen was convinced that Alexander’s actions were perfectly

While Alexander’s campaigns west of Iran took place on terrain that is fairly well known to us, his conquest of the eastern satrapies is, apart from a few fixed points, still very hard to trace on the ground, and it seems unlikely that the exact route followed by his army in Afghanistan, Tadjikistan, or Pakistan will ever be known (Seibert 1985). Most of his foundations have vanished without a trace, too. Archaeology has, however, made considerable progress in bringing to light Alexander’s home country, Macedonia, and in reconstructing the palace of Persepolis, which was burnt down on Alexander’s order (or at least with his consent). Apart from the Azara herm – which is the Roman copy of an original portrait ordered by Alexander himself, and probably sculpted by LYSIPPOS – very few portraits can securely be said to represent Alexander (Stewart 1993). The most important one is to be found on the Alexander Mosaic from the House of the

AFTERLIFE

7 rational, in the sense that he was able to do what was necessary in his time if mankind was to progress on its path to freedom: the fusion of orient and occident, without which Christianity could not have come into being. Droysen’s approach to Alexander has strongly influenced later scholarship, and not only in Germany (e.g., Wilcken 1931): in England similar views were propagated by William Tarn (1948) and later by Nicholas Hammond (1997). On the other hand, the idea that Alexander was first and foremost a conqueror who ruthlessly pursued a policy dictated by shortterm needs of a military and political nature and by personal whims has always had its adherents, being espoused by George Grote among others. It was only after the catastrophe of World War II, however, that this view became dominant, at least in the academic world. Since the 1950s a whole generation of Anglo-American scholars has painted Alexander’s image in the darkest of colors, stressing the enormous loss to human life that his actions caused and the irrational motives that drove him (e.g., Bosworth 1988; Worthington 2004). At present, the most stimulating challenge to this majority view comes from the French historian Pierre Briant, who proposes to see Alexander as “the last of the Achaemenids,” a calculating politician who from the very start of his campaign was determined to become king of the Achaemenid Empire and to rule it in the way they had done (Briant 1974/ 2006). This approach, in several ways that of a Droysen redivivus, raises fundamental problems of historical method and interpretation and has recently come under criticism too (Wiemer 2007; Lane Fox 2008).

SEE ALSO: Aegean Sea (Classical and later); Agis II and III of Sparta; Alexander historians; Alexandria ad Issum; Alexandria Arachosia; Alexandria Ariana; Alexandria (Egypt); Alexandria Paropamisadai; Asia Minor, Hellenistic; Cilicia; Cleopatra, daughter of Philip II; Diaries, astronomical; Ephesos, Classical and later; Euphrates and Tigris;

Exploration; Foundations (Hellenistic); Gaza (Hellenistic to Late Antiquity); Mediterranean; Proskynesis; Ruler cult, Greek and Hellenistic; Thebes in Boiotia.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Berve, H. (1926) Das Alexanderreich auf prosopographischer Grundlage, 2 vols. Munich. Bosworth, A. B. (1988) Conquest and empire: the reign of Alexander the Great. Cambridge. Briant, P. (1974/2006) Alexandre le Grand, 6th ed. Paris. Droysen, J. G. (1877) Geschichte Alexanders des Großen (= Geschichte des Hellenismus, vol. 1), 2nd ed. Gotha. 1st ed. Hamburg 1833, repr. Zu¨rich 1976. Fraser, P. M. (1996) The cities of Alexander the Great. Oxford. Hammond, N. G. L. (1997) The genius of Alexander the Great. Chapel Hill. Hatzopoulos, M. B. (1996) Macedonian Institutions under the Kings, 2 vols. Athens. Heckel, W. (2006) Who’s who in the age of Alexander the Great. Oxford. Heisserer, A. J. (1980) Alexander the Great and the Greeks: the epigraphic evidence. Norman, OK. Lane Fox, R. (2008) “Alexander the Great: ‘Last of the Achaemenids.’” In C. J. Tuplin, ed., Persian responses: political and cultural interaction (with) in the Achaemenid Empire: 267–312. Swansea. Le Rider, G. (2003) Alexandre le Grand: monnaies, finances et politique. Paris. Seibert, J. (1985) Das Alexanderreich auf kartographischer Grundlage. Tu¨bingen. Shaked, S. (2004) Le Satrape de Bactriane et son gouverneur: documents arame´ens du IVe s. avant notre e`re provenant de Bactriane. Paris. Stewart, A. (1993) Faces of power: Alexander’s image and Hellenistic politics. Berkeley. Stoneman, R. (2008) Alexander the Great: a life in legend. New Haven. Tarn, W. W. (1948) Alexander the Great, 2 vols. Cambridge. van der Spek, R. J. (2003) “Darius III, Alexander the Great and Babylonian scholarship.” In W. Henkelman and A. Kuhrt, eds.,

8 A Persian perspective: essays in memory of Heleen Sancisi-Weerdenburg: 289–346. Leiden. Wiemer, H.-U. (2007) “Alexander – der letzte Achaimenide? Eroberungspolitik, lokale Eliten

und altorientalische Traditionen im Jahr 323.” Historische Zeitschrift 284: 281–309. Wilcken, U. (1931) Alexander der Große. Leipzig. Worthington, I. (2004) Alexander the Great: man and god. London.

1

Alexander IV, son of Alexander III SHANE WALLACE

Alexander IV (323–310/9 BCE; RE Alexandros 11), son of ALEXANDER III, THE GREAT and of the Bactrian princess ROXANE, was born in BABYLON in September/October 323. For most of his life he was a political tool of the Successors (Epigonoi), conferring on each a semblance of royal authority. He was murdered on CASSANDER’s orders in 310–309. During his life Alexander was in the care (epimeleia) of four different Successors: Perdikkas, ANTIPATER, POLYPERCHON/OLYMPIAS, and Cassander (see PERDIKKAS, SON OF ORONTES; SUCCESSORS, WARS OF). Although it was decided in Babylon that Roxane’s child, if male, would share the kingship with PHILIP III ARRHIDAIOS (Arr. Succ. 1.1, 8; Just. Epit. 13.4.3), Alexander IV’s actual proclamation only came in late 322, after Perdikkas’ victory in CAPPADOCIA (Just. Epit. 13.6.10; Bosworth 1993). From there both kings travelled with Perdikkas to Egypt (Paus. 1.6.3), where Perdikkas was assassinated in spring 320. From Egypt the kings were taken north to Triparadeisos, where Antipater oversaw a new distribution of satrapies in their name (Diod. Sic. 18.39; Arr. Succ. 1.30–38: see TRIPARADEISOS, TREATY OF). The kings remained with Antipater (OGIS 4) and returned with him to Europe in spring 319. When Antipater died, authority passed to Polyperchon, who promptly offered Olympias the charge of Alexander IV (Diod. Sic. 18.49.4). To bolster support for his war against Cassander, Polyperchon took both kings on campaign in Greece. However, we hear less of Alexander at this time, even though Roxane’s presence may be attested at ATHENS (IG II2 1492.45–57). Olympias took control of Alexander in early 317. She murdered Philip Arrhidaios and his wife Eurydike, leaving Alexander as sole king. Alexander remained with Olympias in Pydna during Cassander’s

siege in winter 317–316 (Diod. Sic. 19.35.5; Just. Epit. 14.6.2), and it was there that he was betrothed to Deidameia, sister of Pyrrhos of EPIRUS (Plut. Pyrrh. 4.3). Pydna fell and Olympias was killed. Alexander was sent to AMPHIPOLIS, where Cassander had him murdered in late 310 or early 309 (Diod. Sic. 19.52.4; Paus. 9.7.2). Sources say that Alexander’s body was hidden (Diod. Sic. 19.105.2), but Tomb III at VERGINA probably contained his remains. Alexander IV personified Alexander the Great’s empire and represented the legal basis for each Successor’s position. Therefore, in 315 ANTIGONOS I MONOPHTHALMOS undermined Cassander by citing his imprisonment of Alexander. Similarly, in 311 Cassander was recognized as general of Europe only until Alexander came of age (Diod. Sic. 19.61, 105). That Egyptian and Babylonian documents were dated according to Alexander IV until 305 reveals that only Antigonos I Monophthalmos’ declaration of kingship brought an end to the necessary illusion that was the continued Argead monarchy. Aptly, Antigonos’ dual monarchy with his son DEMETRIOS I POLIORKETES was probably based on that of Philip Arrhidaios and Alexander. As joint king, Alexander IV was active in name. Together with Philip Arrhidaios, he restored SAMOS to the Samians and received a festival and divine honors (SEG 48.1148), while on SAMOTHRACE the kings dedicated a portico to the Great Gods (Wescoat 2003; cf. Philostr. VA 2.43). SEE ALSO: Argeads; Eurydike, wife of Philip Arrhidaios; Pyrrhos, king; Satraps.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Adams, L. A. (1991) “Cassander, Alexander IV and the tombs at Vergina.” Ancient World 22: 27–33. Bosworth, A. B. (1993) “Perdiccas and the kings.” Classical Quarterly 43: 420–7.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 297–298. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah09019

2 Hammond, N. G. L. and Walbank, F. W. (1988) A history of Macedonia, vol. 3. Oxford. Heckel, W. (2006) Who’s who in the age of Alexander the Great: s.v. “Alexander [3].” Oxford.

Wescoat, B. D. (2003) “Athens and Macedonian royalty on Samothrace: the Pentelic connection.” In O. Palagia and S. V. Tracy, eds., The Macedonians in Athens 323–229 BC : 102–16. Oxford.

1

Alexander Jannaeus YOUVAL ROTMAN

Alexander Jannaeus was ruler of the Hasmonean state from 103 to 76 BCE. The second son of JOHN HYRCANUS I, he succeeded his brother Judas Aristobulus I when he was twenty-two. His reign was characterized by the continuation of the international policy of his father and the formation of the Hasmonean state as a Hellenistic kingdom, a process which led to internal strife between the state and the Pharisee leadership over the institution of the king and its authorities. The main historical sources for his reign are Josephus (AJ 13) along with numismatic evidence, texts from the DEAD SEA SCROLLS, and later rabbinic anecdotes. Jannaeus was released from prison upon his brother’s death by his late brother’s widow, Salome Alexandra, whom he then presumably married. Under his rule the Hasmonean state became involved in the internal Ptolemaic rivalry between CLEOPATRA III and her son Ptolemy Lathyrus, who invaded JUDAEA and inflicted heavy defeats on Jannaeus. The political vacuum that was created due to the Ptolemaic civil war and the Seleucid pullback enabled Jannaeus to expand his rule over the Hellenistic cities in the Jordan valley, and to annex a few of the semi-independent coastal cities of PALESTINE. In this vacuum, the Nabataean kingdom appeared as Jannaeus’ main opponent. The wars fought between the two kingdoms ended in a defeat for Jannaeus. In his reign the army became very dependent on mercenary infantries organized in the new form of the Roman legions. Jannaeus represented himself as both high priest and king, an image which corresponded to the Hellenistic concept of kingship. Although his coins carry the inscription “Yonathan high priest and the community of the Jews,” he is called “King Yonathan” in a prayer for his welfare which has survived among the Dead Sea Scrolls. The juridical authority of Jannaeus

as a Hellenistic king was incompatible with the Pharisee concept of an independent juridical authority. Moreover, internal Judaean rivalry between aristocratic priestly families threatened the Hasmonean legitimacy to the priesthood. This tension is portrayed in later rabbinic sources as an open rivalry between Jannaeus and Shimon Ben Shatakh, the head of the Sanhedrin in his time. The Babylonian Talmud contains many anecdotes which depict Jannaeus as an evil king. This attitude was shared by the SADDUCEES and the ESSENES, who in two Qumran texts refer to him as “lion of wrath” (kpyr heharwn). Basing his description on Nicholas of Damascus, Josephus narrates how Jannaeus’ cruelty towards his opponents led to an open revolt in 88 BCE (AJ 13.372–83; BJ 1.90–8), which gained the support of the Seleucid Demetrios III Eukairos. The Seleucid invasion was supported by Judaean rebels and ended in a defeat of Jannaeus’ army. However, the withdrawal of Demetrios due to a civil war against his brother Philip enabled Jannaeus to crush the rebels. According to Josephus he crucified 800 of them, who were forced to watch the slaughter of their families. In the last phase of his reign the Hasmonean kingdom expanded in the east to the Transjordanian Dekapolis region and in the north annexed GAMALA. He built a network of fortresses as described by Josephus (including the fortress at MASADA). Jannaeus died in 76 BCE at the age of forty-nine during a siege in the territory of Gerasa, and was succeeded by his wife. SEE ALSO: Coinage, Jewish; Hasmoneans; Nabataeans; Pharisees; Priests and Levites (Jewish); Seleucids; Talmud, Palestinian and Babylonian.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Eshel, H. (2008) The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Hasmonean state. Jerusalem. Goldstein, J. A. (1989) “The Hasmonean revolt and the Hasmonean Dynasty.” In W. D. Davies

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 302–303. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah11008

2 and L. Finkelstein, eds., The Cambridge history of Judaism, vol. 2: 292–351. Cambridge. Main, E. (2006) “Des mercenaires ‘Rhodiens’ dans la Jude´e hasmone´enne? E´tude du motif floral de monnaies de Jean Hyrcan et Alexandre Janne´e.” Revue des E´tudes Juives 165,2: 123–46.

Rajak, T. (1994) “The Jews under Hasmonean rule.” Cambridge ancient history, vol. 9: 274–309. 2nd ed. Cambridge. Rappaport, U. and Ronen, I., eds. (1993) The Hasmonean state: the history of the Hasmoneans during the Hellenistic period. Jerusalem.

1

Alexander of Alexandria DAVID BRAKKE

Alexander, bishop of Alexandria (312–328), presided over a church already divided by the MELETIAN SCHISM and played an important part in the beginning of the Arian controversy. One of Alexander’s predecessors, Peter, had come into conflict with Bishop Meletius of Lykopolis when Meletius ordained bishops and priests while Peter was in hiding during persecution. The dispute escalated into a full-fledged schism, which was exacerbated by differences over the treatment of the lapsed. Thus, as Alexander took office, two churches existed in Egypt, a Petrine one and a Meletian one, each with its own hierarchy and network of churches. The Petrine church soon became divided itself over the teachings of the Alexandrian presbyter Arius, a popular preacher and teacher (see ARIUS AND ARIANISM). Arius taught that the Son or Word of God is “a perfect creature of God, but not as one of the creatures;” God, as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, is “three hypostases” (Ath. Syn. 16). In Arius’s view, the Word did not always exist, but was created by God long before the existence of this world. Alexander, however, rejected Arius’s views as blasphemous: he argued rather that the Son was begotten “out of the Father’s being” and was not created; the perfect image of the Father, the Son had always existed (Alex. Al. ep. Alex.). Each man could plausibly argue that his teachings had support in earlier Christian theologians. In 318 or 319 Alexander convened a synod of Egyptian bishops that condemned Arius and his supporters. The conflict between Alexander and Arius reflected long-standing tensions in the Alexandrian church – between academic and episcopal

modes of authority and spirituality, and between traditionally independent presbyters and the monarchical bishop – and included a new element – competition for the allegiance of the growing numbers of ascetic Christians (Williams 2001: 82–91; Davis 2004: 47–54). When both Arius and Alexandria sought supporters outside Alexandria through letterwriting campaigns, the conflict’s scope became international, attracting the concern of the emperor Constantine. He wrote a letter to the Alexandrians, urging them to end their dispute over “this very silly question” and to give him “peaceful days and undisturbed nights” (Euseb. Vit. Const. 2.64–72). Finally, in 325 the emperor called the Council of Nicaea (see NICAEA, COUNCIL OF), which endorsed Alexander’s position and anathematized a series of statements that reflected Arius’s views. The Council also declared the Petrine church to be the legitimate church in Egypt, ordered Meletius to absolute retirement, devised a plan for integration of Meletian clergy into the Petrine hierarchy, and affirmed the Alexandrian bishop’s authority over all Egypt. Neither conflict ended there, however. Possibly even before Alexander’s death in 328, Constantine demanded that the Alexandrian church readmit a supposedly repentant Arius; Alexander’s successor ATHANASIUS refused, and controversy over the divine nature of the Son endured for decades. So too did Meletian churches and monasteries persist for the remainder of the century. REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Davis, S. J. (2004) The early Coptic papacy: the Egyptian church and its leadership in Late Antiquity. Cairo. Williams, R. (2001) Arius: heresy and tradition, rev. ed. Grand Rapids, MI.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 298–299. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah05009

1

Alexander of Aphrodisias ANDREA FALCON

Alexander (late second and early third century CE) was a Peripatetic philosopher from the city of APHRODISIAS in CARIA (see PERIPATETICS). An inscription recently discovered in Aphrodisias shows that his full name was Titus Aurelius Alexander and that he was the son of another philosopher by the same name (SEG 54.1031; Sharples 2005). This inscription is especially important because it confirms that Alexander was appointed to one of the four imperial chairs of philosophy in ATHENS. His formal title was that of diadochos (head of school, literally “successor”). We do not know when Alexander was born or when he died. However, his treatise On fate is dedicated to the emperors SEPTIMIUS SEVERUS and CARACALLA. This dedication helps us date the work between 198 and 209 CE (Todd 1976). Among Alexander’s teachers there were two noted Peripatetic philosophers of the second century CE: Herminos and Sosigenes. As a Peripatetic professor appointed to one of the imperial chairs in Athens, Alexander was primarily concerned with expounding ARISTOTLE’S philosophy. His commentaries on the Prior analytics (Book 1), the Topics, the Meteorology, and On sense perception are extant. A complete commentary on the Metaphysics is transmitted under his name, but only the first five books are regarded as genuine. The commentary on the Sophistical refutations transmitted under his name is spurious. A few fragments from the commentary on Aristotle’s On generation and corruption are extant in the Arabic tradition. Especially regrettable is the loss of Alexander’s great commentaries on the Physics and on the On the heaven. Since Alexander was regarded as an exegetical model and as a source of

information, his commentaries were generously used by the commentators of Late Antiquity. As a result, we can still form a fairly good idea of the contents of these two lost commentaries (Rescigno 2004 and 2008; Rashed 2011). His exegetical activity extended to include short essays on specific points of interpretation of Aristotelian philosophy. These essays are collected in four books of Problems and solutions and in a further book, traditionally known as Mantissa (literally “makeweight”). Among his philosophical treatises, On the soul, On fate, and On mixture are extant in Greek. The following writings were transmitted in Arabic translation only: On the cosmos, On providence, Against Galen on motion. A collection of Medical puzzles and physical problems and a treatise On fevers were also transmitted under the name of Alexander of Aphrodisias. Alexander’s interpretation of Aristotle was, at least in part, the result of a debate with the other Hellenistic philosophical schools (most notably STOICISM). However, most recent research has shown that it also arose from a dialectical confrontation with previous interpretations of Aristotle (Rashed 2008). This confrontation was internal to the Peripatetic tradition. Alexander had to remove those competing interpretations in order to establish his own reading of Aristotle. By and large, he was successful – so successful that these alternative interpretations of Aristotle have not survived except in the form of fragments filtered through his criticism. REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Rashed, M. (2008) Essentialisme: Alexandre d’Aphrodise entre logique, physique et cosmologie. Berlin. Rashed, M. (2011) Alexandre d’Aphrodise: Commentaire perdu à la Physique d’Aristote (Livres IV–VIII). Berlin.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner. © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Published 2015 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah26177

2 Rescigno, A. (2004) Alessandro di Afrodisia: commentario al De caelo di Aristotele. Frammenti del primo libro. Amsterdam. Rescigno, A. (2008) Alessandro di Afrodisia: commentario al De caelo di Aristotele. Frammenti del secondo, terzo e quarto libro. Amsterdam.

Sharples, R. W. (2005) “Implications of the new Alexander of Aphrodisias inscription.” Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies 48: 47–56. Todd, R. B. (1976) Alexander of Aphrodisias on Stoic physics: a study of the De mixtione. Leiden.

1

Alexander of Myndos DENNIS R. ALLEY

Alexander of Myndos (FGrH 25) was an influential author of works on geography, marvels, and wonders. Photius (FGrH 25, F2a), offers us our most extensive assessment of Alexander’s project and relation to earlier authors, describing the broad range of interests Alexander demonstrated in the Collection of marvels and offering a complimentary assessment of the paradoxographer’s style. To judge from the numerous authors who cite his work, Alexander enjoyed a prominent position in Late Hellenistic and Roman era scholarship. The considerable fragments of the Hadrianic paradoxographer PHLEGON OF TRALLES (FGrH 257) offer us our best view on the genre in which Alexander participated. As with Phlegon, the surviving fragments of Alexander reveal an interest in botanical, zoological, and geographical phenomena. An additional treatise titled Periplous of the Erythraean sea is attributed to him (FGrH 25, F3) and may indicate a separate work from his Catalogue of wonders. This, however, is not a given, since ancient citation practices often refer to specific sections as though they were a separate work. The fragments we possess demonstrate a wide range of interests present in his work. Our first fragment (FGrH 25, F1) coming from Diogenes Laertius, discusses the famed cup of the seven sages, which allegedly had been given as a gift by a certain Bathykles to one of the seven sages on the grounds that whoever received it was the wisest man alive, and then circulated as a gift among the apocryphal group of archaic wise men until it was given as a dedication to Apollo. Alexander’s zoological interests are the best represented among the fragments. A lengthy fragment (FGrH 25, F 3), from AELIAN, discusses giant snakes and crabs in the region of the Erythrian Sea. A second fragment from Aelian (FGrH 25, F4) tells about sheep living in the Black Sea region that ate wormwood as well as goats that fast for six months after birth. A final zoological fragment (FGrH 24, F6) ties

together his zoological interests and thaumatography, claiming a giant pair of horns from a ram in the Red Sea region were on display at the horn altar on Delos, and measuring over 2 cubits in length (roughly 4 feet). Little is known about Alexander’s life beyond his Myndian nationality. His date is also uncertain, but based on a quotation of Alexander in Plutarch’s Life of Marius citing him as a source for details on the battle of AQUAE SEXTIAE (102 BCE) and a quotation from Ptolemy Chennos, if the fragment is authentic (FGrH 25, F5), his date must fall between the first centuries BCE and CE. For a text and commentary on the fragments see Asirvatham 2012. SEE ALSO:

Geography.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Arnott, W. G. (1987) “In praise of Alexander of Myndos.” In A. Bonanno, ed., Laurea corona: studies in honour of Edward Coleiro: 23–9. Amsterdam. Asirvatham, S. (2012) “Alexander of Myndos (FGrH 25).” In I. Worthington, ed., Brill’s New Jacoby. Brill Online. Cameron, A. (2004) Greek mythography in the Roman world. Oxford. Gantz, T. (1993) Early Greek myth, vol. 1. Baltimore. Hansen, W. (1996) Phlegon of Tralles’ book of marvels. Exeter. Higbie, C. (2008) “Hellenistic mythographers.” In R. Woodard, ed., The Cambridge companion to Greek mythology: 237–57. Cambridge. Hübner, H. (1830) Notae atque Aegidii Menagii observationes et emendationes in Diogenem Laertium. Leipzig. Romm, J. (1992) The edges of the earth in ancient thought: geography, exploration and fiction. Princeton. Schepens, G. and Delcroix, K. (1996) “Ancient paradoxography: origin, evolution, production and reception” In O. Pecere and A. Stramaglia, eds., La letteratura di consumo nel mondo greco-latino: 373–460. Cassino. Wellmann, M. (1891) “Alexander von Myndos.” Hermes 26, 4: 481–566. Westermann, A. (1839) Παραδοξογράφοι: scriptores rerum mirabilium graeci. London.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, and Andrew Erskine. © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Published 2017 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah30559

1

Alexander of Pherai FRANCA LANDUCCI

Alexander of Pherai was “tyrant” of his city and tagos (i.e., master) of THESSALY from 369 to 358 BCE. Alexander achieved power after the death of his father, Polydoros, and after he himself had murdered his uncle, Polyphron, both of whom were brothers of the tagos JASON OF PHERAI, murdered in 371/70 (Xen. Hell. 6.4.31–4; Diod. Sic. 15.60.1–3). The Larissan aristocracy appealed to ALEXANDER II OF MACEDON against Alexander; the former forced the tyrant to flee to Pherai (Diod. Sic. 15.61.3–5). Afterwards, other Thessalian cities applied to Boiotia: in 364, Alexander, defeated by PELOPIDAS at Kynoskephalai, was forced to become a subject ally of Thebes (Diod. Sic. 15.80.6; Plut. Pel. 31–2; 35.1–3; cf. Sordi 1958: 193–223; Buckler and Beck 2008: 134). Master of Pherai and of the port of PAGASAI

only, Alexander made piratical raids on the Cyclades, defeating Athens in a sea-battle at Peparethos (Diod. Sic. 15.95.1–3). Athens allied with the federal Thessalian state (Rhodes and Osborne 2003: no. 44); in 358 Alexander was murdered by his wife Thebe and her brothers, who became masters of Pherai (Xen. Hell. 6.4.35–7; Diod. Sic. 16.14.1; Cic. Off. 2.7.25; Plut. Pel. 35.4–12). SEE ALSO:

Cyclades islands; Larissa; Tagos.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Buckler, J. and Beck, H. (2008) Central Greece and the politics of power in the fourth century BC. Cambridge, MA. Helly, B. (1995) L’E´tat thessalien: Aleuas le Roux, les te´trades et les “tagoi.” Lyons. Rhodes, P. J. and Osborne, R., eds. (2003) Greek historical inscriptions: 404–323 BC. Oxford. Sordi, M. (1958) La lega tessala fino ad Alessandro Magno. Rome.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print page 304. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah04022

1

Alexander of Tralles DAVID LANGSLOW

Doctor and medical writer, flourished early to mid-sixth century CE, praised by doctors and historians alike for his originality and highquality clinical observations; brother of Anthemius, architect of the second Hagia Sophia (532–7). The historian Agathias states (Hist. 5.6.5) that he received late in life an honorable summons to Rome and settled there. The preface to On fevers, dedicated to one Cosmas, son of Alexander’s teacher, presents the author as an aged doctor writing up a long practitioner’s career. Alexander refers to Rome, the Romans, and the Latin language, but we do not know where he wrote. Modern handbooks attribute to Alexander wide travels and a military connection, but on little or no evidence. His major surviving work is the Therapeutica, eleven books of diagnosis and pharmaceutical treatment of numerous, mainly internal diseases, ordered “from head to heel,” from hair loss to gout. The orientation is practical: theory is scarce, but the reporting of symptoms and case histories is skillful and detailed. Stylistic unevenness may reflect the notes of a doctor in action. The more carefully written On fevers is transmitted as the last book of the Therapeutica. Alexander is no anthologist or compiler in the mode of Oribasios or Ae¨tios. He follows especially Hippocrates and Galen, but not slavishly, and his independent, even critical attitude toward Galen is notable. His inclusion of magical remedies is characteristic of his age, and he is

sensitive to the doubts surrounding them. A letter On intestinal worms is accepted as authentic, while works On the eyes and (also in Latin) On the pulse and the urine are not. Alexander enjoyed high prestige among Arab scientists, and great success in the west in a Latin translation (probably from the sixthcentury Ravenna “school” that yielded also the Latin versions of Oribasios), excerpts of which appear in Old English in Bald’s Leechbook (before 900). SEE ALSO: Aetios of Amida; Galen; Hippocrates of Kos; Medicine, Byzantine; Medicine, Greek and Roman; Oribasios of Pergamon.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS BTML, no. 8; cf. nos. 2–7 and A-3. Duffy, J. M. (1985) “Byzantine medicine in the sixth and seventh centuries: aspects of teaching and practice.” Dumbarton Oaks Papers 38: 21–7. Langslow, D. R. (2006) The Latin Alexander Trallianus: the text and transmission of a late Latin medical book. London. Nutton, V. (1985) “From Galen to Alexander.” Dumbarton Oaks Papers 38: 1–14. Nutton, V. (1996) “Alexandros (29).” DNP 1: 483–4. [= New Pauly 1 (2002): 484–5.] Nutton, V. (2004) Ancient Medicine: 296, 300. London. PLRE 3A: 44–5 (“Alexander 8”). Therapeutica, On fevers, and On intestinal worms, ed. T. Puschmann, 2 vols. Vienna 1878–1879. [Introduction and German translation. Reprinted Amsterdam 1963.] Wellmann, M. (1894) “Alexandros (101).” RE 1: 1460–1.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print page 305. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah21014

1

Alexander Romance CHRISTIAN THRUE DJURSLEV

The Alexander Romance (AR; Greek Bios Alexandrou tou Makedonos) is a novelistic biography of ALEXANDER III of Macedon (Alexander the Great). The manuscript traditions attribute the prose text, with several poetic passages, to various authors, including ARISTOTLE (the Armenian version), AESOP (Latin), and KALLISTHENES OF OLYNTHOS (Byzantine Greek). The lack of authorial certainty contributed to the text’s malleability because material could be added or removed; this malleability in turn problematizes the dating. Scholars have suggested a wide range of dates between the third century BCE and the third century CE for the earliest Greek version. Translations into Latin (fourth century CE) and Armenian (fifth century CE) may be used as comparative evidence of the earliest source of the text, the so-called “alpha”-recension. Book 1 describes Alexander’s conception by OLYMPIAS and the Egyptian Pharaoh NECTANEBO, and Alexander’s subsequent conquest of the west, including Rome, as well as his return to sack Thebes; book 2, his Asian campaign and the reorganization of Persia; and book 3, his adventures in fabulous India before his death in Babylon. The AR is therefore a lively amalgamation of historical episodes that are turned into fictional

extravaganza. For example, the historical Alexander never came into contact with Rome, let alone conquered it, but in this text he does, and he even permits the Romans to conquer Carthage in their own time. The narrative also consists of many stand-alone documents. For example, it overflows with letter correspondences, such as Alexander’s Letter to Aristotle about India, and includes a tractate on Indian philosophy and a version of Alexander’s testament. Apart from Plutarch’s Life of Alexander, the AR is also unique in recounting Alexander’s birth and upbringing. The ancient and medieval popularity of the AR was unsurpassed. The Byzantine Greek AR-tradition (Jouanno 2002) flourished alongside the non-Greek versions. It is an irony of history that the AR’s fictional account of Alexander’s life became one of the most influential of his biographies we possess from antiquity. SEE ALSO:

Alexander historians.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Jouanno, C. (2002) Naissance et métamorphoses du Roman d’Alexandre. Domaine grec. Paris. Hägg, T. (2012) The art of biography in antiquity. Cambridge. Stoneman, R. (2008) Alexander the Great: a life in legend. New Haven. Stoneman, R. and Gargiulo, T. (2007–). Il romanzo di Alessandro. Milan.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, and Andrew Erskine. © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Published 2017 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah30507

1

Alexander Zabinas ALEX MCAULEY

Alexander, nicknamed “Zabinas” (ca. 150–123 BCE), parentage unknown, was a pretender to the SELEUCID throne who reigned in Syria from 128 to 123 BCE with the support of Ptolemy VIII Physkon (see PTOLEMY VIII EUERGETES II). Amid infighting within the house of Ptolemy and division in the Seleucid realm following the return of Demetrios II from Parthia, the latter’s enemies in Syria requested that the Ptolemaic king send a rival claimant to the throne from the family of Seleukos (Joseph. AJ 13.267). With financial and military support from Physkon, Alexander marched against Demetrios and defeated his army near Damascus in 127/126 BCE (Joseph. AJ 13.268; Justin 39.1–2). After the death of Demetrios, Alexander reigned in Syria, though the precise extent of his control is nebulous. Following the reconciliation of Ptolemy VIII and CLEOPATRA II between 126 and 124 BCE, Ptolemaic support was shifted instead to ANTIOCHOS VIII GRYPOS, who then defeated the forces of Alexander in Syria (Joseph. AJ 13.269; Justin 39.2). Alexander fled to Antioch, though his local support quickly eroded and his forces deserted him. After being captured by bandits, he was brought to Grypos and was either executed or committed suicide at some point in 123/ 122 (Eus. Chron 1.257; Justin 39.2; Joseph. AJ 13.269–270). The precise descent claimed by Alexander Zabinas is uncertain, though it is clear that the ancients did not take his purported royal lineage seriously. Although Ptolemy VIII claimed he was adopted into the royal family by an unspecified father, literary testimonia

link him to either ANTIOCHOS VII SIDETES or ALEXANDER BALAS, while his coinage seems to connect

him to the latter (Justin 39.1–2; Eus. Chron. 1.257; Houghton, Lorber, and Hoover 2008: 411–464, coin nos. 2210–2257). At any rate, the allegation that he was the son of an Egyptian merchant named Protarchos seems most likely (Justin 39.1), as his well-attested nickname “Zabinas” – Aramaic for “the bought or purchased one” – clearly suggests that he was either at best a hired impostor, or at worst had servile origins. No spouse or issue is recorded for Zabinas. SEE ALSO:

Demetrios II (Seleucid king); Syrian wars.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Bellinger, A. R. (1949) “The end of the Seleucids.” Transactions of the Connecticut Academy of Arts and Sciences 38: 51–102. Bevan, E. (1902) The House of Seleucus. London. Ehling, K. (1995) “Alexander II Zabinas – ein angeblicher (adoptive-) Sohn des Antiochos VII oder Alexander I Balas?” Schweizer Münzblätter 45: 2–7. Ehling, K. (1996) “Zu einer Bronzemünze des Alexander II. Zabinas.” Schweizer Münzblätter 46: 85–9. Ehling, K. (2008) Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der späten Seleukiden. Stuttgart. Grainger, J. D. (1997) A Seleukid prosopography and gazetteer. Leiden. Grainger, J. D. (2010) The Syrian wars. Leiden. Houghton, A., Lorber, C., and Hoover, O. (2008) Seleucid coins: a comprehensive catalogue, part 2: Seleucus IV through Antiochus XIII. New York. Parker, R. A. and Dubberstein, W. H. (1946) Babylonian chronology 626 B.C.–A.D. 45. Chicago. Whitehorne, J. (2001) Cleopatras. London.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, and Andrew Erskine. © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Published 2017 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah30432

1

Alexander, nephew of Gonatas KATERINA PANAGOPOULOU

Alexander (ca. 290–245 BCE), son of Krateros, a half-brother of Antigonos Gonatas and step-grandchild of Demetrios Poliorketes, married Nikaia around 279 (Livy 35.26; Plut. Pelop. 14; Paus. 13.50) and succeeded his father as Gonatas’ garrison commander at CORINTH between 270 and 252. He declared himself independent from the Antigonids and claimed basileia for himself around 250, possibly with the backing of the Ptolemies. He was poisoned at Corinth around 245 (Plut. Arat. 17–18.1). Our knowledge of Alexander rests on POMPEIUS TROGUS (Prolegomena 26), PLUTARCH (Aratus 17–18.1, De amicitia frat. 15), brief mentions in POLYBIUS (20.4.4), the Suda (s.v. “Euphorion”), and three decrees illustrating the impact of his revolt at Corinth upon 2 2 ATHENS (IG II 1225) and ERETRIA (IG II 774, IG XII 9.212). In the first decree, the Athenian residents on Salamis honor the Antigonid strategos of Piraeus and of other forts, Herakleitos, son of Asklepiades, for protecting their chora from pirates during the war against Alexander and for punishing those soldiers who abandoned Salamis to join Alexander’s army. In IG II2 774, the Eretrians honor Aristomachos of Argos for insisting on including the Athenians in the truce that Alexander offered him. In IG XII 9.212, the Eretrians honor Arrhidaios, son of Alexandros, a Macedonian officer, for helping the Greeks to expel garrisons from their cities (Billows 1993). Alexander was recognized as king by Euboean cities; he made CHALCIS his second

capital and the Eretrians honored him as “king” and their “benefactor.” He may also have reorganized Euboea’s federal institutions, launched some confederal bronze coins (Picard 1979: 272–3, nos. 22–6), and put pressure through pirates on Gonatas, who maintained control of Athens and Piraeus. The revolt of the key Antigonid naval base at Corinth damaged the network of cities controlled by Gonatas in southern Greece and generated new coalitions. Alexander approached ARATOS OF SIKYON, who prompted rebellions against tyrants of cities in the Peloponnese to the benefit of the ACHAIAN LEAGUE. This severe blow to Macedonian sovereignty in the Peloponnese was halted by Alexander’s premature death in ca. 245, subsequent to which Gonatas regained control of Corinth and the status quo ante was restored. SEE ALSO:

Antigonos II Gonatas; Euboea;

Sikyon.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Billows, R. A. (1990) Antigonus the One-Eyed and the creation of the Hellenistic state, app. 3: nos. 10 (368–9) and 60 (396–7). Berkeley. Billows, R. A. (1993) “IG XII 9.212, a Macedonian officer at Eretria.” Zeitschrift fu¨r Papyrologie und Epigraphik 96: 249–57. Orsi, D. P. (1987) “La Rivolta di Alessandro, governatore di Corinto.” Sileno 13: 103–22. Picard, O. (1979) Chalkis et la confederation eube´enne: ´etude de numismatique et d’histoire, IVe-Ier sie`cle. Athens. Scholten, J. B. (2000) The politics of plunder, Aitolians and their Koinon in the early Hellenistic era, 279–217 BC. London.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 303–304. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah09020

1

Alexander’s Ephemerides DENNIS R. ALLEY

Alexander’s Ephemerides, or daily journals (αἱ βασίλειοι ᾽Eφημερίδες) were an extensive log of ALEXANDER THE GREAT’S daily activities. Ancient testimonia agree that they were compiled by Eumenes of Kardia and Diodotos of Erythrai; however, there is some controversy on whether the transmitted fragments are authentic. Pearson (1954) has argued that the extensive quotations from the Ephemerides in Plutarch, Arrian, and Aelian come from a later Hellenistic forgery, since PLUTARCH records an account of how the originals were burned in EUMENES’ tent (Plut., Eumenes 2.6–7). Others have contended that the fragments come from a work of Eumenes, dated to after Alexander’s death and used for propaganda (Bosworth 1988: 157–84). Still more have accepted the fragments as genuine (Hammond 1988 and 1991). Whatever the status of authenticity for our surviving fragments, the text as we have it comes from an early era of historiography on Alexander’s campaigns while the Alexander legend was still incipient. Plutarch’s Alexander claims to quote verbatim (κατὰ λέξιν) from the work and offers us the most extensive continuous fragment. As Bearzot (2017) has observed, the fragment “seems to be, indeed, far much more adherent to the original drafting.” From this passage we may surmise that the Ephemerides were arranged around a chronological listing of events organized by day and month. They concerned events of Alexander’s career and had little narrative elaboration. The content of this, our longest fragment, containing the Ephemerides’ account of Alexander’s death, seems to be the source most extant historians of Alexander relied on for their accounts of Alexander’s final days (FGrH 117, F3b, and overlapping material in F3a from Arrian). The passage confirms that Alexander’s death came after an extended illness, which may have been exacerbated by

drinking. Other surviving fragments from the text agree on Alexander’s alcoholism and emphasize the amount of time Alexander spent recovering from his binge drinking while on campaign (FGrH 117, F2b and c), while another discusses Alexander’s interests in hunting. The fragments of the Ephemerides offer us a glimpse into the first generation of historiography concerning Alexander the Great, and their emphasis on his negative personal qualities might help us see the extent of rehabilitation that occurred in later narrative histories of Alexander’s life and campaigns. For a full text and commentary on the fragments see Bearzot (2017). SEE ALSO:

Kingship, Hellenistic.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Anson, E. (1996) “The Ephemerides of Alexander the Great.” Historia 45: 501–4. Bearzot, C. (2017) “Alexander’s Ephemerides (FGrH 117).” In I. Worthington, ed., Brill’s New Jacoby. Brill Online. Bosworth, A. B. (1988) Conquest and empire: the reign of Alexander the Great. Cambridge. Chugg, A. (2005) “The journal of Alexander the Great.” Ancient History Bulletin 19: 155–75. Hammond, N. (1987) “A papyrus commentary on Alexander’s Balkan campaign.” Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies 28: 331–47. Hammond, N. (1988) “The royal journal of Alexander.” Historia 37: 129–50. Hammond, N. (1989) “Aspects of Alexander’s ring and journal in his last days.” American Journal of Philology 110: 155–60. Hammond, N. (1991) “A note on royal journals.” Historia 40: 382–4. Jacoby, F. (1923–) Kommentar zu nr. 117. Fragmente der griechischen Historiker 2 D: 106–53. Berlin. Pearson, L. (1954) “The diary and the letters of Alexander the Great.” Historia 3: 429–55. Pearson, L. (1960) The lost histories of Alexander the Great. New York. Robinson, C. (1996) The Ephemerides of Alexander’s expedition. Providence.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, and Andrew Erskine. © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Published 2017 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah30560

1

Alexandra Salome CHRIS SEEMAN

Alexandra Salome (Hebrew: Shelamzion) was a member of the Hasmonean family, the Jewish dynasty that ruled much of Palestine from the late second through early first centuries BCE (see HASMONEANS). In 76 BCE, Alexandra became the first ruling queen of Judaea since the contested tenure of Athaliah eight centuries earlier (2 Kings 11:1–20). Like most monarchs, Alexandra had admirers and detractors; it is striking, though, that even sources hostile to her concede that Judaea enjoyed comparative political and economic stability under her administration (Jos. BJ 1.112; AJ 13.430–2). Much interest in Alexandra – both ancient and modern – stems from her association with the PHARISEES, whose religious rulings she coercively backed. Assessments of her regime are thus bound up with differing evaluations of Pharisaic ascendancy over Judaean society. The fact that rivalry between Alexandra’s sons precipitated the curtailment and eventual loss of Judaea’s political independence to Rome likewise overshadows analyses of internal conflict during her reign. Nothing is known about Alexandra’s natal family; if the Hasmoneans observed biblical prescriptions concerning high priestly marriage (Lev 21:14), it may be inferred that she was of Aaronid lineage. Josephus claims she was seventy-three years old at the time of her death in 67 BCE (AJ 13.430), which would place her birth at approximately 140. By all accounts, she was the wife of ALEXANDER JANNAEUS (r. 103–76). The proposal that she had previously been the wife of Jannaeus’ brother and predecessor, Judas Aristobulus I (r. 104–103), has been challenged (Ilan 1993; cf. Jos. AJ 13.320). A single attested instance of the queen’s involvement in affairs of state during her husband’s reign (Jos. AJ 14.10) is too shaky a foundation on which to speculate about her personal power at that time. It is nonetheless

significant that Jannaeus designated her, rather than one of their sons, to succeed him. Alexandra’s accession necessitated delegating the office of high priest (an exclusively male prerogative) to one of her sons. She chose the elder, JOHN HYRCANUS II, over his brother, Judas Aristobulus II (see ARISTOBULUS II). Though the latter would eventually attempt to overthrow her, the fact that the queen was willing to entrust Aristobulus with an army (AJ 13.418) belies the view that his ambition was a foregone conclusion. The casting of Aristobulus as a usurper-in-waiting rests upon the caricature of Alexandra as the puppet of Pharisaic machinations (Jos. BJ 1.110–11; AJ 13.409). In fact, there are indications that this was not the case. Most notably, Alexandra refused the Pharisees’ petition that she execute their political enemies (Jos. AJ 13.410–17; cf. BJ 1.113). In external affairs Alexandra was certainly no pawn: she expanded Judaea’s military strength and engaged in successful diplomacy to deflect the encroachment of Tigranes of Armenia. Since she did not act as high priest, no coins bear her name; however, at least one palatial complex supplies extraliterary testimony of her achievements as monarch (Netzer 2001). Alexandra receives favorable mention in later rabbinic literature, which praises her reign as a golden age (Sifre Deut 42) and collocates it with important Pharisaic legislation (tKetubbot 12.1). The queen’s name also appears in two fragments of an annalistic document found at Qumran (4Q331–2; see DEAD SEA SCROLLS). It is possible that Qumran scripture commentaries (pesharim) obliquely allude to Alexandra as part of that sect’s ongoing polemic against the Hasmoneans (Ilan 2001).

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Ilan, T. (1993) “Queen Salamzion Alexandra and Judas Aristobulus I’s widow: did Jannaeus Alexander contract a levirate marriage?” Journal for the Study of Judaism 24: 181–90.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 305–306. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah11009

2 Ilan, T. (2001) “Shelamzion in Qumran: new insights.” In D. Goodblatt et al., eds., Historical perspectives: from the Hasmoneans to Bar Kokhba in light of the Dead Sea Scrolls: 57–68. Leiden. Netzer, E. (2001) The palaces of the Hasmoneans and Herod the Great. Jerusalem.

Schu¨rer, E. (1973) “Alexandra 76–67 B.C.” In The History of the Jewish People in the age of Jesus Christ, vol. 1: 229–32. Edinburgh. Sievers, J. (1989) “The role of women in the Hasmonean Dynasty.” In L. H. Feldman and G. Hata, eds., Josephus, the Bible, and history: 132–46. Detroit.

1

Alexandria Paropamisadai JEFFREY D. LERNER

Alexander the Great founded the city of Alexandria Paropamisadai (also called Alexandria in Caucaso and Opiane) during his Bactrian campaign in the Hindu Kush region of modern Begram, north of Kabul. In 323 and 321 BCE the father of ROXANE, Oxyartes, served as satrap (Tarn 1951: 95–102; Fraser 1996: 140–51). Alexander settled the city with locals and soldiers. The site was strategically chosen for its commanding position at several passes that cross the Hindu Kush. Seleukos I may have ceded the satrapy, including the city, as part of his treaty with CHANDRAGUPTA Maurya by 303 BCE. More recently, Fraser has equated the city with another, Alexandria of Opiane, and

situates it in the Ku¯hista¯n of the southern piedmont of the Hindu Kush, “somewhere between modern Charikar and the junction of the Ghorband and the Panjshir” (Fraser 1996: 150). SEE ALSO: Achaemenid Dynasty; Alexander III, the Great; Bactria.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Bosworth, A. B. (1980) A historical commentary on Arrian’s “History of Alexander,” vol. I: Commentary on Books I–III. Oxford. Bosworth, A. B. (1995) A historical commentary on Arrian’s “History of Alexander,” vol. II: Commentary on Books IV–V. Oxford. Fraser, P. M. (1996) Cities of Alexander the Great. Oxford. Tarn, W. W. (1951) The Greeks in Bactria and India, 2nd ed. Cambridge.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print page 314. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah14023

1

Alexandria (Egypt) LIVIA CAPPONI

Alexandria was the capital of Egypt under the Ptolemies, then of the Roman province AEGYPTUS with a prefect in residence. Alexander the Great founded Alexandria on April 7, 331 BCE near the Nile Delta, on a site called Rhakotis (“construction site”) close to two natural harbors, the Great Harbor and the Eunostos, “Harbor of Fortunate Return,” in a strategic position on the Nile that facilitated the transport of grain from Lower Egypt to both Alexandria and Rome. By 320, Alexandria replaced Memphis (near today’s Cairo) as the new capital with the autonomous status of polis. In Roman times, it was called Alexandria ad Aegyptum – “by Egypt” – as a typically Greek city, culturally closer to Athens than to the Egyptian countryside. It had a high level of development, and during the Roman Empire it had about 500,000 inhabitants. The city was carefully planned by ALEXANDER III, THE GREAT and his architect Deinokrates of Rhodes, had a rectilinear grid of streets, and was characterized by Greek-style buildings. It had five quarters named after the first five letters of the Greek alphabet, Alpha, Beta, Gamma, Delta, and Epsilon. In the early Roman period, two of them (Beta and Delta) were mostly occupied by a community of Jews. A causeway known as the Heptastadion – “seven stadia,” from the Greek measure of length (1 stadion equals approximately 175 m) – linked the mainland to the Island of Pharos. Here stood a lighthouse that had been built in the third century BCE by the architect Sostratos of Knidos and was regarded as one of the seven wonders of the world. In Book 17 of his Geography, STRABO OF AMASEIA, who was on the staff of the prefect Aelius Gallus in the 20s BCE, describes the main buildings of the city: the theatre; the temple of Poseidon; the Caesareum or Kaisareion, the temple built by CLEOPATRA VII to Julius Caesar; the Emporium or market square; the

warehouses storing grain for export; the shiphouses; the two main streets, 30 m wide; the Necropolis or Greek cemetery; the magnificent sanctuary of Serapis, or Serapeum; the amphitheatre; and the stadium and gymnasium complex that included a racing area, baths, porticoes, and gardens. The royal palace was another immense complex that, according to Strabo, covered more than one third of the city. The Jewish philosopher PHILO, who lived in Alexandria at the time of the JulioClaudian emperors, describes in detail the Kaisareion, which was probably completed and renamed Sebasteion in honor of Augustus after the Roman conquest. At the time of the Napoleonic expedition of 1798, one could still see some remains of the Kaisareion, which have now disappeared, such as the two huge obelisks nicknamed “Cleopatra’s needles,” originally from the time of Thutmose III (see THUTMOSE I–V), which Augustus placed in front of this temple in 13 BCE, and which are now located respectively on the Victoria Embankment in London and in Central Park, New York. Another major symbol of royal power at Alexandria was the tomb of Alexander the Great, also known as Soma (“the Body”) or Sema (“the Tomb”), possibly located near the Mausoleum of the Ptolemaic kings. The site has still not been identified, although a massive alabaster tomb that led to a larger hypogeum with Macedonian-style decoration in the Latin cemeteries could be (according to a hypothesis by Adriani in the 1960s) the tomb of Alexander. The major cultural institutions of Alexandria were the Museum (“Shrine of the Muses”) and the two Libraries, one in the Museum and a smaller one in the Serapeum. The Museum, near the Royal Palace, was founded by PTOLEMY I SOTER as a temple to the Muses and an intellectual center, and was probably finished by his son PTOLEMY II PHILADELPHOS. The Library stood adjacent to the Museum, and contained probably 50,000 to 60,000 books (not 500,000, as some ancient sources exaggerated). Underwater excavations have conducted a systematic exploration of the harbor areas

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 308–310. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah07007

2 which lay near the Royal Palace Quarter, and brought to light an immense wealth of archaeological remains. They found many statues, including an Isis figure, a number of sphinxes, and many fragments of architectural decoration, perhaps belonging to palaces built by the shore, and the remains of a palace which archaeologists claim to have been that of Queen Cleopatra. Other less spectacular but equally important finds have been those of around forty wrecks of ancient ships along with their cargoes, of which two, one Rhodian from the third century BCE and one Italian from the first century BCE, have been fully studied by economic historians. The other most important and extensive archaeological site at Alexandria is in the area called Kom el-Dikka. The area is mainly a late Roman and Byzantine site. There is a gymnasium, a small theater or Odeion, a bath complex, and a series of “lecture rooms” or auditoria, horseshoe-shaped and with seats in tiers and a teacher’s seat, which may have been part of a larger school. The bath complex was built of brick in the fourth century over a huge area, and remained in use until the seventh century. Water for the baths was supplied by a large cistern complete with several chambers – a typical feature of the Alexandrian hydraulic system, and one that the Arab conquerors took over. Alexandria and Egypt were at the center of Mediterranean politics in the Roman period, and played a strategic role in the political shape of the Roman Empire. The Alexandrian citizens were a privileged category of the population of Egypt throughout the Roman period. As a civic body, they had privileged land in the countryside, a special fiscal status, and held Alexandrian citizenship, a condition that was required in order to obtain Roman citizenship. The difficult relationship between Jews and Alexandrians under Caligula and Claudius is reflected and documented in an exceptionally colorful way in an interesting and enigmatic genre, the Acts of the Alexandrian Martyrs (Acta Alexandrinorum) which is preserved in the papyrus fragments of the proceedings of fictitious trials of Alexandrian magistrates

before various Roman emperors, from Claudius to the Severans. In these proceedings, the Alexandrians accuse both the emperors and the Senate (in shockingly violent tones) of being philo-semitic. Unfortunately, very few papyrus documents survive from the Alexandria area, as the damp climate of the Nile Delta prevented the preservation of the rolls, unlike in other, less important parts of Egypt. In 69 CE, VESPASIAN was acclaimed emperor in Alexandria, while in 172 CE, AVIDIUS CASSIUS claimed to have an Alexandrian pedigree in order to be elected emperor of an “Eastern” empire. In 391, when the emperor Theodosius decreed the closing of pagan temples and the banning of pagan cults, the mob of THEODOSIUS I encouraged by the patriarch THEOPHILOS, destroyed the Serapeum, and possibly the library that it contained, and in 415 the pagan mathematician and philosopher HYPATIA, the first female lecturer in Alexandria, was stoned to death in the Kaisareion. Although the Alexandrian patriarchs were enormously important in the Christological disputes, Alexandria was eventually overtaken by both Antioch and, naturally, Constantinople. SEE ALSO: Alexandrian War (Bellum Alexandrinum); Clement of Alexandria; Cyril of Alexandria; Jews, in Alexandria; Library of Alexandria; Museum (Alexandria); Obelisk; Sarapis; Serapeum, destruction of; Shipwrecks, exploration of.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Alston, R. (2002) The city in Roman and Byzantine Egypt. London. Bagnall, R. S. and Rathbone, D. W. (2004) Egypt from Alexander to the early Christians: an archaeological and historical guide. Los Angeles. Bagnall, R. S., ed. (2007) Egypt in the Byzantine world, 300–700. Cambridge. Bowman, A. K. (1996) “Egypt.” In A. K. Bowman, E. Champlin, and A. W. Lintott, eds., The Cambridge ancient history, 2nd ed., vol. 10: 676–702. Cambridge. Fraser, P. M. (1974) Ptolemaic Alexandria. Oxford.

3 Haas, C. (1997) Alexandria in Late Antiquity: topography and social conflict. Baltimore. Harris, W. V. and Ruffini, G. eds. (2004) Ancient Alexandria between Egypt and Greece. Leiden.

Hirst, A. and Silk, M. eds. (2004) Alexandria, real and imagined. Aldershot. McKenzie, J. (2007) The architecture of Alexandria and Egypt. New Haven.

1

Alexandria (Egypt), Catechetical School of ANNEWIES VAN DEN HOEK

Scholarship and teaching had been a wellestablished activity in Alexandria long before Christianity reached its shores. It is therefore not surprising to read in the accounts of the church historian Eusebius (see EUSEBIUS OF CAESAREA), our primary source of information, that a Christian school existed in Alexandria toward the end of the second century. Eusebius characterized the school as a place for the study and interpretation of scripture and for the instruction of those preparing for baptism, leading to the widely used term “catechetical” school. He provided a sequence of names of teachers, starting from Pantaenus and Clement and continuing through Origen and his successors. Eusebius had a special connection with the Alexandrian school, since in the later third century his teacher Pamphilus had been a student in the school when it was headed by Pierius. Eusebius’ terminology for the school is variable: most commonly he uses the word didaskaleion, meaning teaching-place or school, which is further supplemented by school “of sacred words,” “of sacred faith,” or “of catechetical instruction.” He also defines the school as diatribe, schole, or katechesis. This flexible vocabulary probably indicates that there was no fixed name. There may also be a development in Eusebius’ terminology: referring to the school in connection with Pantaenus, he does not mention catechetical instruction but only a tradition of biblical scholarship and divine teachings (Hist. eccl. 5.10.1.4). The catechetical element occurs primarily in his account of ORIGEN and his successors, and once in a passage about the alleged succession of PANTAENUS, Clement, and Origen (Hist. eccl. 6.6.1), in which Clement is said to be head of the instruction (katechesis) in Alexandria (see CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA). Modern scholarship has justly questioned Eusebius’ reports, especially regarding the

early history of the school. While most scholars agree that Pantaenus was probably Clement’s teacher, a fixed succession as described by Eusebius is hard to justify. Another flash point in the scholarly debate is the organizational character of the school, whether it was a private enterprise or a more public entity linked to the church. The question as such has probably been wrongly posed, since categories such as “private” and “public” hardly fit the situation of Christian Alexandria in the late second century. Before that time hardly anything is known about the Alexandrian church, which presumably consisted of a variety of religious groups, some of which were engaged in fierce competition. Eusebius’ characterization of it as a continuous tradition from apostolic times to Pantaenus, Clement, and Origen obviously fits his own agenda and can easily be discarded, but that does not mean that everything in his account is unverifiable. His description of the early school’s curriculum corresponds closely to Clement’s activities as they emerge from his writings. Clement was not only engaged in catechetical instruction but also in more ambitious theological and philosophical discourse. For him a division existed between the beginners and the more advanced, just as there was for Origen, who put the beginners in the hands of a “teaching assistant” and kept the advanced students for himself. There seems to be a continuum in the approach, and it is likely that the practice of biblical hermeneutics, the pursuit of higher knowledge, and the openness toward Greek culture and philosophy, a combination characteristic of both Clement and Origen, were not overnight inventions but part of an established religious tradition in Alexandria. Toward the end of the second century the situation in Alexandria becomes clearer with a firmly attested bishop. Eusebius describes a growing tension between this bishop, Demetrius, and Origen, whose great renown may have exacerbated any problems. Ultimately Origen was forced out to continue his teaching in Caesarea. Subsequent headmasters

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 310–311. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah05010

2 were Heraklas, Dionysius, Theognostus, Achillas, Pierius (also known as “Origen the Younger”), Serapion, and Peter. Three came from Origen’s inner circle, and four were also bishops of Alexandria. This overlapping of offices indicates the close ties between the episcopacy and the school throughout the third century. The most famous head of the school in the fourth century was Didymus the Blind, who continued his teachings in Origen’s tradition of close reading and allegorical interpretation of biblical texts. The linkage of Greek philosophical concepts with allegorical scriptural interpretation became an important instrument for the Christianization of the empire’s intellectual elite.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Bardy, G. (1937) “Aux origines de l’E´cole d’Alexandrie.” Recherches de science religieuse 27: 65–90. Grafton, A. and Williams, M. (2006) Christianity and the transformation of the book: 70–2. Cambridge, MA. Jakab, A. (2001) Ecclesia Alexandrina: 91–106. Bern. Rizzi, M. (2000) “Scuola di Alessandria.” In A. M. Castagno, ed., Origene. Dizionario, la cultura, il pensiero, le opere: 437–40. Rome. Simonetti, M. (1992) “School of Alexandria.” In A. di Berardino, ed., Encyclopedia of the early church, vol. 1: 22–3. New York. van den Hoek, A. (1997) “The catechetical school of early Christian Alexandria.” Harvard Theological Review 90: 59–87.

1

Alexandria (Egypt), city laws of CHARO ROVIRA-GUARDIOLA

Founded by Alexander in 331 BCE as a trade city, Alexandria soon became the capital of Egypt and developed the institutions of an independent city. The code of city laws was probably created some time after the foundation of the city, perhaps under PTOLEMY I SOTER, although there is no direct evidence for this. This city law was called politikos nomos and would coexist with the Royal Law, which provided the main body of law; to this Royal Law the city law would make additions. Alexandria’s city law was probably based on other bodies of Greek law, such as the Attic Law: both bodies of law, for example, seemed to share the names for courts and officers. Nevertheless, despite the borrowing, the Alexandrian city laws would develop their own character. The Alexandrians modified whatever they used in order to accord with the particularities of their city, and were perhaps also influenced by other cities’ law, such as that of Rhodes. This influence can be seen in the law regarding the sale of land, which in the Alexandrian case uses the same term as Rhodian law for the survey of the land to be made before it can be sold. No complete set of city laws for Alexandria is preserved, and the evidence for such is scanty; only a few papyri such as P.Hal. 1 (mid‐third century BCE); P.Lille 29; P.Hib. 28 and 196; P.Oxy. IV 706 (ca. 115 CE) provide some evidence of what Alexandrian city laws might have looked like. The main evidence is in P.Hal. 1, which had the title Dikaiomata or “Justifications.” It contains fragments of the law regarding planting, building (construction

and demolition), and digging. Following the practice of other Greek city laws, these laws would apply to all the inhabitants of Alexandria, whether citizen or foreigner, free or slave. As in other Greek cities, the laws would be administered through a series of courts and magistrates, although the information available provides only the most basic knowledge of their names and functions, and nothing about their roles or how magistrates were elected. One of them, the DIKASTERION or jury court, had a president and a clerk of the court. There was also a college of arbitrators and two boards of magistrates, the thesmophylakes and the astynomoi, who heard cases pertaining to public order and cases arising from contracts. The city laws would also work with and alongside three city institutional bodies – the Assembly, the Council, and the GEROUSIA – for which, as it happens, we do not have much evidence. The disappearance of the Council (boule) at an unknown date, but probably before the Roman period, and its restoration in 200 CE by Septimius Severus, were major changes that would have affected the constitution (S.H.A. Sev. 16.8). The laws would also have been modified now and then by decrees of the citizens and by Royal decrees.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Bowman, A. K. and Rathbone, D. W. (1992) “Cities and administration in Roman Egypt.” Journal of Roman Studies 82: 107–27. Delia, D. (1991) Alexandrian citizenship during the Roman principate. Atlanta. Fraser, P. M. (1974) Ptolemaic Alexandria. Oxford. Jouguet, P. (1911) La vie municipale dans l’E´gypte romaine. Paris.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 311–312. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah13015

1

Alexandria ad Issum JEFFREY D. LERNER

There is no evidence linking Alexander the Great with the city of Alexandria ad Issum in CILICIA on the Gulf of Issos following his victory at ISSOS in 333 BCE (Tarn 1948: 239), nor as a city founded by Seleukos I in honor of Alexander (Jones 1971: 197). The city came into prominence during the reign of Antiochos IV (175–164 BCE), when it minted his coins. Its origins remain obscure even though it has developed economically into an important center due to the city’s harbor and location on the land route to Antioch (Fraser 1996: 20–3). Although the city is identified as Iskenderun on the Iskenderun Gulf, the precise

location of the city has yet to be found (Cohen 2006: 73–6). SEE ALSO: Alexander III, the Great; Antioch in Persis; Antiochos IV Epiphanes.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Cohen, G. M. (2006) The Hellenistic settlements in Syria, the Red Sea basin, and North Africa. Berkeley. Fraser, P. M. (1996) Cities of Alexander the Great. Oxford. Jones, A. H. M. (1971) The cities of the eastern Roman provinces, 2nd ed. Oxford. Tarn, W. W. (1948) Alexander the Great, 2 vols. Cambridge.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 306–307. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah14019

1

Alexandria Arachosia JEFFREY D. LERNER

Alexandria Arachosia, presumably founded by Alexander the Great in 329 BCE, perhaps corresponds to the Old City of Kandahar. Although excavations were never completed, the site contained an Achaemenid fortress and later a Hellenistic settlement (Fraser 1996: 132–40). Seleukos I ceded the city to the Indian king CHANDRAGUPTA Maurya by ca. 303. Four Greek inscriptions have been found at the site, two issued by ASOKA in Greek and another in Greek and Aramaic, and a Greek inscription on the base of a statue (Canali de Rossi 2004: nos. 290–3), as well as a Greek votive epigram (Bernard et al. 2004: 227–332).

SEE ALSO: Achaemenid Dynasty; Alexander III, the Great; Seleukos I Nikator.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Bernard, P., Pinault, G.-J., and Rougemont, G. (2004) “Deux nouvelles inscriptions grecques de l’Asie centrale.” Journal des Savants 2004: 227–356. Canali de Rossi, F. (2004) Iscrizioni dello estremo oriente greco: un repertorio. Inschriften griechischer Sta¨dte aus Kleinasien, 65. Bonn. Fraser, P. M. (1996) Cities of Alexander the Great. Oxford. Helms, S. W., ed. (1997) Excavations at Old Kandahar in Afghanistan, 1976–1978: conducted on behalf of the Society for South Asian Studies (Society for Afghan Studies): stratigraphy, pottery and other finds. Oxford.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print page 307. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah14020

1

Alexandria Ariana JEFFREY D. LERNER

Alexandria Ariana (modern Hera¯t) was once thought to have been founded by Alexander the Great in ca. 330 BCE, when he repopulated the Achaemenid capital of Artacoana or Articaudna in the satrapy of Aria with Greeks. This view is now regarded as suspect, for Alexandria and Artacoana are considered separate cities, with the latter situated along the Hari Rud (Greek Areios) River near Hera¯t, while the whereabouts of the former is perhaps somewhere nearby (Koshelenko 1979: 136–7; Bosworth 1980: 356–7; Fraser 1996: 109–31). Until excavations beyond the medieval period

are undertaken at Hera¯t, the whereabouts of both ancient cities will remain unknown. SEE ALSO: Achaemenid Dynasty; Alexander III, the Great.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Bosworth, A. B. (1980) A historical commentary on Arrian’s “History of Alexander,” vol. I: Commentary on Books I–III. Oxford. Fraser, P. M. (1996) Cities of Alexander the Great. Oxford. Koshelenko, G. А. (1979). The Greek polis in the Hellenistic East. Moscow.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print page 307. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah14021

1

Alexandria Eschate JEFFREY D. LERNER

Alexandria Eschate, “Alexandria the Furthest,” near modern Khozhent (formerly Leninabad in Tadjikistan) was founded by Alexander the Great in August 329 BCE on the southern bank of the JAXARTES in SOGDIA, forming the northeastern border of his kingdom (Bosworth 1995). The city was built in twenty days, enclosed by a wall sixty stadia (ca. 7 miles) in circuit (Curtius 7.6.25). The city’s founding resulted in a revolt by the Sogdians and Skythians, including the Bactrian noble Spitamenes, who ambushed two thousand Macedonian troops near Marakanda (Curt. 7.7.30–9; Arr. Anab. 4.5.2–6.2). Alexander made Alexandria Eschate the area’s main urban center after he destroyed the seven nearby Achaemenid cities, including Kyropolis, and resettled their inhabitants along with veterans from his army in the city (Briant 1978: 70, 74–80). Militarily, the city guarded the Sogdian border from Skythian tribes and oversaw trade between both countries (Bosworth 1980; Fraser 1996). Remains of the city’s walls and some sherds similar to the ceramics produced in AI KHANUM have been recovered (Bernard 1990: 28; Fraser 1996: 151 no. 92). The city was destroyed before 300 BCE by nomads and was refounded and renamed Antiocheia

of Scythia after ANTIOCHOS I SOTER by the Seleucid general, Demodamas of Miletos, who erected altars to Apollo and Didyma (Bernard 1994: 91). SEE ALSO: Alexander III, the Great; Bactria; Marakanda/Samarkand; Seleucids.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Bernard, P. (1990) “Alexandre et l’Asie centrale: re´flexions a` propos d’un ouvrage de F. L. Holt. ” Studia Iranica 19/1: 21–35. Bernard, P. (1994) “Alexander and his successors in Central Asia. Part two: The Seleucids in Central Asia.” In J. Harmatta et al., eds., History of civilizations of Central Asia, vol. 2: The development of sedentary and nomadic civilizations: 700 B.C. to A.D. 250: 88–97. Paris. Bosworth, A. B. (1980) A historical commentary on Arrian’s “History of Alexander,” vol. I: Commentary on books I–III: 15–19, 25–7. Oxford. Bosworth, A. B. (1995) A historical commentary on Arrian’s, “History of Alexander,” vol. II: Commentary on books IV–V: 15–17, 25–7 ff. Oxford. Briant, P. (1978) “Colonisation helle´nistique et populations indige`nes: La phase d’installation.” Klio 60: 57–92. Fraser, P. M. (1996) Cities of Alexander the Great: 151–61. Oxford. Koshelenko, G. А. (1979) The Greek polis in the Hellenistic East: 156–8. Moscow.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print page 312. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah14022

1

Alexandria in Margiana JEFFREY D. LERNER

Alexandria in Margiana (modern Merv, Turkmenistan) is located in the Murghab oasis. The ancient settlement of Erk Kala, founded in the Achaemenid period, stands over 20 m high and covers 12 ha. A late tradition gives the city’s name as Alexandria. In the Seleucid period, the city was destroyed and refounded as Antiochia Margiana (Gyaur Kala) by ANTIOCHOS I SOTER (Fraser 1996: 31 no. 67, 116–18). Erk Kala became the city’s acropolis, and a massive defensive wall was constructed measuring 8 km and enclosing more than 340 ha, and more than 18 m high with eighty towers, five gates, and roads that divided the city into quarters.

SEE ALSO: Achaemenid Dynasty; Alexander III, the Great; Seleucids.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Cribb, J. and Herrmann, G. (2007) After Alexander. Central Asia before Islam. Proceedings of the British Academy 133. Oxford. Fraser, P. M. (1996) Cities of Alexander the Great. Oxford. Koshelenko, G. A. (2007) “The fortifications at Gobekly-depe.” In J. Cribb and G. Herrmann, eds., After Alexander. Central Asia before Islam. Proceedings of the British Academy 133: 269–83. Oxford. Smirnova, N. (2007) “Some questions regarding the numismatics of pre-Islamic Merv.” In Cribb and Herrmann, eds.: 377–88. Zavyalov, V. A. (2007) “The fortifications of the city of Gyaur Kala, Merv.” In Cribb and Herrmann, eds.: 313–29.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 312–313. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah14024

1

Alexandria Oxiana JEFFREY D. LERNER

The city is located by Ptolemy (6.12.5–6) in SOGDIA, although its modern location remains speculative (Fraser 1996: 153–6). Three identifications have been proposed. First, Tarn proposed that the city was ancient Termez on the north bank of the OXUS, which after its destruction by nomads was refounded by Antiochos I as Antiochia-Tarmita. The city was again founded by the Greek-Bactrian king Demetrios, who renamed it Demetrias in the second century BCE. Tarn’s identifications, though initially rejected, have recently enjoyed a resurgence (e.g., Pidaev 2001: 296–9). Second, with the discovery of the ancient site of AI KHANUM in northeastern Afghanistan south of the OXUS River (modern Amu Daria), Bernard hypothesizes that this region of BACTRIA was actually part of Sogdia. He conjectures that the city subsequently became the capital of Sogdia after Marakanda (modern Samarkand) was overrun by nomads. Two names found in the inscriptions of Ai Khanum, Oxeboakes and Oxybazos, are linked to the Oxus River and have been used to support Bernard’s (1987) theory. A third site, the fortress of Takht-i Sangin in modern Tajikistan, located between

Ai Khanum and Termez, has likewise been identified as Alexandria Oxiana. The site, located in Sogdia on the north bank of the Oxus, contains the so-called Oxus Temple, in which an altar was found bearing a Greek inscription dedicated to the river god Oxus by Atrosokes, who was perhaps an Iranian fire priest (Litvinskii and Pichikian 2000: 303–7). SEE ALSO: Antiochos I Soter; Marakanda/ Samarkand.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Bernard, P. (1987) “Les nomades conque´rants de l’empire gre´co-bactrien: re´flexions sur leur identite´ ethnique et culturelle.” Comptes rendus de l’Acade´mie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres: 758–68. Fraser, P. M. (1996) Cities of Alexander the Great. Oxford. Litvinskii, B. A. and Pichikian, I. R. (2000) The Hellenistic temple of the Oxus in Bactria (southern Tadzhikistan), vol. 1: Excavations, architecture, religious life. Moscow. Pidaev, C. (2001) “Contribution a` l’histoire ancienne de Termez.” In P. Leriche et al., eds., La Bactriane au carrefour des routes et des civilisations de l’Asie centrale: Termez et les villes de Bactriane-Tokharestan: 293–301. Paris.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print page 313. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah14025

1

Alexandrian War (Bellum Alexandrinum) MIHAIL ZAHARIADE

The content of Bellum Alexandrinum, as it is known from the manuscripts, does not appear to correspond with the title. In addition to the events in Alexandria it relates episodes unfolding in other regions. However, due to the episode which occurred at Alexandria, the title was extended to all the events of the year 47 BCE. The Alexandrian War describes four distinct episodes that took place in different regions, without an apparent connection between them. The main episode, the war at Alexandria, a continuation of the third book of JULIUS CAESAR’s Civil War (ch. 106–12), is described at the beginning of the work (ch. 1–33). In pursuit of POMPEY, Caesar arrived at Alexandria, where he heard about the death of his great opponent. He stayed longer in Egypt due to a considerable sum of money which the ex-king of Egypt, PTOLEMY XII AULETES, owed to him. He dangerously involved his small military force in the internecine dynastic fights, something which could have cost him his life. After defeating the Egyptians, he placed CLEOPATRA VII and her younger brother on the throne and apparently lingered on in Egypt, journeying up the Nile, not only for Cleopatra’s sake but also to have time to gather money for the future. Ch. 34–41 is an account of the military operations in Asia Minor, waged by Caesar’s general Domitius Calvinus against PHARNAKES II, the son of Mithradates VI, the king of Pontos, which ended in a shameful disaster for the Roman commander. Ch. 42–7 and 48–64 have no connection at all with the Alexandrian War. The chapters are accounts of skirmishes between the last republicans and

Caesar’s generals in Illyricum, and a revolt in Spain in response to the abuses of Caesar’s governor there, Q. Cassius Longinus. Only ch. 65–78 narrate the campaign of Caesar in Syria, the other three accounts aiming at screening the episode of Caesar’s affair with Cleopatra, to which the authors are reluctant to refer. In Syria Caesar defeated Pharnakes in battle at Zela, the occasion on which he pronounced the famous words: veni, vidi, vici (I came, I saw, I conquered). Briefly visiting a number of regions of Asia Minor, Caesar managed to pacify the possible centers of revolt, installed reliable persons in command, and left for Rome. The accuracy of the events related in the Alexandrian War is confirmed in other reliable sources. The author, a pro-Caesarian, was an eyewitness of the events and apparently utilized the reports from Caesar’s personal archive. However, the author remains anonymous, although some have suggested Aulus HIRTIUS. The composition and style of the Alexandrian War are close enough to Caesar’s authentic works (e.g., the Civil War, left unfinished by Caesar). Through the scrupulousness of the information, the exactness of the account, the clarity and the sobriety of the style, Bellum Alexandrinum is, among the apocryphal commentaries, the closest to the original work of Caesar (see AFRICAN WAR (BELLUM AFRICUM)).

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Bingen, J. (2007) Hellenistic Egypt. Monarchy, Society, Economy, Culture: 63–79. London. Hall, L. G. H. (1996) “Hirtius and the Bellum Alexandrinum.” Classical Quarterly 46: 411–15. Schneider R. (1962) Bellum Alexandrinum. Berlin. Townend, G. (1988) Caesar’s War in Alexandria: Bellum Civile III 102–113 and Bellum Alexandrinum 1–33. Bristol.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 314–315. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah20008

1

Alexarchos

SEE ALSO:

Historiography, Greek and Roman.

DENNIS R. ALLEY

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS

Alexarchos survives from a single fragment quoted in Pseudo-Plutarch (Plutarch, Par. min. c. 7.). Because he is only quoted in a Schwindelautor, some have expected that he may be an invention of the author. The text quotes him as a source on the Roman King Tullus Hostilius’s struggle with the Albans, but provides little in the way of detail that is not covered already by LIVY or DIONYSIUS OF HALICARNASSUS. For a text and full commentary on the fragment see Horster (2008).

Horster, M. (2008) “Alexarchos (FGrH 829).” In I. Worthington, ed., Brill’s New Jacoby. Brill Online. Knaack, G. (1903) “Alexarchos (4).” In A. Pauly, G. Wissowa, and W. Kroll, eds., Realencyclopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft: Suppl: 56. Stuttgart. Schwartz, E. (1894) “Alexarchos (4).” In A. Pauly, G. Wissowa, and W. Kroll, Realencyclopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft: 1, 2: 1463: Stuttgart.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, and Andrew Erskine. © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Published 2017 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah30561

1

Alexis of Samos DENNIS R. ALLEY

Alexis of Samos was a local historian of uncertain date. His work on SAMOS comprised at least three books. Our most extensive of the two surviving fragments (Ath. Deip. 12.57 = FGrH 330, F2), coming from Book 3 provides some detail on the reign and personal life of the tyrant POLYKRATES, his lavish expenditures, and cultural life in his court. The Athenaeus citation makes it difficult to know exactly how much in this passage is derived from the Samian histories, but the work may have also detailed the sexual intrigues of Polykrates and the poet Anacreon at some length. Our first fragment (Ath. Deip. 13.31 = FGrH 330, F1) from Book 2 of the Samian histories describes a statue of the goddess Aphrodite attributed to the contributions of prostitutes who were companions of Perikles. While some have seen this as a suggestion that the work did not follow chronological order (D’Hautcourt 2007), we possess too little of the work to know for certain. It may be possible that the description was contained in a digression that allowed Alexis to comment on a later time than his main narrative, as is common in, for example, HERODOTUS.

The fragments of Alexis illustrate the robust interest in antiquity in the history of the island of Samos, which is well evidenced as early as Herodotus’ lengthy digression on the island in Book III of his Histories. Though Alexis’ date is uncertain, we should consider his work in relation to another famous Samian historian, DURIS, who composed a history of the island from its mythic foundation to his own time in the mid-fourth century BCE. If Alexis composed his history after Duris, it may be possible that he saw himself as a continuator of Duris’ project, but the fragments concerning earlier periods of Samian history demonstrate that there must have been at least some overlap with Duris. For a full text and commentary on the fragments see D’Hautcourt (2007). SEE ALSO:

Historiography, Greek and Roman.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS D’Hautcourt, A. (2006) “Alexis, les prostituées et Aphrodite à Samos.” Kernos 19: 313–17. D’Hautcourt, A. (2007) “Alexis of Samos” (FGrH 330). In I. Worthington, ed., Brill’s New Jacoby. Brill Online. Schwartz, E. (1894) “Alexis (10).” In A. Pauly, G. Wissowa, and W. Kroll, eds., Realencyclopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft 1: 1471. Stuttgart.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, and Andrew Erskine. © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Published 2017 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah30562

1

Alfenus (Publius Alfenus Varus) GIOVANNI TURELLI

Publius Alfenus Varus was a Roman jurist of the late republican period, who came from Cremona, in CISALPINE GAUL (today Cremona, Italy). His life is wrapped in mystery and although we have a relative abundance of literary sources about him, not all the information they provide is reliable. He is said to have been born into a family of craftsmen, notably shoemakers (Porphyr. on Hor. Sermo 1.3.130, but the point is disputed: Klebs and Jörs 1894: 1472; McGinn 2001: 87–8). His dates of birth and death are unknown, but since he became consul suffectus in 39 BCE (CIL 2 I .65; see Dig. 1.2.2.44) it can be argued that he was born around 82/81 BCE. Before his consulship, in 40 BCE, he was a land commissioner in Cisalpine Gaul, sent by Octavian in place of ASINIUS POLLIO (Serv. Dan. Ecl. 9.27). Another difficulty with the literary sources is that they mention in generic fashion an Alfenus or Varus without making a clear reference to our jurist (Frank 1920 is skeptical; while Liebs 2010 is optimistic; see also Roth 1999: 17–20). Catullus, for example, writes of Alfenus or Varus on three occasions (Carm. 10, 22, 30), though opinions remain divided over identification with the jurist (Frank 1920; Della Corte 1976: 213–25). Horace (Sermo 1.3.130) mentions an Alfenus (who according to Porphyrio ad l. is the jurist) defining him as vafer (“clever”), which, although a juristappropriate adjective. does not guarantee the identification (McGinn 2001: 88). Finally, VERGIL dedicates to a Varus his sixth eclogue, in which he praises CORNELIUS GALLUS, who was land commissioner with Alfenus and ASINIUS POLLIO, according to Serv. Dan. Ecl. 9.27 (see Suet. Vita Verg. 53, 59 Reifferscheid). Moreover, the poet mentions an Alfenus in the ninth eclogue, where he gently criticizes him for his conduct toward Mantua, Vergil’s hometown (Verg. Ecl. 9.26–29; see Serv. on Verg. Ecl. 9.7, 10). It is also argued that Vergil and Alfenus studied philosophy together in Naples, at

the school of the Epicurean Siron (Serv. on Verg. Ecl. 6.13; Schol. Bern. on Verg. Ecl. 6.11, 13). The point remains unclear, since Alfenus was probably about twelve or fifteen years older than Vergil. The two were perhaps Siron’s pupils at different times (Liebs 2010: 43). Alfenus’ allegiance to the Epicurean school is traditionally argued from a reference to the theory of atoms in Dig. 5.1.76, but a careful reading of this text reveals a diversity of philosophical traditions, making it impossible to conclude that Alfenus was an Epicurean based solely on this evidence. Alfenus wrote a work entitled Coniectanea (Conjectures; see Gell. 7.5.1), but he is famous above all for a Digesta of forty books. He was a student (auditor) of SERVIUS SULPICIUS RUFUS, according to POMPONIUS , who wrote (Dig. 1.2.2.44) that Alfenus had plurimum auctoritatis (“the greatest authority”) among Servius’ auditores. He was notably a careful collector of his teacher’s responsa (answers) (see Dig. 3.5.20pr., 17.2.65.8, 28.1.25, 28.5.46, 32.29.2, 33.7.16.1, 46.3.67, 50.16.77). It is not clear how much of his work faithfully reproduces Servius’ thought (Klebs and Jörs 1894: 1473; Roth 1999: 23–25), but it seems certain that he drew profusely upon it. Alfenus’ texts can be argued to stand as works of literature, because of their wealth of ideas and refinement of style. His use of diminutives and archaisms (in which he was interested, see Gell. 7.5.1), as well as the care he takes with syntax are all signs of a high style (Ferrini 1929; Negri 1996). A large number of fragments of Alfenus’ work is preserved in JUSTINIAN’S DIGESTA (533 CE; see CORPUS IURIS CIVILIS). They do not derive directly from the jurist himself but are drawn from two epitomes, one by an anonymous editor and another collected by the jurist PAUL (Roth 1999: 26–101). SEE ALSO:

Augustus (Imperator Caesar Augustus); Epicurus and Epicureanism; Jurisprudence, Greek and Roman; Law, Roman.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and David Hollander. © 2018 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Published 2018 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah30633

2 REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Della Corte, F. (1976) Personaggi catulliani, Florence. Ferrini, C. (1929) “Intorno ai Digesti di Alfeno Varo.” Opere di Contardo Ferrini, vol. 2: 169– 80. Milan [=Bullettino dell’Istituto di Diritto Romano V. Scialoja, vol. 4 (1891): 1–15]. Frank, T. (1920) “Catullus and Horace on Suffenus and Alfenus.” Classical Quarterly 14: 160–2. Klebs, E. and Jörs, P. (1894) “Alfenus [8].” In A. Pauly, G. Wissowa, and W. Kroll, eds, Realencyclopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft I.2: 1472–4. Stuttgart.

Liebs, D. (2010) “P. Alfenus Varus – Eine Karriere in Zeiten des Umbruchs.” Zeitschrift für Rechtsgeschichte (Romanistische Abteilung) 127: 32–52. McGinn, T. A. J. (2001) “Satire and the law: the case of Horace.” Proceedings of the Cambridge Philological Society 41: 81–102. Negri, G. (1996), “Per una stilistica dei Digesti di Alfeno.” In D. Mantovani, ed., Per la storia del pensiero giuridico romano. Dall’età dei pontefici alla scuola di Servio, 135–58. Turin. Roth, H.-J. (1999), Alfeni Digesta. Eine spätrepublikanische Juristenschrift, Berlin.

1

Al-Hīra ISABEL TORAL-NIEHOFF

Al-Hīra is the name of the capital of the Arab principality of the LAKHMIDS or Nas: rids (ca. 300–602 CE). It has been commonly associated with the Syriac h: ērtā “encampment”; an alternative theory proposes a Sabaic loan (ToralNiehoff 2014: 75). In fact, Arabic and Syriac sources suggest that at first it was a camp settlement inhabited by Bedouin immigrants from eastern Arabia, and that it developed only gradually into a more stable urban center (Rothstein 1899; Toral-Niehoff 2014: 75–81). Located southeast of present-day Najaf in Iraq, the site probably started to attract nomad settlers during the turmoil between the decline of the Arsacids and the rise of the SASANIANS in the early third century, thus taking advantage of the resulting power vacuum. Arabic sources tell that the tribe coalition of the Tanukh, composed of variegated tribes who had earlier emigrated from the Hijaz, chose then to settle in the fertile Mesopotamian plain (Toral-Niehoff 2014: 43–9). In addition, synchronous changes in the ecosystem and microclimate, due to a western shift of the Euphrates and to favorable technical innovations, enabled the site’s establishment in an area that had now become fertile and salubrious (Toral-Niehoff 2014: 33–40). Another factor, as suggested by the Arabic Zenobia legend, points to the decline of Palmyra in the late third century, since this facilitated al-Hīra’s rise as a caravan city for the transit trade between Persia and the Arabian Peninsula (Toral-Niehoff 2014: 51–3). Al-Hīra never developed a densely urbanized grid, but was composed of family boroughs (qus: ūr), built in adobe and bricks, and surrounded by gardens, palm trees, and fields. These buildings were scattered over a vast area of 25 sq km and were not enclosed by a wall. In the event of Bedouin attacks, the inhabitants took refuge in their fortified houses. Here, al-Hīra followed Arab models of urbanism comparable to those in Yathrib and early

Mecca. There were also several more luxurious palaces associated with the dynasty and attested in Arabic poetry, which attained legendary fame well into Islamic times (Talbot Rice 1934; Toral-Niehoff 2014: 75–85). Besides these secular buildings, the sources mention numerous churches and monasteries, thus testifying to the relevance and wealth of the local Christians. As far as is known, Hīran ecclesiastical architecture indicates an independent local tradition, later enriched by Western Syriac elements (Okada 1991; ToralNiehoff 2014: 174–82). However, only a few of these remnants have been investigated in detail, since the archaeological site has been never excavated exhaustively, and a preliminary campaign by Talbot Rice in the 1930s is still our main reference (Talbot Rice 1934). Recent findings of ceramic and glass in the area point to a strong Sasanian influence. The origins of the local Christian community, the ʿIbād, remain obscure, but it seems to go back to the fourth century, and grew in importance during the course of the fifth and sixth centuries. Al-Hīra is attested as a bishopric from 410, and the seat seems to have been occupied continuously until the tenth century, when the city fell into decline. The Hīran bishop depended directly from the metropolis in Ctesiphon, and this closeness is further expressed by the fact that many patriarchs were buried in al-Hīra. Therefore, the official church in the city followed the dogmatic orientation of the Persian church, commonly known as “Nestorian.” However, Syriac sources point to the frequent presence of miaphysite missionaries in the sixth century, besides Western Syriac monks and ascetics, who had sought refuge from Byzantine persecutions in this marginal area (Shahid 1995–2002; Toral-Niehoff 2010; Toral-Niehoff 2014: 174–82). In spite of the massive presence of Christians and their increasing social relevance in the city, the Lakhmid rulers remained pagan until ca. 590, probably to avoid tensions with their sovereigns, the Sasanian kings. The king was

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner. © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Published 2015 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah26108

2 deposed in 602 by the Sasanian ruler in obscure circumstances. The presence of other religious communities is less attested. The local pagan Arab divinity was al-Zuhra, but we have very contradictory information about cultic traditions. Furthermore, there was a Manichean mission in the late third century, and we might speculate that the presence of Manicheans fostered the later establishment of a Christian community. There is only scarce information about Jews. The ethnic composition of the population was mixed. The majority was composed of sedentarized Arabs, but there were also Aramean peasants, Persian nobles, knights, and soldiers. Languages spoken and written included variants of pre-Classical Arabic, Aramaic dialects, and Pahlavi. We have to suppose a great amount of cultural hybridity and multilingualism. Biographies such as those of the Arab poet ʿAdī b. Zayd, who frequented the Sasanian court and was a Syriac Christian, attest the complexities of a population in a cultural frontier zone (Toral-Niehoff 2014: 85–125). As capital of the Lakhmid principality, al-Hīra was also the site of a royal court that attracted poets from all over the Arabian Peninsula and thus gave an impetus to the cultivation and perfection of Arabic panegyric and wine-poetry, as well as to the inclusion of new motifs and meters. Itinerant poets spread reports about Hīran urban culture all over Arabia; these might have affected the local community of MUHAMMAD (Toral-Niehoff 2014: 142–50).

With the deposition of the last Lakhmid king in 602, the city began to lose its importance. First, it received a Persian governor; then in 633 it capitulated to the Muslim troops and agreed to pay tribute. After the nearby foundation of Kūfa in 638, al-Hīra gradually developed into a mere Christian suburb of the new city. In the literary imaginary, the city became the romanticized site of monasteries and winehouses, as well as an example of fallen greatness and vanitas vanitatum. In the tenth century the city had completely disappeared (Shahid 1995–2002). SEE ALSO: Arabia (Roman province); Arabs; Euphrates; Mani/Manichaeism; Tigris; Zenobia.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Kister, M. (1968) “al-H: īra: some notes on its relations with Arabia.” Arabica 15: 143–69. Okada, Y. (1991) “Early Christian architecture in the Iraqi south-western desert.” al-Rafidan 71–83. Rothstein, G. (1899) Die Dynastie der Lah: miden in al-H: īra. Berlin. Shahid, I. (1995–2002) Byzantium and the Arabs in the sixth century, 3 vols. Washington. Talbot Rice, D. (1934) “The Oxford excavations in al-H: īra.” Ars Islamica i, 1: 51–73. Toral-Niehoff, I. (2010) “The ʿIbād in al-Hīra: an Arab Christian community in Late Antique Iraq.” In A. Neuwirth, M. Marx, and N. Sinai, eds., The Qur’an in context – entangled histories and textual palimpsests: 323–47. Berlin. Toral-Niehoff, I. (2014) Al-H: īra. Eine arabische Kulturmetropole im spätantiken Kontext. Leiden.

1

Alimenta schemes DAMIA´N FERNA´NDEZ

The alimenta schemes consisted of a government-run program of low interest loans to Italian landowners whose returns were used to maintain sons and daughters of poor, free people until they reached adulthood. The program had previous, private antecedents, and a public system of this type may have existed during Nerva’s reign. However, most of our evidence dates the program to the reign of TRAJAN, in the early second century CE. Our last reference to the system appears in the year 271, and alimenta were in all likelihood abandoned before the beginning of the fourth century. Alimenta schemes existed almost everywhere in Italy, although they seem to have been concentrated in the central areas of the peninsula. There is some evidence of similar mechanisms in other parts of the empire. Yet they are limited to one or two cities, for which the alimenta remain a distinct Italian institution. In actual practice, landowners who received governmental loans would have to provide a security estimated at an average of twelve and a half times the amount of the loan and make an annual payment of five percent of the principal. Municipal officers known as quaestores alimentorum were in charge of collecting and distributing these payments among the beneficiaries of the program, but they worked under the general oversight of higher officials of senatorial or equestrian rank. The actual working of the program is mainly known thanks to two inscriptions, both from

the reign of Trajan. The first one comes from the city of Veleia (near Piacenza) and includes a list of properties pledged as security for the alimenta loans. The second one, from the territory of the Ligures Baebiani (near Benevento), is a list of the items that were gathered by the local administration of the program for distribution to the beneficiaries of the alimenta. The debates over the purpose of the alimenta schemes remain unsettled. Some scholars have argued that the main purpose of the program was to provide affordable loans to encourage agriculture in Italy. Others believe that the alimenta were intended to reverse the demographic decline of the peninsula through financial aid to families that could not maintain newborn children. Another interpretation sees the alimenta as part of the traditional Roman munificence toward the citizen body, particularly the poor but free urban population. SEE ALSO:

Benefactors; Patron, patronage,

Roman. REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Bourne, F. (1960) “The Roman alimentary program and Italian agriculture.” Transactions of the American Philological Association 91: 47–75. Duncan-Jones, R. (1974) The economy of the Roman Empire: quantitative studies. Cambridge. Inscriptions: CIL XI 1147 and CIL IX 1455. Woolf, G. (1990) “Food, poverty and patronage: the significance of the epigraphy of the Roman alimentary schemes in early imperial Italy.” Papers of the British School at Rome 58: 197–228.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 315–316. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah22010

1

Alinda ¨ MEL WOLFGANG BLU

Alinda ((tα` Ἄlinda) Strabo 14.2.17, 657) was an ancient city in CARIA, ca. 30 km west of C¸ine, on a hill above the modern town of Karpuzlu (formerly Demircideresi). To the west is the Latmos range of mountains, to the east, a fertile plain. In the fifth century BCE, Alinda belonged to the Athenian Confederacy for a brief period (if Ἄl[indeς] is correctly restored). In the fourth century BCE, the city was one of the most strongly fortified places in Caria. The elder Ada, sister of the Hekatomnid king MAUSOLOS, having been expelled from HALIKARNASSOS by her brother Pixodaros, found shelter in Alinda. When Alexander the Great arrived in the region in 334, she surrendered the fortified city to him. In return, after the capture of Halikarnassos, he appointed her queen of Caria (Strabo l.c.; Arr. 1.23.8). These events may have led to the creation of Alexandreia-by-the-Latmos, a place the only mention of which can be found in STEPHANUS OF BYZANTIUM, and Alinda may be identified with it. At the end of the third century BCE, the name Alinda is again attested in an inscription from nearby Amyzon

(I.Amyzon 14, honorary decree for a Seleucid governor of Alinda). Material remains include well-preserved parts of the city wall, probably built by Mausolos, a Hellenistic three-story market building, 90 m long and 15 m high, adjoining the agora, and substantial remains of a theater, built in the Hellenistic period and reconstructed in Roman times. Inscriptions are few. Near the site, a large mount of tombs of various kinds can be found, some sarcophagi, many of Carian type, but none of them is inscribed. The ruins have not been explored systematically and there have not been excavations, but in recent years, archaeological surveys have commenced. REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Bean, G. E. (1971) Turkey beyond the Maeander: 190–8. London. Hirschfeld, G. (1895) s.v. Alinda, RE 1.2: 1489. ¨ zkaya, V. and San, O. (2003) “Alinda. An ancient O city with its remains and monumental tombs in Caria.” Revue des e´tudes anciennes 105: 103–25. Ruggendorfer, P. [online]. Available at http://www. oeaw.ac.at/alinda/alinda.html (with bibliography). Talbert, R. J. A. et al. (2000) Barrington atlas map: 61 F2. Princeton. The Princeton encyclopedia of classical sites, s.v. Princeton.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print page 316. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah14026

1

Alinda WOLFGANG BLÜMEL

University of Cologne, Germany

Alinda (τὰ Ἄλινδα) Strabo 14.2.17, 657) was an ancient city in CARIA, ca. 30 km west of Çine, on a hill above the modern town of Karpuzlu (formerly Demircideresi). To the west is the Latmos range of mountains, to the east, a fertile plain. In the fifth century BCE, Alinda belonged to the Athenian Confederacy (see DELIAN LEAGUE for a brief period (if Ἀλ[ινδε͂ ϛ] is correctly restored). In the fourth century BCE, the city was one of the most strongly fortified places in Caria. The elder Ada, sister of the Hekatomnid king MAUSOLOS, having been expelled from HALIKARNASSOS by her brother Pixodaros, found shelter in Alinda. When ALEXANDER THE GREAT arrived in the region in 334 BCE, she surrendered the fortified city to him. In return, after the capture of Halikarnassos, he appointed her queen of Caria (Strabo 14.2.17; Arr. 1.23.8). These events may have led to the creation of Alexandreia-by-the-Latmos, a place the only mention of which can be found in STEPHANUS OF BYZANTIUM, and Alinda may be identified with it. At the end of the third century BCE, the name Alinda is again attested in an inscription from nearby Amyzon (I.Amyzon 14, honorary decree for a Seleucid governor of Alinda).

Material remains include well-preserved parts of the city wall, probably built by Mausolos, a Hellenistic three-story market building, 90 m long and 15 m high, adjoining the agora, and substantial remains of a theater, built in the Hellenistic period and reconstructed in Roman times. Inscriptions are few. Near the site, a large mound of tombs of various kinds can be found, some sarcophagi, many of Carian type, but none of them is inscribed. In recent years, archaeological surveys of the site have commenced. SEE ALSO:

Hekatomnids.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Bean, G. E. (1971) Turkey beyond the Maeander: 190–8. London. Blümel, W. (2018) Inschriften aus Nordkarien, Inschriften griechischer Städte aus Kleinasien 71: 211–18. Bonn. Hirschfeld, G. (1895) RE 1.2: 1489. Kaletsch, H. (2002) Der Neue Pauly 12.2: 888f. Stuttgart. Özkaya, V. and San, O. (2003) “Alinda. An ancient city with its remains and monumental tombs in Caria.” Revue des études anciennes 105: 103–25. Talbert, R. J. A. et al. (2000) Barrington atlas of the Greek and Roman world: 61 F2. Princeton. Bean, G.E. (1976) “Alinda.” In R. Stillwell, The Princeton encyclopedia of classical sites: 40–1. Princeton.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History. Edited by Andrew Erskine, David B. Hollander, and Arietta Papaconstantinou. © 2022 John Wiley & Sons Ltd. Published 2022 by John Wiley & Sons Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah14026.pub2

1

Alkaios of Mytilene WILLIAM MACK

Lyric poet, the traditional contemporary of SAPPHO, Alkaios (active ca. 600 BCE) was born into a politically involved aristocratic family of MYTILENE on LESBOS at a time when power there was hotly contested between rival cliques following the overthrow of the ruling clan, the Penthelidai (Arist. Pol. 1311b26, 29). The world inhabited by Alkaios was of social and political clubs (hetaireiai) and their symposia, the performance context for which his poems were composed (Bowie 1986). The diversity of theme present in the extant fragments, including love, war, exile, myth, wine, and, very prominently, politics, illustrates the shared interests of these groups and their gatherings (Ro¨sler 1980). Alkaios himself was born in time to take part in one of the battles fought between Athens and Mytilene over SIGEON in the TROAD (ca. 600 BCE), during which he claimed to have thrown away his shield to preserve his life (fr. 401B; as indeed Archilochus had, in sufficiently similar terms (West fr. 4) to make the incident suspect). He apparently did not take part a decade before in the expulsion of Melanchros, the first of a succession of politically dominant individuals, “tyrants,” engineered by Pittakos and Alkaios’ brothers (Suda, Pittakός; Diog. Laert. 1.74) – perhaps he was too young (fr. 74). Alkaios, however, seems to have been active in a faction, with Pittakos,

which unsuccessfully opposed Melanchros’ successor, Myrsilos, and to have been exiled as a result (fr. 130B). A betrayal of Pittakos followed, or at least was felt (Hutchinson 2001: 189), and this is one of the reasons for the many abusive epithets applied to Pittakos (fr. 72, 129, 348; Diog. Laert. 1.81). Alkaios lived to celebrate the death of Myrsilos and heap abuse upon Pittakos’ own election by universal acclamation as “tyrannos” (fr. 348). Traditions of a reconciliation between the two (Diog. Laert. 1.76) seem unlikely. Perhaps it was as an exile (P.Oxy. 2506 fr. 98 mentions traditions involving multiple periods of exile) that Alkaios visited Egypt and received a handsome sum from the Lydians to attack an unknown city (fr. 69), and his brother, Antemenidas, served in the army of King Nebuchadnezzar (fr. 350). SEE ALSO:

Hetaireia; Symposium; Tyranny.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Bowie, E. L. (1986) “Early Greek elegy, symposium and public festival.” Journal of Hellenic Studies 106: 13–35. Hutchinson, G. O. (2001) Greek lyric poetry. Oxford. Page, D. L. (1955) Sappho and Alcaeus. Oxford. Ro¨sler, W. (1980) Dichter und Gruppe: eine Untersuchung zu den Bedingungen und zur historischen Funktion fru¨her griechischer Lyrik am Beispiel Alkaios. Munich. Voigt, E. M. (1971) Sappho et Alcaeus. Fragmenta. Amsterdam.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 316–317. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah02012

1

Alketas DENNIS R. ALLEY

Alketas is known from a single fragment of his work On the monuments of Delphi quoted in ATHENAEUS’ Deipnosophistai (Athen. Deip.13.59 = FGrH 405, F1). The work contained at least two books and seems to have described the monuments, their situation, and history at length. Our singular fragment describes a statue of Phryne of Thespiai, a fourth-century prostitute, located at DELPHI between statues of the Spartan King Archidamos and Philip of Macedon. The passage goes on to mention how the

statue was said to be the work of the famous sculptor Praxiteles. His date is uncertain but must be placed between the late fourth century BCE and early second century CE. REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Cooper, C. (1995) “Hyperides and the trial of Phryne.” Phoenix 49: 303–18. Jacek, R. (2010) “Alketas (FGrH 405).” In I. Worthington, ed., Brill’s New Jacoby. Brill Online. Keesling, C. (2007) “Heavenly bodies: monuments to prostitutes in Greek sanctuaries.” In C. Faraone and L. K. McClure, eds., Prostitutes and courtesans in the ancient world: 59–76. Madison.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, and Andrew Erskine. © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Published 2017 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah30563

1

Alkibiades CHRISTIAN MANN

Alkibiades (ca. 450–404 BCE) was an Athenian politician and general. Descending from an old aristocratic family, exceptionally gifted in rhetorical and military matters, and striving ruthlessly for power, he had a major impact on the course of the PELOPONNESIAN WAR, during which he changed sides several times. After his father’s death in the battle of KORONEIA (447), Alkibiades grew up in the house of PERIKLES, a relative on his mother’s side. Early in his life he became famous for his beauty and his numerous erotic relationships; the philosopher SOCRATES, whose ideas attracted many young Athenian aristocrats, was said to have been one of his lovers (Pl. Symp. 212c–223d). Another object of common talk was Alkibiades’ wealth and luxurious lifestyle. In contrast to the modest self-presentation of other Athenian politicians, Alkibiades spent his money lavishly. The culmination of his conspicuous consumption was his participation in the Olympic chariot race of 416: Alkibiades let seven chariots run in his name and won first, second, and fourth prizes (Thuc. 6.16.2). This unique success was praised by EURIPIDES in his only Epinician ode. On the political stage, Alkibiades took a leading role during the Peace of Nikias (421–415), when he was repeatedly elected strategos. He became the most influential advocate of Athenian imperialism. An anti-Spartan alliance in the Peloponnese (420–418) was mainly his work; in 415 he convinced the Athenian assembly to send a large fleet against SELINOUS and SYRACUSE to win Sicily for Athens (see SICILIAN EXPEDITION). Alkibiades himself was elected general, together with LAMACHOS and his adversary NIKIAS, but soon after the arrival in Sicily he was recalled to face trial, accused of having profaned the Mysteries of Eleusinian Demeter (see ELEUSIS, MYSTERIES OF). Alkibiades fled to Sparta and was sentenced to death in his absence. In Sparta, he strongly influenced the military action against Athens; following his

advice, the Spartans sent GYLIPPOS to help the Syracusans. In 412, Alkibiades was forced by growing Spartan mistrust to flee to Tissaphernes, the Persian satrap in LYDIA, whose pro-Spartan policy he initially supported. But soon he prepared his return to Athens. The Athenian oligarchs who overthrew democracy in 411 remained in contact with Alkibiades, hoping that his influence over Tissaphernes, together with a constitutional change in Athens, could induce the Persians to side with Athens against Sparta (see FOUR HUNDRED, OLIGARCHS AT ATHENS). But Tissaphernes kept his pro-Spartan policy, so Alkibiades left the side of the oligarchs and presented himself as the defender of the democratic constitution. He was elected commander of the Athenian forces, first by the pro-democratic fleet at SAMOS, and later, after the reestablishment of democracy in Athens, by the Athenian assembly. He won important victories over the Spartan fleet, and when he returned to Athens in 408 the people gave him an enthusiastic welcome. The sentence against him was annulled, and he was elected hegemon autokrator, commander with extraordinary powers (Xen. Hell. 1.4.20). But already in the following year, when one of his admirals suffered defeat against a Spartan detachment, Alkibiades was once again removed from command. He went to his possessions in the Thracian Chersonese. After the final Spartan victory over Athens in 404, he was murdered on the initiative of the Spartan commander LYSANDER and the new oligarchic regime in Athens. The sources characterize Alkibiades as the most charismatic figure of his time. His extravagant lifestyle and ambitious political aims led to a polarization of the Athenian people (Ar. Ran. 1425: “[The city] longs for him, but hates him”), which was considered by Thucydides (6.15) one of the main causes of the Athenian defeat against Sparta. SEE ALSO: Demagogues; Imperialism, Greek (Classical and Hellenistic); Nikias, Peace of; Oligarchy; Strategoi; Thucydides.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 317–318. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah04016

2 REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Aurenche, O. (1974) Les groupes d’Alcibiade, de Le´ogoras et de Teucros: remarques sur la vie politique athe´nienne en 415 avant J. C. Paris. Bleckmann, B. (1998) Athens Weg in die Niederlage: die letzten Jahre des Peloponnesischen Krieges. Stuttgart. Ellis, W. M. (1989) Alcibiades. New York.

Gribble, D. (1999) Alcibiades and Athens: a study in literary presentation. Oxford. Hatzfeld, J. (1951) Alcibiade. E´tude sur l’histoire d’Athe`nes a` la fin du Ve sie`cle, 2nd ed. Paris. Mann, C. (2007) Die Demagogen und das Volk. Zur politischen Kommunikation im Athen des 5. Jahrhunderts v. Chr.: 191–294. Berlin. McGlew, J. F. (1999) “Politics on the margins: the Athenian hetaireiai in 415.” Historia 48: 1–22.

1

Alkibiades (Alcibiades) CHRISTIAN MANN

University of Mannheim, Germany

Alkibiades (ca. 450–404 BCE) was an Athenian politician and general. Descended from an old aristocratic family, exceptionally gifted in rhetorical and military matters and striving ruthlessly for power, he had a major impact on the course of the PELOPONNESIAN WAR, during which he changed sides several times. After his father’s death in the battle of KORONEIA (447), Alkibiades grew up in the house of PERIKLES, a relative on his mother’s side. Early in his life he became famous for his beauty and his numerous erotic relationships; the philosopher SOCRATES, whose ideas attracted many young Athenian aristocrats, was said to have been one of his lovers (Plato, Symposium 212c– 223d). Another object of common talk was Alkibiades’ wealth and luxurious lifestyle. In contrast to the modest self-presentation shown by other Athenian politicians, Alkibiades spent his money lavishly. The culmination of his conspicuous consumption was his participation in the Olympic chariot race of 416: Alkibiades let seven chariots run in his name and won the first, second, and fourth prize (Thucydides 6.16.2); this unique success was praised by EURIPIDES in his only Epinician ode. On the political stage, Alkibiades took a leading role during the PEACE OF NIKIAS (421–415 BCE), when he was repeatedly elected strategos. He became the most influential advocate of Athenian imperialism. An anti-Spartan alliance in the PELOPONNESE (420–418 BCE) was mainly his work; in 415 he convinced the Athenian assembly to send a large fleet against SELINOUS and SYRACUSE to win SICILY for Athens. Alkibiades himself was elected general, together with LAMACHOS and his adversary NIKIAS but soon after the arrival in Sicily he was recalled to face trial, accused of having profaned the mysteries of Eleusinian Demeter (see ELEUSIS, MYSTERIES OF). Alkibiades fled to SPARTA and was sentenced to death in absence. In

Sparta, he strongly influenced the military action against ATHENS; following his advice, the Spartans sent GYLIPPOS to help the Syracusans. In 412, Alkibiades was forced by growing Spartan mistrust to flee to Tissaphernes, the Persian satrap in LYDIA, whose pro-Spartan policy he initially supported. But soon he prepared his return to Athens. The Athenian oligarchs who overthrew democracy in 411 kept in contact with Alkibiades, hoping that his influence on Tissaphernes, together with the constitutional change in Athens, could induce the Persians to side with Athens against Sparta (see FOUR HUNDRED, OLIGARCHS AT ATHENS). But Tissaphernes kept his pro-Spartan policy, so Alkibiades left the side of the oligarchs and presented himself as the defender of the democratic constitution. He was elected commander of the Athenian forces, first by the pro-democratic fleet at SAMOS, later, after the re-establishment of democracy in Athens, by the Athenian assembly. He won important victories over the Spartan fleet, and when he returned to Athens in 408, the people gave him an enthusiastic welcome. The sentence against him was annulled, and he was elected hegemon autokrator, commander with extraordinary powers (Xenophon, Hellenica 1.4.20). But in the following year, when one of his admirals suffered defeat against a Spartan detachment, Alkibiades was once again removed from command. He went to his possessions in the Thracian Chersonesos. After the final Spartan victory over Athens in 404, he was murdered on the initiative of the Spartan commander LYSANDER and the new oligarchic regime in Athens. The sources characterize Alkibiades as the most charismatic figure of his time (Gribble 1999). His extravagant life style and his ambitious political aims led to a polarization of the Athenian people (Aristophanes, Frogs 1425: “(The city) longs for him, but hates him”), which was considered by THUCYDIDES (6.15) one of the main causes of the Athenian defeat against Sparta. Some scholars underline traditional aspects in Alkibiades’ political style

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History. Edited by Andrew Erskine, David B. Hollander, and Arietta Papaconstantinou. © 2021 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Published 2021 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah04016.pub2

2 (Heftner 2011), others stress the breach in comparison with the modest self-presentation of his predecessors. ALSO: Demagogues; Imperialism, Greek (Classical and Hellenistic); Oligarchy; Sicilian Expedition; Strategoi.

SEE

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Aurenche, O. (1974) Les groupes d’Alcibiade, de Léogoras et de Teucros: remarques sur la vie politique athénienne en 415 avant J. C. Paris. Bleckmann, B. (1998) Athens Weg in die Niederlage: die letzten Jahre des Peloponnesischen Kriegs. Stuttgart.

Ellis, W. M. (1989) Alcibiades. London. Gribble, D. (1999) Alcibiades and Athens: a study in literary presentation. Oxford. Hatzfeld, J. (1951) Alcibiade: étude sur l’histoire d’Athènes à la fin du Ve siècle. 2nd ed. Paris. Heftner, H. (2011) Alkibiades: Staatsmann und Feldherr. Darmstadt. Kagan, D. (1981) The Peace of Nicias and the Sicilian expedition. Ithaca. Mann, C. (2007) Die Demagogen und das Volk. Zur politischen Kommunikation im Athen des 5. Jahrhunderts v. Chr.: 191–294. Berlin. McGlew, J. F. (1999) “Politics on the margins. The Athenian Hetaireiai in 415.” Historia 48: 1–22. Rhodes, P. J. (2011) Alcibiades: Athenian playboy, general, and traitor. Barnsley, UK.

1

Alkimos DENNIS R. ALLEY

There is some confusion surrounding the identity and activity of Alkimos, assigned the number FGrH 560 by Felix Jacoby. The fragments attributed to the man may come from as many as three separate authors, as David Smith (2016) has observed. The three figures may be separated by their identifications as a rhetorician, author of a work on Amyntas in four books, and a composer of a book on Sicilian customs. However, Jacoby may be right in assigning them all to a single prolific Sicilian author of the fourth century BCE. The sources agree that the fragments attributed to the Sicilian rhetorician should be placed during the reign of the Dionysii in SYRACUSE (405–354 BCE) and imply a likely familiarity with the court of the Syracusan tyrants. One exceptionally long fragment attributed to him by Diogenes Laertius (FGrH 560, F6) takes particular interest in PLATO’S Sicilian visit, which according to the Platonic letters occurred during the reign of DIONYSIOS II. The fragment shows an appreciation for and interest in the Athenian philosopher’s indebtedness to and use of the Sicilian comic poet Ephicharmos in his own dialogues. This may be significant if, indeed, Alkimos was an active participant in the Syracusan court. Alkimos would have been in the ambit of Plato during his visit. As such, the fragment would offer us additional support for the historicity of the philosopher’s

Sicilian visit. At minimum, it shows an interest in SICILY at an early period in the intellectual activity of Plato. It is also significant to note that participation in Syracusan court life would have also put Alkimos in contact with the Syracusan historian and politician PHILISTOS, who was an especially active member of Dionysios II’s court. Other fragments attributed to Alkimos detail the mythic sources of Sicilian customs (FGrH 560, F2, F5, F9) in a rationalizing way that shares important features with arguably the most famous Sicilian historian, TIMAEUS OF TAUROMENIUM (FGrH 566), who would have been a rough contemporary of Alkimos. For a full text and commentary see Smith (2016). SEE ALSO:

Historiography, Greek and Roman.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Baron, T. (2012) Timaeus of Tauromenium and Hellenistic historiography. Oxford. Champion, C. (2009) “Timaios of Tauromenium (FGrH 566).” In I. Worthington, ed., Brill’s New Jacoby. Brill Online. Muccioli, F. (2002) “La letteratura storiographica tra Filisto e Timeo.” In R. Vattuone, ed., Storici greci d’occidente: 137–76. Bologna. Schwartz, E. (1894) “Alkimos (18).” In A. Pauly, G. Wissowa, and W. Kroll, eds., Realencyclopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft 1, 2: 1543–44. Stuttgart. Smith, D. (2016) “Alkimos (FGrH 560).” In I. Worthington, ed., Brill’s New Jacoby. Brill Online.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, and Andrew Erskine. © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Published 2017 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah30564

1

Alkimos, Jewish high priest ORY AMITAY

Alkimos, alias Yaqim (Jos. AJ 20.235) was high priest in Jerusalem for three or four years concurrently with the activities of JUDAS MACCABAEUS (ca. 163/2–159 BCE). Following the troubled tenure of Menelaos, Alkimos was appointed high priest either by Lysias (Goldstein 1976: 393) or by the Seleucid king DEMETRIOS I (Bar-Kochva 1989: 345). Having convinced Demetrios that Judas Maccabaeus was the king’s enemy, Alkimos was appointed (or confirmed) high priest, and sent with an armed escort to Jerusalem. In Judaea, Alkimos first gained the trust of pious Jewish notables, who drew encouragement from his priestly pedigree (“from the seed of Aaron”; cf. 2 Macc 14:8) and peaceful words. Soon, however, Alkimos captured sixty sages and put them to death in a single day (1 Macc 7:5–16). Nevertheless, Alkimos seems to have been a pious Jew himself. The only criticism against his religious policies concerns the demolition of a certain wall in the temple (1 Macc 9:54). Since Geiger (1857: 63–4), Alkimos has been identified with Yaqim of Bereshit Raba 65.27.

This identification is both consensual and plausible, but lacks positive proof. Goldstein (1976: 332–3) suggested Alkimos as the author of Psalm 79. Me˛dala (2004) identifies him as the Teacher of Righteousness from the DEAD SEA SCROLLS. According to 1 Macc 9:54–6 and Josephus (AJ 12.413), Alkimos suffered a lethal stroke, interpreted as divine punishment for his impious restructuring of the temple. In the rabbinic legend Yaqim repents his persecution of the sages, commits suicide, and finds his way to heaven. SEE ALSO: Antiochos V Eupator; Temple, Jewish, in Jerusalem.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Bar-Kochva, B. (1989). Judas Maccabaeus. Cambridge. Geiger, A. (1857). Urschrift und Uebersetzungen der Bibel in ihrer Abha¨ngigkeit von der innern Entwickelung des Judenthums. Breslau. Goldstein, J. A. (1976). I Maccabees. Garden City, NY. Me˛dala, S. (2004). “The Alkimos of history and the author of 1QH x–xvii.” The Qumran Chronicle 12, 2/4: 127–43.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 318–319. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah11007

1

Alkmaion of Kroton CHARLOTTE SCHUBERT

Alkmaion lived and worked as a physician and philosopher in KROTON (southern Italy) around 500 BCE. ARISTOTLE (DK 24 A3) calls him a younger contemporary of Pythagoras, without being certain if it had been Alkmaion or Pythagoras and his disciples who had invented the table of opposites out of which, according to them, everything (cosmos, nature, mankind) had evolved. According to CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA, he was even the first to write about natural philosophy (DK 24 A2) and Ae¨tius also credits him with having found the correct explanation of the retrograde motion of the planets (DK 24 A4). His physiological discoveries are described in detail by THEOPHRASTUS (DK 24 A5): apparently, Alkmaion thought the difference between men and animals was to be found in man’s ability to think; he described the senses (hearing, smell, taste), thereby also developing the assumption of the so-called poroi, channels, through which perception was supposed to be transferred to the brain as the central organ (DK 24 A8). He described health as isonomy (DK 24 B4), whereas disease is considered to be a monarchy among the elements and powers of the body. The equal distribution of power within the body as isonomy is thus opposed to unjustified sole reign (monarchy as tyranny and illness). It is worth noting that the term isonomy was a new one for this period, the only other earlier mention being in a drinking song that referred to the overthrow of tyranny by Harmodius and Aristogeiton and the following political

reforms in ATHENS (Skolia Attika: Page 1962: 893–6). Isonomy was thus considered a political concept in their period, pertaining to an equal distribution of political participation. Thus, Alkmaion’s description of the balance of power within the body in health and disease, using as it does political terms, can also be seen as a contribution to the development of political theory. SEE ALSO: Biology; Isonomia; Medicine, Greek and Roman; Pythagoreanism.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS A2: Clem. Strom. 1 78 [2 51, 1 St.]. A3: Arist. Metaph. A 5 986a 22. A4: Ae¨t. 2 16, 2.3 [D. 345]. A5: Theophr. De sens. 25f. [D. 506]. A8: Ae¨t. 4 17, 1 [D. 407]. B4: Ae¨t. 5 30 1 [D. 442] = Pseudo-Plutarchus, Placita philosophorum 874d–911c; Stobaeus, Anthol. 4, 37, 2, 2. DK 24: Diels/Kranz, Fragmente der Vorsokratiker 24: Alkmaion. Diels, H. and Kranz, W. (1989 = 19516) Die Fragmente der Vorsokratiker I/griechisch and deutsch. Berlin. Foca, A. (2002) “The origin of experimental medicine.” Skepsis 13/14: 242–52. Kirk, G. S., Raven, J. E., and Schofield, M. (1983) The Presocratic philosophers: a critical history with a selection of text, 2nd ed. Cambridge. Leven, K.-H., ed. (2005) Antike Medizin. Ein Lexikon. Munich. Page, D. L., ed. (1962) Poetae melici Graeci. Oxford. Triebel-Schubert, C. (1984) “Der Begriff der Isonomie bei Alkmaion.” Klio 66: 40–50.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 319–320. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah21013

1

Alkmaionidai PETER HAARER

The Alkmaionidai were a leading GENOS competing for political power in Athens from the late seventh to the late fifth centuries BCE. The most well-known members are KLEISTHENES, PERIKLES, and ALKIBIADES. The family’s origins are obscure, and although Eupatrid (see EUPATRIDAI), they lacked the same pedigree as some other families in Athens (e.g., the Boutadai). The story that the family’s wealth derived from a visit by ALKMAION to CROESUS (Hdt. 6.125) seems chronologically impossible and practically implausible. The first prominent Alkmaionid was Megakles (1) who, as archon in Athens ca. 632, successfully thwarted KYLON’s attempt to become tyrannos, but over-zealously eliminated his supporters, transgressed the laws of supplication, and caused the family to become cursed. This curse haunted the Alkmaionidai regularly, especially in the run-up to the Peloponnesian War (Thuc. 1.126). MEGAKLES OF ATHENS (2), grandson of Megakles (1), married Agariste, daughter of KLEISTHENES OF SIKYON, the Orthagorid tyrant. He led a faction called the paralioi, “men of the coast,” and along with LYCURGUS and PEISISTRATOS and their respective parties was a protagonist in the fight for power at Athens during the mid-sixth century. He married his daughter to Peisistratos to cement an alliance, but this purportedly dissolved when it was revealed that Peisistratos had lain with the bride “not according to custom” (Hdt. 1.61.1). The power struggle ended in the tyranny and supposedly the Alkmaionidai went into exile as tyrant haters (Hdt. 6.123.1), but a list of eponymous archons inscribed on a stele in Athens in ca. 425 (IG I3 1031) shows that in 525–24 under Hippias and Hipparchos the archonship was held by Kleisthenes, the son of Megakles (2). Kleisthenes brought the Alkmaionidai back to power in Athens by orchestrating the removal of Hippias by the Spartans, and winning the

ensuing struggle against ISAGORAS and his party. The expulsion during one round of this contest of 700 households for supporting Kleisthenes shows the extent of the Alkmaionid network. Kleisthenes disappears soon after the institution of democracy at Athens in 508–7, and perhaps simply died about then, but the Alkmaionidai decline rapidly thereafter. We find them mired in the slander, surely untrue, that they helped the Persians after MARATHON, and Megakles (4), son of Hippocrates, and Xanthippos (the father of Perikles) were ostracized in 486 and 484 respectively ([Arist.] Ath. Pol. 22.5–6). Direct male descendants enjoy minor significance to the end of the fifth century, including a Euryptolemos who defended the generals tried after ARGINOUSAI, but the main branch of the family disappeared altogether during the fourth century. Members of other branches occasionally buck the trend during the fifth century, including Perikles and Alkibiades. The Alkmaionidai typify Late Archaic aristocratic families. Aside from the active interest in winning political power, and the use of dynastic marriages in pursuit of this aim, they owned substantial real estate on good agricultural land to the south of Athens around the demes of Alopeke, Agryle, and Xypete. One use of this land must have been the breeding of the horses with which Alkmaionidai repeatedly won the tethrippos, starting with Alkmaion at Olympia in 592 (Hdt. 6.125.5). SEE ALSO:

Athens; Democracy, Athenian;

Tyranny.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Anderson, G. (2005) “Before turannoi were tyrants: rethinking a chapter of early Greek history.” Classical Antiquity 24.2: 173–222. Davies, J. K. (1971) Athenian propertied families 600–300 B.C., no. 9688. Oxford. Thomas, R. (1989) Oral tradition and written record in Classical Athens. Cambridge.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 320–321. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah02013

1

Allegory NANCY WEATHERWAX

Allegory (Greek allegoria, from allos, “other, different” and agoreuein, “to proclaim”) refers to figurative rather than literal understanding of texts. Latin Christian authors often described allegory as spiritalis interpretatio, paralleling the Greek pneumatike diegesis, both meaning “spiritual interpretation.”

NON-CHRISTIAN ALLEGORY Allegory offers ways to find edifying meanings in texts that taken literally seem crude or immoral. The method was invented by Greek interpreters of HOMER, who were troubled by the violence and immorality attributed to the gods. Theagenes of Rhegion (sixth century BCE) pioneered this method, arguing that the battles of the gods (Il. 20) represented conflicts of natural elements (Apollo as fire, Poseidon as water, etc.) and of human qualities (Athena as wisdom, Aphrodite as desire, etc.). Allegory allows reinterpretation of one text in light of another representing a different theology or philosophy, as in Plutarch’s reading of the Egyptian myth of Isis and Osiris in accordance with Plato’s Timaeus (De Iside). Allegory finds spiritual significance in passages that appear to be only statements of geographical or historical fact. Palestinian and Diaspora Jews practiced allegory of Torah, for example, reading the Song of Songs (literally erotic love poetry) as an expression of God’s love for Israel (see ALLEGORY, JEWISH). The Alexandrian Jewish thinker Philo (d. ca. 50 CE) (see PHILO JUDAEUS) is the most influential example of allegorical interpretation of Torah in accordance with Greek philosophy. For instance, the river flowing from Eden is generic virtue/goodness, while its four branches are the four cardinal virtues; Eden itself is divine wisdom (Leg. Alleg. 1.19.63). Abraham is unable to beget children by Sarah

for many years, because Sarah represents wisdom for which he is not ready until completion of preparatory studies and disciplines represented by Hagar, Sarah’s servant (De cong. quaer. erud. grat.).

CHRISTIAN ALLEGORY The New Testament uses allegory occasionally. See, for example, the explanation of the sower and the seed parable (Mk 4:12–20, 33–34; Matt 13:18–35; Lk 8:11–15) and Paul’s interpretation of Hagar as representing the Mount Sinai covenant, slavery, and flesh, while Sarah represents the covenant of the heavenly Jerusalem, freedom, and Spirit. Followers of Christ are Sarah’s children (Gal 4: 21–31). Typological (Greek tupos, “mark”) reading of the Hebrew Bible was the most important Christian allegorical technique (see TYPOLOGY), making it possible to read the entire Bible as a vast unified narrative, with the Old Testament filled with “types” (foreshadowings) pointing ahead to fulfillment in Christ. One common example was Abraham’s willingness to sacrifice his son, Isaac, which prefigured God’s sacrifice of his son. The burning bush in which Moses encountered God prefigured the Virgin Mary’s bearing the divine into the world yet not being consumed by it (Gregory of Nyssa De vit. Moys. 2.20–1). The temple sacrificial laws prefigured Calvary. Trinitarian theology could thus be read into the Old Testament. The Alexandrians, rooted in Philo’s philosophized Torah, developed allegorical interpretation more extensively than other Christians. Their Antiochian critics accepted allegorization in principle but believed it should be used more narrowly, usually only to identify a few “obvious” types in the Old Testament. The third-century Alexandrian ORIGEN believed that scripture had three levels of meaning (literal, moral, and spiritual/allegorical), just as human beings are composed of body, soul, and spirit. Levels of meaning point to God’s wise pedagogy; not all readers are ready for the

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 321–323. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah05011

2 higher levels, yet all benefit from the meaning that fits their stage (In Num. Hom. 27. 2; De princ. 4.2). Later authors criticized many of Origen’s allegories, especially those on the creation of the world and the fall and reascent of souls (De princ. 2.3), as speculative and incompatible with orthodox theology. Acceptance of allegorical method did not mean that opponents’ allegorical interpretations were accepted. Non-Gnostic Christians considered Gnostic Christian allegories ridiculous (see Irenaeus Adv. Haer. 1.3 for derogatory comments on Gnostics who found biblical basis for the Aeons). Conversely, a mid-secondcentury Valentinian Gnostic author, Ptolemy, in his letter to Flora (Epiphanius Pan. 33) claims apostolic tradition on behalf of readings that find two gods in Torah. Pagan intellectuals who accepted allegorical interpretation of Homer did not necessarily grant the same privilege to Christian interpretation of allegedly crude biblical passages (C. Cels.). Allegory especially appealed to those with a mystical spirit, for example, enabling Gregory of Nyssa to read Moses’ literal ascent of the mountain as the upward flight of the human soul seeking the vision of God, which is Being itself, Beauty itself (De vit. Moys. 2.225–39). The Song of Songs became an allegory of the love between Christ (the Bridegroom) and the individual Christian soul (the Bride), a key interpretation in Christian mysticism going back to Origen (In cant.). Origen also accepted Hippolytus’ interpretation of Christ’s beloved Bride as the Christian church. Christians continued the earlier Greek desire to allegorize troubling texts. Psalm 137: 9, for instance, posed obvious problems, with the brutally stated desire of the exiles to smash the heads of their captors’ infants on the rocks. AUGUSTINE presents a standard patristic interpretation, with Babylonian exile representing human exile from the heavenly city. The call to smash babies’ skulls is an exhortation to destroy evil desires in their infancy before they become habits; the strong rock against which these evil desires may be smashed is Christ (Enn. in Ps. 136(7). 12).

Elsewhere, Augustine describes (Conf. 5.14.24) the impact made on him by Ambrose of Milan’s spiritual interpretation of Old Testament passages that taken literally had been obstacles to his acceptance of the Catholic faith. In De doctrina christiana, Augustine states that the spiritual meaning of scripture is higher than the literal meaning (as the soul is higher than the body); both should be guided by the principle of increasing the love of God and neighbor (3.15.23). In his allegory of the Good Samaritan parable (Lk 10: 30–7), Augustine interprets the wounded man as Adam, Jerusalem (his starting point) as the heavenly city lost to Adam because of his sin, Jericho (his destination) as death, the thieves as the devil and his minions, the priest and Levite as the inefficacious Old Testament religious leaders, the Samaritan as Jesus, the Samaritan’s beast as the flesh of Christ’s incarnation, the inn as the church, the next day as the post-resurrection period, the innkeeper as Paul, and the two coins as love of God and neighbor or God’s promises for this life and heavenly life (Quaest. Euangel. 2.19). Parts of this allegory went back to Clement, Irenaeus, and Origen. Cassian (fifth century), adapting Clement’s model, delineated four senses of scripture: literal, allegorical (defined specifically as finding Christ and the church throughout the Old Testament), tropological (moral teaching), and anagogical (signifying ascent to heavenly things). His most famous example is Jerusalem: literally, a city in Israel; allegorically, the church; tropologically, the human soul; anagogically, the heavenly city (Conlat. 14.8). Cassian’s model became the medieval norm. Allegory appears in Christian art as well. One of the most popular allegories in art from the third century onwards was the depiction of the fish vomiting up Jonah after three days and three nights in its belly. Since Jesus had alluded to the “sign of Jonah” (Lk 11:29–32; Matt 12:38–42, 16:1–4) in predicting his own death and resurrection, early Christians saw this scene as a representation of the promise of personal resurrection and therefore especially suitable for catacombs (burial places) and sarcophagi.

3 SEE ALSO: Art, Late Antiquity and Byzantium; Bible, Hebrew; Christology; Gnosis, gnostics, gnosticism.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Augustine (1995) De doctrina christiana: a classic of western culture, ed. D. W. H. Arnold and P. Bright. Notre Dame, IN. Brisson, L. (2004) How philosophers saved myths: allegorical interpretation and classical mythology. Chicago. Dawson, D. (1992) Allegorical readers and cultural revision in ancient Alexandria. Berkeley.

Gregory of Nyssa (1978) The life of Moses, ed. A. Malherbe, E. Ferguson, and J. Meyendorff. New York. Jensen, R. (2000) Understanding early Christian art. Oxford. Kannengiesser, C. (2003) Handbook of patristic exegesis. Leiden. Lubac, H. de (2007) History and spirit: the understanding of scripture according to Origen. San Francisco. Origen (1936) Origen on first principles, ed. G. W. Butterworth and P. Koetschau. London. Reventlow, H. G. (2009) History of biblical interpretation. Atlanta. Van Fleteren, F. and Schnaubelt, J., eds. (2001) Augustine: biblical exegete. New York.

1

Allegory, Jewish LESTER L. GRABBE

The term “allegory” is from Greek allegoria (“to speak other” or “speak figuratively”). Allegory is found widely in the ancient literatures of the Mediterranean and Middle East. It already occurs in the Bible in such passages as Ezekiel 16 and 23. Some have alleged that the Song of Songs is allegorical, though most modern scholars would see any allegorical interpretation as an imposition by later exegetes. Yet allegory was a form of interpretation known from some early Jewish texts which then became quite popular in early Christian circles. We need to keep in mind two specific aspects of allegorical interpretation. On the one hand, we have some examples of allegories specifically composed as such (such as Ezekiel 16 and 23). Yet, on the other hand, most allegory represents an interpretation of a traditional text in which allegory is imposed by the interpreter. This article concentrates on the later interpretation, in which an ordinary text is treated as allegory. Allegory was especially associated with the city of ALEXANDRIA, though it was not the only form of biblical interpretation represented there. For example, even though allegory may be alluded to in the Wisdom of Solomon (18:24, probably written just about the time Philo was born), the nearest thing to an actual allegory is the passage on God’s armor (5:17–20), reminiscent of Ephesians 6:14–17 but certainly earlier. Although allegory is found across a broad range of literature, the main Jewish allegorists show a great deal of Hellenistic influence and seem to have derived their technique from the Greek allegorizing of HOMER (Grabbe 1988: 66–87; see LIBRARY OF ALEXANDRIA; MUSEUM (ALEXANDRIA)). In spite of a few examples in early Jewish literature, there are really only two Jewish writers who use allegory to any extent, both inhabitants of Alexandria. For example, we find allegory used in the Letter of Aristeas (141–71) to explain the biblical laws about

not eating certain animals, but this is only a small part of the writing’s interest (see ARISTEAS, LETTER OF). The first extensive allegorizer was Aristobulus (second century BCE). Unfortunately, we know of him only from a few quotations in later writers (mainly Eusebius’ Preparation for the Gospel), but what we have is still valuable and seems to give us some insight into the development of allegory in Alexandria. He already shows a number of allegorical techniques well known from Philo. One of these is the etymology of Hebrew names. Thus, in his allegory of the Sabbath, he comments on the etymology of the word from the Hebrew for “rest.” He also sees significance in numbers (referred to as arithmologies or number symbolism). The other main Jewish allegorist is Philo of Alexandria (ca. 20 BCE to 50 CE) (see PHILO JUDAEUS). We are fortunate in having a great number of Philo’s writings, which allows us to see how he works in detail. He uses a variety of techniques to find hidden meaning in the text. Easily identified are Hebrew etymologies and arithmologies. Certain biblical characters, who regularly stand for particular virtues, often serve as keys to the interpretation of a particular passage. For example, the peculiar wording of the Greek text (Philo uses the Greek text and never, as far as we know, the Hebrew) is a frequent source of hidden interpretation. He also often argues that the passage is to be interpreted figuratively because the literal meaning is absurd (e.g., in Posterity of Cain 49–53 he argues that Genesis 4:17, in which Cain builds a city, is nonsense because there were only three people in the world). Philo is a Middle Platonist (albeit with a distinctive Jewish coloring), and the goal of his allegory is to find his Platonic system in the text of the Pentateuch. Philo’s allegories often find the pursuit of virtue in the text or the contrast between virtue and vice, and especially the overall progress of the soul. He also discovers the Platonic cosmos, from the spiritual world with God and his powers, including the Logos, to the angels and souls, and finally the material world. The goal

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 323–325. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah11010

2 of the soul is ultimately to escape the material world by the practice of virtue and true religion, and this is expounded from many different passages through Philo’s rich allegory. Although the edifice he builds is utter fantasy from a modern perspective, his deftness and ingenuity in finding hidden meanings in an ancient text are astounding. Today, it is recognized that allegorical exegesis involved simply finding in the text what the interpreter had read into it, though modern study has also come to see the importance of the reader in the process of interpretation. Judging from Philo’s statements, we can surmise that allegory was especially characteristic of interpreters in Alexandria of the first century or so, both before and after the turn of the Common Era (none of these other interpreters has been preserved, as far as we know). In some cases, Philo used a “literal” form of interpretation; since this is not his favorite method, one suspects that there were certain schools that specialized in this form of interpretation and that he had borrowed it from them. He also talks about those who (like himself) looked for hidden symbolism in the text but, once they found it, felt it was unnecessary to follow the letter of the law. Philo castigates these “extreme allegorists” and makes it clear that Jewish law should be followed even if the exegesis found a much deeper meaning (e.g., Migration of Abraham 89–93; see Hay 1979–80). We find little allegory in other Jewish writers. For example, allegory is not one of Josephus’ normal techniques. Yet he has one example in which the dress of the high priest is allegorized as a model of the cosmos (AJ 3.7.7.184–7). It so happens that Philo had earlier written on the meaning of the high priestly robes at even greater length and in a very similar vein (Vita Mosis 2.117–26): there is “in it as a whole and in its parts a typical representation of the world

and its particular parts” (2.117). The robe is the atmosphere and air. The earth is represented by the flowers at the ankles, and water by the pomegranates. These three elements represent life, since all living things come from and exist in them. The ephod is a symbol of heaven, with the stones on the shoulder piece representing the sun and moon or the two hemispheres of the sky. The twelve stones are the signs of the zodiac. In the centuries after the fall of the temple, the midrashic interpreters showed a variety of expository techniques. One of these was allegory, but it was very much a minority exegetical device. Some later rabbinic writings exhibit allegory, such as the targum to the Song of Songs and the Song of Songs Rabbah, but it does not seem to have been a frequent mode of Jewish interpretation. SEE ALSO:

Allegory; Jews, in Alexandria.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Barclay, J. M. G. (1996) Jews in the Mediterranean diaspora from Alexander to Trajan (323 BCE-117 CE): 154–71. Edinburgh. Copeland, R. and Struck, P. T., eds. (2010) The Cambridge companion to allegory. Cambridge. Grabbe, L. L. (1988) Etymology in early Jewish interpretation: the Hebrew names in Philo. Atlanta. Hay, D. M. (1979–80) “Philo’s references to other allegorists.” Studia Philonica Annual 6: 41–75. Hay, D. M. (1991) Both literal and allegorical: studies in Philo of Alexandria’s Questions and Answers on Genesis and Exodus. Atlanta. Pe´pin, J. (1976) Mythe et alle´gorie, 2nd ed. Paris. Tobin, T. H. (1983) The creation of man: Philo and the history of interpretation. Washington. Walter, N. (1964) Der Thoraausleger Aristobulus. Berlin. Whitman, J. (1987) Allegory: the dynamics of an ancient and medieval technique. Oxford.

1

Alluviation JOHN BINTLIFF

The erosion of the Earth’s surface deposits, soil, bedrock, and human debris, through weathering (rain, ice, wind) and gravity forms slopewash (colluvium) or is carried into rivers, to be borne downstream until water velocity decreases sufficiently to make the rivers gradually drop their sediment “bedload” (alluvium). Alluviation occurs especially where rivers leave uplands for plains, or at their endpoints, a lake or the sea. As streams descend their velocity declines, and first they deposit their heaviest bedload, rocks to pebbles, then sands, and finally clays are loosened from suspension and settle as muds. Thus from a river’s mountain-headwaters down to a coastal delta we find a sequence of river-deposits from boulders to mudflats. Geomorphologists map and core through alluvia to create a three-dimensional picture of how a river-valley has altered through time. Carbon14, thermoluminescence and other techniques use embedded shells, potsherds, or plants to create a timescale for the stratigraphic sequence. During Ice Ages, or climatic fluctuations within our Interglacial period (the Holocene) the climate became drier or wetter, altering rivers’ effectiveness at different points of their courses. This is visible through changes in types of river-deposit at varying depths of the stratigraphy. Sea-level changes are also critical in altering river behavior: global

sea-level rise since eighteen thousand years ago is one hundred and twenty meters, but the rate slowed to zero or a slight ascent six thousand years ago. At the coasts this is the main reason for dramatic shifts in the position of river-deltas during historical time. Finally, human impact: since the spread of farming human communities have cleared woodland from the plains to mountain-tops, increasing rates of soil-erosion. Nonetheless empirical studies throughout the Ancient World show that major alluviation episodes are rare, and usually arise through a combination of human impact and unusual weather-conditions, rather than the result of just one of these factors. SEE ALSO: Environmental history; Forests, Roman Empire; Inundation, Egypt; Nile; Rivers.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Bintliff, J. (2002) “Time, process and catastrophism in the study of Mediterranean alluvial history: a review.” World Archaeology 33: 417–35. Butzer, K. W. (2005) “Environmental history in the Mediterranean world: cross-disciplinary investigation of cause-and-effect for degradation and soil erosion.” Journal of Archaeological Science 32: 1773–800. Casana, J. (2008) “Mediterranean valleys revisited: linking soil erosion, land use and climate variability in the northern Levant.” Geomorphology 101: 429–42. Goldberg, P. and MacPhail, R. I. (2005) Practical and theoretical geoarchaeology. Oxford.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 325–326. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah06016

1

Alluviation JOHN BINTLIFF

Leiden University, Netherlands

The erosion of the Earth’s surface deposits, soil, bedrock, and human debris, through weathering (rain, ice, wind) and gravity forms slopewash (colluvium) or is carried into rivers, to be borne downstream until the water velocity decreases sufficiently to make the rivers gradually drop their sediment “bedload” (alluvium). Alluviation occurs especially where rivers leave uplands for plains, or at their endpoints, a lake or the sea. As streams descend their velocity declines, and first they deposit their heaviest bedload, rocks to pebbles, then sands, and finally clays are loosened from suspension and settle as muds. Thus, from a river’s mountainheadwaters down to a coastal delta we find a sequence of river-deposits from boulders to mudflats. Geomorphologists map and core through alluvia to create a three-dimensional picture of how a river-valley has altered through time. Carbon14, thermoluminescence, and other techniques use embedded shells, potsherds, or plants to create a timescale for the stratigraphic sequence. During Ice Ages, or climatic fluctuations within our Interglacial period (the Holocene), the climate became drier or wetter, altering rivers’ effectiveness at different points of their courses. This is visible through changes in types of river-deposit at varying depths of the stratigraphy. Sea-level changes are also critical in altering river behavior: the global sea-level rise since eighteen thousand years ago is one hundred and twenty meters, but the rate slowed to zero or a slight ascent six thousand years ago. At the coasts this is the main reason for dramatic shifts in the position of river-deltas during historical time. The scale of sea-level change was therefore relatively small during the Greco-Roman era, so that even minor alterations in the effects of

currents and the weight of river sediment borne into the estuary were able to give rise to the advance of the delta or its retreat – leaving a port increasingly cut off from, or alternatively eroded by the sea. These processes have been especially well-documented for several large river systems draining from the Anatolian plateau west into the AEGEAN SEA, and effecting radical changes to the physical surroundings of towns ranging from Bronze Age TROY to Greco-Roman EPHESOS, and MILETOS. Finally, human impact: since the spread of farming, human communities have cleared woodland from the plains to mountain-tops, increasing rates of soil-erosion. Nonetheless empirical studies throughout the Ancient World show that major alluviation episodes are rare, and usually arise through a combination of human impact and unusual weather conditions, rather than the result of just one of these factors. SEE ALSO:

Agriculture, Roman Empire; Climate; Environmental history; Forests, Roman Empire; Geography; Ports, Roman; Rivers; Roman Empire, regional cultures.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Bintliff, J. L. (2020) “Reflections on the dialectical relationship between human impact and natural processes in the Mediterranean region during the Holocene era.” In J. Bergemann, ed., Kultur und Natur in der antiken Mittelmeerwelt: 125– 30. Gottingen. Brückner, H. et al. (2017) “Life cycle of estuarine islands from the formation to the landlocking of former islands in the environs of Miletos and Ephesos in western Asia Minor (Turkey).” Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 12: 876–94. Casana, J. (2008) “Mediterranean valleys revisited: linking soil erosion, land use, and climate variability in the northern Levant.” Geomorphology 101: 429–42. Walsh, K. (2015) The archaeology of Mediterranean landscapes. Cambridge.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History. Edited by Andrew Erskine, David B. Hollander, and Arietta Papaconstantinou. © 2021 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Published 2021 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah06016.pub2

1

Almanacs, Babylonian JOHN M. STEELE

Babylonian almanacs contain collections of predicted astronomical phenomena for a given year. Almanacs come in two varieties: “normal star almanacs,” known in Akkadian (see AKKADIAN LANGUAGE) as “measurements for year x,” and “almanacs,” known in Akkadian as “measurements of the reachings of the planets for year x” (Hunger 1999: 79). Almanacs and normal star almanacs have several common features. They are both divided into sections corresponding to each month of a particular Babylonian year. Each section begins with the name of the month and a statement of whether the preceding month contains twenty-nine or thirty days. The text then proceeds through the month, giving predicted dates of the first visibilities, last visibilities, stations, and acronycal risings of any planet that occurs that month; the dates and predicted circumstances of lunar and solar eclipses; and the dates of any equinoxes, solstices or first visibility, last visibility, or acronycal rising of Sirius that occur. In addition, the almanacs contain a listing of which zodiacal sign each of the visible planets is located in at the beginning of the month and the dates during the month when a planet crosses from one zodiacal sign to the next.

The normal star almanacs, by contrast, give the dates when a planet passes by one of a group of reference stars spread throughout the zodiac and some additional predicted lunar data. It is believed that the astronomical data in the almanacs and normal star almanacs was predicted using the observations recorded in the GOAL-YEAR TEXTS (Gray and Steele 2008). SEE ALSO: Astronomy, ancient Near East; Diaries, astronomical.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Gray, J. M. K. and Steele, J. M. (2008) “Studies on Babylonian goal-year astronomy I: a comparison between planetary data in goal-year texts, almanacs and normal star almanacs.” Archive for History of Exact Sciences 62: 553–600. Hunger, H. (1999) “Non-mathematical astronomical texts and their relationships.” In N. M. Swerdlow, ed., Ancient astronomy and celestial divination: 77–96. Cambridge, MA. Hunger, H. and Pingree, D. (1999) Astral sciences in Mesopotamia. Leiden. Sachs, A. (1948) “A classification of the Babylonian astronomical tablets of the Seleucid period.” Journal of Cuneiform Studies 2: 271–90. Steele, J. M. (2010) “Goal-year periods and their use in predicting planetary phenomena.” In G. Selz, ed., Die empirische Dimension altorientalischer Forschungen: 101–10. Vienna.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print page 326. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah21017

1

Alphabet, Greek RUDOLF WACHTER

The Greek alphabet is a clever adaptation of the standard Semitic alphabet of the first millennium BCE, which was a purely consonantal script of twenty-two signs: ´–b–g–d–h–w–z– h: –t:–y–k–l–m–n–s––p–s:–q–r–sˇ–t (see ALPHABETS AND SCRIPTS, ANCIENT NEAR EAST). When the Greeks came in contact with it in the Dark Ages, they may have still kept a faint record of having possessed a script in the Bronze Age, LINEAR B. That had been a very bad script for Greek, but an alphabet without vowel signs was worse. This is why at first the Greeks did not adopt the alphabet, although they must have known it for a long time from their trade partners and competitors in the tenth and ninth centuries, the “Phoenicians.” Then somebody, probably a Greek who was learning the sequence of Semitic letters and letter names, had the idea of reinterpreting four consonant signs that were of not much use in Greek, turning them into vowel signs – ’alep ! alpha, he ! e(psilon), yot ! iota, ‘ayin ! o (mikron) – and adding a variant of waw for the fifth vowel u(psilon). This changed the alphabet from completely useless to almost ideal for Greek (or any western Indo-European language of the time). The letter forms of kappa and tau give a terminus post quem of ca. 800 BCE, and the first Greek inscriptions a terminus ante quem of ca. 750 BCE, for this event. Due to a revised dating of the great fire on the citadel of Gordion to the end of the ninth instead of the end of the eighth century BCE, three short Phrygian graffiti, said “a` situer imme´diatement apre`s la catastrophe” (“to be dated immediately after the disaster” (Brixhe 2004: 274–6), but how much exactly?), may predate the earliest Greek inscriptions. But even if this is correct, this means neither that the Greek alphabet is derived from the Phrygian rather than the other way around, nor that the take-over must now be dated far back to the ninth or even the tenth century.

In fact, Phrygian must be secondary to Greek because of its straight iota for vocalic i, which can only be a Greek invention, whereas crooked iota for consonant y was absent from the early Phrygian inscriptions and must therefore be a later borrowing taken secondarily from a non-Greek alphabet and added at the end of the Phrygian sequence of letters (this was argued by Michel Lejeune long ago, as reported by Brixhe (2004: 283), who however insufficiently takes account of it, ignoring the fact that the earliest Phrygian inscriptions have both u and w, but only i, no y; an abecedarium will settle the case once and for all). In addition, the remarkable facts that the complete Semitic twenty-two-letter sequence is preserved in some of the earliest Greek alphabets and that the Greeks used (and still use) the Semitic letter names make a take-over by the Greeks directly from the Phoenicians by far the most likely scenario anyway; and there are no valid arguments so far that would make an independent Greek and Phrygian take-over or more than one such event on the Greek side a plausible option. Though still not quite perfect, the vocalized alphabet as we have it in the Greek twentythree-letter prototype alphabet was a major achievement. It was the first script of the true phonemic type developed in the history of writing (and the last, as all others are directly or indirectly derived from it), it was both very easy and precise, and it must have spread within weeks rather than months over large parts of the Greek world and beyond (apart from Phrygian, it was very probably also used for Etruscan as early as the eighth century). In the first days or weeks of Greek alphabetic writing, when only few people knew it in each polis or region, one tried to cure the imperfections. The chance for a reform to succeed diminished rapidly when the number of writers grew. Different places show different reforms, the result being the local scripts of archaic Greece. Most regions imitated each other in reforming the prototype alphabet. Three types of reform can be distinguished (see Wachter

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 326–329. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah04023

2 Table 1 Comparison of Phoenician and Greek letter names and letter forms Phoenician Phoenician Greek Greek letter names letter forms letter forms letter names aleph beth gimel daleth he waw zayin heth teth yodh kaph lamedh mem nun samekh 'ayin pe tsade qoph resh sin taw

A B G d h w z X J Y K L M N s { P X q R V t

α β γ δ ε = ζ η θ ι κ λ μ ν ξ o π Ϻ ϙ ρ σ τ υ ϕ χ ψ ω

Alpha Beta Gamma Delta Epsilon Digamma Zeta (h)eta Theta Iota Kappa Lambda Mu Nu Xi Omicron Pi San Qoppa Rho Sigma Tau Upsilon Phi Chi Psi Omega

There is great variation in the letter forms of the Phoenician and Greek alphabets. The forms presented here are common but do not reflect any one epichoric script. Source: Raaflaub, K. A. and van Wees, H. (2009) A Companion to Archaic Greece. Oxford

1996: 543f.; 2006: 36f.; 2021: 26f.): (1) reinterpretations (e.g., in the East Greek cities of Asia Minor, where h was no longer pronounced, héta became the sign for e¯ and was called e¯ta; in the same alphabet, letter no. 15, one of three Semitic voiceless sibilant signs, was given the value ks, whereas it remained a “dead” letter in most other local scripts); (2) additions at the end of the series (e.g., Χ-F-C for ks-ph-kh on the island of EUBOEA; Χ-F for kh-ph in Attica; and F-Χ-C for ph-kh-ps plus O for o¯, as

a counterpart of H for e¯, in Asia Minor); (3) reductions, that is, the elimination of “dead” letters, especially qoppa (no. 19) and two of the three voiceless sibilants (nos. 15, 18, and 21), which had no phonemic value of their own in Greek. The archaic GrecoEtruscan abecedaria, representing the Euboean alphabet as it had been brought to Italy by the eighth-century colonists (Wachter 2005, with bibl.), show the three supplementary letters (24–6) added to the still unreduced sequence of the Greek twenty-three-letter prototype alphabet (twenty-two Semitic signs plus upsilon). This shows that reforms of the third type were normally delayed by a few generations, which is quite natural. Three Aegean islands somewhat off the beaten path (Thera, Melos, and Crete) do not show any additions. There the prototype alphabet must have remained unaltered for quite some time, although reductions are likely to have happened at some stage (no abecedaria have been found so far). We may infer that quite a few reforms of these types were tried at different times and places of which we have no knowledge because they were unsuccessful. Letter forms changed even more vividly than the writing systems. They could be altered individually, often subject to fashion, and even a change of several letter forms at a time did (and does) not affect the system in use. On the other hand, changing one’s writing system by one or more of the above-mentioned reforms implied a radical change, with a different number and order of letters and a different sequence of letter names to be learned by heart. Therefore, reforming the writing system of a region was almost impossible as soon as more than only a handful of people could write. The different numbers, orders, and phonemic values of the letters in the local scripts therefore preserve important indications of how Greek alphabetic writing spread in its early days, whereas the letter forms continued changing, easily cutting across the borders of the local writing systems (unless a similar form already existed for another letter in a particular local script). Yet exceptionally, even letter

3 forms allow important conclusions. So the (anonymous) writer of the inscription on the famous Dipylon Jug from Athens of ca. 740 (Jeffery 1961: 76/1, pl. 1) may be judged by two of his letter forms to have been the earliest writer of Greek of whom we have a sample of text (although he may have been old when he inscribed the jug). For he has left us the only Greek alphas still lying on their side (as in Phoenician) and the only Attic crooked iotas (as, e.g., in Corinth or Crete, where this archaic form survived), whereas for example in contemporary inscriptions from nearby Euboea (notably a graffito of ca. 740: Popham, Sackett, and Themelis 1979/80: 89f. no. 101, photo pl. 69b; Wachter 2006: 42 with n. 17) or the earliest Phrygian inscriptions, the alpha is already upright and the iota straightened; even the incomprehensible graffito from Osteria dell’Osa, 20 km east of Rome, said to be from ca. 770 BCE (Bietti Sestieri 1992: 184f., 259 with bibl.; Colonna 2005) is more modern (it contains a straight iota, but no alpha). In the course of the fifth century, more and more writers in many Greek regions switched to the East-Greek (“Ionic”) alphabet, which in the meantime had been reduced to twenty-four letters (A-Β-G-D-Ε-Ζ-Η-Y-Ι-Κ-LΜ-Ν-X-Ο-P-Ρ-S-Τ-Υ-F-Χ-C-O) and served for writing the works of Homer and many more works of Panhellenic diffusion. Official Athens gave up its local alphabet in 403/2 BCE. These were not reforms of the local alphabets but complete replacements, so people in the transitional period had to know two separate systems, each with its particular order of letters, their forms, and their names (i.e., values). On many Attic vases of the early and mid-fifth century BCE, we observe a mixture of letter forms and values before, in the latter half of the century, the “Ionic” alphabet gradually prevailed. Cursive writing started developing in the fourth century BCE and continued in Hellenistic times and under the Roman Empire, often very similarly in Latin and Greek (to be compared, e.g., on Pompeian walls). Via the book script this led to the minuscule, which

was the standard script of the Middle Ages, whereas for initials and other representative letters the majuscule of ancient monuments was revived. SEE ALSO: Archinos; Mycenaean society and culture; Phoenicia, Phoenicians; Phrygia.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Bietti Sestieri, A. M. (1992) The Iron Age community of Osteria dell’Osa: a study of socio-political development in Central Tyrrhenian Italy. Cambridge. Brixhe, C. (2004) “Nouvelle chronologie anatolienne et date d’e´laboration des alphabets grec et phrygien.” Comptes Rendus de l’Acade´mie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres 2004: 271–89. Colonna, G. (2005) “Intervento.” In G. Bartoloni and F. Delpino, eds., Oriente e Occidente: metodi e discipline a confronto. Riflessioni sulla cronologia dell’eta` del ferro in Italia. Atti dell’Incontro di studi, Roma, 30–31 ottobre 2003: 478–83. Pisa. Daniels, P. T. and Bright, W. (1996) The world’s writing systems. New York. Jeffery, L. H. (1961) The local scripts of Archaic Greece. Reprinted with A. W. Johnston, Supplement 1961–1987. Oxford. Popham, M. R., Sackett, L. H., and Themelis, P. G. (1979/80) Lefkandi, vol. 1: The Iron Age. London. Wachter, R. (1996) “Alphabet.” New Pauly 1: 537–47. Wachter, R. (2005) “Annex zu Fragment 3 der Graffiti von Eretria.” Zeitschrift fu¨r Papyrologie und Epigraphik 151: 84–6. Wachter, R. (2006) “Ein schwarzes Loch der Geschichte: Die Erfindung des griechischen Alphabets.” In W. Ernst and F. Kittler, eds., Die Geburt des Vokalalphabets aus dem Geist der Poesie. Schrift, Zahl und Ton im Medienverbund: 33–45. Munich. Wachter, R. (2021) “The Genesis of the Local Alphabets of Archaic Greece” In R. Parker and P. M. Steele, eds., The Early Greek Alphabets: Origin, Diffusion, Uses: 21– 31. Oxford. Wilson, J.-P. (2009) “Literacy.” In K. A. Raaflaub and H. van Wees, eds., A Companion to Archaic Greece. Chichester.

1

Alphabets and scripts, ancient Near East PETER T. DANIELS

Writing throve east and south of Hellas and Italia long before reaching the Mediterranean peninsulas. It emerged in southern Mesopotamia (see CUNEIFORM) when it was realized that a (usually pictographic) symbol for a thing also represented the name of that thing, and such a symbol could be used for the sound of the name of that thing in notating words or affixes unamenable to (pictographic) representation. In agglutinative Sumerian, morphemes do not change their sound for grammatical expression, so the syllable represented by a cuneiform sign remained constant. But the constant sounds in Egyptian morphemes are the consonants only (vowels change with inflection); so when the idea of representing morphemes came to Egypt, the signs (adapted from existing pictographs) came to represent only consonants – one, two, or three. Somehow, the idea of recording language by recording its consonants came to nonEgyptian-speaking would-be scribes (not candidates for scribal training!), who adapted twenty-six or twenty-seven Egyptian hieroglyphic or hieratic characters (see HIEROGLYPHS; HIERATIC) for that purpose, retaining vestiges of pictography (Hamilton 2006). The language involved has long been thought to be an early form of West Semitic, with the earliest attested use on a few votive objects at a turquoise mine at Serabit: el-Khadem in the Sinai ca. 1500 BCE (the inscriptions dubbed “Proto-Sinaitic” to distinguish them from the earlier-known “Sinaitic” inscriptions from the first centuries CE, now recognized as Nabataean). The identification in 1997 of two brief inscriptions in the same script but an uninterpretable language at Wadi el-Hol, in Egypt proper, some 300 miles south of Cairo, dating ca. 1800 BCE, plus the independent redating of Proto-Sinaitic to about that same era (Sass 1988), now render uncertain both the language and location

of the invention of the simple consonantary; ca. 2000 BCE is the probable time frame. By the middle of the second millennium BCE, independent developments must have set in in northern and southern regions, eventuating in quite different letter shapes. The earliest South Semitic script inscriptions date only from centuries later, but the distinctive letter order is known in essence from a text in Ugaritic script: h l h: m q w t r b t sˇ k n h s: s f ʾ ʿ d g´ t: z d y z. ¯ ˘ ¯ ˙ ˙ Through a small but slowly growing corpus of very short inscriptions (mostly personal names denoting ownership), the gradual transformation of the pictographs into simpler linear characters can be followed over several centuries. These are called “(Proto-)Canaanite,” a strictly geographic, not ethnic or linguistic, label. The reading of the longest, a five-line ostracon excavated at Khirbet Qeiyafa, Israel, in 2008, dating to ca. 1000 BCE, is contentious, but the text exhibits characteristically Hebrew grammatical features. The longest previously known Proto-Canaanite inscription is the Izbet Sartah ostracon, which after several lines that seem to be a mere jumble of letters bears a list, in order, of the twenty-two letters of the Hebrew (or Phoenician) script, an abecedary. A number of abecedaries are found in the earliest sizable corpus of inscriptions using a West Semitic script, the Ugaritic, dating to the period leading up to the destruction of the town of Ugarit shortly after 1200 BCE. Ugaritic is written, however, not with ink on papyrus or ostraca, but by impressing wedges into clay in the Mesopotamian fashion. The letter shapes bear no relation to those of the Mesopotamian cuneiform syllabary; rather, they are transfers to the imported medium of the linear shapes of West Semitic (and suggest a closer relationship to the signforms of South Semitic writing than of Northwest Semitic writing). The Ugaritic letter order is the familiar aʾ b g h d h w z h: t: ˘ y k sˇ l m d n z s ʿ p s: q r t g´ t iʾ uʾ `s. Letters ¯ ˙ ¯ transliterated in roman type were abandoned when the Northwest Semitic script was adapted to Phoenician; those in bold were added to notate the glottal stop when followed by each

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 331–334. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah01007

2 of the language’s three vowels, and an additional sibilant perhaps needed for spelling Hurrian words. The earliest known Phoenician inscription is on the sarcophagus of Ahiram, from Byblos, ca. 1000 BCE. Phoenician is found throughout the Mediterranean, down to the first century BCE, morphing into Punic around Carthage, the script surviving until perhaps the third century CE. Hebrew was written with a variety of Phoenician script until being largely supplanted by a variety of Aramaic script about the third century BCE (see ALPHABETS AND SCRIPTS, JUDAISM). By the time of the first Aramaic-language inscriptions, in the mid-ninth century BCE, their script had already begun to diverge from the Phoenician, being written with curved more than straight lines; eventually, in some local varieties, within each word most letters were connected with a stroke at the bottom. More importantly, Aramaic came to be spelled with matres lectionis “mothers of reading,” consonant letters given the additional function of notating long vowels. (Had the Greek alphabet been based on Aramaic script, as sometimes argued, dedicated vowel letters would likely not have developed – a matres system would have been adequate for recording the language.) Aramaic became the lingua franca throughout the Fertile Crescent during the first millennium BCE – inscriptions, ostraca, and coins are found from Afghanistan to Anatolia, and even papyri have survived in Egypt – and they categorize into nearly fifty local varieties around the turn of the era. One of those varieties, Nabataean script (used by an Arab people writing the Aramaic lingua franca), became the basis of Arabic script: only a handful of Arabic inscriptions survive from pre-Islamic times, but secular papyri from as early as the first quarter of the seventh century CE show that it was already in commercial use (Gruendler 1993). Matres expressing every long vowel were obligatory and within two centuries additional markings for short vowels, on the model of Syriac (see ALPHABETS AND

SCRIPTS, LATE ANTIQUITY), became available – and, in Qur’a¯n manuscripts, required. The post-Achaemenid Iranian empires began using Iranian languages in the chancery but continued to write in Aramaic. Eventually, Iranian spellings of affixes crept into documents, indicating that words spelled as Aramaic are to be read as Iranian; these are called heterograms (Aramaeograms). Such Pahlavi script was used until supplanted by PersoArabic script (date unknown). Around 500 CE a true alphabet was devised, on the basis of Pahlavi and Greek, for recording Zoroastrian scripture, the Avesta. With the Achaemenid push toward the east, Aramaic writing was introduced to the Indian cultural sphere, and the already extant Indic grammatical tradition induced its adaptation to a Prakrit of Gandhara in the far northwest. The (consonant) letters were taken over to represent syllables of consonant þ a, with appendages added to these symbols to change them to syllables of consonant þ e, i, o, or u, in a script called Kharos:t:hı¯, which saw limited use along the Silk Road until about the fourth century CE. A refinement of Kharos:t:hı¯, called Brahmi script, made its debut during the reign of As´oka (mid-third century BCE). Long and short vowels are distinguished, and absence of vowel is indicated by combining successive consonant letters into a single symbol or with a phrase-end diacritic. Brahmi is thus suited to recording Sanskrit, and an immense range of local varieties has emerged throughout south and southeast Asia. South Semitic script is attested in tens of thousands of undatable, pre-Islamic, crudely written graffiti of inconsequential content throughout the Arabian deserts in languages very like classical Arabic (Macdonald 2004). On the other hand, in the south of the Arabian peninsula a formal, monumental script was used for building inscriptions in several Old South Arabian languages, notably Sabaic, and recently several thousand wood wands have emerged bearing a cursive variety of this script. These categories of text appear to have been

3 used until the mid-first millennium CE. Some time before the turn of the era, South Arabians crossed to Ethiopia and erected monumental inscriptions in Sabaic script. By the mid-fourth century CE, it was used for the local language, Ge’ez, and concomitant with the conversion of King Ezana to Christianity, a vocalization system appears in his inscriptions nearly identical (in operation, not shape) to that of Brahmi. Independent from the Near East mainstream, in the west there emerged in Cyprus a syllabary for notating the local Greek dialect – somehow connected with Linear B, perhaps via the poorly attested and undeciphered “Cypro-Minoan” script – and persisted in symbiosis rather than competition with the Greek alphabet until the second century CE. (The various syllabaries of the Aegean cultural sphere may have been independently inspired by awareness of Egyptian writing; see LINEAR A; LINEAR B; LUWIAN LANGUAGE.) In the far west, hybrid Iberian scripts, perhaps of both Phoenician and Greek parentage, comprising both syllabic and alphabetic characters, were used in the second half of the first millennium BCE for a form of Celtic and for an unidentified language. To the east, Old Persian was briefly (from Darius I to Artaxerxes III) incised on monumental surfaces with characters comprising wedges in imitation of cuneiform writing (but with no connection to the characters of still-used Mesopotamian cuneiform). A plain consonant or vowel is denoted by sixteen of the thirty-six letters, syllables by the rest (and there are logograms for half a dozen very common words). The history of writing shows that alphabets do not represent the apex of script technology. There is no “unidirectional development” logography – syllabography – alphabet (Gelb 1952); rather, the Sumerian logosyllabary yielded the Mesopotamian syllabary and the

Egyptian logoconsonantary, which yielded the Semitic consonantary, which yielded the Greek alphabet and the Indic type (Daniels 2007, 2009). SEE ALSO: Alphabet, Greek; Alphabets, Italy; Decipherment; Demotic; Writing materials.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Daniels, P. T. (2007) “Littera ex occidente: toward a functional history of writing.” In C. L. Miller, ed., Studies in Semitic and Afroasiatic linguistics presented to Gene B. Gragg: 53–68. Chicago. Daniels, P. T. (2009) “Grammatology.” In D. R. Olson and N. Torrance, eds., The Cambridge handbook of literacy: 25–45. Cambridge. Daniels, P. T. and Bright, W., eds. (1996) The world’s writing systems. New York. Dobbs-Allsopp, F. W., Rollston, C. A., Byrne, R., Fradkin, R., and Gragg, G. B. (2006) “Asia, ancient southwest: scripts.” In K. Brown, ed., Encyclopedia of language and linguistics, 2nd ed., vol. 1: 495–516. Oxford. Gelb, I. J. (1952) A study of writing. Chicago. Gruendler, B. (1993) The development of the Arabic scripts. Atlanta. Hamilton, G. J. (2006) The origins of the West Semitic alphabet in Egyptian scripts. Washington. Klugkist, A. C. (1982) “Midden-aramese schriften in Syrie¨, Mesopotamie¨, Perzie¨ en aangrenzende gebieden.” PhD diss., Rijksuniversiteit te Groningen. Macdonald, M. C. A. (2004) “Ancient North Arabian.” In R. D. Woodard, ed., The Cambridge encyclopedia of the world’s ancient languages: 488–533. Cambridge. Naveh, J. (1987) Early history of the alphabet. Jerusalem. Sass, B. (1988) The genesis of the alphabet and its development in the second millennium BC. Wiesbaden. Sass, B. (2005) The alphabet at the turn of the millennium. The West Semitic alphabet ca. 1150–850 BCE: the antiquity of the Arabian, Greek, and Phrygian alphabets. Tel Aviv.

1

Alphabets and scripts, Judaism ¨ KL BEN EZRA DANIEL STO

LAND OF ISRAEL The ancient Hebrew alphabet (often called “Paleo-Hebrew”) started as a local form of the regional (“Phoenician”) alphabet. In the beginning, the script used in the kingdoms of ISRAEL and JUDAH cannot be distinguished from that of their Edomite and Moabite neighbors (Naveh 2009: 6). From the eighth century BCE onwards (see Figure 1, column 1), it became a national script in the kingdoms of Israel and Judah. This lasted until the destruction of SAMARIA by the Assyrians (721 BCE) and the conquest of Judah by the Babylonians (587). After these conquests, the Aramaic script and language, the lingua franca and common script of the Assyrian, Babylonian, and Persian Empires (Figure 1, column 5) became prevalent (e.g., the WadiDaliyeh papyri; Figure 1, column 6). PaleoHebrew continued to be employed on seals and coins in the Persian period, but there is an intriguing gap for longer Hebrew inscriptions, a period of formative importance for the development of the biblical books. ATalmudic legend suggests the returnees from Babylon adopted Aramaic also for biblical texts (Bi. 21b), a fact still debated (Naveh 1971). With Alexander’s conquests in the fourth century BCE, the official language of the successor states became Greek. This development eliminated the need for a unified Aramaic script and in the third or second century a variety of local or national scripts emerged from the Aramaic cursive (e.g., Nabataean, Palmyrene). In Hellenistic Judaea, this distinct local “Jewish” or “Judaean” script was used for texts in Hebrew and Aramaic languages by Jews and Samaritans. Paleographers usually distinguish four periods: Archaic or Proto-Jewish (pre 167 BCE, Figure 1, column 7), Hasmonean (167–137), Herodian (37 BCE–70 CE, Figure 1, column 8), and post-Herodian scripts (after

70 CE, Figure 1, column 10). Towards the end of the first century CE, the letters became more ornamented and square-like, very close to the modern “square” script. Alongside, Paleo-Hebrew was still used until the end of the Bar-Kokhba revolt (135 CE) for specific writing materials (coins) or purposes. The divine name (yhwh) or other terms for God (el, elohim) were written in Paleo-Hebrew on some Hebrew and Greek scrolls from Qumran and elsewhere, pointing to a particular reverence for the name and this script (cf. Josephus AJ 3.178; Tov 2004: 218–22). A limited number of DEAD SEA SCROLLS are entirely written in Paleo-Hebrew (Tov 2004: 246–8; Figure 1, column 2). Paleo-Hebrew also became the ancestor of the national script of the Samaritans in use until today (Figure 1, column 3). Maybe this was the reason for a negative attitude in rabbinical literature against its use (yMeg. 1:11 (71b-c); bSan. 21b) that may have led to the cessation of its use by Jews. Finally, in addition to Judaean and NeoHebrew, three Cryptic alphabets are attested in Qumran (Pfann 2010) (Figure 1, column 4). The twenty-two letters of Hebrew, Aramaic, and Judaean script indicate consonants (of which ‫ש‬, maybe also ‫ ח‬or ‫ע‬, stand for two phonemes). In some cases, letters could function as matres lectionis to indicate vowels, for example, aleph or he for /a/ or /e/, yod for /i/ or /e/, and waw for /u/ or /o/. Full vocalization of consonantal texts with the help of dots and lines above or below the letters began only in the eighth century CE. In late Aramaic and in Judaean scripts at least five letters developed distinct forms for the use in final position, kaph, mem, nun, pe, sade (sometimes also bet, yod, and lamed; e.g., Figure 1, column 7). In Hebrew script, dots served as word separators while Aramaic and Judaean scripts used spacing. Scriptio continua is rare. There are a number of other marks for sense division (Tov 2004). Hieratic signs were frequently used to indicate numbers (until at least the second century CE). Beginning with the first century BCE, Judaean letters can be used as numbers on

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 334–338. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah11011

2 2

3 Samaritan

4 Cryptic A

5 Aramaic Script

2nd century BCE 11QpaleoLeviticus

1211 CE Rylands Sam 1

1st cent BCE? 4Q298 Words of the Maskil

6th-5th cent. BCE Hermopolis IV Yardeni A 2.1

1 Paleo-Hebrew 8th cent. BCE Siloam Alef Bet Gimel Dalet He Waw Zayin Het Tet Yod Kaf Lamed Mem Nun Samekh c Ayin Pe Sadi Qof Resh Shin Tav

Figure 1 Comparative table of Paleo-Hebrew, Aramaic, Jewish, and Cryptic scripts.

3 6 Aramaic Script

7

335 BCE Wadi Daliyeh papDeed of Slave Sale

250-150 BCE Qumran 4QJera

8 Judaean/Jewish Book Script First Cent. BCE Qumran War Scroll (1QM)

9

417 CE Antinoopolis P. Colon 12

10 Judaean/Jewish Cursive 133 CE Dead Sea XHev/Se 49

Alef Bet Gimel Dalet He Waw Zayin Het Tet Yod Kaf Lamed Mem Nun Samekh Ayin Pe Sadi Qof Resh Shin Tav

Figure 1 (cont.) Comparative table of Paleo-Hebrew, Aramaic, Jewish, and Cryptic scripts.

4 coins (Naveh 2009: 24) – a custom probably adopted from the use of Greek on Phoenician coins. Rabbinic literature uses numerical values of letters in exegesis (gematria) and gives also allegorical interpretations of the forms of letters, sometimes ascribing divine characteristics to them (yHag. 2:1 (77c)). Beth, for example, is described as having participated in the creation (Gen. R. 1:10; Theodor and Albeck 1965: 8–10). Paleography distinguishes more formal styles (usually for literary texts) from more cursive styles (usually for documents, Figure 1, column 9) though a variety of semiformal and semicursive styles exist in between. Texts written by professional scribes differ from those by welleducated non-professionals and vulgar scribbles. The most accessible paleographic textbook is Yardeni (1997). The fundamental paleographical reference works are Renz and Ro¨llig (1995–2003) for ancient Hebrew, McLean (1982) for Paleo-Hebrew, Cross (1961) for calligraphic Jewish bookhand, Yardeni (2000) for cursive Aramaic and Judaean scripts; and Engel (1990) for scripts after 100 CE. DIASPORA According to the epigraphic and textual evidence known today, Jews outside the land of Israel usually employed the languages, alphabets, and scripts of the cultures in which they were living or the lingua franca of that period and area: the members of the Jewish garrison in Elephantine (fifth to fourth century Egypt) wrote in Aramaic. Most Jewish papyri from Hellenistic Egypt are in Greek. By far the majority of the extant Jewish inscriptions from the Late Antique Mediterranean Diaspora are in Greek or Latin. Those Jews that translated parts of the Bible into Latin (Vetus Latina) or Syriac (Peshitta) in the second or third century CE certainly used Latin and Syriac scripts. Jewish inscriptions are extant for example also in Phoenician (Inscriptiones Judaicae Orientis 3: Cyp. 6–8 from the fourth to third century BCE) and Palmyrene (e.g., Inscriptiones Judaicae Orientis 3: Syr. 49 and App1–10 from

the second to third century CE). Occasionally, some inscriptions from outside Judaea/ Palestina/Syria contain names or single Hebrew words (sˇalom) in Judaean script, but papyri and substantial inscriptions in Judaean script are very few in number until at least the fifth century CE (e.g., Inscriptiones Judaicae Orientis 1: BS2; Sirat; Antinoopolis Ketubba, Figure 1, column 10) when Judaean script becomes more a Jewish script. The largest body of data may be the Aramaic magic bowls from Mesopotamia, but their early dating is controversial. Only exceptionally, Judaean script was used for transcribing non-Semitic languages, for example, Greek (Jewish Inscriptions of Western Europe 75; Naveh 2009: 40). SEE ALSO: Aramaic and Syriac; Assyria; Babylon; Babylonian Exile of the Jews; Diaspora, Jewish; Elephantine Papyri; Incantation bowls, Babylonian; Jews; Jews, in Alexandria; Judaea.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Cross, F. M. (1961) “The development of the Jewish scripts.” In G. Wright, ed., The Bible and the Ancient Near East: Essays in Honor of William Foxwell Albright: 133–202. Garden City, NY (reprinted in Leaves from an Epigrapher’s Notebook: 3–43. Winona Lake, IN, 2003). Engel, E. (1990) “The development of the Hebrew script from the Bar Kokhba revolt to the year 1000.” PhD diss., Hebrew University, Jerusalem. McLean, M. (1982) “The use and development of Palaeo-Hebrew in the Hellenistic and Roman periods.” PhD diss., Harvard University. Naveh, J. (1970) “The development of the Aramaic script.” Proceedings of the Israel Academy of the Sciences and Humanities 5,1: 1–69. Naveh, J. (2009) Studies in West-Semitic epigraphy. Jerusalem. Pfann, S. (2010) “Scripts and scribal practice.” In J. Collins and D. Harlow, eds., The Eerdmans dictionary of early Judaism: 1204–7. Grand Rapids, MI. Renz, J. and Ro¨llig, W. (1995–2003) Handbuch der althebra¨ischen Epigraphik, 3 vols. Darmstadt. Sirat, C. (1985) Les papyrus en caracte`res he´braı¨ques trouve´s en E´gypte. Paris.

5 Theodor, J. and Albeck, C., eds. (1965) Genesis Rabbah. Jerusalem. Tov, E. (2004) Scribal practices and approaches reflected in the texts found in the Judean Desert. Leiden.

Yardeni, A. (1997) The book of Hebrew script. Jerusalem. Yardeni, A. (2000) Textbook of Aramaic, Hebrew and Nabatean documentary texts from the Judaean Desert, 2 vols. Jerusalem.

1

Alphabets and scripts, Late Antiquity TONIO SEBASTIAN RICHTER

Late Antiquity saw a remarkable multiplication and spread of alphabets throughout the eastern Mediterranean and beyond. Scripts of important early Christian literature, such as the Armenian, Coptic, Ethiopic, Visigothic, Georgian, and Syriac, but also the Persian Avesta script and the Sogdian, Manichaean, and possibly Mandaic alphabets, emerged in the third to fifth centuries CE; the Arabic, Old Nubian, Old Uyghur, and Orkhon alphabets developed in the sixth to eighth centuries CE; Glagolitic and early Cyrillic occurred in the ninth and tenth centuries. Apart from other needs, such as administration, economy, jurisdiction, and day-to-day written communication, it was the spread of religions, especially of those based on (holy) scriptures, such as Christianity, Judaism, Gnosticism, Manichaeism, Zoroastrianism, Islam, and Buddhism, that often worked as catalysts of the emergence and spread of new alphabets. Although considerably differing in the details of their appearance and in their social and functional domains, quite a number of these scripts share their origin. They are direct or indirect descendents of one of the two parent systems, the Greek or the Aramaic alphabets. Graphical adaptation of these donor systems to the different phoneme inventories and linguistic structures of the alphabetized vernaculars was a strong motivation for change and difference, leading to the invention of additional graphemes, of signs indicating supra-segmental linguistic features, etc. While Armenian, Georgian, and Glagolitic were conceptually based on principles of the Greek alphabet, they seem to have been freely invented in terms of grapheme shaping. Georgian is considered by some to be a bi-parental offspring of Greek and Pahlavi. The Ethiopic script, technically not an alphabet

but a syllabaric system, was developed from the South Arabian alphabet, an early descendant, like Aramaic and Greek, of the Phoenician alphabet. Occasionally the acts of invention and introduction of a script are connected to the names of learned, pious, or divine individuals, as in the case of the Armenian script (Mesrop, a learned monk), the Georgian script (the same monk Mesrop, or the King Pharnavas I), Gothic (the bishop Wulfila), Glagolitic and Cyrillic (the Saints Kyrillos and Methodios), and have become landmarks of commemoration and important moments in the making of national or religious identities. In contrast, the introduction of systems such as Coptic or Ethiopic, however elaborate and admirable they may be, remained anonymous. These early “linguists,” famous or unknown, left us most valuable phonological, morphological, and syntactic analyses of the idioms underlying the writing systems. While most of these writing systems were cases of Erstverschriftung, that is to say, the first time when a spoken language was provided with a written medium and thereby with the possibility of a literature of its own, there are also rare cases of Neuverschriftung, such as Coptic, the final result of the shift from hieroglyphbased Egyptian writing systems – the monumental hieroglyphs as well as Hieratic and Demotic, its cursive descendents, all of them still being used in the fourth century CE – first to idiosyncratic Greek-based systems of the socalled Old-Coptic texts in the first centuries CE, and eventually to the standardized Coptic alphabet(s) around 300 CE.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Baines, J., Bennet, J., and Houston, S. (2008) The disappearance of writing systems. Perspectives on literacy and communication. London. Cotton, H. M., Hoyland, R. G., Price, J. J., and Wasserstein, D. J., eds. (2009) From Hellenism to Islam: cultural and linguistic change in the Roman Near East. Cambridge.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 338–339. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah12008

2 Coulmas, F. (2004) Writing systems. An introduction to their linguistic analysis. Cambridge. Daniels, P. T. and Bright, W., eds. (1996) The world’s writing systems. Oxford. Gu¨nther, H. and Ludwig, O. (1994) Writing and its use. An interdisciplinary handbook of international research. Berlin.

Kasser, R. (1991) Entries “Alphabet in Coptic, Greek,” “Alphabets, Coptic,” and “Alphabets, Old Coptic.” In A. S. Atiya, ed., The Coptic Encyclopedia 8: 30–45. New York. Kootz, A. and Pasch, H., eds. (2008) 5000 Jahre. Cologne.

1

Alphabets, Italy J. H. W. PENNEY

The alphabet was brought to Italy by Greek colonists from the eighth century BCE onwards, in various versions that reflect the usage of the parent cities in Greece. The most important varieties are the Chalcidian alphabet of the colonies in the Bay of Naples, the Achaian alphabet of the colonies on the south coast such as KROTON and Poseidonia (see PAESTUM (POSEIDONIA)), and the Lakonian alphabet of Tarentum (see TARAS/TARENTUM). These alphabets were adopted by native peoples to write their own languages, and this usually involved some modifications, especially the dropping of letters not required for the language in question or the introduction of new letters to represent sounds that were foreign to Greek; there were also some alterations in the forms of letters. The result was a multiplicity of alphabets within Italy. The best evidence for the process comes from Etruscan. In the late eighth century, the Chalcidian alphabet was clearly borrowed intact, as is shown by early Etruscan abecedaria (written-out alphabets), and was no doubt learned in full. Some letters, such as Β, D, and Ο, are not found in written Etruscan texts, because the Etruscan language did not distinguish between voiced and voiceless consonants (e.g., between [b] and [p], between [d] and [t]) and there was only one rounded vowel, represented by Υ [u]; by the sixth century, the abecedaria show an alphabet without these unnecessary letters. To represent the sound [f], for which the Greek alphabet offered no symbol, the digraph FH ([w] + [h]) was used at first, but was replaced in the late sixth century by a sign 8, added at the end of the alphabet – perhaps borrowed from a Sabellian alphabetic tradition (cf. South Picene below). A feature of early inscriptions in southern Etruria is the adoption of the so-called c/k/q convention, whereby different letters were used to write [k] according to the following vowel,

gamma before [e] or [i], kappa before [a], qoppa (an archaic Greek letter, continued by Latin Q) before [u]. The inclusion of gamma in this set was possible because there was no distinction between [g] and [k]. In time gamma was generalized to all positions in the south, while in northern Etruria kappa alone was used. This is one of the clear differences between Etruscan regional alphabets; others include the choice of letters to represent the two sibilants [s] and [sˇ] and the development of a system of syllabic punctuation in southern Etruria (ca. 600 BCE), which was subsequently abandoned (ca. 450). It seems likely that it was through Etruscan mediation that the alphabet reached other parts of central Italy. The Latin alphabet betrays its Etruscan origins in the early use of the c/k/q convention and the digraph FH to write [f]— simplification of this resulted in the use of F alone to write [f], with the consequence that [w] was no longer written with this sign but with V (upsilon), the sign for the vowel [u]. (The Faliscan alphabet has a similar history, but there [f] is represented by a sign resembling an upright arrow.) In the early Latin alphabet there was no letter G because original gamma, the source of C, had become in Etruscan a sign for [k]; Latin does distinguish between [g] and [k] and the letter G was duly invented to mark the distinction, but not until the third century BCE. It took the place in the alphabetic sequence of zeta, not needed for writing Latin (the Y and Z of the familiar Latin alphabet are Late Republican additions, for the correct representation of Greek words and names). It is striking that B, D, and O retain their original Greek values: this may be because the theoretical alphabet of the Etruscans, reflected in the first abecedaria, was learned with appropriate values that could be retrieved by the Romans, or it may be that one should allow also for some direct knowledge of the Greek alphabet. This same problem arises with the alphabet of the South Picene inscriptions, dating from the sixth century BCE onward, which may have

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 329–331. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah10006

2 come by way of Etruria but also shows beta, delta, and omicron with the expected values. It has several idiosyncratic features, with the addition of extra letters for additional vowels, and with some remarkable developments in the shape of letters, e.g., the sign 8 ([f]) was reduced to : and similarly
represents O. There are one or two inscriptions in the South Picene script from early Campania (sixth century), where it is used for a Sabellian language known as Pre-Samnite. It has been argued (Rix 2005) that it is also the source of the Oscan alphabet, attested from the fourth century onward in that region and further inland, but the letter shapes of the Oscan alphabet on the whole point to a derivation from the local form of the Etruscan alphabet, as does the absence of O. The additional vowel signs that do indeed resemble those of South Picene appear to have been introduced only ca. 300 BCE, which makes simple continuity unlikely. The Umbrian alphabet, first attested ca. 400 BCE, is unmistakably adapted from a northern Etruscan alphabet (there is no O, though beta and delta are found; [k] is written with K), and seems to have remained open to local Etruscan influences in the form of variant letter-shapes. As a result of a change affecting intervocalic [d], which became a sound represented by RS in Latin script, the old delta shifted its value and the remaining [d] had to be written with T. A new sign was introduced to write some sort of sibilant resulting from the palatalization of [k] before a front vowel. Further north, the Venetic alphabet was an adaptation of a northern Etruscan alphabet ([k] is written with K), but later southern influence is seen in the adoption of syllabic punctuation, still absent from the earliest texts (early fifth century). Beta, gamma, and delta are missing, which points to a slimmed-down Etruscan model (though curiously O is present), and voiced [b], [d], and [g] are written with other letters (e.g., phi, zeta, and chi), with some differences between various regions. In the Alps are found several other alphabets of northern Etruscan derivation. Two of the

more important ones are the Raetic alphabet (from the region of the Brenner Pass), with one or two idiosyncratic extra signs, and the much reduced alphabet of Lugano, used to write Lepontic, a Celtic language very close to Gaulish. Some other alphabets were directly borrowed (with adaptations) from Greek: a Pre-Samnite inscription from Tortora is written in an Achaian alphabet with the addition of a sign for [f] that looks very like the South Picene sign for [w]; and Oscan in Lucania is written in a Greek alphabet, again with an extra sign for [f] of uncertain provenance. Messapian, in the Sallentine Peninsula, was written in the Greek alphabet, at first showing diverse influences but from the fourth century in the alphabet of Tarentum, with the addition of two characteristic letters, one of which may perhaps represent an affricate [ts]. It should be noted that there is no simple oneto-one correspondence between alphabet and language: e.g., Pre-Samnite was written in the South Picene, Greek, and Etruscan alphabets; Oscan was written in the Greek, Oscan, and Latin alphabets. Conversely the Latin alphabet, with advancing Romanization, came to be used to write not only Latin but also Umbrian, Venetic, Oscan, and minor languages such as Paelignian, Marsian, and so on. SEE ALSO: Alphabet, Greek; Celtic languages; Etruria, Etruscans; Latin language, Roman Empire (west); Oscan.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Lejeune, M. (1957) “Sur l’adaptation de l’alphabet e´trusque aux langues indo-europe´ennes de l’Italie.” Revue des e´tudes latines 35: 88–105. Lejeune, M. (1971) Lepontica: esp. 8–27. Paris. Maggiani, A. (1984) “Iscrizioni iguvine e usi grafici nell’Etruria settentrionale.” In A. Prosdocimi, Le tavole iguvine, I: 217–37. Florence. Marinetti, A. (1985) Le iscrizioni sudpicene I: Testi: 47–60. Florence. Pandolfini, M. and Prosdocimi, A. L. (1990) Alfabetari e insegnamento della scrittura in Etruria e nell’Italia antica. Florence.

3 Prosdocimi, A. L. (1988) “La lingua.” In M. Fogolari and L. Prosdocimi, I Veneti antichi. Lingua e cultura: 225–440 (esp. 328–51). Padua. Rix, H. (1984) “La scrittura e la lingua.” In M. Cristofani, ed., Gli Etruschi: una nuova immagine: 210–38. Florence. Rix, H. (2005) “Alphabete im vorro¨mischen Kampanien.” In T. Ganschow and M. Steinhart,

eds., Otium. Festschrift fu¨r Volker Michael Strocka: 323–30. Remshalden. Wachter, R. (1987) Altlateinische Inschriften: esp. 14–50. Bern. Wallace, R. (1989) “The origins and development of the Latin alphabet.” In W. M. Senner, ed., The origins of writing: 121–35. Lincoln, NE.

1

Alps PATRICK HUNT

The Alps are best understood as a mostly east–west series of mountain chains dividing Europe. Covering approximately 1200 kilometers, the Alps arch from southeastern France (west) to northern Slovenia (east), crossing modern France, Italy, Switzerland, Germany, Liechtenstein, Austria, and Slovenia. Sources from the second century BCE onward for the Alps include Polybius 2.14.9, 2.15.8 and 3.49–55, Caesar Gallic Wars 1.10, Strabo 4.6.7, and Livy 21.38ff., among others. Herodotus (4.44) earlier mentions a river named Alpis roughly from this mountain region. The name Alpes is known to the Classical world, possibly related to albus (Latin variant) suggesting the “whiteness” of perennial high snowy peaks. Vergil (Georgics 3.474) also mentioned “towering Alps.” From the French Maritime Alps (west) to the Dinaric Alps (east), these mountains were crossed many times in prehistory and history by individuals and sometimes by armies. Mesolithic hunters began game butchery sites in the Alps after the last great Ice Age (Younger Dryas) and following the thaw in the Holocene. For example, the Mesolithic site of Ullafelsen, Austria, ca. 7500 BCE, strengthens the hypothesis of cultural transmontane connections between Mesolithic communities of the Northern and the Southern Alps. While always forming a general barrier, the Alps have supported transit and sedentary populations since at least the ¨ tzi,” Neolithic ca. 3700 BCE. Intact remains of “O the Neolithic-Copper Age “Iceman” (ca. 3300), were found in 1991 at Tisenjoch in a melting ¨ tztal Alps, glacial context in Similaun Pass, O between Italy and Austria around 3019 m elevation, with full gear including a precious copper axe. Having been subject to forensic study ¨ tzi is refrigerto reconstruct early lifestyles, O ated and on view in Bolzano. Neolithic lake dwellings in Switzerland, for example Pfyn and Cortaillod Cultures on

Lake Zurich, among others, date from around 4000. Noting Neolithic cultures begin and end later in the Alps, Late Neolithic contacts across the Alps exist in carved anthropomorphic stone stelae in Sion, Switzerland, and similarly in Val d’Aosta, Italy, across the Pennine Alps, ca. 2800. Megalithic (mid-third millennium) stone circles predating Celtic tribes include an approximately 50 stone cromlech at Little St. Bernard pass summit (2188 m) on the French– Italian border. Other contemporary megaliths, for example, are in Saint-Martin-de-Corleans in Aosta, Italy, in Flims-Falera “La Mutta” and Yverdon, both in Switzerland; many alpine megaliths appear to have calendric functions. Bronze Age activity in the Alps utilized important resources, for example in extensive metal mining. Eastern copper mines were in the Salzach region near Sankt Veit–Klinglberg and Mitterberg, Austria, as well as in the west near the Saint Veran, Queyras region of France, among others. Caves like Grotte des Balmes above the Arc River, Sollie`res, Val-Cenis, contain many preserved late Neolithic and Bronze Age ceramic typologies from 3000 onward. Gold was mined in the Dora Balthea watershed around Val d’Aosta and silver near Courmayeur in Val d’Aosta and in the Arve watershed from the Mont Blanc Massif, activities very much later controlled by Celts. Farming and herding of goats started in the Copper Age and became normative in the Bronze Age with cattle and increasing lower valley deforestation. Celts from the HALLSTATT CULTURE C/D (750– 440) to the LA TE`NE Culture A/D (440–50 BCE) mediated trade goods like alpine salt and Baltic amber through the Alps as well as Greek wine. Celtic tribes knew the Alps, crossing at times with small armies. Celts migrated en masse through the mountains as early as 600 BCE on more than one occasion from the north, with a second wave around 400 of Insubres and Cenomani tribes into north Italy and a third wave of Cimbri and Teutones tribes around 100 BCE. The Celts had extensive hill forts (oppida) throughout the Alps in transit valleys

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 340–341. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah16005

2 such as Voreppe and Chur. Two major alpine routes for Celtic migrations were the Great St. Bernard Pass (northwest) and the Brenner Pass (northeast). Known Celtic tribes living in the Alps and their valleys ranged throughout the entire territory, and while many ancient tribe names of Alpine Celts are later recorded by Roman historians and geographers (e.g., Allobroges, Medulli, Briganti, Taurini, Isarci, Venostes), overall they become known as Gauls to Romans. HANNIBAL Barca, the Carthaginian general, crossed the western Alps between GAUL and Italy with an army of around 25,000 soldiers, including allied Celts, many pack animals and thirty seven elephants in the early winter of 218 BCE, followed by his brother Hasdrubal about a decade later with a smaller army in spring, both during the Second Punic War. Hannibal crossed the Alps in order to avoid engaging coastal Roman armies and their colony Massilia near the Rhone River mouth. POLYBIUS and LIVY provide detailed accounts for Hannibal’s difficult Alps ascent and descent without mentioning the name[s] of alpine pass [es] (see PUNIC WARS). After Roman traders had been crossing in small groups for centuries, Roman armies began penetrating the Alps during the Gallic War of JULIUS CAESAR onward, in the Battle of Octodurus, 57 BCE, with Servius Galba and later that of Terentius Varro in Aosta, 25 BCE. Gallo-Roman towns in alpine valleys included Brigantio (Brianc¸on) on the Durance River, OCTODURUS – FORUM CLAUDII VALLENSIUM (Martigny) on the upper Rhone River, AUGUSTA PRAETORIA (AOSTA) on the Dora Balthea River, and Tridentum (Trento) on the Adige River. The RHOˆNE, RHINE, Durance, PO, Adige, Inn, and other rivers all start in the Alps, forming major transit routes from prehistory. Major alpine passes known in antiquity were Mont-Genevre (1854 meters elevation) in the western Cottian Alps; Great St. Bernard (elevation 2472 m) in the Pennine Alps, perhaps the best and quickest route connecting north–south; Clapier (elevation 2480 m) in

the western Cottian Alps connecting Ise`re–Arc Rivers and the Maurienne region to the Po River watershed (Paduana region); Little St. Bernard (elevation 2188 m) in the Graian Alps connecting Ise`re River watersheds to the Dora Balthea River watershed of the Val d’Aosta (and Paduana); and Brenner (1370 m elevation) in the east connecting the Adige River watershed to the Inn–Danube watershed. Other passes used by Romans include Julier, Septimer, and Simplon. In antiquity, the Tabula Peutingeriana and the Antonine Itinerary map or list many alpine passes known to the Romans. SEE ALSO:

Elephants; Gallic War (Bellum Gallicum).

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Appolonia, L. et al. (2006) Alpis Graia: Arche´ologie sans frontie`res au Col du PetitSaint-Bernard. Aosta. Bulletin d’Etudes Pre´historiques et Arche´ologiques Alpines, vols. 1–12 (1989–2001). Cunliffe, B. (1997) The ancient Celts. Oxford. De Galbert, G. (2005) Hannibal en Gaule. Grenoble. Geitner, C., Scha¨fer, D., et al. (2007) “The Mesolithic project Ullafelsen in Tyrol – man and environment in early holocene.” Poster ¨ sterreichische Akademie der presentation, O Wissenschaften. Vienna. Harrison, R. and Heyd, V. (2007) “The transformation of Europe in the third millennium BC: the example of ‘Le Petit-Chasseur I þ III’ (Sion, Valais, Switzerland).” Praehistorische Zeitschrift 82.2: 129–214. Hunt, P. (2007) Alpine archaeology. Barcelona. Kristiansen, K. (2000) Europe before history. Cambridge. Pauli, L. (1980) Die Alpen in Fru¨hzeit und Mittelalter. Munich. Tabula Imperii Romani, L-32 Mediolanum (1966). Rome. Wible, F., ed. (1999–2008) Vallesia LIV-LXIII. Chronique des de´couvertes arche´ologiques dans le Canton du Valais. Sion. Wible, F. et al. (2008) Alpis Poenina: Une voie a` travers l’Europe. Aosta.

1

Altar MAREILE HAASE

Altars may best be defined by function rather than by form. They constituted the focus of ritual action, such as prayer and various forms of sacrifice, formed the arrival point of sacrificial processions, and were places of refuge (asylon/asylum). Formally, altars were artificial or natural elevations made of stone or organic materials such as soil, grass, leaves or wood logs, permanent structures or hearths. Their form and size varied with their use, whether for animal sacrifice or for other solid or liquid, burnt or unburnt offerings. Monumental altar precincts sometimes served as abattoirs equipped with blood channels and metal rings for tethering the animals (e.g., KLAROS, SYRACUSE); altars for liquid offerings could be furnished with tubes or channels that directed the liquid into the earth. Small, transportable altars made of stone or terracotta were used to offer incense, cakes, or other foods, and they also served as votive offerings.

GREEK The Greek word for altar, bomos, implies a raised platform. Eschara, “hearth,” specifically referred to the altar top but was also synonymous with bomos. Ground-level structures were also called eschara. The binary scholarly typology linking bomoi to “Olympian” and bothroi (sacrificial pits) and escharai to “chthonic” ritual is in accord with some sources, mostly Roman and Byzantine, but this ideal dichotomous conception is not necessarily reflected in the archaeological and other evidence. Sacrificial tables were called trapezai. During the Greek Dark Age, altars most commonly consisted of the accumulated ashes and bones of prior sacrifice, but also of stone heaps and outcroppings of bedrock. In most sanctuaries, such ash mounds were over time replaced by permanent structures,

although not everywhere (cf. OLYMPIA: Paus. 5.13.8–11). The appearance of constructed altars throughout the eighth century BCE (e.g., SAMOS, SPARTA, EPHESOS) coincided with the gradual monumentalization of Greek sanctuaries. Building an altar implied that a cult was permanently established, and usually institutionally controlled. Whether early Greek altars typologically derived from Mycenaean and/or Ancient Near Eastern and Egyptian models is a topic of ongoing debate. The usual shape of a constructed altar was rectangular, but occasionally it was circular (e.g., DIDYMA). From the sixth century BCE there were monumental altars (e.g., CYRENE, Cape Monodendri, Samos) that often took the form of a podium surrounded on three sides by protective walls and accessible on the fourth side by a flight of steps. The actual offering site was located atop the podium. From the Late Classical and Hellenistic periods, monumental altars, which were a typological development of their archaic predecessors, served to project the selfimage of rulers, cities, and priesthoods. Their representational function was expressed by their size as well as by lavish sculptural and architectural decoration (e.g., KOS, PRIENE, PERGAMON). The constituent elements of a sanctuary were its demarcation – visible or invisible – from its surroundings and a site for offerings, which might not be an actual altar. As a rule, however, in the major Greek sanctuaries the offering site took the form of a constructed altar. Most sanctuaries contained several altars, any one of which could be dedicated to one or more deities. Altars were generally located outdoors to protect the temple interior from smoke and to allow for better visibility of the rituals (but contrast, for example, the Erechtheum at Athens: Paus. 1.26.5). Space permitting, they were often placed east of the associated temple and aligned with the cult image if possible (e.g., DELPHI, PAESTUM (POSEIDONIA)). If a sanctuary was reorganized, the altar usually remained in place, even though the temple might be repositioned and the original altar–temple relation disrupted.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 341–344. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah17024

2 Altars were sometimes dedications (e.g., Delphi, altar of the Chians). In addition to sanctuaries of gods or heroes (heroa), altars were erected in public places and buildings such as marketplaces, theaters, and gymnasia, along roads, and at road junctions. Domestic altars (e.g., OLYNTHOS) were usually small in size and made of stone, terracotta, or metal. The domestic hearth could also function as an offering site.

ETRUSCAN Etruscan altars were found in sanctuaries (e.g., Pyrgi), necropoleis (e.g., Grotta Porcina), and public spaces (e.g., Marzabotto). As a rule, the orientation of Etruscan altars was eastward and could be independent from that of the corresponding temples. A stone bench located within a structure on Tarquinia’s Civita has been interpreted as an early Etruscan altar (early seventh century BCE). It was connected to a natural rock cavity through a channel. From the seventh century BCE onward, Etruscan tomb monuments (first tumuli, then cube tombs and Hellenistic rock tombs containing ritual platforms whose moldings resemble altar profiles) were designed to serve as offering sites, sometimes marked by cippi. They were accessible via a ramp or stairs. Various attempts have been made to establish a typology that fits the varied shapes of Etruscan altars, but none has attained general scholarly consensus as yet. Rectangular “hour-glass”shaped altars adorned with distinct moldings were characteristic of Etruria and Latium (e.g., Marzabotto, Lavinium) and appear in Etruscan imagery. From the third century BCE, there were rectangular altars derived from Greek models that had a molded base and top.

ROMAN Latin ara and altaria (pl.) were equivalent with bomos, but also with eschara and other Greek terms. The two Latin terms do not relate to a

recognizable archaeological typology. Focus, “hearth,” was a general term for the place where a fire was lit; the diminutive foculus designated a portable stove or brazier. Both focus and foculus appear in sacrificial contexts. Sacrificial tables were called mensae. With regard to their forms, Roman altars derived from Greek and Etruscan models. The most common type had a base, a square, rectangular, or circular centerpiece, and a wide molded top, sometimes enhanced by acroteria, pulvini, or pediments. While Roman altars of the republican period tended to be comparatively plain, those of the imperial period displayed increasingly abundant relief decoration of garlands and bucrania, coronae civicae, cult instruments (especially libation pitchers and cups), and figurative scenes. Funerary altars may show the likeness of the deceased, sometimes accompanied by an epitaph. In the Roman imperial period, lavishly decorated altars served the cult of the emperor and propagated the ruling dynasties’ religious ideologies (e.g., ARA PACIS). Starting with the Ara Fortunae Reducis (19 BCE), many important military and political events were commemorated by the erection of altars. These were often dedicated to the personifications of imperial virtues (e.g., Ara Providentiae, Ara Pietatis Augustae). In Roman sanctuaries, altars were built adjacent to the corresponding temple. The altar was sometimes integrated into the staircase leading up to the cella. Ideally (Vitr. 4.9) the altar faced east and allowed the participants of a ritual to look upward toward the cult image, which was placed inside the temple facing west (Vitr. 4.5); altars for celestial gods (caelestes) should be built as high as possible, whereas those of for instance VESTA and the Earth should be close to the ground (humiles). Outside of sanctuaries, Roman altars are found in public spaces (fora), theaters, baths, latrines (e.g., OSTIA), and at road junctions. Both movable and permanent altars were used in domestic contexts (e.g., DELOS; Campanian “Lararia”), which included buildings where associations met.

3 Altars for commemorative rituals in honor of the dead were located close to or inside tombs, or in separate areas within necropoleis. Offerings to the dead were also made at the grave monument, which could be altar shaped. Sometimes liquid offerings were poured directly onto the burial or into the urn through a clay or lead pipe (e.g., Pompeii, tomb of Vestorius Priscus). Unlike altars in domestic and “private” contexts, altars in “public” contexts had to be consecrated by a magistrate. An inscription (lex arae) sometimes detailed the rules concerning the altar’s use and may also contain information about the dedication date and the dedicator. SEE ALSO: Asylia; Funerary cult, Greek; Funerary cult, Roman; Libations, Greek; Libations, Roman; Sacrifice, Greek; Sacrifice, Roman; Temples, Greek; Temples, Hellenistic; Temples, Roman.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Comella, A. et al. (2005) “Altare.” In J. Ch. Balty et al., eds., Thesaurus Cultus et Rituum Antiquorum, vol. 4: 165–83. Los Angeles.

Dexheimer, D. (1998) Oberitalische Grabalta¨re: ein Beitrag zur Sepulkralkunst der ro¨mischen Kaiserzeit. Oxford. Dra¨ger, O. (1994) Religionem significare: Studien zu reich verzierten ro¨mischen Alta¨ren und Basen aus Marmor. Mainz. Etienne, R., ed. (1991) L’espace sacrificiel dans les civilisations me´diterrane´ennes de l’antiquite´. Actes du colloque, Lyon, 4–7 juin 1988. Paris. Gill, D. (1991) Greek cult tables. New York. Kossatz-Deissmann, A. (2005) “Darstellungen von Kultorten II: Alta¨re.” In J. Ch. Balty et al., eds., Thesaurus Cultus et Rituum Antiquorum, vol. 4: 381–92. Los Angeles. Ohnesorg, A. (2005) Ionische Alta¨re. Formen und Varianten einer Architekturgattung aus Insel- und Ostionien. Berlin. Riemer, H., ed. (2005) Die Aschenalta¨re aus dem Reitia-Heiligtum von Este im mitteleuropa¨ischen und mediterranen Vergleich. Mainz. Rupp, D. W. (1975) “Greek altars of the northeastern Peloponnese c. 750–725 B.C. to c. 300–275 B.C.” PhD diss., Bryn Mawr College. Schraudolph, E. (1993) Ro¨mische Go¨tterweihungen mit Reliefschmuck aus Italien: Alta¨re, Basen und Reliefs. Heidelberg. Sinn, U. (2005) “Altar.” In J. Ch. Balty et al., eds., Thesaurus Cultus et Rituum Antiquorum, vol. 4: 14–21. Los Angeles. Yavis, C. G. (1949) Greek altars. St. Louis.

1

Altar of Zeus, Pergamon CRAIG I. HARDIMAN

The Altar of ZEUS is a Π (pi) shaped structure that was located on a terrace just below the acropolis at Bergama, Turkey (ancient PERGAMON) (Figure 1). Discovered during excavations between 1878 and 1886, the Altar and its sculptural ornament were transported to Berlin in the late 1880s and are currently on display in the Pergamon Museum there. There is only one ancient source that mentions the Altar (Ampelius, Liber Memorialis 8.14), though it may be referred to as “Satan’s Throne” in the Christian Bible (Rev 2.13). The Altar is a multi-tiered structure, surrounded by five steps, and is considered to be in the Ionic architectural order. The monumental structure is large (35.64 m E–W × 33.40 m N–S) and in the tradition of other multiple-step Π-shaped enclosures/altars such those at PRIENE, MAGNESIA ON THE MAEANDER, and elsewhere. There are still several issues of debate among scholars concerning some basic facts about the structure. Although Ampelius calls it an ara (ALTAR), alternatives (a TEMPLE or heroon) have been put forward. In addition, it has been suggested that the Altar may have been sacred to Zeus alone, Zeus and Athena, all the gods, the hero Telephos, Agathe Tyche, or Queen APOLLONIS, mother of EUMENES II and ATTALOS II. Historians have also tried to tie the construction of the Altar to the commemoration of a specific historical victory on the part of the Attalids. The candidates are victories over the Galatians (in 189 BCE, or 183 BCE, or 166 BCE), over ANTIOCHOS III (188 BCE), over PHARNAKES I OF PONTOS (179 BCE), or over PERSEUS of Macedon (168 BCE). On material grounds the Altar has been dated between 180 and 160 BCE, based on its sculptural style, and specifically to 172/ 1 BCE or 165 BCE on the basis of the ceramic evidence from the archaeological excavations. The earliest dedications on the Altar terrace date to 149/8 BCE, and the Altar may have been unfinished when Rome was gifted the city in 133 BCE. Construction was likely during the (later) reign

of Eumenes II and his successor Attalos II in the mid-second century BCE. The Altar is most famous for its many sculptural elements. There are five zones of SCULPTURE on both the inside and the outside of the structure. The largest at 120 meters in length is the running Ionic frieze below the exterior colonnade. The sculpture represents a Gigantomachy (battle between gods and giants) (Figure 2). In total, there were probably over a hundred figures with a strong emphasis on mothers and female deities. The style of the frieze is considered the touchstone of the Hellenistic Baroque, a sculptural style that emphasizes emotion, drama, and movement in both composition and technique. More classicizing elements are also present, especially in the goddesses, and reflect the many overt references to the PARTHENON, illustrating Pergamon as the “new” Athens. Many scholars have tried to find meaning behind the composition, either as reference to a lost epic poem or to particular Attalid propaganda. It does seem that there is some compositional significance, with OLYMPIAN DEITIES along the east, CHTHONIC DEITIES along the west and south, sky and celestial beings along the south, and personifications of stars and constellations along the north. Fragments of inscriptions name several deities and giants, and there are partial remains of fifteen or sixteen sculptors’ signatures. Other exterior sculpture includes colossal female statues behind the columns on the podium. These may have represented priestesses, MUSES, and/or personifications of cities. Acroterial sculpture includes animals, both real and mythological, and Olympian deities. There are attachment holes on the interior sacrificial altar that were probably for a dedication of arms and armor, though other figures, including dying Gauls, have been suggested. A band of sculpture known as the Telephos Frieze ran along the inside of the upper colonnade surrounding the sacrificial altar. The sculpture relates the myth of Telephos, mythical founder of Pergamon, and so relates the city to the Panhellenic myths of the Trojan War and HERAKLES. The overall style is less Baroque and more

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner. © 2017 John Wiley & Sons Ltd. Published 2017 by John Wiley & Sons Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah30213

2

FIGURE 1 The Altar of Zeus in the Pergamon Museum, Berlin. Reproduced with permission of Jonathan Shen.

FIGURE 2 The Gigantomachy: Athena battling giants. Reproduced with permission of Jonathan Shen.

3 Classical than that of the Gigantomachy Frieze, which may suggest a later date. The whole tale is represented sequentially in continuous form and may be the first instance of sequential narrative in Greek ART. The artistic style and composition have led some to suggest that the Telephos Frieze may have been completed after Pergamon was bequeathed to the Romans in 133 BCE. The whole altar is in the tradition of royal and political monuments set in a religious context, such as the Mausoleum at HALIKARNASSOS (see MAUSOLOS). It should be understood within the context of the entire upper terrace at Pergamon and as a conscious element of Attalid messaging. The monument is as central to Hellenistic art and culture as the Parthenon is to the Classical period, and helped the Attalids promote Pergamon as the inheritors of the Athenian cultural legacy. SEE ALSO:

Architecture, Greek; Attalos I; Attalos III; Celtic wars; Eumenes I; Hellenistic period (concept of).

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READING Bruns, G. (1949) Der Grosse Altar von Pergamon. Berlin. Callaghan, P. J. (1981) “On the date of the Great Altar of Zeus at Pergamon.” Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies 28: 115–21. DeLuca, G. and Radt, W. (1999) Sondagen im Fundament des Grosses Altäres (PergForsch 12). Berlin. Dreyfus, R. and Schraudolph, E., eds. (1996/7) Pergamon: the Telephos Frieze from the Great Altar. San Francisco. Queyrel, F. (2005) L’Autel de Pergame. Images et pouvoir en Grèce d’Asie. Paris. Ridgway, B. S. (2000) Hellenistic sculpture II: the styles of ca. 200–100 B.C. Madison. Stewart, A. (2000) “Pergamo ara marmorea magna: on the date, reconstruction, and functions of the Great Altar of Pergamon.” In N. T. de Grummond and B. S. Ridgway, eds., From Pergamon to Sperlonga: sculpture and context: 32–57. Berkeley. Zimmerman, M. (2011) Pergamon: Geschichte, Kultur, Archäologie. Munich.

1

Althiburos

was abandoned by its inhabitants. During the seventh century CE it was also the seat of a Catholic and Donatist bishopric, but was definitively abandoned during the Arab period. The population was mainly involved in agriculture, characterized by very high standards of productivity, by reason of a good geographical position that facilitated the town’s development. Althiburos lies in northwest Tunisia and, importantly, it was at the confluence of the northern Bagrada basin, of the Sahel, and the coastal cities. In economic terms this meant that the town was at the junction of the southern olive-oil production areas and the northern cereal lands. The products of those lands together with artisanal manufacturing were conveyed via Althiburos to the main cities on the coast. The extant remains of the Roman settlement include both public and private buildings,

ORIETTA DORA CORDOVANA

In the second half of the nineteenth century, the ancient settlement of Althiburos (el Médéïna) was identified by a neo-Punic inscription referring to the dedication to the god “Baal Hammon from Althiburos” (Bardo Museum, Tunis). Nevertheless, this is not the only name for the site that we know of. Other inscriptions reveal that this important Numidian-Punic center was also known as civitas Chul under the Romans, and that it was ruled by local magistrates (sufetes) at least until the end of the first century CE (AE 1992, 1805–6, between 47 and 55 CE). The area shows archaeological evidence of stable human activity from the tenth to ninth centuries BCE until the Byzantine period, when the settlement

Matar Utica Cartago

Hippo Regius

Bagradas

Curubis

Basin

Cirta

Siagu

Zama

Madauros

Althiburos Hadrumetum Leptis Minus Ammaedara

Sufes

Thapsos

Theveste Cillium

Thysdrus

Sufetula

Thelepte Thaenae

Sahel Macomades Min. Capsa

FIGURE 1 Althiburos in Africa Proconsularis.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner. © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Published 2016 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah30214

2 which have been excavated and restored by Tunisian, Italian, and Spanish teams of archaeologists and scholars in a productive collaboration since 2006. The forum and the four-sided portico occupied the central area, which was monumentalized during the second century CE. In the southwestern corner the remains of the capitolium are still visible; it was Corinthian tetrastyle and dates from the latest years of Commodus’ reign. The foundations of another tetrastyle temple surrounded by a precinct have been identified in the northeastern corner of the town. The southern part of the town was occupied by a theater built under Commodus. In the northern quarters luxurious private domus with fine mosaics were built between the Antonine period and Late Antiquity (fourth century). Some of these wealthy residences also had private baths and were particularly impressive for their architecture and mosaic decorations, now preserved at the Bardo Museum in Tunis. The emperor HADRIAN granted the city the legal status of municipium, probably in 128 CE; this event was celebrated by an honorific arch (CIL 8, 1825, 27775), which stands between the forum and the capitolium. The importance of the settlement is also evident in the discovery of a sanctuary – “tofet” – dedicated to Baal Hammon in the area east of the residential houses; it was in use between the second century BCE and the second century CE. Inscriptions,

stelai, urns, mensae, and remains of both human and animal sacrifices are among the crucial evidence for the study (still in progress) of this Numidian-Punic-Roman cross-cultural center. SEE ALSO:

Carthage; Donatists; Municipia, Roman Empire; Theveste; Thysdrus (El Jem).

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Fabiani, F. (2007/2010) “Il tofet di Althiburos (El Kef – Tunisia) tra tradizione punica e romanizzazione: la collaborazione dell’Università di Pisa al programma di ricerca.” Studi Classici e Orientali 53: 367–72. Ghedini, F., Bullo, S., and Zanovello, P., eds. (2003) Amplissimae atque ornatissimae domus. L’edilizia residenziale nelle città della Tunisia romana. Padua. Kallala, N. (2013) “Althiburos/el Médéina ville numido-romaine.” In S. Guizani and M. Ghodhbane, eds., Regards sur le patrimoine archéologique de la Tunisie antique et islamique: 29– 34. Tunis. Kallala, N., Sanmartí Grego, J., Belarte Franco, M. C., and Ramon, J. (2008) “Recherches sur l’occupation d’Althiburos (région du Kef, Tunisie) et de ses environs à l’époque numide.” Pyrenae: revista de prehistòria i antiguitat de la Mediterrània Occidental 39: 1: 67–113. Kallala, N., Sanmartí, J., Belarte Franco, M. C., et al. (2011) Althiburos I. La fouille dans l’aire du capitole et dans la nécropole méridionale. Tarragona.

1

Amarna KATE SPENCE

Amarna (also known as El-Amarna and Tell el-Amarna) is the modern name given to the ancient Egyptian city of Akhetaten “Horizon of the sun disk,” built by the New Kingdom king Akhenaten (ca. 1352–1336 BCE) in Middle Egypt (see AKHENATEN (AMENHOTEP IV)). The city was founded in the fifth year of Akhenaten’s reign as a royal residence and contained at least four palace structures with associated temples, institutions, workshops, storage facilities, necropoleis, other outlying ritual structures, and areas of housing constructed by the Egyptians who followed the king and court to the site. The city was occupied for just over fifteen years, with the court moving away from the site early in the reign of Tutankhamun. “Amarna” is also used as an adjective to describe the period during which Akhenaten and his immediate successors ruled Egypt, as well as the distinctive religious beliefs and art deriving from that time. Akhenaten came to the throne as Amenhotep IV and changed his name after a few years on the throne to express his devotion to the visible sun disk (the Aten), which he raised to the position of supreme god, increasingly excluding the traditional Egyptian pantheon. The major royal centers of the New Kingdom, Memphis and Thebes (modern Luxor; see NEW KINGDOM, EGYPT; MEMPHIS, PHARAONIC; THEBES, EAST) were closely associated with the old state gods PTAH and Amun, respectively (see AMUN-RE) and the decision to build a new royal center at Amarna was closely tied to Akhenaten’s stated aim of finding a place that had not previously been sacred to any other god. The site chosen by Akhenaten is on the east bank of the river, where a broad desert bay is enclosed by the cliffs of the high desert. Into these cliffs Akhenaten carved a number of boundary stelae, inscribed with texts describing his intentions in founding the city, its future role as a royal and religious center,

and key structures within it (Murnane and van Siclen 1993). The texts also describe Akhenaten’s arrival in a golden chariot for the foundation ceremony of the town (Murnane and van Siclen 1993: 36); the location of the foundation ceremony is unknown, although a location in the Central City seems likely. The plain on which the city was constructed was desert, and there was probably only a very narrow strip of cultivable land along the river edge. The desert location has resulted in excellent preservation of the site, as only small sections of the ancient city have been built over or cultivated, but in ancient times provisioning the settlement must have proved difficult, as all foodstuffs, as well as the majority of building materials, must have been brought in from the plain across the river or further afield. Key royal elements of the city are laid out along a notional line extending from the Central City to the north and south (Kemp and Garfi 1993: 48). The so-called “Royal Road” links the North Riverside Palace and the North Palace, near the cliffs at the north end of the site, with the temples and palaces of the Central City (Kemp 1989: 276–9). Although the religious site at Kom el-Nana to the south of the city is also located according to this alignment, the Royal Road does not extend to the south. The location of the Central City seems to have been dictated by a secondary alignment to the Royal Wadi, a valley leading from the high desert in which Akhenaten’s tomb was cut. Aldred (1976: 184) suggested that the visible notch in the cliffs at the entrance to this valley may have been viewed as a physical manifestation of the “horizon” hieroglyph, which shows the sun disk rising in a valley between two mountains. The Central City is made up of a number of state buildings (Pendlebury 1951). There are two temples: the Great Aten Temple, an enormous rectangular enclosure over 700 m in length, which contained two separate cult buildings alongside other structures; and the Small Aten Temple. In line with Akhenaten’s religious changes these temples are hypaethral, and even

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 344–347. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah15025

2 door lintels are split so that the cult participant did not lose contact with the rays of the sun. Altars and offering tables are the focus of the structures, as cult practice seems to have focused on intoning hymns and making food offerings to the god. Scenes of Akhenaten making offerings in the temples are found in some of the nobles’ tombs at the site (Davies 1903–8). There are two palatial structures in the Central City, in addition to the two palaces at the north end of the site. The Great Palace is an enormous structure, largely built of stone rather than the mud brick from which the other palaces are constructed. The structure features at least one massive courtyard lined with monumental statuary and columned halls of a size unparalleled in the city and clearly intended to overawe. The second palace, the King’s House, is a much smaller mud-brick structure, with gardens and numerous storage rooms. The palace building itself is less formal in its organization and was perhaps used for administration as well as providing a more human-scaled residence for the king. These two palaces were linked by a bridge across the Royal Road, the king moving like the sun from east to west above the heads of those on the thoroughfare below. To the east of the Royal Road, between and behind the temples and palaces, are administrative and institutional structures, including magazine buildings for storage and production and settings for bureaucratic activities. The Records Office, directly east of the King’s House, was where the famous Amarna letters were found, clay tablets bearing the diplomatic correspondence of Egyptian kings with Near Eastern rulers in cuneiform scripts (Pendlebury 1951). The police and military quarters were situated further to the east. The courtiers and other individuals who followed the king and his family to Amarna mainly lived in suburbs to the north and south of the Central City. There is a fairly sharp distinction between the carefully planned royal center and related outlying structures and the residential suburbs, which do not show

evidence of significant planning restrictions. The houses range significantly in size and complexity, with the largest set in extensive grounds with private wells, gardens, and ancillary buildings, but almost all follow the tripartite layout characteristic of pharaonic houses (see HOUSES, HOUSING, EGYPT);

HOUSEHOLD

FORMATION,

PHARAONIC

small houses often cluster between and around larger ones. At its peak the population is estimated to have numbered 20–50,000 (Kemp 1989: 306). Akhenaten’s tomb was constructed in the Royal Wadi to the east of the site. The tomb fits into the pattern of 18th Dynasty royal tombs (see VALLEY OF THE KINGS), although its proportions are particularly large and it is unfinished. The decoration of the tomb breaks with tradition, being focused on scenes of funerary ritual, death, and mourning alongside a representation of temple ritual. The tomb seems to have been used for the burials of at least three individuals, Akhenaten, his mother, Queen Tiye, and his second daughter, Meketaten (Martin 1989). Other unfinished tombs are also found in the Royal Wadi. Tombs for Akhenaten’s most important officials were cut into the cliffs surrounding the city in two groups, one to the north of the site and one further south (Davies 1903–8). These tombs vary in size, design, and extent of decoration; all seem to be unfinished. The decoration is dominated by scenes showing the king and his family in their palaces, worshipping in the temples, and traveling around the city in chariots. A particularly prominent scene found in many of the decorated tombs shows the king at a “Window of Appearance” in a palatial structure, passing gifts to the loyal tomb owner: this ceremony seems to have been the highlight of many careers. The cemeteries of the ordinary people of Amarna have only been discovered in the last decade and are the focus of ongoing excavations by Barry Kemp and his team (Amarna project website). Amarna has been central to the study of settlements in Egyptology, a subject that has

3 been dogged by the poor preservation of the majority of town sites. Amarna is the most extensively excavated Egyptian town site, other than state-constructed planned settlements, primarily as a result of work by the Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft (1911–14) and Egypt Exploration Society (1921–36, 1977–present), which have exposed much of the plan of the ancient settlement. Because it was inhabited for only a short time – fifteen to twenty years – there were usually only minor changes to the layout of buildings and chronological as well as geographical inter-relationships between buildings are therefore usually clear. Questions as to how representative of normal Egyptian practice the urbanism of Akhenaten’s reign is persist, but the majority of research points to continuity in settlement planning, domestic architecture, and institutional buildings. Clear differences are limited to religious architecture and the low density of the settlement as a result of a short occupation period. SEE ALSO: Cities, Pharaonic Egypt; Elephantine, Pharaonic; Palaces, Pharaonic Egypt; Temples, Pharaonic Egypt.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Aldred, C. (1976) “The horizon of the Aten.” Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 62: 184. Borchardt, L. and Ricke, H. (1980) Die Wohnha¨user in Tell el-Amarna. Berlin. Davies, N. de G. (1903–8) The rock tombs of El Amarna, vols. I–VI. London. Kemp, B. J. (1977) “The city of el-Amarna as a source for the study of urban society in Ancient Egypt.” World Archaeology 9, 2: 123–39. Kemp, B. J. (1989) Ancient Egypt: anatomy of a civilization, 1st ed.: 261–317. London. Kemp, B. J. and Garfi, S. (1993) A survey of the ancient city of El-ʿAmarna. London. Kemp, B. J. et al. (1984–95) Amarna reports, vols. I–VI. London. Kemp, B. J. Amarna project website: http://www. amarnaproject.com/. Martin, G. T. (1989) The royal tomb at El-ʿAmarna II. London. Murnane, W. J. and van Siclen, C. C. (1993) The boundary stelae of Akhenaten. London. Pendlebury, J. D. S. (1951) The city of Akhenaten, III. London. Petrie, W. M. F. (1894) Tell El Amarna. London. Silverman, D. P., Wegner, J. W., and Wegner, J. H. (2006) Akhenaten and Tutankhamun: revolution and restoration. Philadelphia.

1

Amarna letters JANA MYNA´RˇOVA´

The Amarna letters are a collection of CUNEIFORM tablets discovered in the ruins of ancient Akhetaten (“The Horizon of the Sun-disc” or “The Horizon of Aten”; see ATEN/ATON), modern Tell el-Amarna, in Middle Egypt. The earliest letters in the collection were written during the final years of Amenhotep III (r. ca. 1388–1351 BCE), and it is possible that the very latest letter was addressed to king Tutankhamun (r. ca. 1333–1324; see TUTANKHAMUN), indicating a span of approximately twenty years for the existence of the archive. The first and largest group of tablets found at AMARNA was unearthed accidentally by local inhabitants, probably late in the summer of 1887; most of the tablets thus come from archaeologically undocumented contexts. There is almost no doubt that the tablets were originally stored in a building in the vicinity of the King’s House enclosure (P42.2) in the Central City, identified by means of stamped bricks as “The Place of the Correspondence of Pharaoh, life-prosperity-health” (in modern terminology known as the “Records Office,” Q42.21). This building represented a royal archive and probably also functioned as the scriptorium. The existence of the tablets became known soon after their discovery, and as early as December 1887 a set of tablets was purchased by Ernest A. Wallis Budge for the British Museum. More than three hundred tablets were found during the illicit excavations at the site. Through the work of antiquities dealers, numerous sets of tablets arrived in the museums of several countries, including the Vorderasiatisches Museum in Berlin and the Egyptian Museum in Cairo. Archaeological excavations directed by W. M. Flinders Petrie yielded another group of tablets during 1891–2. The Amarna corpus was later enlarged by tablets found during the excavations of the German Oriental Society (led by Ludwig Borchardt) and the Egypt Exploration Society

(first headed by T. E. Peet, and subsequently by J. D. S. Pendlebury). At present the Amarna corpus consists of 382 tablets and fragments (Knudtzon 1907–15; Rainey 1978); these include a tablet from the same period that was discovered in 1891 at the site of Tell el-Hesi in southern CANAAN. The largest groups of tablets are kept in the Vorderasiatisches Museum in Berlin (altogether 202 or 203 tablets plus a number of fragments), followed by the British Museum (96 tablets), the Egyptian Museum (52 tablets), the Ashmolean Museum in Oxford (23 tablets), the Louvre in Paris (7 tablets), the Pushkin Museum of Fine Arts in Moscow (3 tablets), the Metropolitan Museum in New York (2 tablets), the Oriental Institute in Chicago (1 tablet), and the Muse´es Royaux d’Art et d’Histoire in Brussels (1 tablet). The majority of the tablets are documents of an epistolary nature; that is, letters and inventories. The remaining tablets consist of scholarly texts (Izre’el 1997) or documents somehow related to the activities of Amarna scribes and include literary texts (myths and epics), syllabaries, exercises, lexical texts, and lists, as well as an inscribed clay cylinder. Most of the letters are written in a peripheral form of AKKADIAN that reflects many shared innovations along with archaisms. Exceptions are one letter written in Assyrian (EA 15); one letter from the MITTANI correspondence (EA 24) that is written in Hurrian; and two letters from the Arzawa correspondence that are written in Hittite (EA 31–32; see HITTITE, HITTITES; HURRIAN, HURRIANS). The language of the letters varies greatly depending on the substrate language of the individual scribes, as well as their experience and skills. Two main variants may be recognized, a so-called Hurro–Akkadian dialect in the northern areas and a Canaanite–Akkadian dialect in the south. In the texts coming from the southern region, the vocabulary is mainly Akkadian, while the grammar is essentially Canaanite (Moran 1992: xviii–xxii; Kossmann 1994; Rainey 1996: II, 1–16, 31–32; Izre’el 2007).

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 347–348. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah24012

2 The Amarna letters are traditionally divided into two main groups based on the sociopolitical status of the correspondents (Cohen and Westbrook 2000). The first group comprises letters exchanged between the king of Egypt and the rulers of the other Great Powers (ASSYRIA, Babylonia, HATTI, and Mittani) as well as minor “independent” states (ALASHIYA and Arzawa). These documents are usually considered to be international correspondence. The second and larger group, however, comprises the letters of Egypt’s vassals. The vassal correspondence reflects the activities of the petty rulers of Syria-Palestine, their domestic affairs, disputes with each other, and their relationship with the Egyptian administration in the region, as well as local political and administrative systems. Within these two groups the inner structure of the individual texts is relatively standardized, and it is the letter format that largely confirms the dyadic division of the corpus. A distinct position among the letters is occupied by the correspondence of the rulers of UGARIT, which constitutes an intermediate form between the international and the vassal letters. Generally, every letter consists of two parts: the opening passage, containing the address and greeting, and the body of the letter. Both parts are indispensable for understanding the Amarna letters as diplomatic documents. While the body of the letter contains the information to be conveyed, the opening passage provides the information necessary for correct comprehension of the communication, and any nonstandard elements within

this part may affect the interpretation of the message’s content. The opening passages are formulated using a standardized set of structural elements, but individual realizations of these formulas reflect particular scribal traditions (Myna´rˇova´ 2007). SEE ALSO:

Amenhotep (Amenophis) I–III.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Cohen, R. and Westbrook, R. (2000) Amarna diplomacy: the beginnings of international relations. Baltimore. Izre’el, Sh. (1997) The Amarna scholarly tablets. Groningen. Izre’el, Sh. (2007) [online]. “Canaano-Akkadian. Some methodological requisites for the study of the Amarna letters from Canaan.” [Accessed March 14, 2010]. Available from http://www.tau. ac.il/humanities/semitic/canakk2007.pdf. Knudtzon, J. A. (1907–15) Die El-Amarna Tafeln, 2 vols. Leipzig. Kossmann, M. (1994) “Amarna-Akkadian as a mixed language.” In P. Bakker and M. Mous, eds., Mixed languages: 15 case studies in language intertwining: 169–73. Amsterdam. Moran, W. L. (1992) The Amarna letters. Baltimore. Myna´rˇova´, J. (2007) Language of Amarna – language of diplomacy: perspectives on the Amarna letters. Prague. Rainey, A. F. (1978) El-Amarna tablets 359–379. Kevelaer. Rainey, A. F. (1996) Canaanite in the Amarna tablets: a linguistic analysis of the mixed dialect used by scribes from Canaan, 4 vols. Leiden.

1

Amarynthos ANTONIA LIVIERATOU

Amarynthos is located on the west coast of EUBOEA, around 10 km east of ERETRIA. The name of Amarynthos is first recorded in LINEAR B tablets from Thebes (see THEBES IN BOIOTIA), while in historical sources it is connected to the sanctuary of Artemis Amarynthia or Amarysia, which was Eretria’s main extramural sanctuary (Paus. 1.31.5; Strabo 10.1.10). An ideal settlement location in the vicinity of modern Amarynthos is the coastal mound of Paleoeklissies, otherwise called Gerani or Paleochora, which was inhabited since the Neolithic period onwards into the Early, Middle, and Late Helladic. An alabaster sword pommel found with Late Helladic IIIC pottery points to the significance of the site in the period after the collapse of the Mycenaean palaces. Excavations in the valley to the northwest of the hill show that the prehistoric occupation extended in this area too. The recovery of stratified pottery and other remains of Protogeometric and Geometric periods, including a child burial (late ninth century), in this area is important, since research on the hill has only produced sparse surface material of Early Iron Age date. Excavations at the site of Agia Kyriaki to the west–northwest of the hill have revealed a rich cult deposit containing numerous

figurines and other votives dating from archaic to Roman times, related most probably to the sanctuary of Artemis. In addition, recent research in the valley to the west of the hill has uncovered part of a monumental poros wall that might have belonged to the sanctuary. The wall is characterized by two phases of construction dating to the fourth and second centuries BCE; it was covered by numerous marble fragments from the building’s upper structure. Remains dating from classical to Roman times have also been found on the hill, while many tombs of these periods have been excavated in the area. SEE ALSO:

Artemis.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Blandin, B. (2008) “Amarynthos au de´but de l’aˆge du fer a` la lumie`re des fouilles re´centes.” Antike Kunst 51: 180–91. Fachard, S. and Theurillat, T. (2008) “Amarynthos 2007.” Antike Kunst 51: 154–9. Knoepfler, D. (2008) “Arguments en faveur de l’identification a` l’Arte´mision d’Amarynthos.” Antike Kunst 51: 166–71. Sapouna-Sakellaraki, E. (1992) “Un de´poˆt de temple et le sanctuaire d’Arte´mis Amarysia en Eube´e.” Kernos 5: 235–63. Theurillat, T. and Fachard, S. (2007) “Campagne de fouilles a` Amarynthos.” Antike Kunst 50: 135–9.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 348–349. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah02014

1

Amastris of Herakleia MONICA D’AGOSTINI

The Achaemenid princess Amastris (d. 284 BCE) was the daughter of Darius III’s brother Oxyathres. In 324 she was married in Susa to Alexander the Great’s general KRATEROS, who brought his Persian wife back to Macedon with him. After Alexander’s death, Krateros married Phila, the daughter of ANTIPATER. Amastris was then given in marriage to Dionysios, tyrant of HERAKLEIA PONTICA, with a great dowry, contributing to the inclusion of Herakleia into the sphere of influence of the Diadochoi (Diod. Sic. 20.109.7; Arr. Anab. 7.4.5 and 7.12.2; Memnon BNJ 434 F 1.4.4–6). At Dionysios’ death Amastris was left as mistress of all the regions ruled by her deceased husband, as well as guardian of her three children, Amastris, Klearchos, and Oxyathres (spelled Oxathres in our only source, MEMNON), with the support of ANTIGONOS I MONOPHTHALMOS. At the beginning of the fourth war of the Diadochoi in 303/2 BCE, LYSIMACHOS crossed into Asia, and, in order to strengthen his position against Antigonos, sought an alliance with Amastris by marrying her. However, around 299 Lysimachos married ARSINOE II, one of the daughters of PTOLEMY I SOTER, and Amastris returned to Herakleia. While she remained a valuable ally of Lysimachos, Amastris established her own kingdom, founding and monumentalizing her eponymous city of Amastris, and minting her own issues with the title of queen, BAΣIΛIΣΣHΣ AMAΣTPIOΣ (Memnon BNJ 434 F 1.4.8–9; De Callataÿ 2004). She was associated with Aphrodite Nikephoros and likely received religious honors as founder and protector of the city (Iossif and Lorber 2007). At

their coming of age, Amastris’ sons were appointed successors to her in the basileia. Her death followed not long afterwards in 284, when she was said to have been murdered by them (Memnon BNJ 434 F 1.5.2). Lysimachos, instead of welcoming their succession, sentenced the two princes to death. He then proceeded to include in his kingdom the former basileia of Amastris. Initially he confiscated the royal treasure and gave a democratic constitution to Herakleia; nevertheless, soon afterwards he gave the region to his wife Arsinoe, who controlled Herakleia through a garrison and a minister, probably an epistates, one Herakleides of Kyme (Memnon BNJ 434 F 1.5.3–5). SEE ALSO:

Successors, wars of.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Brosius, M. (1996) Women in ancient Persia. Oxford. De Callataÿ, F. (2004) “Le premier monnayage de la cité d’Amastris (Paphlagonie).” Schweizerische numismatische Rundschau 83: 57–80. Erçiyas, D. B. (2003) “Heracleia Pontica-Amastris.” In D. V. Grammenos and E. K. Petropoulos, eds., Ancient Greek colonies in the Black Sea: 1403–31. Thessaloniki. Iossif, P. and Lorber, C. (2007) “Laodikai and the goddess Nikephoros.” L’Antiquité classique 76: 63–88. Landucci Gattinoni, F. (1992) Lisimaco di Tracia nella prospettiva del primo Ellenismo. Milan. Müller, S. (2013) “The female element in the political self-fashioning of the Diadochoi: Ptolemy, Seleucus, Lysimachus and their Iranian wives.” In V. Alonso Troncoso and E. Anson, eds., After Alexander: the time of the Diadochi: 199–214. Oxford.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, and Andrew Erskine. © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Published 2017 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah30433

1

Amathus KATERINA KOLOTOUROU

Amathus, an important site on the southern coast of CYPRUS, is located about 10 km east of the modern town of Limassol. Founded at the beginning of the eleventh century BCE, the settlement had developed into a city-kingdom by the late ninth–early eighth century BCE, evidenced by the occupation of a palace on the acropolis and the contemporaneous presence of exceptionally rich burials in the extensive necropolis. The major sanctuary of the city, dedicated to Aphrodite (the Greek “Kypria”), was also founded at around 800 BCE. In contrast with the Greek foundation myths of KOURION and Salamis and the Phoenician establishment of KITION, the Amathusians were considered autochthonous (Ps.-Skyl. 103) and heirs of the legendary Cypriot king Kinyras (Theopomp. FGrH 115 F 103, 3). Local inscriptions from the fourth century BCE record an unknown language referred to as Eteocypriot (“true Cypriot”). The language was written in the Cypriot syllabary that derived from the Bronze Age Cypro-Minoan syllabic script (see LINEAR A) and was used as an official language of the kingdom, jointly with Greek, until the end of the classical period. Due to its coastal location and easy access to the rich copper mines of Kalavassos further inland, Amathus had established connections and intensive trade with the Aegean and the east since its earliest phase. Greek, Levantine, Egyptian, and Egyptianizing artifacts found in tombs show the truly cosmopolitan character of the city. Phoenician burials, divinities (ADONIS, Malika), and cultic paraphernalia

also suggest a strong Semitic presence in the kingdom. The Amathousian openness and amalgamation of diverse cultural elements is characteristic of the Cypriot identity since the eleventh century BCE. The kingdom may have appeared in the lists of ESARHADDON and ASHURBANIPAL (ASSURBANIPAL) (673–667 BCE) under a Phoenician name (Kartihadast), or under the name Nuria (Kinyreia), as recently suggested. SEE ALSO: Phoenicia, Phoenicians; Salamis (Cyprus).

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Aupert, P. (1997) “Amathus during the First Iron Age.” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 308: 19–25. Hermary, A. (1987) “Amathonte de Chypre et les Phe´niciens.” In E. Lipinski, ed., Studia Phoenicia V: Phoenicia and the east Mediterranean in the first millennium BC: 375–88. Leuven. Iacovou, M. (2002) “Amathous: an Early Iron Age polity in Cyprus. The chronology of its foundation.” Report of the Department of Antiquities, Cyprus: 101–22. Masson, O. (1983) Inscriptions chypriotes syllabiques. Paris. Petit, T. (1995) “Amathous (autochthones eisin). De l’identite´ Amathousienne a` l’e´poque des royaumes (VIIIe–IVe sie`cles av. J.-C.).” Sources. Travaux historiques: 43–4 (special issue: “Kyprios character”: Quelle identite´ chypriote? Actes de la table ronde organise´e par Histoire au Pre´sent): 51–64. Petit, T. (2001) “The first palace of Amathus and the Cypriot poleogenesis.” In I. Nielsen, ed., The royal palace institution in the first millennium BC: regional development and cultural interchange between east and west. 53–75. Aarhus.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 349–350. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah02015

1

Amazons ADRIENNE MAYOR

Legendary enemies of the Greeks, Amazons were fierce archer-horsewomen who gloried in war, hunting, and sex. From their supposed homeland on the Black Sea, they were thought to occupy the fringes of the “civilized” world (Scythia and Libya). As described by Homer, Herodotus, Strabo, Diodorus Siculus, Plutarch, Pausanias, Appian, and others, the Amazon lifestyle was a reverse image of Greek maledominated society. In folk etymology, a-mazon was said to mean “one-breast,” but “not breastfed” is more likely; the name may also derive from the Iranian word for “warrior.” In myth, Amazons specialized in ambush and cavalry raids. Some writers claimed that Amazons invented cavalry and iron weapons. Formidable with bow, sword, and battle-axe, Amazons featured as opponents of the best Greek heroes, including Herakles, Achilles, and Theseus. Amazonomachies were popular on vase paintings; Athens commemorated its mythic defeat of the Amazons in the Parthenon sculptures. In 2007, magnificent mosaics of four Amazon queens, Melanippe, Hippolyte, Penthesilea, and Antiope, were discovered in Urfa, Turkey. Alleged tombs of Amazons were revered in Asia Minor, where several great cities claimed Amazon founders. At Ephesos, it was said that Amazons worshipped Artemis and performed war dances. According to a romantic tale in Herodotus (4.110–17), some young Scythian warriors fell in love with a band of Amazons and proposed marriage. The women

insisted on independence. “Our business is with riding and the bow and javelin – we know nothing of women’s work. We must be free to hunt and make war.” The lovers formed a new tribe, vowing to raise girls and boys to hunt, ride, and make war. Thus originated the Sarmatians, a tribe of nomadic, warlike horse people of southern Russia. Historical commanders such as Alexander the Great and Pompey encountered real women warriors in Eurasia (Plut. Alex. 46, Pomp. 35). In the 1950s, Soviet archaeologists excavated tombs of Sarmatian-Saka-Scythian nomads who had traded with the Greeks in Herodotus’ time. Similar fieldwork continued in Kazakhstan by Jeannine Davis-Kimball in the 1990s. Of graves containing warriors’ weapons, armor, and horse trappings, nearly a quarter belonged to women, showing clear evidence of battle wounds, skull injuries, and arrowheads in bone. These archaeological finds suggest that there may have been some historical basis to the Greek stories of Amazons. SEE ALSO: Achilles; Gender, Greek and Roman; Herakles (Hercules); Scythians; Theseus and Thesia.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Blok, J. (1995) The early Amazons: Modern and ancient perspectives on a persistent myth. Leiden. Bothmer, D. von (1957) Amazons in Greek art. Oxford. Davis-Kimball, J. (1997) “Warrior women of Eurasia.” Archaeology 50, 1: 44–8. Rothery, G. C. (1910) The Amazons in antiquity and modern times. London.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 350–351. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah17025

1

Amazons ADRIENNE MAYOR

Stanford University, USA

Legendary enemies of the Greeks, Amazons of myth were fierce barbarian horsewomen–archers who gloried in war, hunting, and sex. Dwelling in exotic lands east of the Mediterranean, Amazons were the equals of men in combat and bravery. The greatest Greek heroes – Heracles, Theseus, and Achilles – proved their valor by defeating the Amazon queens Hippolyte, Antiope, and Penthesilea. As described by Homer, Herodotus, Strabo, Diodorus Siculus, Plutarch, Pausanias, Appian, and others, the Amazon lifestyle was a reverse image of Greek male-dominated society. The warlike women enjoyed the freedom of men and were depicted in literature and art as the equals of male warriors in skill and valor. According to pseudo-etymology, a-mazon was said to mean “one-breast” due to the need to remove a breast in order to draw a bow. But this claim was disputed in antiquity with others suggesting that it meant “not breast-fed.” No ancient artists portrayed one-breasted Amazons. It is more likely that the non-Greek name derived from the Iranian word for “warrior.” Some writers claimed that Amazons invented cavalry and iron weapons. Formidable with bow, sword, and battle-axe, Amazons were featured as the worthy opponents of the best Greek heroes. Amazonomachies were popular in sculpture and vase paintings; Athens commemorated its mythic defeat of the Amazons in the Parthenon sculptures. In 2007, magnificent mosaics of four Amazon queens, Melanippe, Hippolyte, Penthesilea, and Antiope, were discovered in Urfa, Turkey. Alleged tombs of Amazons were revered in Anatolia, where many cities claimed Amazon founders. At Ephesos, it was said that Amazons worshipped ARTEMIS and performed war dances. According to a romantic tale recounted by

Herodotus (4.110–17), some young Scythian warriors fell in love with a band of Amazons and proposed marriage. The women insisted on independence. “Our business is with riding and the bow and javelin – we know nothing of women’s work. We must be free to hunt and make war.” The lovers formed a new tribe, vowing to raise girls and boys to hunt, ride, and make war. Thus, originated the Sarmatians, a tribe of nomadic, warlike horse people of southern Russia. Ancient Greek historians, such as Herodotus, Strabo, and Plato, reported that real women lived the lives of Amazons in the vast territory stretching from the Black Sea to Central Asia, known as SCYTHIA. Cyrus the Great and historical commanders such as Alexander the Great and Pompey encountered real women warriors in Eurasia (Plut. Alex. 46, Pomp. 35). Ancient historians linked the Amazons of myth with women of Scythian nomad cultures whose lives centered on horses, archery, and relatively egalitarian lifestyles. In the 1950s, Soviet archaeologists excavated burial mounds of Sarmatian–Saka–Scythian nomads who had traded with the Greeks in Herodotus’ time. Similar fieldwork by Jeannine Davis-Kimball continued in the 1990s in Kazakhstan; she was the first to use DNA analysis to determine that some of the armed skeletons were females. Since then, other archaeologists have identified about 300 graves of female warriors on the steppes. Of tombs containing warriors’ weapons, armor, and horse trappings, nearly a quarter belonged to women, some showing evidence of battle wounds, skull injuries, and arrowheads embedded in bone. These archaeological finds and grave goods, which match Amazons’ clothing and equipment depicted in Greek vase paintings, suggest that there may have been some historical basis to the Greek stories of Amazons. SEE ALSO:

Achilles; Gender, Greek and Roman; Herakles (Hercules); Scythians.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History. Edited by Andrew Erskine, David B. Hollander, and Arietta Papaconstantinou. © 2020 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Published 2020 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah17025.pub2

2 REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Blok, J. (1995) The early Amazons: modern and ancient perspectives on a persistent myth. Leiden. Bothmer, D. von (1957) Amazons in Greek art. Oxford. Davis-Kimball, J. (1997) “Warrior women of Eurasia.” Archaeology 50, 1: 44–8.

Mayor, A. (2014) The Amazons: lives and legends of warrior women across the ancient world. Princeton. Penrose, W. (2017) Postcolonial Amazons: female masculinity and courage in ancient Greek and Sanskrit literature. Oxford.

1

Ambarvalia LORA L. HOLLAND

Ritual lustration of fields and crops is a feature of some pre-industrial agricultural communities, for example, Bronze Age Ugaritic practices in southwest Asia or eighth century CE Japanese Shinto rites. In ancient Italy, a poorly attested rite called ambarvalia (Festus Gloss. Lat. 16; SHA Aurel. 19.6, 20.3) involved leading animals around a circuit of fields to be purified by their sacrifice; cf. the Amburbium ritual for the city boundaries (termini). Similar Italic rituals are prescribed in the Iguvine Tables. An arvum is a “field not yet sown” (Festus Gloss. Lat. 23), but the purpose and timing of the ambarvalia are controversial and the deity (or deities) concerned is unknown. The public ritual at Rome may have been a general purification of fields by the pontiffs (Strabo 5.3.2). Long disputed is the modern claim that the ambarvalia were conducted by the Arval Brothers for Dea Dia on May 29 (Wissowa 1912: 562, but see Pascal 1988: 532–3). The SHA evidence suggests it was an emergency lustration rite of the state, not an

annual festival for May. Private rites of field lustration are described in Cato (Agr. 141, where the sacrificial victims are a piglet, lamb, and calf, suovetaurilia lactentia), Vergil (Ecl. 5.75; G. 1.338-50 with Serv. at 1.341), and Tibullus (2.1). Sacrificial victims called ambarvales hostiae (Festus Gloss. Lat. 5) were probably pig, sheep, and bull (suovetaurilia), since these were used in purification rituals generally. The same sacrificial victims were used for state lustration rites in the Iguvine Tables (e.g., Table I). SEE ALSO: Arval Brothers; Iguvine Tables; Purification, Roman.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Linderski, J. (1995) “Review of Ida Paladino, Fratres Arvales: Storia di un collegio sacerdotale romano (1991).” In Roman Questions: 600–3, 678. Leiden. Pascal, C. B. (1988) “Tibullus and the Ambarvalia.” American Journal of Philology 109: 523–36. Wissowa, G. (1912) Religion und Kultus der Ro¨mer, 2nd ed. Leipzig.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print page 351. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah17026

1

Ambarvalia LORA L. HOLLAND GOLDTHWAITE

The maintenance of boundaries was an essential feature of Roman religion. A particular ritual of this type was the sacrificium ambarvale, which involved leading animals thrice around a circuit (ambio) of fields (arva) to be purified and made productive by their sacrifice. An arvum is a field that has been plowed but not yet sown, or simply arable land (Varro R. 1.29.1; Festus Gloss. Lat. 23; cf. Catul. 115.2). Such practices were widespread in preindustrial agricultural communities from Bronze Age Ugarit to eighth-century CE Japan. Similar Italic rituals are prescribed in the IGUVINE TABLES and are presumed in Etruscan religion. Roman field lustration was part of a complex of public and private rituals that included the Amburbium (for city boundaries, termini) and private lustration. We presume a moveable festival (feriae conceptivae) called the Ambarvalia (Festus Gloss Lat. 16; SHA Aurel. 19.6, 20.3; Strabo 5.3.2 C 230; but see Pascal 1988: 531–3). The rites for field lustration are probably related to the spring sowing festivals (feriae sementivae) that also purified crops (segetes lustrantur), attested for 29 May in the Menologia Rustica (CIL I2: 280), the same day on which the ARVAL BROTHERS, a priesthood of twelve men for arable land, conducted an ambarval rite for Dea Dia. Springtime is also indicated by the sacrificial victims for the private

lustration described in Cato (Agr. 141), the suovetaurilia lactentia (suckling piglet, lamb, and calf ), and the lambs cited in Tibullus (2.1) and Vergil (G. 1.33). The ambarvales hostiae (Festus Gloss. Lat. 5) were probably pig, sheep, and bull (SUOVETAURILIA), since these were used in purification (see PURIFICATION, ROMAN) rituals generally, including the state lustration rites in the Iguvine Tables. Depictions of the suovetaurilia in Roman art show full-grown animals and pertain to other types of rites such as the lustration of the people after a census (see AHENOBARBUS). Ambarval rites feature a range of protective and agricultural deities, including Mars, Ceres, Bacchus, and Dea Dia, the patron goddess of the Arval Brothers. REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Ancillotti, A. and Cerri, R. (1997) Le tavole iguvine: fotografie a colori, facsimili, testo traslitterato, traduzione e commento. Perugia. Baudy, D. (1998) Römische Umgangsriten, eine ethologische Untersuchung der Funktion von Wiederholung für religiöses Verhalten. Berlin. Edlund-Berry, I. (2006) “Ritual space and boundaries.” In N. de Grummond and E. Simon, eds., The religion of the Etruscans: 116–31. Austin. Linderski, J. (1995) “Review of Ida Paladino, Fratres Arvales: Storia di un collegio sacerdotale romano (1991).” In Roman questions: 600–3, 678. Leiden. Pascal, C. B. (1988) “Tibullus and the Ambarvalia.” American Journal of Philology 109: 523–36. Scheid, J. (1990) Romulus et ses frères: le collège des frères arvales, modèle du culte public dans la Rome des empereurs. Rome.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History. Edited by Kai Brodersen, Andrew Erskine, and David Hollander. © 2019 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Published 2019 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah17026.pub2

1

Amber ELLEN SWIFT

Amber is the fossilized resin of trees, and is found on beaches where it is washed up by the tide. It was much prized in antiquity, and traded over long distances, the principal source being the Baltic coast. Its origins were much debated, and a variety of origin myths exist, though Aristotle knew it was “hardened resin.” In Ovid’s re-telling, amber crystallized from the tears of the mother and sister of Phaeton, son of Helios, when they were turned into poplar trees following his tragic death (Palavestra and Krstic´ 2006: 21). Amber is fairly soft and easily shaped with the use of files and other abrasive tools, and can also be polished. It slowly deteriorates on exposure to air and changes color and translucency, becoming more opaque with age (Strong 1966: 1). Although many amber artifacts exist from antiquity, their appearance will therefore be different from that of the original objects. The earliest occurrence of amber in the Mediterranean is in the shaft graves at Mycenae, which sometimes contain amber beads. Physical analysis has shown that these objects were mostly made from amber sourced in the Baltic (Palavestra and Krstic´ 2006: 40). Mycenaean amber artifacts have also been found in the ancient Near East from the Bronze Age onwards. In Near Eastern texts, amber was used as a symbol of power, and was apparently worn by kings and priests (Todd 1985: 292, 299). Beads made from amber are occasional finds in tombs from Pharaonic Egypt. Amber was also used in Iron Age Greece and Italy, and small figurines made from amber occur quite frequently as Etruscan grave-finds, the most popular subjects being animals and figuregroups (Strong 1966: 27–8). In the Roman period amber was used to make a variety of small objects such as beads, handles, figurines, and small containers (Palavestra and Krstic´ 2006: 69). Both archaeological and

textual sources confirm that a flourishing trade existed between areas of Germania beyond the Roman frontier and regions within the empire, with multiple trade routes mostly along rivers (Palavestra and Krstic´ 2006: 34). Amber was exported principally as the raw material though workshops within Germania Libera for the manufacture of amber objects are also known, which are thought to have developed as a consequence of the amber trade with the Roman Empire (Cofta-Broniewska 1999: 170). Within the Roman Empire, the principal workshop for the production of amber objects was at Aquileia, and the workshops here produced many goods between the first and third centuries CE, which they exported widely in the western provinces (Palavestra and Krstic´ 2006: 69). According to written sources, in antiquity amber was widely believed to possess protective and healing powers. This is confirmed archaeologically in the late Roman period by a study of the occurrence of amber beads in provincial Roman cemeteries in the northwestern Roman provinces. In these cemeteries amber beads are found mostly in children’s graves and therefore presumably had some kind of amuletic function (Swift 2003: 342–3). Notwithstanding the continued occurrence of amber jewelry in this period, from the third century onwards the Roman amber trade seems to have declined, and instead greater quantities of amber objects occur as gravefinds in the Baltic region (Palavestra and Krstic´ 2006: 69). SEE ALSO: Amulets, Greece and Rome; Aquileia; Barbarians, barbaroi; Trade, Roman.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Cofta-Broniewska, A. (1999) “Amber in the material culture of the communities of the region of Kuiavia during the Roman period.” In B. Kosmowska-Ceranowicz and H. Paner, eds., Investigations into amber, proceedings of the international interdisciplinary symposium, Baltic amber and other fossil resins: 157–75. Gdansk.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 351–352. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah06017

2 Palavestra, A. and Krstic´, V. (2006) The magic of amber. Belgrade. Strong, D. E. (1966) Catalogue of the carved amber in the Department of Graeco-Roman Antiquities. London.

Swift, E. (2003) “Late Roman bead necklaces and bracelets.” Journal of Roman Archaeology 16: 336–49. Todd, J. (1985) “Baltic amber in the ancient Near East: a preliminary investigation.” Journal of Baltic Studies 16: 292–301.

1

Ambitus CRISTINA ROSILLO-LÓPEZ

Ambitus refers to electoral misconduct, rampant during the late Roman Republic although it was punishable by law. The term derives from the Latin ambire, to go round after, to canvass for votes. By the first century BCE, Roman citizens elected forty-four new magistrates each year. The importance of clients and the networks of patronage in elections has been the subject of debate (see PATRON, PATRONAGE, ROMAN; CLIENTELA, ROMAN REPUBLIC). By the end of the second century BCE, politicians could not rely on clients alone to win an election: increasing competition, close and hard-fought electoral campaigns, and split votes meant that candidates resorted to ambitus in order to increase their chances (see ELECTIONS, ROMAN). Preventive measures against ambitus were not very abundant. The introduction of the secret ballot for elections in 139 BCE (lex Gabinia) could be considered in this category, but it may also have fueled the use of bribes. Marius passed a measure in 119 BCE that restricted the width of the voting walkways so that citizens would not be solicited or offered bribes. Laws and senatus consulta that punished ambitus are attested with certainty from the second century BCE onward. Practices evolved over time: customs that were condemned in the fifth or fourth century BCE, such as wearing a white toga or soliciting votes, did not raise an eyebrow centuries later. In the last century of the Roman Republic, the following acts were considered illegal if carried out in connection with an election: hiring an escort, games and banquets, distributions of cash or in kind, and associations set up to channel votes. The line between generosity and illicit largesse was often blurred. In the 60s BCE, legislation

was aimed at eliminating the middlemen who distributed the cash, the divisores. Laws did not target the recipients of the bribes, whose eventual profit from such practices has been the subject of scholarly debate, especially in the case of non-elite voters. A permanent tribunal (see QUAESTIO PERPETUA) against ambitus was probably established in the last third of the second century BCE. Punishments for electoral misconduct varied during the Republic: they included ineligibility for ten years, expulsion from the Senate, or a fine. Exile was frequently the result, since those convicted fled to avoid punishment. Legislation against ambitus was ineffective for several reasons. Firstly, a certain degree of ambitus had become acceptable. Secondly, there was a clear conflict of interests, since the senators who were passing the laws had been candidates themselves, and would be so in prospective elections. Thirdly, there was no official prosecutor; indictments were frequently carried out by defeated rivals. Fourthly, defendants were judged by their peers, although not exclusively. Ambitus seems to have become more widespread from the 60s BCE due to the availability of historical sources (especially Cicero), the increase in legislation, and the inflation of means. Candidates had to spend huge amounts just to stay in the running, resorting to their own wealth, loans from friends, or even professional creditors. Many of them entered into heavy debt, relying on their future illegal profits from a provincial magistracy. Ambitus and repetundae were closely linked. Augustus passed a law against ambitus in 18 BCE, but it was the increasing interference of the princeps in elections and their transfer to the Senate by Tiberius that wiped out this kind of electoral misconduct. SEE ALSO:

Comitia and concilia; Corruption; Roman Republic, constitution.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner. © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Published 2015 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah25070

2 REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Bauerle, E. A. (1990) Procuring an election: ambitus in the Roman Republic. Ann Arbor. Ferrary, J. L. (2001) “La legislation ‘de ambitu’ de Sulla à Auguste.” In Iuris vincula: studi in onore di Mario Talamanca: 159–98. Naples.

Lintott, A. (1990) “Electoral bribery in the Roman Republic.” Journal of Roman Studies 80: 1–16. Rosillo-López, C. (2010) La corruption à la fin de la république romaine: aspects politiques et financiers (IIe–IIIes. av. J.-C.). Stuttgart.

1

Ambrakia WILLIAM C. WEST III

Ambrakia is the settlement identified as Arta, lying north of the Gulf of Preveza, the location of the battle of ACTIUM in 31 BCE. The city was colonized by CORINTH ca. 625 BCE and had developed a grid plan by the fifth century. The older form of the name was Amprakia, as found in Herodotus, in Thucydides, and on coins. Amprakia was viewed by Herodotus, together with LEUKAS, as the most remote of cities contributing to the allied fleet at Salamis (8.47). Founded by the Cypselids as a Corinthian colony, it later became democratic (Arist. Pol. 5.4). It fought as an ally of the Greeks in the Persian wars and on the side of SPARTA in the PELOPONNESIAN WAR. In 426, it was defeated by ATHENS (Thuc. 2.68; cf. 3.108). At this time, Ambrakia was allied with Amphilochian Argos, a neighboring town of the Ambraciots. The Amphilochians of Argos had in fact learned their Hellenic speech from the Ambraciots. The two cities together had called in the Athenians, who sent PHORMION as general. He had conquered Amphilochian Argos and enslaved the Ambraciots, who were living in the city. After this, both Ambraciots and Akarnanians lived together in the city. In 395, Ambrakia joined the alliance of Athens, Thebes, and Corinth against Sparta. Later it became a member of the LEAGUE OF CORINTH, which was established by PHILIP II OF MACEDON in 338. In the third century BCE, it came under Macedonian rule, and CASSANDER’s son Alexander gave the city to PYRRHOS, king of EPIRUS, who made it his capital. From 230/ 229, it belonged to the AITOLIAN LEAGUE, until it was captured and plundered by M. FULVIUS NOBILIOR in 189 (Polyb. 21.27; Livy 38.4). An indication of the city’s associations after 169 is given in IG II2 951, which contains the formulae of an oath taken by representatives of Athens, Ambrakia, and Akarnania. It then became a civitas libera (Livy 38.44.2). In the Third Macedonian War in 170/169, Ambrakia became

a Roman garrison (Livy 42.67.9; see MACEDONIAN WARS). It next participated in the synoecism of NIKOPOLIS (Strabo 7.7.6; Paus. 5.23.3). The layout and structure of the town was described by Livy (38.4) and Polybius (21.26.3–4), as well as by Strabo (7.7.6). The Ambrakian Gulf (Thuc. 1.55; Polyb. 4.63; Livy 38.4; Strabo ibid.; Plin. HN 4.2) was used as a term for a part of the Anactorian Gulf, so named because of the city of Anactorion on its south side (Skylax 31.34). Inscriptions of Ambrakia include CIG II.1797–1809; IG II2 951; SEG 3.451, 24.437, 26.694, 29.347, 31.535, 41.540; BCH (1992), II, 576–606 (Epirus). As it had been the capital of Epirus, ruled by Pyrrhos, Ambrakia became the seat of the Despotate of Epirus, set up by Michael I Angelos after the fall of Constantinople and the Morea to the FRANKS. It was captured by the TURKS in 1449 and, in the period 1717–1799, fell in succession to the Venetians, French, and Turks. Ancient remains within the city have been discovered in blocks reused in later buildings and in rescue excavations. The phrourion, a thirteenthcentury castle at the bend of the Arachthos River, contains reused classical architectural blocks in its outer wall. Nearby, the thirteenthcentury Church of Aghia Theodora, properly the Church of St. George the Martyr, has capitals said to come from Nikopolis. Part of the ancient prytaneion of the city was found in the same locality. In Odos Priovolou, part of the bouleuterion was found in 1976, and nearby are the foundations of a large Doric temple of the fifth-century BCE, with roof tiles stamped AMBR. Sections of the ancient town wall, of ca. 500 BCE, are on Odoi Porfiriou Mitropolitou and Rogou. South of the city, on the east bank of the river, is the Kato Panaghia, founded by Michael II as a nunnery. The church has porphyry columns, which are said to have come from a Syrian temple of Aphrodite with classical foundation blocks. In its modern name, Arta, the city is renowned in folklore, in the tale of “The Bridge of Arta,” in which the builder of a Turkish packhorse bridge is compelled by an oracle to

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 352–354. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah14027

2 bury his wife in its foundations, in order to ensure that the bridge will stand. SEE ALSO: Akarnanian League; Ambrakos; Kypselos; Synoecism.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Doukellis, P. and Fouache, E´. (1992) “La centuriation romaine sur la plaine d’Artae´ replace´e dans le context de l’e´volution

morphologique re´cente des deltas de l’Arachtos et des Louros.” Bulletin de Correspondence Helle´nique: 375–82. Gehrke, H.-J. and Wirbelauer, E. (2004) “Ambrakia.” In M. H. Hansen and T. H. Nielsen, eds. An Inventory of Archaic and Classical Poleis: 354–6. Oxford. Hammond, N. G. L. (1967) Epirus. Oxford. Talbert, R. J. A. et al. (2000) Barrington atlas of the Greek and Roman world: 54C3. Princeton.

1

Ambrakos WILLIAM C. WEST III

Ambrakos was a settlement located on a narrow peninsula extending to the east within the Gulf of Preveza. Its modern name is Salaora. Ambrakos was the port of ancient AMBRAKIA and, through its location, guarded and controlled entry to the city. Foundations of its circuit wall, some 1,200 m long, have been revealed. A gap in the foundation leads out of the harbor, which, in turn, permits entry into the Arachthos River. This river flows around Ambrakia. Polybius (4.61–3) describes a siege of Ambrakos by PHILIP V OF MACEDON and comments on the topography: “Ambrakos is a location well fortified with outworks and a wall. It lies in a lake, with one narrow exit. It suitably commands entry to the land of the Ambraciots and the city.” The extent of Ambrakia in the time of its independence is indicated by Pseudo-Skylax (33) as 120 stadia. Ambrakos became a Roman possession after the war with Perseus

(Livy 42.67.9). L. Calpurnius Piso, consul in 58 BCE, was a Roman magistrate there, apparently governor (Cic. Pis. 37.91, 40.96). After the battle of ACTIUM, synoecism with NIKOPOLIS took place (Paus. 5.23.3). The remains of Ambrakos are on a small island, Phidokastro (cf. Polyb. 4.61; Stephanus Byzantius). It lies on the north side of the Gulf of Preveza, where there are lagoons west of the mouth of the Arachthos River in the territory of Ambrakia. REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Doukellis, P. and Fouache, E´. (1992) “La centuriation romaine sur la plaine d’Arta replace´e dans le context de l’e´volution morphologique re´cente des deltas de l’Arachtos et des Louros.” Bulletin de Correspondence Helle´nique 116: 375–82. Hammond, N. G. L. (1967) Epirus: 137. Oxford. Murray, W. T. (2000) “Map 54: Epirus–Acarnania. Introduction.” In R. J. A. Talbert et al., eds., Barrington Atlas of the Greek and Roman world. Map-by-map directory, vol. 2: 803–4. Princeton. Talbert, R. J. A. et al., eds. (2000) Barrington atlas of the Greek and Roman world: 54C3. Princeton.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print page 354. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah14028

1

Ambrose DAVID M. GWYNN

Ambrose of Milan (ca. 339–97 CE, bishop of Milan 373/4–97) was a leading bishop of the later fourth-century church, whose life and works helped to shape the early Christian Roman Empire. Born into a privileged family, he initially followed a traditional administrative career. Thus in 373/4, Ambrose was the governor of Aemilia-Liguria when Auxentius, the bishop of his provincial capital of Milan, died. After rioting broke out between rival Christian factions, Ambrose intervened to maintain order and was himself hailed as the new bishop. Despite some reluctance, Ambrose was hastily baptized and then accelerated through the lower ranks of the clergy. He was proclaimed bishop at the end of the same week, the first known Christian bishop to have come from senatorial social origins. The divisions within Milan plagued the early years of Ambrose’s episcopate, although these conflicts are largely known from his own writings, which are at times tendentious. Ambrose defended Christian orthodoxy against opponents whom he regarded as “Arian” heretics, notably those who upheld the Homoian creed of the Council of Ariminum-Seleukeia in 358/9. This included the Gothic soldiers at the imperial court now resident in Milan, and Justina, the stepmother of Gratian (Emperor 375–83) and mother of Valentinian II (Emperor 383–92). Ambrose masterminded the condemnation of “Arianism” at the Council of Aquileia in 381, and in 386 refused Justina’s demand that he surrender the basilica Portiana to the “Arians.” Augustine records that during the “Siege of the Basilica” the singing of hymns was first introduced in a western church to raise the defenders’ spirits. Ambrose further strengthened his following by the promotion of relics, most notably those of the martyrs Protasius and Gervasius, whose bodies were discovered in 386 and placed in the basilica that bears Ambrose’s name.

Ambrose played an equally significant role in the wider affairs of the Christian Empire. He supported Gratian’s removal of the Altar of Victory from the Senate House in Rome in 382, and persuaded VALENTINIAN II to reject the pagan senator Symmachus’ appeals for the Altar’s restoration in 384. Ambrose also represented Valentinian II at the court of his rival, the usurper Magnus Maximus, and famously clashed twice with the emperor Theodosius I (379–95). In 388, he prevented Theodosius from restoring a Jewish synagogue destroyed by Christian violence in Callinicum, and in 390 he forced the emperor to make public penance after a massacre in Thessalonike. Ambrose’s relationship with Theodosius set a potential precedent for later church–state relations, and he gave Theodosius’ funeral oration in 395, before his own death in 397. The surviving writings of Ambrose are too extensive to record in full, but include theological and ascetic treatises such as De fide ad Gratianum, De Spiritu Sancto, and De virginitate, and numerous sermons, hymns, and letters. His words and example exerted a powerful influence on many Christian contemporaries, including Augustine, although their relationship has been exaggerated, and on later generations. Together with his fellow saints Augustine, Jerome, and Gregory the Great, Ambrose is commemorated today as one of the four original Doctors of the Latin Church. SEE ALSO: Arius and Arianism; Augustine of Hippo; Bishop; Mediolanum (Milan); Relics; Sermons, Late Antiquity; Theodosius I.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Courcelle, P. (1973) Recherches sur Saint Ambroise. “Vies” anciennes, culture, iconographie. Paris. Homes Dudden, F. (1935) The life and times of St. Ambrose, 2 vols. Oxford. Markschies, C. (1995) Ambrosius von Mailand und die Trinita¨tstheologie : kirchen- und theologiegeschichtliche Studien zu Antiarianismus

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 354–355. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah12009

2 und Neuniza¨nismus bei Ambrosius und im lateinischen Westen (364–381 n.Chr.). Tu¨bingen. McLynn, N. (1994) Ambrose of Milan: Church and court in a Christian capital. London.

Ramsey, B. (1997) Ambrose. London. Savon, H. (1997) Ambroise de Milan. Paris. Williams, D. H. (1995) Ambrose of Milan and the end of the Nicene-Arian conflicts. Oxford.

1

Amelesagoras of Athens DENNIS R. ALLEY

The authenticity of the name and fragments attributed to Amelesagoras of Athens (FGrH 330) has been the subject of perennial controversy. As Jacoby noted long ago, the name, meaning “unmindful of the Agora,” is not a linguistically authentic Greek name (Jacoby 1949: 79–86). Recently it has been suggested that the name is the author’s nom de plume (Marasco 1977; Jones 2016), and as such need not adhere strictly to linguistic rules involving names. The author’s date, too, has been the source of controversy. Amelesagoras is included in Dionysius of Halicarnassus’ list of Greek historians before the Peloponnesian War, which has itself been the source of controversy over the years. If the attribution is correct, his position (last) in Dionysius’ sequence suggests that his life or activity concluded around the outbreak of the war. Schwartz, however, had little confidence in this date and suggested that the pseudonym was reliant on Plato’s underworld river Ameles at Republic 10.621 (Schwartz 1894). Jacoby further argued that Callimachus relies on Amelesagoras for details in his Hecale, placing the terminus ante quem for the author at 270 BCE. These dates, however, are tenuous. Our earliest citation (FGrH 330, F1) from Antigonus of Karystos, agrees roughly on a terminus ante quem of the third century BCE, but nothing in the fragments or testimonia is distinctive enough to confidently assign a terminus post quem, if, indeed, the author is authentic. Our final detail provided by ancient sources, that Amelesagoras was a native of Eleusis, is among the few facts about the author’s biography on which there was agreement. Our fragments from the Atthis reveal little in the way of style or structure of the work. The

content is very much like that of other ATTHIDOParticularly PHILOCHOROS and Daemon (Jones 2016). This confluence may support the date proposed by Jacoby, since the fourth century BCE, and especially the time after Hellanikos’ Attis, seems to have been a particularly active period of Atthidography. Our longest fragment (FGrH 330, F1), relates a myth explaining why crows never fly over the Athenian acropolis. The use of the crow as a vehicle for bad news and the subsequent punishment of the crow by a divinity in the story offer interesting parallels with the Koronis myth. Other fragments reveal the primarily mythical interests of the text and demonstrate that myths involving Athenian royalty must have played an especially significant role in the Atthis. Jones (2016) collects the fragments and offers a full commentary. GRAPHERS,

SEE ALSO:

Historiography, Greek and Roman.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Harding, P., ed. (2008) The story of Athens: the fragments of the local chronicles of Attika. London. Jacoby, F. (1923–) Die Fragmente der griechischen Historiker: 330. Leiden. Jacoby, F. (1949) Atthis: the local chronicles of ancient Athens. Oxford. Jones, N. (2016) “Amelesagoras of Athens (FGrH 330).” In I. Worthington, ed., Brill’s New Jacoby. Brill Online. Kroll, W. (1931) “Melessagoras.” In A. Pauly, G. Wissowa, and W. Kroll, eds., Realencyclopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft 15.1: 494. Stuttgart. Marasco, G. (1977) “Su Amelesagora di Calcedone, Amelesagora d’Atene e la letteratura esegetica.” Prometheus 3: 55–68. Schwartz, E. (1894) ”Amelesagoras.” In A. Pauly, G. Wissowa, and W. Kroll, eds., Realencyclopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft 1: 1822. Stuttgart.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, and Andrew Erskine. © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Published 2017 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah30565

1

Amenemhat I–VII AIDAN DODSON

Seven kings of the 12th (I–IV) and 13th (V–VII) Egyptian Dynasties (twentieth–eighteenth centuries BCE) bore the name Amenemhat. It was also a very common private name throughout that period and into the 18th Dynasty, and it could commonly be shortened to “Ameny.”

AMENEMHAT I It seems that Sehetepibre Amenemhat I, first king of the 12th Dynasty, had previously served as vizier to Mentuhotep IV and as such had led a quarrying expedition to the Wadi Hammamat to acquire the stone for his king’s sarcophagus. Amenemhat’s father was a certain Senwosret, known only from a later offering-list; his mother was Neferet I. It is unclear whether Amenemhat usurped the throne or was the nominated successor of a childless monarch. In favor of the former is the existence of the propagandistic “Prophecy of Neferti,” set in a period of chaos from which Egypt would be rescued by a “King Ameny” (the diminutive of “Amenemhat”). On the other hand, a bowl exists bearing the names of both Amenemhat and Mentuhotep IV, suggesting a smooth succession. At some point during his reign, the royal residence shifted from Thebes to the newly founded town of Itjtawi in northern Egypt, probably close to EL-LISHT, where Amenemhat I and his successor were buried. The change of royal cemetery may have occurred relatively late in the reign, as an unfinished royal tomb at Thebes-West may have belonged to him (Arnold 1991). Amenemhat I’s PYRAMID at Lisht incorporates many blocks taken from various Old Kingdom monuments, and it is possible that this reuse was not simply an economy measure but also an attempt to link the king with the great days of the Old Kingdom (Goedicke 1971).

Various traces of Amenemhat I’s monumental building work exist around Egypt, ranging from the Nile Delta through to southern Upper Egypt. However, the stela of the general Nesmentu seems to refer to some internal conflict during the reign (Arnold 1991: 18–19). There are also a number of allusions to foreign military activity in slightly later literary texts, but the only contemporary evidence is in the form of some rock inscriptions in NUBIA. A private stela bearing datelines of Year 30 of Amenemhat I and Year 10 of Senwosret I (see SENWOSRET (SESOSTRIS) I–IV) has usually been regarded as evidence of a ten-year co-regency between the two kings. This has been questioned by some scholars, but alternative explanations all have problems. Two literary texts, the “Instruction of King Amenemhat” and the “Story of Sinuhe,” together describe Amenemhat’s murder in his bed while Senwosret is away on campaign in Libya.

AMENEMHAT II It is probable that Nubkaure Amenemhat II was identical with the “King’s Son Ameny,” who is named as accompanying Amenemhat, governor of BENI HASAN, on an expedition to Nubia during the reign of Senwosret I. Amenemhat II’s mother was named Neferu (III); his wife seems to have been the Keminub who had a tomb in the enclosure of the king’s pyramid. There are relatively few monuments of the king’s three-and-a-half decades on the throne, including a gateway at Ashmunein and a lintel at MEMPHIS. From the latter site also came the remains of a large stela that records principally donations to temples but also other events. These included a military expedition into Syria-Palestine, while some mining expeditions to Sinai are recorded in private texts. The king built his pyramid at DAHSHUR, establishing this cemetery as the principal royal necropolis of the remainder of the MIDDLE KINGDOM. The pyramid is now largely

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 355–358. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah15028

2 destroyed and has never been properly excavated, although some fine jewelry was found in the tombs of his daughters.

AMENEMHAT III Presumably the son of Senwosret III, Nimaatre Amenemhat III reigned for at least forty-five years. It has been suggested that he shared the throne with his father for some years at the beginning of his reign (Wegner 1996). Relatively few monuments have survived from the reign, but the erection of a pair of colossi at Biahmu and a temple at Medinet Madi in the FAYYUM, together with the existence of fragments of text from Medinet el-Fayyum and the king’s ultimate interment in the province, suggest a particular interest in that area. This would have followed on from monuments erected there earlier by Senwosret I and II. Indeed, later folk-tales, reported by HERODOTUS, claimed that Amenemhat III had actually dug the Fayyum’s lake, the Birket Qarun. Blocks naming Amenemhat III also survive at Memphis, Lisht, Herakleopolis, and THEBES, as do traces of activity at the Nubian Second Cataract fortresses. On the other hand, the reign is well documented from various private inscriptions, including a number related to mining expeditions to the Sinai and Wadi Hammamat. Among them, one stela, of a certain Nebpusenwosret, provides information on the king’s heb-sed (see FESTIVALS, PHARAONIC EGYPT) jubilee in his Year 30. Amenemhat III built two pyramids. The first, the “Black Pyramid” at DAHSHUR, has a particularly complicated interior, including burial chambers for two of the king’s wives, as well as the king himself (Arnold 1987). This monument was, however, abandoned for the king’s own burial after the appearance of flaws in the bedrock – although it was subsequently adapted for further royal women’s interments. A new pyramid complex was then built for Amenemhat III at HAWARA in the Fayyum. Internally, it introduced a number of

Figure 1 Bust of Amenemhat III in the costume of a priest. Egyptian Museum, Cairo. © Photo Scala, Florence.

architectural innovations to increase the security of the tomb, together with a unique and exceptionally large surrounding temple complex, later referred to as the Egyptian Labyrinth (Petrie 1889, 1890). A princess named Neferuptah was temporarily buried in the pyramid before being reburied in her own pyramid, 2 km to the south. Her titulary was unusual, as was her use of a cartouche (see TITULARY, PHARAONIC EGYPT), and it is possible that her exceptional status implies that she had been nominated as Amenemhat III’s heir but had died prematurely. That a female succession could have been contemplated at this time is suggested by the fact that a woman, Sobkneferu, succeeded the next male ruler, Amenemhat IV. AMENEMHAT IV Maatkherure Amenemhat IV seems to have become co-regent with Amenemhat III toward

3 the end of the latter’s reign. Although it is often assumed that Amenemhat IV was Amenemhat III’s son, there is no direct evidence for this, his mother Hetepi lacking the title of King’s Wife. Amenemhat IV is shown with his predecessor in the temple at Medinet Madi and is known from a number of pieces of sculpture, together with various inscriptions of private individuals. The king’s reign lasted just over nine years, but his tomb is unknown. Suggestions that it might have been one of the pyramids at Mazghuna are inconsistent with their design; more likely is that his was one of a number of unexcavated pyramids at Dahshur (Dodson 1987).

AMENEMHAT V Nothing is known of the origins of Sekhemkare Amenemhat V, and the identity of his predecessor is uncertain. His monuments are limited to a single statue from ELEPHANTINE, now split between Aswan and Vienna, and a mention in the Turin King List, from which the reignlength is missing. Qemau, who may have been his son, may have succeeded him. AMENEMHAT VI To judge from his full name, Seankhibre Ameny-Inyotef-Amenemhat, this king may have been a grandson of Amenemhat V (Ameny), via a non-reigning Inyotef. He is attested by a number of contemporary monuments, as well as being included in the Turin King List and the KARNAK royal offering list (see KING LISTS, PHARAONIC EGYPT). He seems to have been succeeded by Nebnun and may have been the father of the later King Renseneb.

AMENEMHAT VII The full name of this king, Sedjefakare Kay-Amenemhat, suggests that his father may

have been a certain Kay. A piece of sculpture from MEDAMUD, a graffito, and some seals date to Amenemhat VII’s reign, while the king is listed in the Turin King List. Wegaf may have succeeded him. SEE ALSO: Herakleopolis Magna; Libya and Libyans; Thebes, West.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Arnold, D. (1987) Der Pyramidbezirk des Ko¨nigs Amenemhet III in Dahschur I: Die Pyramide. Mainz am Rhein. Arnold, D. (1991) “Amenemhat I and the early Twelfth Dynasty at Thebes.” Metropolitan Museum Journal 26: 5–48. Dodson, A. M. (1987) “The tombs of the kings of the Thirteenth Dynasty in the Memphite ¨ gyptische Sprache und Necropolis.” Zeitschrift fu¨r A Altertumskunde 114: 36–45. Fay, B. (1988) “Amenemhat V – Vienna/Assuan.” Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archa¨ologischen Instituts, Abteilung Kairo 44: 67–77. Fay, B. (1996) The Louvre sphinx and royal sculpture from the reign of Amenemhat II. Mainz am Rhein. Goedicke, H. (1971) Re-used blocks from the Pyramid of Amenemhet I at Lisht. New York. Grajetzki, W. (2006) The Middle Kingdom of ancient Egypt. London. Petrie, W. M. F. (1889) Hawara, Biahmu and Arsinoe. London. Petrie, W. M. F. (1890) Kahun, Gurob and Hawara. London. Petrie, W. M. F. (1912) The Labyrinth, Gerzeh and Mazghuneh. London. Ryholt, K. S. B. (1997) The political situation in Egypt during the Second Intermediate Period c. 1800–1550 B.C. Copenhagen. Uphill, E. P. (2000) Pharaoh’s gateway to eternity: the Hawara Labyrinth of King Amenemhat III. London. Wegner, J. (1996) “The nature and chronology of the Senwosret III-Amenemhat III regnal succession: some considerations based on new evidence from the mortuary temple of Senwosret III at Abydos.” Journal of Near Eastern Studies 55: 249–79.

1

Amenhotep (Amenophis) I–III AIDAN DODSON

Four kings of the 18th Egyptian Dynasty were named Amenhotep (“Amenophis” in Greek; for Amenhotep IV see AKHENATEN (AMENHOTEP IV)). It was also a common private name, sometimes abbreviated as “Huy.”

AMENHOTEP I The second king of the dynasty was Djeserkare Amenhotep. He was a son of AHMOSE I and his sister-wife, AHMOSE NEFERTIRY, and married his own sister Meryetamun B. There were no known children. It appears that Amenhotep continued his father’s expansion of Egyptian power into Nubia, reaching at least at far as just above the Third Cataract. On the other hand, there is no direct evidence for activity in Syria-Palestine, other than blocks from a destroyed gateway at KARNAK that seem to date to the reign and show offering-bringers personifying a number of Syro-Palestinian toponyms. These presumably imply tribute from these areas (Redford 1979). Amenhotep I’s building-work at Karnak was fairly extensive, known both from references in the autobiographical inscription of the official Ineni, and a number of structures whose blocks have been found reused in the cores of later buildings in the temple complex. Some of these have now been reassembled in the Open Air Museum at Karnak. There is uncertainty as to the location of Amenhotep I’s tomb. Papyrus Abbott, which mentions the sepulcher’s inspection in the late twelfth century BCE, implies that it was in the area of Thebes known as Dra Abu’lNaga (see THEBES, WEST). A tomb-chapel there (number K93.11) has been identified with his tomb, but there is as yet no general agreement with this (Polz 1995, 2007). It is possible

that Amenhotep I’s mortuary temple is to be identified with a brick structure at DEIR ELBAHARI, where his wife Meryetamun was buried in tomb TT358. From the brick temple may have come a number of statues of the king that ultimately found their way to the mortuary temple of Mentuhotep II (see MENTUHOTEP I–VII). This brick temple was demolished under HATSHEPSUT, the king’s principal cult building becoming a structure in front of Dra Abu’lNaga, where his mother was also worshipped. Wherever it was originally interred, the king’s mummy was later moved more than once for its protection, and was ultimately found in the royal cache (TT320) near Deir el-Bahari in 1881. Both Amenhotep I and Ahmose Nefertiry became patron deities of the Theban Necropolis, supplemented by some relatives and other early 18th Dynasty kings, together with Mentuhotep II. As such, Amenhotep I had a sanctuary at DEIR EL-MEDINA and probably a number of other locations. A number of festivals are known, while his cult-image could issue oracles. As a mortuary deity, the king is depicted in a range of the tomb-chapels of the 19th and 20th Dynasties, and also on the baseboards of a number of coffins of the 21st Dynasty.

AMENHOTEP II Akheperure Amenhotep (II), son of Thutmose III (see THUTMOSE I–IV) and MeryetreHatshepsut, succeeded his father after the premature demise of the original heir, Amenemhat B. Amenhotep may have previously served as Sem Priest of PTAH at Memphis (see MEMPHIS, PHARAONIC), although the individual involved may have been a like-named son of Amenhotep II himself. Like his father, Amenhotep II undertook military expeditions into Syria-Palestine, but these are restricted to the first decade of the reign and seem to have been followed by some form of negotiated settlement of territorial claims by the Great Powers with an interest in

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 358–361. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah15030

2 Syria. Aside from these actual military activities, Amenhotep II very much promoted a personal image of physical prowess, perhaps derived from his considerable height, as revealed by his mummy. The king undertook building work throughout Egypt and Nubia, including a mortuary temple at West Thebes. On his death after a reign whose highest date is Year 26, the king was interred in the Valley of the Kings in tomb KV35. This sepulcher represented an important move towards standardizing the design of the royal tomb during the 18th Dynasty. It is also the earliest burial with an extensive set of shabti figures. The tomb was later used as a cache for displaced royal mummies, and as a result the king’s own mummy remained in the tomb when discovered in 1898. It was moved to Cairo in 1932. The king’s family is somewhat obscure, as while a number of sons are attested, no wife is known from any of the surviving monuments of the reign, although an adult female mummy found in the king’s tomb might represent one wife. The mother of his successor, Thutmose IV, Tia, is only known from her son’s reign. This could be a result of a struggle for power on Amenhotep II’s death, the monuments of at least two sons being mutilated together with some of the dowager MeryetreHatshepsut. Such a scenario is also supported by the Giza Sphinx Stela of Thutmose IV, which attributes his accession to divine intervention (see GIZA; SPHINX).

AMENHOTEP III As a prince, Nebmaatre Amenhotep III appeared on the monuments of his tutors before succeeding his father Thutmose IV. A son of Queen Mutnodjmet, Amenhotep married TIY, the daughter of cavalry General Yuya and his wife Tjuiu, and sister of the future Second Prophet of Amun, Anen. The marriage was announced exceptionally on a series of scarabs, others being issued to celebrate a number of events of the earlier part of the reign.

Figure 1 Head of Amenhotep III from Qurna. Bagnols-sur-Ce`ze, France. © Photo Scala, Florence.

The king had two known sons, Thutmose B and Amenhotep E (later Amenhotep IV/ Akhenaten), and at least five daughters. Thutmose, the crown prince, ultimately became High Priest of Ptah at Memphis, but died prematurely, possibly in Year 30. Apparently the eldest daughter, Sitamun, took the title of King’s Great Wife at some point during the reign. Amenhotep III’s military activities were limited as compared with those of his earlier 18th Dynasty predecessors, with little more than police actions in Nubia attested. However, from the last years of the reign parts of the king’s correspondence with the various potentates of the period survive, indicating that diplomacy had for the time being replaced overt aggression as the main articulation of Egyptian foreign policy (see AMARNA LETTERS). The king’s building activities were widespread and monumental. At West Thebes, Amenhotep III built a palace complex at Malqata (see MALKATA/MALQATA), together with a

3 vast and innovative mortuary temple at Kom el-Hatan (see MEMNON, COLOSSI OF). At East Thebes (see THEBES, EAST), a new front pylongateway was added to the temple of Amun-Re at Karnak (see AMUN-RE), with extensive work in the adjacent temple-precincts of the deities Montju and Mut. A little further south, a new temple was built at Luxor, with a very similar structure erected at Soleb in Nubia. In a number of these sanctuaries, Amenhotep III appeared as a god, especially after his first of three Heb Sed jubilees in Year 30, at which he was transformed into a solar deity. This deification also embraced Queen Tiy, who appears in a divinized form at Sedeinga, not far from Soleb. This deification was against the backdrop of the growth of the cult of the sun-god the Aten (see ATEN/ATON), Amenhotep III taking the sobriquet of the “Dazzling Sun” and including the god’s name in a number of contexts. The Aten cult would become predominant in Egypt during the reign of Amenhotep III’s successor Akhenaten. It has been proposed that the last decade of Amenhotep III’s reign ran in parallel with the first years of Akhenaten, but this view is now held only by a minority of scholars. Amenhotep III’s death came after four decades on the throne, the king being interred in a tomb in the western branch of the Valley of the Kings, the first king to be so buried. The tomb followed the standard pattern of the time, albeit with the addition of two extra burial suites, presumably for his wives.

After robbery, what was labeled by restorers as the king’s mummy was moved to the cache in tomb KV35, where it was found and moved to Cairo in 1898. REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Blankenberg-Van Delden, C. (1969) The large commemorative scarabs of Amenhotep III. Leiden. Der Manuelian, P. (1987) Studies in the reign of Amenophis II. Hildesheim. Kozloff, A. and Bryan, B. M. (1992) Egypt’s dazzling sun: Amenhotep III and his world. Cleveland. O’Connor, D. and Cline, E. H., eds. (1998) Amenhotep III: perspectives on his reign. Ann Arbor. Polz, D. (1995) “The location of the tomb of Amenhotep I: a reconsideration.” In R. H. Wilkinson, ed., Valley of the Sun Kings: new explorations in the tombs of the pharaohs: 8–21. Tucson. Polz, D. (2007) Der Beginn des Neuen Reiches: zur Vorgeschichte einer Zeitenwende. Berlin. Redford, D. B. (1965) “The coregency of Tuthmosis III and Amenophis II.” Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 51: 107–22. Redford, D. B. (1979) “A gate inscription from Karnak and Egyptian involvement in Western Asia during the early 18th Dynasty.” Journal of the American Oriental Society 99, 2: 270–87. Schmitz, F.-J. (1978) Amenophis I.: Versuch einer Darstellung der Regierungszeit eines a¨gyptischen Herrschers der fru¨hen 18. Dynastie. Hildesheim.

1

Amenhotep, son of Hapu FAYZA HAIKAL

Amenhotep, son of Hapu (also known as Huy, ca. 1430 BCE – 1350 BCE) was born at Athribis in the Delta near modern Benha in the time of Thutmose III (or Amenhotep II) to a father called Hapu and a mother called Itu. Amenhotep’s early career is not well known, but he must have shown much wisdom and administrative skill for his reputation to reach the royal palace and for Amenhotep III (1390–1352) to summon him to Thebes. When he died, after having served his king well and reached the highest honors and a “good old age” of over eighty years upon earth, he was allowed to have his tomb on the hill of Gurnet Murai in western Thebes (see THEBES, WEST) overlooking his own mortuary temple (situated in the same line as those of kings lying north of the temple of Thutmose II), a privilege unheard of before. The temple, invisible today, remained in use throughtout the New Kingdom. It had deteriorated by the Late Period. At this time, another chapel was also consecrated to him in Hatshepsut’s temple at Deir el Bahari. This remained active and served the cult of the sanctified Amenhotep, whose veneration increased with the passage of years to the point where he became a son of Amun in addition to his older affiliation to THOTH and Seshat. In Thebes, Amenhotep son of Hapu became “scribe under the (sole) authority of the king,” and “director of the king’s works.” Further, having been initiated into religious matters so as to perceive the powers of Thoth, the god of knowledge and magic, and being familiar with the mysteries of the other world, he acted as an intercessor between ordinary people and their gods, a role typically attributed to particularly knowledgeable and efficient high officials who became sanctified after their death. For this purpose Amenhotep son of Hapu had statues of himself placed in the courtyard of the temple of KARNAK (at the limit between public access

and the more secluded parts of the temple) with an inscription calling upon people to entrust him with their appeals and promising to deliver them to Amun, in exchange for their daily offerings and prayers. Among the numerous titles Amenhotep III conferred upon him, most impressive were his titles as “overseer of all the works of the king,” which concerned essentially the building activities of the king, and “scribe of the recruits,” which put all of Egypt’s human resources under his control. He fixed and imposed taxes and distributed workers across the country, whether on the king’s building sites or in fields and temples. He also organized the necessary troops to patrol the roads that enclosed the “Two Banks” and the waterways, particularly on the borders of Egypt, in order to protect the country from eventual infiltrators. It was also his responsibility to oversee the building of great monuments such as the temple of Soleb, south of the second cataract, or to transport and erect the Memnon Colossi at the entrance of Amenhotep III’s memorial temple on the west of Thebes for example. Amenhotep son of Hapu never forgot his native city or its local god, for whom he erected a new temple embellished with splendid statues. An example of such statuary is the beautifully polished black granite snake in the Cairo Museum. Amenhotep son of Hapu remained beneficial to Egyptians after his death. Votive offerings and graffiti left by visitors at his cult places (particularly in Karnak and in his funerary temple in the west of Thebes) show that they flocked to his temple asking for help of various kinds. With the passage of time he was remembered essentially as a sage and a doctor. In the Late and Greco-Roman periods, after his main cult center had been transferred to Deir el Bahari, he became associated with IMHOTEP, the deified architect of King Djoser (3rd Dynasty) who was also identified with Asklepios, the Greek god of healing. SEE ALSO:

Amenhotep (Amenophis) I–III.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 361–362. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah15029

2 REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Karkowski, J., Winnicki, J. K., and Bresciani, E. (1983) “Amenhotep, son of Hapu and Imhotep at Deir El-Bahari – some reconsiderations.” Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archa¨ologischen Instituts, Abteilung Kairo 39: 93–105.

Murnane, W. J. (1991) “Servant, seer, saint, son of Hapu, Amenhotep, called Huy.” KMT: A Modern Journal of Ancient Egypt 2,2: 9–13, 56–9. Robichon, C. and Varille, A. (1936) Le temple du scribe royal Amenhotep, fils de Hapou I. Cairo. Wildung, D. (1977) Egyptian saints: deification in ancient Egypt. New York.

1

Amenhotep (Amenophis) I–III AIDAN DODSON

Four kings of the 18th Egyptian Dynasty were named Amenhotep (“Amenophis” in Greek; for Amenhotep IV see AKHENATEN (AMENHOTEP IV). It was also a common private name, sometimes abbreviated as “Huy.”

AMENHOTEP I The second king of the dynasty was Djeserkare Amenhotep. He was a son of AHMOSE I and his sister-wife, AHMOSE NEFERTIRY, and married his own sister Meryetamun B. There were no known children. It appears that Amenhotep continued his father’s expansion of Egyptian power into NUBIA, reaching at least at far as just above the Third Cataract. On the other hand, there is no direct evidence for activity in Syria-Palestine, other than blocks from a destroyed gateway at KARNAK that seem to date to the reign and show offering-bringers personifying a number of Syro-Palestinian toponyms. These presumably imply tribute from these areas (Redford 1979). Amenhotep I’s building work at KARNAK was fairly extensive, known both from references in the autobiographical inscription of the official Ineni, and a number of structures whose blocks have been found reused in the cores of later buildings in the temple complex. Some of these have now been reassembled in the Open-Air Museum at Karnak. There is uncertainty as to the location of Amenhotep I’s tomb. Papyrus Abbott, which mentions the sepulcher’s inspection in the late twelfth century BCE, implies that it was in the area of Thebes known as Dra Abu’l-Naga (see THEBES, WEST). A tomb-chapel there (number K93.11) has been identified with his tomb (Polz 1995, 2007), but another candidate (AN B) lies further west (Dodson 2013). It is possible that Amenhotep I’s mortuary temple is to be identified with a brick structure at DEIR EL-

BAHARI, where his wife Meryetamun was buried in tomb TT358. From the brick temple may have come a number of statues of the king that ultimately found their way to the mortuary temple of Mentuhotep II (see MENTUHOTEP I–VII). This brick temple was demolished under HATSHEPSUT, the king’s principal cult building becoming a structure in front of Dra Abu’lNaga, where his mother was also worshipped. Wherever it was originally interred, the king’s mummy was later moved more than once for its protection, and was ultimately found in the royal cache (TT320) near Deir el-Bahari in 1881. Both Amenhotep I and Ahmose Nefertiry became patron deities of the Theban Necropolis, supplemented by some relatives and other early 18th Dynasty kings, together with Mentuhotep II. As such, Amenhotep I had a sanctuary at DEIR EL-MEDINA and probably a number of other locations. A number of festivals are known, while his cult-image could issue oracles. As a mortuary deity, the king is depicted in a range of the tomb-chapels of the 19th and 20th Dynasties, and also on the baseboards of a number of coffins of the 21st Dynasty.

AMENHOTEP II Akheperure Amenhotep (II), son of Thutmose III (see THUTMOSE I–IV) and Meryetre Hatshepsut, succeeded his father after the premature demise of the original heir, Amenemhat B. Amenhotep may have previously served as Sem Priest of PTAH at Memphis (see MEMPHIS, PHARAONIC), although the individual involved may have been a like-named son of Amenhotep II himself. Like his father, Amenhotep II undertook military expeditions into Syria-Palestine, but these are restricted to the first decade of the reign and seem to have been followed by some form of negotiated settlement of territorial claims by the Great Powers with an interest in Syria. Aside from these actual military activities, Amenhotep II very much promoted a personal image of physical prowess, perhaps

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and David Hollander. © 2018 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Published 2018 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah15030

2 derived from his considerable height, as revealed by his mummy. The king undertook building work throughout Egypt and Nubia, including a mortuary temple at West Thebes. On his death after a reign whose highest date is Year 26, the king was interred in the Valley of the Kings in tomb KV35. This sepulcher represented an important move towards standardizing the design of the royal tomb during the 18th Dynasty. It is also the earliest burial with an extensive set of shabti figures. The tomb was later used as a cache for displaced royal mummies, and as a result the king’s own mummy remained in the tomb when discovered in 1898. It was moved to Cairo in 1932. The king’s family is somewhat obscure, as while a number of sons are attested, no wife is known from any of the surviving monuments of the reign, although an adult female mummy found in the king’s tomb might represent one wife. The mother of his successor, Thutmose IV, Tia, is only known from her son’s reign. This could be a result of a struggle for power on Amenhotep II’s death, the monuments of at least two sons being mutilated together with some of the dowager Meryetre Hatshepsut. Such a scenario is also supported by the Giza Sphinx Stela of Thutmose IV, which attributes his accession to divine intervention (see GIZA; SPHINX).

Akhenaten), and at least five daughters. Thutmose, the crown prince, ultimately became High Priest of Ptah at Memphis, but died prematurely, possibly in Year 30. Apparently the eldest daughter, Sitamun, took the title of King’s Great Wife at some point during the reign. Amenhotep III’s military activities were limited as compared with those of his earlier 18th Dynasty predecessors, with little more than police actions in Nubia attested. However, from the last years of the reign parts of the king’s correspondence with the various potentates of the period survive, indicating that diplomacy had for the time being replaced overt aggression as the main articulation of Egyptian foreign policy (see AMARNA LETTERS). The king’s building activities were widespread and monumental. At West Thebes, Amenhotep III built a palace complex at MALQATA, together with a vast and innovative mortuary temple at Kom el-Hatan (see MEMNON, COLOSSI

AMENHOTEP III As a prince, Nebmaatre Amenhotep III (Figure 1) appeared on the monuments of his tutors before succeeding his father Thutmose IV. A son of Queen Mutnodjmet, Amenhotep married TIY, the daughter of cavalry General Yuya and his wife Tjuiu, and sister of the future Second Prophet of Amun, Anen. The details of Tiy’s parents were included in one of a series of large scarabs issued during the reign, others being produced to celebrate a number of events of the earlier part of the reign. The king had two known sons, Thutmose B and Amenhotep E (later Amenhotep IV/

FIGURE 1 Head of Amenhotep III from his memorial temple at Kom el-Hetan. Luxor Museum. Source: Courtesy of Photo Scala, Florence.

3 OF). At East Thebes (see THEBES, EAST), a new front pylon-gateway was added to the temple of Amun-Re at Karnak (see AMUN-RE), with extensive work in the adjacent TEMPLE-PRECINCTS of the deities Montju and Mut. A little further south, a new temple was built at Luxor, with a very similar structure erected at Soleb in Nubia. In a number of these sanctuaries, Amenhotep III appeared as a god, especially after his first of three Heb Sed jubilees in Year 30, at which he was transformed into a solar deity. This deification also embraced Queen Tiy, who appears in a divinized form at Sedeinga, not far from Soleb. This deification was against the backdrop of the growth of the cult of the sun-god the Aten (see ATEN/ATON), Amenhotep III taking the sobriquet of the “Dazzling Sun” and including the god’s name in a number of contexts. The Aten cult would become predominant in Egypt during the reign of Amenhotep III’s successor Akhenaten. It has been proposed that the last decade of Amenhotep III’s reign ran in parallel with the first years of Akhenaten, but this view is now held by only a minority of scholars. Amenhotep III’s death came after four decades on the throne, the king being interred in a tomb in the western branch of the Valley of the Kings, the first king to be so buried. The tomb followed the standard pattern of the time, albeit

with the addition of two extra burial suites, presumably for Tiy and Sitamun. REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Blankenberg-Van Delden, C. (1969) The large commemorative scarabs of Amenhotep III. Leiden. Der Manuelian, P. (1987) Studies in the reign of Amenophis II. Hildesheim. Dodson, A. (2013) “On the burials and reburials of Ahmose I and Amenhotep I.” Göttinger Miszellen 238: 19–24. Dodson, A. (2014) Amarna sunrise: Egypt from Golden Age to Age of Heresy. Cairo. Kozloff, A. and Bryan, B. M. (1992) Egypt’s dazzling sun: Amenhotep III and his world. Cleveland. O’Connor, D. and Cline, E. H., eds. (1998) Amenhotep III: perspectives on his reign. Ann Arbor. Polz, D. (1995) “The location of the tomb of Amenhotep I: a reconsideration.” In R. H. Wilkinson, ed., Valley of the Sun Kings: new explorations in the tombs of the pharaohs: 8–21. Tucson. Polz, D. (2007) Der Beginn des Neuen Reiches: zur Vorgeschichte einer Zeitenwende. Berlin. Redford, D. B. (1979) “A gate inscription from Karnak and Egyptian involvement in Western Asia during the early 18th Dynasty.” Journal of the American Oriental Society 99/2: 270–87. Schmitz, F.-J. (1978) Amenophis I.: Versuch einer Darstellung der Regierungszeit eines ägyptischen Herrschers der frühen 18. Dynastie. Hildesheim.

1

Amicitia KOENRAAD S. VERBOVEN

Roman friendship (amicitia) was a voluntary relation between two persons ideally based on affection but strongly regulated by ethical norms and social expectations. Closely related concepts stressing intimacy and social obligations were familiaritas and necessitudo. Most scholars see amicitia as predominantly an instrumental relationship based on mutual interest and obligation (Saller 1982; Verboven 2002; Burton 2004), although some stress affection as the basis of “true” amicitia (Brunt 1988; Konstan 1997). The formation and practice of amicitia were much debated (see FRIENDSHIP). It was generally agreed that amicitia required the exchange of gifts and favors signifying the bond of friendship. Fronto (Aur. 1.3.5) distinguished amor from amicitia because the latter existed only through the exchange of officia, whereas the former arose rather from impulse than from calculation. Ulterior motives were rejected as contrary to the essence of friendship, but were acknowledged as common (Pub. Sent. B37; Plin. Ep. 9.30). Cicero defined friendship in his essay De Amicitia as an “agreement [consensio] with goodwill [benevolentia] and affection [caritas] on all things divine and human” (Amic. 20). The source of goodwill was amor (love), from which the word amicitia derived (Cic. Amic. 26). True and perfect friendship (vera et perfecta, Cic. Amic. 22) could exist only between “good men” (boni viri, Cic. Amic. 18) and was rare. Common friendship (vulgaris et mediocris, Cic. Amic. 22), although pleasant and profitable, was mostly based on personal benefit (Cic. Amic. 79). The social norms regulating amicitia rested on the ideal inner dispositions which – if reciprocal – served as the foundations of the friendship bond : benignitas (goodwill), gratia (gratitude), fides (trust and loyalty), and amor (affection) (Verboven 2002: 35–48). Benignitas had to be shown through acts of kindness

(beneficia), which had to kindle gratitude in the receiver. Gratia had to be expressed through return gifts and favors. Because the inner bond of friendship had to be realized through the exchange of gifts and favors, every beneficium was also an officium (“obligation”) (Sen. Ben. 3.18.1). Fides denoted the faith and solidarity guaranteeing that obligations were upheld. Amor was inextricably linked to benignitas, gratia, and fides. Seneca believed that love in response to favors was part of the natural order of things (Ben. 1.2.5; see also Dion. Hal. Ant. Rom. 8.34.1). In practice friendly affection was often shallow (“liking” rather than “loving”) and sometimes feigned, but – as with (instrumental) friendship in other cultures – the norm of affection in friendship was absolute. Moreover, although amici could become estranged in practice, amicitia was (ideally) open ended and strongly committed one’s reputation and honor (existimatio). Friends’ behavior was openly scrutinized and public opinion sharply censured breach of faith, ingratitude, or indifference. This gave stability even to emotionally shallow friendships. Ideologically, amicitia relied on an equality in principle that overruled possible factual inequalities between friends related to wealth, power, or status. When factual inequality was too large, however, the exchange of beneficia could become imbalanced and amicitia shade off into a patron–client relation. Mutual support, characteristic of amicitia, changed into the protection and deference characteristic of clientela. The borderline, however, was not sharp. Amici minores could reject being labeled clientes and refuse to comply with the customary symbols and rituals associated with clientela (Cic. Off. 2.69; cf. Sen. Ben. 2.23.1–3). The language of amicitia was generally preferred to indicate even the strongest and clearest patron–client relation. Amicitia played a crucial role in Roman society. It allowed the formation of nonkinship based relations of trust and solidarity, making up for weakly developed impersonal

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 362–364. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah20009

2 institutions (Saller 1982: 14). In politics and administration, both under the republic and the empire, networks of family and friends provided the most effective way to influence decision-making and to obtain official positions, although they remained inherently unstable alliances and provided no substitute for political parties, as once thought by Syme and Taylor (Saller 1982; Yakobsen 1999: 65–123). In private affairs amicitia provided crucial services and support (Verboven 2002). Most gifts and services were purely symbolic, but amici were expected to provide substantial support in bad times. They were expected also to include each other in their wills. Towards the end of his life, Cicero claimed to have received 20 million sesterces in legacies and inheritances (Phil. 2.40). Legacies to friends were usually small if the testator had close living family, but when he was childless close friends stood to receive the bulk of the inheritance. The obsession with captatio testamenti (inheritance hunting) illustrates the strength of the custom and the fear for ulterior motives behind expressions of friendship (Champlin 1991: 131–54). Amici played a major part also in obtaining loans and upholding each other’s solvency (fides). Cato, for instance, used an inheritance from a cousin to extend loans to his friends (Plut. Cat. Min. 6. 4; see also Cic. Att. 10.11.2; Mart. 2. 30). More important than free or cheap loans were personal securities. The close link between creditworthiness (fides) and honor meant that to sustain a friend’s fides was an imperative duty (see Cic. Att. 12.52.1). Friends played a role also in the management of property and business interests as agents, representatives, and supervisors. The jurist Paulus asserted that “there is no mandatum unless it is unremunerated, because it springs from personal duty [officium] and friendship” (Dig. 17.1.1.4). T. POMPONIUS ATTICUS was procurator for both Cicerones, M. Cato, Q. Hortensius, and A. Torquatus, as well as for numerous Roman knights (Nep. Att. 15.1–3).

As in politics, amicitia was useful in private affairs to exert influence. Approximately 25–30 percent of Cicero’s recommendations concern businessmen, who received introductions, help in enforcing contracts, official positions, and so forth (Deniaux 1993). The language of amicitia was commonly used metaphorically in the political discourse of international relations. Allied kings and nations received the title amicus sociusque. As an ideological construct, amicitia in international relations expressed sovereignty and theoretical equality, but also goodwill, trust, and solidarity beyond the explicit obligations of formal treaties. SEE ALSO:

Clientela, Roman Republic; Fides; Guest-friendship (hospitium); Honor–shame culture; Patron, patronage, Roman.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Brunt, P. A. (1988) “Amicitia in the Late Roman Republic.” In The fall of the Roman Republic and related essays: 352–81. Oxford. Burton, P. J. (2004) “Amicitia in Plautus: a study of Roman friendship processes.” American Journal of Philology 125: 209–43. Champlin, E. (1991) Final judgments: duty and emotion in Roman wills, 200 BC–AD 250. Berkeley. Deniaux, E. (1993) Cliente`les et pouvoir a` l’e´poque de Cice´ron. Rome. Konstan, D. (1997) Friendship in the Classical world. Cambridge. Saller, R. P. (1982) Personal patronage under the Early Empire. Cambridge. Verboven, K. (2002) The economy of friends: economic aspects of amicitia and patronage in the Late Republic. Brussels. Verboven, K. (2011) “Friendship among the Romans.” In M. Peachin, ed., The Oxford handbook of social relations in the Roman world: 404–21. Oxford. Yakobsen, A. (1999) Elections and electioneering in Rome. Stuttgart.

1

Amida MIHAIL ZAHARIADE

The ancient town of Amida was situated on the right bank of the Tigris River, close to the Batman Su River (the modern town is Diyarbakıˆr, the present-day administrative capital of Diyarbakıˆr Province, Turkey). From the thirteenth century BCE, Amida was the capital of the Aramaean kingdom Bet-Zamani. From 189 BCE to 384 CE, it was part of the region and kingdom known as Corduene. From 66 BCE onward, the city entered Roman control; it belonged to Armenia Maior. The old city wall, 5.5 km in length, is preserved almost intact. The historian AMMIANUS MARCELLINUS (18.9.1–4) says that initially the city was small but was considerably enlarged and fortified by CONSTANTIUS II as a refuge for the local population. The town was equipped with a massive defensive wall with four gates and eighty-two towers, and supplied with defensive artillery. Legio V Parthica and a cavalry squadron recruited among the local population formed the permanent garrison of the city (Amm. Marc. 18.9.3). Amida was an important commercial center and occupied a key strategic position. As a participant in the defense of

the town in 359 CE, Ammianus Marcellinus vividly described the capture of the city by the Persian king Shapur II’s army after a siege of seventy-three days (Amm. Marc. 19.1–8). The defensive wall was significantly extended during the reign of VALENTINIAN I, between 367 and 375. Under ANASTASIOS I, in 502, the town was taken again by the Persian king Cabades, but it was soon recaptured by the Romans (Proc. Bell. Pers. 1.7–9). JUSTINIAN I repaired its walls and fortifications (Procop. Aed. 3.1). Amida was occasionally the seat of the Patriarch of the Church of the East, a fact that stimulated theological productions and Christian life. St. Mary Church is famous because some important personalities, Apostle Thomas and St. Jacob of Sarug, were buried there (Abbeloos 1867).

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Abbeloos, J. B. (1867) De vita et scriptis S. Jacobi Sarugensis. Louvain. Ball, W. (2002) Rome in the east: the transformation of an empire. London. Hazlitt, W. (1995) The classical gazetteer: a dictionary of ancient sites, s.v. “Amida.” London. Jones, A. H. M. (1971) The cities of the eastern Roman provinces. Oxford.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print page 364. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah14029

1

Ammianus Marcellinus DAVID ROHRBACHER

Ammianus Marcellinus (ca. 330s–after 391 CE) is the author of a history, in Latin, of the Roman Empire from the Principate of NERVA AUGUSTUS to the death of VALENS (96–378). His highly rhetorical and allusive work was written in particular to celebrate the emperor Julian. Ammianus was the last of the Latin historians to follow in the grand tradition of historiography exemplified by Sallust, LIVY, and TACITUS. Our knowledge of Ammianus’ life stems almost entirely from his work. He was an easterner, probably born in Syrian Antioch, bilingual in Greek, and also familiar with Syriac. As a member of the staff of the general Ursicinus, he traveled from Antioch in 353 to the court of the emperor CONSTANTIUS II in Milan in 355. From there he accompanied Ursicinus to Gaul, where he participated in the suppression of the general Silvanus and remained to witness the early successes of the young Caesar Julian. In the following years, Ursicinus and Ammianus were sent east, then recalled to court and sent east once again, their roles shifting according to the vagaries of Constantius. When the Persians invaded in 359, the two went to NISIBIS in Mesopotamia to prepare the city for a siege, but arrived too late and were forced to flee. Ammianus describes in detail their narrow escape and his subsequent adventures – which included being trapped within the walls of AMIDA for 73 days while the Persian king Shapur besieged the city. Slipping out of Amida before its fall, he made his way to Antioch. Ursicinus, having been blamed for the loss of the city, was forced into retirement; Ammianus, too, may have retreated to private life for a time. After the revolt of Julian and the death of Constantius, the new emperor headed east, to prepare for a renewed Persian campaign, and Ammianus reappears as a participant in the invasion of 363. The invasion was a

dreadful failure, and Ammianus accompanied the defeated army to Antioch; at this point he ceases to speak in the first person. He must have traveled west to collect material for his history during the subsequent 25 years, and, if a letter of Libanius to “Marcellinus” (Epistulae 1063) was directed to our historian, Ammianus was giving public readings from his history in Rome around 391. The Res Gestae as we have it stretches from Book 14 to Book 31, the earlier books having been lost at an early stage in the transmission of the manuscript. Book 14 begins in 353 and describes the last year in the life of the Caesar Gallus (Flavius Claudius Constantius Gallus). After his appointment as a figurehead in the east, while Constantius waged civil war in the west against Magnentius, Gallus overstepped the boundaries of his authority and was recalled and executed. Books 15 and 16 focus on Gaul, particularly on the successful campaigns of the Caesar Julian (Flavius Claudius Iulianus) there despite the meddling of his uncle Constantius II. Books 17 and 18 alternate between Julian’s military success in Gaul and Constantius’ failure in the east, and Book 19 focuses on the siege and fall of Amida to the Persians. In Book 20 Julian is pronounced Augustus by his troops, but Constantius refuses to recognize him. In Book 21 the armies of the two emperors prepare for war, which is avoided as a result of the death of Constantius in October 361. In Book 22 Julian, now sole ruler of the empire, continues east to Constantinople, where he staffs his administration and solidifies his position. He withdraws state support for Christianity and flaunts his paganism. Julian’s invasion of Persia is the subject of Books 23 and 24. The failure of the invasion and the death of Julian are followed by the appointment of Jovian as emperor in Book 25; this book ends with Jovian’s death, caused by smoke inhalation. In Book 26, VALENTINIAN I is elected emperor and he chooses his brother Valens as co-emperor. Valens puts down the revolt of Procopius, a cousin of Julian.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 365–368. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah08007

2 Book 27 alternates between Valentinian’s military activities in the west and those of Valens in the east. Book 28 treats western events, in particular a series of treason trials depicted as unjust by Ammianus, and Book 29 presents parallel events in the east. Book 29 then turns back to the west and to Valentinian’s suppression of the revolt of the African Firmus. Book 30 begins with eastern affairs, as Valens and Shapur vie for control of ARMENIA, and then shifts west, to the successful campaigns of Valentinian and his death from a stroke in 375. Finally, Book 31 is an almost continuous narrative of how the admission of a group of GOTHS into the Roman Empire turned into disaster, culminating in the battle of Adrianople and the death of Valens in 378. The 18 extant books of the Res Gestae cover 25 years, an average of less than one and a half years per book. The lost books covered 257 years, an average of about twenty years per book. The early books obviously moved at a considerably more rapid pace than the surviving ones; Ammianus’ focus was clearly on contemporary events. Barnes (1998) has argued that the manuscript numeration of the Res Gestae is incorrect and that the original work was divided into 36 books, further subdivided into hexads, in the style of Tacitus. Alternatively, Ammianus may have selected the unusual number 31 in rivalry with Tacitus, whose Histories and Annals circulated in Late Antiquity as a collection of thirty books. We are unfortunately missing the preface to the entire work, but Ammianus offers two prefaces to smaller sections of his work, at the beginning of Books 15 and 26. The first (15.1.1) introduces the 10 books in which Julian plays a part. Ammianus claims to be working from AUTOPSY and from interviewing those involved in the events he discusses, and he dismisses critics who feel he has provided excessive detail. In the second preface (26.1.1–2), he reverses course and states that he will provide fewer details of nearcontemporary material, citing the dangers associated with truth-telling and rejecting the

criticism of those who lament the absence of material that he considers to be beneath the dignity of historical record. Ammianus’ epilogue (31.16.9) has drawn considerable scholarly attention. He describes himself as a soldier and Greek, emphasizing two different sources of his authority as a historian. As a soldier, he has participated in the events he describes and is heir to the Roman tradition, which links history-writing to public service. As a Greek, he possesses the scholarly and philosophical knowledge that set the deeds he recounts in their proper geographical, ethnographical, and religious context. The last words of the epilogue urge those who would follow him to employ the “grand style” – probably a reference to PANEGYRIC as the proper genre for discussing contemporaries. The main narrative of the Res Gestae focuses largely, like all ancient historiography, on political and military events. Ammianus is also one of the most digressive of ancient historians. He provides lengthy digressions on traditional topics of geography (of Gaul, Persia, Thrace) and ethnography (on the Huns, Alans, Saracens, Gauls, and Persians). One innovation of the Res Gestae is the use of digressions on more unusual topics, for example scientific ones – like rainbows and earthquakes – or on the practice of law (30.4), and two satirical passages on the aristocrats and commoners of the city of Rome (14.6 and 28.4). The numerous digressions are evidence of an all-encompassing, encyclopedic drive common in Late Antique authors. Ammianus’ history is by far the most detailed extant account of the period he treats, and it is therefore an essential historical source. His general reliability is not to be denied, but critics have pointed to several important instances of bias and distortion in his work. For example, the historian is favorable towards his patron Ursicinus, of course, and offers the worst possible interpretations of the activities of Constantius II in his dealings with him. Also, as a writer during the reign of THEODOSIUS I, he likely felt constrained to speak positively about the emperor’s father, Theodosius the

3 Elder, and to pass over in silence the details of his execution in 375. Ammianus is, above all, a strong partisan of the emperor Julian. He even warns that his account of him will seem almost like a panegyric (16.1.3), and he lays out Julian’s virtues in the manner of a formal encomium at his death (25.4). Ammianus does, however, allow for some criticism of his hero. Julian, he tells us, was “superstitious rather than truly religious” (25.4.17), indulging in excessive sacrifices and newfangled religious theories to the detriment of traditional paganism. He also, at times, failed to live up to the dignity that Ammianus felt was necessary for the holder of the title of emperor (25.4.18). Ammianus criticizes Julian for several pieces of legislation, including the school law, which forbade Christians to teach the pagan classics (25.4.20), and the curial laws, which attempted to press more people into service in their local government (22.9.12). Ammianus’ treatment of Christianity has been cited as evidence of his fairness, although more recent work has tended to emphasize his bias against religion. The pagan Ammianus is free from the open contempt found in other fourth-century authors such as EUNAPIUS OF SARDIS, and he occasionally refers to Christianity in phrases that are open to a favorable interpretation. But there is a pattern of coded denigration and purposeful omission permeating the work, which makes his antiChristian sympathies clear. His paganism is of a traditional sort. He was also skeptical of some of the innovations associated with THEURGY. Ammianus typically shades his portraits of other emperors so as to make Julian look better by comparison. His Gallus, for example, is an unjust and impulsive usurper, and the negative features of Constantius allow Ammianus to portray Julian’s usurpation as a noble act. In fact, it is likely that Julian’s revolt was more planned and purposeful than Ammianus allows us to see. Jovian is unfairly blamed for the peace treaty with Persia, which Julian’s failed expedition made necessary. Both the military and the domestic activities of Valentinian and Valens are also compared negatively

to those of Julian. Julian’s invasion of Persia is the centerpiece of the extant books. The tone is epic and increasingly ominous, as the early success of the expedition is followed by more and more disquieting signs of looming failure. By portraying Julian as an ACHILLESlike hero, doomed to die in pursuit of glory, Ammianus is able to avoid addressing the problem of Julian’s responsibility for the disaster. The last book is entirely devoted to the events leading up to the Roman military defeat at Adrianople, in Thrace, in 378. Ammianus strikes a pessimistic note by comparing Adrianople to other military disasters in Roman history and lamenting the contemporary loss of republican virtues, which had allowed for recovery in the past. Ammianus writes in a striking, unusual style, which combines the disjointed syntax of earlier historians like Sallust with the arresting visual imagery of contemporary Roman art and theater and with the technical language of panegyric and government documents. He is particularly fond of violent imagery and of comparisons between individuals and wild animals. His extreme allusiveness is noteworthy. Scholars have discovered allusions to dozens of authors, ranging from traditional classics like Cicero and Vergil to more obscure authors like VALERIUS MAXIMUS, Aulus Gellius, HERODIAN, and Eutropius. He offers more than a hundred historical exempla drawn from Greek and Roman history alike, which set contemporary events in the context of all of Greco-Roman antiquity and presuppose a deeply literate and educated audience. Ammianus’ work was read by some contemporaries, including Jerome, Claudian, and the anonymous author of the Historia Augusta; but no successor writing in Latin would arise who could match his scope and ambition. SEE ALSO: Adrianople, battle of; Antioch in Syria; Aulus Gellius, Attic Nights; Cicero, Marcus Tullius; Historiography, Greek and Roman; Historiography, Late Antique; Julian, emperor;

4 Mediolanum (Milan); Persia and Rome; Sallust (Gaius Sallustius Crispus); Vergil (Publius Vergilius Maro). REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Barnes, T. D. (1998) Ammianus Marcellinus and the representation of historical reality. Ithaca. Blockley, R. C. (1973) Ammianus Marcellinus: a study of his historiography and political thought. Brussels. Boeft, J. den, den Hengst, D., and Teitler, H. C., eds. (1992) Cognitio gestorum: the historiographic art of Ammianus Marcellinus. Amsterdam. Boeft, J. den, Drijvers, J. W., den Hengst, D., and Teitler, H. C., eds. (2007) Ammianus after Julian: the reign of Valentinian and Valens in Books 26–31 of the Res Gestae. Leiden.

Demandt, A. (1965) Zeitkritik und Geschichtsbild im Werk Ammians. Bonn. Drivjers, J. W. and Hunt, E. D., eds. (1999) The late Roman world and its historian: interpreting Ammianus Marcellinus. London. Kelly, G. (2008) Ammianus Marcellinus: the allusive historian. Cambridge. Matthews, J. F. (1989) The Roman Empire of Ammianus. London. Rohrbacher, D. (2002) The historians of Late Antiquity. London. Rolfe, J. C., ed. (1935–9) Ammianus Marcellinus, with an English translation, 3 vols. Cambridge, MA. Sabbah, G. (1978) La me´thode d’Ammien Marcellin. Paris. Seyfarth, W., ed. (1978) Ammiani Marcellini rerum gestarum libri qui supersunt. Leipzig.

1

Ammisaduqa, Venus Tablet of ANNE-CAROLINE RENDU LOISEL

The so-called Venus Tablet of Ammisaduqa is the sixty-third Tablet of the Astronomical omen series ENUMA ANU ENLIL. The tablet records the heliacal risings and settings of the planet Venus (Ninsianna) for a period of twenty-one years. The canonical version (first millennium BCE) is divided into four sections and fifty-nine omens. Section I (omens 1–21) and Section III (omens 34–7) deal with pairs of first and last visibilities of Venus. Section IV (omen 38–59) is a restatement of the omens in Sections I and III, but ordered by month. Section II (omens 22–33) describes the rising and setting dates of Venus, according to a periodic scheme. The “ideal Venus scheme” is constituted by the visibility periods (8 months and 5 days) and the invisibility periods (3 months and 7 days) (Brown 2000: 115). The text is preserved in numerous CUNEIFORM tablets in Ashurbanipal’s Library at NINEVEH, seventh century BCE. One omen, likely a record of an actual observation of Venus, mentions “the year of the golden throne.” The expression has been identified with the name of the eighth year of the reign of King Ammisaduqa of the First Dynasty of BABYLON (1646–1626 BCE). It was believed that the information was first compiled at that time, and the Venus Tablet was thus considered an important tool in the debate for

establishing the absolute chronology of the second millennium BCE. During the twentieth century, several dates for the original observations were proposed, corresponding to the High, Middle, and Low Chronologies (1702, 1646, and 1582 BCE, respectively). Many of the remaining copies of the Venus Tablet are fragmentary, and some copying corruptions have been recognized. The data of this tablet have been thrown into doubt, due to many uncertainties in the text. Recent conclusions drawn by Gurzadyan (2000: 184–5; 2003) definitely plead for the UltraLow Chronologies (in that scheme, the fall of the First Dynasty of Babylon should be around 1551 BCE, following Gashe in 1998). SEE ALSO: Astrology, ancient Near East; Astronomy, ancient Near East; Library of Ashurbanipal; Science, Mesopotamian.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Brown, D. (2000) Mesopotamian planetary astronomy-astrology: 249–50. Groningen. Gurzadyan, V. (2000) “On the astronomical records and Babylonian chronology.” Akkadica 119–120: 177–86. Gurzadyan, V. (2003) “The Venus Tablet and refraction.” Akkadica 124: 13–17. Reiner, E. and Pingree, D. (1975) Babylonian planetary omens, vol. 1: Enu¯ma Anu Enlil, Tablet 63: the Venus Tablet of Ammisaduqa. Malibu.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 368–369. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah21018

1

Ammonios of Alexandria SCOTT T. FARRINGTON

The Suda records that Ammonios (Die Fragmente der griechischen Historiker, 350) was a successor of Aristarchos of Samothrace (d. 144 BCE). A fragment preserved among the Oxyrhynchus Papyri (BNJ 350 T1c; P.Oxy. 10.1241) places Ammonios’ floruit in the reign of Ptolemy IX (Soter II) (d. 80 BCE). Athenaeus records that Ammonios composed a book on the courtesans of Athens. Jones does not follow Jacoby in attributing the four extant fragments of Ammonios, all preserved in Aristophanic scholia, to this work. The first fragment discusses Ammonios’ conjecture as to the identification of the Thucydides mentioned at Wasps 947. Given that the scholia to Wasps 1239 mentions Ammonios directly after discussing Harmodios’

Kωμῳδου´ μενοι (Persons in comedy), and all four fragments reveal an interest in the identification of the names recorded in comedies – Thucydides, Kleitagoras, Killikon, and Meidias – Jones suggests that the fragments might rather belong to a similar kind of prosopographical work. SEE ALSO:

Historiography, Greek and Roman; Library of Alexandria; Prostitution.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Jacoby, F. (1964) “Ammonios (von Alexandreia?) (350).” Die Fragmente der griechischen Historiker. Leiden. Jones, N. F. (2010, 2017) “Ammonios of Alexandria (350).” In I. Worthington, ed., Brill’s New Jacoby. Brill Online. Montanari, F. (2006, 2017) “Aristarchus 4.” In H. Cancik and H. Schneider, eds., Brill’s New Pauly, Antiquity. Brill Online.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, and Andrew Erskine. © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Published 2017 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah30556

1

Ammonios of Athens SCOTT T. FARRINGTON

The fragments, transmitted by Eustathios of Thessalonike, Harpocration, Athenaeus, and Syrianos, attribute to Ammonios (Die Fragmente der griechischen Historiker, 361) a work entitled On altars and sacrifices (Περὶ βωμῶν καὶ θυσιῶν) that stretched at least to four books. In this work, Ammonios enumerated the differences between bomoi, escharai, hestiai, and megara and furthermore discussed certain aspects of initiation into the worship of Demeter. Additionally, he included a historical description of a hieron of Aphrodite in the Peiraeus purportedly founded by Themistokles. In his discussions of sacrifices, he also discussed kernoi, kotyliskoi, and the ritual behavior of the attendant who carries these items. He also describes the tholos, its shape, names, and functions. His interest in ritual architecture and practice apparently extended

to the Amazons, or as Jones advises, to the extant structures popularly attributed to the Amazons at the time. Eustathios and Syrianos both preserve the detail that Ammonios belonged to the deme of Lamptrae. Other than that, the only biographical information we can know with certainty is that Ammonios flourished in time to be quoted by Harpocration in the second century CE. SEE ALSO:

Demes, Attic; Historiography, Greek and Roman; Temples, Greek.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Jones, N. F. (2011, 2017) "Ammonios of Athens (361)." In I. Worthington, ed., Brill’s New Jacoby. Brill Online. Münzel, R. (1903) “Ammonios (15a).” In A. Pauly, G. Wissowa, and W. Kroll, eds., Realencyclopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft Suppl. 1: 69–70. Stuttgart.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, and Andrew Erskine. © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Published 2017 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah30588

1

Ammonios Sakkas UDO HARTMANN

Ammonios Sakkas was an influential Alexandrian philosopher. His ascetic charismatic personality and his lectures influenced the philosophy of PLOTINUS. He has been seen in Late Antiquity as the founder of Neoplatonism (by Hierokles of Alexandria). But since Ammonios wrote nothing, we have no knowledge about his thoughts. So he remains an enigmatic figure and a “great shadow” (Theiler 1944: 215). Born around 170/80 CE in Alexandria into a humble Christian family (Eus. Hist. eccl. 6.19.7; but see Schwyzer 1983: 20–1) he reverted as a young man from Christianity to paganism. His surname Sakkas (Σακκᾶς; Amm. Marc. 22.16.16; Theod. Graec. affect. cur. 6.60; Suda A 1640), “sack-bearer,” was perhaps derived from his occupation in the docks of Alexandria, but could also be an allusion to his ascetic philosophy (but it is not a Buddhist term, so DePalma Digeser 2012: 40–8; there were no Indian influences on Ammonios). Nothing is known about his teachers of philosophy in Alexandria. But in the late second century and the first half of the third century CE, he was head of a Platonic school in Alexandria in the quarter of Bruchion with an inner circle of pupils (the ἑταιροι) and a wider circle of “hearers,” among them some Christians (cf. Schroeder 1987: 507). He still remains an outsider in the philosophical discussions of Alexandria. Ammonios expounded his theories only orally, and therefore his teachings were only known to the small group of his pupils. Even in 231/32, when Plotinus began his studies, Ammonios was not one of the well-known teachers of philosophy in Alexandria. The most important pupil of the inner circle was certainly Plotinus of Lykopolis. He studied at the school from 232/33 CE until 242/43 when he joined the Persian campaign of Emperor Gordian III to investigate Persian and Indian wisdom, as his biographer Porphyry writes (v. Plot. 3.6–15). Probably, Ammonios died in 241/42 (cf. Dörrie 1955: 441; Schwyzer

1983: 17; Baltes 1985: 323). Plotinus was deeply impressed by the thoughts of Ammonios. His later lectures as a teacher of philosophy in Rome are based on the ideas and methods of Ammonios. Porphyry (v. Plot. 3.6–15) reports that after a long search for the right teacher of philosophy in Alexandria, Plotinus found Ammonios. He attended a lecture and cried out “This is the man I was looking for!” (τοῦτον ἐζήτουν). His fellow pupils in the inner circle were (the otherwise unknown) Herennios and the Platonist ORIGEN. According to Porphyry (v. Plot. 3.24–35), Plotinus, Herennios, and Origen had made an agreement (perhaps after the death of Ammonios) not to disclose any of the philosophical doctrines which Ammonios had revealed to them in his lectures, in other words, not to publish the ideas of the teacher. But then, after Herennios and Origen, Plotinus, too, broke this agreement. In 253 he began to write his philosophical treatises. Some other “hearers,” casual students, of Ammonios are attested: around 200/10 CE the Christian Alexandrian Origen was the hearer of Ammonios (but see Schwyzer 1983: 36–7). Eusebius (Hist. eccl. 6.19.6–7) cites a passage from Porphyry’s treatise Against the Christians (fr. 39 von Harnack = fr. 6F Becker) in which he writes that the Christian theologian Origen was a “hearer” (ἀκροατής) of Ammonios: “For Ammonios, being a Christian, and brought up by Christian parents, when he gave himself to study and to philosophy straightaway conformed to the life required by the laws. But Origen, having been educated as a Greek in Greek literature, went over to the barbarian recklessness.” Born a Christian, Ammonios became a philosopher with a “lawful” (non-Christian life) while Origen went over to the Christians (this is a mistake of Porphyry, as Origen was born in a Christian family). Eusebius (Hist. eccl. 6.19.9–10) argues against this statement of Porphyry and writes that Ammonios remained a Christian philosopher his whole life and that he was the author of On the harmony of Moses and Jesus (περὶ τῆς Mωυσέως καὶ Ἰησοῦ συμϕωνίας). But Ammonios Sakkas cannot

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, and Andrew Erskine. © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Published 2017 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah30416

2 be identified with this (otherwise unknown) homonymous Christian theologian in the first half of the third century CE because he wrote nothing (identification e.g., in Baltes 1985; DePalma Digeser 2012: 23–48). Furthermore, there is no reason to identify the Christian theologian Origen and the pagan Platonist Origen (e.g., Beatrice 1992; DePalma Digeser 2012). The famous Platonist and philologist Kassios Longinos also attended the lectures of Ammonios in Alexandria. The Platonist Origen was his tutor at this school (Porphyr. v. Plot. 20.36–8). Furthermore, Theodosios (Porphyr. v. Plot. 7.18–19), the philosopher Antoninos (Procl. in Tim. vol. 2, p. 154.8–9), and the philosopher and magician Olympios of Alexandria (Porphyr. v. Plot. 10.1–3) were pupils of Ammonios. Hierokles writes that Ammonios was the founder of the Neoplatonic tradition (ap. Phot. bibl. cod. 214, vol. 3, p. 129–30 Henry). But the philosophy of the pagan Platonist Origen (in his lost work ὅτι μoνος ποιητὴς ὁ βασιλεύς, That the King is the Only Creator; Weber 1962) as well as the texts of the Christian theologian Origen are characterized by Middle Platonic ideas. So it is not very likely that Ammonios had already taught the idea of the unutterable One which is above the Intellect and the Being. It is not possible to reconstruct his doctrines from the texts of Hierokles or Nemesius (e.g., Heinemann 1926; Theiler 1966). According to Hierokles (ap. Phot. bibl. cod. 214, vol. 3, p. 126 Henry), Ammonios was the first to assume that Aristotle’s philosophy was in harmony with Plato’s, but the theory that no essential differences existed between the two doctrines was first established

by Porphyry in late third century Schroeder 1987: 511–12). SEE ALSO:

CE

(cf.

Neoplatonists.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Baltes, M. (1985) “Ammonios Sakkas.” RAC Suppl. 1: 323–32 (reprint: Baltes, M. 1999, ΔIANOHMATA: 113–20. Stuttgart). Beatrice, P. F. (1992) “Porphyry’s judgement on Origen.” In R. J. Daly, ed., Origeniana quinta: 351–67. Leuven. DePalma Digeser, E. (2012) A threat to public piety. Christians, Platonists, and the Great Persecution. Ithaca. Dörrie, H. (1955) “Ammonios, der Lehrer Plotins.” Hermes 83: 439–77. Goulet, R. (1989) “Ammonios dit Saccas.” Dictionnaire des philosophes antiques 1: 165–8. Heinemann, F. (1926) “Ammonios Sakkas und der Ursprung des Neuplatonismus.” Hermes 61: 1–27. Schroeder, F. M. (1987) “Ammonius Saccas.” Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt II 36.1: 493–526. Berlin. Schwyzer, H.-R. (1983) Ammonius Sakkas, der Lehrer Plotins. Opladen. Szlezák, T. A. (1977) “Plotin und die geheimen Lehren des Ammonius.” In H. Holzhey and W. C. Zimmerli, eds., Esoterik und Exoterik der Philosophie. Beiträge zu Geschichte und Sinn philosophischer Selbstbestimmung. FS Rudolf W. Meyer: 52–69. Basel. Theiler, W. (1944) “Plotin und die antike Philosophie.” Museum Helveticum 1: 209–25 (reprint: Theiler, W. 1966, Forschungen zum Neuplatonismus: 140–59. Berlin). Theiler, W. (1966) “Ammonios der Lehrer des Origenes.” In W. Theiler, Forschungen zum Neuplatonismus: 1–45. Berlin. Weber, K.-O. (1962) Origenes der Neuplatoniker. Versuch einer Interpretation. Munich.

1

Amnesty CINZIA BEARZOT

Amnesty is an act aimed at avoiding the proliferation of legal accusations in critical civic times. An amnesty that excluded blood offenses and aspiring tyrants was granted in Solon’s time (Plut. Sol. 19). The most famous case, however, is the 403 BCE Athenian amnesty. The term amnestia is relatively recent; in 403 the notion was originally expressed as me mnesikakein (= “I do not recall the offense,” thus “I do not take vengeance”). The 403 amnesty resulted from negotiations among the democratic exiles who had returned to Athens with Thrasyboulos, the Three Thousand of “the city party,” and the Spartan king Pausanias II and was enforced in autumn 403/2 ([Arist.] Ath. Pol. 39.1). The main sources are ANDOCIDES’ oration On the Mysteries (1.90–1), the fragments of LYSIAS’ Against Hippotherses and ISOCRATES’ oration Against Callimachus (18), XENOPHON (Hell. 2.4.38–9, 43), and ARISTOTLE (Ath. Pol. 39–40); sometimes more recent sources are equally helpful, such as Diodorus (14.33.5–6), CORNELIUS NEPOS (Thras. 3), Justin (5.10), and OROSIUS (2.17.13–16). According to Xenophon (Hell. 2.4.38, 43), the amnesty allowed anyone to avoid summary revenge or legal prosecution, with the exception of the Thirty, the Eleven, and the Ten of the PIRAEUS. Xenophon also reports that people who had been compromised with the Thirty were allowed to move to Eleusis. Andocides (1.90–1) furnishes an important element that is absent in Xenophon: the Thirty and the Eleven were excluded from the amnesty unless they submitted to a review of their conduct (euthynai). Andocides states that he is here citing the text of the horkoi: we know from Isocrates (18.19–20) that a biblion with a reference text existed, thus Andocides’ insight on the euthynai clause seems reliable. Aristotle (Ath. Pol. 29.1–6) provides the most complete reconstruction of the amnesty.

He details information on the requirements for moving to Eleusis, lists the categories excluded from the amnesty, a list that comprises the Thirty, the Ten (absent in Xenophon and in Andocides), the Eleven, and the Ten of the Piraeus (absent in Andocides), and mentions the fact that they too could be subjected to euthynai. Furthermore, Aristotle is the sole source to mention the clause on the dikai phonou, which excluded from the amnesty those charged with homicide “by their own hands” (autocheires) or with attempted homicide. Those who believed themselves to be unlawfully charged could challenge the suit (paragraphe): by this procedure, introduced or perhaps merely regulated by ARCHINOS (Isoc. 18.2–3), the defendant could stop legal action because of incompatibility with the amnesty. Even though it was criticized by some sectors of the democratic party (voiced by Lysias) that considered it too generous, the amnesty, scrupulously observed by the people, as reported by Xenophon (Hell. 2.4.43) and Aristotle (Ath. Pol.), guaranteed the rapid recovery of Athenian civic harmony. SEE ALSO: Eleven, the (hoi Hendeka); Euthyna, euthynai; Paragraphe; Pausanias II, Spartan king; Thirty Tyrants, at Athens; Thrasyboulos, Athenian democrat.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Loening, T. C. (1987) The reconciliation agreement of 403/2 in Athens: its content and application. Stuttgart. Mosse´, C. (1997) “L’amnistie de 403: une illusion politique?” In Sordi, ed.: 53–8. Quillin, J. (2002) “Achieving amnesty: the role of events, institutions, and ideas.” Transactions of the American Philological Association 132: 71–107. Sordi, M. (1997a) “La fortuna dell’amnistia del 403.” In Sordi, ed.: 79–90. Sordi, M., ed. (1997b) Amnistia, perdono e vendetta nel mondo antico. Milan. Wolpert, A. (2002) Remembering defeat: civil war and civic memory in ancient Athens. Baltimore.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 369–370. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah04024

1

Amnisos KOSTIS S. CHRISTAKIS

Amnisos is located 7 km east of Heraklion by the sea, at the foot of the Palaiochora hill. The site is mentioned in LINEAR B tablets from Knossos as a-mi-ni-so and in the inscription recording the itinerary of an Egyptian embassy to the Aegean, incised on the base of the statue of Amenhotep III at Kom el-Heitan (ca. 1380 BCE). Homer (Od. 19.188) refers to Amnisos as the site of the cave of Eileithyia, the goddess of childbirth, while Strabo (10.4.79) says that it was the seaport of MINOS. Systematic excavations began in 1932 under Spyridon Marinatos, who brought to light a New Palace building known as the “Villa of the Lilies,” due to its fine wall-painting of red and white lilies. The building was destroyed by the THERA eruption in 1550–1530 BCE. Parts of the Minoan settlement were also found in other areas around the hill. The site was inhabited mainly in New Palace times, with partial reoccupation in Late Minoan III (1400– 1100). The identification of Amnisos with the seaport of Knossos has not been confirmed by the archaeological evidence. Marinatos also

excavated a cave which he identified as that of Eileithyia. The cave was used from Neolithic to Roman times. Its cult function, supported by the excavator, has not been fully confirmed by recent reexamination of the data. On the west side of the Palaiochora hill lie the remains of the sanctuary of Zeus Thenatas. The core of the complex makes use of fine New Palace ashlar walls, indicating the presence of a monumental building, probably an open-air sanctuary. The sanctuary of Zeus Thenatas was in continuous use from the Geometric to the Roman period, although it was abandoned briefly in classical times. Important finds are the head of a goddess dating from the archaic period, two eagles of poros stone, and a Roman inscription referring to the rulers of Crete and Zeus Thenatas. SEE ALSO: Amenhotep (Amenophis) I–III; Knossos; Zeus.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Driessen, J. and Macdonald, C. F. (1997) The troubled island. Lie`ge. Schafer, J. (1992) Amnisos. Berlin.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print page 370. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah02016

1

Amometos SCOTT T. FARRINGTON

The work transmitted under the title Collection of paradoxical stories (ἱστοριῶν παραδόξων συναγωγή) under the name Antigonus of Karystos records that Amometos (Die Fragmente der griechischen Historiker, 645) was the author of a work called Sailing up from Memphis (ὁ ἐκ Mέμφεως ἀνάπλους). This work included, at least, the description of certain marvels; for instance, pouring wine into the spring of Isis in the Arabian city of Leukothea produces well-mixed and drinkable wine. D’Hautcourt suggests that this passage represents an early stage in the Hellenization of Isis. It was possibly also this work in which Aelian found Amometos’ account of Libyan priests using enchantments to draw sixteen-cubit-long crocodiles out of the water.

Pliny includes Amometos in a list of foreign experts on eastern peoples, including the Seres, and Gaius Iulius Solinus, after discussing the Seres and their neighbors the Attacori, reports that Amometos devoted a separate book to this people (BNJ 645 F2a). D’Hautcourt argues that his work on Egypt is unlikely to predate Alexander’s conquest. SEE ALSO:

Historiography, ancient Near East; Memphis, Pharaonic; Silk.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Brentjes, S. (2006, 2017) “Seres.” In H. Cancik and H. Schneider, eds., Der Neue Pauly. Brill Online. D’Hautcourt, A. (2008, 2017) "Amometos (645)." In I. Worthington, ed., Brill’s New Jacoby. Brill Online. Schwartz, E. (1894) “Amometos.” In A. Pauly, G. Wissowa, and W. Kroll, eds., Realencyclopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft, 1.2: 1873. Stuttgart.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, and Andrew Erskine. © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Published 2017 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah30586

1

Amorgos ANNELIES CAZEMIER

Amorgos is a mountainous island, elongated in shape, located to the southeast of NAXOS and northwest of ASTYPALAIA. Counted among the Sporades islands by the geographer Strabo (10.5.12), it is more commonly considered the easternmost of the CYCLADES ISLANDS. The island’s bridging position between different parts of the Aegean contributed to its wider significance at various stages throughout antiquity. Amorgos is renowned for its numerous Cycladic figurines, and was home to the poet Semonides in the seventh or sixth century BCE. For a long time, relatively little was known about Amorgos archaeologically, but various systematic investigations have now taken place, most notably at Markiani and Minoa (near modern Katapola; see MINOA ON AMORGOS). The earliest traces of permanent habitation on Amorgos (at Minoa) date to the Late Neolithic period. The island flourished during the Early Bronze Age, when it was well connected to the rest of the Aegean. While much of the archaeological record for this period is limited to tombs, on Amorgos several settlement sites are known. Excavations at Markiani in particular have yielded important information about life in the early Cyclades (Marangou et al. 2006). Recent finds are starting to shed light also on the Geometric period on Amorgos, about which little was hitherto known. From Archaic times, three main settlements existed along Amorgos’s northwest coast: Arkesine in the southwest, Minoa in the center, and Aigiale in the northeast. Whether these were founded by colonists from SAMOS and NAXOS is disputed, but there is evidence of contacts with those islands (Marangou 2002a: 305–8; 2002b: 25–7, 123–30). In the Classical period, the Amorgians collectively paid tribute to Athens (from 434/ 433 BCE: IG I3 278 VI 10), and an Athenian garrison was established at Arkesine (357/356: IG XII 7.5). In 322 BCE, a battle took place near

Amorgos as part of the LAMIAN WAR, signifying the end of Athenian sea power. The Hellenistic and Roman periods yield a wealth of information from inscriptions on stone (IG XII 7). These texts, taken together with the monumental remains at Minoa (Marangou 2002a, b), the numerous towers on the island (Marangou 2005), and evidence from coins (Liampi 2004), suggest that Amorgos prospered, no doubt due to its role in Aegean trade. There were communities of Samians at Minoa, of Naxians at Arkesine, and of Milesians at Aigiale. A festival of Athena Itonia attracted up to seven hundred visitors (IG XII 7.22), and from Aigiale stems a lengthy second-century BCE inscription detailing the foundation of yearly celebrations in honor of a local hero (IG XII 7.515). Like many other Cyclades islands, Amorgos served as a place of exile in the imperial period (Tac. Ann. 4.13.30), but it was no backwater, and its three main centers were inhabited until Late Antiquity. In the Byzantine period, inland Chora became the island’s major settlement. SEE ALSO: Aegean Sea (Bronze Age); Aegean Sea (Classical and later).

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Liampi, K. (2004) “The coinage of Amorgos: Aigiale, Arkesine, Minoa and the koinon of the Amorgians.” Revue numismatique 160: 63–113. Marangou, L. (2002a) “Minoa on Amorgos.” In M. Stamatopoulou and M. Yeroulanou, eds., Excavating classical culture: recent archaeological discoveries in Greece: 295–316. Oxford. Marangou, L. (2002b) Αmοrgός I. H Minώa:
pόliς, ο limήn kai
meı´zon peri’έreia: 367–81. Athens. Marangou, L. (2005) Αmοrgός ΙΙ. Οi arwaίοi pύrgοi: 361–90. Athens. Marangou, L. et al. (2006) Markiani, Amorgos: an Early Bronze Age fortified settlement. Overview of the 1985–1991 investigations. London.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 370–371. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah14030

1

Amorites HERVE´ RECULEAU

The designation “Amorite” (Akkadian amurru, Sumerian MAR.TU) denotes the peoples and polities of the “West,” from a Mesopotamian perspective; thus, it refers to the Syrian steppe and its inhabitants, in particular the West Semitic-speaking population groups who came to dominate Syro-Mesopotamia in the early second millennium BCE. The original territory of the Amorites, whose extent is uncertain, was the arid steppe of Inner SYRIA. In the twenty-fourth century BCE, EBLA texts mention a kingdom of Amurrum located south of Ebla. In the Mari archives (eighteenth century; see MARI (TELL HARIRI)), the same name denotes the area between Qatna and Hazor, where the material culture confirms connections with the Syrian Levant. During the Late Bronze Age, a kingdom called AMURRU was established in the area around Jebel Ansariye, but its filiation with the earlier Amorites is dubious. The West Semitic language of the Amorites differs from AKKADIAN: the Akkad-born Yasmah-Addu of Mari (eighteenth century), though of Amorite descent, could not understand Amorite and required translators. The Amorite language is known only from onomastics and occasional lexical entries, since it was never used as the language of writing. In the texts of urbanized Mesopotamia, Amorites are often portrayed as uncivilized and unruly nomads, as exemplified in the Sumerian myth The Marriage of Martu. Yet while they were primarily nomadic pastoralists, they certainly also had cities, the settled and mobile components of the population forming a symbiosis within a dimorphic society. Around 2200, some Amorite groups went on the move, probably due to a shortage of pasture caused by both drought and overgrazing; they are first mentioned by Sˇar-kali-sˇarrı¯ of AKKAD (AGADE; 22nd century), who defeated them near Jebel Bishri (see SARGON OF AKKAD AND HIS DYNASTY).

While in part their migrations were peaceful, resulting in an increasing Amorite presence within Mesopotamia during the Ur III period (21st century), they presented a threat sufficient to prompt the kings of UR to try in vain to keep them out of Sumer and Akkad with a fortification system named Murı¯q-Tidnim (“that which repels the Tidnum” (a designation of Amorites)). The Amorites played a role in causing the fall of the UR III DYNASTY, and they profited from the resulting political vacuum to take over virtually all the Mesopotamian city-states. During the twentieth to seventeenth centuries, royal dynasties claiming Amorite descent dominated most of Syria and Mesopotamia. The local populations and the newcomers apparently assimilated and were reorganized according to the tribal system of the Amorites, who were divided into two main tribes – the Sim’alites (“Sons of the Left,” the Northern group to which belonged ZIMRI-LIM OF MARI) and the Yaminites (“Sons of the Right,” the Southern group to which belonged SHAMSHIADAD (Samsi-Addu) of Ekalla ¯ tum and HAMMURABI OF BABYLON). Both of them were subdivided into several clans. Their takeover of Mesopotamia can be tracked via the so-called “mirror toponymy,” many conquered places being renamed after toponyms of their original territory: Apum, for instance, designated both the land around DAMASCUS and that around SHUBATENLIL, the capital-city of Shamshi-Adad in the Jezira. The unification of Mesopotamia under Hammurabi and further developments during the Late Old Babylonian period led to the progressive disappearance of the Amorites as an autonomous entity. SEE ALSO:

Hana, Hanaean.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Buccellati, G. (1966) The Amorites of the Ur III Period. Naples. Charpin, D. (2004) “Histoire politique du ProcheOrient amorite.” In D. Charpin, D. O. Stol, and

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 371–372. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah24013

2 M. Stol, Mesopotamien. Die altbabylonische Zeit: 25–480. Freiburg. Durand, J.-M. (1992) “Unite´ et diversite´s au Proche-Orient a` l’e´poque amorrite.” In D. Charpin and F. Joanne`s, eds., La circulation des biens, des personnes et des ide´es dans le ProcheOrient ancien. Actes de la XXXVIIIe Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale: 97–128. Paris.

Durand, J.-M. (2004) “Peuplement et socie´te´s a` l’e´poque amorrite: (1) les clans bensim’alites.” In C. Nicolle, ed., Nomades et se´dentaires dans le Proche-Orient ancien. Compte-Rendu de la XLVIe Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale: 111–97. Paris. Streck, M. P. (2000) Das amurritische Onomastikon der altbabylonischen Zeit, vol. 1. Mu¨nster.

1

Amphiaraos WIEBKE FRIESE

According to myth, Amphiaraos was born in Argos, a descendant of the Homeric seer Melampous (Hom. Od. 15.225). He participated in the Calydonian boar hunt (Apollod. Bibl. 1.8.2) and the voyage of the Argonauts (Schol. Pind. Pyth. 4.337.3). Favored by Apollo and by Zeus, who granted him the gift of prophecy, he married Eriphyle and became king of Argos jointly with Adrastos (his brother-in-law) and Iphis. Polyneikes induced Eriphyle – by offering her the necklace of Harmonia – to persuade her husband to take part in the war against Thebes (Apollod. Bibl. 3.8.2.). Although he foresaw his own death, Amphiaraos agreed, but asked his sons Alkmaeon and Amphilochos to avenge him by killing their mother. In the battle, he killed Melanippos and fled, pursued by Periklymenos, Poseidon’s son, but Zeus threw his thunderbolt to open the earth, which swallowed Amphiaraos together with his chariot and charioteer (Pind. Nem. 9.24). Like the Boeotian TROPHONIOS, Amphiaraos entered the underworld directly, without dying, and thus became a chthonic god. According to Pausanias (1.34), he returned to the surface through the sacred spring of Oropos, near the Boeotian–Attic border about 40 km northwest of Athens. Here a healing oracle was founded around 420 BCE (Schachter 1981; Lupu 2003); this may have replaced an older oracle of Amphiaraos at Knópia (place of snakes) near Thebes, if we are to believe Strabo (9.2.10). The temenos of Oropos, situated 6 km southeast of the ancient town, extends over 240 m along a stream-bed in a densely forested valley (Petrakos 1974, 1997). To the west, next to the sacred spring and the monumental altar, was erected the temple with an acrolithic cult statue. To the north a terrace with dedicatory bases joins a big stoa (Coulton 1968) and a small theater. Oropos quickly became famous throughout the ancient world. While sixth-

century vase paintings (Töpfer 2010) depict Amphiaraos as a great battle-leader (e.g., a crater in Berlin, F1655), his iconography changes within decades to that of a healing god similar to Asklepios or Trophonios (Archinos relief, Athens NM 3369). From the late fifth century BCE, annual agonistic festivals (AMPHIAREIA) were celebrated in Oropos and growing numbers of people settled in the area south of the temenos. Amphiaraos answered his consultants by dream incubation. Those who came to consult the oracle first purified themselves (Paus. 1.34 and LSCG 69), then sacrificed to all the gods named on the altar, and finally sacrificed a ram whose fleece was used to sleep upon in expectation of a revelation (Sineux 2007). Men and women incubated in separate rooms, which open out onto the stoa. Several reliefs in the sanctuary depict the god’s appearance and healing during the night. After incubation, a fee was payable in the thesauros (treasury) of the sanctuary (LSCG Suppl. 35 and LSCG 69). Many dedications attest a constant flow of visitors late into Roman times; the latest inscriptions date from the third century CE (SEG 15.290). Amphiaraos was also worshiped in Rhamnous, Athens, Sparta, and Argos. SEE ALSO:

Apotheosis and heroization; Divination, Greece and Rome; Hero cult; Incubation.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Coulton, J. J. (1968) “The stoa at the Amphiareion, Oropos.” Annual of the British School at Athens 63: 147–83. Lupu, E. (2003) “Sacrifice at the Amphiareion and a fragmentary sacred law from Oropos.” Hesperia 72: 321–40. Petrakos, V. C. (1968) Ho Oropus kai to hieron tou Amphiariou. Athens. Petrakos, V. C. (1974) The Amphiareion of Oropus. Athens.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner. © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Published 2016 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah30174

2 Petrakos, V. C. (1997) Hoi epigraphes tou Oropou. Athens. Schachter, A. (1981) Cults of Boiotia 1: 19–26. London.

Sineux, P. (2007) Amphiaraos: guerrier, devin et guérisseur. Paris. Töpfer, K. M. (2010) “Amphiaraos als paradigmatischer Held im klassischen Athen.” Athenische Mitteilungen 12: 199–219.

1

Amphiareion sanctuary CATHERINE M. KEESLING

The Amphiareion was an oracular sanctuary located at OROPOS, on the border between Attica and BOIOTIA, and dedicated to the hero/ god Amphiaraos. The attested method of oracular consultation at the Amphiareion was incubation. Worshippers were required to purify themselves by sacrificing to Amphiaraos and a series of gods and heroes whose names were inscribed on the altar. According to Pausanias’ account of the sanctuary (1.34.2–5), prospective incubants were then required to sleep on the skin of a sacrificed ram. Buildings in the sanctuary, attested by a combination of inscriptions and physical remains, include

Figure 1

a temple, an altar inscribed with the names of fourteen different gods and heroes (Paus. 1.34.3), a koimeterion used for incubation (IOropos 277), a theater building, a klepsydra, separate bath buildings for men and women, and a fountain house (IOropos 290). A hippodrome is attested by the inscribed victor lists for the Amphiareia festival (IOropos 520–34). The sanctuary of Amphiaraos at Oropos changed hands eleven times over the course of the fifth and fourth centuries BCE, the period of the sanctuary’s rise to prominence. In 412/11, during the PELOPONNESIAN WAR, Thebes took control of the sanctuary away from Athens (Thuc. 8.60.1). After the battle of Chaeronea in 338, the sanctuary reverted to Athens (Paus. 1.34.1; see CHAERONEA, BATTLE

The Amphiareion of Oropos, Greece. Photograph © Werner Forman/Corbis.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 372–374. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah14031

2 OF).

At the end of the LAMIAN WAR in 322/1, Oropos became independent, but by 295/4 it had been returned to the BOIOTIAN LEAGUE, under whose control it remained until the federation was dissolved in 171 (Petrakos 1968: 17–44; 1997: 487–511). In the first century BCE, a series of prominent Romans, including SULLA (LUCIUS CORNELIUS SULLA FELIX) (IOropos 442) and MARCUS VIPSANIUS AGRIPPA (IOropos 456), were honored by having their names inscribed on earlier Greek portrait statues of unknown subjects in the sanctuary. The equestrian portrait inscribed with Sulla’s name stood at the northeast corner of the temple.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Lo¨hr, C. (1993) “Die Statuenbasen im Amphiareion von Oropos.” Athenische Mitteilungen 108: 183–212. Lupu, E. (2003) “Sacrifice at the Amphiareion and a ragmentary sacred law from Oropos.” Hesperia 72: 321–40. Petrakos, V. C. (1968) ‘Ο ’Oropός kaί tό ˆıerόn tού ’Αm’iarάοu. Athens. Petrakos, V. C. (1997) Οi e’ pigra’ές tού ’Orώpοu (¼IOropos). Athens. Petropoulou, A. B. (1981) “The Eparche documents and the early oracle at Oropus.” Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 22: 39–63.

1

Amphictyony MICHAEL C. SCOTT

An amphictyony, deriving from the word amphiktiones (“dwellers around”), was one of the many different types of organized grouping possible within the ancient Greek world. Each amphictyony consisted of several poleis and/or ethne (see ETHNOS; POLIS), which were connected to (“dwelt around”) a particular sanctuary or sanctuaries. Members of each amphictyony were normally geographically local to the sanctuary or sanctuaries on which the organization focused, and were tasked with maintaining the sanctuary’s cult practices as well as its physical up-keep, protection, and autonomy. The Calaurian amphictyony, for example, was focused on the sanctuary of Poseidon on Calauria (modern-day Poros), and consisted of Hermione, Epidauros, Aigina, Athens, and Boiotian Orchomenos. The most famous (and anomalous) example of an amphictyony, however, was that which centered around the sanctuaries of Apollo and Athena at Delphi as well the sanctuary of Demeter Anthela near Thermopylai (see AMPHICTYONY, DELPHIC; DELPHI). Its membership included representatives not just from areas local to these sanctuaries, but from large parts of Greece (see Sanchez 2001: 466–94), and throughout its long history seems to have, on top of its normal duties, instigated large building projects, punished those who offended against the sanctuary, and declared Sacred War (see WARS, SACRED). Discussion over the precise nature of this amphictyony (and thus the general nature of this kind of organization) has been heated in recent years. Debate has raged over the correct

characterization of the Delphic amphictyony’s role in running the sanctuaries at Delphi and at Thermopylai (cf. the very useful list of inscribed amphictyonic documents published in Lefe`vre 2002); its judicial and political functions both within the sanctuaries and in the wider Greek world (Lefe`vre 1998; Sanchez 2001); its possible pro-Persian stance during the Persian wars (see PERSIA AND GREECE); its oscillating impact on events within Greece and its continued existence in the classical period; its reorganization by PHILIP II OF MACEDON; its branding as a panhellenic institution; and its survival and role in the Hellenistic and Roman periods as well as its connection to Hadrian’s Panhellenion (Daux 1975). Some scholars have argued that the modern-day European Union has its ancient predecessor in the “panhellenic” Delphic amphictyony, while others have consistently denied such a link. SEE ALSO: Calauria and the Calaurian amphictyony; Hadrian; Panhellenism.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Daux, G. (1975) “Les Empereurs romains et l’Amphictionie pyle´o-delphique.” Comptes Rendus de l’Acade´mie des Inscriptions et BellesLettres: 348–62. Lefe`vre, F. (1998) L’Amphictionie Pyle´o-Delphique: histoire et institutions. Paris. Lefe`vre, F. (2002) Corpus des inscriptions de Delphes, vol. 4 Documents Amphictioniques. Paris. Sanchez, P. (2001) L’Amphictionie des Pyles et de Delphes: recherches sur son roˆle historique, des origines au IIe sie`cle de notre e`re. Stuttgart. Tausend, K. (1992) Amphiktyonie und Symmachie. Stuttgart.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print page 374. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah17029

1

Amphictyony, Delphic PIERRE SA´NCHEZ

The Pylaeo-Delphic Amphictyony (from amphiþktiones, “those dwelling around”) was a religious association of the ethne of northern and central Greece, which was in charge of the two sanctuaries of Demeter at Anthela, near THERMOPYLAI, and of Apollo at DELPHI. In the Archaic period, the association consisted probably of the following twelve tribal communities: Thessalians, Dolopes, Perrhaibians, Magnetes, Phthiotic Achaians, Ainianes, Malians, Boiotians, Phokians, Lokrians, Dorians (Metropolitan and Peloponnesian), and Ionians (from Euboia and Attica). Each tribe had two votes, cast by their delegates, the hieromnemones (“those keeping in mind the sacred matters”) at the two annual meetings, called pylaiai. Each tribe also sent an unknown number of pylagoroi or agoratroi (“those speaking at [Thermo]pylai/at the agora”), and we hear once from an ekklesia of the Amphictyons. The two sanctuaries of Demeter and Apollo were located at the crossroads of important land and maritime trade routes, with a convenient harbor nearby (Aiai and Kirrha/Krisa), and Delphi was also the seat of a famous oracle. People gathered there early for religious and commercial purposes, and the Amphictyony was born out of the necessity to organize the festivals and markets, and to administer and protect the sacred property of the gods: its mission was to prevent neighboring tribes from claiming for themselves control over the sanctuaries and their resources, and to guarantee safe access for the pilgrims, competitors, and merchants from all over the Greek world. It could issue sacred laws and decrees, and had judicial powers to enforce them, over individuals and states alike. It could inflict fines, order banishment from the sanctuary, and declare a sacred war on those who had occupied by force the sacred land of Apollo. The Amphictyony had, however, no real political power, and it never became the

common council of the Greeks or a court of interstate arbitration; such views rest on the dubious testimony of late sources, and on the oath quoted by Aeschines (Legat. 115), which says that the Amphictyons had sworn not to destroy themselves in wars, but is probably a forgery of the fourth century BCE. Nevertheless, the Amphictyony could be, and actually was, used for political purposes by the leading powers struggling for hegemony in central Greece, perhaps already in the fifth century, and clearly so between the fourth and the early second centuries BCE. We can infer from the terms pylaia and pylagoros that the original meeting place of the Amphictyony was the sanctuary of Demeter at Thermopylai, and that the council was put in charge of the temple of Apollo at Delphi only later. This event could have been either the cause or the consequence of the First Sacred War, early in the sixth century, during which the Thessalians and other amphictyonic states destroyed the city of Kirrha and consecrated its territory to Apollo. In 582, the local festival of the Pythia was given a panhellenic status and put under the supervision of the Amphictyony. When the temple of Apollo was destroyed by fire in 548, the Amphictyons were asked to collect money and to commission the rebuilding of the monument. We hear little from the council during the fifth century, except when military operations or politics turned the attention of the leading powers of Greece on Delphi or Thermopylai: in the aftermath of the great Persian invasion; during the Second Sacred War waged by Sparta and Athens on behalf of, respectively, the Delphians and the Phokians in 449–448; and when the Spartan colony of Heraklia was founded near Mount Oita in 427. It may have been during this period that some changes were brought to the organization of the council, which are attested in the epigraphic lists of the fourth century: the Spartans are sometimes allowed to sit instead of the Metropolitan Dorians, Heraklia votes with the Malians, and the city of Delphi has two votes, distinct from those of the Phokians,

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 375–376. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah09021

2 while the Dolopes and the Perrhaibians form one artificial ethnos. During the fourth century, the Thessalians and Boiotians tried to use the Amphictyony to assert their hegemony over central Greece, while the Phokians claimed for themselves the control of the resources of Apollo and occupied the sanctuary by force. The ensuing Third and Fourth Sacred Wars (356–346 and 341–339) gave Philip of Macedon the opportunity to gain control over central Greece. He expelled the impious Phokians from the sanctuary, he received their two amphictyonic votes and the presidency of the Pythia, and he managed to complete the rebuilding of the temple, which had been damaged by a mudslide before 370; Delphi and the Amphictyony became the showroom of Philip’s power and piety. During the third century, the Amphictyony fell under the control of the Aitolians, who exercised the votes of all the amphictyonic states of Central Greece that they had conquered or incorporated into their ethnos. The festival of the Soteria was instituted after the Gallic invasion of 279; the Dionysiac TECHNITAI, sanctuaries, and cities from all the Greek world asked the Amphictyony to proclaim and recognize their inviolability, and the Ptolemies and Seleucids invited them to their newly founded festivals. The Aitolians were eventually expelled from the Amphictyony and the council was restored to its original organization in the course of the second century, under the supervision of Rome. The following period was characterized by financial malpractice at Delphi, conflicts over the borders of the sacred land, and disputes over the Dorian, Ionian, and Lokrian votes. These quarrels went on under the empire, and the Amphictyony was reorganized three times, by Augustus, Nero, and Hadrian:

the number of seats was eventually raised from twenty-four to thirty; the Macedonians and the city of Nikopolis, founded by Augustus, were incorporated, next to the Thessalians, with six votes each; and the council became a kind of representative body of northern and central Greece. We lose track of the institution after the third century CE. SEE ALSO: Amphictyony; Boundary disputes; Calauria and the Calaurian Amphictyony; Festivals, Greece and Rome; Law, sacred (Greek); Phokis; Pythia; Wars, sacred.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Hornblower, S. (2009) “Did the Delphic Amphiktiony play a political role in the classical period?” In I. Malkin, C. Constantakopoulou, and K. Panagiopoulou, eds., Greek and Roman networks in the Mediterranean: 39–56. London. Lefe`vre, F. (1998) L’Amphictionie pyle´o-delphique: histoire et institutions. Athens. Lefe`vre, F. (2005) “Les hie´romne´mons de l’Amphictionie pyle´o-delphique: l’apport de la prosopographie a` l’histoire religieuse et politique de la Gre`ce ancienne.” In M.-F. Baslez and F. Pre´vot, eds., Prosopographie et histoire religieuse. Actes du colloque tenu en l’Universite´ de Paris XII, Val de Marne, les 27 et 28 octobre 2000: 9–34. Paris. Rousset, D. (2002) Le territoire de Delphes et la terre d’Apollon. Paris. Sa´nchez, P. (1997) “Le serment amphictionique [Aeschn., Legat. (2) 115]: un faux du IVe sie`cle?” Historia 46: 158–71. Sa´nchez, P. (2001) L’Amphictionie des Pyles et de Delphes: recherches sur son roˆle historique, des origines au IIe sie`cle de notre e`re. Stuttgart. Tausend, K. (1992) Amphiktyonie und Symmachie: Formen zwischenstaatlicher Beziehungen im archaischen Griechenland. Stuttgart.

1

Amphidamas WILLIAM MACK

King of CHALCIS at whose funeral games, given by his sons, Hesiod won a tripod, perhaps with the Theogony (Hes. Op. 654–7). Plutarch (Conv. sept. sap. 153F) records a tradition that Amphidamas died fighting the Eretrians in the LELANTINE WAR, but this seems unlikely to be independent of this passage in Hesiod, which Plutarch, in his commentary on Hesiod, pronounced a worthless interpolation (Mor. fr. 84). The date of these funeral games, which need not have followed directly after the death of Amphidamas, remains uncertain. The likely span ranges from the mid-eighth to

the early seventh century. Further difficulties are caused by the assertion of Aristotle (ap. Str. 447) that Chalcis was ruled by the HIPPOBOTAI, an aristocratic elite, when the Chalcidians were heavily involved in settlement in the west, that is, during this period. SEE ALSO:

Hesiod.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Hall, J. (2006) A history of the archaic Greek world: c. 1200–479. Oxford. Osborne, R. (1996) Greece in the making, 1200–479 BC. London. Parker, V. (1997) Untersuchungen zum Lelantischen Krieg und verwandten Problemen der fru¨hgriechischen Geschichte. Stuttgart.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 376–377. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah02017

1

Amphidromia RICHARD HAMILTON

The Greek birth ceremony called the Amphidromia (“run-around”) is defined only in a few fragmentary late dictionaries and commentaries on various classical texts, and there is a good chance that these definitions are simply guesses based on the name itself and the understanding that the ceremony involved a newborn: a group (midwives? naked males?) ran around something (the family hearth? the child?) five or seven (or ten) days after the baby was born. A few sources add that friends and relatives sent octopus or squid as gifts. Some sources conflate the date and purpose of the Amphidromia with the well-documented “tenth” day (Dekate) ceremony, when family and friends celebrated the naming of the child, and the only classical text to describe the Amphidromia supports the combination. The fourth century BCE comic poet Ephippos lists preparations for an elaborate Amphidromia feast of cheese, vegetables, and meat, culminating in squid and quantities of octopus and wine, and one can now see a function for those gifts of octopus and squid at the Amphidromia. Ephippos also mentions

a wreath on the door, elsewhere said to mark a child’s birth, and so it is possible to create a unified incorporation scenario beginning about a week after the birth and spanning several days: wreath on the door to mark the birth; private incorporation ceremony inside (Amphidromia); public naming/introduction celebration outside (Dekate). The timing was probably variable: though naming is well documented on the tenth, there is also a fair amount of evidence, including Aristotle, for naming on the seventh. SEE ALSO: Childhood, Greece and Rome; Names, personal, Classical Greece.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Golden, M. (1986) “Names and naming at Athens: three studies.” Echos du monde classique 30: 245–69. Hamilton, R. (1984) “Sources for the Athenian Amphidromia.” Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies 25: 243–51. Neils, J. (2003) “Children and Greek religion.” In J. Neils and J. H. Oakley, eds., Coming of age in ancient Greece: images of childhood from the classical past: 143–44. New Haven. Pomeroy, S. B. (1997) Families in classical and Hellenistic Greece: representations and realities. Oxford.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print page 377. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah17030

1

Amphilochia DANIEL STRAUCH

Amphilochia was the name of a territory in northwestern Greece, east of the Gulf of Ambrakia. The tribe which inhabited the territory was called the Amphilochoi. Most of the territory was mountainous with only a narrow strip of coastal plain. It bordered the Aitolian tribe of the Agaraioi on the east, the Acarnanian region on the south, and the territory of the city Ambrakia on the north. The ancient authors were divided about their origin: Strabo (7.7.1) considered the Amphilochoi as part of the ethnos of the Epirotes, whereas Thucydides and other writers regarded them as a “barbarian” tribe sui generis. The main city of Amphilochia was called Argos Amphilochikon. According to the account of Hecataeus of Miletos, this city was founded by the mythical hero Amphilochos, but according to the later account of Ephoros, by Alkmaion and his sons. At some stage in the seventh to sixth centuries BCE, the native inhabitants of Argos were joined by settlers of the nearby Corinthian colony AMBRAKIA, who brought the Hellenic language and culture to the citizens (or, rather literally, “they were first Hellenized”; Thuc. 2.68). In the 530s BCE, the Amphilochians were expelled by the Ambrakian settlers, but some years later the town was resettled with Athenian help by the Amphilochoi and Akarnanians. As a result the Amphilochoi were regarded and acted as part of the Akarnanians, although it remains open whether they became a formal member of the AKARNANIAN LEAGUE. In 426/5, Amphilochia was a battleground for the PELOPONNESIAN WAR (Thuc. 3.105–8). In the first half of the third century PYRRHOS forced

Ambrakia to become a member of the mighty Epirote koinon, and this was only changed by the victorious AITOLIANS, who made the Amphilochoi part of their koinon (ca. 229–167). When the Romans started to lessen the local organizations (koina) of northwestern Greece in the second century BCE, they tried unsuccessfully to capture Argos Amphilochikon in 189, but then 20 years later declared that Argos was a free city (civitas libera), meaning that it was now an independent entity. During the first century BCE, Amphilochia suffered from the contributions which had to be paid to the Roman military. After Augustus founded the city NIKOPOLIS in 30 BCE on the western coastal plain of the Gulf of Ambrakia, Argos Amphilochikon became part of this city, with its inhabitants settling in the new “Victory town.” The ancient city of Argos Amphilochikon is located at the site of Neochori between the modern Greek villages of Lutro and Ambelaki; however, this identification is disputed (Pritchett 1992: 13–21). Settlements within the territory of Amphilochia were Olpe, Idomene, Krenai, and Metropolis. Ancient Amphilochia should not be confused with the modern town of Amfilochia in the southeast corner of the Gulf of Ambrakia. SEE ALSO:

Epirus; Koinon.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Hammond, N. G. L. (1967) Epirus. Oxford. Hansen, M. H. (2004) An inventory of archaic and classical Poleis. Oxford. Pritchett, W. K. (1992) Studies in Ancient Greek topography. Amsterdam. Strauch, D. (1998) “Der Ambrakische Golf. ¨ berlegungen zur Geographie und antiken U Geschichte des Binnenmeeres in NordwestGriechenland.” Orbis Terrarum 4: 5–26.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 377–378. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah14032

1

Amphion of Thespiai SCOTT T. FARRINGTON

literature, and the only fact we can know about his life is that he preceded Athenaeus. SEE ALSO:

Athenaeus mentions the second book of Amphion’s Concerning the Mouseion on Helicon (Die Fragmente der griechischen Historiker, 387). The work apparently discussed the dances of young boys on Helikon as attested in an inscription set up by one Bakchiadas of Sikyon. The inscription also records the name of Bakchiadas’ aulete: Anakos of Phigaleia. This is the only mention of Amphion in extant

Historiography, Greek and Roman.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Schachter, A. (2012, 2017) "Amphion of Thespiai (387)." In I. Worthington, ed., Brill’s New Jacoby. Brill Online. E. Schwartz (1894) “Amphion (8).” In A. Pauly, G. Wissowa, and W. Kroll, eds., Realencyclopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft, 1.2: 1948. Stuttgart.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, and Andrew Erskine. © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Published 2017 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah30587

1

Amphipolis LOUISA LOUKOPOULOU

An Athenian colony in the Edonis, Amphipolis was founded in 437/36 on the eastern bank of the lower STRYMON with the participation of other Greeks, thus with mixed population, under the general Hagnon, on the site of Ennea Hodoi, some 5 km upstream from the maritime EMPORION of EION. Located on a 150 m raised plateau surrounded on three sides by the river, Amphipolis marked the successful conclusion of relentless efforts undertaken since the late sixth century BCE by Thasians, ARISTAGORAS OF MILETOS, and, following the eviction of Persian garrisons by KIMON (476), Athens to settle in a region rich in strategic resources: silver and gold from Mount PANGAION, and splendid forests abounding in shipping timber. In 424, Amphipolis was occupied by the Spartan BRASIDAS, who met his death in 422 during a botched Athenian expedition under KLEON; he was buried near the city agora and honored by Amphipolitans with yearly games and sacrifices as oikistes and savior in Hagnon’s place. Restored to Athens by the Peace of Nikias in 421 (see NIKIAS, PEACE OF), Amphipolis opted for independence and successfully safeguarded it in spite of repeated Athenian attacks. In 364, the Macedonian king PERDIKKAS III supported the Athenian general Timotheos’ attempt to reconquer Amphipolis, but he refused to hand the city over. Perdikkas’ successor, PHILIP II OF MACEDON, appeared at first willing to yield to the Athenian claims, but he eventually decided to march against the city, which was forced to surrender (357) and accept a Macedonian garrison. The neighboring city of Argilos was probably annexed to Amphipolis. Amphipolis was incorporated into the kingdom of Macedon without, however, losing its autonomy and original (probably democratic) civic institutions – demos (assembly), boule presided over by a college of magistrates under the eponymous epistates, and college of polemarchs – which blended progressively

with those of the Macedonian colonists. It became the principal base of Philip’s and Alexander’s expeditions in Thrace and in Asia, and one of the most important mints of the Macedonian kingdom; the civic coinage, inaugurated after the victory of Brasidas, was replaced by the emission of gold Macedonian staters. Amphipolis was probably the capital of one of the administrative districts of the Macedonian kingdom; after the final victory of Rome over Macedon in 168 BCE, it became the capital of one of the four Macedonian merides (administrative parts). In 87–86, it was occupied by Taxiles, a general of Mithradates, and barely survived ravages inflicted by his barbarian allies. Under AUGUSTUS, who was honored as its ktistes (founder), Amphipolis was granted the status of civitas libera (free city) and the right to mint coinage. The discovery of four early Christian basilicas (the earliest dating to ca. 500), with rich mosaic floors and elaborate architectural sculptures, and of a richly decorated hexagonal building, attests to the importance of the city, which became the seat of an episcopal see in Late Antiquity, before its disappearance, probably as a victim of Slavic invasions in the eighth and ninth centuries CE. The strategic site of Amphipolis on the principal highway linking continental Greece to Asia Minor, the via Egnatia of the Romans, at the exit point of the Strymon valley, guaranteed a standing prosperity, amply illustrated by archaeological discoveries. Systematic excavations undertaken since 1956 have brought to light the impressive remains of its formidable ramparts – a fortified acropolis and city walls with a perimeter of 7,450 m, partly standing to a height of 7.25 m, enclosing an area of 250 ha – a tomb-heroon (of Brasidas?) of the last quarter of the fifth century BCE, the wooden bridge that linked the city to the right bank of the Strymon, numerous public and private monuments, important sanctuaries, the gymnasium, and vast Hellenistic and Roman cemeteries, as well as a rich harvest of inscriptions testifying to the extraordinary and constant prosperity of this populous city.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 378–379. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah14033

2 REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Flensted-Jensen, P. (2004) “Thrace from Axios to Strymon.” In M. H. Hansen and T. H. Nielsen, eds., An inventory of Archaic and Classical poleis: 813–53. Oxford. Isaac, B. (1986) Greek settlements in Thrace until the Macedonian conquest. Leiden.

Lazaridis, D. (1972) Amphipolis and Argilos. Athens. Papastavrou, J. (1936) Amphipolis: Geschichte und Prosopographie. Berlin. Papazoglou, F. (1988) Les cite´s de Mace´doine a` l’e´poque romaine. Athens.

1

Amphissa DENIS ROUSSET

Amphissa, located at the foot of Mount Parnassos, is the most important city of western LOKRIS. Its history was determined chiefly by the passage of armies or by the influence of regional powers. It served as a refuge for Phokians and Delphians during the Second Persian War. During the PELOPONNESIAN WAR, the Amphissians sided with SPARTA. In the Third Sacred War (356–346 BCE) they were subjugated by the Phokians. In 340, the Amphissians were accused of occupying the land belonging to Pythian APOLLO south of DELPHI: a punitive expedition initiated the Fourth Sacred War (340–338), which brought PHILIP II OF MACEDON into central Greece. The war resulted in the capture of Amphissa and the exile of many of its citizens. Aitolian expansion into central Greece caused Amphissa to fall under their sway for over a century until 167. Amphissa does not appear to have been part of the confederacy of the Lokrians that had existed since the middle of the fourth century, nor of the

confederacy that was reestablished after 167. During the second century, Amphissa was involved in a territorial dispute with the city of Delphi, and the definition of the border with the sacred land of Apollo was also carried out at that time. The city of Amphissa was visited by PAUSANIAS, who reported that it was then inhabited by Aitolian immigrants. He also mentioned its cult sites, consecrated to ATHENA and to the heroes Amphissa and Andraimon. SEE ALSO:

Aitolian League; Wars, sacred.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Klaffenbach, G. (1968) Inscriptiones Locridis occidentalis. Berlin. Lerat, L. (1952) Les Locriens de l’Ouest. Paris. Rousset, D. (2002a) Le territoire de Delphes et la terre d’Apollon. Paris. Rousset, D. (2002b) “Inscriptions helle´nistiques d’Amphissa.” Bulletin de Correspondance Helle´nique 126: 83–96. Rousset, D. (2004). “Amphissa.” In M. H. Hansen and T. H. Nielsen, eds., An inventory of Archaic and Classical poleis: 393–4.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 379–380. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah04025

1

Amphitheater THOMAS MORTON

The amphitheater – a large oval structure with banks of seating for viewing games in a central ARENA – is one of the most recognizable forms of Roman architecture, and the COLOSSEUM in Rome is its most famous example. Even the Romans were unsure as to the exact origin of arena games; both Osco-Samnite and Etruscan precedents existed. Three different kinds of “games” occurred in the amphitheater: gladiatorial combats (munera), animal hunts (venationes), and public executions. While literary sources speak of earlier structures, the earliest surviving (and securely dated) amphitheater is located in POMPEII and dates to ca. 75 BCE. The form of the mature amphitheater was both elliptical and oval; large amphitheaters tended to be ovals, while smaller amphitheaters tend to be ellipses. The curved form meant that none of the action would

Figure 1 Morton.

View of the third-century

CE

be trapped in a corner. In addition, these curved forms offered better sight lines. The amphitheater often included a series of underground chambers below the arena, in which were kept people, animals, and props for the games. A high wall surrounded the arena and protected the spectators from the violent action in front of them. The seating (cavea) around the arena was highly controlled; a person’s status was clearly reflected in his/ her seating location and possible circulation patterns. Seating capacities varied widely; the Colosseum could seat about fifty thousand people. Some of the largest and best-preserved amphitheaters appear in the far-flung Roman provinces. In the third century, THYSDRUS (EL JEM) erected the town’s third amphitheater; in terms of scale, Rome and Carthage were its only rivals. SEE ALSO: Architecture, civic, Roman Empire; Architecture, Roman Republic; Gladiators.

amphitheater at Thysdrus (El Jem, Tunisia). Image by Thomas J.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 380–381. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah16218

2 REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Bomgardner, D. L. (2000) The story of the Roman amphitheatre. London. Futrell, A. (2000) Blood in the arena: the spectacle of Roman power. Austin.

Golvin, J.-C. (1988) L’Amphithe´aˆtre romain. Essai sur la the´orisation de sa forme et de ses fonctions. Paris. Welch, K. (2007) The Roman amphitheatre from its origins to the Colosseum. Cambridge. Wilmott, T., ed. (2009) Roman amphitheatres and spectacula: a 21st century perspective. Oxford.

1

Amphitheos of Herakleia SCOTT T. FARRINGTON

Amphitheos of Herakleia is the author of On Herakleia, a work consisting of at least two books. Jacoby (Die Fragmente der griechischen Historiker, 431) assigned two fragments to this work. In the first, Harpocration (Lexicon of the ten Attic orators) asserts that Amphitheos equated SABAZIOS with DIONYSOS. He makes the assertion to support the mixture of ecstatic rites in one of Demosthenes’ (18.260) attacks on Aeschines. In the second fragment, the scholiast to Aristophanes’ Frogs (line 874) quotes the very passage summarized by Harpocration, though he refers to the historian not as Amphitheos, but “the Herakleian.” Amphitheos reasons that the two gods are the same because of the parallel vocabulary associated with their worship; for example, euazein is parallel to sabazein. The

name “Amphitheos” is a conjecture of Jacoby, who rejects the suggestion that the fragments belonged to Nymphis (310–245 BCE). If Jacoby is correct, then the only determination we can make about the life of Amphitheos is that he lived sometime before Harpocration. SEE ALSO:

Historiography, Greek and Roman.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Cuypers, M. (2010, 2017) “Amphitheos (?) of Herakleia (431).” In I. Worthington, ed., Brill’s New Jacoby. Brill Online. Jacoby, F. (1969). “Amphitheos (?) of Herakleia (431).” Die Fragmente der griechischen Historiker. Leiden. Schwartz, E. (1894) “Amphitheos (2).” In A. Pauly, G. Wissowa, and W. Kroll, eds., Realencyclopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft 1.2: 1963. Stuttgart.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, and Andrew Erskine. © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Published 2017 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah30589

1

Amphora stamps CRAIG BARKER

The stamping of ceramic transport amphorae was a common practice in the production of both Greek and Roman forms of the commercial containers. Amphorae were containers for transporting and storing liquid and semi-liquid commodities, especially wine and oils. Stamps were usually impressed on handles, rims or necks of amphorae before kiln firing. There are two types of amphora stamps: nonexplicit (monograms, pictorial devices, single letters) and explicit (names, titles, and dates). The stamps have epigraphic value, but are also useful for economic historians and archaeologists as they indicate distribution networks and provenance, and provide a means of measuring the volume and direction of ancient trade. Datable stamps may also be used to provide a terminus post quem for archaeological depositions, including shipwrecks. Although stamping was common for centuries, not all amphorae production centers stamped, nor was it a universal practice among those that did. Greek amphorae classes that did stamp include Rhodes, Thasos, and Knidos, while Roman amphora stamps can be traced to production centers across the Mediterranean, particularly in the west. The purpose of amphora stamps is not certain; most scholars presume that Greek stamping represented an attempt at state control of taxation, or of standardization of capacity. Likewise stamps on Roman amphorae perhaps indicate self-advertisement, a control of customs duties, or an internal control system within large potteries. One result of the process was that stamps often provided a date for the vessel’s contents; the ancient marketplace was able to identify the vintage of some wines and recognize when contents were no longer fresh. Typically Greek amphora stamps bore a name in the genitive, usually of the manufacturer of the amphorae and/or the name of a local authority such as a magistrate, who is

often introduced by the preposition epi. These magistrate names can often be dated precisely. Often the name of a month was added, plus sometimes an ethnic adjective to indicate production location. Some classes, such as Rhodian, would stamp the vessel twice; the fabricant stamp bearing the manufacturer’s name, and the eponym stamp bearing details of the authority figure. Pictorial devices on the stamps were often state symbols emphasizing the control of the issuing state: for example, the rose symbol from Rhodian coinage is also found on Rhodian amphora stamps. Roman amphora stamps usually contained personal names of people involved in the production of the amphorae, particularly pottery owners; the names often abbreviated to the initials of tria nomina. Like Greek stamps, there was no consistent use across the empire, and not all amphora producers stamped vessels. Modern scholarship on amphora stamps has been largely focused on identifying and compiling lists of names. Complex internal chronologies linking known names within classes were developed. This work was pioneered by Heinrich Dressel on Latin stamps, and by Virginia Grace on Greek amphorae. More recent efforts have concentrated on the refinement of these name lists, and there has been considerable progress towards developing a precise and reliable chronology for amphora stamps. Gerald Finkielsztejn, for example, has refined Rhodian lists by counting eponym sequences backwards from historically known destruction levels on Israeli sites. Continued improvements to stamp chronology will increase their usefulness as archaeological dating tools. SEE ALSO: Economy, Hellenistic; Economy, Roman; Pottery, Classical and Hellenistic Greece; Pottery, Roman Empire; Trade, Greek; Trade, Roman.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Eiring, L. J. and Lund, J., eds. (2004) Transport amphorae and trade in the eastern Mediterranean.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 381–382. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah06018

2 Acts of the international colloquium at the Danish Institute at Athens, September 26–29, 2002. Aarhus. Finkielsztejn, G. (2001) Chronologie de´taille´e et re´vise´e des e´ponymes amphoriques rhodiens, de 270 a` 108 av. J.-C. environ. Oxford.

Grace, V. R. (1961) Amphoras and the ancient wine trade. Princeton. Peacock, D. P. S. and Williams, D. F. (1986) Amphorae and the Roman economy: an introductory guide. London.

1

Amplificatio (auxesis) GEORGINA M. LONGLEY

Amplificatio (auxesis) or “magnifying” was the convention employed to express and emphasize the importance of a work, a chosen topic or a particular theme, point, or fact. In rhetoric, auxesis was an exornatio, “adornment/embellishment,” employed to create emotional effect – to move, persuade, and convince the audience (see Rhet. Her. 2.47). Auxesis was particularly associated with epideictic oratory and was originally developed for it. For historians, “magnification” provided a vehicle for asserting the uniqueness, greatness, and significance of the subject matter and events narrated, and even for explaining and justifying the author’s motivation to write history. The form of the auxesis/ amplificatio varied according to the nature of the work. It could focus on an individual (as POLYBIUS did in writing on THEOPOMPOS OF CHIOS and on PHILIP II OF MACEDON, 8.9.1–10.8; or AMMIANUS MARCELLINUS on Julian, 16.1.2, 17.1.14); on the scope of the history (Polyb. 1.4.6–11); on the organization of the work (App. Prooem. 13); or on its beneficial nature and didactic purpose (Polyb. 1.1.5). Such

remarks were not confined to opening prefaces and could be employed before the account of a particularly important event, stressing its significance. Xerxes’ fleet on the eve of his invasion of Greece was described by HERODOTUS as the greatest “by far” (7.20.2; cf. Thuc. 1.1.2). Claims could be more moderate, acknowledging the event(s)’ or period’s importance, but not to the eclipse of what has gone before (e.g., Xen. Hell. 7.5.27). Conscious of predecessors’ assertions, the historian could employ auxesis/amplificatio as a direct challenge (e.g., Livy Praef. 1–2). SEE ALSO: Appian of Alexandria; Julian, emperor; Livy; Thucydides; Xenophon.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Biraschi, A. M. (2004) “Auxesis.” In C. Ampolo, U. Fantasia, and L. Porciani, eds., Lexicon historiographicum Graecum et Latinum, vol. 2: 109–13. Pisa. Lausberg, H. (1960) Handbuch der literarischen Rhetorik: sections 259, 400–9. Stuttgart. Marincola, J. (1997) Authority and tradition in ancient historiography: 34–43. Cambridge. Sacks, K. S. (1981) Polybius on the writing of history. Berkeley.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 382–383. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah08008

1

Ampurias MERITXELL FERRER

Ampurias, known today as Empúries, was a Greek EMPORION or trading post located in the northeast area of the Iberian peninsula, at the southern end of the Gulf of Roses, set next to the ancient mouths of the Ter and Fluvià rivers. In the mid-sixth century BCE, a small group of Greek people from either PHOKAIA or MASSILIA settled permanently on the small peninsula of Sant Martí d’Empúries, known in ancient literary sources as Palaia Polis (Strabo 3.4.8). This location had been used since the tenth–ninth centuries by local populations and permanently occupied since the seventh century BCE (Aquilué et al. 1999). Shortly thereafter, during the second half of the sixth century BCE, a new commercial settlement was created to the south of the ancient natural harbor. As this new site became well integrated in Mediterranean-wide commercial networks, it experienced extensive migration and became home for many people of different origins. This new settlement has been known in modern times as NEAPOLIS. Because of its long and continuous occupation until the beginning of the Roman imperial period, information about the initial phases of this new settlement is scarce. A number of small-scale but targeted excavations at various places across Neapolis have nevertheless provided evidence of the Late Archaic settlement, such as traces of streets, domestic and artisan quarters, and areas of ritual activities. These remains confirm the growth of the town in the last decades of sixth century and throughout the entire fifth century BCE. Despite this development Ampurias remained a small emporion with a basically commercial function. Trading activities played a key role in the Greek and Iberian commercial networks in the western Mediterranean and increased throughout the fifth century BCE. This is evident, for example, from Greek inscriptions on lead sheets that mention Ampurias residents and complex

trade operations among people of Greek and Iberian origin, as well as from the first coins struck in Ampurias, which follow Massalian patterns. Most of the information regarding the fourth and third centuries BCE comes from the southern area of Ampurias, where the southern gate through the walls and the main religious buildings have been excavated (Sanmartí, Castanyer, and Tremoleda 1992). Ampurias consolidated its position as an important commercial port that traded imports from the eastern Mediterranean, such as Attic and Aegean ceramics, as well as from central and western areas, as is evident from large numbers of transport amphorae of Iberian, Punic, Massaliot, or Magna Grecian origin. The importance of Ampurias is confirmed by the Greek foundation of Rhode at the northern end of the Gulf of Roses by the second half of the fourth century BCE. Finally, at the beginning of the Second Punic War (218 BCE), Roman troops disembarked at Ampurias, marking a turning point for the emporion itself and the Iberian peninsula as a whole (Mar and Ruiz de Árbulo 1993). SEE ALSO:

Colonization, Greek; Punic wars.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Aquilué, X. et al., eds. (1999) Intervencions arqueològiques a Sant Martí d’Empúries (1994–96). De l’assentament precolonial d’Empúries a l’Empúries actual. Empúries. Mar, R. and Ruiz de Árbulo, J. (1993) Ampurias romana. Historia, Arquitectura y Arqueología. Sabadell. Sanmartí, E., Castanyer, P., and Tremoleda, J. (1992) “Nuevos datos sobre la historia y la topografía de las murallas de Emporion.” Madrider Miltteilungen 33: 102–12. Santos, M., Castanyer, P., and Tremoleda, J. (2013) “Emporion arcaica: los ritmos y las fisionomías de los dos establecimientos originarios a partir de los últimos datos arqueológicos.” In S. Bouffier and A. Hermary, eds., L’Occident grec de Marseille à Mégara Hyblaea: 103–13. Arles.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner. © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Published 2015 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah26181

1

Amr PETRA M. SIJPESTEIJN

Muslim commander, conqueror, and first governor of the Muslim province of Egypt, ‘Amr b. al-‘A¯s was a wealthy Meccan merchant of the Quraysh, who had also frequented the greater Syrian area during his caravan trips. His consequent familiarity with the region was a great asset in his career as a Muslim general. He had also inherited significant wealth in the form of al-Waht:, an estate where grapes were grown near al-Ta¯’if in Arabia. His Islamic history starts with his conversion to Islam in the year 8/629–30 after which, together with other leading Muslims such as Kha¯lid b. al-Walı¯d (d. 21/642) and ‘Uthma¯n b. Talha, he moved to Medı¯na to join the Prophet’s community. In Muhammad’s service, ‘Amr was sent to subject ‘Uman, which he did, functioning as its governor at the time of Muhammad’s death in 11/632. In the year 12/633, Abu¯ Bakr (in office 11–13/632–4) dispatched him to conquer Palestine. Although the chronology of this campaign remains confused in the sources, ‘Amr’s important contribution to the conquest is evident. On the strength of this success, ‘Amr convinced the caliph ‘Umar (in office 13–23/ 634–44) to invade Egypt. ‘Amr’s troops entered Egypt in 18/639 and with the reinforcements that were sent, soon after the capital Alexandria was in Arab hands by 21/642 and the rest of the country subdued in the following years. It is with this event as well as with the subsequent administrative and economic organization of the country that ‘Amr’s fame lies. ‘Amr settled his soldiers in al-Fusta¯t at the site of the Roman fortress Babylon, modern-day Cairo, where his mosque soon had to be enlarged to encompass all the believers. ‘Amr headed the first campaign into North Africa, to Tripolitania in 22/642, which was followed by later governors. It is clear that ‘Amr, although subject to the caliph and liable to him for the yearly tax-payments, was able to operate relatively independently of Damascus. The caliph

‘Uthma¯n (in office 23–35/644–56) tried to increase his control over the province by ordering ‘Amr’s demotion from governor to financial director of Egypt, after which ‘Amr withdrew from politics to his estates in Palestine (Lecker 1989). Only with the conflict between ‘Alı¯ (in office 35–40/656–61) and Mu‘a¯wiya (in office 40–60/661–80) does ‘Amr re-appear, joining Mu‘a¯wiya’s camp and serving as one of the two arbiters at the battle of Siffı¯n. ˙ After reconquering Egypt (in 38/658), he ruled it as its governor for Mua¯wiya, until his death in 43/663. His regained prominence is clear from the claim that he was allowed to keep all the fiscal surplus from the province after paying the army their stipends (Kennedy 1998), as well as his inclusion as a target in a Kha¯rijite attempt in 40/661 to assassinate the Muslim leadership (‘Alı¯, Mu‘a¯wiya and ‘Amr), which ‘Amr escaped by chance. ‘Amr possessed large estates in Egypt, said to be worth at his death, together with his possessions outside Egypt, three hundred thousand dinars (al-Ya‘qu¯bı¯, Musha¯kalat). An order survives in ‘Amr’s name to the inhabitants of the village of Kephale to give fodder to an Arab commander (?) (SB XX 14443), but it is not clear from which campaign it comes. In another Greek papyrus. ‘Amr’s name is associated with the restructuring of administrative units (R. L. Chang and J. Gascou, unpublished). His name also appears in a swearing formula on two Coptic papyri (I, . . . , swear by God, the Almighty and by the well-being of ‘Amr) (MacCoull 1994).

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS al-Ya‘qu¯bı¯, Musha¯kalat al-na¯s li-zama¯nihim wama¯ yaghlibu ‘alayhim fı¯ kull ‘amr, trans. W. G. Millward, “The adaptation of men to their time: an historical essay by al-Ya‘qu¯bı¯.” Journal of the American Oriental Society 84: 329–44. Kennedy, H. (1998) “Egypt as a province in the Islamic caliphate, 641–868.” In C. F. Petry, ed., The Cambridge history of Egypt, vol. 1, 640–1517: 62–85. Cambridge.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 383–384. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah12010

2 Lecker, M. (1989) “The Estates of ‘Amr b. al-‘A¯s: in Palestine: Notes on a New Negev Arabic Inscription.” Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 52: 24–37.

MacCoull, L. (1994) “BM 1079, CPR IX 44 and the chrysargyron.” Zeitschrift fu¨r Papyrologie und Epigraphik 100: 139–43.

1

Amulets, Christian MARIA G. PARANI

Despite vehement opposition by the church, Christians, in their search for protection against the maleficent activity of demons, adopted the use of amulets, usually in the form of personal ornaments such as pendants, rings, and armbands, which were worn on the body for greater effectiveness. Like their pagan and Jewish counterparts, Christian amulets derived their apotropaic and protective powers from the combination of imagery, word, and, in some cases, shape (e.g., amuletic rings with octagonal hoops) and the material out of which they were made (e.g., hematite, a semi-precious stone, considered effective against hemorrhaging; Vikan 1984: 79–81). Whether in the form of engraved gemstones or, more commonly, of BRONZE or COPPER pendants, amulets destined for a Christian clientele are usually identified as such by the appearance of Christian motifs and/or invocations next to traditional Greco-Roman and Jewish magical symbols (e.g., the pentagram, ring signs) and formulae (Spier 1993: 60–2; 2007: 81–6, 103–14). Common iconographic devices included a holy rider, often identified as Solomon, spearing a female demon (Dauterman Maguire, Maguire, and DuncanFlowers 1989: 25–28; Walter 1989–90), and the “much-suffering eye” attacked by weapons and various creatures (Dauterman Maguire, Maguire, and Duncan-Flowers 1989: 4–5). Biblical scenes, as well as depictions of Christ, saints, and angels, occur less frequently. Used by both men and women down to the seventh century, many of these amulets were thought to have general protective powers (Russell 1995; Mitchell 2007). Some, however, were medicinal in function, designed to address specific conditions, such as sciatic pain, abdominal problems, and

female complaints, especially infertility (Vikan 1984; Spier 1993). Indeed, the sixthcentury physician ALEXANDER OF TRALLES was not above prescribing amulets for some of his wealthiest patients, in concession to their own demands (Dauterman Maguire, Maguire, and Duncan-Flowers 1989: 197, 201–2). SEE ALSO: Amulets, Egypt; Amulets, Greece and Rome; Amulets, Jewish; Demons, Late Antiquity; Magic, Byzantine; Medicine, Byzantine.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Dauterman Maguire, E., Maguire, H. P., and Duncan-Flowers, M. J. (1989) Art and holy powers in the early Christian house. Urbana-Champaign. Fulghum Heintz, M. (2003) “Health.” In I. Kalavrezou, ed., Byzantine women and their world: 275–81. New Haven. Mitchell, J. (2007) “Keeping the demons out of the house: the archaeology of apotropaic strategy and practice in Late Antique Butrint and Antigoneia.” In L. Lavan, E. Swift, and T. Putzeys, eds., Objects in context, objects in use: material spatiality in Late Antiquity: 273–310. Leiden. Russell, J. (1995) “The archaeological context of magic in the early Byzantine period.” In H. Maguire, ed., Byzantine magic: 35–50. Washington. Spier, J. (1993) “Medieval Byzantine magical amulets and their tradition.” Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes 56: 25–62. Spier, J. (2007) Late Antique and early Christian gems. Wiesbaden. Vikan, G. (1984) “Art, medicine, and magic in early Byzantium.” Dumbarton Oaks Papers 38: 65–86. Walter, C. (1989–90) “The intaglio of Solomon in the Benaki Museum and the origins of the iconography of warrior saints.” Deltίοn tς Χristianikής Αrwaiοlοgikής Εtaireίaς 15: 33–42.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 384–385. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah03006

1

Amulets, Egypt ¨ NKEL ISABEL STU

The vast numbers of amulets that are preserved from ancient Egypt show how extremely popular and widespread they were. Amulets appear from at least the Predynastic period onward, and traditional pharaonic motifs were used until Roman times and possibly into Late Antiquity. An increase in new forms can be observed in various periods. Only a few representations of anthropomorphic deities, for example, seem to predate the New Kingdom, while a large variety of amulets depicting deities can only be observed from the Third Intermediate Period on. In the Late Period the variety and number of amulets used for mummies (the usage in life is not that well attested) reached its peak. Ancient Egyptian amulets were also exported, and additionally local imitations seem to have been produced in the Mediterranean world (see, e.g., Ho¨lbl 1979). An amulet is an object that was believed to have as its main function the capability to magically bestow its particular power or certain capabilities upon its wearer. The magical power of an ancient Egyptian amulet could derive from its shape, decoration, inscription, material, or color, from recitations spoken over it, or from other magical acts that were performed with it. Very often, an amulet could draw its magical power out of a combination of these aspects. Amulets could represent animals, deities, symbols, or objects in miniature size. Additionally, natural objects could be used as amulets, for example an actual claw or a stone with a significant color. Amulet papyri that bear short inscriptions were also used, and theoretically everything could be made into an amulet, if a powerful recitation was spoken over it. Without the context, one cannot always recognize the original use of an object as amulet, so that most ancient Egyptian objects that are called amulets today are identifiable as such through a combination of what they depict,

their size, and for some their use as a pendant. Since amulets were worn on the body they are often small (about 1–6 cm), but funerary amulets could be much larger (e.g., the winged scarabs that were placed on the mummy’s chest). The majority of amulets that were used by the living have a loop or are pierced, so that they could be attached, for example, to necklaces, bracelets, rings, or to simple strings. But amulets could also be wrapped in a piece of cloth and bound onto a string, in which instance they would not need any means of suspension themselves. Amulets that were useful in life were also thought to be of help in the afterlife and were used for mummies as well. In this instance they could be attached to the body, sewn to the mummy wrappings, or simply placed loosely among them. In addition to amulets that could be used for both the living and the dead, there were exclusively funerary amulets that had specific powers for the afterlife. Due to their solely funerary use, these amulet groups often do not have any means of suspension. Only for a few amulet groups has an assigned position on the mummy been established, and in these cases there always seems to be a direct link between their function and the specific place on the body. The general function of an amulet depicting a deity is easily understood, since such an amulet invokes this god or goddess and ensures that the deity would use his or her power for the wearer. This deity might have had various functions, which might all have been addressed, or the wearers might have hoped for a specific one to address their particular needs. The most important animal in regard to amulets was undoubtedly the scarab beetle. Its behavior of rolling large dung balls was associated by the ancient Egyptians with the travel of the sun; they also thought that this beetle generated spontaneously in the ground, an idea that was linked with the daily rebirth of the sun god. It is therefore not surprising that the scarab appears as a manifestation of the young sun god. The belief in the scarab’s self-generation and its association with the

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 385–387. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah01531

2 sun god made it a potent symbol of life and regeneration. Depictions of the scarab beetle were first used as amulets in the late Old Kingdom. In the First Intermediate Period the most common category of scarab in the shape of a seal amulet was introduced. The scarabs now had a flat, oval underside, which could bear designs or short inscriptions, not just for decorative value, but to additionally enhance the magical power of the amulet. Probably in a second step, this decorated underside might then be used for sealing. Mass production of those seal amulets in the shape of scarabs started in the late Middle Kingdom. Usually they were pierced lengthwise and most commonly made out of glazed steatite. Such scarabs have been found in large numbers not only in Egypt but also outside, especially in the Levant, where they were also locally produced (see Ben-Tor 2007). Scaraboids are very similar seal amulets that would retain the flat decorated underside, but would exchange the depiction of the scarab with that of another animal or object. A completely different category of scarab, the “heart scarabs” (see Malaise 1978), were exclusively funerary amulets and occurred from at least Dynasty 13 on (Wilkinson 2008). The heart was thought to be the center of life, but also of thinking, memory, and therefore of consciousness, and thus it was weighed in the final tribunal against Maat, the concept of truth and justice. Only if the deceased had acted in their lifetime according to Maat were they allowed to live on in the netherworld. The heart scarab was supposed to ensure a positive outcome, which is apparent from Chapter 30B of the Book of the Dead, which is usually inscribed on its underside. This text calls upon the heart of the deceased not to stand up as a witness against its owner, not to be opposed to its owner in the tribunal, and not to tell lies. Heart scarabs are usually not pierced and are much larger than the scarabs that were used as seal amulets. Another category of scarabs that was invented in the New Kingdom are the so-called commemorative scarabs (such as Amenhotep

III’s lion hunt scarabs), but these scarabs were not amulets. In the Late Period another type of small scarab became very popular. It depicts the beetle with a naturalistic underside plus a loop at its belly. These naturalistic scarabs were possibly only used as amulets for mummies, and they can easily be differentiated by their shape from the most common scarabs, the seal amulets with the flat underside and lengthwise piercing. Another type of funerary scarab that appears from Dynasty 25 on is the winged scarabs that were placed on the mummy’s chest. Besides animals and deities, amulets could represent symbols or objects in miniature size. The wedjat eye amulet, which represents the healed eye of the god Horus, belongs to this category and was one of the most popular amulets in ancient Egypt (together with the scarab). It depicts a combination of a human and a falcon eye (human eye, eyebrow, cosmetic line, and the stylized representations of a falcon’s markings underneath its eye), since Horus was often associated with a falcon. Its ancient Egyptian name wedjat means “the one that is sound again,” since it represents the healed eye of Horus. In Egyptian mythology the eye of Horus was injured/stolen by the god Seth, but then restored by the god Thoth. The wedjat eye amulet embodies all this healing power, and symbolizes regeneration and protection in general. An amulet in its shape was able to transfer the power of regeneration onto its wearer and to protect him or her; it was also believed to be very potent against the evil eye. It was used for the living as well as for the dead. There are several ancient written sources about amulets; chapters 155–60 of the Book of the Dead, the list of amulets for Osiris from Dendera (see Cauville 1997), and the verso of the MacGregor papyrus (see Capart 1908–9) are among the most important ones. Faience was one of the most favored materials for amulets in general, as their shape could easily and inexpensively be modeled or molded from it and it could be produced in many desired colors. Frequently green and blue shades were chosen, since they were thought to

3 bear the power of life and regeneration. Semiprecious stones, such as feldspar, carnelian, lapis lazuli, or hematite were also very popular, and for some amulets one can observe a preference in material, which is usually linked to the amulet’s function (see, e.g., Aufre`re 1986). Gold, silver, and electrum amulets are also known, while interestingly bronze, a material that was very popular for temple donations, was usually not used for amulets SEE ALSO: Funerary cult, Pharaonic Egypt; Gods, Egyptian; Jewelry, Pharaonic Egypt; Magic, Pharaonic Egypt; Religion, Pharaonic Egypt.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Andrews, C. (1994) Amulets of ancient Egypt. London. Andrews, C. (2001) “Amulets.” In D. B. Redford, ed., The Oxford encyclopedia of Ancient Egypt, vol. 1: 75–82. Oxford. Aufre`re, S. (1986) “A propos du trousseau d’amulettes saı¨tes en obsidienne et en he´matite.” In Hommages a` Franc¸ois Daumas: 33–41. Montpellier. Ben-Tor, D. (2007) Scarabs, chronology, and interconnections: Egypt and Palestine in the Second Intermediate Period. Freiburg. Capart, J. (1908–09) “Une liste d’amulettes.” ¨ gyptische Sprache und Zeitschrift fu¨r A Altertumskunde 45: 14–21. Cauville, S. (1997) Le temple de Dendara: les chapelles osiriennes. Commentaire: 187–91. Cairo.

Dubiel, U. (2008) Amulette, Siegel und Perlen: Studien zu Typologie und Tragesitte im Alten und Mittleren Reich. Freiburg. Gyo¨ry, H. (2001) “The history of early amulets.” Journal of the Society for the Study of Egyptian Antiquities 28: 99–110. ¨ gyptische Herrmann, C. (1994/2002/2006) A Amulette aus Pala¨stina/Israel, 3 vols. Freiburg. Herrmann, C. (2003) Die a¨gyptischen Amulette der Sammlungen BIBELþORIENT der Universita¨t Freiburg Schweiz: Anthropomorphe Gestalten und Tiere. Freiburg. Ho¨lbl, G. (1979) Beziehungen der a¨gyptischen Kultur zu Altitalien. 2 vols. Leiden. Hornung, E. and Staehelin, E., eds. (1976) Skaraba¨en und andere Siegelamulette aus Basler Sammlungen. Mainz. Hu¨ttner, M. (1995) Mumienamulette im Totengebrauchtum der Spa¨tzeit: eine Untersuchung an Objekten in der a¨gyptischen Sammlung des Kunsthistorischen Museums. Vienna. Malaise, M. (1978) Les scarabe´es de coeur dans l’Egypte ancienne: avec un appendice sur les scarabe´es de coeur des Muse´es Royaux d’Art et d’Histoire de Bruxelles. Brussels. Mu¨ller-Winkler, C. (1987) Die a¨gyptischen Objekt-Amulette. Freiburg. Petrie, W. M. F. (1914) Amulets. London. Reisner, G. A. (1907/1958) Amulets. Catalogue ge´ne´ral des antiquite´s e´gyptiennes du Muse´e du Caire, 2 vols. Cairo. Schlick-Nolte, B. and von Droste zu Hu¨lshoff, V. (1990) Skaraba¨en, Amulette und Schmuck, Liebighaus - Museum Alter Plastik Frankfurt ¨ gyptische Bildwerke 1. Melsungen. am Main, A Wilkinson, R. H. (2008) Egyptian scarabs. Oxford.

1

Amulets, Greece and Rome ELIZABETH ANN POLLARD

Amulets – in Greek, periapta, periamma (literally, “things tied around”) and in Latin, lamella, lamina (denoting the metal sheets on which they were engraved) – were worn to garner protection and other benefits for the wearer. Other sub-classifications of amulets include talismans and phylacteries, with subtle distinctions in the purpose of each type: talismans for good fortune (from Greek telein, “to consecrate”; see Kotansky 1991: 124, n. 5) and phylacteries for protection (from Greek phylassein, “to protect”). Amulets were usually protective – seeking relief from a variety of ailments, including fever (PGM 89 and PGM 7.213-4); women’s health problems (GMA 51 and PGM 7.260–71 for wandering womb, PGM 63.24–8 for contraception, and PGM 7.208–9 for “hardening” of the breasts, perhaps mastitis or cancer); headaches (GMA 13; PGM 7.201–2); gout (Bonner 1950: 76–7); vision problems (GMA 31 and 53; PGM 7.197–8); less specific demonic attacks and sickness (PGM 7.579–90; GMA 25, 46 and 57); and even inclement weather (GMA 11). Amulets could also be more aggressive, helping the wearer to win a lover (GMA 40) or victory (GMA 28), or to bring about demonic attack on an enemy (GMA 24). Amulets inscribed with Greek and/or Latin have been found throughout the Greco-Roman world, and their inscriptions suggest that they were used by men and women across all classes of society, and by pagans, Jews, and Christians alike, although the syncretic and creolized religious landscape of the Greco-Roman world makes religious identity difficult to pinpoint with certainty. Long texts inscribed on gold and elaborately engraved gemstones suggest that at least some people spent a great deal of money on these items, while simpler, cheaper amulets made of

more ephemeral material have no doubt perished with time. While there are earlier references to amuletwearing (e.g., Pind. Pyth. 3.47–54), Kotansky (1991: 108–9) points out that as early as 400 BCE the wearing of amulets, whether uninscribed or elaborately inscribed, probably involved incantation by the wearer to activate their efficacy (citing Pl. Chrm. 155e–156e). Sources (e.g., Ar. Plut. 883–85, Antiphanes Frag. 177 Kock, and Anaxilas Frag. 18 Kock) testify to the common use of amulets, especially amuletic rings, as early as the fourth century (Bonner 1946: 28–30; Kotansky 1991: 110–11). While earlier engraved stones may have held a sort of amuletic power for their wearers (Herakles for athletes or Juno for expectant women), undeniably amuletic gemstones engraved with words such as “protect” and phrases such as “give to me grace” begin to appear in the first century CE. The use of magical amulets appears to reach a height in the second through the fourth centuries CE, but extends through the end of antiquity (Kotansky 1994: xviii). Although a Constantinian law protected “remedies for human bodies” from criminal accusation (CT 9.16.3, in 317–19 CE), Ammianus Marcellinus (19.12.14–15) reports that in the exceptionally fierce treason trials of 359, men who merely wore a fever remedy around their neck (i.e., an amulet) were charged with sorcery (veneficium). Amulets could be made of almost any substance (animal parts, herbs, stones). They might be elaborately inscribed on papyrus, gold, silver, copper, bronze, or other metallic sheet (lamella) and placed in a small capsule worn around neck, arm, or leg, or they could be etched on semi-precious gemstones – such as jasper, hematite, chalcedony, lapis lazuli, or carnelian – and worn as pendants or rings. An amulet might be as simple as a knotted thread or it could be a pouch filled with herbs or other substances that might have pharmacological benefit (materia medica). In some cases, amulets were thought by Greeks and Romans to work based on the inherent power of the object

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 388–389. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah17031

2 or by the rationale of similia similibus (like for like, e.g., hematite/blood-stone for blood/uterine ailments). The first book of the fourthcentury CE Cyranides describes the amuletic power of a variety of stones, plants, and animals (Waegeman 1987). Some amulets featured images or names of gods or goddesses, palindromes, vowel arrangements, or magical words and/or characters. PGM 4.1716–1840, from a fourth-century CE magical recipe book, offers directions for what to engrave on a stone and how to use it (namely placing it under the tongue while saying a prescribed spell) and for making a lamella, including the words to be etched and the accompanying sacrifice. Similarly, PGM 5, a fourth-century CE handbook, describes how to make a Hermes ring, including when to wear it and the spell to say with it (213–303), and how to make and use a Serapis ring (447–58). Despite these and other recipes, there is nonetheless a great deal of variety and inconsistency in the corpus of inscribed gemstones (Bonner 1946, 1950; Delatte and Derchain 1964).

SEE ALSO: Charms, spells, Greece and Rome; Gems, Greek and Roman; Magic, Greece and Rome; Magical papyri, Greek.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Bonner, C. (1946) “Magical amulets.” Harvard Theological Review 39: 25–34. Bonner, C. (1950) Studies in magical amulets chiefly Graeco-Egyptian. Ann Arbor. Delatte, A., and Derchain, Ph. (1964) Les Intailles Magiques Gre´co-E´gyptiennes. Paris. Gager, J. (1992) “Antidotes and counterspells.” In Curse tablets and binding spells: 218–42. New York. Kotansky, R. (1991) “Incantations and prayers for salvation on inscribed Greek amulets.” In C. A. Faraone and D. Obbink, eds., Magika Hiera: 107–37. New York. Kotansky, R. (1994) Greek magical amulets (GMA). Opladen. Waegeman, M. (1987) Amulet and alphabet: magicalamulets in the first book of Cyranides. Amsterdam.

1

Amulets, Jewish YUVAL HARARI

In the broad sense of the term, an amulet is an artifact empowered through rituals and spells that is used for the benefit of its owner. In this sense magical gems and jewelry, and even incantation bowls, are amulets. More strictly defined, it is a thin plate of metal or a piece of leather, papyrus, clay, cloth, or paper that is designated to heal, protect, or support the success of its user. In ancient Judaism, however, Jewish amulets were neither exclusively written, nor were they manufactured solely for favorable goals. The Hebrew root qm’, from which the word qame’a (amulet) also derives, denotes tying or binding. Thus, qame’a apparently refers to the use of written as well as nonwritten amulets, typically tied and worn (for apotropaic reasons) and/or to their power to bind and control metaphysical entities in order to make them act on earth for both beneficial and harmful purposes. Amulets are not mentioned in the Bible. Nevertheless, two silver lamellas dated to the end of the seventh century BCE (or a few decades later) attest the use of inscribed metal amulets among Jews during the First Temple period (Barkay et al. 2004). The amulets, on which the priestly blessing (Num 6:24–5) was engraved as part of a spell, were found in a burial complex in JERUSALEM, so the exact way they were used is uncertain. Almost one thousand years separate this early evidence from the later ancient Jewish amulets we know of. The absence of amulets from the broad textual as well as material evidence originating in the Second Temple period is indeed striking. Only once do we hear in these sources of the personal use of an apotropaic artifact carried on the body, although not in the shape of an inscribed amulet. 2 Maccabees (12:39–42) tells that under the garments of the dead soldiers of Judah’s defeated army “sacred images [ieroˆmata] of the idols of Iamneia” were found “that were forbidden to

the Jews by the Torah.” If phylacteries (tefilin) were indeed carried on the body throughout the day for apotropaic reasons, as has been lately suggested, then the QUMRAN phylacteries may also indicate the amuletic use of this nonadjuratory protective text. RABBINIC LITERATURE indicates two types of amulets: “a written amulet” and “an amulet of roots [iqarin]” (tShab 4:9; bShab 61:a–b). Both kinds were usually worn in a small metal or leather container. An “expert amulet,” that is, one that had proven its efficiency at least three times (or had been made by such an expert) was authorized for carrying on the SABBATH (mShab 6:2; bShab 53a, 61a). This was also the case of the tequmah (preservation) stone, which was carried by women in order to prevent a miscarriage (bShab 66b), but not, however, of other popular apotropaic objects like a grasshopper’s egg, a fox’s tooth, or a nail used in a crucifixion, which remained disputed (mShab 6:10). A few dozen ancient Jewish amulets, ranging from the third to the seventh century CE, are known today. Most of them were found in Israel and its vicinity. Others originate in Greece and even in eastern Europe, Georgia, and Afghanistan. Made of metal or of burnt clay, they survived as “insider” evidence of the magical praxis itself. Amulets made of papyrus, leather, cloth, and other organic substances, which apparently also circulated among Jews, perished and have vanished. Instructions for the production of such amulets can be found in ancient books of magical recipes such as Sefer ha-Razim (see SEFER HA-RAZIM (THE BOOK OF MYSTERIES) (JEWISH MAGICAL TEXT)) or HARBA DE-MOSHE (SWORD OF MOSES). They may also be attested by the few small tubes, designed to be hung on a string, which have been unearthed empty or full of some unrecognizable powder. To this evidence one may also add the very few gem stones, engraved with Hebrew characters and typical Jewish symbols (e.g., the MENORAH, the seven-branched candelabrum) that functioned as apotropaic objects. However, very rarely

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 389–391. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah11012

2 was this practice, which gained high popularity in the Greco-Roman world, employed by Jews. Clay amulets were inscribed while the clay was still wet. One of them was thrown into fire in a sympathetic act of invoking “burning love” in the kidneys and heart of the desired person (Naveh and Shaked 1987: A10). Another was created to convert and annul evil sorceries performed against the amulet’s owner (Hamilton 1996). These goals, as well as the goals of curing illnesses, exorcism and protection from evil spirits, powerful control over people, and gaining grace and favor in their eyes, are the typical aims mentioned also in the broad group of metal amulets. These amulets were made of small thin leaves of lead, copper, bronze, or silver, and rarely also of gold, on which the adjuration was inscribed by a sharp stylus. They were then rolled up and sometimes put into a small container (in which some of them were found). Almost all of the amulets were prepared for a certain person, mentioned in the spell by his or her name and his or her mother’s name, and for a certain purpose, indicated in detail. Rarely do we find a generic amulet that could be transmitted and reused. Besides indicating the name of the human addressee and the objective required for that person, typical amuletic adjuration also denotes certain metaphysical addressees and invokes them through the power of specific names of God or of stronger entities than themselves to fulfill this goal. The exact origin of many of the amulets we know of is uncertain. Of those unearthed in archaeological excavations, many were found in ancient synagogues, sometimes in the assumed place of the Ark (e.g., Naveh and Shaked 1987: A11–13). Most of the amulets were written in Hebrew, Aramaic, or both. The earlier ones (third–fifth century) sometimes contain some Greek words or passages, mainly combined with one or both of the former (e.g., Kotansky, Naveh, and Shaked 1992). The names of the clients (and their mothers)

imply their ethnicity. They were mostly Jews (one is even indicated as “Rabbi”), but sometimes also Christians (served by Jews). In one of the Hebrew amulets a typical Christian symbol can apparently be recognized (Kotansky 1994: 56). In others technical and linguistic influence of Greek magic (e.g., the characters) can be detected. With this, on the one hand, and the broad evidence of metal protective amulets and aggressive defixiones (curse tablets) from the Greco-Roman world, on the other, one can easily realize how deep were the intercultural relationships between Jews, Christians, and “pagans” in this sphere of magical technology. SEE ALSO: Amulets, Christian; Amulets, Egypt; Amulets, Greece and Rome; Curses, Greece and Rome; Jews; Magic, Jewish.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Barkay, G., Vaughn, A. G., Lundberg, M. J., and Zuckerman, B. (2004) “The amulets from Ketef Hinom: a new edition and evaluation.” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 334: 41–71. Bohak, G. (2008) Ancient Jewish magic – a history. Cambridge. Cohn, Y. B. (2008) Tangled up in texts – tefillin and the ancient world. Providence, RI. Hamilton, G. J. (1996) “A new Hebrew-Aramaic incantation text from Galilee: ‘Rebuking the Sea.’” Journal of Semitic Studies 41: 215–49. Harari, Y. (2010) Early Jewish magic: research, method, sources. Jerusalem. Kotansky, R. (1994) Greek magical amulets: the inscribed gold, silver, copper, and bronze lamellae (Part I: published texts of known provenance). Opladen. Kotansky, R., Naveh, J., and Shaked, S. (1992) “A Greek-Aramaic silver amulet from Egypt in the Ashmolean Museum.” Le Muse´on 105: 5–24. Naveh, J. and Shaked, S. (1987) Amulets and magic bowls. Jerusalem. Naveh, J. and Shaked, S. (1993) Magic spells and formulae. Jerusalem.

1

Amun-Re ANDREW BEDNARSKI

Amun was one of the most important deities in ancient Egypt and remains one of the best represented in the surviving material culture. His name means the “hidden” or “secret one” and represents his unknowable nature. While this name may have originally associated him with the power of the wind, his mysterious, imperceptible nature would prove central to his many different roles. Amun’s origins can be traced back to the Old Kingdom (see OLD KINGDOM, EGYPT), with mention of him in the 5th Dynasty Pyramid Texts. These passages refer to him as a primeval, creative force in the universe. He plays a similar, creative role as part of the Hermopolitan Ogdoad. Amun’s geographic origin may have been either Hermopolis Magna (see HERMOPOLIS MAGNA, TUNA EL-GEBEL (PHARAONIC)) or Thebes. However, the earliest known temples dedicated to him were in Thebes, where his importance grew to outstrip the other, local gods. Amun’s prominence spread throughout the country with the expansion of Theban influence at the end of the First Intermediate Period (see FIRST INTERMEDIATE PERIOD, EGYPT). After Theban victories removed the HYKSOS from power prior to the New Kingdom (see NEW KINGDOM, EGYPT), worship of Amun was established on a national scale. Amun was represented in several different forms: anthropomorphically, wearing a double-plumed headdress; in an anthropomorphic, ithyphallic guise when combined with the god Min, known as Amun-Min, and referred to as Amun kamutef (see KAMUTEF), the “bull of his mother;” as a lion, or ram-headed lion, when combined with the god Re; as frog-headed when part of the Hermopolitan Ogdoad; in snake form when known as the creator god Amun kematef, or “Amun who has completed his moment;” as a goose; or, to emphasize his fertility, as a ram. Amun similarly developed many different functions. His original role as an unseen,

creative force in the universe facilitated an easy combination with other, local deities. During the Middle Kingdom (see MIDDLE KINGDOM, EGYPT) a shift in theology combined him with the supreme expression of solar power, the god Re. This combination was facilitated by the move of Egypt’s capital to Itjtawy in the Fayyum, which moved worship of Amun closer to the center of worship of Re in Heliopolis (see HELIOPOLIS, AIN SHAMS/MATARIYA). Prior to this shift, Pharaoh was regarded as the son of Re. The creation of Amun-Re introduced Amun into the myth of the divine birth of the King, and helped to reconcile the divine and earthly aspects of the ruler (Kemp 2007: 280) by imbuing the solar god with new attributes. Amun-Re was henceforth viewed as the physical father of Pharaoh and the ruler of Egypt through Pharaoh, with his divine will manifested through oracles (see ORACLES, PHARAONIC EGYPT). This syncretization, which ultimately prioritized Amun’s attributes over those of the sun god’s, was considered inappropriate during the Amarna period (see AMARNA), but was re-adopted in succeeding periods. Amun’s accumulation of religious importance, evident in his adoption of the title “King of the Gods,” and its resulting political power, enabled his priesthood to wield enormous influence, eventually giving rise to a new form of theocracy within society. By the end of the New Kingdom, the power of Amun’s priesthood allowed them to rival the Pharaohs. By the 25th Dynasty, the exportation of Amun to NUBIA had resulted in his adoption as the chief god of the kingdom of NAPATA. This development lent religious imperative to the Nubian invasion of Egypt. Amun’s importance continued during the Ptolemaic period, during which time he was equated with the Greek god ZEUS. The largest focus of Amun’s worship was at Karnak Temple (see KARNAK), where it was believed he brought the world into being. In Karnak he took the role of a father figure, forming part of the Theban triad. This holy trinity was completed with MUT, Amun’s associated consort, and Khonsu (see KHONS (KHONSU)),

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 391–392. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah15032

2 their child. It was there and at the connected Luxor Temple that Amun’s role as father of Pharaoh was celebrated during the Opet Festival. REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Allen, J. P. (1988) Genesis in Egypt. New Haven.

Hornung, E. (1983) Conceptions of God in Ancient Egypt. London. Kemp, B. (2007) Ancient Egypt: anatomy of a civilization. London. Quirke, S. (1992) Ancient Egyptian religion. London. Watterson, B. (1984) The gods of Ancient Egypt. New York.

1

Amurru IGNACIO MARQUEZ ROWE

Amurru was the Akkadian name for the west, namely the region west of the Euphrates as far as the Mediterranean coast, roughly coincident with modern Syria. Although it seems to have designated a more specific territory of central and southern Syria during the first half of the second millennium BCE, Amurru only became a political entity in the Amarna era. By the mid-fourteenth century BCE the kingdom of Amurru had developed from the highland regions on both sides of the Eleutheros River, modern Nahr al-Kabir, into the sizable territory between the middle Orontes and the central Levantine coast, roughly comprised within a triangle formed by the three main Egyptian fortress-cities during Thutmose III’s campaigns to Syria: Ullaza, Sumur, and Tunip. The conquest of the economically prosperous lowlands and coast was achieved by the highlander chieftain Abdi-Ashirta at the head of a powerful fighting force of HABIRU, and was later enlarged and consolidated by his son Aziru, who established the definite limits of the kingdom that were to last almost two centuries. Initially subject to Egyptian sovereignty under pharaohs Amenhotep III (see AMENHOTEP (AMENOPHIS) I-III) and Akhenaten (see AKHENATEN (AMENHOTEP IV)), Amurru became the southernmost province of the Hittite Empire after Aziru’s defection. It came

under Egyptian influence again in the wake of Pharaoh Sety I’s Syrian campaigns, and it presumably became a formal ally of Egypt in the famous battle of QADESH in 1274 BCE, after which Amurru returned to Hittite control. It remained a Hittite vassal kingdom until the fall of the Hittite Empire at the turn of the twelfth century. Four of the successive six kings who constituted the dynasty of Amurru, namely Aziru, Duppi-Teshub, Benteshina, and Shaushgamuwa, are known to have signed a vassal treaty with the Hittite emperor, and Benteshina and Shaushgamuwa both married Hittite princesses. Accords were also signed between Amurru and neighboring kingdoms such as Ugarit and Qadesh, and two intermarriages and one divorce are known between the courts of Amurru and Ugarit. The nonSemitic names borne by the descendants of Aziru, probably assumed at their coronation, are indicative of the Hittite influence. Although the capital from which they ruled is nowhere mentioned, it is probable that the architectural remains uncovered in Tell Kazel, ancient Sumur, preserve part of the royal palace. REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Bryce, T. (1998) The kingdom of the Hittites. Oxford. Singer, I. (1991) “A concise history of Amurru.” In S. Izre’el, Amurru Akkadian: a linguistic study, vol. 2: 135–95. Atlanta.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 392–393. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah01008

1

Amyklai and Amyklaion BIRGITTA EDER

Place-name in the region of Lacedaemon, modern Lakonia, south of SPARTA. It is mentioned in Homer’s Catalogue of Ships (Il. 2.584) among nine towns within the realm of Menelaos, who was in the Homeric poems ruling in Sparta. Although located ca. 5 km south of Sparta, Amyklai formed one of the five villages of Sparta in the historical periods (Cartledge 2002: 92–3). It was the site of the famous sanctuary of Apollo Hyakinthos, and the festival of the Hyakinthia played an important role in the religion of the Spartan state (Richer 2004). The literary tradition knows of an almost mythical conflict between Sparta and Amyklai early in the history of Sparta, which is presented in the perspective of a Dorian–Achaian antithesis (Pind. Pyth. 1.62–6, Isthm. 7.12–15; Strabo 8.5.4; Paus. 3.2.6). The idea of Doric Sparta conquering Achaian Amyklai possibly owes much to the attempt to integrate information from various ancient sources into a coherent historical picture and does not necessarily reflect historical reality (Eder 1998: 125–33; Cartledge 2002: 92; see ACHAIANS; DORIANS). The sanctuary of Apollo Hyakinthos at Amyklai is today identified with the site on the hill of Agia Kyriaki, about 5 km south of Sparta, where remains of the peribolos wall have been discovered. Here the so-called “Throne of Apollo,” described in detail by Pausanias (3.18.9–19.5), was constructed by Bathykles in the sixth century BCE, although the archaeological evidence appears elusive and its form and construction remain hypothetical (Stibbe 1996: 49–58). The center of the structure was the “tomb” of Hyakinthos, and a huge columnshaped statue of Apollo crowned the altar. Excavations have revealed the remains of a Late Bronze Age cult place, although no architecture was associated: Mycenaean terracottas of female figurines and wheel-made bull figures illustrate the existence of a Late Bronze Age

(Late Helladic IIIC, twelfth and early eleventh century BCE) sanctuary at the site. The importance of Late Bronze Age Amyklai within the settlement patterns of Bronze Age Lakonia is difficult to assess without further information on Late Bronze Age Amyklai in particular and Lakonian settlement patterns in general. Bronze Age tombs (Late Helladic IIIA–B, fourteenth to thirteenth centuries) imply the existence of a settlement in the immediate neighborhood. Finds of Lakonian Early Iron Age (tenth to eighth centuries, Protogeometric and Geometric) pottery and metal objects such as pins, swords, and tripods suggest that it was succeeded by a sanctuary of the Early Iron Age, although questions of continuity are difficult to answer on the basis of the available archaeological data (Demakopoulou 1982; Eder 1998: 96–107; Cartledge 2002: 70–9). The pre-Greek name of Hyakinthos is frequently taken to indicate the identity of a Bronze Age vegetation deity worshipped at the site, who was superseded by Apollo at a later stage. However, the month-name Hyakinthos shows a consistent distribution in the Doric Mediterranean and associates the homonymous deity with a specific Doric calendar. Whether or not this implies continuity of the Bronze Age cult at Amyklai remains a matter of controversy (Eder 1998: 136–8; Cartledge 2002: 69–70). Just 1 km south of Amyklai, at Agia Paraskevi, a votive deposit with finds from the Late Geometric period onwards confirms the existence of a shrine, which existed at least from archaic times onwards, dedicated to Alexandra and AGAMEMNON. Here Alexandra was identified with Kassandra, who was said to have been murdered at Amyklai together with Agamemnon. Pausanias (3.19.6) describes the shrine and refers to a tomb of Agamemnon at Amyklai; Pindar (Pyth. 11.16, 31–2, Nem. 11.33) and others also refer to Amyklai as home and burial place of Agamemnon. This may either reflect an alternative mythical tradition to the one which locates Agamemnon in the Argolid, or mirrors contemporary political claims of Sparta to relocate the mythical leader of the Achaian forces in the

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 393–394. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah02018

2 Trojan War in Lakonia (Malkin 1994: 31–3; Antonaccio 1995: 181–2; Salapata 2002). Amyklaion is known from literary sources as a settlement in southern Crete close to GORTYN, and its name may have derived from the famous Lakonian sanctuary (Sporn 1996; Eder 1998: 134). SEE ALSO:

Mycenaean society and culture.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Antonaccio, C. M. (1995) An archaeology of ancestors: tomb cult and hero cult in early Greece. Lanham. Cartledge, P. (2002) Sparta and Lakonia: a regional history 1300 to 362 BC, 2nd ed. London. Demakopoulou, K. (1982) Το muknaϊkό ierό stο Αmuklaίο kai  YΕ ΙΙΙG perίοdος st Lakonίa. Athens.

Eder, B. (1998) Argolis, Lakonien, Messenien vom Ende der mykenischen Palastzeit bis zur Einwanderung der Dorier. Vienna. Malkin, I. (1994) Myth and territory in the Spartan Mediterranean. Cambridge. Richer, N. (2004) “The Hyakinthia of Sparta.” In T. J. Figueira, ed., Spartan Society: 71–102. Swansea. Salapata, G. (2002) “Myth into cult: Alexandra/ Kassandra in Lakonia.” In V. B. Gorman and E. W. Robinson, eds., Oikistes: studies in constitutions, colonies, and military power in the ancient world offered in honor of A. J. Graham: 131–60. Leiden. Sporn, K. (1996) “Apollon auf Kreta: Zum Problem der Lokalisierung der Kultorte des Apollon Amyklaios.” In F. Bubenheimer et al., eds., Kult und Funktion griechischer Heiligtu¨mer in archaischer und klassischer Zeit: 83–93. Mainz. Stibbe, C. (1996) Das andere Sparta. Mainz.

1

Amyntas SCOTT T. FARRINGTON

Both Aelian and Athenaeus report that Amyntas (Die Fragmente der griechischen Historiker, 122) composed a work entitled the Stages of Asia (though Athenaeus also refers to the work as the Stages of Persia) that included descriptions of the oils from the nuts of the terebinth and mastic trees, the production and consumption of oak-manna (ἀερόμελι), a drink similar to diluted honey, but sweeter, the use of wine as an unguent by the Tapyri, the rich decorations of the private chambers of the Persian kings, a historical description of Nineveh that recorded the epitaph of Sardanapolos, shrews, and a description of the multitudes of animals in the Caspian land, namely cattle, horses beyond measure, packs of tame foxes, and rats that are born pregnant and grow to the size of Egyptian mongooses before they cross the rivers to devastate the crops and trees, consequently motivating the Caspians to protect the birds of prey as a pest control measure. Like the

Babylonian rats of Teredon (which eat iron), these rats produce a soft pelt that makes a fine winter tunic. Other than the information we can derive from the fragments, we know nothing of the life of Amyntas. The subject matter of the fragments reveals his interest in the people, flora, and fauna of Persia and the Near East. Like other historiographers of his time, he also seems to have had an interest in thaumasia. Schwartz identified him as a BEMATIST. Bearzot surveys the evidence and arguments concerning the relationship of his work to that of KTESIAS and Aristotle. SEE ALSO:

Historiography, ancient Near East.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Bearzot, C. (2016, 2017). “Amyntas (122).” In I. Worthington, ed., Brill’s New Jacoby. Brill Online. Schwartz, E. (1894). “Amyntas 22.” In A. Pauly, G. Wissowa, and W. Kroll, eds., Realencyclopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft 1.2: 2008. Stuttgart.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, and Andrew Erskine. © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Published 2017 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah30590

1

Amyntas I, Macedonian king FRANCA LANDUCCI

Amyntas I, son of Alketas and father of ALEXknown as the Philhellene, is the first truly historic figure in the list of the seven kings who, according to HERODOTUS (8.139), were the predecessors of Perdikkas II, king of MACEDONIA at the outbreak of the Peloponnesian War (Borza 1990: 98–103). Herodotus presents Amyntas I and his son Alexander almost exclusively in the context of their relations with the Persians between the end of the sixth and the beginning of the fifth century BCE (Hdt. 5.17–22). Amyntas ruled at the time when the Persian general Megabazos defeated the Paionians ca. 512 BCE: after such military success, indeed, Megabazos sent envoys to Amyntas, king of Macedonia, demanding earth and water for Darius I, who in 513 BCE had invaded the Balkans and had tried to defeat the European Scythians before returning to Asia. According to many modern scholars, Amyntas I accepted Megabazos’ demand and became a Persian vassal (Tripodi 2007: 75–86; Sprawski 2010: 134–8; Tripodi 2012: 45–61). As Olbrycht (2010: 343) points out, blood ties between Persian and Macedonian elites enhanced their mutual cooperation: the Persian official Bubares, Megabazos’ son, married Amyntas’ daughter Gygaia (Hdt. 5.21; Justin 7.3.9). As for the relations between ANDER I,

Amyntas I and the Greeks, the king is supposed to have been a friend of the Peisistratids, since Herodotus (5.94) narrates that Amyntas offered to give Anthemous, a district located in Chalcidice, to Hippias, when the latter was forced to leave Athens in 511/10 (Sprawski 2010: 131) According to Justin (7.4.1), Amyntas died after Bubares left for Asia owing to the outbreak of the IONIAN REVOLT in 499 BCE: Amyntas is consequently supposed to have died in about 498. Since EUSEBIUS (Chronicon 1.108, 28–30 Karst) attributes to Amyntas a reign of forty-two years, the inference is generally made that he ascended to the throne around 540 BCE. SEE ALSO:

Achaemenid Dynasty; Persia and Greece; Scythia.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Borza, E. N. (1990) In the shadow of Olympus: the emergence of Macedon. Princeton. Olbrycht, M. J. (2010) “Macedonia and Persia.” In J. Roisman and I. Worthington, eds., A companion to ancient Macedonia: 342–69. Oxford. Sprawski, S. (2010) “The early Temenid kings to Alexander I.” In J. Roisman and I. Worthington, eds., A companion to ancient Macedonia: 127–44. Oxford. Tripodi, B. (2007) “Aminta I, Alessandro I e gli hyparchoi in Erodoto.” Ancient Macedonia 7: 75–86. Tripodi, B. (2012) “Ἀνὴρ Ἕλλην, Mακεδὼν ὕπαρχος?: ancora su Hdt. 5, 20, 4.” Annali della Scuola Normale di Pisa, ser. 5.4.1: 45–61.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, and Andrew Erskine. © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Published 2017 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah30461

1

Amyntas III, father of Philip II FRANCA LANDUCCI

Amyntas III became king of MACEDONIA in 394/3 BCE (Diod. 14.89.1–2) after a six-year dynastic struggle (Borza 1990: 177–9; March 1995: 257–82; Roisman 2010: 157–8). The year 394/3 BCE saw three kings rule: Amyntas II (the Little), unknown to Diodorus and briefly referred to by Aristotle (Pol. 1311b3–4), Eusebius (Chronicon 1.108, 34 Karst), and Synkellos (312.12–13 Mosshammer); Pausanias, son of Aeropos, also mentioned by Diodorus (14.84.6), and, last but not least, Amyntas III. According to Synkellos (316.23–26; 317.6–9 Mosshammer), Amyntas III was the grandson of Amyntas, a son of Alexander I, who, after spending his whole life as a private citizen, left a son, Arrhidaios, the father of Amyntas III (for the name of Amyntas III’s father, Arrhidaios, see also Diod. 15.60.3). Amyntas III’s reign offered little stability to Macedonia, because the king had to contend with two aggressive neighbors, the ILLYRIANS in the west and the Chalcidian League led by OLYNTHOS in the east: according to Diodorus (14.92.3–4, 393/2 BCE), Amyntas was driven out from his country by the Illyrians who invaded Macedonia; giving up hope for his crown, he ceded to the Olynthians some of his territory which bordered on theirs. For a time he lost his kingdom, but shortly afterward he recovered his crown, and ruled for twenty-four years. Diodorus adds that the Macedonians were ruled by Argaios for a period of two years before Amyntas recovered the kingship. There is a second and very similar account by Diodorus (15.19.2–3): some scholars maintain there were two Illyrian invasions, while others argue in favor of a Diodorean double of a single invasion in the 380s BCE (Parker 2003: 113–37; Landucci 2004: 23–52; Bearzot

2005: 17–41; Zahrnt 2006: 127–41). Amyntas married Eurydike, the daughter of the Amyntas (?) Sirrhas and granddaughter of Arrhabaios of Lynkos, who was the mother of his successors (Bearzot 2014: 627–46). An Olynthian inscription preserves the text of a mutual defensive alliance between Amyntas and the Chalcidian League for fifty years (Rhodes and Osborne 2003: no. 12), whereas an Athenian stele records a treaty between Amyntas and Athens (IG II2 102), which continued to use Macedonia as its chief timber supplier. Amyntas died in 370/69 BCE (Diod. 15.60.3; Roisman 2010: 158–61). SEE ALSO:

Alexander II of Macedon; Chalcidice, Chalcidian League; Diodorus of Sicily; Perdikkas III; Philip II of Macedon.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Bearzot, C. (2005) “Aminta III di Macedonia in Diodoro.” In C. Bearzot and F. Landucci, eds., Diodoro e l’altra Grecia. Macedonia, occidente, ellenismo nella Biblioteca storica: 17–41. Milan. Bearzot, C. (2014) “Euridice, moglie di Aminta III.” In U. Bultrighini and E. Dimauro, eds., Donne che contano nella storia greca: 627–46. Lanciano. Borza, E. N. (1990) In the shadow of Olympus: the emergence of Macedon. Princeton. Landucci, F. (2004) “Gli Illiri e i Macedoni tra V e IV secolo a.C.: storia di una pacificazione impossibile.” In G. Urso, ed., Dall’Adriatico al Danubio. L’Illirico nell’età greca e romana: 23–52. Pisa. March, D. A. (1995) “The kings of Macedon: 399–369 BC.” Historia 44: 257–82. Parker, V. (2003) “Sparta, Amyntas, and the Olynthians in 383 B.C.: a comparison of Xenophon and Diodorus.” Rheinisches Museum 146: 113–37. Rhodes, P. and Osborne, R. (2003) Greek historical inscriptions 404–323 BC. Oxford. Roisman, J. (2010) “Classical Macedonia to Perdikkas III.” In J. Roisman and I. Worthington, eds., A companion to ancient Macedonia: 145–65. Oxford. Zahrnt, M. (2006) “Amyntas III. Fall und Aufstieg eines Makedonenkönigs.” Hermes 134: 127–41.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, and Andrew Erskine. © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Published 2017 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah30462

1

Amyntas, son of Perdikkas III FRANCA LANDUCCI

Amyntas was the son of PERDIKKAS III and thus nephew of Philip II (Heckel 2006: 23). He was the rightful heir to the kingdom of MACEDONIA at the time of his father’s death (360/59 BCE), but he was too young to reign: for this reason, the Macedonians put Amyntas aside and chose his uncle Philip, who acted as regent (Just. 7.5.9–10) or directly as king (Diod. 16.1.3; 2.1) (Borza 1990: 200–1). Philip II kept Amyntas alive: it is clear, then, that he did not consider Amyntas a danger to his power (Anson 2009: 276–86). Amyntas went on to live a secure life at his uncle’s court and, when he grew up, married Kynnane, daughter of Philip II and Audata, the Illyrian wife of the king (Arr. Succ. 1.22) (on Kynnane see Heckel 2006: 100–1). After Philip’s death, in the late summer of 336 BCE, Alexander, the new king, killed his cousin Amyntas, on the grounds of having plotted a conspiracy against him (Just. 12.6.14; Curt. 6.9.17; 10.24; see also Plut. Mor. 327c). Amyntas was certainly dead by the spring of 335 BCE when Kynnane was already a widow and was offered by Alexander

as bride to Langaros, king of the Agrianes (Arr. Anab. 1.5.4). It is possible that on the death of PHILIP II Amyntas actually conspired against ALEXANDER in the hope of resuming his father’s throne: the honors for him at Oropos (Rhodes and Osborne 2003: no. 75) and, perhaps, at Lebadeia (IG VII.3055.8–10) seem to support the hypothesis that Amyntas attempted a coup in the turmoil after Philip’s death with the support of at least some of the Greeks (Ellis 1971: 15–24; Prandi 1998: 91–101). REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Anson, E. M. (2009) “Philip II, Amyntas Perdicca, and Macedonian royal succession.” Historia 58: 276–86. Borza, E. N. (1990) In the shadow of Olympus: the emergence of Macedon. Princeton. Ellis, J. R. (1971) “Amyntas Perdikka, Philip II, and Alexander the Great.” Journal of Hellenic Studies 91: 15–24. Heckel, W. (2006) Who’s who in the age of Alexander the Great. Oxford. Prandi, L. “A few remarks on the Amyntas ‘conspiracy’.” In W. Will, ed., Alexander der Grosse. Eine Welteroberung und ihr Hintergrund: 91– 101. Bonn. Rhodes, P. J. and Osborne, R., eds. (2003) Greek historical inscriptions: 404–323 BC. Oxford.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, and Andrew Erskine. © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Published 2017 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah30463

1

Amyntianos SCOTT T. FARRINGTON

Amyntianos (Die Fragmente der griechischen Historiker, 150) wrote a work On Alexander dedicated to Marcus Aurelius (r. 161–180 CE). Photios admired his passion and daring, but complained that the work was of a low quality and inferior to other Alexander historians. In particular, he remarked on Amyntianos’ lethargic style and omission of important material. He added that the historian wrote a life of Olympias and two sets of parallel lives, the first on Dionysios I of Syracuse and Domitian and the second on Philip (II?) of Macedon and Augustus. A scholiast to Pindar adds a work, On elephants.

Beyond the information in the fragments, nothing is known about the life of Amyntianos. Nevertheless, the titles of his works suggest that, like other authors of the second sophistic, he explored a broad range of historical, biographical, and scientific subject matter. SEE ALSO:

Biography; Elephants; Historiography, Greek and Roman.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Jacoby, F. (1962) “Amyntianos (150).” Die Fragmente der griechischen Historiker. Leiden. Sheridan, B. (2013, 2017) "Amyntianos (150)." In I. Worthington, ed., Brill’s New Jacoby. Brill Online.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, and Andrew Erskine. © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Published 2017 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah30591

1

Anacharsis CHARLOTTE SCHUBERT

The fictitious character Anacharsis is said to have been a Scythian prince who traveled through ancient Greece, in order to reveal his peculiar nomadic wisdom as well as to collect classical cultural assets. The first written record is to be found in the fifth century BCE in the work of Herodotus (4: 76–7). The way in which Herodotus refers to the Scythian shows without any doubt that he was already well known and integrated into the Greek discourses on wisdom. In the following centuries, the role of Anacharsis as a smart and witty counselor was further developed. Through his concise sayings, he was considered as an authority with regard to questions concerning the simple life, moderate consumption, the right balance, and the unaffected use of language. He even found his way into the circle of the so-called Seven Sages, an assemblage of outstanding statesmen and philosophers of the seventh and sixth centuries BCE, invented by ancient literary tradition. In the tradition of the fourth century BCE, where the idea of the Seven Sages as a consistent group appears for the first time, Anacharsis is part of it. This is the reason why fundamental statements, for example, about true happiness, are attributed to him as well (Arist. EN 1176 b27ff.). As a Scythian nomad, he is distinguished from the other sages (SOLON, THALES OF MILETOS, Bias, PERIANDER OF CORINTH, etc.), while at the same time he plays a role as the bearer of cultural and civilizing achievements such as the bellows, the potter’s wheel, and the double-fluked anchor. In Hellenistic times, a collection of letters was attributed to him, and in the literature of the Principate, he became the representative of a simple, ideal, and exemplary life close to nature, in which the elements of the typical nomadic lifestyle such as mobility, the absence of private property, the diet of milk and cheese, and so on, are combined (Anacharsidis Epistulae 37,1). For the culture of classical antiquity, shaped by city states, Anacharsis, who had been socialized in

an antithetical environment, represented the “other,” to whom Greek and Roman values and ideas of social order were completely unfamiliar. But it was exactly this foreignness that enabled him to question the established cultural norms and to make the Greeks and Romans take a look at themselves. This in turn gave them the opportunity to discuss their own patterns of behavior on the one hand, and on the other to assure themselves of their own civilization as opposed to the nomadic concepts of society. Anacharsis is the only nomad who has played such an important role in Greek and Roman literature as well as in ancient discourses on wisdom, culture, and identity. This otherness might also be the reason for the rich afterlife that was bestowed on the nomad in arts and literature. With the discovery of America and the renewed discussions about “the other,” the complementary myths of the “noble” and the “bad” savage were reinvigorated, similar to the pattern already known from antiquity. The famous novel by J.-J. Barthélemy, Voyage du jeune Anacharsis en Grèce, dans le milieu du IVesiècle avant l’ère vulgaire from 1788, not only provided Anacharsis with a grandson, the “younger Anacharsis,” but was also the starting point of an ongoing renaissance of the character. The “Querelle des anciens et des modernes” and J. J. Winckelmann’s work Gedanken über die Nachahmung der Griechischen Werke in der Malerei und Bildhauer-Kunst produced an enthusiasm for Greece, which, as well as Rousseau’s moral writings, created new connotations for the character of Anacharsis, too. During the French Revolution, the German baron J.-B. Cloots, with his universalistic and anti-religious ideal of freedom, referred explicitly to Anacharsis, who had come to Greece as a foreigner, and called himself “Anacharsis Cloots,” especially during his time in the National Convention (1792–4). In the twentieth century, it was Joseph Beuys who referred to this tradition, when he declared the nomad to be his alter ego, adopted the name Joseph Anacharsis Cloots Beuys, and paid his respects in several works of art. So the modern artist,

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner. © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Published 2016 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah30128

2 who idealizes the image of the ancient nomad as a counterpart to modern society, brings us back to the starting point, to the Greeks who saw the SCYTHIANS as symbols of freedom and a peculiar expression of wisdom. REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Barthélemy, J.-J. (1788) Voyage du jeune Anacharsis en Grèce, dans le milieu du IVe siècle avant l’ère vulgaire. Paris. Kindstrand, J. F. (1981) Anacharsis: the legend and the apophthegmata. Uppsala. Reuters, F. H., ed. (1963) Die Briefe des Anacharsis. Griechisch und deutsch. Berlin.

Schmitz, T. A. (2013) “Anacharsis.” In P. v. Möllendorff, A. Simonis, and L. Simonis, eds., Historische Gestalten der Antike. Rezeption in Literatur, Kunst und Musik: 69–76. Stuttgart. Schubert, C. (2010) Anacharsis der Weise. Nomade, Skythe, Grieche. Tübingen. Schubert, C., Kath, R., and Weiß, A. (2011) “Anacharsis, ein skythischer Nomade mit langer Geschichte.” In J. Gertel and S. Calkins, eds., Nomaden in unserer Welt. Die Vorreiter der Globalisierung: Von Mobilität und Handel, Herrschaft und Widerstand: 244–50. Bielefeld. Ungefehr-Kortus, C. (1996) Anacharsis, der Typus des edlen, weisen Barbaren. Ein Beitrag zum Verständnis griechischer Fremdheitserfahrung. Frankfurt.

1

Anagraphai (Pseudo-Manetho) SCOTT T. FARRINGTON

Jacoby collected four fragments concerning Egyptian history and mythology under the heading “Anagraphai” (Die Fragmente der griechischen Historiker, 610). Of the biography of the author(s), nothing is known. The first fragment gives a list of thirty-eight Egyptian kings of the Theban dynasty. The individual entries usually include the king’s name transliterated into Greek, a Greek translation of the Egyptian name, the duration of his or her reign, and the year in which the reign began, reckoned from the “creation of the universe” (by the god of Genesis). The second fragment gives a list of dynasties from the beginning of time, which the chronicler rejects, from the “Ancient chronikon” (Παλαιὸν Χρονικόν). The list covers thirty dynasties (beginning with that of Hephaistos) and

lasting 36,525 years. The author prefers MANreckoning, which coincides more closely with the chronology presented in the Pentateuch. The final two fragments deal briefly with Egyptian mythology, in particular, the children of Isis and the Persian king Ochos’ slaughter and consumption of the Apis bull. Based on the fragments’ language, Gambetti posits a date in the second century CE or later and accepts Crevatin’s arguments that the chronicler could speak but not read Egyptian.

ETHO’S

SEE ALSO:

Egypt, Pharaonic history; Historiography, Greek and Roman.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Crevatin, F. (2002) “I regesti dello pseudo-Manetone (fr. 610 Jakoby).” Incontri Linguistici 25: 151–8. Gambetti, S. (2013, 2017) "Anagraphai (PseudoManetho) (610)." In I. Worthington, ed., Brill’s New Jacoby. Brill Online. Jacoby, F. (1958) “Anagraphai (610).” Die Fragmente der griechischen Historiker. Leiden.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, and Andrew Erskine. © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Published 2017 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah30592

1

Anahita ALBERT DE JONG

Anahita was one of the most popular Iranian deities in antiquity. Originally, she was a river goddess and goddess of fertility. This is how she is celebrated in one of the longest hymns of the AVESTA, Yasht 5, which is dedicated to a goddess known only by three epithets: Aredvi Sura Anahita (“moist, strong, undefiled”). The third of these became her name, in western Iran, for it is under this name that she is attested in Old Persian sources and in texts from Asia Minor and ARMENIA. This name is barely attested in eastern Iran, however, and in later ZOROASTRIANISM, she is most often known either as Ardwisur (her first two epithets), or under different names or titles, such as “the Lady” or “the waters.” Although there is much uncertainty about the historical development of Anahita, it is clear that she adopted a number of characteristics of the Mesopotamian goddess Ishtar (or possibly Nanaia, who was hugely popular among the eastern Iranians), particularly associations with love, war, and sovereignty that are not to be found in the Avestan hymn. Anahita is first mentioned in Old Persian royal inscriptions of king Artaxerxes II. Greek

sources indicate strong royal support, in the form of a program of building temples for her, and Greek inscriptions, coins, and literary texts from/about Asia Minor attest the popularity of the goddess among the Persians of the former Achaemenid satrapies of Anatolia. Anahita was especially popular among the Armenians, who built several temples for her and referred to her as “the Golden Mother” (Oskemayr). Anahita’s iconography is only poorly known: on the coins from Asia Minor, she is mainly depicted in the image of other Greco-Anatolian goddesses, whereas she appears in Sasanian art as a royal lady or with a jug of water.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Boyce, M. (1982) A History of Zoroastrianism II: under the Achaemenians. Leiden. De Jong, A. (1997) Traditions of the Magi: Zoroastrianism in Greek and Latin literature: 268–84. Leiden. Diakonoff, I. (1979) “Artemidi Anaeiti Anestesen. The Anaeitis-dedications in the Rijksmuseum van Oudheden at Leyden and related material from eastern Lydia. A reconsideration.” Bulletin Antieke Beschaving: Babesch 54: 139–88. Russell, J. R. (1987) Zoroastrianism in Armenia: 235–60. Cambridge, MA.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 394–395. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah17032

1

Anakes KIRSTEN BEDIGAN

The Anakes (“Lords”) were male divinities of indeterminate identity, worshipped either as independent gods, or as an alias for other deities (Paus. 10.38.3). Worship of the Anakes was located mainly in Attica, although evidence for the cult is known elsewhere (Hemberg 1955). They were primarily identified as the Dioskouroi; this nomenclature was prevalent in Attica, where they represented an Athenian adaption of what were essentially Peloponnesian deities. The Anakes as Dioskouroi can be further confirmed through references calling them the “sons of Tyndareus” (i.e., Castor and Pollux). Normally there were two deities, but groups of three were known (Cic. Nat. D. 3.53; Hemberg 1955: 27). The Anakes could offer protection to the home or to the individual at sea. Both interpretations are supported by the possibility of a partner for the Anakes in Athens known as Heros Epitegios, the hero “on the roof ” or “at the stern” (Robertson 1999: 179–80).

The Athenian shrine, or Anakeion, was located on the northeastern slopes of the Acropolis (Robertson 1999: 180). Dedications and iconography from the site confirm the identification of the Athenian Anakes with the Dioskouroi (Camp 1978: 192). This shrine was decorated with paintings by Polygnotos and Mikon of the Dioskouroi, their sons, and the Argonauts (Paus. 1.18.1). The site also had a martial function, acting as a muster point for hoplites and knights (Camp 1978: 193), reflecting the militarized aspects of the Dioskouroi (Burkert 2001: 212). SEE ALSO:

Dioscuri; Kabiroi; Kouretes.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Burkert, W. (2001) Greek religion. Oxford. Camp, J. M. (1978) “A spear butt from the Lesbians.” Hesperia 47: 192–5. Hemberg, B. (1955) ΑΝΑX, ΑΝΑSSΑ und ΑΝΑΚΕS: als Go¨tternamen unter besonderer Beru¨cksichtigung der attischen Kulte. Uppsala. Robertson, N. (1999) “Heros epitegios.” Zeitschrift fu¨r Papyrologie und Epigraphik 127: 179–81.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print page 395. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah17033

1

Anakrisis ADELE C. SCAFURO

Before most private and public charges came to court in Athens, the accuser orally summoned his opponent to meet before a magistrate on a specified day when he would submit his charge. The magistrate then determined a date for the anakrisis (literally, ‘interrogation’). There the accuser’s charge was read and his opponent issued a denial. In inheritance cases (see DIADIKASIA), there were no summonses; different claimants learned of the anakrisis from a herald in the Ekklesia or a notice in the AGORA. At the anakrisis, each claimant stated the grounds of his claim. Disputants then swore an oath that the charge, denial, or claim was true. The magistrate interrogated accuser and accused; the latter two could interrogate each other; claimants to an estate were questioned regarding their relationship to the deceased (Is. 6.12 and 10.2). The purpose of the meeting seems to have been to determine the admissibility of the case (was it allowed by law and within the magistrate’s jurisdiction? Had it already been settled?) It is disputed whether opponents disclosed all their evidence and

whether it would be sealed for court presentation. An inscription on the lid of a jar preserving evidence cites one document “from an anakrisis” (Boegehold 1982); this has suggested to some that evidence was collected during the anakrisis, but others have argued against that interpretation (Todd 1993: 129). Preliminaries to some sorts of suit were different, e.g., those that fell to the jurisdiction of the Forty (see DIAITETAI), and homicide cases. SEE ALSO: Arbitration, legal; Dike, dike; Graphe; Homicide, Rome.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Boegehold, A. L. (1982) “A lid with dipinto.” In Studies in Attic epigraphy, history and topography, presented to E. Vanderpool: 1–6. Princeton. Dorjahn, A. P. (1941) “On the Athenian anakrisis.” Classical Philology 36: 182–5. Harrison, A. R. W. (1971) The law of Athens. vol. 2. Oxford. Todd S. C. (1993) The shape of Athenian law. Oxford. Wallace, R. W. (2001) “Diamarturia in late fourthCentury Athens: notes on a ‘cheese pot.’ (SEG XXXVI 296).” In E. Cantarella and G. Thu¨r, eds., Symposion 1997: 89–101. Cologne.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print page 396. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah13016

1

Analemma ROBERT HANNAH

The term analemma is best known from its use by Vitruvius in his description of a method for designing a sundial (De arch. 9.7.1–7). Basically a two-dimensional projection of the three-dimensional celestial sphere, Vitruvius’ analemma is “a very specific method of finding, by means of geometric constructions in the plane, certain arcs and angles which determine a point on the celestial sphere” (Neugebauer 1975: 839), which can be used to determine shadow lengths and directions. He describes only the section of the sundial through the meridian; modern studies have added to this the method for laying out the seasonal and hour lines of the sundial, and the adaptation of this description to a variety of dial types, something which Vitruvius omits (Bilfinger 1886: 27–37; Drecker 1925: 3–4; Gibbs 1976: 105–9; Hannah 2009: 116–20). Ptolemy wrote a treatise, On the Analemma, in which his main aim was to describe a new system of spherical, celestial coordinates, by which the sun’s position can be indicated for any given latitude, declination and hour (Gibbs 1976: 109–17; Edwards 1984: 1). Here too the term analemma seems to refer to the projection of the sphere on to a plane. In fact, five usages of the term analemma can be distinguished, each associated with a particular mathematical writer in antiquity: Hipparchos, Diodorus, Vitruvius, HERON, and Ptolemy.

All have in common the notion that an analemma involves the reception of a figure from one plane into another plane (Edwards 1984: 6). A definition that encompasses most of these may be: “an analemma is a receiving plane, bearing the description of arcs and angles properly inclined to it, in such a way that the intersections of the figures and the receiving plane remain fixed and the sizes of the arcs, angles, and lines received are preserved so that the receptions can be used for trigonometric or nomographic determinations of numerical values for the various figures” (Edwards 1984: 7). SEE ALSO: Hipparchos, astronomer; Ptolemy (astronomer, mathematician); Vitruvius (Pol(l)io).

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Bilfinger, G. (1886) Die Zeitmesser der antiken Vo¨lker. Stuttgart. Drecker, J. (1925) Die Theorie der Sonnenuhren. Die Geschichte der Zeitmessung und der Uhren, vol. 1: Lieferung E. Berlin. Edwards, D. (1984) “Ptolemy’s Peri analemmatos: an annotated transcription of Moerbeke’s Latin translation and of the surviving Greek fragments with an English version and commentary.” PhD diss., Brown University. Gibbs, S. L. (1976) Greek and Roman sundials. New Haven. Hannah, R. (2009) Time in antiquity. London. Neugebauer, O. (1975) A history of ancient mathematical astronomy. Berlin.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 396–397. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah21019

1

Ananke AMY C. SMITH

Ananke, Homeric “compulsion,” becomes an important philosophical term among the pre-Socratics. To Thales it is the natural necessity that powers all phenomena and compels divinities to epiphany (71 A12 DK). Ananke becomes a divine or cosmic power in Parmenides, Empedocles, Leucippus, and Democritus. Classical writers see Ananke as superior to the gods (Aesch. Prom. 515–19; Eur. Hel. 513; Pl. Leg. 818e) or a powerful goddess despite lack of altars or statuary (Eur. Alc. 962–80). Plato sees her as a blind operator (Pl. Tim. 47e), thus equated with Heimarmene (Destiny). Hermetic texts transfer Ananke to astral fatalism. Epicureans, Cynics, Skeptics, and Christians deny Ananke’s deterministic power. Neoplatonists use the term ananke to refer to natural necessity, including unavoidable disasters. In gnostic and magical literature, ananke is the power of death and fate. The personification Ananke has no mythology, although some call her the mother of Aphrodite (Orph. Hymn 55.3) or the Moirai (Pl. Plt. 10.617b–e; Vernie`re 1980). When Themistokles claimed he had brought to Andros two gods – Peitho (Persuasion) and

Ananke – the Andrians replied their only gods were Penia (Poverty) and Amechania (Helplessness) (Hdt. 8.111). The only image of Ananke in visual arts is a winged woman with a torch on an Attic red-figure lekythos in Moscow (470–460 BCE). She is made identifiable through a painted (albeit misspelled) label (Simon 1981) and the flaming torch, which is appropriate to weddings, social institutions brought about by ananke (Arist. Pol. 1252b26). Ananke’s hard-nailed Latin counterpart, Necessitas, also borrows from the Etruscan fate goddess Athrpa (Hor. Carm. 1.35.17–18; Dra¨ger 1997). SEE ALSO: Fate, Greece and Rome; Hermetic writings; Personification.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Dra¨ger, P. (1997) “Pindars Stahlna¨gel der Ananke und Kyrene.” Rheinisches Museum fu¨r Philologie 140: 188–9. Schreckenberg, H. (1964) Ananke. Untersuchungen zur Geschichte des Wortgebrauchs. Munich. Simon, E. (1981) “Ananke.” LIMC 1: 757–8. Zurich. Vernie`re, Y. (1980) “La famille d’Ananke.” In Mythe et Personification. Actes du Colloque du Grand Palais (Paris), 7–8 mai 1977: 61–7. Paris.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print page 397. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah17034

1

Anastasios I F. K. HAARER

Anastasios I, emperor 491–518 CE (born Dyrrachium ca. 430), acceded to the throne as the choice of Ariadne, widow of the Isaurian emperor Zeno, whom he later married (see ARIADNE, EMPRESS; ZENO, EMPEROR). Little is known about Anastasios before his elevation, except that he held the office of silentiary and had been nominated to succeed PETER THE FULLER as patriarch of Antioch in 488. Anastasios’ first task was to banish the Isaurians from Constantinople, and by 498 he had quelled their resistance, earning him favorable comparison with Pompey the Great (see POMPEY (GNAEUS POMPEIUS MAGNUS)). Elsewhere, Anastasios adopted a defensive and diplomatic strategy against external threats. He cultivated relations with the Arab tribes before war broke out with Persia in 502 (see GHASSANIDS). After a shaky start, the Roman forces were able to hold their own, and even conduct incursions into Persian territory. After negotiating a peace treaty in 506, Anastasios strengthened defenses on the eastern frontier, notably at Dara. In the west, he attempted to reach a modus vivendi with the Ostrogothic king, THEODERIC, and to forge alliances with the Franks and Burgundians. Against the Bulgar incursions into Thrace, Anastasios restored defenses, especially the Long Wall (see LONG WALL (WALL OF ANASTASIOS)). Anastasios is best known for his sound management of the economy: from a position of near bankruptcy in 491, the treasury held 320,000 pounds of gold by 518. This financial rehabilitation was achieved through a wide-ranging program of tax, coinage, army, and agrarian reforms, which even allowed

Anastasios to grant subsidies and fund a building program. He took stringent measures to control the faction riots. He is also remembered, less favorably, for his religious policy, which saw the deposition of several patriarchs, the continuation of the Akakian schism (see AKAKIOS, PATRIARCH AND SCHISM), and provided an excuse for the rebellion of Vitalian in 515. Yet his promotion of miaphysitism over pro-Chalcedonian orthodoxy was not just a personal belief but a pragmatic policy to retain the loyalty of the eastern provinces (see CHALCEDONIAN CONTROVERSY). SEE ALSO: Bulgaria and Bulgars; Coinage, Byzantine; Economy, Byzantine; Isaurian emperors; Persia and Byzantium; Sasanians.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Cameron, A. (1978) “The House of Anastasius.” Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies 19: 259–76. Capizzi, C. (1969) L’Imperatore Anastasio I. Rome. Charanis, P. (1974) Church and state in the later Roman Empire: the religious policy of Anastasius I, 491–518, 2nd ed. Thessaloniki. Chauvot, A. (1986) Procope de Gaza, Priscien de Ce´sare´e. Pane´gyriques de l’empereur Anastase Ier. Bonn. Coyne, P. (1991) Priscian of Caesarea’s De Laude Anastasii Imperatoris. Lampeter. Greatrex, G. (1998) Rome and Persia at war, 502–532. Leeds. Haarer, F. K. (2006) Anastasius I: politics and empire in the late Roman world. Cambridge. Moorhead, J. (1992) Theoderic in Italy. Oxford. Motta, D. (2003) “L’imperatore Anastasio: tra storiografia ed agiografia.” Mediterraneo Antico 6: 195–234. Prostko-Prostyn´ski, J. (1994) Utraeque res publicae. The Emperor Anastasius I’s Gothic policy (491–518). Poznan´.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print page 398. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah03007

1

Anastasios of Sinai PHIL BOOTH

Anastasios of Sinai (ca. 600–700 CE) is one of the most important Christian theologians and social commentators of the seventh-century Near East. The manuscript tradition attributes several substantial works to an author of that name: most importantly, the Hexaemeron (a mystical interpretation of the creation narrative); two sermons on the constitution of man; a sermon against the monotheletes; the Hodegos or Viae Dux (a defense of Chalcedonian doctrine against miaphysitism and monotheletism); the Questions and Answers (on various aspects of Christian practice and belief); the Tales (three collections of edifying stories); and several homilies. In the past several scholars have attempted to demonstrate that these works belong to several Anastasii whom the tradition has confused, but there is now a growing consensus that the author of the three sermons, the Hodegos, the Questions and answers, and all three collections of Tales is one and the same. The authorship of the Hexaemeron, which shares certain features with the sermons on the constitution of man, remains unclear, but it is nevertheless possible that the entire corpus is the product of a single Anastasios, monk and priest on Mount Sinai. On the basis of internal evidence, the Hodegos, Questions and answers, and Tales can all be dated from ca. 630–700. In the various Tales, Anastasios tells us that he was from Cyprus, but it is evident that he had traveled throughout the eastern Mediterranean: to Alexandria, Clysma, Jerusalem, Damascus, and, of course, to Sinai. He was an active proponent of Chalcedon and its dyothelete interpretation, but was furthermore the first Christian author to engage with the doctrines of a nascent Islam. Indeed, both the Tales and

the Questions and answers constitute an indispensable guide to Christian reactions to the rise and success of the new religion, as Christians in the Near East began to adjust their narratives in order to explain their newfound position within the world. Both texts offer various pieces of practical advice for Christian communities now living under foreign rule, but also point to the growing promotion of the Eucharist, the Cross, and the saints as shared symbols around which such communities might gather. The same texts, however, also bear witness to the continued pluralism of Christian practice and belief, even in this late period. Anastasios himself is steeped in the ancient medical and philosophical traditions, and he attempts to interweave traditional classical explanations of various phenomena with those offered in scripture. He is thus a crucial though rare witness to a sustained secular tradition in this period, and to continued attempts to integrate that tradition within broader Christian thought. SEE ALSO:

Monotheletism.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Flusin, B. (1991) “De´mons et Sarrasins: L’auteur et le propos des Die`ge`mata ste`riktika d’Anastase le Sinaı¨te.” Travaux et Me´moires 11: 381–409. Griffith, S. H. (1987) “Anastasius of Sinai, the Hodegos and the Muslims.” Greek Orthodox Theological Review 32: 341–58. Haldon, J. (1992) “The works of Anastasius of Sinai: a key source for the history of seventh-century east Mediterranean society and belief.” In A. Cameron and L. Conrad, eds., The Byzantine and early Islamic Near East I: problems in the literary source material: 107–47. Princeton. Munitiz, J. A. (1998) “Anastasius of Sinai: speaking and writing to the people of God.” In M. B. Cunningham and P. Allen, eds., Preacher and audience: studies in early Christian and Byzantine homiletics: 227–45. Leiden.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 398–399. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah12011

1

Anastasius Bibliothecarius BRONWEN NEIL

Anastasius Bibliothecarius (d. ca. 879 CE) earned his epithet from his service over ten years as librarian in the court of Pope Hadrian II. The librarian also served as unofficial papal secretary under Nicholas I, and as diplomat under John VIII. His major contribution to Byzantine literature was his translation of various Greek texts into Latin: the acts of two church councils, the Chronographia Tripertita, two liturgical commentaries, and a collection of documents pertaining to the monothelete controversy of the seventh century. The antimonothelete dossier was known as the Collectanea and included biographical documents pertaining to MAXIMUS THE CONFESSOR and Pope Martin, as well as other champions of the dyothelete cause. Over the course of twenty years in service to three popes, Anastasius translated another twelve saints’ Lives, many with strong political overtones, notably the Discovery of the Relics of Pope Clement I, the Passion and Miracles of Cyrus and John, Passion of Dionysius, and Passion of Demetrius. Through his early translations, Anastasius sought to challenge Byzantine hegemony in the field of patristic literature. This is particularly evident in his translation of the Acts of the Councils of Nicaea II and Constantinople IV. In his later works, however, especially the

Byzantine liturgical commentaries of Maximus the Confessor and Germanus of Constantinople, which he dedicated to Charles the Bald, he took a more pro-Byzantine approach, in line with the new policy of rapprochement adopted by John VIII. With these he sought to mediate Greek Christian culture to the Franks. SEE ALSO: Constantinople, councils of; Monoenergism; Monotheletism; Nicaea, Council of.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Arnaldi, G. (1956) “Giovanni Immonide e la cultura a Roma al tempo di Giovanni VIII.” Bulletino del’istituto storico per il medio evo 68: 33–89. Arnaldi, G. (1961) “Anastasio Bibliotecario.” Dizionario bibliografico degli Italiani 3: 25–37. Devos, P. (1962) “Anastasius le Bibliothe´caire, sa contribution a` la correspondence pontificale; la date de sa mort.” Byzantion 32: 97–115. Leonardi, C. (1967) “Anastasio Bibliotecario e l’ottavo concilio ecumenico.” Studi medievali 8, 3: 59–192. Neil, B. (2000a) “Anastasius Bibliothecarius’ translations of two Byzantine liturgical commentaries.” Ephemerides liturgicae 114: 329–46. Neil, B. (2000b) “The western reaction to the Council of Nicaea II.” Journal of Theological Studies n.s. 51: 533–52. Neil, B. (2006) Seventh-century popes and martyrs: the political hagiography of Anastasius Bibliothecarius. Turnhout.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 399–400. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah03008

1

Anat KLAAS A. D. SMELIK

Anat is the name of a Northwest Semitic goddess of war, who is primarily known from texts from SYRIA. She was also popular in Egypt during the New Kingdom. In the Ugaritic texts, Anat is portrayed as a warrior, wielding bow and sword against both human and supernatural enemies. In the BA’AL myth, she is even described as joyously wading through the blood of slain warriors. She always behaves like a man, remarks her vexed father, the god EL. But at the same time, Anat cares for the beauty of her very attractive body. She plays an important role in her brother Ba’al’s quest for a palace and the kingship that a royal residence implies. Out of love for her brother, she kills Mot, god of death, who had murdered Ba’al. She even succeeds in resurrecting her brother from death. The goddess Anat is nowhere mentioned in the Hebrew Bible (see BIBLE, HEBREW), though

her name appears in place names like Bethanath and Anathoth and in the personal name Shamgar son of Anath. The Jewish papyri from ELEPHANTINE attest the goddess Anat-Bethel, a combination of the Canaanite gods Anat and Bethel, also known from TYRE. In Elephantine, she is worshipped along with YAHWEH, god of Israel. Another goddess attested at Elephantine is called Anat-Yahu. This suggests that Anat was also worshipped in ancient Israel, despite her absence from the Bible. SEE ALSO:

Israel and Judah; Ugarit.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Day, J. (2001) Yahweh and the gods and goddesses of Canaan. Sheffield. Day, P. L. (1999) “Anat.” In Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible: 36–43. Leiden. Van der Toorn, K. (1992) “Anat-Yahu, some other deities, and the Jews of Elephantine.” Numen 39: 80–101. Walls, N. H. (1992) The goddess Anat in Ugaritic myth. Atlanta.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 400–401. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah24014

1

Anatolia WILLIAM C. WEST III

The term Anatolike designated a province of the Late Roman Empire, including parts of Syria, Lebanon, Gaza, and Egypt, derived from anatole (“east”). Cf. Matt 2:1: “. . . wise men came [to Jerusalem] from the east.” The term Asia designated a province of the Roman Empire, comprehending only the territory west of the HALYS River in the central and southern region of what is commonly known as Asia Minor, excluding the territory of Bithynia, Pontos, Pamphylia, Galatia, Cappadocia, and Cilicia. Asia Minor, in use from early times and even concurrently with the individual terms, came to be used as a general term for the entire region. Anatolia seems to have replaced Asia Minor as the general designation at a later time. It is not attested in antiquity, but may have been in use in late Roman times. Confusion between the two terms seems to result from the application of Anatolian to the language family descended from Hittite-Luwian. Strabo (2.5.24; 12.1.3; cf. Plin. (E) HN 5.27; Ptol. 5.2) first referred to the peninsula of Asia Minor west of the Taurus as Asia in the narrower sense, as opposed to the continent of Asia. The term Asia Minor in the broader sense is first used by OROSIUS (1.2.26) in the early fifth century CE. The term Anatolian was used to designate languages of this vast region (of the HittiteLuwian family). This language family was the earliest documented branch of the Indo-European languages. In the second millennium BCE, it consisted of Hittite, Palaic, and Luwian (with dialects in the southern region of Syria, across the southeast of Asia Minor to LYDIA, and perhaps even into the TROAD). From 1580 to 1200, the Hittite language is recorded in the cuneiform script of Babylonia on clay tablets, mostly from the Hittite capital, Hattusa (mod. Bog˘az-Ko¨y). Palaic and Luwian are known from proverbs and glosses inserted into these texts. An

independent member of the Anatolian language family was Lydian, predominantly known from stone inscriptions of the fifth and fourth centuries BCE, which are written in a script related to Greek. Description of the geology of the region permits understanding of the geography of Asia Minor. Two mountain chains in the eastern and central part of Asia Minor define the character of its terrain. The northern Anatolian mountains are on the Black Sea coast and the Taurus range on the Mediterranean coast. These two mountain ranges converge in the east and encircle the central Anatolian massif, which is also called the Anatolian highlands. The northern Anatolian mountains begin in the coastal region lying between the mouth of the Sangarius River and the mouth of the Kızı Irmak, the Halys River. They extend eastward to the easternmost point of the Black Sea. The central Anatolian plateau slopes towards the west and several river valleys connect the interior with the coastal plains. The Taurus range rises in a northeasterly direction to a height of 3,085 m. The tectonics of the Anatolian peninsula show a deep fault system. Pressure exerted by the Arabian plate from the southeast on the Anatolian plate causes a westerly deviation of the Anatolian block and makes this area an active earthquake zone, the North Anatolian fault. In western Anatolia, ancient settlements of early Bronze Age times took on urban dimensions (e.g., in Beycesultan, Limantepe, and Troy VI), but there is no evidence of writing. In western and central Anatolia, the archaeological material shows continuity of culture from the end of the Early Bronze Age to the Late Bronze Age. Along the Aegean coast, Minoan settlements were established, then Mycenaean ones in the Late Bronze Age. In Achaemenid times (late sixth–fourth centuries BCE), Persian satraps ruled in central Anatolia and Cappadocia, whereas Paphlagonia remained under the control of dynasts. During the wars of the successors of Alexander, a kind of political order began to take shape

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 401–402. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah14034

2 from ca. 306/305 BCE, with rule over Asia Minor being shared by Lysimachos and Seleukos, with the exception of territories ruled by dynasts in Bithynia, Pontos, Cappadocia, Armenia, and southern Anatolia. Pompey established Roman rule and organized a new order of the eastern provinces in 64/63 BCE. After the death of Justinian, the entire Byzantine defense structure collapsed by 620. The successors of Herakleios ruled for a time in Asia Minor, but by 637 the first Arab incursions had taken place. In the following centuries, the region, which was Christian-Greek, began to change into an Islamic and then Turkish country. SEE ALSO: Herakleios; Hittite, Hittites; Luwian language; Pliny the Elder; Pompey; Ptolemy

(astronomer, mathematician); Strabo of Amaseia. REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Brixhe, C. (1994) “Le Phrygien.” In F. Bader, Langues indo-europe´ennes: 165–80. Paris. Melchert, H. C. (1994) “Anatolian.” In F. Bader, Langues indo-europe´ennes: 121–38. Paris. Mitchell, S. (1993) Anatolia: land, men, and gods in Asia Minor: 1–2. Oxford. National geographic atlas of the world (1999) 96D5–10. Washington. Robert, L. (1987) Documents de l’Asie Mineure. Paris. Wilhelm, G. (1989) The Hurrians. Warminster, UK.

1

Anatomical votives VE´RONIQUE DASEN

Votive offerings include depictions of body parts placed under the protection of a deity. Most extant anatomical votives are made in stone, terracotta, wood, bronze, and ivory (painting, relief, sculpture); temple inventories reveal that some were also made in materials that did not survive – such as wax, gold, and silver – that were melted down. The typology differs according to time and place (van Straten 1981). In the Aegean world, the earliest evidence of anatomical votives is clay models from the peak sanctuaries in Minoan Crete. Greek depictions of body parts flourished from the Classical period onward (fifth century BCE–third century CE). Most extant dedications are in stone; terracotta models are rare, and restricted to Corinth. Internal body parts do not seem to be depicted (Forsen 1996). The tradition continues in the so-called “confession” inscriptions from Lydia and Phrygia (second–third centuries CE), which displayed a smaller range of body parts (Forsen 1996: 121–5). In central Italy, clay models dominate, and inner organs (such as the uterus, liver, and heart, etc.) are shown (end of the fourth century–first century BCE) (Turfa 2004). In Roman Gaul, where the practice was likely to have been imported from Italy, inner organs are also shown (Deyts 1983, 1994; Romeuf 2000). The most frequent body parts to have been depicted are eyes, hand/arm, foot/leg, trunk, female breasts, male or female genitals, and ears; in addition, models of uteri are relatively common in central Italy. Anatomical votives could be offered either to express a vow or to express thanks for a cure. Diseased organs, however, are rare, and, as the inscriptions suggest, the ex-voto practice seems to dominate (Cazanove 2009). Models of body

parts could have multiple meanings: for example, female breasts could either request divine help for lactation or for curing a disease. Some votives are not anatomical offerings, such as ears and footprints, but were symbols of the worshipper’s or of the god’s presence. Body parts were dedicated to a large range of deities and heroes protecting health and/or presiding over fertility and birth. It is difficult to determine exactly which diseases each deity was said to be able to cure. As might be expected, dedicators in sanctuaries of goddesses associated with fertility and birth were mostly women, but the study of the gender and social status of the dedicators is still in progress. SEE ALSO: Aesculapius; Amphiareion sanctuary; Asklepios; Medicine, Greek and Roman.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Cazanove, O. (2009) “Oggetti muti? Le iscrizioni degli ex voto anatomici nel mondo romano.” In J. Bodel and M. Kajava, eds., Religious dedications in the Greco-Roman world: distribution, typology, use: 355–71. Rome. Deyts, S. (1983) Les bois sculpte´s des sources de la Seine. Paris. Deyts, S. (1994) Un peuple de pe`lerins: offrandes de pierre et de bronze des sources de la Seine. Dijon. Forse´n, B. (1996) Griechische Gliederweihungen. Eine Untersuchung zu ihrer Typologie und ihrer religions- und sozialgeschichtlichen Bedeutung. Helsinki. Romeuf, A.-M. (2000) Les ex-voto gallo-romains de Chamalie`res (Puy-de-Doˆme): bois sculpte´s de la source des Roches. Paris. Turfa, J. M. (2004) “2.d. Dedications, Rom., B. Anatomical votives.” Thesaurus Cultus et Rituum Antiquorum, vol. 1: 359–68. van Straten, F. T. (1981) “Gifts for the gods.” In H. S. Versnel, ed., Faith, hope and worship: aspects of religious mentality in the ancient world: 65–151. Leiden.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 402–403. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah22274

1

Anatomy JULIUS ROCCA

Anatomical investigation has a problematic history. This is due in large measure to the taboo regarding the corpse, which, with only one exception and for less than a single generation, remained unbroken in antiquity. Opportunistic examinations of the living and the dead, such as on the field of battle, undoubtedly occurred. The case histories in the Edwin Smith Surgical Papyrus, dated about 1600 BCE, show a surgeon’s familiarity with wound anatomy gleaned largely from the theater of war. The wounds delineated in the Iliad are as graphic as they are sensational. Such empirical knowledge, over time, formed the mainstay of surgical and other interventional practices by physicians and others throughout much of antiquity. However, the formal practice of anatomical investigation was a Greek one. Although the body was a subject of interest to some of the Presocratic natural philosophers, and Plato discoursed on the subject in general terms, it is ARISTOTLE who for the first time subjects anatomical investigation to epistemological rigor. To perform an anatomy was also to inquire into the function of the part under consideration, what would later be termed physiology. Aristotle acknowledges that animal dissection is unpleasant, but it can reveal nature’s purpose. Aristotle held that the heart was at the center of the body and that all blood vessels arose from it. Sensation is dependent on blood vessels, and as they come from the heart, then that organ must be the site of the body’s common sensorium. Even GALEN, whose detailed researches determined that the brain housed the sensorium, could not entirely overcome this Aristotelian legacy, as witnessed by the Aristotelian cardiocentric position held by Galen’s contemporary, Alexander of Aphrodisias. Aristotle’s anatomical investigations were centered on animals, with the assumption that they were comparable to humans, although he

probably dissected human fetuses. In the third century BCE, in the remarkable city of Alexandria, this framework was shattered by the physicians HEROPHILOS of Chalcedon and his younger contemporary ERASISTRATUS of Keos, who dissected and vivisected not only animals, but also humans. CELSUS records, but does not endorse, an argument in favor of such a practice on utilitarian grounds. To the third century CE patristic writer Tertullian, Herophilos was a “butcher” (lanius) and a “cutter-up of adults” (maiorum prosector – as opposed to just foetuses). Herophilos and Erasistratus benefited from the political patronage of the new ruling dynasty, whose aim was to present Alexandria as a showcase of the sciences. Galen, our chief source for this, remarks that only state patronage made investigations into the human body possible. It is quite probable that both living and dead humans made available were indigenous Egyptians, not Greeks, which would thereby dilute if not obviate the taboo against such practices. Herophilos wrote a substantive anatomical text, only fragments of which survive. He made detailed descriptions of the brain and its vasculature, and established the relationship between brain and nerves. Erasistratus was also a proficient anatomist, but was held in high regard as an expert in functional anatomy. After Herophilos and Erasistratus, human dissection and vivisection were never practiced in antiquity (a Byzantine account of an apparent vivisection is problematic), and formal anatomical research was not revived until the beginning of the second century. The reasons for this hiatus are not easy to determine, although the desire for codification and synthesis of existing anatomical knowledge was a factor. The chief proponent of the second century revival of anatomical investigation was Marinus of Alexandria. His works are lost, and what is known is, as with much else, known only via Galen, who held him in exceptionally high regard. Galen singles out Marinus for having recovered the study of anatomy after it

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 403–406. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah21021

2 had fallen into neglect. Leaving aside the polemic inherent in such an assertion, Marinus must have functioned as a reference source for Galen’s own anatomical methodology as well as serving to endorse the researches of Herophilos and Erasistratus. In On my own books, Galen states that he had composed a four-volume summary of Marinus’ twentyvolume anatomical text. According to Galen, Marinus thought the question of the controlling center or hegemonikon of the body of sufficient importance to devote an entire volume to it. It is interesting that in On my own books, a text devised to summarize Galen’s achievements, he devotes more space to Marinus than to any other physician or philosopher. This perhaps is why Marinus, alone of all physicians with the exception of Hippocrates, is described as “most excellent.” Anatomy formed the epicenter of Galen’s Weltbild. Anatomical knowledge was a tool to discriminate between other doctors, whether as individuals or as representatives of a particular group, and it provided Galen with a gold standard for medical practice. To Galen, anatomical knowledge was a hallmark of the complete physician. That this was a controversial approach is illustrated by the vehemence of Galen’s attacks on medical sects such as the Empiricists and Methodists, who regarded detailed anatomical knowledge as neither necessary nor relevant to daily medical practice. Perhaps most important of all, anatomy helped Galen establish himself as the inheritor and chief custodian of an anatomical legacy which reached back, so he claimed, to Hippocrates himself. Since Hippocrates is Galen’s paradigm for the ideal physician, it was necessary for Galen that anatomy, like other parts of medicine, be traced to its Hippocratic origins. The result is the creation of a Hippocratic anatomical tradition as documented in Galen’s six-volume On the anatomy of Hippocrates. Although the book is lost, we know that Book II discussed the origin of veins from the liver; Book III the arteries, veins and nerves; Book V the uterus and developing fetus. The

liver, gall bladder, and urinary bladder were also discussed, as was the brain and the origin of the nerves from it. Galen, it is clear, extrapolated the very general statements on anatomy in the Hippocratic Writings into his own sophisticated epistemological framework. Galen’s anatomical works are extensive, even if a number are lost. And even titles of such lost works can be instructive, reflecting not only Galen’s efforts to establish his own position in the anatomical hierarchy, but also revealing that anatomy was a subject of considerable interest in the second century. It is no accident that Galen’s medical teachers are characterized on the basis of their anatomical knowledge as much as for their expertise in Hippocratic interpretation. Galen’s first teacher in anatomy was Satyrus, who was taught by Quintus. According to Galen, Quintus, who flourished in the time of Hadrian, had a considerable anatomical reputation. Galen also states that professional jealousy led to Quintus’ exile from Rome, a situation Galen would have us believe also applied at one stage to himself. Satyrus, Galen tells us, was also a precise expositor of Quintus’ work, and the author of an anatomical work. Galen attended Satyrus’s anatomical demonstrations in Pergamon. Galen also attended lectures in Smyrna by Pelops, whose anatomical works perished after his death. Galen must have seen a copy, since he gives it qualified praise. In Alexandria, Galen tried unsuccessfully to obtain the highly regarded anatomical texts of Numisianus, the teacher of Pelops. Galen also mentions another pupil of Quintus, Lycus of Macedon, who, again according to Galen, was the author of an inaccurate anatomical text. But the preserved book titles of Lycus’ lost work show evidence of the further development of anatomy from its Hellenistic precursors. Whether doctors such as Quintus and Numisianus constituted a distinct anatomical school or sect is far from certain. What is clear, however, is that, apart from Galen’s own investigations, of which his work on the brain, spinal cord, and nerves is the most impressive, his chief strength as an anatomist

3 lies in his ability to successfully develop and synthesize earlier material. And since human dissection and vivisection began and ended with Herophilos and Erasistratus, Galen offered a complete analogical approach based on animal models. Anatomy was the focus of a number of doctors in the second century CE. For example, in his account of the structures of the brain, Galen several times refers to anonymous doctors who possessed a detailed knowledge of the subject. Galen’s anatomical teachers fulfilled a dual function as sources of knowledge and transmitters of the word. Yet even if Galen fulsomely acknowledges that several of his predecessors and teachers helped advance anatomical theory, it is clear that they are also meant to serve as part of an anatomical tradition the end point of which is Galen himself. Despite Galen’s assertion that anatomy could be traced to Hippocratic origins, comprehensive knowledge of the body in antiquity was a relatively late acquisition, and its progression was neither steady nor unchallenged. Anatomical theory and practice did not invariably lead to a better understanding of function (the female body is instructive here), much less to diagnostic or therapeutic innovations. For Galen, possession of such knowledge permitted an estimation of a doctor’s caliber, but few could measure up to such standards. Anatomy could also be admired for the strength of its epistemic rigor, and it is as a part of philosophy,

or as a philosophy of the body in its own right, that anatomy perhaps found its true me´tier. SEE ALSO:

Cardiovascular system; Hippocrates

of Kos. REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Duckworth, W. L H., Lyons, M. C., and Towers, B. (1962) Galen on anatomical procedures. The later books. Cambridge. Edelstein, L. (1967) “The history of anatomy in antiquity.” In O. Temkin and C. L. Temkin, eds. (1967), Ancient medicine. Selected papers of Ludwig Edelstein: 247–301. Baltimore. Edelstein, L. (1935) “The development of Greek anatomy.” Bulletin of the history of medicine 3: 235–48. Kudlien, F. (1969) “Antike Anatomie und menschlicher Leichnam.” Hermes 97: 78–94. Laqueur, T. (1990) Making sex. Body and gender from the Greeks to Freud. Cambridge, MA. Passmore, J. (1975) “The treatment of animals.” Journal of the history of ideas 36: 195–218. Rocca, J. (2003) Galen on the brain. Anatomical knowledge and physiological speculation in the second century AD. Leiden. Rocca, J. (2008) “Anatomy.” In R. J. Hankinson, ed., The Cambridge companion to Galen: 242–62. Cambridge. Singer, C. (1956) Galen. On anatomical procedures. Oxford. Von Staden, H. (1992) “The discovery of the body: human dissection and its cultural contexts in ancient Greece.” Yale journal of biology and medicine 6: 223–41.

1

Anavlochos in Crete FLORENCE GAIGNEROT-DRIESSEN

The Anavlochos mountain range is located in the province of Lasithi (CRETE) and consists of a 5 km long northwest/southeast crest of limestone extending above the village of Vrachasi. This naturally defensible ridge controls the Mirabello valley, which constitutes the major communication axis linking central to eastern Crete. To the north, it overlooks the Late Bronze Age coastal settlement of Sissi and the coastal city-state of Milatos. The urban center of the Archaic polis of DREROS is located 10 km to the east. Archaeological investigations were first carried out by Pierre Demargne in 1929 (Demargne 1931); they were later resumed by the Greek Archaeological Service, and then again by the French School at Athens in 2015–16 (Zographaki, Gaignerot-Driessen, and Devolder 2012–13; Gaignerot-Driessen 2016: 200–16). The summit of the highest and easternmost peak (Vigla) yielded evidence for Middle Minoan

II cultic activities and was revisited during the Early Iron Age. Small hamlets or isolated buildings were established on the ridge in the Late Minoan IIIB/C period. In the Protogeometric period a nucleation of the settlement is clearly observable in the central valley, where an urban center with massive terrace walls supporting residential buildings and access ramps developed over 10 ha during the Late Geometric period. Debris from a metallurgy workshop was recovered in the fill of one of these terraces. The settlement was seemingly abandoned at the beginning of the seventh century BCE. At its foot, clusters of Late Minoan IIIC to Late Geometric graves spread over 15 ha. At Kako Plaï, on the southern slope of the western peak mid-way between the settlement and the cemetery, an important Protogeometric-Classical votive deposit was excavated (Demargne 1931: 379–407; Pilz and Krumme 2013). Two other votive deposits, dating to the Late Minoan IIIC-Geometric and Protoarchaic periods respectively, were identified on the same peak in 2016.

N

ANAVLOCHOS

Sissi

Milatos

Vrachasi

FIGURE 1 View of the Anavlochos ridge from the South. Source: F. Gaignerot-Driessen.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, and Andrew Erskine. © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Published 2017 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah30452

2

FIGURE 2 View from the southeast on a Late Geometric terrace wall from the settlement in the central valley. Source: F. Gaignerot-Driessen. REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Demargne, P. (1931) “Recherches sur le site de l’Anavlochos.” Bulletin de correspondance hellénique 55.1: 365–407. Gaignerot-Driessen, F. (2016) De l’occupation postpalatiatale à la cité-État grecque: le cas du Mirambello (Crète). Leuven. Pilz, O. and Krumme, M. (2013) “Das Heiligtum von Kako Plaï auf dem Anavlochos (Kreta).” In I.

Gerlach and D. Raue, eds., Sanktuar und Ritual. Heilige Plätze im archäologischen Befund: 343–8. Rahden. Zographaki, V., Gaignerot-Driessen, F., and Devolder, M. (2012–13) [2015] “Nouvelles recherches sur l’Anavlochos.” Bulletin de correspondance hellénique 2: 136–7, 514–35.

1

Anavyssos ALEXANDRA-FANI ALEXANDRIDOU

Anavyssos is located between Mount Olympos of LAURION and Pani in south Attica. An ancient road led through Olympos and Pani to modern Phoinikia and from there to the Mesogeia Plain. Four Classical demoi, Thorai, Phrearrhoi, Anaphlystos, and Aigilia, were situated between Anavyssos and Phoinikia. Although they have not yet been identified, inscriptions attest to their names. The archaeological evidence from the area is of a scattered and isolated character. This lack of more consistent evidence is due to the continuous use of the area for agricultural purposes since antiquity, as well as to the intensive building activity of the last decades. Late Neolithic and Early Bronze Age sherds have been detected in various spots, while a Middle Bronze Age settlement has been discovered on the peninsula of Agios Nikolaos. In the Geometric period (ninth to eighth centuries BCE), an extended cemetery was situated in the Plain of Anavyssos, near modern Agios Panteleimon. The large number of graves indicates the existence of an important settlement in the vicinity. At the edge of the western part of the cemetery, an edifice was discovered and has been interpreted as a chthonic sanctuary, probably associated with the cult of the deceased. Although graves of the Archaic period have not been found, the necropolis was used in the Classical period. South of Agios Panteleimon, Classical sherds and

remains indicate the existence of a settlement. By the church of Agios Georgios, two tumuli dating to the late Geometric and early Archaic periods have been explored. Another tumulus was found south of the road to Kamareza, close to Mesochori. It contained Late Geometric inhumations, as well as seventh- and sixthcentury BCE cremations. Lohmann describes the tumulus as a necropolis indicating the existence of a large Archaic settlement, which could have developed from an earlier Geometric one. Some isolated graves and tumuli dating to the Classical period add to the archaeological evidence from the area. A number of stray finds, including Archaic and Classical vessels, as well as sixth-century BCE kouroi, were uncovered in the area of Anavyssos. These share characteristics with the late sixth-century kouros, Aristodikos, found northwest of the church of Agios Panteleimon. SEE ALSO:

Athens; Burial, Greece.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Kakavogianni, O. (1984) “Anάbussος.” Αrwaiοlοgikόn Deltίοn 39: 43–5. Lohmann, H. (1993) Atene. Forschungen zu Siedlungs- und Wirtschaftsstruktur des klassischen Attika. Cologne. Mersch, A. (1996) Studien zur Siedlungsgeschichte Attikas von 950 bis 400 v.Chr. Frankfurt am Main. Τhemelis, P. (1974) “Αnάbussος. Geometrikό Νekrοtajeίο.” Arwaiοlοgikόn Deltίοn 29, Χrοnikά, Β1: 108–10. Travlos, J. (1988) Bildlexikon zur Topographie des antiken Attika. Tu¨bingen.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print page 406. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah02019

1

Anaxagoras MAURIZIO GIANGIULIO

Anaxagoras, reportedly the first Presocratic philosopher to come to Athens, was born in KLAZOMENAI in 499/8 BCE. The evidence for his life and work is to be found in a confused biographical sketch by Diogenes Laertius (DK 59 A 1). According to the most thorough modern treatment (Mansfeld 1990), Anaxagoras arrived in Athens in 457/6 and stayed there for twenty years, until he was charged with impiety (see ASEBEIA) and banished from the city (Plut. Per. 32). He retreated to LAMPSAKOS, where he died in 428/7. Anaxagoras had an enormous impact on Athenian intellectual life and on the wider civic culture of his time. AESCHYLUS and EURIPIDES were influenced by him, and SOCRATES was acquainted with his published work. He was also closely associated with PERIKLES and exerted a strong intellectual influence on him (Plut. Per. 4.6). The real target of the attack on Anaxagoras was probably Perikles himself, who is said to have defended him at his trial. Our main source for Anaxagoras’ fragments is the sixth-century CE Neoplatonist philosopher SIMPLICIUS, who probably read his work. Anaxagoras gave a complete account of the physical universe and formulated an original theory of mind, appreciated by PLATO and ARISTOTLE. For him, in the beginning “all things

were together” (DK 59 B 1), and the kosmos was created from the original unlimited mixture of all the ingredients by the action of an ordering and controlling force he called Nous (“Mind”). Despite the original separation, “all things have a portion of everything” (B 6) or “in everything – except Mind – is a portion of everything” (B 11). Mind is unlimited and selfruling; it has been mixed with no thing, and is alone itself by itself. As for the Eleatics, there is neither becoming nor passing away; things have no ontolological status, but simply are temporary mixtures of omnipresent ingredients. These ingredients are not small particles, for “of the small there is no smallest,” and “there is always something larger than the larger” (B 3). SEE ALSO:

Philosophy, Classical Greece.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Curd, P. (2007) Anaxagoras of Clazomenae. Toronto. Lanza, D. (1966) Anassagora. Florence. Mansfeld, J. (1990) “The chronology of Anaxagoras’ Athenian period and the date of his trial. Part I: The length and dating of the Athenian period; Part II: The plot against Pericles and his associates.” In Studies in the historiography of Greek philosophy: 264–306. Assen. Schofield, M. (1980) An essay on Anaxagoras. Cambridge. Sider, D. (2005) The fragments of Anaxagoras, 2nd ed. Sankt Augustin.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 406–407. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah04027

1

Anaxandridas SCOTT T. FARRINGTON

Plutarch (BNJ 404 F2) reports that Anaxandridas (Die Fragmente der griechischen Historiker, 816) was a Delphian (ὁ Δελφóς). He uses Anaxandridas for information pertaining to the wealth of Lysander and the frequency with which the oracle gave responses, namely whether it was one day a year or one day a month. Didymus, in his Epitome of Zenobius, attributes a work entitled On the dedications stolen in Delphi (BNJ 404 F1 – the preposition is also jarring in Greek: Περì τῶν συληθέντων ἐν Δελφοις ἀναθημάτων) to Anaxandridas, but Plutarch gives no titles at all. Consequently, it is impossible to know if this is the same work consulted by Plutarch. Jacoby does collect the other fragments under this title but posits another work perhaps entitled Delphica. However many works on DELPHI Anaxandridas produced, he described a number of dedications, including a stem of silphium (καυλòν σιλφίου) (BNJ 404 F4). Athenaeus (BNJ 404 F6) mentions Anaxandridas’ description of the “bowls of Ares,” golden bowls adorned with dates. Rzepka argues that this fragment more likely belongs to Anaxandrides the middle comic poet, who is cited by Athenaeus roughly fifty times, and often in connection to tableware. Anaxandridas also recorded the mythical history of Delphi, or the oracle, and the scholiast to the first line of the Alcestis intimates that he linked Apollo’s service to Admetos with the destruction of the Pytho (BNJ 404 F5). If BNJ 404 F8 should be assigned to Anaxandridas, as Rzepka argues, he was also the author of On Lykoreia (an early Delphic settlement). Additionally, Anaxandridas was the subject of

a polemical treatise by Polemon of Ilion (BNJ 404 T1). Kirchner calls Anaxandridas, simply, an “Archon in Delphoi.” Pomtow places his archonship in 211/10 BCE, roughly contemporary to his polemicist Polemon (fl. ca. 190 BCE). Going further, Rzepka attempts a rather complete family tree. Regardless, even the title of his work On the dedications stolen in Delphi, if transmitted correctly, is of little help with secure dating. The Phocians looted the sanctuary during the third Sacred War (356–346 BCE), but as Jacoby notes, this looting would be a strange subject for a second-century pamphlet. Theopompus’ work On the treasures stolen from Delphi (FGrHist 115 F247–249, Περì τῶν συληθέντων ἐκ Δελφῶν χρημάτων) would have been roughly contemporary to the event. SEE ALSO:

Polemic; Spices; Theopompus of Chios.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Jacoby, F. (1962) “Theopompus 115.” Die Fragmente der griechischen Historiker. Leiden. Jacoby, F. (1969) “Anaxandridas 404.” Die Fragmente der griechischen Historiker. Leiden. Kirchner, J. (1894) “Anaxandridas (3).” In A. Pauly, G. Wissowa, and W. Kroll, eds., Realencyclopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft 1.2: 2078. Stuttgart. Pomtow, H. (1901) “Delphoi: B. Geschichte.” In A. Pauly, G. Wissowa, and W. Kroll, eds., Realencyclopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft 4.2: 2520–700. Stuttgart. Rzepka, J. (2009, 2017) “Anaxandridas (404).” In I. Worthington, ed., Brill’s New Jacoby. Brill Online. Warmington, E. H. (2012) “Polemon (3).” In S. Hornblower and A. Spawforth, eds., The Oxford Classical Dictionary, 4th ed. Oxford. Welwei, K.-W. (2006, 2017) “Sacred wars.” In H. Cancik and H. Schneider, eds., Brill’s New Pauly, Antiquity. Brill Online.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, and Andrew Erskine. © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Published 2017 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah30593

1

Anaxarchos of Abdera WALDEMAR HECKEL

An Abderite philosopher of the school of DEMOCRITUS, Anaxarchos was born around 380 BCE; Diogenes Laertius gives his floruit as the 110th Olympiad (340–337). A student of Diogenes of Smyrna, Anaxarchos was known by the nickname eudaimonikos (“happy”) and was himself the teacher of Pyrrhon, the Skeptic. He accompanied Alexander on his Asiatic campaign and won favor by telling the king what he wished to hear, especially after the murder of Kleitos the Black. The story that upon seeing blood flow from one of Alexander’s wounds he referred to it as the ichor of the immortal gods, is told also of the athlete Dioxippos, and it is difficult to know who, if anyone, made the remark. Such slanders are, however, habitually leveled by enemies and refuted by supporters, and another anecdote depicts Anaxarchos as mocking the king’s pretensions to divinity. He is said to have annotated the so-called Casket Copy of the Iliad and to have accumulated great wealth, living in a luxurious manner that was unbefitting for a philosopher. In 323, Anaxarchos is alleged to have persuaded Alexander to ignore the warnings of the CHALDAEANS, who foretold great danger if the king entered

BABYLON. He alienated Nikokreon of Cyprus by saying to Alexander at a feast that all that was missing was the head of some satrap, meaning that of Nikokreon – the term satrap is used loosely. During Alexander’s lifetime, Anaxarchos could exercise his wit with impunity. But, at some point after the king’s death, he was driven ashore on Cyprus and captured by Nikokreon, who ordered him put to death. When Anaxarchos made light of his sentence, Nikokreon ordered his tongue to be cut out, but Anaxarchos, it was said, bit it off and spat it out. SEE ALSO: Abdera; Alexander III, the Great; Kingship, Hellenistic; Kleitos (Black Clitus).

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Berve, H. (1926) Das Alexanderreich auf prosopographischer Grundlage, vol. 2: 33–5 (no. 70). Munich. Borza, E. N. (1981) “Anaxarchus and Callisthenes: academic intrigue at Alexander’s court.” In H. J. Dell, ed., Ancient Macedonian studies in honour of Charles F. Edson: 73–86. Thessaloniki. Bosworth, A. B. (1995) A historical commentary on Arrian’s History of Alexander, vol. 2: 66–8, 72, 171–2. Oxford. Heckel, W. (2006) Who’s who in the age of Alexander: prosopography of Alexander’s empire: 27. Oxford.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 407–408. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah04028

1

Anaxikrates SCOTT T. FARRINGTON

Anaxikrates (Die Fragmente der griechischen Historiker, 307) is known to us through two citations, both in Euripidean scholia. In commenting on line 224 of the Andromache, the scholiast mentions that Anaxikrates discussed Trojan migrations in book 2 of his Argolika. Among these survivors, he included Skamandrios, the illegitimate son of Hektor, a second, older, son of Hektor, AENEAS, Anchises, and Anchises’ servant Aigestas. The note accompanying line 19 of Medea reports that Anaxicrates recorded the name “Glauke” for the daughter of Kreon (of Corinth) whom Jason married. The Euripidean scholia were compiled by Didymos in the second half of the first century BCE; consequently, Schwartz places Anaxikrates in the late third century BCE. Mori places Anaxikrates in the fourth century BCE based on the popularity of prose investigations into Hektor’s descendants in that era.

Schmitthenner discusses at length whether our Anaxikrates is also the author of a periplous of the Red Sea and whether the author of the periplous was also any of the various men named Anaxikrates associated with SELEUKOS I NIKATOR. SEE ALSO:

Troy.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Montanari, F. (2006, 2017) “Didymus.” In H. Cancik and H. Schneider, eds., Brill’s New Pauly, Antiquity. Brill Online. Mori, A. (2010, 2017) “Anaxikrates (307).” In I. Worthington, ed., Brill’s New Jacoby. Brill Online. Schmitthenner, W. (1974) “Anaxikrates.” In A. Pauly, G. Wissowa, and W. Kroll, eds., Realencyclopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft 14: 44–7. Stuttgart. Schwartz, E. (1894) “Anaxikrates.” In A. Pauly, G. Wissowa, and W. Kroll, eds., Realencyclopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft 1.2: 2082– 3. Stuttgart. Smith, P. M. (1981) “Aineiadai as Patrons of Iliad XX and the Homeric Hymn to Aphrodite.” Harvard Studies in Classical Philology 85: 17–58 (esp. 53–8).

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, and Andrew Erskine. © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Published 2017 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah30594

1

Anaxilaos of Larissa CRISTINA VIANO

Anaxilaos, born at LARISSA in THESSALY, is known as a Neopythagorean. Jerome reports in his chronicles that in 28 BCE “Anaxilaos of Larissa, Pythagorean and magician, was banned from Rome and Italy by Augustus” (Helm 1956: 163), probably at the same time as the banishment of magicians took place. He is the author of the lost works Phusika (Physics), Paignia (Trifles), and Baphika (Tintings). He is mentioned several times by Pliny the Elder, who also assigns to him scientific discoveries, such as the fireproof and soundproof properties of asbestos (19.19¼fr. 1 Welmann), and the feats and effects of magic, such as making the heads of horses appear by placing the plant called “hippomane” into a lamp (33.141¼fr. 3 Welmann). In the Pap. Holm. (230–50 CE) (1.12–14, Halleux 1981: 110), one Anaxilaos grants to “Democritus” a recipe for making silver from COPPER; more precisely, one of the stages of this procedure, which comes before the combination with the silver, consists of the making of cement (salt–alum–vinegar), which is melted with the copper and then dipped into the salted water. From this testimony, Anaxilaos of Larissa has been considered as one of the most important witnesses on Pseudo-Democritus, identified by Welmann as Bolos of MENDES

(ca. 250–115 BCE), and as one of the most important intermediaries in the transmission of the Pseudo-Democritean corpus (cf. Halleux 1981: 72). The identification of Anaxilaos of Larissa with the recipient of the pseudo-epigraphic Letter 19:f from Diogenes the Cynic (Welmann 1928: 3) is controversial. As well as his identification with the Anaxilaos mentioned by DIOGENES LAERTIUS (1.107), who would have maintained that Myson the sage was Arcadian, he was also identified with the “Anaxilaı¨des,” author of a Peri philosophon, cited by Diogenes Laertius (3.2) regarding PLATO. SEE ALSO: Pliny the Elder (Gaius Plinius Secundus).

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Halleux, R. (1981) Alchimistes grecs I. Papyrus de Leyde, Papyrus de Stockholm, Fragments de recettes. Paris. Helm, R., ed. (1956) Die Chronik des Hieronymus. Berlin. Keyser, P. and Irby-Massey, G., eds. (2002) Greek science of the Hellenistic era: a sourcebook: 241. New York. Kroll, W. (1935) “Anaxilaos (5).” RE Suppl. VI, col. 5–7. Stuttgart. Welmann, M. (1928) “Die Phusika des Bolos Democritos und der Magier Anaxilaos aus Larissa.” Abhandlungen der Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften: Philosophisch-historische Klasse 7: esp. 77–80 for the fragments. Berlin.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print page 408. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah21022

1

Anaxilaos of Rhegion STEFANIA DE VIDO

Anaxilaos was tyrant of RHEGION, a Greek colony of Chalcidian origin at the southernmost tip of Italy. Conflict existed in the city between the demos and the ancient aristocracy, and between the Chalcidian population and the colonists from Greek Messenia. In this situation Anaxilaos, probably a Messenian hegemon (Strabo 6.1.6), took power as tyrant in 494 BCE (Hdt. 6.23.2; Diod. Sic. 11.48.2). He understood the importance of control over the Strait of Messina (the narrow passage between the eastern tip of Sicily and the southern tip of Calabria), and in particular over the Greek colony of Zankle (on the Sicilian coast), which had fallen under the influence of the Geloan tyrant Hippokrates (see HIPPOKRATES, SICILIAN TYRANT). Anaxilaos stressed his Messenian origin. Around 490, with the help of some Peloponnesians and a force of mercenaries, he expelled the Samians who had settled in Zankle and founded there as OIKISTES a new Messene (Messana) (see MESSANA). Two epigraphic documents from Olympia dated to the first decade of the fifth century can be linked to this conquest, a shin guard and a Corinthian helmet bearing a dedication by Rheginoi for a victory against the Geloans. Attempting to assert the autonomy of the Messenians from the Chalcidians of the west, Anaxilaos instituted worship and ritual practices to emphasize the link with Rhegion. Doubts remain about the attribution to Anaxilaos of coins with the types of the lion’s head and calf ’s head; what is certain is that the

new city had an important mint that issued coins with the same types as Rhegion (the only difference being in the legend). Rhegion and its tyrant grew in fame and power. Using Messenian troops, Anaxilaos organized campaigns against Locri (see the epigraphic documents in Olympia). In 484 or 480 he achieved victory in the Olympic competition of chariots drawn by mules, celebrated by the poet SIMONIDES of Keos, and by a silver coin series minted according to the Euboean-Attic standard with an image of the chariot victor on the reverse and a hare on the obverse. While the “Kingdom of the Strait” was at the height of its power, Anaxilaos established an alliance with Terillos, the tyrant of HIMERA driven from his city by Theron of Akragas. In 480 the Carthaginian Hamilcar, chief of a large army (many mercenaries were paid using Rhegion’s silver), landed in Sicily with the help of Anaxilaos and Terillos. They were defeated at Himera by Theron and Gelon of Syracuse (Hdt. 7.165), the new leader of the Greek part of the island. Anaxilaos lost autonomy and power, and died in 476. SEE ALSO: Gelon, Sicilian tyrant; Magna Graecia; Theron, tyrant of Akragas; Tyranny.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Cacciamo Caltabiano, M. (1993) La monetazione di Messana con le emissioni di Rhegion nell’eta` della tirannide. Berlin. Luraghi, N. (1994) Tirannidi arcaiche in Sicilia e Magna Grecia. Florence. Vallet, G. (1958) Rhe´gion et Zancle. Paris. Various Authors (1987) Lo stretto crocevia di culture. Atti del XXVI Convegno di Studi sulla Magna Grecia. Naples.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 408–409. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah04029

1

Anaximander of Miletos BILL MANLEY

Anaximander (ca. 610–540 BCE) is a critical figure at the dawn of Greek philosophy, credited as the author of the first surviving lines of western metaphysics and logic. Although his own work, On Nature, has not survived, it was frequently summarized or quoted by other philosophers, including Aristotle. Anaximander, son of Praxiades, was born in MILETOS as a near contemporary of Thales. In accordance with the philosophical tradition of his town, Anaximander posited a principle (arche¯) which is the origin of all things, but argued that the principle itself cannot be a “thing,” such as water or air; rather, it is apeiron (“indefinite” or “inextricable”). Because the principle exists before all things and encompasses all things, and because all things must eventually return to it, so the principle cannot be limited as one thing, even one of the elements. Indeed, the elements exist as opposites (air/cold, water/moist, fire/hot, etc.), so for any one of them to be the principle would negate the possibility of the others (Arist. Ph. 203b). Anaximander’s logical position may be compared to ancient accounts from elsewhere. For example, apeiron is analogous to the Egyptian belief that forms and actions come into being out of fluid, unbounded nu¯n (“potential”).

Like nu¯n, Anaximander’s principle is divine because it is uncreated, undying, unchanging, and its own cause can only be the awareness or will of God. Such analogies allow the possibility that early Greek philosophy was not a purely indigenous creation but developed in a world of ideas with which the son of Praxiades was familiar. Anaximander is also credited with inscribing the first map of the world (Agathem. I.i), and with speculations on the origins of life and the form of the cosmos. For example, he determined that the earth rests unsupported because it is equidistant from all other bodies, while the celestial bodies orbit the earth in concentric “wheels” of fire. According to Diogenes Laertius (2.2), Anaximander was sixty-four during the fifty-eighth Olympiad (547/6), but died soon afterwards. SEE ALSO:

Philosophy, Classical Greece.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Barnes, J. (1987) Early Greek philosophy. London. Couprie, D. L., Hahn, R., and Naddaf, G. (2003) Anaximander in context. Albany. Guthrie, W. K. C. (1985) A history of Greek philosophy, vol. 1: The earlier Presocratics and the Pythagoreans. London. Kirk, G. S., Raven, J. E., and Schofield, M. (1995) The Presocratic philosophers. Cambridge.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 409–410. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah02020

1

Anaximander the Younger CHARLES GOLDBERG

We know next to nothing about the life and career of Anaximander the Younger (Die Fragmente der griechischen Historiker, 9), and very little more about the work he produced. Testimony from the SUDA (s.v. Anaximandros Anaximandrou) and XENOPHON (Symposium 3.6) present contrasting claims about the dates of his life, with the former stating that he flourished in the early fourth century BCE, and the latter the middle to late fifth, but these do not necessarily conflict and likely describe the beginning and end of his career. The same passage from Xenophon suggests that part of his career was spent in Athens.

Anaximander’s work survives in four scanty fragments from ATHENAEUS OF NAUKRATIS and Pliny the Elder, among others. From these, only an impressionistic portrait of his writing emerges. He wrote in an old-fashioned Ionic dialect, and was interested in the writings of the Pythagoreans and the works of Homer. He also was the author of a Heroologia, a work which elaborated upon mythological stories. SEE ALSO:

Ionia.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Fowler, R. L. (2000). Early Greek mythography, 2 vols. Oxford. Węcowski, M. (2016). “Anaximander the younger (9).” In I. Worthington, ed., Brill’s New Jacoby. Brill Online.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, and Andrew Erskine. © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Published 2017 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah30555

1

Anaximenes of Lampsakos CHARLES GOLDBERG

Anaximenes the son of Aristokles of Lampsakos (Die Fragmente der griechischen Historiker, 72) was an ancient Greek orator and historian who lived in the fourth century BCE. He was a student of Diogenes the Cynic and of Zoilos the grammarian, and later had his own school of rhetoric. He was invited by Philip II of Macedon to the royal court at Pella, where he was a contemporary of Aristotle and the rhetorician Theopompus. He later accompanied ALEXANDER III, THE GREAT, on his conquest of Asia, and became revered by Lampsakos, his home town in the Troad of Asia Minor, for interceding with Alexander on their behalf in the course of the invasion. A statue was erected in his honor at Olympia (Pausanias, Description of Greece 6.18.2–6). Anaximenes was a wide-ranging author, though he was sometimes ridiculed as being unskilled. In the field of history, he wrote works on both Philip II and Alexander, as well as a

universal history of Greece which began with the birth of the gods and ended with the Battle of Mantinea in 362 BCE. He was an accomplished orator and rhetorician, and most scholars agree that he was the author of the Rhetorica ad Alexandrum (cf. Quint. Inst. 3.4.9), at times mistaken for a work of Aristotle. This is the only work of his to survive to the present in its entirety; his remaining corpus is known only through fragments, of which there are many. SEE ALSO:

Historiography, Greek and Roman; Rhetoric, Greek; Rhetorical history.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Green, P. (1992) Alexander of Macedon, 356–323 B.C. Berkeley. Heckel, W. (2006) Who’s who in the age of Alexander the Great. Malden, MA. Pearson, L. (1960) The lost histories of Alexander the Great. New York. Williams, M.F. (2013, 2016) “Anaximenes of Lampsakos (72).” In I. Worthington, ed., Brill’s New Jacoby. Brill Online.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, and Andrew Erskine. © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Published 2017 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah30576

1

Anaxis of Boiotia CHARLES GOLDBERG

Nothing is known about the life of Anaxis (Die Fragmente der griechischen Historiker, 67), save that he was from Boiotia. The sole primary source reference to him comes from the Argonautika of DIODORUS OF SICILY (4.262), who mentions him in the same breath as another obscure Hellenistic historian, Dionysodoros Boiotos (Die Fragmente der griechischen Historiker, 68). According to Diodorus, both of these authors concluded their histories with the events of the year 361/0, evidently describing the aftermath of the battle of MANTINEA. There are no known fragments of Anaxis’ work. Modern historians have speculated widely regarding his biographical details, his purported relationship to Dionysodoros, and the nature of his history, but little can be stated with confidence. Since his history ended with

the aftermath of Mantinea, it seems likely that it was a variety of Hellenika, a genre which aimed to provide explanations for the contemporary political context following the PELOPONNESIAN WAR. Since this style of historical writing was popular only through the rise of PHILIP II OF MACEDON in the late fourth century BCE, he might be dated to the middle part of that century (Engels 2008; 2016). The only certain terminus ante quem, however, is Diodorus, who wrote in the first century BCE. SEE ALSO:

Historiography, Greek and Roman.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Engels, J. (2008, 2016) “Dionysodoros Boiotos (68).” In I. Worthington, ed., Brill’s New Jacoby. Brill Online. Stronk, J. P. (2007, 2016) “Anaxis of Boiotia (67).” In I. Worthington, ed., Brill’s New Jacoby. Brill Online.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, and Andrew Erskine. © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Published 2017 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah30577

1

Ancestors, worship of UWE WALTER

Venerating the memory of the ancestors (prόgοnοi, patέreς – maiores) in the sphere of home and family is a significant feature of Greek and Roman aristocracies. It makes sense to assign this form of memory solely to the sociopolitical sphere, and thereby separate it from the religious institutions and rituals that served to remedy any spiritual contamination caused by death, to pacify the dead, and to prevent the dead from becoming a harmful presence among the living (see FERALIA; LARES; LEMURIA; MANES, DI MANES; PARENTALIA). A further topic in its own right is the generalizing reference to ancestors of a whole community, whose bearings and achievements were often presented as an inspiring example, or served to support a political argument (see MOS MAIORUM; PATRIOS POLITEIA). Both cases focus either on the dead in general or at least on an unspecified larger group of exemplary men. Special attention was given to founders of cities, who were often venerated cultically as a kind of father (heros ktistes). In contrast, aristocratic veneration of ancestors always refers to individuals with a fixed and identifiable place on the family tree, be they real or fictive. Through ritualized acts, but foremost through consolidated memory, the deceased was made an ancestor, and thereby augmented the family’s symbolic capital. This explains aristocratic efforts to achieve widest possible public notice. Before engaging in fighting, Homeric heroes boast of their ancestry, citing between two and eight generations of ancestors (e.g., Il. 6.145–211). Yet little is known about any media (such as family archives, stemmata, or portraits) that would have been able to corroborate these genealogical claims. There also were no clan-based associations that could have served to support them. To claim descent from important local or Homeric heroes, and thence from the gods, was more common than

building an unbroken lineage of generations up to the present time. Only a small number of aristocratic oikoi, such as the ALKMAIONIDAI, managed to achieve political prominence over a considerable time; their genealogies probably were partly the results of literary (re-) constructions (for the Philaids, see, e.g., Pherec. FGrH 3 F 2). Although the significance of the clan (gens) for the Roman aristocracy is disputed (Smith 2006), there is no doubt that ancestors were a prominent feature of Roman culture in around 300 BCE and that the image of the past was structured along familial and genealogical lines (see Blo¨sel 2003). Portraits of the most successful ancestors modeled in wax (see IMAGINES) were kept in cabinets that hung in the atrium of the family home. At an imposing funeral procession (pompa funebris), these portraits represented every notable officeholder of the family as if he were alive, and were designed to admit the deceased into this

Figure 1 Statue of Togato Barberini. Photograph © Gianni Dagli Orti/Corbis.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 410–411. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah22012

2 prestigious circle (see Polyb. 6.53–54, 3; Flower 1996). Ancestors also featured prominently in the funeral oration (see LAUDATIO FUNEBRIS) at the forum and as an element of the family grave outside the town gates. In this ensemble, the individuality of the ancestor was of little significance. More important were the name, position within the genealogy, and the deceased’s accomplishments and offices held. If more information needed to be given about the family’s past – if, for example, it were the subject of a historiographical study – it made good sense to assume that the behavior and accomplishments of its most prestigious members epitomized the family as a whole (Walter 2004). SEE ALSO: Death (ancient Near East); Genealogy (Greece); Hero cult.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Blo¨sel, W. (2003) “Die memoria der gentes als Ru¨ckgrat der kollektiven Erinnerung im republikanischen Rom.” In U. Eigler et al., eds., Formen ro¨mischer Geschichtsschreibung von den Anfa¨ngen bis Livius: 53–72. Darmstadt. Flower, H. I. (1996) Ancestor masks and aristocratic power in Roman culture. Oxford. Smith, C. J. (2006) The Roman clan: the gens from ancient ideology to modern anthropology. Cambridge. Walter, U. (2004) “Ein Ebenbild des Vaters: Wiederholungen in der historiographischen Traditionsbildung.” Hermes 132: 406–25.

1

Ancestral deities CARLA M. ANTONACCIO

The Greek expression theoi patrioi (Latin patrii di) may be rendered “ancestral gods,” or perhaps “gods of our fathers,” though patrios can also mean traditional, especially venerable because of their worship by forefathers. The epithet patroios is applied especially to the gods Apollo and Zeus, and there was a temple and cult of Apollo Patroös at Athens (Hedrick 1988). Ritual practice may also be called ancestral or traditional, without being further described (cf. Roman patrii mores ritusque). The Roman patrii di included the di penates publici as well as the household lares and penates. Among both Greeks and Romans, ancestral deities were defined in contradistinction to newer or foreign deities. Ancestral deities defined more broadly include progenitors of families, communities, tribes, or dynasties, and deities that embody or protect the household and/or larger group. Among these, the Greek Tritopatores or Tritopatreis, attested in Athens, Delos, Selinous, Cyrene, and Troizen, are interpreted as an ancestral collective, “forefathers of the third degree,” located in time prior to personal memory. In Athens they are also connected with marriage and fertility, with a prominent sanctuary located at a main crossroads within the Kerameikos cemetery. At Selinous they are associated with purification rituals (Stroszeck 2010). Their origins may be traced to the Bronze Age and a Linear B tablet from Pylos (Tn 316), mentioning the ti-ri-se-ro-e (Greek trisheros, “thrice hero”) connected with the ruling figure of the WANAX. There is no Greek equivalent for the well-known elite Roman veneration of family ANCESTORS (cf. the PARENTALIA), but heroic genealogies provided frames of reference for both families and Greek communities, something shared by the Romans and the Etruscans as well. Heroes in this sphere function as mythical progenitors who are semi-divine, the offspring of immortals and

mortals. Apollo, whose oracle at Delphi sanctioned colonial foundations, and heroes alike shared the epithet archegetes, or “leader,” reflecting their role in colonization, and thus as progenitors of new cities. The nominally historical colonial founder (ktistes, oikistes – also sometimes used of a god), an individual who was revered as a hero after death, was a special category, but did not stand at the head of a genealogy per se. HESTIA (Roman Vesta (see VESTA AND VESTALS)), goddess of the hearth, and ZEUS Herkios, guardian of the integrity of the household, are examples of deities who may in this aspect be regarded as ancestral. The oft-cited ancestral connotations of LARES and Penates (see PENATES, DI PENATES) and their location in and protective function of the Roman household, among other domains, are related. Finally, myths that relate the origins of humanity (and of all creation) include ancestral deities such as the Titan Prometheus (see PROMETHEUS AND PROMETHEIA), who fashioned human beings from clay and gave them fire; and Deukalion (son of Prometheus) and Pyrrha (daughter of Prometheus’ brother Epimetheus), who after a flood (re)establish humankind. These stories are related to older flood narratives originating in the Near East. SEE ALSO:

Flood stories, ancient Near East; Funerary cult, Greek; Funerary cult, Roman; Hero cult.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Fentress, E. (1978) “Dii Mauri and di patrii.” Latomus 37: 507–16. Hedrick, C. (1988) “The temple and cult of Apollo Patroos in Athens.” American Journal of Archaeology 92: 185–210. Stroszeck, J. (2010) “Das Heiligtum der Tritopatores im Kerameikos von Athen.” In H. Frielinghaus and J. Stroszeck, eds., Neue Forschungen zu griechischen Städten und Heiligtümern: 55–83. Münster.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner. © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Published 2016 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah30113

1

Anchisteia CYNTHIA PATTERSON

Anchisteia is shorthand for anchisteia tou geneos, the Athenian expression for close kinship as defined in Athenian law. PLATO at Laws 924d considers anchisteia tou genous the first criterion for selecting a husband for an heiress, while at Antigone 174 SOPHOCLES’ Creon claims that he holds power because of “closeness of kinship” with the sons of Oedipus. As the latter example reveals, the Athenian concept of kinship was bilateral, extending to maternal as well as paternal relatives, since Creon was the brother of Oedipus’ mother/wife Jocasta. The clearest, although not entirely unproblematic, description of the extent and structure of the anchisteia is found in ISAEUS’ speech “On the estate of Hagnias,” a fourth-century BCE inheritance case that persisted over several generations. The speaker (Isaeus’ client, a certain Theopompus) opens with a quotation of the law on inheritance in the event that there is no direct heir: The law has given the right of inheritance first to brother and nephews provided they are on the father’s side; for they are related to the deceased in the nearest degree. In default of these, the law next names sisters by the same father and their issue. If these fail, it gives the right of succession as next-of-kin (anchisteia) to the third degree, namely, the cousins on the father’s side including their children. If this degree is also lacking, the law goes back and gives the succession to the relatives of the deceased on his mother’s side on the same principles as originally regulated the rights of inheritance by the relatives on the father’s side” (Forster 1927).

for example, in another of Isaeus’ speeches the speaker asserts that the law establishes that “to the bastard there is no anchisteia” (Isaeus 6.47). This identification of the “closest family” had significance in Athens beyond issues of inheritance, most notably in determining who was responsible for the prosecution of homicide and for carrying out the rituals of burial. The Athenian law on homicide, attributed to the late seventh-century lawgiver Draco and reinscribed at the end of the fifth century, provided that if a man killed without premeditation, he might be pardoned by the victim’s relatives: first, father, brothers, or sons, and if these are not alive then by male relatives as far as the cousin’s son. The same group, in the same sequence, is responsible for making proclamation in the AGORA against the murderer and, together with sons-in-law and fathersin-law and PHRATRY members, for the prosecution itself. A law attributed to the more genuinely historical early sixth-century lawgiver SOLON (and quoted in a speech written for another member of the family of Hagnias) details the rules for funerals, including the following: And no woman less than sixty years of age shall be permitted to enter the chamber of the deceased, or to follow the deceased when he is carried to the tomb, except those who are within the degree of children of cousins (Demosthenes 43.62, trans. Murray).

Thus, we can see in the legal family or kindred defined by the rules of anchisteia tou geneos both the character of the Athenian family and its important place in Athenian society. SEE ALSO:

(See Patterson 1998: 83, fig. 1 for a diagram of this description.) Note that although the “subject” of the anchisteia is male, women are included, following men in each degree of succession. The term anchisteia also appears in clarifying who is excluded from inheritance;

Demosthenes, orator; Draco.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Cox, C. (1998) Household interests. Princeton. Forster, E. S., ed. and trans. (1927) Isaeus. Cambridge, MA.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 411–412. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah13017

2 Harrison, A. R. W. (1968) The law of Athens, vol. I: The family and property. Oxford. Humphreys, S. C. (1993) The family, women and death, 2nd ed. Ann Arbor.

Patterson, C. B. (1998) The family in Greek history. Cambridge, MA. Todd, S. (1993) The shape of Athenian law. Oxford.

1

Anchisteia CYNTHIA PATTERSON

Emory University, USA

Anchisteia is shorthand for anchisteia tou geneos/genous, the ancient Athenian expression for close kinship and family relationship. PLATO at Laws 924d considers anchisteia tou genous the first criterion for selecting a husband for an heiress, while at Antigone 174 SOPHOCLES’ Creon claims that he holds power because of “closeness of kinship” with the sons of OEDIPUS. As the latter example reveals, the Athenian concept of kinship was bilateral, extending to maternal as well as paternal relatives, since Creon was the brother of Oedipus’ mother/wife Jocasta. The clearest, although not entirely unproblematic, description of the extent and legal structure of Athenian kinship is found in ISAEUS’ speech “On the estate of Hagnias,” a fourth-century BCE inheritance case that persisted over several generations. The speaker (Isaeus’ client, a certain Theopompos) opens by citing the law on inheritance in the event that there is no direct heir: The law has given the right of inheritance first to brother and nephews provided they are on the father’s side; for they are related to the deceased in the nearest degree. In default of these, the law next names sisters by the same father and their issue. If these fail, it gives the right of succession as nextof-kin (or anchisteia) to the third degree, namely, the cousins on the father’s side including their children. If this degree is also lacking, the law goes back and gives the succession to the relatives of the deceased on his mother’s side on the same principles as originally regulated the rights of inheritance by the relatives on the father’s side (Isaeus 6.2, trans. Forster).

See Patterson 1998: 83, fig. 1 for a possible diagram of this sequence; and Humphreys 2018: 38, Table 1.1 for an anthropological analysis of the kinship structure. Note that although

the “subject” (“ego”) of the kinship structure is male, females are included in the relationship of anchisteia tou genous, following the male heirs in each degree of succession. The term anchisteia also appears in phrases delineating who is excluded from inheritance; for example, in another of Isaeus’ speeches the speaker asserts that the law establishes that “to the bastard both male and female there is no anchisteia” (Isaeus 6.47). This structure of who could be considered “closest family” had significance in Athens beyond issues of inheritance, most notably in determining who was responsible for the prosecution of homicide and for carrying out the rituals of burial. The Athenian law on homicide, attributed to the late seventh-century lawgiver DRACO and reinscribed at the end of the fifth century, provided that if a man killed without premeditation, he might be pardoned by the victim’s relatives: first, father, brothers, or sons, and if these are not alive then by male relatives as far as the cousin’s son. The same group, in the same sequence, is responsible for making proclamation in the AGORA against the murderer and, together with sons-in-law and fathers-in-law and PHRATRY members, for the prosecution itself. A law attributed to the more genuinely historical early sixth-century lawgiver SOLON (and quoted in a speech written by DEMOSTHENES for another member of the family of Hagnias) details the rules for funerals, including the following: And no woman less than sixty years of age shall be permitted to enter the chamber of the deceased, or to follow the deceased when he is carried to the tomb, except those who are within the degree of children of cousins (Demosthenes 43.62, trans. Murray).

Thus, the Athenian term anchisteia tou geneos illuminates both the character of the Athenian family and the family’s central place in Athenian society. SEE ALSO: Family, Greek and Roman; Kinship; Law, Athenian; Oikos (family).

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History. Edited by Andrew Erskine, David B. Hollander, and Arietta Papaconstantinou. © 2022 John Wiley & Sons Ltd. Published 2022 by John Wiley & Sons Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah13017.pub2

2 REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Cox, C. (1998) Household interests property, marriage strategies, and family dynamics in ancient Athens. Princeton. Harrison, A. R. W. (1968) The law of Athens, vol. I: The family and property. Oxford. Humphreys, S. C. (1993) The family, women and death, 2nd ed. Ann Arbor.

Humphreys, S. C. (2018) Kinship in ancient Athens: an anthropological analysis. Oxford. Patterson, C. B. (1998) The family in Greek history. Cambridge, MA. Patterson, C. B. (2021) “The Athenian Family.” In J. Niels (ed.) Cambridge companion to ancient Athens: 173–87. Cambridge. Todd, S. (1993) The shape of Athenian law. Oxford.

1

Ancus Marcius GARY FORSYTHE

Ancus Marcius was the fourth of early Rome’s seven kings. His reign receives the least space in our two principal ancient accounts: LIVY (1.32–4) and DIONYSIUS OF HALICARNASSUS (Ant. Rom. 3.36–45), indicating that later Romans could find little, if anything, to assign to him. He was allegedly the grandson of Rome’s second king, POMPILIUS NUMA, through the latter’s daughter, but this is doubtless a later invention. From this supposed connection, later historians described his reign as a blending of Numa’s religiosity and Romulus’ bellicosity, resulting in Rome’s annexation of four small Latin towns between Rome and OSTIA: Politorium, Medullia, Ficana, and Tellenae. These conquests are probably unhistorical and were excogitated by later annalists to fill the historical vacuum of his reign and to fit with their assertion that Ancus had founded Ostia. Archaeology, however, shows that Ostia was not founded until the mid-fourth century BCE. Since Livy (7.17.6–9) for the year 356 BCE describes the Roman dictator C. Marcius Rutilus fighting against Etruscans in this area, Ostia was probably founded around this time with Marcius Rutilus, a very

prominent figure of the day, serving as one of the three colonial commissioners. This would neatly explain why later Romans associated Ostia’s foundation with the early king who shared Rutilus’ family name. To Ancus Marcius, later tradition also ascribed (with dubiety) settlement on the Aventine and Janiculum, Rome’s first prison (Carcer) in the Forum, and the first bridge across the Tiber, the pons sublicius, made entirely of wood and maintained by the pontiffs. SEE ALSO: Annales Maximi; Annalists, Roman; Pontifical Chronicle; Tarquinius Priscus.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Cornell, T. J. (1995) The beginnings of Rome: Italy and Rome from the Bronze Age to the Punic Wars (c. 1000–264 BC): 78–9, 120, 142, 205. London. Forsythe, G. (2005) A critical history of early Rome: from prehistory to the First Punic War: 97–9, 279. Berkeley. Hallett, J. P. (1970) “Over troubled waters: the meaning of the title Pontifex.” Transactions of the American Philological Association 101: 219–28. Meiggs, R. (1960) Roman Ostia: 16–27. Oxford. Ogilvie, R. M. (1965) A commentary on Livy books 1–5: 125–45. Oxford.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 412–413. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah10007

1

Andalusia EDUARDO FERRER-ALBELDA

Andalusia is a region of southern Iberia that, because of its geographical position, has played a very important role in communications between the Atlantic and the Mediterranean and between Europe and Africa, all of which are connected through the Strait of Gibraltar. It already played a key role in the Late Bronze Age (tenth–ninth centuries BCE), in part because of the rich mineral deposits of its mining districts, especially those of Sierra Morena. These natural resources transformed Andalusia into the El Dorado of antiquity, leading to the myth of TARTESSOS, the kingdom of Arganthonios. In reality, before the Greeks knew of the existence of Tartessos, which they considered a liminal territory on the frontier of the known world, the Phoenicians had already established colonies along the Andalusian coast. Recent absolute (carbon-14) dates place the origins of this colonization in the ninth century BCE and extend the foundation of new cities and factories into the sixth century BCE. Some of the most significant colonies would later become city-states, as was the case of Gadir, Malaca, Abdera, Sexi, Maenoba, or Baria. The leading role of Tyre in the Phoenician colonization process is reflected in the Greco-Latin tradition, and the importance of the sanctuaries dedicated to the god Melqart should also be noted. Throughout their expansion the Phoenicians developed various strategies to deal with local indigenous communities, some of which were peaceful, such as the construction of sanctuaries in order to strengthen interethnic relations, the creation of communities within indigenous settlements, and alliances with local aristocracies; but others must have been violent, as is suggested by the construction of defensive walls and ditches in some settlements. In study of the indigenous communities, the period between the eighth and sixth centuries BCE is known as the “Orientalizing

period” to signal the introduction of changes in technology (the potter’s wheel, iron), agriculture (olive, vine), urbanism, architecture, and consumption patterns. This view, however, notably simplifies complex and uneven transformations that involved a range of processes such as assimilation, acculturation, admixture, cultural hybridization, or resistance by the autochthonous communities. By the late sixth century BCE, the territory of present-day Andalusia was divided among three large heterogeneous groups with different levels of sociopolitical organization, and which were defined not so much by ethnic as by cultural criteria (language, writing, religion): the Phoenician group was formed by the coastal city-states; the Iberian group in Upper Andalusia stood out with its oppida ruled by aristocrats; the name Turdetani was introduced in the Roman period for the inhabitants of the Lower and Middle Guadalquivir valley. Greek geographers such as Strabo and Latin compilers like Pliny would later record Roman administrative policy that tended to amalgamate communities lacking a strong sense of ethnic self-awareness, such as the Turdetani, Turduli, Oretani, Bastetani, Bastuli, and Celts. In the last three decades of the third century BCE, Andalusia was occupied by CARTHAGE (237–206 BCE) and, following that city’s destruction, by Rome. The interaction with and eventual integration of this region into the two major Mediterranean powers resulted in the loss of older systems of coexistence and ushered in a new phase. REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Escacena, J. L. (2000) La arqueología protohistórica del sur de la Península Ibérica: historia de un río revuelto. Madrid. Fernández, J., Rufete, P., and García, C., eds. (1997) La Andalucía ibero-turdetana (siglos VI–IV a.C.). Huelva. López Castro, J. L. (1995) “Hispania Poena.” In Los fenicios en la Hispania romana. Barcelona. Neville, A. (2007) Mountains of silver and rivers of gold: the Phoenicians in Iberia. Oxford.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner. © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Published 2015 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah26120

1

Andocides EDWARD M. HARRIS

Andocides came from a prominent Athenian family. One of his ancestors, also named Andocides, was a treasurer of ATHENA in the sixth century; another named Charias helped the Spartans and the Alcmeonids to drive out the Peisistratids in 510 BCE (see ALKMAIONIDAI; KLEISTHENES OF ATHENS). His grandfather served as general in the Megarid and on SAMOS and was one of the envoys who negotiated peace with SPARTA in 446 (see THIRTY YEARS’ PEACE). His father Leogoras married a sister-in-law of PERIKLES’ son Xanthippos. Andocides himself appears to have been born around 440. Andocides was denounced for impiety (see ASEBEIA) during the religious hysteria of 415. He was accused of parodying the Mysteries (see ELEUSIS, MYSTERIES OF) and mutilating the HERMS, which some believed was part of an oligarchic plot against the democracy (see HETAIREIA). He avoided punishment by giving evidence against some of his associates and may have admitted his own guilt. After the decree of Isotimides banned all those convicted of impiety from entering temples and the agora, Andocides withdrew into exile. His stay on CYPRUS may have ended when he ran into trouble with the king of KITION. In 411 he persuaded the Macedonian king ARCHELAOS to export timber to the Athenian fleet on Samos and also had BRONZE and WHEAT shipped there. This support for the democratic forces drew the suspicions of the oligarchs at Athens, who had him arrested. Following his release after the overthrow of the Four Hundred (see FOUR HUNDRED, OLIGARCHS AT ATHENS), he withdrew into exile again and visited Sicily, Italy, ELIS, the HELLESPONT, IONIA, and Cyprus. After the restoration of the democracy in 403 Andocides returned to Athens under the terms of the AMNESTY. In 400/399 Kephisios accused him of violating the decree of Isotimides for

attending the Eleusinian Mysteries. Andocides successfully defended himself by arguing that the decree was no longer in effect and denying that he had committed impiety. In 387/6 Andocides was one of the ambassadors who went to Sparta to negotiate the Peace of ANTALKIDAS, which made the Greeks of Asia the subjects of the Persian King (see KING’S PEACE). On his return Kallistratos prosecuted him and Epikrates, Kratinos, and Euboulides for disobeying the orders of the assembly, making false reports, and accepting bribes. Andocides was convicted and sentenced to permanent exile. Nothing more is known about him. Four speeches are attributed to Andocides. On the Mysteries was delivered at his trial for impiety in 400/399, and On his Return was delivered to the council after the overthrow of the Four Hundred, probably in 409 or 408. Both of these speeches are thought to be genuine. On the Peace and Against Alkibiades are forgeries composed during the Hellenistic or Roman periods. There are several fragments of a speech To the Members of his Party (Pros tous hetairous) attributed to Andocides; this may also have been a forgery. SEE ALSO: Alkibiades; Democracy, Athenian; Kallistratos, Athenian politician; Orators, Attic.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Edwards, M. J. (1995) Greek orators, vol. 4: Andocides. Warminster. Gribble, D. (1997) “Rhetoric and history in [Andocides] 4, Against Alcibiades.” Classical Quarterly 45: 367–91. Harris, E. M. (2000) “The authenticity of Andokides’ De Pace.” In P. Flensted-Jensen, T. H. Nielsen, and L. Rubinstein, eds., Polis and politics: studies in ancient Greek history presented to Mogens Herman Hansen on his sixtieth birthday: 479–505. Copenhagen. MacDowell, D. M. (1962) Andocides: On the Mysteries. Oxford.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 413–414. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah04030

1

Andocides EDWARD M. HARRIS

Durham University, United Kingdom

Andocides came from a prominent Athenian family. One of his ancestors, also named Andocides, was a treasurer of ATHENA in the sixth century (IG i3 510); another named Charias helped the Spartans and the Alcmeonids to drive out the Peisistratids in 510 BCE (see ALKMAIONIDAI; HIPPIAS, SON OF PEISISTRATOS; KLEISTHENES OF ATHENS). His grandfather served as general in the Megarid and on SAMOS and was one of the envoys who negotiated peace with SPARTA in 446 (see THIRTY YEARS’ PEACE). His father Leogoras married a sister-in-law of PERIKLES’ son Xanthippos. Andocides himself appears to have been born around 440. Andocides was denounced for impiety (see ASEBEIA) during the religious hysteria of 415. He was accused of parodying the Mysteries (see ELEUSIS, MYSTERIES OF) and mutilating the HERMS, which some believed was part of an oligarchic plot against the democracy (see HETAIREIA). He avoided punishment by giving evidence against some of his associates and may have admitted his own guilt (Andoc. 1.48ff; Thuc. 6.60). After the decree of Isotimides banned all those who committed impiety from entering temples and the agora, Andocides withdrew into exile. His stay on CYPRUS may have ended when he ran into trouble with the king of KITION. In 411 he persuaded the Macedonian king ARCHELAOS to export timber to the Athenian fleet on Samos and also had BRONZE and WHEAT shipped there. This support for the democratic forces drew the suspicions of the oligarchs at Athens, who had him arrested. Following his release after the overthrow of the Four Hundred (see FOUR HUNDRED, OLIGARCHS AT ATHENS), he withdrew into exile again and visited SICILY, Italy, ELIS, the HELLESPONT, IONIA, and Cyprus. After the restoration of the democracy in 403 Andocides returned to Athens under the terms of the AMNESTY. In 400/399 Kephisios accused him of violating the decree of Isotimides for

attending the Eleusinian Mysteries and used the legal procedure of endeixis against Andocides for participating in the Mysteries. Andocides successfully defended himself by arguing that the decree was no longer in effect and denying that he had committed impiety. In 387/6 Andocides was one of the ambassadors who went to Sparta to negotiate the Peace of ANTALKIDAS, which made the Greeks of Asia the subjects of the Persian king (see KING’S PEACE). On his return KALLISTRATOS prosecuted Andocides, Epikrates, Kratinos, and Euboulides for disobeying the orders of the assembly, making false reports, and accepting bribes (Dem. 19.276–9). Andocides was convicted and sentenced to permanent exile. Nothing more is known about him. Four speeches are attributed to Andocides; with LYSIAS’s speech Against Andocides, these constitute a major source of information about his life. On the Mysteries was delivered at his trial for impiety in 400/399, and On his return was delivered to the Assembly after the overthrow of the Four Hundred, probably in 409 or 408. Both of these speeches are thought to be genuine, but the main documents inserted into On the Mysteries (77–9, 83–4, 87, 96–8) have now been shown to be forgeries. On the Peace and Against Alkibiades are forgeries composed during the Hellenistic or Roman periods. There are several fragments of a speech To the members of his party (Pros tous hetairous) attributed to Andocides; this may also have been a forgery. Andocides is numbered among the so-called canon of Attic orators (see ORATORS, ATTIC), but assessments of his style were not unanimously positive (Quint. Instit. 12.10.21). SEE ALSO:

Alkibiades (Alcibiades); Democracy,

Athenian.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Canevaro, M. and Harris, E. M. (2012) “The documents in Andocides’ On the Mysteries.” Classical Quarterly 62: 98–129.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History. Edited by Andrew Erskine, David B. Hollander, and Arietta Papaconstantinou. © 2023 John Wiley & Sons Ltd. Published 2023 by John Wiley & Sons Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah04030.pub2

2 Canevaro, M. and Harris, E. M. (2016–17) “The authenticity of the documents at Andocides’ On the Mysteries 77–79 and 83–84.” Dike 19, 20: 9–49. Dilts, M. R. and Murphy, D. J. (2018) Antiphontis et Andocides Orationes. Oxford. Edwards, M. J. (1995) Greek orators, vol. 4: Andocides. Warminster, England. Gribble, D. (1997) “Rhetoric and history in [Andocides] 4, Against Alcibiades.” Classical Quarterly 45: 367–91. Harris, E. M. (2000) “The authenticity of Andokides’ De Pace.” In P. Flensted-Jensen, T. H. Nielsen, and

L. Rubinstein, eds., Polis and politics: studies in ancient Greek history presented to Mogens Herman Hansen on his sixtieth birthday: 479–505. Copenhagen. Harris, E. M. (2022) “Major events in the recent past in assembly speeches and the authenticity of [Andocides] On the Peace.” Tekmeria 16: 19–68. MacDowell, D. M. (1962) Andocides: On the Mysteries. Oxford. Missiou, A. (1992) The subversive oratory of Andokides: politics, ideology, and decision-making in democratic Athens. Cambridge.

1

Andreas of Panormus CHARLES GOLDBERG

Andreas of Panormus (Die Fragmente der griechischen Historiker, 571) was the author of the Sikelika, a history of the poleis of SICILY written at an unknown date. The only surviving ancient reference to his work is in the Deipnosophistae of ATHENAEUS OF NAUKRATIS (14.34), written in the early third century CE. According to Athenaeus, Andreas included a description of the sambuca, a siege engine supported by two ships which resembled a harp, from which it derived its name. The sambuca was a relatively common siege engine discussed by other ancient writers, most notably POLYBIUS (Histories 8.6), and PLUTARCH (Life of Marcellus 17.1), who mention its use by MARCUS CLAUDIUS MARCELLUS in the Second Punic War against the

fortifications of SYRACUSE devised by ARCHIMEDES OF SYRACUSE .

Nothing can be stated confidently regarding the biographical details of Andreas, except that he was from Panormus, likely Sicilian Panormus given the title of his work. Our knowledge of the content of his history is likewise limited – we know only that it contained at least thirtythree books and that it discussed some aspects of siege warfare. SEE ALSO:

Historiography, Greek and Roman; Sieges and siegecraft, Classical and Hellenistic.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Champion, C. B. (2009, 2016) “Andreas of Panormus (571).” In I. Worthington, ed., Brill’s New Jacoby. Brill Online. Marsden, E. W. (1969). Greek and Roman artillery: historical development. Oxford.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, and Andrew Erskine. © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Published 2017 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah30578

1

Andrew, Acts of CAROLINE T. SCHROEDER

One of several early Christian Apocryphal Acts of the Apostles, the Acts of Andrew narrates the exploits and death of one of the disciples in the years following Jesus’ resurrection. According to the canonical Gospels, Andrew was Peter’s brother. The Acts of Andrew was popular in Antiquity. It was mentioned in a Manichaean psalmbook and by Christian authors as early as Origen. It was dismissed as heretical by church historian Eusebius. The Acts of Andrew usually refers to the late second-century Greek text also known as the Passion of Andrew and sometimes to a cluster of three documents consisting of the Passion of Andrew, the Acts of Andrew and Matthias, and the sixth-century Latin Epitome of Gregory of Tours. The dating of the Acts of Andrew and Matthias, the relationship between the three sources, and their dependence or influence upon other Apocryphal Acts of the Apostles are contested. The Passion of Andrew is attributed to two Greek philosophers. The Acts of Andrew is better understood as ancient literature than as a fully historically accurate account of Andrew’s life. It mirrors the book of Acts in the New Testament by describing the apostle’s journey through Asia Minor and Greece. His public performances of miracles and private instructions of individuals lead to mass conversions of pagans to Christianity. They also result in the persecution of his followers and his own martyrdom. The healings, resurrections, and other miracles resemble Jesus’ miracles in the Gospels. Andrew’s death on a cross also mimics Jesus. The texts differentiate Christianity from paganism by framing the apostle’s acts as more powerful than magic. As apologetic literature recounting an apostle’s amazing deeds, the texts attempt to defend the religion’s reputation before a pagan majority and to bolster support among potentially wavering converts.

The Passion of Andrew contains strong admonitions to asceticism, which are not found in the Epitome of Gregory of Tours, which primarily consists of a descriptive list of miracles. The Acts of Andrew and Matthias and the Passion of Andrew follow the genre of the ancient Greek romance novel. Fantastical adventures and interpersonal dramas keep the main characters apart; the relationship arcs provide commentary on the social order. The Acts of Andrew and Matthias supplants the Greek novel’s romantic couple with a homosocial apostle/disciple pair. Andrew travels to an uncivilized “city of cannibals” to rescue Matthias. After enduring torture and persecution, he condemns the city’s executioners to an abyss and converts the survivors. The Passion of Andrew inverts the Greek novel’s promotion of upper-class marriage as the foundation for society by focusing on a homosocial apostle/ disciple pair and an ascetic heterosexual apostle/disciple pair. Andrew converts the wife and brother of the proconsul, Aegeates, in Patras. Maximilla, the wife, becomes celibate and engages a slave to replace her in the marital bed. Christians hold meetings in her bedroom. Aegeates finally commits suicide in disgrace. His authority and status as husband, householder, and government official are undermined. The Passion of Andrew is steeped in Middle Platonism. Andrew becomes an intellectual midwife who helps Stratocles give birth to his true self. Characters engage in philosophical discussions of knowledge and the mind and express an ultimate goal of union with God through love. SEE ALSO:

John, Acts of; Paul, Acts of; Peter, Acts of; Philip, Acts of; Thomas, Acts of.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Bovon, F., Brock, A. G., and Matthews, C. R., eds. (1999) The apocryphal acts of the apostles. Cambridge, MA. Bremmer, J. N., ed. (2000) The apocryphal Acts of Andrew. Leuven.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 414–415. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah05012

2 Cooper, K. (1996) The virgin and the bride: idealized womanhood in Late Antiquity. Cambridge, MA. Elliott, J. K. (1993) “The Acts of Andrew.” In The apocryphal New Testament: a collection of apocryphal Christian literature in an English translation: 231–302. Oxford.

Levine, A.-J., ed. (2006) A feminist companion to the New Testament apocrypha. London. MacDonald, D. R. (2005) The Acts of Andrew. Santa Rosa, CA. Prieur, J.-M., ed. and trans. (1989) Acta Andreae. Turnhout.

1

Andriskos ELIZABETH KOSMETATOU

Andriskos or “Pseudo-Philip” was a pretender to the Macedonian throne (150–148 BCE). Allegedly of obscure origins, he came from Adramyttion in the Troad, bore some resemblance to the Antigonid family, and claimed to be Philip, an illegitimate son of PERSEUS, the last king of MACEDONIA, who had been presumably raised in foster care away from the royal court. After the battle of Pydna (see PYDNA, BATTLE OF) in 168 BCE and the fall of Perseus, the Romans had divided Macedonia into four separate states that paid taxes to Rome as tribute. Although this alternative to an “indemnity” was much lower than what the Macedonians had paid as taxes to their kings, factional strife among the four Macedonian republics, nostalgia for the old Antigonid monarchy, and widespread resentment at the establishment of Roman dominion in Greece fed anti-Roman and secondarily a pro-Macedonian sentiment. The additional indifference and unwillingness of the Roman Senate to maintain a stronger grip on Macedonia contributed to the creation of fertile ground for local opposition to Rome and eventual revolt. Andriskos initially approached DEMETRIOS I of Syria for assistance in assuming his inheritance, but the Seleucid king did not meet his expectations and shipped him off to Rome in chains instead (Diod. Sic. 31.40a; 32.15.1; Livy Per. 48–49; Zonaras 9.28). The Romans in turn did not take the pretender seriously and did not consider him a threat, which allowed Andriskos to escape easily from Italy and gather supporters in Miletos, Byzantion, and among Thracian chieftains. However, even in Miletos Andriskos was arrested, although Roman envoys advised his release (Diod. Sic. 32.15.3). This allowed him to organize his forces, attack Macedonia unexpectedly, sweep through the region following two victorious battles, largely owing to the absence of significant armed forces, and eventually to threaten

Thessaly, thus triggering the Fourth Macedonian War (Polyb. 36.10; 17). Reactions from both the Greek and Roman worlds came slowly: the Thessalians sought assistance from Achaia, while Rome sent P. Cornelius Scipio Nasica, then Pontifex Maximus, to negotiate a peaceful diplomatic resolution. Nasica found the situation grave enough to organize Greek troops against Andriskos, thus stopping his descent to Thessaly. A legion under the praetor P. Iuventius Thalna arrived in 149 to suffer a humiliating defeat that also cost Thalna his life and forced the Romans to settle Macedonian affairs once and for all, especially following an alliance between Andriskos and Carthage. Two legions, joined by the Pergamene fleet of ATTALOS II, under the generalship of praetor Q. Metellus, who had been given proconsular imperium, dealt a crushing defeat on Andriskos at the second battle of Pydna (148), which also marked the last appearance of the Greek phalanx in history. Andriskos fled to Thrace but was betrayed by his allies there, who sent him to Rome, where he was executed two years later after having been paraded in Metellus’ triumph. The Province of Macedonia was created following the Roman definitive settlement of affairs in Greece from 146 on, but it is unclear when exactly the relevant lex provinciae was passed for Macedonia. SEE ALSO: Asia, Roman province of; Attalos II; Macedonian wars.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Bernhardt, R. (1984) Polis und ro¨mische Herrschaft in der spa¨ten Republik (149–31 v. Chr.): 13–16. Berlin. Gruen, E. (1984) The Hellenistic world and the coming of Rome: 431–33. Berkeley. Helliesen, J. M. (1986) “Andriscus and the revolt of the Macedonians, 149–148 BC.” Ancient Macedonia 4: 307–14. Kallet-Marx, R. (1995) Hegemony to empire: the development of the Roman Imperium in the east from 148 to 62 BC : 30–7. Berkeley.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 415–416. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah09022

1

Andriskos (historian) CHARLES GOLDBERG

Andriskos (Die Fragmente der griechischen Historiker, 500), likely of NAXOS, was a fourthor third-century BCE historian whose only known work was the Naxiaka, a local history of the island. Modern reconstructions of his biographical details are based entirely on conjecture (Jacoby 1932; Jenkins 2012; 2016). The Naxiaka survives in three known fragments, the longest of which (Parthenios of Nicaea, Narrationes amoriae, 9) concerns the attempted rape of a Naxian maiden, Polykrite, by a certain Erythraian, Diognetos, in the service of the Milesians during their attempted siege of Naxos. Jenkins (2012; 2016) dates the story to the seventh century BCE. Variations

of the tale, with a different cast of characters, appear in works by THEOPHRASTUS (Politics regarding crises 18) and PLUTARCH (Mulierum virtutes 254b–f ). The remaining fragments likewise deal with early mythological history, and relate Naxos’ connections to other Cycladic islands and elsewhere in the Aegean and the mainland. SEE ALSO:

Ethnography and ancient history; Historiography, Greek and Roman.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Jacoby, F. (1923–) “Andriskos (500).” In F. Jacoby, ed., Die Fragmente der griechischen Historiker. Berlin. Jenkins, F. (2012, 2016) “Andriskos (500).” In I. Worthington, ed., Brill’s New Jacoby. Brill Online.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, and Andrew Erskine. © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Published 2017 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah30579

1

Androitas of Tenedos CHARLES GOLDBERG

Androitas of Tenedos (Die Fragmente der griechischen Historiker, 599) wrote a local history of the Sea of Marmara region entitled Circumnavigation of the Propontis. Tenedos is a small island in the northeastern part of the Aegean Sea (see AEGEAN SEA, CLASSICAL AND LATER), situated near the HELLESPONT. Beyond his name and the title of his work, nothing is known about Androitas. A sole fragment of the Circumnavigation survives in a scholion to Apollonius Rhodius’ Argonautika (2.159–60b (137.7–15 Wendel)) and describes the geographical location of a laurel tree marking a boxing match between Amykos, king of the Bebrykians, and Polydeukes (later the Roman Pollux; see CASTOR AND POLLUX), one of the Dioskouroi

(see DIOSCURI). As Cuypers (2013; 2016) notes, if the scholiast preserves Androitas’ original syntax and language, the Circumnavigation was likely written in simple, straightforward Greek. Jacoby postulated that Androitas lived in the fourth or third century BCE, but this is a simple guess. If correct, then Androitas was one of many who wrote mythological and ethnographic local history at that time. SEE ALSO:

Ethnography and ancient history; Historiography, Greek and Roman; Propontis.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Jacoby, F. (1923–) “Androitas (599).” In F. Jacoby, ed., Die Fragmente der griechischen Historiker. Berlin. Cuypers, M. (2013, 2016) “Androitas (599).” In I. Worthington, ed., Brill’s New Jacoby. Brill Online.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, and Andrew Erskine. © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Published 2017 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah30580

1

Androkles CHARLES GOLDBERG

Androkles (Die Fragmente der griechischen Historiker, 751) is the name of the author of On Cyprus, a work of uncertain genre, possibly history, ethnography, paradoxography, or a combination thereof. The only surviving passage from this work appears in the Etymologicum Magnum (738.40 s.v. sphekodeis) and gives “Kerastia” as an ancient name for CYPRUS, due to the fact that it was original inhabited by “horned men.” The name Kerastia appears in several works, including LYCOPHRON’S Alexandria (447) and Ovid’s Metamorphoses (10.222–37), the latter of which describes the practice of the Cerastae to sacrifice foreigners to Zeus Xenios (O’Bryhim 1999). There are two references in ARRIAN (Anabasis 2.22.2; Successors = Die Fragmente der griechischen Historiker 156 F 10, 6) as well as two inscriptions (SEG 30.1571; SEG 32.1318) which refer to an Androkles, king of AMATHUS.

The passages in Arrian refer to him as a compatriot of ALEXANDER THE GREAT, and the inscriptions have been dated to 330–310 BCE. Due partly to the rarity of the name “Androkles” on Cyprus, Ruiz (2007) and Hornblower (2015) have suggested that the author and Cyprian king are the same person. If so, it would parallel other examples of kingly Hellenistic writers such as Pyrrhus and Ptolemy I Soter. SEE ALSO:

Historiography, Greek and Roman; Human sacrifice, Greece and Rome.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Hornblower, S. (2015) Lykophron: Alexandra. Greek text, translation, commentary, and introduction. Oxford. O’Bryhim, S. (1999) “The Cerastae and Phoenician human sacrifice on Cyprus.” Rivista di studi fenici 27: 3–20. Ruiz, A. (2007, 2016) “Androkles (751).” In I. Worthington, ed., Brill’s New Jacoby. Brill Online.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, and Andrew Erskine. © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Published 2017 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah30581

1

Andron FREDERICK G. NAEREBOUT

In a Greek dwelling, the andron or andronitis is the men’s quarters, as opposed to the gunaikonitis, the women’s quarters. The andronitis commonly consists of a vestibule and the andron proper, a room where the male inhabitants and their guests can get together. This layout reflects the usual separation of the male and female spheres in the Greek world. Ideally, the house is seen as the women’s preserve, while men operate in the outside world. The andron is situated on the border between interior and exterior, and is the most public part of the house. It is a ground floor room that can be entered from a street or courtyard, while the women’s quarters ordinarily are situated upstairs. The andron is a place for receiving and meeting, especially for banqueting: one of its main functions is to accommodate the SYMPOSIUM. We encounter the andron in all kinds of lived-in buildings, from town houses to palaces (but many banqueting rooms at sanctuaries or other public places are architecturally comparable) (see PALACES, HELLENISTIC). Most andrones are rectangular rooms, with a

size dictated by the number of couches (klinai) they accommodate: tiny rooms with as few as three, bigger ones with five, seven, nine or even eleven klinai. There can be more than one andron in a building: the greater the number of andrones, the higher the status of the building’s occupants. SEE ALSO: Gender, Greek and Roman; Houses, housing, household formation, Greece and Rome.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Brands, G. and Hoepfner, W., eds. (1996) Basileia: Die Pala¨ste der hellenistischen Ko¨nige. Mainz am Rhein. Hoepfner, W., ed. (1999) Geschichte des Wohnens, vol. 1: 5000 v. Chr.–500 n. Chr. Vorgeschichte, Fru¨hgeschichte, Antike. Stuttgart. Hoepfner, W. and Schwandner, E.-L. (1994) Haus und Stadt im klassischen Griechenland. Munich. Leypold, C. (2008) Bankettgeba¨ude in griechischen Heiligtu¨mern. Wiesbaden. Nielsen, I. (1994) Hellenistic palaces: tradition and renewal. Aarhus. Walker, S. (1983) “Women and housing in Classical Greece: the archaeological evidence.” In A. Cameron and A. Kuhrt, eds., Images of women in Antiquity: 81–91. London.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print page 416. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah22013

1

Andron CHARLES GOLDBERG

The work of the ancient Greek historian Andron (Die Fragmente der griechischen Historiker, 360) is preserved in a single fragment in the Historiae mirabiles of Apollonios Paradoxographos. The fragment is from a work of at least four books, entitled, The sacrifices of Philippos, and discusses ornithomancy, or the taking of omens from the behavior of birds, on the Athenian acropolis. Further knowledge of Andron is based entirely on reasoned speculation. The Historiae mirabiles prefers to cite authorities from no later than the third century BCE, which might tentatively suggest the same century

as a terminus ante quem (with Jones 2010; 2016). Ornithomancy was a common topic for the ATTHIDOGRAPHERS of the fourth and third centuries BCE, but scholarly interest in omens by no means dissipated in later periods. The subject of The sacrifices of Philippos is also debated, with the Argead Philip III or the Antigonid Philip V as the most likely candidates. SEE ALSO:

Historiography, Greek and Roman.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Jones, N. F. (2010, 2016) “Andron (360).” In I. Worthington, ed., Brill’s New Jacoby. Brill Online.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, and Andrew Erskine. © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Published 2017 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah30583

1

Andron of Alexandria CHARLES GOLDBERG

Nothing is known of the biographical details of the historian Andron of Alexandria (Die Fragmente der griechischen Historiker, 246), and next to nothing is known about his work. A single fragment of his Chronicles appears in Athenaeus of Naukratis’ Deipnosophistae and highlights Alexandria’s role as an intellectual center of the Hellenistic world. The fragment discusses the expulsion of numerous philosophers, grammarians, and other intellectuals and artists from the city during the reign of PTOLEMY VIII EUERGETES II in 145 BCE. The reign of this king was marked by a bitter political dispute with his brother, Ptolemy VI Philometor, and saw the continuation of involvement by the Roman Senate in Ptolemaic Egyptian affairs. Certainty regarding any aspect of Andron of Alexandria’s writings is impossible. Athenaeus

cites both him and another fragmentary historian, Menekles of Barca (Die Fragmente der griechischen Historiker, 270), in the same fragment, and most scholars have credited Menekles as the ultimate source of Athenaeus’ knowledge. Suggestions for dating Andron range from the mid-second century BCE to the early Roman imperial period. SEE ALSO: Egypt, Ptolemaic Period; Historiography, Greek and Roman.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Fraser, P. M. (1972) Ptolemaic Alexandria, 3 vols. Oxford. Gruen, E. (1984) The Hellenistic world and the coming of Rome. Berkeley. Hashiba, Y. (2011, 2016) “Andron of Alexandria (361).” In I. Worthington, ed., Brill’s New Jacoby. Brill Online.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, and Andrew Erskine. © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Published 2017 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah30582

1

Andron of Halikarnassos CHARLES GOLDBERG

Andron of Halikarnassos (Die Fragmente der griechischen Historiker, 10) was an ancient Greek historian, possibly dating to the late fifth or early fourth centuries BCE. His multi-volume history, Sungeneiai (The kinsmen), or, more generically, The histories (FGrH 10 F 4), survives in nineteen fragments, mostly in the form of scholia on various Greco-Roman works. The kinsmen was a genealogical history of the Heroic Age which provided etiological and mythological explanations for events in the distant past. Andron’s work was well regarded in the Classical and Hellenistic periods. It was popular enough (and, evidently, long enough) to warrant the creation of an epitome summarizing its findings (FGrH 10 F 5). Two inscriptions from Halikarnassos dated to the second and first centuries BCE (SEG 36.975; SEG 28.842) praise Andron along with Herodotus and the

epic poet Panyassis as especially esteemed among Halikarnassian authors. While no ancient testimony exists to confidently date Andron, these inscriptions might tentatively suggest that he was a contemporary of the other two writers, though this is by no means certain. The subject matter of the surviving fragments, on the other hand, is indeed comparable to that of other early Classical writers like Hellanicus of Lesbos and Hippias of Elis, who flourished in the late fifth century. SEE ALSO: Genealogy; Halikarnassos; Historiography, Greek and Roman.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Fowler, R. L. (1996). “Herodotus and his contemporaries.” Journal of Hellenic Studies 116: 62–87. Fowler, R. L. (2000). Early Greek mythography, 2 vols. Oxford. Toye, D. L. (2012, 2016) “Andron of Alexandria (10).” In I. Worthington, ed., Brill’s New Jacoby. Brill Online.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, and Andrew Erskine. © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Published 2017 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah30584

1

Andron of Teos CRAIGE B. CHAMPION

Andron of Teos lived during the fourth century BCE, and he was a commander (trierarchos) in the Indian fleet of ALEXANDER THE GREAT in 326 BCE. He wrote a work titled Circumnavigation (of the Black Sea), which is known primarily from the scholia to APOLLONIUS RHODIUS’ Argonautika. His work was characterized by etiologies based on etymological speculation, mythical accounts, and rationalizing explanations of foreign words. For an example, Andron wrote about an Amazonian refugee to the court of a king in the Black Sea region, a man whom she married. The woman drank wine excessively. She was therefore called Sanape, since in the Thracian language (closely akin to the language of the Amazons, according to Andron), drunk women are called sanapai. The place where this woman resided was eventually named after her, but by corruption

the name of the polis founded there became Sinope (Scholia, Argonautika, 2.946–954c (196.15–197.15 Wendel)). Passages such as this make it understandable why the bulk of our evidence for Andron’s treatise should come from the scholiasts on Apollonius’ epic poem about Jason and the Argonauts. Andron’s career and literary output are in many respects quite similar to those of two other naval officers serving under Alexander, ANDROSTHENES OF THASOS and NEARCHOS. F. Jacoby collected Andron’s testimonia and fragments in Die Fragmente der griechischen Historiker (no. 802). SEE ALSO:

Geography; Historiography, Greek and Roman.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Cuypers, M. (2013, 2016) "Andron of Teos (802)." In I. Worthington, ed., Brill’s New Jacoby. Brill Online.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, and Andrew Erskine. © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Published 2017 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah30567

1

Androna/Andarin MARLIA MUNDELL MANGO

Androna (modern Andarin), situated between the Orontes and Euphrates rivers in northern Syria, is cited in the Antonine Itinerary as a mansio on a road linking Chalcis and Palmyra and is mentioned as a kome in an inscription of ca. sixth century. Despite its non-urban status, the densely settled site is unusually large, being one hundred and sixty ha within its outer circuit wall, apparently of Byzantine date, two of whose gates have been excavated. The shorter inner circuit wall is Roman. Androna preserves the remains of eleven churches and over fifty Greek inscriptions of the fifth–sixth centuries CE. At the center of the site, a kastron built by one Thomas (558–59), a loutron opposite built by the same man (ca. 560), and an Umayyad bath have been excavated, as have two domestic complexes, one dated to 573/4. The Byzantine bath and kastron, of basalt and brick construction, were lavishly decorated with wall paintings and imported marbles. The bath also had glass wall mosaics. A reception room in one excavated house has a figural floor mosaic. The Byzantine buildings continued in use after the Arab conquest, the bath being converted to industrial purposes, while the Umayyad bath built beside it made use of its well. The masonry of this later bath incorporated Byzantine inscribed blocks. Most of the site’s excavated pottery and glass dates between the fifth and the eighth centuries, with some material extending into the eleventh century CE. The site was said by Yakut (1225) to be abandoned. Expansion of Androna in the early Byzantine period, indicated by the construction of the outer circuit wall, has been attributed to the installation of agricultural irrigation. Six qanats have been recorded in its immediate vicinity, four of which empty into reservoirs. Excavation of two reservoirs

(61 m on a side) revealed monumental construction in limestone, with elaborate sculpture. The reservoir outside the south wall of Androna yielded material whose scientific analyses (by radiocarbon; Optically Stimulated Luminescence) produced dates that suggest it was installed in the sixth/seventh century and silted up in the Abbasid period, a chronology supported by its building style and the pottery collected in the manured cultivated area beside it. Both organic material excavated in the Byzantine bath and processing equipment (mills, troughs, vats, etc.), recorded at and near Androna, indicate that agricultural production there included wine, olive oil, wheat, barley, pigs, sheep, goats, and, perhaps, fish breeding, some of this possibly providing army rations. Study of the immediate area revealed a stylite’s column outside the north wall and, to the northwest on the Roman road, the shrine of “the Martyr Jacob” identified by an imperial boundary stone set up by Justinian (527–48) at Umm al-Jurun at the terminus of a qanatcum-reservoir system. On the basalt hill lying ca. 8 km west of Androna, a walled farmhouse at Stabl Antar (577) is surrounded by vine terracing. Ca. 20 km to the southwest of Androna at QASR IBN WARDAN stands another walled complex (561–3). SEE ALSO: Agriculture, Byzantine; Irrigation, ancient Near East; Mansiones, mutationes; Stylite (pillar saint); Villages, Byzantine.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Butler, H. C. (1920) Architecture, Section B. Northern Syria: 47–63. Syria. Publications of the Princeton University Archaeological Expeditions to Syria in 1904/5 and 1909. Leiden. Mouterde, R. and Poidebard, A. (1945) Le Limes de Chalcis. Organisation de la steppe en haute Syrie romaine. Paris. Mundell Mango, M. (2010) “Androna in Syria: questions of environment and economy.”

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 416–417. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah12012

2 In F. Daim and J. Drauschke, eds., Byzanz – das Ro¨merreich im Mittelalter. Mainz. Strube, C. (2008) “Al-Andarin/Androna: site and setting.” In K. Bartl and A. al-R. Moaz, eds., Residences, castles, settlements. Transformation

processes from Late Antiquity to early Islam in Bilad al-Sham, Proceedings of the International Conference held at Damascus, 5–9 November, 2006: 57–83.

1

Andros, history and political organization SPYRIDON MICHALEAS

Located in the northern Cyclades, between Euboea and Tenos, the island was named after Andros, its first king according to tradition. He received the island as a gift from Rhadamanthys, the king of Crete; the Andrians dedicated a statue of him at Delphi (Diod. Sic. 5.79; Paus. 10.13.3–4). Settled by Ionians ca. 1000–900 BCE, it had connections with the Thessalo-Euboean region in the Geometric period. During the seventh century BCE, the Andrians founded the colonies of Acanthos (Thuc. 4.84–5; Strabo 7.330.31; 8.31), Sane (Hdt. 8.22–4; Thuc. 4.109.3), Stagiros (Thuc. 5.6.1), and Argilos (Thuc. 4.103.3) on the peninsula of Chalcidice. During the Classical period, modern Palaiopolis was the capital city of Andros. It had an acropolis extending to the eastern side of the hill, fertile valleys and natural harbors. The agora with the civic buildings occupied the area near the coast and the cemeteries were located on the edges of the town. We hear of the Andrian Olympic champions Aristaichmos (IG VII 419.19), Hieronymos (Hdt. 9.33.2) and Prokles (Paus. 3.11.6; 6.14.13), whose statues were erected in Olympia. The island struck silver coins on the Aiginetan standard in the Archaic period, silver and bronze during the Hellenistic period, and bronze until the Roman era. Dionysos, Apollo Pythios, and their symbols were depicted on the obverse and reverse. The imperial coin production lasted from the reigns of Trajan through Geta. Apart from the imperial portraits, deities like Dionysos and Artemis Ephesia or Isis were also depicted. Dionysos was worshiped as the protector of the island (Plin. HN. 2.103). To honor him, the Andrians built a temple and a spring, from which wine was said to pour for seven days during the Theodosia (Paus. 6.26.2). Worship of Apollo (IG XII suppl. 245.14) and Zeus

(IG XII, 5 727) is confirmed by the existence of a temple in Andros town. A stele recording a proxeny decree of the fourth century BCE was erected in Apollo’s sanctuary. Athena Tauropolos and Isis were praised as earthly deities and Mithras as an almighty god. Other communal cults were those of Artemis, Aphrodite, Demeter, Hermes, Nemesis, and Nymphs. The Andrians followed the Persian king Darius I during the battle of Salamis (Hdt. 6.48–9; 8.66.2). After the end of the Persian wars the Athenians, wanting to punish them, besieged the island under Themistokles (Plut. Them. 21), but without success (Hdt. 8.108; 8.111–12; 8.121). In 479, the Andrians fought against the Persians (Hdt. 9.106 Diod. Sic. 11.37) in the battle of Plataia. The island joined the first Delian League and paid an island tax for the years 451/450 (IG I3. 262.I.19) – 416/415 (IG I3. 289.I.21). In 448/444, Athenians established a cleruchy on Andros, confiscating the best land and distributing it to 250 Athenian settlers (Plut. Per. 11.5). During the Peloponnesian War, Andros provided the Athenians ships and soldiers in 425 (Thuc. 4.42). According to Thucydides the same happened in the expedition at Sicily in 415/413 (Thuc. 4.30; 4.43; 4.96–7; 5.57.4). In 411, Andros proclaimed its freedom from the Athenians, lined up with Sparta, and supported the Four Hundred in Athens (Thuc. 8.69.3). In 408, Alkibiades attacked the Andrians at Gavrion (Xen. Hell. 1.4.21–3; Diod. Sic. 13.69) and later in Andros town. Konon (Xen. Hell. 1.5.18) and Phanosthenes (Xen. Hell. 1.5.16-18; Plut. Ion. 541; Diod. Sic. 13.74; 13.98–100) continued the battle there, but without any success. In 376, the island joined the Second Athenian Naval League (IG II2 43.B.16). Its chief official during this period was the archon (IG XII.5 715). After the battle of Chaeronea in 338 (Lycurg Leoc. 42), it came under the Macedonian rule of Philip II. At this time, Palaiopolis was fortified by strong walls and the city was developed to include an agora, bathhouses, theater, and

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 417–419. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah14348

2 temples. During the period 308–265, the island was under the authority of the Ptolemies and the Nesiotic League. From 265 it was back under Macedonian authority (Plut. Pel. 2) until 246, when Ptolemy III conquered it (Pompon. Trog. Proleg. 27). The naval battle of Andros, an important event in the Chremonidean War, was fought off its shores in 246/245. In 202, the Macedonian king Philip V reoccupied Andros and repelled an attack by the Rhodians and their allies, the king of Pergamon Attalos I and the Romans (Poll. 16.25–6; Livy 31.14). However, in 199, during the Second Macedonian War, the Romans, under the orders of Lucius Apustius and with the alliance of Attalos I, conquered Andros (Livy 31.15; 31.44–5; 31.48). The Romans granted the island to the kingdom of Pergamon (Poll. 22.7), but in 133 Attalos III, as part of the Pergamene inheritance, handed it over to the Romans. After 133, Marcus Aquilius included Andros in the Province of Asia. In 88 BCE, the island was conquered by Mithradates VI (Plut. Sull. 11). However, the Romans managed to restore their domination there (Cic. Pro lege Manilia, 13). In 41 BCE, Marcus Antonius conceded Andros to the Rhodians (App. B Civ. 5.7), then finally in 31 BCE, after the victory of Octavian at Actium, the island fell again under Roman authority. Its history during the imperial centuries is obscure.

After the establishment of Constantinople as the new capital of the eastern empire, administrative reorganization brought Andros under the Province of the Islands. Christianity arrived during this period. By the end of the sixth century CE, Andros town began to decline, and was eventually abandoned. SEE ALSO: Andros, topography and archaeology; Asia, Roman province of; Chaeronea, battle of; Colonization, Greek; Cyclades islands; Delian League; League of Islanders (Nesiotic League); Macedonian wars; Peloponnesian War; Salamis, island and battle of.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Liampi, K. (1998) “Οi nοmismatikές ekdόseiς ton Κuklάdon kai Z kuklοjοrίa tοuς.” In L. G. Mendoni and N. Margaris, eds, Κuklάdeς: Ιstοrίa tοu tοpίοu kai tοpikές istοrίeς: 208–93. Athens. Nigdelis, P. M. (1990) Pοlίteuma kai kοinonίa ton pόleon ton Κuklάdon katά tZn ellZnistikή kai autοkratοrikή epοwή. Thessaloniki. Reger, G. (2004) “Andros.” In M. H. Hansen and T. H. Nielsen, eds., An inventory of archaic and classical poleis: 736–7. Oxford. Televantou, C. A. (1996) Άndrος: Τa mnZmeίa kai tο arwaiοlοgikό mοuseίο. Athens.

1

Andros, topography and archaeology LYDIA PALAIOKRASSA-KOPITSA

Andros, the island at the northernmost edge of the CYCLADES cluster of islands, lies on the sea lane from mainland Greece-Attica and Euboea to the rest of the Cyclades and the Eastern Aegean. Its location thus ensured its strategic and commercial importance. Its prosperity was based on shipping, commerce, fishing, agriculture, animal husbandry, and apiculture. Metalworks were also prominent due to rich ore deposits. Andros, as evidenced by written sources, owes its name to its first settler Andros or Andreas, one of king Rhadamanthys’ generals. The island was initially settled during the fifth millennium BCE. The finds dating to the Late Bronze Age are few and come from the north of the island, at the sites of Mazareko, Maroniti, and Pori, with the exception of three vases from Paleopolis on the mid-west coast and Corthi on the southeast coast (Palaiokrassa in Palaiokrassa-Kopitsa 2007: 13–17). Two settlements developed on the west coast at the sites of Zagora and Hypsile, in the Geometric period, attest the importance of the island during those times. The fortified settlement at Zagora was founded in the second half of the tenth century on a rocky promontory; it flourished in the Late Geometric period and was abandoned at the end of the eighth century. Though densely populated, the settlement was well structured. In its center was found a building, probably the dwelling of the local leader; in front of it was a sanctuary, where a temple was built in the second quarter of the sixth century. The finds reveal trade contacts between the settlement and the rest of the Cyclades, Attica, Euboea, especially Eretria, and Corinth (Cambitoglou et al. 1988: 237–42). On the promontory of Hypsile a fortified settlement was founded possibly in the ninth century, flourishing in the second half of the

eighth century, at the end of which it was partly abandoned. It was deserted at the end of the sixth century. A sanctuary existed in the middle of the settlement, where a temple was built in the sixth century (Τelevantou 2009: 60–77). The importance of Andros during the seventh century is further evident by the founding of three colonies in Chalcidice and one in Thrace. In the area of the current Paleopolis the capital of the island was developed after 700 BCE. It seems that settlers from Zagora and Hypsile moved there. During the Persian wars Andros allied with the Persians and later became a member of the First and Second Athenian Leagues. The presence of the Athenians on the island is further revealed from the finds at Paleopolis. In 199 BCE the city was conquered by the allied armies of Rome and Pergamon; the island passed to Attalos I and in 133 was bequeathed to the Romans. The Roman rule lasted several centuries, with the exception of the years 88/87 BCE when the island passed under the dominion of Mithradates and the period 42–31 BCE under that of the Rhodians. In the imperial period the island enjoyed prosperity, as attested by the finds. The city of Andros extended with no specific plan over a large area, from the shore up to the Acropolis hill. The evidence derived from the finds reveals an extensive prosperous city. The topography necessitated the use of terraces, a determining factor with regard to the city’s organization. A fortification wall of the fourth century BCE protected the city, outside the limits of which cemeteries and sanctuaries were located. Inside the city area remains of public buildings (i.e., a gymnasium), sanctuaries (i.e., of Apollo Pythios), and houses are still visible (PalaiokrassaKopitsa 1996: 239 ff.). The agora developed along the seafront, in proximity to the port, which was constructed before the Classical period. Roads and buildings of the Hellenistic-Protobyzantine periods have been discovered in the agora area

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 419–422. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah14035

2

Tokeli Mikrogiali Elliniko-Choreza Pori

Ag.Marina Marmouristra Stavros Pelekitis

Fellos

Trochalia Tsouka Mazareko

Ag.Petros

Maroniti Strongili Gavrio Charakas

Rethi

Vriokastro

Chora

Ipsili

Mesaria Paleopolis

Strofilas Zagora Plaka

Korthi

Sites of the prehistoric era (to end of Bronze Age) Sites of the historic era (11th century to late Roman period) Sites to beginning of 7th century CE

Figure 1 Andros. Map drawn by Lydia Palaiokrassa-Kopitsa.

(Palaiokrassa-Kopitsa 2007: 47 ff.). According to the finds, the fifth, fourth, and second centuries BCE and the fifth century CE seem to be times of prosperity for the city. The city was abandoned at the beginning of the seventh century CE, when the inhabitants moved to the mainland for safety.

Gavrion was a port; north of it, at the site of Stavros, a fortified settlement of the Late Geometric-Classical period existed. Finds of the sixth to second centuries BCE originated from Stavropeda. Five towers of the Late Classical–Hellenistic period (Koutsoukou and Kanellopoulos 1990: 155–74) are located in

3

Figure 2 Aerial view of the agora and port area of the city of Andros (Paleopolis). Photograph by Lydia Palaiokrassa-Kopitsa.

northwest Andros (Aghios Petros, Tsouka, Aghia Marina, Tokeli, Helliniko-Choreza), possibly related to the alternating dominance on Andros of the Macedonians and the Ptolemies during the third century BCE. REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Cambitoglou, A., Birchall, A., Coulton, J. J., and Green, J. R. (1988) Zagora 2, Excavation of a Geometric Town on the Island of Andros. Athens. Koutsoukou, A. and Kanellopoulos, Chr. (1990) “Towers from North‐West Andros,” The annual of the British School at Athens 85: 155–74.

Palaiokrassa-Kopitsa, L. (1996) Palaiόpοliς Άndrοu Ι, Τa Οikοdοmikά, Apό tZn prοanaskajikή έreuna. Andros. Palaiokrassa-Kopitsa, L., ed. (2007) Palaiόpοl
Άndrοu, Eίkοsi wrόnia anaska’ikής έreunaς. Athens. Τelevantou, Chr. (2009) “Άndrος. Ιerά tZς Geometrikής kai Αrwaϊkής Εpοwής.” In D. Kyrtatas, L. Palaiokrassa-Kopitsa, and M. Tiverios, eds., Eύandrος, Tόmος eiς mnήm
n D
m
trίοu D. Pοlέm
: 51–111. Andros.

1

Androsthenes of Thasos CRAIGE B. CHAMPION

Androsthenes of Thasos lived during the fourth century BCE. Arrian (Indika, 18.3–4) calls him a Macedonian, and he took part in the eastern campaign of ALEXANDER THE GREAT, though he first appears in our sources after the expedition had reached India. After the battle at the river HYDASPES in 326, Androsthenes piloted a ship back to the Persian Gulf under the direct command of Alexander’s admiral NEARCHOS, with whom he is frequently paired in the sources. Androsthenes commissioned several exploratory expeditions in the Persian Gulf. He himself sailed around a certain portion of the Arabian peninsula (Arrian, 7.20.7). These expeditions occurred in the winters of

325/24 or 324/23 BCE. Androsthenes reported on these voyages to Alexander before the latter’s death in the summer of 323. His treatise, Sailing along the Indian coast, described the coastline of the Indian Ocean. F. Jacoby collected his rather extensive testimonia and fragments in Die Fragmente der griechischen Historiker (no. 711). After Alexander’s death, Androsthenes may have retired to his estate in AMPHIPOLIS. SEE ALSO:

Geography; Historiography, Greek and Roman; Macedonia.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Roller, D. W. (2008, 2016) "Androsthenes of Thasos (711)." In I. Worthington, ed., Brill’s New Jacoby. Brill Online.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, and Andrew Erskine. © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Published 2017 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah30568

1

Androtion PHILLIP E. HARDING

Androtion (ca. 410–340 BCE) was an Athenian politician and author from a wealthy family, which owned property in the deme Gargettos, in the Mesogaia. His father, Andron, may have been a member of the Four Hundred oligarchs who ruled ATHENS in 410/9. Androtion himself is reported to have studied under the rhetorician ISOCRATES, but corroborating evidence is lacking. He entered politics ca. 385 and served the POLIS loyally in many capacities for over forty years. He was twice a member of the council of five hundred; a commissioner for the collection of tax arrears; the governor of Arkesine on AMORGOS for two years during the Social War (358–356); and he was sent on an embassy to MAUSOLOS of CARIA in 355/4. He proposed a motion regarding sacred vessels (IG II 2 216/7) and a DECREE (PSEPHISMA) honoring the sons of the ruler of Pantikapaion in the KIMMERIAN BOSPHORUS (IG II 2 212). In 355/4 he was prosecuted on a charge of unconstitutional procedure by two personal enemies. He was acquitted, even though Demosthenes wrote one of his first political speeches (Dem. 22) for the prosecution. In 354/3 the same people involved him in another trial, for which Demosthenes also wrote a speech (Dem. 24). In this case Androtion and others involved settled out of court. He was present in Athens in 344/3, when ambassadors from the Persian king, Artaxerxes, came seeking a renewal of Athens’ friendship. What part Androtion played in the Athenian rejection of this request is unclear, but we hear no more of him and he is reputed to have ended his life in exile at MEGARA, writing his Atthis (Local Chronicle of Attica: Plutarch De exil. 605C; see ATTHIDOGRAPHERS). Despite attempts to define Androtion’s political ideology, he appears to have been a pragmatic and hard-working public servant. Two works of literature are attributed to him, both of which are fragmentary: a Farmer’s

Manual or Georgikon (FGrH 324 F 75–82), probably based on his experience on the family estate, and an Atthis, of which we have 68 fragments (FGrHist 324 F 1–68). The latter was an important and influential work, which was to some extent used as a source for the Aristotelian Athenaion Politeia and was the basis of the later Atthis of PHILOCHOROS OF ATHENS for the years 404–340. Androtion’s chronicle was eight books long. He disposed of the early period of the Athenian story in three books, more briefly than his predecessor, Kleidemos, and concentrated on contemporary history, taking the remaining five books to cover the period 404–ca. 340. The fragments reveal a patriotic, if not chauvinistic, Athenian bias – as is to be expected of a local history – balanced by a concern for accuracy and detail. He was not averse to research and clearly used documentary evidence. His work is representative of the movement towards scholarship that was underway in the fourth century, and its disappearance is a loss to history. SEE ALSO:

Aristotle, Constitution of the Athenians; Demosthenes, orator; Four Hundred, oligarchs at Athens; Social War, Classical Greece.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Harding, P. (1994) Androtion and the Atthis. Oxford. Harding, P. (2007) “Local history and Atthidography.” In J. Marincola, ed., A companion to Greek and Roman historiography: 180–8. Oxford. Harding, P. (2008) The story of Athens. London. Jacoby, F. (1949) Atthis. Oxford. Jacoby, F. (1954) Die Fragmente der griechischen Historiker, vol. 3b Suppl. 1: 85–106. Leiden (¼FGrH). Moscati Castelnuovo, L. (1980) “La carriera politica dell’attidografo Androzione:” Acme 33: 251–78. Thomas, R. (1989) Oral tradition and written record in Classical Athens. Cambridge.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 422–423. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah08009

1

Andura¯rum BRIGITTE LION

The Akkadian term andura¯rum, with its Sumerian equivalent AMAARGI, meaning “return to origin,” denotes the return of persons or property to their former status. The Laws of Hammurabi (eighteenth century BCE; see HAMMURABI OF BABYLON AND HIS DYNASTY) provide examples of andura¯rum: }117 stipulates that a free man, his spouse, or his children may not be constrained to work for their creditor for more than three years; in the fourth year their andura¯rum, meaning their restoration to freedom, must be effected. }280 concerns the case of a merchant who purchases a slave abroad and brings him back into Babylonia, where his former owner recognizes him (the slave presumably having been abducted for sale abroad); the slave’s andura¯rum, meaning his restoration to his former owner, must be effected gratis by the merchant. Andura¯rum measures were often part of royal mı¯sˇarum edicts (see MISHARUM). For instance, the mı¯sˇarum edict of Ammi-saduqa, king of BABY˙ LON (seventeenth century BCE), annuls debts between individuals that were incurred due to necessity, as well as annulling the effects of such debts: a free man who has been enslaved for debt thus obtains andura¯rum (he recovers his freedom); however, a slave sold to satisfy a debt is not the object of andura¯rum (he is not restored to his former master). While the provisions in the Laws of Hammurabi and the Edict of Ammi-saduqa ˙ affected persons, legal documents and letters show that these measures applied to property as well, in particular to real estate forfeited or sold short to extinguish a debt. Numerous documents demonstrate that, on the occasion

of royal andura¯rum edicts, a property’s original owners could recover their sold property or else obtain a supplementary payment for it. Andura¯rum measures are well known from Babylonia during the early second millennium BCE. The practice is also attested in the inscriptions of the Assyrian kings Ilusˇumma and Isˇum I, and legal records attest the implementation of andura¯rum measures in SYRIA (at HALAB (ALEPPO); ALALAH; MARI (TELL HARIRI); and TERQA). During the second half of the second millennium, such measures are known from Terqa on the middle Euphrates and from the trans-Tigridian kingdom of Arraph e (see ˘ NUZI); a similar practice existed in the Hurrianspeaking world, under the term kirenzi, as well as in the Hittite realm, where it was denoted para tarnumar. Rulers still implemented such measures, now called dura¯ru, in the NeoAssyrian period. The word (an)dura¯ru(m) is cognate to biblical Hebrew deroˆr, and in substance, andura¯rum measures resemble the biblical prescriptions for the sabbatical and jubilee years (Lev 25 and Deut 15), although the latter seem to derive from an independent tradition. SEE ALSO:

Seisachtheia.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Charpin, D. (1987) “Les de´crets royaux a` l’e´poque pale´o-babylonienne, a` propos d’un ouvrage re´cent.” Archiv fu¨r Orientforschung 34: 36–44. Charpin, D. (1990) “L’anduraˆrum a` Mari.” Mari, annales de recherches interdisciplinaires 6: 253–70. Lion, B. (1999) “L’anduraˆru a` l’e´poque me´diobabylonienne, d’apre`s les documents de Terqa, Nuzi et Arrapha.” Studies on the Civilization and Culture of Nuzi and the Hurrians 10: 313–27. Otto, E. (1998) “Soziale Restitution und Vertragsrecht.” Revue d’assyriologie 92: 126–60.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 423–424. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah24015

1

Angaria ALEXANDER PUK

The Greek term angareia was adopted from the Persian aggaros, which designated a mounted courier belonging to a system of royal messengers stationed along the main roads, which according to early Greek sources (Hdt. 8.98.2; Xen. Cyr. 8.6.17) was first established under Cyrus II in the sixth century BCE. This system seems to have been adopted by Hellenistic rulers, who made the provision of horses and the transport of public goods a compulsory service to be provided by communities and inhabitants (cf. P.Tebt. 5; IGRom. 3.1020; Joseph. AJ 13.52; Rostowzew 1906). Thus the verb angarein entered the New Testament, for example, as a term describing the action of compelling somebody to provide a service (Matt 5:41, 27:32; Mk 15:21). The situation in the republic is uncertain (Mitchell 1976: 129), but the Roman Empire likewise relied on a compulsory supply (angaria) of means of transport, sometimes granting a financial compensation. The people had to maintain postal stations, offer accommodation, or provide animals, which altogether formed part of a general public liturgy (see LITURGY, GREECE AND ROME). Therefore both the exemption from and the allocation of this service obligation as well as complaints about its

abuse became a frequent issue during the imperial period (Mitchell 1976: 111–12). Detailed official regulations (cf. AE 1976, 653) show that usually only persons on public duty such as senators, imperial couriers, or procurators were entitled to rely on this provision, yet military officials in particular seem to have carried out such requisitions too, on occasion acting without official authorization (cf. SEG 37.1186; Herrmann 1990: 43–9). Apart from free transport services the term angarium during the Late Roman Empire was also used to describe the means of transport itself (RE 1.2: 2184–5). The requisition of transport is also attested in Arab Egypt, Byzantium, and the Frankish kingdom. SEE ALSO:

Germanicus’ visit to Egypt; Mansiones, mutationes; Postal services; Transport, Roman.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Herrmann, P. (1990) Hilferufe aus ro¨mischen Provinzen: Ein Aspekt der Krise des ro¨mischen Reiches im 3. Jhdt. n. Chr. Hamburg. Mitchell, S. (1976) “Requisitioned transport in the Roman Empire: a new inscription from Pisidia.” Journal of Roman Studies 66: 106–31. Rostowzew, M. (1906) “Angariae.” Klio 6: 249–58. ¨ ber die Staatspost, die Stoffel, P. (1994) U Ochsengespanne und die requirierten Ochsengespanne. Bern.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print page 424. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah06020

1

Angels, Christian SUSAN R. GARRETT

Early Christians took over many of the ideas about angels prevalent in the cultures of the ancient Near East. Their most interesting innovations entailed application of teachings about angels to the person of Christ. The biblical idea of an angelic host parallels belief in the surrounding ancient Near Eastern cultures in an assembly of divine beings who helped the high God bring the cosmos into being and direct its course. In those other cultures, the context of such belief was a polytheistic worldview in which gods existed in hierarchies, with some functioning as greater and lesser rulers over various domains, as warriors, or as messengers. The authors of the Hebrew Bible affirmed the oneness of the creator God, YHWH (“the LORD” in many modern translations), yet also adopted some elements of the surrounding worldview, including belief in a divine court paralleling the court of the earthly king, and heavenly soldiers and messengers (angels) paralleling earthly ones (e.g., Deut 33:2–3; Ps 103:19–21). The walls separating the earthly and heavenly realms could be breached: individual angels (particularly the “angel of YHWH”) or the assembled host sometimes manifested themselves to humans (e.g., Gen 16:7–13; Ex 3:2), and prophets could be summoned to stand among the angels before God’s throne (e.g., 1 Kings 22:19). In the earlier biblical material, angels were not yet individualized; even the angel of YHWH may originally have been more of a generic functionary than a unique being. But interest in angels grew along with the rise of apocalyptic thinking in the post-exilic era, and belief in individual, named angels became prevalent (see APOCALYPSES, JEWISH). In the Hebrew Scriptures only Michael and Gabriel are named, both in the apocalyptic book of Daniel (second century BCE). First Enoch (a composite work with parts dating to the fourth century BCE) names dozens of primeval

angels, both wicked and good. Other works portray angels offering routine, sustained intervention in human life. The Septuagint book of Tobit (second century BCE or earlier) depicts Raphael coming incognito to the young man Tobias, journeying with him, arranging his marriage, exorcising a demon, and healing Tobias’ father of blindness. The pseudepigraphical Testament of Abraham (first century CE) depicts Michael and a personified Death intervening to end Abraham’s life and escort his soul to heaven. New Testament authors portray angels delivering messages (e.g., Lk 1:10–20; Matt 1:18–25) and rescuing people from danger (e.g., Acts 12:5–11), anticipate angels’ involvement in Jesus’ return and other end-time events (e.g., Matt 13:41–2; Rev 7:1–3), envision choirs of angels surrounding the throne of God (e.g., Rev 5:11; compare Dan 7:10), and assume that the righteous dead will join the angelic assembly (e.g., Heb 12:22; Rev 7:9–17). New Testament authors further presume the existence of Satan, a fallen angel with demonic hordes under his command (Mk 3:22–3 and parallels; Lk 10:18–19) (see DEMONS, JUDAISM; DEVIL/SATAN). Many beliefs about angels current today can be traced back to these few centuries of expanding angelology. The stories told in the Hebrew Bible about the angel of YHWH influenced the development of early Christology. In these stories, the narrator had often interchanged references to God and the angel as if they were identical, suggesting that the angel represents God’s being (e.g., Num 22:22–40). But as centuries passed, the angel of YHWH was increasingly viewed as separate from God. In the intertestamental era, some Jews began to identify the angel of YHWH with Michael, Gabriel, or other named angels, and to see him as head of the angelic host and chief mediator between God and humans. Meanwhile, others described certain attributes of God (such as God’s word, glory, wisdom, spirit, power, and name) using language borrowed from earlier scriptural descriptions of the angel of YHWH. Ezekiel had

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 424–426. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah05013

2 already done something like this when he described his vision of “the likeness of the glory of YHWH” in ways that hearkened back to earlier portrayals of the angel of YHWH (Ezek 1:26–8). Christians added a new layer to this pattern of interpretation, identifying the divine attributes with the preexistent and resurrected Christ. Jesus was the word, the glory, and the wisdom of God (e.g., John 1:1; 2 Cor 4:4, 6). Indeed, it was none other than Jesus whom the prophet Isaiah had envisioned upon the throne (John 12:41). For centuries Christian writers continued to presume the existence of angels and elaborate on their roles in the drama of salvation, including their relationship to Jesus. Some portrayed angels as friends of the bridegroom who led the bride (the church) to Christ (Danie´lou 1991: 51–4). This metaphor served to subordinate the angels to Christ (cf. Heb 1:4). Ideas about guardian angels assigned to each believer also developed in the early centuries of the Common Era. Some imagined that each person is assigned two guardian angels: an evil one who tempts to disobedience and a righteous one who encourages perseverance in goodness (e.g., Shepherd of Hermas, Mandate 6.2.1–10). The New Testament did not rank the angelic powers, but by early in the second century CE,

Ignatius presumed that there must be such an ordering (To the Trallians 5.2). In the sixth century, a writer billing himself as “Dionysius the Areopagite” (cf. Acts 17:34) (see DIONYSIUS THE AREOPAGITE, PSEUDO-) described an elaborate angelic hierarchy, featuring nine tiers arranged in groups of three: the seraphim, cherubim, and thrones; the dominions, powers, and authorities; the principalities, archangels, and angels. The Celestial Hierarchy by PseudoDionysius was long regarded as a first-century writing. It shaped medieval ideas about angels, including the work of Thomas Aquinas (thirteenth century). One still sees references to Pseudo-Dionysius’ angelic hierarchy in some recent Catholic (and also some New Age) writings about angels. SEE ALSO:

Angels, Jewish.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Danie´lou, J. (1991) The angels and their mission according to the fathers of the church, trans. D. Heimann. Westminster, MD. Garrett, S. R. (2008) No ordinary angel: celestial spirits and Christian claims about Jesus. New Haven. Gieschen, C. A. (1998) Angelomorphic Christology: antecedents and early evidence. Leiden.

1

Angels, Jewish RANGAR CLINE

Angels in Jewish texts are typically denoted by the Hebrew mal’ak, meaning messenger, or, as in the Septuagint and other Hellenistic texts, by the Greek term for messenger – angelos. Both terms can also refer to human messengers. This is distinct from English usage, where angel refers almost exclusively to a celestial being. Similarly, in the Latin (Vulgate) translation of the Hebrew Bible, angelus is used for heavenly messengers and nuntius for humans. Biblical texts sometimes qualify mal’ak by the addition of YHWH – or an equivalent – which makes clear that the text describes a celestial being. Less often, angelic beings are described as sons of God (be’nai ha-Elohim) as in Job, where they make up part of the heavenly court (Job 1:6, 2:1–6). The oldest references to angelic beings in the Hebrew Bible describe them as nameless, numerous beings (e.g., Gen 32:1–2, Ps 103:20) or, alternatively, as unnamed individual messengers whose identity is sometimes indistinguishable from God’s (Gen 32:24–30, 18:1–16), and whose power is said to come from bearing the “name of the Lord” (Ex 23:20–1). The so-called “angel of the Lord” appears in numerous biblical passages, such as the binding of Isaac (Gen 22:11–18) and the meeting with Manoah, where the angel refuses to reveal his name, describing it as “too wonderful” (Judg 13:17–18, cf. Gen 32:36). The reluctance of angels to reveal their names in older biblical passages is unlike Daniel (second entury BCE), which names Michael and Gabriel and describes them as princes who do battle against the Prince of Persia (Dan 10:13–14, 20–1). Daniel is the only book of the Hebrew Bible to name angelic beings and is thus similar to other works of the Second Temple Period. For example, the archangel Raphael plays a central role in Tobit (second century BCE), and Prince Mastema assumes responsibility for some of God’s actions (such as hardening Pharaoh’s

heart) in the Book of Jubilees (second century BCE). An interest in the origins of angels is characteristic of Jewish works of the Second Temple Period, most notably 1 Enoch, compiled between third century BCE and first century CE. 1 Enoch narrates the patriarch Enoch’s visions of the different areas of heaven and hell, noting in detail the angels that are in charge of various areas. The oldest section of 1 Enoch – the Book of the Watchers (ca. third to second century BCE) – describes the hierarchies of angels, states the names and roles of seven archangels, provides an account of the fallen angels, and attributes the origins of a number of human evils to the machinations of these fallen angels, most notably Azazel. The notation of the angels with authority over various parts of heaven is typical of Hellenistic and later Hebrew hekhalot (palaces)/ merkabah (divine throne-chariot) texts, such as 3 Enoch (fifth–sixth century CE), which describes the function of Enoch-Metatron. The focus on the merkabah and associated angelic beings has its earliest precedent in Ezekiel (1:4–26; sixth century BCE), which describes a vision of the divine throne-chariot and the four living creatures (h: ayot) that accompany it. Ezekiel’s second vision of the divine throne-chariot (10:1–22) identifies the h: ayot as cherubim. Ezekiel’s visions describe the cherubim/h: ayot as being of human form, with feet like a calf, with four wings (under which are human hands), and four faces (of a human, lion, eagle, and ox/cherub). While the cherubim are often considered a class of angelic being in later ascent texts (1 Enoch 71:7–8), they are not described as mal’akim in the Hebrew Bible, and their role in Ezekiel is that of a guardian of the throne, not a messenger per se. The cherubim’s role as guardians in Ezekiel is similar to that in Genesis 3:24, where they guard the way to the tree of life. Thus, strictly speaking, the cherubim are distinct from the angels (mal’akim, angeloi) of God, whose purpose is to communicate between God and mortals. Similarly, the seraphim, as described in Isaiah’s vision of the

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 426–428. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah11013

2 divine throne (Isa 6:1–13), are not called messengers of God, although later Jewish texts likewise understood them to be an angelic order. The seraphim, whom Isaiah describes as having six wings (two to cover their faces, two to cover their feet, and two with which to fly) accompany the divine throne, announce the holiness of the Lord of hosts (YHWH Sabaoth), and purify Isaiah’s lips with a live coal (Isa 6:2–8). 1 Enoch (71:7) describes the seraphim, along with the cherubim and ophanim, as being sleepless guardians of the divine throne. The reasons for the development of a more complex angelology in the Second Temple Period are not clear. However, exposure to Persian and Babylonian cultures during the Exile and afterwards may partially account for the development of an angelic hierarchy and named archangels. Saul Olyan (1993) has also demonstrated that inner-biblical interpretation and exegesis played a role in the elaboration of ideas about particular angels and the angelic host. For example, angels whose identities may have originally been anonymous, such as the angel of the Lord (Gen. 22:11,15 et passim), the destroying angel (2 Sam 24:16), and the angel of the covenant (Mal 3:1) were the subjects of speculation about their individual identities during the Second Temple and early rabbinic period. In addition, exegesis of problematic biblical passages also led to the elaboration of ideas about angelic brigades. For example, the ophannim (wheels) in Ezekiel’s vision of the merkabah (10:9–13) were later

understood to be a distinct brigade of angels (1 Enoch 71:7). The importance of angels in Late Antiquity is suggested by texts such as the Sepher ha-Razim (composed before the seventh century CE) and the frequent naming of angels on protective amulets and bowls from Syria and Palestine. The prominence of angels in Late Antique Judaism appears to have influenced surrounding religious traditions, resulting in the frequent appearance of Michael, Gabriel, and other angels in the Greek Magical Papyri as well as Greco-Egyptian amulets and defixiones. SEE ALSO:

Angels, Christian.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Bohak, G. (2008) “Jewish magic in Late Antiquity – the insider evidence.” In Ancient Jewish magic: a history: 143–226. Cambridge. Fossum, J. (1985) The name of God and the angel of the Lord: Samaritan and Jewish concepts of intermediation and the origin of Gnosticism. Tu¨bingen. Olyan, S. (1993) A thousand thousands served him: exegesis and the naming of angels in ancient Judaism. Tu¨bingen. Reed, A. Y. (2005) Fallen angels and the history of Judaism and Christianity: the reception of Enochic literature. Cambridge. Segal, A. (2002) Two powers in heaven: early rabbinic reports about Christianity and Gnosticism. Leiden.

1

Angitia FAY GLINISTER

Angitia after she came to Italy, and taught the Fucine peoples the cure for snakebite. SEE ALSO:

A goddess widely worshipped by the Central Appenine peoples, especially the Marsi, in whose territory she had an impressive sanctuary complex, with sacred grove, at Luco dei Marsi beside the Fucine Lake (Verg. Aen. 7.759; CIL IX 3074; ILLRP 7, a dedication of booty). Angitia was associated with snakes, and was thought to cure their bites through the use of incantations (Hor. Epod. 5.76, 17.29) and healing herbs (Gell. 16.10.1–2). She came to be associated with Circe and Medea; according to Servius (Aen. 7.750), Medea took the name

Religion, Italic.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Dench, E. (1995) From Barbarians to new men: Greek, Roman, and modern perceptions of peoples from the central Apennines: 159–66. Oxford. Grossi, G. (1981) La citta` di ‘Angitia,’ il ‘Lucus Angitiae’ e le origini di Luco dei Marsi. Avezzano. Santi, C. (1994) “‘Angitia’ nel culto e nelle relazioni con il pantheon italico.” Aio¯n: annali del Seminario di studi del mondo classico, Sezione linguistica 16: 241–57.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print page 428. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah17037

1

Anglo-Saxons PETRA HOFMANN

The term Anglo-Saxons collectively denotes the Germanic peoples who settled in postRoman Britain from northern Germany and Denmark in the fifth century CE. It was traditionally believed that Saxons settled in Wessex, Sussex, and Essex, Angles in East Anglia, the Midlands, and Northumbria, and Jutes in Kent. While archaeology and place names indicate a more complex historical reality, the migration process remains essentially unknown. The settlers’ organization of life and pagan beliefs are as elusive as those of their continental cousins. Replacing missing evidence with inferences from much later secular poetry and Norse mythology generally distorts historical reality. During the sixth century CE, the Germanic peoples firmly established themselves in today’s England. The land was divided among many small kingdoms, which were controlled by sub-kings, who were dominated by fewer over-kings. The traditionally cited heptarchy (Kent, Sussex, Wessex, Essex, East Anglia, Mercia, and Northumbria) is an oversimplification, however. Christianity is believed to have strengthened kingship. It was introduced by Roman missionaries, who settled in Canterbury in 597, and by Irish missionaries, who established themselves on Lindisfarne in 635. The ensuing clash over liturgical questions (especially Easter calculation) was resolved in favor of the Roman Church at the Synod of Whitby (664). Very gradually, individual realms evolved into one Anglo-Saxon kingdom. In late ninth-century documents, Alfred was the first to be entitled “king of the Anglo-Saxons.” Kings ruled in consultation with the witan (royal council), which approved and elected kings and could also depose (Sigebert of West Saxon, 757) and discipline them (Æthelred II, 993). Laws-codes (written in the vernacular, the earliest dating from 602/3) provide insights into the organization of Anglo-Saxon society. The population was divided into a complex

system of ranks, each defined by its weregeld, a compensation paid to victims of crimes by the convicted. Because kinship constituted the foundation of Anglo-Saxon society, families were legally obliged to care for their relatives, seek justice, or pay compensation on their behalf, and support them materially. The welfare of the kinless (e.g., foreigners, ecclesiastics) rested with the king. Economically, the AngloSaxons relied on agriculture, and a monetary culture evolved from the seventh century onwards. With Christianity came literacy to the AngloSaxons. A golden age of learning evolved in the seventh and eighth centuries, culminating in the works of Aldhelm, Alcuin, and Bede, whose (Latin) poems show plenty of classical influences, especially Vergil. Irish influences are most evident in illuminations (especially Lindisfarne Gospels) and the (early) development of the Anglo-Saxon script. With the ninthcentury Viking attacks, monasteries and their schools deteriorated. King Alfred initiated a reform program, providing important Latin works in vernacular translations. These efforts were renewed by the tenth-century Benedictine Reform. Despite an initial revival of Latin writing, especially vernacular literature flourished. Old English poetry (transmitted orally over centuries) survives in four tenth-century manuscripts. The style is distinctively vernacular (alliteration, variation, kenningar) and the subject matter predominantly religious. The few secular poems mostly reminisce about battles and a lost heroic ethos, most famously the Beowulf epos. SEE ALSO: Germania (Superior and Inferior); Germanic languages.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Hines, J. (1997) The Anglo-Saxons from the migration period to the eighth century: an ethnographic perspective. Woodbridge. Mayr-Harting, H. (1991) The coming of Christianity to Anglo-Saxon England, 3rd ed. University Park, PA.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 428–429. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah12013

2 O’Brien O’Keeffe, K. and Orchard, A., eds. (2005) Latin learning and English lore: studies in Anglo-Saxon literature for Michael Lapidge. 2 vols. Toronto.

Webster, L. and Backhouse, J., eds. (1991) The making of England: Anglo-Saxon art and culture AD 600–900. Toronto. Wilson, D. (1992) Anglo-Saxon paganism. London.

1

Animal mummies SALIMA IKRAM

The Egyptians mummified animals (Ikram 2005) as well as humans. Mummification (see MUMMIES AND MUMMIFICATION) was carried out in order to preserve the body so that the soul (ka and ba) could inhabit it in the Afterlife, or, in some instances, to preserve meat against spoilage for eternity (Ikram 2005: ch. 2). Many species of animals were mummified, including cattle, baboons, rams, lions, cats, dogs, hyenas, fish, bats, owls, gazelles, goats, crocodiles, shrews, scarab beetles, ichneumons, ibises, falcons, snakes, lizards, and many different types of birds. Even crocodile eggs and dung balls were wrapped up and presented as offerings. Animal mummies can be divided into four main types. The first type is the pet mummy, buried with, or else in close proximity to their owners so that they could be united for eternity. When pets predeceased their owners, they were interred within the tomb; if they died at a much later time they might have been buried outside the tomb. Whenever they died they were carefully mummified and placed in coffins of their own. Pet burials start in the Archaic period and continue throughout Egyptian history. The second type of animal mummy is a victual or food mummy. These consist of mummified foods for humans, such as joints of meat or poultry, that were placed in tombs so the tomb owner could eat throughout eternity. Often the mummies were placed in baskets, boxes, or individual coffinets that took the shape of the food offering. The meat or poultry was dressed, preserved with natron or salt, and had resins and oils applied to its surface, prior to wrapping. The highest status of victual mummy was occupied by beef; most examples of such animals were well under two years of age (Ikram 1995: Appendix II). Thus far no fish or pork victual mummies have been found, although both types of animals were eaten. Presumably their lower status excluded

them from the offerings; certainly they do not appear in offering lists. Sacred animal mummies constituted the third type of animal mummy. They were the preserved remains of animals that had been worshipped as divinities on earth, as the Egyptians believed that certain gods sent their “essence” into the body of a carefully chosen animal, identified by special coloring or patterning (see ANIMALS, EGYPTIAN SACRED). These animals often lived to a great age, and vast amounts were spent on their embalming and interment. The fourth and final type of animal mummy was the most common, votive offerings. They were mummified animals that were dedicated to specific deities. Each god had a specific animal that was its totem or symbol: cats were sacred to the goddess BASTET, goddess of pleasure; ibises and baboons to the god THOTH, god of learning; raptors and shrews acted as the diurnal and nocturnal images of the sun god Re (see RE AND RE HORAKHTY). These animals were not sacred themselves; instead, they were thought to have a special rapport with their divinities. They were purchased and offered by pilgrims at shrines dedicated to the relevant gods (Martin 1981: 9), and would present the prayers of the devotee to the god throughout eternity, much in the way votive candles are purchased and burned in churches, although these would be far longer lasting. Once a year, during a special festival, the mummified animals would be taken in procession, and buried en masse in extensive catacombs that would then be sealed with mudbrick walls until the next celebration (Ray 1976: 140). These catacombs were known as Houses of Rest (Ray 1976: 140), and have been found at sites such as Bubastis, Tuna el-Gebel, and Saqqara. These vast animal cemeteries have yielded millions of mummies and were a particular feature of the first millennium BCE, proliferating particularly during the Greco-Roman era. Some of the mummified animals found in these catacombs are not sacred to the god of the place. Dieter Kessler has suggested that

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 429–431. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah15033

2 these were buried in the sacred place as the creatures had died within the consecrated space and thus enjoyed a special status with that god (Kessler 1989; Ikram 2005: ch. 6). Several votive animals died a natural death; however, many were deliberately killed. Presumably the animals were killed so that the priests could make many mummies to sell to pilgrims prior to a religious festival. Different qualities of mummies were available for purchase, ranging from ornately wrapped animals equipped with cartonnage masks, to variously coffined creatures, or to simply wrapped bundles. The animals for mummification had to be bred in special areas near the temples (Smith 1969; Ray 1976: 138; Traunecker 1987: 147–58; Vandorpe 1992: 115; Ikram 2005: ch. 8) and no doubt had their own priests who saw to their care (Ray 1976: 138; Goudsmit and BrandonJones 2000: 116). Texts such as the Archive of Hor relate that priestly caretakers were often irresponsible (Ray 1976: 37, 123). Some examples of votive mummies that have been examined have turned out to be ancient fakes, or false mummies. These mummy bundles are either empty or filled with bits of fur or feathers or even fragments of different animals, sometimes even different species. Either they were made by the priestly embalmers to deceive pilgrims, or, to be less cynical, these mummies were probably made when there was a scarcity of the appropriate animals. In the latter case, the priests may have used the idea that a part might symbolize the whole, and with the correct spells and incantations the fragments of an animal would become complete offerings for the gods. It is also possible that these bundles actually contain the detritus of mummification, and as that too was sacred, it had to be interred in a holy place.

Animal mummies are studied in a manner similar to human mummies. In earlier times unwrapping was common. Now, noninvasive methods, such as x-rays, CT scans, and MRIs are used to identify and examine the animals within the wrappings. Embalming materials are identified using high temperature gas chromatography and gas chromatography-mass spectrometry. Studying these mummies tells us about the ancient Egyptian environment, religion, veterinary practices, mummification technology, trade, and culture. Examination of the types of mummification and patterns of bandaging, particularly in the case of votive mummies, also helps to identify particular ateliers.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Goudsmit, J. and Brandon-Jones, D. (2000) “Evidence from the baboon catacomb in North Saqqara for a West Mediterranean monkey trade route to Ptolemaic Alexandria.” Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 86: 111–19. Ikram, S. (1995) Choice cuts: meat production in Ancient Egypt. Leuven. Ikram, S. (2005) Divine creatures: animal mummies in ancient Egypt. Cairo. Kessler, D. (1989) Die heiligen Tiere und der Ko¨nig. Wiesbaden. Martin, G. T. (1981) The sacred animal necropolis at North Saqqara. London. Ray, J. D. (1976) The archive of Hor. London. Smith, H. S. (1969) “Animal domestication and animal cult in dynastic Egypt.” In P. J. Ucko and G. W. Dimbleby, eds., Domestication and exploitation of plants and animals: 307–14. London. Traunecker, C. (1987) “Les “temples hauts” de Basse Epoque.” Revue d’Egyptologie 38: 147–58. Vandorpe, K. (1992) “Les villages des Ibis dans la toponymie tardive.” Enchoria 18: 115–22.

1

Animal mummies SALIMA IKRAM

The Egyptians mummified animals (Ikram 2015a) as well as humans. MUMMIFICATION was carried out in order to preserve the body so that the soul (ka and ba) could inhabit it in the Afterlife, or, in some instances, to preserve meat for eternity against spoilage (Ikram 2015a: 17–43). Many species of animals were mummified, including cattle, baboons, rams, lions, cats, dogs, hyenas, fish, bats, owls, gazelles, goats, crocodiles, shrews, scarab beetles, ichneumons, ibises, falcons, snakes, lizards, and many different types of birds (see ANIMALS, EGYPTIAN, SACRED). Even crocodile eggs and dung balls were wrapped up and presented as offerings Animal mummies can be divided into six main types. The first type is the pet mummy, buried with, or else in close proximity to their owners so that they could be united for eternity. When pets predeceased their owners, they were interred within the tomb; if they died at a much later time they might have been buried outside the tomb. Whenever they died they were carefully mummified and placed in coffins of their own. Pet burials start in the Archaic/EARLY DYNASTIC period and continue throughout Egyptian history. The second type of animal mummy is a victual or food mummy. These consist of mummified foods for humans, such as joints of meat and poultry, that were placed in tombs so the tomb owner could eat throughout eternity. Often the mummies were placed in baskets, boxes, or individual coffinets that took the shape of the food offering. The meat and poultry was dressed, preserved with natron or salt, and had resins and oils applied to its surface, prior to wrapping. The highest status of victual mummy consisted of beef; most examples of such animals were well under 2 years of age (Ikram 1995: Appendix II). Thus far, no fish or pork victual mummies have been found, although both types of animals were eaten; presumably their lower status, or, in the case of

pigs, their association with the god SETH, excluded them from the offerings; certainly they do not appear in offering lists. Sacred animal mummies constituted the third type of animal mummy. They were the preserved remains of animals that had been worshipped as divinities on earth as the Egyptians believed that certain gods sent their “essence” into the body of a carefully chosen animal, identified by special coloring or patterning. These animals lived to a great age, and vast amounts were spent on their embalming and interment. The fourth type of animal mummy was the most common, votive offering. There were mummified animals that were dedicated to specific deities. Each god had a specific animal that was its totem or symbol: cats were sacred to the goddess BASTET, goddess of pleasure, ibises and baboons to the god THOTH, god of learning; raptors and shrews acted as the diurnal and nocturnal images of the sun god RE. These animals were not sacred themselves; instead, they were thought to have a special rapport with their divinities. They were purchased and offered by pilgrims at shrines dedicated to the relevant gods (Martin 1981: 9), and would present the prayers of the devotee to the god throughout eternity, much in the way votive candles are purchased and burned in churches, although these would be far longer lasting and had the added value of being a sacrifice. Once a year, during a special festival, the mummified animals would be taken in procession, and buried en masse in extensive catacombs that would then be sealed with mudbrick walls until the next celebration (Ray 1976: 140). These catacombs were known as Houses of Rest (Ray 1976: 140), and have been found at sites such as BUBASTIS, TUNA ELGEBEL, and SAQQARA. These vast animal cemeteries, have yielded millions of mummies, and were a particular feature of the first millennium BCE, proliferating particularly during the Graeco-Roman era. The fifth type of mummy falls within the votive offering group. Some examples of votive mummies that have been examined are ancient

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and David Hollander. © 2018 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Published 2018 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah15033

2 fakes, or rather, false mummies. These mummy bundles are either empty or filled with bits of fur or feathers or, on occasion, even fragments of different animals (even of humans), sometimes even species other than those that are dedicated to the god in question. Either they were made by the priestly embalmers to deceive pilgrims, or to be less cynical, they could have been made when there was a scarcity of the appropriate animals. In the latter case, the priests may have used the idea that a part might symbolize the whole, and with the correct spells and incantations the fragments of an animal would become complete offerings for the god. It is also possible that as many of these bundles contain the detritus of mummified animals, and as the debris was also sacred, it had to be interred in a holy place. Some of the mummified animals found in these catacombs are not sacred to the god of the place. D. Kessler has suggested that these were buried in the sacred place as the creatures had died within the consecrated space and thus enjoyed a special status with that god (Kessler 1989; Kessler and Nur el-din 2015). Several votive animals died a natural death; however, many were deliberately killed as blood sacrifice, as well as for expediency, so that the priests could make many mummies to sell to pilgrims prior to a religious festival. Different qualities of mummies were available for purchase, ranging from ornately wrapped animals equipped with cartonnage masks, to variously coffined creatures, or to simply wrapped bundles. The sixth and final type of animal mummy, “other,” consists of mummified animals that do not clearly fall into the other categories. Some, such as dogs buried with humans, have been described as amuletic (Hartley, Buck, and Binder 2011), and possibly served a protective purpose, but this is not clear (Ikram 2013: 303). Others might have been reifications of guardian statues placed in tombs, such as a group found in Thebes (Rhind 1862: 99; Ikram 2013: 303). The majority of animals that became votive mummies had to be bred in special areas near the temples (Smith 1969; Ray 1976: 138;

Traunecker 1987: 147–58; Vandorpe 1992: 115; Bresciani 2015) and no doubt had their own priests who saw to their care (Ray 1976: 138; Goudsmit and Brandon-Jones 2000: 116), though they were not always responsible (Ray 1976: 37, 123). Some animals might have been found, or have been brought for mummification by individual donors. The number of votive mummies clearly played a significant role in the economy (Ikram 2015b). Animal mummies are studied in a manner similar to human mummies. In earlier times unwrapping was common. Now, non-invasive methods, such as x-rays, CT-scans, and MRIs are used to identify and examine the animals within the wrappings. Embalming materials are identified using high temperature gas chromatography (HTGC) and gas chromatography-mass spectrometry (GC-MS), and DNA work is being used to identify species and to understand evolution and domestication (Ikram 2015a: 229–33). Studying these mummies tells us about the ancient Egyptian environment, religion, veterinary practices, mummification technology, trade, and culture. Examination of the types of mummification and patterns of bandaging, particularly in the case of votive mummies, can also help to identify particular ateliers, and might provide evidence for geographic locations for the ateliers, and/or diachronic change. REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Bresciani, E. (2015) “Sobek, lord of the land of the lake.” In S. Ikram, ed., Divine creatures: animal mummies from ancient Egypt: 199–206. Cairo. Goudsmit, J. and Brandon-Jones, D. (2000) “Evidence from the baboon catacomb in North Saqqara for a West Mediterranean monkey trade route to Ptolemaic Alexandria.” Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 86: 111–19. Hartley, M., Buck, A., and Binder, S. (2011) “Canine interments in the Teti cemetery north at Saqqara during the Graeco-Roman period.” In F. Coppens and J. Krejsi, eds., Abusir and Saqqara in the year 2010. Prague. Ikram, S. (1995) Choice cuts: meat production in ancient Egypt. Leuven.

3 Ikram, S. (2013) “Man’s best friend for eternity: dog and human burials in ancient Egypt.” Anthropozoologica 48, 2: 299–307. Ikram, S. (2015a) Divine creatures: animal mummies in Ancient Egypt, 2nd ed. Cairo. Ikram, S. (2015b) “Speculations on the role of animal cults in the economy of ancient Egypt.” In M. Massiera, B. Mathieu, and F. Rouffet, eds., Apprivoiser le sauvage/Taming the wild (CENiM 11): 211–28. Montpellier. Kessler, D. (1989) Die Heiligen Tiere und Der Konig, I. Wiesbaden. Kessler, D. and Nur el-Din, A. (2015) “Tuna ElGebel: millions of ibises and other animals.” In S. Ikram, ed., Divine creatures: animal mummies from ancient Egypt: 120–63. Cairo.

Martin, G. T. (1981) The sacred animal necropolis at North Saqqara. London. Ray, J. D. (1976) The archive of Hor. London. Rhind, A. H. (1862). Thebes: its tombs and their tenants. London: Longman, Green, Longman, and Roberts. Smith, H. S. (1969) “Animal domestication and animal cult in dynastic Egypt.” In P. J. Ucko and G. W. Dimbleby, eds., Domestication and exploitation of plants and animals: 307–14. London. Traunecker, C. (1987) “Les ‘temples hauts’ de basse époque.” Revue d’Egyptologie 38: 147–58. Vandorpe, K. (1992) “Les villages des Ibis dans la toponymie tardive.” Enchoria 18: 115–22.

1

Animals, domesticated DOUGLAS J. BREWER

Domestication is the process of altering the genetic make-up of an animal or plant to satisfy the needs of humans. It is an evolutionary process, but the main selective pressure is “artificial” (i.e., interference by humans in the normal life cycle of the animal), rather than natural. This interference can be both unintentional and intentional. It is important to note that selective pressure, be it natural or “artificial,” always acts on genotypic variations inherent in the animal population. In selective breeding, animals with specific traits are consciously chosen for their usefulness to humans rather than for their fitness in the wild. Certain points along the continuum of the domestication process can be identified as important stages in the growing influence of selective forces for the cultural niche on a given population. In the initial stages of animal domestication the organisms are genetically identical to their wild counterparts, but they have been behaviorally conditioned or tamed to accept the dominant position of humans. Their breeding habits, however, have not been curtailed, and the animals will often breed with wild members of the species. The second stage in the process is marked by the presence of a restricted breeding population. Control, intentional or otherwise, is attained over potential breeding partners by excluding wild members of the species. This stage is often correlated with morphological changes such as reduction in body or horn size, variations in color, or changes to the jaw and teeth, such as those seen in dogs and cats. Stage three is marked by the intentional development of discernible characteristics in the stock. Size management and the suppression of horn growth are examples of early stage three. Advanced stage three is indicated by the appearance of breeds with specifically developed morpho-economic traits. The fundamental difference between a domesticated animal and its wild progenitor

is reliance upon humans for survival. Indeed, the domestic animal has adapted to conditions created by humans to the point that it is less fit to survive on its own in the wild. An extreme example of this is the fat-tailed sheep, common throughout the Middle East. While the fat of the tail is prized in local cuisine and is beneficial to the sheep and the humans who raise them because it increases the animals’ survivability in times of drought, the ungainly tail does lead to hygiene issues, and human care is needed to keep the animal clean and free of fly-borne diseases. The fat tail can also interfere with natural procreation, a situation that certainly affects the breed’s long-term survival in the wild. The earliest domesticated animal was the dog, by about 10,000 BCE and possibly earlier. Sheep and goats, which formed the backbone of the ancient domestic economy, were likely domesticated by about 8000 and by 6000 were well established. In fact, with few exceptions, almost all the animals that serve humans today were domesticated during the Neolithic period. The development of these forms, both plant and animal, had a huge effect on human cultural evolution, resulting in the appearance of agriculture and pastoralism and their attendant human settlement patterns. Because of this, domestication should really be viewed as a process of co-evolution between humans and the animals they domesticated. The specific economic value of domesticated animals in most cases also changed through time. Dogs probably accompanied nomadic peoples, helping them hunt and guarding their encampments. But the original purpose of the domestic dog may very likely have been as a source of food, a circumstance they share with nearly all other early domestic species. Sheep and goats, for example, were eaten in the initial stages of domestication and only later became valuable for producing wool and milk. Similarly, domesticated cattle in ancient times were initially a source of meat and skin but later evolved into a draft animal, a development that greatly contributed to the rise of agriculture.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 431–433. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah15034

2 Like goats, cattle were not initially a great source of milk for human consumption. Research on modern pastoralist societies in arid regions shows that cows produce just enough milk to feed their calves and sometimes have a little to spare for humans. This likely emulates milk production in the early stages of domestication. The development of high-yield milk cows was a tertiary development (after meat and draft) and one particularly adapted to more moderate climates, where the lush grasses necessary for good milk production are at least seasonally available. There has been considerable speculation and research concerning the identity of many of our most common domestic animals’ progenitors. In general, species that have been successfully domesticated share certain innate characteristics, such as pack or social behavior, a flexible diet, relatively rapid maturation, and the ability to breed in captivity. The main criterion for judging the relationship between domestic and wild forms, traditionally, has been an assessment of similarities in the morphological structure of skeletal remains. Given the often fragmentary nature of these remains, however, this approach has proven to be a controversial source of information and in some cases has fueled debate rather than ended it. Consequently, claims for early domestication rely on other types of evidence as well, such as:

• •

the ecological fitness of the animal vis-a`vis the local environment, that is, whether the animal could live in that area without the aid of humans; artifacts found in association with the animal remains, particularly with regard to their employment with domestic forms;

•

artistic renditions of animals in domestic contexts depicted on tools, ceramic vessels, rock art, and so forth.

More recently, genetic examinations, particularly comparisons of chromosomes and chromosome sets, are augmenting traditional morphological and biological evidence and adding to our knowledge of the origins of domesticated organisms. In biological terms, the success of any species is measured by its population and territorial expansion. Using this scale, domestic species are among the most successful forms of animal life in the world. Without exception, domestic species’ populations and territories have dramatically increased compared to their wild counterparts, and in some cases even threaten the continuing existence of their ancestral forms. SEE ALSO: Agriculture, Pharaonic Egypt; Pastoralism.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Blench, R. M. and MacDonald, K. C. (2003) The origins and development of African livestock: archaeology, genetics, linguistics and ethnography. London. Brewer, D. J., Redford, D., and Redford, S. (1991) Domesticated plants and animals: the Egyptian origins. Warminster. Brewer, D. J., Phillips, A., and Clark, T. (2001) Dogs in antiquity: Anubis to Cerberus – the origins of the domestic dog. Warminster. Clutton-Brock, J. (1989) The walking larder: patterns of domestication, pastoralism and predation. London. Clutton-Brock, J. (1999) A natural history of domesticated mammals. Cambridge. Zeuner, F. (1963) A history of domesticated animals. New York.

1

Animals, Egyptian sacred SALIMA IKRAM

The ancient Egyptians believed that the gods were manifest on earth in the form of their totemic animal that was worshipped as a sacred or cult animal. The god’s “divine essence” was thought to enter into the animal, transforming it into a divinity. Throughout its lifetime, this animal was worshipped and treated as if it were a god, and upon its death it was mummified (see MUMMIES AND MUMMIFICATION), encoffined, and buried with great ceremony in a catacomb, such as the Serapeum at Saqqara or the Bucheum at Armant. The spirit of the god would then find its way into another similarly marked animal, which would then be worshipped until its death. This can be compared to the Nepalese practice of the Living Goddess or the reincarnations of the Tibetan Lamas. It should be noted, however, that some scholars such as Kessler (1989: 253–90) believe that all the sacred animal cults, especially those of the later periods of Egyptian history, were linked to the divine apotheosis of the king, rather than to the manifestation of different divinities. The chosen animals were generally identified by a set of specific and unusual markings that differentiated them from other members of their species. According to HERODOTUS (2.28), the Apis Bull at Memphis, who was revered as Ptah and Osiris, was begotten and recognized in the following way: . . .the Egyptians say that fire comes down from heaven upon the cow, which thereupon conceives Apis. The calf which is so called, has the following marks: he is black, with a square spot of white upon his forehead, and on his back the figure of an eagle; the hairs in his tail are double, and there is a beetle upon his tongue.

Other sacred animals include the Buchis bull at Armant, which was the embodiment of Montu and Re, the crocodile in the Fayyum and at Kom Ombo, which was an incarnation

of Sobek, and the ram at Elephantine, which was the personification of Khnum. These animals were kept in special stalls or enclosures, such as the area of the Apis in Memphis. For the sacred ibis at Saqqara, the temple courtyard at the Sacred Animal Necropolis was planted with trees or bushes to make it a more pleasant place for the god (Martin 1981: 12), as well as to invoke the primeval landscape. The sacred crocodile of Sobek at Kom Ombo lived in a pool, or in the lake near the city of Arsinoe in the Fayyum. These creatures were visited by the faithful and the curious. Strabo (7.38) reports that the crocodile . . .is fed on grain and pieces of meat and on wine, which are always being fed to it by the foreigners who go to see it. At any rate, our host, one of the officials, who was introducing us into the mysteries there, went with us to the lake, carrying from the dinner a kind of cookie and some roasted meat and a pitcher of wine mixed with honey. We found the animal lying on the edge of the lake; and when the priests went up to it, some of them opened its mouth and another put in the cake, and again the meat, and then poured down the honey mixture. The animal then leaped into the lake and rushed across to the far side; but when another foreigner arrived, likewise carrying an offering of first fruits, the priests took it, went around the lake in a run, took hold of the animal, and in the same manner fed it what had been brought.

These divine animals were served by their own hierarchy of priests (Ray 1976: 140–5). Their temples were supported by their own endowments as well as by royal grants (Ray 1976: 136, 144; Ikram 2005: ch. 6; Reymond 1972: 254–7), and extensive donations given by believers. Upon the animals’ death, the entire area was plunged into mourning. For Apis bulls, the mourning period lasted seventy days while the animal was mummified, after which its funeral would be celebrated. Priests of the animal, and even the people of the area, wore mourning garments, did not cut or wash their hair, and

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 433–436. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah15036

2 mourned loudly and publicly for the loss of their god. For the first four days of the mourning period they fasted, and ate only bread and vegetables for the remainder (Vercoutter 1962: 41–3, 125; Vos 1993). Once mummified, the sacred animal would be taken to the special cemeteries that had been established for them, placed in coffins and sarcophagi, some of which had canopies over them, and have the final rites administered. After the burial and the establishment of the new god, life would continue as usual. The basis of animal cults is obscure. Certainly animals were regarded as special beings, belonging to this world as well as to other realms. As such, they may have had access to the gods, who were also denizens of another sphere. From the late Predynastic, standards bearing totemic animals were used to symbolize and represent specific geographic areas of Egypt or groups of people (clans?), as is attested on slate palettes, most notably that of Narmer. These local animal gods sometimes merged with other divinities and joined together to form the pantheon of the unified Egyptian state, in some cases becoming a combination of zoomorphic and anthropomorphic entities. Possibly this link between animals and gods was also extended to the early rulers of Egypt. The intimate association between royalty and animals is obvious in the Protodynastic/Early Dynastic periods, where the names of early rulers are those of animals: catfish, scorpion, serpent, etc., where perhaps the ruler was being blessed with the particular strengths of “his” animal, and also underlined the divine nature of both king and creature. Animal cults have existed in Egypt from the Predynastic period onward, gaining in popularity in the New Kingdom, and most especially in the Late period and thereafter (Flores 2003). Certain ones, such as that of the Apis Bull of Memphis, are securely attested from the 1st Dynasty onward (Simpson 1957), and enjoyed a renaissance in the 18th Dynasty under the reign of Amenhotep III, as is demonstrated by the construction of the Serapeum galleries and the cat sarcophagus dedicated by

Crown Prince Djutmose. Others came into being, or at least became popular, from the 26th Dynasty onward. The roots of the popularity of these cults lay in their accessibility to the public and the upsurge of personal piety and personal gods that occurred during the New Kingdom (Davies and Smith 1997: 122–3). The nature of the later cults seems to have differed slightly from that of the earlier, more established ones in their general accessibility and the identification of most of the creatures with aspects of Osiris, as well as the king, although this is still a matter of some conjecture (Kessler 1989: ch. 3). The reason for the proliferation of animal cults, which started in the Late Period and continued into the Greco-Roman period, is unclear. Perhaps these cults started as a form of religious archaizing that paralleled the artistic archaizing of the period. In addition, they might have served to define and separate the Egyptians religiously from their neighbors and, in some cases, conquerors. By emphasizing things uniquely Egyptian and distinct from the religious customs of the “other,” the Egyptians were emphasizing the strength of their own culture and religious traditions in the face of these interlopers. Many Classical writers commented scathingly on the oddity of the Egyptians’ obsession with animals and their manifestation as divine beings. However, ultimately this did not stop either Romans or Greeks (or indeed other nationalities) from participating in aspects of the cult (Clarysse 1988: 7–10). The range and popularity of these cults increased markedly in the Ptolemaic (332–30 BCE) and Roman periods, at most until 379 CE, when the Edict of Theodosius enforced the official closure of pagan temples. However, it is unclear as to when the last sacred animal burial took place – most probably this was before 379 CE, as there is limited evidence for later cult activities, although some cults might have continued in remote areas, such as the oases. Thus, animal cults became not just a manifestation of Egyptian religion, but also a means of separating and defining “Egyptian” as opposed to foreign,

3 and were a reaction against the alien peoples who ruled and inhabited Egypt. These cults were extremely popular, perhaps because they offered guarantees of salvation for those who served them or those who put themselves under their protection (Smith 1992: 219). In addition to worshipping the god, animal cults had other components. Chief among these were oracles, dream interpretation, and incubation (Ikram 2005, particularly chs. 6 and 7). The oracular power of divine animals was perhaps the most significant of these components, and this was true for diverse creatures, ranging from bulls and rams (Mond and Myers 1934: 47; Ka´kosy 1981: 141) to scarab beetles (Jasnow 1997). Oracles became increasingly important in Egyptian religion from the Late period onward, perhaps as they permitted people a more intimate relationship with the gods than had been previously available. Even Alexander the Great went to Siwa to consult the Oracle of Amun, possibly in the form of a ram. As oracular animals, questions would be addressed to the animal manifestation of the god, and the response, whether audible or gestural, would be interpreted by priests and the results passed on to the petitioner. In some instances the oracles seem to have been interpreted (or if one is cynical, to have been made) by a group of priests who met in a council chamber (Ikram 2005: ch. 6). Incubation and dream interpretation also played a role in animal cults and allowed people intimate contact with a god. The dreams were interpreted by priests, and in some cases, perhaps the priests themselves had dreams that answered the prayers or queries of the pilgrims. The priest Hor, whose archive was found at Saqqara (Ray 1976) was frequently visited by Thoth in his dreams, while the priest Sematuitefnakht writes in his autobiography that the god Khnum came to him in a dream and gave him advice that saved him (Ka´kosy 1981: 141). Incubation, together with the prescriptive advice contained in interpreted dreams, was thought effective in curing people of diseases. The Buchis bull was supposed to be particularly effective in curing eye diseases

(Mond and Myers 1934: 48), while many other animal cult centers were famed for their ability to encourage fertility. Even after their death, specific animals continued to be worshipped by name; a certain sacred baboon had not only stelae, but also offering tables dedicated to it after its death; clearly it must have been a particularly effective god (Ritner 1993: 267). Thus, sacred animals had vast appeal to the population of Egypt, as the gods were not only visible, but also effective. SEE ALSO: Animal mummies; Cults, divine, Pharaonic Egypt; Religion, Pharaonic Egypt; Temples, Pharaonic Egypt.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Clarysse, W. (1988) “A demotic self-dedication to Anubis.” Enchoria 16: 7–10. Davies, S. and Smith, H. (1997) “Sacred animal temples at Saqqara.” In S. Quirke, ed., The temple in Ancient Egypt: 112–31. London. Flores, D. V. (2003) Funerary sacrifice of animals in the Egyptian Predynastic period. Oxford. Ikram, S. (2005) Divine creatures: animal mummies in Ancient Egypt. Cairo. Jasnow, R. (1997) “A demotic omen text?” In J. van Dijk, ed., Essays on Ancient Egypt in honour of Herman Te Velde: 204–17. Groningen. Ka´kosy, L. (1981) “Prophecies of ram gods.” Studia Aegyptiaca 7: 139–54. Kessler, D. (1989) Die heiligen Tiere und der Ko¨nig, I. Wiesbaden. Kessler, D. and Nur el-Din, A. (1999) “Ein Tierka¨fig am Tierfriedhof von Tuna el-Gebel, Mittela¨gypten.” In C. Becker et al., eds., Historia Animalium ex Ossibus. Rahden. Martin, G. T. (1981) The sacred animal necropolis at north Saqqara: the southern dependencies of the main temple complex. London. Mond, R. and Myers, O. H. (1934) The Bucheum, vols. 1–3. London. Ray, J. D. (1976) The archive of Hor. London. Reymond, E. A. (1972) “Two demotic memoranda.” Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 58: 254–7. Ritner, R. K. (1993) “An unusual offering table in Dallas.” Acta Demotica: acts of the fifth international conference for demotists: 265–73. Pisa.

4 Simpson, W. K. (1957) “A running of the Apis in the reign of ‘Aha and passages in Manetho and Aelian.” Orientalia 26: 139–42. Smith, H. S. (1992) “The death and life of the mother of Apis.” In A. B. Lloyd, ed., Studies in

Pharaonic religion and society in honour of J. Gwyn Griffiths: 201–25. London. Vercoutter, J. (1962) Textes biographiques du Se´rape´um de Memphis. Paris. Vos, R. L. (1993) The Apis embalming ritual. Leuven.

1

Animals, Greece and Rome FILIPPO CARLA`

Animals played an important role in antiquity from a variety of perspectives. Hunting wild animals was a popular activity among nobles and aristocrats and is represented in art since Mycenaean times. Hunted animals were not only killed and eaten but also caught alive and displayed. Exotic animals in particular were prestigious objects for performance. Ptolemy II was known to have a large collection of animals kept in a zoo (Diod. Sic. 3.36.3–4) or for display in processions (Ath. 5.201b–c). The Romans kept and showed particular species of animals in leporaria, vivaria (animal preserves), aviaria (aviaries), and fishponds (Varro Rust. 3.12–13; 13; Plin. HN 8.211, 9.77). Nero is said to have had a wide variety of roaming animals in his domus aurea (Suet. Ner. 31.1) and Elagabalus was famous for his private collection of Egyptian animals (SHA Heliogab. 28.3). Procopius tells us of a zoo in Rome (Procop. Goth. 1.23.14–17). Such displays were also important for scientific research. According to some ancient sources, Aristotle could study animals thanks to a collection sent to him by Alexander the Great (Plin. HN 8.44). Scientific interest in animals was widespread, as can be taken from the Aristotelian treatises (Historia animalium, De generatione animalium), Pliny’s Historia Naturalis, Plutarch’s De sollertia animalium or Aelianus’ De natura animalium. Extremely popular were public shows involving animals: in the Minoan world bull-leaping (tauromachia) was practiced from the sixteenth century BCE and is represented in a famous fresco from Knossos (now in the Heraklion Museum); in Rome venationes (public hunts, Livy 39.22.1–2) and damnationes ad bestias (condemnation of people to wild animals) were extremely popular. Animals were supplied by specialized commerce, the mechanisms and problems of which are mentioned

by authors throughout Roman antiquity (e.g., Cic. Fam. 2.11.2; Plin. Ep. 6.34.3; Symmachus Ep.. 2.76). Chariot-racing enjoyed an “ever‐ increasing” popularity down to the Byzantine period and brought horses to great fame (see HORSE RACING; Plin. Ep. 9.6.2). Domesticated animals were an important part of the ancient economy. In Latin the term for money (pecunia) was supposed to derive from pecus, livestock, demonstrating the strong connection made between wealth and livestock (Varro Ling. 5.25, although the etymology is questionable). According to Cato animal breeding was the most profitable branch of farming (e.g., Cic. Off. 2.89; Col. 6. pr.4–5; Plut. Cat. Mai. 21.5). Animals could be bred as draught-animals (e.g., oxen), for meat (e.g., pigs), for wool (sheep), milk (goats), feathers (geese), for transportation (horses, donkeys, mules, and camels). Horses played the most important role in warfare, but in Persia, the Hellenistic Empires, and Carthage elephants were used as war engines for scaring off the enemy (e.g., Polyb. 5.84; Flor. 1.37). Elephants were famously used in the battle between Pyrrhos and the Romans at Herakleia in 280 BCE (Plut. Pyrrh. 17.6). Some animals were kept as pets. Dogs were most favored, being used for hunting and guarding. Already in the Odyssey the dog appears as close human companion welcoming his returning master (Hom. Od. 17.290–317; see also Col. 7.12). Cats, by contrast, in spite of their role in Egypt, from where they were introduced to Greece in the fifth century BCE, were not a favored animal by either Greeks or Romans. Although well-known, they are far less frequently represented in either art or texts (Sen. Ep. 121.19; Plin. HN 10.202). To chase vermin weasels rather than cats were deployed (Petron. Sat. 46). Cats replaced them gradually in the second to fifth century CE, and became more popular during Late Antiquity (Pall. Agr. 4.9.4): particularly famous was the she-cat of Pope Gregory the Great (PL 75.124). Other favored pets were birds (see BIRDS, GREECE AND ROME), hares (Anth. Pal. 7.207), monkeys

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 436–438. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah06021

2 (e.g., Plaut. Mil. 160‐3), goats, turtles, snakes (Sen. Dial. 4.31.6; Plin. HN 29.72). Many animals received expensive burials after their death (Ael. VH 8.4), and some Hellenistic and Roman epitaphs to deceased animals are known. For some reason Roman emperors could be characterized by the animals they kept (thus Tiberius by his snake, Suet. Tib. 72.2; Domitian (Stat. Silv. 2.5) and Caracalla (Cass. Dio 79.7.2–3) by their lions; Valentinian I by his bears, Amm. 29.3.9). Animals played an important role in religion. Goats, sheep, pigs, and cattle were used as victims in sacrifice (some Geometric graves show traces of horse sacrifice in memory of an heroic age; in Rome the suovetaurilia were a very common sacrifice, involving a pig, a sheep, and a bull), some were connected with particular deities (e.g., the owl with Athena, or the peacock with Hera). In spite of this importance, and of the otherwise frequent syncretism with Egyptian religion, Greeks never came to an identification of animals with gods, and looked at the Egyptian practice as exotic and weird (Hdt. 2.65–76), if not with suspicion and hostility (Diod. Sic. 1.83‐90). Animals were also conceived as messengers between humans and gods: augury consisted in the interpretation of the flight of birds, and haruspicina in the analysis of the internal organs of sacrificed animals. Animals appear also often as main characters in mythology, as transformations of human or divine figures (e.g., Zeus often presents himself as animal, as in the case

of Leda’s swan, Europa is transformed by Hera into a cow), or as hybrid and fantastic creatures, such as Pegasus or the Minotaur. Pythagoreanism promoted vegetarianism, for animal preservation (Plut. De sol. an. 959f) and even more because of their belief in the migration of souls (Porph. Abst. 3.26). Plutarch in his treatises De sollertia animalium, Bruta animalia ratione uti and De usu carnium shows much respect for animals and despises the habit of eating meat. Porphyry also wrote a treatise On Abstinence from Animal Food, discussing opposing works which argued the necessity of meat-eating. SEE ALSO: Animals, domesticated; Animals, non-domesticated (Egypt); Dogs; Horses, Greece and Rome; Hunting, Greece and Rome.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Fe´vrier, C. (2003) “Le bestiaire prodigieux: merveilles animales dans les litte´ratures historique et scientifique a` Rome.” Revue des E´tudes Latines 81: 43–64. Kalof, L., ed. (2007) A cultural history of animals in antiquity. Oxford. Lazenby, F. D. (1949) “Greek and Roman household pets.” Classical Journal 44: 245–52; 299–307. Lorenz, G. (2000) Tiere im Leben der alten Kulturen. Vienna. Santillo Frizell, B., ed. (2004) Pecus: man and animal in antiquity. Rome. Toynbee, J. M. C. (1973) Animals in Roman life and art. London.

1

Animals, non-domesticated (Egypt) SALIMA IKRAM

Prior to 3000 BCE Egypt’s environment was much wetter, with much of its land away from the river being made up of grasslands punctuated by groups of trees, capable of supporting a diverse range of fauna. As the climate changed, much of the fauna moved south, with some creatures that had adapted to the increasing desert conditions remaining in Egypt. It is this early fauna that forms the basis of much of Egypt’s religious iconography, inspired its early art, was the mainstay of the meat diet of the inhabitants of the area prior to animal domestication, and a major source of raw materials including ivory (elephant and hippopotamus), hide, feather, and bone. The range of animals found in Egypt included elephants (probably moving south by 2900, if not earlier), giraffes (present probably until 2900), addax, hartebeest, ibex, Barbary sheep, wild ass, wild cattle, oryx, different species of gazelle, baboon, wild dog, jackal, hyena, lion, different types of fox, mongoose, possibly otters (debated), shrews, rodents, hare, hedgehog, porcupine, ostrich, hippopotami, crocodiles, and a variety of snakes, lizard-like creatures, and insects. Images of hunting all types of wild creatures are found in two- and three-dimensional art starting in the Naqada (Nagada) III period. For the Egyptians, hunting wild animals not only provided food and sport, but also symbolized the triumph of order or maat over chaos. Depictions of wild animals being offered to the gods in the Pharaonic era served as an image of the triumph of cosmic order over chaos. By extension, images of the king slaying lions and wild bulls emphasized his role in maintaining maat, in addition to displaying his virility and skill. Pictorial evidence suggests that in some cases wild animals that had been captured

were not always killed immediately. They were often kept in pens and force-fed in order to fatten them up, or in an effort to get them to breed and to domesticate a greater variety of animals. Some animals, such as the hyena, would have been force-fed not just to fatten it, but also to change the flavor of this carrion eater’s meat into something more appetizing (Ikram 2001). Several reliefs in tombs, such as those of Mereruka, Ti, and Kagemni at Saqqara, show the force-feeding of animals, first by tethering them to troughs, then moving on to hand-feeding until they cannot stand and have to lie down. By the Middle Kingdom (ca. 2000 BCE) (see MIDDLE KINGDOM, EGYPT) the habitat for wild animals was further restricted, and there is some evidence for what look like fenced-in game preserves where kings and noblemen could hunt for sport. These are featured in Middle Kingdom tombs, such as those at BENI HASAN, where huntsmen pursue their quarry with large bows and arrows against the background of a large fence. In the New Kingdom (see NEW KINGDOM, EGYPT) there is some evidence for wild animals not just being hunted, but also being kept as curiosities by royalty: live animals are given as tribute by Nubians and possibly kept in royal menageries (see TT 100, tomb of Rekhmire). Kings such as Rameses II (see RAMESES I–XI) and TUTANKHAMUN might also have kept lions as royal pets, further emphasizing their royal power. By the New Kingdom, if not earlier, monkeys were imported into Egypt and kept as pets. From the Late Period (see LATE PERIOD, EGYPT) on a large-scale trade in monkeys helped supply animal cults, particularly that of THOTH. SEE ALSO: Animal mummies; Animals, domesticated; Animals, Egyptian sacred; Food, drink, and feasting (Egypt); Naqada (Nagada).

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Boessneck, J. (1988) Die Tierwelt des Alten ¨ gypten. Munich. A

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 438–439. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah15035

2 Boessneck, J. and Von Den Driesch, A. (1992) Tell el-Dab’a VII: Tiere und historische Umwelt im Nordost-Delta im 2. Jahrtausend v. Chr. anhand der Knochenfunde der Ausgrabungen 1975–1986. Vienna. Houlihan, P. F. (1996) The animal world of the Pharaohs. Cairo. Ikram, S. (2001) “The iconography of the hyena in Ancient Egypt.” Mitteilungen der Deutsches Archa¨ologischen Instituts, Abteilung Kairo 57: 127–40.

Osborn, D. and Osbornova, J. (1998) The mammals of Ancient Egypt. Warminster. Riemer, H., Fo¨rster, F., Herb, M., and Po¨llath, N., eds. (2009) Desert animals in the eastern Sahara: Status, economic significance, and cultural reflection in antiquity. Proceedings of an Interdisciplinary ACACIA Workshop held at the University of Cologne December 14–15, 2007. Cologne. Winkler, H. (1938) Rock-drawings of southern Upper Egypt, vols. 1–2. Oxford.

1

Animals, Sacred SALIMA IKRAM

American University in Cairo

The ancient Egyptians believed that the gods could manifest themselves on earth in the form of their totemic animal, which was worshipped as a sacred or cult animal. The god’s “divine essence” was thought to enter into the animal, transforming it into a divinity. Throughout its lifetime, this animal was worshipped and treated as if it were a god, and upon its death it was mummified (see MUMMIES AND MUMMIFICATION), encoffined, and buried with great ceremony in a special cemetery, either within the relevant temple precinct (e.g., of KHNUM at ELEPHANTINE) or in an adjacent necropolis (e.g., the catacombs of the Serapeum at SAQQARA and the Bucheum at ARMANT). The spirit of the god would then find its way into another, similarly marked animal, which would then be worshipped until its death. This tradition can be compared to the Nepalese practice of the Living Goddess or with the reincarnations of the Tibetan Lamas. It should be noted, however, that some scholars, for example D. Kessler (1989: 253–90), have argued that all the sacred animal cults, especially those of the later periods of Egyptian history, were linked to the divine apotheosis of the king rather than to the manifestation of various divinities. It is important to distinguish such sacred animals and their burials from the wider phenomenon of the mummification of creatures of the same species for presentation as votives in temples (see ANIMAL MUMMIES). These mummies were mass-produced, particularly from the Late Period onward (see LATE PERIOD, EGYPT, and were certainly not regarded in the same way as the ‘true’ sacred creatures that were at any one time unique representatives of their god on earth. As noted already, the sacred animals chosen as ‘true’ seem to have been generally identified by a set of specific and unusual markings that differentiated them from other members of

their species. According to HERODOTUS (2.28), the APIS-BULL at MEMPHIS, who was revered as the “Herald of Ptah” (see PTAH), was begotten in special circumstances and was recognized by particular physical characteristics: “the Egyptians say that fire comes down from heaven upon the cow, which thereupon conceives Apis. The calf which is so called has the following marks: he is black, with a square spot of white upon his forehead, and on his back the figure of an eagle; the hairs in his tail are double, and there is a beetle upon his tongue.” However, contemporary depictions of Apis-bulls show significant variations in their markings over time. Other sacred animals include the Buchis-bull at Armant who was the embodiment of MONTU and Re (see AMUN-RE), the MNEVIS-BULL of the god Re at HELIOPOLIS, the CROCODILE in the FAYYUM and at KOM OMBO who was an incarnation of Sobek, and the Ram at Elephantine who was the personification of Khnum. Many others also existed, especially for gods with particular faunal aspects. . These animals were kept in special stalls or enclosures, such as the area of the Apis in Memphis. For the sacred IBIS at Saqqara, the temple courtyard at the Sacred Animal Necropolis was planted with trees or bushes designed to make it a more pleasant place for the god, as well as to invoke the primeval landscape. The sacred crocodile of Sobek at Kom Ombo lived in a pool, and the one in the Fayyum dwelt in a lake near the city of ARSINOE. These creatures were visited by the faithful and the curious. STRABO (7.38) reports that the crocodile “is fed on grain and pieces of meat and on wine, which are always being fed to it by the foreigners who go to see it. At any rate, our host, one of the officials, who was introducing us into the mysteries there, went with us to the lake, carrying from the dinner a kind of cookie and some roasted meat and a pitcher of wine mixed with honey. We found the animal lying on the edge of the lake; and when the priests went up to it, some of them opened its mouth and another put in the cake, and again the meat, and then poured down the honey

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History. Edited by Andrew Erskine, David B. Hollander, and Arietta Papaconstantinou. © 2021 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Published 2021 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wwbeah15035.pub2

2 mixture. The animal then leaped into the lake and rushed across to the far side; but when another foreigner arrived, likewise carrying an offering of first-fruits, the priests took it, went around the lake in a run, took hold of the animal, and in the same manner fed it what had been brought.” These divine animals were served by their own hierarchy of priests (Ray 1976: 140–5). Their temples were supported by their own endowments as well as by royal grants (Ray 1976: 136, 144; Ikram 2015, ch. 6; Reymond 1972: 254–5, 257) and by extensive donations given by believers. Upon the animal’s death, the entire area was plunged into mourning. For Apis bulls, the mourning period lasted seventy days, while the animal was mummified, after which its funeral would be celebrated. Priests of the animal, and even the people of the area, wore mourning garments, did not cut or wash their hair, and mourned loudly and publicly for the loss of their god. For the first four days of the mourning period they fasted, and ate only bread and vegetables for the remainder (Vercoutter 1962: 41–3, and 125; Vos 1993). Once mummified, the sacred animals would be taken to the special cemeteries that had been established for them, placed in coffins and sarcophagi, some of which had canopies over them, and have the final rites administered. After the burial and the establishment of the new god, life would continue as usual. The basis of animal cults is obscure. Certainly animals were regarded as special beings, belonging to this world as well as to other realms. Hence they may have had access to the gods, who were also denizens of another sphere. From the late Predynastic, standardsbearing totemic animals were used as symbols, to represent specific geographic areas of Egypt or groups of people (clans?), as is attested on slate palettes, most notably that of NARMER (see PALETTE). These local animal gods sometimes merged with other divinities and joined together to form the pantheon of the unified Egyptian state, in some cases becoming a

combination of zoomorphic and anthropomorphic entities. Possibly this link between animals and gods was also extended to the early rulers of Egypt. The intimate association between royalty and animals is obvious in Egypt during the Protodynastic and EARLY DYNASTIC PERIOD, when the names of early rulers were those of animals: catfish, scorpion, serpent, and so on. Perhaps the belief was that the ruler was being blessed with the particular strengths of ‘his’ animal, and such attributions also underlined the divine nature of both. Animal cults existed in Egypt from the Predynastic period onward (Flores 2003), gaining in popularity in the NEW KINGDOM, and most especially in the Late Period and thereafter. Some of them, such as that of the Apis-bull in Memphis, are securely attested from the First Dynasty onward (Simpson 1957) and enjoyed a renaissance in the Eighteenth Dynasty, under the reign of AMENHOTEP III, as is demonstrated by the construction of the first element of the Serapeum complex by the crown prince Djhutmose. The latter’s affiliation with animals is also indicated by his burial of a cat, possibly his pet, in a stone sarcophagus. The first known monumental provision for the Mnevis-bull comes from the same general period. Other sacred animals came into being, or at least became popular, from the TwentySixth Dynasty onward. The roots of the popularity of these cults lay in their accessibility to the public and in the upsurge of personal piety and personal gods that occurred during the New Kingdom (Davies and Smith 1997: 122–3). The later cults seem to have differed slightly from the earlier, more established ones in their nature, in their general accessibility, and in their identification of most of the creatures with aspects of OSIRIS – as well as of the king, although this is still a matter of some conjecture (Kessler 1989, ch. 3). The reason for the proliferation of animal cults that started in the Late Period and continued into the Graeco-Roman period is unclear. Perhaps these cults started as a form of

3 religious archaizing that paralleled the artistic archaizing of the period. In addition, they might have served to define and separate the Egyptians religiously from their neighbors and, in some cases, from their conquerors. By emphasizing things uniquely theirs and distinct from the religious customs of the “other,” the Egyptians were calling attention to the strength of their own culture and religious traditions in the face of these interlopers. Thus, animal cults became a significant part of Egyptian socioreligious identity. Many classical writers made scathing comments on the oddity of the Egyptians’ obsession with animals and their manifestation as divine beings. However, ultimately this did not stop either Romans or Greeks (or indeed other groups) from participating in aspects of the cult (Clarysse 1988: 7–10). The range and popularity of these cults increased markedly in the Ptolemaic (332–30 BCE) and Roman Periods, at least until the late fourth century CE, when the emperor THEODOSIUS I enforced the official closure of pagan temples. It is, however, unclear when the last sacred animal burial took place; most probably this was before Theodosius acted against the temples, as there is limited evidence for later cult activities, although some cults might have continued in remote areas such as the oases, or at the very southern border of Egypt. Thus animal cults became not just a manifestation of Egyptian religion, but also a means of separating and defining “the Egyptian” by opposition to the “foreign,” and was a reaction against the alien peoples who ruled and inhabited Egypt in the latter periods of pharaonic Egyptian history. These cults were extremely popular, perhaps because they offered guarantees of salvation to those who served them or to those who put themselves under their protection (Smith 1992: 219). Animal cults had other components too, apart from worshipping the god. Chief among these were the oracle, dream interpretation, and incubation (Ikram 2015, particularly chapters 6 and 7). The oracular power of divine animals was perhaps the most significant of

these components, and it was attributed to very diverse creatures, ranging from bulls and rams (Mond and Myers 1934: 47; Kakosy 1981: 141) to scarab beetles (Jasnow 1997). Oracles became increasingly important in Egyptian religion from the Late Period onward, perhaps because they permitted people a more intimate relationship with the gods than had been previously possible (see ORACLES, PHARAONIC EGYPT). Even ALEXANDER THE GREAT went to the SIWA OASIS to consult the Oracle of Amun, possibly in the form of a ram. Questions would be addressed to the animal manifestation of the god in its capacity as an oracular animal. The response, whether audible or gestural, would be interpreted by priests and the results passed on to the petitioner. In some instances, the oracles seem to have been interpreted (or, if one is cynical, to have been made) by a group of priests who met in a council chamber (Ikram 2015, ch. 6). Incubation and dream interpretation also played a role in animal cults and allowed people intimate contact with a god (see DREAMS, PHARAONIC EGYPT AND ANCIENT NEAR EAST). The dreams were interpreted by priests, and in some cases perhaps the priests themselves had dreams that answered the prayers or queries of pilgrims. The priest Hor, whose archive was found at Saqqara (Ray 1976), was frequently visited by Thoth in his dreams, while the priest Sematauitefnakht writes in his autobiography that the god Khnum came to him in a dream and gave him advice that saved him (Kakosy 1981: 141). Incubation, together with the prescriptive advice contained in interpreted dreams, was thought to be effective in curing people of diseases. The Buchisbull was supposed to be particularly effective in curing eye diseases (Mond and Myers 1934: 48), while many other animal cult centers were famed for their ability to encourage fertility. Even after their death, specific animals continued to be worshipped by name; a certain sacred baboon had not only stelae, but also offering tables dedicated to it after its death; clearly it must have been a particularly effective

4 god (Ritner 1993: 267). Thus, sacred animals had vast appeal to the population of Egypt, as the gods were not only visible, but also effective. SEE ALSO:

Cult; Religion, Pharaonic Egypt

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Clarysse, W. (1988) “A demotic self-dedication to Anubis.” Enchoria 16: 7–10. Davies, S. and H. Smith (1997) “Sacred animal temples at Saqqara.” In S. Quirke, ed., The temple in ancient Egypt: 112–31. London. Flores, D. V. (2003) Funerary sacrifice of animals in the Egyptian Predynastic Period. Oxford. Ikram, S. (2015) Divine creatures: animal mummies in ancient Egypt. 2nd edn. Cairo. Jasnow, R. (1997) “A demotic omen text?” In J. van Dijk, ed., Essays on ancient Egypt in honour of Herman Te Velde: 204–17. Groningen. Kakosy, L. (1981) “Prophecies of Ram gods.” Studia Aegyptiaca 7: 139–54.

Kessler, D. (1989) Die Heiligen Tiere und Der Konig, vol. 1. Wiesbaden. Kessler, D. and A. Nur el-Din (1999) “Ein Tierkäfig am Tierfriedhof von Tuna el-Gebel, Mittelägypten.” In C. Becker et alli, eds., Historia animalium ex Ossibus. Rahden. Mond, R. and O. H. Myers (1934) The Bucheum, vols. 1–3. London. Ray, J. D. (1976) The archive of Hor. London. Reymond, E. A. (1972) “Two demotic memoranda.” Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 58: 254–5, 257. Ritner, R. K. (1993) “An unusual offering table in Dallas.” In Acta Demotica: Acts of Fifth International Conference for Demotists: 265–73. Pisa. Simpson, W. K. (1957) “A running of the Apis in the reign of the ‘Aha and passages in Manetho and Aelian.” Orientalia 26: 139–42. Smith, H. S. (1992) “The death and life of the mother of Apis.” In A. B. Lloyd, ed., Studies in Pharaonic religion and society in honour of J. Gwyn Griffiths: 201–25. London. Vercoutter, J. (1962) Textes biographiques du Sérapéum de Memphis. Paris. Vos, R. L. (1993) The Apis embalming ritual. Leuven.

1

Anitta GARY BECKMAN

In the late eighteenth century BCE, Anitta, ruling from his capital at KANESH (Nesa), established a large territorial state in central ANATOLIA. Through a series of campaigns building upon the earlier successes of his father Pithana, ˘ Anitta gradually brought the other small polities of the region – including HATTUSA, Zalpa on the Black Sea coast, and Purusˇhanda – under his hegemony, thereby earning the title “Great Prince,” ruba¯’um rabi’um in Assyrian. However, his realm did not long endure; it is even uncertain whether his likely son and designated successor Peruwa ever took the throne. Anitta is attested by a dagger or spear-head inscribed “Palace of Anitta,” found at the city mound of Kanesh (Ku¨ltepe), and he is recorded as validating a number of contracts found at the Assyrian merchant settlement at that site (Level Ib). Furthermore, a collection of three of his own royal inscriptions was preserved in the later Hittite archives of Hattusa. Although these texts are written in an early form of Hittite, it is uncertain in which tongue

they were originally composed (Assyrian or Hittite). Similarly unclear is the ethnicity of Anitta and Pithana, whose original seat of power was ˘ the city of Kussar, somewhere southeast of Kanesh. The later Hittite dynasty of Hattusili I also arose in this city, and its members apparently identified Anitta as a precursor, although he is never cited as their ancestor. SEE ALSO: Hattusili I and his dynasty; Hittite, Hittites.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Beckman, G. (2006) “The Anitta Text.” In M. W. Chavalas, ed., The ancient Near East: Historical sources in translation: 216–19. Oxford. Bryce, T. (2005) The kingdom of the Hittites, 2nd ed.: 35–40. Oxford. Carruba, O. (2001) “Anitta res gestae: paralipomena I.” In G. Wilhelm, ed., Akten des IV. Internationalen Kongresses fu¨r Hethitologie Wu¨rzburg, 4–8 Oktober 1999: 51–72. Wiesbaden. Carruba, O. (2003) Anittae res gestae. Pavia. Klengel, H. (1999) Geschichte des hethitischen Reiches: 28–31. Leiden. Neu, E. (1974) Der Anitta-Text. Wiesbaden.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print page 439. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah24016

1

Ankhesenpepi II VIVIENNE CALLENDER

NAME AND DATING The name Ankhenes-Pepi II (also known as Ankhenes-Meryre II) incorporates the king’s name, Pepi I-Meryre, third ruler of the 6th Dynasty. Gourdon (2006: 99) notes that the name takes the form of an oath used in the late Old Kingdom and is like a declaration of allegiance to the king: “That Pepi lives for her,” or even, “She has taken an oath on Pepi.” The queen lived during the reigns of Pepi I and Pepi II. The first king was her husband, the second was her son. TITLES “King’s wife of the pyramid”; “Established and beautiful is Mery-Re”; “Great one of the Hts scepter”; “Great of praise”; “Daughter of the God”; “Follower of the Great One”; “Companion of Horus”; “She who sits with Horus”; “Mother of the King of Upper and Lower Egypt”; “The pyramid of Neferkare is established and living.” These titles of AnkhenesPepi II (as well as the similar ones for her sister, Ankhenes-Pepi I) come from the tomb of their brother, Djau, at Abydos (Borchardt 1937: CG 1431). Both women were wives of Pepi I. With the exception of the names for their respective sons, the titles of both queens are almost the same as each other – see especially Djau’s record, CG 1431. Dobrev (2000: 389) recently demonstrated that the title of Daughter of the God was held by Ankhenes-Pepi I as well. An important alabaster statuette from Brooklyn (B 39.119) shows the enthroned queen wearing the vulture cap of a royal mother. Her son is seated upon her thigh (James 1974: 28, pl. IV). On the statue base are the titles “Mother of the King of Upper and Lower Egypt” and “this daughter of the God.” The epithet “beloved of Khnum” is added. This last epithet is unique for an Old Kingdom queen.

EVIDENCE The most important evidence comes from her tomb (Labrousse 1999: 23–8), where her burial chamber walls were finely decorated with Pyramid Texts (Mathieu et al. 2005). Her greywacke sarcophagus bears unique and important titles but is as yet unpublished. Her pyramid complex resembles the mortuary temple of a king and is the largest monument for any known queen in the Old Kingdom. To date, the burial chamber has the earliest examples of the Pyramid Texts for anyone other than the ruler (Mathieu et al. 2005). The texts themselves contain new formulae. Mathieu reports that the substructure of the tomb gives it an architectural date between the pyramids of Pepi I and of Merenre, which means it must have been begun in the time of the latter king, but because the texts themselves include formulae from the time of Pepi II, it is evident that the decoration was finished in this later period. At Wadi Maghara, in the SINAI, a rock inscription (Gardiner et al. 1952: pl. 9) records an expedition sent there by Ankhenes-Pepi during her regency. To the left of the inscription are her titles, with the epithet “beloved of all the gods.” This phrase was hitherto confined to kings. The queen wears a close-fitting cap with the uraeus, such as some Old Kingdom kings wear. This item also appears on the Abydos slab fragment found by Petrie (1903: pl. 20). No other queens wear this headdress until the New Kingdom (e.g., some images of NEFERTITI, or Ankhenes-Amen, on Sides B and C of the Small Golden Shrine). Later kings, such as Psamtik, are also depicted in this headgear. HER STATUS AND ROLE IN SOCIETY Ankhenes-Pepi and her sisters were commoners, the children of a woman named Nebet and her husband, Khui (CG 1431). The family came from Abydos. Both daughters had the same name, and there was a son, Djau. Some think it possible that Nebet, the mother of these

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 439–441. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah15422

2 three people, may be identical with history’s earliest known female vizier (Borchardt 1964: CG 1578; Fischer 1976: 74 f.). However, others are not so sure (see Stock 1949: 6–11; Callender 1998: 98). The elder sister, Ankhenes-Pepi I, was the mother of King Merenre. Ankhenes-Pepi II was the mother of Neferkare Pepi II. After the death of Pepi I, however, Ankhenes-Pepi II became the wife of her nephew, Merenre (Labrousse 2000: 485–90). Such a marriage is unique in Egyptian history. Manetho (see MANETHO, EGYPTIAN HISTORIAN) records Pepi II as having come to the throne at the age of six, after which time Queen Ankhenes-Pepi II acted as his regent until he came of age. Most unusual is that, for the first time, we know that the regent was a woman of bourgeois stock. She was one of the most influential queens in Egyptian history. By the time of Pepi II, her brother, Djau, had become vizier – possibly due to the fact that both of his sisters had been married to King Pepi I. Altogether, there were four queens known as Ankhenes-Pepi (Dobrev 2000: 386). Two were wives of Pepi I, one was the daughter of Merenre and wife of Pepi II, and the fourth was the mother of Neferkare II (we do not know if she was related to the family of Pepi I). SEE ALSO:

Abydos, Egypt; Pepi I and II.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Borchardt, L. (1937, 1964) Catalogue Ge´ne´ral des Antiquite´s e´gyptiennes du Musee´ du Caire.

1295–1808. Denkma¨ler des Alten Reiches im Museum von Kairo Nr.1295–1541. Berlin. Dobrev, V. (2000) “The sarcophagus of Queen Mother Ankhenes-Pepi.” In Abusir and Saqqara in the year 2000: 381–96. Prague. Fischer, H. G. (1976) Egyptian Studies, vol 1: Varia 1: 74 f. New York. Gardiner, A. H., Peet, E. and Cˇerny, J. (1952) The inscriptions of Sinai, part 1: pl. IX. London. Gardiner, A. H., Peet, E. and Cˇerny, J. (1955) The inscriptions of Sinai, part 2: 64. London. Gourdon, Y. (2006) “Le nom des e´pouses abyde´niennes de Pe´py Ier et la formule de serment a` la fin de l’Ancien Empire.” Bulletin de l’Institut Franc¸ais d’Arche´ologie Orientale 106: 89–103. James, T. G. H. (1974) Corpus of hieroglyphic inscriptions in the Brooklyn Museum. Brooklyn. Labrousse, A. (1999) “Les complexes fune´raires du roi Pepy Ier et de trois reines.” E´gypte, Afrique et Orient 12: 23–8. Labrousse, A. and Leclant, J. (2001) “Une e´pouse du roi Me´renreˆ Ier: la reine Aˆnkhesenpe´py II.” In M. Ba´rta and J. Krejcı´, eds., Abusir and Saqqara in the Year 2000: 485–90. Mariette, A. (1880) Catalogue Ge´ne´ral des Monuments d’Abydos de´couverts pendant les fouilles de cette ville: 86–7. Paris. Mathieu, B., Be`ne, E., and Spahr, A. (2005) “Recherches sur les textes de la pyramide de la reine Aˆnkhesenpe´py II (1). Le registre supe´rieur de la paroi est de la chambre fune´raire (AII/F/E sup).” Bulletin de l’Institut Franc¸ais d’Arche´ologie Orientale 105: 129–38. Petrie, W. M. F. (1903) Abydos, vol. 2. London. ¨ gyptische Inschriften in den Roeder, G. (1901) A Ko¨niglichen Museen zu Berlin, vol. 1. Leipzig.

1

Ankyra MIHAIL ZAHARIADE

Ankyra in Galatia stood on the site of presentday Ankara, the capital of Turkey. A Hittite settlement before 1200 BCE was known as Ankuwash. Originally it belonged to the Phrygian kingdom. The legendary founder of Ankyra was King Midas, who, it is said, found an anchor on the place. According to Pausanias, there was a temple dedicated to Zeus before Alexander the Great, who resided here briefly. In the third century BCE, Ankyra was conquered by the Celtae Tectosagae, who established here their capital. After 25 BCE Ankyra became the city-capital of the Roman province of Galatia, preserving its former commercial importance in the region. In late Roman and Byzantine periods, Ankyra was one of the main points of resistance against the invasions from the east. The town was visited by the emperor Julian. Jovian was received with the imperial ceremonial at Ankyra. The city is recorded in inscriptions as “metropolis Ancyrarum” and “Flavia Ankyra.” Praetorian soldiers and legionaries were recruited from the city. The modern Ankara destroyed most of the ancient Ankyra, but there are some important monuments which have survived: the baths, built under Caracalla, lie near the site of the old Turkish city gate. The column of Julian

stood between the baths and the temple of Rome and Augustus, the best-known surviving monument. On the walls of the pronaos, there is the Latin text of Res Gestae Divi Augusti; the south cella wall bears the Greek version of the same text, both known as Monumentum Ancyrarum; copies of the original are in the temple of Augustus in Rome. The Byzantine citadel with impressive fortifications was built in ca. 630 CE on the occasion of the recapturing of the city by Herakleios from the Persians. In 859 the fort was restored by the Byzantine emperor Michael III. After that date, outer fortifications were added. The walls of the Byzantine period include many Roman architectural remains and other debris from the former Roman buildings and monuments. SEE ALSO: Galatia; Herakleios, emperor; Marcellus of Ankyra; Res gestae of Augustus.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Bosch, E. (1967) Quellen zur Geschichte der Stadt Ankara im Altertum. Ankara. Foss, C. (1990) Late Antique and Byzantine Ankara. History and Archaeology of Byzantine Asia Minor. Aldershot. Gu¨terbock, H. G. (1989) The Temple of Augustus in the 1930s. Anatolia and the Ancient Near East. ¨ zgu¨c¸. Ankara. Studies in Honorem of T. O Mitchell S. (1995) Anatolia, land, men, and gods in Asia Minor, vols. 1–2. Oxford.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 441–442. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah14036

1

Anna Perenna HANS-FRIEDRICH MUELLER

Ovid (Fast. 3.523–696) offers the fullest account of Anna Perenna and her festival on March 15 when the lower classes (plebeians) would pair off, lie about on the grass along the river Tiber, drink heavily, dance, sing obscene songs, and stagger home. Those who chanced upon these drunken worshippers would call them “blessed” (fortunatos). Ovid provides six possible explanations for Anna’s origins (Fast. 646–74). (1) She is the sister of Dido, who became a water nymph: “lurking in an ever-flowing (perenne) stream (amne), I am called ‘Anna Perenna’.” (2) She fills the year (annus) with her months, hence she is the moon (Luna). (3) She is the Greek goddess of law and order, Themis. (4) She is the goddess Io. (5) She was Jupiter’s nurse, Azanida. (6) She was Anna of Bovilla, an old woman, who brought bread to feed the plebeians when they seceded during constitutional struggles against patricians. Some scholars connect her to annona (care for the grain supply). Etymologically, “Anna” may deify annus (year) in feminine form, and the epithet “Perenna” would indicate that she persists

through the years, i.e., that she is “perennial” (cf. Macrob. Sat. 1.12.6; Suet. Vesp. 5). Varro splits the two-fold name into separate parts: Anna ac Peranna (Sat. Men. frag. 506 Astbury). Porte (1971) suggests an original command by way of greeting: “Survive the year (anna!), and many more (ac peranna)!” Third-century CE curse-tablets have recently been discovered in the fountain dedicated to the nymph Anna Perenna. Was the date of Anna’s festival a factor when conspirators plotted Caesar’s assassination? Most scholars consider it coincidence. Our sources are otherwise silent, and Ovid, who juxtaposes festival and assassination, does not explicitly connect them.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Newlands, C. (1996) “Transgressive acts: Ovid’s treatment of the Ides.” Classical Philology 91: 320–38. Piramonte, M. (2010) In R. L. Gordon and F. Marco Simo´n, eds., Magical practice in the Latin West: papers from the international conference held at the University of Zaragoza, 30 Sept.–1 Oct. 2005: 87–104. Leiden. Porte, D. (1971) “Anna Perenna, ‘bonne et heureuse anne´e’?” Revue de philologie, de litte´rature et d’histoire anciennes 45: 282–91.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 442–443. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah17038

1

Annales Maximi GARY FORSYTHE

Modern scholars have generally construed Cicero’s remarks at De oratore 2.52–3 to mean that, while Publius Mucius Scaevola was pontifex maximus (130–115 BCE), all the material accumulated in the pontiffs’ archive since early times was reworked and consolidated into the Annales maximi, which, according to SERVIUS, comprised eighty books (the relevant passages of Cicero and Servius are both quoted in the entry PONTIFICAL CHRONICLE). This dating of the Annales maximi receives support from the contemporaneous works on pontifical law by N. Fabius Pictor and Fabius Maximus Servilianus, because these latter demonstrate that interest in such matters was characteristic of the late second century BCE. Pictor’s and Servilianus’ works were probably reworkings of the recently consolidated Annales maximi, whose content they helped to disseminate and to incorporate into the developing Roman annalistic tradition. It is doubtful that there ever could have been enough pontifical material to fill eighty papyrus scrolls used for books of literary prose. Rather the data might have easily filled eighty wooden codices, whose physical bulk, consisting of numerous thin wooden leaves tied together to form a block, could not hold as many columns of writing as a papyrus scroll. Thus eighty wooden codices, suspended by hooks from rafters in a public building, like other Roman records, might have contained the equivalent of 15–20 papyrus scrolls. Careful sifting of LIVY’s narrative suggests that, by Scaevola’s day, the amount of authentic pontifical material preceding the middle of the fourth century BCE was rather meager. The accounts of Livy and DIONYSIUS OF HALICARNASSUS contain certain kinds of information that modern scholars generally suppose to have derived ultimately from the Pontifical Chronicle: the list of CONSULS, major military defeats and celebration of triumphs, deaths of priests,

temple dedications, institution of new religious ceremonies, plagues, food shortages, and the occurrence of unusual phenomena that the Romans regarded as divine portents requiring expiation (e.g., eclipses, monstrous births, and damage or death caused by lightning). Yet such material forms a very small portion of Livy’s and Dionysius’ narratives. At most, the historical data preserved in the Annales maximi would have provided their accounts with little more than a skeletal chronological framework of major events, whose narrative had to be fleshed out by other means, such as oral tradition, inscriptions, other documents, and the author’s own imagination. The surviving fragments from the pontifical writings of N. Fabius Pictor and Fabius Maximus Servilianus, whose content probably resembled that of the Annales maximi, largely contain detailed contemporary religious regulations and verbal formulae used in ceremonies (Peter 1914: 114–6 and 118). This suggests that the eighty-book Annales maximi contained a small amount of truly historically relevant data. Histories such as that of Calpurnius Piso, written about the time of the compilation of the Annales maximi, were probably the first works to incorporate systematically the relevant historical data gleaned from the Pontifical Chronicle, including an annalistic framework; and subsequent historians did not need to consult the work directly, but simply took the material over indirectly from other accounts. SEE ALSO: Annalists, Roman; Calpurnius Piso Frugi, Lucius; Cicero, Marcus Tullius; Codex; Mucius Scaevola, Publius; Papyrus; Plague; Pontifex, pontifices; Triumph.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Bucher, G. S. (1995) “The Annales maximi in the light of Roman methods of keeping records.” American Journal of Ancient History 12: 2–61. Chassignet, M. (1996) L’Annalistique romaine, vol. 1: Les Annales des pontifes et l’annalistique

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 443–444. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah08010

2 ancienne (fragments): xxiii–xlii and 1–15. Paris. Crake, J. E. A. (1940) “The Annals of the pontifex maximus.” Classical Philology 35: 375–86. Forsythe, G. (1994) The historian L. Calpurnius Piso Frugi and the Roman annalistic tradition: 51–73. Lanham, MD. Forsythe, G. (2000) “The Roman historians of the second century B.C.” In C. Bruun, ed., The Roman Middle Republic: politics, religion, and historiography c.400–133 B.C.: 6–8. Rome.

Frier, B. W. (1979) Libri Annales pontificum maximorum: the origins of the annalistic tradition. Rome. Peter, H. (1914) Historicorum romanorum reliquiae, vol. 1: iii–xxx and 3–4. Leipzig. Rawson, E. (1971) “Prodigy lists and the use of the Annales Maximi.” Classical Quarterly n.s. 21: 158–69. Ruoff-Va¨a¨na¨nen, E. (1972) “The Roman public prodigia and the ager romanus.” Arctos n.s. 7: 139–62. Steinby, T. (1958) “A pontifical document.” Arctos 2: 143–51.

1

Annalists, Roman GARY FORSYTHE

“Annalists” is a term applied by modern scholars collectively to LIVY’s predecessors: the twenty or so Romans who flourished ca. 230–30 BCE and wrote histories of Rome. None of these works survived beyond antiquity, except in fragments – that is, direct quotations or paraphrases of portions of these works made by ancient writers whose writings have survived. Most annalists are known to us from only a few fragments, whereas some (e.g., Cato and VALERIUS ANTIAS) are fairly well understood from numerous fragments. All these Greek and Latin texts have been collected and arranged by modern scholars: Peter 1914; Chassignet 1996 and 1999; and Beck-Walter 2001. Despite the paucity of our evidence, the fragments, when studied together, allow us to reconstruct in broad outline the overall development of Roman historiography before Livy. Most of these writers composed allencompassing accounts of Rome, from mythical times down to their own day. Since the Greeks had created historical writing and Greek was the language of literary culture before the emergence of Latin during the Late Republic, it is not surprising that four of the earliest native Roman historians (Quintus Fabius Pictor, Lucius Cincius Alimentus, AULUS POSTUMIUS ALBINUS, and Gaius Acilius) wrote in Greek. Pictor and Alimentus enjoyed public careers during the Hannibalic War (218–201), whereas Albinus and Acilius reached the pinnacle of their careers ca. 150. Albinus published his history before Cato’s death in 149, and Acilius published his work in 142. Cato’s Origines, published ca. 150, was the first Roman history written in Latin; and, apart from Acilius, all Romans henceforth wrote histories in Latin. Before the close of the second century all Roman histories were relatively brief and probably shared a similar three-part structure: a somewhat expansive account of myths preceding and including Rome’s foundation and the

reigns of the seven kings; a very sketchy narration of the Early Republic (509–264); and a rather detailed treatment of the Middle Republic (264 onward). Cato’s Origines, for example, comprised seven books. Books 1–3 treated Rome’s royal period and the foundations and customs of the various Italian communities, whereas the last four books covered events from the First Punic War onwards. As suggested by Aulus Gellius (NA 2.28.6), Cato may have omitted the Early Republic altogether. With the rise of Latin rhetorical training during the period from the Gracchi to Sulla (133–79), Roman historiography became more diversified. The consolidation of pontifical material into the Annales maximi (ca. 130–115) prompted two Roman historians, N. Fabius Pictor and Fabius Maximus Servilianus, to compose works solely devoted to religious matters and pontifical law. Through its list of consuls beginning in 509 BCE, the Annales maximi also stimulated the development of truly annalistic (year by year) historical writing for both the Early and the Middle Republic. In contrast, POLYBIUS’ very detailed history of Rome’s conquest of the MEDITERRANEAN during the Middle Republic, written in Greek and comprising forty books, inspired SEMPRONIUS ASELLIO to reject the established tradition of writing relatively terse all-encompassing histories of Rome in favor of a form of history covering contemporary times in great detail. Asellio seems to have treated the period ca. 150–90 in about fifteen books. Similarly, Coelius Antipater singled out the Hannibalic War for detailed treatment in seven books, a length that had previously sufficed to encompass all of Roman history. This period, characterized by domestic political conflict and violence, also witnessed the emergence of autobiographical memoirs written by prominent senators. The first fully annalistic history of Rome was probably achieved by Calpurnius Piso Frugi around 120 BCE, but, like earlier works, it was relatively brief, comprising seven or eight

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 444–446. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah08011

2 books. Piso’s immediate successor, Gnaeus Gellius (ca. 120–90), composed Rome’s first really massive history, organized into at least 97 books. Gellius greatly expanded Piso’s barebones account of the Early Republic on a scale probably resembling what we encounter in the Roman Antiquities of DIONYSIUS OF HALICARNASSUS; and Gellius’ treatment of the Middle Republic must have been at least as extensive as Livy’s. Gellius’ literary expansion of the Early Republic history was achieved through widespread use of fictitious speeches and battle narratives, which reflected the military practices and exciting political issues and tactics of his own day and created a lively and entertaining narrative at the expense of historical truth. Reacting to the flamboyant Gellius, Claudius Quadrigarius (ca. 90–70 BCE) began his history with the year 390 and largely ignored domestic political affairs in favor of military history, to showcase the prowess that had made Rome great. Gellius, however, had his worthy annalistic successors in Livy’s three most important immediate predecessors during the last generation of the Late Republic (79–31 BCE): Gaius Licinius Macer, Valerius Antias, and Quintus Aelius Tubero. Macer committed suicide in 66 BCE. As a populist plebeian tribune in 73, he opposed the Senate’s political predominance, established by Sulla’s recent constitutional reforms. Since Macer’s fragments do not extend beyond the Early Republic and show him altering earlier traditions in the struggle of the orders, his history probably portrayed the early conflict between patricians and plebeians in the political terms of his own day. The 66 fragments from Valerius Antias (ca. 70–40) show that he falsified events both in the earlier and in the later Roman history. For example, according to him not one, but two battles were fought at Zama in 202 between HANNIBAL and Scipio Africanus. His account was on a grand scale: Numa in Book 2, the Caudine Peace of 321 in Book 22, the year 204 in Book 45, the year 181 in Book 53, and the year 118 in Book 75. Tubero (ca. 45–30) used both Macer and Antias as

sources and closed out the pre-Livian annalistic tradition by composing a Roman history from the earliest times to the end of the republic. SEE ALSO: Acilius, Gaius; Annales Maximi; Aulus Gellius, Attic Nights; Calpurnius Piso Frugi, Lucius; Cato, Marcus Porcius (Cato the Elder); Cincius Alimentus, Lucius; Claudius Quadrigarius, Quintus; Coelius Antipater, Lucius; Fabius Pictor, Quintus; Gellius, Gnaeus; Gracchus, Tiberius and Gaius Sempronius; Licinius Macer, Gaius; Punic wars; Rhetoric, Roman; Scipio Africanus (Publius Cornelius Scipio Africanus); Sulla (Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix); Tribuni plebis; Zama, battle of.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Badian, E. (1966) “The Early Historians.” In T. A. Dorey, ed., Latin historians: 1–38. London. Beck, H. and Walter, U. (2001) Die fru¨hen ro¨mischen Historiker, vol. 1: Von Fabius Pictor bis Cn. Gellius. Darmstadt. Beck, H. and Walter. U. (2004) Die fru¨hen ro¨mischen Historiker, vol. 2: Von Coelius Antipater bis Pomponius Atticus. Darmstadt. Chassignet, M. (1996) L’Annalistique romaine, vol. 1: Les Annales des pontifes et l’annalistique ancienne (fragments). Paris. Chassignet, M. (1999) L’Annalistique romaine, vol. 2: L’annalistique moyenne (fragments). Paris. Chassignet, M. (2004) L’Annalistique romaine, vol. 3: L’annalistique re´cente, l’autobiographie politique (fragments). Paris. Forsythe, G. (1994) The historian L. Calpurnius Piso Frugi and the Roman annalistic tradition. Lanham, MD. Forsythe, G. (2000) “The Roman historians of the second century B.C.” In C. Bruun, ed., The Roman Middle Republic: politics, religion, and historiography c.400–133 B.C.: 1–11. Rome. Forsythe, G. (2002) “Dating and arranging the history of Valerius Antias.” In V. B. Gorman and E. W. Robinson, eds., Oikistes: studies in constitutions, colonies, and military power in the

3 ancient world, offered in honor of A. J. Graham: 99–112. Leiden. Jacoby, F. (1958) Die Fragmente der griechischen Historiker, vol. III C. Leiden. Peter, H. (1914) Historicorum romanorum reliquiae, vol. 1. Leipzig.

Verbrugghe, G. P. (1989) “On the meaning of Annales, on the meaning of annalist.” Philologus 133: 192–230. Wiseman, T. P. (1979) Clio’s cosmetics: three studies in Greco-Roman literature: 3–40. Leicester.

1

Annona GAIUS STERN

The term “annona” refers to the annual crop yield (like a GDP), which evolved to mean both the tax on land produce and the handout of food (the dole, a form of ancient welfare) in the city of Rome. Annona, a minor goddess of crop production, who personified the above-mentioned dole, appears on many coins, often beside a modius (basket) carrying a cornucopia (horn of plenty), sometimes with a ship in the background to represent the import of foreign grain with which to feed the city. The Gracchi brothers (133–121 BCE) offered cheap grain (largely from Sicily and later Egypt) at a subsidized price to the urban poor, although it was also available to wealthier citizens (Cic. Tusc. 3.48). In addition, Gaius Gracchus advocated the stockpiling of grain to alleviate outbreaks of famine. Their opponents (including Cicero 75 years later) claimed that they were buying the votes of the poor with this cheap handout. Cicero (Off. 2.21.72) criticized the Gracchan subsidy as excessively

costly compared to the less expensive alternative a later tribune, Marcus Octavius, created. Some form of subsidy seems to have survived until the tribune P. Clodius Pulcher converted it into a free handout in 58 BCE (Cass. Dio 38.13.1; Nicolet 1980: 192–5). Augustus and others considered eliminating the dole, but feared the repercussions. Augustus (Res Gestae 15) boasts that he paid out several cash bonuses to those receiving the dole (in 44, 29, 24, 5 and 2 BCE) always to at least two hundred and fifty thousand people. Yet on the last occasion, Cassius Dio (55.10.1) tells us that Augustus restricted the free dole to two hundred thousand recipients out of a population of perhaps one million. Many subsequent emperors advertised their generosity by issuing coins bearing Annona. Some even expanded the distribution to include olive oil and other food. However, in times of economic crisis (especially ca. 250 CE) it is to be expected that the frequency and bounty of the dole diminished. SEE ALSO: Augustus (Imperator Caesar Augustus); Cicero, Marcus Tullius; Clodius Pulcher, Publius; Congiarium; Famine and

Figure 1 Vespasian, denarius, 77–78 CE. Obverse: CAESAR VESPASIANVS AVG, laureate head right. Reverse: ANNONA Annona seated left holding a bundle of grain ears in her lap. RSC 29. Photograph by Gaius Stern.

AVG,

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 446–447. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah06022

2 food shortages, Greece and Rome; Gracchus, Tiberius and Gaius Sempronius. REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Coarelli, F. (1994) “Saturnino, Ostia e l’annona. Il controllo e l’organizzazione del commercio del grano tra II e I secolo a.C.” In Le ravitaillement en ble´ de Rome et des centres urbains de`s de´buts de la Re´publique jusqu’au Haut Empire: Actes du colloque international organise´

par le Centre Jean Be´rard et l’URA 994 du CNRS (Naples, 14–16 fe´vrier 1991): 35–46. Rome. Cullens, A. J. (1988) “A recalculation of the number of grain recipients in the Late Republic.” Liverpool Classical Monthly 13, 7: 98–9. Erdkamp, P. (2005) The grain market in the Roman Empire: a social, political and economic study. Cambridge. Nicolet, C. (1980) The world of the citizen in republican Rome. Berkeley.

1

Anonymus Londiniensis SUSAN PRINCE

Anonymus Londiniensis is the unknown author of a Greek medical text composed in the first century CE and preserved, nearly complete, on a papyrus published in 1893 (P.Lond. Inv. 137). The text is famous for its middle section, a list of opinions on pathology by nineteen ancient Greek doctors from the fifth and fourth centuries BCE, ascribed by the author to “Aristotle” and almost certainly descended from the fourth-century Peripatetic school, where an associate named Menon is said by GALEN to have composed a “Handbook of Medicine.” Seven of these doctors were unknown before the discovery of the papyrus; three were known chiefly as philosophers; Hippocrates and PLATO command the most respect from the first-century author of the final text, although the original doxography seems to recognize Hippocrates as merely one among many rationalist doctors of his time. Because the writer of the papyrus makes some errors of terminology and repetition, scholars have suspected that the text consists essentially of lecture notes by a mediocre student, possibly even recopied. However, Manetti (1994) argues from details in the layout of text that the scribe is identical with the thinker who organized the material and who raises disputes with the authorities cited. Allowing for the sometimes sloppy presentation, she proposes that the text was in fact written by a doctor for his personal library. The contents of the document are readily divided into three parts. A first section (columns 1–4.17) contains definitions of terms, primarily “affliction” (pathos) and its subdivisions, both physical and psychological. The beginning of the papyrus is physically missing, and there are holes that result in further textual gaps, but these are minor by comparison with normal survival of text on papyrus. The writer renounces Stoic theory

about psychological “afflictions” and aligns himself with “the ancients.” This is one of many signs that the writer is Aristotelian or possibly Epicurean in his basic philosophical identity. The writer defers discussion of psychological afflictions to others and concentrates for the rest of the text on physical afflictions. A second section (columns 4.18–20) lists the opinions of nineteen ancient doctors about the causes of physical afflictions under two basic headings, those (thirteen) who believe the cause is “residues” from digestion of food and those (six) who believe the cause is imbalance in the “elements” of our natural constitution. Hippocrates appears in the first group, and his son-in-law Polybus, probable author of some texts attributed to Hippocrates, including Nature of Man, in the second. The third section (columns 21–39) discusses maintenance of the healthy body, primarily through detailed discussion of intake (air and nutriment) and expulsion (breath, excrement, and other evacuations such as sweat, mucus, menstruation). This part of the text is incomplete (the writer himself left it unfinished), but it seems that the author is concerned to defend a strict material balance in the physiological system of the human, even when he must appeal to intake and evacuation “perceptible to reason” only and not to the senses. In this last section, he engages, often polemically, with doctrines of the great Hellenistic doctors, Erasistratus and HEROPHILOS, and with those of a closer contemporary, Asclepiades of Bithynia (ca. 125–40 BCE), whose teachings he seems to know through his pupil Alexander. The citation of Alexander and the style of handwriting are the basis for dating the papyrus to the first century CE. A document from the time of Marcus Aurelius (emperor 161–180) on the back of the papyrus establishes a terminus ante quem: by this time, the medical text was no longer relevant, and the papyrus was recycled. SEE ALSO: Erasistratus, physician; Hippocrates of Kos; Peripatetics.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 447–448. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah21023

2 REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS ¨ ber die Excerpte von Menons Diels, H. (1893) “U Iatrika in dem Londoner Papyrus 137.” Hermes 29: 406–34. Jones, W. H. S. (1947) The medical writings of Anonymus Londinensis. Cambridge. Manetti, D. (1994) “Autografi e incompiuti, il caso dell’ Anonimo londinese.” Zeitschrift fu¨r Papyrologie und Epigraphik 100: 47–59.

Manetti, D. (1999) “‘Aristotle’ and the role of doxography in the Anonymus Londiniensis (P.Br.Lib. Inv. 137).” In P. J. van der Eijk, ed., Ancient histories of medicine: essays in medical doxography and historiography in Classical antiquity: 95–141. Leiden.

1

Anonymus Londiniensis SUSAN PRINCE

University of Cincinnati, USA

Anonymus Londiniensis is a Greek medical text of unknown authorship composed in the first century CE and preserved, nearly complete, on a papyrus published in 1893 (P.Lond. Inv. 137). The text is famous for its middle section, a list of opinions on pathology by at least twenty ancient Greek doctors from the fifth and fourth centuries BCE, ascribed by the author to “Aristotle” and almost certainly descended from the fourth-century Peripatetic school, where an associate named Menon is said by GALEN to have composed a “Handbook of Medicine.” Seven of these doctors were unknown before the discovery of the papyrus; three were known chiefly as philosophers; HIPPOCRATES and PLATO command the most respect from the first-century author of the final text, although the original doxography seems to recognize Hippocrates as merely one among many rationalist doctors of his time. Because the writer of the papyrus makes errors of terminology and repetition, early scholars suspected that the text consists of lecture notes by a mediocre student, possibly even recopied. However, Manetti (1994) argues from details in the layout of the text that the scribe is identical with the thinker who organized the material and who raises disputes with the authorities cited. Allowing for the sometimes sloppy presentation, she proposes that the text was written by a doctor for his personal library. Ricciardetto (2016) argues that a rescript of a letter from Mark Antony written on the back of the papyrus, addressed originally to the Greeks in the province of Asia in 42–41 or 33–32 BCE, connects the medical text to the sacred games of a medical society in Ephesus, which included contests in medical skill and disputation: features of the text such as its polemical tones could be explained if it were written as notes for a contest. Saumell (2018) offers critical discussion. The contents of the document are readily divided into three parts. A first section (columns

1–4.17) contains definitions of terms, primarily “affliction” (pathos) and its subdivisions, both physical and psychological. The beginning of the papyrus is physically missing, and there are holes that result in further textual gaps, but these are minor by comparison with normal survival of text on papyrus. The writer renounces Stoic theory about psychological “afflictions” and aligns himself with “the ancients.” This is one of many signs that the writer is Aristotelian or possibly Epicurean in his basic philosophical identity. The writer defers discussion of psychological afflictions to others and concentrates for the rest of the text on physical afflictions. A second section (columns 4.18–20) lists the opinions of at least twenty ancient doctors (excluding additional names possibly missing in a long lacuna) about the causes of physical afflictions under two basic headings, those (fourteen) who believe the cause is “residues” from digestion of food and those (six) who believe the cause is imbalance in the “elements” of our natural constitution. Hippocrates appears in the first group, and Plato in the second, together with Hippocrates’ son-in-law Polybus, probable author of some texts attributed to Hippocrates, including Nature of Man. The third section (columns 21–39) discusses maintenance of the healthy body, primarily through detailed discussion of intake (air and nutriment) and expulsion (breath, excrement, and other evacuations such as sweat, mucus, menstruation). This part of the text is incomplete (the writer left it unfinished), but it seems that the author is concerned to defend a strict material balance in the physiological system of the human, even when he must appeal to intake and evacuation “perceptible to reason” only and not to the senses. In this last section, he engages, often polemically, with doctrines of the great Hellenistic doctors, Erasistratus and HEROPHILOS, and with those of a closer contemporary, Asclepiades of Bithynia (ca. 125–40 BCE), whose teachings he seems to know through his pupil Alexander. The citation of Alexander and the style of handwriting are the basis for dating the papyrus to the first century CE.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History. Edited by Andrew Erskine, David B. Hollander, and Arietta Papaconstantinou. © 2020 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Published 2020 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah21023.pub2

2 SEE ALSO:

Erasistratus, physician; Peripatetics.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Diels, H. (1893) “Über die Excerpte von Menons Iatrika in dem Londoner Papyrus 137.” Hermes 29: 406–34. Jones, W. H. S. (1947) The medical writings of Anonymus Londinensis. Cambridge. Manetti, D. (1994) “Autografi e incompiuti, il caso dell’Anonimo londinese.” Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 100: 47–59.

Manetti, D. (1999) “‘Aristotle’ and the role of doxography in the Anonymus Londiniensis (P.Br.Lib. Inv. 137).” In P. J. van der Eijk, ed., Ancient histories of medicine: essays in medical doxography and historiography in Classical antiquity: 95–141. Leiden. Manetti, D., ed. (2011) Anonymus Londiniensis, de Medicina. Berlin. Ricciardetto, A. (2016) L’Anonyme de Londres (P. Lit. Lond. 165, P.Br. Lib. Inv. 137): un papyrus médical Grec du 1er siècle après J. -C. Paris. Saumell, J. C. (2018) “A critical assessment of the Anonymus Londiniensis papyrus.” Bulletin of the American Society of Papyrologists 55: 129–56.

1

Anshan GEOFF EMBERLING

Anshan (modern Tal-i Malyan) is the highland capital of ancient ELAM. The site is located in the Kur River Basin of Fars Province, Iran, about 40 km from PERSEPOLIS. Anshan is linked to Elam’s lowland capital of SUSA in historical sources, material culture, and by the migration routes of nomads who spent summers in the highlands and winters at lower elevations. Anshan is first named in later thirdmillennium texts from Mesopotamia. Manishtushu, son of Sargon of Akkad (see SARGON OF AKKAD AND HIS DYNASTY), claimed to have conquered Anshan, and kings of the UR III DYNASTY raided and exchanged daughters in marriage with the ruler of Anshan. The last of the Ur III kings, Ibbi-Sin, was captured, taken to Anshan, and there disappeared from the historical record (see KINDADU). Anshan is mentioned in the titles of rulers in southwestern Iran during the early second millennium BCE (the SUKKALMAH period), and again during the Middle Elamite period in the late second millennium BCE, usually in the royal title “King of Anshan and Susa.” The site is also mentioned in the PERSEPOLIS TABLETS of ca. 500 BCE. Excavations at Tal-i Malyan in the 1970s, directed by William Sumner, provide a fuller picture of the site than the scattered textual references. The earliest settlement at the site dates as early as 6000 BCE, but the first significant occupation at the site occurred during the Proto-Elamite period (3400–2800 BCE, called the Banesh period in the local chronology), when a cluster of neighboring occupations grew into a city covering some 50 ha. During the later part of the Banesh period, this settled area was surrounded with a city wall enclosing 200 ha, although the majority of that area was unoccupied land. Excavated evidence of

this Proto-Elamite settlement includes a very large building with large storage jars and Proto-Elamite tablets; an elite residence or temple with painted walls; a residential structure protected by a double enclosure wall in Operation ABC; and an area with residential remains and evidence of copper metallurgy in Operation TUV. Because of the importance of nomadism in the region, as well as the discrete settled areas and the large amount of empty space within the city wall, it has been suggested that Proto-Elamite Anshan was formed by semi-nomadic tribal leaders. After the end of the Banesh period, Tal-i Malyan apparently shrank to the size of a large village. The site was repopulated in the Kaftari phase (2200–1600 BCE), when it grew to a city of some 130 ha, represented in excavations by at least one large building with an important collection of seal impressions in Operation GHI, several areas of domestic occupation, and extensive trash deposits in Operation ABC. During the Middle Elamite period (1600–1000 BCE, also called the Qale period), excavations recovered a large burned building in Area EDD with Elamite administrative texts. Later occupation is poorly represented in the archaeological record. SEE ALSO: Elamite kings, Middle Elamite period; Elamite kings, Sukkalmah period.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Alizadeh, A. (2010) “The rise of the highland Elamite state in south-western Iran: ‘Enclosed’ or Enclosing Nomadism.” Current Anthropology 51(3): 353–83. Stolper, M. W. (1984) “Political history.” In E. Carter and M. W. Stolper, Elam: surveys of political history and archaeology: 3–100. Berkeley. Sumner, W. M. (2003) Early urban life in the land of Anshan: excavations at Tal-e Malyan in the highlands of Iran. Philadelphia.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print page 449. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah24017

1

Antalkidas ERAN ALMAGOR

Antalkidas (d. ca. 367 BCE), alternatively Antialkidas (IG V.1.93.15; Philoch. in FGrH 328 F 149a), was the son of Leon (Plut. Art. 21.5). A Spartan diplomat and statesman, he first appears as an envoy to Tiribazos, the satrap of SARDIS, in 392 BCE (Xen. Hell. 4.8.12–16), being dispatched to weaken the friendly relations between Persia and ATHENS and to propose a bilateral agreement according to which SPARTA would recognize Persian claims to the whole of Asia Minor, including the Greek cities. The mission failed, as did Tiribazos’ attempt to turn this proposal into the basis for a common peace in Greece; this caused the satrap to be recalled. Antalkidas renegotiated the agreement (387 BCE) with Artaxerxes II (Xen. Hell. 5.1.6, 25; Diod. Sic. 14.110.2–4), when the reappearance of Tiribazos in IONIA spelt a change in Persian policy. As navarch (admiral, chief of the navy), he succeeded in blockading the HELLESPONT (Xen. Hell. 5.1.25–29) and in forcing the Athenians to accept the terms of an agreement that effectively ended the Corinthian War and is commonly called “the KING’S PEACE” or the Peace of Antalkidas (Dem. 20.54; Polyb. 1.6.2;

Diod. Sic. 15.5.1, 19.1; Arr. Anab. 2.2.2). Antalkidas was elected ephor in 370/69 BCE (Plut. Ages. 32.1) and became the Great King’s favorite (Plut. Art. 22.1–2; Ages. 23.4; Apophth. Lac. 213b; Ath. 2.48e; Aelian, VH 14.39), successfully obtaining material support from him in 371 BCE (Xen. Hell. 6.3.12). After Leuktra he fell from grace. Failing to receive money from Artaxerxes (367 BCE?), he reportedly starved himself to death on his way back, out of shame and fear of the EPHORS (Plut. Art. 22.7). SEE ALSO: Common Peace (Koine Eirene); Leuktra, battle of; Satraps; Xenophon.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Buckler, J. (1977) “Plutarch and the fate of Antalkidas.” Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies 18: 139–45. De Voto, J. G. (1986) “Agesilaus, Antalcidas and the failed peace of 392/91 BC.” Classical Philology 81: 191–202. Hofstetter, J. (1978) Die Griechen in Persien: Prosopographie der Griechen im persischen Reich vor Alexander: 15–6. Berlin. Judeich, W. (1894) “Antalkidas.” RE I.2: 2344–6. Stuttgart. Whitehead, D. (1979) “ANTALKIDAS.” Liverpool Classical Monthly 4: 191–3.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 449–450. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah04361

1

Antandros of Syracuse CRAIGE B. CHAMPION

Antandros was a fourth-century BCE Syracusan politician and historian, and a brother of AGATHOKLES, tyrant of Syracuse. F. Jacoby collected his fragments in Die Fragmente der griechischen Historiker (no. 565). He was elected to the strategeia at Syracuse around 330 BCE. With his brother Kallias, Antandros held important positions in Syracuse during the reign of his

brother, Agathokles. Diodorus (20.16) describes Antandros as unmanly and timid. He wrote an account of his brother Agathokles’ rule. SEE ALSO:

Historiography, Greek and Roman; Sicily; Syracuse.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Champion, C. (2009, 2016) “Antandros of Syracuse (565).” In I. Worthington, ed., Brill’s New Jacoby. Brill Online.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, and Andrew Erskine. © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Published 2017 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah30569

1

Antenor the Cretan CRAIGE B. CHAMPION

Antenor the Cretan (Die Fragmente der griechischen Historiker, 463) wrote a history of his native island. His terminus ante quem is ca. 100 CE, since PLUTARCH is the earliest author to mention him, but the fragments suggest that he wrote in the second century BCE. He seems to have had a flair for the marvelous. For example, he told the story of how the people of Rhaukos

were driven out of their city in CRETE, only to name their new foundation Rhaukos (near Mt. Ida in central Crete), as well; such was their love of their homeland (Aelian, 17.35). SEE ALSO: Crete; Historiography, Greek and Roman.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Sekunda, N. (2011, 2017) “Antenor (the Cretan) (463).” In I. Worthington, ed., Brill’s New Jacoby. Brill Online.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, and Andrew Erskine. © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Published 2017 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah30570

1

Antesignani MICHAEL SAGE

The name denotes those legionary maniples (see MANIPULUS) posted in front of the standards. Livy and Caesar provide our main sources of information about them. There has been controversy as to exactly which lines were referred to as antesignani and to which standards the term refers. It is likely that the standards referred to are the standards carried by each maniple and that the first line, the hastati (see HASTA/HASTATI), are meant. The references to them imply that they stand at the front of the battle line where the hastati were posted. It must be assumed that normally the standards of each maniple were placed near the front of the unit to allow the troops in the unit to align themselves with it and to regulate their movements by it. For the hastati, who would make the initial contact with the

enemy, this would have put the standards in danger. Probably before contact was made, these maniples’ standards were posted to the rear to avoid their loss. If the hastati failed to overcome the enemy, they would then have been able to follow their standards to the rear when they were replaced by the second line of the legion. By the time of JULIUS CAESAR’s campaigns in the middle of the first century BCE, the term antesignani had changed its meaning. It was now a picked body of troops who were assigned special tasks and were often more lightly armed than other legionaries. Antesignani are mentioned also under the empire. SEE ALSO: Army, Roman Empire; Legion, Roman Republican; Warfare, Roman.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Parker, H. M. D. (1958) The Roman legions. Cambridge.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 450–451. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah19008

1

Antestatio ¨ FNER THOMAS RU

Antestatio, the calling of witnesses, was a formal act in Roman civil procedure. If the plaintiff summoned the defendant and the defendant refused to appear in court immediately, the plaintiff was allowed to use physical force to compel him to come. Such use of force was only legal, however, after the plaintiff had called on passers-by to bear witness to the lawfulness of the procedure. Antestatio was prescribed by the TWELVE TABLES (Table XII 1.1). Plautus mentions it several times (Curc. 621–3; Pers. 747; Poen. 1230). Apparently, it was still in use at the time of Horace (Sat. 1. 9.76). Since antestatio is linked to IN IUS VOCATIO, its use must have ceased when in ius vocatio became obsolete in the third century CE. The antestatio procedure required the plaintiff to pull the potential witness by the ear (Plin. HN 11. 251). Similar rites are attested in Germanic and Slavic law (Lex Ribuaria 60.1). The ear was thought to be the seat of memory (Verg. Ecl. 6.3–4).

The verb antestari (CIL VI 10239 l. 22) and the participle antestatus were also used in the context of the MANCIPATIO ritual. The term antestatus apparently refers to the foreman of the witnesses whose assistance was necessary for each mancipatio (cf. Gai Epitome 1.6.4, CIL 6. 10247 l. 12, P.Oxy. 22. 2348 l. 43). SEE ALSO: Manus iniectio; Procedure, legal, Greek and Roman; Testimonium.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Amelotti, M. (1949) “Un nuovo testamento per aes et libram.” Studia et Documenta Historiae et Iuris 15: 34–59. Masi Doria, C. (2001) “Aurem vellere.” In Iuris vincula. Studi in onore di Mario Talamanca, vol. 5: 315–42. Naples. Selinger, R. (2000) “Das Ohrla¨ppchenziehen als Rechtsgeste: Licet antestari? im ro¨mischen Recht und testes per aures tracti in den germanischen Rechten.” Forschungen zur Rechtsarcha¨ologie und zur rechtlichen Volkskunde 18: 201–26. Sua´rez, M. A. and A´lvarez, M. B. (2007) “La in ius vocatio en Plauto: entre lo griego y lo romano.” Faventia 29: 9–19.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print page 451. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah13018

1

Anthemios of Tralles JAMES C. ANDERSON JR.

Anthemios, renowned architect of the second church of HAGIA SOPHIA in Constantinople, was born in Tralles (in Lydia), perhaps ca. 474 CE, a member of a gifted family that included three physicians, a lawyer, and a grammarian. He was famous not only as an architect, but as a geometer and physicist. He was commissioned by JUSTINIAN I to rebuild the church of Hagia Sophia after it was destroyed in a riot in 532 CE, and was assisted in that project by Isidore of Miletos, an engineer and geometer in his own right, in an architectural collaboration that recalls Severus architectus and Celer machinator under Nero (Tac. Ann. 15.42), and further suggests that the traditional roles of architect and engineer continued from the Roman imperial period into Byzantine times little changed (MacDonald 1976: 52–6; Anderson 1997: 64–7). The vast new structure involved numerous constructional and technical difficulties, but was completed and reconsecrated on December 27, 537 CE, bringing much praise upon Anthemios for the soundness of his architectural principles (Procop. Aed. 1.1.21–78). In large part it still stands, except for the dome, which collapsed in 558 CE and was rebuilt (by Isidore the Younger, possibly a descendant of Isidore of Miletos) in 562 CE. Despite the reputation he gained as an architect, no other buildings are attributed to Anthemios; Procopius (Aed. 2.3.6–14) relates that Justinian did consult him about preventing flood damage at Daras (in Mesopotamia), but did not take his advice. This assumes that he was also thought of as an engineer or mechanic, a reputation also implied by the possibly apocryphal tale of his persecution of Zeno by producing an artificial earthquake underneath his home using steam power, artificial thunder which terrified him, and a powerful reflector to blind him (AGATHIAS, Hist. 5. 6–9).

A fragment of Anthemios’ treatise On Burning Mirrors survives and reveals him to have been a highly capable mathematician (Huxley 1959). He also wrote a book on CONIC SECTIONS, which may have been a preparatory study for the dome of Hagia Sophia, and which became so well-known that the mathematician EUTOCIUS dedicated his commentary on the Conics of APOLLONIOS OF PERGE to Anthemios. His treatise Concerning Remarkable Mechanical Devices was known to Johannes Tzetzes as well as to Ibn al-Haytham and other Arabic mathematicians (Boyer 1991: 193). Anthemios’ death is often erroneously given as 534 CE, due to a misreading of Agathias (5.9); it is now assumed that he survived until ca. 558 CE and may have known of the collapse of his dome for Hagia Sophia. It seems highly unlikely that PAUL SILENTARIUS, writing only slightly later in the sixth century CE, would otherwise attribute a number of the church’s most important architectural elements to Anthemios, as he does in his poem describing the great building (Soulis 1960: 123–4). SEE ALSO: Architects; Architecture, Byzantine; Constantinople, history and monuments; Procopius.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Anderson, J. C. (1997) Roman architecture and society. Baltimore. Boyer, C. B. (1991) A history of mathematics, 2nd ed., rev. U. Merzbach. New York. Downey, G. (1948) “Byzantine architects: their training and methods.” Byzantion 18: 99–118. Huxley, G. L. (1959) “Anthemius of Tralles: a study in later Greek geometry.” Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Monographs 1. Cambridge, MA. MacDonald, W. L. (1976) “Roman architects.” In S. Kostof, ed., The architect: chapters in the history of a profession: 28–58. Oxford. Soulis, G. C. (1960) “Review of G. L. Huxley, Anthemius of Tralles,” Speculum 35: 123–4.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 451–452. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah21024

1

Anthemios of Tralles JAMES C. ANDERSON, JR.

Anthemios, renowned architect of the second church of Hagia Sophia in CONSTANTINOPLE, was born in Tralles (in Lydia), ca. 474 CE, a member of a gifted family that included three physicians, a lawyer, and a grammarian. He was famous not only as an architect, but as a geometer and physicist. He was commissioned by Justinian I to rebuild the church of Hagia Sophia after it was destroyed in a riot in 532 CE, and was assisted in that project by Isidore of Miletus, an engineer and geometer in his own right, in an architectural collaboration that recalls Severus architectus and Celer machinator under Nero (Tac. Ann. 15.42) and suggests that the traditional roles of architect and engineer continued from the Roman imperial period into Byzantine times little changed (Anderson 1997: 64–7). The vast new structure involved numerous constructional and technical difficulties, but was completed and reconsecrated on December 27, 537 CE, bringing much praise upon Anthemios for the soundness of his architectural principles (Procop, Aed. 1.1.21–78). In large part it still stands, except for the dome, which collapsed in 558 CE after suffering damage from earthquakes in 553 and 557 CE, and was rebuilt (by Isidore the Younger, possibly a descendant of Isidore of Miletus) in 562 CE. Analysis of the textual sources (PROCOPIUS, AGATHIAS, and JOHN MALALAS) and of the structural possibilities for the first dome suggests that it consisted of two parts, a cylindrical lower drum pierced by windows for light, and an upper spherical dome (Taylor 1996). Anthemios’ Hagia Sophia would have recalled the engineering of such domed ancient monuments as Hadrian’s Pantheon and the fourth century CE “temple of Minerva Medica” both of which still stand in Rome (Çakmak, Taylor, and Durukal 2009). Despite the reputation he gained as an architect, no other buildings are attributed to

Anthemios; Procopius (Aed. 2.3.6–14) relates that Justinian did consult him about preventing flood damage at Daras (in Mesopotamia) but did not take his advice. This assumes that he was also thought of as an engineer or mechanic, a reputation also implied by the possibly apocryphal tale of his persecution of Zeno by producing an artificial earthquake underneath his home using steam power, artificial thunder which terrified him, and a powerful reflector to blind him (Agathias, Hist. 5.6–9). A fragment of Anthemios’ treatise On burning mirrors surivives and reveals him to have been a highly capable mathematician (Huxley 1959). He also wrote a book on Conic sections, which became so well-known that the mathematician EUTOCIUS dedicated his commentary on the Conics of APOLLONIOS OF PERGE to Anthemios. His treatise Concerning remarkable mechanical devices was known to Johannes Tzetzes as well as to Ibn al-Haytham and other Arabic mathematicians (Boyer 1991: 193). Anthemios’ death is often erroneously given as 534 CE, due to a misreading of Agathias (5.9); it is now assumed that he survived until ca. 558 CE and may have known of the collapse of his dome for Hagia Sophia. It seems highly unlikely that Paul Silentarius, writing only slightly later in the sixth century CE, would otherwise have attributed a number of the church’s most important architectural elements to Anthemios, as he does in his poem describing the great building (Soulis 1960: 123–4). SEE ALSO:

Architects; Architecture, Byzantine.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Anderson, J. C. (1997) Roman architecture and society. Baltimore. Boyer, C. B. (1991) A history of mathematics, 2nd ed., rev. U. Merzbach. New York. Çakmak, A., Taylor, R., and Durukal, E. (2009) “The structural configuration of the first dome of Justinian’s Hagia Sophia.” Soil dynamics and earthquake engineering 29: 693–98.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and David Hollander. © 2018 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Published 2018 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah21024

2 Huxley, G. L. (1959) Anthemius of Tralles: a study in later Greek geometry. Cambridge, MA. Soulis, G. C. (1960) “Review of G. L. Huxley, Anthemius of Tralles.” Speculum 35: 123–4.

Taylor, R. S. (1996) “A literary and structural analysis of the first dome on Justinian’s Hagia Sophia, Constantinople.” Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians 55: 66–78.

1

Anthesteria RICHARD HAMILTON

Though apparently widespread, the Anthesteria is described only for Athens, where it was celebrated on the 12th (or 11th, 12th, and 13th – the ancient evidence is contradictory) of the month Anthesterion (“flowering,” roughly, February). It was known as the “older” Dionysia to differentiate it from the internationally renowned City Dionysia celebrated in the following month, at which tragedy and comedy were first performed competitively. It had three quite distinct parts: Pithoigia (“cask-opening”), about which we know virtually nothing; Choes (“jugs”), at which there were public drinking contests, public sacrifices, and private parties; and Chytroi (“pots”), at which there were theatrical performances, an “all-seed” (panspermia) sacrifice (apparently to Hermes, not Dionysos) commemorating the Flood (said to give Chytroi its name), and, if we accept the evidence of late lexica, apotropaic activities to ward off ghosts, such as chewing buckthorn and covering doors in pitch (a common weatherproofing technique), though some lexica assign these to the Choes. Less certain elements include the Aiora (“swinging” in honor of the hanged daughter of Ikarios, Erigone), the Katagogia (“bringing back” the god by ship), and the holy marriage of Dionysos and the wife of the archon basileus. This wonderfully democratic mixture of activities seems to have functioned at all levels (family, deme, city) and to have avoided civic control, probably because it cost the city nothing. Consequently it entices scholars with its me´lange of wine, ghosts, fertility, and death, all out of control, with every detail defying explanation: the liminal sanctuary of Dionysos in Limnai (“marsh”) open only on the 12th (open to whom?); roving bands of spirits or barbarians (which are they, Keres or Kares?); a chug-a-lug drinking contest, done in silence at individual tables to honor the matricide

Orestes (how does one speak and chug at the same time? What function could the individual tables have?). Unlike the equally complex Thesmophoria (likewise balanced by a carefully controlled civic festival, the Eleusinian mysteries), the Anthesteria, like its patron deity, defies comprehension, and its literary testimonia simply widen the gap in understanding. To supplement the exiguous literary evidence, scholars turn to the large corpus of trefoil mouthed jugs called Choes, which give their name to the central and best known part of the Anthesteria, though the connection is controversial beyond their function as an Athenian standard liquid measure (somewhat over three liters, the drinking of which unmixed would be quite a feat). The imagery of the full-sized Choes depicts activities that usually seem unrelated to the festival, although they sometimes are very suggestive (especially those by the inventive and witty Eretria Painter). The miniature Choes (under 16 cm), on the other hand, consistently show the same limited tableau – a naked child (almost always male) wearing an amulet crawls toward a table with grapes, cakes, or a chous (sometimes the child pushes a cart or holds a pet) – and have usually been interpreted as commemorating the crowning of three-year olds in the month Anthesterion described in one rather late source. These miniatures have been found only in Athens, which strengthens their claim as evidence, but they all date from the last quarter of the fifth century BCE, which lessens that claim. SEE ALSO: Dionysia; Dionysos; Hermes; Orestes; Thesmophoria.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Burkert, W. (1983) Homo necans: the anthropology of ancient Greek sacrifice and myth, trans. P. Bing: 213–47. Berkeley. Hamilton, R. (1992) Choes and Anthesteria. Ann Arbor.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 452–453. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah17039

2 Humphreys, S. C. (2004) The strangeness of gods: historical perspectives on the interpretation of Athenian religion: 223–75. Oxford. Parker, R. (2005) Polytheism and society at Athens: 290–316. Oxford.

Pickard-Cambridge, A. W. (1968) The dramatic festivals of Athens, rev. J. Gould and D. M. Lewis: 1–25. Oxford. Robertson, N. (1993) “Athens’ festival of the new wine.” Harvard Studies in Classical Philology 95: 197–250.

1

Anthropology GORDON LINDSAY CAMPBELL

Although anthropology did not exist as a separate discipline in the ancient world, the word may be reasonably retrojected onto ancient ideas and enquiries about the origins of humans and the development of civilization, and ancient ideas and enquiries about other peoples (see ETHNOGRAPHY AND ANCIENT HISTORY).

earth was originally watery and was gradually drying up. Because of the wetness of his early world, he had a distinctive theory that humans had originally been like fish or had been born inside fish-like creatures. According to Archelaos, the first humans grew out of an originally muddy world along with all the other animals, and were distinguished from them by their possession of mind in greater degree than the others. DEVELOPMENT OF CIVILIZATION

ORIGINS OF HUMANS The earliest Greek ideas are found in HESIOD’S Theogony and Works and Days. Hesiod tells two different stories to account for the need for work. In one, the gods made Pandora, the first woman, as a punishment for Prometheus’ (see PROMETHEUS AND PROMETHEIA) theft of fire, and in Works and Days, Hesiod says that the gods made a succession of races of declining quality from the perfect golden race, to the silver race, to the bronze, and, finally, to the terrible, present iron race. Other myths recount that certain great humans were born from the earth. Thus, KADMOS founded Thebes by sowing dragon’s teeth into the ground which then grew into warriors. Similarly, the original Arcadian king Pelasgos was born from the soil of Arcadia, and ERECHTHEUS/ERICHTHONIOS from the soil of Attica. Not until the fourth century BCE do we find Prometheus as the creator of humanity, molding humans from clay. The myth may, however, be older, as the molding of humans from clay by Marduk in the Babylonian epic of creation (ENUMA ELISH) and the creation of Adam from dust by Jehovah in Genesis could suggest. The idea of creation from earth and water was also the standard scientific account. Xenophanes proposed that earth and water were the generative principles of life, and that the earth was subject to periodic cataclysmic floods. ANAXIMANDER OF MILETOS thought that the

There are two distinctive ancient views on the development of civilization. First, as in Hesiod’s Works and Days, the primitivist view imagines the first people as living in a GOLDEN AGE, in which toil is unnecessary, all crops grow spontaneously, and there is no strife, disease, or warfare. Since then, humans have declined until the dreadful conditions of the present iron age, when only might is right, and there is no justice at all. Hesiod does not explain why the races decline, but EMPEDOCLES associates the fall with the beginnings of slaughter and meat-eating: his Golden Age is purely vegetarian. More generally, the gods are imagined to have withdrawn their aid and favor as our piety has declined. ARATOS OF SOLOI in the Phaenomena similarly traces a gradual retreat of the maiden Justice from the valleys into the hills as the races decline. She finally departs the earth for ever when the bronze race kills and eats her oxen. The alternative view, progressivism or antiprimitivism, often traced to DEMOCRITUS, sees the first humans as living a miserable life with no fire or technology, no society, no law, and no justice. Each person has to fend for themselves, and they are often attacked and eaten by wild beasts. They gradually rescue themselves from this bestial condition by the application of human ingenuity over time under the stimulus of necessity, developing the culture and technology that now keeps us safe, protects us from wild beasts, and makes life civilized. There are different accounts of the mechanism

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 453–455. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah10009

2 of this process: according to some, a culture hero such as Prometheus granted culture to humanity, or individual arts were granted by a god – for example, fire by Hephaistos, justice by Hermes, Zeus, or Apollo – or they were invented by a human first-discoverer. The Epicureans dispense with divine benefactors or human first-discoverers and have all people invent culture together in a bottom-up, rather than a top-down, process (see EPICURUS AND EPICUREANISM).

OTHER PEOPLES There were various different ancient viewpoints on non-Greek peoples. All non-Greek speakers were regarded as BARBARIANS in that their speech was unintelligible (“bar-bar-bar”), but that did not mean that all barbarians were the same. From HOMER’s Odyssey, Greeks would have been used to the idea that the world was full of strange peoples. In the Odyssey, possession of key cultural markers – bread, wine, hospitality to guests, and an assembly – were a good guide for the traveler. To lack these, as in the case of the Cyclops Polyphemos, was to prove oneself not properly human. ARISTOTLE later, drawing on this passage, argued that to have no need of society was to be either subhuman or a god (Pol. 1.1253a). In HERODOTUS, what it means to be Greek is established by contrasts with different peoples. Thus, Greeks are self-possessed and rational, Persians passionate and irrational; Greeks are settled agriculturalists, Scythians are nomadic pastoralists; Greeks are young and culturally dynamic, Egyptians are ancient and culturally static; and so on. A key contrast was between Greek freedom and Asian slavery. Aristotle (Pol. 1.1252b) also argued that eastern barbarians are natural slaves, and Greeks natural masters. Another important tendency in Greek and Roman thinking about other

peoples was to imagine that faraway peoples at the “edges of the world” were in an earlier, more “primitive” state of development. What sort of peoples one would find at the margins, then, would depend on one’s view of prehistory. For some, the earth was bounded by sacred extremes, with blessed islands and sacred peoples; for others, savage cannibals and beastlike semi-humans inhabited the margins. Some peoples, like the SCYTHIANS, attracted both of these viewpoints: either they were pure, noble milk-drinkers, or savage cannibals and drinkers of human blood. They, and later other northern peoples like the Gauls and Germans, were subject to much admiration as noble savages and also much fear and loathing as bestial savages, but often were portrayed as an intriguing mix of both noble and bestial qualities. SEE ALSO:

Autochthony.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Campbell, G. L. (2006) Strange creatures: anthropology in antiquity. London. Cole, T. (1990) Democritus and the sources of Greek anthropology. Atlanta. Dougherty, C. (2001) The raft of Odysseus: the ethnographic imagination of Homer’s Odyssey. Oxford. Guthrie, W. K. C. (1957) In the beginning: some Greek views on the origins of life and the early state of man. London. Hall, E. (1989) Inventing the barbarian: Greek self-definition through tragedy. Oxford. Hartog, F. (1988) The mirror of Herodotus. Berkeley. Lovejoy, A. O. and Boas, G. (1935) Primitivism and related ideas in antiquity. Baltimore. Romm, J. S. (1992) The edges of the earth in ancient thought: geography, exploration, and fiction. Princeton. Thomas, R. (2000) Herodotus in context: ethnography, science and the art of persuasion. Cambridge.

1

Antidamas Heracleopolitanus

a tract on moral philosophy. Alternatively, he could be the fictitious creation of Fulgentius.

CRAIGE B. CHAMPION SEE ALSO:

Antidamas of Heraklea (Die Fragmente der griechischen Historiker, 152), is known only from two fragments in the fifth-century CE work titled The explanation of obsolete words, by Fabius Planciades Fulgentius (pg. 2.11.14 and pg. 124.13 Helm). He may have written a history of ALEXANDER THE GREAT and

Historiography, Greek and Roman; Macedonia.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Sheridan, B. (2012, 2016) “Antidamas Heracleopolitanus (152).” In I. Worthington, ed., Brill’s New Jacoby. Brill Online.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, and Andrew Erskine. © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Published 2017 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah30571

1

Antidosis STERLING GARNETT

Antidosis, literally an “exchange,” was an Athenian legal procedure by means of which a person could, in theory, relieve himself of the unwelcome financial burden of a liturgy or eisphora. Liturgies, in democratic Athens, were assigned by magistrates to the wealthiest citizens; as a result, wealthy Athenians routinely concealed the true value of their property (Christ 1990: 158–60). The antidosis procedure limited the ability of such citizens to evade their civic duties. If someone appointed to a liturgy believed that there was a wealthier man in Athens eligible for that liturgy, he could challenge that man before the magistrate. If the one challenged admitted that he was richer, the liturgy would become his responsibility. If he claimed to be poorer, the property of both parties (including debts and liabilities) would be inventoried, a complete exchange would take place, and the challenger would carry out the liturgy using the wealth of the challenged party (MacDowell 1978: 162–4). No total exchange of property is known to have occurred, and, given the implications, some historians doubt it ever did. The antidosis challenge itself, though, was a routine annoyance for wealthy Athenians (Christ 1990: 163)

and a legitimate threat. Demosthenes complained that a fraudulent antidosis challenge had forced him to either exchange his estate (and with it his claim against his former guardians, who had mismanaged it) or take on the burden of a liturgy beyond his means (Dem. 2.17); another speech speaks of an aborted exchange initiated to gain possession of a single slave woman (Lys. 4.1–2). Conflicts over details of the exchange would be brought to court as a diadikasia, as seen in Against Phainippos (Dem. 42); in such cases, the jury would simply have decided which man was to perform the liturgy, without requiring any exchange of property (MacDowell 1978: 164). SEE ALSO: Diadikasia; Eisphora; Law, Athenian; Law courts, Greek and Roman; Liturgy, Greece and Rome.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Apostolakis, K. (2006) “The rhetoric of an antidosis.” Ariadne 12: 93–112. Christ, M. (1990) “Liturgy avoidance and antidosis in classical Athens.” Transactions of the American Philological Association 120: 147–69. Gabrielsen, V. (1987) “The antidosis procedure in classical Athens.” Classica et Mediaevalia 38: 7–8. MacDowell, D. M. (1978) The law in classical Athens. Ithaca.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 455–456. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah06023

1

Antigenes (historian) CRAIGE B. CHAMPION

Nothing is known about the life of Antigenes (Die Fragmente der griechischen Historiker, 141); neither his place of origin nor his exact dates. From the elder PLINY (HN, 1.5), we learn that Antigenes was among the writers of geography and ethnography, and his work seems to have included thaumata, or marvelous tales, such as a supposed meeting between ALEXANDER THE GREAT and the queen of the Amazons (Plut. Alex. 46). There is no hard evidence that this

Antigenes and the officer of the Hypaspists are one and the same man, and Antigenes the historian cannot be securely identified with the Antigenes mentioned later in Plutarch’s Life of Alexander (70.4). SEE ALSO:

Historiography, Greek and Roman; Macedonia.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Sheridan, B. (2012, 2016) “Antigenes (141).” In I. Worthington, ed., Brill’s New Jacoby. Brill Online.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, and Andrew Erskine. © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Published 2017 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah30572

1

Antigonids ELIZABETH KOSMETATOU

The Antigonid Dynasty descended from Alexander the Great’s general ANTIGONOS I MONOPHTHALMOS (“the One-Eyed”), who created the first Hellenistic kingdom after Alexander’s empire was dissolved during the succession conflict of 323–301 BCE (see SUCCESSORS, WARS OF). In the illusory settlement of Babylon in 323 BCE, Antigonos, like the rest of the “caretakers” of Alexander’s empire, received his satrapy of Greater Phrygia, to hold until the infant Alexander IV, son of Alexander the Great and Roxane, came of age. Unhappy with his role as keeper of a small portion of the empire and military commander in charge of restoring peace for the benefit of others, Antigonos fled to Antipater and Krateros in Greece. Following the settlement of Triparadeisos (see TRIPARADEISOS, TREATY OF) in 320 BCE, Antigonos was given control of Asia in exchange for dealing with the mutual enemy du jour, EUMENES OF KARDIA, whom he would finally execute in 315 BCE. To cement a personal alliance with Antipater, who controlled MACEDONIA, Antigonos accepted Antipater’s son CASSANDER as his second-in-command and his daughter Phila, Krateros’ widow, as the new bride of his own son, DEMETRIOS I POLIORKETES. The struggle for power in Macedonia turned more intense, as Antipater, Cassander, Polyperchon, and Olympias sought to establish their control, and Cassander emerged victorious with backing from Antigonos, Ptolemy the satrap of Egypt, and Lysimachos. The configuration of intricate alliances among the Diadochoi changed many times in the following decade. During that time, Alexander’s legitimate successors, Alexander IV and Philip III Arrhidaios, as well as Herakles, his illegitimate son by Barsine, were eliminated. In 306 BCE, as the war against Ptolemy, Seleukos, Lysimachos, and Cassander continued, Antigonos proclaimed himself king and bestowed the same

title on his son Demetrios I Poliorketes, who was his most trusted aide. His reign and life ended abruptly with his defeat at Ipsos in 301 BCE, and Alexander’s empire was officially divided into five kingdoms. Demetrios succeeded his father in Asia, but his reign was far from peaceful. Following his defeat at Ipsos, he fled to Ephesos and planned a come-back by allying himself with Seleukos I, now king of Syria, to whom he offered his daughter Stratonike in marriage. As the greatest part of Asia was now under the control of Lysimachos, now an ally of Ptolemy, Demetrios took advantage of Cassander’s death in 298/7 BCE and the ensuing civil war among his sons. He already held the strategically important Aegean islands, seized Athens, campaigned in the Peloponnese, and conquered Macedonia in 294 BCE. After killing Alexander V and forcing his brother into exile, Demetrios ruled Macedonia, citing his marriage alliance with Cassander as the decisive factor that determined his legitimacy. For the remainder of his reign, he constantly fought wars with king Pyrrhos of Epiros, himself a contender for the Macedonian throne, Ptolemy, and Lysimachos. Demetrios was eventually captured by Seleukos I in the Tauros in 286 and died in captivity in 283. ANTIGONOS II GONATAS, son of Demetrios Poliorketes, spent the decade of 286–276 BCE in search of a kingdom in a perennially unstable Macedonia and Asia Minor, which became even more so following the death of Lysimachos at Koroupedion in 281. Gonatas fought against both Pyrrhos and Ptolemy Keraunos, a son of Ptolemy I, who made a bid for Macedonia but was killed in battle against the Gauls in 279. However, the Celtic invasion of the 270s that wreaked havoc in Greece proved to be a blessing in disguise for Gonatas, who had allied himself with Antiochos I of Syria and had made a failed bid for a kingdom in Asia Minor. Like other Hellenistic kings after him, most notably the Attalids of Pergamon, he capitalized on a much-needed victory against the Gauls at Lysimacheia, and in 276 he finally

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 456–459. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah09023

2 became the undisputed king of Macedonia. Finally rid of Pyrrhos in 272, and on excellent terms with Seleucid Syria, Gonatas reigned until 239 and established a firm and stable rule over Macedonia and Greece. His control over the Greek city-states, which cherished their autonomy, was challenged by the Chremonidean War of 267 and the rise of the Achaian League, which triggered revolts among the Greeks. Demetrios II Aetolikos (see DEMETRIOS II (MACEDONIAN KING)), Gonatas’ son, was the first Antigonid king to succeed his predecessor without incident. His ten-year reign (239– 229) was turbulent as he fought wars on multiple fronts. Immediately after his succession, he defeated a coalition of the Aitolian and Achaian Leagues. Next, he sought to deal with challenges, first in Boiotia in 236 then due to the threat of a rising Epiros, and eventually battling Illyrians in the north, through a combination of war, diplomacy, and cunning political maneuvers that mainly aimed at keeping divisions among the Greeks. His premature death left his already weak kingdom to his underage son, Philip V. ANTIGONOS III DOSON (229–221), a cousin of Demetrios II, assumed the Macedonian throne, first as regent and military commander, and eventually as king and guardian of Philip V (see PHILIP V OF MACEDON). Throughout his reign he remained occupied with the affairs in Greece, especially the conflict between Kleomenes III’s Sparta and the Achaian League. Through a combination of war and effective diplomacy, Doson formed an alliance with various Greek regions, defeated Kleomenes at Sellasia in 222, and reformed the Spartan constitution. Doson died in 221, after having successfully settled most Greek conflicts and strengthened his kingdom. Early in his reign, Philip V (221–179) showed strong leadership as head of the Greek coalition against Sparta, the Aitolian League, and Elis, especially during the Social War (220–217). However, his plans to expand his influence to the Adriatic, as well as an ill-advised and ultimately pointless alliance with Hannibal during

the Second Punic War, won him eternal Roman hostility. Thereafter the Romans were increasingly drawn into the affairs of Greece, allying themselves with Philip’s enemies, including the Aitolian League, Sparta, and Attalos I of Pergamon. After the end of the First Macedonian War of 217–206 (see MACEDONIAN WARS), Philip concluded the Peace of Phoinike with the Romans and their Greek allies, but soon made an alliance with Antiochos III of Syria that aimed at taking over Ptolemaic territories in the Aegean and Asia Minor. This rapproachement rattled nerves in the Eastern Mediterranean, especially in Pergamon and Rhodes, and the conflict culminated in the Second Macedonian War (200–197). Rome and her allies defeated Philip at Kynoskephalai in 197, and the Macedonian king was obliged to pay an indemnity, surrender his fleet and a number of important hostages, among them his son Demetrios, and to confine himself in Macedonia. Even though Philip showed cooperation, even fought alongside Rome against Sparta and Antiochos III, and relations between the two states vastly improved, the Romans remained suspicious of Macedonia, constantly being urged on by Pergamon and Rhodes. Philip’s eagerness to strengthen his position in his own kingdom eventually led to a conflict with his pro-Roman son Demetrios, whom he had executed for treason, possibly under the influence of his eldest son Perseus (see PERSEUS, MACEDONIAN KING). He died in 179 BCE, leaving his kingdom to Perseus, the last king of the Antigonid Dynasty. Perseus (179–168) affirmed his allegiance to Rome as soon as he assumed the throne. However, his presumed attempts at restoring his power within his kingdom and over Greece, including actions that were perceived as antiRoman, invoked Roman and Greek hostility and suspicion and triggered the Third Macedonian War. Perseus was defeated at Pydna in 168 by a coalition of Rome, led by Aemilius Paullus, and her allies. He surrendered and was imprisoned in Rome until his death in 166, while the Romans carved up his kingdom,

3 creating four Macedonian republics that are attested down to the period of the Early Roman Empire. The Macedonian state remained an ethnos under the Antigonids, that is, an “ethnic” state, which became a member of the Hellenic League along with other ethnic states, including the Thessalians, the Epirotes, the Achaians, the Boiotians, and the Akarnanians. The organization of the kingdom was complex and the natural culmination of a long-standing tradition and developments that had begun centuries before under the Temenid and Argead dynasties (see ARGEADS). Scholars have only recently begun to understand its nuances, following the discovery of new epigraphic evidence that expanded the debate and allowed us to recast old questions and consider new possibilities. Both the Macedonian king and the Macedonians were therefore constituent parts of the state, and their political organization strongly resembles that of neighboring Thessaly and Epiros. The Macedonian territory was divided between poleis and ethne, that is, regional groupings of rural and civic communities, and contrary to previous theories, these were governed according to laws, elected their annual magistrates, and generally enjoyed a very extensive local self-government. The relations between the Macedonian king and his subordinate authorities is well attested through the substantial surviving epigraphic record, which includes royal and vice-royal letters and royal diagrammata (cf. Hatzopoulos 1996, especially Epigraphic Appendix 4–11, 14–17, 19). Functionaries, known as epistatai, oversaw the cities, while the strategoi were in charge of entire districts of newly acquired peripheral territories, including Paionia and Thrace. Contrary to previously held theories, it is now thought that the epistatai and the elected politarchs under the last Antigonid kings were locally (annually?) elected civic magistrates, rather than officials appointed by the royal

authority to exercise tight control over their territory. In the Hellenistic period, Macedonia attempted to control Greece and the Aegean, a strategically important stepping-stone to Asia Minor, through both benefaction and war. The Antigonid kings installed garrisons on the territory of defeated enemies, while efforts to coordinate their allies among the Greeks led to the establishment of a Hellenic League. In its early form, this alliance, established by Antigonos I and Demetrios Poliorketes, aimed at successfully fighting Cassander, while Antigonos III opted for this solution in the conflict against Sparta. REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Adams, W. L. (2010) “Alexander’s successors to 221 BC.” In J. Roisman and I. Worthington, eds., A companion to ancient Macedonia: 208–24. Oxford. Ager, S. L. (2001) “An uneasy balance: from the death of Seleukos to the battle of Raphia.” In A. Erskine, ed., A companion to the Hellenistic world: 35–50. Oxford. Billows, R. (1990) Antigonos the One-Eyed and the creation of the Hellenistic state. Berkeley. Buraselis, K. (1982) Das hellenistische Makedonien ¨ ga¨is. Munich. und die A Errington, R. M. (1990) A history of Macedonia. Berkeley. Gruen, E. (1986) The Hellenistic world and the coming of Rome. Berkeley. Habicht, C. (1997) Athens from Alexander to Antony. Berkeley. Hammond, N. G. L. and Walbank, F. W. (1988) A history of Macedonia, vol. 3. Oxford. Hatzopoulos, M. H. (1996) Macedonian Institutions under the kings. Athens. King, C. (2010) “Macedonian kingship and other political institutions.” In J. Roisman and I. Worthington, eds., A companion to ancient Macedonia: 373–91. Oxford. Scholten, J. B. (2003) “Macedon and the mainland, 280–221.” In A. Erskine, ed., A companion to the Hellenistic world: 134–58. Oxford.

1

Antigonos I Monophthalmos ALEXANDER MEEUS

Antigonos Monophthalmos (ca. 382–301 BCE), a Macedonian nobleman, served the Macedonian kings PHILIP II and ALEXANDER III, THE GREAT, as general, and later became one of the main contenders in the Wars of the Successors (see SUCCESSORS, WARS OF). The nickname Monophthalmos (“the One-Eyed”) was given him after he lost an eye in battle at an unknown time. Antigonos likely married Stratonike, his only known wife, rather late in life, as their oldest son, Demetrios, was not born until 336, their second son Philippos being born not much later (Plut. Demetr. 2.1–2). When Alexander crossed into Asia, Antigonos commanded the allied Greek infantry (334). In 333, he was appointed satrap of Greater Phrygia; in this capacity, he played a crucial role in consolidating Macedonian rule in Asia Minor. At Alexander’s death in 323, Antigonos was confirmed in his office. He somehow enraged the regent PERDIKKAS, SON OF ORONTES, who summoned Antigonos to have him give account of his actions (321). Distrusting Perdikkas’ intentions (Diod. Sic. 18.23.3–4), Antigonos fled to Europe, where he accused Perdikkas in front of ANTIPATER and KRATEROS : he claimed that the regent wanted to marry Alexander’s sister Cleopatra and seize the throne. Antipater and Krateros believed the allegations and invaded Asia, with Antigonos commanding a small fleet which operated in Asia Minor and Cyprus (First War of the Successors, 321–320). At the Triparadeisos conference after Perdikkas’ death (see TRIPARADEISOS, TREATY OF), Antigonos was appointed general of Asia and commissioned to reckon with the remaining Perdikkans. As these failed to unite, Antigonos could deal with them separately: he first defeated EUMENES OF KARDIA and later Perdikkas’ brother Alketas (319), but the former managed to escape with part of his troops.

Antigonos’ soldiers chased him down, and together with his loyal supporters Eumenes sought refuge in the stronghold of Nora. In Europe, Antipater died in 319 and left the regency to POLYPERCHON, passing over his own son, CASSANDER, who convinced Ptolemy (see PTOLEMY I SOTER) and Antigonos to fight the new regent, which meant the start of the Second War of the Successors (319–316). Antigonos, ever more ambitious, wanted to keep Polyperchon occupied in Europe in order to acquire a free hand in Asia. In 318 Eumenes was released from Nora under a truce, but his unwillingness to be subordinate to Antigonos soon became apparent, and the war between them began anew. The regent Polyperchon morally supported Eumenes, appointing him general of Asia instead of Antigonos. Because of the enemy’s superior numbers, Eumenes fled to Iran, where he was joined by a large coalition of eastern satraps fearing that Antigonos would deprive them of their provinces. After some initial setbacks in the Iranian campaign, Antigonos gained an ambiguous victory over Eumenes at Paraitakene, and he defeated him again at Gabiene (in the winter of 317/6). Antigonos now installed his friends in some of the eastern provinces, and upon his arrival in Persia he was greeted as king by the natives (Diod. Sic. 19. 48.1). In Babylonia a conflict with SELEUKOS I NIKATOR led the latter to flee to Ptolemy, whom he convinced that Antigonos, coveting universal rule, wanted to eliminate all his rivals; they forged a coalition with Cassander and LYSIMACHOS against Antigonos. Presenting Antigonos with an ultimatum he would never accept (in the spring of 315), the coalition declared war against him (Third War of the Successors, 315–311). As control of the sea would be fundamental, Antigonos commenced a large-scale shipbuilding program. He also concluded an alliance with Polyperchon, who was to fight Cassander in Europe. In the summer of 315 Antigonos issued a declaration against Cassander, accusing him of crimes against the

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 459–461. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah09024

2 Argead house (see ARGEADS), and he proclaimed the freedom of all Greek cities to prevent and delegitimize his rivals’ use of garrisons. Ptolemy soon published a similar declaration concerning the Greeks, so as to prevent Antigonos alone from being seen as the champion of Greek freedom. Antigonos’ attempts to break the coalition by separate negotiations with Ptolemy (Ekregma 315) and Cassander (Hellespont 313) failed, but his military campaigns were mostly successful. In the early winter of 311, however, his son DEMETRIOS I POLIORKETES was defeated by Ptolemy and Seleukos in the only major pitched battle of the war, near Gaza. This allowed Seleukos to return to Babylon (in the spring of 311), opening a new front for Antigonos in the east. Antigonos therefore concluded peace with Cassander, Lysimachos, and Ptolemy to concentrate on the war against Seleukos. He was recognized in his possession of the whole of Asia, but in turn had to recognize his rivals in their possession of the other parts of the empire, thus resigning his European conquests. While Antigonos was engaged in the east (310–308), Ptolemy tried liberating certain cities in Asia Minor from their Antigonid garrisons, but Demetrios repelled the attacks. In the meantime, Ptolemy planned to marry Alexander’s sister Cleopatra; Antigonos could not allow his rival to establish such a close connection with the Argead house, and had her killed (308). In 307 Demetrios liberated Athens from Cassander’s yoke, and both he and his father received extraordinary honors from the Athenians (Diod. Sic. 20.46.2). Demetrios moved to Cyprus in 306, where he defeated Ptolemy at sea near Salamis. This victory was the occasion for the Antigonids to officially adopt the royal title. The subsequent invasion of Egypt to get rid of Ptolemy was a complete failure, though. From now on, Antigonos himself seems to have been less involved in actual

military operations. Demetrios’ long siege of RHODES (305–304) was mostly an enormous waste of means and energy, but the subsequent campaigns in Greece against Cassander were very successful, with the Antigonids reviving the LEAGUE OF CORINTH. After a truce was refused, Cassander allied himself with Lysimachos, Ptolemy, and Seleukos. Lysimachos crossed into Asia with his army as well as troops from Cassander. Together with Seleukos, he met Antigonos and Demetrios in battle near IPSOS in Phrygia (301). It was a disastrous defeat for the Antigonids: Antigonos lost his life, and their empire collapsed almost completely. The main reason for Antigonos’ failure seems to have been that he – like Perdikkas – had made his grand ambitions too clear, so that his rivals always were readily convinced to join forces against him. SEE ALSO:

Antigonids; Successors, wars of.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Anson, E. M. (1988) “Antigonus, the satrap of Phrygia.” Historia 37: 471–7. Anson, E. M. (2004) Eumenes of Cardia: A Greek among Macedonians. Leiden. Billows, R. A. (1990) Antigonos the One-Eyed and the creation of the Hellenistic state. Berkeley. Bosworth, A. B. (2002) The legacy of Alexander. Politics, warfare, and propaganda under the successors. Oxford. Briant, P. (1973) Antigone le Borgne. Les de´buts de sa carrie`re et les proble`mes de l’assemble´e mace´donienne. Paris. Engel, R. (1978) Untersuchungen zum Machtaufstieg des Antigonos I. Monophthalmos. Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der fru¨hen Diadochenzeit. Kallmu¨nz. Wehrli, C. (1968) Antigone et De´me´trios. Geneva. Wheatley, P. (2002) “Antigonus Monophthalmus in Babylonia, 310–308 BC.” Journal of Near Eastern Studies 61: 39–47.

1

Antigonos II Gonatas IOANNA KRALLI

Antigonos II, nicknamed Gonatas (the meaning is obscure), was born ca. 320 BCE and effectively ruled from 277 to 239; he assumed the Macedonian royal title upon the death of his father DEMETRIOS I POLIORKETES in 283. Antigonos had witnessed his father’s grand failure. Demetrios had weakened Macedon by costly preparations for an invasion of Asia, had been expelled from his kingdom, and had died in Asia the defeated prisoner of Seleukos I. As king, Antigonos set himself more modest goals, protecting Macedon by asserting himself in Greece and throughout the Aegean. All that Antigonos inherited from his father was a number of Greek strongholds and a fleet. He fought a long campaign for the Macedonian throne against numerous claimants. A victory over invading Gauls, near Lysimacheia in Thrace, in 277 made him appear as a veritable savior and helped him to the throne (Justin Epit. 24.1). Thus, after the Ptolemies and the SELEUCIDS, the third major Hellenistic dynasty – that of the ANTIGONIDS – was established. An early challenge to Antigonos’ rule was presented in 274 by PYRRHOS, KING of Epirus, who advanced into Macedon as far as AIGAI (VERGINA; Justin Epit. 25.3). Later on Pyrrhos invaded the Peloponnese. Antigonos led an army to oppose him in ARGOS, and there Pyrrhos was killed in street fighting in 272 (Plut. Pyrrh. 26.13–34; Paus. 1.13.4.6–8; Polyaenus Strat. 8.49.68; Justin Epit. 25.4–5). Antigonos had quickly abandoned any designs on Asia, concluding a treaty with ANTIOCHOS I of Syria ca. 277 and later marrying the king’s half-sister Phila (Justin Epit. 25.1.1). He would maintain friendly relations with the Seleucids throughout his reign. He also seems to have been little interested in Thrace, though he annexed Paionia and founded Antigoneia in the Axios Valley. However, Antigonos did

resemble his father and grandfather in challenging Ptolemaic supremacy in the Aegean. He maintained a fleet and naval stations (Buraselis 1982). Some of his policies echoed those of his maternal grandfather ANTIPATER and of his uncle CASSANDER, and indeed his own father’s final policy: tight control of THESSALY and southern Greece by means of garrisons and establishment or support of oligarchic or autocratic regimes favorable to his rule, especially in the Peloponnese and during the later years of his reign. By 276 Antigonos had reincorporated Thessaly (SIG 3 405); the city of DEMETRIAS in Magnesia controlled the Thessalian hinterland, and a garrison at CHALCIS checked the sea lanes around EUBOEA. A garrison at the PIRAEUS kept ATHENS passive. ACROCORINTH secured control of the Peloponnese by blocking the way to invading forces. Access to CORINTH – which was the seat of Macedonian government in southern Greece – was secured by the fleet. This chain of strongholds served as the “fetters” of Greece (a phrase later used by PHILIP V OF MACEDON), and they effectively defended Macedon itself. They created a unified north–south structure designed to counter the west–east expansion of the AITOLIAN LEAGUE in central Greece, which stretched from the Ionian Sea to the Maliac Gulf. Antigonos’ defensive system was a profound threat to others. PTOLEMY II PHILADELPHOS, Athens, SPARTA, and some Peloponnesian cities allied against him in what is known as the CHREMONIDEAN WAR (268–262). Athens aimed to secure the Piraeus; Sparta yearned for its ancient hegemony; Ptolemy must have feared the increasing Antigonid power in the Aegean. But, with Antigonos controlling Corinth, the Spartans could not reach the Isthmus: their king AREUS was killed in the attempt ca. 265, while Ptolemy’s contribution was disappointing – perhaps because he wished only to weaken Antigonos. Athens capitulated after a long siege and had to suffer the presence of a Macedonian garrison in the urban center (astu) itself and royal

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 461–463. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah09025

2 interference in its foreign policy and military organization (SIG 3 434–5; Petrakos, Rhamnous II, no. 3; Paus. 1.1.1, 7.3; 3.6.4–6; Justin Epit. 26.2; Polyaenus Strat. 4.6.20; Apollodoros in FGrH 244 F44; Hegesander ap. Ath. 4.167e–f). In the mid-250s Antigonos felt secure enough to withdraw the garrison from the astu (Euseb. Chron. 2.120), and possibly from other sites. Probably then the Athenians conferred upon him godlike honors (Petrakos, Rhamnous II, no. 7; cf. no. 17). Antigonos’ victory over Athens and Sparta was followed by a naval success against Ptolemy II near KOS, possibly ca. 255 (Phylarchos in FGrH 81 F1). He commemorated it at DELOS, dedicating his flagship (Ath. 5.209e) and erecting a portico with at least ten statues of his ancestors. He founded the festivals called Antigoneia and Stratonikeia in 253 BCE (IG XI.2.87 B, lines 124ff), perhaps to celebrate the same success. Antigonos’ power in the Peloponnese was to be assailed in the late 250s BCE. The Macedon-friendly tyrant of MEGALOPOLIS was assassinated. Antigonos’ nephew Alexander, governor of both Corinth and Chalcis (see ALEXANDER, NEPHEW OF GONATAS), revolted ca. 251 (Trogus Prologus 26, as recorded by Justin), and much of Euboea followed him; the ACHAIAN LEAGUE also allied with Alexander (Plut. Arat. 18.1–2). Alexander conveniently died ca. 245 and Antigonos recovered Acrocorinth by treachery (Plut. Arat. 16–17; Polyaenus Strat. 4.6.1); Chalcis followed suit. Antigonos’ success on land was coupled with a naval victory over a Ptolemaic force in 245, this time off ANDROS, in alliance with Seleukos II (P.Haun 6; Ath. 13.593a). The festivals Paneia and Soteria were established, in commemoration either of this victory or of the one over the Gauls. However, in 243 the leader of the Achaian League, ARATOS OF SIKYON – who a few years earlier had brought Sikyon into the league – captured Acrocorinth (Plut. Arat. 18–23). In the same period the Aitolians had expanded their influence to the western Peloponnese. Antigonos remained essentially inactive until his death in 240/39. Influence

over the Peloponnese would be reestablished by ANTIGONOS III DOSON (229–221). Antigonos gained a mixed reputation. POLYBIUS (2.41.10), perhaps exaggerating, reports that he installed more tyrants than any other king. Numerous anecdotes present him in a more favorable light. In royal fashion, Antigonos received intellectuals at his court. As a young man he had attended the lectures of the Stoic ZENO OF KITION – a fact hardly reflected in his policies. He consolidated Macedon’s hereditary monarchy, which, according to anecdote, he called “honorable servitude” (Ael. VH 2.20). Wishing to present himself as a true heir of the Argead kings, Antigonos used PELLA as his capital and built a symbolic tumulus over the royal tombs at Aigai, once plundered by the Gallic mercenaries of Pyrrhos. SEE ALSO: Aegean Sea (Classical and later); Alexander, nephew of Gonatas; Antigonids; Antiochos I Soter; Aratos of Sikyon; Areus of Sparta; Argeads; Kingship, Hellenistic; Seleukos I Nikator; Seleukos II Kallinikos; Stoicism.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Buraselis, K. (1982) Das hellenistische Makedonien ¯ ga¨is. Forschungen zur Politik des und die A Kassandros und der drei ersten Antigoniden (Antigonos Monophthalmos, Demetrios ¨ ga¨ischen Poliorketes und Antigonos Gonatas) im A Meer und in Westkleinasien: 107–76. Munich. Champion, C. B. (2004/5 [2007]) “In defense of Hellas: the Antigonid Soteria and Paneia and the Aetolian Soteria at Delphi.” American Journal of Ancient History n.s. 3/4: 72–88. Dreyer, B. (1999) Untersuchungen zur Geschichte des spa¨tklassischen Athen (322–ca. 203 v. Chr.). Stuttgart. Errington, R. M. (1990) A history of Macedonia, trans. C. Errington: 162–75. Berkeley. Gabbert, J. J. (1997) Antigonus II Gonatas: a political biography. London. Habicht, C. (1996) “Divine honours for king Antigonus Gonatas in Athens.” Scripta Classica Israelica 15: 131–4.

3 Habicht, C. (1997) Athens from Alexander to Antony, trans. Deborah Lucas Schneider: 142–70. Cambridge, MA. Hammond, N. G. L. and Walbank, F. W. (1988) A history of Macedonia, 336–167 BC : 239–316, 587–600. Oxford. Papyri Graecae Haunienses, vol. 1: Literarische Texte und ptolema¨ische Urkunden (1942), edited by T. Larsen: nos. 1–12. Copenhagen (¼ P.Haun).

Petrakos, V. (1999) Rhamnous [Ho demos tou Rhamnountos], vol. 2: Hoi epigraphes [The inscriptions]. Athens (¼Petrakos, Rhamnous II). Tarn, W. W. (1913) Antigonos Gonatas. Oxford. Will, E´. (1979–82) Histoire politique du monde helle´nistique (323–30 av. J.-C.), 2nd ed., vol. 1: 208–33, 316–43. Nancy.

1

Antigonos II Gonatas (Antigonus II Gonatas) IOANNA KRALLI

Ionian University

Antigonos II, nicknamed Gonatas (the meaning is obscure), was born ca. 320 BCE and effectively ruled from 277 to 239; he assumed the Macedonian royal title upon the death of his father DEMETRIOS I POLIORKETES in 283. Antigonos had witnessed his father’s grand failure. Demetrios had weakened MACEDONIA by costly preparations for an invasion of Asia, had been expelled from his kingdom, and had died in Asia the defeated prisoner of SELEUKOS I NIKATOR. As king, Antigonos set himself more modest goals, protecting Macedonia by asserting himself in Greece and throughout the AEGEAN SEA. All that Antigonos inherited from his father was a number of Greek strongholds and a fleet. He fought a long campaign for the Macedonian throne against numerous claimants. A victory over invading Gauls, near Lysimacheia in Thrace, in 277 made him appear as a veritable savior and helped him to the throne (Just. Epit.

24.1). Thus, after the Ptolemies and the SELEUthe third major Hellenistic dynasty – that of the ANTIGONIDS – was established. An early challenge to Antigonos’ rule was presented in 274 by PYRRHOS, King of Epirus, who advanced into Macedonia as far as AIGAI (VERGINA) (Just. Epit. 25.3). Later on, Pyrrhos invaded the PELOPONNESE. Antigonos led an army to oppose him in ARGOS, and there Pyrrhos was killed in street fighting in 272 (Plut. Pyrrh. 26.13–34; Paus. 1.13.4.6–8; Polyaenus Strat. 8.49.68; Just. Epit. 25.4–5). Antigonos had quickly abandoned any designs on Asia, concluding a treaty with the Seleucid ANTIOCHOS I SOTER ca. 277 and later marrying the king’s half-sister Phila (Just. Epit. 25.1.1). He would maintain friendly relations with the Seleucids throughout his reign. He also seems to have been little interested in Thrace, though he annexed Paionia and founded Antigoneia in the Axios Valley. However, Antigonos did resemble his father and grandfather in challenging Ptolemaic supremacy in the Aegean. He maintained a fleet and naval stations. Some of his policies echoed those of his maternal grandfather ANTIPATER and of his uncle CASSANDER, and indeed his own father’s final policy: tight control CIDS,

FIGURE 1 Tetradrachm of Antigonos II Gonatas. Obverse: head of Pan in Macedonian shield; reverse: Athena with thunderbolt and legend “Of King Antigonos” (BAΣIΛEΩΣ ANTIΓONOΥ). Image courtesy of Classical Numismatics Group (www.cngcoins.com). The Encyclopedia of Ancient History. Edited by Andrew Erskine, David B. Hollander, and Arietta Papaconstantinou. © 2019 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Published 2019 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah09025.pub2

2 of THESSALY and southern Greece by means of garrisons and opportunistic establishment or support of oligarchic or autocratic regimes favorable to his rule, especially in the Peloponnese and mostly during the later years of his reign. By 276 Antigonos had reincorporated Thessaly (Syll.3 405); the city of DEMETRIAS in Magnesia controlled the Thessalian hinterland, and a garrison at CHALCIS checked the sea lanes around EUBOEA. A garrison at the PIRAEUS kept ATHENS passive. ACROCORINTH secured control of the Peloponnese by blocking the way to invading forces. Access to CORINTH, which was the seat of Macedonian government in southern Greece, was secured by the fleet. This chain of strongholds served as the “fetters” of Greece (a phrase later used by PHILIP V OF MACEDON), and they effectively defended Macedonia itself. They created a unified north–south structure designed to counter the west–east expansion of the AITOLIAN LEAGUE in central Greece, which stretched from the Ionian Sea to the Maliac Gulf. Antigonos’ defensive system was a profound threat to others. PTOLEMY II PHILADELPHOS, Athens, SPARTA, and some Peloponnesian cities allied against him in what is known as the CHREMONIDEAN WAR (268–262). Athens aimed to secure the Piraeus; Sparta yearned for its ancient hegemony; Ptolemy must have feared the increasing Antigonid power in the Aegean. But, with Antigonos controlling Corinth, the Spartans could not reach the Isthmus: their king AREUS was killed in the attempt ca. 265, while Ptolemy’s contribution was disappointing – perhaps because he wished only to weaken Antigonos. Athens capitulated after a long siege and had to suffer the presence of a Macedonian garrison in the urban center (asty) itself and royal interference in its foreign policy and military organization (IG II3.1.912 =IG II2 686/687; Petrakos, Rhamnous II, no. 3; Paus. 1.1.1, 7.3; 3.6.4–6; Just. Epit. 26.2; Polyaenus Strat. 4.6.20; Apollodoros FGrH 244 F44; Hegesander ap. Ath. 4.167e–f ). In the mid250s Antigonos felt secure enough to withdraw the garrison from the asty (Euseb. Chron. 2.120), and possibly from other sites. Probably

then the Athenians conferred upon him godlike honors (Petrakos, Rhamnous II, no. 7; cf. no. 17). Antigonos’ victory over Athens and Sparta was followed by a naval success against Ptolemy II near KOS, possibly ca. 255 (Phylarchos FGrH 81 F1). He commemorated it at DELOS, dedicating his flagship (Ath. 5.209e) and erecting a portico with at least ten statues of his ancestors. He founded the festivals called Antigoneia and Stratonikeia in 253 (IG XI.2.87 B, lines 124ff ), perhaps to celebrate the same success. Antigonos’ power in the Peloponnese was to be assailed in the late 250s BCE. The Macedonfriendly tyrant of MEGALOPOLIS was assassinated. ALEXANDER, NEPHEW OF GONATAS, governor of both Corinth and Chalcis, revolted ca. 251 (Trogus Prologus 26, as recorded by Justin), and much of Euboea followed him; the ACHAIAN LEAGUE also allied with Alexander (Plut. Arat. 18.1–2). Alexander conveniently died ca. 245 and Antigonos recovered Acrocorinth by treachery (Plut. Arat. 16–17; Polyaenus Strat. 4.6.1); CHALCIS followed suit. Antigonos’ success on land was coupled with a naval victory over a Ptolemaic force in 245, this time off ANDROS, in alliance with SELEUKOS II KALLINIKOS (P.Haun 6; Ath. 13.593a). The festivals Paneia and Soteria were established, in commemoration either of this victory or of the one over the Gauls. However, in 243 the leader of the Achaian League, ARATOS OF SIKYON, who a few years earlier had brought Sikyon into the league, captured Acrocorinth (Plut. Arat. 18–23). In the same period, the Aitolians had expanded their influence to the western Peloponnese. Antigonos remained essentially inactive until his death in 240/39. Influence over the Peloponnese would be reestablished by ANTIGONOS III DOSON (229–221). Antigonos gained a mixed reputation. POLYBIUS (2.41.10), perhaps exaggerating, reports that he installed more tyrants than any other king. Numerous anecdotes present him in a more favorable light. In royal fashion, Antigonos received intellectuals at his court. As a young man he had attended the lectures of the Stoic ZENO OF KITION – a fact hardly reflected

3 in his policies. He consolidated Macedon’s hereditary monarchy, which, according to anecdote, he called “honorable servitude” (Ael. VH 2.20). Wishing to present himself as a true heir of the Argead kings, Antigonos used PELLA as his capital and built a symbolic tumulus over the royal tombs at Aigai, once plundered by the Gallic mercenaries of Pyrrhos. SEE ALSO: Argeads; Kingship, Hellenistic; Stoicism.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Buraselis, K. (1982) Das hellenistische Makedonien und die Āgäis. Forschungen zur Politik des Kassandros und der drei ersten Antigoniden (Antigonos Monophthalmos, Demetrios Poliorketes und Antigonos Gonatas) im Ägäischen Meer und in Westkleinasien: 107–76. Munich. Champion, C. B. (2004/5 [2007]) “In defense of Hellas: the Antigonid Soteria and Paneia and the Aetolian Soteria at Delphi.” American Journal of Ancient History n.s. 3, 4: 72–88.

Dreyer, B. (1999) Untersuchungen zur Geschichte des spätklassischen Athen (322–ca. 203 v. Chr.): 331– 41, 374–6. Stuttgart. Gabbert, J. J. (1997) Antigonus II Gonatas: a political biography. London. Habicht, C. (1996) “Divine honours for king Antigonus Gonatas in Athens.” Scripta Classica Israelica 15: 131–4. Habicht, C. (1997) Athens from Alexander to Antony, trans. Deborah Lucas Schneider: 142–70. Cambridge, MA. Hammond, N. G. L. and Walbank, F. W. (1988) A history of Macedonia, 336–167 BC: 239–316, 587–600. Oxford. Petrakos, V. (1999) Rhamnous [Ho demos tou Rhamnountos], vol. 2: Hoi epigraphes [The inscriptions]. Athens. Shipley, D. G. J. (2018) The early Hellenistic Peloponnese. Politics, economies and networks 338–197 BC: 56–66, 97–126, 246–7. Cambridge. Tarn, W. W. (1913) Antigonos Gonatas. Oxford. Will, E. (1979–82) Histoire politique du monde hellénistique (323–30 av. J.-C.), 2nd ed., vol. 1: 208–33, 316–43. Nancy.

1

Antigonos III Doson IOANNA KRALLI

Antigonos III (r. 229–221 BCE), nephew of ANTIGONOS II GONATAS and grandson of DEMETRIOS I POLIORKETES, ascended to the Macedonian throne initially as regent for the minor PHILIP V OF MACEDON, son of Demetrios II (hence perhaps the epithet Doson: “he who will give”). Doson married Philip’s mother and adopted the boy, thus assuring Philip’s succession and proving his own loyalty to the Antigonid Dynasty. In 229 Doson was faced with a serious decline of Macedonian power. Among its possessions to the south, Macedon retained only DEMETRIAS and CHALCIS. ATHENS had bribed the Macedonian garrison out of the PIRAEUS. In the PELOPONNESE, the Macedon-friendly tyrants of ARGOS, HERMIONE, and PHLEIOUS had abdicated, incorporating their states into the ACHAIAN LEAGUE. And the bastion of ACROCORINTH had been lost to Macedon since 243. However, Doson’s priority was the consolidation of Macedon’s own threatened borders. In the north he repulsed a Dardanian invasion, while to the south he reincorporated rebellious THESSALY (Justin. Epit. 28.3.14). Before 224 Doson further blocked Aitolian expansion by treaties with EPIRUS, the independent part of Akarnania, Opountian LOKRIS, BOIOTIA, and PHOKIS (see AITOLIAN LEAGUE). His enigmatic expedition to CARIA (Polyb. 20.5.7–11; Trogus Prologus 28, as recorded by Justin; I.Labraunda 3.1, nos. 4–7, 9) ca. 228/7 signals an expansion of Macedonian influence to Asia Minor, but it remains uncertain whether this represented an attempt to restore Antigonid sea power. SPARTA, independent and resurgent under KLEOMENES III, clashed with the Achaian League. This, however, would lead to the reestablishment of Macedonian control over Peloponnesian affairs. The Achaians asked for Doson’s help, and ca. 223 a HELLENIC ALLIANCE was formed under the leadership of

Doson. Unlike the earlier Hellenic leagues of Philip II and Demetrios Poliorketes, which had consisted of poleis, this alliance consisted of Macedon, the Achaian League, and other federations (Thessalians, Epirots, Akarnanians, Boiotians, Phokians: Polyb. 2.54.4; 4.9.4). Theoretically all members were on a par. Doson crushed Kleomenes at the battle of Sellasia in 222 and dedicated the spoils at DELOS (SIG3 518). He became the first enemy ever to capture Sparta, but he did not destroy it. Praising Doson’s role, POLYBIUS (2.70.1–5; 5.9.10) notes that he restored its “ancestral constitution,” possibly alluding to the elimination of Kleomenes or to the restoration of the ephorate (see EPHORS). However, Doson reduced the Spartan territory, assigning the much disputed ager Dentheliatis to Messene. In return for the elimination of the threat from Sparta, the Achaian League and individual cities offered Doson honors, both during his lifetime and after his death: SIKYON created a festival, the Antigoneia (Polyb. 30.29.3; Plut. Arat. 45.3); MANTINEA was refounded and renamed Antigoneia (Polyb. 2.57–8; Plut. Arat. 45.4–6; IG V.2.299); Epidauros (ISE vol. 1, no. 46) and Geronthrai (IG V.1.1122) also honored Doson. There is no sign that Doson was alarmed by Rome’s establishment of a protectorate on Macedon’s flank, in Illyria, in 228. Doson died of tuberculosis in 221. In his testament he ingeniously arranged for stability in administration and for the maintenance of friendly relations between Macedon and the Achaian League. He bequeathed to Philip V a robust kingdom, the Hellenic Alliance, and the goodwill of much of the Greek world. SEE ALSO: Antigonids; Asia Minor, Hellenistic; Demetrios II (Macedonian king); Illyria and Illyrians; Kleomenes III of Sparta; Philip II of Macedon; Sellasia, battle of.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Errington, R. M. (1990) A history of Macedonia, trans. C. Errington: 175–86. Berkeley.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 463–464. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah09026

2 Hammond, N. G. L. and Walbank, F. W. (1988) A history of Macedonia, 336–167 BC: 337–64. Oxford. Iscrizioni storiche ellenistiche, vols. 1–2 (1967–76), edited by L. Moretti. Florence (¼ISE). Labraunda. Swedish excavations and researches (1955– ), vol. 3 (1969–72): The Greek inscriptions, edited by J. Crampa. Stockholm (¼I.Labraunda).

Le Bohec, S. (1993) Antigone Doˆsoˆn, roi de Mace´doine. Nancy. Scherberich, K. (2009) Koine` Symmachı´a. Untersuchungen zum Hellenenbund Antigonos’ III. Doson und Philipps V. (224–197 v. Chr.). Stuttgart. Will, E´d. (1979–82) Histoire politique du monde helle´nistique (323–30 av. J.-C.), 2nd ed., vol. 1: 359–401. Nancy.

1

Antigonos III Doson (Antigonus III Doson) IOANNA KRALLI

Ionian University, Greece

Antigonos III (r. 229–221 BCE), nephew of ANTIand grandson of DEMETRIOS I POLIORKETES, ascended to the Macedonian throne initially as regent for the minor PHILIP V OF MACEDON, son of DEMETRIOS II (hence perhaps the epithet Doson: “he who will give”). Doson married Philip’s mother and adopted the boy, thus assuring Philip’s succession and proving his own loyalty to the Antigonid Dynasty. In 229, Doson was faced with a serious decline of Macedonian power. Among its possessions to the south, Macedon retained only DEMETRIAS and CHALCIS. ATHENS had bribed the Macedonian garrison out of the PIRAEUS. In the PELOPONNESE, the Macedon-friendly tyrants of ARGOS, HERMIONE, and PHLEIOUS had abdicated, incorporating their states into the ACHAIAN LEAGUE. And the bastion of ACROCORINTH had been lost to Macedon since 243 BCE. However, Doson’s priority was the consolidation of Macedon’s own threatened borders. In the north, he repulsed a Dardanian invasion, while to the south he reincorporated rebellious THESSALY (Just. Epit. 28.3.14). Before 224 BCE, Doson further blocked Aitolian expansion by treaties with EPIRUS, the independent part of Akarnania, Opountian LOKRIS, BOIOTIA, and PHOKIS. His enigmatic expedition to CARIA ca. 228/7 BCE signals an expansion of Macedonian influence to ASIA MINOR, but it remains uncertain whether this represented an attempt to restore Antigonid sea power (Polyb. 20.5.7–11; Trogus Prologus 28, as recorded by Justin; I.Labraunda 3.1, nos. 4–7, 9). SPARTA, independent and resurgent under KLEOMENES III, clashed with the Achaian League. This, however, would lead to the reestablishment of Macedonian control over Peloponnesian affairs. The Achaians asked for Doson’s help, and ca. 223 BCE a HELLENIC ALLIANCE was GONOS II GONATAS

formed under the leadership of Doson. Unlike the earlier Hellenic leagues of PHILIP II and Demetrios Poliorketes, which had consisted of poleis, this alliance consisted of Macedon, the Achaian League, and other federations (Thessalians, Epirots, Akarnanians, Boiotians, Phokians: Polyb. 2.54.4; 4.9.4). Theoretically all members were on a par. Doson crushed Kleomenes at the battle of Sellasia in 222 BCE and dedicated the spoils at 3 DELOS (Syll. 518). He became the first enemy ever to capture Sparta, but he did not destroy it. Praising Doson’s role, POLYBIUS (2.70.1–5; 5.9.10) notes that he restored its “ancestral constitution,” possibly alluding to the elimination of Kleomenes or to the restoration of the ephorate. However, Doson reduced the Spartan territory, assigning the much disputed ager Dentheliatis to Messenia. In return for the elimination of the threat from Sparta, the Achaian League and individual cities offered Doson honors, both during his lifetime and after his death: SIKYON created a festival, the Antigoneia (Polyb. 30.29.3; Plut. Arat. 45.3); MANTINEA was refounded and renamed Antigoneia (Polyb. 2.57–8; Plut. Arat. 45.4–6; IG V.2.299); Epidauros (ISE: no. 46) and Geronthrai (IG V.1.1122) also honored Doson. There is no sign that Doson was alarmed by Rome’s establishment of a protectorate on Macedon’s flank in ILLYRIA in 228 BCE. An injury in battle against the Illyrians, combined with tuberculosis, led to Doson’s death in 221 BCE. In his testament, he ingeniously arranged for stability in administration and for the maintenance of friendly relations between Macedon and the Achaian League. He bequeathed to Philip V a robust kingdom, the Hellenic Alliance, and the goodwill of much of the Greek world. SEE ALSO:

Aitolian League; Antigonids; Ephors.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Errington, R. M. (1990) A history of Macedonia, trans. C. Errington: 175–86. Berkeley.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History. Edited by Andrew Erskine, David B. Hollander, and Arietta Papaconstantinou. © 2019 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Published 2019 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah09026.pub2

2 Hammond, N. G. L. and Walbank, F. W. (1988) A history of Macedonia, 336–167 BC: 337–64. Oxford. Le Bohec, S. (1993) Antigone Dôsôn, roi de Maćedoine. Nancy. Scherberich, K. (2009) Koinè Symmachía. Untersuchungen zum Hellenenbund Antigonos’ III. Doson und Philipps V (224–197 v. Chr.). Stuttgart.

Shipley, D. G. J. (2018) The early Hellenistic Peloponnese. Politics, economies and networks 338–197 BC: 69–71, 246–7. Cambridge. Will, E. (1979–82) Histoire politique du monde hellénistique (323–30 av. J.-C.), 2nd ed., vol. 1: 359–401. Nancy.

1

Antigonos of Karystos TIZIANO DORANDI

Antigonos of Karystos in Euboea lived in the third century BCE and was an author of biographies, an art historian, and a bronze sculptor. He worked in Pergamon during the reigns of Attalos I and Eumenes II. His chronology is connected to Menedemos of Eretria, whose pupil he was. Since Menedemos died around 261/0 BCE (Diog. Laert. 2.144) it is reasonable to assume that Antigonos was born around 290 BCE. Numerous large fragments of the Lives of philosophers contemporaneous to Antigonos are passed down by PHILODEMOS, ATHENAEUS, and DIOGENES LAERTIUS; PLINY THE ELDER (HN 34.19) refers to a treaty On his art (i.e., his sculpture in bronze). Antigonos also wrote a book On animals and one On style. However, he was not the author of the paradoxographical work Collection of wonderful tales – composed of excerpts from ARISTOTLE, CALLIMACHUS, and of Antigonos’ On animals; this text was probably written by an anonymous author in imperial or Late Antique times. In the Lives, written around 225 BCE, Antigonos retraced the biographical events of persons whom he had met in his youth including famous Athenian philosophers such as the Skeptics Pyrrho and Timo, the Academics Polemo, Krates, Krantor, and Arkesilaos, the Peripatetic Lycon, the Stoics ZENO OF KITION and Dionysios the Renegade. It is possible to give an idea of the structure and the content of the biographies by confronting the parallel accounts in Philodemos’ History of the academy and Diogenes Laertius’ Lives of eminent philosophers. Philodemos knew Antigonos’ biographies first hand, while Diogenes Laertius had used these works only indirectly. The most exhaustive impression of Karystian’s work can be deduced from his Life of the Academic philosopher Polemon, and it is plausible to assume that the other Lives had the same structure and characteristics.

The lack of chronological indications and elements regarding the succession (reports between teacher and pupil; succession of scholarchs; catalogues of pupils) as well as of lists of books or of judgments and observations on the literary output of the protagonists, is remarkable. Anecdotes and a real interest in philosophical thinking are missing in the Lives. They are “memories” of different personages like the Visits abroad of ION OF CHIOS (ca. 480–422/1 BCE) and the Sentences, divisions, and colors of the orators and rhetoricians by SENECA THE ELDER (ca. 54 BCE–ca. 39 CE), which equally only survived in fragments and share interesting similarities in several respects. This does not in any way mean that one can consider a direct or indirect relationship of dependency between the authors, but by means of a comparison one can demonstrate the specifics of Antigonos’ biographic production. From the fragments of Antigonos’ Lives one gets the impression that the opus had a highly peculiar formal and textual structure not comparable to any other preserved opus. Antigonos’ interest in the character and personality of the protagonists was, however, highly developed; both find expression in their lively and realistic description against the historical background whose contemporary Antigonos was. The autonomy which becomes manifest with regard to the organization of the material and the independence from literary established standards mark the uniqueness of Antigonos’ opus. Whether or not Antigonos wrote biographies only about philosophers, or also about writers, artists, and other persons of the cultural milieu, is not safe to say. The diversity of his interests, which can be deduced from the numerous literary works attributed to him, and which is reflected in his various activities, allows us to think of a broad and manifold range of protagonists in Antigonos’ Lives – the unspecific title used by Diogenes Laertius (4.17) and Athenaeus (4.162a). However, all the fragments that survived refer to

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner. © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Published 2015 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah25082

2 philosophers, and are only recorded in works that have a philosophical content (Aristokles of Messene) or deal with philosophers and the history of philosophy in general (Athenaeus, Philodemos, and Diogenes Laertius). SEE ALSO:

Athenaeus of Naukratis; Biography; Philodemos, Epicurean.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Dorandi, T. ed. (1999) Antigone de Caryste, fragments. Paris. Dorandi, T. (2005) “Accessioni a Antigono di Caristo.” Studi classici e orientali 51: 119–24. Hägg, T. (2012) The art of biography in antiquity. Cambridge. Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, U. von (1881) Antigonos von Karystos. Berlin.

1

Antigonos of Nicaea STEPHAN HEILEN

Antigonos of NICAEA (ca. 150 CE) wrote an astrological manual whose extant fragments include the most elaborate horoscope preserved from antiquity, that of the emperor HADRIAN. This Antigonos is probably identical with the physician Antigonos of Nicaea, mentioned by Pseudo-Aelius Promotus (Ihm 1995: ch. 51). Astrology and medicine shared empirical methods and overlapped in the field of iatromathematics (medical astrology); thus they would often be combined in professional practice. The astrological manual, whose title is unknown, comprised at least four books of systematic instruction. It closely followed the authoritative teaching of “NECHEPSO AND PETOSIRIS” (second/first century BCE). Occasionally, however, Antigonos rejected doctrines that he found unconvincing, such as conception astrology (i.e., speculative methods to reconstruct and interpret the planetary alignment at an individual’s conception, counting backwards from the known date and time of birth), and made theoretical proposals for technical improvement, such as computation of the aspects using degrees of right ascension. Another source was the Salmeschiniaka, an old Hermetic text on the astrological influences of the Egyptian DECANS. No influences can be detected between the roughly contemporary works of Antigonos, Ptolemy (Tetrabiblos), Pseudo-Manetho, and VALENS. Antigonos’ manual was illustrated with anonymously presented sample nativities. Three horoscopes are preserved completely: that of Hadrian, that of an individual whose identity is controversial, and that of Hadrian’s grandnephew, Pedanius Fuscus. Their purpose throughout is didactic rather than legitimation of power. Antigonos wrote

probably in the east (perhaps Egypt) for an eastern audience. His knowledge of biographical details, his unconditional praise of Hadrian, and his condemnation of Pedanius indicate that he may have drawn on Hadrian’s lost autobiography (Heilen 2005). The computation of the horoscope of Hadrian implies a birthplace on the latitude of Rome, not Italica (Heilen 2006, against Canto 2004). Antigonos’ astrological manual was used by Antiochos of Athens (late second century CE?), the Anonymus of 379 CE, HEPHAISTION OF THEBES (early fifth century, our source for 90 percent of the extant fragments), the astrologer of Zeno (late fifth century), JOHN LYDUS (sixth century), and Rhetorios (early seventh century?). SEE ALSO: Astrology, Greece and Rome; Ptolemy (astronomer, mathematician).

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Canto, A. M. (2004) “Ita´lica, sedes natalis de Adriano. 31 textos histo´ricos y argumentos para una secular pole´mica.” Athenaeum 92: 367–408. Heilen, S. (2005) “The emperor Hadrian in the horoscopes of Antigonos of Nicaea.” In G. Oestmann, D. Rutkin, and K. von Stuckrad, eds., Horoscopes and public spheres: essays on the history of astrology: 49–67. Berlin. Heilen, S. (2006) “Italica o Roma? Nota alla riaccesa disputa sul luogo di nascita dell’imperatore Adriano.” Athenaeum 94: 679–80. Heilen, S. (forthcoming) Hadriani genitura. Die astrologischen Fragmente des Antigonos von ¨ bersetzung und Kommentar. Nikaia. Edition, U Ihm, S. (1995) Der Traktat Περι τω˜ν i᾽ οβόλων θηρίων και δηλητηρίων φαρμάκων des sog. Aelius Promotus. Erstedition mit textkritischem Kommentar. Wiesbaden. Pingree, D., ed. (1973–4) Hephaestionis Thebani Apotelesmaticorum libri tres, 2 vols. Leipzig.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 464–465. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah21025

1

Antigonus (historian) CRAIGE B. CHAMPION

Nothing is known about the life of Antigonus (Die Fragmente der griechischen Historiker, 816), neither his place of origin nor his exact dates. He was probably working in the third century BCE; he therefore would have been roughly contemporaneous with TIMAEUS OF TAUROMENIUM. Antigonus wrote an Italian history (Festus, pg. 266 Lindsay), and he was consulted by DIONYSIUS OF HALICARNASSUS in his Roman antiquities (1.6.1; cf. The arrangement of words, 4). Based on our meager evidence, we can cautiously posit that Antigonus had a contrarian tendency, offering alternative accounts for standard historiographical commonplaces. This Antigonus is not to be confused with Antigonus of Carystus, who wrote Philosophers’ lives and a Collection of incredible

inquiries. A fragment from Plutarch (Romulus, 17.5) informs us that Antigonus discussed the Roman myth of Tarpeia, and from Festus (pg. 266 Lindsay) we learn that he wrote about the foundation of the Palatine. Antigonus, then, was one of the first Greek historians to turn his attention to Rome and the western Mediterranean, and along with Timaeus, he was one of POLYBIUS’ predecessors as Greek historian of the Roman Republic. SEE ALSO:

Historiography, Greek and Roman.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Beck, H. (2010, 2016) "Antigonus (816)." In I. Worthington, ed., Brill’s New Jacoby. Brill Online. Pearson, L. (1988) The Greek historians of the west: Timaeus and his predecessors. Oxford.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, and Andrew Erskine. © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Published 2017 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah30574

1

Antigonus Macedo CRAIGE B. CHAMPION

Our knowledge of this author (Die Fragmente der griechischen Historiker, 775) comes from a single entry in the work of the sixth-century CE geographical lexicographer Stephanus of Byzantium. Under the lemma Abantis, an alternative name for EUBOEA, Stephanus mentions “Antigonus’ Geographical description of Macedonia” (Makedonike periegesis). The polis of Amantia may have become the central hub of the area of Abantis after the Apollonians defeated the Thronians in a decisive battle in the mid-fifth century BCE. Since

Amantia was of no significance until this time, it is unlikely that Antigonus Macedo wrote before the later fifth century BCE. The geographical treatise alone is attested for this author; he may also have written a Macedonian history. He cannot securely be identified with Antigonus (Die Fragmente der griechischen Historiker, 816), the writer of an Italian history, or with any other namesake. SEE ALSO:

Geography; Macedonia.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Sat, N. (2011, 2016) “Antigonus Macedo (775).” In I. Worthington, ed., Brill’s New Jacoby. Brill Online.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, and Andrew Erskine. © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Published 2017 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah30573

1

Antigraphe, -eus ADELE C. SCAFURO

In the first half of the fourth century, the antigrapheus (“revenue secretary”) was an elected official in charge of Athenian revenues; he reported them to the city every prytany. The “controllers of the theoric fund” discharged this office while Euboulos retained influence over the city’s finances (Aeschines 3.25). Probably the office of the antigrapheus was abolished at this time, but was revived later as an undersecretary to the prytany secretary (Rhodes 1981: 601). Antigraphe is an elastic term in Athenian legal procedure. It appears once as a synonym for PARAGRAPHE (Lys. 23.5, 10). It is occasionally used of the defendant’s reply to the plaintiff ’s charge (and of the plaintiff ’s reply as well: D. 45.46). Scholars have identified two other

applications: to designate the filing of a counter-claim in an inheritance dispute (Is. 6.52; Dem. 44.39; 48.31) and of a countercharge by a defendant (Dem. 42. 17; 48.31), so that two trials about the same offence would take place, one following the other (A sues B for assaulting A, and B counter-sues A for assaulting B). It is difficult to explain how the last procedure worked, especially after a verdict had been given in the first trial; see Harrison 1971: 131–3. SEE ALSO: Euboulos, Athenian politician; Paragraphe; Theorika, theoric fund.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Harrison, A. R. W. (1971) The law of Athens, vol. 2. Oxford. Rhodes, P. J. (1981) A commentary on the Aristotelian Athenaion Politeia. Oxford.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print page 465. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah13019

1

Antikythera Mechanism ROBERT HANNAH

Discovered in 1901 in a shipwreck, the Antikythera Mechanism comprises eightytwo corroded BRONZE fragments of an astronomical instrument, probably dating to the second century BCE. The device was originally box-shaped, about 34018090 mm, with front and back doors and with astronomical inscriptions on the exterior. Price (1974) demonstrated from X-rays that the Mechanism’s thirty or more hand-driven gears moved dials, which coordinated solar and lunar motion with the twelve signs of the zodiac, the Egyptian 365-day calendar, and a PARAPEGMA. More recent studies, notably by Wright and the Antikythera Mechanism Research Group (the latter using computed tomography and digital optical

Figure 1

imaging), have produced greatly increased data about its gearing, functions, and inscriptions. Certainly two, and perhaps all five, of the planets known to antiquity were tracked by the instrument; the motions of the Sun and Moon were correlated using a nineteen-year Metonic cycle linked to a civil calendar of Dorian Greek origin; and eclipses of the Sun and Moon could be accurately calculated (Wright 2007, Freeth et al. 2006, 2008). While a western Greek interest is plausibly suggested by the Dorian calendar, it remains possible that the Mechanism was made in Alexandria, the leading center in astronomy at the time. The fact that the Mechanism incorporated a four-yearly leap-day matches what is known about attempts to establish such an intercalation in the Egyptian calendar from 238 BCE (cf. Bennett, forthcoming). The leap-day dial was also the means for presenting

The Antikythera Mechanism. © Ancient Art & Architecture Collection Ltd/Alamy.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 465–467. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah21026

2 the four-year Olympic Games cycle, along with the games at ISTHMIA; DELPHI; NEMEA, and DODONA (and perhaps others). The purpose for which the Mechanism was made remains uncertain. Its coordination of the motions of the celestial bodies into one device, as well as its use of different forms of time schedules – two solar (the zodiac and the Egyptian calendar), one lunisolar (the civil calendar), and one sidereal (the parapegma) – all suggest that a fundamental function was not telling time, as with a clock, nor measuring time, as with a stopwatch, but marking time, as with a calendar. Although currently recognized more as a planetarium (cf. Archimedes’ sphere and Poseidonios’ orrery: Cic. Rep. 1.14.21–2; Tusc. 1.63; Nat. D. 2.87–8), the Mechanism was identified by Price (1974) as a “calendar computer,” and this still seems the most reasonable characterization. However, this does not explain to what end the data provided by the instrument were put. Columella (Rust. 9.14.12) says that the star calendars (fasti) of the ancient astronomers were adapted to public sacrifices, and a festival calendar from Sais in Egypt, dated ca. 300 BCE, demonstrates such a usage with a parapegma, the twelve zodiacal months and the Egyptian calendar combined to signal when religious festivals were to take place (Lehoux 2007: 153–4, 217–23). But the Antikythera Mechanism shows no explicit interest in this function. Nor does it evince a concern for astrometeorology, although its data could assist in that enterprise (cf. Taub 2003). If the Mechanism was used for navigation, the method still needs to be elucidated. Astrology remains a plausible prime function, as the instrument permitted the rapid calculation of the positions of all the phenomena essential at least to genethlialogy (Hannah 2009: 63–4). Horoscopic astrology was already well-developed

by the 70s and 60s BCE (Beck 2007: 131), and its origins could lie in the period now assigned to the Mechanism. On another level, the Antikythera Mechanism can be seen as an approximation of the Platonic conceptualization of the cosmos, because the Mechanism abstracts the workings of the cosmos, and hence time, to number (Beck 2006: 125). That time is number was a tenet of Greek philosophy from PLATO and ARISTOTLE onwards (Arist. Ph. 219b1–2). The Antikythera Mechanism thus brings us closer to metaphysical reality. SEE ALSO:

Calendar, Greco-Roman Egypt.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Antikythera Mechanism Research Group: http:// www.antikythera-mechanism.gr/. Beck, R. (2006) The religion of the Mithras cult in the Roman Empire: mysteries of the unconquered sun. Oxford. Beck, R. (2007) A brief history of ancient astrology. Oxford. Bennett, C. (2011) Alexandria and the moon: an investigation into the lunar Macedonian calendar of Ptolemaic Egypt. Leuven. Freeth, T. et al. (2006) “Decoding the ancient Greek astronomical calculator known as the Antikythera Mechanism.” Nature 444: 587–91. Freeth, T. et al. (2008) “Calendars with Olympiad display and eclipse prediction on the Antikythera Mechanism.” Nature 454: 614–17. Hannah, R. (2009) Time in antiquity. London. Lehoux, D. R. (2007) Astronomy, weather, and calendars in the ancient world: parapegmata and related texts in Classical and Near-Eastern societies. Cambridge. Price, D. J. (1974) “Gears from the Greeks.” Transactions of the American Philosophical Society 64.7. Philadelphia. Taub, L. (2003) Ancient meteorology. London. Wright, M. (2007) “The Antikythera Mechanism reconsidered.” Interdisciplinary Science Reviews 32: 27–43.

1

Antileon CRAIGE B. CHAMPION

Antileon’s place of origin is unknown, but he seems to have been working in the fourth century BCE. He probably focused on chronography and chronology. He certainly wrote a work titled On Dates, in at least two books. He is known from two fragments (Die Fragmente der griechischen Historiker 247): Diogenes Laertius, 3.3, and Pollux, Onomastikon, 2.150–51 (though it is possible that different men composed these, both named

Antileon). In the first fragment, an Antileon discussed the philosopher Plato’s deme; in the second, an Antileon mentions the Achaemenid Persian king Xerxes. SEE ALSO:

Historiography, Greek and Roman.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Marincola, J. (2001) The Greek historians. Oxford. Mori, A. (2007, 2016) “Antileon (247).” In I. Worthington, ed., Brill’s New Jacoby. Brill Online.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, and Andrew Erskine. © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Published 2017 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah30575

1

Antinoopolis PAUL SCHUBERT

Antinoopolis was a Greek city founded in Middle Egypt by the emperor Hadrian in 130 CE. It took its name from Hadrian’s beloved ANTINOOS, who died by drowning in the Nile during the emperor’s visit to Egypt. The city is well attested in the Greek papyri from Egypt until the eighth century CE (especially in the sixth century). Many documents, however, especially for the early period of the city, do not come from Antinoopolis, but from the Arsinoite nome (Fayyum). After his death in October 130 on the right bank of the Nile, at the level of Hermopolis on the other bank, Antinoos was awarded divine honors by Hadrian. His untimely death was remembered by poets, notably Pankrates (Schubert 1997). The emperor decided to found a city on the spot of the accident. This settlement was to supplement the other Greek cities of Roman Egypt, namely Naukratis in the Delta and Ptolemais in the Thebaid; Alexandria was considered to be separate from Egypt. Thus Middle Egypt (the Heptanomia) was also given a city of Greek status. A road was built (Via Hadriana), which linked Antinoopolis to Berenike on the Red Sea. Therefore, beyond its administrative importance in Middle Egypt, Antinoopolis seems to have been intended as a major cross-roads between the Red Sea and the Nile Valley. The population of Antinoopolis consisted first of settlers from Ptolemais and from the privileged classes of the metropoleis (capital cities of the Egyptian nomes (see NOME; ADMINISTRATION, ROMAN EGYPT)), notably the so-called “6475 Greeks” from the Arsinoite nome. Officially, Antinoites were designated as “New Greeks” (Antinoeis Neoi Hellenes). They were perceived as a civic elite whose culture was to foster the ideal of Hellenism pursued by Hadrian (Zahrnt 1988). From around 148 CE, veterans from the Roman auxilia are also attested as Antinoites; they were

simultaneously Roman citizens. Many of those Antinoite veterans did not live in Antinoopolis, but in the Arsinoite nome. It seems that Antinoopolis was considered as a sort of origo within a system close to the municipal structure of the rest of the empire. The privileged status of Antinoites (see below) played a role in the process of the gradual municipalization of Egypt during the first two centuries CE (Bowman and Rathbone 1992). Some Antinoite families have left archives that document their lives and the way in which they secured their rights of citizenship. The most conspicuous cases are a family archive from Tebtynis (Van Groningen 1950), and the archives of Marcus Lucretius Diogenes (Schubert 1990). Antinoites were required to prove their rights to their privileged position by first submitting a declaration of birth for their newborn children. Ephebes then had to undergo an examination of their civic status, the so-called epikrisis, before entering the civic body. The city was divided into quarters (grammata, i.e., numbers), which were subdivided into blocks (plintheia, i.e., squares or bricks). Although very little remains of the city nowadays, Napoleon’s famous expedition to Egypt identified some main avenues, which suggests a grid-like street plan, with cardo and decumanus. There were baths, a theater, and apparently a hippodrome; several Christian churches are also attested. On the civic side, Antinoites were divided into ten tribes (phylai), and each tribe subdivided into five demes (demoi). This organization is modeled on the system prevailing in Alexandria and, more remotely, Classical Athens (Bell 1940). Each Antinoite, when stating his full identity, specified his tribe and deme, which were named after various elements taken from the imperial family, its relation to the gods, or from Antinoos himself (e.g., the tribe-name Paulinios, after Paulina, Hadrian’s sister; the deme-name Zenios, after Zeus; the deme-name Bithynieus, after Bithynia, Antinoos’ homeland).

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 467–469. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah07008

2 Since they belonged to an autonomous city of Greek status, the citizens and authorities of Antinoopolis answered not to a local strategos, but directly to a higher authority, namely the epistrategos of the Heptanomia. The city constituted a separate nomarchy. Antinoites took their laws from Naukratis, itself an old Milesian colony established in the seventh century BCE, and therefore used the Milesian calendar for official purposes. They also enjoyed a number of privileges awarded by the emperor, notably freedom from liturgic obligations outside the city; freedom from the obligation to act as a tutor, except for Antinoite minors holding property in Antinoopolis; right of intermarriage between Antinoite men and Egyptian women (epigamia); subsidies for the feeding of citizens’ children; release from import taxes for goods meant for personal use; exemption from poll tax; right to take an opponent in a law action to an Antinoite court; right to organize city games, with prizes offered by the emperor. Most of those privileges were intended to favor the development of the new city’s population, and to ensure its integration within a set of Hellenic cultural references.

The city was also allowed to have its own council (boule) long before the metropoleis of Egypt, where councils were introduced in 202 CE. In the third century, the special status of Antinoopolis gradually lost its importance. The city continued to thrive, but was soon integrated into the ordinary structure of the rest of Egypt. SEE ALSO:

Hadrian.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Bell, H. I. (1940) “Antinoopolis: A Hadrianic Foundation in Egypt.” Journal of Roman Studies 30: 133–47. Bowman, A. K. and Rathbone, D. (1992) “Cities and administration in Roman Egypt.” Journal of Roman Studies 82: 107–27. Schubert, P. (1990) Les archives de Marcus Lucretius Diogenes. Bonn. Schubert, P. (1997) “Antinoopolis: Pragmatisme ou passion?” Chronique d’E´gypte 72: 119–27. Van Groningen, B. A. (1950) A Family Archive from Tebtunis. Leiden. ¨ gypten.” Zahrnt, M. (1988) “Antinoopolis in A ANRW II.10.1: 669–706. Berlin.

1

Antinoos CHRISTOPHER JONES

Antinoos, now mainly remembered as HADRIAN’s young male companion and as the subject of portraits in stone and on coins, was born between 105 and 110 CE on the territory of Bithynion, a moderately sized city of BITHYNIA in northwestern Asia Minor. Nothing is known of his parents or social status, or of the date when he first met Hadrian. Antinoos appeared in the emperor’s entourage and joined him in his favorite sport of hunting but is not recorded to have had any interaction with any other member of the court. Though Hadrian had strained relations with his wife, Sabina, there is no evidence that they were caused by his connection with Antinoos. In 130 Antinoos drowned when the emperor and his party were traveling up the Nile. His mysterious death was explained as either an accident or an act of self-sacrifice. Whatever the true reason, the death caused immense grief to Hadrian, who is said to have wept for him “like a woman.” In his memory he founded a city at the place where Antinoos drowned, calling it “Antinoos’ city” (ANTINOOPOLIS). Here, as on his OBELISK in Rome (see Figure 1), Antinoos was identified with the god OSIRIS, who ruled the underworld after being killed by his brother SETH and being resurrected by his wife and sister, Isis (see ISIS, PHARAONIC EGYPT). In Egypt and the other parts of the empire, Hadrian promoted the posthumous cult of his dead favorite, though he never tried to introduce it into the official cult of Rome. There is very little trace of it in the Latin-speaking west, with the exception of Rome and its vicinity. In the Greek-speaking east, by contrast, cults of Antinoos were widespread. He is sometimes a god, but more often a “hero,” that is, a mortal who, though dead, could still move invisibly among the living to do good or harm. Christian writers held up the divinization or heroization of Hadrian’s lover as a sign of pagan immorality, and some non-Christian writers take a similar

Figure 1 Antinoos depicted as Osiris, from Vatican City Museum collection. Vatican City, Rome. © Photo Scala, Florence.

view. Despite such criticism, the cult quickly acquired a life of its own. Poets composed poems in his honor, and he was believed to give oracles. Many of the huge number of surviving portraits must have served the purpose of worship. A late magical papyrus invokes Antinoos as a “spirit of the dead” (nekyodaimon), able to bind a woman to her lover. The monument of Antinoos seen by more people than any other, even if they do not know its function, is the granite obelisk now standing on the Pincio in Rome. As excavations at Hadrian’s villa of Tibur have shown, the obelisk originally formed the centerpiece of an “Antinoeion,” or cult site, there. The inscription, written in Egyptian hieroglyphs, includes a text spoken by Antinoos. He is Osiris-Antinoos, the son of Re-Harakhte (one of the titles of Re), and invokes his father’s blessings on Hadrian and Sabina. After his death, Antinoos as a cult figure eclipsed Antinoos the playmate of Hadrian. SEE ALSO:

Tibur (Tivoli).

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 469–470. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah18005

2 REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Jones, C. P. (2010) New heroes in antiquity: from Achilles to Antinoos. Cambridge. Lambert, R. (1984) Beloved and God: the story of Hadrian and Antinous. London.

Meyer, H. (1991) Antinoos: die archa¨ologischen Denkma¨ler. Munich. Meyer, H., ed. (1994) Der Obelisk des Antinoos: eine kommentierte Edition. Munich. Vout, C. (2007) Power and eroticism in imperial Rome. Cambridge.

1

Antioch in Persis JEFFREY D. LERNER

Antioch in Persis corresponds to either modern Bushire on the Persian Gulf or inland Taoke (modern Borazjan) (Bernard 1990: 46–52; Fraser 1996: 31, no. 68). Either Seleukos I or Antiochos I founded the city; Antiochos resettled colonists from MAGNESIA ON THE MAEANDER. It had POLIS institutions and cults similar to those in Magnesia (OGIS 233). That the city retained ties of kinship with Magnesia is attested by Antiochos III when he visited the city in ca. 205 BCE and met with a delegation from Magnesia (OGIS 231), prior to his departure for Babylon by way of Gerrha (Roueche´ and Sherwin-White 1985: 9, no. 18; Salles 1987: 92, no. 24).

SEE ALSO: Antiochos I Soter; Antiochos III Megas; Seleucids; Seleukos I Nikator.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Bernard, P. (1990) “Vicissitudes au gre´ de l’histoire d’une statue en bronze d’He´racle`s entre Se´leucie du Tigre et la Me´se`ne.” Journal des Savants 1990: 3–68. Fraser, P. M. (1996) Cities of Alexander the Great. Oxford. Roueche´, C. and Sherwin-White, S. M. (1985) “The Greek Inscriptions from Failaka.” Chiron 15: 1–39. Salles, J.-F. (1987) “The Arab-Persian Gulf under the Seleucids.” In A. Kuhrt and S. Sherwin-White, eds., Hellenism in the East. The interaction of Greek and non-Greek civilizations from Syria to Central Asia after Alexander: 75–109. Berkeley.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print page 470. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah14037

1

Antioch in Syria KEVIN BUTCHER

Antioch was a city of the Syrian Tetrapolis founded by SELEUKOS I NIKATOR between 301 and 299 BCE and named after his father, Antiochos. It became one of the largest and most populous cities of Classical antiquity and the seat of Seleucid kings and Roman emperors. Its famous TYCHE, designed by the sculptor Eutychides of Sikyon for Seleukos I, was widely imitated in the eastern Mediterranean. LOCATION The city lies in northern Syria, on the ORONTES River, at the southern edge of the fertile though then swampy Amik Plain, at a bottleneck formed by the Amanus mountains and the limestone highlands of northern Syria. The city was well placed to serve as a market for the villages of its large territory, and controlled routes up the Orontes and Amik Plain to the interior of Syria. In antiquity there was a large island in the Orontes that was incorporated into the city. Antioch is overlooked by a prominent spur of the limestone highlands known in antiquity as Mount Silpios. Nearby, to the south, was the suburb of Daphne, with its sanctuary and oracle of APOLLO. The location of the city, close to a major geological fault, left it vulnerable to devastating earthquakes, most notably in the winter of 115–16, when the emperor TRAJAN was present, and in 526, after which the city was renamed Theoupolis, “City of God.”

HISTORY Two writers of Antiochene origin, LIBANIUS and preserve much information about their city, but Antioch features in many other sources as well. The city of Seleukos I seems to have been next to the Orontes River, on its eastern bank. Here, according to both Malalas

MALALAS,

(8.15) and Libanius (Or. 11.91), Seleukos settled Macedonian and Cretan colonists, and transferred to his new city the population from nearby Antigoneia, founded only a few years earlier by ANTIGONOS I MONOPHTHALMOS. Seleukos I commissioned various monuments and sculptures for the city, including the Tyche mentioned above, and a statue of Apollo by Bryaxis, which was installed in a temple at Daphne. Though originally the smallest of the Tetrapolis cities, Antioch grew in Hellenistic times to become the largest of the four. By the reign of ANTIOCHOS III MEGAS the island in the Orontes had been incorporated, and ANTIOCHOS IV EPIPHANES added a new quarter, Epiphaneia, on the eastern side of the city. Antioch was not originally intended as the chief city of the Seleucid realm, but after the Seleucid withdrawal from Asia Minor in 188 BCE it became the main residence of the kings, and its capture was a major objective for usurpers and rival dynasties. By late Seleucid times it was striking a civic coinage with the title metropolis. Under the Roman Empire, Antioch emerged as the most important city of the province of Syria, though its position led to rivalries with other prominent Syrian cities, most notably with the neighboring Tetrapolis city of Laodikeia. Both cities were honored by JULIUS CAESAR, initiating new eras. But Antioch’s leading position was advanced in the second century CE, when it developed a new role as an imperial capital during campaigns against the neighboring Parthian and Sasanian empires. Trajan used the city as winter quarters during his Parthian campaign, and along with Laodikeia the city functioned as the main seat of residence for the emperor LUCIUS VERUS during his Parthian wars of 162–166 CE. Antioch hosted festivals of the Syrian provincial imperial cult, and acquired Olympic Games under COMMODUS. The city temporarily lost out to Laodikeia following the war between PESCENNIUS NIGER, governor of Syria, who had been proclaimed emperor, with his rival SEPTIMIUS SEVERUS in 193–4 CE. The victorious Severus rewarded Laodikeia, which had declared

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 470–472. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah18006

2 for him, transferring the title metropolis to that city and demoting Antioch to a village in the territory of Laodikeia. This situation did not last long, however, and by the beginning of the third century Antioch’s position had been restored. It was sacked by the SASANIANS ca. 252, and fell under the Palmyrene domination of ZENOBIA (268–72 CE). The eastern tetrarchs DIOCLETIAN, GALERIUS, and Maximinus Daia (see MAXIMINUS) all used Antioch as a seat of residence, and during the fourth century CONSTANTIUS II, the Caesar Gallus, JULIAN, and VALENS all spent time there. The HUNS ravaged Antioch in 395, and the usurper Leontius briefly occupied Antioch in 484 CE during the reign of Zeno. Christianity was established early at Antioch, and by the third century the bishops of Antioch were leading figures in the Church. It became a center of a school of biblical studies stressing the human aspect of Christ. In the fifth century the Antiochene patriarchate became embroiled in debates with rivals that sought to stress Christ as a purely metaphysical being, and its bishops were often in conflict with the beliefs of the local population. In 540 Antioch was sacked by Khusrau I and its inhabitants deported to Sasanian Mesopotamia. In about 611 the Sasanians again captured Antioch and the city was only recovered by HERAKLEIOS in his campaigns during the 620s. Antioch was lost with the rest of Syria following the Roman evacuation in 636 CE. MONUMENTS Little survives of Classical Antioch, although the city was the focus of important excavations during the 1930s, which revealed some spectacular mosaics from churches and private villas. Small sections of the city’s main

colonnaded street were also revealed. Stretches of the city walls and remains of the citadel survive on Mount Silpios, and a large female bust carved from the rock on the hillside is thought to belong to the reign of the Seleucid king Antiochos IV. Substantial remains of the Roman hippodrome may also be seen. The original Roman bridge spanning the Orontes was demolished in the 1970s and replaced with a new concrete structure. Tradition ascribes a cave at the foot of Mount Silpios to the activities of St. Peter, who resided in the city for several years. SEE ALSO: Julian, emperor; Parthia; Seleucids; Syria (pre-Roman); Syria (Roman and Byzantine); Zeno, emperor.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Bouchier, E. S. (1921) A short history of Antioch, 300 BC–AD 1268. Oxford. Cohen, G. (2006) The Hellenistic settlements in Syria, the Red Sea basin, and North Africa. Berkeley. Downey, G. (1961) A history of Antioch in Syria from Seleucus to the Arab conquest. Princeton. Downey, G. (1962) Antioch in the age of Theodosius the Great. Norman, OK. Elderkin, G. W., Stillwell, R., et al., eds. (1934–72) Antioch-on-the-Orontes, 5 vols. Princeton. Grainger, J. D. (1990) The cities of Seleukid Syria. Oxford. Kondoleon, C. (2000) Antioch: the lost city. Princeton. Lassus, J. (1977) “La Ville d’Antioche a` l’e´poque romaine d’apre`s l’arche´ologie.” ANRW II.8: 54–102. Berlin. Liebeschuetz, J. H. W. G. (1972) Antioch: city and administration in the Later Roman Empire. Oxford. Will, E. (1997) “Antioche sur l’Oronte, me´tropole d’Asie.” Syria 74: 99–113.

1

Antiochos Hierax ANDRE´ HELLER

Antiochos Hierax, second son of king ANTIOCHOS II THEOS and of his wife Laodike, was born ca. 256 BCE. The nickname Hierax (“Falcon”) probably points to his grasping character. In April 246 he was present with his elder brother Seleukos and his sister Apame at the New Year’s festival of BABYLON (Sachs and Hunger 1988: no. –245 A obv.´ 13). Soon afterwards Antiochos II died and SELEUKOS II KALLINIKOS became king of the Seleucid Empire (246). At the age of 14 Seleukos appointed his brother viceroy in Asia Minor, as he had to deal with the Ptolemaic invasion of Syria. After the conclusion of peace with Egypt (241), the brothers came into conflict and Antiochos declared himself king, probably on instigation from his mother and supported by her brother Alexander, commander of SARDIS. The chronology of the so-called “War of the Brothers” and of the following wars against king ATTALOS I of PERGAMON is entirely unclear on account of contradictions in our main sources, Justin (see JUSTIN, ROMAN HISTORIAN) (Epit. 27.2–3) and EUSEBIUS OF CAESAREA (Porph. in FGrH 260 F 32.8). Allied with the Galatians, Antiochos inflicted a crushing defeat on his brother in a battle fought near ANKYRA. PLUTARCH tells us in his treatise On brotherly love that Antiochos, hearing of his brother’s death in combat, mourned for several days, then rejoiced when the rumor turned out to be untrue (Plut. De frat. amor. 489 A–B). The traditional date is 240/39, but, if the fighting between palace guards and royal troops in Babylon at the beginning of July 238 reported in an astronomical diary (Sachs and Hunger 1988: no. –237 obv. 13) is a reaction to the defeat of Seleukos, this would place it in May/June 238. Fighting between troops in Babylon is again referred to in 235 (Sachs and Hunger: no. –234 obv. 13). This was probably another attempt on the part of Antiochos’ supporters to take the power.

After Antiochos’ victory the Galatians rebelled, and Antiochos could only prevail with Ptolemaic help. Peace with Seleukos was probably concluded in 236 (if not earlier), as they are named together in an unpublished cuneiform tablet from that year. It is unclear whether Seleukos by then accepted his brother as co-regent. Antiochos’ main opponent came to be Attalos, who aimed at enlarging his territory at the cost of the Seleucid Empire. Antiochos suffered subsequent defeats in confrontations against Attalos in LYDIA and CARIA in 229/8, which resulted in his expulsion from Asia Minor. His attempt to invade Mesopotamia failed, so he fled to CAPPADOCIA first and then to Egypt, where he was imprisoned. He managed to escape and was finally killed in Thrace, by brigands, in 226. Antiochos’ domination over Asia Minor was fragile and rested mainly on his Galatian allies. Support also came from Ariarathes of Cappadocia and the Bithynian king Ziaelas, whose daughter Laodike Antiochos married. In 229 BCE a second marriage might have been contracted with Laodike, daughter of the Pontic king Mithradates II (Petkovic 2009). In the end, Antiochos’ failure resulted in the Seleucid loss of nearly all of Asia Minor. The civil war led to the separation of territories in the east, too. SEE ALSO: Ariarathid Dynasty; Asia Minor, Hellenistic; Galatia; Laodike, wife of Antiochos II; Seleucid era; Seleucids; Syria (pre-Roman).

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Grainger, J. D. (1997) A Seleukid prosopography and gazetteer: 35–6. Leiden. Petkovic, Z. (2009) “Mithridates II and Antiochos Hierax.” Klio 91: 378–83. Sachs, A. J. and Hunger, H. (1988) Astronomical diaries and related texts from Babylonia, vol. 2: Diaries from 261 BC to 165 BC. Vienna. Will, E´. (1979) Histoire politique du monde helle´nistique, vol. 1: De la mort d’Alexandre aux ave`nements d’Antiochos III et Philippe V, 2nd ed.: 294–301. Nancy.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 482–483. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah00927

1

Antiochos Hierax (Antiochus Hierax) ANDRÉ HELLER

University of Bamberg, Germany

Antiochos was the second son of the Seleucid king ANTIOCHOS II THEOS and his wife Laodike (see LAODIKE, WIFE OF ANTIOCHOS II); his year of birth was probably around 260/255 BCE. His nickname Hierax (“Hawk”) could point to his grasping character or the swiftness of his military operations, but a connection to the Seleucid favorite god APOLLO seems more plausible (Chrubasik 2016: 97–9). In April 246, he participated in the Babylonian New Year festival (see AKITU) with his elder brother Seleukos and his sister Apame (Sachs and Hunger 1988: no. –245 A obv.´ 13). In July 246, Antiochos II died in EPHESOS and SELEUKOS II KALLINIKOS ascended the throne. A few months later, the Egyptian king PTOLEMY III EUERGETES attacked CILICIA, thereby causing the outbreak of the Third Syrian War (see SYRIAN WARS) which lasted until 241. During this war, Antiochos rebelled from his brother and established an independent rule in Asia Minor. It is very difficult to reconstruct the “War of Brothers” since the two main sources, Justin (see JUSTIN, ROMAN HISTORIAN) (Just. Epit. 27.2–3) and EUSEBIUS OF CAESAREA (Porph. in FGrH 260 F 32.8), are confused and contradict each other (Coşkun 2018). While Justin places Hierax’ insurrection in the last phase of the Third Syrian War and, therefore, the heyday of his independent rule and the “War of Brothers” in the 230s (Chrubasik 2016: 72–81), Eusebius parallels the fraternal warfare with the Ptolemaic–Seleucid war of the 240s (Coşkun 2018: 231–4). It seems, however, more plausible to follow Eusebius’ chronological framework and to supplement it with notices from other sources. In this case, the fourteen-yearold Antiochos rebelled in September 246 after he had been asked by his uncle Alexander, who resided at SARDIS after Laodike’s death,

for assistance in protecting the cities (e.g., Ephesos and the fleet stationed there), and territories that had passed over to the Ptolemies, from Seleucid recapture. This, however, means accepting as fact that Laodike, who was hostile to Ptolemy III, was murdered shortly after her husband’s death in 246 as reported by APPIAN OF ALEXANDRIA (Syr. 65.346) (for a different reconstruction, see LAODIKE). Seleukos then marched west, but despite a victory over Antiochos he could not conquer Sardis and, on his way back, suffered a crushing defeat at the hands of MITHRADATES II OF PONTOS with the help of Galatian mercenaries at Ankyra. An anecdote told by PLUTARCH in his treatise On brotherly love belongs in this context, stating that Antiochos, hearing about his brother’s alleged death in combat, mourned for several days, but then rejoiced when the rumor turned out to be untrue (Plut. De frat. amor. 489 a–b, cf. Reg. et imp. apophth. 184a). Antiochos’ attempt, supported by Cretan and Thracian mercenaries, to invade Mesopotamia failed as he was beaten by Seleukos’ generals. He fled to Arsames of ARMENIA (or Ariamnes of CAPPADOCIA, who betrayed him) where he escaped captivity by a ruse; following a victory over his enemies, he put on the royal attire (Polyaen. strat. 4.17). Probably shortly afterwards, Seleukos concluded peace with his brother in order to fully concentrate on the war with Ptolemy III, which he ended victoriously in 241 BCE. An unpublished cuneiform text from Babylon, dating to 236 BCE, attests Antiochos and Seleukos as kings. Antiochos’ main focus was now on the fight against ATTALOS I; in 228/7, he suffered subsequent defeats against the Pergamene king in LYDIA and CARIA. After that, he fled to Egypt to the Ptolemaic court where he was imprisoned; however, he managed to escape and arrived in Thrace where he was finally killed by brigands in 226. The tragedy of Antiochos’ life was that he was never able to consolidate his rule in Asia Minor and to defend Seleucid possessions against the expansionist policy of Attalos. He was allied to ziaelas of BITHYNIA (according to

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History. Edited by Andrew Erskine, David B. Hollander, and Arietta Papaconstantinou. © 2021 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Published 2021 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah00927.pub2

2 Eusebius) and Mithradates II of Pontos by marriage (Petkovic 2009), Ariamnes of Cappadocia, and Arsames of Armenia; the Galatian mercenaries, however, were too faithless to lend him permanent support against Attalos. SEE ALSO: Ariarathid Dynasty; Asia Minor, Hellenistic; Eumenes I; Galatia; Pergamon; Seleucids.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Chrubasik, B. (2016) Kings and usurpers in the Seleukid Empire. Oxford.

Coşkun, A. (2018) “The War of Brothers, the Third Syrian war, and the battle of Ankyra (246–241 BC): a re-appraisal.” In K. Erickson, ed., The Seleukid Empire, 281–222 BC: war within the family: 197–252. Swansea. Petkovic, Z. (2009) “Mithridates II and Antiochos Hierax.” Klio 91: 378–83. Sachs, A. J. and Hunger, H. (1988) Astronomical diaries and related texts from Babylonia, vol. 2: Diaries from 261 BC to 165 BC. Vienna. Will, É. (1979) Histoire politique du monde hellénistique, vol. 1: De la mort d’Alexandre aux avènements d’Antiochos III et Philippe V, 2nd ed.: 294–301. Nancy.

1

Antiochos I of Kommagene CHARLES V. CROWTHER

Antiochos I (ca. 110–35 BCE) was the ruler of the prosperous kingdom of KOMMAGENE in southeastern Asia Minor during a critical period in its history. Precise dates for his birth, accession, and death are not attested, although he was king by 69 when LUCULLUS received his submission (Cass. Dio 36.2.5) and no longer alive in 31 when his son Mithradates II is listed among subject kings supporting Marcus Antonius at Actium (Plut. Ant. 61.1). Antiochos is best known for the monuments of his ruler cult at Nemrud Dag˘ı, on a spur of the Antitaurus range at an altitude of 2100 m. Antiochos styled himself “the Great, the God, Just, Epiphanes, Friend of the Romans (Philoromaios) and Friend of the Greeks (Philhellen),” and traced his ancestry back to both Greek (Alexander) and Persian (Darius) royal roots. The ruler cult, which he established through a network of sanctuaries and templetombs (hierothesia) across his kingdom, reflected both aspects of this mixed descent in a form that has been represented as a perfect syncreticism. On a series of cult reliefs, Antiochos stands in Kommagenian dress facing from the right and grasping in a dexiosis gesture the hands of Zeus-Oromasdes, Artagnes-Herakles-Ares, and Apollo-MithrasHelios-Hermes, the latter presented in either Greek or assimilated form. In reality Antiochos stood between Rome and PARTHIA and looked in both directions to preserve the integrity of a kingdom, which had been extended to the crossing point of the Euphrates at Zeugma by POMPEY in 64 (App. Mith. 114). He married his daughter Laodike to the Parthian king Orodes II (SEG 33.1215), but reported a Parthian incursion across the Euphrates to the Roman governor (Cic. Fam. 15.1.2; 3.1; 4.3). Cicero presents this balancing act unsympathetically (Cic. Q Fr. 2.10. 2), and

Antiochos’ concern to appease and court both sides provoked an assault on the royal capital of SAMOSATA in 38 by Ventidius Bassus and Marcus Antonius, from which he emerged with difficulty (Plut. Ant. 34.2–4; Cass. Dio 49.22.1–2), but with the conviction that his survival was due to a particular divine favor, of which the dexiosis relief scenes offer an explicit representation. In a long inscribed cult text from Nemrud Dag˘ı, composed in a remarkable rhythmical prose, Antiochos described himself as having enjoyed the fulfilment of a long life, and it can be assumed that this and the other major monuments of his kingdom belong to the period after the siege of Samosata. Antiochos’ ruler cult was not maintained by his successors; at Zeugma, the sanctuary of his cult had been dismantled early in the reign of Tiberius, and the composite gods of his pantheon do not survive his lifetime. Something of the grandiloquence of Antiochos’ titulature survives in that of his great-greatgrandson Antiochos IV Epiphanes (38–72 CE), who also styled himself “the Great” and continued to be a very visible friend of the Romans until the abrupt annexation of Kommagene in 72 CE. SEE ALSO: Antonius, Marcus (Mark Antony); Parthia; Parthians, rulers; Ruler cult, Greek and Hellenistic.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Crowther, C. and Facella, M. (2003) “New evidence for the ruler cult of Antiochus of Commagene from Zeugma.” In G. Heedemann and E. Winter, eds., Neue Forschungen zur Religionsgeschichte Kleinasiens: 41–80. Bonn. Do¨rner, F. K. and Goell, T. (1963) Arsameia am Nymphaios. Berlin. Facella, M. (2005) “Filοrώmaiος kaι FilέllZn: Roman perception of Commagenian royalty.” In O. Hekster and R. Fowler, eds., Imaginary kings: royal images in the ancient Near East, Greece and Rome. 87–104. Stuttgart.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 472–473. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah00928

2 Facella, M. (2006) La dinastia degli Orontidi nella Commagene ellenistico-romana. Pisa. Jacobs, B. and Rollinger, R. (2005) “Die ‘himmlischen Ha¨nde’ der Go¨tter. Zu zwei neuen Datierungsvorschla¨gen fu¨r die kommagenischen Reliefstelen.” Parthica 7: 137–54.

Sanders, D. H., ed. (1996) Nemrud Dag˘ı. The Hierothesion of Antiochus I of Commagene, 2 vols. Winona Lake. Wagner, J., ed. (2000), Gottko¨nige am Euphrat. Neue Ausgrabungen und Forschungen in Kommagene. Mainz am Rhein.

1

Antiochos I Soter ROLF STROOTMAN

Antiochos I Soter was the second king of the Seleucid Empire (b. ca. 323 BCE; r. 281–261, as sole king). He was the son of SELEUKOS I NIKATOR and his Iranian wife, Apame, daughter of the Bactrian warlord Spitamenes. The importance of Antiochos’ long reign (about 33 years, including his time as co-ruler) lies in his efforts to consolidate and organize his father’s conquests. Already ca. 294/3 Seleukos gave Antiochos the title of basileus, “king,” and made him ruler of Babylonia and the Upper Satrapies. To secure the succession even further, Antiochos married Stratonike, the daughter of DEMETRIOS I POLIORKETES and formerly his father’s consort, an event that was presented in literature as a moving love story (Brodersen 1985). Operating from Babylonia, Antiochos spent the next decade consolidating and organizing Seleukos’ acquisitions in the east, while his father consolidated and further expanded the western part of the empire. Antiochos constructed fortified towns to control the major routes and irrigation works in Iran and BACTRIA, and sent out an expedition under the general Demodamas of MILETOS across Syr Darya River into inner Asia. The outlines of the massive fortifications he built in the oasis of Merw – ALEXANDRIA IN MARGIANA, confidently renamed Antioch in Margiana “after himself ” (Plin. HN 7.18.47) – are still visible today. His activities as co-ruler are also attested in a number of cuneiform documents from BABYLON, which call him mar sharri, “crown-prince”; good relations with the Babylonian cities would continue to characterize his rule when he had become sole king. When Antiochos succeeded his father, who was murdered by Ptolemaios Keraunos after the latter’s victory at the battle of KOUROPEDION in September 281, Babylonia and the provinces further east remained conspicuously loyal to him. In the west, however, Seleucid rule had

Figure 1 Ruined head of Antiochos I of Kommagene. West Terrace, Nemrud Dagı, Turkey. Photograph © Robert Harding Picture Library/ Alamy.

not been universally accepted yet. A famous inscription from ILION in Antiochos’ honor (OGIS 219) states that his reign began with an otherwise unknown uprising in northern Syria (there is no evidence warranting the speculation of Tarn (1926) that PTOLEMY II PHILADELPHOS was directly responsible for these upheavals). Although Antiochos put down the revolt, he arrived in Asia Minor too late to restore full Seleucid authority there. Asia Minor and Thrace had been acquired by his father only one year earlier. The vassal states BITHYNIA and PONTOS became autonomous kingdoms. Some cities, notably MILETOS, accepted Ptolemaic suzerainty. There was a short and inconclusive war with ANTIGONOS II GONATAS (281/0). Antiochos furthermore failed to deal with his father’s assassin, Ptolemy Keraunos, who was able to take possession of Thrace, and even of Macedon. To consolidate what was left, Antiochos built fortified cities along the Royal Road, the main highway connecting Syria and Mesopotamia with SARDIS, the administrative center of Seleucid Asia Minor. Antiochos buried his father in SELEUKEIA in Pieria and established a cult at his tomb. He put forward Apollo as the tutelary deity of his dynasty, propagating Apollo’s paternity of his deified father. Probably he was also the one who institutionalized the SELEUCID ERA, the first

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 473–475. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah00929

2 system of continuous year reckoning. The Seleucid era started with his father’s return to Babylon in 312/11 BCE, which suggested that, with Seleukos, a new era in history had begun – a “golden age.” Like his contemporary and rival Ptolemy II Philadelphos, Antiochos was a renowned patron of the arts, entertaining at his court for example the poet ARATOS OF SOLOI in the late 270s. He also commissioned the Chaldean priest Berossos to compose the Babyloniaka, a history of Babylonia written in Greek (see BEROSSOS OF BABYLON). Antiochos maintained good relations with many cities, both Greek poleis in Asia Minor and non-Greek cities such as Babylon. His diplomatic skills laid the foundation for the friendship between the Seleucid and Antigonid houses, an alliance which would last until the disappearance or collapse of the Antigonid state one hundred years later. Being already ANTIGONOS II GONATAS’ brother-in-law through his marriage with Stratonike, Antiochos gave his half-sister Phila in marriage to Gonatas, to cement the peace treaty of 281/0; one of his and Stratonike’s own daughters would later marry Gonatas’ successor, Demetrios II. Another daughter, Apame, was given in marriage to Magas, the ruler of Kyrene, in ca. 276. Together with MAGAS, Antiochos fought the first in a long sequence of Seleucid–Ptolemaic wars, known as the Syrian wars. The causes of the First Syrian War (274–271) are unknown. Ptolemy II Philadelphos started the hostilities, but he may have been provoked by the alliance between Antiochos and Magas. The war remained inconclusive, although Ptolemy II gained some ground in the Levant and Asia Minor. Before, during, or after this conflict Antiochos gained tremendous prestige when he defeated a Galatian army in the so-called “Battle of the Elephants” in Asia Minor. Although it is not known where and when exactly this battle took place – various dates ranging from 276 to 268 have been proposed, none being supported by conclusive evidence – and although its consequences are debated, it is

clear that Antiochos was able to propagate it as a decisive victory of divine order over barbaric chaos. The writer SIMONIDES of Magnesia celebrated Antiochos’ Galatian victory in an epic poem, which resonates in LUCIAN’s poem Zeuxis. The victory, which probably prompted Antiochos to accept the title of Soter, “Savior,” greatly enhanced his popularity and hence his power in Asia Minor. Antiochos’ later years were troubled. In 267/6 he executed his eldest son and co-ruler, Seleukos, in order be able to appoint another son, Antiochos, as his fellow basileus and successor. There were also military setbacks. EUMENES I, the new dynast of the strategically crucial stronghold PERGAMON in MYSIA, declared himself independent in 263 and defeated Antiochos in battle near Sardis one year later. In 262/1 Ptolemy took control of Ephesos. Antiochos I Soter died in 261. He was succeeded by his son ANTIOCHOS II THEOS, who had already been his co-ruler for some five years (261–246). SEE ALSO: Antigonids; Apame, wife of Seleukos I; Asia Minor, Hellenistic; Basileus, Greece; Demetrios II (Seleucid king); Ephesos, Classical and later; Galatia; Koroupedion, battle of; Margiana; Polis; Royal road(s); Ruler cult, ancient Near East; Seleucids; Syria (pre-Roman); Syrian wars.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Ager, S. L. (2003) “An uneasy balance: from the death of Seleukos to the Battle of Raphia.” In A. Erskine ed., A companion to the Hellenistic world: 35–50. Oxford. Brodersen, K. (1985) “Der liebeskranke Ko¨nigssohn und die seleukidische Herrschaftsauffassung.” Athenaeum 63: 459–69. Hunger, H. and Sachs, A. J. (1988) Astronomical diaries and related texts from Babylonia, vol. 1: Diaries from 652 BC to 262 BC. Vienna. Kuhrt, A. and Sherwin-White, S. (1999) From Samarkhand to Sardis: a new approach to the Seleucid Empire. London.

3 Orth, W. (1977) Ko¨niglicher Machtanspruch und sta¨dtische Freiheit. Untersuchungen zu den politischen Beziehungen zwischen den ersten Seleukidenherrschern (Seleukos I., Antiochos I., Antiochos II.) und den Sta¨dten des westlichen Kleinasien. Munich.

Strootman, R. (2005) “Kings against Celts: deliverance from barbarians as a theme in Hellenistic royal propaganda.” In K. A. E. Enenkel and I. L. Pfeijffer, eds., The manipulative mode: political propaganda in antiquity: 101–41. Leiden. Tarn, W. W. (1926) “The first Syrian War.” Journal of Hellenic Studies 46: 155–62.

1

Antiochos II Theos PANAGIOTIS P. IOSSIF

Antiochos II (ca. 286–246), second son of ANTIOCHOS I SOTER and Stratonike, became co-regent of the Upper Satrapies in 266 (OGIS 222), after the execution of his elder brother (Trogus Prologus 26, as recorded by Justin) and occupied this position until his father’s death in 261. The Second Syrian War (261/0–254) broke out at his accession for unknown reasons. PTOLEMY II PHILADELPHOS invaded the Seleucid kingdom, threatened Antioch in 258/7, held parts of CILICIA, and probably invaded Babylonia (Sachs and Hunger 1988: no. –255 A ´rev. 15´). Antiochos responded by conquering Ptolemaic territories: Cilicia, PAMPHYLIA, CARIA, SAMOS, EPHESOS, and MILETOS – where he received the epiklesis (“nickname”) Theos (“Divine”) for liberating the city from the tyrant Timarchos (App. Syr. 65). The reconquered territories were reorganized, as can be deduced from the creation of an office in charge of sanctuaries and their revenues in Asia Minor (SEG 37.1010, l. 37–41) and from the opening of numerous royal mints. Antiochos was the first Seleucid after the dynastic founder to operate in Europe: his campaigns in Thrace and in the TROAD testify to his efforts to control the HELLESPONT. He besieged BYZANTIUM and HERAKLEIA PONTICA (Memnon in FGrH 434 F 15) and allied himself with Lysimacheia (Ilion 45). Antiochos’ engagement in the west allowed the revolt and secession of several eastern provinces. The Cappadocian dynasts revolted ca. 260–255, assuming the royal title that was formally recognized through the marriage of Antiochos’ daughter Stratonike to Ariarathes III (Diod. Sic. 31.19.5). Andragoras’ defection in Parthyene announced the Arsacid invasion and was contemporaneous with the commencement of the Bactrian defection under Diodotos I, which is generally dated to the end of 250s (Justin Epit. 41.4.1–10; Strabo 11.9.2–3). Antiochos’ portrait on coins

issued long after his reign reflects the ideological importance of this king in legitimizing the newly established dynasties. His marriage with Berenike, daughter of Ptolemy II, sealed the end of the Second Syrian War (Polyaenus Strat. 8.50; Hieron. Expl. Dan. 3.11.6). Required to repudiate his first wife Laodike, mother of his sons Seleukos and Antiochos (see LAODIKE, WIFE OF ANTIOCHOS II; SELEUKOS II KALLINIKOS; ANTIOCHOS HIERAX), Antiochos installed them in Ephesos, while Berenike took her quarters in Antioch. Nevertheless, Laodike remained politically important, both in the west (Didyma 492) and in the east (Sachs and Hunger 1988: no. –247 B obv. 4´). To reaffirm his power in the east, Antiochos visited SELEUKEIA on the Tigris in 250 (Sachs and Hunger 1988: no. –251). In 246 Antiochos and his three sons celebrated the New Year festival in BABYLON (Sachs and Hunger 1988: no. –245 A obv.´ 12–13). Their presence shows that the king had reconciled with his sons from Laodike; the third one, Apammu, was either his son with Berenike (Blu¨mel 1992: 128–31, “Antiochos”) or an otherwise unknown son with Laodike. Antiochos died later the same year in Ephesos, perhaps poisoned by Laodike (App. Syr. 65; Phylarchos in FGrH 81 F 24; Hieron. Expl. Dan. 3.11.6). SEE ALSO: Antioch in Syria; Asia Minor, Hellenistic; Bactria; Cappadocia; Ephesos, Classical and later; Euphrates and Tigris; Seleucids; Syrian wars.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Blu¨mel, W. (1992) “Brief des ptolema¨ischen Ministers Tlepolemos an die Stadt Kildara in Karien. ” Epigraphica Anatolica 20: 127–33. Boiy, T. (2004) Late Achaemenid and Hellenistic Babylon: 145–9. Leuven. Frisch, P. (1975) Die Inschriften von Ilion. Bonn (¼Ilion). Houghton, A. and Lorber, C. (2002) Seleucid coins: a comprehensive catalogue, vol. 1:

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 475–476. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah09030

2 Seleucus I through Antiochus III: 165–223. New York. Ma, J. (1999) Antiochos III and the cities of western Asia Minor: 36, 41–3. Oxford.

Rehm, A. (1958) Didyma II: Die Inschriften, ed. T. Wiegand and R. Harder. Berlin (¼Didyma). Sachs, A. J. and Hunger, H. (1988) Astronomical diaries and related texts from Babylonia, vol. 2. Vienna.

1

Antiochos III Megas ROLF STROOTMAN

Antiochos III the Great (243/2–187) was the sixth king of the Seleucid Empire. His thirty-five-year reign (223/2–187) was the longest in the empire’s history. Antiochos, whose rule is relatively well-known from Polybius and Livy and a large number of inscriptions (cf. Ma 2000), was also one of the most capable and successful Seleucid rulers, notwithstanding a disreputable defeat against Rome at the end of his career. Campaigning in areas as far apart as India and mainland Greece, Antiochos restored Seleucid hegemony in the Far East, defeated the Ptolemies, and made important but short-lived conquests in the west. His contemporary title Megas (Great) perhaps referred to his authority of Great King, especially his practice of installing vassal kings as a means to reorganize the empire – a practice that would later form the basis for the creation of the Roman Near East. Yet Antiochos’ military triumphs were of little consequence: most of his territorial gains had been lost again upon his death in 187; the empire also lost control of Asia Minor as the result of the war with Rome. Antiochos became king when his brother SELEUKOS III KERAUNOS was assassinated in Asia Minor in 223 or 222. He was nineteen or twenty years old. The young king at first was under the influence of some powerful courtiers, in particular Hermeias and Epigenes, two former philoi (see FRIENDS OF THE KING) of his brother who controlled the court and the army. A third imperial magnate, ACHAIOS, controlled Seleucid Asia Minor. A fourth, Molon the satrap of Media, revolted with the help of several other governors of the Upper Satrapies. While the king and the main army were in Syria preparing a campaign against the Ptolemies, Molon invaded Babylonia and tried to found an empire of his own, taking the DIADEM in ca. 222/1. In the third year of the revolt, Antiochos personally confronted and defeated him. The victory over Molon gave

Antiochos the prestige and support he needed to remove his brother’s philoi from court and replace them with his own friends, skilfully playing off rival factions against each other. Antiochos inherited an empire that was potentially strong but had been plagued by centrifugal powers in the past decades, especially in Asia Minor, Iran, and Bactria. He also inherited a brutal rivalry with the Ptolemaic family, whose maritime hegemony comprised many ports along the Levantine and Anatolian coasts; these included since 245 also Seleukeiain-Pieria, the Seleucid royal city where the dynasty’s deified founder was buried (see SELEUKOS I NIKATOR). Antiochos proved himself to be a skilful diplomat and general. In ca. 222, he married his cousin Laodike, whose parents were Mithradates II of Pontos and a daughter of Antiochos II Theos. Antiochos and Laodike had at least three sons and four daughters (the latter were given in marriage to vassal kings as part of Antiochos’ new imperial policy). Queen Laodike became one of Antiochos’ most trusted associates, acting as vice-ruler in Syria and Babylonia, while the king was in the east (212–205). Around 200, Antiochos decreed a cult of himself and his wife, the first centrally ordained imperial cult of the Seleucid kingdom (see RULER CULT, GREEK AND HELLENISTIC). Of his other favorites, ZEUXIS the “viceroy” of Asia Minor stands out because of his long, loyal, and relatively well-documented connection with the king. From 219 to 217, Antiochos fought the Ptolemies in the Levant. This conflict is known as the Fourth Syrian War – a misnomer since much more was at stake than merely the possession of (Koile) Syria (see SYRIAN WARS). Although the Seleucids were generally successful – retaking Seleukeia in the first year of the war and conquering most of Phoenicia and Palestine – they ultimately lost the conflict after suffering a major defeat in the Battle of Raphia (see RAPHIA, BATTLE OF), near Gaza. A peace treaty was concluded between Antiochos and the Ptolemaic king, PTOLEMY IV PHILOPATOR. Thereafter Antiochos turned against his

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 476–479. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah09031

2

Figure 1 Seleucid tetradrachm (213–208). Obverse: Diademed head of Antiochos III. Reverse: Apollo seated on the omphalos, holding an arrow. Courtesy of the American Numismatic Society.

uncle Achaios, who had become autonomous in Asia Minor. It lasted until 213, until Achaios was finally captured and executed. The following year, using a mixture of diplomacy and brutal force, the Armenian kingdoms were incorporated into the empire. In the next campaigning season, Antiochos’ famed anabasis in Iran and Central Asia began (211–205). In the course of this long campaign – which was not an attempt to imitate Alexander but rather a kind of ritual progress along the edges of the empire meant to restore Seleucid suzerainty – Antiochos defeated the Parthian ruler ARSACES II in a cavalry battle and besieged the rebellious satrap of Bactria and Sogdia, Eukratides, in his capital Bactra. Both kings were re-installed by Antiochos in his capacity of Great King, and their kingdoms integrated within the imperial framework as vassal states. Antiochos then made his mark in India, collecting tribute (including elephants) from local rulers. After these successes, Antiochos proceeded to build up Seleucid control in the Red Sea and Hellespont regions. In 204, Ptolemy IV died. Antiochos, no longer bound by the oath he had made at the peace treaty of 217, declared war on his successor,

PTOLEMY V.

In the ensuing Fifth Syrian War (202–195), the Seleucid forces were successful. After a victory in the Battle of Panion (200), they were able to take possession of Koile Syria and Palestine. The capture of Gaza allowed the Seleucids to turn against Ptolemaic presence elsewhere in the Mediterranean. Marching swiftly along the coast, Antiochos restored Seleucid dominance in Asia Minor, effectively terminating the Ptolemaic naval empire in the Mediterranean. In 195, hostilities came to an end. Antiochos proceeded to build up Seleucid power in the Aegean, residing in Ephesos and rebuilding Lysimacheia in Thrace as a new regional capital and a base for future conquests. The cities of Lampsakos, Smyrna, and Rhodes, as well as EUMENES II of Pergamon, however, appealed to Rome for aid. This resulted in a series of Seleucid-Roman negotiations that have been described as a “cold war” (Badian 1968; cf. Grainger 2002). In 192, the AITOLIAN LEAGUE, in turn, appealed to Antiochos for help against the Roman presence in mainland Greece. Antiochos landed in Greece with a small force hoping to win the support of the Greek states. This led to open war with Rome (192–188). After being defeated

3 by the Romans in the Battle of Thermopylai (191), Antiochos returned to Asia Minor. Seleucid forces attacked Pergamon, while in the eastern Aegean a naval war was fought, in which Antiochos’ favorite HANNIBAL played a leading role. In 189, Roman and Pergamene armies were victorious in the decisive Battle of Magnesia in Lydia. The Roman-Seleucid war ended the next year with the Treaty of Apamea (see APAMEA, PEACE OF). Antiochos was forced to cede his possessions in Asia Minor to Rome’s allies Pergamon and Rhodes and to pay an indemnity to Rome, his Mediterranean fleet was denied access to the Aegean Sea, and he had to send his son Antiochos (IV) as a hostage to Italy. The loss of Asia Minor did not cause the decline of the dynasty, as historians believed in the past. However, it did turn out to be a severe blow to the power and prestige of the Seleucids, because it prevented them from replacing the Ptolemies as the principal naval power in the eastern Mediterranean seas, leaving Rome as the only Mediterranean superpower. Antiochos died in 187 while trying to confiscate the treasury of a Be¯l sanctuary in Elam. He was succeeded by his son Seleukos IV Philopator.

SEE ALSO: Antiochos IV Epiphanes; Apamea, peace of; Ptolemy IV Philopator; Raphia, battle of; Seleucids; Syrian wars.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Badian, E. (1968) “Rome and Antiochos the Great: a study in cold war.” In E. Badian, Studies in Greek and Roman history: 112–39. Oxford. Grainger, J. D. (2002) The Roman war of Antiochos the Great. Leiden. Grainger, J. D. (2010) The Syrian Wars: 195–271. Leiden. Kuhrt, A. and Sherwin-White, S. (1999) From Samarkhand to Sardis. A new approach to the Seleucid Empire: 188–216. London. Ma, J. (2000) Antiochos III and the cities of western Asia Minor. Oxford. Schmitt, H. H. (1964) Untersuchungen zur Geschichte Antiochos’ des Großen und seiner Zeit. Stuttgart. Strootman, R. (2011) “Hellenistic court society: The Seleukid imperial court under Antiochos the Great, 223–187 BCE.” In J. Duindam, M. Kunt, and T. Artan, eds., Royal courts in dynastic states and empires: a global perspective: 63–89. Leiden.

1

Antiochos IV Epiphanes PETER MITTAG

Antiochos IV (ca. 210–164), born Mithridates, marks a turning point in Seleucid history by adopting the epitheta Theos Epiphanes Nikephoros. At one end of the spectrum, he was the first and last Seleucid king who was able to defeat the Ptolemies and conquer all Egypt; at the other end, the Maccabean revolt (see MACCABEES, BOOKS OF), which led to the end of Seleucid rule in southern Syria, started during his reign. He was the son of ANTIOCHOS III MEGAS. After his father’s defeat at Magnesia, in battle with the Romans, in 189 or 188 he was sent as hostage to Rome, where he spent ten years before he was released; then he settled in Athens (Polyb. 21.42.22). After the death of his brother SELEUKOS IV PHILOPATOR, he acceded to the throne with the help of EUMENES II (OGIS 248). Officially he ruled together with his nephew Antiochos, who was killed by Andronikos in 170. During the first years of his reign he secured his kingdom through diplomacy and euergetism, and thus was well prepared when the Sixth Syrian War broke out in spring 169 (see SYRIAN WARS). Antiochos succeeded in two campaigns in 169 and 168, reduced the Ptolemies to their capital Alexandria twice, and was probably crowned king of Egypt; but he was driven out of the country by a Roman legation under Gaius Popilius Laenas, who met Antiochos in Eleusis, a suburb of Alexandria. This famous episode in 168, known as “the day of Eleusis,” is well captured by POLYBIUS and LIVY (Polyb. 29.27.1–8; Livy 45.12.3–8; see POPILLIUS LAENAS, GAIUS). During the following years the situation in JERUSALEM changed for the worse. In 175 Antiochos made Jason high priest, and the latter started a policy of HELLENIZATION (2 Macc 4.7–15). In 172 Antiochos gave this position to a rival of Jason’s, Menelaos, who promised higher revenues. When he couldn’t pay, Menelaos allowed the king to plunder the temple in Jerusalem

(1 Macc 1.20–24; 2 Macc 5.11–16; Joseph AJ 12.246–7). Although Menelaos’ position worsened, the king still supported him, and in 167 he allowed changes within the cult that provoked a revolt led by the Maccabees, which started in 166 (1 Macc 15 ff.). At first the revolt was only of local importance and Antiochos focused on other topics. In 166 he celebrated a great show, games, and festivals at Daphne, a suburb of Antioch (Polyb. 30.25.1/31.3¼ Athen. 5.194). The following year he started his anabasis (“expedition”) with the conquest of ARMENIA and then marched to the Persian Gulf. On his way further east he died in the Persis – supposedly after attempting to plunder a temple (App. Syr. 66.352). While he had left Lysias in the west as tutor to his young son ANTIOCHOS V EUPATOR, he is reported to have given this position to Philippos on his deathbed (Joseph AJ 12.360). Polybius characterized Antiochos as a madman, who often acted in a way unsuitable for a king, and called him Epimanes (from mainesthai, “to be raving”) instead of Epiphanes. The main reason for this negative view might have been Polybius’ friendship with DEMETRIOS I (SELEUCID KING). SEE ALSO: Alexandria (Egypt); Antioch in Syria; Jason, Jewish high priest; Maccabees, Books of; Ptolemy VI Philometor; Ptolemy VIII Euergetes II; Seleucids; Syrian wars.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Bunge, J. G. (1976) “Die Feiern Antiochos’ IV. Epiphanes in Daphne im Herbst 166 v. Chr.” Chiron 6: 53–71. Gera, D. (1998) Judaea and Mediterranean politics 219 to 161 BCE. Leiden. Mittag, P. F. (2006) Antiochos IV. Epiphanes: eine politische Biographie. Berlin. Morgan, G. (1990) “The perils of schematism: Polybios, Antiochus Epiphanes and the ‘Day of Eleusis.’” Historia 39: 37–76. Mørkholm, O. (1966) BCE Antiochus IV of Syria. Copenhagen.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 479–480. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah09032

1

Antiochos IX Kyzikenos KYLE ERICKSON

Antiochos IX Philopator “Kyzikenos” (reigned 114/13–95 BCE), the youngest son of the Seleucid ruler ANTIOCHOS VII SIDETES and Cleopatra Thea, was born about 131 BCE. He received his nickname owing to time spent in KYZIKOS following the death of his father (App. Syr. 68, Euseb. Chron. 1.259). Kyzikenos played a major role in the continued breakdown of the Seleucid kingdom in which siblings and cousins waged near continuous warfare with the support of their Ptolemaic brides. In 114/13, he rebelled against his half-brother ANTIOCHOS VIII GRYPOS and invaded the Seleucid kingdom from the north. He first took control of Cilicia before moving south to Antioch. He received a significant boost when CLEOPATRA IV was divorced from her brother Ptolemy IX and fled to Kyzikenos, offering herself as wife to him and bringing with her a small army from Cyprus (Just. Epit. 39.3.3–4). This invasion initiated a series of conflicts that would last until the end of both brothers’ lives. The chronology of the war is difficult. Grypos recovered from his initial losses and regained territory in Cilicia and Antioch in 112; Justin tells of the bitter death here of Cleopatra IV at the hands of her sister Tryphaina, the wife of Grypos. Despite protests from her husband, Tryphaina’s men chopped off the arms of her sister as they clung to the statue of the goddess in the temple where she had sought refuge (Just. Epit. 39.3.2–12). After this defeat, Kyzikenos regained control of Antioch briefly in 110/9 and killed Tryphaina in revenge for the murder of his wife. After once again losing the city, he was unable to recapture it until after his brother’s death. Despite his failure at Antioch, Kyzikenos continued to hold some cities in Syria and Cilicia. He twice responded to calls for help from Samaria when it was besieged by JOHN

(Joseph. AJ 13.275–7); he was ultimately unsuccessful, despite assistance from an army borrowed from Ptolemy IX, and the city fell to Hyrkanos. Kyzikenos was also largely unsuccessful, despite periods of Ptolemaic support, in his efforts to seize control of the remnants of the Seleucid Empire, and through his continued struggle he made it impossible for his half-brother to stabilize the kingdom. This period of strife, continued by both kings’ descendants, allowed for other groups, notably the HASMONEANS, to take control over wider regions and for the cities to assert their independence from Seleucid rule. After the death of Cleopatra IV, who had borne Kyzikenos a son, the future king Antiochos X Eusebes, we do not know of another wife until he married Grypos’ widow, CLEOPATRA SELENE, in 95 BCE. No children were produced from this short-lived union, as Kyzikenos died the same year, killed by Seleukos VI, son of Tryphaina and Grypos, only to be avenged by his own son Antiochos X Eusebes. Malalas states that Kyzikenos married a Parthian, Brittane, daughter of Arsaces the Parthian, between his marriages to the Ptolemaic Cleopatras (Malalas, Dindorf: 208; Ogden 1999: 156), although this claim is difficult to support. HYRKANOS I

SEE ALSO:

Seleucids.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Ehling, K. (2008) Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der späten Seleukiden (164–63 v. Chr.). Stuttgart. Grainger, J. D. (1997) A Seleukid prosopography and gazetteer. Leiden. Hoover, O. D. (2007) “A revised chronology for the late Seleucids at Antioch (121/0–64 BC).” Historia 65: 280–301. Houghton, A., Lorber, C., and Hoover, O. (2008) Seleucid coins: a comprehensive catalogue II. New York. Ogden, D. (1999) Polygamy, prostitutes and death. Swansea.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner. © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Published 2015 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah25030

1

Antiochos of Athens DORIAN GIESELER GREENBAUM

Antiochos of Athens (fl. second century CE?) wrote important astrological treatises, now lost, which were summarized and excerpted by later writers. Some techniques described therein are extant only in Antiochos. His dates have not been definitively established; a terminus ante quem is provided by PORPHYRY (234–ca. 305), who quotes him extensively in his Introduction to Ptolemy’s Tetrabiblos (CCAG 5.4: 187–228). Some scholars (Cumont 1933: 138–46; Gundel and Gundel 1966: 115–17) have suggested he lived in the first century BCE, but a second century CE date is now generally accepted (Cramer 1954/96: 186–7; Pingree 1977: 204; Hu¨bner 1996: col. 774). In addition to his Treasuries (The¯sauroi) and Introduction (Eisago¯gika), he wrote an astrological calendar, On the risings and settings of the stars in the 12 months of the year (Boll 1910). The seventh century Egyptian compiler Rhetorios excerpted the Treasuries (CCAG 1: 140–64; CCAG 7: 107–28). It defines many Hellenistic astrological practices including sect, aspects, and sympathy between signs, fixed stars, DECANS, the influence of planets accompanying the Sun and Moon (doryphoria), planetary rulerships and rejoicing, and the effects of lots. There are some overlaps in content between the Treasuries and the Introduction (Pingree 1977: 205–8). An epitome (CCAG 8.3: 111–18) describes the chapters of the Introduction (probably in two books). The first book includes sect, the twelve “places” of

the chart, planetary rulerships and rejoicing, heliacal rising and setting, conception charts, the effects of lots, and chart rulers. The second book contains two possible nativities for gods (one identical to the traditional thema mundi, or birthchart of the universe) and more on chart rulers. In addition to Rhetorios and Porphyry, Antiochos is cited by the Anonymous of 379, HEPHAISTION OF THEBES, who mentions his Athenian provenance (II, 1.15), FIRMICUS MATERNUS, IULIUS and THEOPHILOS OF EDESSA. SEE ALSO: Astrology, Byzantium; Astrology, Greece and Rome; Neoplatonists.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Boll, F. (1910) Griechische Kalender I. Das Kalendarium des Antiochus. Heidelberg. Cramer, F. H. (1996/1954) Astrology in Roman law and politics. Chicago. Cumont, F. (1933) “Antiochus d’Athe`nes et Porphyre.” L’Annuaire de l’Institut de Philologie et d’Histoire Orientales 2 (Me´langes Bidez): 135–56. Cumont, F. et al. (1898–1953) Catalogus Codicum Astrologorum Graecorum, 12 vols. Brussels. Gundel, W. and Gundel, H. G. (1966) Astrologumena. Die astrologische Literatur in der Antike und ihre Geschichte. Wiesbaden. Hu¨bner, W. (1996) “Antiochus Astrologe aus Athen.” In H. Cancik and H. Schneider, eds., New Pauly, vol. 1: col. 774. Stuttgart. Pingree, D. (1977) “Antiochus and Rhetorius.” Classical Philology 72: 203–23. Pingree, D. (1978) The Yavanaja¯taka of Sphujidhvaja: 421–2. Cambridge, MA.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 481–482. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah21027

1

Antiochos of Athens DORIAN GIESELER GREENBAUM

University of Wales Trinity Saint David, UK

Antiochos of Athens (fl. second century CE?) wrote important astrological treatises, now lost, which were summarized and excerpted by later writers. Some techniques described therein are extant only in Antiochos. His dates have not been definitively established; a terminus ante quem may be PORPHYRY (234–ca. 305), who quotes him extensively (though mostly without attribution) in his Introduction to Ptolemy’s Tetrabiblos (CCAG 5.4: 187–228). Some scholars (Cumont 1933: 138–46; Gundel and Gundel 1966: 115–17) have suggested he lived in the first century BCE, but a second century CE date is now generally accepted (Cramer 1996/ 1954: 186–7; Pingree 1977: 204; Hübner 1996: col. 774). A direct relationship to the astrologers Balbillus and Thrasyllus has been proposed (Beck 2006: 253–5). In addition to his Treasuries (Thēsauroi) and Introduction (Eisagōgika), he wrote an astrological calendar, On the risings and settings of the stars in the 12 months of the year (Boll 1910). Also attributed to him, though authenticity is not certain, are 115 lines of a poem on the planets in the twelve places of the astrological chart (Pérez Jiménez 2011, 2014). The (probably) sixth-century Egyptian compiler Rhetorios (Holden 2009: ix–x) excerpted the Treasuries (CCAG 1: 140–64; CCAG 7: 107–28). His “Compendium” defines many Hellenistic astrological practices including sect, aspects, and sympathy between signs, fixed stars, DECANS, the influence of planets accompanying the sun and moon (doryphoria), planetary rulerships and rejoicing, and the effects of lots. There are some overlaps in content between the Treasuries and the Introduction (Pingree 1977: 205–8). A summary (CCAG 8.3: 111–18) describes the chapters of the Introduction (probably in two books). The first book includes a system of orbits for the sun and moon in the shape of a helix (also CCAG 7: 127.27–128.2;

cf. Beck 2006: 248–9), sect, the twelve “places” of the chart, planetary rulerships and rejoicing, heliacal rising and setting, conception charts, the effects of lots, and chart rulers. The second book contains two possible nativities for gods (one identical to the traditional thema mundi, or birthchart of the universe) and more on chart rulers. In addition to Rhetorios and Porphyry, Antiochos is cited by the Anonymous of 379, HEPHAISTION OF THEBES, who mentions his Athenian provenance (II, 1.15), FIRMICUS MATERNUS, IULIUS and THEOPHILOS OF EDESSA. SEE ALSO:

Astrology, Byzantine; Astrology, Greece and Rome; Neoplatonists.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Beck, R. (2006) The religion of the Mithras cult in the Roman empire: mysteries of the unconquered sun. Oxford. Boll, F. (1910) Griechische Kalender I. Das Kalendarium des Antiochus. Heidelberg. Cramer, F. H. (1996/1954) Astrology in Roman law and politics. Chicago. Cumont, F. (1933) “Antiochus d’Athènes et Porphyre.” L’Annuaire de l’Institut de Philologie et d’Histoire Orientales 2 (Mélanges Bidez): 135–56. Cumont, F. et al. (1898–1953) Catalogus Codicum Astrologorum Graecorum, 12 vols. Brussels. Gundel, W. and Gundel, H. G. (1966) Astrologumena. Die astrologische Literatur in der Antike und ihre Geschichte. Wiesbaden. Holden, J. H. (2009) Rhetorius the Egyptian: astrological compendium containing his explanation and narration of the whole art of astrology. Tempe. Hübner, W. (1996) “Antiochus Astrologe aus Athen.” In H. Cancik and H. Schneider, eds., New Pauly, vol. 1: col. 774. Stuttgart. Pérez Jiménez, A. (2011) “Poésie et astrologie chez Antiochos.” In I. Boehm and W. Hübner, eds., La poésie astrologique dans l’antiquité: 181–90. Pérez Jiménez, A. (2014) “Antiochi De stellarum in locis thematis significationibus fragmentum epicum: edición, traducción española y comentario.” Mene 14: 217–90. Pingree, D. (1977) “Antiochus and Rhetorius.” Classical Philology 72: 203–23. Pingree, D. (1978) The Yavanajātaka of Sphujidhvaja: 421–2. Cambridge, MA.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History. Edited by Andrew Erskine, David B. Hollander, and Arietta Papaconstantinou. © 2019 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Published 2019 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah21027.pub2

1

Antiochos of Syracuse CRAIGE B. CHAMPION

Antiochos of Syracuse (FGrH 555) was one of the earliest of the Sicilian Greek historians. He wrote during the fifth century BCE, following HERODOTUS, whom he may have consciously imitated (he too wrote in the Ionic dialect, not in Doric or Attic). A passage in DIODORUS OF SICILY (12.71.2) suggests that he may have been a contemporary of Herodotus and THUCYDIDES; this passage states that Antiochos’ history extended down to the year 424/23. His work was divided into nine books, perhaps by an Alexandrian scholar who thought that his work should be arranged in the same way as the history of Herodotus. DIONYSIUS OF HALICARNASSUS (Ant. Rom. 1.12.3) gives what

appears to be Antiochos’ introductory sentence: “Antiochos, son of Xenophanes, wrote these most trustworthy and clearest things concerning Italy from the oldest accounts [logoi].” Antiochos, therefore, appears to have been one of the oldest LOGOGRAPHERS of the western MEDITERRANEAN, beginning his account before the appearance of the Greeks in Sicily and southern Italy. SEE ALSO: Greek language and dialects (Classical times); Historiography, Greek and Roman; Sicily.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Pearson, L. (1987) The Greek historians of the west: Timaeus and his predecessors: 11–18. Atlanta. Vattuone, R. (2007) “Western Greek historiography.” In J. Marincola, ed., A companion to Greek and Roman historiography: 189–99. Oxford.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print page 483. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah08012

1

Antiochos V Eupator PANAGIOTIS P. IOSSIF

Antiochos V (ca. 173–162), son of ANTIOCHOS IV and Laodike, assumed the royal title for a brief period (Porph. in FGrH II 260 F 32.13). In 164 Antiochos IV prepared his eastern campaign and left his 9-year-old son in Antioch under the protection of his viceroy Lysias (Joseph AJ 12.295–6, 361; App. Syr. 46). Before his death in 164, Antiochos IV replaced Lysias with Philip, a royal friend, as guardian of the young king and the kingdom (Joseph AJ 12.360; 1 Macc 6.14–15). Ignoring the royal order, Lysias crowned the child as king in Antioch, giving him the epithet Eupator (“of a good father”: Joseph AJ 12.361; 1 Macc 6.17). The same year Lysias, as co-regent of the boy‐king, continued the Seleucid campaign against the Maccabees but was obliged to conclude a peace treaty at the advance of Philip’s army (Joseph AJ 12.367–85; 1 Macc 7.28–63; on Philip’s threat, Joseph AJ 12.379; 1 Macc 6.55). The conflict between the two royal friends ended with the death of Philip at the beginning of 163 (Joseph AJ 12.386; 1 Macc 6.63). In 163/2 the assassination, by private individuals, of Gnaeus Octavius, the envoy of the Roman Senate responsible for enforcing

EPIPHANES

the clauses of the treaty of Apamea, created a new crisis between Rome and the Seleucid kingdom (App. Syr. 46; Diod. Sic. 31.29 and 32.2–3). The situation worsened later during that year, when Demetrios I, Antiochos’ uncle, escaped his Roman captivity, raised an army, and claimed his rights to the throne (Polyb. 31.11–13; App. Syr. 47). The conflict ended with the betrayal and execution of Antiochos V and Lysias (Joseph AJ 12.390; App. Syr. 47). SEE ALSO: Apamea, Peace of; Demetrios I (Seleucid king); Maccabees, Books of; Polybius.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Ehling, K. (2007) Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der spa¨ten Seleukiden (164–63 v. Chr). Vom Tode des Antiochos IV. bis zur Einrichtung der Provinz Syria unter Pompeius: 111–21. Stuttgart. Grainger, J. D. (1997) A Seleukid prosopography and gazetteer: 27–8. Leiden. Houghton, A., Lorber, C., and Hoover, O. D. (2008) Seleucid coins: a comprehensive catalogue, vol. 2: Seleucus IV through Antiochus XIII: 127–39. New York. Le Rider, G. (1999) Antioche de Syrie sous les Se´leucides: corpus des monnaies d’or et d’argent, vol. 1: De Se´leucos I a` Antiochos V c. 300–161: 234–50. Paris.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print page 480. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah09033

1

Antiochos VII Sidetes KAY EHLING

Antiochos VII was the son of the Seleucid king Demetrios I and an unknown mother; officially, however, he was considered the son of Laodike, Demetrios’ sister and wife (from about the end of 161 on). Since Antiochos VII died in 129 at the age of thirtyfive (FGrH 260 F 32.19), he must have been born in Rome in 164, where his father lived as a hostage according to the regulations of the Peace of Apamea (see APAMEA, PEACE OF) until 162. During the armed struggles between Demetrios I and Alexander I, Antiochos was taken to a safe place in 152, at first to Knidos, then to Side, which led to his official epithet Sidetes. From Side or Rhodes (App. Syr. 68.358), in 139/38 Antiochos started the fight for his inheritance against the usurper Tryphon. Due to her fear of Tryphon’s troops, Queen Cleopatra Thea, who resided in Seleukeia Pieria, offered her brother-in-law gamos kai basileia (“marriage and rule,” Joseph AJ 13.222). Antiochos crossed to Seleukeia Pieria, married Cleopatra Thea, and gave himself the second epithet Euergetes (“Benefactor”). By mid(?)-137, he had succeeded in eliminating Tryphon. In the following years, he re-asserted his control over several cities, which had abandoned him (Justin 36.19). Between 135 and 134, he besieged Jerusalem, an incident that Josephus reports in detail (AJ 13.236–48). The king did not follow anti-Jewish advice from his advisers

(philoi) (Diod. Sic. 34/35.1). After having made peace with Jewish king JOHN HYRCANUS I and a period of war preparations lasting about two-and-a-half years, in the year 131 Antiochos left Antioch to march against the Parthians with an army of allegedly eighty thousand men. At first, king and army had some success (Joseph AJ 13.251; Justin 38.10.6) and went down the Euphrates to Babylonia, where Antiochos named himself megas basileus (“Great King”). However, soon infringements by the Seleucid soldiers in the region resulted in a change in the population’s opinion. Thus, in February/ March of 129, the troops of Parthian King Phraates II were able to defeat the Seleucids. Whether Antiochos died in battle (according to Justin 38.10.10) or committed suicide (according to App. Syr. 68.359) is unclear. His corpse, laid in a silver casket, arrived back in Syria to an outpouring of grief from the people (Justin 39.1.6). SEE ALSO: Diodotos Tryphon; Parthians, rulers; Seleucids.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Ehling, K. (2008) Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der spa¨ten Seleukiden (164–63 v. Chr.): vom Tode des Antiochos IV. bis zur Einrichtung der Provinz Syria unter Pompeius. Stuttgart. Fischer, T. (1970) Untersuchungen zum Partherkrieg Antiochos’ VII. im Rahmen der Seleukidengeschichte. Tu¨bingen. Grainger, J. (1997) A Seleukid prosopography and gazetteer: 29–31. Leiden.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 480–481. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah09034

1

Antiochos VIII Grypos KYLE ERICKSON

Antiochos VIII Grypos (“hook-nosed”) (r. 126–97/6 BCE), son of the Seleucid ruler Demetrios II Nikator and Cleopatra Thea, was born about 142 BCE (see DEMETRIOS II (SELEUCID KING)). Grypos succeeded his shortlived brother Seleukos V as joint ruler with his mother in 126/5. His first focus was to avenge the death of his father at the hands of Alexander Zabinas, defeating the latter in about 122. The powerful figure of his mother dominated the early period of his reign: they issued joint coinage with the image of Cleopatra in the forefront. It appears that conflict between the two increased after Grypos took a potential rival to his mother’s power, the Ptolemaic princess Tryphaina, as a wife in about 125 BCE. He finally assumed the diadem in his own name in 121 BCE when he poisoned his mother in retaliation for her attempted poisoning of him (Just. Epit. 39.2.7–8; App. Syr. 69). Most of Grypos’ reign was occupied with the civil wars that dominated the end of the Seleucid house. In 116 his half-brother ANTIOCHOS IX KYZIKENOS rebelled and declared himself king. Until Grypos’ death in 96 BCE, the siblings waged war for control of the remains of the Seleucid Empire, now limited to the broad regions of Cilicia, Syria, and Phoenicia (Joseph. AJ 13.272). The war between the brothers was often brutal, with Kyzikenos murdering Grypos’ wife Tryphaina in 110/9 BCE in retaliation for the murder of his own wife, Tryphaina’s sister CLEOPATRA IV, in 112 (Just. Epit. 39.3.2–12). The chronology of these wars, including which king controlled which city, is difficult to determine, given the fragmentary and often contradictory nature of the literary sources. It is necessary to rely on the numismatic record to determine the nature of this destructive period of Seleucid history. The ebb and flow of control over the Syrian and Cilician cities by the two brothers is amply demonstrated by the situation at

FIGURE 1 Tetradrachm of Cleopatra Thea and Antiochos VIII Grypos. Source: Forum Ancient Coins.

Antioch, where the numismatic tradition tells a different story than the literary tradition. The Greek version of Eusebius (Chron. 1.259–62 and 2.130–3) assigns two reigns for each of the two kings, while in the Armenian and St. Jerome’s Latin version, as well as in Appian (Syr. 69), a single reign is given to each. However, from dated coin series we see that each king had three separate reigns in the city, Grypos controlling it in 121/0– 113, 112–111/0, and 109–96, and Kyzikenos having brief periods of control in the intervening years (Hoover 2007). Five sons were produced from the marriage of Grypos and Tryphaina, all of whom would become kings in their own right: Seleukos VI, Antiochos XI, Philip I, Demetrios III, and Antiochos XII; their daughter Laodike Thea married Mithridates Kallinikos of Kommagene (Joseph. AJ 13.13.4; Porph. FGrH 260 F32.25–8; Ogden 1999: 153). After the murder of Tryphaina, Grypos did not remarry until 102 BCE, this time to Tryphaina’s sister CLEOPATRA SELENE, who had been divorced from her husband, Ptolemy IX. After Grypos was killed by his minister Herakleon in 97/6 BCE

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner. © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Published 2015 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah25029

2 (Joseph. AJ 13.13.4), Selene married his half-brother and rival Kyzikenos. SEE ALSO:

Antioch in Syria; Seleucids.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Ehling, K. (2008) Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der späten Seleukiden (164–63 v. Chr.). Stuttgart.

Grainger, J. D. (1997) A Seleukid prosopography and gazetteer. Leiden. Hoover, O. D. (2007) “A revised chronology for the late Seleucids at Antioch (121/0–64 BC).” Historia 65: 280–301. Houghton, A., Lorber, C., and Hoover, O. (2008) Seleucid coins: a comprehensive catalogue II. New York. Ogden, D. (1999) Polygamy, prostitutes, and death. Swansea.

1

Antipater JOSEPH B. SCHOLTEN

Antipater (Antipatros) was arguably the most important figure in the fourth century BCE rise of MACEDONIA, behind the Argead kings PHILIP II and Alexander III (see ALEXANDER III, “THE GREAT”). Born ca. 399/8 (Suda s.v. Antipatros), Antipater was many years Philip’s senior. Yet he outlived Alexander by several years, and played a central role in the chaotic events that followed Alexander’s untimely death. Antipater’s career thus spanned (and contributed to) the end of the Classical Greek era – dominated by great poleis such as Athens and Sparta and the looming superpower to the east, the Achaemenid Persian Empire – and the beginning of the subsequent Hellenistic era of Greco-Macedonian monarchies. Antipater personifies the cadre of Macedonia’s aristocracy whose loyalty Philip secured, and whose talents he and Alexander employed and rewarded in, successively, stabilizing Argead power in Macedonia; establishing a Macedonian hegemony over Aegean Greece; and conquering the Persian Empire. Antipater probably rose to prominence within the pro-Argead Macedonian aristocracy during the reign of PERDIKKAS III. After Perdikkas’ disastrous demise (360/59), Antipater emerged alongside PARMENION as a key lieutenant of Perdikkas’ brother and successor, Philip (Plut. Mor. 179b; Athen. 10.435d). An effective commander, Antipater was even more capable as a statesman. He helped negotiate the Peace of Philokrates with Athens (346; Demosth. 19.69; Aesch. 3.72; Dinarchus 1.28), served as regent in Philip’s absence (Isoc. Ep. 4; Plut. Alex. 9.1), and led the Macedonian delegation to Athens for peace talks after the Battle of Chaeronea in 338. (Justin 9.4.5; Hyper. Against Demades fr. 77¼19.2; I.G. ii2 239; see CHAERONEA, BATTLE OF). Antipater was also adept at internal politics, gaining as son-in-law a member of a powerful family in the vital Upper

Macedonian canton of Lynkestis (Alexander, son of Aeropos: Curt. 7.1.7; Justin 11.7.1). With Parmenion absent with the army, it seems likely that Antipater was the key player in determining Alexander’s succession amid the turmoil that followed Philip’s assassination at Aigai (336). Antipater’s combination of military/diplomatic competence, personal influence and prestige, and proven loyalty to the Argeads no doubt led Alexander to appoint him regent when he departed for his Persian campaigns (334; Arr. Anab. 1.11.3; Curt. 4.1.39; Diod. Sic. 17.17.5; cf. Dein. 1.18; Diod. Sic. 17.17.2). Our sources’ fixation on Alexander obscures Antipater’s masterful performance, which allowed Alexander to become great. Antipater was generally able to keep a lid on anti-Macedonian resentments that still seethed among the mainland Greeks and surrounding peoples. Trouble nevertheless erupted on at least two early occasions, first with a Macedonian governor in Thrace and then with the Spartans under Agis III. Despite Persian support for his foes (Arr. Anab. 2.2.4–5; Diod. Sic. 17.29.4, 62.2), and the steady drain of his own manpower to feed Alexander’s constant need for replacements (Arr. Anab. 1.29.4, 3.5.1; Diod. Sic. 17.65), Antipater was able to quiet the Thracian threat, and then crush Agis’ rebellion (Aesch. 3.165; Diod. Sic. 17.62–3; Curt. 6.1.1–16; Justin 12.1.6–11). He thereby also quieted anti-Macedonian voices at Athens and other key communities around the Hellenic Aegean, stabilizing Alexander’s power base. (Curt. 6.1.16–21; cf. Din. 1; Aesch. 3.133; Diod. Sic. 17.73.5–6; Bosworth 1988: 198–204). As with other marshals of Alexander, Antipater’s success only earned him the suspicion of his murderously paranoid king, a danger compounded by the meddling in Macedonia of Alexander’s mother, the Epirote princess OLYMPIAS (Curt. 10.10.14; Plut. Alex. 39.13; Mor. 180d; Diod. Sic. 17.118; cf. Plut. Agesil. 15). Antipater avoided the fate of

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 483–486. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah09035

2 Parmenion, PHILOTAS, and other murdered members of Alexander’s high command through a combination of shrewdness and pure luck. Summoned to the king’s court in 324 for a job-swap with the Chief Marshal Krateros (see KRATEROS, MACEDONIAN), Antipater delayed, sending his sons CASSANDER and Iolaos as intermediaries (Arr. Anab. 7.12.4; Justin 12.12.9; Curt. 10.10.15). Then, Alexander suddenly fell ill and died, a coincidence that some ancient sources attribute to a dose of poison brought by Cassander (Curt. 10.10.17). Alexander’s failure to groom an heir (Diod. Sic. 17.16.2) meant that his untimely death was followed by rebellion and civil war. During the early stages of this generation of power struggles (see SUCCESSORS, WARS OF) Antipater emerged from the shadows, displaying the same combination of a cool head, stout heart, and selective ruthlessness that characterized all the great Macedonian leaders of his time. In the chaotic negotiations at Babylon that followed Alexander’s death, his peers seem to have recognized these qualities, designating far off Antipater as one of a three member regency for Alexander’s half-wit halfbrother, PHILIP III ARRHIDAIOS and posthumous son ALEXANDER IV – along with Krateros and Alexander’s then right-hand man, PERDIKKAS – and confirming him as “general (strategos) over matters in Europe” (Arr. Succ. 1a.3, 7; Diod. Sic. 18.3.2, 12.1; Justin 13.4.5). Pent-up anti-Macedonian resistance across central and southern Greece had already erupted, in the form of a conflict known then as the Hellenic War (Paus. 1.25.3–6). Faced with a broad-based coalition (Diod. Sic. 18.8–11) anchored by traditional power Athens and newcomer Aitolia – both reacting to Alexander’s 324 order that all Greek states take back their exiles (Diod. Sic. 18.8.2–7) – Antipater sent for help to LEONNATOS, governor of Hellespontine Phrygia, and Krateros, secured Macedonia, and headed south. Arriving in Thessaly just as it defected to swell the rebels’ ranks to more than twice his, Antipater was defeated and forced to stand siege in the

Malian stronghold, Lamia (hence the conflict’s modern designation: the LAMIAN WAR (Diod. Sic. 18.12.1–4; Arr. Succ. 1.9; Plut. Demosth. 27, Phoc. 23; Hyper. 6.12). Preparation, doggedness, and a run of luck, extricated Antipater and his army. The Aitolians tired of the siege and went home; the charismatic Athenian condottiere who led the rebels (Leosthenes) was killed (Diod. Sic. 18.13.5), and first Leonnatos and then Krateros arrived from the east, forcing the end of the siege. At Krannon in Thessaly, Antipater’s now-superior army of Alexander veterans wore out the fading rebels, while off Amorgos his fleet crushed Athens’ last armada (Diod. Sic. 18.13–17; Arr. Succ. 1.12; Paus. 10.3.4; Plut. Phoc. 26, Demosth. 28). In the aftermath, Antipater imposed a bilateral treaty on each rebel state, thereby dismantling Philip II’s LEAGUE OF CORINTH. Athens had to accept a garrison on Mounychion Hill in Piraeus, and its democratic leaders were either executed (Hypereides) or hunted down (Demosthenes); see DEMOSTHENES, ORATOR (Diod. Sic. 18.17–18, 55, 57, 69; Arr. Succ. 1.13; Plut. Phoc. 26–8, Demosth. 28–30; Austin 2006: 32). As Antipater and Krateros (now married to Antipater’s daughter, Phila) were invading Aitolia, the marshal Antigonos One-Eye (Monophthalmos) (see ANTIGONOS I MONOPHTHALMOS) arrived, warning that the coregent, Perdikkas, was aiming at dominance. Antipater initially tried to maintain the peace via additional marriage alliances, offering Perdikkas one daughter (Nikaia) and Ptolemy (governor of Egypt, see PTOLEMY I SOTER) another (Eurydike). When Perdikkas dumped Nikaia for Alexander’s sister Cleopatra, and then attacked Ptolemy, Antipater moved east for a showdown (giving Nikaia, along the way, to LYSIMACHOS, governor of Thrace). Again, luck went with strategy – by the time Antipater reached Syria (321/320?) Perdikkas was dead; so, too, was Krateros, killed fighting Perdikkas’ ally, Eumenes (Arr. Succ. 1.20–1, 24, 26–8; Diod. Sic. 18.24–5, 29–37). Antipater now dominated the Macedonian nobility that ruled the eastern Mediterranean

3 and western Asia. At a fractious gathering at Triparadeisos (see TRIPARADEISOS, TREATY OF), he tried to restore unity out of the chaos of civil war, giving Antigonos broad responsibility outside Europe, balanced by strong colleagues in the key satrapies of Egypt (Ptolemy) and Babylonia (Seleukos; see SELEUKOS I). Initially declining the guardianship of PHILIP III ARRHIDAIOS and Alexander IV, he eventually took them with him back to Macedonia (Diod. Sic. 18.39; Arr. Succ. 1.29–45; Austin 2006: 30). Along the way he gave his daughter, Phila (Krateros’ widow), to Antigonos’ son, Demetrios (see DEMETRIOS I POLIORKETES). Not long after returning home, Antipater died (autumn 319 BCE; Diod. Sic. 18.47–8; Plut. Phoc. 30; IG II2 382b; Austin 2006: 31). Thanks in no small part to the machinations of Cassander, his father’s arrangements to preserve the peace (and protect his beloved Argeads) did not long survive. The network of marriage alliances Antipater had forged, however, did leave one remarkable legacy: the three great Hellenistic monarchies all counted him among their ancestors.

SEE ALSO: Agis II and III of Sparta; Demades; Demosthenes, orator; Eurydike, wife of Philip Arrhidaios; Perdikkas, son of Orontes.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Adams, W. L. (1985) “Antipater and Cassander: generalship on restricted resources in the fourth century.” Ancient World 10: 79–88. Austin, M. M. (2006) The Hellenistic world from Alexander to the Roman conquest, 2nd ed. Cambridge. Billows, R. A. (1990) Antigonos the One-Eyed and the creation of the Hellenistic state. Berkeley. Bosworth, A. B. (1988) Conquest and empire. The reign of Alexander the Great. Cambridge. Bosworth, A. B. (2002) The legacy of Alexander: politics, warfare, and propaganda under the Successors. Oxford. Errington, R. M. (2008) A history of the Hellenistic world. Malden, MA. Heckel, W. (1992) The marshals of Alexander’s empire: 38–49. London. Trittle, L., ed. (1997) The Greek world in the fourth century. London. Will, E. (1984) “The succession to Alexander.” In Cambridge ancient history, vol. 7. 1: 23–61. 2nd ed. Cambridge.

1

Antiphon of Rhamnous GERARD J. PENDRICK

Antiphon of Rhamnous (ca. 480–411) was a leading political figure in late fifth century Athens and a pioneer of Attic oratory. The birth date of Antiphon, who hailed from the deme Rhamnous in northeast Attica, is uncertain but may be placed around the time of the Persian Wars. Antiphon was tried and executed by the restored democracy in 411 for his activities in connection with the oligarchic revolution of the Four Hundred of that same year (Thuc. 8.68). The claim ([Plut.] Vit. X or. 832B–C) that Antiphon’s father Sophilos was a sophist, with whom he himself studied, may be safely dismissed as an anachronism. A fragment of Antiphon’s speech in defense at his trial (fr. 1 Blass and Thalheim 1914) suggests that his ancestors were politically prominent with antidemocratic tendencies similar to his. Antiphon stands as the earliest of the Attic orators whose works have survived. Some claim him as the first logographer, that is, one who composed speeches for delivery by litigants ([Plut.] Vit. X or. 832C–D; Gagarin 2002); but Diodorus in CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA, Stromata 1.79 more carefully identifies Antiphon as the first to publish speeches written for others. Alexandrian scholars were in possession of sixty works bearing his name, twenty-five of which were identified as spurious by Caecilius of Caleacte, a scholar who devoted special attention to Antiphon ([Plut.] Vit. X or. 833C). These included a theoretical treatise on rhetoric (technai) and a collection of prologues and epilogues (both of doubtful authenticity); a political pamphlet against ALKIBIADES (frs. 66–7), and several works of a philosophical nature (see below). But the majority of the writings ascribed to Antiphon are forensic speeches, including his speech in defense at his trial (frs. 1–6), several speeches written for Athenian subject-allies in cases concerning tribute (frs. 25–33, 49–56), and speeches for and against other politically

prominent people (frs. 8–14; 17–20; 21–4). All of the extant full speeches concern homicide and are plausibly dated to the last third of the fifth century. The first extant speech for the prosecution, Against the Stepmother, concerns the alleged poisoning of the speaker’s father by his stepmother, who is defended by the speaker’s halfbrother. In the long narrative portion of the speech, the speaker alleges that his father and a close friend died as a result of a drug administered by the friend’s concubine, who had received it from the stepmother in the belief that it was a love potion. Faced with a lack of real evidence to support his claims, and speaking some time after the events in question, the speaker focuses on presenting his stepmother as a dangerous schemer, a Klytaimnestra. The fifth and longest of the extant speeches, The Murder of Herodes, was much admired in the ancient world (Vit. X or. 833D). A speech for the defense, it concerns a young man from a wealthy family with antidemocratic tendencies, from MYTILENE on the island of LESBOS, who has been charged with the murder of Herodes, an Athenian citizen, during the course of a sea voyage from Mytilene. The case is somewhat unusual as the speaker, a non-Athenian (unnamed in the speech but identified as Euxitheos by a later source), suffered summary arrest (see APAGOGE) as a malefactor (kakourgos) and was tried before the popular court (see HELIAIA) rather than the AREOPAGOS. No body was ever discovered, and the prosecution’s case leans heavily on the testimony of witnesses, while the defense focuses on attacks against the conduct of the prosecutors and arguments from probability. The sixth extant speech, On the Chorus Boy, is a speech of defense by the producer of a choral performance (choregos), who has been accused on an unusual charge of homicide by “planning,” after one of the boys training at his home for a chorus was accidentally poisoned by a drug (given perhaps to improve his voice). An ongoing political dispute is evidently in the background of the case, and the defendant

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 486–488. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah21028

2 spends much of his speech attacking the motives of the prosecution, while avoiding giving a detailed account of his role in the supervision of the chorus. In addition to the aforementioned speeches written for delivery in Athenian courts, there survive three Tetralogies ascribed plausibly (if not unanimously by modern scholars) to Antiphon. Each tetralogy concerns a (fictitious) case of homicide and consists of four speeches, two for the prosecution and two for the defense. A citation in HARPOCRATION indicates that in the ancient corpus Antiphonteum, the Tetralogies appeared as the second, third, and fourth speeches, grouped (naturally) with the homicide speeches. Though their exact purpose and intended audience are matters of debate, they can plausibly be viewed as the model speeches or set pieces of a rhetorical theoretician. Linguistic and stylistic considerations, especially Ionic elements in their language, suggest that they antedate the court speeches and were likely composed in the period immediately prior to the outbreak of the PELOPONNESIAN WAR. Alongside the works discussed above, the ancient corpus Antiphonteum contained several writings of a philosophical character: the treatises On Truth and On Concord and a work entitled Politicus. A work on the interpretation of dreams also circulated under the name of Antiphon, separately (as it seems) from the remainder of the corpus. The authorship of these works was disputed in antiquity and remains so today. “Unitarians” ascribe all the writings in the corpus Antiphonteum to Antiphon of Rhamnous, while “Separatists” follow Didymus of Alexandria (as reported

by the rhetorician HERMOGENES of Tarsos) in distinguishing an Antiphon the sophist as author of the philosophical works from the Rhamnousian Antiphon, author of the court speeches and the Tetralogies. The philosophical writings are extant in numerous but brief fragments quoted in various ancient authors and importantly, in the case of On Truth, in substantial fragments on papyrus recovered from Egypt. The opposition of law and nature (the nomos–physis antithesis) seems to have been a major theme of On Truth, in which Antiphon also puts forward a novel attempt at “squaring the circle,” which anticipates later developments in integral calculus (cf. Arist. Ph. 193a9–28; Soph. el. 171b34–172a7). SEE ALSO: Demes, Attic; Four Hundred, oligarchs at Athens; Logographers; Orators, Attic; Rhetoric, Greek; Sophists, Greece.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Blass, F. and Thalheim, T. (1914) Antiphon: orationes et fragmenta. Stuttgart. Decleva Caizzi, F. (1969) Antiphontis tetralogiae. Milan. Edwards, M. and Usher, S. (1985) Greek orators I: Antiphon and Lysias. Warminster. Gagarin, M. (1997) Antiphon: the speeches. Cambridge. Gagarin, M. (2002) Antiphon the Athenian. Austin. Maetzner, E. (1838) Antiphontis orationes XV. Berlin. Pendrick, G. J. (2002) Antiphon the Sophist: the fragments. Cambridge. Usher, S. (1999) Greek oratory. Oxford.

1

Antiquarianism JOHN CUNNALLY

The term “antiquarian” or “antiquary” was once commonly applied to persons who collected and studied the material remains of the past, including coins, inscriptions, old manuscripts, statues, household objects, tools, weapons, and similar artifacts. The word first emerges in Italy in the late fifteenth century, in the form of a Latin title, antiquarius, which refers to an expert on antiquitates – the ruins and physical remains of ancient Rome (Weiss 1969). Later antiquarians broadened their scope to include Preclassical and Medieval “antiquities,” especially in England and in German-speaking lands. By the eighteenth century antiquarians were numerous enough to form local and national organizations with regular lectures, exhibits, and publications. The Society of Antiquaries of London was incorporated in 1751, the French Socie´te´ Nationale des Antiquaires in 1804, and the American Antiquarian Society in 1812. In the second half of the nineteenth century the collecting and scholarly activities of antiquarians were superseded by the modern academic disciplines of archaeology, numismatics, art history, epigraphy, and paleography. Coin-collecting was the earliest and most widespread antiquarian activity, thanks to the ubiquity and abundance of these small artifacts throughout Europe (Haskell 1993). The poet Petrarch acquired a number of Roman coins around 1350 that, he felt, brought him closer to the ancient heroes and leaders he admired. During the fifteenth century the Medici family of Florence and Cardinal Barbo of Venice could boast cabinets of thousands of Greek and Roman coins, along with cameos, vessels, figurines, and other small artifacts. Hubert Goltzius, antiquarian of Bruges, travelled extensively to visit coin collections and in 1563 published a list of 978 connoisseurs of antiquities whom he had consulted. Many of these were princes and great prelates, like the

Grimani in Venice and Cardinal Farnese in Rome, but the majority were lawyers, doctors, artists, and merchants: the emerging professional and middle classes. In contrast to the university-trained philologists and classicists such as Joseph Scaliger and Justus Lipsius, who devoted themselves to correcting and commenting on ancient texts, the typical Renaissance antiquarian was a self-taught amateur – often a bourgeois entrepreneur, like Jacopo Strada of Mantua (1515–88). Strada made his fortune as an antiques dealer, acquiring coins, statues, and other treasures for the Fuggers of Augsburg, Duke Albrecht of Bavaria, and for Emperor Maximilian II. Collections of statues, sarcophagi, and other sculptural works became fashionable in the sixteenth century, the earliest being the gallery maintained by the city of Rome in the Palace of the Conservatori and the Belvedere collection at the Vatican begun by Pope Julius II. Fifteenth century humanists began to collect and publish Classical inscriptions in sylloges, and some were inclined to augment the canon with epitaphs of their own invention. Annio da Viterbo (1432–1502) was especially notorious for this kind of forgery. The Mirabilia, a medieval guidebook to the wonders of Rome, was displaced by new humanist manuals emphasizing Classical monuments, beginning with Flavio Biondo’s Roma instaurata of 1446. Like other humanist practices, antiquarianism spread from Italy to the North after 1500. In England Sir Thomas More was an avid collector of Roman coins, and the ancient monuments of that country were systematically surveyed in William Camden’s Britannia (1586). The study of Greek antiquities had a modest beginning with the travels of Ciriaco d’Ancona in the Aegean in the 1430s, but the Ottoman conquest closed much of the Hellenic East to European scholars until the eighteenth century. The field was revived with James Stuart and Nicholas Revett’s Antiquities of Athens (1762) and with Johann Winckelmann’s notorious Geschichte der

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 488–489. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah08013

2 Kunst des Alterthums (1764), with its critical appraisal of Greek sculpture. The antiquarians were convinced they were restoring an activity practiced by the ancients themselves. Greek temple treasuries, as described by PAUSANIAS, were often de facto museums where pilgrims could see weapons, clothing and other relics associated with Homeric heroes and the mythical past. In ancient Rome curiosity about the daily life and habits of earlier times led to the publication of works that emulated Varro’s lost Antiquitatum rerum libri, discussing ancestral customs and aspects of social life ignored by political historians such as LIVY and TACITUS (Momigliano 1966). But the Renaissance antiquarians were more systematic in their collecting activity, and their reliance on physical evidence has been compared to the empirical method of modern science (Momigliano 1990). By focusing on objective carriers of data, like coins and architectural ruins, antiquarianism allowed scholars to

avoid the sectarian and dynastic controversies that often ensnared philologists and text-based historians, paving the way for a modern historiography that suspends partisanship and moral judgment in its re-creation of the past. SEE ALSO:

Varro, Marcus Terentius.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Cunnally, J. (1999) Images of the illustrious: the numismatic presence in the Renaissance. Princeton. Haskell, F. (1993) History and its images: art and the interpretation of the past. New Haven. Momigliano, A. (1966) “Ancient history and the antiquarian.” In A. Momigliano, Studies in Historiography: 1–39. London. Momigliano, A. (1990) “The rise of antiquarian research.” In A. Momigliano, The Classical Foundations of modern historiography: 54–79. Berkeley. Weiss, R. (1969) The Renaissance discovery of Classical antiquity. Oxford.

1

Antiquarianism JOHN CUNNALLY

Iowa State University, USA

The term “antiquarian” or “antiquary” was once commonly applied to persons who collected and studied the material remains of the past, including coins, inscriptions, old manuscripts, statues, household objects, tools, weapons, and similar artifacts. The word first emerges in Italy in the late fifteenth century, in the form of a Latin title, antiquarius, which refers to an expert on antiquitates – the ruins and physical remains of ancient Rome (Weiss 1969). Unlike traditional historians who confined their research to archives and other written sources, Renaissance antiquarians aimed at “interpreting the past by cross-referencing heterogenous sources thanks to accumulation and collection” (Acciarino 2017). Later antiquarians broadened their scope to include preclassical and medieval “antiquities,” especially in England and in German-speaking lands. By the eighteenth century, antiquarians were numerous enough to form local and national organizations with regular lectures, exhibits, and publications. The Society of Antiquaries of London was incorporated in 1751 and of Scotland in 1780, the French Société Nationale des Antiquaires in 1804, and the American Antiquarian Society in 1812. In the second half of the nineteenth century the collecting and scholarly activities of antiquarians were superseded by the modern academic disciplines of archaeology, numismatics, art history, epigraphy, and paleography. Coin collecting was the earliest and most widespread antiquarian activity, thanks to the ubiquity and abundance of these small artifacts throughout Europe (Haskell 1993). During the fifteenth century the Medici family of Florence and Cardinal Barbo of Venice could boast cabinets of thousands of Greek and Roman coins, along with cameos, vessels, figurines, and other small artifacts. Hubert Goltzius, antiquarian of

Bruges, travelled extensively to visit coin collections and in 1563 published a list of 978 connoisseurs of antiquities whom he had consulted (Cunnally 1999). Many of these were princes and great prelates, like the Grimani in Venice and Cardinal Farnese in Rome, but the majority were lawyers, doctors, artists, and merchants: the emerging professional and middle classes. In contrast to the university-trained philologists and classicists such as Joseph Scaliger and Justus Lipsius, who devoted themselves to correcting and commenting on ancient texts, the typical Renaissance antiquarian was a self-taught amateur – often a bourgeois entrepreneur, like Jacopo Strada of Mantua (1515–1588). Strada made his fortune as an antiques dealer, acquiring coins, statues, and other treasures for the Fuggers of Augsburg, Duke Albrecht of Bavaria, and for Emperor Maximilian II. Collections of statues, sarcophagi, and other sculptural works became fashionable in the sixteenth century, the earliest being the gallery maintained by the city of Rome in the Palace of the Conservatori and the Belvedere collection at the Vatican begun by Pope Julius II. Fifteenthcentury humanists began to collect and publish Classical inscriptions in sylloges (Stenhouse 2005), and some were inclined to augment the canon with epitaphs of their own invention. Annio da Viterbo (1432–1502) was especially notorious for this kind of forgery. Like other humanist practices, antiquarianism spread from Italy to the North after 1500. In England Sir Thomas More was an avid collector of Roman coins, and the ancient monuments of that country were systematically surveyed in William Camden’s Britannia (1586). The study of Greek antiquities had a modest beginning with the travels of Ciriaco d’Ancona in the Aegean in the 1430s, but the Ottoman conquest closed much of the Hellenic East to European scholars until the eighteenth century. The field was revived with James Stuart and Nicholas Revett’s Antiquities of Athens (1762) and with Johann Winckelmann’s notorious Geschichte der Kunst

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History. Edited by Andrew Erskine, David B. Hollander, and Arietta Papaconstantinou. © 2021 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Published 2021 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah08013.pub2

2 des Alterthums (1764), with its critical appraisal of Greek sculpture. The antiquarians were convinced they were restoring an activity practiced by the ancients themselves. Greek temple treasuries, as described by PAUSANIAS, were often de facto museums where pilgrims could see weapons, clothing, and other relics associated with Homeric heroes (see HOMER) and the mythical past. In ancient Rome curiosity about the daily life and habits of earlier times led to the publication of works that emulated Varro’s lost Antiquitatum rerum libri, discussing ancestral customs and aspects of social life ignored by political historians such as LIVY and TACITUS (Momigliano 1966). Recent scholarship has revealed that antiquarian methods were not confined to the West but flourished in China as well, beginning in the Song Dynasty, 960–1279 (Miller and Louis 2012). But the European antiquarians were more systematic in their collecting activity, and their reliance on physical evidence has been compared to the empirical method of modern science (Momigliano 1990). By focusing on objective carriers of data, like coins and architectural ruins, antiquarianism allowed scholars to avoid the sectarian and dynastic controversies that often ensnared philologists and text-based historians, paving the way for a modern

historiography that suspends partisanship and moral judgment in its re-creation of the past. SEE ALSO:

Varro, Marcus Terentius.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Acciarino, D. (2017) “The nature of Renaissance antiquarianism: history, methodology, definition.” Acta Antiqua Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 57: 485–502. Cunnally, J. (1999) Images of the illustrious: the numismatic presence in the Renaissance. Princeton. Haskell, F. (1993) History and its images: art and the interpretation of the past. New Haven. Miller, P. and Louis, F., eds. (2012) Antiquarianism and intellectual life in Europe and China, 1500– 1800. Ann Arbor. Momigliano, A. (1966) “Ancient history and the antiquarian.” In A. Momigliano, Studies in historiography: 1–39. London. Momigliano, A. (1990) “The rise of antiquarian research.” In A. Momigliano, The Classical foundations of modern historiography: 54–79. Berkeley. Stenhouse, W. (2005) Reading inscriptions and writing ancient history: historical scholarship in the Late Renaissance. London. Weiss, R. (1969) The Renaissance discovery of Classical antiquity. Oxford.

1

Antiquities Service, Egypt, history of AIDAN DODSON

In 1835, an ordinance by the Governor of Egypt prohibited the export or destruction of antiquities, required that all excavators acquire an official permit, and founded a national museum. However, its collections were steadily given away to official visitors, the residue going to the Austrian Archduke Maximillian in 1855. In 1857, Auguste Mariette was commissioned to produce a collection of antiquities to be “found” by Prince Napoleon during a projected Egyptian tour, and as a result was appointed the first “Director of Antiquities Works” by Viceroy Said in 1858. A new museum was opened in 1863; all unofficial excavations were banned, with

Mariette excavating throughout Egypt until his death in 1881. However, his successor began to issue permits to outside archaeologists to supplement official work. A major reform of the Department was carried out in 1899, a new regional structure being established that has fundamentally continued to the present day, together with an annual journal and a purpose-built museum building. A major review resulted in the Antiquities Law of 1912, which tightened up regulations for foreign excavators, in particular removing their automatic right to a share of their finds. Following Egyptian independence in 1922, European officials were progressively replaced by Egyptians, the final foreigner, the Director-General himself, being displaced by the 1952 revolution. Until 1971, the authority was known as the “Antiquities Service of Egypt”; it then became the Egyptian

Figure 1 Engraving of the monument dedicated to Auguste Mariette, the first director of the Egyptian Museum. Boulogne-sur-Mer, France. © White Images/Scala, Florence.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 489–490. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah15037

2 Antiquities Organization until 1994, when it was reorganized as the Supreme Council of Antiquities, which continues to both license foreign excavation and undertake work on its own account. REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Abt, J. (1996) “Towards a historian’s laboratory: the Breasted-Rockefeller Museum Projects in Egypt, Palestine and America.” Journal of

the American Research Center in Egypt 33: 173–94. David, E. (1994) Mariette Pacha 1821–1881. Paris. Dawson W. R., Uphill, E. P., and Bierbrier, M. L. (1995) Who was who in Egyptology, 3rd ed. London. Dodson, A. (1999) “Protecting the past: the first century of the Egyptian Antiquities Service.” Kmt: A Modern Journal of Ancient Egypt 10, 2: 80–5. Khater, A. (1960) Le re´gime juridique des fouilles et antiquite´s en E´gypte. Cairo.

1

Antisemitism, anti-Judaism

adversaries are enshrouded, and their reticence in disclosing the underlying motives for hostility.

CHRIS SEEMAN

Antisemitism is an ideology and political movement that seeks to remedy the ills of society by eradicating Jews from its midst. Though justifying itself with reference to 19th century scientific theories of race, antisemitic ideology also invokes negative stereotypes of Jews and Judaism developed by early Christian theologians (see ADVERSUS IUDAEOS). As this theological tradition lacks a racial premise, it is often distinguished by the label, “antiJudaism.” Christians, however, were not the only group in antiquity to promote contempt for Jews and their religion. Before the birth of the Church, and independently of it, other groups and individuals registered ridicule, suspicion, revulsion, or hostility toward Jewry. A major goal of historical research has been to assess the degree to which these ancient attitudes resemble or prefigure Christian anti-Judaism or racial antisemitism, and so determine what role they may have played in shaping them.

THE PERSIAN PERIOD Jews first became targets of animosity under Persian rule. In the books of Ezra and Nehemiah, Jewish exiles returning to Palestine encounter belligerent neighbors bent on thwarting the restoration of Jerusalem and its Temple, symbols of the fledgling community’s identity and vitality (Ez 4–6; Neh 1–6). In the book of Esther, which explores the vulnerabilities of diaspora existence (see DIASPORA, JEWISH), the alleged provocation is the Jews’ laws, which set them at odds with their host society and its rulers (Esth 3.8; cf. LXX Esth B.4–5); here, however, the enemies’ objective is to annihilate the Jews themselves, not just cripple their institutions. A striking feature of these accounts is the anonymity with which the Jews’ collective

THE HELLENISTIC PERIOD Alexander the Great’s conquest of the Near East brought Jews and Greeks into close and extended proximity, ushering in a wealth of literature that reveals the impressions each group made upon the other (Bar-Kochva 2009; see also APOCRYPHA AND PSEUDEPIGRAPHA, JEWISH). Greek reactions were not usually hostile: Jews were regarded as exotic, occasionally idealized as philosophers, but rarely feared or hated. The major exception to this pattern derives from a tradition of Hellenized Egyptian intellectuals who branded Jews as descendants of a diseased and ritually polluted mob slated for expulsion (see EXODUS, JEWISH AND EGYPTIAN STORIES ABOUT). A more aggressive motif, sometimes combined with the former, is the charge of misanthropy. In its strongest form, this alleged that Jews swore an oath of hostility against all Greeks, a vow consecrated by cannibalizing a Greek victim (Joseph. Ap. 2.91-6). Though vicious in intent, such tirades seem not to have translated into violence against Jews. The book of Third Maccabees tells of a state-sponsored persecution in Ptolemaic Egypt, but its historicity is doubtful, and the tale makes no allusion to the invectives mentioned above. There was also a notorious repression of Palestinian Judaism (see ANTIOCHOS IV EPIPHANES), which one Greek historian connects with the cannibalism charge (Diod. Sic. 35.1.3–4). In reality, the factors prompting this unparalleled action are far from clear, and the alleged link to the blood libel is probably no more than inventive retrospection. Surprisingly, the most pronounced example of anti-Judaism traceable to Hellenistic times comes from the Jews’ self-proclaimed kinsmen, the Samaritans. Following the destruction of their temple by a Jewish army, the Israelite

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 490–493. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah17040

2 population of Samaria not only refused to recognize the legitimacy of Jerusalem’s sanctuary (Joseph. AJ 13.74–9), but went on to actively undermine Jewish worship there (Joseph. AJ 18.29–30; 20.118–24). They also promoted their own version of the Pentateuch, impugning the authenticity of its Jewish counterpart. Samaritans saw themselves as faithful keepers of Israel’s legacy, a calling from which the Jews, in their view, had obstinately deviated.

THE ROMAN PERIOD Roman era authors regularly caricatured Jews as a superstitious people practicing bizarre rites and irrational customs. Yet these writers were often critical of religion in general, citing Jewish practice as one instance of a universal human phenomenon, not a unique ethnic trait (Strabo Geo. 16.35–9; Sen. Ep. 95.47; Plut. De Stoic. repugn. 38; Lucian Trag. 171–3). Adoption of Jewish customs by Greeks and Romans, or wholesale conversion, received more pointed censure. Decried as a betrayal of national identity, “Judaizing” was made more heinous by belittling the tradition to which the apostate was defecting (Plut. De superst. 3; Tac. Hist. 5.5.1–2; Juv. 14.96–106). The misanthropy charge also resurfaced, usually in the context of Jewish militancy against Roman rule (Tac. Hist. 5.5.1; Philostr. VA 5.33). Did this popular (or rather, elite) disparagement of Jews and Judaism affect official policy toward them? On two occasions, Jews resident in Rome suffered expulsion by governmental decree on overtly religious grounds (Val. Max. 1.3.3; Joseph. AJ 18.81–4; Tac. Ann. 2.85). In both instances, Jews were lumped together with other groups whose rites emblematized alien cultic practices. The reappearance of Jews in Rome without opposition following these expulsions suggests not a persistent “Judeophobia” on the part of the Roman establishment, but rather a readiness to target foreigners when expedient for bolstering the state’s image as a guardian of Roman piety.

A distinction between governmental policy and broader societal attitudes is thrown into sharp relief by the Alexandrian pogrom of 38 CE, in which native Egyptian violence against the Jewish populace was amplified by tensions involving the Greek citizenry (see JEWS, IN ALEXANDRIA). In spite of his unconcealed contempt for Jewish traditions, the emperor CALIGULA firmly reprimanded his prefect for failing to maintain law and order. In fact, Greek resentment at imperial interference in the affair spawned a slew of propagandistic texts that lampooned subsequent emperors as unjustly favoring the Jews (Harker 2008). Jewish revolts elicited brutal reprisals from the imperial regime. The Temple was razed to the ground, while the Jews themselves became subject to a humiliating tax and were finally forbidden to set foot in Jerusalem (see REVOLTS, JEWISH). Although these measures were clearly designed to deter future insurrection, not stamp out Judaism, they may have emboldened popular anti-Jewish sentiment. Even so, Rome remained consistent in its affirmation of Jews’ right to practice their ancestral traditions, as can be seen in ANTONINUS PIUS’ exemption of ethnic Jews from HADRIAN’s general ban on circumcision (Dig. 48.8.1; SHA Hadr. 14.1–2). For the increasingly Gentile Church, Jewish persistence challenged Christians’ claim to have absorbed Israel’s destiny. The goal of Christian apologetics was thus not primarily to defame Judaism but to negate it (Simon 1986). The emperor CONSTANTINE I’s conversion to the new faith commenced the institutionalization of this theological agenda. Between the fourth and sixth centuries CE, imperial legislation progressively deprived Jews of the ability to fully participate within Christian society (Linder 1978). Law, theology, and prejudice now stood in a mutually reinforcing relationship. SEE ALSO: Circumcision; Foreigners, Greece and Rome; Jews; Moses, Jewish and pagan image of; Race and racism; Religious deviance and

3 persecution; Superstition; Temple, Samaritan, on Mount Gerazim. REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Bar-Kochva, B. (2009) The image of the Jews in Greek literature, Vol. 1: The Hellenistic period. Berkeley. Feldman, L. H. (1993) Jew and gentile in the ancient world: attitudes and interactions from Alexander to Justinian. Princeton. Gager, J. G. (1985) The origins of anti-Semitism: attitudes toward Judaism in Pagan and Christian antiquity. Oxford.

Harker, A. (2008) Loyalty and dissidence in Roman Egypt: the case of the Acta Alexandrinorum. Cambridge. Linder, A. (1987) The Jews in Roman imperial legislation. Detroit. Scha¨fer, P. (1997) Judeophobia: attitudes toward the Jews in the ancient world. Cambridge, MA. Simon, M. (1986) Verus Israel: A study of the relations between Christians and Jews in the Roman Empire 135–425, trans. H. McKeating. Oxford. Stern, M. (1974–1984) Greek and Latin authors on Jews and Judaism. 3 vols. Jerusalem.

1

Antisthenes of Athens SUSAN H. PRINCE

Antisthenes of Athens (ca. 445–365 BCE) was a loyal follower of SOCRATES, according to Xenophon (Mem. 3.11.17, Sym. 4.61–4) and Diogenes Laertius (6.2), and hostile antagonist to PLATO, according to Hellenistic anecdote (Diog. Laert. 3.35, SSR VA149). He was an ardent moralist, who insisted that virtue is sufficient for happiness (Diog. Laert. 6.11) and toil is good (Diog. Laert 6.2). He became famous for paradoxical statements in the realms of language (Aristot. Top. 104b19–21) and ethics (SSR VA 122–3). He produced over a dozen texts about Homeric poetry, relics of which survive prominently among the Homeric scholia, especially for the Odyssey (SSR VA 187–93). His voluminous writings, now lost, addressed rhetoric, marriage, household, city, epistemology, and eschatology, in addition to ethics, language, and Homer (Diog. Laert. 6.15–18). His interests overlap with those of the Greek SOPHISTS, especially Gorgias (SSR VA11, 53–4, 203), Prodikos (SSR VA 13) and Protagoras (SSR VA 154), in addition to those of Plato’s Socrates. He was aligned by historians in the middle Stoa into a Socratic tradition that inspired DIOGENES OF SINOPE and the Cynic movement (Diog. Laert. 6.103–5). Evidence survives for his importance to most thinkers of the old Stoa (SSR VA 105, 135, 137, 151, 194, 195). Antisthenes’ younger contemporaries Xenophon and Aristotle preserve distinctive images, whereas Plato names him only once (Phaed. 59b). For Xenophon, Antisthenes is a close associate of Socrates: in Symposium, he expounds the self-sufficiency of his inner resources of wisdom (4.34–4) and endeavors to refute rival accounts of the highest good, Kallias’ material wealth (3.4, 4.2–5), and Nikeratos’ rote knowledge of poetry (3.5–6, 4.6); in Memorabilia, he discusses the evaluation of friends (2.5). Yet Xenophon also implies that Antisthenes failed to fill Socrates’ shoes (Sym. 4.64, 8.6, read ironically). For

Aristotle, Antisthenes is a bold advocate of logical paradox who lacked the patience or education to provide positive accounts in place of the positions he attacked, regarding false statement, gainsaying, and definition of essence (Met. 1024b32–4, 1043b23–8). In Topics, Aristotle classifies Antisthenes’ denial that gainsaying exists as a thesis worth pondering, together with theses of Heraclitus and Melissos (104b19–24). In Metaphysics (1024b32–4), Antisthenes is reported to hold that for each thing (pragma) there is one and only one account (logos). This view has been understood as the foundation of a positive and primitive philosophical program (Brancacci 1990, 240–9). Aristotle’s fuller context and his characterization of the thesis against gainsaying as a useful paradox imply that the doctrine was probably meant on a radically particular level (the account “Socrates” is unique for Socrates), not as a prescription for definition or even lexical generalization (Prince 2015, 487–98). Antisthenes’ opposition to Plato, especially his theory of Forms, is attested through anecdotes preserved in Neo-Platonic tradition (SSR VA149). Although their historicity can be doubted, the position is plausible in light of Antisthenes’ apparent orientation to individual particulars. Plato’s sustained hostility to Homeric criticism, despite his sympathies for Homer, is plausibly explained as the other side of an intellectual rivalry with Antisthenes over the essence of ethical discourse, whether it ascends to the level of general truth (philosophy) or whether it remains embedded in the particulars of a life or a story. Antisthenes’ interpretations of Homer focus persistently on the ethical evaluation of characters, their wisdom, and the evaluative adjectives Homer uses to describe them. Antisthenes is remembered broadly for the ethical paradox “I would rather go mad than experience pleasure” (SSR VA122). Because other evidence, not least Antisthenes’ central speech in Xenophon’s Symposium, endorses pleasure, this famous proclamation must be a hyperbolic statement that pleasure

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner. © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Published 2016 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah30129

2 is not the chief good, as the hedonists held. Some evidence (SSR VA123) links the outburst to rejection of sexual pleasure specifically. Correspondingly, Antisthenes held that pain (in the form of toil, ponos) is not bad but often the impetus to greater strength, whether in the realm of body, mind, or indifference to the social disrespect accruing to one who disregards prevailing norms (SSR VA134, 163). Of the sixty-three titles attributed to Antisthenes, only the fictional speeches of Ajax and Odysseus, in competition for the prize of virtue, survive (SSR VA 53, 54). The odd fabric of these texts, especially their mismatch with the kind of writing expected from a Socratic, has generated doubt that Antisthenes wrote them (Giannantoni 1990, 258–64). Close examination reveals Socratic tones in Odysseus’ evaluation of Ajax, and the pair of speeches is dense

with provocative claims about how speech functions in contentious realms. SEE ALSO:

Cynicism; Stoicism.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Brancacci, A. (1990) Oikeios logos – la filosofia del linguaggio di Antistene. Naples. Decleva Caizzi, F. (1966) Antisthenis fragmenta. Milan. Döring, K. (1998) “Sokrates, die Sokratiker und die von ihnen begründeten Traditionen.” In H. Flashar, ed., Sophistik, Sokrates, Sokratik, Mathematik, Medizin: 139–364. Basel. Giannantoni, G. (1990) Socratis et Socraticorum reliquiae, vol. 4: 195–411. Naples. Prince, S. H. (2015) Antisthenes of Athens: texts, translations, and commentary. Ann Arbor. Rankin, H. D. (1986) Anthisthenes Sokratikos. Amsterdam.

1

Antisthenes of Rhodes HANS-ULRICH WIEMER

Antisthenes of Rhodes (born not later than 220 BCE) was a Rhodian politican and the writer of a historical monograph (FGrH 508) that included a detailed account of the sea battle at CHIOS, fought by the Rhodians against PHILIP V OF MACEDON; when it began and when it ended is unknown. According to POLYBIUS (16.14), Antisthenes was a competent historian, but one prone to show his compatriots in a better light than they deserved. He might be identical with a homonymous priest of Halios (IG XII 1, 63). In the imperial period, a statue of him seems to have stood in the gymnasium of RHODES (SEG 39, 736). Since ATHENAEUS OF NAUKRATIS (6.19) not only adduces the Rhodian historian Antisthenes in a list of homonyms presumably taken from Demetrios of Magnesia but also cites no less than thirteen times from a work entitled Philosophon Diadochai (Successions of the Philosophers) by an author named Antisthenes – with fragments ranging from Thales to KLEANTHES OF ASSOS – it has often been assumed that the two are identical (e.g., Jacoby 1955: 427). Others, however, would place the author of the Philosophon Diadochai much later, after Demetrios of Magnesia, and thus in the second half of the first century BCE (Ferrary 1988: 257–60). The Peripatetic philosopher Antisthenes, cited by PHLEGON OF TRALLES (FGrH 257 F 36, 3) as the author of a lurid tale set during the war of the Romans against ANTIOCHOS III

MEGAS,

can hardly be the same person as the Rhodian historian, since this ghost story with a strong anti-Roman bias would have disqualified him as a serious historian in Polybius’ eyes. He might, however, be identical with the homonymous author of the Philosophon Diadochai. Finally, to identify the Rhodian historian with the author of a treatise on Zoroaster known from the SUDA and ascribed to various authors (Rives 2004) requires an arbitrary emendation of the text.

SEE ALSO: History, contemporary; Local histories; Zeno of Rhodes.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Champion, C. (2009) “Antisthenes of Rhodes (508).” In I. Worthington, ed., Brill’s New Jacoby. Leiden. Available online at http://www.brill.nl/ publications/online-resources/jacoby-online. Ferrary, J.-L. (1988) Philhelle´nisme et impe´rialisme: aspects ide´ologiques de la conqueˆte romaine du monde helle´nistique. Rome. Gauger, J.-D. (1980) “Phlegon von Tralleis, mirab. III. Zu einem Dokument geistigen Widerstandes gegen Rom.” Chiron 10: 225–61. Jacoby, F. (1955) Die Fragmente der griechischen Historiker, Part III: Geschichte von Sta¨dten und Vo¨lkern (Horographie und Ethnographie). B Kommentar zu Nr. 297–607 (Text). Leiden. Rives, J. B. (2004) “Aristotle, Antisthenes of Rhodes, and the Magikos.” Rheinisches Museum 147: 35–54. Wiemer, H.-U. (2001) Rhodische Traditionen in der hellenistischen Historiographie. Frankfurt.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print page 493. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah08014

1

Antonia Minor BRONWYN HOPWOOD

Antonia Minor (36 BCE–37 CE), younger daughter of the triumvir Marcus Antonius (see ANTONIUS, MARCUS (MARK ANTONY)) and Octavia Minor, married Drusus the Elder in ca. 18 BCE. Three of Antonia’s children survived into adulthood: GERMANICUS, Livilla, and CLAUDIUS. Widowed in 9 BCE, Antonia refused to remarry (Joseph. AJ 18.180; Val. Max. 4.3.3). Praised for her beauty, loyalty, and virtue (Plut. Ant. 87), Antonia nurtured royal children from Armenia, Commagene, Judaea, Mauretania, Parthia, and Thrace, as well as CALIGULA and Drusilla on AGRIPPINA THE ELDER’s demise. As a “mother-of-three,” Antonia administered extensive property and was patron and friend to many, including Valerius Asiaticus and Lucius Vitellius. In 19 CE, Antonia received the thanks of the Senate following the trial of Gn. Piso (see CALPURNIUS PISO, GNAEUS (SC DE PISONE PATRE)), and she may have attended Germanicus’ funeral (Tac. Ann. 3.3; Kokkinos 1992: 38ff.). Credited with informing TIBERIUS of SEJANUS’ plot, (31 CE), Antonia starved Livilla to death for complicity (Joseph. AJ 18.179ff; Cass. Dio

58.11.7; Nicols 1975). Trusted by Tiberius, Antonia took on much of Livia’s role after the death of the Augusta in 29 CE. In 37, Caligula awarded Antonia the title Augusta, the privileges of the Vestals (see VESTA AND VESTALS), and the priesthood of Augustus. Antonia died six weeks into Caligula’s principate on May 1, aged 72. In 41, Claudius re-awarded Antonia the title Augusta, minted coins bearing her image, and instituted games on her birthday with a carpentum for her portrait. An important link in the ties of marriage and blood that bound the Julians and Claudians together, Antonia achieved greatest prominence posthumously under Claudius. SEE ALSO:

Lex Iulia and lex Papia.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Kokkinos, N. (1992) Antonia Augusta: portrait of a great Roman lady. London. Nicols, J. (1975) “Antonia and Sejanus.” Historia 24: 48–58. Rose, C. B. (1997) Dynastic commemoration and imperial portraiture in the Julio-Claudian period. Cambridge. Wood, S. E. (1999) Imperial women: a study in public images 40 BC–AD 68. Leiden.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 493–494. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah19203

1

Antonine Wall DAVID J. BREEZE

The Antonine Wall was the northwest frontier of the Roman Empire for about 20 years from 142 CE. Forty Roman miles (60 km) long, it crossed northern Britain from modern Bo’ness on the Firth of Forth to Old Kilpatrick on the Clyde. For much of its length it lay on the southern edge of the Midland Valley of Scotland, which formed a great trough in front of the Wall and was probably very boggy at the time. The “wall” was actually a turf rampart, but placed on a stone base 4.4 m (15 Roman ft) wide. It is not known how high the rampart stood, nor how it was finished off at the top, but it was probably at least 3 m (10ft) high. It was fronted by a ditch up to 12 m (40 ft) wide and 4 m (12 ft) deep, the material from which was tipped out onto the north side to form a low, wide upcast mound; in certain locations pits have been found on the berm; these presumably held obstacles. The original intention was to place six forts along the line of the wall and it is probable that there was also to be a fortlet at every mile in between, though the series is not complete.

The main pattern therefore appears to have been similar to that of the abandoned HADRIAN’S WALL, and here presumably lay the basis of the plan for the new frontier. The other original features include a road, the Military Way, “expansions,” and small enclosures. The “expansions” are platforms attached to the rear of the rampart. Three pairs have been identified, two facing north and the third pair south. It is probable that the “expansions” were used for signalling. Below one platform was a pit from which gravel had been extracted, presumably to help build the adjacent Military Way, thus suggesting that the road was part of the original plan for the Wall. Only three small enclosures, 5.5 m (18 ft) square internally, are known, but excavation failed to reveal their function. This plan was not finished before a significant change was made, the addition of more forts to the line of the Wall. About ten new forts were constructed, reducing the average gap from about 13 km (8 miles) to 3 km (a little over 2 miles). Some forts replaced existing fortlets; elsewhere they appear to have been erected on new positions. While all the original forts were large enough to have held a complete auxiliary regiment, many of the secondary forts were smaller and could

Figure 1 Map of the Antonine Wall. Illustration by David J. Breeze.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 494–496. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah16006

2

Figure 3 The distance slab found at Braidfield on the Antonine Wall records the construction of 3240ft (987.5m) by a detachment of the Sixth Legion. Image © The Hunterian. Reproduced with permission of the Hunterian Museum, University of Glasgow. Figure 2 An artist’s impression of the Antonine Wall showing a fortlet and an expansion, here interpreted as beacon-platform. Drawn by Michael J. Moore.

only have held a detachment. Some of these detachments appear to have been formed of legionaries, an unusual feature on the British frontier and perhaps suggesting that the construction of the Antonine Wall overstretched the army’s resources. A further amendment to the original plan was the construction of annexes beside some forts. The addition of the forts led to a change in the function of fortlets. In the few cases investigated, the internal buildings were demolished and the interior covered with a layer of cobbles or gravel, though the enclosures appear to have continued in use in some form. There is some evidence for civilians living outside the forts, one settlement having self-governing rights. The Antonine Wall was built by the three legions of Britain, though in this case they recorded their work through the carving of inscriptions decorated with scenes of religious services and fighting. The stones record the lengths of Wall built by each legion: 4 ½ miles, 3 ½ miles, 3 miles, and then a stretch of 2 miles (3 km) in shorter lengths of feet. The distances are specified to half a pace in some cases; this is precision planning. The sites of the forts and fortlets were identified,

and probably in most cases built, before the line of the Wall was erected between them. The building of the Antonine Wall is recorded in Roman literary sources. The anonymous writer of the Historia Augusta in his Life of Antoninus Pius (5, 4) stated that “he conquered Britain through his legate Lollius Urbicus, and, having driven back the barbarians, built a new wall, this time of turf.” Emperor and legate are recorded on several building inscriptions. Two are from Corbridge on Dere Street, the road leading north into Scotland; they date to 139 and 140 CE and indicate that planning for the move north came very soon after the accession of ANTONINUS PIUS in 138 CE. The name of Lollius Urbicus only appears on two inscriptions on the Antonine Wall, both at Balmuildy, and it is probable that he left the province shortly after the start of building work. A speech, probably given in the Senate in 142 by the consul Cornelius Fronto, survives in fragmentary form. Fronto declared that “although he [Antoninus] had committed the conduct of the war to others, while sitting at home himself in the Palace at Rome, yet like the helmsman at the tiller of a ship of war, the glory of the whole navigation and voyage belonged to him” (Panegyric of Constantius 8.14.2¼Fronto, Loeb, vol. 2, p. 251). The construction of the Antonine Wall led to the abandonment of Hadrian’s Wall to the

3 south. The reason for the advance north and the construction of a new wall was probably related to the personal position of the new emperor. Antoninus Pius was not Hadrian’s first choice as a successor and he came to the throne with no military experience. The campaign in Britain may have been in order to support his position. As a result of his victory, he was acclaimed Imperator, Conqueror, the only time during his long reign, and his success was proclaimed on the distance slabs. The Antonine Wall appears to have been abandoned in the 160s. The reason is not known, but may have related to a review of military commitments which possibly

included the necessity to provide soldiers from Britain to help deal with trouble in Germany. SEE ALSO:

Britannia, Roman Empire; Frontiers,

Roman. REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Breeze, D. J. (2006) The Antonine Wall. Edinburgh. Hanson, W. and Maxwell, G. (1986) Rome’s north west frontier, the Antonine Wall. Edinburgh. Robertson, A. S. (2001) The Antonine Wall, A handbook to the surviving remains. Glasgow.

1

Antoninus Pius (Aelius Hadrianus Antoninus Augustus Pius) CHRISTOPH MICHELS

Antoninus Pius was a Roman emperor who ruled from July 10, 138 to March, 7, 161, between Hadrian and Marcus Aurelius. Born T. Aurelius Fulvus, he later successively added Boionius (from his maternal grandmother Boionia Procilla), and Arrius Antoninus (from his maternal grandfather Arrius Antoninus); his name as princeps became Imperator Caesar T. Aelius Hadrianus Antoninus Augustus Pius (cf. Hu¨ttl 1933–36: 27, 50–2). Under his long reign, the Roman Empire enjoyed a time of relative peace and prosperity (see ROME, CITY OF: 6. HADRIANIC AND ANTONINE), which ended under his successors when the empire came under increasing pressure from outside and was faced with internal strife (see ROME, CITY OF: 7. SEVERAN AND THIRD CENTURY). SOURCES Among the literary sources (cf. Hu¨ttl 1933–36: 15–25; Re´my 2005: 393–416) on the life and reign of Pius, the most important is his vita, written allegedly by Iulius Capitolinus (Walentowski 1998: 290–1), in the so-called HISTORIA AUGUSTA. The vitae of Hadrian (cf. Fu¨ndling 2006), M. Aurelius, and L. Verus also contain important information. Among the biographies of Caesars compiled in the collection, the Vita Pii is regarded as comparably trustworthy. It is the only continuous narration of Pius’ reign, as book 70 of Dio’s historical work (see CASSIUS DIO) was already lost in Byzantine times. References of Late Antique authors such as Aurelius Victor and Eutropius are sparse and short. Many of Pius’ legal decisions were incorporated into the Codex, the Digesta, and the Institutiones of Justinian (see CODEX JUSTINIANUS). Contemporary information derives from Aelius Aristides’ speech “To

Figure 1 Bust of Antoninus Pius. Agora Museum, Athens. © Photo Scala, Florence.

Rome,” the letters of the orator M. Cornelius Fronto, teacher of M. Aurelius, and Pausanias. The tribute to Antoninus in M. Aurelius’ Meditations (1.16) offers insights in his character. The coins minted during Pius’ reign are important primary sources (BMC Coins, Rom. Emp. 3 (1936); 4 (1940); Strack 1937) as are papyri and inscriptions (Hu¨ttl 1933–36: 197–372; on military diplomas see Eck 2007) and archaeological artifacts.

FAMILY BACKGROUND, YOUTH, AND EARLY CAREER Antoninus Pius was born on September 19, 86 2 CE, the son of T. Aurelius Fulvus (PIR A 1509), consul ordinarius of the year 89, and Arria Fadilla (PIR2 A 1119), daughter of P. Arrius Antoninus (PIR2 A 1086), on an estate near Lanuvium in Latium (SHA Ant. Pius 1.8). His family originated on paternal and perhaps also on maternal side from Nemausus (see GALLIA NARBONENSIS; NEMAUSUS/NIˆMES). Although

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 496–501. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah19009

2 provincial in origin, Pius’ family was rich and had obtained senatorial rank at least two generations before. His paternal grandfather, T. Aurelius Fulvus (PIR2 A 1510), was city prefect of Rome (praefectus urbi) in 92 under DOMITIAN (cf. Re´my 2005: 67–71). After the early death of his father and the remarriage of his mother (to P. Iulius Lupus), Pius was raised first by his paternal then by his maternal grandfather in Lorium at the Via Aurelia north of Rome. Pius would later build a palace there and look after his estates personally (SHA Ant. Pius 1.8). His marriage to Annia Galeria Faustina (Faustina maior), daughter of M. Annius Verus (PIR2 A 695), who was consul for the third time in 126, praefectus urbi and grandfather of the future emperor MARCUS AURELIUS, further increased his standing. However, little is known about Antoninus’ early career. It is attested that he was quaestor, praetor, and consul (cos. ord. 120; cf. SHA Ant. Pius 2.9; cf. CURSUS HONORUM, ROMAN). He was also one of the four officials who were to administer Italy (cf. SHA Ant. Pius 2.11; 3.1), an innovation of Hadrian. The Historia Augusta calls them consulares, but in the second century CE the correct office title was legatus Augusti pro praetore (Eck 1995: 316–21). Pius’ exact administrative district is not known, but the Historia Augusta says that it was the part where he had the most possessions. As proconsul of the provincia Asia in 135/6 (Re´my 2005: 79–85), Antoninus left Italy for a longer period of time, in fact, according to our sources, for the last time in his life. While other magistracies are possible, they are not attested. But we know that Hadrian frequently called upon Antoninus’ advice in his council (consilium principis, cf. SHA Ant. Pius 3.8).

ACCESSION TO POWER It was not obvious that Antoninus would succeed HADRIAN as emperor (SHA Hadr. 24.1; 24.6; cf. Fu¨ndling 2006 II: 1054–86). The critically ill and childless Hadrian had

first planned to bequeath his power to L. Ceionius Commodus (L. Aelius Caesar). However, after the latter’s early death, Hadrian adopted Antoninus on February 25, 138 CE under the condition that Pius, who had already lost his own two sons, M. Aurelius Fulvus Antoninus (PIR2 A 1511) and M. Galerius Aurelius Antoninus (PIR2 G 26), would himself adopt (SHA Ant. Pius 4.5–7) the young nephew of Hadrian, M. Annius Verus (the future M. Aurelius), and the son of the deceased L. Aelius Caesar, later known as LUCIUS VERUS. Perhaps Hadrian intended Marcus as his ultimate heir and Antoninus, who was already fifty-one when he succeeded Hadrian, as a “place-holder.” It was unforeseeable that he would live for another twenty-three years. In any case, Antoninus received the tribunicia potestas (see TRIBUNI PLEBIS), the imperium proconsulare (see CONSULS), and the praenomen imperatoris (Imp. T. Aelius Caesar Hadrianus Antoninus). He remitted the crown-gold (aurum coronarium) on the occasion of his adoption for Italy and reduced that of the provinces by half (SHA Ant. Pius 4.10); his property went to his daughter Annia Galeria Faustina (Faustina minor), but he presented its revenues to the state (SHA Ant. Pius 7.9). When Hadrian died on July 10, 138 CE, Antoninus was proclaimed Augustus. He brought about, against the opposition of the Senate (Eutr. 8.7.3; SHA Ant. Pius 5.1), the deification (consecratio, see RULER CULT, ROMAN) of his adoptive father and saw to the completion of the mausoleum (now Castel Sant’ Angelo) where Hadrian was laid to rest (Cass. Dio 70.1.2–3). Probably for this dutifulness to the memory of Hadrian, he was accorded the appellation “Pius” (see PIETAS; cf. SHA Hadr. 24.3–5; he carried it since 19 September, Strack 1937: 2). As was common, he became pontifex maximus and after having initially refused the title pater patriae (“father of the fatherland”), he assumed it in 139. Pius was consul in 139, 140, and 145. After Pius’ accession to power, his wife, Faustina maior, received the title Augusta.

3 When she died in October 140 (Weiß 2008: 7–8), she was deified by senatorial decree (diva Faustina on coins, Strack 1937: 88–98) and honored with a public funeral (funus censorium). Faustina was entombed in the mausoleum Hadriani (ILS 349) and a temple (ILS 348) was built in her honor on the north side of the Forum Romanum, east of the Basilica Aemilia. Antoninus did not marry again after his wife’s death, but he had a concubine, a freedwoman of Faustina called Galeria Lysistrate (ILS 1836). He consciously established M. Annius Verus (M. Aurelius) as his successor. Already in 138 CE, he made his older adoptive son, who was also his nephew, cancel his betrothal to Ceionia Fabia (PIR2 C 612) in order to get engaged to his daughter (Faustina minor). The wedding took place in 145. When their first child was born on November 30, 147, M. Aurelius received the tribunicia potestas and Faustina minor was made the new Augusta on 1 December (Fasti Ostienses 51). Antoninus thereby enunciated the intended order of succession while L. Verus, who received neither powers nor the title “Caesar,” was shown to be of only secondary importance.

ASPECTS OF PIUS’ REIGN In stark contrast to Hadrian’s numerous travels, Antoninus did not leave Italy during his reign (SHA Ant. Pius 7.11), but governed the empire from the center (SHA Ant. Pius 7.12; Aristid. 33). He did not share Hadrian’s philhellenism and lived rather modestly (M. Aur. Med. 6.30). Unlike his predecessors, Pius did not start large building projects, but contented himself with completing those buildings still under construction and repairing monuments and infrastructure. Known for a frugal financial policy the emperor Julian (Caes. 312A) later ridiculed Pius’ stinginess (smikrologia), he reportedly left a surplus of 675 million denarii to the Treasury on his death (Dio 74.8.3). The emperor Julian in his Caesares (312a)

would later ridicule Pius for stinginess (mikrologia). In domestic policies, one of the few innovations was the creation of the ratio privata (Nesselhauf 1964). Pius broke with Hadrian’s reforms by abolishing the four Italian legati which had met opposition in the Senate and perhaps also among the municipal aristocracy; the office was later re-introduced with narrowed authority by M. Aurelius under the denomination “iuridicus” (Eck 1995: 319; 324–6). Pius thereby restored the old preeminence of Italy, which appears on many coins (BMC Coins, Rom. Emp. 4 (1940): 32; 38; 190; 264–5; 277). Being a benefactor of numerous cities in Italy, he was lauded as Restitutor Italiae in inscriptions (CIL XI 805, 6939). In preparation of the nine-hundredth anniversary of the city of Rome, which was lavishly celebrated in April 148, coins depicted Roma Aeterna and traditional Italic cults (Strack 1937: 67–87; on the religious development of the empire in Pius’ reign see Hu¨ttl 1933–36: 130–226). Pius enlarged the welfare institutions (alimenta) and created a foundation for the so-called puellae Faustinianae in the memory of his deceased wife Faustina. He brought about nine distributions of money to the urban plebs of Rome and a donative to the army (SHA Ant. Pius 8,1; BMC Coins, Rom. Emp. 4 (1940): xlvi–vii; 48). Additional money was spent on civic buildings in the provinces (SHA Ant. Pius 8.3–4; Ephesos, cf. Paus. 8.43.4). This “paternalistic” attitude in the care for his subjects is reflected in many letters to communities and individuals. It is also visible in his active and benevolent legislation which, however, also widened the distinction between upper and lower classes (SHA Ant. Pius 7.1; M. Aur. Med. 1.16; cf. Hu¨ttl 1936: 70–129; Re´my 2005: 153–74). It had been the practice, at least since CLAUDIUS, that at the end of their service auxiliaries (see AUXILIA) received Roman citizenship (civitas Romana), not only for themselves but also for their children and that their marriages were legalized. In 140 (Eck 2007: 90–102), Pius changed this to the effect that children of

4 auxiliaries (irrespective of their rank) received Roman citizenship only if they had been born before their fathers had entered the army (cf. Weiß 2008: 31–7). This conservative reform was probably aimed at ensuring the disciplina militaris. The strong emphasis on the importance of legitimate marriages (mulier – uxor) in this context may, however, furthermore point to a connection with Antoninus’ self-representation in which the emperor’s marriage (conubium) and the imperial house played a prominent role (cf. Weiß 2008). Despite the Historia Augusta’s inaccurate claim (SHA Ant. Pius 5.3; 8.6) that Antoninus retained governors in their offices for seven to nine years (Alfo¨ldy 1977: 23–4), the senatorial career and other aspects of imperial administration achieved a high level of regularity (Re´my 2005: 175–202). Pius’ relation to the senatorial elite, which increasingly consisted of provincials (see HERODES ATTICUS) was good, as is illustrated by his correspondence with Fronto. The only disturbances were the rebellions of the senator Atilius Titianus (SHA Ant. Pius 7.3) and of Cornelius Priscianus in Hispania (Fasti Ostienses 50; SHA Ant. Pius 7.4). The Historia Augusta (SHA Ant. Pius 5.4–5) briefly mentions insurgencies in Greece (Achaia), Egypt, and in Judaea (Syria Palaestina), which had to be suppressed. Pius’ reign appears as a peaceful time (Aur. Vict. Caes. 15.5) and, in this regard, as a continuation of the reign of Hadrian. Pausanias stresses that Pius did not wage war willingly (8.43.3). However, the Historia Augusta claims that Antoninus fought numerous wars through his legates (SHA Ant. Pius 5.4: per legatos suos plurima bella gessit) and although this is probably an exaggeration, the picture of a stable and unchallenged empire is mainly due to our (lack of) sources, especially the idealized picture given by AELIUS ARISTIDES in his speech “To Rome” delivered in front of Pius. There certainly were tensions at the borders, but we know little about them and they were often resolved peacefully (cf. Grant 1994: 17–21). The only major war was fought in

Britain, where Q. Lollius Urbicus (PIR2 L 327) repressed the uprising of the Brigantes and captured southern Scotland. On the occasion of this victory, Pius took the title imperator for the second time (before August 1, 142). A new frontier barrier (see ANTONINE WALL), from the Firth of Forth to the Firth of Clyde, replaced HADRIAN’S WALL, but was already abandoned twenty years later. The limes in Upper Germany was advanced eastwards. In Dacia, Statius Priscus (Piso, Fasti Provinciae Daciae 1, 66-73) led a campaign against the Dacians and Jazyges. The Germanic tribe of the Quadi received a new king (BMC Coins, Rom. Emp. 4, p. 367). In northern Africa, incursions of the nomadic Moors into the Roman provinces were repelled under the procurators Porcius Vetustinus (PIR2 P 870) and Uttedius Honoratus (AE 1931: 38). In the east, Antoninus asserted Rome’s interests against Parthia. He installed a new king in Armenia ca. 140–4 (BMC Coins, Rom. Emp. 4, p. 204–5) and supported the Iberian king Pharasmanes II after he had visited Rome (Fasti Ostienses 50). A war with Parthia could be averted for the moment but the situation remained strained. In expectation of a Parthian attack, Roman troops were concentrated at the border in Cappadocia and Syria in 160/1 (cf. ILS 1076: ob bellum Parthicum). The assault eventually came after the accession of M. Aurelius and L. Verus, when the Parthian king Vologaises III invaded Armenia in 161.

DEATH AND DEIFICATION Antoninus died on his estate near Lorium on March 7, 161 (SHA Ant. Pius 12.4–8), reportedly of a sudden illness caused by the consumption of too much cheese. The last watchword he gave to the officer of the day, equanimity (SHA Ant. Pius 12.6), has been seen as symbolic of his reign. After having been cremated, his ashes were deposited in the mausoleum Hadriani (CIL VI 986). He was deified by the Senate without objection (SHA Ant. Pius 13.3) and the temple of

5 Faustina was dedicated to him, too. As for Trajan and later M. Aurelius, a column was erected for Pius by his adoptive successors (ILS 347), of which the sculptured base showing the deification of the royal couple has survived (Vogel 1973). Eventually, the collegium of the sodales Antoniniani was founded for his cult (SHA Ant. Pius 13.4; cf. Pflaum 1966). APPRAISAL The achievements of Pius have been judged very differently. While he certainly was an effective administrator of the empire and maintained largely peaceful conditions for his own time that allowed the provinces to prosper, he established a lasting peace neither in the north nor in the east and his successors faced military drawbacks on both frontiers. Consequently, the shortcomings of his foreign policy and his alleged inactiveness have been criticized. However, this modern judgment does not correspond to the predominantly positive ancient tradition. Especially in the Meditations of Marcus Aurelius, Pius appears as a model emperor (M. Aur. Med. 1.16; 6.30). SEE ALSO:

Britannia, Roman Empire; Danube; Germania (Superior and Inferior); Marcus Aurelius; Mauretania; Parthia; Persia and Rome; Ruler cult, Roman.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Alfo¨ldy, G. (1977) Konsulat und Senatorenstand unter den Antoninen. Prosopographische Untersuchungen zur senatorischen Fu¨hrungsschicht. Bonn.

Eck, W. (1995) “Die italischen legati Augusti propraetore unter Hadrian und Antoninus Pius.” In R. Frei-Stolba and M. A. Speidel, eds., Die Verwaltung des ro¨mischen Reiches in der Hohen Kaiserzeit. Ausgewa¨hlte und erweiterte Beitra¨ge, vol. 1: 315–26. Basel. Eck, W. (2007) “Die Vera¨nderungen in Konstitutionen und Diplomen unter Antoninus Pius.” In M. A. Speidel and H. Lieb, eds., Milita¨rdiplome. Die Ergebnisse der Berner Gespra¨che von 2004: 87–104. Stuttgart. Fu¨ndling, J. (2006) Kommentar zur Vita Hadriani der Historia Augusta (= Antiquitas. Reihe 4: Beitra¨ge zur Historia-Augusta-Forschung. Serie 3: Kommentare; Bd. 4.1, 4.2), 2 vols. Bonn. Grant, M. (1994) The Antonines. The Roman Empire in transition. London. Hu¨ttl, W. (1933/36) Antoninus Pius, 2 vol., Calve, repr. 1975. New York. Nesselhauf, H. (1964) “Patrimonium und res privata des ro¨mischen Kaisers.” In J. Straub, ed., Historia-Augusta-Colloquium Bonn 1963: 73–93. Bonn. Pflaum, G. (1966) Les sodales Antoniniani de l’e´poque de Marc Aure`le. Paris. Re´my, B. (2005) Antonin le Pieux, 138–161. Le sie`cle d’or de Rome. Paris. Strack, P. L. (1937) Untersuchungen zur ro¨mischen Reichspra¨gung des zweiten Jahrhunderts, vol. 3. Die Reichspra¨gung zur Zeit des Antoninus Pius. Stuttgart. Vogel, L. (1973) The column of Antoninus Pius. Cambridge, MA. Walentowski, S. (1998) Kommentar zur Vita Antoninus Pius der Historia Augusta (Antiquitas, Reihe 4, Beitra¨ge zur Historia-AugustaForschung, Serie 3, Kommentare, Bd. 3). Bonn. Weiß, P. (2008) “Die vorbildliche Kaiserehe. Zwei Senatsbeschlu¨sse beim Tod der a¨lteren und der ju¨ngeren Faustina, neue Paradigmen und die Herausbildung des ‘antoninischen’ Prinzipats.” Chiron 38: 1–45.

1

Antonius Saturninus, Lucius COLIN E P. ADAMS

Lucius Antonius Saturninus was governor of Upper Germany, and led a revolt at Moguntiacum in early 89 CE (Suet. Dom. 6; Dio 67.11.). His career is difficult to trace, but his likely origins are the western provinces, most likely Tarracco. He was the first senator of his family, and probably owed his advancement to VESPASIAN. It is likely he was governor of Judaea 78–81 CE, as a milestone may have contained his name, but this has been erased through damnatio memoriae. To be appointed by Domitian governor of Upper Germany,

which contained four legions, he must have continued in a successful career, and likely had the ear of the emperor. Upon receiving news of the revolt, DOMITIAN left Rome and marched to meet Saturninus. However, the latter was defeated and killed by Lappius Maximus, the governor of Lower Germany. The causes of the revolt remain obscure. SEE ALSO: Damnatio memoriae; Germania (Superior and Inferior).

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Syme, R. (1978) “Antonius Saturninus.” Journal of Roman Studies 68: 12–21.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print page 504. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah19010

1

Antonius, Lucius KATHRYN WELCH

Lucius Antonius (82–40 BCE, cos 41 BCE), the youngest brother of MARCUS ANTONIUS, proposed in 44 BCE, as tribune of the plebs, a law which gave JULIUS CAESAR the right to select half the magistrates (excepting the consulship) in any year without reference to the People (Cic. Phil. 7.16; Suet. Iul. 41.2; Dio 43.51.3). After Caesar’s assassination, he supported Marcus Antonius, the remaining consul, especially in presiding over the commission to divide public land among veterans and impoverished citizens (Cic. Phil. 5.20, 6.13; Nicolet 1985). He accompanied his brother to GALLIA CISALPINA at the end of 44 BCE and assisted him in the war at Mutina. CICERO’S Philippics, while extremely hostile, make clear the close relationship between the brothers and Lucius’ important role in furthering Marcus’ political ambitions (Welch 2012: 123–53). After the formation of the SECOND TRIUMVIRATE in November 43 BCE, Lucius, having celebrated a triumph ex Alpibus (Ferriès 2007: 327), became consul in 41 BCE. In the process of settling twenty-eight legions of time-served veterans in Italy, Lucius’ chief concern was to ensure that OCTAVIANUS did not accrue enormous political capital at Marcus’ expense. Part

way through the year, he even criticized the Triumviral government both on behalf of the dispossessed landowners and for being tyrannical. Lucius, supported by Marcus’ wife Fulvia, took refuge in Perusia and was besieged by Octavian. The commanders supporting Marcus failed to assist him, and he was forced to surrender by May 40 BCE. Lucius and his close associates were spared, but Perusia itself was harshly punished for supporting him. A reference to his departure for one of the Spanish provinces soon after his defeat is the last we hear of him (Ferriès 2007: 327). Ancient commentators could not decide on Marcus’ attitude to the struggle, nor whether he supported his brother’s reported sympathy for traditional consular government. Yet, given their close relationship, it is most likely that Marcus encouraged Lucius at the time, although he later denied any responsibility (Welch 2012: 218–38). REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Ferriès, M.-C. (2007) Les partisans d’Antoine. Bordeaux. Nicolet, C. (1985) “Plèbe et tribus. Les statues de Lucius Antonius et le testament d’Auguste.” Mélanges de l’École française de Rome 97: 799–839. Welch, K. (2012) Magnus Pius: Sextus Pompeius and the transformation of the Roman Republic. Swansea.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner. © 2017 John Wiley & Sons Ltd. Published 2017 by John Wiley & Sons Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah30413

1

Antonius, Marcus (Mark Antony) JOHN T. RAMSEY

Marcus Antonius, “Mark Antony” (ca. January 14, 83–August 1, 30 BCE), was the eldest of three brothers born to M. Antonius Creticus (pr. 74), son of the famous orator M. Antonius (cos. 99). His mother Julia was the sister of the consul of 64 and a distant relative of the Dictator JULIUS CAESAR. His spendthrift father died in disgrace ca. 71, and his mother remarried. Antony’s stepfather was P. Lentulus (cos. 71), who was executed by Cicero in 63 for his involvement in Catiline’s conspiracy. After briefly aiding Cicero’s enemy, the tribune P. Clodius, in 58, Antony served from 57 to 55 with distinction as commander of the cavalry under A. Gabinius (cos. 58), the governor of Syria. He saw action in Judaea and Egypt. Upon returning from the East in late 54, Antony joined Caesar’s army in Gaul. He was elected quaestor in 52, augur in 50, and tribune of the plebs for 49, all with Caesar’s backing. In January 49, Antony exercised his tribunician veto to block the Senate from stripping Caesar of his command and fled on the night of the 7th to Caesar’s camp, ostensibly because of threats to his safety (Caes. B Civ. 1.5.5). Caesar made the defense of the tribunate his pretext for launching the Civil War and placed Italy under Antony’s control during his absence in Spain (ca. April 6–December 2), where he went to gain control of POMPEY’s armies. In 48, Antony contributed to Caear’s victory over Pompey at PHARSALOS in Greece and from October 48 to October 47, managed affairs in Italy in Caesar’s absence. During Caesar’s African campaign in 46 and Spanish campaign in 45, Antony aided Caesar behind the scenes (Ramsey 2004). In 44, Antony was consul with Caesar and at the Lupercalia festival (February 15) made the famous public gesture of offering Caesar a crown as a symbol of royal power (Cic. Phil. 2.84–7). The conspirators spared Antony’s life

Figure 1 Gold coin (De Quelen Aureus) showing Marcus Antonius (Mark Antony), 82–30 BCE. © Photo Scala, Florence/BPK, Bildagentur fu¨r Kunst, Kultur und Geschichte, Berlin.

on the Ides (15th) of March in the hope that he would keep Caesar’s forces in check after Caesar’s murder. Antony called the meeting of the Senate on March 17 at which Caesar’s murderers were granted amnesty, but the hostile mood ignited by Antony’s funeral oration over Caesar (ca. March 20) forced the conspirators to withdraw from Rome. Antony soon gathered power into his own hands and intimidated his political opponents by forming a bodyguard of Caesar’s veterans. In early June, he gained control of Cisalpine and Further Gaul for five years after his consulship, but soon his leadership was challenged by Caesar’s great-nephew Octavian (the future emperor AUGUSTUS), who had been adopted in Caesar’s will and took the name Caesar. In November, Octavian enticed two of Antony’s legions to desert, causing Antony to depart hastily for Gaul with his remaining forces (November 28/29). The governor of Cisalpina, D. Brutus, one of Caesar’s assassins, refused to hand over his province to Antony, and fighting broke out. Cicero rallied the Senate to side with Brutus and pressed for all out war against Antony.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 501–504. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah20010

2 Eventually, in April of 43, Antony was defeated in two battles and had to retreat across the Alps to seek reinforcements. Meanwhile the Senate’s forces in Italy fell under the control of Octavian after both consuls perished in the fighting and the legions refused to obey the Senate’s commander D. Brutus. After Octavian reconciled his differences with Antony, the two joined with Marcus AEMILIUS LEPIDUS to form a coalition known as the Triumvirate. The lex Titia (November 15, 43) granted them absolute power for five years as a board of three appointed ostensibly to restore the Roman state (tresviri reipublicae constituendae). They immediately set about raising cash to pay their troops and eliminating their political enemies by carrying out a bloody proscription, in which some 2,300 mostly wealthy citizens were butchered. Among the first to be hunted down and killed was Antony’s bitter enemy Cicero (December 7). In 42, while Lepidus oversaw affairs in Italy and the West, Antony and Octavian defeated the forces of the tyrannicides M. Brutus and Cassius at Philippi in Greece (Oct./Nov.). After spending the winter of 42/1 in Greece, Antony, the chief architect of the victory at PHILIPPI, set out to organize the eastern provinces and raise cash needed to pay the troops. He wintered in 41/0 in Alexandria, where he indulged in a brief love affair with the queen, CLEOPATRA VII, that resulted in the birth of twins in 40. Fighting that broke out in Italy in 41 between Octavian and Antony’s supporters, the so-called Perusine War, drew Antony back to Italy in the late spring of 40. All-out war was averted by a pact known as the Treaty of Brundisium (September 40). Under its terms, Octavian received control of all provinces in the West, except Africa, which was granted to Lepidus, and Antony took all provinces east of Scodra in Illyria. Antony married Octavian’s sister OCTAVIA to cement this agreement and remained in Italy for the rest of 40 and much of 39. In 39, a severe food crisis caused by a naval blockade thrown up by Pompey’s sole surviving son Sextus forced the dynasts to sign

a peace agreement with him known as the Treaty of Misenum (August). When Antony returned to Syria in 38, he began settling affairs in the East, but renewed fighting between Octavian and Sextus Pompeius drew Antony back to Italy in the early spring of 37. Octavia played the role of mediator between her brother and husband, and at Tarentum (summer 37), the two dynasts agreed to a five-year renewal of the Triumvirate (37–33 BCE). In the late summer of 37, Antony proceeded to Antioch, where he began making preparations for an invasion of PARTHIA. He also completed a thorough reorganization of territories in the Middle East, and to Cleopatra he restored most of the territories previously included in the old Ptolemaic kingdom. Cleopatra herself was summoned to join Antony at Antioch, where they spent the winter together (37/6). Antony recognized his paternity of the twins born to Cleopatra and entered upon a relationship with the queen that came to resemble a marriage in all but name. In 36, Antony launched his campaign against Parthia and drove deep into Media. But when his supply lines were cut by the Parthians, and he was deserted by the client king Artavasdes of Armenia, he had to make a withdrawal with heavy losses. In 35–34, Antony busied himself with a punitive campaign against King Artavasdes of Armenia, whom he paraded as a captive in a Roman-style triumph celebrated with great pomp in Alexandria in 34, a gross violation of Roman custom. Also in 34, Antony carried out the so-called Donations of Alexandria, assigning a host of kingdoms in the Middle East and northern Africa to Cleopatra and to his children by her. This conduct on Antony’s part was exploited by Octavian to paint his rival as an anti-Roman despot who had been corrupted by the luxury of the East. The tension between Octavian and Antony grew and grew until finally it reached boiling point in 32 when Octavian’s anti-Antonian propaganda caused Antony’s supporters, the two consuls of that year and some three hundred senators, to withdraw from Italy and join

3 Antony at Ephesos, where he was mustering his forces. In the autumn, Antony deployed his considerable naval and land forces on the west coast of Greece. In the following spring, Octavian took up a position to the north, in Epirus. Antony appears to have intended to employ his initial superiority by sea to cut off Octavian’s supplies and defeat him by a war of attrition. The tables were turned, however, when the more seasoned navy of Octavian won a series of engagements that trapped the main contingent of Antony’s fleet at ACTIUM. In the subsequent naval engagement off that promontory at the entrance to the Ambracian Gulf (September 2, 31), Cleopatra broke through Octavian’s line and fled, accompanied by Antony, back to Egypt. Antony’s remaining ships and land forces soon surrendered to Octavian. By official act of the Senate, Antony’s statues were pulled down and his acts annulled when news of Octavian’s victory was brought to Rome (Dio 51.19). On August 1, 30, when Alexandria fell to Octavian, Antony committed suicide. By a certain poetic justice, news of Antony’s death reached Rome during the suffect consulship of Cicero’s son Marcus (September 13–October 31, 30) (Plut. Cic. 49.4). Antony had an open nature and was loyal to his friends to a fault. He lacked the ruthless and conniving ambition of his rival Octavian. His love of the good life (food, wine, women, and gambling), coupled with his capacity for enduring any necessary hardships, endeared him to the soldiers. By his marriage to Octavia he had two daughters, from whom three future emperors were descended: CALIGULA, CLAUDIUS, and NERO. SEE ALSO: Brutus, Marcus Iunius; Cicero, Marcus Tullius; Civil war, Roman; Parthia; Pompeius Magnus Pius, Sextus.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Bengtson, H. (1977) Marcus Antonius, Triumvir und Herrscher des Orients. Munich. Gabba, E. (1971) “The Perusine war and triumviral Italy.” Harvard Studies in Classical Philology 7: 139–60. Geiger, J. (1980) “An overlooked item of the war of propaganda between Octavian and Antony.” Historia 29: 112–14. Griffin, J. (1977) “Propertius and Antony.” Journal of Roman Studies 67: 17–26. Hekster, O. and Kaizer, T. (2004) “Mark Antony and the raid on Palmyra: reflections on Appian, Bella Civilia V, 9.” Latomus 63: 70–80. Holmes, T. R. (1928) The architect of the Roman Empire, vol. 1: 1–170. Oxford. Huzar, E. G. (1978) Mark Antony: a biography. Minneapolis. Millar, F. (1973) “Triumvirate and principate.” Journal of Roman Studies 63: 50–67. Pelling, C. B. R., ed. (1988) Plutarch, life of Antony. Cambridge. Pelling, C. B. R. (1996) “The triumviral period.” Cambridge ancient history, vol. 10: 1–67. 2nd ed. Cambridge. Ramsey, J. T. (1994) “The Senate, Mark Antony, and Caesar’s legislative legacy.” Classical Quarterly 44: 130–45. Ramsey, J. T. (2001) “Did Mark Antony contemplate an alliance with his political enemies in July 44 BCE?” Classical Philology 96: 253–68. Ramsey, J. T. (2004) “Did Julius Caesar temporarily banish Mark Antony from his inner circle?” Classical Quarterly 54: 161–73. Ramsey, J. T. (2005) “Mark Antony’s judiciary reform and its revival under the triumvirs.” Journal of Roman Studies 95: 20–37. Roller, D. W. (2007) “The lost building program of Marcus Antonius.” Acta Classica 76: 89–98. Sirianni, F. A. (1984) “Was Antony’s will partially forged?” Acta Classica 53: 236–41. Syme, R. (1939) The Roman revolution: 97–300. Oxford. Welch, K. E. (1995) “Antony, Fulvia, and the ghost of Clodius in 47 BC.” Greece & Rome 42: 182–201.

1

Antony CAROLINE T. SCHROEDER

Antony (251–ca. 356 CE) was an influential monk of early Christianity, who is often considered the father of anchoritic monasticism. His rigorous asceticism contributed to an enduring reputation for holiness during his own lifetime, which only increased after his death with the publication of the popular Life of Antony by ATHANASIUS of Alexandria. Christian monastics in Catholic and Orthodox traditions have viewed him as an exemplar and a model for imitation. Antony’s story has influenced Western culture and has been portrayed in art and literature by Rubens, Flaubert, and others. Born to a Christian family, Antony sold his belongings and became a village ascetic at the age of twenty. In about 285 CE, he retreated to a deserted fortress, where he fasted and fought demons for two decades, while his reputation as an ascetic grew. Near the end of the Great Persecution, Antony traveled to Alexandria out of a desire to be martyred. He survived, however, and moved to the desert cliffs near the Red Sea to practice anchoritic monasticism. There he met the older Paul the Hermit, who became his ascetic mentor. Though the Life reports that he continued to prize solitude, other monks gathered around him, and he was a spiritual guide to many monastic communities. Athanasius of Alexandria composed the Life of Antony in Greek shortly after the monk’s death. It was soon translated into other languages and became the most popular and influential saint’s life in Christianity. A Latin version was already circulating by the 360s. In his Confessions, Augustine recounts the ways in which the Life inspired him to convert to ascetic Christianity. The Life provided a handbook for other ascetics, a model for pious Christians, and a template for the hagiographic genre. Athanasius portrayed Antony as a powerful demon-fighter in his early years, who ultimately became a master of mental and

spiritual discipline. His athletic asceticism perfected both soul and body. The Antony of the Life also cultivates a spiritual and religious partnership with Athanasius. In the text, the monk travels to Alexandria to dispute with Arians on the Trinity (see ARIUS AND ARIANISM). He reportedly willed to Athanasius a sheepskin and a cloak, thus symbolically passing to Athanasius the imprimatur of Antony’s ascetic authority. The Life also drew on biblical typologies and motifs, in particular depicting Antony in the mold of the prophet Elijah. The text is an important source for understanding developing Christian literary genres as well as early ascetic theory. It also exemplifies the ways in which official authorities in the church, such as bishops, navigated political relationships and social networks with popular ascetic authorities, such as Antony. Several letters attributed to Antony survive in Sahidic Coptic and in recent years have been persuasively authenticated (Rubenson 1995). The originals, now lost, were written in Coptic or Greek. They advise ascetics on prayer, repentance, and other elements of asceticism. Although the Life portrays Antony as illiterate in Greek, the theology in the letters demonstrates an understanding of Greek philosophy, especially Platonism (see PLATO). They also articulate elements of Origenist theology (see ORIGEN). Souls existed before matter and experienced an original cooling before becoming embodied; the soul’s goal is to return to an original unity with the divine. The letters share with the Life a commitment to rigorous discipline, an emphasis on repentance as an ascetic practice, a denunciation of Arius, and a portrait of Antony as spiritual guide. The Monastery of St. Antony near the Red Sea traces its roots back to Antony the Great. Although the surviving structures do not date to Antony’s lifetime, the location coincides with descriptions of the geography of his desert home in the Life. The site provides important art historical and archaeological evidence for Late Antique and Byzantine Egyptian monasticism. Early wall paintings in the old church

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 504–506. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah05200

2 date to the late sixth and seventh centuries, and depict apostles, animals, Christ, and other figures. The more prominent art from the thirteenth century exemplifies trends and motifs from Egypt and the larger Mediterranean and Arabic worlds. The iconographic program in the nave portrays a series of saints (martyrs and monastics), who provide a spiritual genealogy of Egyptian Christianity and mimetic models for the monks who pray within the church. SEE ALSO: Ascesis/Asceticism; Monasticism, Christian.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Bolman, E. S., ed. (2002) Monastic visions: wall paintings in the Monastery of St. Antony at the Red Sea. Cairo. Brakke, D. (1998) Athanasius and asceticism. Baltimore. Gregg, R. C., trans. (1980) Athanasius, The life of Antony and the letter to Marcellinus. New York. Harmless, W. (2004) Desert Christians: an introduction to the literature of early monasticism. Oxford. Rubenson, S. (1995) The letters of St. Antony: monasticism and the making of a saint. Minneapolis.

1

Antyllos

SEE ALSO:

Medicine, Greek and Roman.

CAROLINE PETIT

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS

Antyllos was a Greek physician of the Roman period. He allegedly belonged to the “pneumatist” medical school. It is uncertain when exactly he lived: probably some time between Antigenes (end of the first century CE) and ORIBASIOS OF PERGAMON (fourth century CE). Antyllos wrote treatises on remedies and on surgery, of which a number of fragments survive, on a variety of subjects, such as surgery, sports and health, or bathing. The name of Antyllos is mentioned in a papyrus, [P.Ant.] p III 128. Galen does not mention Antyllos, but Late Antique compilers of medicine like Oribasios of Pergamon, AETIOS OF AMIDA and Paul of Aegina have preserved many fragments from his works. Stobaeus records some remedies, as well as passages on changes in the air and in the weather. We also find him in the works of the Byzantine author Niketas. Finally, Antyllos was known in the East, as he is familiar to some Islamic physicians, such as Avicenna and Rhazes.

Barns, J. W. B. and Zilliacus, H. (1967) The Antinoopolis papyri. London. Grant, R. L. (1960) “Antyllus and his medical works.” Bulletin of the History of Medicine 34: 154–74. Haberling, H. (1935) “Der Hygieniker und Sportarzt Antyllos.” Klinische Wochenschrift 14: 1615–19. Hirschberg, J. (1906) “Die Staroperation nach Antyllos.” Centralblatt fu¨r Augenheilkunde 30: 97–100. ¨ ber Lewy, A. and Landsberg, M. (1847) “U die Bedeutung des Antyllus, Philagrius und Posidonius in der Geschichte der Heilkunde.” Henschels Janus 2: 298–329; 744–58. Nicolaides, P. (1799) Antylli veteris chirurgi ta leipsana. Halle. Nutton, V. (1996) “Antyllos.” New Pauly 1: 817f. Sezgin, F. (1996) Geschichte des arabischen Schrifttums 3: 63–4. Leiden. Ullmann, M. (1970) Medizin im Islam: 78. Cologne. Wellman, M. (1895) Die pneumatische Schule bis auf Archigenes: 109–15. Berlin.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print page 506. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah21029

1

Anu CHRISTIAN W. HESS

The god An, “heaven” in SUMERIAN, was the Mesopotamian sky god; the AKKADIAN form of his name was Anu. He was king of the Anunnaku gods (see ANUNNAKI AND IGIGI) and, along with ENLIL, he was head of the pantheon in the third and early second millennia BCE. In Sumerian mythology, Anu was born from the primordial water Namma, while in the later Akkadian creation epic ENUMA ELISH he was born from Anshar and Kishar, the totality of heaven and earth. Anu’s spouse was usually Earth, or Tilth; later, a deity named Antu, the feminine form of his name, was his spouse. Anu is variously described as the father of Enlil, Enki (see EA (ENKI)), ADAD (HADDU), or the demoness LAMASHTU, sometimes also of INANNA (ISHTAR). Anu resided in the highest heavens, assigned to him by lot according to the story of ATRAHASIS, the myth of the deluge (Horowitz 1998: 244; Foster 2005: 229). As head of the divine assembly, Anu established kingship, according to a hymn (Ro¨mer 1965: 14–17). This role is reflected in early Sumerian personal names (Bauer 1998: 515) and in the legend of ETANA, where the symbolic regalia of kingship “were set before Anu in heaven” (Foster 2005: 535).

Anu is seldom attested in personal names, offerings, or hymns, indicating that his role in religious practice was minor. The center for the worship of Anu was URUK. However, Anu usually shared temples and offerings with other deities, such as Inanna (Ishtar) in Uruk and NIPPUR, or Adad in ASHUR (Richter 2004: 127; 297). From the second millennium onward, Anu increasingly occurs only as a generic member of the divine triad Anu, Enlil, and Ea. His brief resurgence to the head of the pantheon during the Achaemenid and Hellenistic periods was confined to the city of Uruk (Beaulieu 1992). REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Bauer, J. (1998) “Der vorsargonische Abschnitt der mesopotamischen Geschichte.” In P. Attinger and M. Wa¨fler, eds., Mesopotamien: Spa¨turuk-Zeit und Fru¨hdynastische Zeit: 429–585. Freiburg. Beaulieu, P.-A. (1992) “Antiquarian theology in Seleucid Uruk.” Acta Sumerologica Journal 14: 47–75. Foster, B. R. (2005) Before the muses: an anthology of Akkadian literature. Bethesda, MD. Horowitz, W. (1998) Mesopotamian cosmic geography. Winona Lake, IN. Richter, T. (2004). Untersuchungen zu den lokalen Panthea Su¨d- und Mittelbabyloniens in altbabylonischer Zeit, 2nd ed. Mu¨nster. Ro¨mer, W. H. P. (1965) Sumerische Ko¨nigshymnen der Isin-Zeit. Leiden.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 506–507. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah24018

1

Anubis TERENCE DUQUESNE

OVERVIEW Anubis is one of the most important and complex deities of the Egyptian pantheon. His jackal’s face is seen on monuments from the Old Kingdom until Roman times and even later. The earliest focus of his worship was the seventeenth province of Middle Egypt. The most familiar role of Anubis is as lord of embalming and divine supervisor of burial rites. From the New Kingdom onward, the god protected the soft tissues of the body which were removed during mummification. Another of his important functions was to examine the deceased at a tribunal and to usher the justified person to the Court of Osiris, lord of the dead. His function as guide of souls in the netherworld becomes increasingly prominent during the Hellenistic and Roman periods.

ORIGIN While jackal-like creatures do appear in Protodynastic art, they are not necessarily associated with Anubis, and in some cases are evidently representations of the other important canine god, WEPWAWET. During the Old Kingdom, we have two main types of source for the entity who is presumed to be Anubis, though his name is not spelled out fully until the 6th Dynasty. The first is inscriptional material from tombs, which more often than not includes a formulaic text known as the offering-formula: this is frequently addressed to Anubis and underlines the importance of the god for ensuring a safe transition to the beyond. The other principal source is the corpus of Pyramid Texts, which were incised on the walls of Old Kingdom pyramids and which concern rituals and other techniques whereby the pharaoh could overcome death and surmount obstacles in the other world. NAME

ICONOGRAPHY AND IDENTIFICATION OF THE ANIMAL The iconography of Anubis remains remarkably constant from the earliest representations, which date from the Old Kingdom, through to the Roman Period. The god is represented either as an animal, which is clearly a kind of canid, most often seated, or as an anthropomorphic deity with a canine head. The animal is slender, has an elongated muzzle, large upright ears, and a bushy tail. Precise identification of the Anubis animal is difficult, because this iconography does not conform exactly to any living species of canid. However, the closest resemblance is to the African jackals Canis aureus and Canis mesomelas. The fact that the head and body of Anubis are usually figured as black is symbolic of the god’s chthonic associations: black-colored jackals do sometime occur, but they are extremely rare sorts.

The name Anubis, probably pronounced Anuˆpu or similarly, is of uncertain significance. In common with some other Egyptian names for animals and divinities, it is likely to be onomatopoeic and indicate the peculiar howling sound made by jackals. FAMILY Anubis is most commonly regarded as the son of Osiris, but sometimes he is given as one of the offspring of Re. His mother is usually identified as Isis or the milk-goddess Hesat. CULT The most important cult-centers of Anubis were the sacred city of Abydos and the seventeenth nome (province) of Upper Egypt. The protective deity of the latter seems to have

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 507–509. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah15038

2 been originally Anupet, a little-known female doublet of Anubis. Other sites where Anubis was particularly venerated include Lahun and Asyut, and the part of the Giza pyramid known as Ro-setau. In the city of Asyut (see LYKOPOLIS/ ASYUT), we know that during the Middle Kingdom, processions took place at dusk on New Year’s eve: the cult-image of Anubis was carried by a phalanx of priests from the temple of Wepwawet, in the town itself, to the temple of Anubis, which was probably located in the mountainous region where the necropolis was situated. MYTHOLOGY From passing references in New Kingdom and later texts, it is clear that Anubis had a rich and varied mythology. Ancient Egyptian documents give credence to the myth, recorded much later by the Greek writer Plutarch, that the god OSIRIS was killed and dismembered by his brother SETH, and that the goddess Isis (see ISIS, PHARAONIC EGYPT), with the assistance of Anubis, found the limbs of Osiris scattered over Egypt and reconstituted them. The New Kingdom story of the Two Brothers, which concerns the consequences of a false accusation of attempted seduction, with subsequent conflict between the brothers Anubis and Bata, refers obliquely to the Osiris myth. In the Ptolemaic Jumilhac Papyrus, which no doubt refers to much earlier myths, Anubis is described as using various ingenious methods, including shape-shifting, to repulse the mischief-maker Seth. The same papyrus records how the imyut-emblem of Anubis – a cow’s hide attached to a pole, in which the dead body is placed – enables the bones and soft tissues of the body to be transformed into gold and silver, and to be regenerated into a glorious new form: this magic occurs when the goddess Hesat, Anubis’ mother, squirts her milk on to the imyut. In the Roman Period Demotic Magical Papyrus of

London and Leiden, the goddess Isis-Sakhmet stings her adolescent son Anubis in an initiatory rite. This confirms an important but poorly attested function of Anubis as a liminal, initiatory deity. SURVIVAL In Roman times, Anubis was conflated with the classical god Hermes as Hermanubis, in recognition of the psychopompic functions of both deities. At imperial Roman processions in honor of Isis, a person wearing the jackal mask of Anubis would participate. Greco-Egyptian magical papyri are permeated with references to Anubis, either as a chthonic deity to be invoked for necromantic procedures, or for his assistance in sexual magic. Subsequently, Anubis survived into the Christian tradition as the dog-headed St. Christopher Cynocephalus. In contemporary Western magical practice, the jackal deity is remembered and is being effectively revalorized. REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Altenmu¨ller, B. (1975) “Anubis.” In W. Helck and ¨ gyptologie, vol. 1: E. Otto, eds., Lexikon der A 327–33. Wiesbaden. DuQuesne, T. (1996) Black and gold god: colour symbolism of the god Anubis. London. DuQuesne, T. (2005) The jackal divinities of Egypt I: Dynasties 0–X. London. DuQuesne, T. (2007) Anubis, Upwawet, and other deities: personal worship and official religion in ancient Egypt. Cairo. Grenier, J.-C. (1977) Anubis alexandrin et romain. Leiden. Quirke, S. (1997) “Anubis at Lahun.” In S. Quirke, ed., The temple in ancient Egypt: 24–48. London. Vandier, J. (1966) “L’Anubis femelle et le nome Cynopolite.” In Me´langes offerts a` K. Michalowski: 195–204. Warsaw. Yellin, J. W. (1982) “The role of Anubis in Meroitic religion.” In J. M. Plumley, ed., Nubian studies: 227–31. Warminster.

1

Anunnaki and Igigi PIERRE VILLARD

The Sumerian terms Anunna and Igigi designate two groups of Mesopotamian gods. Their precise meaning and the relationship between them evolved over time. The word Anunna, which becomes Anunnaki in Akkadian, may mean “princely offspring.” In Sumerian texts, Anunna refers to the gods in general, or to the first generation of gods, who are not called by individual names. For example, one text speaks of the fifty Anunna of ERIDU. The sky god An (Akkadian ANU), is sometimes portrayed as the king of the Anunna. The term Igigi, of uncertain meaning, appears in the Old Babylonian period (early second millennium BCE) as another name for the great gods. In the story of ATRAHASIS (eighteenth century BCE), which relates the creation of humanity and the episode of the flood, the Igigi gods are clearly subordinate to the Anunnaki. At the beginning of time, the Anunnaki burdened the Igigi with forced

labor, wherefore the god EA (ENKI) created humanity to free the Igigi from their toil. However, in the epic of creation titled ENUMA ELISH (twelth century BCE), which celebrates the exaltation of MARDUK, the god of BABYLON, the Anunnaki and the Igigi seem to be of equal status. According to the sixth tablet of the epic, Marduk assigned the Anunnaki to Anu, setting three hundred of them in heaven and a like number in the netherworld; in the same tablet, it is said that there are three hundred Igigi of heaven. In later texts, Anunnaki and Igigi are usually used in parallel and refer respectively to the gods of the netherworld and those of heaven. REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Black, J. and Green, A. (1992) Gods, demons and symbols of ancient Mesopotamia. London. Kramer, S. N. and Botte´ro, J. (1989) Lorsque les dieux faisaient l’homme. Paris. Lambert, W. G. and Millard, A. R. (1999) Atra-hası¯s, the Babylonian story of the flood. Winona Lake, IN.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print page 509. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah24019

1

Anunnaki and Igigi PIERRE VILLARD†

Clermont Auvergne University, France

The Sumerian terms Anunna and Igigi (in Akkadian Anunnakkū and Igigū) designate two groups of Mesopotamian gods. Their precise meaning and the relationships between them evolved over the course of time. Anunna may mean “princely offspring.” In Sumerian texts, it refers to the gods in general, or to the first generation of gods, who are not called by individual names. One can thus speak of the fifty Anunna of ERIDU, while AN(U), the sky god, is sometimes presented as the king of the Anunna. Igigi (precise meaning uncertain) is used in the Old Babylonian period, as another collective name for the gods. In the Epic of Atrahasis (seventeenth century BCE), which relates the creation of humanity and the episode of the flood, the Igigū are clearly a group of gods inferior to the Anunnakkū. In primeval times, the Anunnakkū burdened the Igigū with forced labor and humankind was created by the god Enki-Ea to free the Igigū from their chores (see EA (ENKI)). In the Epic of Creation (twelfth

century BCE), which celebrates the exaltation of MARDUK, the god of BABYLON, the two groups of gods seem to be of equal status. In the sixth tablet of the epic, Marduk assigns the Anunnakkū to Anu, then sets three hundred of them in heaven and a like number in the netherworld. In the same tablet, it is said that there are three hundred Igigū of heaven. In more recent texts, Anunnakkū and Igigū are usually used in parallel and refer respectively to gods of the netherworld and of heaven. For example, the topographical list Tintir: Babilu mentions the presence in Babylon of three hundred altars for the Igigū and six hundred for the Anunnakkū. SEE ALSO:

Atrahasis; Enuma Elish; Flood stories, Ancient Near East.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Black, J. and Green, A. (1992) Gods, demons and symbols of ancient Mesopotamia. London. Kramer, S. N. and Bottéro, J. (1989) Lorsque les dieux faisaient l’homme. Paris. Lambert, W. G. and Millard, A. R. (1999) Atra-hasīs, the Babylonian story of the flood. Winona Lake, IN.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History. Edited by Andrew Erskine, David B. Hollander, and Arietta Papaconstantinou. © 2023 John Wiley & Sons Ltd. Published 2023 by John Wiley & Sons Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah24019.pub2

1

Anytos CINZIA BEARZOT

Anytos was an Athenian politician (ca. 450–395), son of Anthemion, from the deme of Euonymon. He belonged to a rich family of tanners; one of his sons is mentioned in XENOPHON (Ap. 30). He was perhaps bouleutes in 413/12 (Ar. Thesm. 809). He was a strategos at PYLOS in 409/8; owing to bad weather he was obliged to return to Athens, where he was tried for treason and reportedly acquitted by bribing the judges (Diod. Sic. 13.64.6). Anytos was part of THERAMENES’ moderate group ([Arist.] Ath. Pol. 34.3); he was banned by the Thirty Tyrants in 404 (Xen. Hell. 2.3.42, 44) and took part in the resistance with Thrasyboulos as strategos (Lys. 13.78, 82). He played an important role in the restoration of the democracy and was champion of the AMNESTY (Isoc. 18.23). He was perhaps strategos in 403/2 (Pl. Men. 90b). Anytos was ALKIBIADES’ erastes (Plut. Alc. 4) and is portrayed as joining SOCRATES in discussion (Pl. Men. 90b). In 399 he was both an exculpatory witness at ANDOCIDES’ trial (Andoc.

1.150) and one of the prosecutors of Socrates, with MELETOS, whom he allegedly bribed (Pl. Ap. 18b, 29c, 30b, 31a; Diod. Sic. 14.37; Isoc. Hyp. 11; Diog. Laert. 2.38). In 396 Anytos seems to have been part of Thrasyboulos’ and Aisimos’ moderate democratic group (Hell. Oxy. 9.2 Chambers). Sent into banishment to HERAKLEIA PONTICA, he was probably stoned for his responsibility in the trial of Socrates (Diog. Laert. 2.43; Them. Or. 20.239c). SEE ALSO: Thirty Tyrants, at Athens; Thrasyboulos, Athenian democrat.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Bertoli, M. (2002) “Anito tra democrazia e teramenismo.” In D. Ambaglio, ed., Syngraphe´. Materiali e appunti per lo studio della storia e della letteratura antica, vol. 3: 87–102. Como. Ostwald, M. (1986) From popular sovereignty to the sovereignty of law: 472–3. Berkeley. Placido Suarez, D. (1984–5) “Anito.” Studia Historica. Historia Antigua 2–3: 7–13. Strauss, B. S. (1986) Athens after the Peloponnesian War: class, faction and policy, 403–386 BC: 89–92, 94–6. London.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 509–510. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah04031

1

Anzu (Imdugud) CHRISTIAN W. HESS

In Mesopotamian mythology, Anzu (Sumerian Anzud, whose name is written Imdugud) was a monstrous eagle or lion-headed eagle associated with NINGIRSU or NINURTA, god of agriculture and war. Depictions of lion-headed eagles from the third millennium, though anepigraphic, may be identified with Anzu (Braun-Holzinger 1987). Texts describe Anzu’s piercing cry, saw-like beak, wings spanning the sky, and talons large enough to grasp wild bulls as prey. His eyrie is the eagle tree of Enki (see EA (ENKI)) in the distant mountains, hence his association with the sources of the EUPHRATES AND TIGRIS and his role as guardian of the mountain passes. A proposal to associate Anzu with meteoric phenomena is untenable for Sumerian mythology and tenuous for Akkadian (Veldhuis 2004: 219; Zand 2010; Wiggerman 1992: 152). Rather, the combination of lion and eagle symbolizes aggression both on earth and in the heavens. Images of Anzu affixed to temples served an apotropaic function. Anzu features prominently in three compositions. In the Sumerian literary composition Nansˇe and the Birds, he establishes the destinies of various birds (Veldhuis 2004), and in the epic Lugalbanda II he grants superhuman strength and speed to the hero Lugalbanda when the latter is separated from his troops

in the mountains (Black 1998). Anzu’s role began to shift from positive to negative, even demonic, during the period of the UR III DYNASTY (Wiggerman 1992: 185). In an Akkadian myth, after the “wicked Anzu” has stolen the tablet of destinies and gained supremacy over the universe, the war god Ninurta is sent to vanquish him (Foster 2005: 555–80). It has been posited that Anzu was the model for the Persian Simurgh and Arabian Roc (Dalley 1998: 173). SEE ALSO: Literature and poetry, ancient Near East.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Black, J. (1998) Reading Sumerian poetry. Ithaca. Braun-Holzinger, E. A. (1987) “Lo¨wenadler.” Reallexikon der Assyriologie 7/1–2: 94–7. Berlin. Dalley, S. (1998) “The Sassanian period and early Islam, c. AD 224–651.” In S. Dalley, ed., The legacy of Mesopotamia: 163–81. Oxford. Foster, B. R. (2005) Before the muses: an anthology of Akkadian literature. Bethesda, MD. Veldhuis, N. (2004) Religion, literature and scholarship. Leiden. Wiggerman, F. A. M. (1992) Mesopotamian protective spirits: the ritual texts. Groningen. Zand, K. V. (2010) “Zu den Schreibungen des Anzud-Vogels in der Fa¯ra-Zeit.” In D. Shehata, et al., Von Go¨ttern und Menschen: Beitra¨ge zu der Literatur und Geschichte des Alten Orients: 415–42. Leiden.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 510–511. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah24020

1

Aoros PAULINE HANESWORTH

Aoros refers to one who has died prematurely: children, the unmarried, and those who die without bearing and rearing children. Dying without the honor attendant upon marriage and children, aoroi dwell apart from the regular dead either wandering the earth (Tert. De anim. 56) or situated on the margins of the Underworld (Verg. Aen. 6.426–9). Incomplete and displaced, aoroi are restless souls who are called upon as agents by which magic is enacted: “I adjure you, untimely dead soul,” begins a Carthaginian curse (Gager 1992: 60–2). Hence, curse tablets are often placed within graves of aoroi. Aoroi also act independently: Gello, an aoros virgin, kills children, creating other aoroi (Zen. 3.3). This is an explicit illustration of the danger inherent in aoroi: if one fails to comply with the societal norms of marriage

and childbirth, one becomes dangerous to society itself (Johnston 1999: 160–249). SEE ALSO: Charms, spells, Greece and Rome; Curses, Greece and Rome; Lamia; Nekydaimon.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Gager, J. G. (1992) Curse tablets and binding spells from the ancient world. Oxford. Johnston, S. I. (1999) Restless dead: encounters between the living and the dead in Ancient Greece. Berkeley. Nock, A. D. (1950) “Tertullian and the Ahori.” Vigiliae Christianae 4: 129–41. Ogden, D. (1999) “Binding spells: curse tablets and voodoo dolls in the Greek and Roman worlds.” In B. Ankarloo and S. Clark, eds., Witchcraft and magic in Europe: Ancient Greece and Rome: 1–90. Philadelphia. Ogden, D. (2009) Magic, witchcraft, and ghosts in the Greek and Roman worlds. Oxford.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print page 511. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah17041

1

Apadana DAVID STRONACH

The word apadana denoting a tall, squareshaped audience hall, occurs in only four Old Persian texts. Since one of these texts clearly refers to one of the main Achaemenid buildings at SUSA as an apadana “of stone in its columns,” this structure, founded by Darius I ca. 520 BCE, would appear to represent the archetypal apadana. With a central hall distinguished by six rows of six columns and with soaring columned porticoes on three of its four sides, this building’s design owes much to the earlier plans of Palaces S and P at Pasargadae, as well as to the early Ionic dipteral temple, which was typified by continuous stone colonnades that rose to the full height of the building. The only other surviving apadana is the closely similar monument at PERSEPOLIS. Beneath a flat roof supported by thirty-six columns, each a little over 19 m in height, the main hall measured 60.5 m on each side. The largest covered hall of its time, it could have held a standing audience of ten thousand. The date of the building’s foundation is disputed. On various grounds it is thought to have been founded either ca. 515 or ca. 500. Either way, there was a distinct interval between the inception of the Susa and Persepolis apadanas. This,

together with the opportunities presented by a new site, allowed for the construction of a still more extraordinary monument than at Susa. Erected on the western edge of the partly natural rock terrace at Persepolis, the palace stood on its own separate stone plinth, measuring 2.6 m in height. This refinement allowed for the introduction of elegant stone staircases and provided ample space, on the north and east sides of the plinth, for carved, and originally painted, reliefs. Designed and executed at a rare moment of artistic accomplishment in the early fifth century BCE, the reliefs – in their original configuration – show twenty-three delegations from near and distant parts of the Achaemenid empire passing in review before the king and crown prince. SEE ALSO: Achaemenid Dynasty; Ecbatana (Hamadan); Persepolis; Susa.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Root, M. C. (1995) “Art and archaeology of the Achaemenid empire.” In J. M. Sasson, ed., Civilizations of the ancient Near East, vol. 4: 2615–37. New York. Stronach, D. (1985) “The Apadana: a signature of the line of Darius I.” In J.-L. Huot, M. Yon, and Y. Calvet, eds., De l’Indus aux Balkans. Recueil a` la me´moire de Jean Deshayes: 433–45. Paris.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 511–512. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah24021

1

Apagoge EDWARD M. HARRIS

The laws of Athens generally did not allow private individuals to arrest (apagoge) or use physical force against criminals of free status. However, it was permissible to arrest anyone caught enslaving free persons, stealing (kleptai), and “snatching clothes” (lopodytai). The difference between the last two categories was probably between those who took property belonging to others by stealth and those who did so openly. Private individuals had the right to arrest (apagoge) these types of criminals, provided their guilt was manifest (ep’autophoro). This meant that the offender had to be caught with the enslaved person or stolen goods in his possession. If the offender was not caught in these circumstances, one could still bring a private action for theft (dike klopes). The procedure may have been extended to murderers (Antiphon 5, Lysias 13), but not to other categories of offenders such as

seducers of wives and unmarried free women. The person who made the arrest had to take the offender to the Eleven, officials in charge of the prison. If the offender admitted his guilt, the Eleven put him to death. If he denied his guilt, the case was tried in court. If the defendant was convicted, the penalty was the same as if he had confessed initially. The person who brought a charge by this procedure and failed to gain one-fifth of the votes had to pay a fine and lost his right to bring any public action in the future. The person who was accused of homicide and banned from shrines, public sacrifices, and the agora might also be arrested if he violated this ban. SEE ALSO:

Eleven, the (hoi Hendeka); Homicide, Rome; Theft.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Harris, E. M. (2006). Democracy and the Rule of Law in classical Athens: 291–3, 373–90, 405–22. Cambridge.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print page 512. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah13020

1

Apame, wife of Magas MONICA D’AGOSTINI

Apame, sometimes known as Apame II, was a Seleucid princess, daughter of ANTIOCHOS I SOTER and Stratonike (Justin mistakenly calls her Arsinoe; 26.3). She married MAGAS OF CYRENE before 274 BCE: Magas was the half-brother of the king of Egypt, PTOLEMY II PHILADELPHOS, and had been appointed as the governor of Cyrene. After the death of their father, PTOLEMY I SOTER, Magas rebelled against his brother and claimed the title of king of Cyrene. By wedding Apame he acquired an alliance with Antiochos I, likely with the aim of weakening his halfbrother’s Egyptian kingship: after the marriage he indeed encouraged his father-in-law Antiochos I to wage war against Ptolemy II (Paus. 1.7.1–3). Apame and Magas had a daughter, BERENIKE II, who was betrothed around 261 to Ptolemy II’s son and ultimate successor PTOLEMY III EUERGETES. Upon Magas’ death in 258, Apame reached out for new allies to preserve the independence of Cyrene from Egypt: she betrothed her daughter Berenike to the Antigonid Demetrios the Fair, son of DEMETRIOS I POLIORKETES and brother of ANTIGONOS II GONATAS, the king of Macedonia. Demetrios married Berenike and governed Cyrene together with

his mother-in-law Apame. However, in 247/6 the army rebelled against Apame and the Macedonian ruler because of an alleged affair between the two. The army killed Demetrios and would have killed Apame herself, if Berenike had not asked the soldiers to spare her mother (Justin 26.3). Consequently, in 246 BCE Berenike married Ptolemy III and reunited her kingdom with Egypt (Justin 26.3.1–8). Apame’s fate after the end of the kingdom of Cyrene is unknown. BCE

SEE ALSO:

Syrian wars.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Grainger, J. D. (2010) The Syrian wars. Leiden. Laronde, A. (1987) Cyrène et la Libye hellénistique: Libykai historiai de l’époque républicaine au principat d’Auguste. Paris. Luni, M., Asolati, M., and Venturini, F., eds. (2006–14) Cirene: Atene d’Africa, vols. 1–8 (Monografie di Archeologia Libica 28–35). Rome. Macurdy, G. H. (1932) Hellenistic queens: a study of woman-power in Macedonia, Seleucid Syria, and Ptolemaic Egypt. Baltimore. McAuley, A. (2016) “Princess and tigress: Apama of Kyrene.” In A. Coşkun and A. McAuley, eds., Seleukid royal women: creation, representation, and distortion of Hellenistic queenship in the Seleukid empire: 175–89. Stuttgart.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, and Andrew Erskine. © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Published 2017 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah30434

1

Apame, wife of Seleukos I ¨ FER CHRISTOPH SCHA

Apame/Apama was a daughter of the Bactrian leader Spitamenes (Arr. Anab. 7.4.6). Strabo, who regarded her as daughter of the Persian Artabazos (Strabo 12.8.15), probably confused her with PTOLEMY I SOTER’s wife of the same name, who was in fact descended from Artabazos. Livy wrongfully considers her to be a sister of Seleukos (38.13.5). When Alexander the Great celebrated weddings at Susa in 324, he gave Apame to Seleukos (Arr. Anab. 7.4.6; see SELEUKOS I NIKATOR). At the very end of the year 324, she gave birth to her son Antiochos I. What happened to her when Seleukos subsequently married Stratonike, the daughter of DEMETRIOS I POLIORKETES, in 299/8 is still uncertain. Even if Apame was alive at that time, it does not prove the fact that she was banished, since polygamy

was widespread and common as far as the Macedonian upper class was concerned. Moreover, Seleukos subsequently gave his young wife Stratonike to his son by Apame who would succeed him as ANTIOCHOS I SOTER (App. Syr. 59f.). Seleukos I dedicated four city foundations to his wives, one of these to Stratonike, and three to Apame, including Apamea on the Orontes River (see FOUNDATIONS (HELLENISTIC)). SEE ALSO:

Apamea, Syria; Seleucids.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Grainger, J. D. (1997) A Seleukid prosopography and gazetteer. Leiden. Macurdy, G. H. (1932) Hellenistic queens. Baltimore. Seibert, J. (1967) Historische Beitra¨ge zu den dynastischen Verbindungen in hellenistischer Zeit. Wiesbaden.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 512–513. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah09036

1

Apamea, Peace of CLEMENS KOEHN

The peace named after the city of Apamea Kibotos in western Asia Minor, at the sources of the MAEANDER, ended the war between the Seleucid King ANTIOCHOS III MEGAS and Rome in 188 BCE. Preliminary agreements were made by P. Scipio Asiaticus and the envoys of Antiochos immediately after the defeat of the Seleucid army in the battle of MAGNESIA AD SIPYLUM one year earlier (Polyb. 21.17.3–9). The final version was first ratified in Rome in 189, then the following year in Apamea, and finally in Syria (Polyb. 21.24.3, 42.10, 44.1). The full instrumentum pacis is preserved in POLYBIUS (21.43) and LIVY (38.38), with some variances (see Walbank 1979: 156–64). The main clauses imposed on Antiochos were: friendship with Rome; prohibition on waging war against the Greeks; ceding of all territory in Asia Minor west of the Taurus Mountains; extradition of HANNIBAL and some Aitolian leaders; extradition of the king’s elephants and fleet (except for ten undecked ships); restitution of estates to the Roman allies, notably to the Rhodians; paying of reparations both to the Romans and their allies. Compared to other treaties from the period of Roman expansion (cf. the treaty with CARTHAGE in 201, Polyb. 15.18; with NABIS OF SPARTA in 195, Livy 34.35; or with AITOLIA in 192, Polyb. 21.32), the Peace of Apamea is the most detailed instrumentum pacis known to us. It put an end to the Seleucid realm in Asia Minor and made Rome the dominant power in the eastern Mediterranean, even though the Romans did not themselves profit directly from the ceded Seleucid territory, and most of the other clauses, especially the restriction on armaments, seem to have lost validity soon after the death of Antiochos in 187 (Paltiel 1979). The Peace of Apamea was the core of the settlement of Asia Minor made by the Romans

in 189/8. The territories ceded by Antiochos were divided between PERGAMON and RHODES, the former receiving LYKAONIA, PISIDIA, LYDIA, and parts of PHRYGIA and Thrace, the latter LYCIA and CARIA (Polyb. 21.24.5–8, 46.8–11). Much discussion arose about the status of the Greek cities in post-Seleucid Asia Minor, which culminated in the dispute between the Pergamene king EUMENES II and the Rhodian envoys before the Senate in Rome in summer 189 (Polyb. 21.19–23; see RHODES). Eumenes opposed the Rhodians’ wish to declare all Greek cities free on the grounds that, if that were to happen, he would not be able to regain his former realm (for details, see Koehn 2007). According to the final decision executed by the “commission of the ten” (decemviri) in 188, all Greek cities which had been autonomous the day before the battle of Magnesia remained so, but had to pay tribute to Eumenes if they had already been paying to his father ATTALOS I or if they had defected from the Roman coalition during the war (Polyb. 21.46.2–4, Livy 37.56.6). Through the Peace of Apamea the Romans established a new order in the eastern Mediterranean. SEE ALSO: Asia Minor, Hellenistic; Nabis of Sparta; Rhodes; Seleucids; Syria (pre-Roman).

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Dreyer, B. (2007) Die ro¨mische Nobilita¨tsherrschaft und Antiochos III. (205 bis 188 v. Chr.). Hennef. Grainger, J. D. (2002) The Roman war of Antiochos the Great. Leiden. Koehn, C. (2007) “Die Eumenesrede (Polybios XXI 19–21) und die Neuordnung Kleinasiens 189/88 v. Chr.” Hermes 135: 263–85. Paltiel, E. (1979) “The treaty of Apamea and the later Seleucids.” Antichthon 13: 30–41. Walbank, F. W. (1979) A historical commentary on Polybius, vol. 3. Oxford.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 513–514. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah09037

1

Apamea, Syria KEVIN BUTCHER

A city of the Syrian Tetrapolis, founded by SELEUKOS I NIKATOR between 301 and 299 BCE and named after his Persian wife APAME. It had a large territory and acted as a market for an extensive network of villages in the surrounding countryside. Apamea was famed for its oracle of Zeus Belos, whose sanctuary was adjacent to the city’s agora. Among its more famous natives were the Stoic POSEIDONIOS and the Neoplatonist Numenius. From the second century until the fourth century CE, it was the center of an important Neoplatonic school. The city is located in northern Syria, on a plateau on the eastern side of the Ghab plain, through which flows the ORONTES river, and at the southwestern extremity of the limestone highlands known as the Jebel Zawiye. In antiquity the plain was marshy, making Apamea easy to defend. According to Strabo (16.2.10), this location earned it the name Cherronesos (Peninsula). Apamea was founded on the site of an earlier settlement called Pharnake, which was renamed Pella after the battle of ISSOS (333 BCE). Under the SELEUCIDS it was an arsenal and military training center, housing a breeding stock of war horses and ELEPHANTS. Its natural defenses made it attractive to potential rebels, and it became the base of operations under the usurper DIODOTOS TRYPHON (142–138). Although POMPEY demolished the citadel’s fortifications during the Roman annexation of Syria in 64–63, the city was captured and held by the Pompeian rebel Caecilius Bassus for several years in the 40s. The city prospered under the emperors. The Augustan census of 6 CE recorded 125,000 citizens in Apamea and its territory. The city gained some kind of honors from the emperor CLAUDIUS (41–54) and issued coins as Claudia Apamea. During the winter of 115–6, Apamea was among those cities that were

devastated by an earthquake during Trajan’s Parthian war, but rebuilding began in earnest soon afterward. In the Severan period the city became the winter quarters of legio II Parthica, and troops from this legion supported Elagabalus’ rebellion against the emperor Macrinus in 218. In the mid-third century it was taken by the SASANIANS. The city gained a strongly Christian character during the fourth and fifth centuries, and was faithful to Chalcedon in the sixth. By about 400 it was the chief city of the province of Syria Secunda, but it remained the target of Sasanian attacks and was sacked in 573. Like most Seleucid foundations, it has a fortified citadel (the Qalaat al-Mudiq). The city walls, 7 km long, encompass the plateau, and its axial main streets are aligned exactly north–south and east–west. Today the site is dominated by the broad colonnaded cardo, constructed after the earthquake of 115–16 (there is evidence of a monumental phase of the early first century BCE). Its Antonine agora, to the west of the city’s cardo, was comparatively small for such a large city, and the broad cardo and its shops may have compensated. Other remains include the largest theater in Syria (with a cavea 139 m in diameter) and the great tetraconch cathedral. SEE ALSO: Neoplatonists; Syria (pre-Roman); Syria (Roman and Byzantine).

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Balty, J., ed. (1969) Apame´e de Syrie. Bilan de recherches arche´ologiques 1965–1968. Brussels. Balty, J. and Balty, J. C., eds. (1972) Apame´e de Syrie. Bilan de recherches arche´ologiques 1969–1971. Brussels. Balty, J. C. (1977) “Apame´e de Syrie, arche´ologie et histoire I. Des origines a` la Te´trarchie.” ANRW II.8: 103–34. Berlin. Balty, J. C. (1981) Guide d’Apame´e. Brussels. Balty, J. C. (1988) “Apamea in Syria in the second and third centuries AD.” Journal of Roman Studies 78: 91–104.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 514–515. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah18007

2 Balty, J. C. (1994) “Grande colonnade et quartiers nord d’Apame´e a` la fin de l’e´poque helle´nistique.” Comptes Rendus de l’Acade´mie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres: 77–101. Balty, J. C. and van Rengen, W. (1993) Apame´e de Syrie: Quartiers d’hiver de la IIe Le´gion

Parthique. Monuments fune´raires de la ne´cropole militaire. Brussels. Cohen, G. M. (2006) The Hellenistic settlements in Syria, the Red Sea basin, and North Africa. Berkeley.

1

Apartment buildings ANNA LUCILLE BOOZER

Insulae (Latin: “islands”) are multi-story housing complexes that served as lodging or tenement houses for multiple individuals and families. These structures provided economically practical housing in areas with high land values and dense populations. The urbanization of the larger Roman cities caused a great demand for housing within close proximity to the city center, thereby creating the first known widespread use of apartments (cenaculum) by a civilization. Only the wealthy could afford the luxury of private houses, so a majority of middle- and lower-class city dwellers inhabited these structures. This form of housing was common in cities such as ancient Rome and Ostia. The port town of Ostia contains some of the best preserved archaeological remains of insulae in the Roman Empire. Most of these remains date to the second century (ca. 128 CE) and were built during a housing boom under the emperor Hadrian’s reign (Packer 1971; Hermansen 1981). Most insulae were multi-use structures; the floor at ground level was used for tabernae, shops, and businesses, with the upper stories dedicated to living space. Because of inherent safety issues and the inconvenience of extra stairs, the uppermost floors were the least desirable and least expensive. The building’s uppermost floors typically held the smallest living quarters, while the bottom floors housed the largest and most expensive apartments. The top floors also rarely had heating or running water and only sometimes had lavatories, necessitating the use of public latrines, baths, and tabernae by their residents. The lower floors of many insulae had more in common with upper-class homes, since they often had running water or sanitation.

Insulae could be up to six or seven stories high and some early insulae that were built before imperial architectural reforms could reach heights of eight or nine stories. A typical insula of six stories could accommodate over forty people in only 1,100 sq m and the entire structure usually had about six to seven apartments, each consisting of about 300 sq m. Some particularly enormous insulae excavated in Ostia could have housed between two hundred and fifty and three hundred persons each (McKay 1998: 93). Private entrepreneurs typically built insulae at minimal expense – poorly constructing them out of timber, mud brick and concrete – and thus insulae were prone to fire and collapse (Juv. Sat. 11.12–13; 3.223–5). In recognition of these dangers, the emperor Augustus restricted the height of insulae to 70 Roman feet (17.75 m) or about five stories (Strabo 5.3, 7). After the disastrous fire of 64 CE, the emperor Nero again determined that it was necessary to reform building codes for insulae (Tac. Ann. 15.43). Even so, these buildings continued to be notorious for their lack of safety, the pressures of overpopulation, and the inconvenience of traffic conditions in their vicinity. SEE ALSO:

Augustus; Domus; Firefighting; Hadrian; Nero; Ostia.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Boe¨thius, A. (1960) The golden house of Nero. Ann Arbor. Hermansen, G. (1981) Ostia: aspects of Roman city life. Edmonton. McKay, A. G. (1998) Houses, villas, and palaces in the Roman world. Baltimore. Packer, J. E. (1971) The insulae of imperial Ostia. Rome.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 515–516. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah22014

1

Apatouria MARTHA C. TAYLOR

The Apatouria, an important festival celebrated by Ionians, including Athenians, was for Herodotus one of two criteria of Ionian identity (Hdt. 1.147). In Athens the Apatouria was the central element in the ritual calendar of the phratries, the kinship organizations crucial for determining Athenian citizenship. The threeday festival occurred in the autumn in the month Pyanepsion and was celebrated at the separate phratry shrines throughout Attica. There was a feast on the first day, and a sacrifice to Zeus Phratrios and Athena Phratria on the second. On the third day, fathers would introduce their sons for admission to the phratry (and, in effect, to Athenian citizenship). In the normal course of events this occurred during a child’s first few years. Our sources suggest that there were various athletic and intellectual literary competitions over the three days in which the children of the phrateres could demonstrate their merit. Ancient scholarship links the Apatouria to the myth of the ritual combat between the Athenian Melanthos

(the “dark one”) and the Boiotian Xanthos (the “fair one”) for the kingship of Attica, which Melanthos won through a trick (apate) (Hellanikos FGrH 4 F23). Although some modern scholars have therefore seen a connection to the ephebes and to rites of passage involving social inversion, the rituals of the festival have no apparent connection to the narrative of the myth, and most modern scholars now link the Apatouria to “the control, maintenance, and affirmation of kinship and of membership in society at every level” (Lambert 1993: 151). SEE ALSO:

Citizenship; Ephebe, ephebeia;

Phratry. REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Harding, P. (2008) The story of Athens. The fragments of the local chronicles of Attika. London. Hedrick, C. W. (1991) “Phratry Shrines of Attica and Athens.” Hesperia 60: 241–68. Lambert, R. (1993) The phratries of Attica. Ann Arbor. Vidal-Naquet, P. (1986) The black hunter. Baltimore.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print page 516. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah17042

1

Apellai IRIS SAMOTTA

Apellai (only in the plural form) refers to the religious Apellai festival of Apollo (“Apellon” in the Dorian dialect) held every year in the month of Apellaios in DELPHI (Burkert 1975: 9–11) and probably in Lakonia (Luther 2006: 81), or to the Spartan political assembly of the people as exposed in the Great Rhetra of ca. 700 BCE, the constitutional document ascribed to the mythical lawgiver Lycurgus (see LYCURGUS, SPARTAN LEGISLATOR). Considering the sacrifices, it may be assumed that the Apellai in Delphi were held to introduce young men to the body of citizens (CID I 9). The worship of the Pythian Apollo connects the religious festival to the meetings of the Spartan citizen assembly, as does the meaning of apellazein (“to hold/conduct apellai”), which is explained by the Alexandrian scholar Hesychios (Hesych. s.v. apellai, fifth/sixth century CE) with regard to gathering places (sekoi), assemblies of the people (ekklesiai), and voting assemblies (ephairesiai). In his explanation of the Great Rhetra Plutarch also points to the identity of the terms apellazein and ekklesiazein (Plut. Lyc. 6). Although apellai as a term is never used to describe the Spartan people’s assembly by ancient (mainly non-Lakonian) sources (only ekklesia is used, e.g., Thuc. 5.77.1; see De Ste. Croix 1972: 346–7; Luther 2006: 74–9), modern authors use apella (singular

form) instead of ekklesia in reference to the Spartan political body of the people (damos) in Archaic and early Classical times (Welwei 1997: 179). Recent discussions attach the term apellai only to a special yearly voting assembly of the damos as opposed to the regular ekklesia, which was held monthly (Luther 2006: 86). Chaired by the kings and gerontes, and since 550–500 by the eponymous ephor, the Spartan people’s assembly usually voted by acclamation (for an exception, see, e.g., Thuc. 1.87) on proposals put before them by the GEROUSIA: elections, statutes, treaties, and war or peace resolutions. On the other hand, the apellai did not have the right to make proposals and could be dissolved by the chair. SEE ALSO:

Apollo; Ephors; Rhetra; Sparta.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Burkert, W. (1975) “Apellai und Apollon.” Rheinisches Museum 118: 1–21. De Ste. Croix, G. E. M. (1972) The origins of the Peloponnesian War. London. Kelly, D. H. (1981) “Policy-making in the Spartan assembly.” Antichthon 15: 47–61. Luther, A. (2006) “Der Name der Volksversammlung in Sparta.” In A. Luther, M. Meier, and L. Thommen, eds., Das fru¨he Sparta: 73–88. Stuttgart. Welwei, K.-W. (1997) “Apella oder Ekklesia? Zur Bezeichnung der spartanischen Volksversammlung.” Rheinisches Museum 140: 243–9.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 516–517. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah04032

1

Apellai IRIS SAMOTTA

Ruhr-University Bochum, Germany

Apellai (only in the plural form) refers to the religious Apellai festival of APOLLO (“Apellon” in the Dorian dialect) held every year in the month of Apellaios in DELPHI, marking the beginning of the new year with the Apellaia, religious offerings to Apollo (Burkert 1975: 9–11, 16–17; Waldner 2000: 183–4) and probably also in Lakonia (Burkert 1975: 11, 20–1; Luther 2006: 81). Both festivals are most likely to have taken place annually in the autumn. On the other hand, Apellai also refers to the Spartan political citizens’ assembly as indicated in the Great Rhetra of ca. 700 BCE, the constitutional document ascribed to the mythical lawgiver LYCURGUS. Considering the sacrifices, it may be assumed that the Apellai in Delphi were held to introduce young men to the body of citizens (CID I 9). Besides the animal and ceremonial cake sacrifices it involved the offering of the new citizens’ cut hair to Apollo as a rite of passage from pais (child), then ephebos (male adolescent) to full citizen (Burkert 1975: 10, 18–19). The Apellai were part of the phratry’s tripartite initiation ritual: gameia (wedding) – paideia (presentation of the newborn child) – apellaia (coming of age; presentation of the new citizen), thus similar to the Attic Apaturia (Burkert 1975: 10; Waldner 2000: 182–4). The worship of the Pythian Apollo as the principal deity of Dorian northwest-Greek origin both in Delphi and in SPARTA (Burkert 1975: 8–9, 16–17) connects the religious festival to the meetings of the Spartan citizens’ assembly, because one can assume that both civic gatherings intertwine the social importance of the new citizen’s initiation and decisions made by the civic body assembled in the Apellai with the blessing of Apollo (Burkert 1975: 9–11). This is confirmed by the meaning of apellazein (“to hold/conduct apellai”), which is explained by the Alexandrian scholar Hesychios (Hesych. s.v. apellai, fifth/sixth century CE) by reference

to gathering-places (sekoi), assemblies of the people (ekklesiai), and voting assemblies (ephairesiai). In his explanation of the Great Rhetra PLUTARCH also points to the identity of the terms apellazein and ekklesiazein (Plut. Lyc. 6). Although apellai as a term is never used to describe the Spartan people’s assembly by ancient (mainly non-Lakonian) sources (only ekklesia is used, e.g., Thuc. 5.77.1; see De Ste. Croix 1972: 346–7; Luther 2006: 74–9), modern authors use apella (singular form) instead of ekklesia in reference to the Spartan political body of the people (damos) in Archaic and early Classical times (Welwei 1997: 179). Recent discussions attach the term apellai only to a special annual voting assembly of the damos in which the EPHORS were elected, as opposed to the regular ekklesia, which was held monthly (Luther 2006: 83, 86). Chaired by the kings and gerontes, and from 550–500 BCE by the eponymous ephor, the Spartan people’s assembly usually voted by acclamation or voice vote (for an exception, see, e.g., Thuc. 1.87) on proposals put before them by the GEROUSIA: elections, statutes, treaties, and war or peace resolutions. On the other hand, the apellai did not have the right to make proposals and could be dissolved by the chair. SEE ALSO:

Dorian festivals; Dorians; Rhetra.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Burkert, W. (1975) “Apellai und Apollon.” Rheinisches Museum 118: 1–21. De Ste. Croix , G. E. M. (1972) The origins of the Peloponnesian War. London. Kelly, D. H. (1981) “Policy-making in the Spartan assembly.” Antichthon 15: 47–61. Luther, A. (2006) “Der Name der Volksversammlung in Sparta.” In A. Luther, M. Meier, and L. Thommen, eds., Das frühe Sparta: 73–88. Stuttgart. Waldner, K. (2000) Geburt und Hochzeit des Kriegers: Geschlechterdifferenz und Initiation in Mythos und Ritual der griechischen Polis. Berlin. Welwei, K.-W. (1997) “Apella oder Ekklesia? Zur Bezeichnung der spartanischen Volksversammlung.” Rheinisches Museum 140: 243–9.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History. Edited by Andrew Erskine, David B. Hollander, and Arietta Papaconstantinou. © 2021 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Published 2021 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah04032.pub2

1

Apelles, Macedonian EMMA NICHOLSON

Apelles (?–218 BCE) was one of PHILIP V OF MACEadvisors. He held a prominent position within the Macedonian COURT from the beginning of the king’s reign in 221 until his suicide in 218 BCE. He is known for his rivalry with another of Philip’s advisors, the Achaian leader ARATOS OF SIKYON, and most famously for heading the “Apelles Conspiracy” of 219–218 BCE, the existence of which remains disputable (see Errington 1967). The alleged conspiracy began, POLYBIUS claims, as a personal campaign against Aratos, but soon turned against the king himself. It was instigated by a group of Macedonian advisors (Apelles, LEONTIOS, Megaleas, Ptolemaios, and Krinon) who had become disgruntled with the king’s close relationship with the ACHAIAN LEAGUE and its leader. It is supposed to have opened with Apelles’ attempt to subjugate the Achaians by ejecting them from their billets and replacing them with Macedonians, confiscating their booty, and inflicting physical punishment or arrest upon anyone who protested (Polyb. 4.76). Following Aratos’ complaints to Philip this mistreatment was stopped (Polyb. 4.76.9). Further attempts to discredit and intimidate the Achaian leader and undermine Philip’s efforts to aid the Achaian League in the war against AITOLIA included the following according to Polybius: the backing of Aratos’ political rival Eperatos of Pherai for the role of strategos (“general”) of the League (Polyb. 4.82–7; 5.2–7); the sabotage of the siege of Palos (5.4.9–13); a physical assault on Aratos (5.15–16); and the DON’S

provocation of the Macedonian PELTAST and agema units to mutiny (5.25). This alleged intrigue was finally quashed in 218 BCE after letters were produced indicating that the conspirators had encouraged the Aitolians to continue the war, and they were either executed or, in the case of Apelles, committed suicide (5.26–9). The historicity of this plot, however, remains debatable as it is only attested in Polybios’ Histories, which are renowned for their partiality toward the Achaian League and Aratos of Sikyon, and may therefore have interpreted the actions and execution of these Macedonian advisors as connected with something far more sinister and calculated. SEE ALSO:

Antigonids; Army, Hellenistic; Friends of the king; Macedonia.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Errington, R. M. (1967) “Philip V, Aratus and the ‘conspiracy of Apelles’.” Historia 16: 19–36. Haegemans, K. and Kosmetatou, E. (2005) “Aratus and the Achaean background of Polybius.” In G. Schepens and J. Bollansée, eds., The shadow of Polybius: intertextuality as a research tool in Greek historiography: 123–40. Leuven. Herman, G. (1997) “The court society of the Hellenistic age.” In P. Cartledge, P. Garnsey, and E. S. Gruen, eds., Hellenistic constructs: essays in culture, history and historiography: 218–24. Berkeley. Ma, J. (2011) “Court, king, and power in Antigonid Macedonia.” In R. J. Lane Fox, ed., Brill’s companion to ancient Macedonia: studies in the archaeology and history of Macedonia, 650 BC–300 AD: 52– 43. Leiden. Walbank, F. W. (1940) Philip V of Macedon: 44–61. Cambridge. Walbank, F. W. (1957) A historical commentary on Polybius 1: 538–62. Oxford.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, and Andrew Erskine. © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Published 2017 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah30506

1

Apelles, Marcionite theologian DIETER T. ROTH

Apelles, active in the mid second century CE, was a disciple of Marcion (see MARCION AND MARCIONITES), first in Rome, then in Alexandria, and finally back in Rome. Though we know more about Apelles than about any other follower of Marcion, even for him the extant sources provide minimal, and at times conflicting, information (Greschat 2000: 17–134). Important sources include Rhodo (in Eusebius), Tertullian, Hippolytus, Origen, PseudoTertullian, Epiphanius, Ambrose, Philastrius, and Jerome (Harnack 1924: 404*–20*). Tertullian indicates that Apelles broke from Marcion, rejecting his master’s rigorous asceticism and “falling into women” (Praescr. 30.5). Rhodo, however, considers Apelles to have formed a school within the Marcionite movement (Euseb. Hist. eccl. 5.13.1–2), and this latter depiction is almost certainly more accurate (May 2005: 94–7). Apelles continued to use the Marcionite scriptures, and despite Jerome’s claim that Apelles composed his own gospel, utilized Marcion’s gospel text, though possibly with some alterations. Apelles’ own works included the Syllogisms (Syllogismoi), which employed syllogistic exegesis to demonstrate that what Moses wrote concerning God was false, and the Revelations or Manifestations (Phaneroseis) based on the revelations of the prophetess Philoumene. At several significant points Apelles modified Marcion’s teaching. First, Apelles rejected Marcion’s dualism and posited only one ultimate principle, the good God. The creator of the cosmos was not this god, or another god, but rather a “renowned angel” who, apparently due to the sinfulness of his actions, had to repent for his creation of the world (Tert. Praescr. 34.4; De carn. 8.2). Epiphanius

refers to the creator in Apelles’ system as “not good” and his creatures as “not well made” due to his “inferior intelligence” (Adv. Haeres. 44.1.6). Second, despite some ambiguity in the sources, Apelles was more radical than Marcion in generally rejecting the Old Testament as false (Junod 1982). Apelles thus viewed not only the creator, but also the texts that spoke of him, as inferior. Finally, though again there are differing views concerning the details in the sources, Apelles altered Marcion’s DOCETISM. Christ was seen as either taking a body from the substance of the stars as he descended to the earth, or from the four elements once he was on the earth. In either case, however, the body was discarded in Christ’s ascension. It is noteworthy not only that Apelles appeared to take weak points in Marcion’s thought as the starting point for his own views, which may reveal that Apelles possessed a better philosophical education than his teacher (Harnack 1924: 188), but also that there are points of contact with other gnostic theologies in his teachings (May 2005: 101–3). SEE ALSO: Eusebius of Caesarea; Gnosis, gnostics, gnosticism; Tertullian.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Greschat, K. (2000) Apelles und Hermogenes: zwei theologische Lehrer des zweiten Jahrhunderts. Leiden. Harnack, A. von (1924) Marcion: das Evangelium vom fremden Gott: eine Monographie zur Geschichte der Grundlegung der katholischen Kirche, 2nd ed. Leipzig. Junod, E´. (1982) “Les attitudes d’Apelles, disciple de Marcion, a` l’e´gard de l’Ancien Testament.” Augustinianum 22: 113–33. May, G. (2005) “Apelles und die Entwicklung der markionitischen Theologie.” In K. Greschat and M. Meiser, eds., Gerhard May: Markion: Gesammelte Aufsa¨tze: ch. 9. Mainz.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 517–518. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah05014

1

Apennines EDWARD HERRING

Commonly described as the backbone of Italy (see ITALY, NORTHERN and ITALY, SOUTHERN), the Apennines are the range of limestone mountains that run the length of the peninsula, from Liguria in the North, where they meet the ALPS, to Calabria in the South. Modern classifications also include the mountains of northern Sicily in the same system. Italy’s volcanic mountains, however, are not considered to be part of the Apennines. The Apennine chain is not fully continuous throughout its length, and there are a number of offshoots. For example, the Gargano promontory in Northern Puglia is completely disconnected from the rest of the Southern Apennines. The peaks are not high enough to be perennially snow capped, although they extend above the tree-line, and the lower slopes and intramontane valleys can be quite fertile. Many major rivers rise in the Apennines, including the Tiber. The Apennines are commonly divided into three sections, northern, central, and southern. The northern Apennines formed the southern border of Cisalpine Gaul. The central Apennines contain the highest peaks, with Corno Grande, which is home to the only glacier in the Apennines, exceeding 2900 m above sea level. Although the peaks become lower again in the south, they dominate the landscape of Calabria and contribute to its ancient and modern reputation as a safe refuge for bandits; the final stages of SPARTACUS’ slave revolt (the Third Servile War) were fought out against the background of the Calabrian mountains (Plut. Crass. 11). The limestone lends itself to natural springs and significant cave systems, both of which attracted ritual attention in antiquity: see, for example, the Grotta delle Marmitte in Abruzzo, a cave used for cult purposes intermittently between the late Neolithic and the pre-Roman period. The Apennines are not mineralogically rich, but they played various economic roles in

antiquity. Between the mountains are numerous small, fertile valleys that supported agricultural communities. From prehistory well into the medieval period, the slopes have been used in the TRANSHUMANCE of flocks of sheep and goats. Sheep-rearing and cheese-making remain economically important in some of the mountainous regions, while pigs also thrive well in such environments. As a partially forested landscape, the mountains also provided rich opportunities for the HUNTING of game. Although by no means impenetrable, the Apennines did hinder communications in prehistory between the Adriatic cultures along the eastern seaboard and the Tyrrhenian cultures to the west. The mountainous terrain proved effective as a natural defense for some of Rome’s most potent adversaries during the conquest of Italy, notably the SAMNITES. The control of upland passes was probably economically and strategically significant prior to the Roman conquest. Good, low-lying crossing points are comparatively few. As such, they have been crucial nodes for communication from antiquity to the present, as may be evidenced by the rail and motorway networks. At times, such crossing points were strategically important. For example, the Etruscan expansion into the Po plain was funneled through the colony at Marzabotto, near Bologna (Etruscan, Felsina). In the south, many communication routes run through BENEVENTUM, which was the site of major battles in the Pyrrhic War in 275 BCE (Plut. Pyrrh. 35) and the Second Punic War in 214 BCE (Livy 24.14–16) and 212 BCE (Livy 25.13–14) (see PUNIC WARS). SEE ALSO:

Caves, sacred, Greece and Rome; Slavery, Rome.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Barker, G. W. W. (1981) Landscape and society: Prehistoric central Italy. Cambridge. Oakley, S. P. (1995) The hill-forts of the Samnites. London. Walker, D. S. (1967) A geography of Italy. London.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner. © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Published 2016 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah30167

1

Aphaia in Aigina RUNE FREDERIKSEN

Extra-urban sanctuary to the polis of Aigina dedicated to the goddess Aphaia in the island of Aigina in the SARONIC GULF. Aphaia was identical with the Cretan goddess Britomartis (Paus. 2.30.3) and similar to ARTEMIS. The dominating features of the sanctuary today are the Doric temple from the late sixth century BCE and the classical propylaia. The importance of the sanctuary already in prehistoric times is evidenced by finds of Mycenaean figurines and sherds. Structural remains are not attested earlier than the seventh century BCE, when a monumental altar and an early temple were built. The later peripteral temple, an important specimen of the Doric order with six by twelve columns, was erected on the site of early temple structures. The late archaic temple is situated in a temenos surrounded by a peribolos wall, with ritual dining rooms and the priest’s quarters on the outside and next to the monumental entrance (propylon) from the fifth century. An altar in front of the temple was connected to it with a ramp. The temple is built of local limestone and twenty-four of the monolithic columns still stand (some reerected). The cella was divided lengthwise by two rows of columns in two stories, and the roof equipped with tiles of marble and terracotta. Fragments of the acrolithic cult statue are preserved in Athens (NM). The temple shows similarities in proportions and details with, for example, the Athenian Treasury at Delphi, and should be understood as part of the Attic architectural tradition, with influences from Ionic–Cycladic architecture as well. The temple was equipped with sculpted pedimental groups in Parian marble, the west group believed to antedate the east group slightly. Remains of a third group have been found, perhaps a predecessor to the east group, but it never seems to have been installed in the pediment. It may have been exhibited in the area of the altar.

The groups, depicting battles before TROY in the presence of ATHENA, as well as the fragmentary acroteria, were famously excavated by Cockerell and Haller von Hallerstein in 1811 and sold to Crown Prince Ludwig of Bavaria. After having been shipped to Rome to undergo restorations by the Danish sculptor Bertel Thorvaldsen, the statues were sent to Munich, where they remain on display in the Glyptothek (restorations removed in the 1970s). Subsequent investigations by the German mission (Furtwa¨ngler 1901–3 and Ohly 1960s–1970s) brought further fragments to light, which are kept in Aigina and Athens (NM). The smaller-than-life-sized statues, believed to have been executed towards the end of the archaic period, show different stages of stylistic development, from archaic stylization to the severe style of early classical times. The temple itself and the pedimental sculptures were richly painted, and a research project, begun in 1981 and focused on analyses of the statues in Munich, has revitalized the old topic of colors on sculpture and architecture, and introduced new methods of observing and documenting remains of surface decoration (Brinkmann 2004). SEE ALSO: Aigina; Sculpture, Greece and Rome; Temples, Greek.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Bankel, H. (1993) Der spa¨tarchaische Tempel der Aphaia auf Aegina. Berlin and New York. Brinkmann, V. (2004) Die Polychromie der archaischen und fru¨hklassischen Skulptur. Munich. Ohly, D. (1976) Die Aegineten I. Die Ostgiebelgruppe. Munich. Ohly, D. (2001) Die Aegineten II.2. Die Westgiebelgruppe. Munich. Ohly, D. (2001) Die Aegineten II.3. Die Gruppen auf dem Altarplatz. Figu¨rliche Bruchstu¨cke. Akrotere aus der Tempelcella. Die klassizistische Restaurierung der Aegineten. Munich. Pilafidis-Williams, K. (1998) The sanctuary of Aphaia on Aigina in the Bronze Age. Munich.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 518–519. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah02021

1

Aphrahat CHRISTINE SHEPARDSON

Aphrahat (fl. 337–345 CE), “the Persian Sage,” provides an invaluable witness to fourth century Christianity outside the Roman Empire. In 337 Aphrahat, an ascetic Syriac-speaking Christian in Persian Mesopotamia, wrote ten Demonstrations about various aspects of Christian life (e.g., faith, charity, fasting, prayer). In 344 he wrote twelve more Demonstrations that largely argue for Christianity’s superiority over Judaism in the face of antiChristian persecution under the Sasanian Persian emperor Shapur II. These texts acrostically begin with the twenty-two letters of the Syriac alphabet. In his final, twenty-third Demonstration from 345, Aphrahat reiterated the Gentiles’ replacement of the Jews. Although some scholars question the authenticity of later claims that Aphrahat was a bishop or an abbot at Mar Mattai (near Mosul, Iraq), Demonstration 14 reveals the authority with which he addressed regional Christian leaders at the Persian capital, Seleukeia-Ktesiphon. Aphrahat’s twenty-three Demonstrations provide an indispensable window onto a passionate Syriac Persian Christian leader and his community. Aphrahat’s Syriac language and scripture connect him in some ways with Roman Syriac Christianity and Mesopotamian Judaism (see SYRIAC LITERATURE; BIBLE, SYRIAC TRANSLATIONS OF). Within early Christianity yet outside the Roman Empire, his texts echo developments in Roman Christian writings by praising asceticism and criticizing contemporary Judaism, yet differ in containing no reference to the arguments surrounding the Council of Nicaea that shaped many contemporary Roman theological discussions (see NICAEA, COUNCIL OF). Aphrahat mentions Diocletian’s persecutions in the Roman Empire (Dem. 21.23) as well as ongoing Persian persecutions under Shapur II (e.g., Dem. 23.69). He is thus an important witness to a Christianity that had contact with its Roman neighbors, yet did not benefit

from the patronage of the Roman emperor Constantine, and in fact suffered from persecution under a Persian leader who seems to have interpreted an affiliation with Christianity as treasonous support for his Roman rivals. Shapur’s persecution aggravated unique tensions between Judaism and Christianity in the region that are clearly reflected in Aphrahat’s writings. Fourth century Syriac Christianity in both the Roman and Persian empires remained complexly engaged with local Jewish communities, as seen, for example, in the Didascalia (see DIDASCALIA APOSTOLORUM) and in the writings of Aphrahat and EPHREM. Mesopotamian Judaism and Syriac Christianity shared some exegetical traditions, and fourth century Christian leaders chastised their congregants for participating in Jewish festivals. Aphrahat faced the additional challenge that Judaism was not subject to the Persian anti-Christian persecution, and his Demonstrations suggest that some Persian Christians began identifying with Judaism rather than Christianity to escape imperial persecution while maintaining their relation to the God of Israel. Scholars note that this challenging context led Aphrahat to use anti-Jewish rhetoric and claims of Christian superiority, but with less sharp polemic than that of Ephrem’s or earlier ADVERSUS IUDAEOS traditions (see ANTISEMITISM, ANTI-JUDAISM). Aphrahat’s Demonstrations also play a significant role in academic discussions of asceticism in early Syriac Christianity, a tradition with a strong focus on CELIBACY and a rich ascetic vocabulary, including “single ones” (ihidaye¯), “sons/daughters of the covenant” (bnay/bna¯t qya¯ma¯), “virgins” (btule¯), and “holy ones” (qaddishe¯). Some Syriac texts value celibacy so highly that scholars have wondered if early Syriac Christianity even once required a vow of celibacy before baptism. Aphrahat’s intricate ascetic rhetoric is both strongly grounded in scripture and shaped by regional traditions and contemporary conversations (see Koltun-Fromm 2010). His texts idealize a spiritually elite, celibate core, the bnay qya¯ma¯, within his community, while still

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 519–520. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah05015

2 allowing marriage for the majority. While few details are known about Aphrahat’s education, family, or religious upbringing, his Demonstrations reveal an influential Christian leader who was intimately familiar with Christian scripture, valued an asceticized Christianity, and encouraged his Christian community in the face of government persecution. REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Bruns, P. (1990) Das Christusbild Aphrahats des Persischen Weisen. Bonn. Jarkins, S. S. (2008) Aphrahat the Persian sage and the temple of God: a study of early Syriac theological anthropology. Piscataway, NJ. Kofsky, A. and Ruzer, S. (2007) “Logos, Holy Spirit and Messiah: aspects of Aphrahat’s

theology reconsidered.” Orientalia Christiana Periodica 73.2: 347–78. Koltun-Fromm, N. (1994) “Jewish-Christian polemics in fourth century Persian Mesopotamia: a reconstructed conversation.” PhD diss., Stanford University. Koltun-Fromm, N. (2010) Hermeneutics of holiness: ancient Jewish and Christian notions of sexuality and religious community. Oxford. Lehto, A. (2002) “Divine law, asceticism and gender in Aphrahat’s demonstrations, with a complete annotated translation of the text and comprehensive Syriac glossary.” PhD diss., University of Toronto. Neusner, J. (1971) Aphrahat and Judaism: the Christian-Jewish argument in fourth century Iran. Leiden. Pierre, M.-J. (1988) Aphraate, le sage persan: les expose´s. Paris.

1

Aphrodisias (Ninoe) CHRISTOPHER RATTE´

The Carian city of Aphrodisias is one of the richest archaeological sites in Turkey. Aphrodisias lies in the Maeander river basin, about 130 km east of the Aegean Sea. The city first became important in the first century BCE, and continued to flourish throughout the Roman period. A systematic program of archaeological research at Aphrodisias was begun by New York University in 1961. This program has focused on large-scale excavation of the city center, with spectacular results. Wellpreserved marble buildings such as the Temple of Aphrodite and the theater together with other public monuments including honorific inscriptions and portrait statues combine to bring the civic culture of Aphrodisias and the ancient Mediterranean world vividly to life. Two prehistoric settlement mounds mark the earliest habitation of the site. In the Archaic and Classical periods, Aphrodisias was the home of an important rural sanctuary. Its ancient name, Ninoe or possibly Nineuda, is recorded by the Byzantine lexicographer Stephanus of Byzantium. The city was apparently founded as a polis and renamed Aphrodisias in the early second century BCE. It was laid out on a grid plan, which eventually grew to cover an area of 0.8 km2. In the late first century BCE, Aphrodisias came under the protection of the emperor Augustus, and an ambitious program of urban development was launched. Occupying the center of the city were an Ionic temple of Aphrodite, a colonnaded agora, and a theater with a marble stage building and auditorium. Later additions included a Sebasteion or sanctuary of the emperors, and baths dedicated to the emperor Hadrian. The stadium at Aphrodisias, located on the northern edge of the city, has a seating capacity of ca. 30,000 and is the best preserved of all ancient stadia.

Inscriptions from Aphrodisias provide valuable information about the social history of the city and its relations with the larger world. Of great importance are a series of documents carved on the north wall of the stage building of the theater in the early to mid-third century CE. The earliest of these include copies of several letters of Octavian, and of a senatus consultum bestowing special privileges on Aphrodisias, including tax-free status. Most of the other documents are copies of letters of later emperors confirming these privileges. Among inscriptions documenting the achievements of the local e´lite, special interest attaches to the inscribed base of a statue dedicated by Alexander of Aphrodisias, the famous late second century CE Aristotelian commentator, to his father. Aphrodisias is best known for its fine marble sculpture. Sources of high-quality marble lie just 2 km from the city, and by the late Hellenistic period a local tradition of marble sculpture had already taken root. Sculptures signed by Aphrodisian carvers have been found as far away as Rome and the emperor Hadrian’s villa at Tivoli, but local sculptors were also busy at home, and the excavations have revealed hundreds of monuments of great variety and virtuosity, including statues of gods, heroes, emperors, orators, philosophers, and boxers, as well as a broad range of ornamental and figured reliefs. In addition to the ongoing excavations, regional survey around Aphrodisias has shed new light on the relationship between the citysite and its surroundings in all periods. Tumulus tombs sprinkled across the landscape attest the social organization and Anatolian cultural identity of the local populace before the establishment of the Greek city. Symbolic of the growth of the city and its territorial infrastructure was the construction of an aqueduct that brought water to Aphrodisias from sources over 20 km away through tunnels up to 2 km long and 50 m deep, and over bridges up to 30 m high. The transformations of the later Roman and medieval periods

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 520–522. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah14038

2 were enacted through the construction of numerous churches both on the outskirts of Aphrodisias and throughout the surrounding countryside. In the late third century CE, Aphrodisias became the metropolis of the new Roman province of Caria. Inscriptions of the fourth and fifth centuries attest the presence of a vibrant Jewish community, while we know from texts that Aphrodisias was also a center of late pagan philosophy. In ca. 500 CE, however, the temple of Aphrodite was converted into a Christian church, and in the mid-seventh century Aphrodisias was renamed Stauropolis, or “City of the Cross.” Like cities throughout western Asia Minor, Aphrodisias was largely abandoned in the seventh century. It survived as a small cathedral town until the end of the twelfth century, when it was captured by the Seljuk Sultan Kaykhusraw I.

SEE ALSO:

Asia, Roman province of; Caria; Cities, Roman Empire (east); Sculpture, Greece and Rome.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Aphrodisias Final Reports (1993–2009) 4 vols. Mainz. Aphrodisias Papers 1–4 (1990–2008) Journal of Roman Archaeology suppl. ser., nos. 1, 2, 20, 70. Portsmouth, RI. de la Genie`re, J. and Erim, K. T., eds. (1987) Aphrodisias de Carie. Paris. Erim, K. T. (1986) Aphrodisias: City of Venus-Aphrodite. London. Joukowsky, M. S. et al. (1983) Prehistoric Aphrodisias. Providence. Reynolds, J. (1982) Aphrodisias and Rome. London. Roueche´, C. (2004) Aphrodisias in Late Antiquity, rev. electronic ed. available at http://insaph.kcl.ac. uk/ala2004.

1

Aphrodite JENNY WALLENSTEN

Aphrodite was one of the mightiest Olympians, traditionally known as the goddess of love, sex, and beauty. However, recent scholarship underlines her complex character and has revealed that her sphere of influence was less restricted than formerly thought. Besides presiding over every aspect of sexuality, Aphrodite also filled significant functions in the marine, martial, and political spheres of the Greek cities. It is furthermore clear from the ancient evidence that Aphrodite was not mainly a goddess of women and private life. Among her worshipers were men and women, officials of the polis, and private individuals alike. Aphrodite frequently figures in mythology. Sometimes known as the daughter of Zeus and Dione (Hom. Il. 5.370–1), according to a more famous account, Aphrodite was born from the foam that appeared as the genitalia of the sky-god Ouranos, severed with a sickle by Kronos, fell into the sea (Hes. Theog. 190–5). Most myths concerning Aphrodite tell stories of her love-life. Aphrodite is often portrayed as the unfaithful wife of HEPHAISTOS or wife or lover of ARES (Hom. Od. 8.266–369; Pind. Pyth. 4.87–8). Among her mortal lovers, Aphrodite’s favorite by far was the beautiful boy ADONIS (Apollod. 3.14.3–4). AphAdonis’ death in a hunting accident devastated the goddess, and her deep grief was commemorated in cult, through a yearly women-only festival, the Adonia. Her relationship with the Trojan Anchises resulted in a son, AENEAS, who came to play an important part in mythology as an ancestor of the Roman people (Hymn. Hom. Ven.). AphNot her lover, but an important mortal prote´ge´ of Aphrodite was another Trojan, Paris. He accorded her the title of the most beautiful of all the goddesses (the so-called “Judgment of Paris”), and thereby earned her favor for himself and Troy. Other notable characters in Aphrodite’s mythological retinue

are Eros, Himeros (“Desire”), and Peitho (“Persuasion”). Because “love” is a culturally dependent concept, Aphrodite’s denomination “Goddess of Love” has recently been rejected (Pironti 2010). Aphrodite’s main sphere of influence and cult aspect can rather be defined as all that relates to sex and is caused by the erotic impulse, including everything from beautification meant to create sexual attraction to the sexual act itself, from erotic pleasures to erotic madness, and from marriage to prostitution. The existence of “sacred prostitution” in Greece, usually associated with Aphrodite, has now been questioned as a “historiographical myth” (Pirenne-Delforge 2007: 319–22; Budin 2008). It has interestingly been noted that Aphrodite alone among the Olympians has given her proper name to the noun designating her area of intervention, ta aphrodisia (Pirenne-Delforge 2007: 311). Aphrodite was also frequently honored as a marine goddess, protecting travelers by sea. This aspect is visible through the myth of Aphrodite’s birth from the sea, as through the many marine epithets given to the goddess, for example, Euploia (“of the fair voyage,” IMylasa 207), Pontia (“of the deep sea,” IErythrai 213a), and Limeneia (“of the harbor,” Paus. 2.34.11), and through the frequent location of Aphrodite sanctuaries close to the sea or a harbor, as on the island of Kos (Parker 2002). Epigraphic evidence furthermore shows that Aphrodite filled an important function as protectress of magistrates (SEG 9.133; SEG 15.383; IG VII 41), and in both literature and cult she was associated with the world of warfare. The common denominator for the seemingly disparate functions of Aphrodite (sex, war, and politics) has recently been explained through her ability to unite and create concord, or through her role as the deity of mixis (“mingling”). As creator of an impulse towards mixis, Aphrodite mingles bodies in sexual relations as in war, or different elements in

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 522–523. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah17043

2 a political entity (Pirenne-Delforge 1994, 2007; Pironti 2007; however, cf. Parker 2002). Aphrodite’s name has not been identified in the Linear B tablets. A vexed question is thus whether Aphrodite developed as an indigenous deity or reached the Greek cultural sphere from abroad. Modern scholars are divided between three main hypotheses. Many, noting resemblances between Aphrodite and near eastern goddesses such as Inanna (Ishtar) and Astarte, argue that the goddess came to Greece from the near east, during a period of intensive influence and cultural exchange between the two areas (during the so-called Dark Ages, at the latest in the eighth century BCE, when Greek Aphrodite appears in early epic). It is noteworthy that the fifth century BCE historian Herodotus reported that the oldest sanctuary of Aphrodite Ourania was located in Syrian Ascalon (Hdt. Hist. 1.105.2–3). The importance of Cyprus in the worship of Aphrodite is also evident from ancient sources. Another influential theory thus highlights the role of Cyprus for the first appearance of the Greek Aphrodite, proposing either that Phoenician traders brought the goddess from the east, or that a native Cyprian goddess developed into Aphrodite, who subsequently made her way to the Greek mainland. The third main hypothesis presents Aphrodite as an offshoot of an early Indo-European dawn goddess. Of major importance for this argument is Aphrodite’s pedigree: early Greek epic frequently

refers to her as the daughter of a sky-god (Ouranos or Zeus), as was the Indo-European dawn goddess (Cyrino 2010: 18–25). SEE ALSO: Eros/Cupid; Hermes; Phoenicia, Phoenicians; Sex and sexuality, Greece; Venus.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Budin, S. L. (2008) The myth of sacred prostitution in antiquity. Cambridge. Cyrino, M. S. (2010) Aphrodite (gods and heroes of the ancient world). Cambridge. Parker, R. (2002) “The cult of Aphrodite Pandamos and Pontia at Cos.” In F. T. van Straten, et al., eds., Kykeon: studies in honour of H. S. Versnel: 143–60. Leiden. Pirenne-Delforge, V. (1994) L’Aphrodite grecque. Athens. Pirenne-Delforge, V. (2007) “‘Something to do with Aphrodite:’ Ta Aphrodisia and the sacred.” In D. Ogden, ed., A companion to Greek religion: 311–23. Oxford. Pironti, G. (2007) Entre ciel et guerre. Figures d’ Aphrodite en Gre`ce ancienne. Athens. Pironti, G. (2010) “Rethinking Aphrodite as a goddess at work.” In S. Pickup and A. C. Smith, eds., Brill’s companion to Aphrodite: 113–30. Leiden. Wallensten, J. (2009) “Demand and supply? The character of Aphrodite in the light of inscribed votive gifts.” In C. Preˆtre, ed., Le donateur, l’offrande et la de´esse. Syste`mes votifs des sanctuaires de de´esses dans le monde grec: 169–79. Athens.

1

Apion DAVID MCCLISTER

Apion (late first century BCE to mid-first century CE) was a Hellenistic author and grammarian. According to JOSEPHUS, Apion was born somewhere in Upper Egypt, and his theophoric name (derived from Apis, the bull god) seems to confirm his Egyptian origin. His father’s name may have been Poseidonios. Apion spent his formative years in Alexandria under the tutelage of the scholar Didymos Chalkenteros (also called “the Great”) and eventually succeeded Theon (see THEON OF ALEXANDRIA) as the head of the famous Alexandrian school of Homeric criticism, but he was also interested in many other subjects, including magic. His industry earned him the nickname “Mochthos” (“labor”), and he also had the nickname “Pleistonikes” (“winner of many contests”), although there is no evidence of any victories for him in literary competitions. It is possible that this nickname was actually “Pleistoneikes,” which means “contentious,” because Apion had a reputation in the ancient world for vanity, dubious scholarship, and making wild personal claims. At some point Apion obtained Alexandrian citizenship. It would have been unusual for a native Egyptian to receive such an honor, and we do not know how Apion earned it. It may have been for his work in Greek literature, or for his service to the city in 39 CE, when he represented the Alexandrians in a delegation to Rome over the anti-Jewish riots that had erupted in Alexandria in the previous year. Apion taught in Rome during the reign of TIBERIUS, who unflatteringly called him “the world’s drum.” The elder Pliny also heard him at this time. During the reign of Caligula, Apion traveled through Greece as a lecturer on HOMER (hence another of his

epithets, “Homerikos”) and then returned to Alexandria. During the time of Claudius he was back in Rome, again as a teacher. Apion died of complications from a therapeutic circumcision, possibly in Rome. Apion’s works included a treatise on the Latin language; a glossary of Homer, which contained fanciful, unconventional explanations of terms (several fragments of this work appear in later authors); a eulogy on Alexander the Great; a work On Homer as a Magician; comments on the works of Homer and other Greek poets; a discourse on the gourmet Apicius; a work on medicinal minerals; and a history of Egypt (the Aegyptiaca) in five books. The last of these works was known to Tatian, Gellius, and Josephus. It apparently borrowed heavily from MANETHO’s history of Egypt, and Josephus complained that Apion’s history was designed to collect and spread the worst kinds of false rumors about the Jews. Josephus responded to them (and to anti-Jewish slanders by other authors) in his Contra Apionem. Whether Apion wrote other anti-Jewish works is unclear. CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA mentions “a book against the Jews” by Apion, but this may have been the Aegyptiaca. Apion also appears in the Clementine literature (Strom. 31; and especially Homilies 4–6) where he has the fictive role of a foil for arguments that show the superiority of Judaism over paganism. SEE ALSO:

Alexandria (Egypt); Apollonios

Molon. REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Jacoby, F. FGrH 616. Jones, K. (2005) “The figure of Apion in Josephus’ Contra Apionem.” Journal for the Study of Judaism 36: 278–315. van der Horst, P. (2002) “Who was Apion?” In Japheth in the tents of Shem: studies on Jewish Hellenism in antiquity: 207–21. Leuven.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 523–524. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah11015

1

Apion DAVID MCCLISTER

Florida College, USA

Apion (late first century BCE to mid first century CE) was a Hellenistic scholar who was noted specifically as an author, grammarian, and reciter of poetry. His place of birth is unknown, but it is likely that he was a Greek from one of the Hellenistic nomes of Egypt. Josephus says that Apion was an Egyptian, but this is most likely to be understood as polemics on Josephus’ part. His father’s name may have been Poseidonios. Apion spent his formative years in Alexandria under the tutelage of the scholar Didymos Chalkenteros (also called “the Great”) and eventually succeeded Theon as the head of the famous Alexandrian school of Homeric criticism, but he was also interested in many other subjects, including magic. At some point Apion obtained Alexandrian citizenship, most likely for his literary fame. The evidence from antiquity suggests that Apion was a well-known scholar in his day. His industry earned him the nickname “Mochthos” (“labor”), and he also had the nickname “Pleistonikes” (“winner of many contests”), a designation cited by ancient authors and which appears attached to Apion’s name in a graffito on the Memnon Colossus. A first-century Egyptian papyrus copy of an honorific inscription for Apion lists victories in poetic contests in the periodos of ancient games and at Argos, Syracuse, and Naples. In addition, he was honored with statues in various places, including at Rome by the association of worldwide sacred victors. He also lectured in Rome during the reign of TIBERIUS, who unflatteringly called him “the world’s drum” – Apion’s vanity was apparently wellknown. The elder PLINY also heard him at this time. During the reign of Caligula, Apion represented the Alexandrians in a delegation to Rome in 39 CE over the anti-Jewish riots that had erupted in Alexandria in the previous year, and he traveled through Greece as a lecturer on HOMER. He returned to Alexandria but during

the time of Claudius he was back in Rome again as a teacher. Apion died of surgical complications, possibly in Rome. Apion’s works included a treatise on the Latin language; a glossary of Homer, which contained fanciful, unconventional explanations of terms (several fragments of this work appear in later authors); a eulogy on Alexander the Great; a work entitled On Homer as a Magician; comments on the works of Homer and other Greek poets; a discourse on the gourmet Apicius; a work on medicinal minerals; and a history of Egypt (the Aegyptiaca) in five books. The last of these works was known to Tatian, Gellius, and Josephus. It apparently borrowed heavily from MANETHO’S history of Egypt, and Josephus complained that Apion’s history was designed to collect and spread the worst kinds of false rumors about the Jews. Josephus responded to them (and to anti-Jewish slanders by other authors) in his Contra Apionem (although this is not the work’s original title). Whether Apion wrote other anti-Jewish works is unclear. CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA mentions “a book against the Jews” by Apion, but this may have been the Aegyptiaca. Apion also appears in the Clementine literature (Strom. 31; and especially Homil. Clement. 4–6), where he has the fictive role of a foil for arguments that show the superiority of Judaism over paganism. While scholars have tended to take Josephus’ description of Apion at face value, many now view Josephus’ characterizations as motivated by rhetorical and polemical concerns. However, it seems clear that Apion was a scholar of such fame, and yet the source of such outrageous declarations, that Josephus felt obligated to respond to his statements about the Jews. SEE ALSO:

Alexandria (Egypt); Apollonios Molon;

Josephus. REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Benaissa, A. (2014) “5202.” The Oxyrhynchus Papyri, vol. 79: 125–38. London. Damon, C. (2008) “‘The Mind of an Ass and the Impudence of a Dog’: a scholar gone bad.” In

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History. Edited by Andrew Erskine, David B. Hollander, and Arietta Papaconstantinou. © 2021 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Published 2021 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah11015.pub2

2 I. Sluiter and R. M. Rosen, eds., Kakos: Badness and Anti-Value in Classical Antiquity: 335–64. Leiden. Jones, K. (2005) “The figure of Apion in Josephus’ Contra Apionem.” Journal for the Study of Judaism 36: 278–315.

Keyser, P. T. (2015) “Apion of Alexandria (615).” Brill’s New Jacoby. Leiden. van der Horst, P. (2002) “Who was Apion?” In Japheth in the tents of Shem: studies on Jewish Hellenism in antiquity: 207–21. Leuven.

1

Apiones ROBERTA MAZZA

“Apiones” indicates an aristocratic family of Egyptian origin that entered the Constantinopolitan Senate at least from the mid fifth century CE. The denomination derives from one of the two names of heads of the household, Apion and Strategius, which alternate in successive generations. The extensive papyrological records coming from Oxyrhynchos, Herakleopolis, and the Arsinoite nome, combined with many other sources, make the family one of the best case studies of late Antique aristocracy in many respects, from prosopography to economic and social history. In fact, we can follow the careers of the main members of the dynasty from the fifth to the first decades of the seventh century CE. The family tree has been reconstructed with a good degree of clarity, at least for its main branches. However, the heritage of Apion II (consul ordinarius of 539 CE) and the relationship between the Apiones/Strategii attested in the Oxyrhynchite and Herakleopolite nomes and those attested in the Arsinoite (Fayyum) is still much debated. In the Oxyrhynchite nome, the fortune of the Apiones was probably connected with the administration of the imperial large estates (domus divinae, imperial houses) in particular that of the empress Eudoxia, and possibly of other women of the Theodosian Dynasty. This is proved not only by the role of administrator (curator) occupied by Strategius I (mid fifth century), but also by the similarities in the management and administrative structure employed by both the house of the Apiones and the imperial house on their landholdings. Heads of the family simultaneously held key positions at the imperial court, and provincial and municipal offices in Egypt. While attested as members of the city council at Oxyrhynchos and Herakleopolis, Apion I and his son Strategius II reached high positions at the court of Justin I and Justinian. Apion I was

prefect of the East in 518, while the son became count of public finance (comes sacrarum largitionum) and then prefect of Alexandria around 520–4, and later minister of the imperial office (magister officii possibly ad interim) and minister of the public finances (comes sacrarum largitionum of the East, ca. 532–42). The close relationship with the imperial family is confirmed by the important missions Justinian gave to Strategius II. In 532 he presided over a colloquium between Severan miaphysites and Chalcedonian bishops organized by the emperor to promote his pro-Chalcedon policy. As a minister of the public finance, Strategius took part in the construction of the church of Saint Sophia in Constantinople, inaugurated in 537. Around 538–9, he was sent to solve a diplomatic crisis involving Arabian leaders, which risked causing hostilities with the Persian empire. This brilliant career enabled his son Apion II to obtain the ordinary consulship in 539 while still young, as attested by papyri and also by his portrait on a preserved consular diptych. As indicated above, the family tree at the death of the consul ordinarius becomes more confused and is debated; however, we may follow the last known generations of the family through Egyptian papyri and some epistles of Gregory the Great. Apion III married Eusebia, daughter of Rusticiana, member of the ancient Roman senatorial family of the Anicii. Rusticiana moved to Constantinople, where she received letters from Gregory, often mentioning other members of her family. Here we find that Apion III and Eusebia married before 592; in 594 two or more daughters were already born, and finally a son named Strategius (Strategius IV) appears in a letter of 598. Papyri from Oxyrhynchos register only a major change in the official titles of Apion III, the appearance of the dignity of patricius around 604–5. In 618, Persians invaded Egypt and maintained control over the country until 629. The Oxyrhynchos papyri mention Apion III as deceased in 620–1, whereas the Oxyrhynchite house is still attested as an economic and

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 524–526. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah07009

2 administrative unit. After this date we lose track of the family not only in papyri, but also in other sources. SEE ALSO: Administration, Roman Egypt; Aegyptus; Land and landholding, Late Antiquity; Latifundia/large estates; Oxyrhynchos.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Banaji, J. (2001) Agrarian change in Late Antiquity: gold, labour and aristocratic dominance. Oxford.

Gascou, J. (1985) “Les grands domaines, la cite´ et l’E´tat en E´gypte byzantine.” Travaux et Me´moires 9: 4–90. Hardy, E. R. (1931) The large estates of Byzantine Egypt. New York. Mazza, R. (2001) L’Archivio degli Apioni: terra, lavoro e proprieta` senatoria nell’Egitto tardoantico. Bari. Ruffini, G. R. (2008) Social networks in Byzantine Egypt. Cambridge. Sarris, P. (2006) Economy and society in the age of Justinian. Cambridge.

1

Apis PIERRE MEYRAT

Apis was a very ancient Memphite bull god, worshipped from at least as early as the reign of King HOR-AHA of the 1st Dynasty (Simpson 1957). He is mentioned in the Pyramid Texts. His Egyptian name Hp must be linked to the action of running. According to texts and representations, the Apis-bull belonged to the half-wild neg breed (Montet 1954: 47–58). His coat was mainly white, with three black parts: the neck (sometimes including the head), a large spot on the back, and one on the hindquarters. A solar disc is often represented between his rather short and straight horns (Malinine, Posener, and Vercoutter 1968). On a seal imprint of King DEN found in SAQQARA, the Apis is shown as the Lower-Egyptian counterpart of a seated baboon, most probably Hedjwer, representing Upper Egypt; both animals apparently played an important role during royal rejuvenation festivals. First a fertility god related to kingship, Apis later represented the herald, and even later the ba, of the Memphite god PTAH. He also had close ties with the MNEVIS-bull of Heliopolis, herald of the solar god. Both bulls were probably embalmed by the same practitioners and were entitled to receive the same burial as a king. Once dead, Apis was associated with OSIRIS and could function as a psychopomp deity (Vos 1999: 70). The bull is mentioned in a difficult passage of Jeremiah (46:15) concerned with Memphis (Vos 1999: 68; Meyrat 2011b). There was only one Apis-bull at a time: after a bull’s death and burial, priests would start looking for a new-born calf which should bear special marks: according to HERODOTUS, the bull had a white triangle on its forehead, an eagleshaped mark on its back, double-hair on its tail, and a scarab shape under its tongue. In many cases, priests would find a calf bearing the requisite features around Memphis, but sometimes a longer journey was necessary

(Meyrat 2011b). Once found, it would be taken – along with its mother – to Nilopolis, and then to Memphis to be enthroned, and would be kept in a stall near the temple of Ptah. People were sometimes allowed to see the animal, notably to receive oracles. The bull’s lifespan reached an average of about eighteen years, varying throughout time. When he died of a natural death, becoming Osiris-Apis, priests would embalm him with great care, using the method of evisceration. A copy of the Apis embalming ritual is preserved on a second century papyrus in Vienna, the first column of which is in Zagreb (Vos 1993; Quack 1999; Meyrat 2011b). The operations were carried out in the Place of Embalming, within the precinct of the temple of Ptah in Memphis, and would last seventy days, a mourning period during which people would follow a hard diet and dress modestly. Large calcite embalming tables, one of them equipped with a spout, are still in situ. Once the mummy was ready, a funeral procession would bring it to Saqqara. For this last journey, it was placed on a decorated wagon that was probably pulled by soldiers (Vercoutter 1962: 59–64; Meyrat 2011a). A dwarf would perform dances, and two young girls would play the role of Isis and Nephthys. The earliest Apis burial found dates back to the reign of Amenhotep III. The bull was buried in a particular tomb in Saqqara, on the western edge of the necropolis. Other tombs of the same kind followed. During the reign of Ramesses II, a new type of tomb was introduced nearby: a large subterranean catacomb where successive bulls were buried. This common grave, the “Serapeum,” was discovered by Auguste Mariette in November 1851. It consists of the Lesser Vaults (following a south–north axis), in use until the 26th Dynasty, and of the Greater Vaults (following an east–west axis), introduced by Psammetichus I. Until the 26th Dynasty, the bulls were buried in wooden coffins. From Year 23 of Amasis onward, they were buried in huge stone sarcophagi (Charron and Farout 2008).

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 526–527. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah15039

2 When an Apis had just died, the galleries were reopened, allowing people who could afford it to deposit a stela dedicated to the bull (Vercoutter 1962; Malinine, Posener, and Vercoutter 1968). Since the reign of Psammetichus I, an official epitaph was also erected in the galleries, giving details on the bull and important information for chronologies (Devauchelle 1994: 99–108). At the beginning of the Ptolemaic Period, a new god SARAPIS was created, his name based on the syncretic form of Osiris-Apis, in a tentative attempt to unite Greeks and Egyptians in the same cult. However, the bearded Serapis was far too Hellenized for native Egyptians (Vos 1999: 70). Although the Memphite Serapeum was abandoned at the beginning of the Roman Period, the last Apis-bull mentioned in ancient sources was found in 362 CE, during the reign of Julian the Apostate. SEE ALSO: Ahmose II (Amasis); Heliopolis, Ain Shams/Matariya; Memphis, Pharaonic; Prayer, Pharaonic Egypt; Psamtik/Psammetichus I–III.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Charron, A., and Farout, D. (2008) “Le premier sarcophage en pierre du taureau Apis.” Egypte Afrique et Orient 48: 39–50. Devauchelle, D. (1994) “Les ste`les du Se´rape´um de Memphis conserve´es au muse´e du Louvre.” In

E. Bresciani, ed., Acta Demotica: acts of Fifth International Conference for Demotists, Pisa, 4th–8th September 1993, Egitto e Vicino Oriente 17: 95–114. Malinine, M., Posener, G., and Vercoutter, J. (1968) Catalogue des ste`les du Se´rape´um de Memphis, 2 vols. Paris. Meyrat, P. (2011a) “Topography-related problems in the Apis embalming ritual.” In J. F. Quack, ed., ¨ gyptische Rituale der griechisch-ro¨mischen Zeit, A Akten der Ritualtagung Heidelberg 14.–16. Juli 2008, Orientalische Religionen in der Antike (forthcoming). Meyrat, P. (2011b) “The first column of the Apis embalming ritual: Papyrus Zagreb 597–2.” In J. F. ¨ gyptische Rituale der griechischQuack, ed., A ro¨mischen Zeit, Akten der Ritualtagung Heidelberg 14.–16. Juli 2008, Orientalische Religionen in der Antike (forthcoming). Montet, P. (1954) “Les bœufs e´gyptiens.” Keˆmi 13: 43–58. Quack, J. F. (1999) “Beitra¨ge zum Versta¨ndnis des Apisrituals.” Enchoria 24: 43–53. Simpson, W. K. (1957) “A running of the Apis in the Reign of ‘Aha and passages in Manetho and Aelian.” Orientalia 26: 139–142. Vercoutter, J. (1962) Textes biographiques du Se´rape´um de Memphis. Paris. Vos, R. L. (1993) The Apis embalming ritual (P. Vindob. 3873). Leuven. Vos, R. L. (1999) “Apis.” In K. van der Toorn et al., eds., Dictionary of deities and demons in the Bible, 2nd ed.: 68–72. Leiden.

1

Apocalypse of Abraham WITOLD WITAKOWSKI

The book of revelation to Abraham (Knigı¨ otkrovleniya Avrame), son of Terah, son of Nahor, . . ., son of Jared, as the fuller title reads, has been preserved only in the Old Slavonic version. It consists of two parts: 1.

2.

Chapters 1–8. An introductory story of haggadic character with its starting point in Genesis 12:1–4: Abraham becomes aware of the powerlessness of the idols made by Terah, his father, and destroys them; God tells him to leave his father’s house; it is then destroyed by fire and Terah dies in it. Chapters 9–32. The apocalypse: God tells Abraham to prepare an offering, the angel Yaoel (Yaho þ El) appears to guide him (10); on Mount Horeb Abraham makes an offering of halved animals and whole birds (just as in Gen 15:9–10). The visions that Abraham experiences include a fiery Gehenna (15), the divine fire to which he, together with Yaoel, recite a hymn (17), four fiery living creatures, God’s throne (cf. Ezek 1) and chariot (18), the latter reflecting connection with the Merkabah mysticism, the upper heavens with angels and stars (19), Adam’s family (23–4), and the destruction of the Temple of Jerusalem (27). A vision of a “Man” follows, a messianic figure, explained as “the liberation from the heathen” (29), which, although difficult to interpret, does not seem to be a Christian interpolation. Eventually God announces the punishment of the pagans (30).

The Old Slavonic translation of the Apocalypse of Abraham (ca. 900 CE) was made from a lost Greek version, which in its turn depended on a Hebrew or Aramaic original, to which numerous Semitisms testify. There is a

possibility that the Slavonic translation was made directly from a Hebrew Vorlage, and, if so, then probably in the eleventh or twelfth century in Bulgaria (Rubinkiewicz 1983: 682–3). The text soon reached Russia, where all the known manuscripts of the Apocalypse of Abraham (none earlier than the middle of the fourteenth century) have survived. On the basis of the original language Palestine was suggested as the place of origin of the Apocalypse of Abraham. Owing to the mention of the destruction of the Temple, the time of its composition must be after 70 CE, while the terminus ante quem seems to be the end of the second century, if the allusion in the Recognitions of Clement (32–3) is to be accepted as referring to the Apocalypse of Abraham. Various Jewish religious circles have been suggested from which the Apocalypse of Abraham may have emanated (Denis et al. 2000: 209–10), but the question has not been solved. SEE ALSO: Apocalypses, Jewish; Hekhalot/ Merkabah literature.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Denis, A.-M. et al. (2000) “L’Apocalyspe d’Abraham et les e´crits paralle`les.” In A.-M. Denis, Introduction a` la litte´rature religieuse jude´o-helle´nistique, vol. 1: Pseude´pigraphes de l’Ancien Testament: 201–25. Turnhout. Kulik, A., ed. (2004) Retroverting Slavonic pseudepigrapha: towards the original of the Apocalypse of Abraham. Atlanta. Orlov, A. A. (2007) From apocalypticism to Merkabah mysticism: studies in the Slavonic Pseudepigrapha. Leiden. Philonenko-Sayar, B. and Philonenko, M., eds. (1981) “L’Apocalypse d’Abraham.” Semitica 31: 5–117. Rubinkiewicz, R., ed. (1983) “Apocalypse of Abraham (first to second century AD): a new translation and introduction.” In J. H. Charlesworth, ed., The Old Testament pseudepigrapha, vol. 1: Apocalyptic literature and testaments: 681–705. London.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 527–528. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah11017

1

Apocalypse of Zephaniah WITOLD WITAKOWSKI

The Apocalypse of Zephaniah (AZ) is known only from fragments: a short quotation in Clement of Alexandria’s (d. ca. 215 CE) Stromata (5.11.77.2), and two fragments in Coptic: a short one in the Sahidic dialect, and a longer in the Akhmimic. It was composed between the first century BCE and about 175 CE (the approximate date of the Stromata), perhaps before 70 CE (Wintermute 1983: 501), by a Jewish author writing in Greek, probably in Alexandria. Notwithstanding the transmission of the AZ by Christians in monastic circles of Egypt (Coptic version after 400 CE) there are no clear Christian interpolations. Clement’s quotation describes Zephaniah’s vision of the fifth heaven and the angels praising God, which suggests that AZ once contained an account of the journey of the prophet through the seven heavens. The main motif of the Coptic fragments is the judgment awaiting the people after death. Zephaniah, guided by an angel, in his travel through the

other world, sees both the punishment of the wicked and the reward of the righteous. The vision frequently features angels, whose task, in addition to punishing the sinners’ souls, include recording people’s deeds on scrolls. The Great Angel and the Angel Accuser report the good and the evil deeds of the people to God. SEE ALSO: Angels, Christian; Angels, Jewish; Clement of Alexandria; Coptic.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Denis, A.-M. et al. (2000) “L’Apocalypse de Sophonie.” In Introduction a` la litte´rature religieuse jude´o-helle´nistique: pseude´pigraphes de l’Ancien Testament: 793–802. Turnhout. Steindorff, R. F. G. (1899) Die Apokalypse des Elias, eine unbekannte Apokalypse und Bruchstu¨cke der Sophonias-Apokalypse: Koptische Texte, ¨ bersetzung, Glossar. Leipzig. U Wintermute, O. S. (1983) “Apocalypse of Zephaniah (first century BC–first century AD): a new translation and introduction.” In J. H. Charlesworth, ed., The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, vol. 1: Apocalyptic literature and testaments: 497–516. London.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 528–529. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah11019

1

Apocalypses JOHN J. COLLINS

An apocalypse is a genre of revelatory literature, in which mysteries are revealed to a human recipient by an otherworldly figure. The mysteries may concern the course of history or otherworldly realms, but they typically focus on a divine intervention at the end of history or on the judgment of the dead. In Judaism, the genre first appears in the second century BCE, in the books of Enoch and Daniel. Daniel provides a classic example of the historical type of apocalypse. History is divided into periods (four kingdoms, seventy weeks of years) and ends with the resurrection and judgment of the dead. In the Apocalypse of Weeks in 1 Enoch (93:1–10, 91:11–17), history is divided into ten “weeks,” at the end of which the world is written down for destruction. In 4 Ezra, written toward the end of the first century CE, the transition from this world to a new creation is marked by seven days of primeval silence, followed by resurrection of the dead. Angels and demons figure prominently. This kind of apocalypse is indebted to Hebrew prophecy, and provides the model for the New Testament book of Revelation. The first book of Enoch provides the earliest Jewish example of an otherworldly journey, when Enoch is taken up to heaven and given a tour of the universe. This kind of apocalypse became popular in both Judaism (3 Bar, 2 Enoch) and Christianity (the apocalypses of Peter and Paul) in the Common Era. The heavenly tour invariably focuses on the dwelling places of the dead, and usually culminates in a vision of the divine throne. Both of these kinds of apocalypses are also found in Persian tradition. The Bahman Yasht describes a vision of Zoroaster, in which history is represented as (four or seven) branches on a tree, associated with different metals, representing different periods. After this the millennium of Zoroaster will be at an end.

The division of history into millennia is well attested, notably in the Bundahishn, which describes cosmogony and cosmic history. In the beginning were two opposing cosmic entities, Ahura Mazda, who dwelt in light, and Ahriman, who dwelt in darkness. Sovereignty would be shared between them for 9,000 years, but in the end Ahura Mazda would prevail in a final battle. At the end of history, the dead will be raised and the world renewed. The main Persian texts that preserve this apocalyptic view of history are written in Pahlevi, and date from the sixth to eleventh centuries CE. How far they contain older traditions is a matter of debate. Some elements, including the opposition of AHURA MAZDA and AHRIMAN, are found in the Avesta, which dates from pre-Hellenistic times. The Greek author Plutarch gives a short but detailed account of Persian cosmology and eschatology in his treatise on Isis and Osiris, 46–7, and he cites Theopompos (fourth century BCE) as his source. It is quite possible that the Pahlevi texts preserve old traditions, and that Persian apocalypticism provided a model for the Jewish genre. The dualism of light and darkness in the Dead Sea Scrolls strongly suggests Persian influence, and there are striking parallels between the Bahman Yasht and Daniel. The issue is clouded, however, by the uncertainty about the antiquity of the Pahlevi traditions. The heavenly journey kind of apocalypse is also attested in Persian tradition, in the Pahlevi book of Arda Viraf. There is little by way of apocalyptic literature from the ancient Near East. The closest approximation is the Akkadian “Vision of the Netherworld” from the seventh century BCE. The motif of prophecy after the fact can be found in several Akkadian predictive texts (the Dynastic Prophecy, the Uruk text), but these lack the kind of eschatological conclusion found in the Persian and Jewish apocalypses. Otherworldly journeys are attested from early times in Greek tradition. Odysseus

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 529–530. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah01012

2 descends to Hades in Odyssey Book 11. Plato’s Myth of Er, in Book 10 of the Republic, is a full-blown apocalypse. Cicero’s Somnium Scipionis provides a Latin example. The second century humorist Lucian satirized the genre in his Icaromenippus and Nekyomanteia. The historical type of apocalypse is foreign to Greek and Roman literature, except for the Jewish and Christian development of Sibylline Oracles, which typically divide

history into periods and predict eschatological judgment. REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Collins, J. J., ed. (1979) Apocalypse: the morphology of a genre. Chico, CA. Collins, J. J., ed. (1998) The encyclopedia of apocalypticism, vol. 1: The origins of apocalypticism in Judaism and Christianity. New York.

1

Apocalypses, Christian KEITH ELLIOTT

An “apocalypse” means literally an “unveiling,” a “revelation;” in their Christian manifestation apocalyptic writings normally tell of future events (usually catastrophic) and of life in the other world. Apocalyptic writing seems to have flourished in the intertestamental period and was aided by a dualistic view of the world dominated by good versus evil, God against Satan. After the demise of Old Testament prophecy – in effect commentaries on current political, social, and religious affairs and their consequences for the individual and the nation – apocalyptic writing took its place. The main and most obvious difference between the two styles of writing is that apocalyptic books made highly effective use of dramatic imagery and extravagantly poetic language, particularly in their depictions of the future destiny of the world and of individuals’ afterlife. Typically, the tone is doom-laden and eschatological. But fundamentally, as with the prophets, the aim was to inculcate righteous living by promising future rewards for good behavior and to warn what the alternatives would inevitably be. Such literature flourished at times of persecution; the coded language and allusions often concealed threats against enemies – thus apocalyptic needed unveiling. In the New Testament the Revelation by St. John stood on the fringes of the canon for several centuries until it was finally accepted by the church, East and West, although Eastern branches of Christianity have never used its text in the church lectionaries. Revelation’s warnings against Rome and its emperor are camouflaged in symbolism and poetic imagery. Early Christians’ cautiousness in accepting the book into their growing collection of authorized, canonical scripture was doubtless occasioned by its being a different genre from the rest of the books in the New Testament. Nevertheless, apocalyptic passages do occur elsewhere, most notably in the eschatological

discourse of Mark 13 (where the reader is bidden to “understand” the hidden message (Mk 13:14)) and in the parallels in Matthew and Luke. Christians would also have been well aware of Jewish apocalypses, many of which survived only because they were preserved and copied in Christian circles. These include 1 and 2 Enoch, the Apocalypse of Baruch, the Ezra Apocalypse, the Assumption of Moses, the Book of Jubilees, the Ascension of Isaiah, and the Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs. Some of those texts seem to have influenced and been used (and alluded to) by New Testament canonical writings like Hebrews and Jude. Daniel, in the Old Testament, written in the second century BCE to comfort Jews suffering persecution, is the best known Jewish apocalyptic writing in the Old Testament, although precedents for that style of writing are located in the books of Joel, Amos, Zechariah, Isaiah, and Ezekiel. The most influential Christian apocalypses outside the canon are the Apocalypse of Paul (Visio Pauli) and the Apocalypse of Peter.

THE APOCALYPSE OF PAUL Patristic citations of the Apocalypse of Paul are few. Epiphanius (Adv. haeres. 38.2) refers to a Gnostic Ascent of Paul but this is not the same work. There are other ancient works of the same or similar title including the Coptic Apocalypse of Paul found at Nag Hammadi. Origen (Hom. Ps. 36) describes the fate of souls after death and this seems to be drawn from the Apocalypse of Paul (13 ff.): if so, the early date of the original composition is fixed. Prudentius (Cathemerinon 5. 125 ff.) seems to know of the work. Augustine’s Tractate on John (98.8) of the early fifth century refers to the Apocalypse of Paul not being accepted by the church. Sozomen at the end of the fourth century also refers to the work in his Historia Ecclesiastica (7.19). The Gelasian Decree and

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 530–532. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah05016

2 the List of Sixty Books include this apocalypse among the condemned writings. Paul’s description of his being caught up into Paradise (2 Cor 12) was the cue for creating this Apocalypse, which includes his vision of the afterlife. The prefaced introductory chapters explain how and why his vision remained hidden (thus this really does claim to be “apocryphal,” i.e., “hidden”) until the time of the consulate of Theodosius (II) and Cynegius. This introductory matter gives a valuable clue to the date of the composition: the consuls were in office in 388 CE, and it is likely that the author of this Apocalypse launched it around that time as a recently discovered work. The original composition is likely to be earlier. In any case, in his compilation the author has made use of earlier material – the Apocalypse of Peter (for the descriptions of punishments, especially for those guilty of abortions), the Apocalypse of Elias (Elijah), and the Apocalypse of Zephaniah. The theology is orthodox, although the author has ascetic interests. More than any other of the apocryphal apocalypses, this book was responsible for the spread of many of the popular ideas of heaven and hell throughout Christianity and especially in the western church of the Middle Ages. Dante’s Inferno seems to owe its inspiration to some of the vivid descriptions of afterlife found here.

THE APOCALYPSE OF PETER The existence of this apocalypse was known in Antiquity. The Muratorian Fragment and the Stichometry of Nicephorus include it among their “disputed” texts. The catalogue of biblical writings in Codex Claromontanus includes the Shepherd of Hermas, the Acts of Paul, and the Apocalypse of Peter among its canonical writings, but Eusebius (Hist. eccl. 6.14.1, and especially 3.3.2 and 3.25.4), classes it as “spurious” (cf. also Origen, on John 13. 7). Sozomen (Hist. eccl. 7.19) refers to its being used in public worship on Good Friday. (It is not listed in the Gelasian Decree.) Thus it is clear that the book was popular and

widespread in use in the early centuries of Christianity and hovered on the edges of canonical scripture. The Akhmim manuscript (see below) testifies to the popularity of the text up to the eighth or ninth century, when that manuscript was copied. Citations from the ancient apocalypse have been identified in Clement of Alexandria, Methodius, Macarius, and possibly in Theophilos of Antioch: Macarius and Clement name the source. A portion of the Apocalypse of Peter in Greek (comprising about one half of the original length) was discovered at the end of the nineteenth century in AKHMIM in a manuscript that also contains a fragment of the Gospel of Peter and 1 Enoch. The complete work is to be found in an Ethiopic text of PseudoClementine literature published in 1907–10 by S. Gre´baut from which M. R. James identified the Apocalypse of Peter. The general opinion seems to be that the Ethiopic, despite its shortcomings and in some places its obscurities, nevertheless represents the original apocalypse better than the Akhmim fragment. The Sibylline Oracles seem to have been dependent on the text represented by the Ethiopic; the patristic citations also are closer to the Ethiopic than the Greek tradition. The Apocalypse of Paul and the descriptions of hell in the Acts of Thomas (55–7) were probably dependent on the Apocalypse of Peter. The date of the original composition of the apocalypse is early. If it was used by Clement of Alexandria and by the author of the Sibylline Oracles then it must have been in existence before 150 CE. If it made use of 4 Ezra then a terminus a quo seems to be fixed about 100 CE. If the Antichrist figure in this apocalypse is Bar Kokhba, the date of the composition may be around 132–5 CE, at the time of his revolt. In any case, a date in the first half of the second century is generally agreed upon. The provenance of the composition is not known. If indeed the apocalypse refers to the Bar Kokhba revolt, then a Palestinian origin seems likeliest, but, as such a suggestion is not universally accepted, the question of the provenance of this apocalypse must remain

3 open. However, the Apocalypse of Peter is our earliest extant Christian document that describes heaven and hell. Its eclipse in the West may have been due to the greater popularity of the Apocalypse of Paul. THE SIBYLLINE ORACLES The oracles, written in hexameters, are a collection of fifteen books in Greek worked up by Jewish and Christian authors in imitation of the pagan Sibylline texts. Not all these fifteen survive, but those with the strongest Christian elements are books 1, 2, 6, 7, and 8. The motive for the composition is likely to have been to win pagans to Jewish or Christian doctrines. The Christian additions seem to date from the

late second century onwards. Book 2 contains a paraphrase of the Apocalypse of Peter. SEE ALSO:

Apocrypha, Christian; Nag Hammadi

Library. REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Bremmer, J. N. and Czachesz, I., eds. (2003) The Apocalypse of Peter. Leuven. Bremmer, J. N. and Czachesz, I., eds. (2004) The Apocalypse of Paul. Leuven. Collins, J. J. (1983) “Sibylline Oracles.” In J. H. Charlesworth, The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, vol. 1: 317–472. London. Elliott, J. K. (1993) The Apocryphal New Testament. Oxford. Silverstein, J. and Hilhorst, A. (1997) Apocalypse of Paul. Geneva.

1

Apocalypses, Jewish JOHN J. COLLINS

The word “apocalypse” is derived from the Greek apokalypsis, meaning revelation, but it is used as a genre label for revelations relating to eschatology. (The word first appears in the titles of works dating from the late first or early second century CE). The genre first appears in Judaism in the early second century BCE, in the books of 1 Enoch and Daniel (see DANIEL (AND GREEK ADDITIONS TO); ENOCH, BOOKS OF (1, 2, 3 ENOCH)). 1 Enoch is a collection of writings including at least four apocalypses: the Book of the Watchers (chapters 1–36), the Similitudes (chapters 37–71), the Animal Apocalypse (chapters 85–90), and the Apocalypse of Weeks (91:11–17, 93:1–10). The book is preserved in full only in Ethiopic, but Aramaic fragments of all but the Similitudes are found in the DEAD SEA SCROLLS. The Book of the Watchers is the earliest apocalypse, dating to the late third or early second century BCE. It tells the story of the fallen angels (based on Genesis 6), apparently as an explanation for the proliferation of evil in the world. Enoch ascends to heaven to intercede, unsuccessfully, for the Watchers. He is then given a tour of remote places, including the chambers of the dead and the places of judgment. In contrast, the Animal Apocalypse and the Apocalypse of Weeks present overviews of history in the guise of prophecy (vaticinia ex eventu), culminating with genuine prophecies of divine judgment. These apocalypses date from the time of the Maccabean revolt (167–164 BCE). The Book of Daniel consists in part of legendary stories about Jews at the Babylonian and Persian court and in part of revelations supposedly received by Daniel. The revelations constitute the only apocalypse in the Hebrew Bible. Two of them (chapters 7 and 8) take the form of symbolic visions; another (chapter 9) is an interpretation of Jeremiah’s prophecy that Jerusalem would be desolate for seventy years (reinterpreted here as seventy weeks of years, or 490 years).

The final revelation in the book is a review of the history of the Hellenistic period, presented as prophecy, narrated by an angel. This review is accurate down to the death of Antiochos Epiphanes, which is mistakenly said to occur in the land of Israel. We may infer that the book was composed before the actual death of the king at the end of 164. The review of history ends with a prediction of resurrection (12:1–3), the only clear reference to resurrection in the Hebrew Bible. The Similitudes of Enoch are a later composition, probably dating from the first century CE. They are clearly dependent on Daniel, and are largely concerned with a figure called “that Son of Man” (a reference to “one like a son of man” who comes on the clouds of heaven in Dan 7:13). The apocalypses of Enoch (except for the Similitudes) and Daniel are found in multiple copies in the Dead Sea Scrolls, and clearly influenced the worldview of the sect that preserved the scrolls. The sect has often been dubbed “an apocalyptic community,” but it does not appear to have used the genre apocalypse to any great extent. (The Teacher of Righteousness, rather than Daniel or Enoch, was regarded as the mediator of revelation). A few fragmentary Aramaic works may be apocalypses, but since the beginnings and endings are missing it is difficult to be sure. Noteworthy possible apocalypses among the Scrolls include a Vision of the New Jerusalem (1Q32, 2Q24, 4Q554–554a, 4Q555, 5Q15, 11Q18), a vision of four trees representing kingdoms (4Q552–3), and a text that speaks of a figure who will be called Son of God and Son of the Most High, who should most probably be identified as the messiah (4Q246). Another cluster of apocalypses dates from the period after the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 CE. This includes two lengthy apocalypses, 4 Ezra and 2 (Syriac) Baruch, that question the justice of God, but find consolation in visions of a future where Jerusalem will be restored under a messiah (see BARUCH, BOOKS OF (1, 2, 3 BARUCH)). They also look beyond the messianic reign to a new creation, involving

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 532–534. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah11016

2 the resurrection of the dead. These apocalypses are preserved in Latin and Syriac, respectively, but were probably composed in Hebrew in Israel. A quite different apocalypse, 3 Baruch, written in Greek, probably comes from Egypt. Baruch is told to stop worrying about the fate of Jerusalem, and is shown “the mysteries of God” by an angel. These mysteries are found in the heavens. Baruch ascends through five heavens, and sees Paradise and the places of punishment of the wicked. In the fifth heaven, he sees the archangel Michael taking the merits of humanity up to God in a basket. Jerusalem was destroyed because it did not have sufficient merits. This apocalypse was transmitted by Christians, and is clearly Christian in its present form, but the core of the apocalypse is Jewish. Another ascent apocalypse, 2 Enoch, is preserved in Slavonic, but was probably composed in Greek, in Egypt. Enoch ascends through seven heavens, and comes into the presence of God, where he is transformed to become like an angel. He is allowed to return to earth, however, to instruct his children about the mysteries he has seen. The APOCALYPSE OF ABRAHAM is another ascent apocalypse from the period after 70 CE. After the first century CE, the genre apocalypse seems to have died out in Judaism, perhaps because it was thought, in the wake of the Jewish revolts, to generate false hopes. The ascent apocalypses, however, find analogies in later Jewish mysticism, notably in the book of 3 Enoch, or Sefer Hekalot, which tells how Enoch was enthroned in heaven as Metatron, “the little Yahweh.” The historical type of apocalypse appears again in Sefer Zerubbabel, a Hebrew apocalypse from the seventh century CE.

The apocalypses resemble the older visions of the prophets, but are distinguished from them especially by the greater prominence of angels and demons, a deterministic view of history, and especially by the expectation of individual judgment after death. The genre flourished especially in times of crisis, such as the Maccabean revolt and the destruction of Jerusalem. It views this life in the light of the judgment that is to come, and finds consolation in the hope for a hereafter where justice will prevail. REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Collins, J. J., ed. (1979) Apocalypse. The morphology of a genre. Chico, CA. Collins, J. J. (1997) Apocalypticism in the Dead Sea Scrolls. London. Collins, J. J. (1998) The apocalyptic imagination. An introduction to Jewish apocalyptic literature. Grand Rapids, MI. Collins, J. J., ed. (1998) The encyclopedia of apocalypticism, vol. 1. The origins of apocalypticism in Judaism and Christianity. New York. Daschke, D. (2010) City of ruins. Mourning the destruction of Jerusalem through Jewish apocalypse. Leiden. Himmelfarb, M. (1983) Tours of hell. An apocalyptic form in Jewish and Christian literature. Philadelphia. Himmelfarb, M. (1993) Ascent to heaven in Jewish and Christian apocalypses. New York. Orlov, Andrei A. (2005) The Enoch-Metatron tradition. Tu¨bingen. Portier-Young, A. (2010) Apocalypse against empire. Grand Rapids, MI. Rowland, C. (1982) The open heaven. A study of apocalyptic in Judaism and early Christianity. New York.

1

Apocalypticism in Early Christianity ROBERT M. ROYALTY

Apocalypticism is a dualistic religious worldview that encompasses belief in the imminent end of the world (eschatology), accompanied by natural and social disasters, via divine agency. Apocalypticism typically includes the final struggle with the evil force and its agents in the world by God and angels, the resurrection and judgment of all humankind, and a restored world ruled directly by God. It includes a historical dimension in its eschatology and spatial dimension in the interconnectedness, and eventual melding, of the transcendent and earthly realms. As with early Christianity itself, apocalypticism derived from Second Temple Judaism. Apocalypticism has been called “the mother of Christian theology” (Ka¨semann 1969). Earlier scholars attributed apocalypticism to outside Persian influence after the Babylonian Exile rather than Israelite traditions. Hanson reconnected apocalypticism to Hebrew tribal mythologies, monarchical theology, and prophecy (Hanson 1975). He marked the separation of “prophetic eschatology,” in which God worked through humans and politics, from “apocalyptic eschatology,” in which God used other-worldly figures and actions outside the political realm. Stone highlighted the priestly and Wisdom traditions in fourth and third century BCE apocalypses (Stone 1976). There are in fact multiple strands in this complex worldview including ancient mythologies and the dualistic religions of Mesopotamia, Israelite traditions of Yahweh as warrior, the oracles of judgment and the “Day of the Lord” in Amos and other eighth century prophets, and Wisdom traditions. Apocalyptic politics are straightforward: God will overturn the social order and establish a new realm of peace and justice. The current regime is therefore evil (Qumran, John of Patmos) or temporary (Paul, Justin Martyr).

Daniel was written during the political crisis of Antiochos Epiphanes’ incursion into Jerusalem (167–164) (see ANTIOCHOS IV EPIPHANES). In contrast to the active resistance of the Hasmoneans, the apocalyptic response is to await divine intervention (Yarbro Collins 1977). Martyrs in the struggle anticipate resurrection and the final judgment (Dan 11:35, 12:2–3). Early Christianity adopts this eschatology (Mark 13, Rev 6:9–11). Studies of recent millenarian movements, such as the Sioux Ghost Dance or Melanesian Cargo Cults, have associated apocalypticism with crisis situations. Hanson emphasized the exclusion of the “Third Isaiah” community (Is 56–66) from power in the Second Temple. But deprivation might be relative rather than absolute. Yarbro Collins identified the “perceived crisis” of the community that read the Apocalypse of John (Yarbro Collins 1984). Scholars have recently interpreted apocalypticism as a discourse that constructs rather than reflects a social situation (Royalty 1998). Nonetheless, early Christian apocalypticism was consistently at odds with the political powers of its day.

APOCALYPSES AND APOCALYPTICISM Literary apocalypses feature the seer, usually an ancient figure of authority (Daniel, Enoch), and the angel who guides this seer to the heavenly realm or through visions of the future (Collins 1979; see APOCALYPSES, JEWISH). Not all apocalypses are apocalyptic and apocalypticism frequently appears in Jewish and Christian texts that are not apocalypses. The two apocalypses in the Bible (Daniel, Revelation) are both apocalyptic. But the Book of Watchers and Astronomical Book of Enoch, found at Qumran, contain Jewish Wisdom traditions in revealed knowledge from heavenly journeys (Stone 1978; see ENOCH, BOOKS OF (1, 2, 3 ENOCH)). It is often difficult to identify later apocalypses (second–third century CE) as Jewish or Christian. In addition to

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 534–538. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah05017

2 difficulties with these terms, Jewish apocalypses were preserved by Christians. For instance, the Jewish apocalypse 4 Ezra (first century CE) is found in Slavonic, Latin, and Armenian Bibles. Most ancient apocalypses are pseudepigraphical; Revelation is an exception. ORIGINS Qumran and John the Baptist

The Dead Sea Scrolls (first century BCE to first century CE) are a significant source for early Christian apocalypticism (see DEAD SEA SCROLLS, ESSENES, QUMRAN). Josephus’ Essenes (BJ 2.119–61) appear to be the same community. The Community Rule (1QS) expresses rigid dualism and eschatology; the War Scroll (1QM) the expectation of a final battle against the Kittim (Romans) and other Jews led by Michael and the angels; and hymns describe angelic worship (1QH; 4QSSS). Josephus claims to have studied Essene theology and writes that members lived around Israel (Life 1.10–11; BJ 2.124). John the Baptist’s activity and preaching (Mk 1:2–9; Matt 3:7–10; Lk 3:7–9) parallel Qumran: a reform movement in the wilderness; contesting the identity of “Israel,” preaching imminent judgment, and offering a symbolic washing for sins. John’s disciples continued to interact with early Christian communities for the next generation (Acts 18:25, 19:3). But the most famous follower of John was Jesus himself. Jesus and Paul

was an apocalyptic prophet of renewal who challenged the Jerusalem authorities and was executed by the Romans (Sanders 1993; Schweitzer 1998). Studies of Q (the hypothetical source used by Matthew and Luke) that posit an earlier, non-apocalyptic layer of Jesus’ sayings have influenced some scholars to argue for a Cynic Jesus (Crossan 1994). But the Jesus movement originates with the apocalyptic

JESUS

prophet John, and the apocalyptic ekkle¯siai of Paul follow. Layers in Q reveal diversity among Jesus’ earliest followers rather than a non-apocalyptic Jesus. Furthermore, the earliest logia of the Gnostic Gospel of Thomas are apocalyptic (DeConick 2005) (see THOMAS, GOSPEL OF). A key issue in Jesus’ apocalypticism is the “Son of Man” (Aramaic bar ’ena¯sh). Despite generic usage, it was likely the title for an apocalyptic redeemer (Dan 7:13; Mark 13:26; 1 Enoch 37–71). But it remains unclear whether Jesus thought that he was the Son of Man, that his symbolic destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem would force the appearance of the Son of Man, or whether it was only applied by his followers after his death. Some followers of Jesus, including some of the twelve disciples, had been disciples of John. The apocalyptic ideology of John’s movement was the connective tissue for these people who subsequently joined Jesus, expecting the kingdom of God. The renewal movement of Jesus certainly attracted others with a worldview aligned with the dualistic apocalypticism of Essene Judaism. Paul of Tarsos reported an apokalypsis from the resurrected Christ (Gal 1:12). His eschatological timetable begins with Jesus’ resurrection, the “first fruits” (Rom 8:23; 1 Cor 15:20) that unleashed the Spirit, beginning the transformation of the cosmos. Paul anticipated a general resurrection and judgment before or shortly after his own death (1 Thess 4:14; 2 Cor 4:13–14, 5:4), preceded by the appearance of Christ and the archangel from heaven (1 Thess 4:15–17; 1 Cor 15:20–8). Rome kept order until this (Rom 13:1–7). Paul’s theology, ethics, and many problems in his ekkle¯siai were enmeshed in apocalypticism (Beker 1980) (see PAUL AND PAULINE EPISTLES). The Gospels

Mark begins with John’s apocalyptic preaching and ends climactically with the disciples fleeing the empty tomb. Mark 13, the “Synoptic Apocalypse,” lays out a basic eschatological

3 timetable: false prophets and disasters culminating in the destruction of the temple and return of the “Son of Man.” Matthew’s eschatological discourse (Matt 24–5) implies judgment within the Christian community, but also includes rules for community life that emphasize Jesus’ presence rather than imminent return (18:6–20, 28:20). Luke–Acts more significantly modifies the eschatological horizon from the imminent return of Jesus to the church in the world. Acts begins with the apocalyptic gift of God’s spirit at Pentecost (Acts 2:17; Joel 2:28) but emphasizes the continuity of the church’s activity in the world with Jesus’. The Gospel of John has the most radically realized eschatology in the New Testament, emphasizing the present reality of the Spirit in the community.

DEVELOPMENTS IN THE EARLY CHURCH The letters written in Paul’s name grapple with his eschatological dialectic. 2 Thessalonians addresses one problem raised by eschatological expectations, exhorting the readers to continue working despite the imminent end of the world. Actors in the eschatological drama include the “man of lawlessness” (2:3–4) and the “restraining force” (2:4–7), presumably the Roman Empire (Rom 13:1–7). Colossians and Ephesians move towards a realized eschatology that emphasizes what has been revealed and accomplished in Christ rather than his imminent return (see DEUTERO-PAULINE EPISTLES). John of Patmos sent his Apocalypse (Revelation) to seven cities in Asia Minor in about 95 CE. The most famous apocalyptic signposts are in Revelation: the four Horsemen, “666” and the two Beasts, the battle of Armageddon, the New Jerusalem, the Last Judgment, and a complex series of plagues and disasters that lead to the end of times (e.g., the seven trumpets). The elaborate visions of Revelation have been the foundation for two millennia of Christian apocalyptic speculation. John was

completely opposed to the “demonic” Roman Empire and imperial cult; his apocalyptic ideology placed him at odds with other Christian teachers and prophets in Asia (see REVELATION, BOOK OF). Luke–Acts, 1–2 Timothy, and Titus foreshadow Orthodox Christian apocalypticism: creedal formulations that preserve apocalyptic origins but oriented to the church in the present world, with a distant eschatological horizon. 1 John labels opponents “antichrists,” turning apocalyptic rhetoric against other Christians. The Shepherd of Hermas, an apocalypse written in Rome 90–150 CE (see HERMAS/ SHEPHERD OF HERMAS), was one of the most popular early Christian texts that failed to reach canonical status. Christians continued to produce apocryphal apocalyptic literature into the third century (see APOCALYPSES, CHRISTIAN; NAG HAMMADI LIBRARY). Justin Martyr and Irenaeus of Lyons believed in a literal thousand-year reign of saints with Christ (Rev 20:4) (see CHILIASM). Between 157 and 173 CE, Montanus launched “New Prophecy” when he had a vision of the descent of the New Jerusalem (Rev 21:1–2) in Pepouza (Turkey); Tertullian later joined this movement (see MONTANISM). But literal apocalypticism waned as the Orthodox party gained control in the third to fourth century CE. In the Greek East, Revelation’s materialistic description of the “new heaven and new earth” was viewed with suspicion; allegorical interpretations by Clement and Origen eased its acceptance in the canon. In the Latin West, Augustine’s ecclesiological appropriation of the millennial kingdom for the church itself (Civ. Dei 20) forged an eschatological compromise for the Roman church. Challenges to Augustine’s amillennialism mark the origins of medieval apocalypticism (Cohn 1970; McGinn 1998).

SEE ALSO: Afterlife, Judaism and Christianity; Angels, Christian; Angels, Jewish; Rome, resistance to (cultural); Sibylline Oracles; Therapeutae; Wisdom literature, Jewish.

4 REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Beker, J. C. (1980) Paul the apostle: the triumph of God in life and thought. Philadelphia. Cohn, N. (1970) The pursuit of the millennium: revolutionary millenarians and mystical anarchists of the Middle Ages. Oxford. Collins, J. J. (1979) “Apocalypse: the morphology of a genre.” Semeia 14: 1–20. Crossan, J. D. (1994) Jesus: a revolutionary biography. San Francisco. DeConick, A. D. (2005) Recovering the original Gospel of Thomas: a history of the gospel and its growth. London. Hanson, P. D. (1975) The dawn of apocalyptic. Philadelphia. Ka¨semann, E. (1969) “On the topic of primitive Christian apocalyptic.” Journal for Theology and the Church 6: 99–133. McGinn, B. (1998). Visions of the end: apocalyptic traditions in the Middle Ages. New York.

Royalty, R. M. (1998) The streets of heaven: the ideology of wealth in the Apocalypse of John. Macon, GA. Sanders, E. P. (1993) The historical figure of Jesus. London. Schweitzer, A. (1998) The quest of the historical Jesus: a critical study of its progress from Reimarus to Wrede. Baltimore. Stone, M. E. (1976) “Lists of revealed things in apocalyptic literature.” In F. M. Cross, ed., Magnalia Dei: The mighty acts of God. Essays on the Bible and archaeology: 414–52. Garden City, NY. Stone, M. E. (1978) “The book of Enoch and Judaism in the third century BCE.” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 40: 479–92. Yarbro Collins, A. (1977) “The political perspective of the Revelation to John.” Journal of Biblical Literature 96: 241–56. Yarbro Collins, A. (1984) Crisis and catharsis: the power of the Apocalypse. Philadelphia.

1

Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha, Jewish MATTHIAS HENZE

The terms “Apocrypha” and “Pseudepigrapha” have both been used loosely to designate collections of ancient Jewish books that are similar to the biblical books in content, language, and form but have not been unanimously accepted into the biblical canons. Since the lack of a clear definition has led to some confusion, it is important first to define each term and then to discuss the literature it subsumes. The term “Apocrypha” (sing. “Apocryphon”), from Greek apocryphos, meaning “hidden, concealed,” in the technical sense connotes those books or parts of books that are part of the Greek Bible, the SEPTUAGINT, but are not found in the Hebrew Bible. For Roman Catholic and Orthodox Christians, who adopted the Septuagint as their Old Testament, the Apocrypha are part of their scriptures and are sometimes also referred to as “Deuterocanonical.” Jews and Protestant Christians, however, never accepted these writings as biblical. In modern Bible translations they are therefore listed separately and commonly labeled “The Apocrypha.” The complete apocryphal books with their approximate dates are Tobit (third century BCE), Judith (second century BCE), 1 and 2 Maccabees (late second century BCE), Wisdom of Solomon (around the turn of the Christian Era), Ecclesiasticus, also known as Ben Sira (ca. 180 BCE), Baruch (second century BCE), and the Letter of Jeremiah (third to second century BCE). The Apocrypha also include so-called Additions to two other biblical books, Esther and Daniel (both third to second century BCE), as well as an additional psalm, Psalm 151 (fourth to third century BCE). A number of Orthodox churches include even more and lesser known writings in their biblical canons, books that are sometimes listed among the Pseudepigrapha. They are the Prayer of Manasseh (first century BCE),

1 Esdras (second century BCE), 2 Esdras (late first to third century CE), 3 and 4 Maccabees (both around the turn of the Christian Era), 1 Enoch (third century BCE to first century CE), and Jubilees (second century BCE). Finally, several books found among the DEAD SEA SCROLLS are commonly labeled “apocryphal.” The best known are the Genesis Apocryphon and the Apocryphal Psalms. The term “Pseudepigrapha” (sing. “Pseudepigraphon”), from Greek pseudepigraphos, meaning “with false superscription or title,” is even more ambiguous. It is commonly used for Jewish and Christian books written for the most part during the last centuries BCE and the first centuries CE which did not become part of the biblical canon in either religion. However, Jews continued to write books well after the biblical canon had been closed that are now collected under the term “Pseudepigrapha.” A common feature of many of these texts is that they are falsely attributed to an authority of the biblical past (e.g., Adam, Baruch, Enoch, Ezra, or Moses), which earned them their somewhat pejorative designation “Pseudepigrapha.” Subsumed under this term is virtually all of ancient Jewish literature apart from the Bible, the Apocrypha, Josephus, Philo, and early rabbinic literature. In other words, the Pseudepigrapha are not a clearly defined corpus of texts. Indeed, “new” pseudepigraphic books continue to be rediscovered, particularly in the vast manuscript holdings in Eastern European libraries. One of the first collection of pseudepigraphic literature was compiled by Johann Albert Fabricius in 1713, a work of two volumes titled Codex Pseudepigraphus Veteris Testamenti. The twentieth century saw the publication of two important English editions, by Henry J. Charles (1913) and James H. Charlesworth (1983), and both remain authoritative. The Pseudepigrapha include more than fifty books, too numerous to be listed here. Two of them, 1 Enoch and Jubilees, have recently attracted significant scholarly attention, in part because fragments were found among

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 541–543. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah11021

2 the Dead Sea Scrolls. 1 Enoch, a compilation of at least five smaller booklets composed from the third century BCE through the first century CE, is an early Jewish apocalypse. At the center of the book stands the story of angels who came from heaven, married earthly women, produced giant offspring, and thereby introduced evil into the world. Jubilees is often listed among texts labeled “Rewritten Bible,” since it is a retelling of many of the stories in Genesis and the first half of Exodus. Both 1 Enoch and Jubilees are preserved in their entirety in Ge’ez, or Classical Ethiopic, and are part of the Bible of the Ethiopic Church. The Jewish Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha were originally written in Hebrew, Aramaic, or Greek. Of the Hebrew and Aramaic texts, only a few are preserved in their entirety in their original language, apart from a few fragments discovered in the Cairo Geniza and at Qumran. Since the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha were not considered canonical by the rabbinic authorities, they were no longer copied by Jewish scribes and only survive in translations (or in translations of translations) into languages such as Armenian, Ethiopic, Latin, Slavonic, and Syriac. Scholarly work on the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha began in the nineteenth century with the rediscovery of these neglected texts in oriental manuscripts. Their study was originally the domain of Protestant scholars who saw in them the “background” to the New Testament. They have been studied in their own right for only about half a century. One scholarly focus has been their relationship with the biblical books and, specifically, the development of the biblical canons. Another focus has been the history of biblical interpretation in early Judaism, since these

works include a wealth of interpretive motifs and form an important bridge between the late biblical and early patristic and rabbinic periods. A third and more recent focus concerns the fact that virtually all the manuscripts of the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha are of Christian origin. This raises the question how we can determine whether a text was originally Jewish, and, if so, whether it includes Christian glosses. There are some cases of proven Christian interpolations into demonstrably Jewish Pseudepigrapha, for example the Christian gloss in 4 Ezra 7:28 that refers to the Messiah, or the Jewish book known as 4 Baruch, which ends in 9:10–32 with a Christian addition. However, other cases are not so clear. SEE ALSO: Apocalypses, Jewish; Babylonian Exile of the Jews; Enoch, Books of (1, 2, 3 Enoch); Syriac literature.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Charles, H. J. (1913) The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament. Oxford. Charlesworth, J. H. (1983) The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, 2 vols. Garden City, NY. Davila, J. R. (2005) The provenance of the Pseudepigrapha: Jewish, Christian, or other? Leiden. Denis, A.-M. (1970) Introduction aux Pseude´pigraphes grecs d’Ancien Testament. Leiden. Harrington, D. J. (1999) Invitation to the Apocrypha. Grand Rapids, MI. Nickelsburg, G. W. E. (2005) Jewish literature between the Bible and the Mishnah: a historical and literary introduction. Minneapolis. Oegema, G. and Charlesworth, J. H. (2008) The Pseudepigrapha and Christian origins. New York.

1

Apocrypha, Christian KEITH ELLIOTT

The word “apocryphal” in Biblical Studies normally refers to those Old Testament texts that are not found in the Hebrew canon of scripture but which appear in manuscripts of the Septuagint and later in the Latin Vulgate. The word literally means “things hidden,” implying that these writings were deliberately and even maliciously concealed from common view; in fact the writings had a wide distribution and popular appeal. Although many have chosen to disregard these Old Testament books or to view their contents with suspicion when considering their teachings, these intertestamental writings are historically valuable, casting many insights into Jewish events and including several folk legends. But there is also a thriving body of New Testament Apocrypha. The apocryphal New Testament is a body of writings that includes the Infancy Gospel of Thomas, where Jesus behaves like an enfant terrible killing those who vex him, or, to change our language, a Wunderkind confounding his teachers, stretching planks, or causing clay birds to fly (see THOMAS, INFANCY GOSPEL OF). This is the body of literature that has Peter in the Acts of Peter revive a dead tunny fish; that has John rebuke bedbugs that disturb his sleep in the Acts of John; that has a parricide who castrates himself and a protracted story that ends in an attempted necrophiliac rape, both also from the Acts of John; and that has Paul baptize a lion in the Acts of Paul (see PETER, ACTS OF; PAUL, ACTS OF; JOHN, ACTS OF). The image of Christ’s face on Veronica’s sudarium; the scene of the date palm bowing at the infant Jesus’ command during the rest on the flight into Egypt; John and the poisoned chalice; the water trial of Joseph and Mary; the numerous scenes of Mary’s death and assumption – all these popular images and stories come from the Christian apocrypha.

None of those texts has ever been included in collections of Christian scripture, but, as with the Old Testament apocrypha, many were popular and represent the reading matter of the ordinary worshipper. Their contribution to our knowledge of Christian history and doctrine, especially in the early centuries, should not be overlooked. In fact, many orthodox beliefs and practices can be traced back to these writings, as we shall shortly demonstrate. Unlike the Old Testament Apocrypha, the so-called New Testament Apocrypha is not an agreed entity or corpus; it is an amorphous collection of early noncanonical, albeit generally orthodox, writings. Several printed collections of these writings are available: the editors’ choices of what is included and excluded do not agree. Some (Erbetta 1975; Moraldi 1994) are compendious; some (e.g., Schneemelcher 1997) concentrate on the earliest; others again (e.g., Elliott 1993) concentrate on the most influential, including some medieval writings too. The title “New Testament Apocrypha” is not ideal, but it is commonly used and understood to mean (generally) non-Gnostic texts that tell of New Testament characters. Several of these writings seem to be modeled on or correspond to the genres of writing found in the New Testament, for example, Gospels, Acts, Apocalypses, and Epistles (although, surprisingly perhaps, very few New Testament apocrypha are letters), and most are concerned to elaborate events in the lives of Jesus, his parents, and apostles. The extant apocryphal gospels are not fully fledged accounts of Jesus’ ministry like Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John; they concern themselves with filling in perceived gaps in Jesus’ life, particularly his birth or his descent to Hades. The fragmentary Gospel of Peter contains an account only of Jesus’ passion. There are many apocryphal Acts. The most famous and influential (and oldest) are those of Andrew, John, Paul, Peter, and Thomas, which tell of their eponymous heroes’ preaching, miracles, and deaths (usually by

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 538–541. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah05018

2 martyrdom); they are loosely modeled on the canonical Acts of the Apostles. Apocalypses as a genre were extremely influential, especially in the intertestamental period. Several Jewish examples survived (often due to their having been preserved by Christians) but Christian examples are the Apocalypse of Peter and the Apocalypse of Paul (see PETER, APOCALYPSE OF; PAUL, APOCALYPSE OF). Christian writers, biblical and postbiblical, concerned themselves, just as their Jewish predecessors had done, with apocalyptic themes and teaching, especially on heaven and hell. Some apocryphal writings belong outside such conventional categories. Some (although admittedly mainly Gnostic) tell of the risen Jesus speaking to his disciples and revealing heavenly mysteries (e.g., the Questions of Bartholomew or the EPISTULA APOSTOLORUM), and are often dubbed “Dialogues of the Redeemer.” Christian apocryphal texts often shaped theology. That is especially true of teachings about Mary. Her role in the New Testament proper is surprisingly minimal outside the Nativity story. Her family, her upbringing, her death are not related. Such gaps in her biography gave rise to curiosity and the imaginative reconstructions that lie behind many an apocryphal text’s origins. The second century Protevangelium became one of the most popular of all the apocryphal texts (see PROTEVANGELIUM JACOBI). In it Mary’s parents appear and her birth is described. Her presentation in the Temple (which was not only a popular scene in many later paintings but was an incident that influenced those churches which celebrate the Presentation of Mary as one of their Twelve Great Feasts), her childhood as a ward of the temple where she is succored by an angel, and the selection of Joseph as her guardian are all related here. The end of her life is reported in various dormition stories (among which are the Homily of Evodius, the Twentieth Discourse of Cyril of Jerusalem, the Discourse of St. John the Divine concerning the Falling Asleep of the Holy

Mother of God, and the Narrative of PseudoMelito). Here her bodily reception into heaven eventually gave rise to the doctrine of the Assumption, but from the earliest times these stories helped emphasize Mary’s uniqueness. This theme of her uniqueness is also prominent in the emphasis given to her continuing virginity. Other teaching influenced Christian piety and devotion to Mary. Mary as intercessor in Christian tradition may be traced back to the apocrypha. In the Arabic Infancy Gospel in many scenes the Lady Mary’s intercession effects cures and miracles. We are thus well on the road to Mary’s description as Mediatrix of All Graces or Coredemptrix. Another theme where the apocryphal stories have reflected contemporary interests but have also influenced later teaching is CELIBACY, especially in its more extreme ascetic and Encratite forms. Jesus, disguised as Thomas in the Acts of Thomas, in a sermon to a couple of newlyweds, urges them to devote themselves to chastity. In the Acts of Thomas 12 comes a denunciation of begetting children. John gives thanks that he was prevented from marrying (Acts of John 113). Peter (in the Acts of Peter) is praised for allowing his daughter to remain a paralytic rather than be a temptation to men. It is no wonder that Encratite and Apotactite groups found teachings such as these congenial (see ENCRATISM). This asceticism is allied to poverty. In the Acts of Thomas 20 we are presented with Thomas as a model that would influence Christian monasticism thereafter: he “continually fasts and prays and eats only bread with salt, and his drink is water, and he wears one coat . . . and he takes nothing from anyone but gives to others what he has.” Such teaching is paralleled by sermons denouncing wealth, beauty, and possessions (e.g., Acts Pet. 17, 30f.; Acts John 43ff.). Intercession by saints is also a part of Christian tradition, and that too owes much to the apocryphal Acts, where frequently the apostle is prayed to and where he then effects a

3 miracle or healing in his role as the alter ego of Christ. The saint as a representation of the absent Christ is dramatically depicted in many of the apocryphal Acts, for example in the Acts of Thomas 11 or 39 where Judas Thomas, the twin of Christ, and the reappearing Jesus himself are indistinguishable, or the Acts of Andrew 28 where Jesus and Andrew are identical. Particular apostles seem to be associated with particular places. One common theme in the apocryphal Acts is the dividing of the universe into sections to be evangelized by an individual apostle. Thus Thomas is selected by lot to preach in India. Similarly, John is chosen to serve in Ephesos. Another commissioning occurs in the later Acts of Philip. Here we see the origin of the tradition of patron saints, that is, apostles associated with a particular geographical area, and venerated locally as a founding father. Anti-Jewish sentiment may be nascent in the New Testament proper, where it can be seen that the blame for Jesus’ arrest and crucifixion is increasingly pinned on the Jews en bloc, thereby exonerating the Romans, despite the reluctant constitutional role they were obliged to play. But in the apocryphal literature that theme is dominant. In the Gospel of Peter the motive for not proceeding with the plan to expedite Jesus’ crucifixion by breaking his legs is Jewish malevolence – they want his death to be prolonged and painful. The Jews are responsible for the crucifixion in the Gospel of Peter 3 and in the “Descensus” (Gospel of Nicodemus part 2). In the “Letter of Pilate to Claudius,” found, among other places, in the Gospel of Nicodemus, the Jews are reported as plotting the crucifixion “out of envy.” In the story of Mary’s dormition her bier is desecrated, significantly by a Jew, during her funeral procession. Again, we detect that a minor theme in the New Testament becomes distorted and exaggerated in the later noncanonical writings. Doubtless it was literature like this that fuelled medieval antisemitism and justified it.

The Christian interest in the veneration of relics may also be traced to the apocrypha. The efficacy of a saint’s remains as a panacea – a belief which became an important aspect of medieval piety and still has an influence on many Christians’ devotion today – may have originated in the Acts of Thomas, where dust from his tomb is taken away to effect a healing. The Virgin’s girdle is venerated at Prato in the Cappella del sacro cingolo. The story behind this is the Narrative of the Assumption by Joseph of Arimathea where the ascending Mary throws Doubting Thomas her belt. The origin of the written story of Veronica’s kerchief, which captured Christ’s facial image, occurs in the Vindicta Salvatoris and in the Mors Pilati: the kerchief itself is venerated in Rome. The incident is commemorated in the sixth Station of the Cross. Some of our texts are known from only a few manuscripts or even only a single copy, sometimes of quite recent discovery. Although antiquity refers to a Gospel of Peter, it was only in 1886–7 that a portion of this gospel came to light. At the same archaeological dig a section of the Apocalypse of Peter also emerged – the first Greek portion of that apocryphon known to modern scholarship. The Gospel of Thomas – that now famous sayings document – was discovered among the NAG HAMMADI LIBRARY in 1945–6. Early in the twentieth century the finding of a Coptic text of the Acts of Paul helped reunite a text which hitherto was known only in disconnected portions. However, in contrast to these sparse remains, it is remarkable that for several apocryphal texts many manuscripts survive. The Protevangelium Jacobi, for example, is extant in Greek – its original language – in over one hundred manuscripts today. And not only do so many manuscripts exist that may be dated from differing centuries, thus betraying the ongoing appeal of the writings, but translations also survive – in the case of the Protevangelium these are in Syriac, Coptic, Georgian, Armenian, Slavic, and Arabic. Versions of other apocrypha in

4 the ancient Christian languages also exist. This indicates their continuing and widespread popularity. Students of Christianity and its doctrines neglect this literature at their peril. Some of the texts may indeed be influenced by teachings such as Gnosticism or Docetism, but that is not surprising, as many originated in the syncretistic world of the second century; the majority of these New Testament apocrypha superstitious, magical, unsophisticated though many be – can properly be labeled proto-Orthodox.

SEE ALSO: Apocalypses, Christian; Gnosis, gnostics, gnosticism.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Elliott, J. K. (1993) The Apocryphal New Testament. Oxford. Erbetta, M. (1975) Gli apocrifi del Nuovo Testamento, 4 vols. Casale Monferrato, Italy. Moraldi, L. (1994) Apocrifi del Nuovo Testamento, 3 vols. Turin. Schneemelcher, W. (1997) Neutestamentliche Apokryphen, 6th ed., 2 vols. Tu¨bingen.

1

Apocryphon of Ezekiel SERGEY MINOV

An apocryphal book attributed to Ezekiel was in circulation in antiquity. This work did not survive as a whole and is known only from quotations in later works. The most important witnesses are the five fragments preserved in a diverse collection of Christian works – 1 Clement, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, Epiphanius, and some others (for a detailed discussion of these sources, see Mueller 1994). Although most of these fragments are preserved in Christian sources, it does not necessarily mean that the Apocryphon was a Christian work. This claim is supported by the fact that several fragments of non-canonical Ezekiel writings discovered at QUMRAN exhibit closeness to some Greek fragments of the Apocryphon (see Stone, Wright, and Satran 2000: 34–45, 55–6). Accordingly, it seems likely that the original composition was written in Hebrew in Palestine some time before the middle to the end of the second century BCE. Later on, a Greek

translation of the Hebrew text was produced. The earliest patristic quotation of the Apocryphon shows that its Greek version was in existence by the 80s CE. However, due to the rather complicated modes of transmission of the Apocryphon this scenario is not the only possible one, and one can postulate the existence of two different compositions ascribed to Ezekiel – a Hebrew and a Greek one, independent of each other. With regard to the contents of the book, from the surviving material it emerges that it was prophetic and eschatological in its outlook and dealt with the issues of judgment, repentance, and resurrection. REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Mueller, J. R. (1994) The five fragments of the Apocryphon of Ezekiel: a critical study. Sheffield. Mueller, J. R. and Robinson, S. E. (1983) “Apocryphon of Ezekiel.” In J. H. Charlesworth, ed., The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, vol. 1: 487–95. Garden City, NY. Stone, M. E., Wright, B. G., and Satran, D., eds. (2000) The Apocryphal Ezekiel. Atlanta.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print page 543. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah11022

1

Apodektai NIKOLAOS PAPAZARKADAS

The apodektai were an Athenian financial board annually allotted from the ten tribes (one apodektes per tribe). From ca. 386 BCE onwards (Rhodes and Osborne 2003: no. 19) they received money (hence their name “receivers”) from several sources before allocating it to the appropriate authorities as part of the elaborate fiscal system called merismos. For instance, we find them exacting naval debts both directly and indirectly via dockyard officials (IG II2 1627, 1629). Conversely, we might recall Nikophon’s law (Rhodes and Osborne 2003: no. 25) where the apodektai expend money to buy a slave (to serve as an approver of silver coinage in PIRAEUS) and are subsequently ordered to disburse money for his salary. Some technical aspects of their tasks are recounted by [ARISTOTLE] (Ath. Pol. 48.1–2): they dealt with written state contracts, which they erased in the presence of the council if the recorded monetary obligations had been fulfilled, otherwise they doubled the sum owed.

Either way, they returned the records to the appropriate public slave. Minor trials involving tax farmers (see TAX FARMING) were also under their jurisdiction (Ath. Pol. 52.3). It is often thought that before ca. 386 BCE the apodektai deposited Athens’ revenues into a central fund, yet in a lease from 418/17 they are already attested as receiving rentals and subsequently disbursing them to sacred treasurers: perhaps fifth-century BCE practices were not that different after all. At any rate, ANDROTION’S affirmation that Kleisthenes replaced the KOLAKRETAI with the apodektai seems an oversimplification: the process must have been a gradual one. SEE ALSO:

Finance, Greek; Kleisthenes of Athens.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Rhodes, P. J. (1993) A commentary on the Aristotelian Athenaion Politeia, 2nd ed. Oxford. Rhodes, P. J. and Osborne, R., eds. (2003) Greek historical inscriptions: 404–323 BC. Oxford. Samons, L. J., II (2000) Empire of the owl: Athenian imperial finance. Stuttgart.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 543–544. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah04033

1

Apographe ANTONIO BANFI

The word apographe literally means “list” or “catalogue.” As a result, it was used with reference to several different activities undertaken in Athenian law that involved the formal compilation of a list. Sometimes, apographe refers to an accusation against more than one offender (Hesych. s.v. apographe); other times, it implies a solemn declaration addressed to a magistrate (Isaeus De Philoct. 36). More frequently, however, apographe is related to the procedures of confiscation, and in that context it refers to a list of properties acquired by the state but still possessed by a private person. Every citizen with full rights, whenever he was aware of such a situation, was entitled to bring an action against the illegitimate possessor of public goods, filling in an inventory of the goods and handing it over to the magistrates competent in the matter. At that point the defendant could either yield to the claim or resist it, reasserting his right over the contested properties. In the latter case, a trial took place in which the defendant would try to prove that the disputed goods

had never been confiscated (for example as a result of condemnation in a criminal trial for murder, poisoning, and other severe crimes, or as a consequence of insolvency of the debtor toward the state), and were therefore not the property of the public treasury (Lys. Pro Milite; Lys. De bonis Aristophanis). In ancient sources this trial is known as apographe. Judges in this type of case were usually The Eleven (see ELEVEN, THE (HOI HENDEKA)). If the trial ended with an acquittal, and the person suing did not obtain at least one-fifth of the jurors’ votes, he was fined one thousand drachmas and also forbidden to bring an action of apographe in the future. In case of victory, the person suing had the right to keep a considerable share of the properties allotted to the state as a reward (Dem. Contra Nicostratum 2). REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Beauchet, L. (1897) Histoire du droit prive´ de la re´publique Athe´nienne, vol. 3. Paris. Caillemer, E. (1877) “Apographe`.” In Dictionnaire des antiquite´s grecques et romaines, vol. 1: 310. Paris. Macdowell, D. M. (1995) The Law in classical Athens. Ithaca. Osborne, R. (1985) “Law in action in classical Athens.” Journal of Hellenic Studies 105: 40–58.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print page 544. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah13021

1

Apographe ANTONIO BANFI

University of Milan, Italy

The word apographe literally means “list” or “catalogue.” It was generally used in connection with several different activities carried out in Athenian law that involved the formal compilation of a list. Sometimes apographe refers to an accusation against more than one offender (Hesych. s.v. apographe); at other times it implies a solemn declaration addressed to a magistrate (Isaeus De Philoct. 36). In Athenian law, however, apographe is a word often related to a special kind of civil suit, well attested in the speeches of classical orators. In summary, when a procedure of confiscation was started, a list (apographe) of individuals’ properties to be acquired by the state was compiled. If any of these properties was still possessed (although not owned) by a private person, that was illegitimate and any citizen with full rights who was aware of the situation was entitled to bring an action against the possessor. The suit required the plaintiff to fill in an inventory of the goods involved; the list was then handed over to the magistrates competent in the matter. At that point the defendant could either yield to the claim or resist it, reasserting his right over the contested properties. In case he chose the latter, a full trial took place in which the defendant tried to prove that the disputed goods had never been confiscated (e.g. because of condemnation in a criminal trial for murder, poisoning, and

other severe crimes, or because of a debtor’s insolvency vis-à-vis the state) and were therefore not the property of the public treasury (Lys. Pro Milite; Lys. De bonis Aristophanis). In ancient sources, this trial is commonly known as apographe. Judges in this type of case were usually the Eleven (see ELEVEN, THE (HOI HENDEKA)). If the trial ended in an acquittal and the person who sued did not obtain at least one-fifth of the jurors’ votes, that person was fined and forbidden to bring an action of apographe in the future. In case of victory, the person who sued had the right to keep a considerable share of the properties allotted to the state as a reward (Dem. Contra Nicostratum 2). There is also epigraphical evidence for apographe, and it is not always coherent with the testimony of classical orators: like many other institutions of Athenian law, apographe has still to be fully understood in its details. SEE ALSO:

Dike, dike; Law, “Greek.”

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Beauchet, L. (1897) Histoire du droit privé de la république athénienne, vol. 3. Paris. Caillemer, E. (1877) “Apographè.” In Dictionnaire des antiquités grecques et romaines, vol. 1: 310. Paris. MacDowell, D. M. (1995) The law in classical Athens. Ithaca, NY. Osborne, R. (1985) “Law in classical Athens.” Journal of Hellenic Studies 105: 40–58 (reprinted with endnote in R. Osborne, Athens and Athenian democracy, Cambridge, 2010, 171–204).

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History. Edited by Andrew Erskine, David B. Hollander, and Arietta Papaconstantinou. © 2022 John Wiley & Sons Ltd. Published 2022 by John Wiley & Sons Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah13021.pub2

1

Apoikia (overseas settlement) ANTONIS KOTSONAS

Apoikia literally means a home far from home, and the word is usually translated as “colony.” The apoikia was a city or polis founded abroad by another polis, called the metropolis (mother city), but the former was generally independent of the latter. On the basis of later sources, the usual process for the foundation of a colony has been reconstructed as follows: an expedition was organized by the metropolis, often after consultation of the Delphic Oracle, and was led by an oikistes (founder), who was responsible for the distribution of land plots in the apoikia and the transfer of metropolitan cults to the new foundation. The founding of Greek apoikiai in the Mediterranean during the late eighth to early sixth centuries BCE is a phenomenon widely known by the somewhat misleading modern term “colonization.” Ancient authors do not limit the use of the term apoikia to the period mentioned. They frequently apply it, for example, to the communities that emerged from the early migrations of DORIANS, Ionians, and AIOLIANS to the Aegean islands and the coast of Asia Minor. Modern scholarship, however, distinguishes the two processes in both chronological and definitional terms. Apoikiai were also established in later times, but were quite different from their early counterparts (see below). The apoikia is also to be distinguished from the emporion, a trading post which did not need to be established with official acts and often accommodated a mixed population of traders. Nevertheless, the distinction between the two is not always clear-cut. The chief colonizing cities were CHALCIS and ERETRIA in EUBOEA, CORINTH and MEGARA by the Isthmus of the Peloponnese, and MILETOS and PHOKAIA on the coast of Asia Minor. It was probably the Euboean cities that pioneered the process in the second quarter of the eighth century BCE and the Corinthians soon followed.

Attention was focused to the west: first CORCYRA and then southern Italy and Sicily; the Italian south eventually attracted such a number of Greek apoikiai that it came to be known as MAGNA GRAECIA (the same area had attracted Mycenaean traders half a millennium earlier). From about the mid seventh century BCE, the western apoikiai started establishing apoikiai of their own. Slightly later, NAUKRATIS was established on the Delta of the Nile in Egypt by Greeks of diverse origins (mostly east Greeks), while the Therans founded CYRENE in Libya. Cyrene would itself colonize the surrounding region, which was fittingly named Cyrenaica (see CYRENE AND CYRENAICA). From around 600 BCE, the Phokaians established apoikiai further west, in southern France, and one of them, Massalia, founded Emporion in northern Spain (see MASSILIA (MARSEILLES)). Notwithstanding these developments, the second major area of colonial activity unmistakably was in the region of the HELLESPONT, PROPONTIS, and the BLACK SEA. Several Milesian and other apoikiai were established there from the seventh century BCE, as far north as the CRIMEA. Closer to home, the northern Aegean coast and neighboring islands were colonized in the archaic period (if not considerably earlier). The motives for the foundation of the apoikiai were diverse; overpopulation, land hunger, and social tension at home, together with trading opportunities, are the most commonly cited ones. Equally varied was the reception of the Greeks in their new homes. In some instances, an apoikia was founded on virgin soil and/or was welcomed by indigenous populations; on other occasions, however, the task involved military action and/or the subjugation of the natives. The foundation of apoikiai persisted after the mid sixth century BCE, albeit in a much reduced scale. For the ensuing two centuries, the Athenians would also develop a different type of overseas settlement, the CLERUCHY. In contrast to the apoikia, the cleruchy was not autonomous but served as a garrison over potentially hostile Greek cities. The late fourth century BCE witnessed a

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 544–546. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah02022

2 new wave of Greek apoikiai, which emerged from the conquests of Alexander the Great in the east, and also the first Roman coloniae. These foundations, however, are generally distinguished from their predecessors in that they were not autonomous polities. SEE ALSO: Colonies, Roman and Latin (republican); Colonization, Greek; Emporion; Ionian migration; Migration; Oikistes.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Boardman, J. (1999) The Greeks overseas: their early colonies and trade, 4th ed. London. Graham, A. J. (1983) Colony and mother city in ancient Greece, 2nd ed. Chicago.

Grammenos, D. V. and Petropoulos, E. K., eds. (2003) Ancient Greek colonies in the Black Sea. Thessaloniki. Lomas, K., ed. (2004) Greek identity in the western Mediterranean: papers in honour of Brian Shefton. Leiden. Pugliese Carratelli, G., ed. (1996) The western Greeks. Venice. Rouillard, P. (1991) Les Grecs et la pe´ninsule ibe´rique du VIIIe au IVe sie`cle avant Je´sus-Christ. Paris. Tsetskhladze, G. R., ed. (1998) The Greek colonization of the Black Sea area: historical interpretation of archaeology. Stuttgart. Tsetskhladze, G. R., ed. (2006) Greek colonization: an account of Greek colonies and other settlements overseas. Leiden.

1

Apollo MICHAEL KONARIS

Apollo was a major Greek god, son of ZEUS and Leto, twin brother of Artemis. The statement attributed to him in the Homeric hymn to Apollo, “let the lyre and the curved bow be dear to me and I will prophesy the unerring will of Zeus to the humans” (Hom. Hymn Ap. 131–2), indicates music, arrow shooting, and divination as chief among his various provinces. Apollo’s name does not appear in the LINEAR B tablets. Its origins and etymology are contested. According to one theory, it is connected with the Hittite divine name Appaliunas (Beekes 2003: 12–14). Another theory associates the Doric form of Apollo’s name, Apellon, with the Dorian apella, “assembly,” an association that fits with the view of Apollo as overseeing the initiation of young males into the civic community (Burkert 1975: 8–11). In early literary sources, such as the Homeric epics and the Homeric hymn to Apollo, Apollo appears as a formidable archer god. Thus, in the beginning of the Iliad, his arrows deal death and spread plague in the Greek camp (Il. 1.44–52). The sender of plague was also its healer: it is Apollo who relieved the Greeks from the plague (Il. 1.456). Outside the Homeric epics, epithets such as Iatros or Paean attest to Apollo’s medical function, which in later times was largely taken over by his son, ASKLEPIOS. Closely linked with healing was Apollo’s apotropaic function, his arrows not only inducing harm but also keeping it away. The evil-averting pillar of Apollo Agyieus stood in front of Greek houses, while Apollo Propylaios protected city gates. Further linked with healing and the aversion of evil was Apollo’s association with purification. Apollo purified ORESTES from the killing of his mother, while he underwent purification himself for slaying a dragon at Delphi. A purificatory aspect is also visible in the Apolline festival of

Figure 1 Bust of Apollo from the Temple of Zeus, Olympia, Greece. © Photo Scala, Florence.

the Thargelia, in which a ritual expulsion of pharmakoi, human scapegoats, occurred. If Apollo instilled fear with his archery, he could also provide merriment with his music (Il. 1.601–4; Hom. hymn Ap. 184–206). He was leader of the MUSES (Musagetes) and father of legendary mortal musicians such as Orpheus. His favorite instrument was the lyre, its orderly music being opposed to the wilder music of the flute. The opposition between the two instruments finds mythical expression in the story of the contest between the lyre-playing Apollo and the flute-playing MARSYAS, which ends in the latter’s death (Graf 2009: 37–9). Apollo’s sacred song was the paean: in the Iliad, the Greeks sing it to placate his wrath (Il. 1.472–4). As seen in the Homeric hymn to Apollo, the god claimed divination, in addition to archery and music, as his field of expertise. Apollo was the foremost Greek oracular god, having special access to the will of his father, Zeus

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 546–548. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah17044

2

Figure 2 View of the Temple of Apollo, Delphi, Greece. © Photo Scala, Florence.

(Hom. hymn Her. 536–8). He was the patron of the greatest oracle of the Greek world, Delphi, as well as of numerous other oracles, including Ptoion, Didyma, and Claros. Well established by the eighth century BCE, the Delphic oracle exercised a pervasive influence on Greek life, from the formulation of moral maxims to the sanctioning of colonial ventures and law. Along with Delphi, DELOS was the most important center of Apolline worship. Famed as the birthplace of Apollo, Delos was the site of an annual festival of the Ionians “of the trailing robes” (Hom. hymn Ap. 147). Like Delphi, it was developed by the eighth century BCE but did not contain an oracle after the Archaic period. As early as in the Theogony, Apollo is mentioned in connection with the transition of young males into manhood (Th. 347). Modern scholarship stresses Apollo’s association with ephebes and initiation (Graf 2009: 103–28; see EPHEBE, EPHEBEIA). Represented as youthful and

long-haired, Apollo epitomized the ideal of ephebic beauty. Ephebes were prominent in his worship, and cults such as those of Apollo Delphinios or Apollo Karneios have been seen in terms of the initiation of ephebes into the community of adult citizens and warriors (Graf 1979; Peterson 1992: 62–72). Apollo’s identification with Helios, once thought to go back to his very origins, is now generally thought not to predate the fifth century BCE (Graf 2009: 151–3). Apollo was taken over by the Romans under his Greek name, primarily in his medical function. A temple to Apollo Medicus was built in the fifth century BCE in response to a plague. In later times Augustus claimed Apollo as his patron and raised a temple to Apollo of ACTIUM in the vicinity of his house on the PALATINE. SEE ALSO: Festivals, Greece and Rome; Oracles, Greece and Rome.

3 REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Beekes, R. S. (2003) “The origin of Apollo.” Journal of Ancient Near Eastern Religions 3: 1–21. Burkert, W. (1975) “Apellai und Apollon.” Rheinisches Museum 118: 1–21. Busine, A. (2005) Paroles d’Apollon. Leiden.

Gage´, J. (1955) Apollon romain. Paris. Graf, F. (1979) “Apollon Delphinios.” Museum Helveticum 26: 2–22. Graf, F. (2009) Apollo. London. Monbrun, P. (2007) Les voix d’Apollon. Rennes. Petterson, M. (1992) Cults of Apollo at Sparta. Stockholm.

1

Apollo Maleatas sanctuary WILLIAM C. WEST III

The sanctuary of Apollo Maleatas, a healing divinity associated with ASKLEPIOS, was located high on Mount Parnon in eastern Lakonia, northeast of Sparta. PAUSANIAS saw a statue of Apollo Maleatas set up at Sparta (3.12.8). The epithet comes from Cape Malea at the end of the easternmost peninsula of the Peloponnese. Elsewhere there was an Asklepieion located on Mount Kynourion near Epidauros (2.27.7), from which inscriptions to Apollo Maleatas and Asklepios have come. Noteworthy examples are a decree listing proxenoi and thearodokoi (delegates to festivals) of the end of the fourth century or beginning of the third century BCE (IG IV.1 96); a decree honoring a citizen of Epidaurus, with an equestrian statue of bronze in the sanctuary of Apollo Mealeatas and Asklepios and proclaiming a crown at the Apollonieia and Asklepieia of 79 BCE (IG IV.1

66), and another granting similar honors to another citizen of Epidauros, of the first century CE (IG IV.1 65). At an early time, a sanctuary of Apollo Maleatas was located on a hill above Epidauros, which eventually Asklepios joined. The later sanctuary is designated as an Asklepieion in Barrington atlas of the Greek and Roman world (2000). A festival, the Apollonieia and Asklepieia, was established at least by Roman times and healing inscriptions of the two gods (iamata) are known. SEE ALSO:

Apollo.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Lambrinudakis, V. (1981) “Remains of the Mycenaean Period in the Sanctuary of Apollon Maleatas.” In R. Ha¨gg and N. Marinatos, Sanctuaries and cults in the Aegean Bronze Age: 59–65. Stockholm. Talbert, R. J. A., et al. (2000) Barrington atlas of the Greek and Roman world: 58D3. Princeton.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print page 548. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah14039

1

Apollo Ptoion sanctuary ANNE JACQUEMIN

The APOLLO Ptoion was an oracular sanctuary on the lower slopes of Mount Ptoion (Perdikovrysi) in northwestern Boiotia, about 3 km from Akraiphia. The sanctuary, where activity did not begin before the eighth century BCE, occupied six artificial terraces. On the highest terrace was a spring used for the ritual, on the second a Doric temple (third century, but there might have been an earlier predecessor) and an artificial grotto in relation to the spring, on the fourth and fifth terraces porticoes and other buildings, and on the sixth a great cistern divided into seven parts. There is also evidence of a cult of Athena Pronaia (inscriptions on offerings) as well as the cult of Apollo. There was also another sanctuary in relation to Mount Ptoion, 2 km east of the city, on the Kastraki hill: on the lower level there was a space with altars and two buildings; and on the higher level a Classical temple. It belonged to the hero Ptoios, king Athamas’ son or Apollo’s, and a female divinity, maybe his mother. The Apollonian sanctuary was most frequented in the seventh and sixth centuries, as shown by rich offerings from local people and aristocrats from Attica, especially kouroi by Boiotian sculptors. At the beginning of the fifth century, the sanctuary was the property of the Thebans (Herodotus 8.135 – consultation of the Carian Mys for Mardonios), and

the ritual fell under the influence of Ismenian Apollo in THEBES. At this time, the city of Akraiphia used the sanctuary of the hero for regular consecrations of tripods. After Alexander’s destruction of Thebes, the sanctuary of Apollo Ptoios became a federal sanctuary, where the Boiotians offered tripods after oracular consultations, first at the end of the fourth century and between 223 and 192. The festival of the Ptoia, which seems to have been also gymnic and hippic, was reconstituted in the Hellenistic age as musical contests. The new Ptoia are documented by an Amphictionic decision and an oracle of the Boiotian hero Trophonios (IG 7.4135 and 4136 – 228–226 BCE). From the second century Akraiphia was in charge of the sanctuaries and the games. Sometimes the festival could only be carried out thanks to subsidies by private benefactors, but the epigraphical documentation (lists of victors, reports of magistrates) shows the continuity of the celebration of the Ptoia under the name of Megala Ptoia and Kaisarea until the third century (contra Pausanias, 9.23.6). SEE ALSO:

Boiotian League; Oracles, Greece and Rome.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Guillon, P. (1943) Les trépieds du Ptoion. Paris. Ducat, J. (1971) Les kouroi du Ptoion. Paris. Schachter, A. (1971) Cults of Boiotia 1: 52–73. Leiden.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner. © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Published 2016 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah30160

1

Apollodoros of Alexandria CAROLINE PETIT

Apollodoros of Alexandria was a Greek pharmacologist of the Hellenistic period. He is known to have completed a treatise on poisonous animals (Peri therion), as witnessed by Athenaeus, Aelianus, and the scholia to Nikander’s Theriaca. He also wrote a treatise on deadly remedies (Peri ton iobolon therion kai deleterion pharmakon). GALEN in his work On antidotes (through fragments of the Pharmacion of ASKLEPIADES OF BITHYNIA) and PLINY THE ELDER in his Natural History mention recipes by Apollodoros. Although Apollodoros is likely to have been used by later authors of similar works, such as NIKANDER OF KOLOPHON, his importance among Nikander’s sources has now

been re-evaluated: Nikander’s sources were in fact much more diverse, and far from following Apollodoros slavishly, he has made significant changes in Apollodoros’ original recipes. SEE ALSO:

Pharmacology, Greece and Rome.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Ihm, S. (ed.) (1995) Der Traktat “peri ton iobolon therion kai deleterion pharmakon” des sog. Aelius Promotus. Wiesbaden. Jacques, J.-M. (2002) Nicandre. Oeuvres. Les The´riaques. Fragments iologiques ante´rieurs a` Nicandre: 285–92. Paris. Knoefel, P. K. and Covi, M. C. (1991) A Hellenistic treatise on poisonous animals: the “Theriaca” of Nicander of Colophon. Lewiston, ME.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 548–549. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah21030

1

Apollodoros of Damascus PHILIP RANCE

Apollodoros of Damascus was a renowned engineer and architect active under TRAJAN (98–117) and HADRIAN (117–38), and an author of treatises on siegecraft and military engineering. Ancient sources credit Apollodoros with responsibility for the Forum of Trajan, the Baths of Trajan, an odeon, and a colossal statue of Luna (Dio 69.4.1; SHA Hadr. 19.13), although evaluation of his architectural contribution is often difficult owing to Trajan’s completion and/or appropriation of projects initiated under DOMITIAN (81–96) by other architects. Some modern scholars also speculate on the involvement of Apollodoros in TRAJAN’S COLUMN and the Pantheon (see PANTHEON, ROME). In ca. 104, Apollodoros constructed the first permanent bridge over the Danube preliminary to Trajan’s Second Dacian War (105–6). Then the longest bridge in the empire, twenty stone piers supported a wooden superstructure, around 1,130 m long, connecting Pontes (Kostol) to Drobeta (Turnu Severin). A monograph Apollodoros wrote on this construction is now lost (Dio 68.13; Procop. Aed. 4.6.11–17; Tzetz. Chil. 2.34.65–97). It is reported that Apollodoros was banished and subsequently executed by Hadrian, allegedly as punishment for slighting the emperor’s architectural endeavors, although this story is generally discounted as a hostile anecdote (Dio 69.4.1–5). Apollodoros wrote a pamphlet on siege technology conventionally titled Poliorketika. An epistolary preface (137.1–138.17) addresses an unnamed emperor, with whom he has previously seen active service. In earlier correspondence, the emperor has asked him to advise on siege-engines for an impending campaign against politically volatile tribes in territory unfamiliar to Apollodoros, where the Roman army will be operating without a siegetrain. Accordingly, Apollodoros restricts his proposals to simple, light devices that can be

easily improvised with available materials and labor, dismissing earlier literature as valueless owing to the novelty of the circumstances. He alludes to certain plans (hypodeigmata), now lost, which he has drawn up and sent with a qualified assistant to supervise construction; the accompanying text is intended as an explanatory summary for the emperor. Scholarly opinion has long differed with regard to the historical context, but the evidence is most consistent with Trajan’s preparations for the First Dacian War (101–2). The surviving text supplies specifications for numerous devices, including entrenchments and beakshaped “tortoises” for deflecting objects rolled down gradients; hand-held screens; light mantlets sheltering sappers and batteringrams; gadgets for boring into brickwork and cracking stone with fire; a hoist for raising observers; a siege-tower with attachments; constructions using ladders; and a fortified floating bridge for contested river-crossings. Military operations depicted on Trajan’s column suggest that some of Apollodoros’ proposals were implemented, notably beaked “tortoises” and interlocking scaling ladders (140.9–141.5, 176.4–179.3). The extant text of the Poliorketika, however, appears to be heavily interpolated. Additions or modifications by a later editor(s) are variously betrayed by conflicting statements (e.g., 175.2–176.2), discrepant content, and technological impracticality. Perspective drawings in the manuscripts, distinct from the blueprints mentioned in the preface, are also a later development. These interpolations transform an instructional manual of limited scope intended for a specific situation into an illustrated compendium of broader interest. The work was cited in Late Antiquity (J. Lyd. De mag. 1.47.1; Syrianus (Anon. Byz.), De re strat. 19.22–39), and used extensively in the Parangelmata Poliorketika, a tenth century poliorcetic treatise. SEE ALSO: Architects; Architecture, civic, Roman Empire; Athenaeus Mechanicus; Dacia;

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 549–550. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah19011

2 Engineering; Rome, city of: 5. Flavian and Trajanic; Rome, city of: 6. Hadrianic and Antonine; Sieges and siegecraft, Roman.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Anderson, J. C. (2003) “Emperor and architect: Trajan and Apollodoros and their predecessors.” In P. Defosse, ed., Hommages a` Carl Deroux, vol. 3: Histoire et e´pigraphie: 3–10. Brussels. Blyth, P. H. (1992) “Apollodoros of Damascus and the Poliorcetica.” Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies 33, 2: 127–58. La Regina, A., et al., ed. and trans. (1999) L’arte dell’assedio di Apollodoro di Damasco. Rome.

Lendle, O. (1983) Texte und Untersuchungen zum technischen Bereich der antiken Poliorketik. Wiesbaden. Schneider, R., ed. (1908) Griechische Poliorketiker I. Berlin. Tudor, D. (1974) Les ponts romains du Bas-Danube: 47–134. Bucharest. Whitehead, D. (2008a) “Apollodoros’ Poliorketika: author, date, dedicatee.” In A. Krieckhaus, H. M. Schellenberg, and V. E. Hirschmann, eds., A Roman miscellany: essays in honour of Anthony R. Birley on his seventieth birthday: 204–11. Gdan´sk. Whitehead, D. (2008b) “Fact and fantasy in Greek military writers.” Antiquitas Hungarica 48, 1/2: 139–55. Whitehead, D., ed. and trans. (2010) Apollodorus Mechanicus: siege matters (Pοliοrktika ´ ). Stuttgart.

1

Apollodoros, son of Pasion KIRSTY M. W. SHIPTON

Apollodoros (ca. 394–post-late 340s BCE) was the elder son of the banker Pasion and author of six speeches preserved in the Demosthenic corpus ([Dem.] 46, 49, 50, 52, 53, and 59). They give a vivid picture of a wealthy first-generation Athenian citizen anxious to distance himself from his servile origins by gaining prominence in public life. By his early thirties he had already brought to trial five leading figures involved in ATHENS’ campaign in the north Aegean. By 350 he was well known as a regular prosecutor. In 348 he aligned himself to Demosthenes’ policy in order to resist the rise of PHILIP II OF MACEDON and proposed a decree inviting the people of Athens to decide whether any budgetary surplus should go to the theoric fund (see THEORIKA, THEORIC FUND) or be used for military purposes. But “ultimately his political career failed to match his early ambitions” (Trevett 1992: 155). Apollodoros performed many public liturgies. From before 370 down to 352 he appears five times as trierarch (commander of a TRIREME) or syntrierarch. He also advanced a war tax (EISPHORA) on behalf of other wealthy people in 362 and paid for a victorious chorus at the DIONYSIA of 352 (see CHOREGIA). In a speech written for him by Demosthenes, Apollodoros provides a striking self-portrait.

He reveals a man aware of his weaknesses but nonetheless proud of his achievements: “I do not possess good looks; I walk quickly; I speak loudly; [. . .] people find me irritating [. . .] but I perform all my liturgies as magnificently as possible [. . .] (as befits) those of us who have received citizenship as a gift” (Dem. 45.77–78). Apollodoros was not a professional speech writer. But he clearly researched the relevant laws and had some antiquarian interests. His speeches provide valuable information on Pasion’s bank, for which he recovered 20 talents of debt, often through litigation. They also reveal, through his bitter quarrel with the trierarch Polykles, how heavily the costs of naval warfare impacted upon the wealthy Athenian elite. Around 365 Apollodoros married the daughter of Deinias of Athmonon, who came from a prosperous family. They had two daughters. SEE ALSO: Aegean Sea (Classical and later); Banks; Democracy, Athenian; Demosthenes, orator; Liturgy, Greece and Rome; Orators, Attic; Pasion, Athenian banker.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Cohen, E. E. (1992) Athenian economy and society: a banking perspective. Princeton. Davies, J. K. (1971) Athenian propertied families: 600–300 BC: 437–42 (no. 11672, X–XII). Oxford. Trevett, J. (1992) Apollodoros the son of Pasion. Oxford.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 550–551. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah04335

1

Apollonia Salbake KENNETH W. HARL

Apollonia Salbake, Caria, modern Medet, Turkey, 10 km northeast of Tabai (Tavas), was a Carian city on the Harpasos River, a tributary of the Maeander. The city took its epithet from Mount Salbakos to the south. The city is known from coins and inscriptions of the Hellenistic and Roman imperial age. Finds of ceramics indicate the site was occupied at least since the Late Bronze Age. Seleukos I (312–281) or Antiochos I (281–261) refounded the settlement as a Hellenic city. In the second century BCE the city appealed to the Seleucid officials concerning the status of indigenous villages known as the Saleioi in a matter likely concerning revenues (Robert and Robert 1954: 285–6, no. 166). The royal financial agent Menander (dioiketes) and accountant Demetrios (eklogistes) were voted by the assembly public honors and an inscription for ruling in favor of Apollonia. Under the Treaty of Apamea in 188 Caria passed under the control of Rhodes. Yet the assembly of Apollonia Salbake honored a citizen, Pamphilos, who represented the city before the proconsul Cn. Manlius Vulso and the ten senatorial legates who redrew the map of Asia Minor (Robert and Robert 1954: 303–4, no. 167). In 167 Apollonia Salbake, along with other Carian cities, was declared free by the Roman Senate. Hence, the city first minted fractional

bronze coins in the first century BCE featuring Apollo and Artemis. Apollonia Salbake enjoyed imperial favor, dedicating statues to Nero, Hadrian, Commodus, and Constantine (Robert and Robert 1954: 276–8, no. 150–3). In 214–16, the city received a favorable reply to a petition from Caracalla (Robert and Robert 1954: 274, no. 149). The temple of Apollo was rebuilt in the reign of Hadrian (117–38), although the emperor is not attested as visiting the city. The temple is depicted on coins from the reign of Marcus Aurelius (161–80). Apollo, depicted on coins as holding a raven and laurel branch, probably had an oracle. Coins struck between the reigns of Augustus (27 BCE–14 CE) and Gallienus (253–68) attest to cults of Zeus, Dionysos, Tyche, and Asklepios and Hygeia. Civic organization was Greek, for the council (boule) and assembly (demos) are featured as personifications on coins. The eponymous magistrate named on coins is that of the general (strategos). Based on coin finds, Apollonia economically lay in the orbit of the far more prosperous and celebrated Aphrodisias. REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Jones, A. H. M. (1971) The cities of the Eastern Roman provinces, 2nd rev. ed. Oxford. Robert, L. and Robert, J. (1954) La Carie: Historie et ge´ographie historique avec le recueil des inscriptions antiques II. Paris.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print page 551. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah14041

1

Apollonios Molon SYLVIE HONIGMAN

A prominent orator of the first half of the first century BCE, Apollonios Molon taught rhetoric at RHODES at about the same time as Poseidonios. He was sent as an ambassador to the Roman Senate by the Rhodians in 81 BCE. Cicero heard him in Rome on this occasion, and in 78 went to Rhodes to study rhetoric with him there. JULIUS CAESAR (C. IULIUS CAESAR) studied with him too in 76 (Cic. Brut. 307, 312, 316; Plut. Caes. 3.1). Among his many treatises was a “Diatribe against the Jews.” Eusebius’ excerpt (Praep. evang. 2.19.1) as well as Josephus’ references (Ap. 2, esp. 145ff.) suggest that this work belonged to the ethnographic genre. It seems to have included one section about the origin of the Jews; possibly one about their recent history, in particular the Hasmonean Dynasty (see HASMONEANS); and another about their legislator (Moses), laws, and customs. According to Josephus the work was not hostile as a whole, but critical

notations were scattered throughout. The passage quoted by Eusebius shows a relatively good knowledge of biblical history. Molon’s work seems to have been particularly inspired by Poseidonios, as the observation that the Jews did not contribute any useful invention to humankind suggests. He in turn may have influenced APION. SEE ALSO:

Cicero, Marcus Tullius.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Bar-Kochva, B. (2000) “Apollonius Molon versus Posidonius of Apamea.” In J. U. Kalms, ed., Internationales Josephus-Kolloquium, Aarhus, 1999: 22–37. Mu¨nster. Berthelot, B. (2003) Philanthroˆpia Judaica: 144–50. Leiden. Hunter, R. and Fantuzzi, M. (2002). “Apollonius [2, Rhodius].” In: H. Cancik and H. Schneider, eds., New Pauly 1: Antiquity: 869–74. Leiden. Schu¨rer, E. (1973–87) The History of the Jewish people in the age of Jesus Christ (175 BC–AD 135), revised and ed. G. Vermes and F. Millar, vol. 3.1: 598–600. Edinburgh.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 552–553. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah11023

1

Apollonios of Kition NATACHA MASSAR

Apollonios of Kition was a doctor of the first century BCE. Originally from Cyprus, then under Ptolemaic rule, he studied medicine in ALEXANDRIA (EGYPT) with the doctor Zopyros, and was the fellow pupil of the otherwise unknown Poseidonios. One of his treatises, “On Joints According to Hippocrates” has been preserved, as well as the subject of two others (on Hippocratic lexicography and on therapeutics). Nothing is known about his later life: he may have spent part of it in Alexandria, as his work on the Hippocratic lexicon would require access to a good library. The period during which he lived is established by the following facts: his treatise is dedicated to a king Ptolemy (having been written at the king’s request), and his master Zopyros offered remedies both to a Ptolemy and to Mithradates VI. This places Apollonios firmly at the end of the Hellenistic period (first century BCE). The above mentioned treatise, in three books, is the only preserved and attributed medical writing of the Hellenistic period. It is based both on Hippocrates’ work and on Apollonios’ personal training and experience (Apollonios, 1.1) (Smith 1979: 211–22; Potter 1993). It describes how to treat sprained joints, starting from the shoulder and going down to the ankle. In it, Apollonios criticizes a few predecessors, mainly Herophileans (Baccheios of Tanagra and especially Hegetor). The work was accompanied by illustrations, which constituted an important adjunct to the verbal explanations. The main copy of the treatise (Laur. 74,4), dated to the tenth century, is accompanied by thirty illustrations, presumably inspired by the originals. Apollonios composed a work in at least two books on remedies (Cael. Aurelianus, Chronic diseases 1.140, mentions treatment of epilepsy). He may also have practiced surgery,

but the identification is uncertain (Celsus Med. 7, prooem. See Michler 1968: 114–5). He also wrote a work in eighteen books opposing HERAKLEIDES OF TARENTUM’s three books against Baccheios’ Hippocratic lexicon (Erotian 32). The latter was the subject of controversies for almost three centuries. Herakleides (first century BCE), a Herophilean by training, later adopted and defended the Empirical approach to medicine (see HEROPHILOS). Although medical schools of thought (haireseis) gained importance during the first century BCE, it is difficult to associate Apollonios with the two main ones (Herophilean and Empirical) as he appears to have criticized representatives of both of them. He is probably to be identified with the doctor Apollonios included in Strabo’s list of famous men from Kition (Strabo 14.6.3), as he is the only known doctor of that name from the city (Massar 2005: 200). Apollonios exhibits traits common to most Hellenistic doctors known from literary sources: he actively practiced medicine, wrote treatises not only on medical practice but also on the interpretation of works by the “divine Hippocrates” (he is the first known author to use this expression), and moved in or near royal circles. SEE ALSO: Hairesis; Herakleides of Tarentum; Herophilos; Hippocrates of Kos; Medical writers; Medicine, Greek and Roman; Surgery, Greek and Roman.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Blomqvist, J. (1974) Der Hippokratestext des Apollonios von Kition. Lund. Massar, N. (2005) Soigner et servir. Histoire sociale et culturelle de la me´decine grecque a` l’e´poque helle´nistique: 188–219. Paris. Potter, P. (1993) “Apollonius and Galen on ‘Joints.’” In J. Kollesch and D. Nickel, eds., Galen und das hellenistische Erbe. Verhandlungen des IV. Internationalen Galen-Symposium: 117–23. Stuttgart. Smith, W. D. (1979) The Hippocratic tradition: 211–22. Ithaca.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 551–552. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah09039

1

Apollonios of Perge MICHAEL N. FRIED

As with so many mathematicians of the Hellenistic period, little about the life of Apollonios of Perge is known and, with the exception of his great work on conics, the Conica (Konikon), only hints of the true breadth of his mathematical activities survive. From evidence in the letters introducing the various books of the Conica and from remarks by EUTOCIUS of Ascalon, Apollonios’ late commentator and editor, it may be inferred that Apollonios was born in PERGE around 240 BCE and had established his reputation by the first years of the second century. Besides his birthplace in Perge, we know from the letters introducing books 1 and 2 of the Conica that he resided in EPHESOS, PERGAMON, and ALEXANDRIA. Whether he could call any of those places home is hard to say. What can be said with confidence, however, is that Apollonios was much admired as a mathematician and his great work was indeed the Conica. Thus, Eutocius reports that “because of the remarkable theorems [Apollonios] proved about conics he was called the Great Geometer” (In Conica; Heiberg 1891, 1893, II: 170). The contents of the Conics are set out by Apollonios himself in the letter introducing the first book. Apollonios tells us there that the entire work comprises eight books. Of these eight, the first four should be considered a “course in the elements (agoge stoicheiode),” while the remaining four are “in the manner of additions (periousiastikotera),” that is “special topics.” The “course in the elements” contains the generation and characteristic properties, or symptomata, of the three conic sections – the parabola, ellipse, and hyperbola – and opposite sections (see CONIC SECTIONS). These books also contain fundamental theorems and constructions related to diameters, tangents, and asymptotes of conic sections and an account of how conic sections may touch and intersect

one another. Book 5, treating the first “special topic,” concerns minima and maxima of lines drawn from a point and intercepted between the axis of a section and the section itself. Book 6 treats questions of similarity and equality of conic sections. Book 7 considers relationships involving conjugate diameters and their “figures,” for example, that the sum of the squares built on conjugate diameters of an ellipse is fixed. Finally, book 8 displays “determinate conic problems” (problematon konikon diorismenon). This last book of the Conica was lost in antiquity; however, reconstructions were attempted by Ibn al Haytham in the eleventh century and Edmond Halley in 1710. In general, it must be emphasized that Apollonios’ approach throughout the Conica is always geometric in spirit and intention – this is manifest not only in Apollonios’ defining and generating the conic sections literally as sections of a cone, but also in the nature of the symptomata (Fried and Unguru 2001), despite their having been viewed in the past as proto-algebraic equations. Besides the Conica, Pappus in his Collection (book 7) cites and discusses six other works by Apollonios: Cutting off of a Ratio (Logou apotome), Cutting off of an Area (Choriou apotome), Determinate Section (Diorismene tome), Tangencies (Epaphai), Vergings (Neuseis), and Plane Loci (Topoi epipedoi). Of these, only the first is extant in an Arabic translation, although there is evidence that all six may have been translated into Arabic (Hogendijk 1986). Pappus also mentions a method developed by Apollonios for representing and multiplying large numbers (Coll. 2). HYPSIKLES, in his preface to the spurious book 14 of Euclid’s Elements, names another work by Apollonios, On the Comparison of the Dodecahedron and the Icosahedron (Sunkriseos tou dodekaedrou pros to eikosaedron). A treatise by Apollonios apparently on the fundamental principles of mathematics, the General Treatise (Katholou pragmateia), is mentioned in Marinus’ commentary on Euclid’s Data.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 553–554. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah21031

2 PROCLUS

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS

SEE ALSO: Mathematics, Greece and Rome; Pappus of Alexandria; Ptolemy (astronomer, mathematician).

Acerbi, F. (2008) “Apollonius of Perga.” In N. Koertge, ed., New dictionary of scientific biography, vol. 1: 83–5. Detroit. Decorps-Foulquier, M. (2000) Recherches sur les Coniques d’Apollonius de Perge´ et leurs commentateurs grecs. Paris. Fried, M. N., trans. (2002) Apollonius of Perga, Conics book IV. Santa Fe. Fried, M. N. and Unguru, S. (2001) Apollonius of Perga’s Conica: text, context, subtext. Leiden. Heiberg, J. L., ed. (1891, 1893) Apollonii Pergaei quae Graece exstant cum commentariis antiquis, 2 vols. Leipzig. Hogendijk, J. P. (1986) “Arabic traces of lost works of Apollonius.” Archive for History of Exact Sciences 35: 187–253. Taliaferro, C., trans. (1998) Apollonius of Perga, Conics books I–III. Santa Fe. Toomer, G. J., ed. and trans. (1990) Apollonius, Conics books V to VII: the Arabic translation of the lost Greek original in the version of the Banu Musa, 2 vols. New York.

refers to two more works in his commentary on book 1 of Euclid’s Elements; these are: On the Cochlias (Peri tou kochliou) and On Unordered Irrationals (Peri ton atakton alogon). Finally, in Eutocius’ commentary on Archimedes’ Measurement of a Circle we have a record of a work by Apollonios called Okutokion, variously translated as Quick-Delivery or Rapid Hatching, in which Apollonios supposedly found a closer approximation for the ratio of the circumference of a circle to the diameter. Apollonios was said to have been famed for work in astronomy, though the evidence for this amounts to little more than a remark by Ptolemy at the start of book 12 of his Syntaxis and one by Photius in his ninth century Biblioteca (cod. 190).

1

Apollonios of Perge MICHAEL N. FRIED

As with so many mathematicians of the Hellenistic period, little about the life of Apollonios of Perge is known and, with the exception of his work on conics, the Conica (Konikon), only hints of the true breadth of his mathematical activities survive. From evidence in the letters introducing the various books of the Conica and from remarks by EUTOCIUS of Ascalon, Apollonios’ late commentator and editor, it may be inferred cautiously that Apollonios was born in PERGE around 240 BCE and had established his reputation by the first years of the second century. Caution is indeed necessary for there is some evidence, albeit of a speculative nature, that Apollonios may have been born some twenty years earlier, making him a younger contemporary of Archimedes. For Netz has uncovered what appears to be a playful reference to Apollonios in a diagram from Archimedes’ Floating Bodies (Netz 2017). If more evidence is found in this direction, the implications not only regarding Apollonios but also others associated with him will be significant; however, at this point, the weight of argument still falls on the later date for Apollonios’ birth. As for where Apollonios lived and worked, besides his birthplace in Perge, we know from the letters introducing books 1 and 2 of the Conica that he resided in EPHESOS, PERGAMON, and ALEXANDRIA. Whether he could call any of those places home is hard to say. What can be said with confidence, however, is that Apollonios was much admired as a mathematician and his great work was indeed the Conica. Thus, Eutocius reports that “because of the remarkable theorems [Apollonios] proved about conics he was called the Great Geometer” (In Conica; Heiberg 1891, 1893, II: 170). The contents of the Conics are set out by Apollonios himself in the letter introducing the first book. Apollonios tells us there that the entire work comprises eight books. Of these eight, the first four should be considered a “course in the elements (agoge stoicheiode),”

while the remaining four are “in the manner of additions (periousiastikotera),” that is “special topics.” The “course in the elements” contains the generation and characteristic properties, or symptomata, of the three conic sections – the parabola, ellipse, and hyperbola – and opposite sections (see CONIC SECTIONS). These books also contain fundamental theorems and constructions related to diameters, tangents, and asymptotes of conic sections and an account of how conic sections may touch and intersect one another. Book 5, treating the first “special topic,” concerns minima and maxima of lines drawn from a point and intercepted between the axis of a section and the section itself. Book 6 treats questions of similarity and equality of conic sections. Book 7 considers relationships involving conjugate diameters and their “figures,” for example, that the sum of the squares built on conjugate diameters of an ellipse is fixed. Finally, book 8 displays “determinate conic problems” (problematon konikon diorismenon). This last book of the Conica was lost in antiquity; however, reconstructions were attempted by Ibn al Haytham in the eleventh century and Edmond Halley in 1710 (see Fried 2011). In general, it must be emphasized that Apollonios’ approach throughout the Conica is always geometric in spirit and intention – this is manifest not only in Apollonios’ defining and generating the conic sections literally as sections of a cone, but also in the nature of the symptomata (Fried and Unguru 2001), despite their having been viewed in the past as proto-algebraic equations. Besides the Conica, PAPPUS in his Collection (book 7) cites and discusses six other works by Apollonios: Cutting off of a ratio (Logou apotome), Cutting off of an area (Choriou apotome), Determinate section (Diorismene tome), Tangencies (Epaphai), Vergings (Neuseis), and Plane loci (Topoi epipedoi). Of these, only the first is extant in an Arabic translation, although there is evidence that all six may have been translated into Arabic (Hogendijk 1986). In recent years, it should be said, much work has been done regarding the Arabic editions

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and David Hollander. © 2018 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Published 2018 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah21031

2 not only of these works but also the Conics. The importance of these editions lies in the fact that the Islamic mathematicians producing them had access to manuscripts which have since been lost and may have brought to the texts their own insights (Rashed, Decorps-Foulquier, and Federspiel 2008–10). Pappus also mentions a method developed by Apollonios for representing and multiplying large numbers (Coll. 2). HYPSIKLES, in his preface to the spurious book 14 of Euclid’s Elements, names another work by Apollonios, On the comparison of the dodecahedron and the icosahedron (Sunkriseos tou dodekaedrou pros to eikosaedron). A treatise by Apollonios apparently on the fundamental principles of mathematics, the General treatise (Katholou pragmateia), is mentioned in Marinus’ commentary on Euclid’s Data. PROCLUS refers to two more works in his commentary on book 1 of Euclid’s Elements; these are: On unordered irrationals (Peri ton atakton alogon) and On the cochlias (Peri tou kochliou), a study of the cylindrical helix. In broader terms, the latter concerned curves having the property of being “homeomeric,” that is, any part could be continuously superimposed on any other part. Straight lines have this property as do circles, but a cylindrical helix is a much less trivial example (these three curves are the only curves with the homeomeric property). Acerbi studied this idea of “homeomery” and connected it to foundational investigations such as might have been contained in Apollonios’s General treatise (Acerbi 2010a, 2010b). Finally, in Eutocius’ commentary on Archimedes’ Measurement of a circle we have a record of a work by Apollonios called Okutokion, variously translated as Quick delivery or Rapid hatching, in which Apollonios supposedly found a closer approximation for the ratio of the circumference of a circle to the diameter. Apollonios was said to have been famed for

work in astronomy, though the evidence for this amounts to little more than a remark by PTOLEMY at the start of book 12 of his Syntaxis and one by Photius in his ninth-century Biblioteca (cod. 190). SEE ALSO:

Mathematics, Greece and Rome.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Acerbi, F. (2008) “Apollonius of Perga.” In N. Koertge, ed., New dictionary of scientific biography, vol. 1: 83–5. Detroit. Acerbi, F. (2010a) “Homeomeric lines in Greek mathematics.” Science in Context 23, 1: 1–37. Acerbi, F. (2010b) “Two approaches to foundations in Greek mathematics: Apollonius and Geminus.” Science in Context 23: 151–86. Decorps-Foulquier, M. (2000) Recherches sur les Coniques d’Apollonius de Pergé et leurs commentateurs grecs. Paris. Fried, M. N. (2011). Edmond Halley’s reconstruction of the lost book of the conics. New York. Fried, M. N. and Unguru, S. (2001) Apollonius of Perga’s Conica: text, context, subtext. Leiden. Fried, M. N., trans. (2002) Apollonius of Perga, Conics Book IV. Santa Fe. Heiberg, J. L., ed. (1891, 1893) Apollonii Pergaei quae Graece exstant cum commentariis antiquis, 2 vols. Leipzig. Hogendijk, J. P. (1986) “Arabic traces of lost works of Apollonius.” Archive for History of Exact Sciences 35: 187–253. Netz, R. (2017) “Nothing to do with Apollonius? Concerning the style and chronology of lateArchimedean mathematics.” Philologus 161: 47–76. Rashed, R., Decorps-Foulquier, M., and Federspiel, M. (2008–10) Apollonius de Perge, Coniques: texte grec et arabe établi, traduit et commenté, Berlin. Taliaferro, C. trans. (1998) Apollonius of Perga, Conics: Books I–III. Santa Fe. Toomer, G. J., ed. and trans. (1990) Apollonius, Conics: Books V to VII: the Arabic translation of the lost Greek original in the version of the Banu Musa, 2 vols. New York.

1

Apollonios, Ptolemaic minister JOSEPH MANNING

Apollonios was the dioiketes, the chief financial official of the Ptolemaic state, in the reign of PTOLEMY II PHILADELPHOS (282–246). He may have been a native of CARIA, but we know neither the circumstances or date of his birth or death nor anything about his family. He was appointed as dioiketes ca. 262 and served until the death of Ptolemy II in 246, after which he disappears from view. The often held view that he fell from grace, or was even murdered, is speculation. His letters show him to have been a pious man. Although not the highest ranking official in the state, his role was certainly the key to the collection and recording of royal revenues, both from Egypt and from the external possessions of the Ptolemies, at a time in which the Ptolemaic state was being consolidated and new fiscal institutions, banking, coinage, and the so-called royal “monopolies” on certain commodities were being introduced. He was no doubt an important figure in the fiscal reforms of the economy introduced in the reign of Ptolemy II. He must certainly have been involved in the composition of the fiscal rules that are gathered in such documents as the Revenue Law Papyrus (P.Rev.), 259 BCE, the year in which he received his now famous gift-estate near Philadelphia in the northeast Fayyum. He is thus one of the most important figures in the administrative and economic history of the Ptolemaic state. Apollonios also presided over state finances at a time when arable land was extended, especially in the Fayyum, where the arable land was trebled. In 258 Apollonios made a tour of inspection at least as far as Memphis, and throughout the Fayyum and the Delta. Most of our information about Apollonios comes from the papers of his estate manager and private agent Zenon. The Zenon Archive, as it is universally called, forms the largest

archive of the Ptolemaic period and offers a truly unique light on agricultural practice in the Hellenistic period. The archive provides a great deal of insight into Apollonios’ estate, its management as well as his household there. The Philadelphia estate was one parcel of 10,000 arouras (about 6700 acres, or roughly 2750 hectares) in size located near the new Ptolemaic village of Philadelphia on the northeastern edge of the Fayyum depression. Apollonios also owned land in the Memphite nome, which was composed of scattered plots of land around several villages. The Zenon papyri show that he was involved in business on his own behalf both within Egypt and in Syria-Palestine and elsewhere in the Mediterranean. We know that he visited his estates occasionally, but more frequently, it seems, he corresponded with his agents Zenon and Panakestor. He showed a keen interest in the management of the estate, sending often detailed memos to his manager telling him what kind of seed to sow and what amounts were available. The estate seems also to have been a place where agrarian experiments could be tried, although many appear to have failed. Economic activity on the estate was particularly dedicated to commercial operations in viticulture and later in oil crops. The estate continued after Apollonios’ demise for a time, and Zenon went on to other businesses, acting as a middleman in leasing out kleruchic land, taxfarming, and beer-making. SEE ALSO: Administration, Ptolemaic Egypt; Fayyum; Ptolemy II Philadelphos; Zenon Archive.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Clarysse, W. and Vandorpe, K. (1995) Zenon, un homme d’affairs grec a` l’ombre des pyramides. Leuven. Orrieux, C. (1983) Les Papyrus de Ze´non. L’horizon d’un grec en E´gypte au IIIe sie`cle avant J.C. Paris.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 554–555. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah09038

2 Orrieux, C. (1985) Ze´non de Caunos, pare´pide`mos, et le destin grec. Paris. Pestman, P. M. (1981) A guide to the Zenon Archive. With contributions by W. Clarysse, M. Korver, M. Muszynski,

A. Schutgens, W. J. Tait, J. K. Winnicki. Leiden. Rostovtzeff, M. (1922) A large estate in Egypt in the third century BC. A study in economic history. Madison.

1

Apollonis, wife of Attalos I PANAGIOTIS P. IOSSIF

Apollonis (ca. 240–175/4–159 BCE), daughter of a civic dignitary from KYZIKOS, wife of ATTALOS I, and mother of EUMENES II, ATTALOS II, PHILETAIROS, and Athenaios, was a key figure in the creation of Attalid propaganda: Attalos’ marriage to her (223) symbolized the importance the Attalids accorded to the Greek cities, and she was praised as a model queen and mother (OGIS 248 and 308; Polyb. 22.20; Strabo 13.4.2; Plut. De frat. amor. 480C). Her visit to Kyzikos in 185, with Eumenes and Attalos, was theatrically staged to advertise the unity of the royal family (Polyb. 22.20) and the devotion of her sons, as represented on the reliefs of her temple (Anth. Pal. III). Eumenes founded a city named after her (Strabo 13.4.3–5). Her death cannot be dated with precision. The absence of epiklesis (“nickname”) in decrees from ATHENS (OGIS 248) and Andros (see ANDROS, TOPOGRAPHY AND ARCHAEOLOGY) (IG XII Suppl. 250) indicates that she was alive in 175/4. In decrees from Hierapolis (OGIS 308) and Ephesos (I.Ephesos 3408) dating immediately after her death she bears the epiklesis Eusebes (“Pious”). Her death is described as a metastasis, a term designating

the apotheosis of kings (OGIS 338; see A decree from TEOS (166–159) lists the cultic honors voted after her death: she was qualified as thea Apollonis eusebes apobateria, literally “Apollonis the divine, the pious, the one who disembarks” – perhaps a reference to her landing by sea; an altar was erected to commemorate her visit to the city; and sacrifices were performed by a priest of APHRODITE and of the deified queen. Thus Apollonis was associated with Aphrodite, most likely in her quality as protector of wedlock and family (OGIS 309). APOTHEOSIS AND HEROIZATION).

SEE ALSO:

Strabo of Amaseia.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Allen, R. E. (1983) The Attalid kingdom: a constitutional history: 149–53. Oxford. Hopp, J. (1977) Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der letzten Attaliden: 32–3. Munich. Kosmetatou, E. (2003) “The Attalids of Pergamon.” In A. Erskine, ed., A companion to the Hellenistic world: 159–74. Oxford. Meric, R., Merkelbach, R., Nolle´, J., and Sahin, S. (1981) Die Inschriften von Ephesos, part 7.1: Nr. 3001–3500 (Repertorium). Bonn (¼I.Ephesos). Queyrel, F. (2003) Les portraits des Attalides: fonction et repre´sentation: 263–9. Paris. Van Looy, H. (1976) “Apollonis reine de Pergame.” Ancient Society 7: 151–65.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 555–556. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah09040

1

Apollonius of Tyana DAVID ENGELS

Apollonius was a neo-Pythagorean philosopher, mainly known through his idealized biography by Philostratus, commissioned by JULIA DOMNA, written between 217 and 238 CE and largely based on the (probably fictional) journal of Damis, Apollonius’ companion. Apollonius was born at Tyana (Cappadocia) at the beginning of the first century CE and was known as a neo-Pythagorean ascetic and teacher. Reportedly traveling to Mesopotamia, Iran, India, and Ethiopia, he became a celebrity, consulted even by cities such as Sparta. He visited Spain and Italy, antagonized Nero and Domitian, and prophesied from Ephesos Domitian’s simultaneous death (Philostr. 8.25s.; Cass. Dio 67.18). He also predicted his own decease (after 96) and was accepted in heaven, deserving posthumous veneration, for example, by the Severan emperors (Cass. Dio 77.18.4; SHA, Alex. Sev. 29.2). This fictionalizing of his life probably was due to Julia Domna’s interest in Apollonius; the “real” Apollonius perhaps never left the Roman east. Many episodes of his life closely parallel the biography of Christ

(see also SEG 28.1251; 31.1320, dating not before the third century and describing Apollonius as “extinguishing the faults of men” and thus explaining Apollonius’ importance in Pagan-Christian polemics (Porphyry’s “Against the Christians;” Eusebius’ “Against Philostratus”), and in Late Antique, Byzantine, and even Arab mystics. Of Apollonius’ works, only some dubious letters and fragments of a treatise “on sacrifices” are preserved (compare Euseb. Praep. evang. 4.12–13, where Apollonius explains that God is not influenced by human prayers or sacrifices, but can be recognized by the human nous), and a biography of Pythagoras is lost.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Dzielska, M. (1986) Apollonius of Tyana in legend and history. Rome. Jones, C. P., ed. and trans. (2005) Letters of Apollonius, ancient testimonia, Eusebius’s reply to Hierocles. Cambridge, MA. Jones, C. P., ed. and trans. (2006) Philostratus: Apollonius of Tyana. Cambridge, MA. Petzke, G. (1970) Die Traditionen u¨ber Apollonius von Tyana und das Neue Testament. Leiden.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 557–558. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah12230

1

Apollonius Rhodius MANUEL BAUMBACH

The poet and scholar Apollonius Rhodius was one of the major literary figures at Alexandria in the third century BCE. Either of Alexandrian or of Rhodian origin, Apollonius Rhodius served as royal tutor of PTOLEMY III EUERGETES and was head of the Alexandrian library (P.Oxy. 1241), probably as the successor of ZENODOTOS OF EPHESOS. In ancient biographies, Apollonius is presented as pupil of CALLIMACHUS, whose poetic maxims (mixing of literary genres, short and erudite poetry, stylistic sophistication, l’art pour l’art) he partly shared and partly challenged. None of his scholarly prose works, including commentaries on Homer, Hesiod, and Archilochus, has survived and of a number of poems only titles and fragments exist: he wrote epigrams, foundation poems of cities such as Alexandria, Rhodes, Naukratis, and perhaps also of Lesbos, and a choliambic poem entitled Canobus, which dealt with Egyptian legends of Sarapis. The only surviving work is the Argonautica, an epic narration, which tells the story of Jason’s quest for the Golden Fleece. The first two books describe the journey of the Argonauts from Iolkos to Kolchis, focusing on the stay at Lemnos, the loss of Herakles, and the encounter with the prophet Phineus, who gives an outlook on future events (2.164–536). In the second part of the epic, the adventures in Kolchis are narrated. With the help of Medea’s magic powers, Jason finally wins the contest for the Golden Fleece and returns home. Apollonius’ epic is characterized by the mixture of tradition and innovation. Based upon an archaic myth, which is already alluded to in the Homeric Odyssey (12.70), the story is told in the traditional form of epic and partly adapts Homer’s language, style, and narrative patterns. However, a number of innovations

point to new Hellenistic aesthetics. Not only is the Argonautica a comparatively small epic (5,835 verses), which avoids Archaic repetitiveness, but its generic status is different. Programmatically, the poet abandons the Homeric invocation of the Muses and thus gains poetic freedom for promoting a new form of epic. In weaving together different literary traditions, the Argonautica is built upon a mixing of genres such as epic, drama, lyric, and historiography. With regard to content, we find a new type of epic leader. Unlike the Homeric heroes, Jason is not accepted as leader straightaway, but has to establish himself in the course of the narration in an ongoing rite of passage. Similarly, Medea, who enters the epic in the second part of the narration, emerges as an unhomeric protagonist: Being both a beautiful virgin and a cruel magician, Medea is presented as an “inconsistent” character and introduces a strong supernatural aspect to the Argonautica. Apollonius’ epic, which is the only extant Greek epic between Homer and Roman imperial times, had an immense impact on Greek and Roman authors. Creative reception can be found in Moschos, Catullus, Vergil, Ovid, Lucan, Valerius Flaccus, and Quintus Smyrnaeus; the epic was translated into Latin by Varro Atacinus in the first century BCE. SEE ALSO:

Library of Alexandria.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS DeForest, M. M. (1994) Apollonius’ Argonautica. A Callimachean epic. Leiden. Fantuzzi, M. and Hunter, R. (2004) Tradition and innovation in Hellenistic poetry. Cambridge. Hunter, R (1993) The Argonautica of Apollonius. Literary studies. Cambridge. Papanghelis, T. D. and Rengakos, A., eds. (2001) A companion to Apollonius Rhodius. Leiden. Rengakos, A. (1992) “Zur Biographie des Apollonios von Rhodos.” Wiener Studien 105: 39–67.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 556–557. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah09041

1

Apologists ROBERT J. HAUCK

Ranging from a practicing philosopher in Rome to a North African rhetorician, the apologists were a collection of second- and third century Christian writers who attempted to defend Christianity in a period of persecution and to articulate its harmony with, or superiority to, Hellenistic thought and culture. While major early Christian writers such as ORIGEN, EUSEBIUS OF CAESAREA, and Augustine also wrote apologetic literature, in its narrow reference to the rise and development of apologetic in the second century, the term generally includes the Greek writers JUSTIN MARTYR (ca. 100–165), THEOPHILOS OF ANTIOCH (ca. 180), and ATHENAGORAS (ca. 177), and the Latin writers MINUCIUS FELIX (ca. 200–240) and TERTULLIAN (ca. 160–240). The texts usually included are Justin’s First and Second Apologies, To Autolycus by Theophilos of Antioch, Plea Regarding the Christians by Athenagoras, the Octavius of Minucius Felix, and the Apology of Tertullian (Tertullian’s To the Nations might also be included). The Epistle to Diognetus, Tatian’s Oration to the Greeks, and Origen’s Against Celsus are also sometimes included in this category (see DIOGNETUS, LETTER TO; TATIAN). In addition, Eusebius records that Quadratus addressed an apology to Hadrian in 125, which is not extant; as did Aristides, whose apology exists only in Syriac. MELITO OF SARDIS addressed an apology to Marcus Aurelius in about 176 which is also not extant. The literary context for the apologies is forensic – some of the apologies are modeled on speeches to be delivered in court. However, ranging from dialogues to diatribes, they do not share a common form, but are best grouped together in terms of their common interests and approach rather than by genre or literary form. These second century apologists write to respond to Roman persecution; to reply to specific accusations that are circulating about Christians and Christianity; and to argue that

Christianity, both as a way of life and a philosophy, best fulfills the Hellenistic concerns about salvation, that is, concerns about the knowledge of God, the nature and destiny of the soul, and the moral life. These authors were Christian intellectuals, possessing a traditional education in Hellenistic literature and culture. Justin, Theophilos, and others portray their conversion to Christianity, which comes after their education, as a result of their search for wisdom. Their education primarily consisted of rhetoric, and the apologists demonstrate a wide (though not always deep) knowledge of the poets, dramatists, and other standard elements of Greek literature. Their interests extend to philosophy, and Justin Martyr seems to have considered himself primarily a philosopher, operating a school in Rome where he taught Christianity. However, their knowledge is often simply that of school-philosophy, acquired through the manuals and handbooks common in this period. Athenagoras reports using a doxography to catalogue the various views of the philosophers concerning God. The apologists demonstrate knowledge of traditional euhemeristic arguments, skeptical criticisms of the poets, and Stoic allegorization of mythology. They draw on both the classical model of apologia, of which the defense of Socrates was the best known, and on Hellenistic Jewish efforts to defend Judaism and articulate it to a Roman audience, such as Josephus’ Against Apion (see JOSEPHUS) and Philo of Alexandria’s Embassy to Gaius (see PHILO JUDAEUS). The context for their writing is the sporadic Roman persecution that began in the latter half of the first century and continued until the legalization of Christianity by Constantine in the beginning of the fourth century. While some apologists refer to specific cases, more commonly a general background of suspicion and persecution is assumed. Beginning with Tacitus’ report of Nero’s persecution of Roman Christians in 64 CE, scattered instances of persecution in Asia Minor, Gaul, and North Africa are known throughout the second

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 558–561. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah05019

2 century. The apologists usually appeal to the emperor or, in Tertullian’s case, the “magistrates of the Roman Empire” (Apol. 1), for justice and an end to persecution. Their response to persecution is to emphasize its injustice – in good rhetorical fashion they praise the wisdom and justice of the emperor, and request an impartial investigation into the alleged crimes of the Christians. It is wrong, they say, to punish Christians merely for bearing the name of their founder; justice demands that actual crimes be proven against them. On the other hand, the apologists must account for persecution: why has hostility arisen against the Christians if they are innocent? A common approach here for the apologists is to refer to the wicked activity of the demons. Drawing from themes long established in Hellenistic Judaism, combined with modifications of Hellenistic cosmology, the apologists see the earth, its nations, and history as controlled and corrupted by demons. These are the fallen angels of the apocalyptic literature of Hellenistic Judaism, understood by the apologists to be identical with the daimones of Greek literature. The work of the demons has been to resist the providential influence of reason and to enslave humanity in irrationality, carnal desires, and superstition and false worship. It has likewise been an attempt to stamp out the influence of wisdom and reason wherever it has arisen, so, according to Justin, it was the demons who accused Socrates of atheism and arranged his death, and who do the same for the Christians, who now represent the force of reason and truth. The apologists call upon the emperor to resist their misleading influence by the exercise of wisdom and reason. In addition to a general response to what they see as unjust persecution, the apologists respond to specific allegations made against Christians, presumably by their neighbors. Slander against Christians becomes formulaic in apologetic literature – Athenagoras reports the charges as atheism, Thyestean feasts, and Oedipean banquets – that is, in addition to abandoning the customary gods, the Christians engage in cannibalism and incest.

Tertullian provides more detail – rumors say that Christians initiate new members by killing an infant and drinking its blood, and that their love feasts consist of banquets in which the lamp is put out and an indiscriminate orgy results. While the rhetoric around the charges escalates in the apologetic tradition, Pliny’s letter to Trajan regarding the legal standing of Christianity indicates that such rumors did circulate (Ep. 10.96). The apologists reply with reference to Jewish and Christian scripture and Christian practice – Moses provided commandments that required a pure diet and way of life, and Jesus emphasized purity in thought and deed. Christians esteem sexual morality, practice chastity, and their worship consists of hymns to Christ and exhortations to do only good to all people. Of all people, the apologists say (with some exceptions), the Christians are in fact the best citizens. Most of the apologists’ energy is aimed at refuting the charge of atheism. Influenced largely by Middle Platonism, that eclectic mix of Platonist metaphysics and Stoic ethics, the apologists argue that Christianity, in its refusal to participate in customary religious practices that include sacrifices at altars and veneration of statues and holy sites, actually provides a more pure and rational worship. Nearly all of the apologists affirm the common Middle Platonist definition of God – God is uncreated, eternal, ineffable, invisible, indefinable. God, as Athenagoras says, “can be contemplated only by thought and reason, whereas matter is created and perishable” (Leg. 4.1). Likewise, they agree with one of the distinctive elements of Middle Platonism, that this transcendent divinity relates to the lower order by means of its mind, reason, or speech – Wisdom in Hellenistic Jewish literature, nous for some Platonists, and LOGOS for the apologists. This Logos is the self-extension and revelation of the divine, and the apologists quote both Platonists and Stoics on the Logos extended or implanted in nature. They argue that Christ is this Logos incarnate, now fully manifest to humanity, who liberated human reason from the irrational activity of the demons, and now

3 makes possible the true worship of God, which is reasonable and spiritual. Justin argues that Socrates and Plato, insofar as they were rational and saw the truth, participated in this Logos, and Tertullian asserts that the nous of the Platonists and the spiritus of the Stoics is the Logos of the Christians (Apol. 21) This Logos brought the truth to the philosophers among the Greeks, to the prophets among the Jews, and now has been manifested fully among the Christians. Far from being atheists, the Christians alone are those who have succeeded in the philosopher’s quest to turn from the lower realms of the flesh, lift the eye of the soul, and see God. The apologists thus turn their defense into an argument for the superiority of Christianity. The apologists wrote in that period, identified by E. R. Dodds (1965) as an “age of anxiety,” or by A. D. Nock (1933) as an age of “conversion,” as representatives of one of the many religions of empire, with roots in Judaism and similarities to other eastern religions. A wide context of syncretism, religious change, and polemic stimulated a wide variety of religious and philosophical literature. This period of transition prompted a look back to a pre-imperial golden age, and produced Atticism in grammar, and the Second Sophistic movement in rhetoric. Stoicism and Platonism dominated philosophy, producing Middle Platonism with its mixture of Platonist metaphysics and Stoic ethics. In this context Christianity was viewed as a novelty, as a willful departure from that cultural tradition, embodied in literature, philosophy, and above all, in the piety that sustains social and civic life, that provided the civilization that Romans saw as the zenith of human life. As Celsus, the second century Platonist critic of Christianity argued (see CELSUS, PHILOSOPHER), society is sustained by a logos and a nomos – a wisdom and custom, handed down by ancient and inspired teachers and preserved in the intellectual and cultural traditions of ancient nations. Christians, for no good reason, have abandoned this tradition for the sake of a barbaric, irrational, and novel worship of an executed

criminal. Such innovation and departure from custom was subversive to the intellectual and cultural tradition and to the continued success and prosperity of civilized life. As Caecilius, the antagonist in Minucius Felix’s dialog says, “how much more reverent and better it is to accept the teaching of our elders as the priest of truth; to maintain the religions handed down to us . . .” (Oct. 6). In response to this fundamental criticism, the apologists attacked paganism, and argued that in fact, it is Christianity that best embodies the highest ideals of the tradition. They use skeptical arguments to critique polytheism – Theophilos points out that anyone who has been to a craftsman’s shop can see idols under production, and so it is irrational to worship images of wood or clay (Ad Autol. 2.2). Tertullian recounts the ways that Egyptian, Phrygian, and even Greek mythology is filled with shameful stories about the gods, so traditional worship is impious as well as irrational. The apologists cite temple prostitution, the exposure of infants, and the immorality glorified in the theater and arena, and apply philosophical criticisms of popular culture. By contrast, they argue, Christianity teaches all its adherents, not just the philosophical elite, to worship God rationally. Its sexual morality produces virgins who remain chaste throughout life, as well as martyrs who have no regard for the sufferings of the body. According to Athenagoras, all philosophers agree that God is immaterial, invisible, beyond mind and spirit, and is properly worshipped through mind, reason, or logos. Christianity, in its abandonment of images, its revelation of the logos, and the ascetic morality that it promotes, best represents the ancient logos delivered to the Greeks by the philosophers and the Jews by the prophets. Justin says, “Whatever things were rightly said among all men, are the property of us Christians” (2 Apol. 13). The apologists are significant both for early Christian history and theology, and for our knowledge of the intellectual world of the Late Roman Empire. As broadly educated

4 intellectuals, their writings reflect the worldview held by members of their class in Late Antiquity, and the nature of religious and philosophical polemic. In early Christian history they represent the first generation of Christian theologians, and reflect the ways in which Christian thought and practice were formed in this early intellectual and social context. Their appropriation of the central themes of Hellenistic philosophy demonstrates the common worldview held by intellectuals of this period, and their use of logos theology laid the groundwork for subsequent Christian thought, especially the Arian controversy and the Christological debates of the fourth and fifth centuries. SEE ALSO:

Persecution of Christians.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Andresen, C. (1955) Logos und Nomos; die Polemik des Kelsos wider das Christentum. Berlin. Chadwick, H., ed. (1980). Contra Celsum. Cambridge.

Chadwick, H. (1966) Early Christian thought and the classical tradition: studies in Justin, Clement, and Origen. New York. Dodds, E. R. (1965) Pagan and Christian in an age of anxiety. Cambridge. Edwards, M. J., Goodman, M., Price, S. R. F., and Rowland, C. (1999) Apologetics in the Roman Empire: Pagans, Jews, and Christians. Oxford. Gallagher, E. V. (1982). Divine man or magician? Celsus and Origen on Jesus. Chico, CA. Geffcken, J. (1907) Zwei griechische Apologeten. Leipzig. Grant, R. M. (1988) Greek apologists of the second century. Philadelphia. Nock, A. D. (1933) Conversion: the old and the new in religion from Alexander the Great to Augustine of Hippo. Oxford. Schoedel, W. R., ed. (1972) Athenagoras: Legatio and De resurrectione. Oxford. Schu¨ssler Fiorenza, E. (1976). Aspects of religious propaganda in Judaism and early Christianity. Notre Dame, IN. Wilken, R. L. (1984). The Christians as the Romans saw them. New Haven.

1

Apophasis ROBERT W. WALLACE

In classical Athenian legal and constitutional contexts, apophainein (“make known,” “report”) was used generally of reports to official bodies. Thus in 409 BCE Eudikos proposed that the BOULE “report” (apophainein) to a dikasterion what it had learned on a bribery case (IG I3 102¼Meiggs and Lewis 1988: 85). In 411 the generals reported (apophainein) to the Assembly on an embassy to Sparta (Plut. X Orat. 833e). Most notably, Athens’ fourth century AREOPAGOS often investigated (zetein) and reported to the DEMOS on matters requested by the demos (it once declined to investigate: Din. 1.10) or on its own initiative (Din. 1.8, 50–1, 55). Its first attested investigation, on its own initiative, involved the courtesan Neaira’s daughter Phano, wife of the basileus Theogenes (Dem. 59.80–3), in the 350s (Wallace 2000: 586; Hansen 1975: 52–7 dates the apophainein procedure ca. 355). The Areopagos’ limited competence to fine Theogenes may reflect some supervisory religious authority. All known later investigations and reports involve offenses by Areopagites (Din. 1.56–7), treason, or other public crimes: Antiphon ca. 343 (Din. 1.63, Dem. 18.132–4, Plut. Dem. 14.5), Charinos (Din. 1.63), Chairephilos for deceiving the demos (P.Oxy XXXIV.2686),

Polyeuktos for dealing with Athenian exiles in 324/3 (Din. 1.58–9), the Harpalos affair of 323 (Din. 1.61–3). The Areopagos’ activities reflect its greater prominence from the 350s. The zetein/apophainein procedure was probably not established by legal or constitutional reform. As with EISANGELIAI, probably no ANAKRISIS was required for cases the Areopagos recommended for prosecution. Areopagites might witness or testify in subsequent trials. SEE ALSO: Demosthenes, orator; Procedure, legal, Greek and Roman.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS De Bruyn, O. (1995) La compe´tence de l’Are´opage en matie`re de proce`s publics: 117–46. Stuttgart. (However, her alleged examples of apophasis before Theogenes are invalid.) Hansen, M. H. (1975) Eisangelia. The sovereignty of the people’s court in Athens in the fourth century BC and the impeachment of generals and politicians. Odense. Meiggs, R., and Lewis, D. M., eds. (1988) A selection of Greek historical inscriptions to the end of the fifth century BC. Oxford. Wallace, R. W. (2000) "Investigations and reports by the Areopagos Council, and Demosthenes’ Areopagos decree." In P. Flensted-Jensen, T. H. Nielsen, and L. Rubinstein, eds., Polis and politics. Studies in ancient Greek history presented to M. H. Hansen: 581–95. Copenhagen.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 561–562. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah13022

1

Apophthegmata Patrum CAROLINE T. SCHROEDER

The Apophthegmata Patrum consists of collections of sayings attributed to fourthand fifth century Christian monks, primarily in Egypt. Originating as oral traditions, these “sayings of the fathers” were compiled and written down during the fifth and sixth centuries in Palestine. As the introduction to the Alphabetical Collection explains, the traditions were recorded to provide models for later monks who wished to imitate early ascetics. The Apophthegmata has informed Christian monastic spirituality and practice from the Late Antique period to modernity, influencing figures from BENEDICT OF NURSIA to Thomas Merton. The texts purport to document the ascetic practices, words of wisdom, and personal histories of the earliest monastics. They describe primarily anchoritic and semianchoritic monks in the Lower Egyptian settlements of Scetis, Nitria, and Kellia. Sayings are ascribed to monks from many walks of life and include important historical persons, such as Macarius the Great (ca. 300–390), who led the ascetic community at Scetis, ANTONY the Great (ca. 250–356), and EVAGRIUS OF PONTUS (ca. 345–399). Lesser known figures and anonymous monks are also featured. A certain Poemen appears more frequently than any other person and was likely instrumental in assembling some of the early oral traditions and passing them on to the subsequent generation. Women such as Sarah, Syncletica, and Theodora are presented as teachers, demon-fighters, and ascetic exemplars alongside the men. The Apophthegmata also references monks from elsewhere in the Mediterranean world who had or were perceived to have had connections to Egyptian monasticism, such as JOHN CASSIAN and BASIL OF CAESAREA. The Apophthegmata Patrum addresses themes as diverse as the master/disciple relationship in anchoritic monasticism; social relations between monks; theology; discerning and

combating demons; the difficulties of asceticism; relations with animals and nature; the performance of miracles; work; prayer; fasting; reading and interpreting scripture; relationships with family and laity; dealing with social differences of class, gender, and ethnicity; and the regulation of emotions, especially pride, anger, and lust. The sayings are contained in several collections, the most important of which are the Systematic Collection, which organizes the sayings by thematic content; the Alphabetic Collection, which is organized by the name of the monk central to the saying; and an Anonymous Collection, which is found in the same manuscripts as some copies of the Alphabetical Collection. The textual history is complex. Recensions exist in Greek, Latin, Syriac, Sahidic and Bohairic Coptic, Georgian, Ethiopic, Armenian, Arabic, and Old Slavonic. The literary form derives from the classical genre of gnomic teaching literature, or chreia. Chreiai were collections of brief sayings studied, memorized, and copied by Greek students as part of their formal rhetorical, grammatical, and moral education. The Apophthegmata served a similar didactic purpose in the literary and spiritual instruction of monks. Although the sayings remain important sources for the study of early anchoritic and semianchoritic monasticism, their accuracy as authentic, historical witnesses to monasticism’s origins in Egypt has been challenged. For example, the representation of Antony in the Apophthegmata is markedly different from the figure who emerges from Antony’s own writings. The sayings concerning Antony bear no traces of the Origenist theology present in letters attributed to him (see ORIGENIST CONTROVERSY). Additionally, some sayings appear in different forms in more than one collection. The monastic teachings (or “words”) passed from master to disciple within the narratives of the Apopthegmata represent the cultural memory of a later generation about a perceived golden age earlier in the ascetic movement’s history.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 562–563. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah05189

2 SEE ALSO: Ascesis/asceticism; Monasticism, Christian.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Burton-Christie, D. (1993) Word in the desert: scripture and the quest for holiness in early Christian monasticism. Oxford. Gould, G. (1993) The desert fathers on monastic community. Oxford. Harmless, W. (2004) Desert Christians: an introduction to the literature of early monasticism. Oxford. Larsen, L. (2006) “The Apophthegmata Patrum and the classical rhetorical tradition.” In F. Young, M. Edwards, and P. Parvis, eds., Studia patristica

39: Papers presented at the fourteenth international conference on patristic studies at Oxford 2003: 409–16. Leuven. Regnault, L. (1999) The day-to-day life of the desert fathers in fourth century Egypt. Petersham, MA. Stewart, C., trans. (1986) The world of the desert fathers: stories and sayings from the anonymous series of the Apophthegmata Patrum. Oxford. Ward, B., trans. (1984) The sayings of the desert fathers: the alphabetical collection. Kalamazoo, MI. Ward, B., trans. (1986) The wisdom of the desert fathers: systematic sayings from the anonymous series of the Apophthegmata Patrum. Oxford.

1

Apostasy, Jewish NATALYA KIREEVA

Apostasy is the term used by a community to describe former coreligionists who have renounced the religion they were born in or embraced, and usually have changed their religion. The notion of apostasy in ancient Judaism was quite indeterminate. There is no “apostasy” per se in ancient Israel, only idolatry and rebellion against God’s covenantal rules. Thus, in Deuteronomy 13:7–10, an Israelite whose close relative tempts him to abandon God and practice what the Torah considers idolatrous worship (that is, worship of another god) must kill that relative. The chief movements of the Second Temple era (586 BCE–70 CE) – the SADDUCEES, the PHARISEES, the ESSENES, and the Qumranites (see QUMRAN) – held diverse views on the doctrinal foundations of Judaism and on a number of key issues: resurrection from the dead, predestination, the Oral Law, and so forth. This variety of approaches within the framework of one religious system indicates that the boundaries of “otherness” were sufficiently wide then. Rabbinic Judaism introduced several terms designating people whose actions may include those that we would consider characteristic of an apostate, but also condemn other behavior or beliefs that are not specifically relevant to the subject of apostasy. Most of these terms are either Hebrew or Aramaic (e.g., min, lit. a “type”; kofer, “a negator”; meshummad, “one who was destroyed”; mumar, lit. “a diversifier”; poshea yisrael, “a criminal of Israel”) although at least one is of Greek origin (apikoros, i.e., Epicurean). A curse against the MINIM was included in the primary rabbinic daily prayer, the Amidah. In Jewish writings of the Second Temple period there are several mentions of apostates. These cases could help us to understand the phenomenon better. Dositheos, the son of Drimylos is mentioned in 3 Maccabees 1:3 as an apostate and transgressor of Jewish Law.

In the works of Josephus there are several examples of apostates: in Jewish War 7.46–62 Antiochos from Antioch is mentioned. He was a Jew, “greatly respected on account of his father” (7.47), but he betrayed his father and all the Jews of Antioch. According to Jewish War 7.50 Antiochos demonstrated his conversion by violating Jewish law. The best known example of apostasy described by Josephus is Tiberius IULIUS ALEXANDER, who was in 46-48 CE a procurator of Judaea, afterwards the governor of Egypt, and also took part as Titus’ second-in-command at the siege of Jerusalem. In Jewish Antiquities 20.145–6 Josephus tells the story of proselyte king Polemo, who converted to Judaism in order to marry Berenike but did not observe Jewish law. From these concrete examples we may conclude that in the first century BCE and CE one was considered an apostate in cases of idolatry, of violating Jewish law (especially relating to the SABBATH and dietary requirements), and of intermarriage that leads to idolatry (Barclay 1996: 91–3). There are also discussions on the term apostasy in the context of early Christianity: whether or not Paul considered himself to be an apostate Jew and what is the connection of the term “aposynagogos” in the Gospel of John (9:22, 12:42, 16:2) with the practice of excommunication (see EXCOMMUNICATION, JEWISH). SEE ALSO: Dietary restrictions, Jewish and Christian; Intermarriage, Jewish; Jews; Rabbis.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Barclay, John M. G. (1996) “Who was considered an apostate in the Jewish diaspora?” In G. N. Stanton and G. G. Stroumsa, eds., Tolerance and intolerance in Early Judaism and Christianity: 80–98. Cambridge. Goodman, M. (1996) “The function of ‘minim’ in early rabbinic Judaism.” In H. Lichtenberger, H. Cancik, and P. Scha¨fer, eds., Geschichte – Tradition - Reflexion, vol. 1: 501–10. Tu¨bingen.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 563–564. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah11024

2 Green, W. S. (2005) “Heresy, apostasy in Judaism.” In S. E. Karesh and M. M. Hurvitz, eds., Encyclopedia of Judaism, vol. 2: 980–94. Leiden.

Urbach, E. E. (1981) “Self-isolation or self affirmation in Judaism in the first three centuries; theory and practice.” In E. P. Saunders, Jewish and Christian Self-Definition, vol. 2: 269–98. London.

1

Apostle MARK D. GIVEN

The word “apostle” is derived from the Greek apostolos, which means “something or someone sent.” The subject of this article is the technical sense the word acquired in early Christianity. As early as Classical times, apostolos could be applied to a naval expedition, the ship itself, or its commander. In the papyri it refers to “a bill of lading,” “a certificate of clearance (at a port),” or a “letter of authorization (relating to shipping).” Significantly for our subject, it is occasionally used of a person functioning as an “ambassador, delegate, messenger” (Danker 2000: 122). Furthermore, although prophets are not called apostles in the Septuagint, they are often spoken of as being sent (apostello¯) by God with a message (e.g., 1 Chron 36:15). This usage very likely influenced the nearly simultaneous development of the early Christian concept of an apostle and the early rabbinic role of the shaliach (Hebrew), “one sent” as a legal representative (Bienert 1992: 7). There was a diversity of apostle concepts in the early church, but there is no consensus on how they originated and developed (Kirk 1975). As often in the study of early Christianity, the nature and dating of the sources create problems. The traditional notion that Jesus appointed twelve apostles to preach the gospel to the Gentiles appears only in documents after 70 CE. Leadership developments in the years after Jesus’ death, including the Apostle Paul’s conception of his apostleship, contributed to this idea. As for earlier sources, Mark, the earliest surviving Gospel (ca. 65–70), says (Mk 3:14) that during his ministry Jesus chose twelve “to be with him, to be sent out (apostello¯) to preach, and to have authority to cast out demons” (“whom he also named apostles” is not in the earliest manuscripts; see also Mk 6:7–13; Matt 10:1–11:1; Lk 6:13–16). In a tradition from the lost sayings source “Q” (probably 50s–60s), Jesus promises a future

kingdom and authority to the Twelve (Matt 19:28; Lk 22:29–30; cf. Eph 2:20; Rev 21:14) and Paul, writing in the mid-50s, says the risen Jesus appeared to “the Twelve” (1 Cor 13:5). The importance of the concept of the Twelve is reflected in how quickly Judas is replaced after Jesus’ ascension in Acts 1:15–26. Although Acts is a late source (80s), the requirement that the replacement be a witness to the resurrection and a disciple who had accompanied Jesus throughout his ministry (1:21–2) is historically plausible and helps explain the controversy that will surround Paul’s claim to apostleship. In Paul’s letters we encounter a broader definition of apostleship. In 1 Thessalonians (ca. 48), Paul says that “we [Paul, Silvanus, and Timothy] have been approved by God to be entrusted with the message of the gospel” (1 Thess 2:4) and that “we might have made demands as apostles of Christ” (v. 7). Thus apostles are commissioned missionaries with some degree of authority. Paul and Barnabas (Acts 14:4,14), Apollos (1 Cor 4:6,9), Andronicus and Junia (Rom 16:7), and probably many others were apostles in this sense (Brown 1984: 478–9). These apostles likely had varying credentials, some commissioned by churches and validated by charismatic gifts, but crucial to Paul’s apostleship was his claim to have seen the risen Christ and to have received a direct commission from him to become the apostle to the Gentiles (1 Cor 9:1, 15:8; Gal 1:1,12,16). By the beginning of the second century, apostleship as a continuing ministry was in decline, the Didache (ca. 100) being among the last documents to speak of active missionary apostles (11:3–6). From then on apostleship is an institution of the past, mostly limited to Paul and the Twelve, although there is still some awareness of the broader missionary definition (e.g., Irenaeus Haer. 2.21.1; Acts of Paul and Thecla). Increasingly the concern among the Proto-orthodox was to invoke an apostolic foundation over against rival Christian groups, especially the Gnostics. While both claimed apostolic succession, the Gnostics

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 564–565. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah05020

2 meant by it the passing on of private esoteric doctrines by individual apostles to revered mystagogues while the Proto-orthodox meant the passing on of public and widely attested “catholic” doctrines by Paul and the Twelve to the bishops. The latter strategy was to prove more effective. SEE ALSO: Acts of the Apostles; Apostles’ Creed; Apostolic Succession; Paul and Pauline epistles; Peter the Apostle.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Bienert, W. A. (1992) “The picture of the apostle in early Christian tradition.” In E. Hennecke and W. Schneemelcher, eds., New Testament Apocrypha, vol. 2: 5–27, trans. R. McL. Wilson. Cambridge.

Brown, S. (1984) “Apostleship in the New Testament.” New Testament Studies 30: 474–80. Danker, F. W., ed. (2000) A Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament and other early Christian literature, 3rd ed. Chicago. Kirk, J. A. (1975) “Apostleship since Rengstorf: towards a synthesis.” New Testament Studies 21: 249–64. Rengstorf, K. H. (1964) “Apostolos.” In G. Kittel and G. Friedrich, eds., Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, vol. 1: 407–47. Schnackenburg, R. (1970) “Apostles before and during Paul’s time.” In W. Gasque and R. P. Martin, eds., Apostolic history and the gospel: biblical and historical essays presented to F. F. Bruce on his 60th birthday: 287–303. Grand Rapids, MI. Sullivan, F. A. (2001) From apostles to bishops: the development of the episcopacy in the early church. New York.

1

Apostle MARK D. GIVEN

Missouri State University, USA

The word “apostle” is derived from the Greek apostolos, which means “something or someone sent.” The subject of this article is the technical sense the word acquired in early Christianity. As early as Classical times, apostolos could be applied to a naval expedition, the ship itself, or its commander. In the papyri it refers to “a bill of lading,” “a certificate of clearance (at a port),” or a “letter of authorization (relating to shipping).” Significantly for our subject, it is occasionally used of a person functioning as an “ambassador, delegate, messenger” (Danker 2000: 122). Although prophets are not called apostles in the SEPTUAGINT, they are often spoken of as being sent (apostellō) by God with a message (e.g., Isa 6:8; 1 Chron 36:15). This usage is likely to have influenced the nearly simultaneous development of the early Christian concept of an apostle and the early rabbinic role of the shaliach (Hebrew), “one sent” as a legal representative (Bienert 1992: 7). Intriguingly, EPICTETUS (ca. 55–135 CE), “describes Cynic philosophers as persons who must know that they are messengers sent by Zeus to humans (hoti angellos apo tou Dios apestaltai kai pros tous anthrōpous) in order to show people with regard to good and evil that they are in great error” (Jewett 2007:101). There was a diversity of apostle concepts in the early church, but there is no consensus on how they originated and developed (Kirk 1975). As often in the study of early Christianity, the nature and dating of the sources create problems. The traditional notion that Jesus appointed twelve apostles to preach the gospel to the Gentiles appears only in documents after 70 CE. Leadership developments in the years after Jesus’ death, including the Apostle Paul’s conception of his apostleship, contributed to this idea. As for earlier sources, Mark, the earliest surviving Gospel (see MARK, GOSPEL OF)

(ca. 65–70), says in Mk 3:14 that during his ministry Jesus chose twelve “to be with him, to be sent out (apostellō) to preach, and to have authority to cast out demons” (“whom he also named apostles” is not in the earliest manuscripts; see also Mk 6:7–13; Matt 10:1–11:1; Lk 6:13–16). In a tradition from the lost sayings source “Q” (probably 50s–60s), Jesus promises a future kingdom and authority to the Twelve (Matt 19:28; Lk 22:29–30; cf. Eph 2:20; Rev 21:14), and Paul, writing in the mid-50s, says the risen Jesus appeared to “the Twelve” (1 Cor 15:5). The importance of the concept of the Twelve is reflected in how quickly JUDAS ISCARIOT is replaced after Jesus’ ascension in Acts 1:15–26. Although Acts is a late source (ca. 80–100), the requirement that the replacement be a witness to the resurrection and a disciple who had accompanied Jesus throughout his ministry (1:21–2) is historically plausible and helps explain the controversy that surrounded Paul’s claim to apostleship. In Paul’s letters we encounter a broader definition of apostleship. In 1 Thessalonians (ca. 51), Paul says that “we [Paul, Silvanus, and Timothy] have been approved by God to be entrusted with the message of the gospel” (1 Thess 2:4) and that “we might have made demands as apostles of Christ” (v. 7). Thus, apostles are commissioned missionaries with some degree of authority. Paul and Barnabas (Acts 14:4, 14), Apollos (1 Cor 4:6, 9), Andronicus and Junia (Rom 16:7), James (1 Cor 15:7; Gal 1:19), and probably many others were apostles in this sense (Brown 1984: 478–9). Although there are complex textual and translation issues, Junia (Julia in some early manuscripts) was probably a female apostle as assumed by early exegetes (Epp 2005). Also, Paul knows of apostles he considers “false” and lampoons as “super apostles” (2 Cor 11:5,13). Apostles are likely to have had varying credentials, some commissioned by churches and validated by charismatic gifts, but crucial to Paul’s apostleship was his claim to have seen the risen Christ and to have received a

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History. Edited by Andrew Erskine, David B. Hollander, and Arietta Papaconstantinou. © 2021 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Published 2021 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah05020.pub2

2 direct commission from him to become the apostle to the Gentiles (1 Cor 9:1, 15:8; Gal 1:1,12,16). He stressed that he was a “called apostle” (e.g., Rom 1:1), likely to have been on the model of the Hebrew prophets. By the beginning of the second century, apostleship as a continuing ministry was in decline, the DIDACHE (ca. 100) being among the last documents to speak of active missionary apostles (11:3–6). From then on apostleship is an institution of the past, mostly limited to Paul and the Twelve, although there is still some awareness of the broader missionary definition (e.g., Irenaeus Haer. 2.21.1; Acts of Paul and Thecla). Increasingly the concern among the Proto-orthodox was to invoke an apostolic foundation over and against rival Christian groups, especially the Gnostics. While both claimed apostolic succession, the Gnostics meant by it the passing on of private esoteric doctrines by individual apostles to revered mystagogues, while the Proto-orthodox meant the passing on of public and widely attested “catholic” doctrines by Paul and the Twelve to the bishops. The latter strategy was to prove more effective. Finally, ongoing controversy concerning women’s leadership in the church is evidenced by The Gospel of Mary, which arguably presents Mary Magdalene as an apostle (Brock 2019; King 2003; Tuckett 2007). SEE ALSO:

Acts of the Apostles; Apostles’ Creed; Apostolic succession; Paul and Pauline Epistles; Peter the Apostle.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Agnew, F. H. (1986) “The origin of the NT apostle– concept: a review of research.” Journal of Biblical Literature 105, 1: 75–96. Bienert, W. A. (1992) “The picture of the apostle in early Christian tradition.” In E. Hennecke and W. Schneemelcher, eds., New Testament apocrypha, vol. 2: 5–27, trans. R. McL. Wilson. Cambridge. Brock, A. G. (2019) “Mary Magdalene.” In B. H. Dunning, ed., The Oxford handbook of New Testament, gender, and sexuality. Oxford. Brown, S. (1984) “Apostleship in the New Testament.” New Testament Studies 30: 474–80. Danker, F. W., ed. (2000) A Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament and other early Christian literature, 3rd ed. Chicago. Epp, E. J. (2005) Junia: The first woman apostle. Minneapolis. Jewett, R. (2007) Romans. Hermeneia. Minneapolis. King, K. (2003) The Gospel of Mary of Magdala: Jesus and the first woman apostle. Santa Rosa. Kirk, J. A. (1975) “Apostleship since Rengstorf: towards a synthesis.” New Testament Studies 21: 249–64. Rengstorf, K. H. (1964) “Apostolos.” In G. Kittel and G. Friedrich, eds., Theological dictionary of the New Testament, vol. 1: 407–47. Grand Rapids, MI. Schnackenburg, R. (1970) “Apostles before and during Paul’s time.” In W. Gasque and R. P. Martin, eds., Apostolic history and the gospel: biblical and historical essays presented to F. F. Bruce on his 60th birthday: 287–303. Grand Rapids, MI. Sullivan, F. A. (2001) From apostles to bishops: the development of the episcopacy in the early church. New York. Tuckett, C. (2007) The Gospel of Mary. Oxford.

1

Apostles’ Creed ¨ HR WINRICH LO

TEXT The received text (T) of the Apostles’ Creed which is now used in Christian churches around the globe is possibly first attested in the ordo Romanus antiquus, that is, not before the close of the eighth century (Westra 2002: 22–3). The scholarly consensus sees T as the enlarged version of what is known as the Old Roman Creed (R). Already Ambrose of Milan called R the “symbol of the apostles.” The designation implies an early date of origin (epistula extra coll. 15.2). Rufinus of Aquileia, writing in about 404 CE, was apparently the first to relate a tradition according to which the twelve apostles gathered after Pentecost and composed a creed as a touchstone of their preaching and a norm for the faithful (Symb. 2; Kattenbusch 1900: 3–24). Four direct witnesses to the text of R can be cited: two Latin manuscripts (Bodleian Library Laud Gr.35, sixth–seventh century, and British Library Cotton 2 A XX, eighth century), one manuscript that presents a transcription of the Greek text (the ninth century Psalter of Aethelstan, British Library Cotton Galba A XVIII), and a letter of MARCELLUS OF ANKYRA to Pope Julius of Rome (Epiphanius of Salamis, Haer. 72.2.1–3.5) which contains the Greek text of R (see below). The Epiphanius text is attested by one manuscript, codex Jenensis Bose which can be dated to 1304. Crucial evidence is also provided by Rufinus of Aquileia, who in his Commentary remarks on the differences between R and the creed of his home church of Aquileia. A further, possibly earlier, witness for R is the Apostolic Tradition, a church order which some modern scholars have ascribed to HIPPOLYTUS OF ROME (ca. 235). The Apostolic Tradition 21 quotes a baptismal creed in the form of questions which again closely resembles R. From the period between the fourth and the eighth

century a considerable number of local creeds of western churches are known that resemble R more or less closely and may be derived from it. Scholars have attempted to classify them according to regional types (Westra 2002: 73–276). According to the two Latin manuscripts and Rufinus, R has this text: I believe in God, the Father almighty, and in Christ Jesus, His only Son, our Lord, who was born from the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary, who under Pontius Pilate was crucified and buried, on the third day rose again from the dead, ascended to heaven, sits at the right hand of the Father, whence he will come to judge the living and the dead; and in the Holy Spirit, the holy church, the remission of sins, the resurrection of the flesh. (trans. Kelly 1995: 102).

The baptismal questions of the Apostolic Tradition present this text: Do you believe in God, the Father almighty? Do you believe in Christ Jesus, the Son of God, who was born by the Holy Spirit from the Virgin Mary, who was crucified under Pontius Pilate, and died, and rose again on the third day living from the dead, and ascended into heaven and sat down at the right hand of the Father, and will come to judge the living and the dead? Do you believe in the Holy Spirit and the holy church? (Botte 1963: 48–51; trans. Kelly 1995: 114, modified).

ORIGIN Recent scholarship continues to debate whether R has to be dated before or after the fourth century. Research has focused on (1) the letter of Marcellus and (2) the Apostolic Tradition. The letter of Marcellus

In 340 Marcellus, whose doctrinal views had been condemned by a synod in Constantinople

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 566–568. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah05021

2 in 336, went to Rome in order to seek rehabilitation. In a letter which he addressed to Pope Julius, probably after a Roman synod in 341 had pronounced him orthodox, Marcellus formulated a detailed declaration of his faith, a section of which reproduces almost verbatim the text of R (Epiphanius Haer. 72.3.1). It has often been assumed that Marcellus here appeals to R in order to assure his Roman colleague of his own orthodoxy. Vinzent (1999, 2006) has argued that Marcellus did not so much cite an existing Roman baptismal symbol as rather formulate for the first time a creed that was later put to liturgical use by the Roman church. Westra (2002: 65–9) rejects Vinzent’s thesis and infers from an analysis of a number of variant readings the existence of a shorter version of R (“proto-R”) which he dates to the second half of the third century. Other scholars view R as a creed that was first formulated by the Roman synod that rehabilitated Marcellus, or assume that an existing rule of faith may have been modified in the fourth century (e.g., Tetz 1984; Heil 2010). By the middle of the fourth century at the latest, the Roman church required baptismal candidates to recite a fixed declaratory creed before the actual baptism (August. Conf. 8. 2.5). During baptism they probably again confirmed their faith by responding to the baptismal questions. The Apostolic Tradition

If Hippolytus of Rome is the author of the Apostolic Tradition, its baptismal questions can be dated to the beginning of the third century, possibly earlier. However, as more and more scholars (e.g., Brent 1995: 182–97; Bradshaw 2002: 1–17) doubt the Hippolytean authorship, a fourth century date for the Apostolic Tradition and its baptismal questions becomes more probable. Nevertheless, despite the silence of the sources it cannot be ruled out that already before the fourth century a baptismal creed – declaratory and/or in the form of baptismal questions – may have been used in the Roman church, as perhaps in other churches (see the remark of Eusebius of

Caesarea, in Athanasius Decr. 33.3). Vinzent, too, allows for the possibility that for the phrasing of his creed Marcellus also drew on an existing tradition of baptismal questions (2006: 316; Kinzig and Vinzent 1999). It is unclear whether R was first formulated in Greek or in Latin. There is evidence that Latin and Greek liturgical formularies may have coexisted in Rome well into the fourth century, with Latin becoming more and more dominant (Pie´tri 1976: 104). THEOLOGY Since the origin of R is unclear, its sources and theological profile are difficult to determine. The first Christian theologian to explain it was apparently Bishop Photin of Sirmium, a disciple of Marcellus of Ancyra whose commentary – which Rufinus mentions (Commentary 1.17–21) – is no longer extant. The basic structure of R is triadic, its three articles invoking the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit in turn. The second article, which is conspicuously enlarged, offers a “Christological summary.” There is little or no emphasis on the preexistence of the Son before the Virgin Birth, no mention of an eternal generation of the LogosSon from the Father. Some scholars believe that R combines two earlier formulae – one trinitarian, the other Christological. REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Botte, B. (1963) La tradition apostolique de Saint Hippolyte. Mu¨nster. Bradshaw, P. (2002) The apostolic tradition. Minneapolis. Brent, A. (1995) Hippolytus and the Roman church in the third century. Leiden. Heil, U. (2010) “Markell von Ankyra und das Romanum.” In A. von Stockhausen and H. C. Brennecke, eds., Von Arius zum Athanasianum: 85–103. Berlin. Kattenbusch, F. (1894/1900) Das apostolische Symbol, 2 vols. Leipzig. Kelly, J. N. D. (1995) Early Christian creeds, 3rd ed. New York.

3 Kinzig, W. and Vinzent, M. (1999) “Recent research on the origin of the Creed.” Journal of Theological Studies 50: 535–59. Pie´tri, C. (1976) Roma Christiana. Rome. Tetz, M. (1984) “Zum altro¨mischen Bekenntnis. Ein Beitrag des Marcellus von Ancyra.” Zeitschrift fu¨r die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 75: 107–27. Vinzent, M. (1999) “Die Entstehung des ‘Ro¨mischen Glaubensbekenntnisses’.”

In W. Kinzig, C. Markschies, and M. Vinzent, eds., Tauffragen und Taufbekenntnis: 185–409. Berlin. Vinzent, M. (2006) Der Ursprung des Apostolikums im Urteil der kritischen Forschung. Go¨ttingen. Westra, L. (2002) The Apostles’ Creed. Origin, history, and some early commentaries. Turnhout.

1

Apostolic Fathers JAMES N. RHODES

The “Apostolic Fathers” is an umbrella term that refers to a now traditional collection of some of the earliest proto-orthodox Christian texts outside of the New Testament. These texts may be distinguished from the writings of the Church Fathers by their relative antiquity, and from other collections of early Christian literature (see APOCRYPHA, CHRISTIAN; NAG HAMMADI LIBRARY) by their perceived importance to the emerging orthodox church. NATURE OF THE COLLECTION The following texts are typically included: The Teaching (Didache) of the Twelve Apostles (see DIDACHE); the Epistle of Barnabas (see BARNABAS, EPISTLE OF); 1 and 2 Clement (see CLEMENT OF ROME); seven letters of IGNATIUS OF ANTIOCH (Ephesians, Magnesians, Trallians, Romans, Philadelphians, Smyrnaeans, Polycarp); the Letter of Polycarp to the Philippians; the Martyrdom of Polycarp; the Shepherd of Hermas (see POLYCARP OF SMYRNA; HERMAS/SHEPHERD OF HERMAS); and the Epistle to Diognetus (see DIOGNETUS, LETTER TO). Modern editions also sometimes include fragmentary traditions attributed to PAPIAS of Hierapolis, author of a lost fivevolume work known as An Exposition of the Sayings of the Lord (kuriako¯n logio¯n exe¯ge¯sis), as well as references to an apology of QUADRATUS, likewise now lost (Eusebius Hist. eccl. 3.39.1, 4.3.1–2). The identification of these texts as a distinct corpus within early Christian literature is largely a modern convention beginning with the 1672 edition of J. B. Cotelier, which included the writings of Clement, Barnabas, Hermas, Ignatius, and Polycarp. Subsequent scholars gradually expanded this corpus to its present contours. The collection embraces a diversity of literary genres, including a church manual (Didache), a homily (2 Clement), an apocalypse (Hermas), a martyr story with an

epistolary framework (Polycarp), an apology for the Christian faith (Diognetus), and letters to both individuals and churches serving a variety of pastoral purposes. Moreover, the documents range in probable date from the second half of the first century (1 Clement, Didache?) to perhaps as late as the third century (Diognetus?). Nonetheless, the collocation of these texts is not entirely arbitrary if one considers certain interrelationships among them. For example, 1 and 2 Clement circulated together in Antiquity and, despite the erroneous attribution of the latter to Clement of Rome, some historical or literary relationship may exist between the two texts. Possibly the same Clement is mentioned by the Shepherd of Hermas as a sort of corresponding secretary for the church at Rome (Herm. Vis. 2.4.3). The careers of Ignatius and Polycarp overlap and presuppose each other, while Polycarp himself was probably responsible for the initial collection of Ignatius’ letters (Pol. Phil. 13.2). The Didache and the Epistle of Barnabas share related forms of an ethical treatise on the Two Ways (Did. 1–5; Barn. 19–20), a “synoptic” problem that vexed scholars for a half century following the Didache’s rediscovery in 1873. Finally, Barnabas, the Didache, and 1–2 Clement may all be found in the non-biblical Codex Hierosolymitanus (1056), together with the so-called long recension of the Letters of Ignatius, a fact that indicates that the collocation of these writings is not solely reflective of modern interests. SIGNIFICANCE OF THE COLLECTION Antiquity and diversity

The now traditional designation of this collection as “Apostolic Fathers” implies that the texts or their authors function as a bridge between the intellectual leaders of the emerging institutional church (“Church Fathers”) and an earlier era in which contact with a living apostolic voice remained possible. Thus, for

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 568–572. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah05022

2 example, the superscription to the Didache attributes its teaching to the authority of the Twelve as a group, while the Epistle of Barnabas, though viewed with a mixture of esteem and suspicion even in Antiquity, was putatively the work of an apostolic associate. By the late second century, Clement was being remembered as the Bishop of Rome, the second (or possibly third) in succession from Peter, while Irenaeus of Lyons regarded Clement, Polycarp, and Papias all as first-hand witnesses of apostolic teaching (Haer. 3.3.3–4; 5.33.3–4). Later tradition sought to tie Ignatius of Antioch to the apostles Peter and John (Jerome De vir. ill. 16), while for Origen, even the Shepherd of Hermas might plausibly be traced to an associate of the Apostle Paul (Comm. Rom. 10.31 on Rom 16:14; Jerome De vir. ill. 10). Finally, the Epistle to Diognetus, though apparently unknown in Antiquity, at least under its present name, is included in modern collections on the grounds that the author refers to himself as a “disciple of the apostles” (11:1). While modern scholarship has widely abandoned earlier assumptions about the “apostolicity” of these texts, it recognizes the significance of these claims as part of a quest to define authoritative structures and authoritative teaching in the early church. Ironically, it is the very diversity of the texts that underscores their importance, for they give us insight into a period of time in which theological notions and ecclesial structures that will later be taken for granted are just emerging, or remain inchoate. Examples of this developmental diversity among the Apostolic Fathers include varying forms of congregational leadership, differing idioms of Christological expression, and divergent stances toward the church’s Jewish heritage. The Letter of the Romans to the Corinthians (1 Clement), for example, evinces the first traces of an argument that proper church leadership derives from apostolic ordination, though it is debatable whether the letter seeks to lay down a universally valid principle or merely to help resolve a local dispute (see

APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION).

The letters of Ignatius offer us the earliest clear evidence of a three-tiered hierarchy of ministry, in which a single bishop presides over a plurality of elders and deacons (see BISHOP; DEACON; PRESBYTER). Nevertheless, it is clear that such a structure did not prevail everywhere; in 1 Clement the terms episkopoi and presbyteroi appear to be coterminous, while the Didache reflects a community for whom itinerant prophets and teachers remain a reality, and is only beginning the transition to more fixed leadership structures (resident elders and bishops). The Shepherd of Hermas, for its part, continues to reflect the terminological variety found in the New Testament, referring to apostles, bishops, presbyters, teachers, and deacons without any clearly discernible hierarchy. The Christological reflection of the Apostolic Fathers likewise exhibits notable variations. In the Didache we find the earliest eucharistic prayers outside of the New Testament (Did. 9-10), prayers which strikingly lack reference to an institution narrative or an explicit theology of atonement. Here Jesus is referred to somewhat ambiguously as God’s pais (“servant,” “child”) rather than God’s huios (“son”), and in parallel with David, also identified as God’s pais. Such a markedly Jewish Christology stands in contrast to the letters of Ignatius, which speak of Christ as God’s son in unambiguously incarnational terms (Ign. Eph. 18.2, 20.2). The Epistle of Barnabas likewise stands closer to the proto-orthodox trajectory: Jesus is both human and divine, a participant in God’s first creation and destined to bring a second creation to eschatological fulfillment (Barn. 5.5, 15.5). Other texts are not so neatly characterized: 1 Clement, for example, has echoes of a pais Christology, but elsewhere affirms Jesus’ sonship in terms that echo the Epistle to the Hebrews (1 Clem. 36.1–5). More striking still is the Shepherd of Hermas, which speaks of Jesus in angelomorphic terms though it never mentions his name (Herm. Mand. 5.1.7).

3 Perhaps nowhere is the diversity among the Apostolic Fathers more evident than in their use of the Jewish scriptures and their attitudes toward the Jewish community. While 1 Clement and the Epistle of Barnabas both make extensive use of the Old Testament, they do so to very different ends: for Clement the Jewish scriptures offer a rich set of moral exempla that support his appeal for an end to schism in the church at Corinth; for Barnabas they serve as a reservoir of Christological proof texts and prophetic critiques of Jewish cultic observances. A Jewish scriptural substratum is likewise evident in the Two Ways tract shared by Barnabas and the Didache. By contrast, Old Testament references are virtually absent from the letters of Ignatius, Polycarp, and Diognetus. Given the focus on his impending martyrdom one might have expected Ignatius to call attention to the Maccabean martyrs, whose cult was celebrated at Antioch. His failure to do so probably reflects more than just a preferential focus on the suffering of Christ; elsewhere Ignatius avers that it is incompatible to call oneself a Christian and to live according to Jewish ritual practices (Magn. 10.3). Tension with the Jewish community is likewise evident in the Martyrdom of Polycarp, where the Jews are accused of being eager to watch or even assist in the execution (Mart. Pol. 13:1). The Letter to Diognetus, composed for a pagan audience, dismisses both the Jewish cult and GrecoRoman forms of worship as folly (Diogn. 2.1–4.6). Explicit Old Testament references are similarly absent from the Shepherd of Hermas, though there is no evidence of antiJewish hostility. If anything, its emphasis on ethical concerns and wholehearted obedience – especially avoiding idolatry and sexual sin – give it a somewhat Jewish flavor closer to that of 1 Clement. Extracanonical Jewish traditions are also found: Barnabas cites materials derived from Enoch (Barn. 4:3), Hermas appeals to a book of Eldad and Modat (7.4), while 1–2 Clement share an additional, unidentified source (1 Clem. 23.3; 2 Clem.

11,2-4; see

APOCRYPHA

AND

PSEUDEPIGRAPHA,

JEWISH).

Relationship to the New Testament

The significance of the Apostolic Fathers for the New Testament canon as we now know it is twofold. First, their proximity in time to the New Testament documents makes them especially valuable as (potential) witnesses to the use and the emerging authority of those writings. Second, several of the Apostolic Fathers were themselves cited by Church Fathers as authoritative texts in the first four centuries CE, so that one might speak of them as enjoying a temporary and/or local canonicity prior to their eventual exclusion from the New Testament. As might be expected, the extent to which the Apostolic Fathers use or presuppose New Testament writings varies considerably, and the evidence is frequently ambiguous (Gregory and Tuckett 2005). At one end of the spectrum is Polycarp’s letter to the Philippians, the language of which is so infused with allusions to the New Testament that it has often been criticized as bereft of any originality. Echoes of the Gospels, Acts, the Pauline and deuteroPauline letters, 1 Peter, and even 1 Clement may be found, though none of these is cited explicitly as scripture. By contrast, the Shepherd of Hermas – a text longer than any of the New Testament Gospels – contains what might at best be described as weak echoes of Matthew (on adultery and divorce) or James (on faith, works, and double-mindedness), but could just as easily reflect a common idiom and shared Jewish-Christian traditions. The evidence of the Didache is especially difficult to assess. While scholars once considered its dependence upon Matthew’s Gospel beyond dispute, such a consensus has collapsed and recent scholarship reflects a variety of judgments as to how the obvious similarities are best explained (Van de Sandt 2005). Such vicissitudes are a reminder that any attempt to survey a phenomenon as diverse as early

4 Christian literature is fraught with fragile assumptions and working hypotheses whose plausibility may fade over time. A final factor influencing the collocation of these diverse texts is the relationship of several to the formation of the New Testament canon. The Didache, Barnabas, the epistles of Clement, and the Shepherd of Hermas all lingered on the margins of the New Testament until the fourth or fifth century CE (see CANON OF SCRIPTURE). The church historian Eusebius lists both Barnabas and Hermas among the disputed writings (antilegomena), specifically among those whose authorship is considered suspect (notha) (Hist. eccl. 3.25.4). He places a writing known as the Teachings of the Apostles (apostolo¯n didachai) in the same category, though it is uncertain whether he is referring to the Didache in the form known to us or perhaps only to the Two Ways tract with which it begins. Though Eusebius does not mention 1–2 Clement in his summary statement on the canon, elsewhere he states that they have been publicly read in most of the churches and describes 1 Clement as “universally received by all” (ano¯mologe¯mene¯ para pasin) (Hist. eccl. 3.16.1, 3.38.1). The 39th Festal Letter of Athanasius, which confines the New Testament to the twenty-seven texts known today, explicitly excludes both the Didache and Hermas, but allows them to be used for catechetical purposes. Meanwhile Athanasius’ younger contemporary, Didymus the Blind, uses Barnabas, Hermas, the Didache, and 1 Clement in ways that imply authoritative scriptural status (Ehrman 1983). Notwithstanding their eventual exclusion from the New Testament, the Epistle of Barnabas and the Shepherd of Hermas follow the Book of Revelation in the fourth century Codex Sinaiticus, while 1–2 Clement occupy an analogous position in the fifth century Codex Alexandrinus. More remarkably, 1–2 Clement are found among the Catholic Epistles in at least one twelfth century Syrian manuscript, where they

precede the epistles of Paul (Metzger 1997: 207, 222). Nonetheless, the temporarily canonical or quasi-canonical status of the writings mentioned above does not extend to other writings typically included among the Apostolic Fathers. The conventional practice of including the Epistle to Diognetus (virtually unknown or ignored by the Church Fathers) yet excluding earlier and more popular texts such as the Apocalypse of Peter (which also vied for a place in the canon) underscores the extent to which the collection is a subgroup of early Christian texts established more by scholarly convention than by any single identifiable criterion. REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Ehrman, B. (1983) “The New Testament canon of Didymus the Blind.” Vigiliae Christianae 37:1–21. Ehrman, B. (2003) The Apostolic Fathers, 2 vols. Cambridge, MA. Foster, P., ed. (2007) The writings of the Apostolic Fathers. London. Grant, R. M. (1962) “The Apostolic Fathers’ first thousand years.” Church History 31: 421–9. Gregory, A. F. and Tuckett, C. M. (2005) The New Testament and the Apostolic Fathers, 2 vols. Oxford. Holmes, M. (2007) The Apostolic Fathers: Greek texts and English translations, 3rd ed. Grand Rapids, MI. Jefford, C. N. (2006) The Apostolic Fathers and the New Testament. Peabody, MA. Lightfoot, J. B. (1889, 1890) The Apostolic Fathers, 2nd ed., 5 vols. London. Maier, H. O. (1991) The social setting of the ministry as reflected in the writings of Hermas, Clement, and Ignatius. Waterloo, ON. Metzger, B. M. (1997) The canon of the New Testament: its origin, development, and significance. Oxford. Schoedel, W. R. (1989) “The Apostolic Fathers.” In E. J. Epp and G. W. MacRae, eds., The New Testament and its modern interpreters: 457–98. Philadelphia. van de Sandt, H., ed. (2005) Matthew and the Didache. Minneapolis.

1

Apostolic succession ANDREW MCGOWAN

Early Christians shared their Jewish and other contemporaries’ concern for continuous tradition from authoritative figures of the past. Although belief in Jesus changed existing traditional claims, Christians quickly sought to establish the authenticity of their beliefs, sacred writings, and especially their structures of leadership, in reference to the first followers of Jesus known as “apostles” (see APOSTLE). The idea of a succession that stemmed from the apostles came to have particular significance in controversies leading to the emergence of a normative or orthodox Christianity, and subsequently in the claims to particular authority of certain historic churches, not least that of Rome. Although its precise origin and meanings in early Christian literature are unclear and diverse, respectively, the term “apostle” (literally “envoy”) already suggests the importance of tradition, by implying both an authoritative sender and message. The importance of apostolic authority is reflected directly and indirectly in the New Testament documents: in the symbolic importance of the “Twelve” in the Gospels; in indications of some deliberative power in the Jerusalem church for apostles and/or elders (Acts of the Apostles); and in disputes over apostolic authority (1 Cor 9; 2 Cor 11; Gal 1). Paul’s claim to apostolic status on the basis of a direct revelation of Jesus (1 Cor 15) indicates a different understanding, but reinforces the importance of the role. The subsequent obscurity of the Twelve was something of an embarrassment, addressed as early as the mid-second century by the construction of novelistic accounts (the apocryphal Acts), presenting the apostles as ascetic wonder-workers with miraculous powers. Yet collective apostolic authority was a more common concern in the first few centuries. Emphasis on succession of teaching, and of authority maintained directly from the apostles, appears

already in implied claims of the Didache or Teaching of the Twelve Apostles. Assertion of an apostolic mandate for liturgical practices continued into later and more elaborate church order documents such as the Apostolic Constitutions (fourth century) and Testamentum Domini (fifth century), which retroject the worship of their own periods into more ancient scenarios. Narratives of succession were used to establish specific claims of continuity between the apostles and later leaders and teachers. The First Letter of Clement (c.100 CE) refers to local bishops as appointed by the apostles, with an expectation of orderly succession to follow. Later in the second century, IRENAEUS (perhaps following Hegesippus) grounds the authority of scripture and of the orthodox Christian ecclesial structures on the basis of apostolic continuity, over against professed “Gnostics” and their claims to other forms of spiritual insight (see GNOSIS, GNOSTICS, GNOSTICISM). He proposes (Adv. Haer. 3.3.3) a genealogy of Roman bishops leading back to Peter (but without the implication that Peter himself was a bishop) (see BISHOP). The development of such lists may owe something to narratives of continuity in Hellenistic philosophical schools, but have also been compared to Jewish successions such as Josephus’ priestly lists (AJ 20.224–51). The tension between authority based on tradition and succession, over against claims related to more direct and/or esoteric experience, was also evident in disputes between the New Prophecy (“Montanism”) and orthodox Christianity. Tertullian’s writings (ca. 190–210) straddle this debate. Irenaeus and later Cyprian (Ep. 45 etc.) develop concrete metaphors that channel the Holy Spirit into exclusive institutional continuity like the life of a plant or watercourse, relating spiritual power to apostolic foundations and episcopal succession, rather than to direct ecstatic or mystical experience. Claims to apostolic succession were not, however, merely or always institutional or episcopal. Clement of Alexandria emphasizes

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 572–573. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah05023

2 continuity of apostolic teaching (Strom. 6.61), and Tertullian the succession of apostolic churches (Praescr. 20). Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical History (ca. 323) elaborates the narratives of episcopal succession on apostolic foundations found in earlier writers, with specific emphases on Antioch, Alexandria, Jerusalem, and Rome woven through his narrative. These centers, not merely bishops or orthodoxy itself, were presented as carrying preeminent authority because of apostolic foundation. Later Roman writers such as Leo I and Gregory I drew stronger and more specific associations between Peter’s leadership of the apostles and the role of the Roman bishop as primate, while later eastern thought tends to identify episcopate and apostolate in general. In medieval and modern times, apostolic

succession of bishops had continued importance for claims to legitimacy of Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and Anglican Churches. SEE ALSO:

Eusebius of Caesarea; Popes.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Brent, A. (1993) “Diogenes Laertius and the apostolic succession.” Journal of Ecclesiastical History 44: 67–89. Dunn, G. D. (2007) Cyprian and the bishops of Rome: questions of papal primacy in the early church. Strathfield, NSW. Erhardt, A. (1958) The apostolic ministry. Edinburgh. Williams, R. L. (2005) Bishop lists: formation of apostolic succession in ecclesiastical crises. Piscataway, NJ.

1

Apotheosis and heroization MARIA KANTIREA

Apotheosis or deification denotes the elevation of heroes and men to the status of gods; heroization signifies the placement of men in the sphere of heroes. Both procedures were based on the assumption that mortals who, during their passage on earth, impressed humanity with their strength, bravery, kindness and beauty, or simply led an exceptional and extraordinary life, could be raised to higher levels of existence. Thus, they were honored by posterity with a cult, whose form, structure, function, and extent necessarily changed with the times. In ancient Greek religion, gods, heroes, and men belonged to different worlds, on the grounds that only the first were immortal. Nevertheless, there was a deeply rooted conviction that, in spite of this separation, supernatural powers could establish contacts of a special nature with chosen human beings (e.g., heroes and heroines usually had divine origins), thus preparing the way for their posthumous deification (see ASKLEPIOS; HERAKLES (HERCULES)). In mythic symbolism, apotheosis was realized through emergence from the sea (e.g., Ino-Leukothea and her son MelicertesPalaimon), disappearance into the earth or elevation to the sky (e.g., Ganymede), including katasterismos, that is, metamorphosis into a star (see DIOSCURI). In historical reality, although not quite unknown previously (e.g., the Spartan general Lysander at Samos in 404 BCE), the systematic deification of the world’s mighty men began with the posthumous cult of Alexander the Great (323 BCE) and was the reward for their virtue, power, military success, justice, generosity, and benefactions, the so-called euergesia, towards mankind. This procedure depended on the belief, particularly expressed in the work of Euhemeros of Messene, that gods had originally been good kings who received immortality because of their

humanity. So, from the Hellenistic period on through Roman times, the deification of rulers – kings and emperors – either after their death or during their lifetime, was, in fact, a response to their morality and played an important role in the legitimation and acceptance of the historical necessity of the monarchy. The apotheosis of monarchs was achieved through a variety of means, such as the creation of a fictive genealogy descending from the gods, iconographical assimilation with the attribution of divine symbols, and the designation or invocation of a king as a new or a second deity. In rituals, it was manifested in the offer of god-like honors, the so-called isotheoi timai – temples, altars, sacrifices, festivals, and priesthoods – which must be interpreted as the expression of the supreme respect known to the ancients. Royal cults had a significant influence on the formation of the political philosophy of the postclassical period and established an ideological model even for the worship of citizens as benefactors from the third century BCE (e.g., Aratos of Sikyon, Theophanes of Mytilene). In contrast to the Greeks, apotheosis among the Romans was almost absent from public life during the republic; it is encountered only in connection with some deified heroes imported from Greek mythology (Herakles/Hercules and the Dioskouroi) and a few legendary figures (see AENEAS). These cases predated the complex procedure of the deification of Julius Caesar (44 BCE) and particularly that of the first princeps, Augustus (14 CE), which established the ethical basis for the posthumous apotheosis of deceased emperors and imperial relatives by decree of the Roman Senate and always with the title divus/diva. On the linguistic level, the adoption of a new name for the new deity denotes a different perception of divinity among Greeks and Romans: unlike the former, who considered and venerated as gods (theoi) even living emperors, the latter distinguished an ever-existing god (deus) from an emperor becoming a god (divus). Hero cult in Ancient Greece, whose emergence can be dated to the Early Iron Age (eighth

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 573–575. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah17045

2 century BCE), was focused on Bronze Age tombs and shrines and addressed to eponymous heroes from the epic and other mythic cycles, or took the form of the worship of recently heroized deceased. On a socio-political level, the hero-cults and the heroization of legendary men reflected the institutional rise of the city-state (polis), since the leading aristocracy and perhaps other governing elites employed them in order to emphasize their ties with the past and confirm political aspirations or territorial claims. From the Archaic and Classical period on, distinguished historical personalities became heroes. The most representative examples are the founders of colonies (see OIKISTES) who, after their death, received on their funerary monuments (heroa) a worship comprising sacrifices, games, and public meals. From the end of the fifth century BCE on, these kinds of heroic honors were also awarded to exceptional statesmen, generals, kings, and citizen benefactors, sometimes during their lifetime, because of their services and munificence towards the community. The expansion and popularity of these honors resulted in their attribution even to ordinary dead, so that from the third century BCE, but especially during Roman times, the term “hero” progressively lost its initial meaning and ended up denoting simply a non-alive person. On the other hand, the Roman cult of ancestors, which could constitute a parallel to the Greek hero cults, incorporated supernatural beings who were explicitly called gods, namely the Di parentes (ancestor gods) and more commonly the Di manes (spirits of the dead). The use of divine titles for these entities probably depended on the lack of a Latin term corresponding to the Greek “hero.” Late Antiquity saw a kind of revival of the hero cult, but certainly with different salient features. Heroization or sanctification could be achieved at the end of an intellectual life devoted to the study of philosophy, especially of Platonic

theology, and often took the form of the cult of the philosophers (e.g., APOLLONIUS OF TYANA). Nevertheless, early Christianity, in which the gap between men and a transcendent God grew continually, thus leaving no apparent place for heroic or divine intermediaries, managed to counterbalance the traditional hero worship and to enrich genuine religiosity with a new expression of piety, the veneration of saints and martyrs. SEE ALSO: Aratos of Sikyon; Euhemeros and Euhemerism; Funerary cult, Greek; Funerary cult, Roman; Hero cult; Lysander; Manes, di manes; Ruler cult, Greek and Hellenistic; Ruler cult, Roman; Theophanes of Mytilene.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Alvar, J., and Bla´zquez, J. M., eds. (1997) He´roes y antihe´roes en la Antigu¨edad Cla´sica. Madrid. Antonaccio, C. M. (1995) An archaeology of ancestors. Tomb cult and hero cult in early Greece. Lanham, MD. Barzano`, A. et al., eds. (2003) Modelli eroici dall’antichita` alla cultura europea. Atti del Convegno, Bergamo, 20–22 Novembre 2001. Rome. Buraselis, K. et al. (2004) “Heroisierung und Apotheose.” Thesaurus Cultus et Rituum Antiquorum (ThesCRA), vol. 2: 125–214. Los Angeles. Fishwick, D. (1987–2005) The imperial cult in the Latin west. Studies in the ruler cult of the western provinces of the Roman Empire. 3 vols. Leiden. Gauthier, Ph. (1985) Les cite´s grecques et leurs bienfaiteurs (IVe–Ier sie`cle av. J.-C.). Contribution a` l’histoire des institutions. Athens. Gradel, I. (2002) Emperor worship and Roman religion. Oxford. Habicht, C. (1970) Gottmenschentum und griechische Sta¨dte. Munich. Pirenne-Delforge, V., and Sua´rez de la Torre, E. (2000) He´ros et he´roı¨nes dans les mythes et les cultes grecs. Actes du Colloque organise´ a` l’Universite´ de Valladolid du 26 au 29 mai 1999. Lie`ge. Price, S. R. F. (1984) Rituals and power. The Roman imperial cult in Asia Minor. Cambridge.

1

Apotimema EDWARD M. HARRIS

In Greek law there were two basic forms of security, personal and real. In personal security (engye) a person who incurs an obligation to another person arranges to have a third party (surety) promise to satisfy his obligation in the event he cannot pay. In real security a person who incurs an obligation (normally a loan) pledges some of his property to the person who held the obligation. If the former defaults on his obligation, the latter has the right to take the security and sell it to satisfy the obligation. The general term for real security in Athenian Law is apotimema, which could be used to secure the payment of rent in a lease, the return of a dowry in marriage, or the repayment of a loan. Another term for real security in a loan was hypotheke, which is the standard term in other Greek cities. The creditor who received a

pledge of security might describe the property as “sold on condition of release” (i.e., after repayment) (pepramenon epi lysei), but he did not gain the rights of ownership over the security because the borrower could contract additional loans on the same security. The creditor had the right to take possession of the security only when the borrower did not pay the principal at the agreed time. After this the borrower and his heirs were barred from claims on the security (Dem. 41.8–10). Apotimema was a collateral form of real security; the lender accepted the security for its cash value, not in order to acquire it as a substitute for the loan. SEE ALSO: Credit; Dowry, Roman; Loan (Greek and Roman).

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Harris, E. M. (2006) Democracy and the rule of law in classical Athens. New York.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print page 575. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah06025

1

Apotropaic gods HEIDI MARX-WOLF

Apotropaic gods are those whom people in antiquity turned to in order to avert evil, bad luck, misfortune, illness, and suffering. The word “apotropaic” derives from the Greek word apotrepein, “to turn away” (Faraone 1992: 4). Almost any deity could be called upon to serve in this capacity. Thus, one cannot identify a specific and clearly delimited class of gods whose function it was to protect supplicants and avert danger, sickness, and adversity. For instance, the protective formulae found among the artifacts called the Demotic, Greek, and Coptic Magical Papyri summon a wide variety of divinities, angels, daimones, and other spirits from a wide range of ethnic and religious traditions, including Greek, Egyptian, Hebrew, and Christian figures. Aramaic and Syriac incantation bowls, the function of which was also protective, invoke a wide range of divine figures as well, from “your father who is in heaven,” to “angels of wrath,” to “gods and goddesses” (Gager 1992: 229). If one looks beyond the level of small scale, individual ritualizing to the supplication of gods for protection of households, buildings, cities, and larger polities, one finds that certain gods tend to function apotropaically more often than others. For instance, Apollo was

sometimes given the epithet Apotropaios. He was also portrayed as an archer to protect cities from plague (Faraone 1992: 37). Ithyphallic herms, representations of the god Hermes, were used around Greece as protection for entrances, and images of Hekate also functioned protectively at doorways and crossroads (Faraone 1992: 8–9). At times, however, given her associations with the underworld and her generally forbidding nature, supplicants also sought protection from Hekate. In general, then, although some divinities tended to function apotropaically more than others, most gods and goddesses and even some lesser spirits could serve in a protective capacity. SEE ALSO: Amulets, Greece and Rome; Apollo; Charms, spells, Greece and Rome; Demons, Greek and Roman; Hekate; Herms; Magical papyri, Greek.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Betz, H. D. (1992) The Greek magical papyri in translation including the demotic spells. Chicago. Faraone, C. A. (1992) Talismans and Trojan horses: guardian statues in ancient Greek myth and ritual. Oxford. Gager, J. G. (1992) Curse tablets and binding spells from the ancient world. Oxford. Meyer, M., and Smith, R. (1994) Ancient Christian magic: Coptic texts of ritual power. Princeton.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 575–576. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah17046

1

Appian of Alexandria GREGORY S. BUCHER

Appian (ca. 85–95 to ca. 165 CE) tells us, in the Preface to his Roman History (RH), that ALEXANDRIA was his homeland and that he had risen to the first rank there. He goes on to say that he argued cases in Rome “under the Emperors,” until they deemed him worthy to be a procurator, a high-ranking bureaucratic position for which Roman citizenship and equestrian rank were requisite. There is little doubt that he was quite wealthy. Appian concludes by mentioning an autobiography that has either been lost or was never written. The cultured and powerful Cornelius Fronto wrote to the emperor ANTONINUS PIUS (Fronto, ad Pium Addit. 10) requesting Appian’s procuratorship in about 160. This by itself is eloquent testimony to Appian’s reach and standing in Roman society. When read carefully, the letter suggests strongly that Appian sought only an honorary title as a compensation for his old age and widower status (orbitas, the word used, can also mean childlessness); the careful wording in Appian’s Preface seems to confirm this reading. While the letter refers to some sort of mutual literary activity the two carried out, it makes no specific reference to any work. A fragment of Appian’s history tells, in the first person (rare in RH), of an adventure fleeing the Jews in the great Jewish rebellion (115–17), which involved Alexandria and Egypt. Because Appian portrays himself as old enough to act independently, and with consciousness of his predicament as a refugee, he was likely born between 85 and 95. It has recently been suggested that the fragment indicates that Appian was fleeing Jewish reprisals; one might think this was because he had taken part in the government of the Greek city, which was notoriously hostile toward the Jews. This would suggest that Appian was born closer to 85. Other suggestions are that Appian came to Rome after meeting the emperor Hadrian on

the latter’s sojourn in Egypt in 130–31, or that Appian came to Rome after he had gained a patron with sufficient power (Fronto) to introduce him in Rome successfully. It is likely that Appian died sometime around 165, but all such biographical information can only be speculative. Scholars have tried to fit various explanatory pegs into the holes in our knowledge of Appian’s life. For example, before departing for Rome, Appian might well have held the office of gymnasiarch in Alexandria, which would help explain his comment about reaching the highest ranks there, and his possibly being a target of Jewish reprisals in the revolt. Two discarded ideas that unfortunately recur even in modern scholarship are that Appian was the procurator of Egypt (an extremely high-ranking position, and not something to be given away as an honorary title), and that he must have argued cases as an advocatus fisci on behalf of the emperor’s private fisc (but as an advocatus fisci Appian could have expected a procuratorial appointment in due course and would have had no need of Fronto). An important Greek verse inscription recently discovered on a sarcophagus in Rome (IGUR 1700) gives a brief cursus honorum and details of family funerary preparations of a certain “Appianos” in six elegiac couplets. There is an emerging consensus that the sarcophagus is the historian’s, not least because of its Roman provenance and because the letter forms appear to date to the reigns of HADRIAN or Antoninus Pius (i.e., between 117 and 161); the most thorough interpretation to date argues that Appian was a priest of the cult of (Venus and) Rome instituted by Hadrian in 126. At the very least, “Appianos” held a priesthood by direct imperial appointment. We also learn that “Appianos” had a wife, Eutychia, whom he married when she was 12, and with whom he lived for 31 years. The sarcophagus’ style and verses fit well with what we would expect of a literate, ambitious man of reasonably high rank.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 576–580. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah08015

2 Appian’s self-presentation and the RH stress both his Greek (Alexandrian) identity and a teleological view that Rome was the divinely ordained ruler of the world. He lived at a time when Greek provincials, and intellectuals especially, were coming to grips with the fact of Roman domination, and his personal mode of attacking the problem offers us a valuable datum in the spectrum of responses. Some comforted themselves with a sense of ethnic or cultural superiority; some, Lucian first, managed to write of the Romans as “we.” It is interesting to find circulating in Alexandria in Appian’s day a species of semitheatrical hate pamphlets in the guise of court proceedings not unlike the exchange between Jesus and Pilate, featuring brave Alexandrian martyr-patriots fatally exhibiting verbal defiance in the face of bewildered Roman officials. Appian prided himself on coming from the ranks of people who consumed this literature, yet he was a creature of the imperial system, a convinced Roman, and the wealthy beneficiary of an imperial appointment. His RH is an attempt to reconcile these two identities. The RH was composed in 24 books, of which 11 survive entirely or in large part. Fragments, often scanty, of most other books survive, culled mainly from topically focused Byzantine collections and the treatises of grammarians. Appian’s focus is on warfare, by theater of action, trained explicitly on Roman expansion where appropriate. The first book, the Regal History, goes back to Aeneas; the latest book, the Hundred Years’ History, seems to have treated the century from the beginning of the monarchy to about the time of Nero. The organization by theater is not relentless – Appian collected thematically connected material into the Hannibalic War, for example, and the Hundred Years’ History seems to have been a grab bag of events left over after the climax of the RH with the conquest of Egypt and the simultaneous emergence of the monarchy. The books organized by theater are ordered roughly by the chronological point at which Rome first undertook expansion in that theater;

the book then carries events down to about the end of the republic, or even the time of Augustus. The books of his history are the Preface, Regal History, Samnite History, Gallic History, Sicilian History, Spanish History, Hannibalic War, Libyan History, Macedonian History, Illyrian History, Greek History, Syrian History, Mithradatic Wars, Civil Wars, Egyptian History, Hundred Years’ History, Dacian History, and the Arabian History. The Civil Wars focuses on internal conflict (Greek stasis) at Rome from Tiberius Gracchus down, in five books, to the death of Sextus Pompeius in 35 BCE. It is likely that Appian originally intended to end his history at the conclusion of the Civil Wars with Actium and the conquest of Egypt, but in the course of composition of the Civil Wars he opted to decapitate the latter and postpone the conflict with Egypt to a newly conceived set of four books, the Egyptian History. This major structural decision was programmatic, allowing him compositionally to link those two important themes, the emergence of the monarchy and the entry of Egypt into the empire. In Appian’s mature thought, this endpoint was divinely ordained. Appian wrote centuries after events, from the viewpoint of a committed cog in the imperial machine, as an immigrant, and for a Grecophone, provincial audience. It should not surprise us, therefore, that the RH exhibits throughout a lack of knowledge and understanding of the republican constitution that frequently occasions striking errors. These errors are not to be explained by an inability to read Latin or to interrogate his Roman literary contacts: a recent study reveals that he had good control of Latin, to the extent that it even influenced his Greek. The audience Appian expected knew little of the Roman constitution, as shown by the glosses of very basic facts offered as needed (sometimes more than once) to support his narrative. Arguably, the details of Roman political and constitutional history were not of great importance to Appian, since what he wanted to tell was on the moral plane rather than the antiquarian.

3 Appian’s narrative is characterized by discrete, often poorly connected narrative episodes that paint vivid pictures before the mind’s eye. In a general way, Appian arranges historical events in a mode analogous to the method of composition of the reliefs on Trajan’s Column. (Whether Trajan’s Column was a model for Appian, while a reasonable question, is another matter.) There, to serve an audience viewing from a physical distance, episodes are perforce reduced to their vivid essentials, and strict historical accuracy is further bent by stylistic conventions, meaningful juxtaposition of images, the program of glorifying Trajan, and much else (see, e.g., Brilliant 1984: 90–123). Appian, too, wrote for an audience at a distance – temporal and cultural this time, rather than physical – and like the artist(s) responsible for designing the reliefs on the column, Appian needs to draw his literary pictures in schematic, easily comprehensible ways. For a long time, Appian’s reputation hung on the claim that book 1 of the Civil Wars offers the sole surviving continuous narrative running from the Gracchi to the revolt of Spartacus. Yet this first book is in fact anything but a continuous narrative, and that it was ever viewed in such a way should put us on guard. Older work on Appian, despite its occasional excellence, is vitiated by misreading the nature of both the RH and Appian’s stated or inferrable program. Scholars, especially those interested in reconstructing a detailed history of the Late Republic, worked with the understandable hope that Appian’s “continuous narrative” carried over, even if in possibly disguised or distorted form, accurate data from reliable primary sources, and thus began, in the last quarter of the nineteenth century, a ransacking effort to discover these sources. In its most extreme form, scholars even posited that Appian had clumsily abridged one unique source that had itself more expertly culled the eyewitnesses; a ridiculous, if hyper-rational, piece of wishful thinking. Appian did use sources, of course; he even occasionally names one. But it is one of the outstanding results

of the last twenty years that where we can for once speak authoritatively by comparing Appian’s words to an extant source, we find Appian offering a me´lange of direct quotes, altered summary statements, and material likely imported from a lifetime of general reading. Were we not in possession of the source, we could have no knowledge of where close source use shades off into summary, and thence into other, less accurate material (alarmingly, we also know he added fictitious material in some places). The safest way to use the RH in search of accurate historical data is to refrain from elaborate reconstructions that cannot be corroborated by parallel sources. Tiring of repeated failures to specify Appian’s chief sources, scholars began a more fruitful line of inquiry into his methods of composition, literary pretensions, and programmatic interests. These studies, still in their infancy, have met with considerable success; once mature, they will help us detect where Appian’s compositional methods and program have deformed his history. The English-speaking student of Appian may consult White’s staid but reliable Loeb Classical Library translation in four volumes, and a recent translation of the Civil Wars by John Carter. The deeply flawed two-volume Teubner edition of the Greek text is the best available. Commentaries on individual books of the RH have been produced primarily by French and Italian scholars. Important scholarship in English includes Badian 1957; Luce 1958, 1961, 1964; Cuff 1967, 1983; Dilts 1971; VanderLeest 1988, 1989; Gowing 1990, 1992; McGing 1993; Swain 1996; Gargola 1997; and Bucher 1995, 1997, 2000, 2003, 2005, 2007a, 2007b. Our understanding of Appian is also constructed on methods developed in conjunction with other authors. Pelling 1979 and 1980 are indispensable. For discussion of earlier scholarship, and for sources of much that is discussed here, see Bucher 2000: 411–14, 2007a, 2007b: 454–55. SEE ALSO:

Hadrian; Lucian.

4 REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Badian, E. (1957) “Appian and Asinius Pollio.” Gnomon 29: 159–62. Brilliant, R. (1984) Visual Narratives. Ithaca. Bucher, G. S. (1995) “Appian BC 2.24 and the Trial De Ambitu of M. Aemilius Scaurus.” Historia 44: 396–421. Bucher, G. S. (1997) “Prolegomena to a commentary on Appian’s Bellum Civile, Book 2.” PhD diss. Brown University. Bucher, G. S. (2000) “The origins, composition, and Program of Appian’s Roman History.” Transactions of the American Philological Association 130: 411–58. Bucher, G. S. (2003) “Some observations on the Appianos sarcophagus (IGUR 1700).” In G. W. Bakewell and J. P. Sickinger, eds., Gestures: essays in ancient history, literature, and philosophy presented to Alan L. Boegehold: 159–72. Oxford. Bucher, G. S. (2005) “Fictive elements in Appian’s Pharsalus narrative.” Phoenix 59: 50–76. Bucher, G. S. (2007a) “Appian (237).” Brill’s New Jacoby. Leiden. Bucher, G. S. (2007b) “Toward a literary evaluation of Appian’s Civil Wars, Book I.” In J. Marincola, ed., A companion to Greek and Roman historiography: 454–60. Malden, MA. Cuff, P. J. (1967) “Prolegomena to a critical edition of Appian BC I.” Historia 16: 177–88. Cuff, P. J. (1983) “Appian’s Romaika: a note.” Atheneum 61: 148–64.

Dilts, M. R. (1971) “The manuscripts of Appian’s Historia Romana.” Revue d’histoire des textes 1: 49–71. Gargola, D. (1997) “Appian and the aftermath of the Gracchan reform.” American Journal of Philology 118: 555–81. Gowing, A. M. (1990) “Appian and Cassius’ speech before Philippi (Bella Civilia 4.90–100).” Phoenix 44: 158–81. Gowing, A. M. (1992) The triumviral narratives of Appian and Cassius Dio. Ann Arbor. Luce, T. J. (1958) Appian’s exposition of the Roman republican constitution. PhD diss. Princeton Univ. Luce, T. J. (1961) “Appian’s magisterial terminology.” Classical Philology 56: 21–28. Luce, T. J. (1964) “Appian’s Egyptian History.” Classical Philology 59: 259–62. McGing, B. C. (1993) “Appian’s Mithridateios.” ANRW II 34.1: 496–522. Pelling, C. B. R. (1979) “Plutarch’s method of work in the Roman lives.” Journal of Hellenic Studies 99: 74–96. Pelling, C. B. R. (1980) “Plutarch’s adaptation of his source material.” Journal of Hellenic Studies 100: 127–40. Swain, S. (1996) Hellenism and empire: language, classicism, and power in the Greek world, AD 50–250. Oxford. VanderLeest, J. (1988) Appian and the writing of the Roman History. PhD diss., Univ. of Toronto. VanderLeest, J. (1989) “Appian’s references to his own time.” Ancient History Bulletin 3: 131–33.

1

Appius Claudius Caecus and Roman law AGLAIA MCCLINTOCK

Appius Claudius Caecus came from one of Rome’s most ancient and prestigious patrician families. He was a descendant and bore the same name as the legislator of the TWELVE TABLES Appius Claudius. The details of the magistracies he held (quaestor 316?, aedilis curulis 313? and 305?, censor 312, consul 307 and 296, praetor 297? and 295; interrex 298, dictator 285?: Broughton, MRR I) are recorded in many literary sources. An inscription (CIL 12.1, p. 192, n 10 = CIL 11.1827 = ILS 54; see Figure 1) found in Arezzo summarizes only some of his multifaceted accomplishments. It is likely to be a copy of the elogium placed under his statue in Augustus’ forum. Appius’ name is linked above all to the censorship of 312 BCE, when he started the construction of such public works of general utility as the Via Appia, the highway connecting Rome to Capua and later to the harbor of Brundisium and an aqueduct to bring water to the city (aqua Claudia). The strategic road, a means of ensuring future economic, political, and military expansion, took his first name and not that of his gens as usually happened, as if to emphasize his charismatic persona. After becoming blind, Appius acquired the cognomen Caecus. According to Livy (9.29; but cf. Diod. 20.36), he was blinded by the gods for meddling with religion since he transferred Hercules’ cult to public slaves, removing it from the care of two patrician families. The long and famous fragment by the jurist POMPONIUS (Dig. 1.2.2.36) on the history of Roman law confirms the portrait of Appius Claudius as an innovator who had his hands in a hundred different undertakings and for this reason was called, as though a Titan, Centemmanus. He is recorded as being the first Roman jurist of historical times to rise to the height of the science of law. Appius not only started Latin literature by writing down the

speech he gave in the Senate against king (280/279 BCE), but also initiated the more specific genre of legal literature: he composed both a book with the formularies of the actions necessary to start a civil trial and a monographic work entitled De usurpationibus [On the interruptions of possession?] of which we know only the title. This spectacular accomplishment marks the beginning of a shift from orality to a written culture. His innovation in writing as a technē extended also to orthography: he introduced a letter in the Latin alphabet, the intervocalic R so that Valesii became Valerii. He also admitted the sons of freedmen in the Senate; reformed the tribes (the reform was canceled a couple years later); but most of all he orchestrated the demise of the pontifical monopoly of law. This last enterprise actually was enacted thanks to the son of a freedman, Gnaeus Flavius, who was his personal secretary. Gnaeus Flavius (Dig. 1.2.2.7) made available to the people the book of the actions composed by Appius and published or reformed the CALENDAR. That is why the book of the actions took the name ius Flavianum. There are multiple versions of the episode: Plin. NH 33.17–20 (Ann. Pont., fr. 28 Chassignet = Plin. NH 33.18); Gell. N.A. 7. 9. 2–6. (Calp. Pis., fr. 27 P. = 37 F. = 30 Chassignet = 7.9.1–6); Cic. Pro Murena 25; Liv. 9.46.1; Nepotian. 2.5.2. The sources enhance or downplay Appius’ involvement, but all the traditions agree that a disclosure of a secret occurred, accompanied by a loss of power on the part of the pontifices. In the ancient civil trial, one mistaken word could produce the defeat of the litigant who had misspoken. The aid of the pontifices was fundamental in initiating a lawsuit and was necessary to win it. Allowing the people to know the correct wording meant widening access to justice to a larger public without the mediation of aristocrats. The written form for the calendar attributed to Gnaeus Flavius disseminated clear information on when it was possible to request justice. As is well known, one could start litigation only during days that were fasti, but these days were not fixed and were determined from the PYRRHOS

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History. Edited by Kai Brodersen, Andrew Erskine, and David Hollander. © 2019 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Published 2019 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah30650

2

FIGURE 1 Elogium of Appius (CIL 12.1, p. 192, n 10 = CIL 11.1827 = ILS 54). Reproduced with permission of the Ministero per i beni culturali e le attività culturali, Polo Museale della Toscana, Firenze. [Appius Claudius Caecus, son of Gaius, censor, twice consul, dictator, three times interrex, twice praetor, twice aedilis curulis, quaestor, military tribune three times. He conquered many towns of the Samnites, defeated the army of the Sabines and the Etruscans, prevented peace from being made with king Pyrrhus. During his censorship he laid out the Appian Way and brought water into the city. He built the temple of Bellona.]

3 calculations of the pontifices. According to modern scholars, Gnaeus deprived the priesthood of the power to control the calendar by introducing a fixed progression of days based on the markets (nundinae). Also, the people who came from out of town obtained the necessary information to know which kind of activity (voting, litigating, religious, market, etc.) they could perform with enough time to prepare. Modern scholarship (even when it denies the historicity of the facts related by the sources) maintains that secular jurists finally emerged in Roman jurisprudence during the age of Appius, around 300 BCE. SEE ALSO:

Claudii, family of; Claudius Caecus, Appius; Law, books of; Law, Roman; Legislation, Greek and Roman; Pontifex, pontifices.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS d’Ippolito, F. (1986) Giuristi e sapienti in Roma arcaica. Rome. Humm, M. (2005) [online] [Accessed February 11, 2019] Appius Claudius Caecus: la république accomplie, Rome. Available from https://books. openedition.org/efr/1581?lang=it. Roller, M. (2018) “Appius Claudius Caecus, positive and negative exemplarity.” In M. Roller, ed., Models from the past in Roman culture: a world of exempla: 95–133. Cambridge. Münzer, F. (1899) s.v. Claudius (91). In A. Pauly, G. Wissowa, and W. Kroll, eds., Realencyclopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft 3.2: 2681–5. Stuttgart. Rüpke, J. (2011) The Roman calendar from Numa to Constantine: time, history and the Fasti, trans. D. M. B. Richardson: 44–67. Chichester. Schulz, F. (1953) History of Roman legal science, 2nd ed.: 8–10. Oxford.

1

Apprenticeship VILLE VUOLANTO

Child labor, whether by freeborn or slave children, was commonplace in the ancient world. Outside the elites, the working contribution of all members of the household was needed as early as possible. Children were normally expected to learn the skills and knowledge needed from their parents, continuing their family traditions by inheriting their parents’ occupations. If this was not possible in the parental household, for example, if both parents were absent or deceased, or if there was surplus of labor, the task fell to relatives, family friends, or other professionals. In these situations it was common to enter into a contract of apprenticeship, in which apprentices exchanged their work in a workshop of an older professional for training for a fixed time period. Scattered evidence on apprentices has been discovered all over the Greek and Roman world, in Greek, Roman, Jewish, and Egyptian contexts. More than forty apprenticeship contracts are preserved in Egyptian papyri from the Roman period, and they offer the best view of the phenomenon (Bergamasco 1995; Laes 2008: 260, 277). These contracts include provisions for the length of the apprenticeship (from half a year to six years), for food and clothing (in most cases considered to be the master’s responsibility), and for the skills to be learned. Nearly three-quarters of the contracts concern freeborn boys. It seems that for the freeborn girls it was the norm to learn a trade at home, appearing as apprentices only in two or three cases. Also some female masters are known (Pomeroy 1997: 154; Van Minnen 1998). The education of slaves often proceeded along similar lines. It seems that some masters allowed their slaves to become apprentices in their workshops. At first they assisted their master, and later, as skilled slaves, they earned for their masters by producing their own,

independently-made work or through their increased value as skilled craftsmen if they were sold. Papyri include six contracts for female and five for male slave apprentices, and they indicate that the difference “in the day-to-day reality between slaves and freeborn children, both as to the profession performed and the lack of free choice, will have been minimal” (Laes 2008: 261). Whether free or a slave, an apprentice was required to work hard. Apprenticeship was used to learn professions needing technical skills and knowledge. In Athens, for example, children were schooled to become artists, builders, potters and doctors – already the Hippocratic oath required physicians to transmit their skill to their sons or to a pupil, and to become a father for him (Pomeroy 1997: 143). The main part of the Egyptian contracts concern weaving; other crafts mentioned are nail making, building, flute playing, copper smithing, shorthand writing, wool carding and, in an eighth century document, basket making. Legal texts mention slave apprentices learning trades like laundering, acting, and book copying (Bradley 1991: 107, 113; Van Minnen 1998). Most often children entered apprenticeships when they were in their early teens or a little younger: they were considered old enough to be able to earn their living, but not yet capable of autonomous adult life (Bradley 1991: 108). The best account of entering into apprenticeship is provided by Lucian, apprenticed in his teens to his maternal uncle, a master sculptor, to become a stone worker, mason, and sculptor, in second century CE Syria (Lucian Somn. 1–5). It was normal that apprenticeships were organized intrafamilially: relatives took care of the teaching, or arranged for the children to become apprentices elsewhere. Apprenticeship was linked with other modes of child labor, and in some cases the apprenticeship contract formed only one part of the transaction. The apprentice’s labor could have been used as security for a loan to the parents, such as in the case of Nilus, a

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 580–581. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah22015

2 master smith, who acknowledges that a contractual bond between himself and an apprentice has been dissolved because a loan of 100 drachmas, given by him to the apprentice’s parents, had been paid off (BGU IV 1124). In a Hellenistic PARAMONE manumission document from Delphi, a freedman entered into an apprenticeship that obliged him to continue to work at his former master’s workshop (GDI II 1904, 5–9). The difference between pledging, apprenticing and leasing of children’s work was in practice very vague in the ancient world. (Vuolanto 2003: 193). The concept of apprenticeship is usually used only in connection with an expert training a lower-class child. However, many upper-class practices aiming at the acculturation of the child were similar in structure to apprenticeships, even if they lacked the economic transactions that characterized a traditional apprenticeship. It was a common practice, for example, to assign elite “young men in their teens to an older man with particular skills and moral qualities,” thus creating a bond of patronage (Dixon 2000: 222). Similarly, the Greek system of ephebeia can be seen as a period of apprenticeship to military life (see EPHEBE, EPHEBEIA). The training of a Jewish rabbi (Hezser 2005: 177) or a Roman vestal virgin (see VESTA AND VESTALS) can also be seen as being based on a bond of apprenticeship. Among the lower classes, giving a child to apprenticeship was a means by which families could maximize their welfare in any given situation. It limited family size temporarily, reducing the financial burden on the parents, and let the child learn a new skill outside the household – simultaneously providing the master with a source of lowcost labor. Apprentices also formed social networks outside their household while socializing in their community’s norms, values, and

expected modes of behavior. Especially, the period of training led to a close bond between the master and apprentice, ideally likening the father–son bond. As apprenticeship was a cheap way of learning a trade, it was in principle open to anybody, offering an alternative to entering the profession of one’s parents (Goody 1989: 243–9). In a society with very little social mobility, this was a highly unusual situation. SEE ALSO: Childhood, Egypt; Childhood, Greece and Rome; Education, Greece and Rome; Family, Greek and Roman; Labor, compulsory; Labor, Greece and Rome; Patron, patronage, Roman; Slavery, Greece; Slavery, Rome.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Bergamasco, M. (1995) “Le didaskalika nella ricerca attuale.” Aegyptus 75: 95–167. Bradley, K. (1991) “Child labor in the Roman world.” In Bradley, K. R., ed., Discovering the Roman family: studies in Roman social history: 103–24. New York. Dixon, S. (2000), “The circulation of children in Roman society.” In M. Corbier, ed., Adoption et fosterage: 217–30. Paris. Goody, E. (1989) “Learning: apprenticeship and the division of labor.” In M. W. Coy, ed., Apprenticeship: from theory to method and back again: 233–56. Albany. Hezser, C. (2005) Jewish slavery in antiquity. Oxford. Laes, C. (2008) “Child slaves at work in Roman antiquity.” Ancient Society 38: 235–83. Pomeroy, S. (1997) Families in classical and Hellenistic Greece: representations and realities. Oxford. Van Minnen, P. (1998) “Did ancient women learn a trade outside the home?” Zeitschrift fu¨r Papyrologie und Epigraphik 123: 201–3. Vuolanto, V. (2003) “Selling a freeborn child: rhetoric and social realities in the late Roman world.” Ancient Society 33: 169–207.

1

Approximation JAMES EVANS

When one uses a round value for a number, one might be ignoring a better value for convenience, or one might be unaware that a better value exists. In a geometrical problem, one might introduce simplifying assumptions, knowing that this will lead to only an approximate result, or one might use a crude procedure because one knows no better way. The whole range of meanings of “approximation” is evident in ancient computation. According to an Egyptian mathematical papyrus (the Rhind papyrus, second millennium BCE), the area of a circle is the square of eight-ninths of the diameter. This was intended as a rule good enough for calculating the volumes of cylindrical containers, and not as an approximation to an exact formula. But if we compare the Egyptian rule with the actual area pr2 (r is the radius of the circle), the rule implies p¼ 256 /81 , or about 3.16, a good match to 3.14159. . .. In his Measurement of a circle ARCHIMEDES (third century BCE) proved that p is less than 3 1 /7 but greater than 3 10 /71 . This he did by inscribing a regular polygon of 96 sides in a circle, and circumscribing another polygon of 96 sides. But even after Archimedes’ time, Greek and Roman writers often used 3 1 /7 , or rounded off to 3 when the exact answer was not important. In his Stereometrica, Hero of Alexandria (first century CE) gave rules for calculating the seating capacity of a theater given the lengths of its highest and lowest rows. Here is a formula which could never be exact – both writer and reader understand that an approximation is intended. In his treatise On the sizes and distances of the sun and moon, ARISTARCHUS OF SAMOS (third century BCE) includes among his premises that the earth may be considered a mere point (of

zero radius) in relation to the distances of the sun and moon. He alerts his reader that he is making an approximation to simplify his geometrical problem. In astronomy, not only numbers and premises, but also mathematical functions could be approximate. The Greeks borrowed approximation techniques from Babylonian astronomy, including the use of the arithmetic progression – a sequence of numbers that change by regular increments. (5, 7, 9, 11, 13 is an example.) Arithmetic progressions have convenient properties and are easy to calculate with. HYPSIKLES of Alexandria (second century BCE) assumed that the rising times of the zodiac signs form an arithmetic progression and was then able to deduce a formula for the changing length of the day over the course of the year. Even after the development of trigonometry, many Greek and Roman writers continued to use the easier arithmetical methods of the Babylonians, usually without signaling that the methods were approximate. The most sophisticated use of approximation is found in Ptolemy. In Almagest, when he cannot find an exact solution of a difficult problem of geometry, Ptolemy adopts an iterative procedure in which an approximate solution is found and then corrections are calculated. More sophisticated methods of approximation were not developed until early modern times. SEE ALSO: Geometry, Egyptian; Mathematics, Egyptian; Ptolemy (astronomer, mathematician).

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Claggett, M. (1999) Ancient Egyptian science: a source book. Vol. 3, Ancient Egyptian mathematics. Philadelphia. Heath, T. L. (1897) The works of Archimedes. Cambridge. Neugebauer, O. (1975) A history of ancient mathematical astronomy: 686–9. Berlin.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print page 582. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah21032

1

Appuleius Saturninus, Lucius GARETH C. SAMPSON

Lucius Appuleius Saturninus (?–100 BCE) was a three-time holder of the plebeian tribunate (103, 100, and 99), who used the office to undermine the power of the Senate, in the manner of the Gracchi. Throughout his career he acted in concert with Gaius Servilius Glaucia and was a sometime ally of Gaius MARIUS. He was murdered in the Senate house during a riot in Rome in late 100. He is first noted in ca.105/104, when he was stripped of his responsibilities as curator annonae by the Senate, in favor of M. Aemilius Scaurus. He held his first tribunate in 103, but there is great difficulty in ascertaining which of his acts falls into which tribunate (103 or 100). He certainly formed a temporary alliance with Gaius Marius, to encourage the people to re-elect Marius to the consulship for 102. He also passed a law on treason (maiestas) and was involved in the trial and exile of Cn. Mallius, the defeated consul of 105. Less certain is an agrarian law establishing colonies for Marius’ veterans in Africa, which may date from 100. Following his tribunate, one of the Censors (Metellus Numidicus) tried and failed to have both Saturninus and Glaucia expelled from the Senate. In 101, both men were successful in being elected to further office, Glaucia to a praetorship and Saturninus to a second tribunate, possibly with the aid of Gaius Marius. Saturninus passed further legislation that aided both Marius and his own standing with the people. These included proposed colonies in Sicily, Achaia, and Macedonia, and perhaps the aforementioned African veteran colonies. The law also included the new provision that each senator must swear an oath to uphold its

provisions on pain of exile. The only man to fail to do so was Metellus Numidicus, who was exiled from Rome. In addition he also passed a popular lex frumentaria setting a low price for the public sale of grain. The passage of this law was marked by violence in the forum and the overriding of a colleague’s tribunician veto. Both Saturninus and Glaucia made preparations to continue in office for 99, with Saturninus being re-elected tribune and Glaucia attempting to be elected consul, which was illegal given that he was still a serving praetor. To ensure Glaucia’s success, a rival named Memmius was murdered, sparking a riot in Rome, during which Saturninus, Glaucia, and their supporters seized the capitol. In response, the Senate passed the senatus consultum ultimum and turned to Gaius Marius to restore order. Marius secured the surrender of Saturninus and his allies on the promise of safe conduct. Saturninus was held in custody in the Senate house, but was soon lynched by a pro-senatorial mob. Appian (B Civ. 1.33) states that he was killed on the first day of his third tribunate, though his chronology is hopelessly confused and is the subject of much debate (see suggested reading). SEE ALSO:

Maiestas; Marius, Gaius; Senate, Roman Republic and Empire; Tribuni plebis.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Badian, E. (1984) “The death of Saturninus: studies in chronology and prosopography.” Chiron 14: 101–47. Beness, J. (1991) “The urban unpopularity of Lucius Appuleius Saturninus.” Antichthon 25: 33–61. Evans, R. (2004) Questioning reputations: 99–131. Pretoria. Mattingly, H. (1969) “Saturninus’ corn bill and the circumstances of his fall.” Classical Review 19: 267–70.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 582–583. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah20011

1

Apuleius STEPHEN J. HARRISON

Apuleius, writer and orator, was born into the local elite ca. 125 CE at MADAUROS (MADAURA) in Africa Proconsularis, and educated in Carthage, Athens, and Rome; at Athens, he gained enough philosophy to be called philosophus Platonicus by himself and others. He claims to have traveled extensively as a young man; in the winter of 156 at OEA in North Africa, he met an ex-pupil from Athens, Pontianus, whose mother Pudentilla he then married. Accused of having induced Pudentilla to marry him through magic means, Apuleius successfully defended himself in 158 or 159 in a case of which his extant Apologia is a (no doubt tendentious) record; it is an immensely learned speech which combines Ciceronian forensic fireworks with sophistic epideixis. The Florida, twenty-odd excerpts from Apuleius’ showy declamations, probably delivered at CARTHAGE in the 160s, displays considerable rhetorical and stylistic talent. Nothing certain is known of him after 170. No firm date can be attached to Apuleius’ best-known work, the prose fiction Metamorphoses, sometimes called the Golden Ass, in eleven books. It is full of narratological cleverness, and is erotic, humorous, and sensational by turns. Here, the young Lucius is metamorphosed into an ass through his curiosity to discover the secrets of witchcraft, and undergoes a variety of picaresque adventures before being retransformed through the agency of the goddess Isis. This plot is punctuated by a number of inserted tales, which have in fact a close thematic relation to the main narrative; the most substantial and best known of them is that of Cupid and Psyche. The last book provides a much-discussed and controversial double twist: after his rescue by Isis, Lucius’ low-life adventures are interpreted in a new religious and providential light, and the

identity of the narrator seems to switch from Lucius to Apuleius himself, a final metamorphosis. The novel’s literary influences are various; the main ass-tale is partly paralleled by the Onos dubiously ascribed to LUCIAN, and the two may well have a common source in the lost Greek Metamorphoses of “Lucius of Patrae” (Phot. Bibl. cod. 129). A further extant work of Apuleius is De deo Socratis, a declamation on the personal deity of SOCRATES as seen in Plato. Four extant works ascribed to Apuleius are of debated authenticity: De dogmate Platonis or De Platone, two books of mediocre exposition of the philosophy of PLATO; De interpretatione, a treatise on formal logic; and De mundo, a translation of the pseudo-Aristotelian treatise. Lost Apuleian works known from later citations include further speeches, poems, another novel, and a wide range of scientific and other didactic works. The style of Apuleius is admired by many; it is the apex of Asianism in Latin, full of poetic and archaic words and apparent coinages, rhythmical and rhyming cola, and colored with colloquialism and Graecisms. Apuleius is best seen as a Latin Sophist, matching in the Roman west the extraordinarily extrovert and self-promoting characters who were his contemporaries in the Greek Second Sophistic. SEE ALSO:

Sophists, Roman Empire.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Harrison, S. J., ed. (1999) Oxford readings in the Roman novel. Oxford. Harrison, S. J. (2000) Apuleius: a Latin Sophist. Oxford. Sandy, G. A. (1997) The Greek world of Apuleius. Leiden. Winkler, J. J. (1985) Actor & auctor: a narratological reading of Apuleius’ Golden Ass. Berkeley.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 583–584. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah10010

1

Apuleius STEPHEN J. HARRISON

Apuleius, writer and orator, was born into the local elite ca. 125 CE at MADAUROS (MADAURA) in Africa Proconsularis, and educated in Carthage, Athens, and Rome; at Athens, he gained enough philosophy to be called philosophus Platonicus by himself and others. He claims to have traveled extensively as a young man; in the winter of 156 at OEA in North Africa, he met an ex-pupil from Athens, Pontianus, whose mother Pudentilla he then married. Accused of having induced Pudentilla to marry him through magic means, Apuleius successfully defended himself in 158 or 159 in a case of which his extant Apologia is a (no doubt tendentious) record; it is an immensely learned speech which combines Ciceronian forensic fireworks with sophistic epideixis. The Florida, twenty-odd excerpts from Apuleius’ showy declamations, probably delivered at CARTHAGE in the 160s, displays considerable rhetorical and stylistic talent. Nothing certain is known of him after 170. No firm date can be attached to Apuleius’ best-known work, the prose fiction Metamorphoses, sometimes called the Golden Ass, in eleven books. It is full of narratological cleverness, and is erotic, humorous, and sensational by turns. Here, the young Lucius is metamorphosed into an ass through his curiosity to discover the secrets of witchcraft, and undergoes a variety of picaresque adventures before being retransformed through the agency of the goddess Isis. This plot is punctuated by a number of inserted tales, which have in fact a close thematic relation to the main narrative; the most substantial and best known of them is that of Cupid and Psyche. The last book provides a much-discussed and controversial double twist: after his rescue by Isis, Lucius’ low-life adventures are interpreted in a new religious and providential light, and the identity of the

narrator seems to switch from Lucius to Apuleius himself, a final metamorphosis. The novel’s literary influences are various; the main ass-tale is partly paralleled by the Onos dubiously ascribed to LUCIAN, and the two may well have a common source in the lost Greek Metamorphoses of “Lucius of Patrae” (Phot. Bibl. cod. 129). A further extant work of Apuleius is De deo Socratis, a declamation on the personal deity of SOCRATES as seen in Plato. Four extant works ascribed to Apuleius are of debated authenticity: De dogmate Platonis or De Platone, two books of mediocre exposition of the philosophy of PLATO; De interpretatione, a treatise on formal logic; and De mundo, a translation of the pseudo-Aristotelian treatise. Lost Apuleian works known from later citations include further speeches, poems, another novel, and a wide range of scientific and other didactic works. The style of Apuleius is admired by many; it is the apex of Asianism in Latin, full of poetic and archaic words and apparent coinages, rhythmical and rhyming cola, and colored with colloquialisms and Graecisms. Apuleius is best seen as a Latin SOPHIST, matching in the Roman west the extraordinarily extrovert and self-promoting characters who were his contemporaries in the Greek Second Sophistic. REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Bradley, K. (2012) Apuleius and Antonine Rome: historical essays. Toronto Harrison, S. J., ed. (1999) Oxford readings in the Roman novel. Oxford. Harrison, S. J. (2000) Apuleius: a Latin sophist. Oxford. Harrison, S. J. (2013) Framing the Ass: literary texture in Apuleius’ Metamorphoses. Oxford. Sandy, G. A. (1997) The Greek world of Apuleius. Leiden. Winkler, J. J. (1985) Actor and auctor: a narratological reading of Apuleius’ Golden Ass. Berkeley.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and David Hollander. © 2018 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Published 2018 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah10010

1

Apulia EDWARD HERRING

Apulia (roughly modern Puglia) in southeast Italy takes its name from a tribe from the north of the region, mentioned in sources of the Roman period. Under the Augustan reorganization of Italy, Apulia and Calabria formed Regio II, which also incorporated parts of modern Basilicata, Campania, and Molise. Apulia is geographically diverse. In the north there are two zones: the Gargano, a promontory jutting into the Adriatic, and the Tavoliere, a large, low-lying plain. Central Apulia also has two landforms: the Murge, a range of hills covering most of the interior, and the coastal hinterland of Bari. Southern Apulia, ancient Calabria, has the Brindisino, a limestone plateau, and the Leccese, a series of fertile valleys and upland ridges. In the Roman period, Apulia supplied grain and oil to the Eastern Provinces. The Tavoliere has alternated throughout history between cereal farming and pastoralism. Pliny (HN 8.189–190) remarks on the quality of Apulian wool. Diocletian’s price edict (21.2; 25.1) confirms that Tarentine and Canusine wool commanded high prices. Nowadays vines, olives, wheat, vegetables, pulses, nuts, and fruit are all cultivated in the region. Horace (Ep. 3.16), a native of Venusia, describes Apulia as “siticulosa” or parched. Apulia has a rich prehistory. Greeks settled at Taras in the eighth century BCE. Indigenous communities continued to flourish inland (Herring 2007). By the time of the Roman conquest, Apulia was extensively urbanized. War characterized the later fourth–early third centuries BCE, according to historical sources (Lomas 1993: 39–57). These conflicts involved local populations and outsiders, including Samnites, Romans, and mercenaries. Once Tarentine resistance was broken, in 272 BCE, the region succumbed to Rome.

The initial impact of Roman rule seems slight. The area was slow to take up Latin. Messapic survived into the first century BCE. Greek endured even longer. Rome’s hold over the region was also tenuous. Many communities seized on the Carthaginian victory at Cannae, in 216 BCE, to renounce their alliances with Rome. The population mix was altered by veteran settlement, presumably on land confiscated from cities that had seceded during the war. Colonization was not solely a post-war phenomenon, however. Brundisium received a colony as early as 244 BCE, while Neptunia was established in the Gracchan land reforms (Plut. Gracch. 8.3; Vell. Pat. 1.15.4; Plin. HN 3.99). Our sources are silent for much of the second century, suggesting that the region was comparatively stable. Despite limited participation in the Social War, Apulia was affected by the settlement. Its cities were integrated into the Roman state, becoming municipia or coloniae. In the Civil Wars, Octavian used TARENTUM as a base for his Greek campaigns. Inscriptions from the city also suggest Caesarian sympathies. Apulia figures only sporadically in imperial sources. Among the most debated topics in the study of Apulia is depopulation. Literary sources create the impression that by the Late Republic, Apulia had become impoverished (e.g., Cic. Amic. 4.13) and dominated by large, slave-run latifundia, focusing either on single cash-crops or pastoralism. Archaeological evidence supports a move towards a villa economy based on mixed farming. The literary tradition evidently contains a rhetorical dimension about the negative effect of large estates (cf. Plin. HN 18.35). SEE ALSO: Augustus; Cannae, battle of; Civil war, Roman; Colonies, Roman and Latin (republican); Edict on prices, Diocletian’s; Latifundia/large estates; Punic wars; Social War, Roman Republic.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 584–585. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah16007

2 REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Delano Smith, C. (1980) Daunia Vetus. Vita e mutamenti sulle coste del Tavoliere. Foggia. Herring, E. (2007) “Daunians, Peucetians and Messapians? Societies and settlements in South-East Italy.” In G. Bradley, E. Isayev, and

C. Riva, eds., Ancient Italy: regions without boundaries: 268–94. Exeter. Lomas, K. (1993) Rome and the Western Greeks 350 BC – AD 200. Conquest and acculturation in Southern Italy. London. Morel, J.-P. (1978) “La Laine de Tarente: de l’usage des textes anciens en histoire e´conomique.” Ktema 3–4: 94–110.

1

Apulum/Alba Iulia (Romania) CRISTINA-GEORGETA ALEXANDRESCU

The most important urban settlement of Roman DACIA as well as the camp of the Legio XIII Gemina developed at Apulum (see Figure 1). They have been documented through archaeological excavations, the material discovered in the course of construction in the modern town, and especially the rich epigraphic record. The location on the fertile land around the Mures¸ River, at the crossroads of several main roads and not far from the goldbearing Apuseni mountains, contributed to their development. The name Apulum is linked with the name of the Dacian tribe Apuli (Ptol. 3.8, Tab. Peut., Rav.Cosm. 4.7). Legio XIII Gemina (stationed here from 106 until the 270s CE) built the legionary camp (440 x 430 m) of stone on the River Mures¸, at the place called “Cetate.” The camp was destroyed to build various medieval structures, especially the eighteenth century fortress on the same site. North of the camp were the canabae, mentioned in inscriptions from the time of Trajan until the time of Marcus Aurelius (CIL III, tab. cer. XXV). After the administrative reforms made by HADRIAN (in 118–120), the governor of Dacia superior had his residence in Apulum. He was also the commander of Legio XIII Gemina. The praetorium consularis has been identified east of the camp. After the administrative reform of MARCUS AURELIUS in 168 CE, Apulum was the seat of the governor of the three Daciae, legatus Augusti pro praetore Daciarum trium. South of the camp, closer to the Mures¸ river, in the present-day Partos¸ district, a Roman settlement (“Apulum I”) was established. Initially a pagus on the territorium of the city of Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa, it became the Municipium Aurelium Apulense (CIL III 986)

around 180 CE. Under COMMODUS it became Colonia Aurelia Apulensis. At the beginning of the third century the inhabitants of the towns were granted ius Italicum. An inscription of 253 in honor of Volusianus calls the town Chrysopolis. The ruins of this town were preserved until the middle of the nineteenth century. Baths, temples (of Liber Pater, Aesculapius and Hygiea), a mithraeum, streets, and aqueducts were uncovered there. Inscriptions and fragments of sculpture attest public buildings and a variety of religious cults. A second town (“Apulum II”) also developed to the east and southeast of the camp. It became a municipium under Septimius Severus (CIL II 976, 985, 1051) and co-existed with the Colonia Aurelia Apulensis. Its name was Colonia nova Apulensis and it was mentioned in the year 250 in an inscription in honor of Trajan Decius, called Restitutor Daciarum (CIL II 1176). The only surviving archaeological remains are parts of the city wall. Roman necropoleis have also been identified: one to the south of the camp, one to the north and northwest of the camp, and a third one, probably the necropolis of “Apulum I,” in the present-day Partos¸ district. SEE ALSO: Canabae; Colonies, Roman Empire (west); Ius Italicum; Municipia, Roman Empire; Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Diaconescu, A. and Piso, I. (1993) Apulum. In D. Alicu and H. Boegli, eds., La Politique e´dilitaire dans les provinces de l’Empire Romain. Actes du 1er Colloque Roumano-Suisse Deva 1991: 67–82. Cluj-Napoca. Moga, V. (1985) Din istoria militara˘ a Daciei romane. Legiunea XIII Gemina. Cluj-Napoca. Piso, I. (2001) Inscriptions d’Apulum (Inscriptions de la Dacie Romaine III 5). 2 vols. Paris.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 585–587. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah16008

2

E

ABA

CAN

CAST R LEG.X A I GEMI II NAE

Mu

reş

MVN I SEP CIPIVM TIM IVM (‘AP ULU MI I’)

praeto rium consu laris

Am

po

i

MV N AVR ICIPIV M ELI VM (‘A PU LUM I’) CO

LO

AV RE

LIA

NIA

ş Mure

0

200 400

600 m

Figure 1 Apulum: General plan. Illustration by Cristina-Georgeta Alexandrescu.

1

Apulum/Alba Iulia (Romania) CRISTINA-GEORGETA ALEXANDRESCU

Archaeological Institute “Vasile Pârvan” Bucharest

Apulum was the most important urban settlement of Roman DACIA, as well as the camp of the Legio XIII Gemina (see Figure 1). Both sites – the urban and the military – have been documented through archaeological excavations, through material discovered during the construction in the modern town, and especially through a rich epigraphic record. Their location on the fertile land around the Mureș River, at the crossroads of several main routes and not far from the gold-bearing Apuseni mountains, contributed to their development. The name Apulum is linked with that of the Dacian tribe of the Apuli (Ptol. 3.8, Tab. Peut., Rav. Cosm. 4.7). Legio XIII Gemina, stationed at Apulum from 106 CE until the 270s, built the legionary camp (440 – 430 m) out of stone, on the Mureș River, at a place called “Cetate.” The camp was later destroyed in order to make room for various medieval structures, and especially an eighteenth-century fortress, to be built on the site. North of the camp were the canabae (civil settlement) mentioned in inscriptions from the time of Trajan until the time of Marcus Aurelius (Pippidi and Russu, 1975: 37–8). After the administrative reforms made by HADRIAN in 118–120, the governor of Dacia superior took residence in Apulum. He was also the commander of Legio XIII Gemina. The praetorium consularis (governor’s palace) has been identified east of the fortress. After the administrative

reform of MARCUS AURELIUS in 168 CE, Apulum became the seat of the governor of the three provinces of Dacia, legatus Augusti pro praetore Daciarum trium. South of the camp, closer to the Mureș River, in the present-day Partos district, a Roman settlement, Apulum I, was established. Initially a pagus (village) in the territorium of the city of Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa, it became Municipium Aurelium Apulense (CIL III 986) around 180 CE. Under COMMODUS, it became Colonia Aurelia Apulensis. At the beginning of the third century, the inhabitants of the towns were granted ius Italicum. An inscription of 253 in honor of Volusianus calls the town Chrysopolis. Baths, temples of Liber Pater, Aesculapius, and Hygiea, a sanctuary dedicated to Mithras, streets, and aqueducts were uncovered there. Inscriptions and fragments of sculpture bear testimony to public buildings and to a variety of religious cults. The ruins of this town were preserved until the middle of the nineteenth century. A second town, Apulum II, also developed to the east and southeast of the camp. It became a municipium under SEPTIMIUS SEVERUS (CIL II 976, 985, 1051) and coexisted with Colonia Aurelia Apulensis. Its name was Colonia Nova Apulensis and it was mentioned in the year 250 in an inscription in honor of TRAJAN DECIUS, who is described as restitutor Daciarum, “restorer of the Dacias” (CIL II 1176). The only surviving archaeological remains are parts of the city wall. Roman cemeteries have been identified to the south of the camp, to the north and northwest of the camp, and in the present-day Partos district; the latter is probably the necropolis of Apulum I.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History. Edited by Andrew Erskine, David B. Hollander, and Arietta Papaconstantinou. © 2022 John Wiley & Sons Ltd. Published 2022 by John Wiley & Sons Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah16008.pub2

2

FIGURE 1 Apulum: general plan. Illustration by Cristina-Georgeta Alexandrescu.

3 SEE ALSO: Canabae; Colonies, Roman Empire (west); Ius Italicum; Municipia, Roman Empire; Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa, Romania.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Bounegru, G.V. (2017) The northern necropolis of Apulum ambulance station 1981–1985. ClujNapoca. Diaconescu, A. and Piso, I. (1993) “Apulum.” In D. Alicu and H. Boegli, eds., La politique édilitaire dans les provinces de l’Empire romain: Actes du 1er Colloque Roumano-Suisse, Deva, 1991: 67– 82. Cluj-Napoca. Moga, V. (1985) Din istoria militară a Daciei romane: legiunea XIII Gemina. Cluj-Napoca. Pippidi, D. M. and Russu, I. I. (1975) Inscripţiile Daciei Romane (IDR 1), vol. 1. Bucharest.

Piso, I. (2001) Inscriptions d’Apulum: inscriptions de la Dacie Romaine, III 5. 2 vols. Paris. Ota, R. (2012) De la canabele legiunii a XIII-a Gemina la municipium Septimium apulense. Alba Iulia. Rusu-Bolindeț, V. (2019) “The praetorium consularis from Apulum: a symbol of official power in the province of Dacia.” In Z. Havas, ed., Authenticity and experience: governor’s palaces of Roman Imperial Period and the Limes: Proceedings of the International Conference, Budapest, 5–6 November 2018, Aquincum Nostrum, II.8: 97–120. Budapest. Schäfer, F.(2014) “Das Praetorium in Apulum.” In Praetoria: Paläste zum Wohnen und Verwalten in Köln und anderen römischen Provinzhauptstädten: 265–87. Mainz.

1

Aquae Mattiacae (Wiesbaden) MILORAD NIKOLIC

Aquae Mattiacae, located on the east side of the RHINE River, was the site of a Roman military garrison around which a civilian settlement (vicus) developed into the capital of the Germanic tribe of the Mattiaci (civitas Mattiacorum). A Roman milestone from Mainz-Kastel (Castellum Mattiacorum), dating to 122 CE, is the earliest reference to the place name (CIL XIII 9124). The site was known for its hot springs (hence Aquae Mattiacae), which were frequented by the legions stationed in neighboring Mogontiacum (Mainz). Pliny the Elder (HN 31.20) provides literary evidence for the hot springs (Mattiaci fontes calidi). Martial (Ep. 14.27) mentions the use of pilae Mattiacae, a local mineral deposit, as hair dye. Excavations on the Heidenberg, northwest of Wiesbaden’s modern city center, established the relative chronology of a series of Roman military camps. The excavations revealed a gateway and a ditch belonging to the oldest camp. Ceramic finds date to the late Augustan period. A subsequent camp dates to the preFlavian period. A third, later camp is currently undatable. The purpose of the garrison was the control of passes across the Taunus Mountains and the protection of the Roman bridgehead at Mogontiacum on the Rhine. The widespread destruction of the civil wars in 69/70 is visible also in the archaeological record in Wiesbaden. It is likely that in the process of reorganization under VESPASIAN a military camp was built, which may be identical to the undatable third camp. The last Roman military camp in Wiesbaden was built of stone under DOMITIAN in the 80s CE. It enclosed an area of 2.2 ha. Excavations revealed the commander’s residence (praetorium), the command staff building (principia), the hospital (valetudinarium), and two store houses

(horrea). The camp was abandoned in the late Trajanic or early Hadrianic period (122 at the latest). At an unknown later date the praetorium was converted into a military workshop (fabrica), which suggests that the camp probably remained under the control of the Roman military administration. A small number of tombstones indicate that the soldiers stationed in these camps were affiliated with auxiliary units, at various times cohorts of Dalmatians, Pannonians, Thracians, and Raetians. Roman brick stamps allow dating of stonebuilt bath buildings to the mid first century CE. Three distinct bath buildings from the Roman period are currently known. There is virtually no information about economic activity other than these baths. Inscriptions mention a ceramics trader and a traders’ club house (CIL XIII 7587 and 7588). Other inscriptions attest to the existence of sanctuaries to Jupiter Dolichenus, to the Celtic goddess Sirona, to Apollo Toutiorix, to Diana Mattiaca, and to the imperial cult. Only one religious building has been excavated, a Mithraeum from the third century that was torn down in 360 to make room for the wall of a possibly unfinished citadel, the so-called Heidenmauer (“heathens’ wall”), the only remaining Roman structure visible today. The latest evidence of Roman presence in the region is a coin hoard from the reign of Constantine III (407–411). SEE ALSO: Baths, bathing; Camps, military; Germania (Superior and Inferior); Mogontiacum (Mainz).

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Baatz, D. and Herrmann, F.-R., ed. (1982) Die Ro¨mer in Hessen. Stuttgart. Bechert, T. (2003) Ro¨mische Archa¨ologie in Deutschland. Stuttgart. Wolter, R. (2002) Die Ro¨mer in Germanien. Munich.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 587–588. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah16009

1

Aquae Sextiae E. J. OWENS

Aquae Sextiae Salluviorum (mod. Aix-enProvence, France) was reputedly the earliest Roman foundation in Transalpine (later Narbonese) Gaul. It was the site of Marius’ victory over the German tribes of the Teutones and Ambrones in 102 BCE and in the imperial period became one of the most important cities of the region and, eventually, capital of the province of Narbonensis Secunda. Aquae Sextiae is situated approximately 30 km north of MASSILIA (MARSEILLES) and takes its name from some local thermal springs and from C. Sextius Calvinus, consul in 124 BCE (Strabo, 4.1.5; Vell. Pat. 1.15). Calvinus established a fort close to ENTREMONT, a major stronghold and possibly the capital of the Gallic tribal confederacy of the Salluvii (Salyes), which he destroyed after he defeated the tribe in 123. It was in the vicinity of Aquae Sextiae that MARIUS inflicted a crushing defeat on the Germanic tribes of the Ambrones and Teutones in 102 (Plut. Mar. 18–21). In the aftermath of this defeat, 300 German women killed their children and committed suicide rather than be handed over to the Romans (Jerome, Letters, 123.8). The site controlled several major roads through the region, including the coastal route from Italy westwards to the River Rhoˆne and, beyond, to Spain and the route from Massilia northwards to the River Durance (Latin Druentia) and the ALPS. Its strategic location and the thermal springs ensured its importance and prosperity. JULIUS CAESAR established a Latin colony at Aquae Sextiae (Plin. HN 3.36), and, later, the first emperor, AUGUSTUS, granted it full Roman colonial status. Its importance was confirmed when it was made the capital of the newly created province of Narbonensis Secunda after the original province of Gallia Narbonensis was divided into

two during Diocletian’s reorganization of the empire in the fourth century CE. Although there is a tradition that Christianity was established at Aquae Sextiae as early as the first century CE, it is not until the Council of Nıˆmes at the end of the fourth century that the name of the earliest bishop is recorded. In the fifth and sixth centuries the city suffered a series of destructive attacks and occupations at the hands of the VISIGOTHS, FRANKS, and Lombards. These attacks and continuous occupation at the site mean that little of the Roman city has survived. It is supposed that the original fort occupied the high ground where the presentday cathedral is situated and the alignment of the main east–west street of the colony (Latin: decumanus maximus) has been identified, as has the location of one of city’s gates. Within the perimeter of the city two suites of baths, a group of private houses, a courtyard dating to the early imperial period, and a baptistery with columns reused from pagan structures have been located, as well as the site of a possible amphitheater. Five aqueducts supplied the Roman city with water, including one from Traconnade to the northeast, which ran for a distance of 20 km. SEE ALSO: Colonies, Roman and Latin (republican); Colonies, Roman Empire (west); Gaul (Tres Galliae).

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Ambard, R. (1984) Aix romaine: nouvelles observations sur la topographie d’Aquae Sextiae. Aix-en-Provence. Ebel, C. (1976) Transalpine Gaul: the emergence of a Roman province. Leiden. Leveau, Ph. (2006) “Les aqueducs d’Aquae Sextiae et la gestion de l’eau sur le territoire de la cite.” Carte Arche´ologique de la Gaule 13/4: 93–109. Rivet, A. L. F. (1988) Gallia Narbonensis: southern France in Roman times. London.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 588–589. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah16010

1

Aquae Sextiae EDWIN J. OWENS

University of Swansea, UK

Aquae Sextiae is situated approximately 30 km north of MASSILIA (MARSEILLES) and takes its name from local thermal springs and from C. Sextius Calvinus, consul in 124 BCE (Strabo, 4.1.5; Vell. Pat. 1.15). Calvinus established a fort close to ENTREMONT in 122 BCE, a major native stronghold and possibly the capital of the Gallic tribal confederacy of the Salluvii (Salyes), which he destroyed after defeating the tribe in 123 BCE. Aquae Sextiae was strategically important and controlled several major roads through the region, including the coastal route from Italy westwards to the River Rhône and, beyond, to Spain and the route from Massilia northwards to the River Durance (L. Druentia) and the ALPS. Its strategic location and the thermal springs ensured its importance and prosperity. It was at Aquae Sextiae in 102 BCE that Gaius Marius (MARIUS, GAIUS) routed the Ambrones and Teutones (Plut. Mar. 18–21), the first of two crushing defeats which he inflicted on the German tribes intent on invading Italy. Accounts put the casualties between 100,000 and 290,000 killed and captured (Plut. Mar. 21.3; Livy, Per. 68) and included three hundred women who killed their children and committed suicide rather than be enslaved (Jerome, Letters, 123.8). It was claimed that the corpses fertilized the ground for years to come and the people of Massilia used the bones of the dead to fence their vineyards. JULIUS CAESAR (C. IULIUS CAESAR) established a Latin colony at Aquae Sextiae (Plin. HN 3.36), and, later, AUGUSTUS (IMPERATOR CAESAR AUGUSTUS) granted it full Roman status. Its importance was confirmed when it was made the capital of the newly created province of Narbonensis Secunda, after the original province of Gallia Narbonensis was divided into two during Diocletian’s reorganization of the empire in the fourth century CE. Although there

is a tradition that Christianity was established at Aquae Sextiae as early as the first century CE, it is not until the Council of Nîmes at the end of the fourth century that the earliest name of a bishop is recorded (Remigius). In the fifth and sixth centuries the city suffered a series of destructive attacks and occupations at the hands of the VISIGOTHS, FRANKS, and Lombards. Continuous occupation at the site means that little of the Roman city has survived. It is supposed that the original castellum and later center of the town occupied the slightly high ground of Bourg Saint-Sauveur, where the present-day cathedral is situated, probably overlying the forum, and several Roman remains have been found. The alignment of the colony’s main street (L. decumanus maximus) has been identified, as has the location of one of city’s gates, through which the via Julia Augusta passed. Within the perimeter two suites of baths, a courtyard dating to the early imperial period, and a baptistry with reused pagan columns have been located. The remains of private houses and a group of urban villas have been uncovered, together with mosaics, indicating the wealth of at least some of the inhabitants. Part of the town’s impressive theater (not an amphitheater as previously thought), possibly originally constructed in the Julio-Claudian period and comparable in diameter to the theaters of ARELATE (ARLES) and ARAUSIO (ORANGE), has recently been excavated. Five aqueducts supplied the Roman city with water, including one from Traconnade, a distance of 20 km to the northeast. ALSO: Colonies, Roman and Latin (Republican); Colonies, Roman Empire (west); Gaul (Tres Galliae).

SEE

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Ambard, R. (1984) Aix romaine: nouvelles observations sur la topographie d’Aquae Sextiae. Aix-enProvence. Anderson Jr., J. C. (2012) Roman architecture in Provence. Cambridge.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History. Edited by Andrew Erskine, David B. Hollander, and Arietta Papaconstantinou. © 2021 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Published 2021 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah16010.pub2

2 Ebel, C. (1976) Transalpine Gaul: the emergence of a Roman province. Leiden. Leveau, Ph. (2006) “Les aqueducs d’Aquae Sextiae et la gestion de l’eau sur le territoire

de la cité.” Carte Archéologique de la Gaule 13, 4: 93–109. Rivet, A. L. F. (1988) Gallia Narbonensis: southern France in Roman times. London.

1

Aquae Sulis (Bath) KRISTINA GLICKSMAN

Aquae Sulis was a Roman settlement of indefinite status located in the southwestern part of the province of BRITANNIA at the point where the Fosse Way crossed the River Avon. The nature of pre-Roman settlement on the site is uncertain, and the earliest indication of Roman occupation points to an immediately post-conquest date (43–68 CE). Given its strategic location at the convergence of four major military roads and its position along the original defensive line marking the frontier zone (the Fosse Way), it is likely that the settlement grew up under the influence of a nearby military presence and its inevitable market for goods and services. While the archaeological evidence supports this hypothesis, no clearly military structure has yet been discovered in the immediate vicinity. The settlement was relatively small, probably possessing, at most, the status of VICUS (Davenport 2000). The monumental temple/baths complex for which Aquae Sulis is famous was built in the 60s or 70s around the largest of three hot springs located about 500 m to the south of the original settlement (Davenport 2000: 8). That the springs were revered in the preRoman Iron Age is indicated not only by the presence of coins from this period but also by its association with the Celtic deity SULIS. The temple dedicated to Sulis Minerva was one of the few Classical temples known to have been built in Roman Britain. Situated on a high podium, it was accessed by a set of stairs leading to a simple cella with a short porch fronted by four columns and dominated by a triangular pediment. A set of BATHS was built at the same time and included not only the standard suite of pools and exercise areas but also a large, lead-lined

pool fed by the hot spring. Curative baths were added at a later stage. Throughout its lifetime, the temple/baths complex underwent a series of expansions and renovations, as much indicative of its popularity as the inscriptions and pewter curse tablets showing the variety of people who visited the site, some from as far afield as Gaul and Germania. The complex was enclosed by a rampart, later reinforced by a wall, probably around the fourth century. The many buildings found within the walls may have been directly related to the temple and baths in function (Cunliffe 2000: 122). The progression from timber structures in the earlier days to substantial masonry buildings by the early third century in both the original settlement and the walled area is evidence of not only a growth in prosperity but also a strong link between the town and the religious center. In the third and fourth centuries, the rising water table resulted in flooding of the low-lying hollow in which the temple and baths had been built. When the Roman drainage system failed, the buildings were abandoned, and the marshy area was used as a rubbish dump. Settlement on the site of Aquae Sulis, later known as Bath, has continued to the present day. SEE ALSO: Baths, bathing; Curses, Greece and Rome; Minerva; Springs, sacred; Temples, Roman.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Cunliffe, B. (2000) Roman Bath discovered. Stroud. Cunliffe, B. and Davenport, P. (1985) The temple of Sulis Minerva at Bath. Oxford. Davenport, P. (1994) “Town and country: Roman Bath and its hinterland.” Bath History 5: 7–23. Davenport, P. (2000) “Aquae Sulis: the origins and development of a Roman town.” Bath History 8: 7–26.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 589–590. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah16011

1

Aquila and Theodotion, Greek translations of the Bible of JAMES K. AITKEN

Soon after the translation of the first parts of the Hebrew Bible into Greek in the third and second centuries BCE (see SEPTUAGINT), Jewish revisions and alternative translations began to circulate. A first century BCE Greek translation of the Minor Prophets appears at the Judaean site of Nah: al Hever in a translation ˙ style known as kaige (named after its literal rendering of the Hebrew wegam by Greek kai ge), which already reflects revision of the Greek through precise rendering of the Hebrew (Barthe´lemy 1963). This revision process, with its literal rendering of the Hebrew, culminated in two second century CE translations, attributed to Aquila and Theodotion. Along with a near contemporary Symmachus, they are sometimes referred to as “the Three,” although Symmachus is to be distinguished, having traditionally been seen as an Ebionite (“Jewish Christian”), although he might have been Jewish (Salvesen 1991), and having written an elegant Greek translation reflecting exegetical concerns. Aquila’s version has only survived in fragments, citations, and marginal notations in manuscripts (see Ferna´ndez Marcos 2000: 113–15), some deriving from ORIGEN’s collection in his Hexapla. Traditionally thought to be a Jewish response to the Christian adoption of the Septuagint, Aquila’s translation more likely stems from an internal Jewish need both to provide translations closer to the Hebrew (for assisting in teaching Hebrew or biblical exegesis) and as a continuation of the tradition of revision. The reliability of Aquila’s biography in both patristic and rabbinic sources is uncertain. The fullest account in Epiphanius portrays him as a convert to Christianity and then to Judaism in the early second century CE. Although rabbinic literature presents him as a

pupil of Rabbi Aqiba (j.Meg 1.11; j.Qidd 1.1), and his literal translation style, rendering each Hebrew feature in Greek, could be consistent with the methods of Aqiba (Barthe´lemy 1963), the connection is uncertain (Grabbe 1982). The literalism of the translation is balanced by literary sensitivity in its renderings. The biography of Theodotion in Epiphanius, which is tempered in Irenaeus, bears similarities to that of Aquila. He is viewed as a convert to Judaism in the late second century, although Jerome thinks he was an Ebionite. Theodotion’s work survives in citations and manuscript marginalia, but some of this translation has also been incorporated into the Septuagint translation. In addition to several verses in some books, the whole of the Greek Daniel is said to be by Theodotion. It is difficult, however, to attribute all Theodotion-like translations to one individual of the later second century, and it is better to see a long tradition of translation in that style. Thus, some New Testament quotations are like Theodotion, but derive clearly from a time earlier than the second century. Theodotion’s style is similar to that of Aquila in its literalness, but displays a preference for transliterating Hebrew words, especially names and technical terms. Although tradition records Aquila and Theodotion as individuals, they are part of a longer tradition of translation style that is already evident in the Septuagint translations of Song of Songs and Ecclesiastes. Aquila remained the preferred translation in Jewish circles (Justinian, Novella 146) and was used as the basis for medieval translations (de Lange 1996). The importance of both might account for the application of their names to two Aramaic targum traditions (see TARGUM (ARAMAIC TRANSLATIONS OF THE HEBREW BIBLE)), Onqelos (equivalent of Aquila) and Jonathan (“Yhwh has given,” the Hebrew equivalent of the Greek Theodotion).

SEE ALSO: Bible, Hebrew; Bible, translation and diffusion; Septuagint.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 590–591. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah11025

2 REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Barthe´lemy, D. (1963) Les devanciers d’Aquila: premie`re publication inte´grale du texte des fragments du Dode´caprophe´ton. Leiden. de Lange, N. R. M. (1996) Greek Jewish texts from the Cairo Genizah. Tu¨bingen.

Ferna´ndez Marcos, N. (2000) The Septuagint in context: Introduction to the Greek versions of the Bible. Leiden. Grabbe, L. L. (1982) “Aquila’s translation and Rabbinic exegesis.” Journal of Jewish Studies 33: 527–36. Salvesen, A. (1991) Symmachus in the Pentateuch. Manchester.

1

Aquileia ERIC C. DE SENA

Aquileia is located at the head of the

ADRIATIC

SEA, 16 km from modern-day Trieste. The Latin

colony served at first as a frontier city and then as an important supply center for the Roman army located in the region of the DANUBE and an emporium for private merchants. The site was occupied since the Late Bronze Age and consisted of a substantial Iron Age community when the Romans occupied the area (Maselli Scotti in Cuscito 2003–2004). Following a major conflict with Gallic tribes in the early second century BCE, Rome established a colony in Aquileia with three thousand colonists in 181; one thousand five hundred additional colonists arrived in 169. The city was revitalized under JULIUS CAESAR and AUGUSTUS and thrived through the fourth century despite having been sacked by the Marcomanni and Quadi in 169 and 178. Attila the Hun also overtook and destroyed Aquileia in 452 CE. Nevertheless, the city was powerful through the Longobard period; in the sixth century Aquileia controlled the entire northern Adriatic as well as the regions of Raetia Secunda, Noricum, and Pannonia Prima (Pavan in Mirabella 1987). To date, relatively little of the city has been explored archaeologically. The forum dates to the second century BCE with campaigns of renovation under Augustus and following the Marcomannic wars (Verza´r Bass 1991/ 1994). Surrounding the courtyard of the forum are a basilica on the south side, shops on the east side and what is likely to be the comitia to the north. To the southwest of the forum are the remains of a theater whose chronology appears to have followed that of the forum. Several atrium houses have been discovered as well as public architecture: a saepta, a circus (second century BCE), an amphitheater (probably Flavian), and a bath complex (second century CE) (Bertacchi 2003: 33–44). The religious life of the city is strongly attested:

in addition to shrines and temples dedicated to Mithras, Asclepius/Hygieia, Isis/Serapis and Magna Mater, there are approximately three hundred inscriptions which mention more than fifty cults (Bertacchi 2003: 45). Aquileia was also an important ecclesiastical center. Planned by CONSTANTINE, the cathedral, dedicated to the Virgin Mary and Saints Hermacora and Fortunato, contains splendid early Christian mosaics. The economic importance of Aquileia is stressed in the ancient sources and is recognized through archaeological finds. Both Strabo (5.1) and Ammianus Marcellinus (21.11–12) report the importance of this emporium during their respective times for trade between Italy, Illyria, and central Europe. Archaeologically, the economic significance of this city is attested by a massive port along the Terzo River measuring approximately 1000 40 ft and consisting of horrea and docking facilities. The port has several earlier phases, but the last major building campaign occurred in the mid third century CE. The most important goods produced in Aquileia and its hinterlands were wine, olive oil, and gems. In fact, the National Museum houses an impressive collection of inscribed gems and cameos manufactured by artisans of the city (see ECONOMY, WESTERN PROVINCES). SEE ALSO: Colonies, Roman and Latin (republican); Julius Caesar; Marcus Aurelius; Noricum; Pannonia; Raetia; Septimius Severus.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Bertacchi, L. (2003) Nuova pianta archeologica di Aquileia. Udine. Cuscito, G. et al., ed. (2003–2007) Aquileia dalle origini alla costituzione del Ducato Longobardo. Trieste. Mirabella R., ed. (1987) Vita sociale artistica e commercial di Aquileia romana. Udine. Verza´r Bass, M., ed. (1991/1994) Scavi ad Aquileia I.1 and I.2. L’area A est del foro. Rome.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 591–592. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah16012

1

Aquilius Gallus, Gaius KAIUS TUORI

Gaius Aquilius Gallus was a Roman jurist of the Late Republic. He is best known for his role in the lawsuit of Aulus Caecina, which produced CICERO’S speech pro Caecina. Among lawyers, he is famous as the inventor of several important institutions of Roman law, such as the stipulatio Aquiliana, the actio de dolo, and the exceptio doli. However, very little is known of his life and works beyond the references in Cicero and in POMPONIUS (the latter included him in the canon of important jurists) and a number of quotations in the DIGESTA of JUSTINIAN. Aquilius Gallus belonged to a group of lawyers who were instrumental in founding the legal tradition currently known as classical Roman law. He was a pupil of QUINTUS MUCIUS SCAEVOLA (Dig. 1.2.2.42) and later became the teacher of SERVIUS SULPICIUS RUFUS. His political career culminated in the praetorship, which he held in 66 BCE together with Cicero (Cic. Att. 1.1.1). Pliny notes that he was an equestrian, presumably meaning before he entered the Senate, and owned the most beautiful house in Rome, situated on the Viminal hill (Plin. HN 17.1.2). Much of what is known of Aquilius Gallus comes from Cicero, who mentions that he introduced the actio de dolo and the exceptio doli (Cic. Off. 3.14.60, Nat. D. 3.30.74). His dates of birth and death are not known. It is possible that he died before 44 BCE, because Cicero writes of him then as if he is no longer living (Top. 32.51), though this is far from certain. A well-known figure of his time, Aquilius Gallus is also mentioned in numerous contemporary anecdotes, such as when a dinner guest died at his table (Plin. HN 7.183). Of his legal opinions little is known outside quotations from later jurists. There are no known works that would have applied the systematic method developed by Q. Mucius Scaevola, his teacher. He has been considered

one of the last of the so-called cautelary jurists and even contemporaries note that his legal activity consisted mostly of giving legal advice, responsa. Cicero praises his legal skill and his deep commitment to justice and equity (Cic. Caecina 77–8, Brut. 154; Frier 1985: 147–8). In the juristic literature CERVIDIUS SCAEVOLA quotes Gallus on the institution of grandsons as heirs, the postumi Aquiliani (Dig. 28.2.29 pr), and Florentinus cites him on the stipulatio Aquiliana which made possible the partial commutation of certain obligations and the full release of others (Dig. 46.4.18). It is perhaps a sign of the advancement of scholarship by the time of Ulpian that he actually quotes Aquilius Gallus through Mela’s citation of him (Dig. 19.1.17.6). His most famous quotation, though, comes from Cicero (Top. 51), who tells the story of how Aquilius Gallus had dismissed a discussion of the facts of a case as something jurists should not be involved in, saying “Nihil hoc ad ius; ad Ciceronem” (a phrase that translates loosely as “This is not an issue of law, this is something for Cicero”). While he is repeatedly mentioned and praised by Cicero, it appears that Cicero himself did not consider him as a friend but rather a competitor (Frier 1985: 149). SEE ALSO:

Jurisprudence, Greek and Roman; Law, Roman.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Frier, B. (1985) The rise of the Roman jurists: studies in Cicero’s pro Caecina: 139–49. Princeton. Giaro, T. (1996) “Aquilius [I 12].” Der Neue Pauly 1: 938. Jörs, P. and Klebs, E. (1895) “Aquilius 23.” In A. Pauly, G. Wissowa, and W. Kroll, eds., Realencyclopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft 2.1: 327–30. Stuttgart. Kunkel, W. (1967) Herkunft und soziale Stellung der römischen Juristen, 2nd ed.: 21–2. Graz. (Reprinted as (2001) Die römischen Juristen: Herkunft und soziale Stellung. Cologne.)

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History. Edited by Kai Brodersen, Andrew Erskine, and David Hollander. © 2019 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Published 2019 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah30651

1

Aquincum (Budapest) JANOS P. FEDAK

Aquincum, one of the major settlements of Roman PANNONIA, is located south of the Danube Bend. It lies in the northwest district of the present day Hungarian capital, Budapest. Before the Roman occupation of the region, the Celtic tribe of the Eravisci had inhabited the region. It was only around the middle of the first century CE that a permanent station, or castra stativa, became established in the vicinity of the Eraviscan settlement. During the reign of Claudius (41–54) a five hundred strong cavalry unit, the ala Hispanorum prima, was stationed in the region. The first castellum was established at Aquincum in the reign of VESPASIAN. Domitian’s initiative against the Dacians in 85–88 and his subsequent campaigns against the Quadi, Marcomanni, and the Sarmatians necessitated a strong military presence in the region. It led to the establishment of a legionary camp of six thousand soldiers (II Adiutrix) by 91. Following the defeat of the Dacians in 106 Trajan decided to divide Pannonia into two parts. Aquincum was designated as the capital of Pannonia Inferior. The future emperor HADRIAN served as governor (legatus). He built a magnificent fortified palatial complex at Aquincum and initiated the construction of other large-scale stone structures, replacing many earlier timber buildings. About 2 km north of the now permanent legionary fort was the civilian town of Aquincum, which was granted the status of municipium in 124. To strengthen the defenses along the Danube limes, a Contra-Aquincum was established on the left bank of the river. The relative peace and prosperity of the first half of the second century came to an end

with the invasion of the Germanic tribes of the Quadi and Marcomanni, followed by the Sarmatians, in 167–80. The last two decades of the second century witnessed the reconstruction of Aquincum. It became a colonia under Septimius Severus (194). With Septimius Severus and his Syrian wife, Julia Domna, came a considerable influx of easterners. The population of Aquincum at this time reached twenty five thousand inhabitants or more. The next major period of turmoil started around 260 with the invasion of the Roxolani, Vandals, and Sarmatians. The destruction was considerable and the city never regained its former importance. As a result of Diocletian’s reorganization of Pannonia into four parts in 297–98, Aquincum was designated the center of the newly established province of Valeria. During the later fourth century there were periodic incursions by the barbarians north and east of the Danube. Nonetheless, Aquincum still saw the completion of some new public works. During 372–74 Valentinian I spent a lot of time in Aquincum, as recorded by Ammianus. With the appearance of the HUNS, the Romans handed the city to the new invaders on a contractual basis in 433. The waves of migrations stopped in the ninth century when the Hungarians permanently settled in the region. SEE ALSO:

Danube; Septimius Severus.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Hajnoczi, Gy. and Mezos, T., eds. (1998) Pannonia Hungarica antiqua: 47–71. Budapest. Kurucz, K. L. and Poczy, K., eds. (1997) The Roman town in Budapest. Budapest. Szilagyi, J. (1956) Aquincum. Budapest. Zsidi, P. (1998) “The Roman town in a modern city.” Aquincum Nostrum: 223–9. Budapest.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 592–593. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah16013

1

Ara Pacis Augustae ROGER VON DIPPE

The Altar of Augustan Peace was authorized by the Roman Senate in 13 BCE, on Augustus’ return from Spain and Gaul. It stood in the Campus Martius and consists of an enclosure wall, measuring 11.6 m by 10.6 m, which surrounds a stepped altar (see Figure 1). The relief sculptures of the marble wall project a powerful political message, intended to convince the Roman people of the benefits of Augustan rule (see AUGUSTUS (IMPERATOR CAESAR AUGUTUS)). The inner surface of the wall is carved with garlands containing fruits from all seasons, suspended from bucrania (ox skulls). The outer surface is divided into two registers. The lower register is decorated with acanthus scrolls, insects, small animals, and birds. The upper sections of the north and south

walls display solemn sacrificial processions, consisting of the priests of major religious cults, senators, and members of Augustus’ extended family. Augustus, veiled for his role as pontifex maximus (chief priest; see PONTIFEX, PONTIFICES), is towards the forefront of the south procession. Two legendary panels on the west side show Aeneas sacrificing to the ancestral gods on his arrival in Italy and a representation of the twins, Romulus and Remus, suckled by the she-wolf. Matching allegorical panels on the east represent respectively, the goddess Roma seated on a trophy of captured weapons and a matronly woman, identified as Tellus (Earth) or Italia. She holds two infants on her lap and is surrounded by plants and domestic animals. The overt message of the decoration is a celebration of the Pax Augusta, the peace and plenty resulting from an end to the devastations of civil war and the pacification of

Figure 1 Ara Pacis Augustae, Rome. © Photo Scala, Florence. Courtesy of the Ministero Beni e Att. Culturali.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 593–595. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah16215

2 the empire under the leadership of Augustus. The Tellus panel, the decoration of acanthus scrolls and the fruitful garlands of the inner wall embody images of peaceful abundance. More subtle messages delineate the sources of Augustan power, his control of religion and the army as pontifex maximus and imperator (commanding general), together with the assurance of peaceful dynastic succession indicated by inclusion of his family in the sacrificial processions. The processions also testify to Augustus’ cultivation of traditional republican virtues, pietas (dutiful piety), respect for the gods and for the Roman family, attributes regarded by the Romans as the basis for their success. The Aeneas and Romulus panels emphasize Augustus as the founder of a “restored republic,” associating him with the original founders of the Roman state. His right to rule is validated by his putative divine and heroic descent from Aeneas, son of Venus and hero of the Trojan War. The reliefs of the altar itself are a reiteration of the theme of pietas, showing a sacrificial procession, sacrificial animals, and representations of the gods.

The use of visual imagery for political purposes was a genre that enjoyed notable popularity and development in the Roman imperial period. The sculptures of the Ara Pacis represent one of the most complex and successful examples of this genre, employed in order to reconcile the Roman people to the dominance of Augustus and the initiation of dynastic rule. SEE ALSO: Aeneas; Art, Roman; Augustus; Religion, Roman; Roma, goddess; Romulus and Remus.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Castriota, D. (1995) The Ara Pacis Augustae and the imagery of peace and abundance in later Greek and early imperial Roman art. Princeton. Holliday, P. J. (1990) “Time, history and ritual on the Ara Pacis Augustae.” Art Bulletin 72: 542–57. Kleiner, D. E. (1992) Roman sculpture: 90–9. New Haven. Rossini, O. (2007) Ara Pacis. Rome.

1

Ara Pietatis CRAIG I. HARDIMAN

The Ara Pietatis Augustae (Altar of Augustan Piety) is an altar of Julio-Claudian date that follows in the tradition of earlier Augustan altars such as the ARA PACIS AUGUSTAE and the Ara Providentiae. The Ara Pietatis was vowed by TIBERIUS in 22 CE, possibly to honor his mother LIVIA or to celebrate the tribunician power awarded his brother Drusus, but was not constructed until CLAUDIUS dedicated the monument in 43. As with similar imperial monuments, the piety celebrated by the altar was not only to the gods, but to Rome, her institutions, and the imperial family. Sources for this monument are few. There is an inscription, known only through manuscripts, that secures a Claudian dedication (CIL VI 562), along with some numismatic evidence of the Julio-Claudian period with representations of Pietas and a consecration coin of Sabina that has an illustration of an altar with the legend Pietati Aug(ustae) on the obverse. With this information, a series of reliefs from the Villa Medici was identified as early as 1909 as belonging to the Ara Pietatis, to which were added several other reliefs uncovered in 1923 and 1933 near the modern Church of Santa Maria in the Via Lata. An argument has been made, however, that suggests that these belong elsewhere, perhaps the Ara Gentis Iuliae, an altar dedicated by

Claudius illustrating his devotion to the Julian gens. In general, the reliefs are classical in form and adhere to earlier prototypes, but break from tradition by placing the sacrifice scenes in front of recognizable Roman buildings, as opposed to a blank background. SEE ALSO:

Art, Roman.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Bloch, R. (1939) “L’Ara Pietatis Augustae.” Me´langes de l’E´cole franc¸aise de Rome, Antiquite´ 56: 81–120. Cordischi, L. (1985) “Sul problema dell’Ara Pietatis Augusti e dei rilievi ad essa attribuiti.” Archeologia classica 37: 238–65. Kleiner, D. E. E. (1992) Roman sculpture: 141–5. New Haven. Kleiner, F. (1971) “The flamen of the Ara Pietatis.” American Journal of Archaeology 75: 391–4. Koeppel, G. (1982) “Die ‘Ara Pietatis Augustae’: Ein Geisterbau.” Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archa¨ologischen Instituts, Ro¨mische Abteilung 89: 453–5. La Rocca, E. (1999) “Pietas Augusta, Ara.” In Lexicon topographicum urbis Romae 4: 87–9. Reuter, U. R. (1991) Ara Pietatis Augustae. Mu¨nster. Studniczka, F. (1909) “Zur Ara Pacis.” Abhandlungen der Sa¨chsischen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Leipzig, Philologisch-historische Klasse 27: 901–44. Torelli, M. (1982) Typology and structure of Roman historical reliefs: 63–88. Ann Arbor.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 595–596. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah10011

1

Arabia Felix DAVID F. GRAF

The Latin Arabia Felix or Beata corresponds to the Greek Eudaimon Arabia (“happy, fortunate, fertile, lucky Arabia”). For the Hellenistic and early Roman geographers, this refers to the entire Arabian peninsula, with a northern border stretching from the Gulf of Aqaba to the Persian Gulf. In the third century BCE ERATOSTHENES provided the earliest description, placing Eudaimon Arabia south of Koile Syria, JUDAEA, and Nabataean PETRA, extending 12,000 stadia to the south, and for the first time in classical sources gave the names of the four major incense kingdoms: Minaoi, Sabaioi, Katabaneis, and Chatranotitai (in Strabo 16.4.2–4). For him the Persian Gulf formed the eastern side of Arabia Felix (cited in Strabo 26.3.6). In the Augustan era Strabo also located Arabia Felix below the Syrian desert, bordered by the Persian Gulf, the Arabian Gulf, and the Red Sea to the south (16.3.1), where the NABATAEANS and Sabaeans dwell (16.4.2). The most detailed description is that of Ptolemy in the second century CE, who provided a novel tripartite division for Arabia: Deserta, Petraea, and Felix. The last was again defined as the whole peninsula, with 151 towns and 56 tribes, in contrast to the few towns in Deserta (thirty-nine) and Petraea (twenty-eight). Subsequent authorities returned to the bipartite division of former geographers and ignored Arabia Petraea. The later fragments of an Arabika by Glaukos (FGrH 674 F 6) and Uranius (FGrH 675 FF 16–17), preserved by STEPHANUS OF BYZANTIUM, also appear to have represented Eudaimon Arabia as the whole peninsula. An earlier tradition of the fourth century BCE represented Eudaimon Arabia as the south Arabian incense kingdoms (HIERONYMOS OF KARDIA in Diod. Sic. 19.94.5). This perhaps explains why the geographer AGATHARCHIDES OF KNIDOS in the second century BCE made Eudaimon Arabia synonymous with the Sabaeans in the far

southwest of the peninsula (On the Eurythraean Sea 99b¼Diod. Sic. 3.46.1–5). There was also a Greek tendency to locate ideal societies or cities in the Red Sea. ARISTOPHANES’ “eudaimon polis in the Red Sea” (Av. 143–4) is too vague to be identified as Arabia Felix at a time when the incense kingdoms were still emerging and/or in their infancy. Such details only became familiar after Alexander the Great’s exploration of Arabia. In the third century BCE Euhemeros of Messene’s novel referred to the sacred island of Panchaia with abundant frankincense located east of Eudaimon Arabia or modern Yemen (Diod. Sic. 5.41.3–4), and Iamboulos’ travel tale mentioned his visit to the “spice country in Arabia,” but placed his utopian society on an island (nesos eudaimon) in the Indian Ocean (Diod. Sic. 2.55.1–4). It was only with the Arabian campaign of Aelius Gallus in 26/25 (RG 5.18–23) that the term Eudaimon Arabia was commonly restricted to the “incense kingdoms” of south Arabia (Pomponius Mela 3.79), or the kingdom of the Sabaeans (Cass. Dio 53.29.3), or even just to the port at Aden (Peripl. M. Erythraei 26), the Arabian emporion of Ptolemy (6.8.9). Pliny, however, maintained the bipartite tradition of Deserta and Eudaimon (HN 6.138), while connecting the epithet beata with the “perfumes and wealth” of the incense kingdoms (HN 5.65; 12.82–3). SEE ALSO: Euhemeros and Euhemerism; India, trade with; Ptolemy (astronomer, mathematician); Spices; Strabo of Amaseia.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Bowersock, G. W. (1988) “The three Arabias in Ptolemy’s Geography.” In P.-L. Gatier, B. Helly, and J.-P. Rey-Coquais, eds., Ge´ographie historique au Proche-Orient: 47–53. Paris. MacAdam, H. I. (1989) “Strabo, Pliny the Elder and Ptolemy of Alexandria: three views of ancient Arabia and its peoples.” In T. Fahd, ed., L’Arabie

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 598–599. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah18009

2 pre´islamique et son environnement historique et culturel: 289–320. Leiden. Retso¨, J. (2000) “Where and what was Arabia Felix?” Proceedings of the Seminar for Arabian Studies 30: 189–92.

Retso¨, J. (2003) “When did Yemen become Arabia Felix?” Proceedings of the Seminar for Arabian Studies 33: 229–35. Tka´cˇ, J. (1909) “Eudaimon Arabia.” RE 6: 885–91. Stuttgart.

1

Arabia, Roman province JUSTIN DOMBROWSKI

The emperor TRAJAN annexed the Arab Kingdom of the NABATAEANS in 106 CE as the province of Arabia, which represented the Roman Empire’s easternmost frontier. Arabia included the region east of the JORDAN RIVER, stretching from the Arabian Peninsula to the province of Syria, though its contours changed over time and eventually included portions of Palestine and Syria. In addition to its position along the Roman frontiers, Arabia owed its significance to its involvement in late second century CE civil wars and above all to trade. Rome’s initial engagement with the Nabataean Kingdom followed POMPEY’s completion of the Third Mithradatic War (73–63 BCE), which culminated in the annexation of Syria as a Roman province (64). In an effort to expand Roman influence eastward, M. Aemilius Scaurus (65–62) Syria’s first governor, led a campaign against PETRA in 62 (Joseph. BJ 15.80). However, the rough desert conditions ultimately prevented Scaurus from a fully successful invasion; thus, having acquired a meager booty, he agreed with king Aretas to discontinue his campaign in exchange for three hundred talents. These conditions partially explain why Rome had not annexed Arabia before Trajan. Nevertheless, the circumstances surrounding the annexation are mysterious. The takeover seems to have been relatively peaceful; there is no evidence of any full-scale military activity, and ongoing wars in Dacia probably would have prevented Trajan from any new campaigns. There is also no firm evidence for a pretext, though the death of king Rabbel II in 106 (or its anticipation), as well as the sense that Arabia represented a missing piece of the empire, may have provided the occasion for Roman intervention. Moreover, the Roman government does not seem to have advertised the annexation of the province until 111, when the Via

Nova Traiana was completed. Only afterwards do we find inscriptions along Trajan’s road and provincial coins commemorating this new acquisition. Evidence for the immediate consequences of Roman rule is sparse. Considerable Greek and Roman architecture found in Petra and elsewhere preceded the annexation. In fact, much can be tied to developments in urbanization that took place under Aretas IV in the first century CE, resulting from the Nabataeans’ long integration into the Mediterranean economy (Diod. Sic. 19.94). Major changes relate to the region’s incorporation into the wider Roman Empire. Ammianus Marcellinus famously commented, “With the name of province granted and a governor assigned, the emperor Trajan compelled [Arabia] to obey our laws” (14.8.3). This implies simply that Rome intended to govern Arabia as it governed other provinces, although there was considerable variation among them. As elsewhere, the Roman government probably sought to capitalize on administrative structures already in place under the Nabataeans. The royal successors of the Lakhmid Dynasty were also absorbed into the governmental patchwork. According to the Namara inscription (328), they retained their status as “Kings of the Arabs” up until the mid-fourth century CE and wielded authority from the Euphrates to the southern limits of the old Nabataean kingdom, the bottom of the Arabian peninsula. What exactly this entailed is unclear, but it probably included support of imperial rule and some representation and governance of the Arab peoples in the interests of the empire. The traditional tribal system for organizing the people of the region also continued to exert considerable influence throughout the succeeding centuries (Bowersock 1983; Donner 1981). In addition, Trajan transferred the capital from Petra to Bostra, which was more centrally located and accessible. Documents from the BABATHA archive also suggest that Greek quickly overtook Nabataean Aramaic as the

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 596–598. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah18008

2 administrative language, though some post-annexation documents continued to be written in Nabataean. In addition, documents were written with consular dates and cases were heard before the governor who rotated between Bostra and Petra, and probably other major cities such as Characmoba. The legal practices exhibited by extant pre- and postannexation papyri have much in common and, though there are some differences, there is too little Nabataean evidence to determine whether they reflect genuine legal changes or were variations within acceptable legal norms. Imperial investment in roads, ports, and infrastructure to form an integrated provincial network facilitated the movement of goods and information, while decreasing overall risk and transaction costs. This improved overall governance and defensibility, and also promoted trade. The province underwent significant changes and was significantly expanded under SEPTIMIUS SEVERUS (193–211). In the wake of the civil war with PESCENNIUS NIGER that swept Severus to power, Severus reorganized the eastern provinces and their administration. Although there is some debate, this probably occurred after Severus’ defeat of Niger at the time of the Second Mesopotamian War, when he sought to reconsolidate territories along the eastern frontier. This reorganization included two important changes. First, since Syria had proved capable of effectively abetting a powerful rival, Severus divided the province into two unequal administrative units,. Second, he significantly enlarged the province of Arabia, which had supported him during the civil war, by assigning parts of former Syrian territory to it. This new territory mainly included Jebel Druz and all or part of the Leja’ Plateau. Members of the Arabian elite were first raised to the Senate under Severus, even reaching consular rank. His regime’s focus on the east ultimately enabled the rise of Marcus Julius Philippus (“Philip the Arab”), who reigned as emperor from 244–249 (Aurelius Victor Liber de Caesaribus

28.1; see PHILIP (MARCUS JULIUS PHILIPPUS AUGUSTUS)). Following DIOCLETIAN’s Persian wars, Arabia again underwent reorganization as part of a larger restructuring of the east. By 314, the region south of the Wadi al-Hasa, including the Negev, Petra, and possibly the Hejaz, was added to the province of Palaestina, leaving only the region around Bostra and northwards to Arabia. Diocletian also considerably improved the province’s defensibility and governability, by improving the fortifications and infrastructure of the province, installing a whole legion in the south, and extending the Strata Diocletiana road system, therefore enhancing movement and communication. The archaeology and geographical surveys of the province suggest that Late Antiquity was a period of economic and demographic growth, including increased urbanization and civic building. However, the fifth–sixth century decline of the wider empire and decentralization of power gave way to large mainly autonomous tribal groups and left the frontiers relatively weak and unprotected. Consequently, there were few obstacles preventing the Muslim invasions of the seventh century which finally tore the province away from Roman rule (Donner 1981). SEE ALSO: Arabia Felix; Aramaic and Syriac; Frontiers, Roman; Petra Papyri; Syria (Roman and Byzantine).

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Bowersock, G. W. (1983) Roman Arabia. Cambridge, MA. Bru¨nnow, R. and von Domaszewski, A. (1904–09) Die Provincia Arabia I–III. Strasbourg. Donner, F. M. (1981) The early Islamic Conquests. Princeton. Fiema, Z. T. (2002) “Late-antique Petra and its hinterland in the Byzantine period: current research and new interpretations.” In Roman and Byzantine near east: some new discoveries III. Portsmouth, RI.

3 Fro¨se´n, J. and Fiema, Z. T. (2002) Petra: a city forgotten and rediscovered. Helsinki. MacAdam, H. I. (1986) Studies in the history of the Roman province of Arabia. Oxford. Millar, F. (1993) The Roman Near East. Cambridge, MA.

Sartre, M. (1982) Trois ´etudes sur l’Arabie romaine et byzantine. Brussels. Spijkerman, A. (1978) Coins of the Decapolis and Provincia Arabia. Jerusalem. Young, G. (2001) Rome’s eastern trade, international commerce and imperial policy, 31 BC–AD 305. London.

1

Arabian Gulf WILLIAM C. WEST

The Arabicus Sinus, now known as the Persian Gulf, was known in antiquity as the Erythraeum Mare. According to HERODOTUS (1.2), the original homeland of the Phoenicians lay in its area, from which they migrated to the eastern Mediterranean. It is bounded by the Arabian Peninsula on the west and Kuwait, Iraq, and Iran on the north and east. The Periplus maris Erythraei (first century CE) lists sites along its shores. Ancient ships could sail around the Arabian Peninsula and gain access to the RED SEA and thence to the Gulf of Suez and the Gulf of Aqaba, which in turn enabled links to Egypt, the Sinai, and any of the caravan routes from the east. We are dependent for knowledge of routes in the desert on ancient itineraries, supported and enlarged by recent surveys, especially marking sites by the Global Positioning System. Arabia is cited as Arabaya in the inscription at Behistun of Darius I, where it is mentioned as a land between Mesopotamia and Egypt which was conquered by the Persian king. The Persian Gulf was under the influence of the Seleucids until the middle of the second century BCE. In the region of the Red Sea, the Ptolemies conducted their trade with India and East Africa through South Arabian middlemen. Incense was the main export of Hadramaut (cf. Atramitae, Plin. HN 6.155) in the easternmost part of ARABIA FELIX, in modern Yemen. From there, it was transported to the Mediterranean coast by the Incense Road before the discovery of monsoon navigation in the late second century BCE, which made possible direct shipping to India.

The Periplus maris Erythraei is a description of trade routes in the Red Sea and illustrates the commercial relationships between South Arabia and Rome in the first century CE. Because of wealth coming from the incense and India trade, a society with state structures developed in South Arabia. In North Arabia, only the NABATAEANS created an independent realm and developed relations with the Roman/Persian/Byzantine empires similar to those of a state. The kingdom had its center at PETRA but extended from Damascus to the Hejaz in Saudi Arabia. Toponyms and identifications in Pliny come from ancient itineraries; those in the listings of Ptolemy are based on geographical writings of his time. SEE ALSO: Arabia, Roman province; Pliny the Elder; Ptolemy (astronomer, mathematician).

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Bowersock, G. W. (1983) Roman Arabia: 35–8. Cambridge, MA. Graf, D. F. (2000) “Map 83: Nabataea Meridionalis. Introduction.” In Talbert et al., eds. (2006b): vol. 2: 1192–93. New Pauly Encyclopaedia of the Ancient World (2002) 1: 938–41 (Pahlitzsch). Leiden. Potts, D. T. (1990) The Arabian Gulf in antiquity. Oxford. Sidebotham, S. E. (2000) “Map 78: Porphyrites et Claudianus Montes. Introduction.” In Talbert et al., eds. (2006b): vol. 2: 1158. Talbert, R. J. A., et al., eds. (2000a) Barrington atlas of the Greek and Roman world: 78E3, 80F2, 81F2, 83A4. Princeton. Talbert, R. J. A., et al., eds. (2000b) Barrington atlas of the Greek and Roman world: Map-by-map directory. Princeton.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 599–600. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah14042

1

Arabic and old Arabic KONSTANTIN M. KLEIN

Arabic (and old Arabic as a stage in the development of Arabic) is a Semitic language of the North Arabian group, which itself is classified as Central Semitic (Faber 1997). This group is divided into South Arabian and North Arabian. The North Arabian languages themselves consist of Ancient North Arabian (which is attested in five dialects: Taymanitic, Dadanitic, Safaitic, Hismaic, and Thamudic) (Macdonald 2004; 2009: 29–46) and Arabic, which encompasses old Arabic, Classical Arabic, and Middle Arabic, as well as the Arabic vernacular dialects.

HISTORY Old Arabic refers to the examples of pre-Islamic Arabic, which have survived independently of the Arab grammarians’ redactions. Arabic remained a purely spoken language until shortly before the rise of Islam, and so did not had a dedicated script. The speakers of old Arabic used “borrowed” scripts for the rare occasions on which Arabic was written. The earliest inscription in the Arabic language is in the Sabaic script and dates from the first century BCE. Only a few testimonies for a transitional form of the Nabataean Aramaic alphabet, which developed into the Arabic script, have been found so far (see ARAMAIC AND SYRIAC; NABATAEANS) (Macdonald 2004: 488–90; 2008). Several pre-Islamic Arabic texts (predominantly poetry and prose tales called the Ayya¯m al-‘Arab) also date to the sixth and seventh centuries (some are said to go back to the fifth century), but were only recorded and possibly standardized in the eighth and ninth centuries by Arab grammarians. Therefore, their evidence is less clear-cut than that of epigraphic old Arabic. Based on the language of pre-Islamic poetry, with some features from

Figure 1 Page from a 9th–10th-century Qur’a¯n manuscript. © The Metropolitan Museum of Art/ Art Resource/Scala, Florence.

the Qur’a¯n (see QUR’A¯N) and others from the speech of some Bedouin informants, authoritative grammatical norms of Classical Arabic were developed during the second half of the eighth century. The vernaculars survived alongside the Classical language, which soon gained the prestige of a learned tongue. The language remained largely unchanged until modern times and formed the basis of Modern Standard Arabic, used as the language of Arabic literature (though an increasing influence of dialects is noticeable), media, and public administration today.

GRAMMATICAL OVERVIEW As in all Semitic languages, Arabic morphology is based on roots of three (sometimes two or four) radicals. The Arabic verbal system distinguishes a prefix and suffix inflection (marking an action in process) and an exclusively suffix inflection (denoting an already completed action). There are three persons (first, second, and third), two genders, two numbers, three moods (indicative, subjunctive, and apocopate/jussive), two voices (active and passive), as well as an imperative and both active and passive participles. From any verbal root, up to fifteen different verbal forms can be produced by adding or

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 600–601. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah12015

2 changing vowels and non-root consonants (e.g., kataba, stem I “he wrote,” aktaba, stem IV, “he dictated”). Arabic nouns have two genders (masculine and feminine), three cases (nominative, genitive, and accusative), three “states” (undefined, defined, and construct) and three numbers (singular, plural, and dual). Whereas singular and dual are clearly marked, there exist many lexicalized irregular (so-called “broken”) plural forms. Arabic syntax distinguishes between nominal sentences (having a nominal phrase as a predicate) and verbal sentences (word order verb-subject-object) (Fischer 1997: 211). SEE ALSO:

Arabs; Aramaic and Syriac; Qur’a¯n.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Corriente, F. (1976) “From Old Arabic to Classical Arabic through the Pre-Islamic Koine: some notes

on the native grammarians’ sources, attitudes, and goals.” Journal of Semitic Studies 21: 62–96. Faber, A. (1997) “Genetic sub-grouping of the Semitic languages.” In R. Hetzron, ed., The Semitic languages: 3–15. London. Fischer, W. (1997) “Classical Arabic.” In R. Hetzron, ed., The Semitic languages: 187–219. London. Macdonald, M. C. A. (2004) “Ancient North Arabian.” In R. Woodard, ed., The Cambridge encyclopedia of the world’s ancient languages: 488–533. Cambridge. Macdonald, M. C. A. (2008) “Old Arabic (Epigraphic).” In K. Versteegh, ed., Encyclopedia of Arabic language and linguistics, vol. 3: 464–77. Leiden. Macdonald, M. C. A. (2009) “Reflections on the linguistic map of Pre-Islamic Arabia.” In M. C. A. Macdonald, ed., Literacy and identity in Pre-Islamic Arabia: Chapter III: 28–79. Burlington, VT.

1

Arabs KONSTANTIN M. KLEIN

Today, Arab people are often defined as an ethnic group whose members share certain cultural, though most importantly, linguistic similarities, above all the knowledge of Arabic (see ARABIC AND OLD ARABIC) as their mother tongue. However, this definition is problematic for antiquity, when many peoples perceived as Arabs did not use an Arabian language in writing for most aspects of their life, and only very few self-descriptions have survived. In the sources, the term “Arab” was applied to a wide range of people living in the area extending from Egypt in the west to Mesopotamia and even Persia in the east, and from Northern Syria down throughout the Arabian Peninsula, including islands off the Yemenite coast. Some scholars assumed an etymology of “Arab” as a derivation of the word ‘araba¯, meaning “desert;” however, there is no such word in any Semitic language. ‘Araba¯ appears to be a place-name, which refers to some very specific areas in Palestine, and there is no indication that it was used as a general term for “desert” (Retso¨ 2003: 107–8). It has been proposed that the designation “Arabs” was a self-description by the people themselves; they shared a common tongue (even though it was only later called “Arabic” – taking its name from the designation of its speakers) and elements of culture (Macdonald 2009c: 296–7; 319). Even though, before the establishment of the Provincia Arabia in 106 CE, the term “Arabs” was used in many languages as a loan-word to describe the lifestyle of NOMADS, it was primarily applied to this difficult-to-define group that called itself “Arabs.” Through the undifferentiated use of terms such as “nomads” and “Bedouin” to describe “Arabs,” a problem arises both in the sources and the secondary literature, as only some of these groups lived a full or semi-nomadic lifestyle. Other terms, such as most prominently “Saracens” (as well as “Ishmaelites” in Late Antique times) were

used to describe them from an outside perspective.

FROM 1000 TO 323 BCE The term “Arabs” first appears in Akkadian sources at the beginning of the first millennium BCE. At that time, the Arabian Peninsula saw the emergence of trade connections with both the Assyrians and the Egyptians, facilitated by the use of the CAMEL as a means of transport (though apparently never for military functions (Macdonald 2000: 64)). In 853 BCE, king Shalmaneser III claimed to have defeated – amongst many others – an Arab called Gindibu, who contributed one thousand camels to the battle of Qarqar. In a stele dating to 737 BCE, an Arab queen Zabı¯ba is listed among the tribute-payers of the Assyrian king Tiglath‐Pileser III, and in 733 BCE, according to the exaggerated numbers mentioned in the Annals of Tiglath-Pileser, an Arab queen Samsi lost 9400 warriors and 30,000 camels to the Assyrians. All Gindibu’s, Zabı¯ba’s, and Samsi’s Arabs were part of a defeated anti-Assyrian alliance; it seems that the Assyrians tried to incorporate them as vassals (Eph’al 1982; Retso¨ 2003: 122–36). During the reign of Sargon II, several Arab raids are mentioned in Assyrian documents; they appear as something unusual, as the Arabs seem to have been generally peaceful. In the aftermath of those raids, Sargon had several Arab tribes deported to Samaria. Arabs are mentioned in the Old Testament (1 Chr 4: 39–41) as cattle farmers, sometimes being at war with the Judaean tribes and their kings. It has been suggested that the Masoretic text located them in the southeast of Palestine, south of the Dead Sea (Retso¨ 2003: 139). For the middle of the First Temple period, several tribes appear in the Bible, summarized under the name Qedar. They were probably involved in the trade of perfumes and incense from the south of the Arabian Peninsula (Gen. 37: 28–36), receiving gold, silver, and

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 601–605. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah12016

2 precious stones in exchange (Macdonald 2009b IX: 344–7). Arabs are mentioned in the inscriptions of the Achaemenid kings (see ACHAEMENID DYNASTY) in Behistun, SUSA, PERSEPOLIS, and Naqsh-e-Rustam, counting them among other subjugated peoples from the Near East. Around 539 BCE, after the Achaemenid conquest of BABYLON, Cyrus II the Great created the satrapy of Arabaya. Nevertheless, it is disputed whether Arabia was ever governed by a Persian satrap, while it is certain that they continued to have their own rulers (see SATRAPS). HERODOTUS mentions Arab infantrymen and camel-riding mounted troops in the army of Xerxes (Hdt. 7.69; 70), and it is likely that Arabs from northern Mesopotamia supported his father Darius I during his struggle for the throne. Herodotus’ description of Arabia itself (Hdt. 3.107) depends in parts on Hecataeus and on the Periplus of Skylax (see HECATAEUS OF ¨ 2003: MILETOS; SKYLAX OF KARYANDA) (Retso 243–54). He also describes their important role in the trade with frankincense (Hdt. 3.97). In his account, Herodotus operates with two areas called “Arabia,” one being the land between the Nile and Palestine, the other the area of the Arabian Peninsula and neighboring regions such as Eritrea, which Herodotus perceived as one unbroken peninsula. A little later, the term “Arabs” became the typical Greek designation for all inhabitants of the area between Egypt and Palestine, as well as of the Arabian Peninsula including South Arabia.

THE HELLENISTIC AND ROMAN PERIOD From the mid-sixth century to the death of Alexander, the designation “Arabs” appears in a wider range of regions, such as the Lebanon, West Mesopotamia, and the environs of Najra¯n, often associated with the frankincense trade, which was largely under Sabaean control. Their spread continued during Hellenistic times, so that by the mid-second century,

we also find Arabs in Transjordan and Syria, closely allied to the successor empires. After the end of the Seleucid Empire, the early first century BCE witnessed the rise of the Ituraeans (see ITURAEA AND ITURAEANS) as well as the HASMONAEANS and the NABATAEANS, who emphasized their own ethnic and cultural identity, though they were often conceived as “Arabs” from the outside perspective. We find Arabs involved on both sides in Tigranes II’s (see TIGRANES II–IV OF ARMENIA) power struggle with Rome, which led to the Roman intervention in the east. In 66 BCE, Pompey (see POMPEY (GN. POMPEIUS MAGNUS)) led the Roman campaign, in which he also subdued groups of Arabs, which later on would become Roman allies (Plut. Vit. Pomp. 39.2) (Retso¨ 2003: 351). From the first century BCE, the term “arabarche¯s” designating the phylarch (see PHYLARCHOS) as a ruler over the Arabs appears in the sources (Strabo 16.26–8). After the conquest of the east in 63 BCE, Rome started its gradual annexation of the small local dynasties and city states, which included the absorption of Nabataea in 106 CE. This resulted in the establishment of the Roman Provincia Arabia (Cass. Dio 68.15). However, it seems that this did not change the normal lifestyle of the Arab tribes in the region, who kept their contacts with other Arab tribes in the Parthian Empire. The early days of the Roman Empire also witnessed the rise of the city states of HATRA, EMESA, and PALMYRA. They all contained – though themselves very different from each other and to different extents – certain traits (in their economy, religion, and culture) that suggest Arab influence. Through the increasing use of the RED SEA for the trade in frankincense, the land route began to lose its importance. From Roman times onwards, Arab tribes in the Jazı¯ra were employed as auxiliaries on both sides of the eastern frontier, though in the first century CE they appear almost exclusively in Parthian service. Other groups of Arabs appear in the area of Emesa and in the vicinity of DAMASCUS. During the reign of Trajan (see TRAJAN (NERVA TRAIANUS AUGUSTUS)), another

3 group of buffer states disappeared, namely Commagene, Emesea, Ituraea, and the domains of the Herodians. With Septimius Severus (see SEPTIMIUS SEVERUS PERTINAX AUGUSTUS, LUCIUS), who directed military campaigns against the Arabs, the first of the so-called “Syrian Emperors” came to power in Rome, a development that brought the region into sharper focus and culminated with the reign of Marcus Iulius Philippus (called “Philip the Arab” from the Historia Augusta onwards (SHA, Gordiani tres 29.1)). The rise of Palmyra as an independent power ended with the fall of the city in 272 CE. However, even though the last kings of Palmyra, Odaenathus and Vaballathus, carried Arabic names, Arab tribes themselves seem not to have played any significant role in the rise and fall of the city state (Retso¨ 2003: 465). Already in 224, the Arsacid Dynasty in Persia was replaced by the SASANIANS. From their monumental inscriptions, it becomes clear that in the third century CE there were at least two areas officially called “Arabia:” the Roman province and a Persian satrapy in Mesopotamia (Retso¨ 2003: 461–2). In 241, Shapur I destroyed the city of Hatra; however, with Hı¯ra, a new city rose to become eventually the capital of the Arab tribe of the Lakhmids in the third century. Their rule is generally regarded as the first Arab kingdom outside Arabia, though some ascribe this title already to Hatra. Some sixty years later, in 328, an Arab chief, Imr’u al-Qays, called himself “King of all the Arabs” in the famous Nama¯ra inscription. He apparently had carried out a large-scale military operation and subdued tribes in Syria, the northern part of the Jazı¯ra, and the Arabian Peninsula, most probably backed by the Roman authorities (Retso¨ 2003: 467–85). Through the extremely rich epigraphic evidence of the ancient north Arabian dialects (the largest number in Safaitic) we are well informed about the lifestyle of Arab nomads within the Roman Empire from the first century BCE to the fourth century CE (Macdonald 2009b II). The question whether the Roman

absorption of the major client kingdoms, such as Nabataea or Osrhoene, and the fall of Palmyra led to major nomadic migrations and thus the creation of Arab tribal federations (Graf 1978: 15), commonly described as a “bedouinization” of Arabia, should be treated with caution. However, a certain change in the dynamics of political and power structures probably did take place.

FROM LATE ANTIQUITY TO THE RISE OF ISLAM was the first to point to a change in terminology regarding the tribes. He states that in his times, the mid-fourth century, the tent-dwelling Arabs were called “Saracens” (Amm. Marc. 22.15.2), which replaced the vague term “Arabs”; this became instead the designation of the inhabitants of the Provincia Arabia only (Hoyland 2009: 392–3; Macdonald 2009c: 297). Ammianus himself observed them when he was on campaign during the emperor Julian’s war against Persia, which was welcomed by most Arabs, as they suffered under Shapur II, who allegedly annihilated many tribes and destroyed their watering places from 326 onwards. Ammianus’ description of the lifestyle of the Arabs styled them as a barbarous people without fixed abodes and deviating in social, economic, and sexual behavior from the lifestyle of his Greco-Roman readership. These stereotypes highly influenced other Late Antique authors. According to the sources, raids by Arab tribes challenged the Roman frontier in the east (see EUPHRATES FRONTIER (ROMAN)). However, there are no archaeological traces of any serious threat. Recent scholarship, the so-called Frontier Studies, sees the eastern frontier not merely as a military barrier against Persia from the outside and Arab tribes from the inside, but rather as part of a wider system of a security belt (Whittaker 2004). The employment of larger Arab tribes by both Romans and Sasanians continued into Late Antiquity and became an important factor in their frontier AMMIANUS MARCELLINUS

4 politics; the most significant of these were the GHASSANIDS, LAKHMIDS, and Tanuh. Similar depictions of ferocious and wild Arabs can be found in the hagiographical writings of Christian authors such as JEROME, THEODORET OF CYRRHUS, and CYRIL OF SKYTHOPOLIS. However, in these texts, Christianization is presented as a successful means of integrating the Arabs into Greco-Roman civilization. Christian belief was not uncommon among the above-mentioned larger tribes, especially on Roman territory. Smaller groups, and Arabs further away from the sphere of RomanChristian influence mostly continued to worship a variety of idols and tribal deities. Throughout their living space, the Arabs knew many gods, but a henotheistic tendency was apparent. One of these supreme gods, the high god of MECCA, was referred to as Allah. In the seventh century, starting from Allah’s main pilgrimage center, Islam (see MUHAMMAD) evolved as a new monotheistic religion, which would eventually become a unifying element for the Arab tribes of the Peninsula and propel them into the center of Mediterranean history. Within a few decades, the Muslim empire expanded from the Atlantic to India. SEE ALSO:

Edessa.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Bowersock, G. W. (1983) Roman Arabia. Cambridge, MA. Eph’al, I. (1982) The ancient Arabs. Nomads on the borders of the Fertile Crescent, 9th–5th centuries BC. Leiden. Graf, D. (1978) “The Saracens and the defense of the Arabian frontier.” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 229: 1–26.

Hoyland, R. (2001) Arabia and the Arabs from the Bronze Age to the coming of Islam. London. Hoyland, R. (2009) “Arab kings, Arab tribes and the beginnings of Arab historical memory in late Roman epigraphy.” In H. Cotton, et al., eds., From Hellenism to Islam. Cultural and linguistic change in the Roman Near East: 374–400. Cambridge. Macdonald, M. C. A. (1995) “North Arabia in the first millennium BCE.” In J. M. Sasson, ed., Civilizations of the ancient Near East: 1355–69. New York. Macdonald, M. C. A. (2000) “Camel.” In P. Bienkowski and A. Millard, eds., British Museum dictionary of the ancient Near East: 64. London. Macdonald, M. C. A. (2009a) “Nomads and the Hawran in the late Hellenistic and Roman periods: a reassessment of the epigraphic evidence.” In M. C. A. Macdonald, Literacy and identity in pre-Islamic Arabia II: 303–403. Aldershot. Macdonald, M. C. A. (2009b) “Trade routes and trade goods at the northern end of the ‘Incense Road’.” In M. C. A. Macdonald, Literacy and identity in pre-Islamic Arabia IX: 333–49. Aldershot. Macdonald, M. C. A. (2009c) “Arabs, Arabias, and Arabic before Late Antiquity.” Topoi 16: 277–332. Millar, F. (1993) The Roman Near East. Cambridge, MA. Retso¨, J. (2003) The Arabs in antiquity. Their history from the Assyrians to the Umayyads. London. Shahıˆd, I. (1984–2010) Byzantium and the Arabs, 6 vols. Washington. Whittaker, C. R. (2004) “Grand Strategy, or just a grand debate?” In C. Whittaker, ed., Rome and its frontiers: the dynamics of empire: 28–49. London.

1

Aram, Aramaeans K. LAWSON YOUNGER, JR.

The earliest attestation of the term Aram is in an Egyptian toponym list from the reign of Amenhotep III (r. 1391–1353 BCE; see AMENHOTEP (AMENOPHIS) I–III), which locates Aram in central SYRIA. The first attestation of Aramaeans occurs in the inscriptions of TIGLATH-PILESER I of ASSYRIA (r. 1114–1076 BCE), where they appear as semi-nomadic tribes making incursions into Assyria. These tribes resided throughout the northern Levant and Mesopotamia during the Iron Age. In some cases, they formed important states; in others, they remained simple tribal entities. While they may have shared a common eponymous ancestor, what united them was the Aramaic language. In a political sense, the term Aram was used to designate the kingdoms of either DAMASCUS (southern Syria) or Arpad (northern Syria). In the Bible, it is most often used to designate Damascus. The compounding of Aram with other toponyms is unique to the Bible: Aram-Beth-Rehob, AramDamascus, Aram-Maacah, Aram-Naharaim, Aram-Zobah, and Paddan-Aram. Some of these were states; others regions. The most powerful Aramaean state was Damascus (950–732 BCE). Much is known about this polity through biblical and Assyrian sources. One of its early rulers was Hadadezer (¼Ben-Hadad II?) who headed a coalition opposing Assyria (led by SHALMANESER III) at the battle of QARQAR (853 BCE). For much of its history, Damascus was in conflict with ISRAEL AND JUDAH to the south and other Aramaean states to its north, in addition to Assyria. During the reign of Hazael (ca. 844–803; see HAZAEL OF DAMASCUS), Damascus dominated in both directions, creating an important, though short-lived, Levantine empire. Another important Aramaean kingdom was Arpad, also known as Bı¯t Agusi (900–740). This state was the Aram of northern Syria.

One of its religious centers was the city of HALAB (ALEPPO) where a temple to the stormgod was located. Old Aramaic inscriptions discovered at Sefire record a treaty between Matiel, the son of Attarsamak, king of Arpad, and a Bar-gayah, the king of KTK (identification debated; ca. 754 BCE). Guza¯ (Gozan; modern Tell Halaf) was an Aramaean kingdom in the HABUR River area (ca. 925–800). Two of its kings are known from their inscriptions: Hadad-yithi (ca. 850–825) from a bilingual inscription in Aramaic and Assyrian incised on his statue (the oldest extant, lengthy Aramaic text), and Kapara (ca. 825–800) from his CUNEIFORM inscriptions. Some Aramaean kingdoms had significant Luwian populations. For example, Hamath (modern Hama) on the ORONTES RIVER in central Syria had a Luwian-named king Irhuleni (Urhilina; ca. 870–840), who led Hamath in its resistance to Shalmaneser III of Assyria and wrote his inscriptions in hieroglyphic Luwian (see HIEROGLYPHS, ANATOLIAN). One of its Aramaean kings, Zakkur, is known from his memorial stele (ca. 800; see ZAKKUR OF HAMATH). Other states with Aramaean and Luwian populations were Samal/Ya’udiya, Bı¯tAdini/Masuwari, and Umqi/Patina. The Assyrians brought all these kingdoms to an end. Many Aramaeans were deported to Assyria and its territories. This led to the Aramaic language becoming the lingua franca in the ancient Near East towards the end of the Assyrian empire and beyond (ca. 700–250). A few of the important Aramaean deities included the storm-god, Hadad (Adad; see ADAD (HADDU)); Sin (see SIN (NANNA)), the moon-god of Harran (known in Aramaic as Sahar); the sun-god, Shamash (see SHAMASH (UTU)); and an astral deity Athtar (male Venus).

SEE ALSO: Aramaic and Syriac; Assyrian kings, Middle Assyrian period; Assyrian kings, Neo-Assyrian period; Luwian language.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 605–606. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah24023

2 REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Dion, P.-E. (1995) “Aramaean tribes and nations of first-millennium western Asia.” In J. M. Sasson, ed., Civilizations of the ancient Near East : 1281–94. New York. Dion, P.-E. (1997) Les Arame´ens a` l’aˆge du fer: histoire politique et structures sociales. Paris.

Lipin´ski, E. (2000) The Aramaeans: their ancient history, culture, religion. Leuven. Younger, K. L., Jr. (2007) “The Late Bronze Age/ Iron Age transition and the origins of the Arameans.” In K. L. Younger, Jr., ed., Ugarit at seventy-five. Its environs and the Bible: 131–74. Winona Lake, IN.

1

Aramaic and Syriac T. M. LAW

ARAMAIC In the first millennium BCE Aramaic, like Akkadian and Sumerian before it (see AKKADIAN LANGUAGE, SUMERIAN LANGUAGE), became the lingua franca of the Near Eastern world. Unlike its predecessors, however, Aramaic’s reach extended far beyond its center, and it was used from Egypt in the south to Anatolia in the north to India in the east. Through many permutations, Aramaic has survived over a span of ca. 3,000 years and is attested in ancient inscriptions, seals, coins, manuscripts, and now in the modern spoken dialects of several Middle Eastern communities. To describe Aramaic, scholars have used various systems of classification, but the one followed here divides the language by chronology into Old, Imperial, Middle, Late, and Modern (Kaufman 1997). Old Aramaic (to the late seventh century BCE) is attested as early as the ninth or possibly tenth century as the language of several Aramean city-states and kingdoms: Arpad, Damascus, Hamath, and Sam’al (modern Zinc¸irli). Between the tenth and eighth centuries, Aramaic was used in political and royal contexts, such as those attested by the Byblos seals (ninth century), the Tel Dan inscription (ninth century), and the Sfire treaty (eighth century), each of which demonstrates a script based on the Phoenician alphabet, but dialectical differences according to geographical provenance. Akkadian naturally influenced Aramaic, since the latter was the language adopted by the Assyrian Tiglath-Pileser III during the eighth century, at which time it also became the vehicular language of the Neo-Assyrian Empire (see also II Kings 18:17–37 and Isa 36:11). Imperial (or “Official”) Aramaic (to ca. 200 BCE) was the official language of the Achaemenid Empire (see ACHAEMENID DYNASTY) after Darius I conquered Mesopotamia, and remained the most influential tongue in the Near

East until it was gradually undermined beginning with the conquests of Alexander the Great. Due to the size and spread of the empire, Aramaic was distributed widely – a recently published collection of leather documents from Bactria and Sogdiana demonstrates the use of Aramaic on the northeastern borders (Naveh and Shaked 2005) – and was therefore influenced by Persian, Anatolian, Egyptian, Indic, and still Akkadian loanwords and personal names. One proof of its international status is the correspondence in the Elephantine Papyri (see ELEPHANTINE PAPYRI) between Persians and Egyptians. At this time, Aramaic was somewhat standardized as an administrative language, but already deviations are increasingly evident further away from the center of the empire. Also emerging at this time is the literary dialect scholars have named Standard Literary Aramaic, which homogenized the language and orthography, and presented the ideal for subsequent literary activity. Most of what remains was preserved in Egypt. Imperial Aramaic is well attested in texts such as the Persepolis Fortification Tablets (see PERSEPOLIS TABLETS), the proverbs of AHIQAR, the Elephantine Papyri, the letters of Arsames, the Hermopolis Papyri, the Wadi Daliyeh papyri, and the Aramaic portions of Ezra (4:8–6:18; 7:12–26). Middle Aramaic (to ca. 200 CE) was the period during which Greek and Latin were used as the administrative languages of the Near East. Thus, the loss of official status meant that regional dialects became increasingly prominent as the language continued to be used throughout the territories of the old Persian empire. There was, however, the continuation of Standard Literary Aramaic that gave some measure of uniformity. This literary dialect is found in some epigraphic remains from the Nabataean Arab kingdoms of Petra, Palmyra, and Hatra, but most notably the Aramaic portion of the biblical book of Daniel (2:4–7:28), the Qumran materials, Targums Onkelos and Jonathan, and other rabbinic writings such as Megillat Ta‘anit.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 606–608. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah12017

2 Late Aramaic (to ca. 700 CE) is the final period in which Aramaic was a major spoken language of the Near East, since at the end Arabic will have become dominant. Most of our literary evidence for the language comes from this period; in particular, Jewish and Christian literature flourished. It is possible to divide Late Aramaic into Palestinian (or Western), Babylonian (or Eastern), and Syrian branches. In Palestinian Aramaic, there are three main divisions: a) Jewish – synagogal inscriptions, but more importantly the Palestinian Talmud and Targums; b) Samaritan – the Samaritan Pentateuch, hymns, and other exegetical works; and c) Christian – Bible versions translated from Greek, lectionaries, and some translations of original Greek exegetical works. Babylonian Aramaic has two varieties: a) Jewish – the Babylonian Talmud, literature of the Gaonim, and some incantation bowls; and b) Mandaic – the liturgical language of a non-Christian gnostic sect. Finally, the Syrian Aramaic branch has a Jewish and Christian division: a) Jewish – the literary dialect, which is the continuation of the same from the Middle Aramaic period, thus there are more Targums and other liturgical texts, as well as some translations; and b) Syriac – a Christian liturgical language. Modern Aramaic (to the present) is the final phase of this language still in use after ca. 3,000 years. These dialects are mostly known by their “Neo-” prefix, though sadly some are facing the threat of extinction. There are NeoAramaic dialects spoken in Damascus, southeastern Turkey (Turoyo), Iraq, Iran, and Azerbaijan, now mostly by Christians. In the east, some speakers of Neo-Mandaic continue, though their numbers also are dwindling.

compositions, poetry, and other non-religious works. Its origins as the local Aramaic dialect of the city of EDESSA (modern Urfa, Turkey) in the first few centuries CE are attested by pagan inscriptions, which show a resemblance to the Middle and Late Aramaic of the time, and a clear distinction from the Syriac that would develop later. Syriac became prominent as a Christian language partly due to the translation of the Bible into Syriac (see BIBLE, SYRIAC TRANSLATION OF), but its scribes and scholars were also responsible for transmitting the classical heritage to the Islamic world at a time when the latter had little ability to converse with the Greek and Latin past. Syriac was also the medium through which Nabataean orthography inspired the creation of the Arabic alphabet. The separation of Syriac into distinct Western (Jacobite) and Eastern (Nestorian) varieties was due less to geography – as in most languages – and more to theological controversy among Syrian Christians. The split added two more scripts and a slightly different phonology. Along with the earliest form of the language, there were then three scripts: the traditional Estrangela, Serto or Serta (Western), and Nestorian (Eastern). Today, the language is still used, mostly in liturgical contexts; and in India, Europe, North America, and now South America, the study of the language, history, and theology of Syriac Christianity has witnessed a resurgence – and in the case of South America an emergence – of interest. SEE ALSO:

Ahiqar; Mandaeans; Megillat Ta’anit (The Scroll of Fasting); Talmud (Palestinian and Babylonian).

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS

SYRIAC Syriac is one of the languages of Eastern Christianity and is the best attested of all the Aramaic dialects, preserved in a wealth of commentaries, liturgical and exegetical

Beyer, K. (1986) The Aramaic language: its distribution and subdivisions, J. Healey, trans. Go¨ttingen. Folmer, M. L. (1995) The Aramaic language in the Achaemenid Period: A study in linguistic variation. Leuven.

3 Healey, J. F. (2009) Aramaic inscriptions and documents of the Roman Period. Oxford. Kaufman, S. A. (1997) “Aramaic.” In R. Hetzron, ed., The Semitic languages: 114–30. London. Muraoka, T. (1997) Classical Syriac. A grammar with chrestomathy. Wiesbaden.

Naveh, J. and Shaked, S. (2005) Ancient Aramaic documents from Bactria. Oxford. No¨ldeke, T. (2000) Compendious Syriac grammar. Winona Lake, IN. Schwiderski, D., ed. (2004) Die alt- und reichsarama¨ischen Inschriften, 2 vols. Berlin.

1

Aramaic Levi Document T. M. LAW

The pseudepigraphon known as the Aramaic Levi Document (ALD) is one of the oldest Jewish non-biblical works and was a source for the “Testament of Levi” in the TESTAMENTS OF THE TWELVE PATRIARCHS. The ALD is preserved only in a collection of fragments in Aramaic, Greek, and Syriac, but the seven Aramaic fragments discovered at Qumran demonstrate the antiquity of the work, and represent one of only two Qumran works (with 4Q Naphtali) that have been identified as sources of, or parts of, Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs. Aramaic portions have also been discovered in the finds from the Cairo Geniza. Three main arguments are used to date the document to the third or early second century BCE: the oldest manuscript (4Q Levf ) is dated to the Hasmonean period in the middle of the second century, the ALD is quoted in the second century Damascus Document, and the ALD was likely a source for Jubilees (see Greenfield, Stone, and Eshel 2004: 19–21). The Aramaic portions of the ALD may also testify to this early date since they reflect the Standard Literary Aramaic of the Imperial and Middle Aramaic periods (see ARAMAIC AND SYRIAC). The ALD contains several peculiar ideas, but the most important is that the centrality of the priesthood is amplified so that both Levi himself and the Levitical line are given a prominence not found in the Hebrew Bible (see Greenfield and Stone 1979). Judah’s royal blessing is given to Levi’s second son and ancestor of the high priestly line, Kohath (ALD 11:5–7; cf. Gen 49:10), and Levi’s sons are born on significant days on the 364-day solar calendar (ALD 11). Priestly instructional

responsibilities are also suffused with sapiential motifs (ALD 13), giving the priest a role that is not only that of teacher, but also sage (see Stone 1987). The priesthood is described in a mixture of priestly and royal language, and verses concerning the royal messiah are attributed to Levi (ALD 4:7, 5:5–6, 11:6–7, 13:16), suggesting that this composition was created in reaction to other competing views of the priesthood in third century BCE Judaism. The ALD also contains one of the first known references to “Satan” as a kind of demon, and it is one of the oldest documents to contrast two spirits as representative of the two ways, a widespread motif in the Qumran sectarian writings. SEE ALSO: Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha, Jewish; Damascus Covenant, the (Dead Sea Scrolls); Dead Sea Scrolls; Hasmoneans; Jubilees, Book of.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Bohak, G. (forthcoming) “A new Genizah fragment of the Aramaic Levi Document.” Tarbiz [in Hebrew]. Greenfield, J. C. and Stone, M. (1979) “Remarks on the Aramaic Testament of Levi from the Geniza.” Revue Biblique 86: 214–30. Greenfield, J. C., Stone, M., and Eshel, E. (2004) The Aramaic Levi Document: edition, translation, commentary. Leiden. Grelot, P. (1991) “Le coutumier sacerdotal ancien dans le Testament arame´en de Le´vi.” Revue de Qumraˆn 15: 253–63. Stone, M. (1987) “Ideal figures and social context: priest and sage in the early Second Temple age.” In P. D. Miller, P. D. Hanson, and S. D. McBride, eds., Ancient Israelite religion: essays in honor of Frank Moore Cross: 575–86. Leiden. Stone, M. (2002) “Aramaic Levi in its contexts.” Jewish Studies Quarterly 9: 307–26.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 608–609. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah11026

1

Aratos of Sikyon B. D. GRAY

Aratos of SIKYON (271–213) was the leading figure of the ACHAIAN LEAGUE from 245 to 213, being instrumental to its development into a major political force. For most of this period Aratos led the league’s resistance to the penetration of Macedonian power into the PELOPONNESE. But in 225/4 he played an important role in the league’s controversial alliance with the Macedonian king ANTIGONOS III DOSON during the war with KLEOMENES III OF SPARTA. He wrote Memoirs, now lost, which were extensively used by POLYBIUS and PLUTARCH, the main surviving authorities for his life. The Memoirs probably represented Aratos’ attempt to defend his own career and, in particular, his volte-face in the relations with Macedon, which opponents presented as an unnecessary sacrifice of Greek liberty. Born into the Sikyonian aristocracy, whose relations with Sikyonian democrats had been tense since at least the 360s, Aratos was smuggled out of Sikyon in 264, after his father Kleinias, archon of the city, was killed by Abantidas, who subsequently became a dominant figure – allegedly a tyrant. Aratos was educated in exile at ARGOS, in gymnastics more intensively than in rhetoric. Meanwhile in Sikyon Abantidas and then his father Paseas were assassinated and Nikokles succeeded, allegedly as tyrant. Aratos, who was reaching adulthood by then, was the main hope of the 500-strong Sikyonian community in exile. With a coalition of exiles, sympathizers, and brigands, he captured Sikyon by stealth in 251/0. He declared the city free and restored the exiles to their status. Apparently for the sake of immediate security against internal insurrection or Antigonid intervention, Aratos took the momentous step of leading Sikyon, a Dorian city, into the Achaian League. He subsequently obtained Ptolemaic money to resolve disputes in Sikyon concerning the restored exiles’ property. The stage was thus

set for Aratos to lead, with some Ptolemaic support, an anti-Antigonid Achaian League. Despite attempts by ANTIGONOS II GONATAS to detach Aratos from the league, he remained loyal, being elected general for the first time in 245/4. He subsequently held this office in alternate years, almost without interruption, until his death. His first major success, in an even greater triumph of tactics and secrecy than his capture of Sikyon, was to seize ACROCORINTH from an Antigonid garrison in 243/2. Shortly afterwards he induced the Achaian League to form an anti-Antigonid alliance with AGIS IV OF SPARTA. Leading objectives of Aratos’ policy in the following years were to attack the Antigonids’ allies ATHENS and ARGOS and to resist Aitolian raids in the Peloponnese. A decisive victory over the Aitolians at Pellene in 241 led to peace with AITOLIA, which was followed by an Aitolo-Achaian alliance in 239. Under Aratos’ influence attacks on Athens and Argos remained central to the league’s policy in the 230s. But the anti-Antigonid focus of Aratos’ policy was put under strain when MEGALOPOLIS and other Arcadian communities joined the league in 235, because the Arcadians had anti-Spartan tendencies and the accession of these states was a provocation to Sparta. Partly as a consequence of this situation, but also in response to domestic developments, Kleomenes III began expanding Spartan power in the Peloponnese from 229 onwards. Although Aratos initially resisted the shift in Achaian policy towards opposition to Sparta, in the 220s he was among the first Achaians to adopt the view (and to act on it) that an alliance with the Macedonians, then ruled by ANTIGONOS III DOSON, was the league’s best hope of resisting Spartan expansion. It is disputed how soon Aratos began making overtures to Antigonos and whether he actively obstructed an accommodation with Kleomenes, but he was certainly influential in bringing about the Achaians’ alliance with Antigonos in 225/4. The Antigonid alliance led to the defeat of Kleomenes at Sellasia in 222 and enabled

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 609–611. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah09042

2 the Achaians to resist Aitolian raids on the Peloponnese during the Social War of 220–217. But it also allowed the Antigonids to re-assert their power in the Peloponnese: the Acrocorinth was returned to them on the formation of the alliance, and after 217 PHILIP V OF MACEDON repeatedly schemed to garrison the other main Peloponnesian stronghold, Mount Ithome in Messenia (see ITHOME MOUNTAIN). The result was intense political disagreement between Aratos and Philip. It was even alleged that Philip was responsible for Aratos’ death in 213, during his sixteenth generalship. Aratos received major posthumous honors in Sikyon, including two annual sacrifices at his tomb. Both Polybius and Plutarch offered broadly favorable portraits of Aratos, whereas PHYLARCHOS vilified him. The evidence for Aratos’ military career supports the view that he was exceptionally adept at guerrilla warfare, but not skilled as a commander in open warfare. His other major skills were diplomatic and political. As well as negotiating grants and alliances favorable to the Sikyonians and to the whole league, he achieved an unprecedented level of unity among league-member cities, partially overcoming local particularism (Ferrabino 1921). Moreover, he showed political skill in restoring civic order at polis level (e.g., Polyb. 5.93). He was a master, not only of conventional political methods, but also of political theatricality (e.g., Plut. Arat. 23.1–4). However, despite his political abilities, he clearly did not command universal support in the Achaian League, or in Sikyon itself: Kleomenes appears to have found many willing partisans within league-member cities, including Sikyon (Plut. Arat. 40.1–2). This was probably due in part to democratic opposition to Aratos’ promotion of local and federal oligarchy.

Walbank (1933) presents Aratos as a pragmatic politician who had a lasting impact, in contrast with the ineffectual idealist Kleomenes. But Plutarch attributes high ideals to Aratos too: the good ruler should rule through virtue, not through force; and the good civic or federal state should be united through concord (Plut. Arat. 10, 26, 50). Aratos may also have had Academic philosophical sympathies: he shared the fiercely anti-tyrannical spirit of the Old ACADEMY, even collaborating with a former student of the Academic Skeptic Arkesilaos when he planned his overthrow of the alleged Sikyonian tyranny, and he aborted an invasion of Athens in 239, upon reaching the Academy. Moreover, he elicited from Persaios, the Stoic commander of the Acrocorinth, a comment implying that he lacked learning (Plut. Arat. 23.5). Aratos also had a wider interest in culture that extended to painting, Sikyon’s traditional strength. SEE ALSO: Antigonids; Arcadia; Philosophy, Hellenistic; Sellasia, battle of; Stoicism.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Ferrabino, A. (1921) Il problema della unita` nazionale nella Grecia antica, vol. 1: Arato di Sicione e l’idea federale. Florence. Pelling, C. B. R. (1988) “Aspects of Plutarch’s characterisation.” Illinois Classical Studies 13: 257–74. Porter, W. H. (1937), Plutarch’s Life of Aratos, with introduction, notes, and appendix. Dublin. Urban, R. (1979), Wachstum und Krise des Acha¨ischen Bundes: Quellenstudien zur Entwicklung des Bundes von 280 bis 222 v. Chr. Wiesbaden. Walbank, F. W. (1933), Aratos of Sicyon. Cambridge.

1

Aratos of Soloi A. M. LEWIS

Aratos (ca. 310–ca. 240), a Greek poet and scholar, is the author of the Phaenomena, a didactic poem that was the most widely read work of Greek literature in antiquity after Homer’s Iliad and Odyssey (see HOMER). Information about Aratos’ life comes from four ancient biographies and the ninth century literary dictionary SUDA. Although sometimes contradictory or conjectural, the biographies provide information about which there is some general agreement. Aratos was born in SOLOI in Cilicia. He was a contemporary of the poet CALLIMACHUS. He studied under several philosophers, most notably, in ATHENS, under ZENO OF KITION, founder of the Stoic School of philosophy. He was summoned north to PELLA by the Macedonian king, ANTIGONOS II GONATAS, who had studied in Athens and had strong Stoic sympathies. Antigonos sponsored an active literary circle at his court, and Aratos wrote the Phaenomena there ca. 276, perhaps at the request of the king himself. Aratos later may have spent a short time at the court of ANTIOCHOS I SOTER of Syria, editing the Iliad. After this, he seems to have returned to the Macedonian court, dying there at some date prior to the death of Antigonos. The Phaenomena, Aratos’ only surviving complete work among the many he apparently wrote, provides a practical guide to the fixed stars, constellations, and weather signs, knowledge of which was important for ancient navigation, agriculture, and time-telling. The style of the Phaenomena is modeled on HESIOD’s poems, and the language is drawn from Homer’s epics. The Phaenomena was praised in antiquity for its brevity, subtlety, refinement, and elegant expression of scientific material in dactylic hexameter verse. The poem owes its long popularity and practical value into the Middle Ages to its use as a school text, either in its original Greek form or in Latin epitomes and verse translations (by Cicero, Germanicus,

Avienus, and Vergil in G. 1.351–465). The prooemium (lines 1–18) shares, with the contemporary “Hymn to Zeus” by Kleanthes, the Stoic idea that Zeus is the life-giving force of the cosmos. Zeus, however, is more complex in the poem than in the hymn, and although claimed as a Stoic classic, the poem generally lacks Stoic terminology and concepts. The first, astronomical part of the Phaenomena (lines 19–757) is based on the prose Phaenomena of the fourth century astronomer EUDOXOS OF KNIDOS. Like Eudoxos, Aratos envisions a spherical and motionless Earth at the center, with fixed stars on a rotating sphere at the outer edge. Although later criticized for his astronomical errors by the second century BCE astronomer Hipparchos and by Cicero, Aratos shows himself, in the first part of the poem, to be knowledgeable of basic astronomy and familiar with the constellations on the celestial sphere. He proceeds in orderly fashion, beginning with the poles. He then describes the figures, in groups, of most of the forty-eight Greek constellations of Ptolemy, north and south of the ecliptic, the circles of the celestial sphere (including the Milky Way), and the risings and settings of constellations with particular zodiacal signs, beginning with Cancer. He concludes with a discussion of the Moon and Sun as time markers, alluding to the nineteen-year Metonic Cycle. Aratos does not discuss the planets in any detail, and he does not provide coordinates or apparent stellar magnitudes. Of the several extended mythological digressions, those of Virgo and the myth of the Ages (lines 96–136) and Orion (lines 634–646) are particularly notable. The second, meteorological part of the poem (lines 758–1154) is perhaps derived from a work by THEOPHRASTUS. Here, Aratos describes how the Moon, Sun, clouds, Praesepe (the star cluster M44 in Cancer), shooting stars, comets, lightning, lamp-wicks, vegetation, and the behavior of animals (birds, insects, amphibians, and crustaceans) can serve as reliable weather signs on land and sea. The variety and number of extant ancient interpretive works (scholia, introductions,

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 611–612. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah21033

2 commentaries, and translations) testify to the early and continuing importance of the Phaenomena. Fifty manuscripts of the poem are known, and the two earliest date to the eleventh century. A number of ancient papyrus fragments with variant readings have also been discovered. In the Middle Ages, a word-forword Latin prose translation (Aratus Latinus) appeared in the eighth century, and an Arabic translation was also made in the early ninth century. The first published edition (Aldine, Venice) dates to 1499. Recent scholarly work and Kidd’s edition of the poem, in particular, have called new attention to its importance in both Hellenistic literature and the history of science. SEE ALSO: Astronomy, pre-Ptolemaic; Hipparchos, astronomer; Kleanthes of Assos; Meteorology; Stoicism.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Cuypers, M. (2007) [online] [Accessed January 31, 2010.] “Aratus and Aratea.” Hellenistic bibliography. http://sites.google.com/site/ hellenisticbibliography/hellenistic/aratus-andaratea. Hunter, R. (2004) “The Phainomena of Aratus.” In M. Fantuzzi and R. Hunter, eds., Tradition and innovation in Hellenistic poetry: 224–45. Cambridge. Kidd, D., ed. and trans. (1997) Aratus: Phaenomena. Cambridge. Lewis, A. M. (1992) “The popularity of the Phaenomena of Aratus.” Studies in Latin Literature and Roman History 1: 94–118. Maass, E., ed. (1958/1898) Commentariorum in Aratum Reliquiae. Berlin. Volk, K. (2010) “Aratus.” In J. J. Clauss and M. Cuypers, eds., A companion to Hellenistic literature: 197–210. Chichester.

1

Aratos of Soloi (Aratus of Soli) ANNE-MARIE LEWIS

York University, Canada

Aratos (ca. 310–ca. 240 BCE), a Greek poet and scholar, is the author of the Phaenomena, a didactic poem that was the most widely read work of Greek literature in antiquity after Homer’s Iliad and Odyssey (see HOMER). Information about Aratos’ life comes from four ancient biographies and the ninth-century literary dictionary SUDA. Although sometimes contradictory or conjectural, the biographies provide information about which there is some general agreement. Aratos was born in SOLOI in CILICIA. He was a contemporary of the poet CALLIMACHUS. He studied under several philosophers, most notably, in ATHENS, under ZENO OF KITION, founder of the Stoic School of philosophy. He was summoned north to PELLA by the Macedonian king, ANTIGONOS II GONATAS, who had studied in Athens and had strong Stoic sympathies. Antigonos sponsored an active literary circle at his court, and Aratos wrote the Phaenomena there ca. 276, perhaps at the request of the king himself. Aratos later may have spent a short time at the court of ANTIOCHOS I SOTER of Syria, editing the Iliad. After this, he seems to have returned to the Macedonian court, dying there at some date prior to the death of Antigonos. The Phaenomena, Aratos’ only surviving complete work among the many he apparently wrote, provides a practical guide to the fixed stars, constellations, and weather signs, knowledge of which was important for ancient navigation, agriculture, and time-telling. The style of the Phaenomena is modeled on HESIOD’s poems, and the language is drawn from Homer’s epics. The Phaenomena was praised in antiquity for its brevity, subtlety, refinement, and elegant expression of scientific material in dactylic hexameter verse. The poem owes its long popularity and practical value into the Middle Ages to its use as a school text, either

in its original Greek form or in Latin epitomes and verse translations (by CICERO, GERMANICUS, Avienus, and VERGIL in G. 1.351–465). The prooemium (lines 1–18) shares, with the contemporary Hymn to Zeus by KLEANTHES, the Stoic idea that Zeus is the life-giving force of the cosmos. Zeus, however, is more complex in the poem than in the hymn, and although claimed as a Stoic classic, the poem generally lacks Stoic terminology and concepts. The first, astronomical part of the Phaenomena (lines 19–757) is based on the prose Phaenomena of the fourth century astronomer EUDOXOS OF KNIDOS. Like Eudoxos, Aratos envisions a spherical and motionless earth at the center, with fixed stars on a rotating sphere at the outer edge. Although later criticized for his astronomical errors by the second century BCE astronomer HIPPARCHOS, Aratos shows himself, in the first part of the poem, to be knowledgeable of basic astronomy and familiar with the constellations on the celestial sphere. He proceeds in orderly fashion, beginning with the poles. He then describes the figures, in groups, of most of the forty-eight Greek constellations of PTOLEMY, north and south of the ecliptic, the circles of the celestial sphere (including the Milky Way), and the risings and settings of constellations with particular zodiacal signs, beginning with Cancer. He concludes with a discussion of the moon and sun as time markers, alluding to the nineteen-year Metonic Cycle. Aratos does not discuss the planets in any detail, and he does not provide coordinates or apparent stellar magnitudes. Of the several extended mythological digressions, those of Virgo and the myth of the Ages (lines 96–136) and Orion (lines 634–46) are particularly notable. The second, meteorological part of the poem (lines 758–1154) is perhaps derived from a work by THEOPHRASTUS. Here, Aratos describes how the moon, sun, clouds, Praesepe (the star cluster M44 in Cancer), shooting stars, comets, lightning, lamp-wicks, vegetation, and the behavior of animals (birds, insects, amphibians, and crustaceans) can serve as reliable weather signs on land and sea.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History. Edited by Andrew Erskine, David B. Hollander, and Arietta Papaconstantinou. © 2021 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Published 2021 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah21033.pub2

2 The variety and number of extant ancient interpretive works (scholia, introductions, commentaries, and translations) testify to the early and continuing importance of the Phaenomena. Fifty manuscripts of the poem are known, and the two earliest date to the eleventh century. A number of ancient papyrus fragments with variant readings have also been discovered. In the Middle Ages, a word-for-word Latin prose translation (Aratus Latinus) appeared in the eighth century, and an Arabic translation was also made in the early ninth century. The first published edition (Aldine, Venice) dates to 1499. Recent scholarly work and Kidd’s edition of the poem, in particular, have called new attention to its importance in both Hellenistic literature and the history of science. SEE ALSO: Astronomy, pre-Ptolemaic; Meteorology; Stoicism.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Cuypers, M. (2012) [online] [Accessed February 13, 2020.] “Aratus and Aratea.” Hellenistic bibliography. Available from http://sites.google.com/site/ hellenisticbibliography/hellenistic/aratus-andaratea. Hard, R., trans. (2015) Eratosthenes and Hyginus: constellation myths with Aratus’s ‘Phaenomena’. Oxford. Hunter, R. (2004) “The Phainomena of Aratus.” In M. Fantuzzi and R. Hunter, eds., Tradition and innovation in Hellenistic poetry: 224–45. Cambridge. Kidd, D., ed. and trans. (1997) Aratus: Phaenomena. Cambridge. Lewis, A. M. (1992) “The popularity of the Phaenomena of Aratus.” Studies in Latin Literature and Roman History 6: 94–118. Maass, E., ed. (1958/1898) Commentariorum in Aratum Reliquiae. Berlin. Volk, K. (2010) “Aratus.” In J. J. Clauss and M. Cuypers, eds., A companion to Hellenistic literature: 197–210. Chichester.

1

Aratta NICOLE BRISCH

Aratta was a fictional geographical designation for a land far east of Sumer. It appears only in literary texts, mostly in the stories about the legendary kings Enmerkar and Lugalbanda, who ruled the city of Uruk (see ENMERKAR; URUK). Most scholars today agree that Aratta is a mythical place that cannot be located on a map (Michalowski 1986: 133; Potts 2004; Mittermayer 2009: 36–9); however, similarities have been postulated between literary descriptions of Aratta and southeast Iran or even Afghanistan. The literary texts locate Aratta in a mountain range. It is described as rich in resources such as precious metals and stones, as well as rare woods; in other words, it is rich in things that southern Mesopotamia lacks. In this way, Aratta represents the idea of wealth, but also glory and fame (Mittermayer 2009: 38). In the Sumerian literary compositions about Enmerkar and Lugalbanda, Aratta plays the role of the geographical and cultural counterpart of Sumer. The lord of Aratta, counterpart

of the Sumerian king, bears a Sumerian name in the tale of “Enmerkar and Ensuhkesˇdana” (Vanstiphout 2003: 23–48), but in the tale of “Enmerkar and the Lord of Aratta,” this lord remains unnamed. In both tales, Aratta is said to have been a cultic center for the worship of the goddess Inanna, and both the Sumerian king and the lord of Aratta vie for her attention. Not surprisingly, in these tales Sumer always succeeds and is shown to be culturally superior to Aratta as well as the favorite of the goddess Inanna (see INANNA (ISHTAR)).

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Michalowski, P. (1986) “Mental maps and ideology: reflections on Subartu.” In H. Weiss, ed., The origins of cities in dry-farming Syria and Mesopotamia in the third millennium BC: 129–56. Guilford, CT. Mittermayer, C. (2009) Enmerkara und der Herr von Arata. Freiburg. Potts, D. T. (2004) “Exit Aratta: Southeastern Iran and the land of Marhashi.” Na¯me-ye Ira¯n-e Ba¯sta¯n 4, 1: 1–11. Vanstiphout, H. L. J. (2003) Epics of Sumerian kings: the matter of Aratta. Atlanta.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 612–613. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah24025

1

Arausio (Orange) DRAGANA MLADENOVIC´

Arausio (modern Orange in southern France) was a Roman colony in the province of GALLIA NARBONENSIS. The city is famous for its two outstanding and exceptionally preserved monuments, the Triumphal Arch and the Theater, which became UNESCO World Heritage Sites in 1981. Arausio was founded on a commercially strategic location in the Rhone valley, on a previously uninhabited location, though a hillfort of the Cavares existed in the vicinity. The exact date of city’s foundation is unknown. Judging by the colony’s name Colonia Julia Firma Secundanorum Arausio (CIL XII 3203), the city was most probably founded by Octavian for the veterans of Legio II Gallica in or after 35 BCE. Arausio was fortified from its foundation and its partially investigated walls encircled a substantial settlement of about 70 ha. The modern city of Orange overlies ancient Arausio; this makes gaining a comprehensive understanding of the Roman settlement very difficult. Arausio is today best known for two monuments that owe their remarkable survival to being incorporated into medieval structures. First is the Arch of Orange, a triumphal arch that spanned Via Agrippa on its approach to the city. The dating of the arch rests on the proposed reconstructions of the dedicatory inscription, based on the socket holes on the architrave that once held its bronze lettering (CIL XII 1230). It is most widely accepted that the Arch had two phases: the first Augustan, and the second Tiberian (from 26 CE; contra Anderson 1987). This triple arch is one of the most richly decorated arches in the Roman world. The statuary that once adorned it is lost, but all four faces still bear relief decoration celebrating a Roman victory by land and sea. The attics of the side arches display spoils of

war, bound prisoners and military trophies adorn the sides, while naval and land battles are depicted on the second attic. The second impressive structure is the Theater, probably built at the time of the foundation of the colony. It is one of the best preserved Roman theaters, matched only by that from ASPENDOS in Asia Minor. The theater of Orange is an example of a typical Roman theater with a design that follows that prescribed by VITRUVIUS to the letter. An impressive 36 m high stage building (scenae frons) still stands above the auditorium (cavea), which could have seated up to nine thousand spectators. The theater was a part of a monumental complex with other structures on the St. Eutrope hill, including several temples. Over the centuries various Roman structures came to light during construction works, including baths, houses, possible remains of an amphitheater, numerous mosaics, and small finds. The most significant discovery came in 1949, when remains of what seems to have been a Public Record Office (tabularium publicum) were unearthed and within them fragments of three marble land-survey plans testifying to three successive land allotments (see CENTURIATION). The three cadasters represent unique evidence of an official land registry in the Roman world (Piganiol 1962). SEE ALSO: Arches, honorific and triumphal; Colonies, Roman Empire (west); Theater, Greek and Roman.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Anderson, J. C. (1987) “The date of the arch at Orange.” Bonner Jahrbu¨cher 187: 159–92. Bellet, M. (1991) Orange antique: monuments et muse´e. Paris. Bromwich, J. (1993) The Roman remains of southern France: a guidebook. London. 181–94. Piganiol, A. (1962) Les documents cadastraux de la colonie romaine d’Orange. Paris.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 613–614. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah16014

1

Araxes CLAUDE RAPIN

Araxes is the ancient name of the present Aras River, which flows south of the Caucasus (see CAUCASUS MOUNTAIN) from the region of Erzurum (Turkey) and reaches the coast of the Caspian Sea in south Azerbaijan after having joined the Kura River (ancient Cyrus). According to ancient and modern historians, the same name could have corresponded also to the Central Asian Amu-darya-Oxus and Syr-darya-Jaxartes, and to the Volga. Strabo details, in the first century CE, the itinerary of the river through Atropatene, Armenia, and Albania, with the list of the cities along it (11.14.3–4; as the Araxes is associated with the Cyrus, see also 11.1.5 and 11.4.2; Plin. HN 6.9.10 and 15). Strabo tries to explain the peculiarities of its ending in the Caspian Sea (11.14.13), criticizing the oldest description given in the fifth century BCE by Herodotus (1.202), according to which the river “has its source in the country of the Matienians. It has forty mouths, whereof all, except one, end in bogs and swamps.” Initially, the Central Asian version of the Araxes was exclusively connected to the history of the Massagetae. The rare data reported by Herodotus concern the expedition led by Cyrus across the Araxes against this people and the queen Tomyris on the east of the Caspian Sea (1.201, 204–11; 3.36). As a frontier, this Araxes appears also in the history of the emigration of the Scythians to Kimmeria under pressure from the Massagetae (4.11). The identity of this river has been associated with various real eastern and Central Asian rivers (see above). The confusion was emphasized by the fact that Herodotus attributed to the eastern Araxes characteristics borrowed from the description of the western version of the river (1.202). Moreover, in his description of the oikoumene based on a map probably inherited from an earlier logographer, Herodotus divides Europe and Asia along a

horizontal frontier composed, from west to east, by the Black Sea, the Colchidian Phasis River (4.45), the Caspian Sea, and, to the extreme right, the Araxes; he precisely claims, moreover, that this river flows eastward (4.40). The problem of the double Araxes has probably a “cartographic” origin, dating back to the first stages of the Median history drawn up by the Ionians, who considered the Araxes schematically as the northern frontier of the empire and ignored the entire Caspian Sea. Only later, when Cyrus led his expedition to the otherwise unknown northeastern regions, the logographers held naturally the old Araxes as the unique barrier to cross for the encounter with the enemy (the geographic frame is rather unclear even in the BISITUN inscription of Darius (col. 5.25–30), although the Scythian region concerned is more probably near the Syr-darya than along the lower Amu-darya). Anyway, these abstract subtleties escaped the ancients, as until ALEXANDER III, THE GREAT no precise information could be obtained from remote Central Asia. Nevertheless, from the fourth century BCE, the Armenian Araxes seems to have been often amalgamated with the Central Asian rivers crossed by Alexander and his companions. The fusion of the two regions already appears in the map described in the Meteorologica of ARISTOTLE (1.13.15), with the association of the Araxes with the Jaxartes (cf. also “Araxates” in Amm. Marc. 23.59 and “Orexartes” in Plut. Alex. 61). The Aristotelian map influenced Dionysios Periegetes (who, moreover, pointed out the Herodotean coupling of the “MassagetaeAraxes”: 739–40), and, through this poem, the list of the Cosmographer of Ravenna (2.12). Strabo (11.8.6) maintained the same association, completing his data on the Massagetan River with details directly influenced by the Herodotean description of the western Araxes. Again under the influence of Herodotus, the Araxes flowing into the eastern ocean is also illustrated in the Peutinger Map, whose eastern part was probably composed around the beginning of our era.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 614–615. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah14329

2 Nevertheless, most of the examples of fusion between the two geographies appear among the “Vulgate” historians of Alexander, according to whom the Central Asian events of the year 329 seem to have taken place along the real Caucasus between the Black and Caspian seas: see, for example, in the events on the “northern” slope of the “Caucasus-Hindukush,” the mentions of the “river of the Medes,” that is the Araxes, in the original versions of the Metz Epitome (1.4) or of Diodorus Siculus, Library of History (17.83). Only later, following the Roman expeditions along the Caucasian

Araxes and the Cyrus, was the myth of Alexander in return attached to the western Caucasus (see, for instance, the fifth century commentary of Servius Honoratus on the Aeneid 8.728, about the bridge on the Armenian Araxes supposedly built by Alexander and repaired by Augustus after a flood). SEE ALSO:

Oxus; Tanais.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Tomaschek, W. (1895) “Araxes.” RE 3: 402–5.

1

Arbitration, international SHEILA L. AGER

The employment of disengaged third parties to settle international disputes is a phenomenon of great antiquity. Strictly speaking, the term “arbitration” implies a fairly formal process, wherein an arbitrator is given the power to render a judgment by which both parties are sworn to abide. In reality, third-party settlement of disputes in the ancient world embraced a broader range of conflict resolution, which included mediation and good offices as well. Perhaps the earliest example of an international arbitration is the resolution of a border dispute between the Sumerian city-states of UMMA and LAGASH (TELL AL-HIBA). In the third millennium BCE the two states were engaged in an enduring territorial conflict, and at one point the boundary was drawn by a third party: Mesalim, the king of KISH. This arbitration did not, however, prevent the two states from fighting repeatedly over the contested territory. The phenomenon of international arbitration reached its zenith in the world of the Greek city-state (see POLIS). Surviving records provide evidence for well over two hundred instances of arbitration or mediation (or failed attempts) from the Archaic through to the Hellenistic period (Piccirilli 1973; Ager 1996; Magnetto 1997). The early Romans, too, engaged occasionally in arbitral means of settling disputes. But, if the tale of their resolution of the conflict between the communities of Aricia and Ardea is true (the Roman people allegedly awarded the disputed territory to themselves), it would seem that the Romans employed somewhat less finesse in these matters than the Greeks (Livy 3.71–2). Some disputes were considered to be more arbitrable than others. The single largest category of arbitrations involved territorial disputes (see BOUNDARY DISPUTES). Much of the remaining evidence is epigraphic in form and consists of detailed boundary demarcations, as

carried out by the arbitrating authority. One of the best preserved of such inscriptions – and perhaps one of the most typical boundary arbitrations – tells of the settlement of a dispute between the Greek poleis of CORINTH and Epidauros (Ager 1996: no. 38; Magnetto 1997: no. 36). A picked court of 151 citizens from the nearby polis of MEGARA heard the case and despatched a smaller commission of 31 men to draw a boundary line for the contested territory. The inscription summarizes the process and records the detailed list of landmarks along the new border. Contested borders – while they were clearly considered amenable to resolution through arbitration – were (and are) among the most intransigent sources of conflict. Although the historical record shows the Greek city-states frequently turning to arbitration to settle their territorial disagreements, it likewise shows that such third-party settlements were not always respected in the long run. Constant friction and ongoing tensions could give rise to repeated appeals to new and different potential arbitrators. The border squabbles between the tiny Thessalian poleis of Melitaia and Narthakion were heard over the centuries by citizens of other Greek states, by a Macedonian official, by the Thessalian League, and ultimately by the Roman Senate (Piccirilli 1973: nos. 35, 51; Ager 1996: nos. 32, 79, 154, 156; Magnetto 1997: no. 31; see THESSALY). The case of repeated territorial arbitrations between PRIENE and SAMOS was famous (Magnetto 2008). Other types of disputes could also be settled through resort to arbitration. Access to routes and resources, financial compensation for alleged injuries or breaches of agreement, and questions of religious jurisdiction all appear as matters that could be taken to the arbitration of a third party. Thus a panel of citizens from LAMIA judged conflicting claims to hieromnemonic representation in the Delphic AMPHICTYONY (that is, representation through a hieromnemon – the official sent by each amphictyonic state to represent it at the

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 615–617. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah09043

2 Delphic Council), which were pressed by SPARTA and its Dorian kin in central Greece (Ager 1996: no. 139; see DORIANS). But not all disputes were considered justiciable. Concerns over state security and vital interests were (then as now) both fundamental and intangible: fundamental, in that such concerns involve a state’s right to safeguard its very existence; intangible, in that they often spring from perception rather than reality. The lack of a concrete issue that can be resolved, combined with the perceived security threat, means that a state may not be prepared to risk the judicial process of arbitration. Hence the most famous failure of arbitration in Greek history: the refusal of the Spartans to abide by the provisions of the THIRTY YEARS’ PEACE treaty and to go to arbitration with ATHENS (Piccirilli 1973: no. 21). Inspired by fear of Athens’ growing power, Sparta rejected Athens’ demands that the two cities take their mutual differences to arbitration and declared war instead. Those concrete differences – such as the issue of Epidamnos – could perhaps have been resolved by arbitration; the Spartan fear of Athenian power could not (see EPIDAMNOS/ DYRRACHION; PELOPONNESIAN WAR). Yet, even if Sparta had agreed to arbitration in the late 430s BCE, a major stumbling block would have been the identification of a suitable arbitrator. Divided into two major power blocs as it was at the time, the Greek world would not have presented any obvious candidates: the impartiality required of an arbitrator would have been difficult to come by. Moreover, arbitrators were often identified on the basis of their prestige and of the leverage they might have with one or both disputing parties; but in this case the disputants themselves were the most prestigious Greek states of the day. Great powers have rarely agreed to submit to arbitration, although the more flexible and less judicial processes of mediation have often been acceptable to them. Towards the end of the third century BCE PHILIP V demonstrated his willingness to listen to would-be mediators both during the Social War and during

the First Macedonian war (Ager 1996: nos. 53, 57; Magnetto 1997: nos. 52, 56; Eckstein 2002; see MACEDONIAN WARS; PHILIP V OF MACEDON). It is highly unlikely, however, that Philip would have allowed mediators to wring out of him any concessions that it did not suit him to give. As for Rome, once its power began to extend into the Greek east, it showed itself willing to continue the Greek tradition of arbitration and mediation – but only among the Greeks. Rome itself at no time saw reason to submit to third-party settlement of its own disputes (Marshall 1980; Burton 2000; Ager 2009). On the whole, international arbitration in antiquity was most efficacious among the Greek city-states, in other words between polities that had generally similar domestic political structures and values, and also a rough power parity with one another. In spite of continuing irredentism and an (at times) insincere exploitation of the mechanisms of arbitration, the Greek poleis never lost their long-standing faith in this mode of conflict resolution. SEE ALSO: Amphictyony, Delphic; Boundary disputes; Treaties, Hellenistic.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Ager, S. L. (1996) Interstate arbitrations in the Greek world, 337–90 BC. Berkeley. Ager, S. L. (2009) “Roman perspectives on Greek diplomacy.” In C. Eilers, ed., Diplomats and diplomacy in the Roman world. Leiden: 15–43. Bignardi, A. (1984) “Controversiae agrorum” e arbitrati internazionali alle origini dell’ interdetto “uti possidetis.” Milan. Burton, G. P. (2000) “The resolution of territorial disputes in the provinces of the Roman empire.” Chiron 30: 195–215. Eckstein, A. M. (2002) “Greek mediation in the First Macedonian War, 209–205 BC.” Historia 51: 268–97. Magnetto, A. M. (1997) Gli arbitrati interstatali greci, vol. 2: Dal 337 al 196 a.C. Pisa.

3 Magnetto, A. M. (2008) L’arbitrato di Rodi fra Samo e Priene. Pisa. Marshall, A. J. (1980) “The survival and development of international jurisdiction in the

Greek world under Roman rule.” ANRW II.13: 626–61. Berlin. Piccirilli, L. (1973) Gli arbitrati interstatali greci, vol. 1: Dalle origini al 338 a.C. Pisa.

1

Arbitration, legal ADELE C. SCAFURO

ATHENS Ancient Athenians settled disputes outside the courts in a variety of ways, determined by the subject of dispute and the relative strengths of the disputants. By far the most significant sources for Athenian arbitration are the fiftytwo private orations that represent arguments in forty-nine trials of the late fifth and fourth centuries BCE. Disputants quarreling over inheritances, adoptions, and other financial matters might choose a third party to serve as an arbitrator (see DIAITETAI). The sine qua non of arbitration was (and is) the agreement of the disputants both to the procedure and to the personae involved. Usually they are friends or relatives of the disputants; occasionally, the orators mention the sharing of tribal or deme membership in addition to friendship. Friends (philoi) predominate. Disputants thus appear to prefer arbitrators with intimate knowledge of them and their disputes to arbitrators who might be viewed as impartial. According to most scholars, private arbitration can be typified as follows: two opposing parties agree upon one or more arbitrators; conditions upon which the decision is to be based are agreed upon in advance and may be put in writing; the arbitrator gives his decision under oath. The decision is legally binding upon the two parties in the same way as a verdict given in a courtroom: (1) the same issue could not be subjected to another hearing – and if it were, a plea to bar action could be made, claiming that the suit was not admissible; (2) moreover, if the decision or settlement involved the surrender of money or property, it was (indirectly) enforceable by a suit for ejectment (dike exoules). An alternate view is that a decision was binding only if accompanied by a release (aphesis) or mutual settlement (apallage); these would provide

the grounds to bar further action (Scafuro 1997: 122–6). The orators provide many instances of private arbitrations and reconciliations which involve issues of law. While only a few appear never to have passed beyond the stage of a rejected offer “to refer the matter to arbitration,” twenty-two negotiations materialized; moreover, eight or nine appear to have been successful (Scafuro 1997: 393). For such a small and haphazard sampling, this figure suggests that private arbitration played a significant and reliable role in the dispute settlement process. Arbitration and reconciliation were also streamlined into the court system: private suits falling under the jurisdiction of the Forty were sent to an official arbitrator in cases where more than ten drachmas were at stake (see DIAITETAI). First he tried to reconcile the litigants, and if he failed, he gave a decision. If the litigants agreed, the case was over; if either party disagreed, he could appeal to the People’s Court. The verdicts of official arbitrators were important to litigants who subsequently proceeded to court: speakers allude to the earlier hearing frequently, in perhaps two-thirds of the trials belonging to the Forty that are represented by the extant private orations (Scafuro 1997: 386–8). This attention to the earlier hearings is explicable if the decisions of official arbitrators were esteemed as more than a pro forma activity. It is a reasonable inference that the judges in court valued arbitrators’ decisions; that inference is bolstered by the consideration that official arbitrators were awarded crowns at the end of their year of service.

ROME Arbitrators of various sorts served in both judicial and extra-judicial capacities in Rome. Two types of source provide information: (1) legal writings: the XII Tables, Gaius’ Institutes (second century CE), and Justinian’s

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 617–620. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah13023

2 sixth century CE collection of Roman law, the Corpus Iuris Civilis; and (2) literary sources such as Cato the Elder and Cicero. Arbitri participated in the second half of the bipartite procedure under the legis actiones system operative in Rome in the Early and Middle Republic. At the end of the in iure proceeding, the magistrate, with the agreement of the litigants, selected a single IUDEX or arbiter who would hear the opposing parties at a subsequent meeting (apud iudicem). Iudex and arbiter are mentioned in conjunction with claims that could be brought by the legis actio per iudicis arbitrive postulationem (an action “by application for iudex or arbiter”). The ACTIO could only be used for claims specifically authorized by statute, for example where a dispute arose over an inheritance (XII Tables 5.10; Gaius 4.17a; for other early claims such as actiones finium regundorum – which required three arbitri – see Broggini 1957: 162–9 and Kaser 1966: 79). Some scholars have argued that arbitri had to draw upon greater technical expertise than iudices; moreover, arbitri involved in these cases would have considerable discretionary power (Kaser 1966: 42–3; Watson 1971: 72–3 and 97). Some formulary actions were already in existence around 200 BCE; these included certain of the actiones in bonum et aequum conceptae (“actions framed on considerations of what is right and fair”) in which the defendant was condemned to pay “whatever amount of money seems right and fair” (bonum aequum). It is unclear whether the judicial arbiter was associated with the bonum aequum at this time. While in most of the classical formulae for these actions it is the iudex (unus) who is to make the condemnation, Cicero and classical jurists occasionally refer to the judge as arbiter. It may be that arbitri had at first operated entirely extra-judicially in disputes and later were incorporated into the pre-formulary system of law (e.g., in actiones finium regundorum) and then into the first actiones in bonum et aequum conceptae. Gradually, however, the iudex may have

appropriated the (substantially) assessing role of the arbiter (Broggini 1957). The first arbitral figures appearing in (nonlegal) prose literature are called viri boni (“good men”). Cato in De agricultura recommends that various kinds of contract should include a clause by which a vir bonus is to settle foreseeable points at issue such as in arrangements for harvesting olives (144.1). The multiple passages in which the vir bonus has an arbitral role in De agricultura suggest that the term had early on acquired a technical significance. The arbitral task of the vir bonus in Cato is limited to deciding a specific and foreseeable issue in a contract: he determines, for example the value of property damage or the marketability of wine. A limited role is likewise in evidence in his later appearances in the Digest. While he often is presented in the persona of a third party, the vir bonus also appears as an abstract standard of judgment: for example Dig. 32.43 Celsus, citing Tubero and Labeo, in which a tutor decides the amount of dowry for the daughter of a deceased man (Tubero) and this can be estimated “from the rank, means, and number of the children of the person making the will” (Labeo; cf. Dig. 47. 10. 17. 5 Ulpian). Many scholars think that Cicero refers to an arbitrium ex compromisso (“arbitration based on an agreement to abide by the award”) in a vague passage of pro Rosc. Com. (4.12). Extensive regulations for this type of arbitration appear in the jurists (Ziegler 1971: 28–43). Its two most important features are (1) the compromissum, which refers to the preliminary agreement between the disputants to pay a specified penalty if one or the other fails to carry out the arbitrator’s verdict; and (2) the receptum arbitri, the arbitrator’s agreement to undertake the arbitration. The arbiter ex compromisso of the jurists is a “quasi-judicial” figure; while he is chosen in common by the disputants rather than with the assistance of a magistrate, once he has undertaken the arbitration he can be compelled by the PRAETOR to render a decision. Moreover, while the decision of the arbiter is not equivalent to a court

3 verdict (res adiudicata), it is indirectly enforceable: the penalty agreed upon by the disputants (poena compromissa) can be collected under the stipulation by suing in court. The precise date of the edict is not known, but the second century BCE has been cogently argued (Ziegler 1971; Broggini 1957: 125–6). The sphere of activity of the arbiter ex compromisso appears to overlap with that of the vir bonus; however, it is not identical. While the former might conceivably both give a judgment (e.g., decide whether a former tutor is in the wrong) and assess the amount of the penalty, the vir bonus appears to be limited to performing tasks of assessment. The arbiter’s sphere of activity was extensive – but in the classical period he was excluded from making decisions on delicts involving INFAMIA and in public actions such as those for adultery and murder (Dig. 4. 8. 32. 6, Paulus citing Julianus); moreover, he was not compelled to make an award in a causa liberalis, a case about a person’s freedom (Dig. 4. 8. 32. 7). The classical private arbiter and the vir bonus nevertheless shared the same criterion of judgment, AEQUITAS. COMPARISON Athenian practices of arbitration are far simpler than Roman practices: whereas the former easily divide into a private sphere and an official one that is attached to the court system, the latter evince greater diversity and more complicated specificity over a much longer evolutionary period. In the private Roman sphere starting from the early period when the legis actiones system prevailed and continuing through later periods, the role of the vir bonus was limited to cases where expert assessments were sought; in the judicial sphere, arbitri who appear in our sources going back to the XII Tables also had specific “assessing” roles and later arbitri who are attested under the formulary system of Roman law made assessments on “considerations of what is right and fair” – the criteria of judgment were written into the law. The arbiter ex compromisso stood

betwixt and between the private and judicial sphere, but his criteria of judgment were the same. In private arbitrations at Athens, the disputants decided their own criteria (whether “strict law” or “fairness”) in any and all kinds of private cases; nonetheless, the judgments of the Athenian private arbitrator, like those of the arbiter ex compromisso, were indirectly enforceable: the winning disputant could sue for his award in a court of law. The greatest similarity between the arbitration procedures of Athens and Rome, however, may lie in the role of the official arbitrator at Athens who tried to reconcile the litigants before a trial took place and that of the praetor during the first stage (in iure) of Roman procedure (Du¨ll 1931: 124–50). The XII Tables (1. 6–7) seem to foresee the possibility that disputants, in general, might come to an agreement before the case was handed on to a judge (apud iudicem). In many such cases the praetor might have overseen agreements (called transactiones by classical jurists) between litigants (Dig. 2. 15); their successful execution would excuse the latter from appearing before the judge (Dig. 2. 11. 2 pr. Ulpian). The similar mediating conduct of official arbitrator and praetor points to the larger similarity of the bipartite procedure of the Athenian private trial (hearing before the official arbitrator followed by trial before the court) and Roman civil law process (hearing before the praetor followed by hearing before the iudex). SEE ALSO: Arbitration, international; Cicero, Marcus Tullius; Digesta; Justinian I; Legis actio; Twelve Tables.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Broggini, G. (1957) “Iudex arbiterve.” Prolegomena zum Officium des ro¨mischen Privatrichters. Cologne. Du¨ll, R. (1931) Der Gu¨tegedanke im ro¨mischen Zivilprozessrecht. Munich. Harrell, H. C. (1936) Public arbitration in Athenian law. The University of Missouri Studies 11, pt. 1. Repr. New York, 1979.

4 Hunter, V. J. (1994) Policing Athens: social control in the Attic lawsuits, 420–320 BC. Princeton. Isager, S. and Hansen, M. H. (1975) Aspects of Athenian society in the fourth century BC. Odense. Jolowicz, H. F. and Nicholas, B. (1972) Historical introduction to the study of Roman law, 3rd ed. Cambridge. Kaser, M. (1966) Das ro¨mische Zivilprozessrecht. Handbuch der Altertumswissenschaft 10.3.4. Munich. Roebuck, D. (2001) Ancient Greek arbitration. Oxford.

Roebuck, D. and de Loynes de Fumichon, B. (2004) Roman arbitration. Oxford. Scafuro, A. C. (1997) The forensic stage: settling disputes in Graeco-Roman new comedy. Cambridge. Steinwenter, A. (1925) Die Streitbeendigung durch Urteil, Schiedsspruch und Vergleich nach griechischem Recht. Munich. Watson, A. (1971) Roman private law around 200 BC. Edinburgh. Ziegler, K.-H. (1971) Das private Schiedsgericht im antiken ro¨mischen Recht. Munich.

1

Arcadia JAMES ROY

Arcadia, the central region of the PELOPONNESE, is made up of mountains among which lie basins and valleys with good but limited cultivable land. In Antiquity it had no direct access to the sea, except when TRIPHYLIA became Arcadian in the fourth and third centuries BCE. Arcadia’s borders with its neighbors occasionally changed, but most of the area remained consistently Arcadian. Most Arcadian valleys and basins are several hundred meters above sea level, and the winter climate can be severe. There are numerous rivers: the most important are the Alpheios, flowing from southeastern Arcadia to Elis and the sea, and the Erymanthus and the Ladon, flowing through northern Arcadia to join the Alpheios. No rivers flow out of the eastern Arcadian basins, which drain through swallow-holes in limestone and thus risk flooding. Despite the mountains there were routes into Arcadia and across it, even in the north where high mountains lie between Arcadia and Achaia. Archaeology is adding steadily to our knowledge of Arcadia from the Mycenaean to the Archaic periods, but it is still limited. From the Archaic period onwards, Arcadia contained numerous separate communities, but a strong sense of regional identity also developed. The development of the POLIS, a general phenomenon of Archaic Greek history, is also evident in Arcadia, and by the fifth century BCE it was the typical sociopolitical structure in the region. Nielsen (2004: 506–8) lists 39 communities that were certainly or probably considered as poleis in Antiquity, and other known communities may also have had polis status. The most important Arcadian poleis were MANTINEA, TEGEA, Orchomenos, Cleitor, Heraea, and (from its foundation between 370 and 367 BCE) MEGALOPOLIS. Larger poleis often attached smaller neighbors to themselves, and when Pausanias visited Arcadia in the second

century CE he found only seventeen poleis remaining in the region. There were for a time sub-regional groupings of communities, in the north the Azanians and in the south the Parrhasians, Maenalians, Cynurians, and Eutresians. However, the Azanians had disappeared as a group before the Classical period, and the other groups disappeared after the foundation of Megalopolis. A sentiment of common regional identity is found, at the latest, by the sixth century BCE. One expression of it was a mythological genealogy of Arkas, ancestor of the Arcadians, elements of which are found already in Hesiod’s Catalogue of Women. Then, in the fifth century, coins were struck with the legend “Arkadikon” (or an abbreviation); although it is not clear who struck them or why, they too clearly express an Arcadian identity. From 370 to 362 the Arcadians were politically united in the Arcadian confederacy, the only period of strong political union in Arcadia, but expressions of Arcadian identity continued into the Roman Empire. The Arcadian communities had each its own preferred cults and rituals, but certain deities were important to all Arcadians. The most important was Zeus Lykaios, who had a sanctuary on the summit of Mount Lykaion in southwestern Arcadia, where Arcadians believed that he had been born. Pan, another Arcadian deity, was also widely worshipped, and Despoina, who had a famous sanctuary at Lykosoura, was important. Some elements of Arcadian religion would have seemed oldfashioned to other Greeks, such as a widespread belief in deities in animal form. Reports survive from the fourth century and later that human sacrifice was carried out in the cult of Zeus Lykaios: whether or not they are true is unclear, but they too would have given an impression of a backward region. The Arcadians certainly presented an image of themselves as an ancient people. Like the Athenians, they believed that they were autochthonous, sprung from the soil on which they had always lived, and described as being “before the moon” and “acorn-eaters.”

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 620–622. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah14043

2 The Arcadian dialect was different from those of neighboring regions, being most closely related to Cypriot. It varied from one area to another within Arcadia, and in some border areas shared features with the dialect of non-Arcadian neighbors. It is doubtful whether the difference of dialect was seen as significant in Antiquity. The main economic resources of the area were the cultivable areas in the valleys and basins and the pasture extending on to the hillsides. Arcadia was particularly famous for its flocks of sheep and goats, which for the most part belonged to wealthy men who could afford such investment. Arcadia should therefore not be thought of as uniformly poor. It was productive, but the upland environment imposed limits on the total population that could be supported. Arcadians apparently adopted, at least from the fifth century to the third, a demographic pattern that tended to produce surplus population and was controlled by emigration, at least of men. Arcadian mercenaries in particular were well-known in the fifth and fourth centuries BCE. SPARTA forced Tegea into alliance in the mid sixth century BCE, and the other Arcadian communities subsequently also joined the PELOPONNESIAN LEAGUE. Arcadian communities, notably Tegea and Mantinea, occasionally challenged Spartan influence in Arcadia, but the League lasted until Sparta’s defeat at Leuktra in 371 (see LEUKTRA, BATTLE OF). Arcadia then united in a confederacy (see ARCADIAN LEAGUE) and played a leading part in breaking Spartan power in the Peloponnese, but the confederacy itself split in 363–362. Arcadian communities joined the ACHAIAN LEAGUE in the

later third century: Megalopolis in particular was an influential member, producing the Achaian statesman PHILOPOIMEN and the main historian of the League, POLYBIUS. After the League’s defeat by Rome in 146, Arcadia, like the rest of the Peloponnese, was dominated by Rome. Roman rule led to a slow decline in much of Arcadia, and, when Pausanias visited the region in the mid second century CE, several towns were somewhat dilapidated, though still functioning. In the Hellenistic and, especially, the Roman periods, Arcadia became a literary symbol of an idyllic pastoral landscape. This symbolic image did not match the real Arcadia, but it has proved potent and durable, still appearing today in both literature and the visual arts. REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Dubois, L. (1998) Recherches sur le dialecte arcadien, 3 vols. Louvain-la-Neuve. Jost, M. (1985) Sanctuaires et cultes d’Arcadie. Paris. Nielsen, T. H. (2002) Arkadia and its poleis in the archaic and classical periods. Go¨ttingen. Nielsen, T. H. (2004) “Arkadia.” In M. H. Hansen, and T. H. Nielsen, eds., An inventory of archaic and classical Greek poleis: 505–39. Oxford. Nielsen, T. H. and Roy, J., eds. (1999) Defining ancient Arkadia. Copenhagen. Østby, E., ed. (2005) Ancient Arcadia. Papers from the Third International Seminar on ancient Arcadia, held at the Norwegian Institute at Athens, 7–10 May 2002. Athens. Pausanias. Description of Greece, Book 8. Pikoulas, Y. A., ed. (2008) Istοrieς gia tn arwaia Αrkadia. Proceedings of the International Symposium in honour of James Roy. Stemnitsa.

1

Arcadia, Egypt BERNHARD PALME

Arcadia is the name of one of the Roman provinces located in Egypt in Late Antiquity. Created not long before 398 CE (P.Flor. I 66), the province was named after the young emperor ARCADIUS, who ruled the eastern part of the Roman Empire following the death of his father THEODOSIUS I in January 395. Arcadia’s territory resembled the Hellenistic and Roman Heptanomia, that is, it encompassed Middle Egypt from the top of the Nile Delta at Memphis to the border of the Thebaid near Hermopolis. The capital of the province and seat of the governor was OXYRHYNCHOS. Besides the capital, other wealthy towns like Herakleopolis and Arsinoiton Polis also belonged to Arcadia. As these are the main sites of papyrus finds, Arcadia is among the best documented areas of the later Roman empire. After the Arab conquest of Egypt in 640/1, Arcadia remained an administrative unit well into the eighth century. The province was under the authority of a civilian praeses (Not. Dign. Or. I 85). Like the governors of the other provinces in Egypt, he was subject to the praefectus Augustalis in Alexandria (Not. Dign. Or. XXIII), who, having the rank of a vicarius, was responsible for all Egypt after it was established as an independent diocese from around 381. In the fifth and sixth centuries the praeses Arcadiae resided not only in Oxyrhynchos, but occasionally also in a secondary residence at Herakleopolis (J. R. Rea, introduction to P.Oxy. LIX 3986). As for the military organization, Arcadia and the other provinces of Lower Egypt (Aegyptus and Augustamnica) came under the command of the comes limitis Aegypti (Zuckerman 1998). He commanded the limitanei (Not. Dign. Or. XXVIII). Approximately ten of these units were stationed permanently in Arcadia. In addition, some comitatenses (elite troops under the authority

of the magister militum per Orientem) were also garrisoned in this province. Potential enemies were the ungovernable nomadic tribes of the desert, who represented a latent threat to the civilian population but never became a serious danger for the province. The strategic importance of Arcadia lay in the fact that its territory controlled access to Middle Egypt and the upper Nile Valley. Unlike the other Egyptian provinces (Aegyptus, Augustamnica, Thebais) which underwent further subdivisions during the fifth or sixth centuries, Arcadia remained undivided (Hierocles Synecdemus 729; Polemius Silvius Laterculus X 7; Georgius Cypr. Descr. orb. rom. 744; cf. Palme 1998). Even Justinian’s Thirteenth Edict of 539, which fundamentally reformed the Egyptian diocese, seems to have left the administration of Arcadia unchanged. Despite the fragmentary state of preservation of the Edict – the chapter concerning Arcadia has been lost – it is clear that civilian and military powers in Aegyptus, Augustamnica, and Thebais were once again held in a single hand: they were governed respectively by a dux et Augustalis (to whom a civilian praeses was subordinated). Contrary to earlier views (e.g., Gelzer 1909), in Arcadia, however, there was only a civilian praeses also after Edict XIII (Keenan 1977; CPR XXIV pp. 202–4). Arcadia seems to have first received a dux et Augustalis only after the Sasanian attack that subjected Egypt to Persian rule for ten years (619–29). After the Roman reconquest, a Flavius Theodosius, dux et Augustalis Arcadiae, is attested in P.Prag. I 64 (636; cf. Carrie´ 1998, esp. 117f.), while prior to the Sasanian interlude only praesides Arcadiae (or their officiales) are documented in the papyri. Thus, the unification of civilian and military authorities in Arcadia came later than in other provinces, and was probably a reaction to the Sasanian invasion. Papyri of the sixth and early seventh centuries reveal the names of a handful of prominent landowners (geouchoi), who exercised considerable economic power;

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 622–624. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah07010

2 a number of high-ranking individuals and, most significantly, the Apion Dynasty, who had their headquarters in Arsinoiton polis, Herakleopolis, or Oxyrhynchos, and apparently owned the lion’s share of landed property. To a larger extent than in other parts of Egypt, small peasant-farmers became dependent upon the large landowners and their oikoi in Arcadia, and only here (namely, on the Apion estates in the Oxyrhynchite) are coloni adscripticii – peasants “registered” in the tax rolls of landlords – attested. In the course of the sixth century, the pagarchoi became the most important local authority. Often members of the land-owning aristocracy, they were responsible for the collection of taxes. The change of power brought about by the Persian conquest was not without consequences for this ruling elite, associated with Roman– Byzantine rule: even the Apion Dynasty disappeared during the Persian dominion. The Arab conquest had an immediate effect on Arcadia, as described in the Chronicle of the contemporary witness John, Bishop of Nikiou (Charles 1916). The change from Byzantine to Arab rule is clearly documented. The dux et Augustalis, Flavius Theodoros, attested in both papyri and the Chronicle of John, marshalled the defense against the Arabs, and was defeated in the ill-fated battle of Heliopolis in July 640. Theodorus’ successor, Philiades, known from the Chronicle, was probably appointed by the Byzantine authorities, but held his office only for a short time, as already at the beginning of 642 a Philoxenos is attested in the papyri as dux Arcadiae (SB VIII 9749); about him, John of Nikiou expressly states that he was installed by

the Arabs (CPR XXIV p. 204, n. 8–11). For the next few years, the Arabs adopted the Byzantine administrative organization without making fundamental changes to it. In 655, a man named Ioannes still appears as dux Arcadiae (CPR XIV 32), but exercised no military power. A major reorganization took place, however, between 655 and 669 (P.Mert. II 100), when a Iordanes dux Arcadiae et Thebaidis is attested. The Arabs, therefore, merged Middle and Upper Egypt into one administrative unit or, more precisely, one tax assessment area. As such, the name Arcadia survived as a geographical and administrative designation until the beginning of the eighth century (CPR VIII 82; P.Lond. IV 1332, 1333). REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Carrie´, J.-M. (1998) “Se´paration ou cumul? Pouvoir civil et autorite´ militaire dans les provinces d’E´gypte de Gallien a` la conqueˆte arabe.” Antiquite´ Tardive 6: 105–21. Charles, R. H., trans. (1916) The Chronicle of John, Bishop of Nikiu. Oxford. Gelzer, M. (1909) Studien zur byzantinischen ¨ gyptens. Leipzig. Verwaltung A Keenan, J. G. (1977) “The provincial administration of Egyptian Arcadia.” Museum Philologicum Londinense 2: 193–201. Palme, B. (1998) “Praesides und correctores der Augustamnica.” Antiquite´ Tardive 6: 123–35. Palme, B. (2007) “The imperial presence: government and army.” In R. S. Bagnall, ed., Egypt in the Byzantine world 300–700: 244–70. Cambridge. Zuckerman, C. (1998) “Comtes et ducs en E´gypte autour de l’an 400 et la date de la Notitia Dignitatum Orientis.” Antiquite´ Tardive 6: 137–47.

1

Arcadia, Egypt BERNHARD PALME

University of Vienna, Austria

Arcadia is the name of one of the Roman provinces located in Egypt in Late Antiquity. Created not long before 398 CE (P.Flor. I 66), the province was named after the young emperor ARCADIUS, who ruled the eastern part of the Roman Empire following the death of his father THEODOSIUS I in January 395. Arcadia’s territory resembled the Hellenistic and Roman Heptanomia, that is, it encompassed Middle Egypt from the top of the NILE Delta at MEMPHIS to the border of the Thebaid near HERMOPOLIS MAGNA. The capital of the province and seat of the governor was OXYRHYNCHOS (Oxyrhynchus). Besides the capital, other wealthy towns like HERAKLEOPOLIS MAGNA and Arsinoiton Polis (see ARSINOE, FAYYUM) also belonged to Arcadia. As these are the main sites of papyrus finds, Arcadia is among the best documented areas of the later Roman Empire. After the Arab conquest of Egypt in 640/1, Arcadia remained an administrative unit well into the eighth century. The province was under the authority of a civilian praeses (Not. Dign. Or. I 85). Like the governors of the other provinces in Egypt, he was subject to the praefectus Augustalis in ALEXANDRIA (Not. Dign. Or. XXIII), who, having the rank of a vicarius, was responsible for all Egypt after it was established as an independent diocese from around 381. In the fifth and sixth centuries the praeses Arcadiae resided not only in Oxyrhynchos, but occasionally also in a secondary residence at Herakleopolis (J. R. Rea, introduction to P.Oxy. LIX 3986). As for the military organization, Arcadia and the other provinces of Lower Egypt (AEGYPTUS and AUGUSTAMNICA) came under the command of the comes limitis Aegypti (Zuckerman 1998). He commanded the limitanei (Not. Dign. Or. XXVIII). Approximately ten of these units were stationed permanently in Arcadia. In addition, some comitatenses (elite troops under the authority of the magister militum per

Orientem) were also garrisoned in this province. Potential enemies were the ungovernable nomadic tribes of the desert, who represented a latent threat to the civilian population but never became a serious danger for the province. The strategic importance of Arcadia lay in the fact that its territory controlled access to Middle Egypt and the upper Nile Valley. Unlike the other Egyptian provinces (Aegyptus, Augustamnica, Thebais) which underwent further subdivisions during the fifth or sixth centuries, Arcadia remained undivided (Hierocles Synecdemus 729; Polemius Silvius Laterculus X 7; Georgius Cypr. Descr. orb. rom. 744; cf. Palme 1998). Even JUSTINIAN’s Edict XIII of 539, which fundamentally reformed the Egyptian diocese, seems to have left the administration of Arcadia unchanged. Despite the Edict’s fragmentary state of preservation – the chapter concerning Arcadia is missing – it is clear that civilian and military powers in Aegyptus, Augustamnica, and Thebais were once again held in a single hand: they were governed respectively by a dux et Augustalis (to whom a civilian praeses was subordinated). Arcadia, however, remained under a civilian praeses also after Edict XIII (Keenan 1977; CPR XXIV pp. 202–4). At least temporarily this praeses Arcadiae seems to have been subject to the authority of the dux et Augustalis Thebaidos (Morelli 2008). Arcadia appears to have first received a dux et Augustalis only after the Sasanian attack that subjected Egypt to Persian rule for ten years (619–29). After the Roman–Byzantine reconquest, a magister militum Flavius Theodosius, dux et Augustalis Arcadiae, is attested in P.Prag. I 64 (636; cf. Carrié 1998, esp. 117f.) and – without the title Augustalis – in an unpublished Berlin papyrus (639; to be edited by S. Kovarik), while prior to the Sasanian interlude only praesides Arcadiae (or their officiales) are documented in the papyri. Thus, the unification of civilian and military authorities in Arcadia came later than in other provinces, and was probably a reaction to the Sasanian invasion. BGU I 314 + P.Vindob. G 25653 mentions a topoteretes (a representative of the dux) already in May 630, and

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History. Edited by Andrew Erskine, David B. Hollander, and Arietta Papaconstantinou. ©2022 John Wiley & Sons Ltd. Published 2022 by John Wiley & Sons Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah07010.pub2

2 this date indicates that a dux et Augustalis Arcadiae was installed immediately after the Persian army had left Egypt in winter 629/30 (Kovarik, forthcoming). These post-reconquest papyri as well as the evidence for the governors of Arcadia from the early Arab period all originate from Arsinoiton Polis, where the Sasanian governor Saralaneozan had already placed his headquarters (Sänger 2011). Probably the dux and his officium were no longer located in Oxyrhynchos, but Arsinoiton Polis remained the capital after the Romans– Byzantines had regained authority over Egypt. Papyri of the sixth and early seventh centuries reveal the names of a handful of prominent landowners (geouchoi), who exercised considerable economic power; a number of high-ranking individuals and, most significantly, the Apion dynasty (see APIONES), had their headquarters in Arsinoiton polis, Herakleopolis, or Oxyrhynchos, and apparently owned the lion’s share of landed property. To a larger extent than in other parts of Egypt, small peasant-farmers became dependent upon the large landowners and their oikoi in Arcadia, and only here (namely, on the Apion estates in the Oxyrhynchites) are coloni adscripticii – peasants “registered” in the tax rolls of landlords – attested. In the late fifth and in the sixth centuries, Arcadia comprised nine pagarchiai as administrative subdivisions: Kynopolites, Oxyrhynchites, Herakleopolites, Nilopolites, Aphroditopolites, Memphites, Letopolites, Arsinoites, and Theodosiopolites (J. R. Rea, introduction to P.Oxy. LI 3628–3636). In the course of the sixth century, the pagarchoi became the most important local authority. Often members of the land-owning aristocracy, they were responsible for the collection of taxes. The change of power brought about by the Persian conquest was not without consequences for this ruling elite, associated with Roman–Byzantine rule: even the Apion dynasty disappeared during the Persian dominion. The Arab conquest had an immediate effect on Arcadia, as described in the Chronicle of the

contemporary witness JOHN OF NIKIU (Charles 1916). The change from Byzantine to Arab rule is clearly documented. The dux et Augustalis, Flavius Theodoros, attested in both papyri (quoted above) and the Chronicle of John, Cap. 11, marshalled the defense against the Arabs, and was defeated in the ill-fated battle of Heliopolis in July 640. Theodoros’ successor, Philiades, known from the Chronicle, was probably still appointed by the Byzantine authorities, but held his office only for a short time, as already at the beginning of 642 a Philoxenos is attested in the papyri as dux Arcadiae (SB VIII 9749); about him, John of Nikiu expressly states that he was installed by the Arabs (CPR XXIV p. 204, n. 8–11), and he might be the unnamed candidate who is mentioned in P.Vindob. G 12808 + 14126 (prepared for edition by F. Morelli), a letter from an amîr Abdellah informing the topoteretes of the Arsinoites that he had installed a new dux Arcadiae (641/2). For the next few years, the Arabs adopted the Byzantine administrative organization without making fundamental changes to it. In 651 a Senouthios is addressed as dux [Arcadiae] (BGU I 323) and in 655 a man named Ioannes still appears as dux Arcadiae (CPR XIV 32) but exercised no military power. In 669 (P.Mert. II 100) a certain Iordanes giving orders to an Arsinoite pagarch probably holds the office of dux Arcadiae, before advancing in 675/6 (P.Apoll. 9) to dux Thebaidis (Morelli, forthcoming) A major reorganization took place, however, before 700, when an Atias (Atiyyah) dux Arcadiae et Thebaidis is attested (CPR VIII 82). The Arabs, therefore, merged Middle and Upper Egypt into one administrative unit or, more precisely, one tax assessment area. As such, the name Arcadia survived as a geographical and administrative designation at least until the beginning of the eighth century (P.Lond. IV 1332, 1333 [708]). SEE ALSO:

Administration, Roman Egypt; Arabs; Land and landholding, Late Antiquity; Sasanians.

3 REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Carrié, J.-M. (1998) “Séparation ou cumul? Pouvoir civil et autorité: militaire dans les provinces d’Égypte de Gallien à la conquête arabe.” Antiquité Tardive 6: 105–21. Charles, R. H., trans. (1916) The chronicle of John, Bishop of Nikiu. Oxford. Keenan, J. G. (1977) “The provincial administration of Egyptian Arcadia.” Museum Philologicum Londinense 2: 193–201. Kovarik, S. (forthcoming) “Die Verwaltung der Provinz Arcadia nach der Rückgabe durch die Perser: eine Wiederfindung (BGI I 314 + P.Vindob. G 25653).” Morelli, F. (2008) “Zwischen Poesie und Geschichte: Die ‘flagornierie’ des Dioskoros und der dreifache Dux Athanasios.” In J.-L. Fournet, ed., Les

archives de Dioscore d’Aphrodité cent ans après leur découverte: 223–45. Paris. Morelli, F. (forthcoming) “Un triangolo poco considerato: emiro, duca, topoteretes.” In Corpus Papyrorum Raineri XXXVII. Palme, B. (1998) “Praesides und correctores der Augustamnica.” Antiquité Tardive 6: 123–35. Palme, B. (2007) “The imperial presence: government and army.” In R. S. Bagnall, ed., Egypt in the Byzantine world 300–700: 244–70. Cambridge. Sänger, P. (2011) “The administration of Sasanian Egypt: new masters and Byzantine continuity.” Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies 51: 653–65. Zuckerman, C. (1998) “Comtes et ducs en Égypte autour de l’an 400 et la date de la Notitia Dignitatum Orientis.” Antiquité Tardive 6: 137–47.

1

Arcadian League KLAUS FREITAG

In the Catalogue of Ships Homer mentions the Arcadians living in the PELOPONNESE (Il. 2.603–14). The literature of the Archaic and Classical period also makes frequent reference to them. The origin of the Arcadian ethnos (Hdt. 8.73.1) is actually disputed. It is not easy to demarcate the territory of the Arcadians from that of their neighbors (ACHAIA; ELIS; TRIPHYLIA, Messenia, Lakonia, and the ARGOLIS). Arcadian political structure was influenced by the tension between poleis (e.g., Orchomenos, TEGEA, and MANTINEA) and smaller tribes (Eutresians, Kynourians, Mainalians, Parrhasioi, and Azanoi). Many poleis and tribes belonged to the ethnos in the fifth century BCE but did not cooperate politically. Thus, it is unclear whether a federation of Arcadians existed at that time. Silver coinage dating to the fifth century BCE bearing the letters “Arkadikon” offers no hint of any political background and cannot be taken as a sign of sovereignty. The coins were minted as “festival money” by an Arcadian amphictyony. Arcadians often came together in the central cult places of Zeus Lykaios and Despoina on Mount Lykaion. Indeed, religious cooperation and common rituals played a significant part in Arcadian identity. Under the direction of the important poleis Mantinea and Tegea, nearly all Arcadian poleis and tribes formed a federation in 370 BCE. At that time the Arcadians integrated Triphylia and territories near Elis and SPARTA into their federation. Political cooperation was based on an anti-Spartan attitude and democratic sentiment. The Arcadians founded a new polis called MEGALOPOLIS as their capital, and many smaller tribes moved there. The precise date of the SYNOECISM is disputed. A Thersilion was built for meetings of the Myrioi (Ten Thousand), the primary assembly of the Arcadians. According to an inscription (IG V 2.1), fifty damiourgoi were appointed

proportionally according to the capacity of the members. Ten damiourgoi came from Megalopolis, three from Mainalia, two from Lepreon, and five from seven other member states including Tegea and Mantinea. It is unclear why some members of the federation are missing from the list. The league’s most important authority was the strategos. Armed federal forces (eparitoi) were dispatched by the member states in a similar representative way to the damiourgoi. In 365/4 the Arcadians occupied the sanctuary of Zeus in OLYMPIA after a battle against the Eleans and, together with PISA, subsequently organized the Olympic Games. The occupation did not last long, and the Arcadians soon gave Olympia back to the Eleans. In later years the league broke up because of quarrels among members and among the eparitoi in particular. The Arcadian constitution was dissolved at the time of Alexander (Hyp. Dem. col. 18). In Hellenistic times an Arcadian League is not mentioned in the ancient sources. Thus, it is only an assumption that a political reunion of the league can be dated to the middle of the third century BCE. At that time Arcadian poleis were members of the ACHAIAN LEAGUE. The end of the Arcadian League did not mean the end of the ethnos. In Hellenistic times there existed a kind of Arcadian identity, expressed in the common cults of Zeus Lykaios and other festivals (Paus. 8.38.2–7), and this feeling of belonging together was also relevant in the Roman imperial age. At this time a new Arcadian koinon was formed that served as a socialpolitical platform for the honoratiores in the Arcadian poleis. The image of the typically Arcadian way of life was established at the beginning of the Hellenistic period and became a firm component of Arcadian identity in its revival during the Roman Empire. SEE ALSO:

Ethnos; Koinon.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Beck, H. (1997) Polis und Koinon. Untersuchungen zur Geschichte und Struktur der griechischen

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 624–625. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah04034

2 Bundesstaaten im 4. Jahrhundert v. Chr. Stuttgart. Jost, M. (1985) Sanctuaires et cultes de l’Arcadie. Paris. Jost, M. (2002) “L’identite´ arcadienne dans les Arkadika de Pausanias.” In C. Mu¨ller and F. Prost, eds., Identite´s et cultures dans le monde

me´diterrane´en antique: en l’honneur de F. Croissant: 367–84. Paris. Nielsen, T. H. (2002) Arkadia and its poleis in the Archaic and Classical periods. Go¨ttingen. Roy, J. (2003) “‘The Arkadians’ in Inschriften von Magnesia 38.” Zeitschrift fu¨r Papyrologie und Epigraphik 145: 123–30.

1

Arcadius BYRON J. NAKAMURA

Flavius Arcadius ruled as eastern Roman emperor from 395 to 408 CE. Born in 377/8, he was the son of THEODOSIUS I and was earmarked, along with his brother HONORIUS, to rule a Roman Empire formally divided between them. When Theodosius died in 395, the eighteen-year-old emperor assumed the throne of east Rome, ruling from Constantinople. From an early age, Arcadius had been subject to the machinations of powerful members of his court. A student of the philosopher THEMISTIUS, Arcadius found little opportunity to utilize his education as emperor. Rufinus, the prefect of the east, had been appointed the young emperor’s guardian in 392, but his influence ended with his assassination in 395. This led to the rise of Eutropius (a former slave and eunuch), who was the emperor’s bed-chamberlain. Eutropius sequestered Arcadius, limiting access to the emperor. Along with the empress EUDOXIA, Eutropius ran the Roman east, and successfully repelled a Hunnic invasion (see HUNS) and secured JOHN CHRYSOSTOM’s bid for the patriarchate of Constantinople. Growing tensions, however, between Eutropius, the Gothic count Tribigild, and Gainas, the commander of the eastern field army, led to the chamberlain’s dismissal and subsequent execution in 399.

A feud between the empress Eudoxia and John Chrysostom resulted in further disunity in the eastern court (400–404), while Arcadius found himself increasingly removed from the political scene. Arcadius spent his last years inactive, while his Praetorian Prefect, Anthemius, defended the Roman east from Gothic and Isaurian tribes (see GOTHS; ISAURIA). Arcadius died in 408. The Byzantine historian Zosimus, who derives his account from a history written by EUNAPIUS OF SARDIS in the fifth century CE, provides a good deal of what we know about Arcadius (see ZOSIMUS, HISTORIAN), while the ecclesiastical writers SOZOMEN OF GAZA and Socrates Scholasticus (see SOCRATES OF CONSTANTINOPLE) inform us about religious matters during the emperor’s reign. Of particular importance are the writings of John Chrysostom, which provide a first-hand account of the conflicts in the eastern court.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Cameron, A. and Long, J. (1993) Barbarians and politics at the court of Arcadius. Berkeley. Holum, K. (1982) Theodosian empresses. Berkeley. Liebeschuetz, J. (1990) Barbarians and bishops. Oxford. Matthews, J. (1975) Western aristocracies and imperial court AD 364–425. Oxford.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 625–626. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah19213

1

Arcarius ALFRED M. HIRT

The term arcarius (often arkarius) refers to a subaltern clerk charged with an arca, a moneybox, within a private household or a public, private, or religious institution. Most evidence pertains to the Principate. Slaves or freedmen ran the arcae of wealthy Romans (Dig. 40.5.41.17; Paulus Sent. 3.6.72) and, in larger estates, could be subordinate to a dispensator, procurator, vilicus, or actor. Members of the imperial family had their own arcarii (CT 12.6.14); these enjoyed certain privileges (Ulp. frg. Vatic. 134). Arcarii who were public slaves served the priesthoods (arvales, sacerdotales) in the city of Rome (e.g., AE 1998, 282). Servi publici, occasionally freedmen, were furthermore used as arcarii by municipia and coloniae (CIL IX 699¼ILS 6476: col(onorum) col(oniae) Sip(onti) ser(vus) arkar (ius)). A number of branches within the imperial administration of the provinces employed servi Caesaris as arcarii; they handled the arcae either of a province – for example, arcarius provinciae Achaiae (CIL III 556), arcar(ius) regn(i) Noric(i) (CIL III 4797) – or of a branch collecting taxes or tolls. An arcarius of a procurator and praepositus splendidissimi vectigalis

ferrariarum is documented at a statio in Siscia, modern Sisak (CIL III 3953), and a number of imperial slaves are attested in this function collecting the vicesima hereditatium or the vicesima libertatis (e.g., CIL X 6977; RIT 238). Contractors (societates publicanorum, conductores) collecting revenues for the Roman state employed slaves in this function, for example arkarius of a conductor ferrariarum Pannoniarum itemque provinciarum transmarinarum at Mursa, modern Osijek (Bulat 1989); further arcarii are known for the portorium Illyrici and the quadragesima Galliarum. Finally, slaves were used as arcarii within the Roman army and were probably subordinate to the dispensatores of the legion (e.g., CIL VIII 3289). SEE ALSO: Administration, Roman; Conductores; Finance, Roman; Provincial administration, Roman Republic; Publicani; Taxation, Roman.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Bulat, M. (1989) “Novi rimski natpisi is Osijeka. Neue ro¨mische Inschriften aus Osijek.” Osjecki Zbornik 20: 31–51. Habel, P. (1895) “Arcarius.” In RE II.1: 429–31. Silvestrini, M. (2005) “Gli arcarii delle citta`.” Me´langes de l’E´cole Franc¸aise de Rome. Antiquite´ 117, 2: 541–4.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print page 626. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah06026

1

Archaism ANDREA PRIMO

Archaism in ancient Greek and Latin historiography is the adoption of lexical, syntactical, or morphological usages found in archaic authors, for the purpose of achieving greater solemnity. It is a tendency present in Latin historiography from the second century BCE, for example in Coelius Antipater and, subsequently, also in Sisenna. In the first century BCE, Asinius Pollio’s compositio salebrosa (“rough composition”) could have been interpreted as archaizing; and archaizing elements sometimes appear even in LIVY’s first books. With Sallust, recourse to archaisms, together with his “Thucydidism” and “Catoism,” becomes a decisive and even shocking stylistic element. According to Seneca, Sallust’s style influenced a series of minor writers (such as Lucius Arruntius), whom he criticized in Epistula 114. In the first century CE the archaizing style found its maximum expression in TACITUS’ gravitas (solemnity) and inconcinnitas (lack of symmetry, incongruity). In Latin, archaism flowered above all in the second century CE. This literary fashion is exemplified by Aulus Gellius and Fronto. Cato, Coelius Antipater and Sallust were exalted in historiography, and Fronto’s Principia historiae are an example of historiography influenced by archaism in this period.

While taking into account their specificity, modern criticism has often likened Latin archaism to the Greek phenomenon known as ATTICISM; in particular, Antonine archaism has been likened to the Atticism of the Second Sophistic. For the Greek world of the first to the third century CE, we have a greater number of examples of “archaizing” historiographers: Arrian compared himself to XENOPHON; Appian resorted to the annalists, Thucydides and Xenophon. Overall, Greek historiography in the imperial age adheres to the “politics of imitation.” SEE ALSO: Annalists, Roman; Appian of Alexandria; Arrian; Arruntius Camillus Scribonianus, Lucius; Asinius Pollio, Gaius; Aulus Gellius, Attic Nights; Cato the Elder; Coelius Antipater, Lucius; Historiography, Greek and Roman; Imitation (mimesis, imitatio); Sallust; Seneca the Younger; Sisenna, Lucius Cornelius; Thucydides.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Gamberale, L. (1990) “La riscoperta dell’arcaico.” In G. Cavallo, P. Fedeli, and A. Giardina, eds., Lo spazio letterario di Roma antica, vol. 3: La ricezione del testo: 547–95. Roma. Holford-Strevens, L. (2003) Aulus Gellius: an Antonine scholar and his achievement, rev. ed. Oxford. Whitmarsh, T. (2001) Greek literature and the Roman Empire: the politics of imitation. Oxford.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 626–627. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah08016

1

Archanes KOSTIS S. CHRISTAKIS

Archanes was set in a small, fertile valley 15 km south of KNOSSOS. The importance of the site was noted by Evans, who interpreted the Minoan ruins in the modern village as those of the summer palace of the rulers of Knossos. Systematic excavations launched by Yannis and Efi Sakellaraki in 1964 uncovered significant material for our understanding of Minoan civilization (Sakellarakis and Sapouna-Sakellaraki 1997). Archanes was inhabited from the Final Neolithic period (3600–3000) onwards. Part of a New Palace complex, destroyed by fire in 1450 BCE, has been brought to light in the modern village. The exceptional quality of its construction and the wealth and quality of its finds are equal to those at other Minoan palaces. The palace storerooms were found full of pithoi, bearing witness to the wealth of the local elite. Nearby was discovered the palace archive, containing LINEAR A tablets and a clay model of a Minoan house, which provided valuable information for the study of Minoan domestic architecture. Parts of the settlement have also been discovered in various districts of the modern village. There is no doubt that this was the center of an important palatial group which controlled the fertile valley and the communication roads, although it appears that it was not completely independent of all-powerful Knossos. Many small settlements in the wider Archanes area, of which the Vathypetro is a representative example, were under the control of the ruler of Archanes. These centers were obviously linked to each other and to Knossos. After the destruction of 1450, Archanes entered a new period of prosperity under the Mycenaean Dynasty. The finds from the palace itself, the settlements around it, and the cemeteries, particularly the royal cemetery at Phourni, give clear indications of the

inhabitants’ wealth and prosperity. Around 1200, Archanes declined; most of the sites in the wider environs were abandoned. At Phourni, northwest of Archanes, is located one of the most important cemeteries of the prehistoric Aegean. Three tholos tombs, fifteen buildings, a tomb, and an artisan’s workshop have so far been revealed. The cemetery was used without interruption for over 1,500 years. The most important buildings of the cemetery are the following; tholos tomb E (2500–2000), which contained thirty-one sarcophagus burials and rich grave goods; tholos tomb C, under whose forty-seven sarcophagi were found rich grave goods, abundant obsidian blades, and many Cycladic figurines; tholos tomb A, which contained a royal burial dating to ca. 1400. The princess or priestess buried there was accompanied by rich offerings and a sacrificed bull and horse. Other interesting features of Phourni are a rectangular enclosure with seven cist tombs and stele, similar to the two grave circles of MYCENAE. At the site of Anemospilia, 2 km north of Archanes, was discovered an important Minoan sanctuary used in the first half of the seventeenth century and destroyed by a major earthquake. It contained many storage vessels with offerings, and ritual artifacts including a wooden statue. The sanctuary, however, is famous for the only example of human sacrifice discovered on CRETE, perhaps a last, desperate attempt to appease the forces of nature. SEE ALSO:

Cyclades islands; Knossos; Mycenae.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Sakellarakis, Y. and Sapouna-Sakellaraki, E. (1997) Archanes: Minoan Crete in a new light. Athens. Sakellarakis, Y. and Sapouna-Sakellaraki, E. (1981) “Drama of death in a Minoan temple.” National Geographic 159: 205–22. Sapouna-Sakellaraki, E. (1990) “Archane`s a` l’e´poque myce´nienne.” Bulletin de correspondance helle´nique 114: 67–102.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 627–628. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah02025

1

Archelaos IAN WORTHINGTON

Archelaos was king of MACEDONIA from 413 to 399. He seized power by murdering his uncle, his cousin, and then his younger brother, which led PLATO to describe him as “the greatest criminal in Macedonia, the most wretched of all the Macedonians, and not the happiest” (Gorg. 471a–d). Nevertheless, Archelaos ruled Macedonia well compared to his immediate predecessors. He introduced much-needed military reforms, including training and weaponry, and he attempted to stimulate trade and the economy with the construction of new roads and the introduction of a new weight standard. There is much truth in Thucydides’ words that he “organized his country for war by providing cavalry, arms, and other equipment beyond anything achieved by all of the eight kings who preceded him” (2.100.2). In 399 Archelaos moved the capital of Macedonia from AIGAI to PELLA, which soon became the largest and most prosperous city in Macedonia. In antiquity, Pella was coastal, but Archelaos seems to have had no plans to build a fleet. Therefore, the reason for creating this new capital was perhaps linked to Greek influence on Macedonia’s coastline, especially in Methone and Pydna, against which he campaigned soon after becoming king. Archaelaos was a philhellene and he intended his new capital to be a cultural center in the Greek world. To this end he invited

leading literary figures and thinkers of the period, including Agathon, EURIPIDES, and SOCRATES (who declined). At Pella Euripides wrote the Bacchae and the (lost) Archelaos. Archelaos also instituted a festival to Zeus at DION, which included a drama competition, and in inviting ZEUXIS, the period’s leading fresco painter, to decorate his new palace he helped to establish an art school in Pella that was still influential in the Hellenistic and Roman periods. His cultural policy, however, probably had a political agenda to it: to make the Macedonians loyal to Pella as their capital, and not Argead-dominated Aigai. Archelaos was murdered in 399. Although he had failed to unite Upper and Lower Macedonia, he had extended Macedonia’s influence in THESSALY and taken positive steps in economic and military reform. Unfortunately, his successors’ weak reigns undid most of Archelaos’ accomplishments. SEE ALSO:

Methone, Macedonia.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Borza, E. N. (1990) In the shadow of Olympus: the emergence of Macedon: 161–77. Princeton. Borza, E. N. (1993) “The philhellenism of Archelaus.” In Ancient Macedonia, vol. 5: 237–44. Thessaloniki. Errington, R. M. (1990) A history of Macedonia: 24–8. Berkeley. Hammond, N. G. L. and Griffith, G. T. (1979) A history of Macedonia, vol. 2: 550–336 BC: 137–41. Oxford.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 628–629. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah04035

1

Archelaos (Archelaus), son of Herod JOHN CURRAN

Queen’s University Belfast, United Kingdom

“Herod” Archelaos (ca. 27 BCE–after 14 CE) was ethnarch of JUDAEA, SAMARIA, and Idumaea (4 BCE–6 CE). He was the eldest son of HEROD THE GREAT and the Samaritan Jewess Malthake. Raised in Rome, he was named as successor to Herod in the king’s final will (5/4 BCE) when he was around twenty years old. After arranging a magnificent funeral for his father, he made a grandiose appearance at the Jerusalem Temple, displaying regal pretensions before AUGUSTUS had formally ratified Herod’s arrangements. Supporters of Pharisaic victims of Herod agitated violently for the punishment of their murderers, prompting Archelaos to suppress them brutally (BJ 2.1–13; AJ 17.200–18). He travelled to Rome leaving behind him widespread disorder in Judaea that required the intervention of Roman military forces from Syria. In Rome, he faced intrigue from other members of Herod’s family, and was confirmed by Augustus only as “ethnarch,” with the understanding that he might win the kingship of Judaea if he governed well (BJ 2.93; AJ 17.317; Lk 19:12–27). On his return, he failed

to establish his authority with either the Temple authorities or the broader populace, resorting repeatedly to high-handedness and violence. Establishing comfortable homes at JERICHO and the newly founded Archelais (AJ 17.340), he contracted a highly controversial marriage with Glaphyra, his half-brother Alexander’s widow and mother to the latter’s children, a union consequently regarded by pious Jews as violating Levirate law (AJ 17.341; Deut 25:5–10; cf. Mk 12:19). In 6 CE a joint delegation of Jews and Samaritans went to the court of Augustus and denounced the brutality of Archelaos’ rule (BJ 2.111; AJ 17.342). The emperor exiled him to VIENNA (VIENNE, FRANCE), although some evidence suggests that he may later have been permitted by TIBERIUS to return to Judaea where he was buried (Strabo 16.2.46; Jerome, Onom.). SEE ALSO:

Temple, Jewish, in Jerusalem.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Chilton, B. (2021) The Herods: murder, politics, and the art of succession: 117–45. Minneapolis. Kokkinos, N. (1998) The Herodian Dynasty: origins, role in society and eclipse: 206–45. Sheffield. Wilker, J. (2007) Für Rom und Jerusalem: Die herodianische Dynastie im 1. Jahrhundert n. Chr.: 68–82. Frankfurt.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History. Edited by Andrew Erskine, David B. Hollander, and Arietta Papaconstantinou. © 2023 John Wiley & Sons Ltd. Published 2023 by John Wiley & Sons Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah11027.pub2

1

Archelaos of Cappadocia CHRISTOPH MICHELS

Archelaos Philopatris Ktistes (r. 36 BCE–17 CE; for coins bearing his epithets, see Simonetta 1977: 45–6) was the last king of CAPPADOCIA. If one is to combine Appian (BCiv. 5.7.31) with Cassius Dio (49.32.3), it would seem that he was sometimes called “Archelaos Sisines,” but the Sisines mentioned by Appian and Strabo (12.2.5 [537]) is probably another person, maybe the strategos (“general”) of Garsauritis (Syme 1995: 148–52; see STRATEGOI). Archelaos was the son of the priest prince Archelaos of Pontic Komana (see MA) and a great-grandson of Archelaos, general of Mithradates VI (Sullivan 1980: 1149–52; see MITHRADATES I–VI OF PONTOS). He was probably of Macedonian origin (Ferrary 2001: 809 n. 38). Archelaos was installed in Cappadocia by M. Antonius against Ariarathes X and fought with him at Actium in 31 BCE (Plut. Ant. 61; see ANTONIUS, MARCUS (MARK ANTONY); ARIARATHID DYNASTY). He managed to switch sides in time after the battle, so that Octavian, the later Augustus, not only reconfirmed him in his position but conferred on him CILICIA Tracheia (25 BCE) and Lesser ARMENIA (20). Cilicia granted the Cappadocian kingdom access to the sea. Archelaos accordingly shifted the emphasis of his rule by enlarging the city of Elaiussa as his new residence. He later renamed it Sebaste, and also Mazaka (Eusebeia) Kaisareia, in honor of his protector Augustus, thanks to whose continued goodwill Cappadocia experienced a time of stability. But part of the Cappadocian nobility seems never to have accepted Archelaos, who tried to present his rule as a new start for the kingdom (hence his epithets Philopatris, “Friend of the fatherland,” and Ktistes, “Founder”). In 20 he was summoned to Rome to answer for accusations brought by noblemen. The young Tiberius defended him in front of Augustus (Suet. Tib. 8). Later on Archelaos made the mistake of showing himself ungrateful by affronting Tiberius while the

latter lived on Rhodes (Cass. Dio 57.17.3–4). Tiberius did not forget this. Archelaos clearly styled his kingship in the Hellenistic tradition (see KINGSHIP, HELLENISTIC). He presented himself as benefactor at an international level (OGIS 357–60; Ferrary 2001) and founded Garsauria as Archelais. He wrote an account (FGrH 123) of the territories covered by ALEXANDER III, THE GREAT, and also agricultural and mineralogical treatises (Hoben 1969: 191 n. 217). Archelaos created a dynastic network with other client kings. His daughter Glaphyra was first married to Alexander, son of HEROD THE GREAT and Mariamme (Jos. BJ 1.446,552), then to JUBA II OF MAURETANIA. Archelaos’ marriage ca. 8 CE to Pythodoris, widow of the Pontic king Polemon, did not, however, lead to a permanent (re-)unification of the two kingdoms. The aged Archelaos was lured to Rome by the new emperor Tiberius, to answer for accusations made against him. There he died of old age, a broken man, in 17 CE (Cass. Dio 57.17.5). After his death, his kingdom was transformed into the Roman procuratorial province Cappadocia (Tac. Ann. 2.42; see CAPPADOCIA). A son of his of the same name, Archelaos (II), was able to sustain for some time a domain limited to the region Kietis (Sullivan 1980: 1167–8). SEE ALSO: Augustus; Client kings; Pontos; Strabo of Amaseia; Suetonius; Tiberius.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Ferrary, J.-L. (2001) “Le Roi Arche´laos de Cappadoce a` Delos.” Comptes rendus de l’Acade´mie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres: 799–815. Hoben, W. (1969) Untersuchungen zur Stellung kleinasiatischer Dynastien in den Machtka¨mpfen der ausgehenden ro¨mischen Republik. Mainz. Simonetta, B. (1977) The coins of the Cappadocian kings. Freiburg. Sullivan, R. D. (1980) “The dynasty of Cappadocia.” ANRW II.7.2: 1125–68. Berlin. Syme, R. (1995) Anatolica: studies in Strabo, ed. A. Birley. Oxford.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 629–630. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah09044

1

Archelaos, son of Herod JOHN CURRAN

“Herod” Archelaos lived about 27 BCE to 30s CE, and was ethnarch of Judaea, Samaria, and Idumaea (4–6 CE). He was the eldest son of HEROD THE GREAT and his Samaritan wife Malthake. Named as successor to Herod in the king’s final will (5/4), he was confirmed by AUGUSTUS as ethnarch with the promise that he might win the kingship of Judaea if he governed well (Joseph BJ 2.93; AJ 17.317). He inherited a host of difficulties with regard to the Jerusalem Temple and his own authority, displaying a readiness to resort to violent repression (BJ 2.1–13; AJ 17.206–18). His reputation is reported to have deterred the family of Jesus of Nazareth from living in Judaea (Matt 2:22–3) and the adult Jesus seems to have used the political machinations of Archelaos as the setting for a famous parable (Lk 19:12–27). Less energetic a builder than his brothers, Archelaos constructed a comfortable palace at Jericho and founded Archelais (AJ 17.

340). During his reign he contracted a highly controversial marriage with Glaphyra, his half-brother Alexander’s widow and mother to the latter’s children, a union consequently regarded by pious Jews as violating Levirate law (AJ 17.341; Deut 25:5–10; cf. Mk 12:19). His ethnarchate came to an end in 6 CE following an unprecedented joint delegation of Jews and Samaritans to the court of Augustus denouncing his rule (BJ 2.111; AJ 17.342). The emperor exiled him to Vienna, although some evidence suggests that he may later have been permitted by TIBERIUS to return to Judaea where he was buried (Strabo 16.2.46; Jer. Onom.). REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Kokkinos, N. (1998) The Herodian Dynasty: origins, role in society and eclipse: 206–45. Sheffield. Schu¨rer, E. (1973) History of the Jewish people in the age of Jesus Christ, vol. 1: 353–5. Edinburgh. Wilker, J. (2007) Fu¨r Rom und Jerusalem. Die herodianische Dynastie im 1. Jahrhundert n. Chr: 68–82. Frankfurt.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print page 630. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah11027

1

Archers, archery CHRISTINE F. SALAZAR

The bow – the weapon of choice of APOLLO, and EROS/CUPID – was used for sports (e.g., Plut. Alex. 23.4), hunting (e.g., Suet. Dom. 19), and warfare throughout antiquity. Although both the Iliad (23.850–83) and the Odyssey (19.571–81; 21.73–185, 393–423) feature archery contests, in battle the archer, killing from a safe distance, is held in contempt (e.g., Il. 11.385–7, where “archer” is used as a term of abuse). Most Greco-Roman, and all Near Eastern, armies had contingents of archers – who (like slingers) belonged to the lightly armed troops – as the most effective long-range weapon until the large-scale introduction of heavy artillery. Because of their ubiquitousness and the similarity of their equipment, archers were apparently able to reuse the enemies’ spent arrows (Amm. Marc. 31.15.11). Traditionally, the Cretans (popular as mercenaries) were considered the best archers in the Greek world, and beyond it, Scythian and Parthian mounted archers were famed for their skill. Under ALEXANDER III, THE GREAT and in the Hellenistic armies, the numbers of archers – both on foot and mounted hippotoxotai – increased, and in the Roman army they can be found as AUXILIA from the time of the Second Punic War (Livy 27.38.12; see PUNIC WARS). While these ARTEMIS,

were specialized troops, Vegetius (1.15) suggests training one-third to one-quarter of all legionary recruits in archery as well (see VEGETIUS RENATUS, FLAVIUS). ONASANDER (Strat. 17) recommends positioning the archers in front of the battleline, so that they can aim their shots directly at the enemies, as this would cause more harm than aiming high and letting the arrows drop down on them. This is an acknowledgment of the troublesome wounds that arrows caused, given that a welltrained archer’s arrows could pierce armor (Lucian Hermot. 33; Arr. Anab. 6.10.1; see WOUNDS, NATURE AND TREATMENT OF). SEE ALSO: Army, Hellenistic; Army, Roman Empire; Weaponry, Greece; Weaponry, Rome.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Anderson, J. K. (1970) Military theory and practice in the age of Xenophon. Los Angeles. Bulanda, E. (1913) Bogen und Pfeil bei den Vo¨lkern des Altertums. Vienna. Cagnat, R. and Reinach, A. J. (1909) “Sagittarii.” In C. Daremberg and E. Saglio, eds., Dictionnaire des antiquite´s grecques et romaines 8, 2: 1000–7. Paris. Gilliver, C. M. (1999) The Roman art of war. Stroud. Hurley, V. (1975) Arrows against steel: the history of the bow. New York. Snodgrass, A. (1967) Arms and armour of the Greeks. London.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 630–631. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah19201

1

Arches, honorific and triumphal DAVID MCCLISTER

The arch (Latin fornix or arcus) was a monument decorated with statuary, relief sculpture, and inscriptions, and was normally built to honor a great achievement by a Roman public official. Arches that commemorated military victories are triumphal arches, and those commemorating non-military achievements (such as public works projects) are often called honorific arches. While there is debate over whether the Romans invented the arch, their widespread use of it in public commemorative architecture, and on a monumental scale, made it a highly recognizable symbol and expression both of Roman power generally and of the status of the honorees specifically. The public nature of commemorative arches was integral to their dual function of creating and proclaiming the social prominence of the honorees and of converting particular historical deeds into lasting, public proclamations of Roman sovereignty. The earliest Roman commemorative arches were possibly those of L. Stertinius, built in Rome in ca. 196 BCE (Livy 33.27). According to Pliny (HN 34.27), the honorific arch was a development of the practice of placing honorary statues atop columns, to symbolize the elevated social status of the persons they depicted. It is not surprising, then, that the emperors used arches to promote their own greatness, and their construction flourished in the imperial period. Fewer were built as Rome declined, and the last honorific arch was commissioned by the Senate in ca. 405 CE. There does not seem to have been a linear evolution of the style and form of honorific arches. The most common forms were the single arch and the triple arch (with the central archway larger than the openings on either side of it). Some arches were extensions of city gates, which naturally provided a prime

location for honorific display, but the freestanding arch became the most common type. The arch and its piers supported a horizontal section (called the attic) atop which stood gilt statues that portrayed the honoree in a chariot along with other figures, human or divine. The fac¸ades of the piers were often decorated with columns (either engaged or freestanding) and with relief sculpture that depicted scenes from the event that demonstrated the honoree’s greatness. On the face of the attic was an inscription, in Latin, declaring the name of the honoree and the official decision of the Roman Senate and people to acknowledge his status. However, this dedicatory inscription seems to have been characteristic of imperial arches but not of those from the republican period, which the honorees built for themselves for their own promotion. Either through ruins, literary texts, or depictions on coins or artwork, over four hundred and fifty monumental arches are known to have existed throughout the Roman Empire. There were over sixty of them in the ancient city of Rome itself. Many triumphal arches stood on or near the Sacred Way (the Via Sacra) in Rome, the route of triumphal processions. Among these were the arches of TITUS, SEPTIMIUS SEVERUS, and CONSTANTINE I, which still stand in their original places today. SEE ALSO: Architecture, civic, Roman Empire; Rome, City of; Triumph.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS De Maria, S. (1988) Gli Archi onorari di Roma e dell’Italia romana. Rome. Kleiner, F. (1985) The arch of Nero in Rome: a study of the Roman honorary arch before and under Nero. Rome. Kleiner, F. (1989) “The study of Roman triumphal and honorary arches 50 years after Ka¨hler.” Journal of Roman Archaeology 2: 195–206. Wallace-Hadrill, A. (1990) “Roman arches and Greek honors: the language of power at Rome.” Proceedings of the Cambridge Philological Society 36: 143–81.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 631–633. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah19176

2

Figure 1 View of the Arch of Septimus Severus. Roman Forum, Rome. © Photo Scala, Florence. Courtesy of the Ministero Beni e Att. Culturali.

1

Archias of Corinth WILLIAM MACK

The traditional founder of SYRACUSE, Archias (active in the latter half of the eighth century BCE), son of Euagetes, was remembered as a prominent individual in his native polis of Corinth, where he probably belonged to the ruling Bacchiad family. Plutarch (Mor. 772e–3b) preserves an elaborate account of the events which led to his departure. We are told how Archias’ unsuccessful love resulted in the death of its object, Aktaion, son of Melissos, and how Archias, polluted as a consequence, left Corinth on an oracle’s advice to found a settlement on Sicily. Without accepting all the events related as historical, recent work (Dougherty 1993) has explored how elements evident in this narrative and recurrent in the biographies of other oikists – murder, pollution, exile, settlement overseas as the result of divine guidance – reveal and are shaped by concerns with the origins of colonial poleis. The result is a story about the origins of a polis in which the violence that frequently accompanied settlement overseas, the expulsion of a preexisting population from its land, is displaced onto the founder in a context in which it can be expiated, and such settlement legitimized, through divine direction. Though these biographical details are all but absent from Thucydides’ account of the foundation of Syracuse in his concise narrative of Sicilian

settlement, this concern with the violence of settlement is still evident. Archias features as the figure responsible for both the foundation of Syracuse and, explicitly, the expulsion of the previous Sikel population which this entailed. The date for Archias’ foundation of Syracuse recorded by Thucydides, 733 BCE, “in the following year [after the foundation of Naxos]” is probably to be understood as a means of downplaying the Naxians’ claim to priority of settlement which could not be denied by reducing it to an absolute minimum – a relic of Thucydides’ probable dependence here on Antiochos of Syracuse as a source (Dover 1970: 198–215). SEE ALSO:

Bacchiadai; Oikistes.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Dougherty, C. (1993) “It’s murder to found a colony.” In C. Dougherty and L. Kurke, eds., Cultural poetics in archaic Greece: cult, performance, politics: 178–98. Cambridge. Dover, K. (1970) Books VI and VII. In A. W. Gomme, A. Andrewes, and K. J. Dover, A historical commentary on Thucydides, vol. 4: Books V 25–VIII: 195–484. Oxford. Hornblower, S. (2008) A commentary on Thucydides, vol. 3: Books 5.25–8.109: 282–4. Oxford. Leschhorn, W. (1984) Gru¨nder der Stadt. Studien zu einem politisch-religio¨sen Pha¨nomen der griechischen Geschichte. Stuttgart.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print page 633. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah02023

1

Archidamos DANIEL R. STEWART

Archidamos II (r. ca. 469–427) was the Eurypontid king of SPARTA who led his polis into war with ATHENS in 432. He succeeded his grandfather Leotychidas II (Diod. Sic. 11.48.2). He first rose to prominence during the helot revolt of 465/4 (Diod. Sic. 11.63.5–7; Plut. Cim. 16.6f). This revolt, known as the Third Messenian War, was sparked by an earthquake (Thuc. 1.101.2) and was perhaps the most serious social crisis Sparta had yet faced. According to Diodorus (at variance with THUCYDIDES), after “earthquakes,” helots of Messenian extraction, aided by several perioikic communities (see PERIOIKOI), marched on Sparta but were thwarted by defenders rallied by Archidamos (11.64.1). They then seceded to Ithome (see ITHOME MOUNTAIN), and were besieged for several years. The crisis was serious enough to warrant a request to Athens in 462 for support, even though the 4,000 troops were rebuffed as soon as they arrived (Thuc. 1.102.3–4). Archidamos was perhaps involved in the scandal that saw his co-king Pleistoanax exiled in 445 for allegedly taking bribes from the Athenians (Thuc. 1.114; 2.21; 5.16), given that he was guest-friend to PERIKLES (see GUEST-FRIENDSHIP (HOSPITIUM)) (Thuc. 2.13.1). He certainly seemed to support the THIRTY YEARS’ PEACE and theory of “dual hegemony” that allowed Athens and Sparta to share influence, though this latter was unfeasible post-462 (Thuc. 1.115; Plut. Cim. 16.9). He also opposed war with Athens

in 432, urging caution in the face of Athenian imperialism and suggesting that war should be fought when Sparta was ready (Thuc. 1.80–5). The assembly overruled him, and once charged with the task, he devised a strategy of repeated invasions of Attica aimed at depriving Athens of her resources. He inaugurated the siege and circumvallation of PLATAIA in 429 but died before its end, perhaps in summer 427. Despite his death, the first decade of the PELOPONNESIAN WAR came to be called the Archidamian War. He was married twice, famously being fined for his choice of first wife since she was too short (Hdt. 6.71.2; Plut. Ages. 2.6; Mor. 1d). Two of his sons became kings: Agis II (see AGIS II AND III OF SPARTA) and, controversially, his son (by his second wife) AGESILAOS. SEE ALSO: Helots; Messenian wars; Pentekontaetia; Spartan kings.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Brunt, P. A. (1967) “Spartan policy and strategy in the Archidamian War.” Phoenix 19: 255–80. Cartledge, P. (1987) Agesilaos and the crisis of Sparta: 21–2, 50–3. London. Cartledge, P. (2002) Sparta and Lakonia: a regional history 1300–362 BC, 2nd ed.: 216–22. London. Holladay, A. J. (1977) “Sparta’s role in the First Peloponnesian War.” Journal of Hellenic Studies 97: 54–63. Poralla, P. and Bradford, A. S. (1985/1913) A prosopography of Lacedaemonians from the earliest times to the death of Alexander the Great, 2nd ed.: no. 157. Chicago.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print page 634. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah04036

1

Archilochos RICHARD RAWLES

Archilochos (fl. mid seventh century BCE) was a poet from the island of PAROS, famous in antiquity for his vigorous invective sprinkled with obscenity. His works survive only in fragments. He claims to be a servant of the war god “and skilled in the lovely gift of the MUSES” (fr. 1 West), and he speaks of his involvement in the Parian colonization of THASOS. The strong first-person voice found in many fragments sometimes represents the poet, but in some places we know that it represents someone else (e.g., fr. 19 speaks in the name of “Charon the carpenter”). Situations, emotions, and linguistic registers are various, encompassing drinking songs, fables, and reflections on the death of friends, as well as invective and sexually explicit narrative. Some of the people mentioned are historical figures: Glaukos son of Leptines, named in several fragments, is also commemorated on an inscription (Meiggs–Lewis, no. 3, where the inscription is dated “625–600 BC”). It is uncertain whether this applies also to those mocked in invectives. The poet ridicules Lykambes in several places and speaks of his daughter Neoboule in sexually explicit and shaming

detail; the later tradition claimed that Neoboule and her sisters were driven to suicide. Some argue that Lykambes and his daughter Neoboule are fictitious stock characters, deriving from rituals associated with DEMETER and involving aischrologia (obscene speech; see ELEUSIS, MYSTERIES OF; THESMOPHORIA). Archilochos was later commemorated on Paros as a hero: inscriptions survive in connection with his cult. Aside from its literary interest and vitality, Archilochos’ poetry provides testimony concerning early Greek colonization, military culture, and mobility. SEE ALSO:

Colonization, Greek; Hero cult.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Carey, C. (1986) “Archilochus and Lycambes.” Classical Quarterly 36: 60–7. Gerber, D. (1999) Greek iambic poetry from the seventh to the fifth centuries BC. Cambridge, MA. Meiggs, R. and Lewis, D., eds. (1988) A selection of Greek historical inscriptions to the end of the fifth century BC, rev. ed. Oxford (¼Meiggs–Lewis). Nagy, G. (1979) The best of the Achaeans: concepts of the hero in archaic Greek poetry. Baltimore. Rotstein, A. (2010) The idea of iambos. Oxford. West, M. L. (1974) Studies in early Greek elegy and iambus. Berlin.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 634–635. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah04363

1

Archimedes of Syracuse COURTNEY ROBY

Archimedes of Syracuse (ca. 287–212 BCE) was one of antiquity’s most influential mathematicians and scientists. Little is known for certain about his life, and the factual elements must be separated from popular legends about his achievements. These stories include his discovery, while bathing, of a method for determining the proportions of gold and silver in a wreath (Vitr. De arch. 9, preface), as well as his claim that given a place to stand he could move the world (e.g., Pappus, Coll. 8.1060; Simpl. In Phys. 1110.5). PLUTARCH connects this claim with the legend of his single-handedly dragging a ship ashore using a system of pulleys (Marc. 14.7). More likely is the report that he traveled to Egypt at some point (Diod. Sic. 1.34; 5.37), as he had several colleagues at Alexandria. POLYBIUS, being both a more serious historian and closer to Archimedes’ own era than other biographers of Archimedes (such as Plutarch and the Byzantine Joannes Tzetzes), can probably also be relied upon as a source (Netz 2004). Polybius (8.3–7) describes in some detail the mechanical devices Archimedes contrived to defend Syracuse against the Romans. Polybius’ narrative is a reminder that Archimedes made important contributions to mechanics as well as mathematics. Despite the part he played in the defense of his city, Archimedes evidently died at the fall of Syracuse in 212. The legend (found earliest in Livy 25.31 and Plut. Marc. 19.4–5) is that he was killed by a Roman soldier while intent on a geometrical diagram. Later versions of this story (Val. Max. 8.7.7; Tzetzes Chiliades 2.35.140) add that he provoked the soldier by ordering him out of the way. On the reception and cultural significance of these biographical stories, see Jaeger (2008). Archimedes himself first propagated many of his works; the introductory letters that preface many of his mathematical works indicate that he sent these texts (or, sometimes, just

the propositions without their proofs) to colleagues at Samos and Alexandria, such as Conon (see CONON OF SAMOS), Dositheus, and ERATOSTHENES. His works do not appear to have been collected into an authoritative corpus during his lifetime, and references by Pappus, THEON OF ALEXANDRIA, and others to works not included among the surviving texts give some indication of the work that has been lost. The principal witnesses to the surviving texts are three independent Byzantine manuscript codices. In Heiberg’s notation (Heiberg 1910–15), the lost Greek archetype is A; this codex was probably prepared at Constantinople in the ninth century CE, and appears to have contained several mathematical works by Archimedes and the commentaries of EUTOCIUS, along with the De mensuris of Heron. Codex B was William of Moerbeke’s thirteenth century Latin translation of a group of works including many texts found in A, plus part of a lost Byzantine manuscript (which was apparently a collection of texts on mechanics and optics). C is the Archimedes Palimpsest, a Byzantine manuscript (probably from the tenth century CE), which was overwritten and converted into a prayer book in 1229. For the complex and still-unfolding history of this manuscript, see Netz and Noel (2007). The Palimpsest is the unique manuscript source for the Method and the Stomachion, and the only source for the Greek text of On Floating Bodies. Netz (2004) lists thirty-one works attributed to Archimedes, of which ten books survive in something close to their original form. These are On the Sphere and Cylinder 1 and 2, Conoids and Spheroids, Spiral Lines, Planes in Equilibrium, the Sand Reckoner, Quadrature of the Parabola, On Floating Bodies 1 and 2, and the Method. Of the other works attributed to Archimedes, from the Measurement of the Circle only three propositions survive in Greek, while the Stomachion (whose authorship is doubted) also survives in fragmentary condition. The authorship of the Cattle Problem is also dubious. On the problems of putting these works

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 635–638. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah21034

2 in chronological order, see Knorr (1978). Of the sizable corpus of Arabic texts attributed to Archimedes, Sesiano (1991) identifies four texts, besides the paraphrases of texts extant in Greek, that are most likely to have an authentic connection to Archimedean works: Construction of the Regular Heptagon, On Tangent Circles, On Lemmas, and On Assumptions. For the reception of Archimedes in the Arabicspeaking world, see Sezgin (1974). Archimedes’ most influential mathematical contributions may have been his work on methods for finding the volume and area of complex geometrical objects, problems for which we now use integral calculus. The results he obtained for these problems are collected primarily in the books On the Sphere and Cylinder and Conoids and Spheroids. He used the so-called method of exhaustion to prove many theorems about the area or volume of a wide variety of curvilinear objects, including segments of a parabola or sphere and the space defined by inscribing two cylinders in a cube. This method operates by bounding the curvilinear object with a rectilinear object, which differs in area or volume from the object being calculated by an amount that can be made arbitrarily small. It is suggested by the Method that Archimedes originally discovered many of his geometrical results, proven elsewhere by the method of exhaustion, using a remarkable “mechanical” technique, which he combines in the Method with the division of figures into indefinitely small strips. The mechanical approach, also used in the Quadrature of the Parabola and Planes in Equilibrium, postulates the suspension of mathematical objects from a balance at their centers of gravity, uses the principle of the lever to establish the conditions for the balance to reach equilibrium, and finally uses these conditions to obtain results about the ratios between the two objects. In the Method, this approach is combined with another technique in which plane and solid objects are viewed as assembled from an actually infinite collection of individual line segments. The conditions for equilibrium between the line segments that make up the two

objects on the balance are then used to obtain results about the ratio between those objects. Archimedes notes explicitly in the Method that this combined method does not yield strict mathematical proof, but instead creates an intuitive impression of a true result, which can then be rigorously proved using other techniques, such as the method of exhaustion or geometrical progression. Indeed, he says in the preface that he will do this at the end of the Method, but this part of the text has largely been lost. The obstacle to mathematical rigor is the difference between operating on the “potential infinity” of an arbitrarily large collection of line segments, and operating on the “actual infinity” of all the line segments that make up a plane or solid object. Since Heiberg’s reading of the Method in the early twentieth century, it was thought that Archimedes did not attempt to work with these “actual infinities.” However, new evidence available from the Palimpsest indicates that Archimedes did in fact make an equivalency between the number of planar “slices” of a particular solid, and the number of lines made by the intersection of those slices with a bounding plane of the solid (Netz and Noel 2007). These achievements, of establishing equivalency between the magnitudes of two infinite sets and of making a rigorous summation of an infinite number of line segments, indicate that Archimedes discovered key principles that were later rediscovered in modern set theory and calculus. Archimedes also made significant advances in arithmetical calculation. In what remains of the Measurement of the Circle, he finds an upper and a lower limit for p, as well as an approximation of the square root of 3. The Sand Reckoner is a virtuoso feat of calculation with large numbers, in which he proposes a notation for very large numbers using 100,000,000 as a base. He then uses this system, along with contemporary astronomical estimations of the structure and size of the universe, to estimate the number of grains of sand that would fill up the universe. The Cattle Problem and Stomachion, although their Archimedean authorship is dubious, reflect this same playful

3 mathematical style and exuberant calculation, dealing respectively with a problem in indeterminate analysis expressed as a poem, and a problem of combinatorics expressed as a spatial puzzle. On this style in the mathematical work of Archimedes and contemporary Hellenistic literature, see Netz (2009). Archimedes also advanced the theory and practice of mechanics, although these accomplishments are more difficult to track, as any works he may have written on practical mechanics have perished, although Floating Bodies and Planes in Equilibrium discuss theoretical mechanics. He is reported by numerous authors to have constructed mechanical astronomical models, and Pappus identifies a work On Sphere-making, presumably discussing these models, now lost. A connection between a Syracusan mechanical tradition going back to Archimedes and the ANTIKYTHERA MECHANISM has been posited, based on the Corinthian month names inscribed on this device (Freeth et al. 2008). Pappus also credits him with a work on the principles of mechanics, as well as one on mirrors. Archimedes is also associated with the compound pulley and the hydraulic screw, also known as the cochlias or Archimedean screw. Diodorus Siculus attributes to Archimedes the original invention of this device, but this claim is dubious.

SEE ALSO: Eudoxos of Knidos; Hieron II of Syracuse; Mathematics, Greece and Rome; Mechanics; Pappus of Alexandria; Science, Greek; Sciences, exact; Screw; Syracuse; Technology (Greek).

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Dijksterhuis, E. J. (1987) Archimedes. Princeton. Freeth, T. et al. (2008) “Calendars with Olympiad display and eclipse prediction on the Antikythera Mechanism.” Nature 454: 614–17. Heiberg, J. L. (1910–15) Archimedis opera omnia, 2nd ed. Leipzig. Jaeger, M. (2008) Archimedes and the Roman imagination. Ann Arbor. Knorr, W. (1978) “Archimedes and the elements: proposal for a revised chronological ordering of the Archimedean corpus.” Archive for History of Exact Sciences 19: 211–90. Netz, R. (2004) The works of Archimedes: translation and commentary. Cambridge. Netz, R. (2009) Ludic proof: Greek mathematics and the Alexandrian aesthetic. Cambridge. Netz, R. and Noel, W. (2007) The Archimedes codex: how a medieval prayer book is revealing the true genius of antiquity’s greatest scientist. Philadelphia. Sesiano, J. (1991) “Un fragment attribue´ a` Archime`de.” Museum Helveticum 48: 21–32. Sezgin, F. (1974) Geschichte des arabischen Schrifttums, vol. 5. Leiden.

1

Archinos CINZIA BEARZOT

Archinos was an Athenian politician and orator (late fifth to early fourth century BCE), perhaps son of Myronides (Dem. 24.135 mentions a Myronides, son of Archinos; cf. SEG 28.45), of the deme of Koile. Archinos was part of THERAMENES’ moderate group ([Arist.] Ath. Pol. 34.3); after the latter’s death he joined Thrasyboulos in the war against the Thirty Tyrants (Dem. 24.135; Aeschin. 2.176). After the restoration of democracy he proposed honors for the democrats of Phyle (Aeschin. 3.187); he indicted Thrasyboulos, who had proposed a decree granting Athenian citizenship to foreigners who had supported the democrats ([Arist.] Ath. Pol. 40.2; Aeschin. 3.195; Plut. Mor. 835f); he promoted the general AMNESTY ([Arist.] Ath. Pol. 40.2), introducing or regulating the PARAGRAPHE (Isoc. 18.2), and shortened the lists of those wishing to move to Eleusis ([Arist.] Ath. Pol. 40.1). PLATO (Menex.

234b) mentions Archinos as the candidate to deliver a funeral speech, perhaps for the victims of the 404/3 civil war. In 403/2 he proposed the adoption of the Milesian alphabet (Theopompos FGrH 115 F 155; Phot. s.v. Samion ho demos); he also proposed a decree on prytaneia and epobelia (Aeschin. 1.163). SEE ALSO: Thirty Tyrants, at Athens; Thrasyboulos, Athenian democrat.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Bertoli, M. (2003) “Archino tra oratoria e politica: l’epitafio.” Rendiconti dell’Istituto Lombardo 137: 339–66. D’Angour, A. J. (1998–9) “Archinus, Eucleides and the reform of the Athenian alphabet.” Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies 43: 109–30. Ostwald, M. (1986) From popular sovereignty to the sovereignty of law. Berkeley. Strauss, B. S. (1986) Athens after the Peloponnesian War: class, faction and policy, 403–386 BC: 89–92, 96–8. London.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print page 638. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah04037

1

Archisynagogos DAVID NOY

Archisynagogos was a Greek (occasionally Latinized) title used by Jewish synagogue leaders in most of the Roman Empire. Although not exclusively Jewish, it often stood for the synagogue hierarchy in general. Archisynagogoi are attested in inscriptions from Jerusalem to Spain and Pannonia from the first to sixth centuries CE, and also in the New Testament (e.g., Mk 5.22, Acts 13.15). They were among the Jewish leaders addressed in fourth century legislation, and Alexander Severus was allegedly insulted as “Syrian archisynagogos and high priest” for his supposed pro-Jewish sympathies (SHA Alex. Sev. 28). The title was occasionally held by women and children, and was sometimes conferred for life, making it unlikely that it always involved a prominent part in synagogue services. Attempts have been made to reconstruct exactly what the archisynagogos did, based partly on a variety of scattered and tendentious references and partly on the talmudic office of rosh ha-knesset, which is not necessarily equivalent since the term archisynagogos

may derive from the non-Jewish title synagogos rather than meaning “leader of a synagogue.” It seems more likely that the role varied according to time and place, and the title was primarily a way of honoring benefactors to the synagogue. There is also a small amount of evidence for pagan archisynagogoi: leaders or founders of religious and trade associations around the north Aegean coast. One such was C. Autronius Liberos also called Glykon, archisynagogos of the association of Aphrodite Epiteuxidia at Thessalonike in 90–1 (SEG 42.625). SEE ALSO: Associations, Greek and Roman; Epigraphy, Jewish; Jews; Synagogues, Jewish.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Gruber, M. (2002) “The tannaitic synagogue revisited.” Review of Rabbinic Judaism 5: 113–25. Rajak, T. and Noy, D. (1993) “Archisynagogoi: office, title and social status in the Greco-Jewish synagogue.” Journal of Roman Studies 83: 75–93. Williams, M. (1998) The Jews among the Greeks and Romans: a Diasporan sourcebook. London.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 638–639. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah11028

1

Architects DAVID J. NEWSOME

It is not always possible to disentangle the architect from the patron, the builder, or the dedicator, and the broad semantic range of terms that might be grouped beneath architecton/architectus is problematic. Plato (Plt. 260A–B) suggests that the architecton was responsible for delegation and direction rather than hands-on building. In the Late Roman Republic, then most notably with Vitruvius under Augustus, we see the distinction between the practical builder (aedificator) and the scientific and mathematical intellectual (architectus). On architecture as a profession within the economy, Vitruvius (De arch. 10.p1–2) notes that in Ephesos architectural budgets were protected by law: the architect’s own property was held as collateral against budget projections and if the costs exceeded 125 percent of the estimate, the architect was required to pay the excess. No such law existed in Rome, much to Vitruvius’ lament, and he blamed this lack of regulation for buildings which were left unfinished whenever expenditures soared above estimates. This, perhaps, contributed to

his sense that there were a great many unskilled laborers who might call themselves architects (Vitr. De arch. 6.p6). On the process of architectural commissioning in Augustan Rome, Vitruvius says that some canvassed and solicited employment, while others – like him – awaited the request of clients (Vitr. De arch. 6.p5). The architectural economy would, therefore, have been a mix of competitive tender and patronage. The system of imperial commission is the most familiar to us, and we know of a succession of architects under the imperial court in Rome: Severus and Celer under Nero (Tac. Ann. 15.42); Rabirius under Domitian (Mart. 7.56); and Apollodorus of Damascus under Trajan and Hadrian (Cass. Dio 69.4). Famously, Apollodorus quarreled with the latter on the finer points of architectural plans. SEE ALSO: Apollodoros of Damascus; Architecture, civic, Roman Empire; Architecture, Roman Republic; Vitruvius (Pol(l)io).

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Pont, G. (2005) “The education of the Classical architect from Plato to Vitruvius.” Nexus Network Journal 7: 76–85.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print page 639. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah06027

1

Architecture, ancient Near East DAVID A. WARBURTON

The evolution of houses, temples, palaces, and fortifications reflects social development. The size, complexity, and density of buildings increased as Neolithic villages gave way to Bronze Age cities; the urban palaces and temples betray the ideology of power structures just as city walls betray competition between emerging polities. History stresses elite buildings rather than village houses, which have remained largely unchanged since the Late Neolithic. The elite buildings follow different routes: palaces and temples tend to be conservative in different ways, while private houses reveal more variety. In principle, courtyards will have lain at the center of palaces, temples, and elite houses, but in front of simple village houses. In most of Syria, Iraq, and Iran, mud and clay bricks were the primary elements used in construction; except for baths and floors, baked bricks were rarely used for construction purposes before the first millennium BCE. Roofs were generally vaulted or lay on wooden beams supporting a flat (or rather slightly rounded) roof made of mud, reeds, and straw. In Anatolia and the Levant, stone was used far more frequently as a fundamental building material. In general, ashlars were rarely used except in cities, field stones serving most purposes; in Assyrian palaces, stone orthostats served as decorative fronting for mud-brick walls. Since ca. 7000 BCE, some parts of some buildings will have been multi-storied.

ORIGINS Circular architecture goes back to huts dating back to the Upper Paleolithic. The earliest structures were not subdivided, but a larger diameter distinguished certain buildings which either served the community or

leadership (depending upon the reconstruction of social organization). During the earliest Neolithic, low walls subdivided different spaces of circular buildings under a single roof, but the tradition was abandoned and rectangular buildings favored before the end of the pre-pottery Neolithic (ca. 6000 BCE). These not only allowed a rational subdivision of interior space but also permitted houses to be aligned along defensive walls and streets, or indeed beside each other as town houses. The form was the precondition for the creation of the interior courtyard distinguishing urban elite architecture. Yet through the late pre-pottery Neolithic, circular forms were maintained for “special buildings,” as at Beidha and Ain Ghazal in Jordan – a tradition which can be traced back to the earliest known monumental architecture, at Go¨bekli Tepe in Anatolia dating to the transition at the very end of the Upper Paleolithic. Circular structures appear further in Neolithic Cyprus, the Halaf tholoi, and later in the Early Bronze Age in the Hamrin and the Kranzhu¨gel of northern Syria. However, traditions of circular architecture were ultimately exceptional, being typical of the marginal areas. Villages

Rectangular lines lend themselves to internal subdivisions, streets, and courtyards, but also to large streetless compact settlements. The most celebrated of these is C¸atal Ho¨yu¨k (7000 BCE), where a single enormous concentration of houses lies majestically alone in the midst of a vast Anatolian plain. In contrast to this, the earliest circular houses – the Paleolithic at Ohalo and Malaha in Palestine, the Neolithic at Djerf al-Ahmar and Mureybet in Syria, and so forth – lay in protected niches in the foothills and along the major river valleys. The first real villages appeared in the late pre-pottery Neolithic, but population density only rose later, as people spread into the plains far from the hills and valleys. Village

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 639–641. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah01013

2 walls appear with the pottery Neolithic as at Hac¸ilar in Anatolia (5000 BCE), but (as was also the case of C¸atal Ho¨yu¨k) these villages were still not distinguished by major architecture within the walls – even where distinguished by uniform rectangular plans (as at Sawwan and Umm Dabagiyyeh). Cities

The characteristic of urbanism was the appearance of major buildings, initially with a strikingly similar plan. The origins of these tripartite structures lay in the houses of the Ubaid period (from 6000 BCE), dominated by a long central room flanked by two units that could be subdivided into smaller rooms. This domestic architecture formed the basis of what became the typical plan for the major urban buildings of the Uruk period, found in cities with both major architecture and private dwellings, at for example, Gawra, Uruk, and Habuba Kabira (5000–3000 BCE). Identified as temples, the tripartite buildings dominating these earliest cities represent the first major tradition of monumental architecture in human history. The beginnings of the subsequent Early Dynastic period were dominated by several different temple plans, none of which represented real continuity with the Uruk plans. The most conspicuous form in northern Mesopotamia was the “bent-axis,” already present in the late third millennium from the Zagros in eastern Iraq to eastern Syria. In the mainstream tradition, temple architecture concentrated on a single rectangular room with adjoining courtyard. The appearance of palaces in the late Early Dynastic period breaks with the preceding developments, as institutional buildings were henceforth divided into two different categories: palaces for royalty and temples for gods. Another phenomenon is the contrast between the agglutinative Sumerian traditions and the orthogonality of the Akkadians, a contrast most evident at Tell Brak, where a disorganized

Early Dynastic temple complex flanks the southwestern side of the southern entrance, across from the rigorously orthogonal Akkadian building facing it (Oates, Oates, and McDonald 2000: 16, 74). City walls were thrown up around the Kranzhu¨gel of Early Bronze northern Syria and at Uruk in southern Iraq at the beginning of the third millennium. As a rule, however, only the citadels were fortified in the third millennium. The city walls enclosing the Lower Towns as well (as at Ebla, Leilan, Hazor, etc.) are characteristic of the second millennium.

CONTINUITY AND DIFFUSION All of the developments of the Bronze Age – temples, palaces, courtyard houses, city walls – were maintained in the Iron Age. One peculiarity of the Iron Age is an aspect of second millennium Susan architecture – the salles a` quatre saillants – which was adopted by Assyrian kings and Achaemenid nobles in Iraq (for literature, cf. Gasche et al. 1989: 8). Another is the imitation of Babylonian traditions in Assyria. On a different scale is the megaron tradition, which began as temples on the Western fringe of the Near East in the third millennium and was later adopted for rulers among the Myceneans, and then again for temples in Classical Greece. SEE ALSO: Architects; Cities, Roman Empire (east); Fortifications, ancient Near East; Foundation deposits; Houses, housing, household formation, ancient Near East; Megiddo; Palaces, ancient Near East; Pylos; Temples, ancient Near East; Troy; Uruk.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Aurenche, O. (1981) La Maison Orientale. Paris. Gasche, H. et al. (1989) “Abu¯ Qubu¯r 1987–1988, Chantier F. La Re´sidence Ache´me´nide.”

3 In Northern Akkad Project Reports: 3–68. Ghent. Heinrich, E. (1973) “Haus.” Reallexikon der Assyriologie 4: 176–220. Berlin. Leick, G. (1988) A dictionary of ancient Near Eastern architecture. London. Moorey, P. R. S. (1999) Ancient Mesopotamian materials and industries. Winona Lake, IN.

Mu¨ller, B., ed. (2001) “Maquettes architecturales” de l’Antiquite´. Strasbourg. Oates, D., Oates, J., and McDonald, H. (2000) Excavations at Tell Brak. Oxford. Schmidt, H. (2009) Architectureae fundamentum. Berlin. Wilhelm, G., ed. (1997) Die Orientalische Stadt. Berlin.

1

Architecture, Byzantine LYN RODLEY

The architecture of the Byzantine Empire at its outset was essentially that of the Late Roman Empire from which it emerged in the early fourth century CE. Administrative and commercial affairs were run from cities large and small that were spread around the vast empire, many of them on or near the coasts of the Mediterranean, Aegean, and Black seas, for the convenience of transport by water. The city was a place of well-ordered architecture: wide paved streets, the chief ones lined with porticos, intersected at open spaces that were the centers of commercial and public life, often embellished with monumental arches and statues on columns and pedestals. Lining many streets were insulae, terraced apartments in which shopkeepers and artisans conducted their trades on the ground floor and lived on the upper one. The ruling class lived in urban mansions or palaces and governed from fine civic buildings, and most citizens enjoyed the comforts of piped water and drainage, fountains, pools and bath houses with under-floor heating, even flushed latrines; the water was often delivered from sources outside the city by aqueducts and stored in cisterns. Citizens could also enjoy the entertainments available in the theater, arena, and hippodrome. All these facilities were present in the early fourth century refurbishment of Constantinople by Constantine I, where they are known largely from documentary sources rather than material remains. Elsewhere, such continuity with the late Roman tradition was often a matter of maintenance rather than new building, following the decline in the wealth and power of the empire from the third century. There was, however, new activity in two areas of architecture, those of security and religion. Invasion and raiding by barbarian neighbors encouraged the building of city walls, a process that was general by the fourth century. Constantine’s work in Constantinople included extension of Roman

sea walls and construction of a land wall to enclose the city on its promontory site; a century later, THEODOSIUS II (408–50) built the massive land wall to enclose a larger area with space for reservoirs to improve water conservation in the city. In the sixth century, ANASTASIOS I (430–518) and JUSTINIAN I (527–65) attempted to secure the empire’s border defenses, from the DANUBE to Mesopotamia, with forts, walls, and towers, occasionally combining defense with other functions, as in the case of the massively fortified monastery at the foot of Mount SINAI (later known as St. Catherine’s). However, the most conspicuous new construction (and architectural innovation) of the early Byzantine Empire was that which served religion. The imperial sanction of Christianity by Constantine I did not cause paganism to vanish overnight, but pagan temples, especially those in public places, steadily disappeared. Some were converted to Christian use and others were destroyed, to be replaced by Christian churches, a gesture of obvious symbolism; the good-quality stones, columns, and capitals of destroyed or abandoned temples were often reused in walls. In tandem with this the architecture of Christianity became increasingly more evident: documentary sources indicate that church architecture was established before the time of Constantine I, but with imperial backing the scale increases and churches appear as additions to the fabric of many of the cities in use since late Roman times. Church building was also a means of stamping the new order on the empire: using his mother Helena as his agent, Constantine I commissioned the building of large churches at the Christian holy places of PALESTINE, notably at the sites of the Nativity of Christ in BETHLEHEM and the Holy Sepulcher in JERUSALEM. In the fifth century, similarly grand churches were built at sites that became places of pilgrimage for the Christians of their regions, often in or close to major centers of population and associated with the relics of early Christian saints, such as St. Demetrios in Thessalonike

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 641–643. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah03009

2 (see DEMETRIOS (SAINT)) and QAL’AT SEM’AN northeast of Antioch. These churches were large timber-roofed basilicas divided longitudinally into nave and aisles by colonnades, a form derived from the rectangular halls of Roman secular architecture; by the fifth century the basilica was an empire-wide standard type for churches, and it is not until the early sixth century that there is radical change in design, using domed vaulting (see CHURCH ARCHITECTURE). There must also have been steadily increasing construction of more modest churches and chapels to serve the growing Christian population, especially of small basilicas and timber-roofed or barrelvaulted single-naved structures, but of these there are very few survivals. BAPTISTERIES, usually octagonal, were associated with many churches, and some also had mausolea for their founders. There is evidence from the fifth century of buildings for the monastic communities, some of them very large, that were established in Palestine, Syria, Egypt, and Anatolia. Most of these were essentially villages enclosed within a perimeter wall, but the Sinai monastery noted above has what becomes the conventional scheme for the Byzantine monastery: a walled enclosure, with domestic buildings, work rooms, and storage rooms built up against the walls, enclosing a courtyard that has in it a free-standing church. Justinian I, the last emperor to rule an empire of Roman proportions, was also the last great builder: his historian PROCOPIUS takes an entire book to catalogue his architectural commissions both secular and religious, albeit with some exaggeration in places. Towards the end of the sixth century there was territorial

erosion on all sides, and by the end of the seventh century the rise of Islam had brought the devastating loss of most of Anatolia – Arabs twice besieged Constantinople (674–8 and 717/18). Partial recovery was achieved in the ninth century, but two centuries of such disruption broke the traditional transmission of technology from one generation to the next. From the ninth century onwards, Byzantine builders could keep some of the grand old buildings and fortifications in repair, but lacked the refined technical knowledge and skills that had built them; their buildings were smaller and, although often elegant, of generally simpler construction. SEE ALSO: Arena; Basilica; Building materials and techniques, Byzantine; Constantine I; Hippodromes; Martyrion; Monasteries, in the east; Theater, Greek and Roman.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Foss, C. (2002) “Life in city and country.” In C. Mango, ed., The Oxford history of Byzantium: 71–95. Oxford. Foss, C. and Winfield, D. (1986) Byzantine fortifications. Pretoria. Krautheimer, R. (1975) Early Christian and Byzantine architecture, 2nd ed. London. McCormick, M. (2008) “Western approaches (700–900).” In J. Shepard, ed., The Cambridge history of the Byzantine Empire c. 500–1492: 395–432. Cambridge. Mango, C. (1976) Byzantine architecture. New York. Rodley, L. (1994) Byzantine art and architecture: an introduction. Cambridge.

1

Architecture, civic, Roman Empire DAVID J. NEWSOME

Over the last two decades, studies of Roman architecture in the imperial period have been influenced by theories of visual communication and the extent to which architectural developments mirror the society that produced particular buildings, precincts, or urban forms. The city of Rome itself has been the focus of much of this attention, most notably in the work of Paul Zanker (1990) on Augustan architectural vocabulary and of Diane Favro (1996) on the urban image of the Augustan capital (see ROME, CITY OF: 3. AUGUSTAN). In their interpretations, which cover the location, accessibility, type, ornamentation, and scale of civic building, the functionality of Roman public architecture remained linked to form, but was increasingly employed for propagandistic purposes. These developments were also linked to the increasing flow of wealth into Rome in the Early Empire. While this wealth enabled ever greater building projects, the unequal distribution of influence in the new political system rendered the architectural competitiveness of the elites of the Late Republic (cf. POMPEY and JULIUS CAESAR) increasingly subordinate to imperial display and to the monopolization of building works by and for the new imperial political system (see ARCHITECTURE, ROMAN REPUBLIC). The inherent religious element in this political system, including the deification of the imperial family, informed the development of religious and civic architecture over the following centuries. Two of the most important textual sources for our knowledge of Augustan period architectural development are VITRUVIUS’ ten books on architecture and the RES GESTAE OF AUGUSTUS, which lists the buildings built, completed, or restored by Augustus. One of the most familiar, if hyperbolic, assessments of the city of Rome at this time is Augustus’

own statement, reported by Suetonius, that he found Rome a city of brick and left it a city of marble (Suet. Aug. 29). While the transitions and transformations of the Augustan period has attracted most attention the significant architectural and urban developments of the Flavian (Packer 2003), Trajanic and Hadrianic (Boatwright 1987), and Severan (Gorrie 2007) periods have also received scholarly attention in recent years. Recent studies have also depicted the influence of the capital city on the architectural development of the provinces. The competitive model of “one-upmanship” proposed for the eastern empire by Thomas (2007) argues that the Augustan brick-to-marble transition in Rome inspired emulation by provincial elites, whose building projects were aided by the widespread availability of marble in the second century CE.

CIVIC SPACE: THE FORUM, THE PRECINCT, AND THE SPACES OF COMMEMORATION One of the most fundamental transformations of architectural space in the first centuries BCE and CE was the progressive redefinition of the spaces of republican decision-making as locations of imperial commemoration. In the city of Rome itself, one can recognize a transformation of the Forum Romanum, at least from the construction of the aedes Divi Iuli, dedicated in 42 BCE, which truncated an earlier street and possibly the earlier Basilica Aemilia (Steinby 1987). The temple defined a new eastern edge of the open space, to which the later arcus Augusti was added in either 29 or 19 BCE (Carnabuci 1991). At this time we see the progressive elimination of vehicular and mercantile traffic from the central forum, with the effect of transforming the nature and role of civic space itself. The architectural development of the imperial fora, to the northwest of the Forum Romanum, embodies a new cultural logic of imperial civic space, which was less accessible and permeable, as

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 643–648. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah18010

2

Figure 1 Trajan’s Arch. Benevento, Italy. © Photo Scala, Florence.

these areas more closely resembled precincts than piazze or public squares. Recent excavations in the city of Rome (Meneghini and Santangeli Valenzani 2007) have rewritten our understanding of these important public spaces and emphasized the variation between republican and imperial architecture. This is not only the case in Rome, but in other cities of Roman Italy, where similar changes are evident at Pompeii, Ostia, Volsinii, and Paestum. Important developments in the architecture of imperial fora include the emergence of the so-called “forum tripartite,” prevalent in the western provinces. The development of fora was linked to the increasing development of basilicas for administrative purposes in the first and second centuries CE. Notable examples include the Basilica Ulpia in Trajan’s Forum in Rome, measuring 11755 m. In this period, we see the widespread use of one of the most distinctive and recognizable features of Roman imperial architecture, the triumphal arch (see ARCHES, HONORIFIC AND TRIUMPHAL). Although it has its origins in republican dedications, the arch came to be a

defining feature of Roman urbanism in the empire, and most triumphal arches were constructed during the imperial period. Notable examples of imperial arches in the city of Rome include those of TITUS (80), SEPTIMIUS SEVERUS (203–5), and CONSTANTINE I (312), while a key example demonstrating the changing nature of the arch is the triple arch at ARAUSIO (ORANGE) (21). Many arches were erected throughout the empire under TRAJAN, although they differ from their republican antecedents by not exclusively commemorating military successes. Important examples of this kind are at Ancona and BENEVENTUM in Italy. Key provincial examples are at AUGUSTA EMERITA (ME´RIDA) and the quadrifrontal arch in TIMGAD (THAMUGADI). The architecture of religious space in the imperial period must be understood in the context of the divine status of the emperor and the imperial family. Important developments in temple architecture in the imperial period in Rome include the temple of Apollo Palatinus, the Pantheon, and the Hadrianic temple of Venus and Rome. These examples are striking, not only because they indicate the closer relationship between the emperors and the gods, but because of their architectural ingenuity. The Pantheon, constructed by Marcus Agrippa and rebuilt under Hadrian, notably featured the largest dome in the world ever constructed until 1881, made possible by engineering advances in the use of concrete and barrel vaulting (see PANTHEON, ROME). Some of the best preserved temples of the Roman imperial period survive in the provinces, most notably the Maison Carre´e in NEMAUSUS (NIˆMES) and the Temple of Augustus and Livia in VIENNA (VIENNE, FRANCE). In the eastern empire, the architectural development of temple complexes is most vividly represented by the monumental ruins at Baalbek, Lebanon. In the city of Rome itself, other important architectural developments can be seen in the development of imperial mausolea, notably that of Augustus and the Julio-Claudian family on the Campus Martius and that of Hadrian at Castel Sant’Angelo in Rome.

3

Figure 2 Basilica of Maxentius at the Roman Forum, Rome. © Photo Scala, Florence. Courtesy of the Ministero Beni e Att. Culturali.

Figure 3 Reconstruction of insulae (apartment buildings) at Ostia. Museo della Civilta` Romana, Rome. © Photo Scala, Florence.

4 THE ARCHITECTURE OF URBAN LIVING While the civic architecture of the Roman imperial period was most closely associated with the spaces of dedication and commemoration discussed above, attention must also be paid to wider developments in urban architecture, which defined the period. Indeed, in the absence of a stringent definition of civic architecture in the Roman period, we can usefully include a wide range of building types under the criteria that they serve a purpose in civil life. This is particularly true, for example, of architecture for mass public use, including entertainment buildings and bath complexes (thermae), which served social and political as well as entertainment functions. The COLOSSEUM is one of the most familiar examples of Roman architecture, noteworthy for its structural ingenuity, scale, and preservation. This monumental, free-standing, elliptical structure, which required more than 100,000 m3 of travertine, measured 189 156 m, rising to 48 m (Lancaster 2005). The outer wall was ornamented with a monumental fac¸ade comprising three architectural orders: Tuscan, Ionic, and Corinthian. Other notable amphitheaters are found at Puzzuoli and Verona in Italy, at Nimes in southern Gaul, and at LEPCIS MAGNA and THYSDRUS (EL JEM) in North Africa (see AMPHITHEATER). In the imperial period, large, elaborate thermae throughout the city of Rome, including the Baths of Trajan, built on the Oppian in the early second century CE, served as social centers as well as places for bathing. The Baths of Caracalla (early third century CE) could accommodate over fifteen hundred users and featured the largest ceramic dome in the world, with a diameter of over 35 m, a testament to the sheer scale of Roman imperial constructions (DeLaine 1997; see BATHS, BATHING). The possibilities afforded by the perfection of concrete, vaulted construction can be seen in the Basilica of Maxentius (or Basilica Nova) in Rome. This structure, with groin-vaulted arches rather than columns supporting the ceiling,

combined architectural elements from earlier basilicas and bath buildings and was, at the time of construction, the largest building in the world, with a roof span of over 31 m. In the provinces, the Constantinian basilica in AUGUSTA TREVERORIUM (TRIER) with a vaulted roof span of over 26 m, was on a similar epic scale. Another feature of imperial architecture was the construction of huge commercial or warehousing structures, most notably in the city of Rome, since they were necessitated by the large population of the metropolis. The earliest known horrea in the capital date from the late second century BCE, although many of the largest and most architecturally imposing structures, such as the Horrea Agrippiana close to the Forum Romanum, date to the triumviral or Augustan periods (see HORREA). These were no longer simple granaries but performed a variety of civic functions, also accommodating banks and storage spaces for consumables or valuables. Notable examples include the Horrea Piperataria, built by DOMITIAN on the Sacra Via, and the well preserved Horrea Epagathiana, constructed in OSTIA in the mid-second century CE (DeLaine 2005 on the commercial landscape of Ostia). Commercial architecture was transformed in the imperial period by the construction of centralized market buildings, such as the Macellum Magnum in 59 CE. Depictions of this building on coins show a double-storied and domed central tholos on a high podium, demonstrating the monumentalization of commercial activity. Notable macella outside Rome include examples at POMPEII, PUTEOLI, and Lepcis Magna. One of the most important architectural developments in imperial period was a proliferation of multi-storied, brick-worked (opus latericium) insulae, the most notable examples of which survive at Ostia and, in part, on the Capitoline at Rome. Regulations on building heights were passed under successive emperors, as insulae in Rome itself grew ever more vertiginous. The monumental scale of architecture in imperial Rome can be explained both by the deployment of monumentality as for

5 propaganda purposes and by the exploitation of advances in engineering, which enabled building structures of unprecedented size. High population densities in expanding and new urban communities demanded expanded scales of provision, be it in commercial, warehousing, or entertainment structures, while the wealth of the empire enabled greater expenditure on projects and materials. Advances in the use of vaults and arches made possible the construction of important utilitarian projects, such as the aqueducts of the city of Rome, the PONT DU GARD near Nıˆmes, or the vaulted ceilings of the public baths and basilicas of the second and third centuries (for detailed overviews of Roman architecture, see Ward-Perkins 1981; MacDonald 1986; Gros 1996). SEE ALSO: Architecture, Greek; Bricks, Roman; Building materials and techniques, Greek and Roman; Forum; Forum Romanum; Rome, city of: 1–9; Technology, Roman; Temples, Roman; Water supply, Greek and Roman.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Boatwright, M. T. (1987) Hadrian and the city of Rome. Princeton. Carnabuci, E. (1991) L’angolo sud-orientale del Foro Romano nel manoscritto inedito di Giacomo Boni. Atti della Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei. Memorie della Classe di Scienze morali, storiche e filologiche 1.4. Rome. DeLaine, J. (1997) The baths of Caracalla: a study in the design, construction, and economics of

large-scale building projects in imperial Rome. Portsmouth, RI. DeLaine, J. (2005) “The commercial landscape of Ostia.” In A. MacMahon and J. Price, eds., Roman working lives and urban living: 29–47. Oxford. Favro, D. (1996) The urban image of Augustan Rome. Cambridge. Gorrie, C. (2007) “The restoration of the Porticus Octaviae and Severan imperial policy.” Greece & Rome 54: 1–17. Gros, P. (1996) L’architecture Romaine du de´but du IIIe`me sie`cle avant J.-C. a` la fin du Haut-Empire, vol. 1: Les monuments publics. Paris. Lancaster, L. (2005) “The process of building the Colosseum: the site, materials and construction techniques.” Journal of Roman Archaeology 18: 57–82. MacDonald, W. L. (1986) The architecture of the Roman Empire, vol. II: An urban appraisal. New Haven. Meneghini, R. and Santangeli Valenzani, R. (2007) I Fori Imperiali: gli scavi del Comune di Roma (1991–2007). Rome. Packer, J. E. (2003) “Plurima et Amplissima opera: parsing Flavian Rome.” In A. J. Boyle and W. J. Dominik, eds., Flavian Rome: culture, image, text: 167–98. Leiden. Steinby, E. M. (1987) “Il lato orientale del Foro Romano: Proposto di lettura.” Arctos 21: 139–84. Thomas, E. V. (2007) Monumentality and the Roman Empire: architecture in the Antonine age. Oxford. Ward-Perkins, J. B. (1981) Roman imperial architecture. New Haven. Zanker, P. (1990) The power of images in the age of Augustus, A. Shapiro, trans. Ann Arbor.

1

Architecture, Egyptian CORINNA ROSSI

Pharaonic architecture includes some of the most famous monuments of the world, as well as the remains of many other lesser-known buildings; they all contribute, however, to our knowledge of ancient Egyptian architecture. Before the introduction of mud bricks and stone, the earliest Egyptian architecture was made of ephemeral materials and has nearly completely vanished. The use of different building materials had a strong influence on the preservation of subsequent architecture. In the Pharaonic Period, the categories of domestic, religious, funerary, and military architecture are often unevenly represented: while temples and tombs were largely built of stone, have suffered relatively little damage, and have rightly become a symbol of Egypt, domestic architecture of all periods was built in mud bricks, a building material prone to weathering, and in general less attractive to the eyes of early travelers and visitors (see BUILDING MATERIALS AND TECHNIQUES, PHARAONIC EGYPT). Modern research and archaeological investigation have re-balanced our knowledge of ancient Egyptian architecture; for instance, the old assumption that “Egypt had no cities” (Wilson 1960) is nowadays disproved by numerous studies and finds (from Kemp 1977 onward). The Egyptians lived in houses mainly made of mud bricks, with the addition of wood and some stone elements; kings lived in grand palaces, also made of mud bricks, that might be endowed with private sacred spaces, lakes, and gardens (see MALKATA/MALQATA; Kemp 1989: 151, 213–5, 294–315). Long-inhabited villages and towns naturally developed in specific locations, from where it was possible to exploit the benefits and minimize the damages of the annual inundation. In the majority of cases, therefore, settlements occupied the same areas for centuries; the continuous stratification of new over old constructions eventually produced a mound (“tell” in Arabic) of archaeological remains

(see EDFU). Planned settlements were often built for the specific purpose of housing the workforce dedicated to long-term royal building projects, such as the construction of pyramids (see EL-LAHUN) and the work in the Valley of the Kings (see DEIR EL-MEDINA). Unlike domestic architecture, ancient Egyptian funerary architecture started to attract the attention of scholars and travelers from very early times, both for their architecture and their contents. In some fortunate cases, intact tombs have yielded some of the most important finds of all times (see TUTANKHAMUN). Even if empty, decorated tombs provide thousands of representations of daily life and activities, and these are an extremely important source of information (Dodson and Ikram 2008). The earliest kings were buried under elaborate mastabas, similar to those built by high officials. From the 3rd to the 13th Dynasty, kings built for themselves funerary complexes, centered on pyramids, which evolved over the centuries: the earliest step pyramids were quickly replaced by “true” pyramids; the Old Kingdom building technique (solid stone for core and casing) was set aside in the Middle Kingdom in favor of a more logical (but less resistant) structure (Lehner 1997; see PYRAMID); finally, the size and importance of the related funerary temples varied considerably, ranging from tiny cult-places to elaborate buildings. In the New Kingdom, kings abandoned the construction of pyramids and focused on preparing richly decorated underground tombs, clustered in the so-called VALLEY OF THE KINGS (Reeves and Wilkinson 1996); the related funerary temples were completely detached from the tombs and were built all together at the edge of the cultivation (see, for instance, MEDINET HABU (DJEME) and DEIR EL-BAHARI). Religious architecture includes remains dating to virtually all periods of Egyptian history, from the Predynastic to the Late Period. Our knowledge of the earliest sacred spaces depends on a combination of scant archaeological remains (e.g., Davies and Friedman 1998: 26–7) and cryptic artistic representations

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 648–650. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah15041

2 (Badawy 1948: ch. 1). The more substantial but still fragmentary remains of the Old Kingdom temples already contained the basic architectural elements that would later converge into the “classic” temple of the New Kingdom, consisting of a sequence of progressively closer and darker spaces that started from an openair colonnaded court and ended in the innermost sanctuary (see TEMPLES, PHARAONIC EGYPT). Many temples were located near the Nile or along a channel; a landing quay and a processional way led to the pylon that marked the entrance into the sacred precinct, surrounded by a thick enclosure wall. Temples often grew in time with the addition of further courts; in the specific case of KARNAK, the temple grew in two different directions and eventually included ten pylons. Not all temples, however, followed the same rules; location, shape, and internal organization might vary, depending on a combination of geographical and religious factors (see AMARNA; SERABIT EL-KHADIM). Remains of Pharaonic military architecture dating to various periods have also been identified (see FORTS, PHARAONIC EGYPT). Especially interesting is the chain of Middle-Kingdom forts built in Nubia along the Nile, built to support the military campaigns launched by Senwosret I and III to conquer and subsequently to maintain control over the region of the Second Cataract. Studied before they were swallowed by the waters of Lake Nasser, these forts yielded an impressive amount of information on strategy, tactics, and logistics. They did not follow a fixed scheme, but rather successfully adapted and combined the various architectural elements in order to produce the most effective result in each location. Our knowledge of the planning process of Pharaonic buildings relies on a relatively small number of ancient architectural drawings and models, as well as several written sources of various kinds, ranging from building records to mathematical documents. In general, it appears that the initial plan was generally based on simple, round measures, clearly expressed in the ancient unit of measurement

(the cubit) and its fractions (the palm and the finger). In the majority of cases, there is no evidence as to the identity and precise function of the people in charge of the construction, to whom we may attribute the modern label of “architect” (see ARCHITECTS). In the case of royal projects, a high-ranking member of the court may have been responsible for the entire operation; despite his ensuing fame, the degree of his involvement in the actual architectural process remains unclear (see IMHOTEP and SENENMUT). In contrast to the past, when Egyptian monuments were often interpreted on the basis of mathematical concepts dating to later historical periods, modern studies successfully combine archaeological evidence and mathematical sources into a coherent picture of the ancient building (Rossi 2004). Besides the careful analysis of the building itself, more attention is nowadays devoted to building techniques and processes, including the organization of the building site and of the workforce that physically constructed it (Arnold 1991; Lehner 1997: part IV).

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Arnold, D. (1991) Building in Egypt. Oxford. Badawy, A. (1948) Le dessin architectural chez les anciens E´gyptiens. Cairo. Davies, V. and Friedman, R. (1998) Egypt. London. Dodson, A. and Ikram, S. (2008) The tomb in ancient Egypt. London. Kemp, B. J. (1977) “The early development of towns in Egypt.” Antiquity 51: 185–200. Kemp, B. J. (1989) Ancient Egypt: anatomy of a civilization. London. Lehner, M. (1997) The complete pyramids. London. Reeves, N. and Wilkinson, R. H. (1996) The complete Valley of the Kings. London. Rossi, C. (2004) Architecture and mathematics in ancient Egypt. Cambridge. Wilson, J. A. (1960) “Egypt through the New Kingdom: civilization without cities.” In C. H. Kraeling and R. McAdams, eds., City invincible: 124–36. Chicago.

1

Architecture, Greek NILS HELLNER

The early development of Greek architecture can be geographically divided into the mainland with the Aegean islands, and CRETE. Considerable architectural remains have been excavated on the Greek mainland (e.g., Dhimini and SESKLO in THESSALY) dating to as early as the Late Neolithic Age (fifth to fourth millennium BCE). In these settlements, small house-units were grouped around a dominant central megaroid building (see MEGARON), considered to be the house of the chief, which probably also had a public function (Figure 1). Around 2500 BCE corridor-houses appeared (huge twostory rectangular buildings with a corridor running around the circumference of at least two large consecutive rooms along an axis). They seemed to have served similar purposes to those of the megaroid buildings (cf. the “House of the Tiles” at Lerna, where there is evidence of STORAGE and ceremonial consumption, possibly together with administration, as indicated by seals; Wiencke 2000). In the northeastern Aegean, megaroid buildings in the context of prestigious architecture (TROY) or within urban layouts with complex dwelling-compounds and public structures – such as regular streets, squares, and water drainage – are well attested (POLIOCHNI in LEMNOS, Thermi in LESBOS). These settlements are often protected by huge fortification walls, frequently built in casemate construction (two parallel walls connected by transverse walls at regular intervals), and semicircular bastions. In Crete urbanization began in the Early Bronze Age (ca. 3300–2100), possibly under Near Eastern influence. During the Palatial period, including the Protopalatial (ca. 1950–1750) and Neopalatial (ca. 1750–1500), a new urban layout emerged. A dominant part of the settlement consisted of a large complex building, the Minoan palace (KNOSSOS; MALLIA; PHAISTOS, and Petras in the Protopalatial; Gournia, Zakros, Galatas, possibly Chania,

and Zominthos in the Neopalatial). Somewhat later, similar though smaller architectural structures were erected, the so-called Minoan villas or mansions (Agia Triada, Tylissos). During the Neopalatial period a common plan was developed with rooms clustered around a central court; the court, often surrounded by porched buildings, many with upper stories, served principally for communal gatherings and ritual performances, while the adjacent rooms were used for production, storage, and administration. An important feature was the bent-axis access, and architectural innovations were introduced such as alternating columns and pillars, light-wells, and polythyra (a series of doors divided by piers). The lower part of the buildings’ outer walls were constructed of fine ashlar masonry (orthostates of soft rock such as limestone, sandstone, and often gypsum slabs were used), while the upper parts were built with rubble. The inner walls were built on carefully constructed stone foundations and consisted of smaller pieces of rubble fixed with clay mortar and stabilized with wooden frames. Vertical timbers were mortised with the foundation ashlars. The upper stories were built of mudbrick with similar timberframing. After the collapse of the Minoan civilization ca. 1500, a takeover of the old centers by the Mycenaeans, or at least a strong influence, can be observed. Mycenaean civilization developed on the Greek mainland from about 1600. In the beginning, efforts were devoted to creating monumental funerary architecture celebrating important individuals in shaft graves, tumuli, chamber tombs, and particularly tholos graves. Dwellings evolved mainly from the Middle Helladic period (around 2000), and there are only a few cases of so-called citadels (ARGOS) provided with fortifications and central buildings within a centripetal urban layout (Kolonna in AIGINA, Malthi in Messenia). In the Early Mycenaean period, megaroid buildings with a central hearth and surrounding columns are thought to have been the forerunners of the Mycenaean palaces with a

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 650–656. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah04038

2

Figure 1

Dimini. From Preziosi and Hitchcock, Aegean Art and Architecture (1999).

megaroid building at their center. The most famous early megara (Menelaion and Agios Stefanos in the southern Peloponnese) were also influenced by Minoan models. The Mycenaean citadels are famous for their monumental cyclopic walls within which the palaces focused on the megaroid center (PYLOS, MYCENAE, TIRYNS, possibly Thebes, and Orchomenos). Unlike their Minoan predecessors, the Mycenaean

palaces had a more symmetrical plan with a mostly axial approach. In settlements at the edge of or outside the sphere of Mycenaean influence, apsidal or even round ground-floor types dominated, linked to rural societies organized in clans with more or less free-standing housing conglomerates (see KASTANAS IN MACEDONIA). Rectangular building layouts seem to be developed

3 predominantly in the dense urban contexts of Mycenaean settlements. The Mycenaean palaces collapsed around 1200 and the Mycenaean culture faded out around 1100/1050. Few architectural remains have survived from the Iron Age (1150–800) since almost no monumental architecture existed. As buildings were made chiefly of wood and mudbrick, archaeological evidence has rarely survived. Excavated cemeteries help us to draw some conclusions concerning the size, organization, and contacts of the connected settlements. It must be assumed that ATHENS, ARGOS, LEFKANDI, IOLKOS, KNOSSOS, IALYSOS, and NICHORIA were significant centers. Exceptional for its dimensions is the so-called Heroo¨n at Lefkandi in Euboea (Popham, Calligas, and Sackett 1992), a long apsidal building (about 5015 m) with surrounding wooden columns (Figure 2). We have more information from Geometric times (about 800–600) onwards. Buildings were erected on rough-stone bases and walls were made mostly of mudbrick covered by lime plaster (depending on the existing natural resources: for example, on islands they were also made of small unworked stones with no binding material). A timber construction parallel to the walls, or sometimes integrated within them, and a middle row of columns usually supported the two thatched sloping roofs. In the Early Iron Age there was no typological difference between domestic and sacred architecture. Stone benches ran along the interior walls of the buildings and served as chairs and beds. There were usually hearths for cooking and heating. Lighting and the outlet of smoke were obtained through doors and openings in the pediment; windows were relatively rare. Large terracotta vessels were used for food storage and collecting water, while smaller terracotta cooking and drinking vessels were also used for cult practice. Representations on vase-paintings show wooden furniture such as beds, tables, boxes, and chairs. The ground-floor plan of the buildings was apsidal or oval, rarely round. The formation of a more egalitarian group of perhaps several ruling clans and the emergence of the POLIS

led to urbanization and colonization (southern Italy, BLACK SEA) from the eighth century BCE onwards (see COLONIZATION, GREEK). The common rounded ground-floor plans could not easily be accommodated in denser urban areas without significant loss of space, and the rectangular shape therefore seems to prevail (ZAGORA in Andros, Emporion in CHIOS, KOUKOUNARIES in PAROS, DREROS in Crete). The need for public space for a larger number of people within the settlements led to the creation of squares as civic centers (see AGORA) and the monumentalization of house-types for cult use (Mazarakis Ainian 1997). Examples of apsidal cult buildings continued to exist, however, until the early sixth century in extraurban sanctuaries (Ano Mazaraki, Kalapodi, Nikoleika, Thermos). Building material consisted of wood for supports and roof beams; clay for mudbrick walls; baked clay (terracotta) for roof tiles and ornaments; lime as the basic constituent of plaster, and later limestone and marble for columns and walls, upper portions, and even tiles (almost exclusively for temples and public buildings); and IRON and BRONZE for decorative details and clamps. Around 600 there began the “petrification” process of architectural members (capitals, columns, friezes, architraves) that were originally developed in wood. On Paros and NAXOS the availability of natural marble deposits led to the production of both monumental sculptures and architectural members: first dedicatory columns and then whole buildings, including the roof construction and even the tiles (Sangri in Naxos). In IONIA, the first temple of Hera in Samos (hekatompedos, about 633 m), made of timber and mudbrick, was replaced by the first monumental Dipteros (ca. 575, about 10855 m), built of limestone. This was followed in 550 by the slightly smaller temple of Artemis at Ephesos, now completely erected in marble. On the Greek mainland similar processes occurred. The early monumental temples were built of mudbrick and timber, but subsequently the wooden components were replaced with stone elements. In the

4

Figure 2 The Heroon of Lefkandi. From Popham, Calligas and Sackett, eds., Lefkandi II: The Protogeometric Building at Toumba, Part 2. The Excavation, Architecture and Finds (1993: pl. 28).

old temple of Hera at OLYMPIA, Pausanias (5.16.1) saw one of the old wooden columns that had not been replaced by stone. Other parts of the temple were gradually “petrified.” Similar developments could also be observed at Kalapodi. An architect designed the building but was considered a craftsman and was employed as such; no distinction was usually made between the architect and the builder. The former hired laborers and craftsmen and was responsible for

both the building’s budget and its timely completion. Known ancient architects include Chersiphron (temple of Artemis at Ephesos), HERMOGENES (temple of Artemis at Magnesia, temple of Dionysos at TEOS), Iktinos (PARTHENON at Athens, Telesterion at Eleusis, temple of Apollo at Bassai), Kallikrates (Parthenon at Athens), Mnesikles (Propylaia on the ACROPOLIS at Athens), Pytheos (temple of Athena at PRIENE, Mausoleion of HALIKARNASSOS), Rhoikos (second Dipteros in the Heraion of Samos),

5 Skopas (temple of Athena Alea at TEGEA), and Theodoros (first Dipteros in the Heraion of Samos) (Coulton 1995; Svenson-Evers 1996). As Greek society became increasingly complex, a distinction between public and domestic architecture began to emerge from Archaic times (ca. 600) onwards.

mentioned: fortification walls with towers and gates; theaters – every Greek city had one (see THEATER, GREEK AND ROMAN); and finally, outside the city walls, funerary architecture such as public graves and mausolea.

GREEK DOMESTIC ARCHITECTURE GREEK PUBLIC ARCHITECTURE Public architecture included religious buildings, the best-known form of which was the temple (see TEMPLES, GREEK). This was the house of the worshipped god who was represented as the cult image inside. Access was limited mainly to priests. Worshippers gathered outside by the ALTAR, which was located in front of the temple, often at the eastern end. As it was built for the gods, the monumentality of the building was important and the best possible materials and techniques had to be used. In the Greek temple, masonry techniques using marble achieved their highest degree of accuracy and the forms reached such an abstract level that they have remained in the European architectural language up to today. The temple was built in a sacred space (temenos), access to which was often articulated with an entrance building, the propylon (cf., for example, the Classical sanctuary of Aphaia at Aigina). Other architectural structures included buildings on the agora such as the council chamber, bouleuterion (e.g., at Hellenistic Priene; see BOULE), long colonnaded halls facing the public square (see PORTICOES), which were used to house rows of shops (e.g., the Attalos Stoa in Classical Athens), fountain houses or krenai, where women filled their vases with water from basins (the best preserved early Classic example in MEGARA); a palaestra or gymnasium, the social center for male citizens, used for athletic contests and exercise (see GYMNASIUM, CLASSICAL AND HELLENISTIC TIMES); and libraries, concert halls (odeia), storage buildings, and shipsheds in harbors. Other architectural structures should also be

Buildings were mostly constructed with walls of mudbrick on stone foundations with a monopitched or pitched roof covered with tiles. After 479 BCE urban settlements were planned according to a rectangular grid layout, the Hippodamian plan (see HIPPODAMOS OF MILETOS): two mirrored two-story units, each unit with an open court (see PERISTYLE), grouped in three or more pairs to one block, each with an access to the main streets (plateiai) which were orthogonally cut by secondary streets (stenopoi) (Hoepfner and Schwander 1994). In the middle of the city, the agora was an open space for sacral, administrative, and commercial purposes.

ORDERS OF GREEK ARCHITECTURE In Greek public architecture buildings were erected from about the sixth century BCE onwards according to canonical building styles. Originally there were two main styles (or “orders”): the Doric and the Ionic. These terms reflect the Greeks’ mythological belief that the orders descended from their Dorian and Ionian ancestors; the Roman architect Vitruvius dealt with the orders extensively in book 4 of his treatise, The Ten Books on Architecture, and this subsequently influenced European architecture. The Doric order was used in mainland Greece (Olympia) and spread from there to the Greek colonies in southern Italy (Paestum). The Ionic order was developed in Ionia (the west coast of modern-day Turkey), off its coast on the island of Samos, and on the CYCLADES ISLANDS (Paros, Naxos, DELOS). Later during the fifth century BCE the Corinthian

6

Figure 3 Hellner.

Architectural orders. Courtesy of Nils

order was invented. The three Greek orders, known mainly through their column capitals, show further differences as to the proportions of the columns (e.g., the Ionic and Corinthian columns had bases) and the decoration of the entablature with different friezes (Figure 3). The Ionic order tends to be more decorated with floral patterns and sculptured ornaments and became dominant in late Classical times owing largely to the dominance of Athens (see DELIAN LEAGUE). In the mid-fourth century BCE the architect Pytheos rejected the Doric order for the planning of the temple of Athena at Priene with a theoretical treatise that influenced even Vitruvius, and erected it completely in the Ionic order, even using a rational grid. In the Corinthian order the Ionic adornment was used with a capital that was sculpted as a basket overgrown with acanthus leaves; it is said to have been used first in an architectural context by Iktinos on the central southern column in the cella of the temple of Apollo at Bassai. The Ionic and Corinthian orders were used all over the Hellenistic world and were later taken over by the Romans. Often the Corinthian order was used with so-called composite capitals, where the acanthus leaves are combined with Ionic volutes. In the Hellenistic period the staging of architecture was discovered and complex ensembles

were built. Single architectonic forms were used to create a greater context as emphasis began to be placed on the building’s main fac¸ade and elements were used to create vast spaces (e.g., the huge agora at Magnesia with 7140 columns). In planning, features such as axiality and symmetry became dominant. Impressive arrangements of flights of steps led up to main buildings. One example is the Asklepieion of KOS with three superimposed terraces lined with colonnades and connected by monumental stairways leading to the central temple on the top (Schazman 1932). On the acropolis of PERGAMON, palaces, theaters, and sanctuaries were architectonically composed in a unique manner that used every available space. SEE ALSO: Agia Triada in Crete; Andros, topography and archaeology; Architecture, Roman Republic; Asklepieion sanctuary; Bassai sanctuary; Dhimini in Thessaly; Gournia in Crete; Ialysos in Rhodes; Iolkos in Thessaly; Kalapodi in Phokis; Lerna in the Argolid; Menelaion in Lakonia; Miletos; Paestum (Poseidonia); Palaces, Minoan/Mycenaean; Petras in Crete; Tylissos in Crete; Vitruvius (Pol(l)io); Zakros in Crete.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Coulton, J. J. (1995) Ancient Greek architects at work: problems of structure and design. Oxford. Dickinson, O. T. P. K. (2006) The Aegean from Bronze Age to Iron Age: continuity and change between the twelfth and eighth centuries BC. New York. Gruben, G. (2001) Griechische Tempel und Heiligtu¨mer, 5th ed. Munich. Hoepfner, W. and Schwander, E.-L. (1994) Haus und Stadt im klassischen Griechenland, 2nd ed. Munich. Lauter, H. (1986) Die Architektur des Hellenismus. Darmstadt. Mazarakis Ainian, A. (1997) From rulers’ dwellings to temples: architecture, religion and society in early Iron Age Greece (1100–700 BC). Jonsered. Popham, M. R., Calligas, P. G., and Sackett, L. H., eds. (1992) Lefkandi II: the Protogeometric

7 building at Toumba, part 2. The excavation, architecture and finds. Oxford. Preziosi, D. and Hitchcock, L. A. (1999) Aegean art and architecture. Oxford. Schazman, P. (1932) Kos: Ergebnisse der deutschen Ausgrabungen und Forschungen, vol. 1: Asklepieion, Baubeschreibung und Baugeschichte. Berlin.

Svenson-Evers, H. (1996) Die griechischen Architekten archaischer und klassischer Zeit. Frankfurt am Main. Wiencke, M. H. (2000) Lerna: a Preclassical site in the Argolid. Results of the excavation conducted by the American School of Classical Studies at Athens, vol. 4: The architecture, stratification and pottery of Lerna III. Princeton.

1

Architecture, Roman Republic GABRIELE CIFANI

The architecture of the Roman Republic encompasses almost six centuries of building practice and can be divided into three phases. EARLY REPUBLIC (510–396 BCE) The architecture of the Early Roman Republic inherited many building typologies and techniques from the late regal phase (610–510); as a matter of fact, Rome, in the period which the literary tradition attributes to the last three kings, was already one of the largest and most populated cities in the Mediterranean area, having a size of not less than 427 hectares, a surrounding ring of walls, many temples, luxurious houses, and an articulated system of underground urban drainage-ways (Cifani 2008; Winter 2009). Tiled roofs, architectural terracotta decoration, and walls of squared blocks were common already in the last quarter of the seventh century BCE (as shown by stratigraphical excavation in the Forum), but further developments marked the whole course of the sixth century, when columned temples, houses with atria, and vaulted systems were introduced and soon became some of the main characteristics of Roman architecture. The temple of Jupiter Capitolinus was built in the course of the sixth century and, according to literary sources, was dedicated in the first year of the republic (see CAPITOL; JUPITER). Archaeological documentation confirms that it was a magnificent building with a plan inspired by the main Ionian dipteros temples, such as the Artemision of Ephesos, the Heraion of Samos, and the Olympieion of Athens, but, in accordance with the Roman and Etruscan religion, it was built upon a very high podium, with only one frontal access by a monumental staircase and probably with the plan of a peripteros sine postico. The

Figure 1 Plan of the Capitoline Jupiter Temple. Illustration by Gabriele Cifani.

building can be considered an original Roman synthesis of the Etruscan and Latin concept of templum (a sacred area with a specific orientation) and Greek Ionic archaic architecture; it had a strong influence on the architecture of the Early Republic, as clearly shown by the temple of the DIOSCURI, built on the Forum early in the fifth century. Private houses built toward the end of the sixth century also reveal stone foundations and in some cases they attest articulated floor plans. The best-known example is house n.3 at the Palatine northern slope with a huge atrium, which finds parallels in some cities of Etruria (Gonfienti, Marzabotto). The atrium of this house hosts a huge subterranean vaulted cistern, which can be considered the earliest example of the use of a vault in Roman architecture. The advanced nature of late archaic building techniques in Rome is shown also by the presence of many fragments of painted plaster, found in excavations in the Forum and on the Palatine, which reveal the use of polychrome painted decoration for interiors

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 656–660. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah20012

2

M 50

at s.1.

45

40

Preserved foundation walls

Foundation walls: hypothesis 0 0

Figure 2

5 10

10 20

30

Clay fill 20

40

50

Clay stratum

Tufa bedrock

30 meters 100 feet

Reconstruction of the Capitoline Jupiter Temple. Illustration by Gabriele Cifani.

(see FORUM; FORUM ROMANUM; PALATINE). The main source of materials for late archaic building programs in Rome was a ring of stone quarries located one mile from the city, which supplied squared stones for building programs. Recent archaeological research has also given us new evidence for late archaic Roman rural landscapes, which were the physical context of the struggle between patrician and plebeians at the beginning of the republican era. Archaeological excavations and surveys have shown the presence of many small farmhouses of a few square meters, made of only a few rooms, and some huge buildings which can be connected with aristocratic elites. The only excavated and fully published example of this class is the villa of the Auditorium, which is located 6 km north of the ancient city, along the Via Flaminia. The site has several phases: the earliest one is a farmhouse of 300 sq m with stone foundations, dated, by

stratigraphy, to the end of the sixth century. The second phase consists of a large squared stone building of about 700 sq m, with tiled roofs, and divided according to function into two sections: a northern part, probably used as a residence, with a central open court, and a southern part with storerooms and areas for production, inside one of which an oil press was found. This phase dates from the end of the sixth/beginning of the fifth century. It can be considered the earliest example of a villa belonging to a wealthy landlord of the Roman suburbium and it gives a vivid idea of the social hierarchy in the archaic rural landscape. MID-REPUBLIC (396–196 BCE) The conquest of the Etruscan city of VEII in 396 marks the beginning of a new era for Rome, which had eventually at its disposal a new,

3 huge, and fertile territory, a few miles north of the city; also the social struggles between patrician and plebeian for the distribution of lands came quickly to an end, as shown by the leges Liciniae Sextiae of 367. Within such a social framework there was a further development of Roman architecture, above all in terms of public buildings. The first big program was the restoration and renovation of the previous late archaic ring of city walls. The new walls were built with bigger blocks of hard yellowish tufa, which was quarried in the territory of Veii; in addition, the fortification line was updated with new towers to host artillery machines, as required by the evolution of military strategies of the fourth century BCE. Public architecture soon became an instrument of the propaganda of the political elite, which concentrated its efforts on building or renovating sanctuaries and public infrastructures. Religious architecture kept traditional ground plans: above all, the peripteros sine postico on high podiums for temples, as shown by the renovation in Rome of the S. Omobono area and the temples C and B at Largo Argentina. But greater innovations are known from infrastructure buildings, above all public roads and aqueducts. According to literary sources, the first consular road and the first aqueduct were built by the censor Appius CLAUDIUS CAECUS in 312; in 272 the aqueduct Anio vetus (not less than 43 miles long) was built and, in 222, the consular road Via Flaminia was opened. This new kind of infrastructure needed the extensive adoption of vaulted systems for underground drainage-ways, bridges, and viaducts, which soon became a common feature of the Roman urban landscape (Gros and Torelli 2007).

LATE REPUBLIC (196–31 BCE) In the Late Republican phase, when Rome became more involved in the conquest of the eastern Mediterranean area, Roman culture was characterized by a process of appropriation and re-elaboration of Hellenistic models. Rome

became the capital of a Mediterranean empire; its urban demographic growth, together with the availability of huge public capital (which increased dramatically in the course of the second century thanks also to immense war booties), led to rapid renovation of the urban landscapes (La Rocca 1990; Gros 1996–2001). Public buildings became much more specialized and new architectural types were introduced. One of the architectural symbols of this phase was the BASILICA: a public building for the accommodation of courts, or also for general business purposes, which took inspiration from the royal halls of the Hellenistic courts. Usually they were composed of a rectangular hall and two surrounding ambulatories; the earliest basilicas were built in the Roman Forum and were named after the magistrate who built them: Basilica Porcia (184), Aemilia (179), Sempronia (170), and Opimia (121). Courts lined with columns, known as portica, inspired by the Greek stoa, were also built and they soon became a key characteristic of Roman architecture: in the Campus Martius of Rome, the Porticus Metelli, built in 146 by the architect Hermodoros of Salamina, enclosed the first marble temple of Rome, dedicated to Jupiter Stator. In 121 the temple of Concordia was rebuilt by the consul Lucius Opimius with two innovations: the use of travertine (lapis Tiburtinus), the local white limestone, which represented the Roman answer to the growing market demand for marbles, and the Corinthian-column capitals, which became one of the main characteristics of Roman architecture. Within such a framework of architectural innovation, a new building technique was developed: the opus coementicium (a concrete composed of lime, sand, stones, and a special sandy volcanic ash, known as pozzolanic ash), which has rightly been considered the main way in which Roman architecture elaborated original works inside the Hellenistic koine` (for an attempt at chronology, see Coarelli 2007). This technique permitted the speedy building of vaulted architecture and huge structures; the first examples are known in POMPEII and CUMAE

4 (KYME). In Rome one of the first massive uses of this technique was for the Navalia (ship sheds) built in the second half of the second century BCE. It was a vaulted building composed of 50 aisles on 294 pilasters and it lay between the Forum Boarium and the Aventinus, along the TIBER River (Cozza and Tucci 2006). The ship sheds covered an area of about 30,000 sq m and can be considered as a symbol of Roman maritime military power of the Late Republic (see NAVIES, ROMAN). In the same phase some of the main sanctuaries of Latium were built or rebuilt in a monumental form based on vaulted terrace systems by means of a massive use of opus coementicium, as clearly shown by the wellpreserved examples of the sanctuaries of Herakles near Tibur, Fortuna Primigenia at PRAENESTE, Diana at Nemi, and Juppiter Anxur at TARRACINA; or later, in 78 BCE, by the building housing the public archive of Rome: the Tabularium on the Capitoline Hill. Between the end of the second and the beginning of the first centuries BCE, thanks to the growing interaction between Italic and Hellenistic culture, we have also the first evidence of thermal baths in the Roman cities of CAMPANIA (Teanus, Cales, and Pompeii), together with theaters and amphitheaters. In addition, a further monumental structure which starts to be known from this phase is the triumphal arch: according to literary sources, the first one was dedicated by Lucius Stertinius in 196; a second one was built in 190 by SCIPIO AFRICANUS on the Capitoline hill, and another triumphal arch was erected in 120 by Quinctus Fabius Allobrogicus in the Forum. For domestic architecture, around the second half of the second century we can easily identify the spread of suburban pleasure villas, characterized by complex plans including columned courtyards, the use of massive terraces, and sophisticated decoration of interiors by means of frescoes and mosaics. In the region around Rome and in Campania we know of many extra-urban residential villas, which probably allowed for aristocratic display in a way which was perhaps not tolerated or

permitted inside the city. The source of inspiration for this kind of elite residential building can be found in the architecture of Hellenistic royal palaces, above all that of the Macedonians and Attalids (see PALACES, HELLENISTIC); among the best-preserved examples of these buildings is the Villa of Mysteries at Pompeii. The social background underlying this landscape can be seen not just in the rise of a new Roman elite (see HOMO NOVUS) of the Late Republic, but also in a change of self-representation among Roman elites and in the rise of new forms of real-estate investments acquired by virtue of the new economic opportunities offered by Roman imperialism. In Rome, the majority of the urban property of this elite was located on the Palatine, not far from the Forum, in a place useful for receiving clients from among the plebs urbana; they were conceived as huge atrium houses with painted walls and mosaics, as recently discovered by systematic excavations on the northern slope of the hill. Thus, Roman architecture both mirrors the society which produced it and supported its capacity to continue, through the development of an appropriate infrastructure, the contexts in which power and social display could take place. SEE ALSO: Building materials and techniques, Greek and Roman; Campus Martius, republican; Capitol; Cumae (Kyme); Etruria, Etruscans; Roads, Roman Republic; Rome, city of; Temples, Roman; Tibur (Tivoli); Vitruvius (Pol(l)io); Water Supply, Greek and Roman.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Cifani, G. (2008) Architettura romana arcaica. Edilizia e societa` tra monarchia e repubblica. Rome. Coarelli, F. (1977) “Public building in Rome between the second Punic War and Sulla.” Papers of the British School at Rome 45: 1–23. Coarelli, F. (2007) “Horrea Cornelia?” In A. Leone, D. Palombi, and S. Walker, eds., Res Bene Gestae. Ricerche di storia urbana su Roma antica in onore di Eva Margareta Steinby: 41–6. Rome.

5 Cozza, L. and Tucci, P. L. (2006) “Navalia.” Archeologia Classica 57: 175–202. Gros, P. (1996–2001) L’Architecture romaine du de´but du IIIe sie`cle av. J.-C. a` la fin du HautEmpire. Paris. Gros, P. and Torelli, M. (2007) Storia dell’urbanistica. Il mondo romano, 2nd ed. Bari. La Rocca, E. (1990) Linguaggio artistico e ideologia a Roma in eta` repubblicana, in Roma e l’Italia. Radices Imperii: 287–495. Milan.

Winter, N. A. (2009) Symbols of wealth and power: architectural terracotta decoration in Etruria and central Italy, 640–510 BC. Ann Arbor. Zanker, P. ed. (1976) Hellenismus in Mittelitalien: Kolloquium in Go¨ttingen vom 5. bis 9. Juni 1974. Go¨ttingen. Ziolkowski, A. (1992) The temples of mid-republican Rome and their historical and topographical context. Rome.

1

Archives CARLOS SA´NCHEZ-MORENO ELLART

An archive could be understood as an assemblage of documents retained with some order and regularly updated to retrieve information (Brosius 2003a: 10), but this general definition does not sufficiently stress the deep differences among the diverse civilizations. These differences between ancient archival records and archival record-keeping are deeply rooted in the general framework of two great traditions, the Near East and the Greco-Roman world. It is true that both traditions are in some way related – the archival system of the Neo-Babylonian Empire, for example, is still present in the Seleucid kingdom, but how far these influences were significant and in which moments are, however, questions still unresolved. Archives started in Mesopotamia, spread to Egypt, the Mycenaean world, the Persian Empire, and the Hellenistic kingdoms. Greece in the Classical period apparently developed a different archival recordkeeping system, but the likely borrowings from the Near East tradition are not yet elucidated. The Roman system seems to have creatively integrated some aspects of both traditions. To reach a clear-cut conception of what an archive is implies great difficulties in distinguishing different traditions. It is useful to avoid projecting our present experience on the historical data, since archival science is a relatively new discipline and many of its principles are difficult to identify in the practice of the ancient civilizations. On the other hand record-keeping cannot always be identified with modern archival practices (Daerstyne 1993: 9–10). Ernst W. Posner’s book (1972) is a cornerstone in the field of archival studies in antiquity. The book by this German-American scholar, ranging from the Mesopotamian clay tablets to the Roman imperial archives, signifies an attempt to embrace the whole phenomenon in both traditions, but this approach has been diversely challenged. Rosalind Thomas, for

example, derives from her conception of the “non literate uses of writing” that other uses such as symbolic, magical, or non-documentary are more present than the rationalist view of writing (Thomas 1993: 93–5) in ancient archives and on the same grounds discusses the existence of an actual “archival mentality.” Apart from this criticism (in its turn also discussed: Sickinger 1999: 24–33) the more the Near East archival records are known the less a general theory about archival recordkeeping can be raised. Essential evidence such as the Ebla tablets were discovered after the publication of Posner’s book (Moorey 1991: 150–2) and the study of archaeological context and a computerized database offer some insight into record-keeping and the workings of bureaucracy that was unavailable in those days. Nevertheless, our knowledge of the purpose and the actual running of those archives is slight and only a particular approach of every case by following an interdisciplinary approach could supply a coherent theory to interpret this material. To describe archival practice as interdisciplinary work – including a clarification of terminology – has become essential: the most that scholarship can hope to develop at the moment is to draw on the main features of the aforementioned traditions, to emphasize their differences and to hypothesize possible links. Traditionally, archives have been divided between public and private and between economic and administrative. The former allows us to point out that Greek archives, unlike Near East archives, include private documents and the latter to insist on economic documents in Near East tradition. Both are however misleading, since no economic texts from Greece have survived. The term “administrative” does not sufficiently stress that those documents are normally also linked with economic activities such as taxation. The very term “archive” is equivocal. The usual denomination comes from the Greek archeion (administration, authority), which designated the government building (Hdt. 4.62.1; Xen. Cyr. 1.2.3: Lys. 9.9; Poll. 6.35) and later the

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 660–665. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah22016

2 documents deposited inside (Syll.3 684.7–8). Only in the Hellenistic period was a specialized sense acquired. Other terms were also used with that aim, such as demosion (CIG 123.31.37; Dem. 18.142) or grammatophylakion (Plut. Arist. 21). In Greco-Roman Egypt the usual term is bibliotheke. The Romans had the term tabularium (Cic. Arch. 4.8; Livy 43. 16). In the juridical sources the term tabularium is normally used (Dig. 50.13.1.6; 50.4.18.10), but archiv[i]um, known in some literary sources is also available (Dig. 48.19.9.6 Ulp. 10 de off. proc.). The Near East tradition of keeping archives has been recently reconsidered, but a global study that compares individual archives in order to reconstruct the way in which archives were created and kept is still needed (Brosius 2003a: 2). In the third millennium BCE, the empires of Ur III, Isin I, and Larsa kept significant records. Ebla contributes with better information about those days: the existence of a central archive which stored annual accounts for agricultural production, the original position of some documents in the central archive, the habit of destroying previous documentation once it was registered in general accounts, the existence and use of copies, and the lack of general principles to deal with some material (Archi 2003). The results of Ebla cannot however be extrapolated to previous excavations that did not fit the same parameters such as Mari or Ugarit or older findings such as Uruk. In Egypt around 350 letters in Akkadian cuneiform script, but also in Hittite and Hurrian, of the Amarna archives (discovered in 1887) offer a good insight into diplomatic relations between the Pharaoh (Amenhotep III, Amenophis, and Amenophis IV) and the kings of Mittani, Assyria, Hatti, or Babylonia but we know nothing about their archaeological context or record keeping (Knudzton 1915; Rainey 1970). Persian archives seem to have been deeply influenced by the Elamite practice, and Elamite is the language of many of the records found in Persian archives. The records are essentially financial accounts and legal proceedings, and there are different

practices in their conservation and storage, in the criteria for selecting some documents and for discarding others. In the Neo-Assyrian kingdom, public records of the preceding king were probably destroyed by his successor, as a transitory storage, while private archives preserved documents for several generations as a truly archival reality. Neo-Babylonian public records seem to have been more carefully organized (Pederse´n 1998: 181–213). In Persian archives the shape of the documents is related to their nature and function (Brosius 2003b). The period of the great palatial cultures of Minoan Crete and Mycenaean Greece is, in the field of record-keeping, only slightly related to the subsequent Greek culture and closer to Near East tradition. Documents are of economic content and drawn up on perishable material, stored – as in the Near East – in the palaces in labeled baskets. Where Mycenaean archives are concerned, Pylos is the only preserved example of a centralized system (Palaima 2003). There is also a relationship between the shape of the documents and their function in the Linear B tablets of Knossos (Palaima 2003). Greek use of archives is very different from the Near Eastern context. The difference between public and private documents is difficult to make in Greece, since some of the latter were also stored in public buildings (Davies 2003) and their elements are not of an economic nature. This assumption, however, is essentially based on the nonexistence today of preserved economic documents in Greece. In Athens, magistrates had their own records either on whitened boards (leukomata: Syll. 577 3644; Andoc. Myst. 83–4), papyri, or parchment and kept by public slaves (Bussott 1926: 980–1). At least at the end of the fifth century BCE, archives had their own building: the Metroon – devoted to the Mother of the Gods, on the west side of the Agora – functioned as a central record-office where documents from Solon onwards were filed (Dem. 19.129; Athen. 9.407; IG II2 971) and stored in batches (Posner 1972: 112–3). Some items deposited in the Metroon had copies displayed on bronze or stone and in

3 some cases the publication formula had been preserved (IG I3 119). These inscriptions constitute the best part of our evidence to reconstruct the contents of Athenian archives and also of other cities with the epigraphic habit such as Delos or Delphi (Boffo 1995; Miller 1995; Davies 2003) and even to trace evidence of decision-making procedures (Rhodes and Lewis 1997). Those archives included elements such as decrees of the assembly or treaties, and their number increased during the fifth century BCE, when Athens as head of the Delian League became the dominant power in the Aegean (477). From around 410/409 and 405/504 the documents were systematically collected (Sheak 1995), since they needed not only to be kept but also to be frequently consulted. The legal relationship between the inscriptions on stone and their originals kept in the public archives became an important question for Athens and her allies. As some inscriptions show (e.g., IG II2 43) if an allied city had stelae in which the text was unfavorable to the Athenian interests, Athens reserved her right to demolish them, which was not properly an Athenian practice, for we have precedents in Phocia during the Third Sacred War (Davies 2003: 328). This depiction of the Greek archival practice however, is far from being totally shared. It is true that Athens – and other Greek cities – tried to distinguish between laws (nomoi) and decrees (psephismata) and consequently to keep separate records, but this distinction was not always clear (Rhodes and Lewis 1997: 526). Nevertheless, a relatively highly developed archival system and specialized personnel clearly existed (Sickinger 1999; 141–5). The chancery of Alexander the Great, led by Eumenes of Kardia (Scha¨fer 2002: 39–46)reveals important aspects of record-keeping, deeply influenced by Persian practices but also probably a continuation of Macedonian ones (Hammond 1988). Alexander’s royal journal was an ephemerides, a description of the king’s daily activities, drawn up by Eumenes himself and also by Diodotos of Erythrai. Some authors claim, however, that the references to that Journal by authors such as Plutarch (Alex. 76)

or Arrian (Anab. 7.25 1–26.3¼FGrH 117 F 3a) refer to a forgery conceived for propaganda purposes (Pearson 1955), which is today not as generally accepted as before Hammond’s theory (Anson 1996). Mommsen’s reconstruction of Roman archives points out that they are the most complete example of record-keeping in antiquity (Mommsen 1887: 1015–21), especially under the imperial period, but the panorama is far from being well known. Recent scholarship (in the line of Claude Nicolet, L’ inventaire du monde) has rightly outlined the importance of the Roman archives, despite skepticism with which documents were evaluated by Roman jurisprudence or imperial constitutions. On the other hand many criticisms raised against an overly optimistic view of the Greek archival system are mutatis mutandis, also valid in the Roman context. For example, the oligarchic nature of the Roman republic, where the commentarii of the ruling magistrates were kept as private archives, is a handicap in constructing a general system of public archives. The Aerarium Saturni kept copies of the leges and Senatusconsulta and, clearly related to its function (Plut. Quaest. Rom. 42), financial records and contracts for public works, but efforts to consult documents are recorded in detail (Cic. Leg. 3.20.36), which implies a system where modern archival concepts such as retrieval or serving the public are not considered. It is difficult to determine, assuming that the Aerarium was a central archive at such a time, its relationship to the temple of Ceres (Livy 3.55.13), where plebiscita but also leges were recorded. This question could be understood within the framework of the struggle of the social orders (Cass. Dio 54.36.1), since people working in that temple had plebeian roots (Ogilvie 1965: 101–2; Culham 1989). Publication on bronze on the walls of the Aerarium (Suet. Iul. 28.3), as in Athens, had a religious meaning. The conservation of international treaties in the temple of Jupiter Capitolinus probably had something to do with the part played by fides in such a context. As a matter of fact, the delatio ad

4 Aerarium (or deposition in the Aerarium) of the leges and senatusconsulta was a mandatory procedure (Posner 1972: 167), already in force at the end of the republic (Cic. Cat. 1.4.11). As a part of the Grachan reform, archives of documents related to public lands played an important role (Moatti 1994). The first officially organized public information dates to the time of Julius Caesar, which mainly involved giving some publicity to the acta senatus et populi Romani, that is, the accounts of the meetings held by the assemblies and the Senate (Suet. Caes. 20). It seems that the acta were classified according to years (Plin. HN 2.147). This classification is likely subsequent to their publication, since Cicero in his correspondence referred to the acta according to the month (ad Att. 3.3.3; 6.2.5). We cannot rely on any epigraphic testimony to reconstruct the procedure of keeping that information, but since both constituted a unity, as the denomination shows, both accounts were probably preserved under different rubrics but in one place. Asconius’ commentary to some speeches of Cicero incorporates references to those acta, which with certainty are classified (Bats 1994). In this case the information could easily be retrieved, at least for politicians. Augustus abrogated Caesar’s regulation (Suet. Aug. 36). Under the Principate we have evidence that the archives were centralized. The Aerarium was reformed (Tac. Ann. 13.28–29; Suet. Aug. 36; Dio 53. 21) and the emperors took control over it: Augustus appointed two praetors selected by lot, and Tiberius tried to reorganize it by means of three curatores tabularum publicarum. Claudius returned to the appointment of quaestores, but designated directly by him (Millar 1964/2004). Eventually Nero appointed two praefecti selected among ex-praetors. The tabularium, instead of the Aerarium, became the essential piece of harmonizing the archives, but its structure was not exactly unitary, for it was divided into several sections such as the tabularium castrense, the tabularium Principis mainly related to immovable property (Moatti 1993:

63–73), and some public departments in the imperial chancery, such as the ab epistulis or a libellis. Centralization is obvious, since beneficia conceded to the municipia (citizenship, for example) were filed in the municipal archives, but also in the tabularium Principis (Plin. Ep. 10.58; CIL III 781). Regarding imperial constitutions, in Hadrian’s reign the publication of imperial rescripts, in the context of a reform of the procedure for handling libelli, implies the existence of some control of them in public archives. Wilcken (1920; 1930) develops his theory on the posting of the imperial rescripts and the making of copies by the petitioners. D’Ors and Martin (1979), by taking into account the publication by Westermann and Schiller in 1954 of the Apokrimata (P.Col. VI 123) of Septimius Severus object to some aspects of Wilcken’s reconstruction. The actual meaning of the Apokrimata or the Skaptopara inscription (IGrBulg IV 2230), foundations of this theory, is still controversial (Williams 1986; Hauken 1995; Connolly 2010: 22–5; 167–74). During the empire many practices known at the end of the republic were improved and transferred to other areas, such as the delatio in Aerarium, which was included in the municipal legislation (lex Irn. 41). The conservation and archive of the senatusconsulta and the acta senatus in the Principate fell more and more under the control of the emperor and his administration (Coudry 1994) and the practice of making copies (descripta et recognita) became widely used. The western provinces had the tabularia civitatis under the authority of the II viri and the curator of the city (lex Irn. 41). Apart from them, the provinces had the archives of the imperial procurators (CIL VIII 1301–38) who took care of diverse financial matters, especially the management of the imperial lands and the archives of the provincial governor (Haensch 1992). In both cases the centralization and the communication with the imperial archive are evident. Centralization is especially clear in the reforms operated in the second century (CE) in Roman Egypt (Burkhalter

5 1990), in which public and private documents were distinguished and filed in different archives under different authorities (the Prefect and the Archidikastes). Some institutions such as the alimenta programs required archives (Tarpin 2003). Where private archives are concerned the relevant case of the archive of the banker Jucundus is useful in discovering some banking practices (Andreau 1974). SEE ALSO: Aerarium; Amarna; Ebla; Hadrian; Jucundus, tablets of; Knossos; Lex Irnitana; Notary; Persepolis tablets; Pylos; Stelae, Greek; Tabelliones; Tabularium.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Andreau, J. (1974) Les affaires de Monsieur Iucundus. Rome. Anson, E. M. (1996) “The ‘ephemerides’ of Alexander the Great.” Historia 45: 501–4. Archi, A. (2003) “Archival record-keeping at Ebla 2400–2350.” In Brosius, ed.: 17–36. Oxford. Bats, M. (1994) “Les de´buts de l’information politique officielle a` Rome au premier sie`cle avant J.C.” In De´mougin, ed.: 19–43. Boffo, L. (1995) “Ancora una volta sugli ‘archivi’ del mondo Greco: conservazione e pubblicazione epigrafica.” Athenaeum 83: 91–130. Brosius, M. (ed.) (2003a) Ancient archives and archival traditions. Concepts of record-keeping in the ancient world: 17–36. Oxford. Brosius, M. (2003b) “Reconstructing an archive; Account and journal texts from Persepolis.” In Brosius, ed. 264–83. Burkhalter, F. (1990) “Archives locales et archives centrales en E´gypte romain.” Chiron 20: 191–216. Bussolt, G., Swoboda, F., and Jandebeur, F. (1926) Griechische Staatskunde, vol. 2. Munich; repr. Munich 1972. Camodeca, G. (1992) L’archivio puteolano dei Sulpicii. Naples. Cockle, W. E. H. (1984) “State archives in GrecoRoman Egypt from 30 BC to the reign of Septimius Severus.” Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 70: 106–22. Connolly, S. (2010) Lives behind the laws. The world of the Codex Theodosianus. Bloomington, IN.

Corbier, M. (1974) L’aerarium Saturni et l´aerarium militare. Administration et prosopographie se´natoriale. Rome. Coudry, M. (1994) “Senatus consultes et acta senatus.” In Demougin, ed.: 65–102. Davies, J. K. (2003) “Greek archives: from record to monument.” In Brosius, ed.: 323–43. Dearstyne, B. W. (1993) The archival enterprise. Chicago. ` la De´mougin, S. (1994) La me´moire perdue. A recherche des archives oublie´es, publiques et prive´es de la Rome antique. Rome. D’Ors, A. and Martin, F. (1979) “Propositio libellorum.” American Journal of Philology 100: 111–24. Haensch, R. (1992) “Das Statthalterarchiv.” Zeitschrift der Savigny-Stiftung fu¨r Rechtsgeschichte (Romanistische Abteilung), 109: 209–317. Hammond, N. G. L. (1988) “The royal journal of Alexander.” Historia 38: 129–50. Hammond, N. G. L. (1991) “A note on royal journals.” Historia 40: 382–4. Harris, W. V. (1989) Ancient literacy. Cambridge, MA. Hauken, T. (1995) “Reflections on new readings in the Skaptopara Inscription (IGBULG, IV 2236).” Symbolae Osloenses 70: 82–94. Knudzton, J. A. (1915) Die El-Amarna Tafeln. Leipzig. Millar, F. (1964/2004) “The Aerarium and its officials during the empire.” In F. Millar, H. M. Cotton, and G. M. Rogers, eds., Rome, the Greek World and the East II: Government, Society and Culture in the Roman Empire: 73–88. Chapel Hill, NC. Miller, S. G. (1995) “Old Metroon and Old Bouleuterion in the classical Agora of Athens.” M. H. Hansen and K. A. Raaflaub, eds., Studies in the Ancient Greek Polis: 133–56. Stuttgart. Moatti, C. (1993) Archives et partage de la terre dans le monde romain. Rome. Moatti, C. (1994) “Les archives des terres publiques a` Rome (IIe s. av.–Ier s. ap J.C.). Le cas des assignations.” In De´mougin, ed. 103–20. Mommsen, Th. (1887) Ro¨misches Staatsrecht. Leipzig. Moorey, P. R. S. (1991) A century of biblical archaeology. Westminster. Ogilvie, R. M. (1965) A commentary on Livy 1–5. Oxford.

6 O’Toole, J. (2004) “Back to the Future: Ernst Posner’s Archives of the Ancient World.” The American Archivist 67: 161–75. Palaima, T. (2003) “Archives and scribes and information hierarchy in Mycenean Linear B records.” In Brosius, ed.: 153–94. Pearson, L. (1955) “The diary and the letters of Alexander the Great.” Historia 3: 429–55. Pederse´n, O. (1998) Archives and libraries in the ancient Near East 1500–300 BC. Bethesda, MD. Posner, E. (1972) Archives in the ancient world. Cambridge, MA. Rainey, A. F. (1970) El-Amarna Tablets 359–379. Supplement. Kevelaer. Rhodes, P. J. and Lewis, D. M. (1997) The decrees of the Greek states. Oxford. Rodrı´guez Neila, J. F. (1991) “Archivos municipales en las provincias occidentales del Imperio Romano.” Veleia 8: 147. Scha¨fer, Ch. (2002) Eumenes von Kardia und der Kampf um die Macht im Alexanderreich. Frankfurt. Shear, T. L., Jr (1995) “Bouleterion, Metroon and the Archives of Athens.” M. H. Hansen

and K. A. Raaflaub, eds., Studies in the Ancient Greek Polis: 156–90. Stuttgart. Sickinger, J. P. (1999) Public records and archives in classical Athens. Chapel Hill, NC. Tarpin, M. (1998) “L’utilisation d’archives annexes a` la distribution de ble´.” In C. Moatti and C. Virlouvet (eds.), La me´moire perdue. Re´cherches sur l’administration romaine: 387–409. Rome. Thomas, R. (1993) Orality and literacy. Cambridge. West, W. C. (1989) “The public archives in fourth century Athens.” Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies 30: 529–43. Wilcken, U. (1920) “Zu den Kaiserreskripten.” Hermes 55: 1–42. Wilcken, U. (1930) “Zur propositio libellorum.” Archiv fu¨r Papyrusforschung und verwandte Gebiete 9, 2: 15–23. Williams, W. (1986) “The publication of imperial subscripts.” Zeitschrift fu¨r Papyrologie und Epigraphik 40: 283–94. Wolff, H. J. (1978) Das Recht der griechischen ¨ gyptens in der Zeit der Ptolema¨er und Papyri A des Prinzipats II: Organisation und Kontrolle des privaten Rechtsverkehrs. Munich.

1

Archives, Roman provincial STEPHEN MITCHELL

Record-keeping in antiquity, as today, was an essential adjunct to bureaucratic government, entailing the need to maintain official documents in archives. The nature and extent of provincial archives are particularly significant for evaluating the way in which Roman government operated. The proconsuls, imperial legati, prefects, and procurators who took charge of the imperial provinces held office for short periods, usually no longer than three years. If administrative continuity was to be maintained, records of earlier rulings had to be preserved and made available as necessary to inform subsequent decisions. In broad terms, and leaving aside military commands, the practices of Roman provincial government fell into two categories. One concerned revenue. Taxation was levied universally, although not systematically throughout the empire. Tax assessments, mostly based on censuses of persons and land, income, and regional expenditure, needed to be recorded and accounted for by the staff (officium) attached to the chief financial official of the province, usually an imperial procurator. There is no doubt that records and rulings relating to revenue were maintained in the provinces, usually presumably in the same location as the fisci, the provincial public treasuries (Brunt 1990). Other aspects of provincial administration were the responsibility of the governors (proconsuls, legati Augusti pro praetore, the PREFECT OF EGYPT, and the equestrian governors, usually procurators, of a number of smaller provinces). Most of this work was judicial, involving adjudications in cases brought for trial, although governors were also called upon to respond to petitions and requests, and might occasionally intervene in local issues at their own initiative. In these activities it is obvious that governors routinely turned to earlier precedents for their actions and decisions, but the extent to which this

involved the use of a specific governor’s archive remains disputed. The lex Iulia de repetundis of 59 BCE required governors leaving office to deposit copies of their accounts (rationes) in two leading cities of the province. No governor’s archive existed at this date. PLINY THE YOUNGER, governor of Pontus and Bithynia around 110 CE, in the tenth book of his Letters referred on a number of occasions to documents submitted to or produced by earlier governors or emperors, but it seems that in most cases he relied on copies produced by the parties to the disputes which he adjudicated, and his correspondence with TRAJAN contains no undisputable allusion to a provincial archive. By the later second century CE, however, both Apuleius (Flor. 9) and Lucian (Apologia 12) indicate that the decisions of governors were noted down word for word, and the latter confirms that they were deposited in a public archive. The usual term for these records was commentarii. This evidence is supported by passages relating to trials of Christians in the later second and third centuries (e.g., Euseb. Hist. eccl. 5.18.9). More detail is provided by papyri from Egypt, which indicate that officials responsible for decisions often cited precedents from the commentarii of previous Prefects of Egypt, the earliest of which belong to the time of Claudius. From this we may conclude that archives of provincial governors became a standard institution of provincial government sometime in the first or second century CE, although the precise date is debatable. Provincial archives contained the commentarii of its governors, mainly made up by judicial decisions, and their official correspondence with the emperors, other Roman officials inside and outside the province, and with the provincial cities. The papyrological evidence suggests that responses to individual petitions, subscriptiones, were not systematically included in the archive before the third century CE. The practices of the second and third centuries were certainly continued in the later Roman Empire. Many of the official rulings and decisions collected in the THEODOSIAN CODE

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner. © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Published 2015 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah26111

2 of the fifth century CE were obtained from provincial archives. There is very little direct evidence to indicate where provincial archives were located. Members of a governor’s official staff, including tabularii, commentarienses, and scribae were directly concerned with keeping accurate records of a governor’s activities and decisions, and inscriptions usually show them to have been active in provincial capitals. Indeed the creation of a bureaucracy of this sort was a prime reason for cities being defined as the administrative centers of provinces. It is thus likely that most if not all provincial archives were housed in the provincial capitals. Evidence from Egypt refers to a “governor’s library” (hegemonike bibliotheke), presumably in Alexandria, where official documents that recorded the date, place of issue, and name of the official under which the ruling was

published could be consulted, on payment of a fee, but no building in any province has ever been identified as a government archive. SEE ALSO:

Administration, Roman; Provincial capitals; Taxation, Roman.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Brunt, P. A (1990) “The fiscus and its development.” In Brunt, Roman imperial themes: 134–62. Oxford. Burton, G. P. (1975) “Proconsuls, assizes and the administration of justice under the Empire.” Journal of Roman Studies 65: 92–106. Haensch, R. (1992) “Das Statthalterarchiv.” Zeitschrift der Savigny-Stiftung für Rechtsgeschichte 109: 209–317. Haensch, R. (1997) Capita provinciarum. Statthaltersitze und Provinzverwaltung in der römischen Kaiserzeit. Mainz.

1

Archon/archontes MARTHA C. TAYLOR

Archon (meaning, simply, “the ruling one”) was the title given to public officials in several Greek states. Archons are attested in ARCADIA, ATHENS, BOIOTIA, DELOS, DELPHI, THESSALY (where four “tetrarchs” each ruled a “tetrad” or “fourth” of Thessaly), and elsewhere. In Athens, in the Classical period, there were three annually selected archons, the archon basileus (or “king” archon), the polemarch (or “war” archon), and the undifferentiated “archon” who gave his name to the year in public documents and is often called the “eponymous archon.” The functions of the archons represent the powers of a king divided up amongst three men, with the archon basileus having mostly religious duties, the polemarch having, at least originally, the role of war leader, and the archon holding administrative power. The Athenians believed that this system developed out of the early monarchy in stages, with archons serving first for life, then for ten-year terms ([Arist.] Ath. Pol. 3.1–2). The tradition put the first annual archons in 683/2 BCE (see KREON, ATHENIAN ARCHON). At some time, possibly in the mid to late seventh century (Rhodes 1993: 102), six annually appointed thesmothetai were added to the college of archons. After their year of service, archons became life members of the council of the AREOPAGOS. Originally the archonship was open only to the nobility and archons were chosen by election or were appointed by the council of the Areopagos ([Arist.] Ath. Pol. 8.2). According to the Athenaion Politeia, SOLON in 594/3 instituted a change whereby archons were appointed by lot from a shortlist of candidates elected by the tribes, but this is controversial ([Arist.] Ath. Pol. 8.1; Hansen 1991: 49–52; Rhodes 1993: 146–8). Solon also changed the qualification for office from birth to wealth. It is not clear if he opened the archonship only to his top census class, the PENTAKOSIOMEDIMNOI or “five-hundred-bushel men,” or to the HIPPEIS or

“knights” as well ([Arist.] Ath. Pol. 7.3). The third class of ZEUGITAI or “yoke-men” became eligible for the archonship in 457/6 ([Arist.] Ath. Pol. 26.2) so the hippeis must have gained eligibility for the archonship before that date and probably by 487/6. In that year, after the tyranny of the Peisistratids and its aftermath, during which archons were elected, men were appointed by lot to the archonship from a shortlist of (probably one hundred) men elected by the ten Kleisthenic tribes. At some later point, appointment by lot replaced election even for the shortlist of candidates chosen by the tribes ([Arist.] Ath. Pol. 8.1; 55.1). That archons were chosen by lot and served for only one year is probably the reason for the diminution of the importance of the office in the fifth and fourth centuries. Politically ambitious men turned to the office of strategos or general, and it is this office that, for example, PERIKLES held repeatedly, not the archonship. There were also other lesser archons in Athens. Each Kleisthenic deme had an archon (the “demarch”) who convened the deme assembly and executed its decisions. The nondeme community resident on the island of Salamis had an archon who probably served a function much like a demarch for an official deme. Even private ethnic and religious organizations like the genos of the SALAMINIOI might organize themselves under an archon. An archon might also be a military official. The phylarch commanded the troops from a tribe (or phyle), a taxiarch, a given corps (or taxis). In the fifth century, Athens also sent archons abroad to help administer the empire. The Athenaion Politeia gives their number as 700, but this figure is controversial (Arist. [Ath. Pol.] 24.3). These archons included men called more specifically “overseers” and “garrison commanders” as well as officials called simply “archons.” Inscriptions indicate that these resident officials helped establish new governments in cities that had revolted, worked to ensure that Athenian decrees were followed, and oversaw the collection of TRIBUTE (cf. Meiggs and Lewis 1969: nos. 45 and 46).

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 665–667. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah04039

2 SEE ALSO: Demes, Attic; Genos, gene; Kleisthenes of Athens; Strategoi.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Hansen, M. H. (1991) The Athenian democracy in the age of Demosthenes. Oxford. Meiggs, R. (1979) The Athenian empire. Oxford.

Meiggs, R. and Lewis, D. M., eds. (1969) A selection of Greek historical inscriptions to the end of the fifth century BC. Oxford. Raaflaub, K., Ober, J., and Wallace, R. (2007) Origins of democracy in ancient Greece. Berkeley. Rhodes, P. J. (1993) A commentary on the Aristotelian Athenaion Politeia. Oxford.

1

Archontiko in Macedonia VIVI SARIPANIDI

The ancient settlement at Archontiko, to the south of the modern town of Giannitsa and about 5 km to the northwest of ancient PELLA, has been tentatively identified with Tyrissa of the historical period. Inhabited already from the Middle Neolithic to the Late Byzantine period, the core of this settlement extended over a mound (toumba) and a lower plateau (trapeza). The investigation of the mound has been focused on two main chronological phases: the first, dated in the transition from the Early to the Middle Bronze Age, is attested by pile-dwellings of elongated form, which contained clay structures for the preparation, cooking, and storage of food; during the second phase, from the Late Bronze Age, piledwellings were replaced by houses with stone foundations. The later phases of the settlement, during which the site was incorporated into the Macedonian kingdom, are better known from architectural and other remains that have come to light at the trapeza. In the early third century BCE, probably on the eve of the Gallic invasion of MACEDONIA, both the toumba and the trapeza were enclosed within fortifications. Excavations around the settlement have also revealed a series of burial sites that date from the Early Iron Age to the Early Hellenistic period. The most extensive among those is the West Cemetery, which has yielded so far over a thousand

graves from the timespan between the midseventh and the early third centuries BCE. The most impressive finds come from graves from the years between 570 and 480 BCE. Closely comparable to contemporary burials from other sites of the broader region, such as those at VERGINA and SINDOS, these Archaic burials were more or less lavishly equipped, mainly with weapons, feasting accessories, imported goods from southern and eastern Greece, and numerous artifacts made of precious metals. REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Chrysostomou, A. and Chrysostomou, P. (1997) “Αρχοντικό Γιαννιτσών: Tράπεζα. Η έρευνα των ετών 1996–1997.” Tο Αρχαιολογικό Έργο στη Μακεδονία και στη Θράκη 11: 179–91. Chrysostomou, A. and Chrysostomou, P. (2009) “Tα νεκροταφεία του αρχαίου οικισμού στο Αρχοντικό Πέλλας.” In P. Adam-Veleni and K. Tzanavari, eds., Tο Αρχαιολογικό Έργο στη Μακεδονία και στη Θράκη, 20 χρόνια, επετειακός τόμος: 477–90. Thessaloniki. Chrysostomou, A. and Chrysostomou, P. (2012) “The ‘gold-wearing’ archaic Macedonians from the Western Cemetery of Archontiko, Pella.” In M. Tiverios, P. Nigdelis, and P. Adam-Veleni, eds., Threpteria. Studies on Ancient Macedonia: 490–517. Thessaloniki. Papaefthymiou-Papanthimou, A. (2010) “Η ανασκαφική έρευνα στον προϊστορικό οικισμό του Αρχοντικού Γιαννιτσών.” ΕΓΝΑTΙΑ 14: 257–74.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner. © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Published 2016 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah30185

1

Archytas of Tarentum MARQUIS BERREY

Archytas of Tarentum (ca. 425–ca. 355 BCE), philosopher, mathematician, and politician, is, after PHILOLAOS OF KROTON, the second oldest Pythagorean whose writings we possess. Known for his political leadership of Tarentum and his contributions to problems of applied proportion theory in music and geometry, Archytas’ scientific methodology of starting from distinctions about wholes and moving to distinctions about individual phenomena may have influenced both PLATO and ARISTOTLE’s philosophy of science. Archytas’ scientific work emphasizes individual reason and engages with Greek thought outside of Pythagoreanism, but moral anecdotes about his prudence place him securely within the Pythagorean tradition. Our most reliable sources for Archytas’ life are reports by his contemporaries Aristotle and Aristotle’s students ARISTOXENUS OF TARENTUM and Eudemos, preserved in Diogenes Laertius 8.79–83. They show Archytas as a seven-time successful general of Tarentum, an elected position, and as a political leader of his community who practiced personal moral restraint. Under his leadership Tarentum became one of the most politically powerful Greek city-states in southern Italy during 379–360. Furthermore, Aristotle and his school’s interest in Archytas’ philosophy and scientific achievement indicates that Archytas was a central figure in Greek intellectual life of the first half of the fourth century. Archytas’ student in mathematics was EUDOXOS OF KNIDOS. Archytas was famous in Later Antiquity for his connection to Plato; the seventh letter of Plato credits Archytas with saving Plato from the Syracusan tyrant DIONYSIOS II. Although its authenticity is debated, the seventh letter inspired Pythagoreans of Later Antiquity to claim that Archytas was Plato’s teacher of Pythagorean doctrines which they said heavily influenced Platonic philosophy. Later Pythagoreans composed many treatises which they deliberately attributed to early Pythagoreans,

including Archytas, in order to prove the genius of early Pythagoreans. Given the lack of reliable knowledge about early Pythagoreanism, separating authentic and inauthentic writings and doctrines attributed to Archytas is an ongoing problem for scholars. From the many fragments circulating in ancient literature attributed to Archytas, modern scholars believe that only four are genuine: they show an interest in the mathematical sciences and politics. In fr. 1 Archytas calls astronomy, geometry, arithmetic, and harmonics, the mathematical sciences of antiquity, sister sciences. In harmonics he shows a great theoretical interest in pitch. He is the first to argue that pitch depends on the speed by which sound moves, but conflates pitch with volume. He likely continues to develop earlier distinctions about the mathematical proportions of pitch: geometric proportionals (a:b¼b:c) yield octave pitches, harmonic (a-b:b¼b-c:c) and arithmetic (a-b¼b-c) proportionals yield fourth and fifth pitches. In geometry (preserved only in testimonia) Archytas was the first to solve the problem of the doubling of the cube, which had been reduced by earlier geometers to the problem of two mean proportionals (i.e., finding two numbers between a and b such that a:x¼x:y¼y:b). He proved that the point of intersection of the surfaces of a semicylinder, cone, and torus generated from a common cross-section of the semicylinder yields two line segments to the semicylinder’s cross-section that are in continued mean proportion to the diameter and chord of the semicylinder’s cross-section, a surprising and difficult stereometric result (Knorr 1986: 51). Archytas also invented a mechanical clapper as a toy for children. Archytas thought of politics in proportional terms, perhaps in connection to his mathematical work. In fr. 3 he ties the concord of a city-state to the equality that comes from calculation: “for by means of calculation we will seek reconciliation in our dealings with others.” Archytas applies the public transparency of calculation as a mode of public openness needed to produce social agreement.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 667–668. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah21035

2 SEE ALSO: Mathematics; Pythagoreanism; Taras/ Tarentum.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Barker, A. (2007) The science of harmonics in Classical Greece: 287–307. Cambridge.

Burkert, W. (1972) Lore and science in ancient Pythagoreanism. Cambridge. Huffman, C. (2005) Archytas of Tarentum: Pythagorean, philosopher, and mathematician king. Cambridge. Knorr, W.R. (1986) The ancient tradition of geometric problems: 50–52. Boston.

1

Arelate (Arles)

portion of the territory of Massilia. AUGUSTUS provided the new colony, Colonia Iulia Paterna Arelate Sextanorum, with important monuments, most of which still survive: the street grid, the city wall, a theater, the forum with its cryptoporticus, and several other public monuments. Necropoleis developed beside the main roads, especially on the southeast (Alyscamps). In the Flavian period, the city wall was partly destroyed and an amphitheater was constructed on its remains on the northern side; in the mid-second century CE, a huge circus was constructed southwest of the city, near the Rhone. Due to the importance of its rural economy and river-borne trade, the city prospered during the second and third centuries. On the right bank, a suburb (now called Trinquetaille) developed, with ports and docks, as well as luxuriously decorated villas with mosaics and marble floors. Christianity certainly developed early,

MARC HEIJMANS

Arelate (Arles) is an important ancient city situated in southern France, on the RHOˆNE River currently located about 40 km from the Mediterranean coast. The earliest traces of human occupation found so far date to the first half of the sixth century BCE. From 540–530, ceramics indicate a more Mediterranean influence, probably a result of the foundation of an emporion by the Greeks of MASSILIA (MARSEILLES), called Theline. However, from the fourth century onwards, the indigenous population became more important and the town took its Celtic name, Arelate. In 49 BCE, during the civil wars, Caesar had twelve galleys constructed in the Arles shipyards. In 46/45, he ordered the foundation of a Roman colony for the veterans of the sixth legion, and endowed the settlement with a large

N

D

N RA

E

ÔN

RH

G

6 4 3

1 2

7

3

5

0

100

200 m

Figure 1 Plan of Arles with the principal monuments. 1. Forum; 2. Theater; 3. City walls; 4. Amphitheater; 5. Circus; 6. Late Antique baths and “Aula palatina”; and 7. Early Christian cathedral. Illustration by Marc Heijmans.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 668–669. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah16015

2 and bishops are attested from the middle of the third century CE. At the end of the third century, most villas were destroyed by fire and not reconstructed. However, this decline did not last long, and in the early fourth century, the city recovered thanks to CONSTANTINE I, who organized the first Christian council there in 314. Constantine is probably responsible for the construction of the imperial baths as well as the reconstruction of the forum and the circus. During the fourth century, Arles became one of the most important cities in Gaul, the second after Trier. Around 400, the praetorian court was moved from Trier to Arles and, on this occasion, an important aula palatina was built. Arles was, for a time, one of the imperial residences of the western empire, but in 476, it became part of the Visigothic kingdom. In 507/508, it was besieged by the FRANKS and Burgundians and finally conquered by the Ostrogoths, who, in 536, decided to give up their Gallic province, which then became definitively part of the Frankish world.

During Late Antiquity, the bishops of Arles tried to obtain metropolitan rights. The most important was CAESARIUS OF ARLES (502–542), who in 513 was named the vicar of Gaul by pope Symmachus. Christian archaeological remains include an assemblage of marble sarcophagi (fourth century) and an important church, probably the cathedral of the sixth century, currently being excavated. SEE ALSO: Augusta Treverorum (Trier); Gallia Narbonensis; Gaul (Tres Galliae); Hilary of Arles; Visigoths.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Heijmans, M. (2004) Arles durant l’Antiquite´ tardive. Rome. Heijmans, M., ed. (2008) “L’antiquite´ fondatrice.” In J. M. Rouquette, Arles, des origines a` nos jours: 103–269. Arles. Heijmans, M., Rouquette, J. M., and Sinte`s, C. (2006) Arles antique. Paris. Rothe´, M. P. and Heijmans, M. (2008) Carte Arche´ologique de la Gaule, 13/5, Arles, Camargue, Crau. Paris.

1

Arelate (Arles) MARC HEIJMANS

Centre Camille Jullian, Aix-Marseille Université, France

Arelate (Arles) is an important ancient city situated in southern France, on the RHÔNE River currently located about 40 km from the Mediterranean coast (Figure 1). The earliest traces of human occupation found so far date to the first half of the sixth century BCE. From 540–530, ceramics indicate a more Mediterranean influence, probably a result of the foundation of an emporion by the Greeks of MASSILIA (MARSEILLES), called Theline. However, from the fourth century onwards, the indigenous population became more important and the town took its Celtic name, Arelate. Recent excavations on the right bank of the Rhône (now called Trinquetaille) revealed an

exceptional Roman house of late Republican date, with wall paintings of the second Pompeian style, which proves the importance of the Italic influence in Arles even before its foundation as a Roman colony. In 49 BCE, during the civil wars, Caesar had twelve galleys constructed in the Arles shipyards. In 46/45, he ordered the foundation of a Roman colony for the veterans of the sixth legion, and endowed the settlement with a large portion of the territory of Massilia. AUGUSTUS provided the new colony, Colonia Iulia Paterna Arelate Sextanorum, with important monuments, most of which still survive: the street grid, the city wall, a theater, the forum with its cryptoporticus, and several other public monuments. Cemeteries developed alongside the main roads, especially in the southeast (Alyscamps). In the Flavian period, the city wall was partly destroyed and an amphitheater was constructed on its remains on the northern side;

FIGURE 1 Plan of Arles with the principal monuments. 1. Forum; 2. Theater; 3. City walls; 4. Amphitheater; 5. Circus; 6. Late Antique baths and “Aula palatina”; and 7. Early Christian cathedral. Illustration courtesy of Marc Heijmans. The Encyclopedia of Ancient History. Edited by Andrew Erskine, David B. Hollander, and Arietta Papaconstantinou. © 2020 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Published 2020 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah16015.pub2

2 in the mid-second century CE, a huge circus was constructed southwest of the city, near the Rhône. Due to the importance of its rural economy and river-borne trade, the city prospered during the second and third centuries. On the right bank, the suburb developed, with ports and docks, as well as luxuriously decorated villas with mosaics and marble floors. Christianity developed early, and bishops are attested from the middle of the third century CE. At the end of the third century, most villas were destroyed by fire and not reconstructed. However, this decline did not last long, and in the early fourth century, the city recovered thanks to CONSTANTINE I, who organized the first Christian council there in 314. Constantine is probably responsible for the construction of the imperial baths as well as the reconstruction of the forum and the circus. During the fourth century, Arles became one of the most important cities in Gaul, the second after Trier. Around 400 CE, the praetorian court was moved from Trier to Arles and, on this occasion, an important aula palatina was built. Arles was, for a time, one of the imperial residences of the western empire, but in 476, it became part of the Visigothic kingdom. In 507/508, it was besieged by the FRANKS and Burgundians and finally conquered by the Ostrogoths, who, in 536 decided to give up their Gallic province, which then became definitively part of the Frankish world.

During Late Antiquity, the bishops of Arles tried to obtain metropolitan rights. The most important was CAESARIUS OF ARLES (502–542 CE), who in 513 was named the vicar of Gaul by Pope Symmachus. Christian archaeological remains include an assemblage of marble sarcophagi (fourth century) and an important church, certainly the original cathedral, that is currently being excavated. SEE ALSO:

Augusta Treverorum (Trier); Gallia Narbonensis; Gaul (Tres Galliae); Hilary of Arles; Visigoths.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Heijmans, M. (2004) Arles durant l’Antiquité tardive. Rome. Heijmans, M. (2018) “Le groupe épiscopal d’Arles à l’époque de Césaire et la question du monastère Saint-Jean.” In M. Heijmans and A. Ozoline, eds., Autour des reliques de saint Césaire d’Arles: 47–56. Arles. Heijmans, M., ed. (2008) “L’antiquité fondatrice.” In J. M. Rouquette, Arles, des origines à nos jours: 103–269. Arles. Heijmans, M., Rouquette, J. M., and Sintès, C. (2006) Arles antique. Paris. Rothé, M.-P. and Heijmans, M. (2008) Carte archéologique de la Gaule, 13/5, Arles, Camargue, Crau. Paris. Rothé, M.-P., Boislève, J., and Barbaran, S. (2017) “La maison de la Harpiste et son décor à Arles (Bouches-du-Rhône): nouvelles données sur l’occupation tardo-républicaine d’Arelate.” Gallia 74, 2: 43–76.

1

Arena ALISON FUTRELL

Arena refers especially to the space which housed Rome’s spectacular blood events: the munera, or gladiatorial combats, and the venationes, or wild animal “hunts,” as well as the execution of public justice that came to be associated with them. Early performances were presented in improvised venues, taking advantage of relatively open public spaces, such as the FORUM BOARIUM and the FORUM ROMANUM. Indeed, VITRUVIUS notes (De arch. 5.1.1–2) that the tradition of holding gladiatorial events in Italian fora led to the generally standardized oblong plan for this urban element, a design meant to enhance the visibility of the spectacle while allowing for the dynamic mobility of

the performers. Limitations on massed seating in these constricted areas could also work to heighten the cachet of the events, increasing their value to the ruling elite who sponsored them. By the later Republic, however, ambitious organizers in Rome favored built-to-purpose temporary structures, with their advantages in capacity, control, luxuriant display, and sensational effects to maximize the impact of the performance. The same period saw the development of the AMPHITHEATER building type, especially in CAMPANIA, with the earliest clearly datable example constructed at POMPEII by 70 BCE. Key features of these arena structures included an elliptical performance area, surrounded by a protective podium wall. Banked seats on all sides, often supported by radial vaulting, allowed for clear views of both the volatile activity in the arena and the focal points at

Figure 1 The amphitheater at Pompeii, overlooking arena from the southeast end of the main axis. Note this early arena’s wide sight lines for spectators; banked seating is built over vaulted tunnels through which elites accessed the privileged front range, while the masses climbed exterior stairs to arched entryways on the upper terraces. © Photo Scala, Florence/Fotografica Foglia. Courtesy of the Ministero Beni e Att. Culturali.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 669–671. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah10012

2 the ends of the main axes, entrances and exits for performers, as well as the prestigious seating locations of the games’ presenters and local elites, and, eventually, the imperial box. The most elaborate amphitheaters added special refinements, such as arena substructures to support special effects, and vela, or awnings, to protect and impress spectators. The amphitheater spread to major urban centers, especially in the western empire, while the Greek east tended to modify existing structures with arena features to accommodate spectacle. Rome itself, however, long delayed the construction of its monumental Flavian amphitheater, now better known as the COLOSSEUM, for reasons linked to the important role the arena played in negotiations of power. Senatorial resistance to permanent performance venues was repeatedly articulated as a moral choice, to uphold Rome’s traditional austerity in the face of “foreign” luxuries and temptations to idleness. Insistence on temporary arenas, however, meant that elite political sponsors had the opportunity to create a totalizing spectacle environment; an organizer willing to dedicate serious resources to this project would anticipate correspondingly serious returns. Increasingly charged interaction between sponsor and spectators was expected, as the arena became increasingly politicized. Controlling the

spectators’ experience of spectacle helped the senatorial politician, as it would later help the emperor, set the parameters of exchange within an ambience of beneficial, sophisticated leadership. The arena became a tool used by AUGUSTUS in validating his claimed restoration of the Roman state, from the ranked seating that preserved the traditional social hierarchy to the establishment of the arena at key nodes of imperial authority, such as legionary headquarters and sanctuaries of the imperial cult. SEE ALSO: Circus factions; Gladiators; Theater, Greek and Roman.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Bergmann, B. and Kondoleon, C., eds. (1999) The art of ancient spectacle. Washington. Bomgardner, D. L. (2000) The story of the Roman amphitheater. London. Futrell, A. (1997) Blood in the arena: the spectacle of Roman power. Austin. Golvin, J.-C. (1988) L’Amphithe´aˆtre romain. Paris. Rea, R. (2002) Rota Colisei: la valle del Colosseo attraverso i secoli. Rome. Welch, K. E. (1994) “The Roman arena in laterepublican Italy: a new interpretation.” Journal of Roman Archaeology 7: 59–80. Welch, K. E. (2007) The Roman amphitheatre: from its origins to the Colosseum. Cambridge.

1

Areopagos ROBERT W. WALLACE

A rocky outcropping below Athens’ ACROPOLIS, the Areios Pagos (in early Greek, “solid hill,” later by popular etymology “hill of Ares”) included the site of a shrine to the Erinyes, underworld deities of the family curse, an early venue for homicide trials. It also became the site of a council with at least potentially important powers, removed in 462/1 BCE. From the later fifth century a symbol for conservatives of pre-democratic government, during Athens’ more conservative period after 350 and then in Roman times, it regained some auctoritas if few new powers. Ancient Athenians disagreed (Arist. Pol. 1273b–1274a) whether SOLON (594) first established an Areopagos council (Wallace 1989: 3–47). After 594 such a council, composed of all ex-archons, adjudicated cases of premeditated homicide, and (at least after 462/1) wounding, arson, and damage to Athens’ sacred olive trees. No evidence indicates how far it exercised its broader Solonian competence called nomophylakia ([Arist.] Ath. Pol. 8.4; Plut. Sol. 19.1) to safeguard Athens’ government especially against TYRANNY (cf. PEISISTRATOS) and ensure that officials obeyed Solon’s laws. According to [Ath.] Pol. 23, between 479 and 462/1 it “managed” Athens. Those (unspecified) political activities and emerging democratic ideology provoked reforms by the democratic leader EPHIALTES in 462/1, reducing the Areopagos to a narrow judicial competence ([Arist.] Ath. Pol. 25). AESCHYLUS’ Eumenides (458) celebrated the court but as a symbol of peaceful adjudication, against vendetta and civil war. Until 404 the Areopagos largely disappeared. Then ([Arist.] Ath. Pol. 35.2), and especially from 357 (ISOCRATES’ Areopagitikos), Athenian conservatives promoted that council as a symbol of pre-Periklean order (see PERIKLES), their anachronistic elaborations/fabrications of its

early (especially moralizing) functions helping to corrupt the historical tradition. Following Athens’ conservative turn after 350, the Areopagos regained certain authorities, especially to investigate and report (apophainein) treason (the demos retained authority to punish), probably on a proposal by Demosthenes (Din. 1.62). Eukrates’ law (336), also targeting Areopagite collaboration with tyranny (Rhodes and Osborne 2003: no. 79), reflected the demos’ fears of the Areopagos’ resurgence (see EUKRATES, LAW OF). Under the oligarchic regime of DEMETRIOS OF PHALERON (317–307) the Areopagos exercised some supervisory religious and moral authority. The later Hellenistic age saw its role much reduced. Under Roman domination, it regained prestige (e.g., Cic. Nat. D. 2.74), passed or helped pass many dedicatory decrees, had an important role in legislation before or after Sulla’s occupation (SEG 26.120), and may have examined Paul of Tarsos on his religious beliefs (Acts 17:17–34). Other attested powers included punishing kakourgoi (including officials) for abusing weights and measures (IG II2 1013.56–60), and dishonest fish vendors (IG II2 1103.5–12) and grain sellers (IG II2 1118), sometimes in language echoing its ancient powers. Geagan (1967) considers these minimal powers merely a fraction of its competence. De Bruyn (1995) is more cautious. SEE ALSO: Apophasis; Archon/archontes; Democracy, Athenian; Demosthenes, orator; Homicide, Rome; Nomophylakes; Patrios politeia.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS De Bruyn, O. (1995) La Compe´tence de l’Are´opage en matie`re de proce`s publics: 185–96. Stuttgart. Geagan, D. J. (1967) The Athenian constitution after Sulla: 32–61. Princeton. Rhodes, P. J. and Osborne, R., eds. (2003) Greek historical inscriptions: 404–323 BC. Oxford.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 671–672. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah04040

2 Wallace, R. W. (1989) The Areopagos council, to 307 BC. Baltimore. Wallace, R. W. (2000) “Investigations and reports by the Areopagos council, and Demosthenes’ Areopagos decree.” In P. Flensted-Jensen,

T. H. Nielsen, and L. Rubinstein, eds., Polis and politics: studies in ancient Greek history presented to Mogens Herman Hansen on his sixtieth birthday: 581–95. Copenhagen.

1

Ares MICHAEL KONARIS

Son of Zeus and Hera, Greek god of war, identified with the Roman Mars. Ares’ name is attested in Linear B tablets from Knossos, indicating his early origin. In the Iliad he is portrayed in an unfavorable light. Ever bent on war and slaughter, he is the most hateful of the gods to Zeus (Il. 5.890). “Blood-stained,” he rages madly on the battlefield, and his voice and body are of terrifying magnitude (Il. 5.858–61, 21.407). Yet he is largely unsuccessful as a fighter, especially when, as a champion of the Trojans, he is set against Athena: she guides Diomedes into injuring him and wounds him herself (Il. 5.856–7, 21.406). Both warrior gods, Ares and Athena have been viewed as representing two distinct fighting attitudes: berserker rage versus composed warfare (Nilsson 1955: 435; Burkert 1985: 141, 169). From Homer onwards “Ares” can be used as a noun to denote war; this tends to be seen as metonymical usage. In the Iliad Ares is also called Enyalios (Il. 17. 211). The name Enyalios is documented in Linear B tablets apparently independently, and cults both of Enyalios and of Ares Enyalios are attested; it is disputed whether the two were identical or Enyalios was a separate war-deity. In the Odyssey Ares is the subject of a humorous episode along with his mistress Aphrodite: the pair are trapped by Hephaistos to the amusement of the gods (Od. 8.267–366). Ares and Aphrodite were also associated in iconography and cult (for shared temples see below). The progeny of the god of war and the goddess of sexual desire included personifications like Phobos, “Fear,” and Deimos, “Terror,” but also Eros and Harmonia. Through his progeny Ares was linked to Thebes. Its founder, Kadmos, married

Harmonia, and the dragon from whose teeth the ancestors of Theban nobility, the Spartoi, were born was also his offspring. Yet Ares was not prominent in Theban cult. In general, Ares does not appear to have been a major god in Greek cult (Burkert 1985: 170). In Athens the Areopagos, the “hill of Ares,” was not related to an Ares cult, although, according to an aetiological myth, the gods had tried Ares there for killing Poseidon’s son, Halirrhothios. The Ares temple in the agora was transferred there in Roman times and it seems that originally it had not been his. The Spartans sacrificed to Ares after victory in battle, but there was no Ares temple in Sparta, only a chained statue of Enyalios (Paus. 3.15.7). Ares had few temples, most of which were located in the Peloponnese, for example, in Tegea, Troezen, and the Argolid (shared with Aphrodite) and in Crete, for example, in Knossos, Biannos, and Lato (also shared with Aphrodite). Notable is the reversal of norm and the exclusion of men in the cult of Ares Gynaikothoinas, “of the women’s feast,” in Tegea (Paus. 8.48.4). In iconography Ares appears in earlier representations as a bearded warrior in hoplite armor; from the classical period onwards he tends to be portrayed beardless and without full armor. SEE ALSO: Aphrodite; Areopagos; Athena; Kadmos; Linear B; Mars.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Burkert, W. (1985) Greek religion: 16–70. Oxford. Farnell, L. R. (1909) The cults of the Greek states, vol. 5: 396–414. Oxford. Graf, F. (1985) Nordionische Kulte: 265–9. Rome. Nilsson, M. P. (1955) Geschichte der griechischen Religion, vol. 1: 517–19. Munich.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 672–673. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah17048

1

Aretaios of Cappadocia MARIE CRONIER

Aretaios of Cappadocia was a Greek physician, generally thought to have lived in the first century CE (Oberhelman 1994), although recent research (Nutton 2002, 2004: 205–6) suggests that he lived slightly earlier than GALEN (ca. second century CE) or that he was his contemporary. We know he wrote on surgery and fevers, but only one of his works has survived, a treatise On Chronic and Acute Diseases in eight books (Hude 1958; the beginning of book 1 is lost). The first four books of this treatise deal with causes and diagnoses of different illnesses, while the last four books are dedicated to their treatment. In books 1–4, each disease is given a very precise description, including elements such as the origin of its name, its anatomical location, and its symptoms and causes. These descriptions by Aretaios, and particularly the description of illnesses such as asthma or epilepsy, are very famous for their accuracy in observation and exposition and acquired for centuries the status of classical models in the field of nosology. As regards the corresponding treatments (books

5–8), they are typically Hippocratic and mainly recommend diets, simple drugs (especially medicinal herbs), and bleeding, but very rarely surgery. Aretaios’ main model is undoubtedly Hippocrates and the works of the Hippocratic corpus, which he constantly tries to imitate and to which he pays homage by writing in the Ionic dialect. His style reveals a high level of literacy and a very cultured writer, frequently making reference to classical authors such as HOMER. Although he never alludes to contemporaries or recent physicians or writers, Aretaios is clearly influenced by the Pneumatic doctrine and also by the Stoic school. SEE ALSO: Hippocrates of Kos; Medicine, Greek and Roman; Pneumatics; Stoicism.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Hude, C. (1958) Aretaeus. Opera, 2nd ed. Berlin. Nutton, V. (2002) “Aretaeus of Cappadocia.” In H. Cancik and H. Schneider, eds., New Pauly, 1: 1051–2. Leiden. Nutton, V. (2004) Ancient medicine. London. Oberhelman, S. M. (1994) “On the chronology and pneumatism of Aretaios of Cappadocia.” In W. Haase, ed., ANRW II.37.2: 941–66. Berlin.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print page 673. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah21036

1

Areus of Sparta IOANNA KRALLI

The Agiad Areus I (ca. 320–265 BCE) ascended to the throne as a minor (309/8), when SPARTA had sunk into political and military insignificance. During his reign Sparta emerged out of obscurity, attempting to resume leadership of the Greeks. Areus’ reign was long, and yet surprisingly little is known about him. Essentially he emerges forcefully in our sources in 281, when he took advantage of the chaotic situation in the kingdom of Macedon to mount a campaign against the AITOLIAN LEAGUE, allegedly in defence of DELPHI but in all probability intending to strike a blow against Macedon, which was then allied with the Aitolians (Justin Epit. 24.1). Thus he brought Sparta back to the fore, at the head of an allied army for the first time since the revolt of Agis III in 331. The campaign ended in Spartan defeat, but – surprisingly enough in traditional Spartan terms, and as a sign of changed times – this did not affect Areus’ rule or Sparta itself, since Macedon was then facing anarchy and a Gallic invasion. Sparta was left intact. The next major challenge for Areus was the invasion of Lakonia by PYRRHOS, KING of EPIRUS, in 272 (Plut. Pyrrh. 27–34). Sparta was saved by the mercenaries of the Macedonian king ANTIGONOS II GONATAS, who were joined by 2,000 men led by Areus. The entente between Sparta and Antigonos Gonatas did not last long: a few years later Areus, wishing to widen the horizons of Spartan diplomacy and to resume supremacy in Greek affairs, forged an alliance against Antigonos Gonatas with King PTOLEMY II PHILADELPHOS of Egypt. ATHENS, also an ally of Ptolemy II, joined forces and war – the so-called CHREMONIDEAN WAR – broke out in 268/267 (IG II2 686/687; Paus. 1.1.1, 3.6.4–6;

Justin Epit. 26.2.1–9). This time Areus’ appeal to the Peloponnesians was far stronger than in 281 – though not universal. ELIS (Paus. 6.12.5) and the Arcadian Orchomenos set up statues in his honor (ISE: no. 54); Ptolemy II did the same (SIG 3 433), an indication both of Areus’ prestige and of Ptolemy’s wish to appear as promoting the Greek cause of freedom. Areus and his Peloponnesian army were never able to march either beyond the ISTHMUS or beyond the Thriasian Plain, and Areus himself was slain ca. 265 near Corinth. On the economic and political level Areus broke new ground: he issued Sparta’s first silver coinage (tetradrachms) in the late 270s/early 260s, adopting a coin type first used by Alexander. Furthermore, he chose to display his own image with the legend “Of king Areus” on the obverse. Thus he aligned himself with the other Hellenistic kings, at the same time presenting himself as sole ruler of Sparta. However, Areus did not uproot the Spartan social and political establishment: revolution would be undertaken by Agis IV, and even more so by Kleomenes III and Nabis. SEE ALSO: Agis II and III of Sparta; Agis IV of Sparta; Coinage, Hellenistic; Kleomenes III of Sparta; Nabis of Sparta; Peloponnese.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Cartledge, P. and Spawforth, A. (2002) Hellenistic and Roman Sparta: a tale of two cities, 2nd ed.: 28–37. London. Habicht, C. (1997) Athens from Alexander to Antony, trans. D. L. Schneider: 142–50. Harvard. Iscrizioni storiche ellenistiche, vols. 1–2 (1967–76), edited by L. Moretti. Florence (= ISE). Marasco, G. (1985) Sparta agli inizi dell’eta` ellenistica: il regno di Areo I 309/8–265/4. Florence. Will, E´. (1979–1982) Histoire politique du monde helle´nistique (323–30 av. J.-C.), 2nd ed., vol. 1: 209–34. Nancy.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 673–674. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah09045

1

Areus of Sparta IOANNA KRALLI

Ionian University

The Agiad Areus I (ca. 320–265 BCE) ascended to the throne as a minor (309/8), when SPARTA had sunk into political and military insignificance. During his reign Sparta emerged out of obscurity, attempting to resume leadership of the Greeks. Areus’ reign was long, and yet surprisingly little is known about him. Essentially he emerges forcefully in our sources in 281/0, when he took advantage of the chaotic situation in the kingdom of MACEDONIA to mount a campaign against the AITOLIAN LEAGUE, allegedly in defense of DELPHI but in all probability intending to strike a blow against Macedonia, which was then allied with the Aitolians (Just. Epit. 24.1). Thus he brought Sparta back to the fore, at the head of an allied army for the first time since the war of AGIS III in 331/0. The campaign ended in Spartan defeat, but – surprisingly enough in traditional Spartan terms, and as a sign of changed times – this did not affect Areus’ rule or Sparta itself, since

Macedonia was then facing anarchy and a Gallic invasion. Sparta was left intact. The next major challenge for Areus was the invasion of Lakonia by PYRRHOS, King of Epirus, in 272 (Plut. Pyrrh. 27–34). Sparta was saved by the mercenaries of the Macedonian king ANTIGONOS II GONATAS, who were joined by 2,000 mercenaries from CRETE led by Areus. The entente between Sparta and Antigonos Gonatas did not last long: a few years later Areus, wishing to widen the horizons of Spartan diplomacy and to resume supremacy in Greek affairs, forged an alliance against Gonatas with king PTOLEMY II PHILADELPHOS of Egypt. ATHENS, also an ally of Ptolemy II, joined forces and war – the so-called CHREMONIDEAN WAR – broke out probably in 268/267 (IG II3.1.912 =IG II2 686/ 687; Paus. 1.1.1, 3.6.4–6; Just. Epit. 26.2.1–9). This time Areus’ appeal to the Peloponnesians was far stronger than in 281/0, though not universal. ELIS (Paus. 6.12.5) and the Arcadian Orchomenos set up statues in his honor (ISE no. 54); Ptolemy II did the same (Syll.3 433), an indication both of Areus’ prestige and of Ptolemy’s wish to appear as promoting the Greek cause of freedom.

FIGURE 1 Silver tetradrachm of Areus I, showing on the obverse the head of Herakles in lion’s skin headdress and on the reverse Zeus seated on throne with the legend “Of King Areus” (ΒΑΣΙΛΕΟΣ ΑΡΕΟΣ). Image courtesy of Classical Numismatics Group (www.cngcoins.com). The Encyclopedia of Ancient History. Edited by Andrew Erskine, David B. Hollander, and Arietta Papaconstantinou. © 2019 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Published 2019 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah09045.pub2

2 Areus and his Peloponnesian army were not able to march either beyond the ISTHMUS or beyond the Thriasian Plain, and Areus himself was slain ca. 265 near CORINTH. On the economic and political level Areus broke new ground: he issued Sparta’s first silver coinage (tetradrachms) (see COINAGE, HELLENISTIC) in the late 270s/early 260s, adopting a coin type first used by Alexander, but, significantly, choosing to add the legend “Of King Areus” (see Figure 1). Thus he aligned himself with the other Hellenistic kings, at the same time presenting himself as sole ruler of Sparta. However, Areus did not uproot the Spartan social and political establishment; revolution would be undertaken by AGIS IV, and even more so by KLEOMENES III and NABIS. SEE ALSO:

Peloponnese.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Cartledge, P. and Spawforth, A. (2002) Hellenistic and Roman Sparta: a tale of two cities, 2nd ed.: 28–37. London. Habicht, C. (1997) Athens from Alexander to Antony, trans. D. L. Schneider: 142–50. Harvard. Kralli, I. (2017) The Hellenistic Peloponnese: interstate relations: a narrative and analytic history, 371–146 BC: ch. 4. Swansea. Marasco, G. (1985) Sparta agli inizi dell’età ellenistica: il regno di Areo I 309/8–265/4. Florence. Pagkalos, M. (2015) “The coinage of King Areus I revisited: uses of the past in Spartan coins.” Graeco-Latina Brunensia 20: 145–59. Walthall, A. (2013) “Becoming kings: Spartan basileia in the Hellenistic period.” In N. Luraghi, ed., The splendors and miseries of ruling alone: encounters with monarchy from Archaic Greece to the Hellenistic Mediterranean: 123–59. Stuttgart. Will, E. (1979) Histoire politique du monde hellénistique (323–30 av. J.-C.), vol. 1, 2nd ed.: 209– 34. Nancy.

1

Argeads SELENE PSOMA

In ancient literary sources, the term Argeads denotes the royal house of MACEDONIA down to Alexander IVand refers to their origins in Argos. The term Temenids is also used to emphasize their descent from Temenos, king of Argos. Herodotus provides a list of all kings preceding ARCHELAOS and agrees with Thucydides about their number (eight): Perdikkas I, the founder of the dynasty, Argaios, Philippos, Aeropos, Alketas, Amyntas, Alexander I, and PERDIKKAS II. Karanos and an earlier Archelaos were later added to the list; EURIPIDES introduced the latter in a play produced for the court of Archelaos. Herodotus also recounts the foundation of the dynasty and associates it with Mount Bermion and the Gardens of Midas. Diodorus (7.16) reports a post eventum Delphic oracle to explain the name of the capital AIGAI, the site of the goats. When some claimed that Alexander I, the son of Amyntas, could not participate in the Olympic Games because he was not Greek, the king responded by pointing to his Argive ancestry. He was a proxenos and a benefactor of the Athenians and seems to have provided them with timber for their fleet. Though he fought with Xerxes’ army at Plataia, Herodotus reports that he provided the Greeks with valuable information before the battle. After the Persian wars, Alexander expanded the territories of his kingdom in Krestonia and gained temporary control of the Pangaion mints and Bisaltia after the end of the revolt of Thasos around 463 BCE. Alexander had several sons and was succeeded by Perdikkas II (454/3–413), who was an ally of the Athenians at the beginning of his reign. After the Athenians founded Amphipolis in 437/6 and began to support his brother Philip by giving him the eastern part of the kingdom, Perdikkas turned against Athens and advised the Chalcidians of Thrace to form a league. The tensions between Perdikkas and the Athenians led to the revolt of Potidaia (432)

and the outbreak of the Peloponnesian War. Thucydides criticizes his foreign policy because he often changed sides and invited BRASIDAS to the north, which led to the Spartan capture of Amphipolis. Like several other Macedonian kings, Perdikkas exported timber to Athens. His successor Archelaos (413–399) transformed Macedonia. He also exported timber to Athens and received their support in his campaign against Pydna. Archelaos’ death was followed by a period of bitter dynastic struggles. The reign of Amyntas III (393/2–369/8 BCE) was turbulent: he was twice expelled from Macedonia and returned to the throne with Thessalian help. In his effort to retain power, he ceded land and made a treaty with the Chalcidians of Thrace and adopted the Athenian general Iphikrates. After the war between Sparta and the Chalcidians (382–379 BCE), he became an ally of Athens and sent representatives to the Peace Conference at Sparta around 370 BCE. His successor, Alexander II, intervened in Thessaly and was then completely manipulated by the Theban Pelopidas as was also his successor Ptolemy of Aloros. The short-lived alliance between Macedonian and Athens early in the reign of PERDIKKAS III soon ended and was replaced by an alliance between Macedonia, the Chalcidians of Thrace and Amphipolis. After his death in battle fighting the Illyrians, Perdikkas was succeeded by his brother Philip II (360/59–336/5), who turned the kingdom into the most significant power of his time. His son, Alexander III (335/ 4–324/3) brought the frontiers of the kingdom into India. Both his successors, his half-brother Arrhidaios with the name Philip (III) and his son Alexander IV, reigned simultaneously and were assassinated, the first by the conqueror’s mother, OLYMPIAS, and the second by CASSANDER. The last Argeads were Philip, Antipater, and Alexander, the sons of Thessalonike, the half sister of Alexander IV who was forced to marry Cassander after the death of her stepmother Olympias. The Argead capital was Aigai until the reign of Amyntas III, who moved the capital to Pella.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 674–676. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah09046

2 The court of the Argeads was visited by Pindar, Herodotus, and Euripides. Plato sent his pupil Euphraios of Oreos to the court of Perdikkas III. Theopompos of Chios spent time in Philip’s court, and Alexander III was educated by Aristotle. Argead princesses served the kingdom’s foreign policy. Alexander I gave his sister Gygaia to the Persian Boubares, Perdikkas II, his sister Stratonike to Seuthes, the nephew and successor of the Thracian king Sitalkes. A daughter of Archelaos was married in the royal house of neigboring Elimea. The second wife of Amyntas III was Eurydike, the daughter of Sirras of Lynkestis. Philip II devoted his personal life to the kingdom’s foreign policy. He gave his eldest daughter, Kynnane, to his nephew, Amyntas son of Perdikkas, and Cleopatra, Alexander’s full sister, to the king of Epirus. Both daughters of Philip II were offered in marriage to different successors. Kynnane’s daughter, Eurydike, married her maternal uncle king Philip III. The Argeads followed the common Greek custom

of naming members of the royal family after their ancestors. Renaming members of the royal family was common under Philip and to the end of the dynasty. SEE ALSO: Alexander I of Macedon; Alexander II of

Macedon; Alexander IV, son of Alexander III; Philip III Arrhidaios; Philip II of Macedon. REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Carney, E. D. (2000) Women and monarchy in Macedonia. Norman, OK. Errington, R. M. (1990) A history of Macedonia. Berkeley. Hammond, N. G. L. and Griffith, G. T. (1978) A history of Macedonia, vol. II, 550–336 BC. Oxford. March, D. A. (1995) “The kings of Macedon: 399–369.” Historia 54: 257–82. Stylianou, A. (1998) A historical commentary on Diodorus Siculus, Book 15. Oxford.

1

Argei DAVID J. NEWSOME

The term Argei designated two elements of a purification ceremony in Rome: twenty-seven shrines throughout the city and twentyseven straw effigies, which were thrown into the Tiber from the Sublician Bridge on May 15. Plutarch (Quaest. Rom. 86) calls it the most important ceremony, and it involved many of the principal religious offices (the pontifices, vestals, and flaminica Dialis). Ennius (in Varro Ling. 7.44) and Livy (1.21.5) credit Numa Pompilius with its institution, though it was rooted in a later, Servian topography (Varro Ling. 5.45–54, based on an archaic text, the Sacra Argeorum). On March 16–17, effigies were placed in the shrines (Ov. Fast. 3.791–2), where they soaked up evil spirits. The day after the Lemuria, the city was purged as the effigies were thrown into the river.

Suggestions that the ceremony replaced human sacrifice (Dion. Hal. Ant. Rom. 1.19.38.2–3; Plut. Quaest. Rom. 32) are tenuous, as are associations of the shrines with later compita (see COMPITALIA). SEE ALSO:

Flaminica; Human sacrifice, Greece and Rome; Lemuria; Pontifex, pontifices; Tiber; Tullius, Servius; Vesta and Vestals.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Coarelli, F. (1993) “Argei, sacraria.” In E. M. Steinby, ed., Lexicon Topographicum Urbis Romae, I: A-C: 120–5. Rome. Storchi, A. (1991–2) “Il rituale degli Argei tra annalistica e antiquaria.” Annali dell’Istituto Italiano per gli Studi Storici 12: 263–308. Wallace-Hadrill, A. (2008) Rome’s cultural revolution: 260–4. Cambridge. Zio´łkowski, A. (1998–9) “Ritual cleaning-up of the city: from the Lupercalia to the Argei.” Ancient Society 29: 191–218.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print page 676. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah17050

1

Argilos MARTIN PERRON

Argilos is a colony of ANDROS situated on the right bank of the Strymon River (Figure 1). It was founded around the mid-seventh century BCE on a hilltop on the coastal route between MACEDONIA and Thrace. The site benefitted from the maritime trade along the Strymon and the mining activities of Mount Pangaion. Excavations carried out at the site uncovered Iron Age handmade pottery of ThracoMacedonian tradition and sub-protogeometric painted pottery from the Chalcidice and the Thermaic Gulf. Pottery from Aeolia, Corinth, Chios, and Ionia dating to the seventh century BCE was also found at the lowest levels of the settlement. The occurrence of vases pre-dating

the colonization venture shows that Argilos was occupied by local tribes (probably the Bisaltians) before the arrival of the Greeks.

FIGURE 1 Aerial photography: Jacques Perreault. Reproduced with permission.

FIGURE 2 South-East sector plan: François Gignac (archeodesign.com), Kostas Zambas, Jacques Perreault. Reproduced with permission. The Encyclopedia of Ancient History. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner. © 2017 John Wiley & Sons Ltd. Published 2017 by John Wiley & Sons Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah30198

2 Excavations undertaken on the southeastern slope of the settlement (Figure 2) showed traces of land subdivisions and architectural structures, among which stand several private and public buildings whose early stages date back to the mid-sixth century BCE. On the shoreline, excavations have yielded pottery of various origins (Attic, Cycladic, Lakonian) reflecting the intensity and diversity of trade relations between the colony and the main workshops of the Aegean world. Post holes and traces of metallurgic activities are also documented for the first half of the sixth century BCE. In the last quarter of that century, Argilos was fortified and had two colonies in its vicinity: Tragilos and Kerdilion. During the Classical period, Herodotus (7.115) reports that, in 480 BCE, the Persian king Xerxes halted at Argilos and obliged its inhabitants to join his army. Following the Persian defeat, Argilos joined the DELIAN LEAGUE as a city-member, and in 454/453 BCE it paid 10.5 talents of silver to the league, a sum that confirms its affluence. A necropolis and seaport infrastructures are attested for this period. The foundation of AMPHIPOLIS in 437 BCE brought an end to the prosperity of Argilos. During the PELOPONNESIAN WAR, the Argilians, hostile to the Athenians, fought with the Spartans against Amphipolis. Argilos was destroyed by PHILIP II OF MACEDON in 357 BCE. A brief reoccupation, evidenced by the ruins of an

agricultural mansion on the acropolis, dates to 350–200 BCE. SEE ALSO: Andros, history and political organization; Andros, topography and archaeology; Colonization, Greek.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Liampi, K. (2005) Argilos. A historical and numismatic study. Athens. Neeft, C. W. (2012) “Corinthian pottery in Thasos and Argilos. Preliminary observations.” In M. A. Tiverios, E. Manakidou, V. MissailidouDespotidou, and A. Arvanitaki, eds., Archaic pottery of the Northern Aegean and its periphery (700–480 BC): proceedings of the archaeological meeting, Thessaloniki, 19–22 May 2011: 189–96. Thessaloniki. Perreault, J. Y. and Bonias, Z. (2010) “Argilos aux VIIème-VIème siècles av. J.-C.” In H. Treziny, ed., Grecs et indigènes de la Catalogne à la Mer Noire: 225–33. Paris. Perron, M. (2013) “Aργίλος: η χρηστική κεραμική με ταινιωτή – κυματοειδή διακόσμηση στον 6ο και 5ο αιώνα π. Χ.: Mια προσέγγιση.” In P. Adam-Veleni, D. Tsiafakis, and E. Kefalidou, eds., Pottery workshops in the Northern Aegean (8th–5th century B.C.). Proceedings of the International Colloquium held at the Archaeological Museum of Thessaloniki, February 5, 2010: 133– 42. Thessaloniki.

1

Arginousai (Arginusae), battle of PETER HUNT

University of Colorado, USA

Arginousai was an Athenian naval victory in the last phase of the PELOPONNESIAN WAR. It is best known for its aftermath, the mass trial and execution of the victorious generals (Xen. Hell. 1.6.19–1.7.35; Diod. Sic. 13.97–103), but our earliest source, Aristophanes’ Frogs (405 BCE) refers more to the freeing and enfranchisement of the slaves who fought in the battle (33–4, 190–2, 693–6) than to the trial of the generals (1195–6). In summer 406 BCE the Peloponnesian navy chased the smaller Athenian navy into MYTILENE. The Athenians mustered a relief force employing emergency measures including “embarking everybody whether slave or free … even the cavalry class” (Xen. Hell. 1.6.24). Other contingents joined this force on its way to Mytilene, while the Peloponnesian navy left ships to maintain the siege there and headed south to head off the Athenian relief force. The battle took place between LESBOS and the mainland of Asia Minor, near the Arginousai Islands. The details are uncertain, but the Athenians inflicted a devastating defeat on the Peloponnesian fleet and lost twenty-five ships themselves. The survivors from these ships were not picked up immediately and bodies were not recovered. By the time the Athenians regrouped and assigned a rescue squadron, a storm came up and prevented any action. Mutual recriminations ensued between the generals in charge and the trierarchs assigned

to the rescue. Eventually eight generals were condemned in a hasty and probably illegal trial before the Athenian assembly. This deprived Athens of much of its military leadership at a crucial time in the war. The failure to recover bodies was a serious religious matter (cf. Thuc. 4.44.5–6), but historians have invoked other factors to explain the condemnation of the generals: mob psychology, factional strife, and anger on the part of those slaveholders whose slaves had been freed to row in the fleet. Many Athenians later regretted condemning the generals, which remains a blemish on the record of the Athenian democracy. SEE ALSO: Democracy, Athenian; strategoi; trireme.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Asmonti, L. (2006) “The Arginusae trial, the changing role of strategoi and the relationship between demos and military leadership in late-fifth century Athens.” Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies 49: 1–21. Gish, D. (2012) “Defending dēmokratia: Athenian justice and the trial of the Arginusae generals in Xenophon’s Hellenica.” In F. Hobden and C. Tuplin, eds., Xenophon: ethical principles and historical enquiry: 161–212. Leiden. Hamel, D. (2015) The battle of Arginusae: victory at sea and its tragic aftermath in the final years of the Peloponnesian War. Baltimore. Hunt, P. (2001) “The slaves and the generals of Arginusae.” American Journal of Philology 122: 359–80. Lavelle, B. M. (1988) “Adikia, the decree of Kannonos, and the trial of the generals.” Classica et Mediaevalia 39: 19–41. Rubel, A. (2015) “Afterlife and the living: the Arginusae trial and the omission of burying the dead.” Dacia 59: 277–97.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History. Edited by Andrew Erskine, David B. Hollander, and Arietta Papaconstantinou. © 2020 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Published 2020 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah04041.pub2

1

Arginousai, battle of PETER HUNT

Arginousai was an Athenian naval victory in the last phase of the PELOPONNESIAN WAR. It is best known for its aftermath, the mass trial and execution of the victorious generals. In summer 406 BCE the Peloponnesian navy chased a smaller Athenian navy into MYTILENE. The Athenians mustered a relief force employing emergency measures including “embarking everybody whether slave or free . . . even the cavalry class” (Xen. Hell. 1.6.24). Other contingents joined this force on its way to Mytilene, while the Peloponnesian navy left ships to maintain the siege there and headed south to head off the Athenian relief. Thus the Athenians had a numerical advantage, but their mass levy was less experienced. The battle took place between LESBOS and the mainland of Asia Minor, near the Arginousai islands. The details are uncertain, but the Athenians inflicted a devastating defeat on the Peloponnesian fleet, in which twothirds (seventy-seven) of the Peloponnesians’ ships and their general Kallikratidas were lost. Thirteen Athenian ships sank and twelve were disabled. The survivors from these ships were not picked up immediately and bodies were not

recovered. By the time the Athenians regrouped and assigned a rescue squadron, a storm came up and prevented any action. Mutual recriminations ensued between the generals in charge and the trierarchs assigned to the rescue. Eventually the generals were condemned in a hasty and illegal trial before the Athenian assembly (Xen. Hell. 1.7.1–34); many Athenians quickly repented of this decision, which remains a blemish on the record of the Athenian democracy. SEE ALSO:

Democracy, Athenian; Strategoi;

Trireme. REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Andrewes, A. (1974) “The Arginousai trial.” Phoenix 28: 112–22. Asmonti, L. (2006) “The Arginusae trial, the changing role of strategoi and the relationship between demos and military leadership in latefifth century Athens.” Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies 49: 1–21. Hunt, P. (2001) “The slaves and the generals of Arginusae.” American Journal of Philology 122: 359–80. Kagan, D. (1987) The fall of the Athenian empire: 325–75. Ithaca. Lavelle, B. M. (1988) “Adikia, the decree of Kannonos, and the trial of the generals.” Classica et Mediaevalia 39: 19–41.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 676–677. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah04041

1

Argive Heraion RUNE FREDERIKSEN

Sanctuary to HERA, situated 10 km northeast of ARGOS, the principal extra-urban sanctuary of the Argolid. Excavated from 1836 on, but systematically from 1892 to 1895 (Waldstein), the first major work by the American School of Classical Studies in Greece, and later in 1925–8 and 1949 (Amandry and Caskey). The sanctuary spreads over three terraces with numerous buildings. The central terrace holds a classical Doric temple with six by twelve columns (late fifth to early fourth century BCE) and housed a chryselephantine statue of Hera by Polykleitos of Argos. On the upper terrace was a Doric peripteral temple with six by fourteen columns, perhaps the oldest peripteral building in the Peloponnese (700–650). The retaining wall for the upper terrace of large, roughly worked conglomerate blocks may date to around 700. The classical temple, constructed in colored stone, decorated with white stucco and richly painted, had sculpted pediments, acroteria, simas, and metopes with an Amazonomachia and a Gigantomachia (fragments kept in Argos and Athens). The sanctuary was controlled by Argos at least from the sixth

century, and an annual festival (Heraia) to Hera was celebrated with games (hekatombaia) and a procession from city to sanctuary. Chryseis, a priestess of the sanctuary, fled to Phleious after being responsible for the (old) temple’s destruction by fire (423). Finds of locally produced ivory seals and large amounts of iron obeloi and bronze votives attest to the significance of the sanctuary for Argive communities at least from the eighth century. SEE ALSO:

Argos; Hera; Temples, Greek.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Foley, A. (1988) The Argolid 800–600 BC: an archaeological survey. Together with an index of sites from the Neolithic to the Roman period. Gothenburg. Pfaff, C. A. (2003) The Argive Heraion: results of excavations conducted by the American School of Classical Studies at Athens. Ann Arbor. Polignac, F. de. (1998) “Cite´ et territoire a` l’e´poque ge´ome´trique: un mode`le argien?” In A. Pariente and G. Touchais, eds., Argos et l’Argolide: topographie et urbanisme: 145–58. Paris. Strøm, I. (2009) “The early sanctuary of the Argive Heraion and its external relations (8th–early 6th century BC). Conclusions.” Proceedings of the Danish Institute at Athens 6.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print page 677. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah02024

1

Argolis JONATHAN M. HALL

The Argolis region of Greece is situated in the northeast PELOPONNESE, bordering Corinthia to the north, ARCADIA to the west, and Lakonia to the south. It is known to have accommodated at least eleven poleis, of which ARGOS was, for much of the historical period, the most significant. Geographically, culturally, and politically, Argolis is subdivided into two regions. To the west is Argeia, a triangular alluvial plain approximately 250 sq km in area, watered by the Inachos, Charadros, and Erasinos Rivers and hemmed in by Mount Artemision on the west and Mount Arachnaion on the east, while to the north, the narrow Dervenaki pass leads through the Tretos mountains to Kleonai and Corinthia. The most important sites in Antiquity were Argos and Lerna, on the western side of the plain, and MYCENAE, the Heraion, Midea, TIRYNS, and Nauplia on the eastern side; Asine occupies its own microplain to the southeast of Nauplia. The second region is Eastern Argolid, or Akte, which is bisected, from east to west, by the Adheres mountain range. On the southern coast were the poleis of Hermione and Halieis, while Epidauros, Troizen, Methana, and the offshore island of Kalaureia are located on the northern coast. Today, Argolis is a center of citrus production, though in Antiquity the plain, in particular, supported arable land for grain, oleoculture, and viticulture as well as pasturage. Late Helladic settlement is attested throughout the region, but the heart of Mycenaean civilization was located in Argeia – especially at the wealthy palatial sites of Mycenae and Tiryns and, to a lesser extent, Midea. With the collapse of the Mycenaean palaces, however, the center of gravity shifted westwards to Argos. In the historical period, Argos, together with most of the other poleis of Argolis, claimed to have been refounded, at the end of the “Heroic Age,” by DORIANS, though doubts have been expressed

concerning a genuinely historical migration (Hall 1997: 56–107). According to HERODOTUS (1.82.2), Argos had once controlled the entire eastern Peloponnesian seaboard down to Cape Malea, together with Kythera and other islands, and some scholars have connected this to Strabo’s notice (8.3.33) that the Argive tyrant Pheidon recovered the entire inheritance of the mythical king Temenos, “which had been divided into a number of parts.” Yet, quite apart from the fact that our sources diverge widely regarding Pheidon’s date, there is no evidence that Argos exerted political control over the whole of Argolis during the Archaic period: in the later seventh century BCE, for example, Epidauros had its own tyrant (Hdt. 3.50.2). There were also distinctive cultural differences between Argeia and Akte – especially with regard to cultic practice and the alphabet that each region adopted for its inscriptions. Although tradition recalled that Argos had destroyed Asine towards the end of the eighth century BCE and possibly Nauplia at the beginning of the sixth (Strabo 8.6.11), it is not at all certain that it had even managed to unify Argeia under its control prior to the fifth century, since an inscription from Tiryns (SEG 30.380), dated to ca. 600, documents the existence there of a political assembly. Small communities such as Mycenae and Tiryns may have been fully autonomous during the Archaic period or they may have been “dependent poleis,” akin to the PERIOIKOI of Lakonia. Either way, while Mycenae and Tiryns – along with Epidauros, Troizen, and Hermione – defended Greece in 480–479, Argos remained neutral, claiming a shortage of manpower due to a decisive defeat, near Sepeia, at the hands of the Spartans some fourteen years earlier (Hdt. 6.76–83). Herodotus adds that, as a result of this, Argive slaves took over the administration of the city, although Plutarch (Mor. 245f; cf. Arist. Pol. 1303a) describes the event in terms of recruitment into the Argive citizen-body of perioikoi. In the 460s, Argos destroyed Mycenae, Tiryns, and Midea

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 677–679. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah14044

2 (Hdt. 7.127; Ephoros 70 FGrH 56; Diod. Sic. 11.65; Strabo 8.6.11, 19; Paus. 2.17.5; 2.25.8; 7.25.5–6; 8.46.3). From then on, Argos was the only polis of any consequence in Argeia, and when Mycenae, Tiryns, and Asine witnessed a renaissance in the Hellenistic period, it seems to be as villages under Argive control. By contrast, the poleis of Akte retained their autonomous status throughout most of Antiquity. Much of Argive foreign policy was dictated by its long-standing hostility towards Sparta and, once a thirty-year truce between the two had expired in 421, Argos entered into alliance with Athens (Thuc. 5.47). Conversely, Troizen, although it had offered safe haven to Athenian women and children during the Persian invasion (Hdt. 8.41), generally threw in its lot with Sparta, as did Epidauros and Hermione, maintaining these allegiances down into the fourth century. In 392, Argos annexed CORINTH, extending Argive citizenship to the Corinthians and taking over the administration of the Isthmian Games, although this SYMPOLITEIA was ended under the terms of the KING’S PEACE in 387. In the Hellenistic period, Argos pursued a largely pro-Macedonian policy, for which it was rewarded with the territory of Kleonai – including the administration of the Nemean Games – and, eventually, with the annexation of Kynouria, the eastern seaboard of the Peloponnese. The city’s loyalty to Macedon was, for the most part, maintained after entering into the ACHAIAN LEAGUE in 229 and continued down to Rome’s annexation of Greece in 146. Troizen, on the other hand, may have sided more with the Ptolemies, who garrisoned Methana in the mid-third century and renamed it Arsinoe.

Although Mycenae, Tiryns, Nauplia, Asine, and Halieis had all been abandoned by the time Pausanias visited Argolis in the 170s CE, Argos remained a prosperous provincial town under Roman occupation and Troizen and Hermione also seem to have been thriving communities. It is unknown exactly when Argos became an episcopal see – the earliest known Christian church dates to the second half of the fifth century – but pagan rites in honor of Demeter, Sarapis, Poseidon, and Dionysos were still being celebrated in the area around Lerna at the end of the fourth century (Lib. 14.7). SEE ALSO: Calauria and the Calaurian amphictyony; Isthmia; Nemea; Pheidon of Argos.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Faraklas, N. (1972) Troizenia, Kalaureia, Methana. Athens. Hall, J. M. (1995) “How Argive was the ‘Argive’ Heraion? The political and cultic geography of the Argive plain, 900–400 BC.” American Journal of Archaeology 99: 577–613. Hall, J. M. (1997) Ethnic identity in Greek antiquity. Cambridge. Pie´rart, M. (1997) “L’attitude d’Argos a` l’e´gard des autres cite´s d’Argolide.” In M. H. Hansen, ed., The polis as an urban centre and as a political community. Acts of the Copenhagen Polis Centre 4: 321–51. Copenhagen. Pie´rart, M. (2004) “Argolis.” In M. H. Hansen and T. H. Nielsen, eds., An inventory of Archaic and Classical poleis, 599–619. Oxford. Pie´rart, M. and Touchais, G. (1996) Argos: une ville grecque de 6000 ans. Paris. Tomlinson, R. A. (1972) Argos and the Argolid from the end of the Bronze Age to the Roman occupation. Ithaca.

1

Argos MARCEL PIE´RART

GEOGRAPHY Argos is a city in the PELOPONNESE, lying at the western end of a plain of ca. 250 sq km. Triangular in shape, the plain looks southward to the gulf of Nauplia. To the west, high mountains formed the boundary between Argos and ARCADIA. Mount Tretos was the boundary line between Argos and Kleonai to the north, while Mount Arachnaion isolated the plain from the independent cities of ARGOLIS to the east. The chief rivers of the Argolis region descend from the western mountains. The Inachos issues from the western slopes of Artemision and runs northwards at first, and then turns southwards to the gulf. The Charadros (now called the Xerias) runs directly eastwards from Artemision and Ktenias through a narrow valley and then turns southward, surrounding the town of Argos. Both rivers unite to the south of the town, and are torrent beds, taking the sudden bursts of rainwater that result from winter storms to the sea. Contrasting with these rivers is the Erasinos, which, along with other smaller sources, flows constantly and formed a marshy ground beginning near Argos to the south, extending to Lerna. A 3 km-long promontory projects from the western mountains into the plain, and divides into two parts: the 285 m high Mount Lykone, separated by a small pass from a 289 m high conic hill, the highest of the Argive acropoleis, called Larisa. That hill is separated by a 54 m high saddle from a lower hill, the Deiras, which could have been used as an acropolis as well. The two mentioned hills to the west, the rivers to the north and to the east, and the marshy plain of Lerna to the south were the natural boundaries of the ancient town of Argos.

GROWTH OF THE CITY During the Bronze Age the site had become a nucleated settlement of some size, but it was still smaller than MYCENAE and TIRYNS. In Homer, however, the plural of the ethnic Argeioi is used metonymically for all the Greeks, so it is not always easy to distinguish the mythical sources from those relating to the Dorian town. The earliest attestation of Argeioi as a proper city-ethnic seems to be in Tyrtaios (seventh century BCE). Later the inhabitants of Argos always claimed that they were the descendants of the Argeioi of the Homeric poems. From seventh century, Argos dominated the entire valley. For the size of population, the only information we possess is some army figures. A total of perhaps 7,500 hoplites and knights in the field army corresponds to some 12,500 adult male citizens of hoplite status. The Argive citizens were subdivided into the three Dorian phylai (tribes) (Hylleis, Dymanes, Pamphyloi), to which a fourth (Hyrnathioi) was added later. HISTORY The early history of Argos and the rule of king Pheidon (see PHEIDON OF ARGOS) are too obscure to be told. During the Classical period, Argive foreign policy was dominated by resentment against SPARTA after the loss of Thyrea (ca. 545) and the crushing defeat at Sepeia in 494 (?). Argos observed strict neutrality and declined the invitation to join the Hellenic League against Persia in 481. A few years later, Argos destroyed Tiryns and Mycenae and expelled their populations. In 451, a thirty-year peace was agreed between Argos and Sparta that was strictly observed. However, after 421, Argos was involved in numerous military operations. Argos observed neutrality during the war against Philip II (see PHILIP II OF MACEDON) and in 338 recovered Thyrea, which was part of its hinterland. After the death of king Pyrrhos of

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 679–681. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah14045

2 Epirus (see PYRRHOS, KING) at Argos in 272, pro-Macedonian tyrants ruled Argos until its incorporation in the ACHAIAN LEAGUE. During the Second Macedonian war, Philip V (see PHILIP V OF MACEDON) gave the city to the Spartan tyrant Nabis (see NABIS OF SPARTA), and in 196 Titus Quinctius Flamininus ordered Nabis to give Argos back to the Achaian League. After the Roman conquest, in 146, Argos was placed under the supervision of the governor of Macedonia and later incorporated into the province of Achaia. POLITICAL ORGANIZATION

from the middle of the third century BCE both festivals were celebrated together every two years at Argos with athletic and musical competitions. The city was the homeland of two prominent sculptors (Hageladas and Polykleitos), the poetess Telesilla, and some writers of narrative prose whose works are nearly completely lost. ARCHAEOLOGICAL REMAINS Extensive remains of the Classical and Roman periods have been found on the hillside of Larisa (a temple of Aphrodite, an odeion, a Roman heroˆon, later completed with a bathing complex, and a theater), and in the area of the classical agora (a square building measuring just over 33 m each side, a pi-shaped stoa measuring 88 m on its longer side, and two other stoas surrounding a Roman tholos, and the remains of an altar, inscribed as belonging to Apollo Lykeios).

In the course of the Archaic and Classical periods, the constitution of Argos changed from monarchy to oligarchy and then to democracy. The city made its living from agriculture and stockbreeding. The Argive democracy possessed a large amount of public land, rented out and administered by the phylai. Income was used for religious and military spending and for public buildings. The allotment system survived the political regime imposed by the Romans shortly after 146.

SEE ALSO: Achaian League; Asine; Dendra in the Argolid; Hysiai; Lerna in the Argolid; Macedonian wars; Midea; Nemea.

RELIGION AND CULTURE

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS

The most important deity of Argos was Apollo Lykeios, whose temple was the most famous building in the city. Other important urban cults were those of Zeus Larisaios and Athena Polias, both with their sanctuaries on the Larisa hill. On the south slope of the Deiras hill were the temple of Athena Oxyderkes and the oracular shrine of Apollo Pythaeus or Deiradiotes. Mystery cults were held at Lerna in honor of Dionysos and Demeter. The goddess Hera, whose principal sanctuary lay some 10 km northeast of Argos (see ARGIVE HERAION), protected the territory of Argos. The most famous festival of Argos was the Heraia, a Panhellenic festival celebrated at the Heraion. After the subjection of Kleonai, Argos assumed the presidency of the Nemean Games, and

Kelly, T. (1976) A history of Argos to 500 BC Minneapolis. Kritzas, Ch. (2006) “Nouvelles inscriptions d’Argos: les archives des comptes du tre´sor sacre´ (IV e s. av. J.-C.).” Comptes Rendus de l’Acade´mie des Inscriptions et Belles Lettres 2006: 397–434. Lehmann, H. (1937) Argolis, I: Landeskunde der Ebene von Argos und ihrer Randgebiete. Athens. Pariente, A. and Touchais, G., eds. (1998) Argos et l’Argolide, topographie et urbanisme. Paris. Pie´rart, M. (2004) “Argolis.” In M. H. Hansen and T. H. Nielsen, eds., An inventory of Archaic and Classical poleis: 599–619. Oxford. Pie´rart, M. and Touchais, G. (1996) Argos: une ville grecque de 6000 ans. Paris. Tomlinson, R. A. (1972) Argos and the Argolid: from the end of the Bronze Age to the Roman occupation. London.

1

Ariadne, empress F. K. HAARER

Ariadne (born before 457 CE, died 515), elder daughter of the emperor Leo I and married to two successive emperors, Zeno and Anastasios, played a remarkably significant role in late Roman imperial politics, though her importance is now often understated (see ANASTASIOS I; ZENO, EMPEROR). Her first marriage to Zeno in 466 ensured the continuity of the dynasty after the early death of her son, Leo II, in 474 and consolidated the supremacy of the Isaurians over the Germanic Aspar. Her relations with the Isaurians did not always remain cordial, however. She was naturally implicated in the plot hatched by her mother Verina and BASILISCUS that forced Zeno’s withdrawal from Constantinople in 475–6. It is also clear that she resented Illus’ influence over her husband and later instigated an assassination attempt, after which Zeno and Illus’ alliance was broken and civil war ensued. After Zeno’s death in April 491, the imperial officials and the patriarch were content to allow the choice of successor to fall to Ariadne,

and she selected the silentiary, Anastasios, whom she married the following month. By ignoring the succession claims of Zeno’s brother, Longinus, she played a crucial role in directing imperial governance away from Isaurian factional politics. The large number of extant portraits of Ariadne is an indication of contemporary appreciation of her power as one of the great female rulers. SEE ALSO: Isaurian emperors; Women, Byzantium.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Brooks, E. W. (1893) “The Emperor Zenon and the Isaurians.” English Historical Review 8: 209–38. Croke, B. (2005) “Dynasty and ethnicity: Emperor Leo I and the eclipse of Aspar.” Chiron 35: 147–203. Haarer, F. K. (2006) Anastasius I: politics and empire in the late Roman world. Cambridge. Hahn, W. (1984) “Die Mu¨nzpra¨gung fu¨r Aelia Ariadne.” In W. Ho¨rander, ed., Byzantios. Festschrift fu¨r Herbert Hunger zum 70. Geburtstag: 101–6. Vienna.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 681–682. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah03010

1

Ariarathid Dynasty CHRISTOPH MICHELS

Ariarathes is the Greek form of the royal name of the rulers of a dynasty which ruled Hellenistic CAPPADOCIA and was succeeded by the ARIOBARZANID DYNASTY. The specific epithets of the individual kings are sometimes uncertain, due to the contested chronology of the royal coins (cf. Simonetta 1977 with Mørkholm 1979: 242–6; see Mørkholm 1991: 131–2, but also Simonetta 2007). Although eventually styling themselves as Hellenistic kings, they stood in an Iranian tradition and traced themselves back to Cyrus II of Persia (see ACHAEMENID DYNASTY). Through a constructed genealogy (perhaps of the second century BCE: see Niese 1895: 815), the dynasty of the Ariariathids (or Otanids) claimed descent from Anaphes (i.e., Otanes), one of the seven Persian nobles who allegedly helped Darius I to kill Pseudo-Smerdis (Diod. Sic. 31.19.1–3; cf. Hdt. 3.61). The history of Cappadocia until 220 BCE is obscure. Because ALEXANDER III, THE GREAT only captured southern Cappadocia, Ariarathes I,

satrap of northern Cappadocia, initially retained his position and resisted Macedonian occupation. But in 322 he was defeated in two battles and executed by the diadoch Perdikkas (see PERDIKKAS, SON OF ORONTES) and by EUMENES OF KARDIA (Diod. Sic. 18.16.1–3; 31.19.4). Cappadocia was then ruled first by Eumenes from 321 to 316 (Nep. Eum. 2.2), and after his fall by ANTIGONOS I MONOPHTHALMOS. After the battle of IPSOS (301) Cappadocia became Seleucid (App. Syr. 55.281; see Brodersen 1989: 123–4). Diodorus (31.19.4–5), however, claims that Ariarathes II, a nephew and adoptive child of the former satrap, created an independent kingdom after IPSOS with the help of the Armenian ruler Orontes. But Ariarathes was probably only a minor dynast, who later freed himself from Seleucid dominance by defeating the general Amyntas (perhaps after Kouropedion, around 280; see KOUROPEDION, BATTLE OF). His son Aria(ra)mnes (ca. 255–225) acquired recognition of his position of power by arranging a marriage for his eldest son Ariarathes with Stratonike, the daughter of ANTIOCHOS II THEOS (Diod. Sic. 31.19.6). Ariarathes III (r. ca. 255 (coregent), ca. 225 (sole ruler)–220) acquired

Figure 1 AR Tetradrachm. Diademed head of Ariarathes V Eusebes Philopator, right; Athena Nikephoros (Goddess Ma) standing, left. Courtesy of Classical Numismatics Group, www.cngcoins.com.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 682–684. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah09047

2 Kataonia and was the first king of independent Cappadocia (Strabo 12.1.2 [534], against Diod. Sic. 31.19.5–6). Ariarathes added the royal title on his later coins (Simonetta 1977: 20 no. 7; see KINGSHIP, HELLENISTIC) – but not the DIADEM. Ariarathes IV (ca. 220–163; the epithet Eusebes, “the Pious,” is not certain – see Michels 2009: 231 n. 1207) married Antiochis, daughter of ANTIOCHOS III MEGAS, and fought on Antiochos’ side at the battle of Magnesia in 190 (Diod. Sic. 31.19.7; Livy 37.40; see MAGNESIA AD SIPYLUM). After the Peace of Apamea in 188 the Romans made the Attalids of PERGAMON the supreme power in western Asia Minor. Ariarathes changed sides and made his daughter Stratonike marry EUMENES II, who achieved a halving of the war indemnities his father-in-law had to pay to Rome (Polyb. 21.43.4–5). As a “friend and ally” of Rome, Ariarathes IV stood on the side of Pergamon in the war against PHARNAKES I OF PONTOS (ca. 183–179). His son, Ariarathes V Eusebes Philopator (ca. 163–130; originally named Mithradates – epithets attested on coins and in the inscription at SEG 33. 642), acquired a reputation as an educated friend of Greek culture (Diod. Sic. 31.19.8; see PHILHELLENISM) and was honored in Athens for organizing the PANATHENAIA and as patron of the Dionysiac artists (Michels 2009: 133–9; see TECHNITAI). As a Roman ally, he cancelled friendship with Demetrios I (see DEMETRIOS I, SELEUCID KING) – who had established himself as king of Syria against Rome’s will – by refusing to marry his sister (Diod. Sic. 31.28; Just. Epit. 35.1). Thereupon the Seleucid king supported Ariarathes’ (half-?)brother Orophernes in his bid for the throne. He is famous for his few but magnificent coin portraits (BM Coins, Galatia, 34 Orophernes I), which inspired C. P. Cavafy to the poem “Orophernes.” After initial setbacks (partition of Cappadocia on behalf of the Roman Senate: App. Syr. 47.245), Ariarathes expelled his rival with the backing of the Attalids (Mu¨ller 1991). A consequence of this conflict was a war with

PRIENE, where Orophernes had deposited a substantial sum of money (Polyb. 33.6; Diod. Sic. 31.32; see ATTALOS II). Ariarathes was involved in the deposition of Demetrios I and installation of ALEXANDER BALAS in 150 (Just. Epit. 35.1.6). He died in a battle against the Attalid usurper ARISTONIKOS, in 130 (Just. Epit. 37.1). His heir, the minor Ariarathes VI Epiphanes Philopator (130–ca. 111; epithets in OGIS 353), received LYKAONIA for his father’s sacrifice. Internal strife at the Cappadocian court, in which the young king’s ambitious mother Nysa apparently played a dominant part, led Mithradates V Euergetes, king of PONTOS, to invade (Niese 1895: 899; McGing 1986: 37–8, 75). Mithradates secured the reign for Ariarathes and safeguarded his influence by marrying him to his daughter Laodike. Ariarathes was assassinated by the Cappadocian noble Gordios, perhaps in 111 – an act that may have been instigated by the next Pontic king, Mithradates VI Eupator (Just. Epit. 38.1). Laodike married Nikomedes III of BITHYNIA and reigned as regent for her son Ariarathes VII Philometor (epithet in OGIS 353) until her brother expelled the couple. Mithradates VI restored Ariarathes VII at first, but murdered him in 101/0 for the refusal to grant the return of Gordios. Eupator then enthroned one of his own sons, giving him the royal name Ariarathes IX (Niese 1895: 820) and Gordios as guardian. A faction of the Cappadocian nobility reacted by putting on the throne Ariarathes VIII, brother of Ariarathes VII. But he was driven off by Mithradates VI and died soon after (Just. Epit. 38.2), and this ended both the uprising and the Ariarathid Dynasty (ca. 99–96: Sullivan 1980: 1127). Ariarathes IX Eusebes Philopator (Simonetta 1977: pl. 4.16), having been repeatedly driven off and reinstated (see MITHRADATIC WARS), was probably poisoned by his father (Plut. Pomp. 37.1). His identification with Arkathias (Plut. Sulla 11; App. Mith. 35, 41), who died in 86 on a campaign in Thessaly, is doubtful. After the end of the Ariarathid Dynasty, the name Ariarathes was used by a king of the dynasty of

3 the ARIOBARZANIDS, Ariarathes X Eusebes Philadelphos (42–36). SEE ALSO: Apamea, Peace of; Armenia; Asia Minor, Hellenistic; Cappadocia; Demetrios I (Seleucid king); Diodorus of Sicily; Kouropedion, battle of; Mithradates I–VI of Pontos; Nikomedes I–IV of Bithynia; Orophernes of Cappadocia; Satraps; Seleucids; Syria (pre-Roman).

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Brodersen, K. (1989) Appians Abriss der Seleukidengeschichte (Syriake 45,232–70,369). Text und Kommentar. Munich. McGing, B. C. (1986) The foreign policy of Mithridates VI Eupator king of Pontus. Leiden. Michels, C. (2009) Kulturtransfer und monarchischer “Philhellenismus.” Bithynien,

Pontos und Kappadokien in hellenistischer Zeit. Go¨ttingen. Mørkholm, O. (1979), “The Cappadocians again.” Numismatic Chronicle 139: 242–6. Mørkholm, O. (1991) Early Hellenistic coinage: from the accession of Alexander to the Peace of Apamea (336–188 BC). Cambridge. Mu¨ller, H. (1991) “Ko¨nigin Stratonike, Tochter des Ko¨nigs Ariarathes.” Chiron 21: 393–424. Niese, B. (1895) “Ariarathes.” RE 2.1: 815–21. Simonetta, B. (1977) The coins of the Cappadocian kings. Freiburg. Simonetta, A. M. (2007) “The coinage of the Cappadocian kings: a revision and a catalogue of the Simonetta collection.” Parthica 9: 9–152. Sullivan, R. D. (1980) “The Dynasty of Cappadocia.” ANRW II.7.2: 1125–68. Berlin. Wroth, W. W. (1899) Catalogue of the Greek coins of Galatia, Cappadocia and Syria. London.

1

Ariarathid Dynasty CHRISTOPH MICHELS

Westfälische Wilhelms-Universität Münster, Germany

The Ariarathids ruled over the Hellenistic kingdom of CAPPADOCIA from its beginnings in the third century until ca. 96 BCE. Like the Mithradatids of PONTOS in the north, the post-satrapal dynasty of the Ariarathids claimed Iranian descent (cf. Canepa 2017). They were initially dominated by the SELEUCIDS, and with increasing independence became their allies. After the Seleucid defeat by Rome and the PEACE OF APAMEA, the Ariarathids switched sides and became allies of the Attalids and Rome. In the late second century, the Mithradatids of Pontos tried to establish control over Cappadocia. The ensuing power struggles led to the end of the Ariarathid dynasty. It was succeeded by the ARIOBARZANID DYNASTY. The Ariarathid dynasty took its name from the royal name Ariarathes (possibly the Greek form of the Iranian name ∗Arya-wratha). The specific epithets of the individual kings are sometimes uncertain, due to the contested chronology of the royal coins (cf. Simonetta 1977; Mørkholm 1991: 131–2; Simonetta 2007; Bendschus forthcoming). Although eventually styling themselves as Hellenistic kings, the Ariarathids originally stood in an Iranian tradition and traced themselves back to Cyrus II of Persia (see ACHAEMENID DYNASTY). Through a constructed genealogy (perhaps of the second century: see Niese 1895: 815; Panitschek 1987/88), the dynasty of the Ariarathids (or Otanids) claimed descent from Anaphes (i.e., Otanes), one of the six Persian nobles who allegedly helped Darius I to kill Pseudo-Smerdis (Diod. Sic. 31.19.1–3; cf. Hdt. 3.61). The early history of Cappadocia until ca. 220 is obscure. Because ALEXANDER III, THE GREAT had only captured southern Cappadocia, Ariarathes I, satrap of northern Cappadocia, initially retained his position and resisted Macedonian occupation. But in 322 he was defeated in two

battles and executed by PERDIKKAS, SON OF ORONand by EUMENES OF KARDIA (Diod. Sic. 18.16.1–3; 31.19.4). Cappadocia was then ruled first by Eumenes from 321 to 316 (Nep. Eum. 2.2), and after his fall by ANTIGONOS I MONOPHTHALMOS. Following the battle of IPSOS (301), Cappadocia became Seleucid (App. Syr. 55.281; see Panichi 2018: 3–7). DIODORUS (31.19.4–5) claims that Ariarathes II, a nephew and adoptive child of the former satrap, created an independent kingdom after Ipsos with the help of the Armenian ruler Orontes. But Ariarathes was probably only a minor dynast, who later freed himself from Seleucid dominance by defeating the general Amyntas (perhaps after Kouropedion, around 280; see KOUROPEDION, BATTLE OF). His son Aria(ra)mnes (ca. 255–225) achieved recognition of his position of power by a marriage of his eldest son Ariarathes (III) with Stratonike, the daughter of ANTIOCHOS II THEOS (Diod. Sic. 31.19.6). Ariarathes III ruled with his father from ca. 255 to ca. 225 and as sole ruler until his death in 220. He acquired Kataonia and was the first king of independent Cappadocia (Strabo 12.1.2 [534], against Diod. Sic. 31.19.5–6). Ariarathes added the royal title on his later coins (Simonetta 1977: 20 no. 7; see KINGSHIP, HELLENISTIC) but not yet the DIADEM. Ariarathes IV (ca. 220–163; the epithet Eusebes, “the Pious,” is not certain – see Michels 2009: 231 n. 1207) married Antiochis, daughter of ANTIOCHOS III MEGAS, and fought on Antiochos’ side at the battle of Magnesia in 190 (Diod. Sic. 31.19.7; Livy 37.40; see MAGNESIA AD SIPYLUM). After the Peace of Apamea in 188 the Romans made the Attalids of PERGAMON the supreme power in western Asia Minor. Ariarathes changed sides and married his daughter Stratonike to EUMENES II, who achieved a halving of the war indemnities his father-in-law had to pay to Rome (Polyb. 21.43.4–5). As a “friend and ally” of Rome, Ariarathes IV stood on the side of Pergamon in the war against PHARNAKES I OF PONTOS (ca. 183–179). His son, Ariarathes V Eusebes Philopator (ca. 163–130; originally named Mithradates – epithets: SEG 33. 642), acquired a reputation TES

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History. Edited by Andrew Erskine, David B. Hollander, and Arietta Papaconstantinou. © 2021 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Published 2021 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah09047.pub2

2

FIGURE 1 AR Tetradrachm. Diademed head of Ariarathes V Eusebes Philopator, left; Athena Nikephoros (Goddess Ma) standing, right, holding spear, shield and Nike, crowning the king’s name. Courtesy of Numismatica Ars Classica NAC AG, Auction 106, lot 332.

as an educated friend of Greek culture (Diod. Sic. 31.19.8; Figure 1; see PHILHELLENISM) and was honored in Athens for organizing the PANATHENAIA and as patron of the Dionysiac artists (Michels 2009: 133–9; see TECHNITAI). The Cappadocian court seems to have become increasingly Hellenised in the second century BCE (Gabelko 2017). As a Roman ally, Ariarathes V ended the friendship with DEMETRIOS I (SELEUCID KING) – who had established himself as king of Syria against Rome’s will – by refusing to marry his sister (Diod. Sic. 31.28; Just. Epit. 35.1). Thereupon the Seleucid king supported Ariarathes’ half-[?]brother OROPHERNES in his bid for the throne. After initial setbacks (partition of Cappadocia on behalf of the ROMAN SENATE: App. Syr. 47.245), Ariarathes expelled his rival with the backing of the Attalids (Müller 1991). A consequence of this conflict was a war with PRIENE where Orophernes had deposited a substantial sum of money (Polyb. 33.6; Diod. Sic. 31.32; see ATTALOS II). Ariarathes was involved in the deposition of Demetrios I and installation of ALEXANDER BALAS in 150 (Just. Epit. 35.1.6). He died in a battle

against the Attalid usurper ARISTONIKOS in 130 (Just. Epit. 37.1). His heir, the still-minor Ariarathes VI Epiphanes Philopator (127–106[?]: Krengel 2011; epithets: OGIS 353), received LYKAONIA for his father’s sacrifice. Internal strife at the Cappadocian court, in which the young king’s ambitious mother Nysa apparently played a dominant part, led Mithradates V Euergetes, king of Pontos, to invade (McGing 1986: 37–8, 75). Mithradates secured the reign for Ariarathes and safeguarded his influence by marrying him to his daughter Laodike. Ariarathes was assassinated by the Cappadocian noble Gordios – an act that may have been instigated by the next Pontic king, Mithradates VI Eupator (Just. Epit. 38.1). Laodike married Nikomedes III of BITHYNIA and reigned as regent for her son Ariarathes VII Philometor (epithet in OGIS 353) until her brother expelled the couple. Mithradates VI restored Ariarathes VII at first but murdered him in 101/0 for the refusal to grant the return of Gordios. Eupator then enthroned one of his own sons, giving him the royal name Ariarathes IX (Niese 1895: 820) and Gordios as guardian. A faction of the Cappadocian nobility reacted

3 by putting on the throne Ariarathes VIII, brother of Ariarathes VII. But he was driven off by Mithradates VI and died soon after (Just. Epit. 38.2). This ended both the uprising and the Ariarathid Dynasty (ca. 99–96: Sullivan 1980: 1127). Ariarathes IX Eusebes Philopator (Simonetta 1977: pl. 4.16), having been repeatedly driven off and reinstated (see MITHRADATIC WARS), was probably poisoned by his father (Plut. Pomp. 37.1). His identification with Arkathias (Plut. Sulla 11; App. Mith. 35, 41), who died in 86 on a campaign in Thessaly, is doubtful. After the end of the Ariarathid Dynasty, the name Ariarathes was used by a king of the dynasty of the ARIOBARZANIDS Ariarathes X Eusebes Philadelphos (42–36). ALSO: Armenia; Asia Minor, Hellenistic; Court, Hellenistic; Mithradates I–VI of Pontos; Nikomedes I–IV of Bithynia; Syria (pre-Roman). SEE

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Bendschus, T. (forthcoming) Münzen als Medium der Herrschaftskommunikation von Kleinkönigen im hellenistischen Osten. Die Königreiche von Kappadokien, Pontos, dem Regnum Bosporanum, Armenien und Kommagene im Hellenismus und in der frühen Kaiserzeit. Bonn. Canepa, M. P. (2017) “Rival images of Iranian kingship and Persian identity in Post-Achaemenid Western Asia.” In R. Strootman and M. J. Versluys, eds., Persianism in Antiquity: 201–22. Stuttgart.

Gabelko, O. (2017) “Bithynia and Cappadocia: royal courts and ruling society in the minor Hellenistic monarchies.” In A. Erskine, L. Llewellyn-Jones, and S. Wallace, eds., The Hellenistic court. Monarchic power and elite society from Alexander to Cleopatra: 319–42. Swansea. Krengel, E. (2011) “Die Regierungszeiten des Ariarathes VI. und Ariarathes VII. anhand einer Neuordnung ihrer Drachmenprägung.” Schweizerische Numismatische Rundschau 90: 33–78. McGing, B. C. (1986) The foreign policy of Mithridates VI Eupator, king of Pontus. Leiden. Michels, C. (2009) Kulturtransfer und monarchischer “Philhellenismus”; Bithynien, Pontos und Kappadokien in hellenistischer Zeit. Göttingen. Mørkholm, O. (1991) Early Hellenistic coinage: from the accession of Alexander to the Peace of Apamea (336–188 BC). Cambridge. Müller, H. (1991) “Königin Stratonike, Tochter des Königs Ariarathes.” Chiron 21: 393–424. Niese, B. (1895) “Ariarathes.” In A. Pauly, G. Wissowa, and W. Kroll, eds., Realencyclopädie des classischen Altertumswissenschaft 2.1: 815–21. Panichi, S. (2018) La Cappadocia ellenistica sotto gli Ariaratidi ca. 250–100 a.C. Firenze. Panitschek, P. (1987/88) “Zu den genealogischen Konstruktionen der Dynastien von Pontos und Kappadokien.” Rivista storica dell’antichità 17–18: 73–95. Simonetta, B. (1977) The coins of the Cappadocian kings. Freiburg. Simonetta, A. M. (2007) “The coinage of the Cappadocian kings: a revision and a catalogue of the Simonetta collection.” Parthica 9: 9–152. Sullivan, R. D. (1980) “The dynasty of Cappadocia.” Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt II.7.2: 1125–68. Berlin.

1

Ariminum (Rimini) CLAUDIO NEGRELLI

Ariminum was the ancient name of presentday Rimini, situated along the northwestern Adriatic coast, south of Ravenna, Italy. Formerly part of the Augustan Regio VIII and later of the province of Flaminia, it was capital of the Pentapolis under the Byzantine empire (seventh to eighth century). It dates back to the Iron Age, likely with a settlement developed into an emporium during the fourth century BCE and inhabited by Etruscans, Umbrians, and Celts. Later Ariminum was founded as a colony of Latin right in 268 BCE (Brizzi 1995; Tramonti 1995), within an area formerly subjected to the Gallic Senones.

The plan of the ancient colony (Ortalli 2000b) is nowadays still visible in the town plans, through rectangular blocks (85120 m, see the figure), placed along the decumanus maximus, oriented from southeast to northwest. This road corresponded with the last part of the Via Flaminia, coming from Rome and, after crossing the river Ariminus-Marecchia that brushed the town from the north, joined via Aemilia going towards Placentia. The cardo maximus was laid out perpendicularly, between a gateway that allowed access to the Apennines and the harbor on the Adriatic Sea. At the crossing between cardo maximus and decumanus maximus, there was a wide forum, onto which the main public buildings fronted. In the republican age, Rimini was endowed with a powerful defensive system by

Figure 1 Plan of Ariminum during the imperial age overlaying street plan of modern Rimini. Map drawn by Claudio Negrelli.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 684–686. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah12018

2 means of strong walls built with polygonal stone masonry. Since it was first settled, Rimini has represented a fundamental outpost for the Roman conquest of northern Italy, both as a military base and as a center of diffusion of Latin culture. Recent excavations showed evidence of the first republican settlement, characterized by wooden houses and production of a pottery very similar to the coeval productions of Latium (black gloss ware) and showing dedications to divinities of middle-Italic origins (pocola deorum). Between the first century BCE and the first century CE, Ariminum was deeply restructured and finally obtained a very imposing monumental look, nowadays still guessable thanks to buildings such as the Augustan Arch (Foschi and Pasini 1998) or the Bridge of Tiberius. The urban archaeology revealed the image of a town endowed with many public buildings (amphitheater, theater, forensic area, etc.) but also with particularly rich residential housing (Maioli 2000). Many mosaics and wall paintings were exposed by old excavations, while the most recent ones recovered whole complexes, such as the so-called “Surgeon’s House” (Ortalli 2000a), unearthed during excavations in Piazza Ferrari, which returned an unrivaled set of equipment and surgical instruments dating back to the third century CE (De Carolis 2009). In this very well-preserved domus it is still possible to admire both the mosaic floors and the frescos on the walls. During the middle centuries of the imperial age, Rimini was protected by new walls, this time made of bricks, against the first invasions of Iuthungi and Alamanni (second half of the third century CE). Even in Late Antiquity, the town retained an elevated status and became the seat of

aristocracy strictly connected to the neighboring imperial court of Ravenna (since 402 CE), as shown by different palatia recovered in the town (Negrelli 2008: 10–29). REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Brizzi, G. (1995) “Da Roma ad Ariminum: per un approccio strategico alle regioni nordorientali d’Italia.” In A. Calbi and G. Susini, eds., Pro poplo arimenese: 94–109. Faenza. Braccesi, L., Dal Maso, C., and Ortalli, J., eds. (2003) Rimini Imperiale (II-III secolo), Rimini in the Roman Empire (II–III centuries). Rimini. (Italian text with complete English translation). De Carolis, S., ed. (2009) Ars medica, i ferri del mestiere. La domus ‘del Chirurgo’ di Rimini e la chirurgia nell’antica Roma. Rimini. Foschi, P. L. and Pasini, P. G., eds. (1998) L’Arco di Augusto. Significati e vicende di un grande segno urbano. Rimini. Maioli, M. G. (2000) “Rimini: l’edilizia abitativa.” In M. Marini Calvani, ed., Aemilia. La cultura romana in Emilia Romagna dal III secolo a.C. all’eta` costantiniana: 507– 11. Venice. Negrelli, C. (2008) Rimini capitale. Strutture insediative, sociali ed economiche tra V e VIII secolo. Florence. Ortalli, J. (1995) “Nuove fonti archeologiche per Ariminum: monumenti, opere pubbliche e assetto urbanistico tra la fondazione coloniale e il principato di Augusto.” In A. Calbi and G. Susini, eds., Pro poplo arimenese: 469–529. Faenza. Ortalli, J. (2000a) “Rimini: la domus del chirurgo.” In M. Marini Calvani, ed., Aemilia. La cultura romana in Emilia Romagna dal III secolo a.C. all’eta` costantiniana: 512–26. Venice. Ortalli, J. (2000b) “Rimini: la citta`.” In M. Marini Calvani, ed., Aemilia. La cultura romana in Emilia Romagna dal III secolo a.C. all’eta` costantiniana: 501–6. Venice. Tramonti, S. (1995) “L’Adriatico e Roma. La deduzione di Ariminum, una colonia sul mare.” In A. Calbi and G. Susini, eds., Pro poplo arimenese: 227–52. Faenza.

1

Ariobarzanid Dynasty CHRISTOPH MICHELS

Ariobarzanes I Philorhomaios (epithet on coins, Simonetta 1977: 39–42) was a Cappadocian noble elected king (96/5–63/62 BCE with several interruptions) after the extinction of the Ariarathid Dynasty with the death of Ariarathes VIII (see ARIARATHID DYNASTY; CAPPADOCIA). According to Strabo Rome had declared Cappadocia free but eventually allowed the nobles to elect a new king (Strabo 12.2.11), who was then acknowledged by the Roman Senate. But Justin (38.2.8) is probably closer to reality when he claims that Ariobarzanes was installed by SULLA as the Senate’s representative (cf. Hoben 1969: 144–5; Dmitriev 2006). Having no illusions about his dependence on Rome (Hoben 1969: 146), Ariobarzanes was the first Hellenistic monarch to take the programmatic epitheton Philorhomaios (“friend to the Romans”), even following republican portrait style on his coins as a visual expression of his protection by the Romans (see CLIENT KINGS). Ariobarzanes was dislodged at least six times by Mithradates VI of Pontos and his allies (see MITHRADATES I–VI OF PONTOS; TIGRANES II–IV OF ARMENIA) and his kingdom was repeatedly occupied and ravaged (see MITHRADATIC WARS). He was finally restored by POMPEY in 66 BCE. Having been a Roman ally in the Third Mithradatic War, he received the Armenian regions Sophene and Gordyene as well as the Cilician cities Kastabala and Kybistra in 65/64. He abdicated voluntarily and in the presence of Pompey for his son Ariobarzanes II in 63/62 (App. Mith. 105.496; Val. Max. 5.7. ext. 2). Ariobarzanes II Philopator (63/2–ca. 52; epithet on coins, Simonetta 1977: 43) was the son of the former and Athenais Philostorgos. About his reign little is known. He had internal enemies that he could initially get rid of by bribing A. Gabinius (Cic. Prov. cons. 9). But he fell victim to a conspiracy in 52/51 shortly

Figure 1 Ariobarzanes I Philorhomaios (96/5–63/ 62 BCE) AR drachma. Obverse: Diademed head right. Reverse: Athena Nikephoros standing left; monogram to inner left, date in exergue. Courtesy of the Classical Numismatics Group, www.cngcoins.com.

before Cicero’s governorship in Cilicia (see In Hellenistic tradition (see KINGSHIP, HELLENISTIC), Ariobarzanes was active as a benefactor (see PHILHELLENISM) in the Greek world (e.g., OGIS 1903-5: 354–5). Ariobarzanes III Eusebes Philorhomaios (52/51–ca. 42; coins with epithets, Simonetta 1977: 43–4), one of at least two sons of the former (Kirchoff et al. 1873; Cic. Fam. 15.2.6), survived the plotting of the priest prince Archelaos in 51 for which Cicero, proconsul of Cilicia, claimed credit (Cic. Fam. 15.4.6). Being heavily indebted to Brutus and Pompey (Cic. Att. 6.1.3, 2.7, 3.5), he supported the latter in the Roman Civil War (Caes. B Civ. 3.4.3; Flor. 2.13.5). But he was pardoned by JULIUS CAESAR and even received western Armenia Minor (B Alex. 34.l.4, 66.5; Cass. Dio 41.63.3, 42.45–6, 42.48.4). He was honored in Athens (OGIS 356), of which he and his brother may have been citizens (SEG 22. 110; Hoben 1969: 156 n. 78; Sullivan 1980: 1138). Having refused to support the murderers of Caesar in their preparations for war against the triumvirs, he was killed on behalf of C. Cassius Longinus in 42 (App. B Civ. 4.63; Cass. Dio 47.33). He was followed by his brother Ariarathes X Eusebes Philadelphos (42–36 BCE; epithets on coins, Simonetta 1977: 45), the last ruler of the Ariobarzanid Dynasty. He was himself killed and replaced with Archelaos CICERO, MARCUS TULLIUS).

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 686–687. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah09048

2 (see ARCHELAOS OF CAPPADOCIA) by M. Antonius (Sullivan 1980: 1147–9). SEE ALSO:

Cappadocia.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Dmitriev, S. (2006) “Cappadocian dynastic rearrangements on the eve of the First Mithridatic War.” Historia 55: 285–97.

Hoben, W. (1969) Untersuchungen zur Stellung kleinasiatischer Dynastien in den Machtka¨mpfen der ausgehenden ro¨mischen Republik. Mainz. Kirchhoff, A. et al., eds. (1873) Corpus Inscriptionum Atticarum Suppl. 1877–91. Berlin. Simonetta, B. (1977) The coins of the Cappadocian kings. Freiburg. Sullivan, R. D. (1980) “The dynasty of Cappadocia.” In Aufstieg und Niedergang der ro¨mischen Welt II.7.2: 1125–68. Berlin.

1

Ariovistus ALEX NICE

Ariovistus (died ca. 54 BCE) was a Germanic king at the time of JULIUS CAESAR’S Gallic campaigns. The career of Ariovistus is chiefly known from Caesar’s BELLUM GALLICUM (1.31–54; cf. Cass. Dio 38.34–50). Nothing is known of his life before 59 BCE, when he was made a king and ally of Rome. He was probably the leader of the Suebi, a coalition of Germanic tribes. He had two wives, one a Suebian, the other the sister of King Voccio of Noricum, and two daughters. Ariovistus also spoke Gallic fluently. Ariovistus arrived in Gaul with 15,000 Germans at the request of the Arverni and the Sequani. By 58 BCE, there were 120,000 Germans in Gaul. Ariovistus exerted his control over the region by taking hostages and threatening the Gallic tribes. After the Aedui appealed to Caesar for assistance, a Roman delegation requested that Ariovistus refrain from bringing more men into Gaul, return the hostages, and stop troubling the Aedui. Ariovistus refused this request, and the Germans reportedly continued to harass the Gauls. Ariovistus then marched towards Vesontio (modern Besançon). There were attempts at a diplomatic

solution. Ariovistus claimed that his actions were a result of self-defense and that the Romans had no authority to restrain his territorial ambitions. In the ensuing battle (the exact site is not known), the Romans were victorious. Ariovistus escaped by boat, his two wives and one of his daughters were killed, and the other taken captive. Ariovistus’ death in ca. 54 BCE was a source of resentment for the Germanic tribes. Caesar’s account of Ariovistus requires careful treatment. It provides a legitimate pretext for Caesar’s military intervention in Gaul and a just war but also deals with notions of the “other” and the threat posed to Rome by outsiders with a different worldview. SEE ALSO:

Germania (Superior and Inferior); Rome, resistance to (Gaul).

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Christ, K. (1974) “Caesar und Ariovist.” Chiron 4: 251–92. Lauwers, R. (1974) “De confrontatie tussen Ariovistus en Caesar.” Kleio 4: 65–83. Pelling, C. B. R. (1981) “Caesar’s battle-descriptions and the defeat of Ariovistus.” Latomus 40: 741–66. Riggsby, A. M. (2006) Caesar in Gaul and Rome. Austin.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, and Andrew Erskine. © 2018 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Published 2018 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah30472

1

Aristagoras of Miletos LAURA BOFFO

Aristagoras (?–ca. 496 BCE), son of Molpagoras, from a distinguished Milesian family, was the deputy tyrant (epitropos) of his relative Histiaios, detained in SUSA, from ca. 511 to autumn 499. His aim was apparently to consolidate the role of MILETOS and his own power in the eastern Mediterranean under Achaemenid rule. In 500, he took advantage of the desire for reinstatement of some exiled Naxian aristocrats and persuaded the Persians to send a large fleet to extend their influence westwards into the Aegean. The campaign failed, and to deflect any Persian criticism, Aristagoras took advantage of the dissatisfaction with Achaemenid rule in Asia Minor and joined the general conspiracy that led to the IONIAN REVOLT (August–September 499). Since this entailed replacing tyrants with egalitarian oligarchic governments (isonomiai), he also resigned his position in Miletos but retained his family’s influence in Milesian politics as well as leadership in the general alliance. In winter 499 he traveled to Greece to seek military support for the rebels, obtaining twenty-five Athenian and Eretrian ships and troops to attack the satrapal seat of SARDIS. Persian success in repressing the

revolt and the return of Histiaios to Asia Minor led Aristagoras to hand over power in Miletos to his relative Pythagoras. He withdrew with his supporters to Myrkinos, Histiaios’ estate in Thracia that served as a strategic base for operations (spring 497). In 496 he was ambushed and killed by the Thracian tribe of Edonians. The biased accounts of self-justifying Ionians and self-glorifying mainland Greeks collected in books 5–6 of HERODOTUS (still supported by some modern scholars) made Aristagoras a scapegoat for the outbreak and failure of the Ionian Revolt. But his behavior was typical of an ambitious representative of a local elite in the Achaemenid Empire. SEE ALSO: Achaemenid Dynasty; Hecataeus of Miletos; Histiaios of Miletos; Isonomia; Tyranny.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Briant, P. (2002/1996) From Cyrus to Alexander: a history of the Persian Empire. Winona Lake, IN. Pelling, C. (2007) “Aristagoras (5.49–55.97).” In E. Irwin and E. Greenwood, eds., Reading Herodotus: a study of the Logoi in book 5 of Herodotus’ Histories: 179–201. Cambridge. Scott, L. (2005) Historical commentary on Herodotus book 6. Leiden. Tozzi, P. (1978) La rivolta ionica. Pisa.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 687–688. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah04042

1

Aristaios, mathematician ALAN C. BOWEN

Aristaios was a mathematician known primarily through the writings of Pappus (see PAPPUS OF ALEXANDRIA) and HYPSIKLES, if one assumes that they are writing about the same Aristaios. When Pappus (Coll. 7.1–2) turns to the Domain of Analysis, a collection of books applying the method of analysis and synthesis in the solution of problems beyond those common to all branches of mathematics, he reports that this field of geometrical study was the work of three men – EUCLID, Apollonios, and Aristaios. He adds (7.3) that the Domain included Aristaios’ Solid Loci in five books, and reports (7.29) that these books presented elements for the study of conic sections in a manner suited to advanced readers. According to Hypsikles, in what has come down as book 14 of Euclid’s Elements, Aristaios proved in his Comparison of the Five Figures that the same circle circumscribes the pentagon of the dodecahedron and the triangle of the icosahedron inscribed in the same sphere. Aristaios’ date is controversial. According to Pappus (Coll. 7.30), Euclid wrote a Conics in four books, which APOLLONIOS OF PERGE (ca. 200

BCE)

elaborated in the first four books of his own Conics, abandoning the names for the sections of the right-angled cone used by his predecessors and Aristaios, and renaming them ellipse, parabola, and hyperbola. Thus, it would seem to follow, given 7.34 as well, that for Pappus at least Aristaios and Euclid were near contemporaries. From this, it is typically inferred that Aristaios was active ca. 300 BCE. But each of Pappus’ assertions is suspect, if not improbable (Jones 1986: 399–400, 402–3); and the traditional dating of Euclid to 300 BCE lacks cogency (Bowen and Goldstein 1991: 246 n. 30). It would be safer to allow only that Aristaios, like Euclid, was a Hellenistic mathematician active some time before 125 BCE. SEE ALSO:

Mathematics, Greece and Rome.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Bowen, A. C. and Goldstein, B. R. (1991) “Hipparchus’ treatment of early Greek astronomy: the case of Eudoxus and the length of daytime.” Proceedings of the America Philosophical Society 135: 233–54. Heiberg, J. L. and Stamatis, E. S. (1977) Euclidis elementa, vol. 1. Leipzig. Jones, A. (1986) Pappus of Alexandria: book 7 of the Collection. New York.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print page 688. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah21037

1

Aristarchus of Samos ALAN C. BOWEN

Aristarchus was a mathematician-astronomer (early third century BCE), author of On the Sizes and Distances of the Sun and Moon (see PAPPUS OF ALEXANDRIA, Coll. 6.69–73) and of a heliocentric theory. On Sizes seeks to determine the relative sizes of the Sun and Moon and their relative distances to the Earth (construed as a point). Its key thesis is that the Sun, Moon, and the observer form a right triangle when the Moon is at the Quarters. The analysis, which is geometrical and geocentric, rests on some false empirical propositions. One, that the Moon’s 1 angular diameter is 15 of a zoidion (a zodiacal constellation construed as 12 of the zodiacal band or a zodiacal sign, that is, 12 of the zodiacal circle) or 2
, has especially troubled commentators: this angular diameter should 1 be roughly ½
or 720 of a circle, the value which Archimedes says Aristarchus discovered for the Sun (see ARCHIMEDES OF SYRACUSE), a body which On Sizes maintains has the same angular size as the Moon. Such difficulties may be mitigated by granting that for Aristarchus these propositions are hypotheses qua undemonstrated propositions put forward and accepted pro tempore for the sake of argument and not hypotheses qua undemonstrated premises held nevertheless to be true and even demonstrable (cf. Arist. An. post. 1.10). Archimedes also asserts (Aren. 1.4–7) that Aristarchus introduced the hypotheses that the Sun and the sphere of the fixed stars are at rest, that the Sun is at the center of the circle along which the Earth moves, as well as of the celestial sphere, and that the radius of the Earth’s circle is vastly smaller than that of the celestial sphere. PLUTARCH makes explicit that in this theory the Earth also rotates on its axis (De fac. 923a: cf. Plat. quaest. 1006c, De plac. philos. 891a¼Aetius Plac. 2.24.8; and Sextus Empiricus Adv. math. 10.174). But

Plutarch adds anachronistically that Aristarchus’ aim was to save the phenomena: Aristarchus’ heliocentrism is better viewed as a hypothesis posited in the same sense as the empirical propositions in On Sizes. Aristarchus’ heliocentrism gained no traction in antiquity, perhaps because it bypassed the question of truth, a question that for the ancients necessarily entailed physical theory. For Vitruvius (De arch. 1.1.16) (see VITRUVIUS (POL(I)IO)), Aristarchus was a mathematicus because he excelled in all the arts and sciences. He reports (9.2.3–4) how Aristarchus correlated the lunar phases with the days of the lunar month, and lists him (9.8.1) as the inventor of two sundials: one hemispherical (the skaphe) and the other, a horizontal disk. In CENSORINUS’ “history” of the calendar, Aristarchus is attributed a Great Year of 2,484 years (De die 18.11) and the suggestion that one 1 should add 1;623 days to kallippos’ year of 365¼ days (19.2), attributions which have been corrected and then taken as early “evidence” of Babylonian influence (Heath 1913: 314–16). Such interest in sundials and calendrics coheres with the reports that Aristarchus discussed solar eclipses and their occurrence at the end of the lunar month (P.Oxy. LIII.3710) and that he observed a summer solstice in 280 BCE (Ptol. Alm. 3.2). SEE ALSO: Calendar, Greco-Roman Egypt; Calendar, Greek; Kallippos, astronomer; Ptolemy (astronomer, mathematician); Sundials.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Berggren, J. L. and Sidoli, N. (2007) “Aristarchus’s On the Sizes and Distances of the Sun and the Moon: Greek and Arabic texts.” Archive for History of Exact Sciences 61: 213–54. Bowen, A. C. and Goldstein, B. R. (1994) “Aristarchus of Samos, Thales, and Heraclitus on solar eclipses: an astronomical commentary on P.Oxy. 53.3710 cols. 2.33–3.19.” Physics 31: 689–729.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 688–689. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah21038

2 Heath, T. L. (1913) Aristarchus of Samos: the ancient Copernicus. Oxford. Neugebauer, O. (1975) A history of ancient mathematical astronomy: 634–43. Berlin.

Sidoli, N. (2007) “What we can learn from a diagram: the case of Aristarchus’s On the Sizes and Distances of the Sun and Moon.” Annals of Science 64: 525–47.

1

Aristeas, Letter of SYLVIE HONIGMAN

The best-known Judeo-Hellenistic literary work, part of the Pseudepigrapha, written by an anonymous Alexandrian Jew, the Letter of Aristeas relates the circumstances of the translation of the Pentateuch into Greek and, together with Aristobulus, constitutes the earliest evidence of the legend of the origins of the SEPTUAGINT. Its date of composition is uncertain, but linguistic criteria date it plausibly to the second century BCE. Its erroneous identification as a letter goes back to a fourteenth century manuscript, apparently because the story is told in the first person, and opens with a personal address. The author merely presents his work as a diegesis, a prose composition, and its ancient title – if it had one – is unknown. It has been argued (Honigman 2003) that the work belongs to the genre of Hellenistic historiography. The narrator, as distinct from the author, is a court official of PTOLEMY II PHILADELPHOS, who relates his embassy to the High Priest Eleazar in Jerusalem. He is sent there by the king at the instigation of Demetrios, head of the Royal Library. His mission is to obtain an authoritative scroll of the Law of the Jews on which to base a high-standard translation, worthy of the Royal Library, and to bring back with him seventy-two elders to carry out the translation. The first part of the main narrative relates the decision to undertake the translation, while the second part, at the end of the work, describes the actual work of translation, the ratification of the newly translated text by the Jewish community of Alexandria, its reception by Ptolemy, and the king’s order to keep the original copy of the Septuagint in the Library. Four digressions are inserted into this narrative, which suit contemporary literary taste: a description of the presents sent by the king to the high priest of Jerusalem in the ekphrastic style, a description of Jerusalem and

Judaea in the style of utopian ethnography, an allegorical interpretation of the Law of the Jews by the high priest, and of the sevennight-long banquet given by the king in honor of the seventy-two elders. The banquet section is the sole extant Hellenistic example of a treatise about kingship, couched in the rhetorical question-and-answer form. It systematically mixes moral precepts borrowed from the Greek and Jewish traditions. Many affinities have been pointed out between the allegorical interpretation of the Law found in the Letter of Aristeas and Aristobulus’ extant fragments, but the chronological relation between the two works is controversial, and therefore it is unclear which author influenced the other. Due to its systematic confusion between translation and textual edition, the Letter of Aristeas provides the best extant evidence for the conception and technique of textual edition as practiced by the scholars of the Library of Alexandria. The author’s claim, that the translation of the Septuagint was initiated by Ptolemy II, is a vexed question in modern scholarship, as is his claim that the original copy of the Septuagint was kept in the Royal Library of Alexandria. SEE ALSO: Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha, Jewish; Demetrios of Phaleron; Jews, in Alexandria; Library of Alexandria.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Honigman, S. (2003) The Septuagint and Homeric scholarship in Alexandria: a study in the narrative of the Letter of Aristeas. London. Hunter, R. (2011) “The Letter of Aristeas.” In A. Erskine and L. Llewellyn-Jones, eds, Creating a Hellenistic World. 47–60. Swansea. Jellicoe, S., ed. (1974) Studies in the Septuagint: origins, recensions, and interpretations. Selected essays. New York. Pelletier, A. (1962) La Lettre d’Ariste´e a` Philocrate. Paris. Shutt, R. J. H. (1985) “Letter of Aristeas, third century BC – first century AD. A new translation

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 689–690. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah11029

2 and introduction.” In J. H. Charlesworth, ed., The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, vol. 2: 7–34. Garden City, NY.

Wright, B. G., III (2008) Praise Israel for wisdom and instruction: essays on Ben Sira and Wisdom, the Letter of Aristeas and the Septuagint. Leiden.

1

Aristides (“the Just”) JULIA L. SHEAR

Aristides, the son of LYSIMACHOS, of the Athenian deme Alopeke, was probably born in the 520s BCE and died about 467. Prominent both as a general and as a politician in the 480s and 470s, he assessed the first TRIBUTE to be paid by the members of the DELIAN LEAGUE. His reputation for probity was known already to HERODOTUS, who described him as “the best and most just man among the Athenians” (Hdt. 8.79.1). His reputation was emphasized by later sources and PLUTARCH’s Life of Aristides contains a series of anecdotes attesting to his upright character. Although the later ancient traditions stressed Aristides’ poverty, he seems to have been a cousin of the wealthy Kallias, the son of Hipponikos, and his family evidently had the resources to perform liturgies for the city (see LITURGY, GREECE AND ROME). He is said by Plutarch to have been a friend (hetairos) of Kleisthenes (Plut. Arist. 2.1; Mor. 790F–791A) and he seems to have been archon in 489/8 (Plut. Arist. 1.2, 8; 5.9–10). Plutarch identifies him as one of the Athenian generals at the battle of Marathon in 490 (Plut. Arist. 5.1–6), but Herodotus does not mention him in his narrative and modern scholars are divided over the veracity of Plutarch’s version. During the 480s, Aristides and THEMISTOKLES were political opponents and their rivalry culminated in Aristides’ OSTRACISM in the winter of 483/2 ([Arist.] Ath. Pol. 22.7–8). When the Athenian exiles were recalled in 481/80 in advance of Xerxes’ invasion ([Arist.]

Ath. Pol. 22.8), Aristides was among those returning. During the battle of Salamis, he led the Athenian HOPLITES in evicting the Persians from the island of Psyttaleia (Hdt. 8.95) and, despite his earlier enmity with Themistokles, both men worked together for the common good. As general in 479/8, Aristides led the Athenian contingent at the battle of PLATAIA (Hdt. 9.28.6; Plut. Arist. 11.1–19.8). When the Athenians subsequently returned to the city, he served as envoy to the Spartans in connection with the rebuilding of the fortification walls at Athens and, in this capacity, he again cooperated with Themistokles (Thuc. 1.91.3). Aristides was general again in the following year (478/7) when the Delian League was established. As part of this process, he made the first assessment of tribute and, according to Plutarch, administered the oaths to the allies (Thuc. 5.18.5; Plut. Arist. 23.1–25.1). His subsequent actions are not certainly attested. SEE ALSO: Archon/archontes; Kleisthenes of Athens; Marathon, battle of; Salamis, island and battle of.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Davies, J. K. (1971) Athenian propertied families 600–300 BC: 48–53, 256–7. Oxford. Develin, R. (1989) Athenian officials 684–321 BC: 56, 57, 65–7. Cambridge. Meiggs, R. (1972) The Athenian empire: 42–67. Oxford. Rhodes, P. J. (1981) A commentary on the Aristotelian Athenaion Politeia: 280–2. Oxford.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 691–692. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah04043

1

Aristides WAYNE C. KANNADAY

Aristides (ca. early second century CE) is reported by Eusebius (Hist. eccl. 4.3.2–3) to have been an Athenian philosopher who became devoted to the Christian faith and who, along with QUADRATUS, addressed to the emperor Hadrian apologetic works defending Christianity (see HADRIAN (TRAIANUS HADRIANUS AUGUSTUS)). The Apology of Aristides has survived in an Armenian fragment, a complete Syriac version, and, in Greek, incorporated into the popular romance, Barlaam and Joasaph (Quasten 1950: 191–2). Across the manuscript tradition scholars notice a number of variations in style and length, of which the most notable is that the Syriac text is addressed not to Hadrian but to Antoninus Pius. Although pedantic and superficial in its rhetorical style, the Apology of Aristides demonstrates acquaintance with a broad spectrum of early Christian doctrine and sacred writings. Readers may easily discern phrases from the beatitudes, the golden rule, the apostle Paul, the pastoral epistles, and creedal formulas. In his apology, Aristides argues that, of the four distinctive segments of the populace of his day (Barbarians, Greeks, Jews, and Christians), only Christians have rightly grasped the nature of the true God. Barbarians revere the four elements, which are merely products of creation and should not be confused with the Creator.

The epic tales of the Greek deities disclose them to be wanton and corrupt, hardly the characteristics of gods worthy of praise and emulation. Although Aristides shows some deference to Jews for their belief in one God, he accuses them of error when they revere angels and engage in obsessive practices such as circumcision and dietary restriction. Christians alone, Aristides maintains, have through revelation of the Trinity seized upon the genuine nature of God. Their exclusive devotion to this true God leads Christians to pursue a life rooted in hope of the resurrection and marked by humble service to others. Careful to label the loyalty of Christians as citizens of the Roman Empire, the Apology of Aristides boldly concludes, “I have no doubt that the world stands by reason of the intercession of Christians” (Ap. 16.37; Harris 1891: 50). Aristides should be distinguished from AELIUS ARISTIDES (117–181 CE), a noted Greek orator of the second century. SEE ALSO:

Apologists; Eusebius of Caesarea.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Grant, R. M. (1988) Greek apologists of the second century. Philadelphia. Harris, J. R. (1891) The Apology of Aristides. Cambridge. Palmer, D.W. (1983) “Atheism, apologetic, and negative theology in the Greek apologists of the second century.” Vigiliae Christianae 37: 234–59. Quasten, J. (1950) Patrology: 191–5. Utrecht.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 690–691. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah05024

1

Aristides Quintilianus SOPHIE GIBSON

The musical theorist Aristides Quintilianus lived between the first and fourth centuries CE, and there is a convincing argument for the later date (Mathiesen 1983: 1–57). Nothing is known of his life, and the De musica, in three books, is his only surviving work. It is broad in scope, influenced in different sections by both the Pythagorean and Aristoxenian schools of musical theory, and aiming to cover everything relevant to the study of music. The treatise influenced later musical scholars, including Martianus Capella, George Pachymeres, and Manuel Bryennius. After an introduction setting out the reason for writing the work and the scope of the study of music, Aristides divides the subject into the theoretical (including technical and physical) and the practical. Technical study (divided into harmonics, rhythmics, and metrics) is the focus of the remainder of Book 1. The section on HARMONICS depends heavily on Aristoxenian theories of melody, and also includes descriptions of scales, which Aristides claims to be from an older tradition (perhaps Platonic) and which has prompted considerable academic discussion (Mathiesen 1999: 531–3). This is followed by sections on rhythm (also in the Aristoxenian tradition) and meter. Book 2 is concerned with practical (or educational) aspects of music, and draws heavily

on PLATO. It opens with a brief discussion of the soul, the understanding of which, Aristides claims, is central to appreciating the value of music in education, because of the effect of music on the irrational part of the soul. He returns to the subject repeatedly throughout this book, the first part of which examines application of melody, rhythm, and meter within composition; the second part considers proper musical expression in instrumental, sung, and theatrical performance. The third book contains the physical part of music, subdivided into “numbers” and “physics.” In some sections reflecting the Pythagorean tradition and in others influenced by Plato, Aristides sets out mathematical propositions and relates them to musical structures, before asserting a fundamental equivalence in the mathematical coherence of these structures and the shape of the universe. SEE ALSO: Aristoxenos of Tarentum; Pythagoreanism.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Barker, A. (1989) Greek musical writings, vol. 2. Cambridge. Mathiesen, T. J. (1983) Aristides Quintilianus: On Music in three books. New Haven. Mathiesen, T. J. (1999) Apollo’s lyre: Greek music and music theory in antiquity and the Middle Ages. London. Winnington-Ingram, R. P. (1963) Aristidis Quintiliani de musica libri tres. Leipzig.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 692–693. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah21039

1

Aristo, Titius (Titius Aristo) GIORGIA MARAGNO

Titius Aristo, who lived and worked between the first and the second centuries CE, was a prominent Roman jurist of TRAJAN’S time. Not much is known about him. His works are lost and not a single fragment of them remains in JUSTINIAN’S Digest (533 CE; see DIGESTA; CORPUS IURIS CIVILIS). His opinions are only known because they have been quoted by other jurists (for example, by NERATIUS and by POMPONIUS). We also learn about him from some passages of the Letters (1.22; 5.3; 8.14) of his friend PLINY THE YOUNGER (61 to about 113 CE) and from a reference in the Attic Nights (11.18.16) by the second-century author AULUS GELLIUS, who remembers reading in a work by Aristo some information about ancient Egyptian law. Aristo was a correspondent of Neratius and CELSUS (FILIUS), and Pomponius (Dig. 4.8.40) reports that he had been an auditor of the older jurist CASSIUS LONGINUS. It has been proposed that Aristo must have been of the right age to study law before his teacher was exiled in 65 or at least by the time when Cassius, old and blind, had returned to Rome, where he died around 70. The implicit result of this argument places Aristo’s birth between 40 and 45. Neither can the precise date of Aristo’s death be determined with confidence, though it can be placed after the year 105. While some scholars think he did not survive Trajan, who died in 117, others believe he may have died as late as 120. Based on his name, scholars often locate Aristo’s origins in a milieu that is ex-slave and Greek. The majority of the citations regarding Aristo give no indication of the titles of his works and the few references we possess are unclear about this subject, leaving all such questions open. We may infer the existence of Notes (Notae) to SABINUS’, Cassius’ and maybe LABEO’S works. It is not even certain that Aristo ever composed a Digest (Digesta) of his own, although this assumption is widely

accepted. Pomponius refers (Dig. 29.2.99) to a highly unusual work thought to have been written by Aristo, called Decrees, that is, Decreta Frontiana (or Frontiniana). Legal scholars suggest a connection of the title Frontiniana with the name of SEXTUS IULIUS FRONTINUS, a prominent figure of the first century CE, who may have been the actual author of the collection, while Aristo commented on it. It is impossible to define what the work specifically contained and why it was so called: it may have been a collection of decrees of the Senate or of the praetor or a compilation of imperial decisions. In any case, this kind of work finds no equivalent in Roman legal literature. Modern historians have also debated whether Aristo is to be numbered among the Sabinians or the Proculians, the two rival classical juristic schools (see LAW SCHOOLS), or should be regarded as independent from them. It seems beyond doubt that the style and the method of Aristo are characteristic of the jurisprudence associated with the genre of responsa (legal answers). Most scholars emphasize Aristo’s activity as legal advisor, though it has convincingly been suggested that Aristo might have been more interested overall in the study than in the practice of the law. It cannot be known if Aristo was part of the consilium principis (imperial council) of Trajan. Aristo was not granted the ius respondendi (that is, the right to give answers to legal questions relying on the authority of the emperor himself ). Pliny celebrates Aristo (who must have been older than him) as a model aristocrat and jurist and addresses two long letters to him. He expresses in one (1.22) his friendship with and admiration for Aristo, stating that the latter surpasses everyone for his virtue and his knowledge (not only of public and civil law, but also of literature in general, litterae). Pliny also stresses Aristo’s habit of weighing every opposite reason before arriving at a judgment (a detail that continues to stimulate debate about Aristo’s philosophical methods), the conciseness of his speech, and the moderation of his lifestyle. From this letter we also learn

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History. Edited by Kai Brodersen, Andrew Erskine, and David Hollander. © 2019 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Published 2019 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah30652

2 that at the time (around 97 CE) Aristo was affected by a serious but curable disease and that he had a wife and a daughter. In the second letter (8.13), written not later than 105, Pliny again praises Aristo as an expert in public law (ius publicum), and then consults him on a complex matter about the order of voting in the Senate. This information is of particular interest since no fragment in Justinian’s Digest citing Aristo deals with public law. SEE ALSO:

Consilium; Law, Roman.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Kunkel, W. (1967) Herkunft und soziale Stellung der römischen Juristen, 2nd ed.: 141–4. Weimar. (Reprinted as (2001) Die römischen Juristen: Herkunft und soziale Stellung. Cologne.) Martini, R. (1981) “Pomponii digesta ab Aristone?” Atti dell’Accademia Romanistica Costantiniana, 4: 793–806. Perugia. Scarano Ussani, V. (1995) “Il ‘probabilismo’ di Titius Aristo.” Ostraka 4, 1: 315–32. Tamburi, F. (2009) “I Decreta Frontiana di Aristone.” Studi in onore di Remo Martini, 3: 713–58. Milan.

1

Aristoboulos of Kassandreia LUISA PRANDI

Aristoboulos, son of Aristoboulos, followed Alexander in Asia; he became citizen of Kassandreia (founded in 316 BCE, on the site of Potidaia) and composed a work about the conquest (FGrH 139); neither title nor extent are preserved. Since he did not take part in campaigns, Aristoboulos is considered a kind of technical expert, above all because he directed the repair of Cyrus’ tomb. According to Lucian, he was reading to Alexander his description of a duel between the king and Porus, and deserved censure for his flattery (FGrH 139 T 4); otherwise he was said to have started his history when he was eighty-four years old (FGrH 139 T 3). However, he might have revised it thirty to forty years after the death of Alexander, being a witness of the struggles about his memory. Only six testimonia and sixty-three fragments are preserved, mainly by Arrian, who chooses Aristoboulos together with Ptolemy as his privileged sources; then by Strabo and PLUTARCH. Many fragments contain geographical,

ethnographical, and botanical items (frgs. 19, 23, 28, 35, 49, 56). When he treats Alexander, he always chooses a kinder version of the events (frgs. 13–15, 58–9, 61–2): in the Kleitos affair, Aristoboulos underlines Kleitos unacceptable behavior; about the death of Kallisthenes he simply relates that the historian died in prison; about the penchant of Alexander to drink, he remembers that the king was very happy to stay as long as possible with friends and pinpoints that Alexander was ultimately thirsty because of disease. SEE ALSO: Alexander III, the Great; Arrian; Historiography, Greek and Roman; Kallisthenes of Olynthos; Kleitos (Black Clitus); Ptolemy I Soter.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Brunt, P. A. (1974) “Notes on Aristobulus of Cassandria.” Classical Quarterly 24: 65–9. Pedech, P. (1984) Historiens compagnons d’Alexandre. Callisthe`ne, One´sicrite, Ne´arque, Ptole´me´e, Aristobule: 331–405. Paris. Zambrini, A. (2007) “The historians of Alexander the Great.” In J. Marincola, ed., A companion to Greek and Roman historiography: 210–20. Oxford.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print page 693. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah08172

1

Aristoboulos of Kassandreia (Aristobulus of Cassandreia) LUISA PRANDI

University of Verona, Italy

Aristoboulos, son of Aristoboulos, followed ALEXANDER THE GREAT in Asia; he became a citizen of KASSANDREIA, founded in 316 BCE on the site of Potidaia, and composed a work about the conquest, the fragments of which are collected in Brill New Jacoby (BNJ) no. 139; neither its title nor extent is preserved. Since he did not take part in campaigns, Aristoboulos is considered a kind of technical expert, above all because he directed the repair of Cyrus’ tomb. According to LUCIAN, he read Alexander his description of a duel between the king and the Indian ruler PORUS, and deserved censure for his flattery (BNJ 139 T 4); on the other hand he was said to have started his history when he was eighty-four years old (BNJ 139 T 3). However, he might have revised it thirty to forty years after the death of Alexander, in response to the many conflicting interpretations that were current. Certainly he wrote some of it after the battle of IPSOS in 301 as he mentions the death of ANTIGONOS MONOPHTHALMOS (F 54). Only six testimonia and sixty-three fragments are preserved, mainly by ARRIAN, who chose Aristoboulos together with PTOLEMY I

as his privileged sources; then by STRABO and PLUTARCH. Many fragments contain geographical, ethnographical, and botanical items (frgs. 19, 23, 28, 35, 49, 56). When he treats Alexander, he always chooses a kinder version of the events (frgs. 13–15, 58–9, 61–2): in the KLEITOS affair, Aristoboulos underlines Kleitos’ unacceptable behavior; about the death of KALLISTHENES OF OLYNTHOS he simply relates that the historian died in prison; about Alexander’s penchant for drinking, he observes that the king’s drinking parties were long not because of the wine but through love of comradeship and he claims that at the time of his death Alexander was thirsty because of a fever. SOTER

SEE ALSO:

Alexander historians; Historiography, Greek and Roman.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Brunt, P. A. (1974) “Notes on Aristobulus of Cassandria.” Classical Quarterly 24: 65–9. Heckel, W. (2009) Who’s who in the age of Alexander the Great: prosopography of Alexander’s empire: 46. Malden, MA. Pédech, P. (1984) Historiens compagnons d’Alexandre. Callisthène, Onésicrite, Néarque, Ptolémée, Aristobule: 331–405. Paris. Pownall, F. (2016) “Aristoboulos of Kassandreia (139).” In I. Worthington, ed., Brill’s New Jacoby. Brill Online. Zambrini, A. (2007) “The historians of Alexander the Great.” In J. Marincola, ed., A companion to Greek and Roman historiography: 210–20. Oxford.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History. Edited by Andrew Erskine, David B. Hollander, and Arietta Papaconstantinou. © 2019 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Published 2019 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah08172.pub2

1

Aristobulus I DOV GERA

Aristobulus I, also known as Judas, was the son and heir of Hyrcanus I (see JOHN HYRCANUS I). During his father’s rule, both Aristobulus and his brother Antigonus, the next in line, were given a military command. The brothers laid siege to Samaria, but were forced to deal with Antiochos IX Kyzikenos who attempted to save the city. After twice defeating Antiochos, Aristobulus and Antigonus conquered Samaria on behalf of Hyrcanus and had it demolished (Joseph BJ 1.64–6; AJ 13.275–81). Upon Hyrcanus’ death (104 BCE), Aristobulus took office as high priest and declared himself king as well, thus becoming the first Hasmonean monarch. According to JOSEPHUS, Aristobulus imprisoned three of his brothers and his mother, starving the latter to death. However, his beloved brother Antigonus shared power with him, conquering the Galilee on his behalf. But Antigonus did not escape Aristobulus’ wrath, for the king was tricked into believing that Antigonus was aiming for the throne, and had him killed. Among those plotting against the king’s favorite brother was Aristobulus’ wife. Thus Aristobulus enjoyed particularly bad relations with his entire family. This picture is meant to be contrasted with that of his father, Hyrcanus, whom Josephus portrays in a glowing light, not least because he had left five sons, as did his grandfather, Mattathias. The foregone conclusion of Aristobulus’ tragic story, the repentant king’s death, was foreshadowed by Hyrcanus’ prophecy that his two elder sons would not remain as heads of the government (BJ 1.68–9; AJ 13.299–300). Accordingly, Aristobulus became filled with remorse, his health deteriorated, and he died (103 BCE) after ruling for only a year (BJ

1.70–84; AJ 13.301–18). This story of the king’s end, apparently taken by Josephus from an unknown source, explains how Aristobulus lost the throne so quickly, why the next brother in line, Antigonus, did not succeed him, and how Alexander Jannaeus was appointed in their stead. It is no surprise then that the reasons given for the succession of Alexander Jannaeus are his seniority in years and moderation of character (BJ 1.85; AJ 13.320). Josephus adds further contradictory information on Aristobulus in the Jewish Antiquities, relying on Strabo and Timagenes. He relates that Aristobulus was a good person, very useful to his compatriots, who had conquered part of the Iturean people, compelled them to proselytize, and added their lands to his kingdom. In fact, Aristobulus’ brother, Antigonus, is the first Hasmonean known to have conquered the Galilee, and since his battles there were fought on Aristobulus’ behalf, it seems that Aristobulus’ conquests were limited to the Galilee, and did not extend to the Lebanon, where the Itureans mostly resided. Finally, it may be said that Aristobulus was not only popular with the Jews, but that he attempted to gain favor with the Greeks. The title he adopted, philhellene, suggests this, as does the favorable report cited by Josephus from the two Hellenistic historians (AJ 13.318–19). REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Eshel, H. (2008) The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Hasmonean state: 63–89. Grand Rapids, MI. Meshorer, Y. (2001) A treasury of Jewish coins from the Persian period to Bar-Kokhba: 27–9, 36. Jerusalem. Schu¨rer, E. (1973) The history of the Jewish people in the age of Jesus Christ (175 BC–AD 135), vol. 1: 216–18. Edinburgh.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 693–694. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah11031

1

Aristobulus II KENNETH ATKINSON

Aristobulus II was the youngest son of the Judaean monarch ALEXANDER JANNAEUS and his spouse, queen ALEXANDRA SALOME. According to the Jewish historian JOSEPHUS (BJ 1.107; AJ 13.398–404), Jannaeus chose his wife as his political successor. She appointed her eldest son, Hyrcanus II (see JOHN HYRCANUS II), as high priest and before her death in 67 BCE, she named him her successor. During her reign Aristobulus II served in her military, and led a less than successful campaign to capture Damascus (AJ 13.418). When she died, Aristobulus II staged a coup to prevent his brother from becoming king and high priest, besieging Hyrcanus II in JERUSALEM. Hyrcanus II surrendered and relinquished his offices to his brother after a reign of three months (BJ 1.120-22; AJ 14.4–7). Aristobulus II subsequently reigned as JUDAEA’s king and high priest from 67 to 63. Hyrcanus II was content to live as a private citizen until ANTIPATER, the strategos of Idumaea, convinced him to seek the support of the Nabataean king, Aretas III, to regain his former offices. Hyrcanus II and Aretas III defeated Aristobulus II in battle, and then besieged him in Jerusalem. In 65 POMPEY sent his legate M. Aemilius Scaurus to Syria to take control of the region. When he reached Damascus, he heard that civil war had erupted in Judaea. According to Josephus’ rather confused account of this time, which is not in chronological order, both Aristobulus II and Hyrcanus II offered Scaurus a bribe (BJ 1.128; AJ 14.29–38). The former outbid his sibling and managed to win Scaurus’ support. Scaurus commanded Aretas III to leave Judaea and allowed Aristobulus II to remain in power. For reasons Josephus does not make clear, Aristobulus II eventually lost Roman favor in 63. He had accompanied Pompey to the city of Dion, where the Romans apparently were gathering their forces to invade Nabataea. For

reasons that are not explained, Aristobulus II left the expedition. Pompey became suspicious of his loyalty and travelled to Judaea and arrested him (BJ 1.132–41; AJ 14.47–57). The Romans then besieged the partisans of Aristobulus II in the Jerusalem temple. Pompey captured Jerusalem after a three-month siege. He took Aristobulus II and his family, including his sons Alexander and Antigonos, to Rome. Alexander escaped on the way and eventually returned to Judaea. Pompey forced Aristobulus II to march in his triumphal procession in 61 along with many Jewish captives (BJ 1.157; AJ 14.79; Plut. Pomp. 45; see TRIUMPH). Aristobulus II and his son, Antigonos, eventually escaped from Rome and returned to Judaea in 56. The two led an unsuccessful revolt against the Romans and were captured by Gabinius, governor of Syria. The Romans sent Aristobulus II back to Rome as a prisoner but freed his children. JULIUS CAESAR liberated Aristobulus II in 49 and gave him two legions to fight Pompey’ supporters in Syria. The same year, the partisans of Pompey poisoned Aristobulus II in Rome (BJ 1.184; AJ 14.123–4). SEE ALSO:

Nabataeans.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Grabbe, L. L. (1992) Judaism from Cyrus to Hadrian, vol. 1: The Persian and Greek periods. Minneapolis. Meshorer, Y. (1982) Ancient Jewish coinage, vol. 1: Persian period through Hasmonaeans. New York. Saulnier, C. (1990) “L’aıˆne´ et le porphyroge´ne`te: Recherche chronologique sur Hyrkan II et Aristobule II.” Revue biblique 97: 54–62. Schalit, A. ed. (1972) The world history of the Jewish people, vol. 6: The Hellenistic age. New Brunswick. Schu¨rer, E. (1973) The history of the Jewish people in the age of Jesus Christ (175 BC–AD 135), vol. 1. Edinburgh. VanderKam, J. C. (2004) From Joshua to Caiaphas: high priests after the Exile. Minneapolis.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 694–695. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah11032

1

Aristobulus II (Aristoboulos II) KENNETH ATKINSON

University of Northern Iowa, USA

Aristobulus II was the youngest son of the Judaean monarch ALEXANDER JANNAEUS and his spouse, queen ALEXANDRA SALOME. According to the Jewish historian JOSEPHUS (BJ 1.107; AJ 13.398–404), Jannaeus chose his wife as his political successor. She appointed her eldest son, Hyrcanus II (see JOHN HYRCANUS II), as high priest. During her reign, Aristobulus II served in her military and led an unsuccessful campaign to capture Damascus (AJ 13.418). When she died, Aristobulus II besieged Hyrcanus II in JERUSALEM to prevent him from becoming king. He forced Hyrcanus II to relinquish his offices after a reign of three months (BJ 1.120–22; AJ 14.4–7). Aristobulus II subsequently governed as JUDAEA’s king and high priest from 67–63 BCE. Josephus describes Hyrcanus II as a weak person (AJ 14.12–13), which made him pliable to the machinations of ANTIPATER, the strategos of Idumaea. Antipater convinced Hyrcanus II to join forces with the Nabataean king, Aretas III, to regain his former offices. In 65, the three besieged Aristobulus II in Jerusalem during the Jewish holiday of Passover. Shortly afterwards, POMPEY sent his legate M. Aemilius Scaurus to Syria to investigate the region’s political situation. According to Josephus’ rather confused account of this period, Aristobulus II and Hyrcanus II each offered Scaurus a bribe (BJ 1.128; AJ 14.29–38). The former outbid his sibling and managed to win Roman support. Scaurus commanded Hyrcanus II and Aretas III to end their siege. Scaurus allowed Aristobulus II to remain in power. The historian DIODORUS SICULUS (40.2) partly supplements Josephus’ confusing version of events. He mentions that a faction of Jews urged Pompey to replace Hyrcanus II and Aristobulus II with a priestly form of government. Josephus (Ant. 14.43) also claims that when

the two Hasmonean brothers met Pompey, Hyrcanus II accused Aristobulus II of raiding neighboring territories and piracy. For reasons Josephus does not make clear, Aristobulus II accompanied Pompey to the city of Dium, where the Romans were gathering their forces to invade Nabataea. The abrupt departure of Aristobulus II caused Pompey to be suspicious of him. Pompey arrested Aristobulus II in Judaea (BJ 1.132–41; AJ 14.47–57) and besieged his partisans in the Jerusalem temple for three months. Pompey captured the city and restored Hyrcanus II as high priest but not as king. Pompey forced Aristobulus II to march in his triumphal procession in 61 along with his sons and many Jewish captives (BJ 1.157; AJ 14.79; Plut. Pomp. 45; see TRIUMPH). Aristobulus II and his son, ANTIGONOS II MATTATHIAS, escaped from Rome and returned to Judaea in 56. They gathered a large army and attempted to occupy the ruined fortress of Alexandrion, which Gabinius, the governor of Syria, had destroyed. The Roman army forced Aristobulus II to flee to Machaerus, east of the Dead Sea. After a two-day siege, the Romans captured Aristobulus II. They sent him back to Rome as a prisoner but freed his children. JULIUS CAESAR liberated Aristobulus II in 49 and gave him two legions to fight Pompey’s supporters in Syria. The same year, the partisans of Pompey poisoned Aristobulus II in Rome (BJ 1.184; AJ 14.123–4). SEE ALSO:

Nabataeans.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Atkinson, K. (2016) A history of the Hasmonean State: Josephus and beyond. London. Regev, E. (2013) The Hasmoneans: ideology, archaeology, identity. Göttingen. Schalit, A., ed. (1972) The world history of the Jewish people, vol. 6: The Hellenistic age. New Brunswick. Sharon, N. (2017) Judea under Roman domination: the first generation of statelessness and its legacy. Atlanta. VanderKam, J. C. (2004) From Joshua to Caiaphas: high priests after the exile. Minneapolis.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History. Edited by Andrew Erskine, David B. Hollander, and Arietta Papaconstantinou. © 2021 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Published 2021 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah11032.pub2

1

Aristocracy, Byzantine MARIA KOUROUMALI

Rank, kinship, lineage, wealth, and power are the defining factors of the aristocracy in every age. In Byzantine society, the ruling class was different in each period of the empire and was certainly not limited to those individuals or families with long-established pedigrees. The Byzantines themselves rather surprisingly avoided the use of the Greek term “aristocracy” for the ruling class. It is only found in the eleventh century author, Michael Attaleiates. Most authors and imperial legislation used the terms “those in rank,” “the illustrious,” “the glorious,” “the notables,” “the powerful,” and, most commonly, “the rulers or magistrates” (Greek: archontes). This Byzantine avoidance of the specific term led some scholars to doubt the very existence of a Byzantine aristocracy, but that reaction is extreme. Instead the term is used conventionally in modern scholarship to denote the ruling class, which undoubtedly existed but differed from the hereditary nobility of the western medieval world. Hereditary office or status was rare in Byzantium. Well-born familial ties were important as placing one in line for office but by no means essential, although this changed in the late Byzantine period. Military and civil service were also routes to membership of the aristocracy, as was a position in the imperial court, whether kin-based or awarded. The latter could indeed be the swiftest and securest way to acquiring aristocratic status or even the imperial office itself. Until the sixth century CE, families of the old Roman senatorial and hereditary landowning classes were dominant. The gradual waning of senatorial power, the increasing importance of service at the imperial court, and the loss of many Roman provinces to foreign invaders had by the ninth and tenth centuries shifted the power base to courtappointed officials in Constantinople, especially

close personal attendants of the emperor, such as the eunuchs of the Imperial Bedchamber, and military landowning families in the Anatolian provinces of Cappadocia, Paphlagonia, and Armenia and the Northern Balkans. This is indicated by the introduction and frequent appearance of patronymic names in the written sources from the ninth century whose families form the so-called “powerful” class in the imperial legislation of the tenth (Greek: dynatoi). Basil II’s struggle and eventual victory over the great military provincial Bardas and Phokas families in the late tenth century forced most of these families to enhance their ties with the imperial court. The struggle between the hereditary military aristocracy and the aristocracy of civil and court service, which began after Basil II’s death, ended with the rise to power of Alexios I Komnenos, a representative of the former. Kinship ties and lineage become more important during his reign with the imperial family monopolizing court titles and civil office. This introduced the concept of strong dynastic imperial elites alongside the existing provincial military magnates and the powerful civil administration. In the final two centuries of the empire, several families such as the Kantakouzenoi, the Tornikioi, the Vranoi, and the last Byzantine imperial family, the Palaiologoi, dominated the highest offices in the imperial government. SEE ALSO: Byzantium, political structure; Court (imperial), Byzantine; Dynasty, idea of, Byzantine; Senate, Byzantium.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Angold, M., ed. (1984) The Byzantine aristocracy, IX–XIII centuries. London. Cheynet, J.-C. (2006) The Byzantine aristocracy and its military function. Aldershot. Holmes, C. (2005) Basil II and the governance of empire (976–1025). Oxford. Jeffreys, E. M., ed. (2006) Byzantine style, religion and civilization: in honour of Sir Steven Runciman. Cambridge.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 695–696. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah03011

2 Kazhdan, A. P. and Ronchey, S. (1997) L’aristocrazia bizantina. Palermo. Laiou, A. (1973) “The Byzantine aristocracy in the Palaiologan period.” Viator 4: 131–51.

Magdalino, P. (2009) “Court society and aristocracy.” In J. F. Haldon, A social history of Byzantium: 212–32. Chichester. Morris, R. (1976) “The powerful and the poor in tenth century Byzantium.” Past and Present 73: 3–27.

1

Aristocracy, Greek ALAIN DUPLOUY

As an analytical and historical concept, aristocracy has long been defined as a conjunction of wealth, power, and nobility. The word actually appeared during the fifth century BCE when historians and philosophers began to think about their political history. Two principles soon offered the frame of the classical taxonomy of political regimes: the number of rulers and the positive or negative assessment of their action. In ancient Greek thought, and notably in Aristotle’s Politics, aristocracy normally applies to a form of constitution of the Archaic period in which the few “best citizens” (aristoi) rule for the common interest. Although aristokratia only applies in ancient Greek thought and language to a political regime (see POLITEIA), modern historians normally use the term “aristocrats” or even “aristocracy” to designate the members of this regime: that is the ruling elite who hereditarily monopolized every office in the polis. Since the nineteenth century, Greek aristocracy has also been thought to be framed by gene, enlarged associations based on kinship ties, and so appears as a kind of ancien re´gime nobility. This gentilician conception of aristocratic leadership won favor among historians during the twentieth century. As landowners and enriched entrepreneurs, aristocrats naturally formed a leisure class who spent their time in hunting and banqueting at home or abroad, enjoying the hospitality of their peers. They consequently had no interest in their fellow citizens, until the time they were forced by the demos to share authority and political power with it. In Classical times they eventually became resentful and sometimes plotted revolution. However, recent literature has deeply challenged this traditionally accepted definition of the concept. It denies a political, economic, and gentilician view of an aristocratic leisure class ruling the Archaic cities and rather develops a notion of enterprising people who

perform their status through various strategies of distinction. In fact, ancient documents (literary texts, inscriptions, and monuments) reveal a set of behaviors used by individuals to express but also to promote their social status. Through a continuous investment in time-, money-, and energy-consuming practices one could thus enhance one’s position in the social hierarchy. There were many prestige-generating behaviors, pertaining to various fields of social and civic life, that were different in each city and at different times. Ostentatious dedications in sanctuaries, sumptuous burial customs or original tomb-markers, elaborate weddings, gentilician strategies, military achievements, athletic victories, and many others were aimed at demonstrating and enhancing the prestige of the promoter. Individual status depends on public esteem, which has to be constantly built up. It was granted by the community, whether a small group of symposiasts or the whole population of a city, and it appears as the essential tool in shaping the social order. Actual boundaries between social classes were much more permeable than has been previously thought, and the civic social structure mainly appears as a continuum of statuses. During the Archaic period there was apparently no social group whose composition was exclusive. Access to the elite remained constantly open, so that in many cities aristocratic status can be defined as achieved rather than ascribed. Consequently, Greek aristocracy has to be conceived as the result of a process of accumulating social prestige by a continuous succession of behaviors increasing one’s respect and popularity, which could eventually lead to a dominant position in the community and to a monopoly of power. Social mobility, upwards or downwards, was therefore a dominant feature among the citizen group. Being the son of a well-respected man could certainly be a serious advantage, but it was no insurance against social downfall. Likewise, examples of social ascension were not uncommon. The elite was in constant social flux: from one generation to another, some of its members lost their prestige and their

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 696–697. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah04044

2 privileged position, but other people rose with the success of their social strategies. Agonistic mentality conditioned the whole social hierarchy. Competition was thus an essential feature of Greek culture. “Always be the best and superior to others,” claimed HOMER (Il. 6.208). This ideal was constantly repeated by later poets, historians, rhetors, or epitaphs and deeply influenced action. SEE ALSO:

Genos, gene; Oligarchy.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Bourriot, F. (1976) Recherches sur la nature du ge´nos. E´tude d’histoire sociale athe´nienne (pe´riodes archaı¨que et classique). Lille. Donlan, W. (1980) The aristocratic ideal in ancient Greece: attitudes of superiority from Homer to the end of the fifth century BC. Lawrence, KS.

Duplouy, A. (2006) Le Prestige des e´lites. Recherches sur les modes de reconnaissance sociale en Gre`ce entre les Xe et Ve sie`cles avant J.-C. Paris. Murray, O. (1980) Early Greece. Atlantic Highlands, NJ. Nagy, G. (1996) “Aristocrazia: caratteri e stili di vita.” In S. Settis, ed., I Greci. Storia, cultura, arte, societa`, vol. 2: Una storia greca. 1. Formazione: 577–98. Turin. Roussel, D. (1976) Tribu et cite´. E´tudes sur les groupes sociaux dans les cite´s grecques aux e´poques archaı¨que et classique. Besanc¸on. Starr, C. G. (1992) The aristocratic temper of Greek civilization. Oxford. Stein-Ho¨lkeskamp, E. (1989) Adelskultur und Polisgesellschaft. Studien zur griechischen Adel in archaischer und klassischer Zeit. Stuttgart.

1

Aristocracy, Greek ALAIN DUPLOUY

Université Paris I Panthéon Sorbonne, France

As an analytical and historical concept, aristocracy has long been defined as a conjunction of wealth, power, and nobility. The word actually appeared during the fifth century BCE when historians and philosophers began to think about their political history. Two principles soon offered the frame of the classical taxonomy of political regimes: the number of rulers and the positive or negative assessment of their action. In ancient Greek thought, and notably in Aristotle’s Politics (ca. 330 BCE), aristocracy normally applies to a form of constitution of ancient times in which the few “best citizens” (aristoi) rule for the common interest. Although aristokratia only applies in ancient Greek thought and language to a political regime (see POLITEIA), modern historians normally use the term “aristocracy” or “aristocrats” to designate the members of this regime: that is the ruling elite who hereditarily monopolized every office in the POLIS. Since the nineteenth century, Greek aristocracy has also been thought to be framed by gene, enlarged associations based on kinship ties, and so appears as a kind of ancien régime nobility. This gentilician conception of aristocratic leadership won favor among historians during the twentieth century. As landowners and enriched entrepreneurs, aristocrats naturally formed a leisure class who spent their time in hunting and banqueting at home or abroad, enjoying the hospitality of their peers. They consequently had no interest in their fellow citizens, until the time they were forced by the DEMOS to share authority and political power with it. In Classical times they eventually became resentful and sometimes plotted revolution. However, recent literature has deeply challenged this traditionally accepted definition of the concept. It denies a political, economic, and gentilician view of an aristocratic leisure class ruling the Archaic cities and rather develops a notion of enterprising people who

perform their status through various strategies of distinction. In fact, ancient documents (literary texts, inscriptions, and monuments) reveal a set of behaviors used by individuals to express but also to promote their social status. Through a continuous investment in time-, money-, and energy-consuming practices one could thus enhance one’s position in the social hierarchy. There were many prestige-generating behaviors, pertaining to various fields of social and civic life, that were different in each city and at different times. Ostentatious dedications in sanctuaries, sumptuous burial customs or original tombmarkers, elaborate weddings, gentilician strategies, military achievements, athletic victories, and many others were aimed at demonstrating and enhancing the prestige of the promoter. Individual status depended on public esteem, which had to be constantly built up. It was granted by the community, whether a small group of symposiasts or the whole population of a city, and it appeared as the essential tool in shaping the social order. Actual boundaries between social groups were much more permeable than has been previously thought, and the civic social structure mainly appears as a continuum of informal statuses. During the Archaic period there was apparently no social group whose composition was exclusive. Access to the elite remained constantly open, so that in many cities aristocratic status can be defined as achieved rather than ascribed. Consequently, Greek aristocracy has to be conceived as the result of a process of accumulating social prestige by a continuous succession of behaviors increasing one’s respect and popularity, which could eventually lead to a dominant position in the community and to a monopoly of power. Social mobility, upwards or downwards, was therefore a dominant feature among the citizen group. Being the son of a well-respected man could certainly be a serious advantage, but it was no insurance against social downfall. Likewise, examples of social ascension were not uncommon. The elite was in constant social flux: from one generation to another, some of

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History. Edited by Andrew Erskine, David B. Hollander, and Arietta Papaconstantinou. © 2020 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Published 2020 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah04044.pub2

2 its members lost their prestige and their privileged position, but other people rose with the success of their social strategies. Agonistic mentality conditioned the whole social hierarchy. Competition was thus an essential feature of Greek culture. “Always be the best and superior to others,” claimed HOMER (Il. 6.208). This ideal was constantly repeated by later poets, historians, orators, or inscriptions and deeply influenced action. SEE ALSO:

Aristotle, political thought; Genos, gene; Guest-friendship (hospitium); Honor – shame culture; Oligarchy; Kalokagathia; Social structure and mobility, Greece and Rome.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Bourriot, F. (1976) Recherches sur la nature du génos: étude d’histoire sociale athénienne (périodes archaïque et classique). Lille.

Donlan, W. (1980) The aristocratic ideal in ancient Greece: attitudes of superiority from Homer to the end of the fifth century BC. Lawrence. Duplouy, A. (2006) Le prestige des élites: recherches sur les modes de reconnaissance sociale en Grèce entre les Xe et Ve siècles avant J. -C. Paris. Fisher N. and van Wees H., eds. (2015) “Aristocracy” in antiquity: redefining Greek and Roman elites. Swansea. Murray, O. (1993) Early Greece, 2nd ed. Cambridge, MA. Nagy, G. (1996) “Aristocrazia: caratteri e stili di vita.” In S. Settis, ed., I Greci: storia, cultura, arte, società, vol. 2: una storia greca. 1. formazione: 577–98. Turin. Roussel, D. (1976) Tribu et cité: études sur les groupes sociaux dans les cités grecques aux époques archaïque et classique. Besançon. Starr, C. G. (1992) The aristocratic temper of Greek civilization. Oxford. Stein-Hölkeskamp, E. (1989) Adelskultur und Polisgesellschaft: Studien zum griechischen Adel in archaischer und klassischer Zeit. Stuttgart.

1

Aristokles of Messene GEORGE KARAMANOLIS

Aristokles of Messene is a little-known Peripatetic of imperial times, whose precise dating is uncertain, but presumably he lived in the early first century CE (Moraux 1984: 86–9; Chiesara 2001: xvi–xix). We know of two main works of Aristokles, his lost work Whether Homer or Plato was better and his treatise On Philosophy, which originally covered ten books and from which several fragments survive. The majority of the preserved fragments are critical. Aristokles criticizes the philosophies of the Eleatics, the Skeptics, the Epicureans, and the Cyrenaics. The nature of the preserved fragments gives the impression that the purpose of Aristokles’ work was chiefly critical. This impression, however, is misleading, and it is due to the fact that our main source of Aristokles’ fragments is Eusebius, who excerpted Aristokles’ work in order to advance his apologetic polemics to the effect that Greek philosophy (except Plato) was misguided. Yet some fragments of Aristokles’ treatise are not critical. In one such fragment that is preserved by Eusebius (Praep. evang. 11.3; fr. 1 Chiesara), Aristokles argues that Plato philosophized correctly and perfectly and that Greek philosophy before him was primitive. Aristokles explains that Plato’s achievement was that he was the first to cover all three parts of philosophy, namely physics, logic, and ethics, and also the one who realized the true nature of philosophy in the sense that all its parts have a common objective, to help man attain happiness. In this respect Aristokles resembles Antiochus of Ascalon, who was also considering Plato’s philosophy as a doctrinal system with three parts that aims at happiness, while he also resembles Atticus, a secondcentury Platonist, who similarly portrays Plato as the philosopher who brought philosophy into existence by unifying its parts (fr. 1 Des Places).

Presumably Aristokles first tried to clarify the nature of philosophy, and in this context he praised Plato and also Aristotle and then moved to criticize the philosophies of those who did not conform with the conception of philosophy he had advanced (Chiesara 2001: xxvi). This is plausible in view of the fact that Aristokles criticizes several philosophical schools of thought for deviating from what he calls “the sound way of philosophizing” (fr. 5.63, fr. 7.9 Chiesara), which he presupposes as a measure for judging philosophy as a whole. He makes clear that the sound way of philosophy involves commitment to certain fundamental principles of philosophy, which concern mainly epistemology and ethics. In Aristokles’ view we are naturally enabled to know and to understand (fr. 4), and this happens in a certain way given man’s nature, namely through the senses and reason (fr. 7, fr. 8). Aristokles emphasizes the role of reason in the process of knowing, arguing that, unlike the senses, reason never deceives us (fr. 6), and in this sense, he claims, reason is the most divine judge (fr. 8). It is on this basis that Aristokles criticizes the Skeptics’ distrust of the senses (fr. 6), the relativism of Protagoras and Metrodorus (fr. 4), and the denial of change in reality that is maintained by the Eleatics (fr. 5). According to Aristokles, all of them annihilate the very nature of philosophy (fr. 6). Apparently Aristokles considered the philosophies of Plato and Aristotle as the basis on which the merit of all other philosophical views is to be judged, for otherwise he could not make reference to the Theatetus (fr. 6) or rely on Aristotle’s Metaphysics (fr. 4) and De anima (fr. 8) in his critique. Aristokles considered Plato and Aristotle in accord also in ontology. In a short fragment concerning the Stoics, which is unclear as to whether it is critical or not, Aristokles claims that Aristotle agrees with Plato in accepting God and matter as principles of reality and in maintaining that God is incorporeal (fr. 3), and on this basis he distinguishes them from the Stoics.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, and Andrew Erskine. © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Published 2017 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah30417

2 REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Chiesara, M. L. (2001) Aristocles of Messene: testimonies and fragments. Oxford. Karamanolis, G. (2006) Plato and Aristotle in agreement? Platonists on Aristotle from Antiochus to Porphyry. Oxford.

Moraux, P. (1984) Der Aristotelismus bei den Griechen von Andronikos bis Alexander von Aphrodisias, vol. 2. Berlin.

1

Aristonikos FRANK DAUBNER

Aristonikos (ca. 160–126 BCE) was the natural son of EUMENES II (only Velleius Paterculus 2.4.1 doubts this fact; Daubner 2006: 53) and, as Eumenes III, he was the last of the Attalid kings. In 133 BCE he claimed the throne after the premature death of his halfbrother ATTALOS III, who had left a will by which he freed the cities of his kingdom and bequeathed his possessions to the Romans (see WILLS, OF HELLENISTIC KINGS). At the very start of his reign Aristonikos was supported by parts of the Pergamene army and fleet, but the cities of PERGAMON and Ephesos resisted him. It is very likely that large parts of ASIA remained undecided until the arrival of the Romans. In order to consolidate his position, Aristonikos attacked some cities of IONIA and CARIA, which were not part of his realm. Simultaneously he began to strike cistophoric tetradrachms in his own name at Thyateira, Apollonis, and Stratonikeia on the Kaikos River in LYDIA (see COINAGE, HELLENISTIC). His enemies were supported by the neighboring kings of BITHYNIA, PONTOS, CAPPADOCIA, and PAPHLAGONIA soon after a senatorial commission led by Publius Cornelius Scipio Nasica Serapio arrived at Pergamon in the winter of 133/2 to consider the terms of the testament. Deciding to accept the heritage and to establish a “Province of Asia,” the Romans sent an army as soon as possible, in 131. After severe quarrels over the issue, command was given to the Consul Crassus who operated mainly on the coast of Asia Minor and died at the end of the year. His successor was the consul of 130, M. Perperna, a very capable military leader. The details of Perperna’s campaigns are unknown, except for his capture of Aristonikos at Stratonikeia on the Kaikos in 129. Perperna died of disease after the victory celebrations and M’. Aquillius, consul of 129, took over the Province of Asia. He was confronted with vehement resistance in the Mysian, Lydian, and Carian hinterland,

which he put down ruthlessly in the next three years. In 126 he celebrated a triumph, after which Aristonikos was put to death. The main literary sources are STRABO (14.1.38), Justin (36.4), and Florus (1.35; see FLORUS, LUCIUS ANNAEUS; JUSTIN, ROMAN HISTORIAN). This rather slim evidence is complemented by a substantial dossier of inscriptions, which allows us to determine more precisely the adversaries and the supporters of the pretender (the most important new texts are SEG 51.1495 and 53.1312¼Dreyer and Engelmann 2003). The backbone of his army was the royalist element of the Pergamene army, mainly the Macedonians settled in Lydia by Eumenes II. Further support came from some Pergamene cities mistrustful of Roman freedom; from Thracian and some indigenous tribes; and from the Ionian polis of PHOKAIA. As early as POSEIDONIOS (Diod. Sic. 34/ 35.2.26) and Strabo, who report that Aristonikos called his supporters heliopolitai (“citizens of sun-city”), there was a tradition of considering Aristonikos as a social revolutionary and a liberator of slaves influenced by euhemeristic and Stoic ideas. In modern times he was often reduced to this aspect (Daubner 2006: 176–86). It may be that some of the poor, as well as some slaves, were enrolled in the last days of the war; but it was not a slave war, nor was Aristonikos a social revolutionary (Mileta 1998). His main objective was the Pergamene throne, while his supporters sought to prevent Rome from coming to power in Asia Minor. SEE ALSO: Asia, Roman province of; Asia Minor, Hellenistic; Ephesos, Classical and later; Euhemeros and Euhemerism; Kingship, Hellenistic; Mysia; Stoicism.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Daubner, F. (2006) Bellum Asiaticum: der Krieg der Ro¨mer gegen Aristonikos von Pergamon und die Einrichtung der Provinz Asia, 2nd ed. Munich.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 698–699. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah09049

2 Dreyer, B. and Engelmann, H. (2003) Die Inschriften von Metropolis, part 1: Die Dekrete fu¨r Apollonios: Sta¨dtische Politik unter den Attaliden und im Konflikt zwischen Aristonikos und Rom. Bonn. Klebs, E. (1895) “Aquillius no. 10.” RE 2: 323–4. Stuttgart.

Mileta, C. (1998) “Eumenes III. und die Sklaven. ¨ berlegungen zum Charakter des Neue U Aristonikosaufstandes.” Klio 80: 47–65. Mu¨nzer, F. (1900) “Cornelius no. 354.” RE 4: 1501–4. Stuttgart. Mu¨nzer, F. (1937) “Perperna no. 4.” RE 19: 894–6. Stuttgart.

1

Aristophanes ALAN SOMMERSTEIN

Aristophanes (ca. 450–ca. 385 BCE) was one of the leading comic dramatists in the ATHENS of his day, and has ever since been regarded as the outstanding representative of Old Comedy. About forty of his plays were known to scholars of the Hellenistic period, of which eleven survive today; he won first prize in the comic competition at the City Dionysia or Lenaia at least six times. Like his contemporaries, Aristophanes regularly engaged with issues of current controversy in the areas of war and peace (Acharnians, Peace, Lysistrata), politics (Knights, Wasps), wealth and poverty (Assemblywomen, Wealth), the thinking of intellectuals (Clouds, ostensibly an attack on SOCRATES), and the theater itself (Women at the Thesmophoria, Frogs). Early in his career, he was twice threatened with prosecution by the politician KLEON (Ach. 377–82, 502–3, 630–1; Vesp. 1284–91); after the production of Frogs in 405, on the other hand, he was awarded public honors and the play was ordered to be restaged, apparently because of its perceived political message (Hypothesis I to Frogs; Ar. test. i 35–9 Kassel-Austin). Aristophanes’ plots are regularly built around a fantasy scheme for extricating an individual, a community, or even the whole of humanity from some distressing predicament (Sifakis 1992), and plays like Birds and Assemblywomen are the oldest utopian texts to survive in western literature. In Peace, Birds, and Wealth the hero, in alliance with dissident gods, defeats or even deposes ZEUS himself. Aristophanes’ texts are an important source for almost every aspect of the Athenian politics and society of his time, but they need to be used with an understanding of the special characteristics of comedy and especially of Athenian Old Comedy (Pelling 2000). Often

the historian will learn much more from what a passage presupposes than from what it asserts. Owing to their topicality, and perhaps also to their cheerful obscenity, Aristophanes’ plays did not hold the stage in subsequent generations; but they have proved extremely congenial (often in adapted form) to the Zeitgeist of the late twentieth and twenty-first centuries, particularly in left-wing and pacifist circles – though on closer examination the plays seem to reveal an Aristophanes who was opposed to war only if SPARTA was the enemy, was deeply suspicious of politicians who relied on the support of the poor, and was at best ambivalent about democracy itself (Sommerstein 1996, 2005). SEE ALSO: Comedy, Old; Dionysia; Euripides; Peloponnesian War.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Dover, K. J. (1972) Aristophanic comedy. Berkeley. Lowe, N. J. (2008) Comedy: 1–62. Cambridge. MacDowell, D. M. (1995) Aristophanes and Athens. Oxford. Pelling, C. B. R. (2000) Literary texts and the Greek historian: esp. 123–63, 209–18. Oxford. Robson, J. (2009) Aristophanes: an introduction. London. Sifakis, G. M. (1992) “The structure of Aristophanic comedy.” Journal of Hellenic Studies 112: 123–42. Sommerstein, A. H., ed. and trans. (1980–2002) The comedies of Aristophanes, 12 vols. Warminster. Sommerstein, A. H. (1996) “How to avoid being a komodoumenos.” Classical Quarterly n.s. 46: 327–56. Sommerstein, A. H. (2005) “An alternative democracy and an alternative to democracy in Aristophanic comedy.” In U. Bultrighini, ed., Democrazia e antidemocrazia nel mondo greco: 195–207, 229–33. Alessandria. Reprinted with updates in Sommerstein, A. H. (2009) Talking about laughter and other studies in Greek comedy: 204–22. Oxford.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 699–700. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah04045

1

Aristophanes of Byzantium IVANA PETROVIC

Aristophanes of Byzantium (ca. 265–190 or 257–180 BCE) was ERATOSTHENES’ successor as the head of the Alexandrian library (see LIBRARY (ALEXANDRIA)) and one of the most prominent and influential philologists of the ancient world. Born in Byzantium, he moved to Alexandria, where he was taught by the leading scholars. Some sources list Dionysios Iambos, Euphronios, and Machon as his teachers; others list ZENODOTOS OF EPHESOS, CALLIMACHUS, and Eratosthenes. His own student, ARISTARCHUS OF SAMOS, was equally prominent, and since Aristarchus tended to agree with Aristophanes, the work of the pupil can be used to provide insight into the editing and exegetical methods of his teacher Aristophanes. Aristophanes was an influential editor of texts and has contributed greatly to the development of the methodology of text editing by further elaborating the method of comparing the manuscripts. He contributed to the development of diacritical signs: having adopted Zenodotos’ obelos, Aristophanes introduced asteriskos for repeated verses and sigma and antisigma to mark subsequent verses with identical content. In his editions of lyric poetry, Aristophanes used koronis for separating individual poems, and a paragraphos to mark the beginning of stanzas. His subdivision of stanzas into rhythmic kola was also adopted by subsequent editors. Aristophanes is also credited with the invention of marking the accents (we still use his signs) and with the expansion of the punctuation system. Aristophanes’ editorial range was wide: he provided new editions of Homeric epics, Hesiod’s Theogony, and poems of Alkaios, Alkman, and Pindar. He ordered Pindar’s poems into 17 books. Aristophanes edited the texts of Sophocles and Euripides and provided

the first critical edition of the playwright Aristophanes’ comedies. Apart from editing texts, Aristophanes also wrote prose treatises. Typical for Alexandrian philological tradition were explanations of difficult words or expressions in literature (Glossai) and Lexeis, in-depth studies of particular expressions and problems. Aristophanes divided his methodologically exemplary Lexeis into thematic sections. He edited two collections of proverbs, which he divided into metrical and nonmetrical. He corrected and supplemented Callimachus’ Pinakes, the first bibliography of Greek literature, in 120 books, which served as a catalogue for the Alexandrian Library. Pinakes owed much to the peripatetic tradition, as did some other works of Aristophanes: a supplemented epitome of Aristotle’s Historia Animalium entitled Peri Zoion (On Animals). Building on Aristotle’s Didaskaliai were Aristophanes’ notes on dramatic poetry entitled Hypotheseis. These brief prefaces to theater plays provide valuable information on the occasion of first performance, stage props, persons, and plots. His research on Menander resulted in a prose treatise, On Characters (Peri prosopon), a study of character types in Greek comedy, and Parallels between Menander and the People He Stole From – possibly the first scholarly treatment of plagiarism. Aristophanes contributed to the compilation of the lists of best and most representative authors in the areas of epic, lyric, and dramatic poetry. These lists (Gr. kanones) were typical for Alexandrian philology and have played a decisive influence in the selection and preservation of manuscripts. SEE ALSO: Callimachus; Eratosthenes; Zenodotos of Ephesos.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Ax, W. (1990) “Aristophanes von Byzanz als Analogist.” Glotta 68: 4–18.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 700–701. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah09050

2 Callanan, C. K. (1987) Die Sprachbeschreibung bei Aristophanes von Byzanz. Go¨ttingen. Dickey, E. (2007) Ancient Greek scholarship. New York.

Pfeiffer, R. (1968) History of classical scholarship from the beginnings to the end of the Hellenistic age. Oxford. Slater, W. J., ed. (1986) Aristophanis Byzantini Fragmenta. Berlin.

1

Aristotle ¨ TRUMPF ECKART SCHU

LIFE Aristotle (Aristoteles), 384–322 BCE, from STAGEIRA in the Chalcidice, was the son of Nikomachos, a court physician to the Macedonian king Amyntas III (father of PHILIP II OF MACEDON). Aristotle joined PLATO’s Academy in ATHENS in 367 (when Plato was away in Sicily). The philosophical focus of Plato at that time was epistemology and dialectic as presented in the dialogue Theaetetus. The influence of Plato’s philosophy can be easily recognized almost everywhere in Aristotle’s work, prominently in Politics 2.2–6, which contain a lengthy, detailed critique of Plato’s Republic and Laws. Aristotle describes his relationship to Plato as that of a friend; however, he adds that he ranks his friendship to truth higher than that to a person, and thus feels free to criticize Plato’s theory of forms (Eth. Nic. 1.4; Du¨ring 1957: 315–36). Aristotle stayed in Athens until 347, the year of Plato’s death. In leaving Athens, Aristotle might have responded to anti-Macedonian sentiments, powerfully expressed during that period in speeches by Demosthenes, which were particularly strong in 348 after Philip II had conquered and destroyed OLYNTHOS, an ally of Athens. Aristotle first settled in Assos in Asia Minor, a city ruled by Hermias of Atarneus who had studied under Plato in Athens (see HERMIAS, TYRANT OF ATARNEUS). After two years he moved to MYTILENE on the island of LESBOS. Frequent references in his biological works to places in northwestern Asia Minor suggest that he undertook his biological and zoological studies here, together with his student THEOPHRASTUS. In 343/2 Philip II invited Aristotle to play a role in the education of his son Alexander, who was thirteen years old at that time (see ALEXANDER III, THE GREAT). The nature of the education Alexander received from Aristotle is an issue of scholarly dispute (cf. Merlan

1954). After 338 Aristotle, together with Kallisthenes, undertook to compile a list of the victors in the PYTHIAN GAMES in DELPHI. In 335/4 he returned to Athens where he taught in the LYCEUM, a precinct dedicated to Apollo Lykeios, in an arcade (peripatos) from which much later the term PERIPATETICS for the members of the Aristotelian school was derived (Du¨ring 1957: 404–11). After the death of Alexander (323), when anti-Macedonian sentiment again ran high in Athens, Aristotle left the city for CHALCIS in EUBOEA where he died in 322. WORK The present Corpus Aristotelicum (in modern editions cited after Bekker 1831) very likely goes back to Aristotelian texts that were brought to Rome under Sulla (Strabo 13.1.54, 609) and edited by Andronikos of Rhodes (Plut. Sull. 26.1; Porph. Vit. Plot. 24) in the second half of the first century BCE. The ancient lists of works attributed to Aristotle (Moraux 1951) show how much of his work has been lost, for example, all his dialogues. His extant writings include treatises on logic, ethics, politics, rhetoric, poetics, physics, psychology, and biology. Furthermore, he either wrote himself or organized the writing of works that fall under historiography. DIOGENES LAERTIUS 5.27 (¼Rose 1967: no. 143) lists among Aristotle’s works “Constitutions of 158 cities (arranged) according to their forms: democratic, oligarchic, aristocratic, tyrannical.” Of these only the Constitution of the Athenians (Athenaion Politeia) has come down to us almost completely, preserved on papyrus, and first published in 1891; of the other constitutions, only short fragments survive (Rose 1967: 381–644; German translation with commentary Hose 2002). CONCEPT OF HISTORY Aristotle made theoretical statements about the philosophical rank of historiography. At

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 701–703. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah04046

2 Poetics 23 he describes the structure of the dramatic plot created by a poet that has as its subject a single and complete action and contrasts it with works of history: here a single period is described in which neither simultaneous nor subsequent events need to realize one end. At Poetics 9 Aristotle contrasts the specific task of the historian who describes “the particular events” (ta kath’ hekaston) “that happened” (ta genomena) to an individual with the task of the poet who describes “events that can take place (ta dunata) according to likelihood or necessity,” “in a way that they might well take place” (hoia an genoito), in other words: “poetry describes events that are universal” (ta kath’ holou). Therefore, Aristotle concludes, poetry is in its nature more philosophical than history. This judgment is in line with his views about the objects of scientific knowledge, which are universal and necessary (Eth. Nic. 6.6). While this statement at Poetics 9 reveals a narrow view about writing history, it should not be construed as denying philosophical significance to history. At Politics 5.12, 1316a 25 ff., Aristotle criticizes a simplistic theory of constitutional change such as that found in Plato’s Republic by referring to specific events that contradict Plato’s assumptions, and he generally supports in Politics 4–6 his political insights and recommendations by referring to specific historical events (Weil 1960). At Rhetoric 1.4, he considers studying the past as useful for legislation and historical works as useful for deliberative speech. At Nicomachean Ethics 10.10, 1181b17, he promises to use in the political study announced here the collection of constitutions. Such a historical work has, therefore, value for political theory. In Politics Aristotle offers insights into his concept of history. He is convinced of human progress through which primitive customs and institutions become refined over time (2.8). However, he considers some very old political arrangements, like the separation of warriors and farmers in Egypt, as still correct

(7.10). For Greeks of his time, kingship is an obsolete form of government (1.2, 1252b19 ff.). While Aristotle assumes “nature” to be a teleological principle that guided the development of the earliest communities and culminated in the polis (1.2), nature is not, as has been claimed (Day and Chambers 1962: 58), a force that determines the development of individual constitutions, like democracy, from their moderate beginnings to their later radical forms. Such a view is contradicted by Aristotle’s concept of nature, which refers not only to the final stage of a thing but also to its best form (1.2, 1252b30 ff.). There is no linear development in the direction of change of constitutions as Plato had assumed there to be, no natural teleology (Schu¨trumpf 1991: 117–19). The final stage in the development of democracy, far from being the full realization of this form, is no longer a constitution (4.4, 1292a30). Constitutional change is open for an unlimited (aoristos) range of possibilities (5.12). Which constitution should be established is determined not by a teleological plan but by qualitative and numerical conditions in individual states that have to be assessed case by case (4.12). SEE ALSO: Aristotle, biology; Aristotle, Constitution of the Athenians; Aristotle, cosmology; Aristotle, mathematics; Aristotle, Meteorology; Aristotle, Physics; Aristotle, political thought; Aristotle, psychology; Chalcidice, Chalcidian League; Demosthenes, orator; Kallisthenes of Olynthos.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Bekker, I. (1831) Aristoteles Graece. Berlin. Day, J. H. and Chambers, M. (1962) Aristotle’s history of Athenian democracy. Berkeley. Du¨ring, I. (1957) Aristotle in the ancient biographical tradition. Gothenburg. Hose, M. (2002) Aristoteles. Die historischen Fragmente. Berlin. Merlan, P. (1954) “Isocrates, Aristotle and Alexander the Great.” Historia 3: 60–81.

3 Moraux, P. (1951) Les Listes anciennes des ouvrages d’Aristote. Leuven. Rose, V. (1967/1886) Aristotelis qui ferebantur librorum fragmenta. Stuttgart.

Schu¨trumpf, E. (1991) Aristoteles. Politik Buch I. Berlin. Shields, C. (2008) Aristotle. London. Weil, R. (1960) Aristote et l’histoire: essai sur la “Politique.” Paris.

1

Aristotle, biology JOHN MOURACADE

Aristotle (384–322 BCE ) was both the first, and until Charles Darwin, the most influential biologist. While there were those who speculated about issues of biological interest (as Plato does in the Timaeus, and Hippocrates does in his treatises), we would be hard pressed to find anything in those works that is significantly similar to modern biology to warrant calling those thinkers “biologists.” Aristotle, on the other hand, approached the study of living things deliberately, broadly, methodologically, empirically, and put his findings in the context of a causal explanatory theoretical setting. While we may find fault with Aristotle’s conclusions or method, there is little room for doubt that we are objecting to biological work and objecting on the grounds of subsequent biological discovery. As to Aristotle’s influence, his outlook on biology was foundational for thousands of years and was finally decisively refuted with the rise of Darwinian explanations of species. An essential element of Aristotle’s significance as a biologist is that he took a systematic approach to examining living things. In fact, Aristotle took a systematic approach in general. On Aristotle’s account, there is one “master” genus: “Being.” The study of being qua being is the work of first philosophy or metaphysics. All of the other types of inquiry look into the various branches of things that are. Of the things that exist, living things form a special category. By realizing this, Aristotle isolated living things as a field of inquiry within the broader philosophical enterprise (broadly construed). Within the field of living things, Aristotle attempted to bring systematization and order. He was a relentless taxonomist. Aristotle inherited the method of division from PLATO (see Plato’s Sophist and Statesman for a full explanation of the method) wherein taxonomy is rigorously practiced as genera are broken into species by differentia.

Not only was Aristotle systematic in terms of the range of his inquiries, but even more notably in developing his ideas. Much of Aristotle’s thought is marked by his commitment to hylomorphism, the idea that all substances or objects are composites of matter (hule) and form (morphe). Aristotle’s idea is that there are raw materials that are incorporated into an activity (actuality/entelechy) which is the selfstructuring work of Aristotelian forms. Aristotle’s Metaphysics provides the fullest display of the view, but we find hylomorphism applied to a range of topics. In De Anima, Aristotle applies hylomorphism to all living things and identifies the form of living beings with their soul. Aristotle even applies this line of thinking in the Politics, where people are the matter for a state while the constitution is its form. Aristotle’s hylomorphism informs his biological inquiries. Whether he is inquiring into the nature of particular living things, where nature will be identified with form, and form will, at times, refer to species or genera, or whether he discusses anatomy and physiology, hylomorphism is prominent. Aristotle also applies hylomorphism in a rather unfortunate way to his embryology. In this case, menstrual fluid is taken as matter while sperm is the form. Thus, just as a seed planted in the soil grows into the appropriate plant, so will sperm grow into a man, if development goes well. If something goes wrong in development (namely insufficient heat) then the offspring will be deformed and the resulting child will be female. While the idea that females are deformed males is bad enough, this carried over to Aristotle’s view of human females’ capacity for reason, which has moral and political implications in the Aristotelian scheme. The details of Aristotle’s embryology are not intended to slight Aristotle’s accomplishments, but to demonstrate how interconnected and systematic Aristotle’s philosophy is. Accordingly, Aristotle’s philosophy of biology can only be understood in the context of that system. Aristotle’s biological works comprise roughly a quarter of his extant writings. Works directly

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 703–704. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah21040

2 on biology include Sense and sensibilia, Parts of animals, History of animals, On memory, On sleep, On length and shortness of life, Movement of animals, Progression of animals, and Generation of animals. Additionally, Aristotle’s works that are biologically relevant include Physics, Generation and corruption, and On the soul. In these works, Aristotle addresses wideranging biological phenomena, from the nature of perception and perceptual mechanism, to taxonomy, to reasons for the growth rate and placement of hair, embryology, and on and on. The breadth and detail of Aristotle’s biological studies deserve to be admired first-hand by reading Aristotle’s texts. SEE ALSO: Aristotle, Physics; Aristotle, political thought; Aristotle, psychology; Biology.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Barnes, J., ed. (1984) The complete works of Aristotle. Princeton. Gotthelf, A., ed. (1985) Aristotle on nature and living things: philosophical and historical studies presented to David M. Balme on his seventieth birthday. Pittsburgh. Gotthelf, A. and Lennox, J. G., eds. (1987) Philosophical issues in Aristotle’s biology. Cambridge. Lennox, J. (2001) Aristotle’s philosophy of biology: studies in the origins of life science. Cambridge. Mouracade, J. (2008) “Aristotle on life.” Apeiron 41: 3. Pellegrin, P. (1986) Aristotle’s classification of animals: biology and the conceptual unity of the Aristotelian corpus. trans. Anthony Preus. Berkeley.

1

Aristotle, cosmology DONALD J. ZEYL

Aristotle’s account of the constituents and structure of the universe is principally developed in his Physics, On the Heavens, and On Generation and Corruption. The account is driven by his views of natural motion, and the simple bodies that possess them. There are two kinds of simple natural motion: rectilinear and circular. Rectilinear motion is either away from or toward a center, and is exhibited by each of the four primary natural bodies – fire and air (which move “upwards,” away from the center, and so are “light”), and water and earth (which move “downwards,” toward the center, and so are “heavy”). Circular motion is motion around a center. Aristotle argues that circular motion – which, unlike rectilinear motion, is perfect in that it alone is continuous – requires the existence of a fifth primary body to naturally exhibit it. This body he calls “aither,” and it is the stuff of which both the stars and planets and the spheres that carry them are composed. The universe is finite and spherical, and Earth, consisting (primarily) of the “heaviest” element – earth – is located at its center. The fixed stars move in perfect diurnal circular motion around the Earth, carried on their uniform course by a single outermost sphere. To address the problem of the observably non-uniform courses of the Moon and the Sun and in particular the retrogradations of the five planets – Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn – Aristotle adopts and modifies the ingenious solution of Eudoxos, elaborated by Kallippos. Unlike the stars, each of these bodies is subject to the carrying movements of multiple concentric spheres. The spheres that determine the course of one body influence the movement of those of the next body nearer the center, and this influence is counteracted by “reacting” spheres. By Aristotle’s calculation, a total of fifty-five rotating spheres, varying in diameter, speed, direction of rotation, and angle of inclination

relative to the Earth’s axis, are required to account for all celestial motions, except that of the stars. Because he assumes that all motion, eternal or not, requires a cause (an assumption that notoriously persisted until Galileo’s discovery of inertia), each sphere has its own unmoved mover. The movement of the outermost sphere is inspired by a First (unmoved) Mover – which Aristotle in other contexts calls “god,” a self-thinking Intelligence that is neither a world-creator nor a worldadministrator – as its final, not efficient cause. The celestial bodies and the spheres that carry them are intelligent entities, and the outermost sphere is drawn by love of the perfection of the First Mover to imitate it. This it accomplishes by its own perfect rotation. Whereas the motions of the celestial spheres and their bodies are invariably natural and unimpeded – and hence unchanging and eternal – the entities in the “sublunary” region, composed of the traditional four elements, are subject to both natural and forced motions. The elements are distinguished by pairs of contrary qualities: fire is the warm/dry, air the warm/ moist, water the cold/moist, and earth the cold/dry. An element is transformed into another one when it exchanges one of its qualities for that quality’s corresponding contrary. Both members of the pair cannot be exchanged simultaneously; thus direct intertransformation between fire and water, and air and earth, is precluded. Compounds of two or more elements naturally move in the direction of the predominating element(s). Forced motions interfere with natural ones, and this interference is the primary cause of the change and perishability of the sublunary compounds. The movement of inanimate compounds is simply a function of their natural motions and any forced motions they are subject to. Animate compounds (animals), in addition to being subject to the natural motions of their elemental constituents and any forced motions they encounter, are also “self-movers.” Like the universe as a whole, the Earth is spherical, and its sphericity is proved by a

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 706–707. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah21041

2 combination of theoretical reasoning (since heavy objects converge at and around a center, the aggregation of such objects will produce a roughly spherical shape) and empirical evidence (based on lunar eclipses, the visibility of the night sky from different places, etc.). It is relatively small in comparison to the celestial bodies, having a circumference of 400,000 stades (roughly 46,000 miles). It rotates on its polar axis and remains in its central place. Aristotle’s account of the universe formed the basis of Ptolemy’s (second century CE) astronomical system, and remained authoritative until the “Copernican revolution” of the sixteenth century. Its historical influence, particularly in the late middle ages, is hard to overestimate. SEE ALSO: Eudoxos of Knidos; Kallippos, astronomer; Ptolemy (astronomer, mathematician).

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Bodna´r, I. and Pellegrin, P. (2006) “Aristotle’s physics and cosmology.” In M. L. Gill and P. Pellegrin, eds., Blackwell companions to philosophy: a companion to ancient philosophy: 270–91. Oxford. Bowen, A. C. and Wildberg, C., eds. (2009) New perspectives on Aristotle’s de Caelo. Leiden. Judson, L. (1994) “Heavenly motion and the unmoved mover.” In M. L. Gill and J. G. Lennox, eds., Self-motion from Aristotle to Newton: 155–71. Princeton. Kahn, C. H. (1985) “The place of the prime mover in Aristotle’s teleology.” In A. Gotthelf, ed., Aristotle on nature and living things: 183–205. Pittsburgh. Solmsen, F. (1960) Aristotle’s system of the physical world: a comparison with his predecessors. Ithaca.

1

Aristotle, mathematics HENRY MENDELL

Mathematics plays a rich role in Aristotle’s works in three different ways. He often uses mathematical examples to illustrate logical form and to illustrate deductive sciences. Mathematics also plays an important role in physical explanation. Furthermore, Aristotle is keen to explain the ontological status of mathematical objects and how mathematics, physics, and first philosophy differ (a problem known as the “demarcation issue”). For Aristotle, the primary mathematical sciences are arithmetic and geometry, as well as stereometry. Other demonstrative mathematical sciences, harmonics, mechanics, optics, astronomy, come under one of the primary three, in that all theorems in the lower science employ, and are explained by, the higher science. Below each “mixed” science are sciences that do not provide demonstrations but only observations of facts, likewise explained by their higher science. Additionally, mathematics explains facts in other sciences, such as the shape of a rainbow or why legs need to be bendable. It is best to understand Aristotle’s solution to the demarcation issue by looking at his polemics against contemporary philosophers in the ACADEMY. These made two blunders. They considered numbers the first principles of all things and treated numbers and geometrical objects as existing separately from perceptible things. One motivation for treating mathematical objects as separate lies in the question of precision: although triangles, precisely speaking, have internal angles equal to two right angles, perceptible ones do not. Additionally, mathematical triangles neither move nor are subject to other processes. Hence, the triangles described in geometry cannot be the triangles used in perceived diagrams. Such triangles could not be Platonic Forms either, since there need to be many such perfect triangles. One difficulty for Academic theories, the

application problem, is how geometry so understood could apply to an idealized astronomy, let alone to the perceptible world. To evade Academic theories, Aristotle needs to show that it is possible to provide an account of the objects of geometry and arithmetic that neither makes them physical substances nor separate from them. Aristotle begins with perceptible magnitudes. These are not substances but must be aspects of substances, bodies, surfaces, edges, etc. Geometry studies perceptible magnitudes qua magnitudes, in the respect that they are magnitudes. Put another way, the mathematical object is the perceptible magnitude with perceptible taken away or subtracted (filtered out). As such, it is not subject to change. So mathematics is about unchanging objects that are treated as if they were separate, even though, in fact, they are not, whereas physics studies changing and separate objects and first philosophy unchanging and separate objects. Aristotle easily solves the application problem, since what holds of magnitude will hold of magnitudeþperceptible. Moreover, since physical bodies are three-dimensional with surfaces, etc., he can also solve, in a limited way, the precision problem. However, it remains a problem to see if or how he has solved the richer precision problem, whether there are triangles in physical bodies, including the figure formed by the legs of a biped animal. As the word Aristotle uses for “substraction,” aphaeresis, normally gets translated into Latin as abstractio, the view that mathematical objects are abstracted from perceptible objects is descended from his view. However, it clearly is the reverse of Aristotle’s account. Modern interests in anti-Platonist ontologies of mathematics, such as physicalism, eliminativism, and fictionalism, have led to a revival of interest in Aristotelian views on mathematics.

SEE ALSO: Aristotle, cosmology; Aristotle, Physics; Eudoxos of Knidos; Mathematics, Greece and Rome; Plato; Speusippos.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 707–708. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah21042

2 REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Annas, J. (1976) Aristotle’s metaphysics Books M and N (English translation and commentary). Oxford Clarendon Aristotle, ed. J. L. Ackrill. Oxford. Cleary, J. J. (1995) Aristotle and mathematics: aporetic method in cosmology and metaphysics. Leiden. Cleary, J. J. (1985) “On the terminology of ‘abstraction’ in Aristotle.” Phronesis 30: 13–45.

Lear, J. (1982) “Aristotle’s philosophy of mathematics.” Philosophical Review 91: 161–92. Mendell, H. (2008) “Aristotle and mathematics.” The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy (Winter 2008 Edition) [online] [Accessed May 1, 2011.] Available from http://plato.stanford.edu/ archives/win2008/entries/aristotle-mathematics/. Mueller, I. (1970) “Aristotle on geometrical objects.” Archiv fu¨r die Geschichte der Philosophie 52: 156–71.

1

Aristotle, Meteorology LIBA TAUB

Aristotle’s Meteorology is the earliest extant Greek work on the subject, and is part of a larger project, following on from his studies of natural motion in the Physics, astronomy in On the Heavens, and the four elements in Generation and Corruption. It is preliminary, he says, to his work on animals and plants. Meteorology sits in the middle of Aristotle’s study of nature, reflecting the mediating role that meteorological processes serve, themselves caused by motions in the celestial region and, in turn, affecting living things on Earth. Aristotle defines the objects of study of meteorology (which is the term he notes his predecessors used to describe the subject), as “everything which happens naturally, but with a regularity less than that of the primary element of bodies, in the regions which border most nearly on the movements of the stars” and “all phenomena that may be regarded as common to air and water, and the various kinds and parts of the earth and their characteristics” including “the causes of winds and earthquakes and all the occurrences associated with their motions.” A broad group of phenomena are included, from comets to earthquakes, including shooting stars, colorful phenomena at night (possibly the aurora borealis), comets, rain, clouds, mist, dew, snow, hail, rivers and springs, coastal erosion and silting, the sea, thunder and lightning, hurricanes, typhoons, whirlwinds, haloes, and rainbows. Their being together in a single study is attributable to the fact that for Aristotle most meteorological phenomena are explained with reference to two “exhalations” (342a28–9); he distinguishes his own approach from that of some of his predecessors who posited only one. He mentions the exhalations at several points in the Meteorology, but does not offer a single, unified statement to describe and define them. Aristotle warns his readers (339a2–33) that meteorological phenomena are difficult, possibly impossible, to understand, and complete

knowledge cannot be assured. The difficulties in explaining meteorological phenomena are, to some extent, due to problems in accessing information; limiting factors include their distance, difficulty of observation (e.g., of clouds) and rarity (as with lunar rainbows). The Greek word phaenomena refers to “what is observed;” when observation is limited, our ability to explain may be affected. Aristotle offers a partial solution by suggesting that “we think that we have given a rational enough account of things not apparent to the senses when we have produced a theory which leads back to what is possible” (344a5–7). Accordingly, Aristotle employs several explanatory tactics, including using analogies to familiar experiences to explain distant and difficultto-observe phenomena. For example, he suggests (369a30) that the noise of thunder (by his account produced when the windy exhalation in a cloud strikes a dense cloud formation) is like the noise of a crackling flame when an exhalation suddenly erupts in a log fire. He also reports “experiments” to understand phenomena. For example, to understand that the saltiness of the sea is due to a mixture of substances, he suggests that one might “make a vessel of wax and put it in the sea” in order to study the phenomenon more closely (358b34–359a14). SEE ALSO:

Aristotle; Meteorology.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Falcon, A. (2005) Aristotle and the science of nature: unity without uniformity. Cambridge. Fontaine, R. (2001) “The reception of Aristotle’s Meteorology in Hebrew scientific writings of the thirteenth century.” Aleph 1: 101–39. Freeland, C. A. (1990) “Scientific explanation and empirical data in Aristotle’s Meteorology.” Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy 8: 67–10. Lettinck, P. (1999) Aristotle’s Meteorology and its reception in the Arab world. Leiden. Solmsen, F. (1960) Aristotle’s system of the physical world: a comparison with his predecessors. Ithaca. Taub, L. (2003) Ancient meteorology. London. Wilson, M. (2000) Aristotle’s theory of the unity of science. Toronto.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 708–709. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah21043

1

Aristotle, Physics HELEN LANG

The word “physics” originates from the verb jύo, to produce or to grow. While found in HOMER, it appears widely in Presocratic philosophy, particularly EMPEDOCLES and DEMOCRITUS, and also in PLATO. At its root, jύsiς means a thing’s nature or appearance. For example, a human’s “nature” is to be rational. ARISTOTLE (ca. 384–322 BCE) defines physics as a theoretical science, the study of things that are “by nature” [jύsei], including plants, animals, their parts, and the four elements (i.e., earth, air, fire, and water). Since he calls the heavens “besouled” [e᾽´mcuwοi], they may be thought of as animals and so included within physics. Because these things are by nature, “nature” must be defined, and so nature, according to Aristotle, is “a source of being moved and being at rest in the thing to which it belongs essentially, in virtue of itself, and not accidentally” – in contrast to a work of art for example, which has no such innate source of being moved (Kahn 1991: 11–39). So with artistic things, FORM must be imposed from the outside (by an artist) and the matter can preexist the form; in Aristotle’s example, a ship’s helm is imposed on preexisting wood by the carpenter. In natural things, there is no matter without form (no such thing as a bone that is not human or canine, etc.) and matter is intrinsically and immediately related to form (Freeland 1987: 382–407). Form is what a natural thing actually is, while matter is the thing only potentially; therefore form rather than matter is nature in the primary sense (Kelsey 2003: 59–88). Indeed, motion is defined as an actualization of the potential (matter) in its relation to actuality (form) (Kosman 1969: 40–62). In natural things, form is conceivable apart from, but in fact is never found without, matter, because matter “runs after” form whenever possible. Consequently, the science of physics primarily concerns itself with form,

but must also refer to matter because it is “always there.” In a primary sense, the physicist knows natural things as identified with form, for example human or canine, but natural things may also be identified as body and so the physicist must also know them in this sense (Burnyeat 2004: 7–24). Aristotle defines body as “perfect magnitude” (i.e., continuous measurable quantity bounded by length, breadth, and depth). One way to understand these claims is to see physics as primarily investigating natural things as specific, but also studying them as general and across kinds. One defines “body” by identifying form, for example “human” or “canine,” but bones can be compared directly, for example one bone is two feet long another three feet long, without reference to the kind of bone. Body, and natural things such as body, take us to Aristotle’s account of the four elements, earth, air, fire, and water. Aristotle defines these as “simple bodies,” each of which possesses a unique “inclination” [r῾ οpή]. For example, fire is moved upward, earth is moved downward. But “inclination” can be investigated as a general phenomenon and thereby we can understand the movement of all bodies everywhere (Lang 1998). Knowledge of natural things, constituting physics as a science, is defined in several ways: 1

To know a thing, one must know its causes, and Aristotle identifies four causes: a form, or what a thing actually is; b final cause, or that “for the sake of which” and the primary cause of motion; c moving cause, which moves a thing from the outside; and d matter, that out of which a thing comes to be or what it is potentially (Owen 1986: 151–64). In natural things, the first three of these often coincide: the form of a human is

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 709–711. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah21044

2

2

3

“rational,” the final cause toward which a human develops is “rational,” the moving cause is the father, who is “rational.” The matter, that out of which the human becomes, is different: flesh, blood, and bones. Since nature is a principle of motion, the physicist must investigate motion and what is required by motion in things, including “the continuous,” “the infinite,” place, void, and time. Relations between movers and moved things must also be examined by the physicist. Aristotle argues that “everything moved must be moved by something” and that motion in things must be eternal. These two arguments lead him to conclude at the end of Physics 8 that there must be a first eternal motion and a first mover that causes it during an infinite time; this mover must be indivisible, without parts, and without magnitude. Since natural things can be identified with body and body is perfect magnitude, a mover without magnitude, shown as a requirement of eternal motion, lies outside the science of physics.

SEE ALSO:

Physics; Science, Greek.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Burnyeat, M. F. (2004) “Aristotle and the foundation of sublunary physics.” In J. Mansfeld and F. J. de Haas, eds., Aristotle: On Generation and Corruption, book 1: 7–24. Oxford. Freeland, C. (1987) “Aristotle on bodies, matter, and potentiality.” In A Gotthelf and J. G. Lennox, eds., Philosophical issues in Aristotle’s biology: 392–407. Cambridge. Kahn, C. (1991) “Physique et tradition grecque de la philosophie naturelle.” In F. De Gandt and P. Souffri, eds., La Physique d’Aristote et les conditions d’une science de la nature: 11–39. Paris. Kelsey, S. (2003) “Aristotle’s definition of nature.” Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy 25: 59–88. Kosman, L. A. (1969) “Aristotle’s definition of motion.” Phronesis 14: 40–62. Lang, H. (1998) The order of nature in Aristotle’s Physics: place and the elements. Cambridge. Owen, G. E. L. (1986) “Aristotle: method, physics, and cosmology.” In M. Nussbaum, ed., Logic, science, and dialectic: collected papers in Greek philosophy: 151–64. Ithaca.

1

Aristotle, political thought ¨ TRUMPF ECKART SCHU ARISTOTLE’s

political theory is found in his Politics. It focuses on the various forms of constitution (see POLITEIA) of the Greek POLIS, its government, and the role of citizens. The Politics is addressed to the statesmen and lawgivers who determine the general political principles to be followed in a city. Together with the Nicomachean Ethics (EN), the Politics completes “the philosophy of human affairs” (EN 10.10). However, from the very start of the Politics Aristotle points out that the city is an entity in its own right and with its own structural conditions. Thus he considers it wrong to try to implement a political ideal like “unity” within a city since unity is much more fitting for an individual than a city (2.2 1261a16–21). In composing a treatise that focuses on the role of lawgiver, statesman, and politically influential citizens, Aristotle follows the tradition of the sophists (see SOPHISTS, GREECE), who promised to teach the skill of political leadership (politike¯ techne¯) while they, in Aristotle’s judgment, knew neither what it was nor what it dealt with (EN 10.10). PLATO’s political ideas are ever present in Aristotle’s Politics, although the latter is very critical of many Platonic views (Pol. 2.2–6). As a philosophical work, the Politics offers definitions of crucial political terms like polis, citizen, or constitution. Philosophically it is significant since it investigates the causes, why things happen in politics, for example why some constitutions are more stable than others.

CONTENT Book 1 deals with the household, the slave by nature as part of it, and forms of acquisition. The important distinction between despotic rule exercised over slaves and political rule

exercised over men who are free and equal is introduced here (1.7). Book 2 subjects Plato’s Republic and Laws and the constitutions of SPARTA, CRETE, and CARTHAGE to a detailed critical review which reveals a wealth of political insights. Book 3 is introduced as a study “On constitution.” A simple classification of three correct (monarchy, aristocracy, and polity) and three deviant forms of constitution (tyranny, oligarchy, and democracy, 3.6–7) is soon revised when Aristotle raises objections against every form of government including that by the best and recommends a constitution that “mixes” the participation of the demos (people) in the assembly and juries with that of the better who fill the offices (3.10–11). Disputes about who should govern are decided according to the “right practiced in distribution.” This principle determines that men who possess virtue (arete¯) are entitled to the greatest share in government. The third book deals in detail only with monarchy (and aristocracy). Book 4 takes a completely fresh start by no longer classifying particular constitutions but by establishing a relationship between conditions within a city and the constitution they favor. According to this approach, certain conditions could make radical democracy the “naturally” appropriate choice (4.12). This fourth book offers distinctions missing in book 3, such as subspecies of particular constitutions or the possibilities of bringing together various groups within the polis to form a great variety of mixed constitutions. Book 5 deals with civil wars and the overthrow of constitutions. For these Aristotle makes flaws inherent in a constitution or specific actions of the rulers themselves responsible. He offers at times almost disillusioned insight into the psychology of man in general (“all do what they want to if they have the power to do it”; 5.10, 1312b3) or specific political groups. Book 6 gives recommendations to establish democracies and oligarchies. Books 7 and 8 (to which book 2 is the introduction) describe the best constitution that allows its members to live the best life, and attain

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 711–713. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah04365

2 happiness (eudaimonia), for which virtue (arete¯) is a requirement. It is by no means an “ideal state” in the sense of a utopia, since none of its prerequisites should be impossible to attain (7.4). Groups that do not possess arete¯ are excluded from its citizenry. Because of the importance of arete¯, Aristotle devotes considerable attention to the education of the future citizens (7.13 to the end of the incomplete book 8). According to EN 10.10, Aristotle’s predecessors left gaps in their treatment of politike¯ techne¯, the skill of political leadership; they omitted studying legislation, which Aristotle promises to do, adding constitutions as a topic of study. He outlines his own inquiry (1181b15–23): First (1) let us try to investigate whether anything has been said well by our predecessors on some particular aspect; then (2a) on the basis of the constitutions that have been collected let us study what sorts of things preserve and destroy states, and what sorts of things preserve or destroy each of the constitutions, and (2b) what causes are responsible that some are well and others badly administered. When these questions have been examined we might well understand better (3a) which constitution is best, and (3b) how each must be ordered, and what laws and customs it must use (if each is to be at its best).

Constitution is the subject matter in each section of the planned study, and is the subject matter of books 2–8 of the Politics, but not in the way that EN 10.10 had proposed it. Topic (1) is not implemented in Pol. 2 since here the critical review of earlier writers does not extend to any of their views, but serves as a preparation for Aristotle’s own project of a best state and is, therefore, limited to a critical examination of best states (cf. 6 1265b29ff.; 8 1267b29). Topic (2a) of EN 10.10 refers to Pol. 5; topic (2b) of EN 10.10 cannot refer to Pol. 3 because this book is not based on the information available from the collection of constitutions. For the same reason, topic (3a) of EN 10.10 cannot refer to the best state of Pol. 7/8. Topic (3b) of EN 10.10 refers to Pol. 4–6.

The outline of a political study presented in EN 10.10 was written after the collection of constitutions (of which only Ath. Pol. survived; see ARISTOTLE, CONSTITUTION OF THE ATHENIANS) was available, that is during Aristotle’s last stay in Athens (335–323 BCE), and the political treatise planned at that time was to make use of this collection. This is not the case in Pol. 3 and 7/8 which must have been written before the collection of constitutions was completed (cf. Weil 1960).

CONSTITUTIONAL THEORY Under “constitution” (politeia), Aristotle understands the specific form of government, defined as the order that identifies the most important political offices and the way they are assigned within the city. Aristotle introduces a distinction between constitution and laws when he states that laws must be framed to suit the constitution (3.11 1282b10; 4.1 1289a12–20); therefore, the constitution has superiority over laws. It depends on the conditions within the citizenry which constitution should be established although Aristotle’s preference is a mixed constitution; however, he believes that democracies and oligarchies can be acceptable (5. 9 1309b31). Two questions dominate Aristotle’s analysis of constitutions: the number of constitutions and the differences between them (3.6 1278b6–8; 4.3 1290a5f.), which he answers by identifying the “parts” that make up the polis (Schu¨trumpf 1980; Accattino 1986). In the third book, these parts are determined by their contribution to the polis (12 1283a14ff.) according to the “right of distribution”; in book 4, these parts are ascertained through observation (“we see”; 4.3 1289b27) and include the poor who do not contribute to the polis according to the “right of distribution.” Obviously in books 4–6 this principle becomes questionable since Aristotle observes that “those who excel in virtue have the best right of all to rebel, but do so the least” (5.1). In addition to quality, the numbers of those competing for power must

3 now be taken into account (4.12). There seems merit in an analysis of the Politics that recognizes shifts in Aristotle’s approach to problems of political stability in books 4–6 that use the collection of constitutions (Schu¨trumpf 2006). The first translation of Aristotle’s Politics into Latin by Wilhelm of Moerbeke (ca. 1265) was used by Thomas of Aquinas for his commentary on the Politics, which contributed to the enormous influence this work has had ever since. SEE ALSO:

Aristotle.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Accattino, P. (1986) L’anatomia della citta` nella Politica di Aristotele. Torino. Barker, E. (1948) The politics of Aristotle: Translated with an introduction, notes and appendixes, 2nd ed. Oxford.

Keyt, D. and Miller, F. D., Jr., eds. (1991) A companion to Aristotle’s Politics. Cambridge. Kraut, R. (2002) Aristotle: political philosophy. Oxford. Mulgan, R. G. (1977) Aristotle’s political theory: an introduction for students of political theory. Oxford. Newman, W. L. (1887–1902) The politics of Aristotle: with an introduction, two prefactory essays and notes critical and explanatory. Oxford. Schu¨trumpf, E. (1980) Die Analyse der Polis durch Aristoteles. Amsterdam. Schu¨trumpf, E. (1991–2005) Aristoteles Politik Buch I; II–III; IV–VI; VII–VIII, u¨bersetzt und erla¨utert. In Aristoteles Werke in ¨ bersetzung, vol. 9, pts. I–IV, 4 vols. Deutscher U Berlin. Schu¨trumpf, E. (2006) “Ernest Barker on the composition and structure of Aristotle’s Politics.” Polis 23: 286–301. Weil, R. (1960) Aristote et l’histoire: essai sur la “Politique.” Paris.

1

Aristotle, psychology ANNA MARMODORO

Aristotle (384–322 BCE), born in Stagira, in the northeast of Greece, was for twenty years a member of PLATO’s Academy in Athens (367–347). After Plato’s death he spent a few years in Assos and Lesbos (primarily engaged in biological research), and in Macedon (where he briefly taught Alexander the Great). Back to Athens, he founded his own school, the LYCEUM (334), staying there nearly until the end of his life. Aristotle investigates the nature of the soul (psyche) and its activities primarily in the De Anima and in a collection of short treatises called Parva Naturalia. His approach is guided by two powerful insights, which are however foreign to us (see PSYCHOLOGY). Firstly, Aristotle conceives of the soul as the principle of functional organization of all the activities of a living natural body. Thus, the domain of his inquiry is much broader than the remit of modern psychology, and spans all living beings; not merely humans, but also plants and animals. Secondly, what guides Aristotle’s psychological inquiry is his general interest in the explanation of the physical phenomena we experience (see ARISTOTLE, PHYSICS). He does address in his psychological theory questions such as: “How is the soul related to the body?” “Is the soul immortal?” “Can the mental can be explanatorily reduced to the physical?” “What accounts for living beings’ actions?” But he sees these and related questions as part of his more general investigation into the nature of things, searching for what makes something what it is and for accounts for change. The mental falls within its remit and does not occupy any special place in it. It is therefore not surprising that in his account of the soul Aristotle applies concepts drawn from his broader metaphysical theory known as hylomorphism, according to which all things, man-made or nature-made, can be

analyzed into two components: the form, which is the principle of functional organization, and the matter in which such a principle is implemented. Substantial forms (e.g., being a man) account for what things are, and accidental forms (e.g., being pale) account for a substance’s qualitative change. Thus, Aristotle understands the soul as the substantial form of an organic body, and the body as the matter of the soul; the soul–body relation is only a special case of the general form–matter relationship. The round shape of a ball is distinct from the matter the ball is made of, but cannot exist as such without being implemented in matter. By analogy, the soul is distinct from the body, but cannot exist without the body. The difference between an organism and the ball is that the soul qua organizational principle determines the nature of the matter of the body all the way down, by transforming the fluids provided by the mother into flesh and bones in the generation of the organism. If the soul is the principle of organization of the body’s activities, the study of the soul includes the study of all such activities and of the relevant psychic faculties. Aristotle distinguishes the following faculties: nutrition, perception, intellect, and desire. The faculty of nutrition is common to all natural living beings; animals have perception in addition; and humans alone have intellect. Perception takes place when the perceiver and the object of perception interact, and it is a sort of “alteration” of the sense organ of the perceiver. It requires an agent capable of being affected and an object capable of affecting him/her (this is why a bee perceives the fragrance of a rose and a stone does not, being incapable of being affected). In perception the agent’s sense-organ undergoes an alteration by being “made like” the object of perception, somehow taking on its perceptible form. By analogy with perception thinking is the reception of an intelligible form by a suitably qualified intellectual faculty which is “made like” its object by being affected by it.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 713–715. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah21045

2 In both perception and thought, the “taking on” of the form is not literal (although there is an important disagreement between scholars concerning perception) and it is best understood by analogy with the way, for example, the surface of a pool of water becomes like what it reflects. Finally, desire is what explains the fact that animals engage in goal-directed actions; the corresponding faculty initiates animal motion in pursuit of the object of desire. This faculty operates in conjunction with practical reason, broadly understood to apply to animals too. The interconnection between desire

and practical reason is the basis of Aristotle’s virtue ethics. SEE ALSO:

Aristotle, Physics; Psychology.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Nussbaum, M. and Oksenberg Rorty, A. (1995) Essays on Aristotle’s “De Anima.” Oxford. Robinson D. N. (1989) Aristotle’s psychology. New York. Shields, C. (forthcoming) Aristotle’s “De Anima,” translated with introduction and notes. Oxford.

1

Aristoxenos of Tarentum SOPHIE GIBSON

Aristoxenos of Tarentum (ca. 370 BCE–post323) is primarily known as a musical theorist, but he wrote extensively on a wide variety of subjects (453 works according to the Suda). PYTHAGOREANISM had a strong influence on his intellectual development; early musical training was conducted under his father Spintharos (or possibly Mnesias), and he spent time in MANTINEA and CORINTH before becoming a student of ARISTOTLE in ATHENS. Little survives of his work, but his influence on music theory can be seen into the Middle Ages.

THE HARMONICS A study of melody in three books, the Harmonics, is Aristoxenos’ most important, and most completely surviving, work. It builds on the scholarship of earlier empirical theorists (the harmonikoi), although Aristoxenos criticizes their work as incomplete and lacking demonstration (35.1–43.23). Clearly influenced by Aristotle’s theories of natural science, Aristoxenos applies to music theory Aristotle’s method of subject limitation and of setting out first principles from which theorems can be deduced (as described in the Posterior Analytics: Barker 2007: 105–12). On the other hand, while Aristoxenos shows appreciation of Pythagorean teaching elsewhere, in the Harmonics he rejects the Pythagoreans’ approach to music theory, which saw music as part of a mathematically coherent universe and focused on describing precise mathematical measurements of intervals. For Aristoxenos, a mathematical approach is extraneous to the subject (32.24), and he develops his own method of musical theory, which describes the elements of melody according to how they are perceived by the ear. The Harmonics heavily influenced the work of subsequent musical theorists,

including

Nicomachus, Cleonides (see Ptolemy, and BOETHIUS, and Aristoxenos’ insights were later used in combination with Pythagorean theory, which still tended to dominate the field. The first book of the Harmonics introduces and defines the subject, and contains some criticism of earlier scholarship, particularly of the harmonikoi. It then offers a program for discussion (3.2–8.12) and some preliminary remarks, including an extended passage on the movement of the voice (8.13), and shorter comments on notes, intervals, and systemata (15.15). The central portion of the text (beginning at 18.5) is a description of four parts of melody (genera, intervals, notes, and systemata), and the book concludes with seven axioms on continuity and succession of intervals (29.1). In much the same way as book 1, book 2 begins with some negative comments on previous scholarship before defining harmonics and offering a program of seven parts (genera, intervals, notes, systemata, tonoi, modulation, and melodic composition; 34.31). There is a methodological discussion criticizing musical theories based on notation and instruments (39.2); the central portion again discusses genera, intervals, notes, and systemata (44.1), and the text ends this time with three axioms on continuity and succession (53.33). Book 2 follows a similar structure to book 1, but it is better organized and more coherent, omits some superfluous material, and introduces the crucial idea of dynamis (function) (33.7–9, 49.2–7, and throughout), which emphasizes the perceived role of each note within the structure of the scale rather than its precisely measured distance from the next note. The similarities between the two books have led to considerable discussion about the unity of the Harmonics, whether it is a unified work with two separate sections (Principles and Elements), two separate treatises written at different times, or whether the second book is a revision of the first (Be´lis 1986: 24 ff.; Gibson 2005: 39 ff.; Barker 2007: 115 ff.). NICOMACHUS OF GERASA),

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 715–716. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah21046

2 Book 3 sets out axioms for the musical progression of notes and intervals, but breaks off before an anticipated discussion of largerscale systems and relationships between different modes and keys.

OTHER WORKS An extended fragment from Aristoxenos’ Rhythmics survives, which attempts to describe rhythm using the same empirical and systematic techniques developed in the Harmonics. Further writings on music are contained in the Ps. Plutarchean De Musica and Athenaeus’ Deipnosophistae, focusing on music’s social rather than technical aspects, and including discussions on instruments, dance, tragedy, musical education, and history. Other fragments, collected by Wehrli (1967), reflect Aristoxenos’ Pythagorean influence and heritage, and include biographies of Pythagoras and Archytas, and a discussion of the Pythagorean life. There are also references to biographies of Plato, Socrates, and

Telestes as well as works on the tragic poets and auletes, alongside writings on education, law, and history. SEE ALSO: Archytas of Tarentum; Philolaos of Kroton; Ptolemy (astronomer, mathematician).

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Barker, A. (1989) Greek musical writings, vol. 2. Cambridge. Barker, A. (2007) The science of harmonics in Classical Greece. Cambridge. Be´lis, A. (1986) Aristoxe`ne de Tarente et Aristote: le traite´ d’harmonique. Paris. Da Rios, R. (1954) Aristoxeni elementa harmonica. Rome. Gibson, S. (2005) Aristoxenus of Tarentum and the birth of musicology. New York. Pearson, L. (1990) Aristoxenus: Elementa Rhythmica. Oxford. Wehrli, F. (1967) Aristoxenos (Die Schule des Aristoteles Vol. II), 2nd ed. Basel. West, M. L. (1992) Ancient Greek music. Oxford.

1

Arius and Arianism ¨ HR WINRICH LO

ARIUS

it was the popular Arius who, when the succession of Bishop Achillas of Alexandria came up, transferred his votes to Alexander (see ALEXANDER OF ALEXANDRIA) and thus secured his rival’s election (Philostorgius Hist. eccl. 1.3).

Early life

Arius was born into a Libyan family some time between 260 and 280 CE. Nothing more is known about his family, but it was in Libya that his theological views were to enjoy considerable support even after they had been condemned (Chadwick 1960: 177–9). Apparently Arius was a disciple of LUCIAN OF ANTIOCH, a theological teacher who died a martyr of the Great Persecution in Nicomedia in 311 or 312 CE. This background is significant because it made Arius a member of an important and influential alumni network (Philostorgius Hist. eccl. 2.3.14). Several of Lucian’s disciples became bishops in the East, the most powerful being Eusebius, Bishop of Nicomedia (see EUSEBIUS OF NICOMEDIA), who was to crown his career by becoming bishop of the capital Constantinople. Before 312, Arius was appointed presbyter at the Baukalis church, whose precise location in ancient Alexandria is unknown. Since the Greek word baukalis designates a vessel for cooling wine or water, Arius’ church may have been lodged in a former vintner’s warehouse or perhaps have resembled – with its long and narrow shape – a baukalis-type vase (Martin 1996: 147–8; Williams 2002: 288). At the time, the presbyters of the various Alexandrian churches were charged with teaching the Christian laity of both the quarter adjacent to the church and a suburban area allotted to it (Martin 1996: 142–3). Arius, according to the heresiologist EPIPHANIUS OF SALAMIS (Haer. 69.3.1), was a tall man, with downcast eyes (“the demeanor of a deceitful serpent”) who wore a short, sleeveless tunic, that is, a philosopher’s or ascetic’s garment. He was a talented preacher and commanded a considerable following not only among the laity, but also among his fellow clergy and ascetic virgins. Allegedly

Controversy and later life

The controversy with Alexander made Arius known outside Alexandria. Its outbreak is difficult to date – it may have started no earlier than 320 – and its course is difficult to reconstruct because the ancient sources present conflicting narratives. No acts of the early synods – if there were any – have survived and the bulk of episcopal correspondence has been lost. The controversy apparently started within the ranks of the Alexandrian presbyterate as a dispute over an important point of Trinitarian theology: does God the Father beget the Son eternally, and is therefore the Son coeternal with the Father, or not? Alexander was first undecided (Sozomen Hist. eccl. 1.15.4), but he eventually sided with that faction among his clergy that defended the eternal begetting of the Son against Arius and his followers. Alexander ordered Arius to recant, and when Arius declined, Alexander convened a synod of a hundred Egyptian and Libyan bishops to excommunicate him and his followers. Arius and his party appealed to various bishops outside Egypt for their support, among them Eusebius of Nicomedia and EUSEBIUS OF CAESAREA. These then wrote to Alexander, urging a reconciliation. Synods met in Bithynia and Palestine, again putting pressure on the Alexandrian primate (Sozomen Hist. eccl. 1.15.10.12). But Alexander stood firm, insisting on a full recantation on the part of Arius. To propagate his view and, possibly, to circumvent the emperor Licinius’ outlawing of synods, Alexander wrote at least three encyclical letters to – mostly Eastern – bishops. In them he, perhaps assisted by his young deacon Athanasius, portrayed Arius’ theology as a dangerous heresy in a way that turned out to

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 716–720. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah05025

2 be definitive (Lo¨hr 2006: 548–51). Alexander’s epistolary campaign also succeeded: the majority of his addressees signaled support for their fellow bishop. Clashes between followers of bishop and presbyter on the streets of Alexandria certainly kept the local judiciary busy, and female “Arians” were fearsome plaintiffs (Theodoret Hist. eccl. 1.4.5.59). Apparently Alexander managed to have Arius expelled from Alexandria: Arius complains that he and his followers were chased out of the city “as godless men” (Epiphanius Haer. 69. 6.3). Probably they had been denounced as atheists, a charge that, with regard to Christians, pagan magistrates were only too ready to credit and act upon. Arius could not prevail in the unequal contest: the synod of Antioch (in early 325) and the Council of Nicaea (June 325) condemned him and his doctrine (see NICAEA, COUNCIL OF; NICENE CREED). He and his followers were sent into exile. From then on, Arius – apparently supported by Eusebius of Nicomedia and others – conducted a protracted campaign for his rehabilitation. Again the sequence of letters and events is unclear. Arius and his associate Euzoius submitted a creed which was apparently accepted by Constantine although the Nicene key word “of the same substance” (Greek: homousios) was missing. In vain the emperor pleaded with Alexander, and his successor after Alexander’s death in 328, to readmit the presbyter and his followers into the Alexandrian church. Arius wrote a letter full of frustration to the emperor, possibly threatening to set up a separate church. In 333 (Barnes 2009) Constantine replied with a long and intemperate missive, blaming Arius for the situation, yet inviting him to his court (Athanasius Decr. 40). In order to allay antiArian sentiment, Constantine ordered Arius’s writings to be destroyed (Decr. 39). The language of the imperial order, comparing Arius to Porphyry, the intellectual arch-enemy of Christianity, is violent. Finally, Arius appeared at Constantine’s court in Constantinople. The emperor, having accepted a written creed of the presbyter (Athanasius On the death of Arius

2.1), suggested his rehabilitation to a synod that was convened on the occasion of his tricennalia (the thirty years’ jubilee of his reign) in Jerusalem in 335. The assembly duly asked the Alexandrian church to take him and his associates back (Syn. 21.2–7). But it was too late: Arius had suddenly died in Constantinople. His enemies, full of joy about the divine deliverance, claimed that he had expired in a public convenience (Athanasius On the death of Arius 3.3). Sozomen relates that eventually a rich follower of Arius bought the place and replaced it by a house in order to erase the reminder of the presbyter’s shameful death from the urban landscape (Sozomen Hist. eccl. 2.30.6–7). Public memory, however, lingered: for centuries to come, visitors to Constantinople were assured that the locale had been near the forum of Constantine (Socrates Hist. eccl. 1.38.7; Dagron 1984: 141–3). Theology

Arius was a theologian with a popular touch: not only was he a successful preacher, but, as one source notices, he also tried to spread his theological teaching in songs for sailors, millworkers, and wayfarers (Philostorgius Hist. eccl. 2.2). In this way he made good the bold claim of Origen and other Christian philosophers that Christian wisdom was – unlike, say, Platonic wisdom – for the many, not the elitist few (Origen C. Cels. 6.1; Carrie´ 2001: 38). Unfortunately, none of his sermons and very little of his possibly large correspondence have survived. Three letters are extant, two of them being creedal declarations to, respectively, Alexander of Alexandria and Constantine, the third one soliciting the support of Eusebius of Nicomedia. The theologian Eunomius of Cyzicus quotes a further, short creed which according to him was from Arius’ pen (Eunomius Apol. 5). Of the poetry, only the remains of a didactic poem, written after his expulsion from Alexandria, have survived. Twenty-two authentic fragments have been identified (Metzler 1991; translation quoted hereafter Stevenson 1995: 330–1). Modern

3 scholarship has tried to winnow further fragments from three reports of Athanasius. The Alexandrian bishop titles this poem “Thalia,” that is, in Greek “banquet.” The prologue tells us much about Arius’ self-understanding: In accordance with the faith of the elect of God, God’s sage servants / holy and orthodox, who had received God’s holy Spirit / I learned these things from participants in wisdom / skilful, taught by God in every way and wise. / In their steps came I, stepping with the same opinions / the notorious, the one who suffered much for God’s glory / having learned wisdom from God I myself know wisdom and knowledge.

Arius claims to continue the Alexandrian tradition of religious wisdom: like his predecessors he is taught by God himself (Greek: theodidaktos), and like other Christian or Platonist philosophers, he is a repository of salvific knowledge. But although his teaching is orthodox, Arius has become notorious: suffering for God’s glory he styles himself a martyr for the truth, like his teacher Lucian. To some extent, Arius’ dispute with Alexander confirms this self–portrait: the two disagreed about a central point of Origen’s Trinitarian teaching which had been contested before. Origen had declared both that the Son is being eternally begotten by the Father and that the Son is begotten by the will of the Father. In this way he wished to define a Christian discourse about God that is “worthy of God” (Origen Princ. 1.2.4), that is, that safeguards the majesty and transcendence of God. Both Alexander and Arius agreed with this basic thrust of Origen’s theology: Alexander insisted on the Son’s being eternally begotten by the Father, thus risking the charge of teaching a Son who is as ingenerate as the Father. Arius denied the coeternity of Father and Son and taught that the Son is the product of the will of the Father, thus risking the charge of assimilating the Son to his creation. Like Origen, Arius distinguishes the hypostases of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. They are quite unlike each other, the Father’s glories far surpassing those of the

Son. Arius differs from Origen and Alexander, but perhaps not from Philo of Alexandria, by proposing a strong version of negative theology: “God then himself is in essence ineffable to all.” Since God who is “unbegun” (agennetos) cannot communicate himself fully, his Son, who has a beginning (if not in time) is unable fully to comprehend or communicate his Father: “For clearly, for what has a beginning to encompass / by thought or apprehension the one who is unbegun, is impossible.” The Son, not fully knowing his origin, does not even fully know himself. Arius maintained – like contemporary Neoplatonist philosophers – that God is utterly transcendent, beyond comprehension and communication: “To sum up, God exists ineffable to the Son / for he is to himself what he is, that is, unutterable.” On the other hand Arius upheld the Christian claim that God’s one and only Son is the fullest possible revelation of this Father: “One equal to the Son the Supreme is able to beget / but more excellent, superior or greater he cannot.” It is possible that by his version of negative theology Arius aimed to surpass and outflank Gnostic negative theologies (Lo¨hr 2006: 153–5). Some associates of Arius, and perhaps he himself, viewed the Son as a mutable being, elected by God who foresaw his virtuous life (Gregg and Groh 1981; Uthemann 2007).

ARIANISM When he died, Arius left no clearly identifiable theological legacy. What did survive of his writings were only those few pieces that could be employed as evidence for the heresiological prosecution. “Arian” became a convenient heresiological label with which polemicists like Athanasius and others tarnished all those who opposed them or criticized the Nicene creed or taught a trinity that subordinates the Son to the Father. No Christian theologian of the fourth and following centuries called himself an “Arian.” A disciple of Lucian’s disciples, Aetius, and his pupil Eunomius (recent

4 scholarship calls them “Neo-Arians”) claimed that the terms “unbegun” and “begun” reveal the first two essences of the Trinity which are quite unlike each other. There is similarity only between the second essence, that is the Son, and the will of the first essence, that is the Father who has begotten the Son. For the theological followers of Aetius and Eunomius it was precisely Arius’ negative theology that was deeply problematical (Philostorgius Hist. eccl. 2.3, 10.2; Kopecek 1979).

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Barnes, T. D. (2009) “The exile and recalls of Arius.” Journal of Theological Studies 60: 109–29. Carrie´, J.-M. (2001) “Antiquite´ tardive et ‘de´mocratisation de la culture’: Un paradigme a` ge´ome´trie variable.” Antiquite´ Tardive 9: 27–46. Chadwick, H. (1960) “Faith and order at the Council of Nicaea.” Harvard Theological Review 53: 171–95.

Dagron, G. (1984) Constantinople imaginaire. Paris. Gregg, R. C. and Groh, D. E. (1981) Early Arianism – a view of salvation. London. Hanson, R. P. C. (1988) The search for the Christian doctrine of God. Edinburgh. Kopecek, T. A. (1979) A history of neo-Arianism. Cambridge, MA. Lo¨hr, W. (2006) “Arius reconsidered I/II.” Journal of Ancient Christianity 9: 524–60; 10: 121–57. Martin, A. (1996) Athanase d’Alexandrie et l’e´glise d’E´gypte au IVe sie`cle (328–373). Rome. Metzler, K. (1991). “Ein Beitrag zur Rekonstruktion der ‘Thalia’ des Arius.” In K. Metzler and F. Simon, eds., Ariana et Athanasiana: 11–45. Opladen. Stevenson, J. (1995). A new Eusebius. Documents illustrating the history of the church to 337 AD, rev. ed. London. Uthemann, K.-H. (2007) “Eustathios von Antiochien wider den seelenlosen Christus der Arianer.” Journal of Ancient Christianity 10: 472–521. Williams, R. (2002) Arius. Heresy and tradition, 2nd ed. Grand Rapids, MI.

1

Arkesilaos of Pitane RICHARD BETT

Arkesilaos (316/5–241/0 BCE) was from Pitane, on the Aegean coast of what is now Turkey. But his philosophical activity was all in Athens. He studied first with THEOPHRASTUS, ARISTOTLE’S successor at the Peripatos, but then switched to the ACADEMY, the school founded by PLATO. From roughly 268–264 until his death he was the school’s head. He is notable for having turned the Academy in the direction of skepticism, an attitude that prevailed in the school until its demise in the early first century BCE. He wrote nothing, and detailed reconstruction of his ideas is difficult; our two most important sources are CICERO and the Pyrrhonist skeptic SEXTUS EMPIRICUS, both of whom have their own philosophical biases and agendas. The hallmark of ancient Greek skepticism is suspension of judgment (epochê): that is, the withholding of assent from either side (or any side) of an argument on any topic. In keeping with this method, Arkesilaos is said to have put forward no views of his own; instead, he invited his interlocutors to state their own views, to which he would then respond with counter-arguments, leading to a stalemate. This is clearly somewhat reminiscent of SOCRATES’ procedure in numerous Platonic dialogues, and according to Cicero (e.g., Fin. 2.2), Arkesilaos was quite self-conscious about this. Cicero also tells us (Acad. 1.45) that Arkesilaos claimed to be following Socrates’ famous profession of ignorance, but going one better: whereas Socrates (supposedly) said that he knew only that he knew nothing, Arkesilaos said that nothing whatever could be known – not even that. But here the difficulties begin (see Perin 2013: 315–24). To assert that nothing can be known is to take a definite position, which is inconsistent with universal suspension of judgment. In addition, several sources ascribe to Arkesilaos a degree of enthusiasm about epochê itself that, on the face of it, looks self-refuting; to say that epochê is a good thing (Sextus, PH

1.233), or that it indicates wisdom (Cicero, Acad. 2.77), again looks like a definite view. One way to absolve Arkesilaos of inconsistency is to interpret him not as adopting these views in his own person, but as arguing that other philosophers, given their own philosophical commitments, are rationally required to adopt them (see Thorsrud 2010). On this “dialectical” interpretation Arkesilaos does not himself offer any philosophy at all; his role is purely critical. Now, it is clear that criticism of other philosophers was an important part of Arkesilaos’ activity; as both Cicero and Sextus stress, his main target was the Stoics, who argued that we could achieve knowledge of the world by means of the “apprehensive appearance” (phantasia katalêptikê), a certain type of impression that somehow guaranteed its own correctness. How this is supposed to have worked is controversial, but Arkesilaos’ opposition to it is clear and, as Sextus tells us (M 7.150–7), he argued that the Stoics are instead forced to conclude that the wise person will suspend judgment. The dialectical interpretation is therefore not without textual support. But the repeated references to Arkesilaos’ own personal enthusiasm about suspension of judgment make it hard to sustain across the board. However, perhaps this can be explained not as an explicit philosophical position, but as a preference deriving from a basic concern with intellectual integrity (see Cooper 2004; Brittain 2005; for some doubts, see Perin 2013: 324–37). If one is passionately concerned with being rational, and if competing arguments on a subject always seem equally powerful, then epochê is the attitude one will cheerfully adopt, seeing it as one’s rational obligation. In this case, Arkesilaos would again be true to his professed Socratic roots; what could be more Socratic than devotion to reason? Sextus also tells us (M 7.158) that Arkesilaos maintained that one can suspend judgment and still make choices, and even achieve happiness (eudaimonia), on the basis of “the reasonable” (to eulogon). This could be understood, dialectically, as showing the Stoics that action

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, and Andrew Erskine. © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Published 2017 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah30439

2 while suspending judgment is possible (since, in the ancient world, any philosophical conclusion that made it impossible to act was deemed inherently incredible), or as providing a practical criterion for himself. But either way, it is far from obvious how deciding what is or is not “reasonable” is supposed to be consistent with suspension of judgment. SEE ALSO:

Philosophy, Hellenistic; Stoicism.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Brittain, C. (2005) “Arcesilaus.” Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy [online].

Cooper, J. (2004) “Arcesilaus: Socratic and Skeptic.” In J. M. Cooper, Knowledge, nature, and the good: essays on ancient philosophy: 81–103. Princeton. Perin, C. (2013) “Making sense of Arcesilaus.” Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy 45: 313–40. Schofield, M. (1999) “Academic epistemology.” In K. Algra, J. Barnes, J. Mansfeld, and M. Schofield, eds., The Cambridge history of Hellenistic philosophy: 323–51. Cambridge. Striker, G. (2010) “Academics versus Pyrrhonists, reconsidered.” In R. Bett, ed., The Cambridge companion to ancient Scepticism: 195–207. Cambridge. Thorsrud, H. (2010) “Arcesilaus and Carneades.” In R. Bett, ed., The Cambridge companion to ancient Scepticism: 58–80. Cambridge. Vezzoli, S. (2016) Arcesilao di Pitane. L’origine del platonismo neoaccademico. Turnhout.

1

Armant (Hermonthis) CHRISTOPHE THIERS

The ancient city of Armant (ancient Egyptian names: Iuny, Iunu, Iunu-shema, Iunu-Montu), the Greek Hermonthis and Coptic Ermont, was located 15 km south of Thebes on the west bank of the Nile (Mond and Myers 1940). Armant was the main city of the cult of MONTU, the falcon-headed god, protector of the Egyptian kingship and warrior, the main god of the Theban area since the 11th Dynasty, before the emergence of AMUN-RE at the beginning of the 12th Dynasty. He was worshipped here with his divine consort Rattawy/Tjenenet/ Iunyt. The temple of Montu dates back to the Middle and New Kingdom (see Figure 1). The limestone Middle Kingdom temple was completely dismantled and reused in the foundations of the late Ptolemaic temple, especially in the naos built in the name of PTOLEMY XII NEOS DIONYSOS AULETES. Attested kings from the 11th and 12th Dynasties, found on temple reliefs or statues, are: Nebhepetra Mentuhotep II, Seankhkara Mentuhotep III, Amenemhat I, Senwosret (Sesostris) I and III, and Amenemhat III. The New Kingdom temple, made of limestone and sandstone, was erected by Thutmose III and Hatshepsut. The stones from this were later reused in the pronaos. Other kings from the 17th and 18th Dynasties are attested on stelae, statues, or blocs: KAMOSE (recent discovery of a historical stela), AHMOSE I, Amenhotep II, Thutmose IV, Amenhotep III, and Amenhotep IV (Theban talatats). Only the New Kingdom pylon was kept at its original location. It bears a famous depiction of a rhinoceros, several Nubians bringing African offerings, and a list of foreign countries. Until now, there is no clear evidence to support the traditional dating of this relief to the reign of Thutmose III, even if the famous stela Cairo JE 66377 (Beylage 2002: 157–69) of this king mentions a Nubian rhinoceros. On the eastern wing of the pylon, the remaining reliefs of the lower register bear the name of

Rameses III. On the eastern doorjamb of the gate, three lines of a five-line inscription in the name of Rameses II were recut by MERENPTAH, Amemmes, Sety II, Rameses IV (the sixth original line) and Rameses VI. The entrance wall (east side) bears the names of Rameses II (linked with the heb-sed festivals of Years 9, 10, and 11) (Mond and Myers 1940: 161–5). Merenptah also reused osirid colossi, generally thought to be made originally for Mentuhotep III. Nektanebo II also constructed at Armant (Mond and Myers 1940: 8). Even if some blocks from a gate (propylon?) bear the name of PTOLEMY VI PHILOMETOR, the temple of Montu-Ra seems to have been built anew during the reign of PTOLEMY XII, mostly attested in the crypts and on numerous scattered blocks. The names of Roman emperors are present on scattered blocks (Nero, Vespasian, Hadrian) and at the gate of Bab el-Maganıˆn (Antoninus Pius) built at some distance from the main temenos. During the Coptic Period, an important settlement was build around the New Kingdom pylon and in the main courtyard, and a basilica was also erected south to the temple (Grossmann 1986). Close to the temple and the sacred lake, a mammisi was built during the reign of CLEOPATRA VII and her son PTOLEMY XV CAESAR in honor of Rattawy and his son Harpra-thechild. This temple was completely dismantled

Figure 1 View of the Montu-Re temple at Armant. © Chr. Thiers.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 720–722. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah15042

2 in 1861–2 to build the sugar cane factory at Armant. The Bucheum/Bucheion, the burial place of the Buchis bulls, sacred to Montu, is located at the desert edge, north of the city (Mond and Myers 1934). The bulls were buried here from the time of Nektanebo II until the end of paganism in Egypt: the last Buchis was buried on November 4, 340 CE, during the reign of Constans II (Grenier 1983). North of this area, on the site of Baqaria, the Buchis’ mothers were also buried (Grenier 2002; 2003). As lord of Armant, Montu was attested since the First Intermediate Period in the Theban Tomb 186. The theology of Montu was clearly influenced by Heliopolitan tradition, as Armant was the “Southern Heliopolis.” Thereby, Montu was a solar god, especially in his name of Montu-Re (until the Ramesside Period) and Montu-Re-Horakhty. As a warrior god, he was worshipped also in the temples of Tod, Medamud, and North-Karnak, these three cities with Armant (“Theban Palladium”) having been charged with the protection of the city of Thebes. Montu was also venerated as a form of Osiris at Armant, especially in the Ptolemaic crypts, which seems closely linked to the Djemaic rituals from Medinet Habu: once a year, on the twenty-fourth day of the month of Khoiak, Montu from Armant visited Amun and the primaeval gods of the mound of Djeme (Thiers and Volokhine 2005). In the crypts he was “Montu-Re, lord of Armant, king of the gods, Osiris whose limbs are completed, father of the fathers of all the gods.” SEE ALSO: Amenemhat I–VII; Mentuhotep I–VII; Nektanebo; Rameses I–XI; Re/Ra, Re-Horakhte; Senwosret (Sesostris) I–IV; Sety (Seti) I–II; Thutmose I–IV.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Betro, M. (2001) Armant dal I Periodo Intermedio alla fine del Nuovo Regno. Prosopografia. Pisa. Beylage, P. (2002) Aufbau der ko¨niglichen Stelentexte vom Beginn der 18. Dynastie bis zu Amarnazeit. Wiesbaden.

Engelbach, R. (1923) “A monument of Senusret Ist from Armant.” Annales du Service des Antiquite´s d’E´gypte 23: 161–2. Farid, A. (1979) “New Ptolemaic blocks from Rub’-el-Maganin-Armant.” Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archa¨ologischen Instituts, Abteilung Kairo 35: 59–74. Farid, A. (1983) “A preliminary report on the clearance of the Temple of Monthu and Re’it-Taui at Armant. Season July–August 1980.” Orientalia Antiqua 22: 67–72. Farid, A. (1983) “Two New Kingdom statues from Armant.” Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archa¨ologischen Instituts, Abteilung Kairo 39: 59–69. Gardiner, A. H. (1955) “Blocks from the temple of Tuthmosis III at Armant.” In E. Breccia, ed., Studia in Memoria di Ippolito Rosellini nel primo centenario della morte (4 giugno 1843–4 giugno 1943) 2: 91–8. Pisa. Grenier, J.-Cl. (1983) “La ste`le fune´raire du dernier taureau Bouchis (Caire JE 31901 ¼ Ste`le Bucheum 20).” Bulletin de l’Institut Franc¸ais d’Arche´ologie Orientale 83: 197–208. Grenier, J.-Cl. (2002) “La ste`le de la me`re d’un Bouchis date´e de Licinius et de Constantin.” Bulletin de l’Institut Franc¸ais d’Arche´ologie Orientale 102: 247–59. Grenier, J.-Cl. (2003) “Remarques sur les datations et titulatures de trois ste`les romaines du Bucheum.” Bulletin de l’Institut Franc¸ais d’Arche´ologie Orientale 103: 267–79. Grenier, J.-Cl. (2009) “Les pe´re´grinations d’un Boukhis en Haute The´baı¨de.” In C. Thiers, ed., Documents de the´ologies the´baines tardives (D3T 1): 39–48. Montpellier. Grossmann, P. (1986) “Zum Grundriß der Basilika von Armant (Hermonthis).” In Studien zur spa¨tantiken und byzantinischen Kunst, Fs. Friedrich Wilhelm Deichmann, vol. 1: 143–53. Mainz am Rhein. Grossmann, P. (2007) “Spa¨tantike und fru¨hmittelalterliche Baureste im Gebiet von Ermant. Ein archa¨ologischer Survey.” Journal of Coptic Studies 9: 1–20. Mond, R. and Myers, O. H. (1934) The Bucheum. London. Mond, R. and Myers, O. H. (1940) Temples of Armant: a preliminary survey. London. Sourouzian, H. (2005) “Features of early Twelfth Dynasty royal sculpture.” Bulletin of Egyptian Museum 2: 103–24.

3 Thiers, C. (2007) “Missions e´pigraphiques de l’Ifao dans les villes me´ridionales du Palladium the´bain.” In J.-Cl. Goyon and Chr. Cardin, eds., Actes du neuvie`me congre`s international des e´gyptologues, 6–12 septembre 2004 Grenoble: 1807–16. Leuven. Thiers, C. (2009) “Fragments de lions-gargouilles d’Ermant.” In C. Thiers, ed., Documents de

the´ologies the´baines tardives (D3T 1): 147–65. Montpellier. Thiers, C. and Volokhine, Y. (2005) Ermant, vol. 1: Les cryptes du temple ptole´maı¨que. E´tude e´pigraphique. Cairo. Web sites: http://recherche.univ-montp3.fr/egyptologie/ermant. http://www.ifao.egnet.net/archeologie/ermant.

1

Armant (Hermonthis) CHRISTOPHE THIERS

CNRS, UMR 5140, Montpellier, France

The ancient city of Armant (ancient Egyptian names: Iuny, Iunu, Iunu-shema, Iunu-Montu), the Greek Hermonthis and Coptic Ermont, was located 15 km south of Thebes on the west bank of the Nile (Mond and Myers 1940; Thiers 2019). It has been investigated since 2004 by an archaeological mission under the auspices of the French Institute of Oriental Archaeology (IFAO, Cairo) and the CNRSUniversity Paul-Valéry Montpellier. Armant was the main city of the cult of MONTU, the falcon-headed god, protector of the Egyptian kingship and warrior, and the main god of the Theban area since the 11th Dynasty, before the emergence of AMUN-RE at the beginning of the 12th Dynasty. He was worshipped here with his divine consort Rattawy/Tjenenet/ Iunyt. The temple of Montu dates back to the Middle and New Kingdom, but only the foundations of the late Ptolemaic and Roman temple survive. Below the latter, excavations revealed occupation layers back to the Old Kingdom, and on the edge of the temple, levels from the Middle Kingdom have also been uncovered. The layout of the Ptolemaic foundations is based on a specific underground series of spaces (including rooms, crypts, a cella surrounded by its “mysterious” corridor, and foundation cells), and main walls, allowing better understanding of the layout of the now completely vanished temple’s rooms (Zignani 2014). Although some blocks from a gate (propylon?) bear the name of PTOLEMY VI PHILOMETOR, the temple of Montu-Re (Figure 1) seems to have been built anew during the reign of PTOLEMY XII NEOS DIONYSOS AULETES, who is mostly attested in the naos and on numerous scattered blocks. The temple is largely built of earlier decorated materials/blocks. The limestone Middle Kingdom temple, mainly built by Amenemhat I (Postel 2015), was completely dismantled and reused in the foundations of

the Ptolemaic temple. Kings from the 11th and 12th Dynasties, found on temple reliefs or statues, are: Nebhepetra Mentuhotep II, Seankhkara Mentuhotep III, Amenemhat I, Senwosret (Sesostris) I and III, and Amenemhat III. The New Kingdom temple, mainly made of sandstone, was erected by Thutmose III and Hatshepsut (Biston-Moulin and Thiers 2018). The stones from this were later reused in the pronaos of the temple. The images of Hatshepsut have always been mutilated; the figures of the king show him offering to deities and slaying enemies, along with an historical text (military campaign). Other kings from the 17th and 18th Dynasties are attested on stelae, statues, or blocks: KAMOSE (historical stela), AHMOSE I, Amenhotep II, Thutmose IV, Amenhotep III, and Amenhotep IV (talatat, most of them reused by Rameses II). The Ptolemaic/Roman temple was built of earlier blocks but various other elements, such as statues and colossi, were also reused: for example, an Osirid colossus of Sety II, and the head of a colossus of Thutmose III belonging to a pillared hall, were found reused in the foundation platform of the pronaos; five heads of New Kingdom royal colossi, along with private statues, dating to the late 18th Dynasty– early 19th Dynasty, were also found in a cache made in the first course of the foundation platform (Thiers 2014). Only the New Kingdom pylon (monumental gateway) was kept at its original location, although its eastern wing was destroyed to build a Ptolemaic or Roman enclosure wall (left unfinished) running along the east side of the temple (Zignani 2014). The pylon bears a famous depiction of a rhinoceros, several Nubians bringing African offerings, and a list of foreign countries. There is no clear evidence to support the traditional dating of this relief to the reign of Thutmose III, even if the famous stela Cairo JE 66377 (Beylage 2002: 157–69) of this king mentions a Nubian rhinoceros. The pylon was restored by Rameses I, as attested by blocks bearing a restoration inscription. On the eastern wing of the pylon, the remaining reliefs of the lower register bear the name of Rameses III. On the

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History. Edited by Andrew Erskine, David B. Hollander, and Arietta Papaconstantinou. © 2021 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Published 2021 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah15042.pub2

2

FIGURE 1 View of the Montu-Re temple at Armant. © Chr. Thiers.

eastern doorjamb of the gate, three lines of a five-line inscription in the name of Rameses II were recut by MERENPTAH, Amenmeses, Sety II, Rameses IV (the sixth original line), and Rameses VI. The entrance wall (east side) bears the names of Rameses II (linked with the hebsed festivals of Years 9, 10, and 11) (Mond and Myers 1940: 161–5). Merenptah also reused osirid colossi, generally thought to be made originally for Mentuhotep III. Nektanebo II also constructed at Armant (Mond and Myers 1940: 8). The names of Roman emperors are present on scattered blocks (Nero, Vespasian, Hadrian) (Biston-Moulin and Thiers 2018) and at the gate of Bab el-Maganîn (Antoninus Pius), built at some distance from the main temenos. During the Roman–Byzantine period (David 2012), an important settlement was built around the New Kingdom pylon and in the

main courtyard, and a basilica was also erected south of the temple (Grossmann 1986). The temple was subsequently used as a quarry. Close to the temple and the sacred lake, a MAMMISI was built during the reign of CLEOPATRA VII and her son PTOLEMY XV CAESAR in honor of Rattawy and his son Harpra-the-child. This temple was completely dismantled in 1861–2 to build the sugar cane factory at Armant. A reconstruction of scenes of this monument was, however, made possible through drawings and photographs, first from travelers and then from scientific expeditions led by J.-Fr. CHAMPOLLION and R. Lepsius (Rutica 2015). The study of the inscriptions of the mammisi is ongoing, alongside the fieldwork at the site as a whole. The Bucheum/Bucheion, the burial place of the Buchis bulls, sacred to Montu, is located at the desert edge, north of the city (Mond and

3 Myers 1934). The bulls were buried here from the time of Nektanebo II until the end of paganism in Egypt: the last Buchis was buried on November 4, 340 CE, during the reign of CONSTANS II (Grenier 1983). North of this area, on the site of Baqaria, the Buchis’ mothers were also buried (Grenier 2002, 2003). Local personal names also attest the privileged link between the inhabitants of Armant and the Buchis bull (Lippert 2015). As lord of Armant, Montu is attested from the First Intermediate Period in the Theban Tomb 186. The theology of Montu was clearly influenced by Heliopolitan tradition, as Armant was the “Southern Heliopolis.” Thereby, Montu was a solar god, especially in his names of Montu-Re and Montu-Re-Horakhty. As a warrior god, he was worshipped also in the temples of Tod, Medamud, and North-Karnak, these three cities along with Armant (together known as the “Theban Palladium”) having been charged with the protection of the city of Thebes. Montu was also venerated as a form of Osiris at Armant, especially in the Ptolemaic crypts, which seems closely linked to the Djemaic rituals from Medinet Habu: once a year, on the twenty-sixth day of the month of Khoiak, Montu-Re-Horakhty from Armant visited Amun and the primeval gods of the mound of Djeme (Thiers and Volokhine 2005). In the crypts he was “Montu-Re, lord of Armant, king of the gods, Osiris whose limbs are completed, father of the fathers of all the gods.” SEE ALSO: Amenemhat I–VII; Mentuhotep I–VII; Nektanebo; Rameses I–XI; Re and Re Horakhty; Senwosret (Sesostris) I–IV; Sety (Seti) I–II; Temples, Pharaonic Egypt; Thutmose I–IV.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Betro, M. (2001) Armant dal I Periodo Intermedio alla fine del Nuovo Regno. Prosopografia. Pisa. Beylage, P. (2002) Aufbau der königlichen Stelentexte vom Beginn der 18. Dynastie bis zu Amarnazeit. Wiesbaden. Biston-Moulin, S. and Thiers, C. (2018) “Notices Cat. 9a-d et 11.” In Fl. Gombert-Meurice and

Fr. Payraudeau, eds., Servir les dieux d’Égypte : Divines adoratrices, chanteuses et prêtres d’Amon à Thèbes: 24–7. Paris. David, R. (2012) “Ermant aux époques byzantine et arabe. L’apport de la céramique.” Bulletin de la Céramique Égyptienne 23: 209–17. Engelbach, R. (1923) “A monument of Senusret Ist from Armant.” Annales du Service des Antiquités d’Égypte 23: 161–2. Farid, A. (1979) “New Ptolemaic blocks from Rub’el-Maganin-Armant.” Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts, Abteilung Kairo 35: 59–74. Farid, A. (1983a) “A preliminary report on the clearance of the Temple of Monthu and Re’it-Taui at Armant. Season July–August 1980.” Orientalia Antiqua 22: 67–72. Farid, A. (1983b) “Two New Kingdom statues from Armant.” Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts, Abteilung Kairo 39: 59–69. Gardiner, A. H. (1955) “Blocks from the temple of Tuthmosis III at Armant.” In E. Breccia, ed., Studia in Memoria di Ippolito Rosellini nel primo centenario della morte (4 giugno 1843–4 giugno 1943) 2: 91–8. Pisa. Grenier, J.-Cl. (1983) “La stèle funéraire du dernier taureau Bouchis (Caire JE 31901 = Stèle Bucheum 20).” Bulletin de l’Institut Français d’Archéologie Orientale 83: 197–208. Grenier, J.-Cl. (2002) “La stèle de la mère d’un Bouchis datée de Licinius et de Constantin.” Bulletin de l’Institut Français d’Archéologie Orientale 102: 247–59. Grenier, J.-Cl. (2003) “Remarques sur les datations et titulatures de trois stèles romaines du Bucheum.” Bulletin de l’Institut Français d’Archéologie Orientale 103: 267–79. Grenier, J.-Cl. (2009) “Les pérégrinations d’un Boukhis en Haute Thébaïde.” In C. Thiers, ed., Documents de théologies thébaines tardives (D3T 1): 39–48. Montpellier. Grossmann, P. (1986) “Zum Grundriß der Basilika von Armant (Hermonthis).” In Studien zur spätantiken und byzantinischen Kunst, Fs. Friedrich Wilhelm Deichmann, vol. 1: 143–53. Mainz am Rhein. Grossmann, P. (2007) “Spätantike und frühmittelalterliche Baureste im Gebiet von Ermant. Ein archäologischer Survey.” Journal of Coptic Studies 9: 1–20. Lippert, S. (2015) “Varia demotica d’Hermonthis.” Bulletin de l’Institut Français d’Archéologie Orientale 115: 231–64.

4 Mond, R. and Myers, O. H. (1934) The Bucheum. London. Mond, R. and Myers, O. H. (1940) Temples of Armant: a preliminary survey. London. Postel, L. (2015) “Nouvelles données sur le temple d’Amenemhat Ier à Ermant.” Bulletin de la Société Française d’Égyptologie 191–2: 24–38. Rutica, D. (2015) Kleopatras vergessener Tempel. Das Geburtshaus von Kleopatra VII. in Hermonthis – Eine Rekonstruktion der Dekoration. Göttingen. Sourouzian, H. (2005) “Features of early Twelfth Dynasty royal sculpture.” Bulletin of Egyptian Museum 2: 103–24. Thiers, C. (2007) “Missions épigraphiques de l’Ifao dans les villes méridionales du Palladium thébain.” In J.-Cl. Goyon and Chr. Cardin, eds., Actes du neuvième congrès international des égyptologues, 6–12 septembre 2004 Grenoble: 1807–16. Leuven. Thiers, C. (2009) “Fragments de lions-gargouilles d’Ermant.” In C. Thiers, ed., Documents de Théologies Thébaines Tardives (D3T 1): 147–65. Montpellier. Thiers, C. (2014) “Armant: recent discoveries at the temple of Montu-Re.” Egyptian Archaeology 44: 32–5.

Thiers, C. (2015) “Hymne à la déesse Tanent et présence latopolite sur quelques blocs d’Ermant.” In C. Thiers, ed., Documents de Théologies Thébaines Tardives (D3T 3): 295–326. Montpellier. Thiers, C. (2019) “Ermant.” In L. Coulon and M. Cressent, eds., Archéologie française en Égypte : recherche, coopération, innovation: 184–9. Cairo. Thiers, C. and Volokhine, Y. (2005) Ermant, vol. 1: Les cryptes du temple ptolémaïque. Étude épigraphique. Cairo. Volokhine, Y., Sanchez, P., and Schubert, P. (2010) “Une dédicace grecque de l’époque impériale tardive trouvée à Hermonthis (Ermant, Haute Égypte).” Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 174: 127–32. Zignani, P. (2014) “L’architecture du temple de Montou à Ermant. Essai d’approche typologique et proportion du plan.” Bulletin de l’Institut Français d’Archéologie Orientale 114: 589–606. WEBSITES https://www.asm.cnrs.fr/les-fouilles/ermant http://www.ifao.egnet.net/archeologie/ermant https://www.ifao.egnet.net/recherche/rapportsactivites/

1

Armenia OMAR COLORU

Armenia was a region in eastern ASIA MINOR corresponding only to a small extent to the modern country of the same name. It is not easy to define its borders, considering that they changed over the centuries and that the ancients did not always have a clear perception of the complexity of this region’s political subdivision. The very heart of Armenia consisted in the area east of the Tigris River, in the mountainous region surrounding Mount Ararat and including the valley of the ARAXES River as well. It was usually called Greater Armenia (Armenia Maior), in order to distinguish it from its western appendix, Lesser Armenia (Armenia Minor), which lay west of the Euphrates River (see EUPHRATES AND TIGRIS). To these two entities one should add the territories beyond the Tigris River – for instance Sophene, which gravitated in the same cultural area and whose rulers are sometimes considered lords of the Armenians in the ancient sources. Armenia’s strategic position along the trade routes between east and west, as well as its richness in natural resources (especially gold mines and fertile plains, ideal for growing wheat and horse-breeding) always made it a highly desirable target to control. Between the end of the second and the beginning of the first millennium BCE Armenia was the cradle of the Kingdom of URARTU. This kingdom revealed itself as a dangerous enemy for the Assyrians (see ASSYRIA) during the ninth and eighth centuries BCE. Generally speaking, the foundation of many Armenian towns, forts, and administrative centers which remained vital in later times dates back to the Urartean period. In fact archaeological evidence demonstrates that, in many cases, towns considered by ancient historians to be new foundations of Hellenistic and Roman times were nothing but Urartean sites, reemployed. Weakened by raids of the Cimmerians, Urartu faced a period of decline; when

the Medes expanded their possessions up to the HALYS River in 585 BCE, the Kingdom of Urartu no longer existed. Under Persian rule this region became a satrapy called Armina – a word from which the name Armenia, used in the Greco-Roman world, derives (see ACHAEMENID DYNASTY; SATRAPS). Since the fifth century BCE or even earlier, the satrapy was divided into two administrative districts, located respectively in the northwest and in the southeast, while the natural border between them was represented by the Teleboas River, nowadays Kara-su (Xen. An. 4.4.3–4). In the aftermath of the battle of GAUGAMELA (331), it seems that Armenia spontaneously submitted to the Macedonians, and Alexander left in their place Mithrenes, satrap of the western part, and Orontes, satrap of the eastern part. Even if formally a vassal state, Armenia was ruled in a semi-independent way by the members of the Orontid Dynasty during the Wars of the SUCCESSORS and under the SELEUCIDS. Arsames, an Orontid ruler of Sophene and KOMMAGENE, had enough autonomy to give refuge to his friend ANTIOCHOS HIERAX, the rebel brother of SELEUKOS II KALLINIKOS, without suffering any consequences (Polyaenus Strat. 4.17). Arsames’ striking of coins in his own name, accompanied by the title of king, provides further evidence for the wide margin of independence he enjoyed in relation to the Seleucids. Likewise, Orontes IV (212–202 BCE), ruler of Greater Armenia and founder of the capital of Armavir, is called “king” in the fourth of a group of seven rock inscriptions discovered at the beginning of the twentieth century on the site of the town. In 212 ANTIOCHOS III MEGAS tried to put an end to this situation when he marched to the Upper Satrapies with the purpose of re-affirming his authority over his insubordinate vassals. The first target was Xerxes of Sophene, who recognized Seleucid suzerainty and provided the king with additional equipment for his army. As for Antiochos, he gave his sister Antiochis in marriage to Xerxes, to strengthen his loyalty; but

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 722–725. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah09051

2 some time later he ordered his sister to murder Xerxes. The reason for this sudden change of heart is unknown, but it is possible that Xerxes tried again to loosen his ties with the central power. Antiochos then decided to assign Sophene to Zariadris and Greater Armenia to Artaxias (189–160). The Iranian names of these two individuals, not to mention the case of Xerxes, indicate Antiochos’ awareness of the fact that the system of the satrapy was not suited to Armenia because of its “feudal” character – that of a state divided into smaller territorial units and controlled by powerful local lords, the nacharars. Throughout the whole history of Armenia one can find mention of this hereditary nobility, which provided the kings with cavalry and fought fiercely against foreign invaders. According to STRABO (11.14.5), after Antiochos’ defeat at Magnesia (190) Artaxias became king of Greater Armenia, while Zariadris ruled over Sophene and the surrounding areas, extending his control to parts of Lesser Armenia. The commitment to the linguistic unification of Armenia, pursued by the two kings, impressed Strabo to the extent that he reported that, in his day, Armenian was the main language spoken in the country. Nevertheless, Armenian literature did not begin until the fifth century CE, while Aramaic and Greek were probably the languages used for written communication (see ARAMAIC AND SYRIAC). Nothing more is known about Zariadris, while Greater Armenia became a prosperous country under the Artaxiads – a dynasty that was to play an important role in Roman eastern policy. An ancient site on the left bank of the Araxes River was chosen to host the new capital, Artaxata, and HANNIBAL, who had entered Artaxias’ service after being defeated by the Romans, personally designed the fortifications of the town, so that a century later Lucullus called it “the Armenian Carthage” (Plut. Luc. 32.4). Greater Armenia reached its largest extension under Tigranes II (95–55; see TIGRANES II–IV OF ARMENIA), who, after annexing the Kingdom of Sophene, led a series of successful campaigns that put him in control of a vast

territory, stretching from the BLACK SEA to the Caspian Sea and including several positions in CILICIA, Syria, and PALESTINE (see SYRIA, ROMAN AND BYZANTINE). In this new territorial setting Artaxata was in too peripheral a position to maintain Tigranes’ role of prominence. As a result, he founded his own capital, TIGRANOKERTA, in which he settled 300,000 colonists, mainly deported from CAPPADOCIA. With Tigranes II the HELLENIZATION of Armenia reached its climax; however, Iranian culture remained strong, as is shown for example by Tigranes’ adoption of the title “king of kings” and by his representation on coins wearing a tiara. Having refused to hand over his father-in-law Mithradates VI of Pontos (see MITHRADATES I–VI), Tigranes had to face Roman invasion. After being defeated by Lucullus and then by Pompey (see LUCULLUS, LUCIUS

LICINIUS;

MAGNUS)),

POMPEY

(GNAEUS

POMPEIUS

the king was forced to yield the territories he had conquered, and from that time on Armenia became a buffer state, at the mercy of Roman and Parthian influence. Political instability was also determined by the strong Armenian nobility, which split into proRoman and pro-Parthian factions. These factors contributed to the weakening of the authority of the Artaxiad Dynasty, which ended with Tigranes IV ca. 1 CE. During the first half of the first century CE several kings of foreign origin were put on the throne of Armenia both by Rome and PARTHIA, but their rule was usually short-lived and would end in murder or exile. In 52 the Parthian king Vologases I invaded Armenia with the purpose of assigning its government to his brother Tiridates. According to TACITUS (Ann. 12.50.1), Vologaeses regarded Armenia as family property usurped by an external sovereign. Having received an Armenian embassy of the pro-Roman faction in 54, Emperor NERO sent the general Gnaeus Domitius Corbulo to Armenia. Forced by inner troubles, Vologaeses evacuated Armenia, but his brother Tiridates remained at Artaxata with Armenian support and ready to fight. Hostilities began in 57. Thanks to his ability Corbulo managed to

3 take Artaxata and Tigranokerta, and by the beginning of 60 he had the whole country under his authority. Soon after, however, the Parthians attacked again and won, but agreed to settle the question diplomatically. Eventually Tiridates consented to be crowned king of Armenia by Nero (66) in order to receive formal recognition from Rome, which nonetheless maintained some garrisons in the country. Armenia was then ruled by the Arsacid Dynasty and, even if Roman recognition was required, this was likely to become a formality, depriving Rome of any real influence on Armenian politics. With the aim of reinforcing Roman control in the area bordering Armenia, VESPASIAN decided to annex the kingdoms of Lesser Armenia and Kommagene to the empire (72). The fights between the sons of Pacoros of Parthia for the throne of Armenia gave the emperor TRAJAN an opportunity to declare war on Parthia (113–16). Pacoros had appointed his son Axidares as king of Armenia; but the latter had been dethroned by his own brother Osroes I of Parthia, who put on the throne another brother, Parthamasiris, without asking for Roman recognition. The probable reason for these substitutions was the dynastic trouble that followed the appearance of another rival king inside the Parthian kingdom: Vologases III. Trajan refused any agreement with the envoys of Osroes, who had reached him in Athens in 113 to settle the issue. In 114 Trajan marched into Armenia and settled his camp at Elegeia, where he had to meet king Parthamasiris. Accompanied by a delegation of Armenian nobles, Parthamasiris offered his submission to Trajan, but the emperor unexpectedly refused it and announced his intention to turn Armenia into a province. Parthamasiris was dismissed; he was assigned an escort of Roman knights who had the task of watching over him, but on his way home he was murdered, presumably with the emperor’s consent (Fronto Ep. 2.212–14 Haines: Ad Lucium Verum¼Principia historiae 15), presumably because the king would have posed a threat to the new regional arrangement. Armenia was not organized as an independent

administrative entity but became a district of the larger province of Armenia Maior et Minor et Cappadocia. The government of this province was assigned to Lucius Catilius Severus, the great-grandfather of the future emperor Marcus Aurelius, while two divisions of the Roman army led by LUSIUS QUIETUS and Caius Bruttius Praesens had the task of securing the rest of the country. The Province of Armenia lasted only a couple of years, both because of the rebellions that broke out in the country and because of the death of Trajan himself in 117. As a consequence, the new emperor HADRIAN decided to give up the territories taken by Trajan during the Parthian wars. However, a few inscriptions give some insights into the organization of Armenia as a Roman province. Titus Haterius Nepos was appointed procurator of Armenia Maior (ILS nos. 1041 and 1338) – a sign that Armenia, although part of a larger district, had its own fiscal administration (Chaumont 1976). In addition, we know that the soldiers of Legion IV Scythica were employed in the construction of a fort in Artaxata in 116 (L’Anne´e E´pigraphique 1968, no. 510); detachments of Legion I Italica and Legion VI Ferrata were also present in the capital (AE 1968, 511). Although Hadrian had granted independence to Armenia, the kingdom continued to be a source of conflict between Rome and Persia until ca. 387 CE, when a treaty between Emperor THEODOSIUS I and the Sasanian King Shapur III (see SASANIANS) officially sanctioned the partition of Armenia into two distinct regions under Roman and Persian control. SEE ALSO: Alexander III, the Great; Armenians; Assyria; Corbulo, Gnaeus Domitius; Medes, Media; Parthians, rulers 141 BCE–224 CE; Persia and Rome; Satraps; Successors, wars of.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Bedoukian, P. Z. (1978) Coinage of the Artaxiads of Armenia. London.

4 Bernard, P. (1997) “Les Origines thessaliens de l’Arme´nie vues par deux historiens thessaliens de la ge´ne´ration d’Alexandre.” Topoi (suppl.) 1: 131–216. Bernard, P. (1999) “Alexandre, Me´non et les mines d’or d’Arme´nie.” In M. Amandry and S. Hurter, eds., Travaux de numismatique grecque offerts a` Georges Le Rider : 37–64. London. Chaumont, M.-L. (1976) “L’Arme´nie entre Rome et l’Iran. I: De l’ave`nement d’Auguste a` l’ave`nement de Diocle´tien.” ANRW II.9.1: 71–194. Berlin. Facella, M. (2006) La dinastia degli Orontidi nella Commagene ellenistico-romana : 84–6, 94–198, 217–20. Pisa. Garsoian, N. (1997a) “The emergence of Armenia.” In Hovanissian, ed. (1997): 61–2.

Garsoian, N. (1997b) “The Arsˇakuni dynasty (AD 12–428).” In Hovanissian, ed. (1997): 63–94. Hovanissian, R. G., ed. (1997) The Armenian people from ancient to modern times, vol. 1: The dynastic periods: from antiquity to the fourteenth century. Basingstoke. Mahe´, J.-P. (1994) “Moı¨se de Khore`ne et les inscriptions grecques d’Armawir.” Topoi 4: 567–86. Pani, M. (1972) Roma e i re d’Oriente da Augusto a Tiberio : 9–64. Bari. Sherwin-White, A. N. (1984) Roman foreign policy in the east. London. Traina, G. (1999–2000) “E´pisodes de la rencontre avec Rome (IIe sie`cle av. J.-C.–IIIe sie`cle apre`s J.-C.).” Iran and the Caucasus : 59–78.

1

Armenians TARA L. ANDREWS

HISTORY The history of Armenia during Late Antiquity, just as in the Classical period, was largely influenced by its geographical position as a land located between the empires of Rome and Persia. The treaty of Rhandeia in 63 CE had set a status quo, allowing influence nominally to be shared by the two empires; although this was broken briefly by Trajan between 113 and 117 (see ARMENIA), the arrangement largely endured until the third century. Rome was, in practice, too distant to exert real and lasting influence over Armenia; the Arsacid kings of Armenia were moreover related to the Parthian royal house of Persia. The status quo from the treaty of Rhandeia was altered dramatically by two events in the third and fourth centuries. In 224, the Sasanian Ardashir overthrew the last Parthian king, Artawan V. The familial ties between the Persian and Armenian royal houses were broken; the Armenians could now see themselves as “avengers” of the deposed Parthian kings. Rome was quick to exploit the division, invading in 231/2 during the reign of Alexander Severus. However, early Roman successes in Armenia were fleeting; Shapur I, who came to the Persian throne in 240, led a series of victorious campaigns against the Romans, culminating in the Battle of Carrhae in 260. The Arsacid royal family was forced into exile in 252/3, and Shapur set his own son HormizdArdashir on the Armenian throne. Direct Sasanian rule in Armenia lasted until the accession of Trdat (Tiridates) the Great, a descendant of the exiled Arsacid kings, probably in 298/9. Trdat’s reign saw the other great shift in the Armenian status quo: the rise of Christianity. Armenia has generally been recognized as the first nation to adopt Christianity; the traditional date for Trdat’s conversion is 301, although the scholarly consensus is that the

conversion took place around 314. The tale of Trdat’s conversion by GREGORY THE ILLUMINATOR is the subject of one of the first works of Armenian literature, the History or the Life of Grigor attributed to Agathangelos (see “Literature and the arts,” below). The work of Agathangelos quickly became the received tradition for later Armenian historians, but its account of a rapid and thorough conversion of the Armenians to Christianity is contradicted by the Epic histories of P’awstos Buzand, which suggest a fierce struggle against Zoroastrianism that went on into the fifth century. The official adoption of Christianity, together with the rise of the new Roman capital of Constantinople, brought Armenia markedly closer to the Roman sphere of influence and consequently into renewed conflict with Persia. After the conversion of Trdat the Great, the history of Armenia falls into obscurity once again for the remainder of the fourth century. The contradictory Armenian accounts, all written sometime after 550, can only partially be reconciled with each other and with the more contemporary account of AMMIANUS MARCELLINUS. As a result, the succession of Armenian kings is only uncertainly known until the beginning of the fifth century. The history of the intervening period is dominated by the king Arshak II, who was on the throne by ca. 350 and whose reign ushered in a brief period of peace and prosperity following turbulence in the wake of Trdat’s death. However, the peace was not to last; Arshak had to cope with internal unrest and external pressure from both Rome and Persia. His participation in the ill-fated campaign of the emperor Julian in the east in 364 led to his capture, imprisonment, and death in Persia, and the ravaging of Armenia by the armies of Shapur II. Much of the remainder of the fourth century saw weak Armenian kings, caught between the power of Persia, Rome, and the fractious Armenian noble families. After the flight of Arshak III to Ekegheats in Romancontrolled Armenia and the accession of Khosrov IV in his place, a formal partition of

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 725–728. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah03012

2 Armenia, known as the “Peace of Ekegheats,” was agreed between the Roman emperor THEODOSIUS I and the Persian king Shapur III around 387. Roman-controlled Armenia was absorbed into the Roman administrative system after the death of Arshak III ca. 390, and largely faded from the historical record. Eastern Armenia, or “Persarmenia” as it became known, was ruled alternately by Arsacid kings and Persian governors until 428, when the last king, Artashes, was deposed at the request of the Armenian nobility and replaced with a Persian governor. Direct Persian rule in Armenia was initially peaceful, but with the accession of Yazdgerd II in 439, the Armenian nobility came under increasing pressure to abandon their Christianity, seen as a dangerous link to Rome; this pressure was recorded in the histories of Ghazar and Eghishe, writing in the late fifth and sixth centuries, respectively. Resistance to this pressure culminated in the Armenian revolt of 450/1, led by the general Vardan Mamikonean, against the Persian governor Mihr-Narseh and his Armenian ally Vasak Siwni. The Armenian rebels were crushed in 451, but the Persians returned to a policy more tolerant of Christianity in Armenia. Periodic revolts against the Persian governors occurred throughout the fifth and sixth centuries, and members of the Armenian nobility frequently defected to the Romans, as witnessed by PROCOPIUS among others. As a result of these revolts and the attendant appeals of Christian Armenian princes to the Christian emperor of Constantinople, Armenia and the other territories of the Caucasus were frequent focal points of conflict during the Roman/Persian wars of the sixth century. The warfare was only brought to a definitive end in 591 as part of the peace treaty between MAURICE and CHOSROES II, which brought the majority of Armenian territory under Roman control for the first time. Maurice’s policies in Armenia seem to have quickly alienated its nobility, and the extant Armenian sources (most notably the history attributed to the seventh century bishop Sebeos) are very hostile to his reign. The

newly Roman territories were re-conquered by Chosroes II in 611, and apart from a brief period after the conquest of Persia by HERAKLEIOS, Constantinople would not regain significant influence in Armenia until the end of the ninth century. THE CHURCH The history of the Armenian church during this period is closely intertwined with the fortunes of its royal house, and with the larger ecclesiastical controversies of the time. The first Armenian katholikos, Grigor the Illuminator, was probably consecrated as a bishop in Caesarea around 314. He is credited with the formal establishment of the Armenian church, and it was his descendants who would thereafter lead the church as katholikoi. His son, Aristakes, attended the First Ecumenical Council of Nicaea, and the katholikoi were thereafter staunchly anti-Arian. This strict adherence to Nicene orthodoxy brought the katholikos Nerses I into conflict with both Arshak II and his son Pap in the later fourth century, when they adopted the Arianism of the contemporaneous Roman emperors CONSTANTIUS II and VALENS. Pap’s murder of Nerses in 373 led to his own murder the following year; at the same time, the murder of Nerses served to reinforce the tendency of the Armenian church leadership to consider themselves the guardians of strict Nicene orthodoxy. The conflicting accounts of the conversion of Armenia by the extant sources suggest that Christianity reached the Caucasus through two separate routes, nearly simultaneously. Grigor the Illuminator, consecrated in Caesarea and credited by Agathangelos with the conversion of the king, represents a Greek influence on the church. The Epic histories of P’awstos, on the other hand, describe a longer conversion process that had its roots in Syrian Christianity. This dual influence may also be detected in the story of the creation of the Armenian alphabet in the early fifth century. The ecclesiastical link to Syria, together with the self-image of the

3 Armenian katholikoi as defenders of the faith of St. Grigor and of Nicaea, would eventually help to determine the course of the Armenian church, first in opposition to the Nestorians within Persia and later in opposition to the Chalcedonian creed of Constantinople. The break with Constantinople was nevertheless a slow process. Due to the revolt of 451, no Armenian bishop was present at the Council of Chalcedon in that year, but the Armenian church did not immediately oppose the council (see CHALCEDONIAN CONTROVERSY). The more immediate threat to Armenian ecclesiastical autonomy came from the Nestorian church within Persia, and was countered with the help of Syrian Miaphysites (see CHURCHES, MIAPHYSITE). No significant resistance to the council of Chalcedon can be detected until the reign of Maurice, who forcefully attempted to assimilate the new Roman territories within Armenia. The final break with the church of Constantinople came in 607. Despite a Chalcedonian minority that survived throughout the medieval period, the “Gregorian” Armenian church remained separate thereafter.

LITERATURE AND THE ARTS The rise of Christianity also led directly to the development of Armenian literature. One of the earliest Armenian texts, the Life of Mashtots by Koriwn, recounts the invention of the Armenian alphabet in the early fifth century and the first written translations of the Bible and other ecclesiastical texts into the Armenian language. The Life of Mashtots itself was written after 450, and despite its hagiographical purpose, it can be considered the first work of Armenian historiography. Others soon followed, including the History of Agathangelos and the Epic Histories of P’awstos, both dated to the latter half of the fifth century. Early Armenian literature had an explicitly Christian purpose and consists almost entirely of hagiography, historiography, and exegetical texts. The relatively late date of

the written histories, and their evangelical mission, help to explain much of the contradiction and mystery that surround the events of the fourth and early fifth centuries. In part because of the Christianizing nature of Armenian literature, very little is known about the arts in Armenia during the Late Antique period. The Epic histories of P’awstos give some information about the customs among the Armenian nobility of entertainment by bards, of song and of epic tales, and the later History of Movses Khorenats’i preserves some of these epic tales. Nevertheless, both histories make it clear that the bards and their songs represented a pagan tradition that was best eradicated, and there is very little evidence to suggest that these oral traditions survived past the eighth century. Very few examples of architecture and figural art survive from this period, and all of them have a Christian context. The churches of Ptghni (sixth–seventh century), Zvartnots, and Odzun (both seventh century) all featured relief sculptures around windows and doorways. There are also examples of carved stelae, all with Christian motifs. The stelae seem to have served a funerary or memorial purpose and are often found in the grounds of churches. Although no mosaics or frescoes from this period are to be found in Armenia, there exists a group of floor mosaics in Jerusalem, dated to the sixth century, that bear Armenian inscriptions and as such represent the earliest surviving use of the Armenian alphabet. SEE ALSO: Maurice, emperor; Nicaea, Council of; Religion, Syrian.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Primary sources:

Agathangelos: Thomson, R. W., ed. (1976) History of the Armenians. Albany, NY. Eghishe: Thomson, R. W., ed. (1982) History of Vardan and the Armenian war. Cambridge, MA. Ghazar P’arpec’i: Thomson, R. W., ed. (1991) The history of Lazar Parperci. Atlanta.

4 Koriwn: Maksoudian, K. H., ed. and Norehad, B., trans. (1985) Vark Mashtots’i (The life of Mashtots’). Delmar, NY. Movses Khorenats’i: Thomson, R. W., ed. (1981) History of the Armenians. Delmar, NY. P’awstos Buzand: Garosı¨an, N. G., ed. (1989) The epic histories attributed to P’awstos Buzand. Cambridge, MA. Sebeos: Thomson, R. W. and Howard-Johnston, J. D., eds. (1999) The Armenian history attributed to Sebeos. Liverpool. Secondary sources:

Der Nersessian, S. (1977) L’Art arme´nien. Paris. Garsoı¨an, N. (1997a) “The Arsˇakuni dynasty (AD 12–428).” In R. G. Hovanissian, ed., The Armenian people from ancient to modern times,

vol. I, The dynastic periods: from antiquity to the fourteenth century: 63–94. London. Garsoı¨an, N. (1998b) “The Marzpanate (428–652).” In Hovanissian, ed.: 95–116. London. Garsoı¨an, N. (1999) L’E´glise arme´nienne et le grand schisme d’Orient. London. Hovanissian, R. G., ed. (1997) The Armenian people from ancient to modern times. London. Kouymjian, D. (2006) [online] [Accessed June 12, 2010]Arts of Armenia. Available from http:// armenianstudies.csufresno.edu/arts_of_armenia/ index.htm. Mahe´, J. P. (1992) “Entre Moı¨se et Mahomet: re´flexions sur l’historiographie arme´nienne.” Revue des e´tudes arme´niennes 23: 121–53. Thomson, R. W. (1995) A bibliography of classical Armenian literature to 1500 AD. Turnhout.

1

Armilustrium, Tubilustrium CHRISTOPHER J. SMITH

The Roman festival of the Armilustrium, “Purification of Arms,” was celebrated annually on October 19, and was a purificatory ceremony that brought an end to the Roman military season. The Salii danced with the sacred shields to the accompaniment of trumpets; a sacrifice took place to Mars. The festival gave its name to a square on the Aventine (Livy 27.37.4), and it was suggested that it was surrounded in the imperial period by a portico and relief decorations of arms. The square has been located by the church of Santa Sabina, and the vicus Armilustri may well have followed the route of the modern Via di S. Sabina. All this would seem to suggest that the festival, whose origins might be taken to be old because of the connection with the Salii, continued into the empire. The idea of the purification of arms has obvious anthropological connotations, and the festival thus takes its place alongside others that reveal concepts of early Roman warfare, which at least appear to have the aura of antiquity. The obvious parallel is the Tubilustrium, which purified the

trumpets used in the Roman army at the beginning of the fighting season on March 23, the last day of a five-day ceremony for Mars, the Quinquatrus (Varro Ling. 6.14; Festus 480L). This happened in the Atrium Sutorium, the location of which is unknown. There is an added complication that a Tubilustrium in honor of Volcanus took place again on May 23, on the same day as the festival Quando Rex Comitiavit Fas, which took place the day after the first Tubilustrium. This duplication can be explained only by modern conjecture. Collectively, however, the evidence for a series of ritual celebrations of the Roman campaigning cycle is indisputable. SEE ALSO:

Mars; Rex sacrorum; Salii; Volcanus.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Richardson, L. (1992) A topographical dictionary of Ancient Rome. Baltimore. Ru¨pke, J. (1990) Domi Militiae: Die religio¨se Konstruktion des Krieges in Rom. Stuttgart. ¨ ffentlichkeit: die Ru¨pke, J. (1995) Kalendar und O Geschichte der Repra¨sentation und religio¨sen Qualifikation von Zeit in Rom. Berlin. Scullard, H. H. (1981) Festivals and ceremonies of the Roman Republic. London.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 728–729. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah17052

1

Arminius MILORAD NIKOLIC

Arminius was a nobleman from the Germanic tribe of the Cherusci. He was born shortly after 19 BCE, the son of Segimer, a Cheruscan prince. In 9 CE an alliance of Germanic tribes under his leadership destroyed three Roman legions in the battle of the Teutoburger Forest (Teutoburgiensis Saltus near Kalkriese, in northwest Germany). The defeat was one of the most devastating military losses in Roman history. The ancient sources (most importantly Strabo, Velleius Paterculus, Florus, Cassius Dio, and Tacitus) give little biographical information. Originally in the service of the Roman military, Arminius may have commanded an auxiliary unit during the Pannonian revolt (ca. 6–9 CE) (see PANNONIA). He was granted Roman citizenship and attained the equestrian rank. In his successful attack on the Romans in 9 CE Arminius exploited the trust of the Roman officers, his experience in Roman battle tactics, and his high standing among the Germans to forge a successful alliance of a number of tribes. Arminius was murdered by his own relatives in 21, apparently because he aimed at kingship (Tac. Ann. 2.88). “Hermann der Cherusker,” named following Martin Luther’s erroneous assumption that

the Latin “Arminius” was a corruption of the German name Hermann, became a German national symbol in the late nineteenth century. The “liberation of Germany” from the Romans was equated in the political propaganda of that period to the German struggle against France and found its expression in the construction of the Hermannsdenkmal (“Hermann monument”) near Detmold. The story of Siegfried in the Nibelungenlied may derive in outline from a Germanic memory of the Arminius story. SEE ALSO: Germania (Superior and Inferior); Teutoburgiensis Saltus (Kalkriese); Varus, Publius Quinctilius.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Landschaftsverband Westfalen-Lippe Ro¨mermuseum, ed. (2009) 2000 Jahre Varusschlacht: Imperium – Konflikt – Mythos. Lemgo. Struck, M. (2001) “The Heilige Ro¨mische Reich Deutscher Nation and Hermann the German.” In R. Hingley, ed., Images of Rome: 91–112. Portsmouth, RI. Wells, P. (2003) The battle that stopped Rome. New York. Wolters, R. (2008) Die Schlacht im Teutoburger Wald: Arminius, Varus und das ro¨mische Germanien. Munich.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 729–730. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah18011

1

Army cult, Roman GEORGIA L. IRBY-MASSIE

Roman army cults, both public and private, provided an important focus of identity and loyalty for soldiers of different ethnic, cultural, and religious backgrounds. Attested in ferialia, official military rites included contractual Roman state and ruler cults. Universally, corporately, and homogeneously observed, overseen by commanding officers, official rites were practiced within fort walls to supplicate gods on whom the welfare and continued existence of the Roman state was thought to depend. These gods were Roman (i.e., Capitoline Triad, Mars, Quirinus, Lares, Genii), Italic (Venus, Herakles, Dioscuri), and Greek (Apollo, Magna Mater). Ruler cult was exercised officially, as dictated by ferialia, and privately, in honor of deified and living emperors. Rarely invoked alone, imperial numina (divine spirits) were supplicated with Roman gods and heroes (Jupiter Optimus Maximus, Mars, Herakles), native gods (Antenociticus in Britain; Tanit/ Dea Caelestis in Carthage), and strictly military cults (signa, genius legionis, genius cohortis). Military units dedicated inscribed altars for annual New Year’s vows, in fulfillment of vows, and for the welfare of the imperial family or dedicators and their families. Centered around the standards (Tac. Ann. 2.17.2; Tert. Apol. 18.8), Roman army cult was closely connected with military success and contributed to morale (cf. Caes. B Gall. 4.25). A stone shrine (aedes) at the fort’s center housed unit and legionary standards (signa) with the camp treasury and imperial images. Displayed conspicuously on Trajan’s column in scenes of camp purificatory rites, standards were anointed with oil and decorated with garlands for military ceremonies (Plin. HN 13.23). Prominently exhibited during the annual renewal of sacramenta, signa received sacrifices and, possibly, battle honors and laurel wreaths. Rosaliae Signorum, specified

in the Feriale Duranum for May 9 and 30, consisted in supplications to the signa garlanded with roses. These festivals may have represented military anniversaries (consecration of the legion or standard), victories, a cult of fallen comrades in arms, or the military parallel of popular civilian Floralia. Privately, soldiers, usually stationed far from their homelands, worshipped ancestral, Roman, eastern, and local gods. Unofficial eastern and local cults were widely tolerated unless considered treasonous (e.g., Christianity). Temples, altars, and votives were strictly excluded from forts. Two eastern gods are particularly significant: Jupiter Dolichenus and Mithras. An iron-working god from Commagene assimilated to Jupiter and usually shown in military dress, Dolichenus enjoyed empire-wide popularity among Romanized and eastern soldiers and administrators (and even the equites singulares: CIL VI.31172) especially under Severan sanction, but not among Celtic or Germanic soldiers. Concentrated along the Roman frontiers, the military cult is occasionally attested within fort aedes, suggesting government sanction. The IndoIranian Mithras, whose Romanized cult was based on esoteric ritual of grades of initiation and dualistic theosophy, enjoyed popularity with educated Roman officers from the first to the third centuries CE. Supplicated to secure their goodwill to Rome (Macrobius 3.9.7–8), local gods may have been considered more efficacious than non-local deities. Rider-god monuments prevail in the Danube. Significant to army cult in Gaul, Germany, and Britain are native healer deities and horned gods (e.g., Cernunnos, Lug, Mogons). Local deities were assimilated iconographically and epigraphically with Mercury and Mars (Cocidius, Lenus, Nodens, Rudiobus) and were analogous to Greek hero cults regarding ancestor worship, rites of the dead, and community protection. Romanized worshippers exploited martial aspects of local deities. Germanic and Celtic soldiers may have cultivated regionalized local cults privately in

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 736–737. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah17053

2 lieu of eastern mystery rites. Such cults helped integrate auxiliary units attached to a legion (whose ethnic compositions varied greatly) and formed an institutional framework for contacts between local garrisons and native populations. SEE ALSO: Army, Roman Empire; Capitoline Triad; Danubian Rider Gods; Dolichenus; Feralia; Feriale Duranum; Floralia; Forts, Roman; Frontiers, Roman; Mithras and Mithraism; Romanization; Ruler cult, Roman; Sacramentum; Trajan’s column.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Beck, R. L. (2006) The religion of the Mithras cult in the Roman Empire. Oxford.

Etienne, R. (1958) Le Culte impe´riale dans la pe´ninsule ibe´rique d’Auguste a` Diocle´tien. Paris. Fishwick, D. (1987–2004) The imperial cult in the Latin west. Studies in the ruler cult of the western provinces of the Roman Empire, 4 vols. Leiden. Haynes, I. P. (1993) “The Romanisation of religion in the Auxilia of the Roman imperial army from Augustus to Septimius Severus.” Britannia 24: 141–57. Irby-Massie, G. L. (1999) Military religion in Roman Britain. Leiden. Speidel, M. P. (1978) The religion of Jupiter Dolichenus in the Roman Army. Leiden. Speidel, M. P. (1980) Mithras-Orion: Greek Hero and Roman Army God. Leiden.

1

Army, ancient Near East ANTOINE JACQUET

Starting in the fourth millennium BCE, Mesopotamian sources attest to war between Sumerian city-states as well as military expeditions against foreign peoples. Armed forces must originally have been enlisted through temporary conscription, but it is likely that there soon emerged professional armies that were composed of recruits enrolled for longterm service, hierarchically organized, and of substantial strength. MILITARY SERVICE Throughout ancient Near Eastern history a twofold system of military enlistment was in use. One element comprised a core of permanent troops surrounding the king, who was in charge of war, and the other involved levying troops through conscription when necessary. The term “troop” (Sumerian ERIN2, Akkadian s:a¯bum) denoted men mobilized in the service of the king, whether in time of peace or war; the same system of mobilization could be put into effect for accomplishing public works, maintenance of order, or war. The troop’s composition depended on the needs and resources of the palace. Professionalization of the army implies maintenance of the troops by the royal administration, for it does not seem that any authority but the king had the prerogative of mobilizing armed forces. The first reference to a standing army seems to be the mention of a body of 5,400 companions whom Sargon, king of Agade, maintains in his service (twenty-fourth century). Later on, a year name of Sˇulgi, king of Ur, commemorates the recruitment of a corps of pikemen chosen from the population of Ur; this is often interpreted as indicating the formation of the first standing army (twenty-first century; see UR III DYNASTY). During the Old Babylonian Period (beginning of the second millennium), military corps were

differentiated on the basis of the soldiers’ origin, specialization, or post. Texts from Mari, for example, mention urban garrisons (s:a¯b birti), the palace guard (s:a¯b ba¯b ekallim), the corps of engineers (s:a¯b tupsikka¯ni), and various types of expeditionary forces, such as the “troops of the Banks of the Euphrates,” as well as troops of the Suhuˆ, the Lulluˆ mountaineers, or the “Bedouin” Hana (see HANA, HANAEAN; LULLUBI). These texts show, moreover, the methods by which the king of Mari tried to impose military service on nomadic or semi-nomadic populations. The chiefs of the Hana (termed suga¯guˆm) were charged with enlisting Hanaean troops, but unwillingness and flight often frustrated the effort. Meanwhile, Babylonian texts refer to permanent forces maintained by the palace, which in some cases were composed of foreigners, for example, the “Amorite troops” or “Kassite troops.” Some of these troops must have served effectively as mercenaries. In a later period, the Amarna letters (fourteenth century) mention militias composed of exiles or fugitives called habiru, who served whichever leader would ˘ maintain them (notably Abdi-Asˇirta, king of Amurru). An important innovation, which originated in the Ur III period and became widespread in the early second millennium, was the institution of land tenure linked to military service: fields under royal domain were allotted to farmers who in turn bore the obligation to furnish a soldier equipped for combat. This system of service, termed ilkum, proved very durable, since it continued in use until the Achaemenid period (see ILKUM). The Laws of Hammurabi (eighteenth century) contain several stipulations concerning the rights and duties of persons holding ilkum fields, during both war and peace. In principle, the ilkum-holder was prohibited from hiring a substitute to perform military service in his stead; contemporary documents show, however, that people did sometimes hire substitutes (termed tahhum). Ilkum-fields, over ˘˘ which the king retained eminent domain,

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 730–734. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah01014

2 were inalienable but transmissible by inheritance, provided the heir continued to perform the required service. Hammurabi’s Laws also address the problems arising in case of the ilkum-holder’s temporary or long-term absence and the circumstances under which his family could retain possession of his field. Although ilkum-fields were under the administration’s control, they nonetheless tended to become private property. In Assyria, with the formation of a veritable Assyrian state in the fourteenth century, the king relied mainly on the local nobility to recruit troops. He would summon large landholders to provide soldiers, whom they were in charge of recruiting, equipping, and maintaining. Meanwhile, the Middle Assyrian Laws indicate that some categories of soldiers were directly dependent on the palace, and they provided certain guarantees to these soldiers and their families in case of death or capture (see ASSYRIAN KINGS, MIDDLE ASSYRIAN PERIOD). During the Neo-Assyrian period (early first millennium), troops were levied from the Assyrian peasantry, who owed military service to the king every year after the agricultural season; the administrators responsible for each district were in charge of levying troops. Meanwhile, the royal army (kis:ir ˇsarri) comprised a core of soldiers in permanent service as well as specialized corps (such as engineers, siege specialists, charioteers, and later cavalry) that were under the direct control of the central administration. In order to increase the strength of campaign forces and garrisons stationed across an ever-expanding empire, Assyrian kings also had recourse to recruit from local populations having a military specialty, but such troops could be difficult to manage. At the same time, vassal kings were obliged to provide the Assyrian king with additional troops during major campaigns. Finally, victory over a foreign state entailed the incorporation of some part of its troops into the Assyrian forces, as happened for example after Assurbanipal’s victory over Elam and the capture of Susa. The same system was

adopted by the Neo-Babylonian kings when they defeated Assyria in the late seventh century. The disappearance of Assyrian troops from the sources after that point is no doubt explained by their integration into the Babylonian army. Under the Achaemenid Empire, the maintenance of military reserves in Babylonia was organized on the centuries-old ilkum system: the palace provided farmers with land in exchange for their furnishing and equipping a soldier. The farmer and his family lived on the income of their land allotment, for which, in addition to military service, they were obliged to pay imposts both in kind and in silver. The size of the field was proportional to the type of combat unit in which the soldier served; thus the allotments were termed “property of a bow,” “of a horse,” “of a chariot,” and so on. This system of tenures, sometimes incorrectly termed “fiefs,” simultaneously served to provide the king with soldiers and to develop royal lands. MILITARY HIERARCHY Although military nomenclature and organization changed over the course of Mesopotamian history, elements of continuity in the structure of the armed forces can be observed from the Neo-Sumerian through the NeoBabylonian period. From the Ur III period onward, every military corps was organized in a hierarchy comprising five levels, which are distinguished in administrative texts insofar as they had different tax duties. More or less the same structure is found in the Amorite kingdoms of Mari, Esˇnunna, and Babylon during the Old Babylonian period (see BABYLON; HAMMURABI OF BABYLON AND HIS DYNASTY; MARI (TELL HARIRI)). At the base of every corps is “the troop” (Akkadian s:a¯bum) composed of “soldiers” (re¯duˆ). The soldiers are organized in units of ten (esˇirtum) under the command of an officer (waklum) of inferior rank. Five of these basic units constitute the next higher unit, a platoon under the command of a “lieutenant”

3 (laputtuˆm). Two such platoons of fifty men constitute one “section” (pirsum), or company, under the command of a “captain” (termed rab pirsim in Mari, or rab hat:t:im in Babylonia). ˘ Two or three sections form a “division” (lıˆtum), or battalion, of 200 or 300 men, led by a “commander” termed rab amurrim (literally, “chief of the Amorites”). Finally, a “regiment” (umma¯num) consists of four or five divisions, or one thousand men, under a “general” (a¯lik pa¯n s:a¯bim), usually the king himself or a close relative. To this structure must be added other offices that belonged to every commander’s entourage but exercised no military command, notably the “Amorite scribe” (t:upsˇar amurrim), who served as chief administrative officer, and the diviner (ba¯ruˆm), without whom no military operation could be undertaken. Respecting the hierarchy was a serious matter, especially in the distribution of spoils or special rewards. Instances of disciplinary crises and conflicts of authority are attested in the royal correspondence of Mari. Occasionally one can follow the careers of individual officers, the most spectacular example being that of Silli˙ Sin, a mere captain who was chosen by the army to be king of Esˇnunna. The sources also indicate the privileges associated with certain offices, such as allotments of land, larger rations, or the right to a seat at the king’s table. In the Assyrian Empire, especially during the Neo-Assyrian period (ninth to seventh centuries), any dignitary or court official could be appointed to either civilian or military office and find himself in charge of a fortress or even a province. Another feature of the Assyrian Empire was the key role played by the qurbuˆtu, royal officers who facilitated articulation between the capital and the various fields of operation across the empire. Diversity in hierarchical organization resulted from the specialization of certain units, notably in communication and intelligence, administration, the corps of engineers, cavalry, and chariotry. Nevertheless, one still finds a similar hierarchy within every military corps in this period. The troops of the army

(s:a¯bu) are under the command of “decurions” (rab esˇirte), then of “lieutenants” (rab hansˇeˆ), each in charge of fifty men. These units in turn form sections of one hundred soldiers commanded by a “centurion” (rab 1 me’at). A regiment comprising one thousand men was under the command of a “general” (rab 1 lim or rab kis:ri). The highest military office was that of turta¯nu, corresponding in rank to a “field marshal.” Soon two officers came to hold this title simultaneously, the turta¯nu “of the right” and the turta¯nu “of the left”; both were responsible for the security of regions within Assyria, until the Sargonid kings assigned that function to the “Chief of the Eunuchs” (rab ˇsa re¯ˇsi). As in other periods of Mesopotamian history, the king himself was commander-in-chief. Arsenals, barracks, horses, and chariotry were directly under the authority of the king and the general staff composed of his relatives. The Neo-Babylonian military hierarchy is poorly known but seems to have been modeled on the Assyrian army. Most officers of high rank were dignitaries of the court. Information drawn from institutional archives indicates that troops were again organized into units of ten, fifty, one hundred, and one thousand men, under the command of officers bearing the same titles as in the Neo-Assyrian period. The Achaemenid army had its own organization. Although the system of land tenure for military service was modeled on the ancient ilkum-system, the distinction between the archery corps (which comprised most of the troops enlisted in Babylonia) and the cavalry and chariotry corps gave rise to a new hierarchical structure. The organization of military landholders into special districts called hat: ru suggests that these units may also have constituted the basic element of the army’s structure. MILITARY STRENGTH Kings needed to know the military strength available in their realms, as this determined

4 both their foreign policy and the management of provisions and weaponry to be supplied in case of mobilization. The Mari archives illustrate how the census (piqittum) of the population was regularly conducted in order to determine the current strength of the armed forces, taking into account casualties and desertions. The figures were normally kept secret. However, generals had to make the numbers known when they approached allied territories in order to obtain provisions adequate to the needs of their forces; their scribes often exaggerated the numbers, giving the impression that the army was larger than it was in order to obtain larger quantities of provisions. Rarely do numerical data pertaining to the strength of the armed forces represent factual reality, as such information was subject to manipulation for strategic as well as rhetorical and propagandistic purposes. While many letters and royal inscriptions provide quantitative information of this kind, the numbers are usually unverifiable. The largest army on record in the early second millennium is that led by Isˇme-Dagan, son of Samsı¯-Addu, during his conquest of lands east of the Tigris, which was purported to be sixty thousand men strong, including allied troops. To this figure must be added the army of Mari that went to the rescue of Qatna at the same time, as well as any additional troops of Samsı¯-Addu and Yasmah-Addu. Mari’s armed forces were smaller under the subsequent king, Zimrı¯-Lı¯m; during his time, reliable sources indicate that Mari had an army of 4500 men, not counting allied forces. Meanwhile, his powerful neighbor Esˇnunna sent an army of 13,000 to 20,000 troops (according to various sources) against the southern regions of the kingdom of Mari, and 30,000 against the southern Sindjar. Larsa mobilized perhaps 40,000 soldiers before being defeated by the forces of Babylon and its allies. For the later second millennium, no reliable information is available. The army that fought on the Hittite side at the battle of Qadesh (early thirteenth century) may have numbered 66,000 men (see QADESH, BATTLE OF).

The annals of Neo-Assyrian kings often describe the army, tending to emphasize cavalry and chariotry over infantry. Shalmaneser III (r. 858–824) reckoned his army at 120,000 men. Historians generally reduce this number to a more credible figure of 75,000 infantry, 5000 cavalry, and 6000 chariotry troops for 2000 chariots, totaling 86,000 men. According to the same king, he fought against a coalition comprising 3940 chariots, 1900 horsemen, 1000 camels, and 60,000 infantry troops at the battle of Qarqar (853; see QARQAR; SHALMANESER III). Those figures likewise are certainly exaggerated, or at least rounded up. No information about the military strength of the Neo-Babylonian kings is available. As for the figure of 1,700,000 men, including “Assyrians” and “Chaldaeans,” that Herodotus (7.60) gives for the army led by Xerxes at the beginning of the second Persian War, it reflects the Greek picture of the huge demographic potential of the Achaemenid Orient rather than historical reality. SEE ALSO: Fortifications, ancient Near East; Warfare, ancient Near East; Weaponry, ancient Near East.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Abrahami, Ph. (1992) “La circulation militaire dans les textes de Mari : la question des effectifs.” In D. Charpin and F. Joanne`s, eds., La Circulation des biens, des personnes et des ide´es dans le Proche-Orient ancien: 157–66. Paris. Abrahami, Ph. and Battini, L., eds. (2008) Les Arme´es du Proche-Orient ancien (IIIe–Ier mill. av. J.–C.). Oxford. Briant, P. (1996) Histoire de l’Empire perse. Paris. Cardascia, G. (1958) “Le fief dans la Babylonie ache´me´nide.” In Recueils de la Socie´te´ Jean Bodin 1: 55–88. Brussels. Charpin, D. (1987) “La hie´rarchie de l’arme´e babylonienne.” Mari: Annales de Recherches Interdisciplinaries 5: 662–3. De Odorico, M. (1995) The use of numbers and quantifications in the Assyrian Royal inscriptions. Helsinki. Durand, J.-M. (1998) Documents e´pistolaires du palais de Mari, II: 361–8. Paris.

5 Fales, M. (2000) “Preparing for war in Assyria.” In J. Andreau, P. Briant, and R. Descat, eds., Economie antique. La guerre dans les e´conomies antiques: 35–62. Saint-Bertrand-de-Comminges. Lafont, S. (1998) “Fief et fe´odalite´ dans le ProcheOrient ancien.” In E. Bournazel and J.-P. Poly, eds., Les Fe´odalite´s: 517–630. Paris.

Malbran-Labat, F. (1982) L’Arme´e et l’organisation militaire de l’Assyrie. Geneva. Steinkeller, P. (1987) “The administrative and economic organization of the Ur III state: The core and the periphery.” In McG. Gibson and R. D. Biggs, eds., The organization of power: 19–41. Chicago.

1

Army, Byzantium PHILIP RANCE

The army was the largest employer and most expensive element in state expenditure in the East Roman or Byzantine Empire. Its structures originated in ad hoc regional developments during the later third century CE, institutionalized by CONSTANTINE I (FLAVIUS VALERIUS CONSTANTIUS AUGUSTUS) (306–37) and CONSTANTIUS II (337–61). The wealth, resources, and population of the Eastern Empire enabled it to recover relatively quickly from military setbacks. Modern estimates of the paper-strength of its army, based on the Notitia Dignitatum (ca. 400), calculate around 300,000 men. By the early sixth century, cavalry had supplanted infantry as the main tactical strike-force on the battlefield, and a long-term proportional increase in the mounted component of field armies intensified, although their composition and tactics varied according to geography, environment, and opponent, and infantry continued to constitute the greater part of the empire’s armed forces. Military service was perceived as a privileged status enjoying regular rations, tax exemptions, and judicial immunities. Soldiers were long-service professionals, mostly enrolled as volunteers or by hereditary enlistment, with a long-term orientation of recruitment towards the least Romanized rural, mountainous, and peripheral regions, especially the Balkans, Taurus Mountains, and ARMENIA. Institutional conservatism and linguistically diverse manpower fostered Latin as the most convenient language of command well into the seventh century. From the reign of Constantine, the army comprised two classes of soldier, comitatenses, operationally mobile units billeted in towns in the interior, and limitanei, units permanently stationed in garrisons in the frontier zone (limes). By the mid-fourth century comitatenses were organized into regional armies (exercitus), each commanded by a magister

militum assigned one of three strategic spheres: Illyricum, Thrace, and Oriens. Two additional armies in praesenti – “in the imperial presence” – were quartered near Constantinople under two magistri militum praesentales. The praesental armies contained many elite comitatenses, which augmented the regional armies for major operations in the Balkans and Oriens. They also functioned as centrally controlled “security forces” for the suppression of dissidence or rebellion. Household troops (scholae, excubitores) guarded the palace and participated in ceremonies. From the early fifth century, praesental or regional comitatenses on active service were supplemented by foederati, a term originally applied to allies serving in fulfillment of treaty obligations, but by this date “foreign legions” recruited primarily from non-Roman peoples. During the reign of JUSTINIAN I (527–65), expeditionary forces increasingly contained high proportions of bucellarii (army officers’ private retinues) and ad hoc allied contingents, both effectively shortcuts to trained warriors over and above the normal recruiting mechanisms. The comitatenses operated as a regional reserve for use against serious threats, foreign and domestic, and supplied the core of field armies. They were administratively and legally distinct from limitanei, lower-status (though not necessarily lower-quality) units assigned to the territorial command of a dux limitis, who oversaw a sector of the frontier and reported to his regional magister militum. Units of limitanei were responsible for local defense, deterring enemy raids, and hampering invading armies, assisted in Oriens by subsidized Arab “irregulars.” Some units of limitanei played a multifaceted strategic role, joining comitatenses for offensive operations undertaken in their sector. From the midfifth century, many regiments of the praesental and regional comitatenses were widely dispersed in provincial garrisons, especially at strategic points behind the eastern limes. Although a notional demarcation of roles persisted, in the longer term comitatenses

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 734–736. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah03013

2 and limitanei became less distinct in function, if not in precedence and entitlements. In 492, comitatenses stationed on the eastern limes were placed under the command of their local dux for operational purposes. This “decentralization” of comitatenses may account for the prominence and proliferation of duces as senior field commanders in eastern campaigns throughout the sixth century, sometimes operating hundreds of miles from their ducal headquarters. During the sixth century, shifting military priorities necessitated adjustments. Justinian created a magister militum per Armeniam (528) in response to heightened conflict in this region. Following the “reconquest” of the west, additional magistri militum are attested in Africa (534), Italy (ca. 536), and Spain (589). Gradually, magistri in Italy and Africa, restyled exarchoi, combined civil and military authority. In Europe the depredations of AVARS and Slavs severely disrupted the empire’s defenses. It seems that the office of magister militum per Illyricum became defunct after the Avars took his headquarters at SIRMIUM (582) and terminated Byzantine rule in the northwestern Balkans. Thereafter, the magister militum per Thracias exercised extended competence over the remaining Balkan provinces. The fate of the praesental armies is obscure. One thesis contends that during the later sixth century the separate commands of the two magistri militum praesentales merged into one smaller army, which was later incorporated into or renamed as the Obsequium, a term previously applied to the emperor’s personal escort; this development was possibly formalized by Herakleios (610–41). There is greater certainty that the dissipation and/or restructuring of this central strategic reserve was a long-term trend due to chronic warfare on multiple fronts; some praesental units participated in expeditions to the west and never returned, while others were earlier relocated to frontier provinces, especially in Oriens. Periodic troop transfers between the Balkan and eastern theaters from the 570s to 620s possibly

accelerated the emergence of an amalgamated command. Although ultimately victorious in a destructive war with the Persians (603–28), the Byzantine Empire was unable to repel the Islamic invasions. A disastrous defeat at Yarmu¯k (636), together with vast and irreversible territorial losses (Egypt, PALESTINE, Syria, Mesopotamia), forced Byzantine armies to withdraw north of the Taurus mountains. From these extemporized positions across Anatolia emerged a new military structure, the thema, a term that denoted both a regional army and, by extension, the territory in which it was permanently settled. The origin of the THEMATA is one of the most vexed issues of early Byzantine history, but it is generally agreed to have been an evolutionary process over the course of the seventh century. The names of the earliest themata reveal their institutional descent from former exercitus: Anatolikon (Oriens), Armeniakon, Thrake¯sion, and Opsikion (Obsequium). The main organizational and tactical sub-units of a thema, the “division” (meros, tourma) and “brigade” (moira, droungos), already existed by the late sixth century, while tenth century Byzantine sources document the long-term survival of late Roman regimental titles. With modifications, the thema thereafter became the essential framework of Byzantine military administration and defense. SEE ALSO: Herakleios, emperor; Strategy, Byzantine; Warfare, Byzantine; Yarmuk, battle of.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Elton, H. (2007) “Military forces.” In P. Sabin, H. van Wees, and L. M. Whitby, eds., The Cambridge history of Greek and Roman warfare, vol. 2: Rome from the Late Republic to the Late Empire: 270–309. Cambridge. Haldon, J. F. (1999) Warfare, state and society in the Byzantine world, 565–1204. London.

3 Haldon, J. F. (2005) “Trouble with the Opsikion: some issues on the first themata.” In F. Evangelatou-Notara and T. Maniati-Kokkini, eds., Kle¯torion eis mne¯me¯n Nikou Oikonomide¯: 111–36. Athens. Rance, P. (2010) The Roman art of war in Late Antiquity: the Strategikon of the emperor Maurice. A translation with commentary and textual studies. Farnham. Schmitt, O. (2007) “From the late Roman to the early Byzantine army: two aspects of change.” In A. S. Lewin and P. Pellegrini,

eds., The late Roman army in the Near East from Diocletian to the Arab conquest: 411–19. Oxford. Whitby, L. M. (1995) “Recruitment in Roman armies from Justinian to Heraclius (ca. 565–615).” In A. Cameron, ed., The Byzantine and early Islamic Near East 3: states, resources and armies: 61–124. Princeton. Whitby, M. (2000) “The Army c. 420–602.” In A. Cameron, B. Ward-Perkins, and M. Whitby, eds., The Cambridge ancient history, vol. 14: 286–314. Cambridge.

1

Army, Byzantium PHILIP RANCE

Freie Universität Berlin, Germany

The army was the largest employer, greatest consumer of resources, and most expensive item of state expenditure in the Eastern Roman or Byzantine empire. Its structures originated in regional developments during the later third century CE, institutionalized empire-wide by CONSTANTINE I (FLAVIUS VALERIUS CONSTANTINUS AUGUSTUS) after 324. Modern calculations of its paper-strength, based on the Notitia Dignitatum (ca. 400), estimate around threehundred-thousand men, decreasing to perhaps half that number by the 550s. Until the late sixth century, infantry comprised the greater part of the empire’s total armed forces, though the proportion of cavalry progressively increased. The size and composition of campaign armies varied according to geography, environment, and opponent: cavalry became the main tactical strike force on the battlefield, while infantry remained important for sieges and fighting on difficult terrain. Imperial troops were mostly long-service professional soldiers, variously recruited through conscription, voluntary enlistment, or hereditary obligation, and often augmented by non-Roman auxiliaries or allies. Generally perceived as a privileged status, military service was remunerated with regular rations, monetary bonuses, tax exemptions, and judicial immunities. Recruitment was orientated towards less Romanized rural, mountainous, and peripheral regions, especially the Balkan highlands, Taurus Mountains, and ARMENIA. Institutional conservatism and linguistically diverse manpower fostered Latin as the most convenient language of command into the seventh century. From the reign of Constantine, the army comprised two main categories of troops: comitatenses, operationally mobile units billeted in towns of the interior, and limitanei, units permanently stationed as garrisons in frontier zones. By the later fourth century, comitatenses were organized into regional armies (exercitus),

each commanded by a magister militum assigned one of three strategic spheres: Illyricum, Thrace, and Oriens. Comitatenses operated as regional reserves against serious threats, foreign and domestic, and supplied the core of campaign armies. They were administratively and legally distinct from limitanei, lower status – though not necessarily lower quality – units assigned to the territorial command of a dux limitis, who oversaw a sector of the frontier (limes) and reported to his regional magister militum. Limitanei were responsible for local defense, assisted in Oriens by subsidized Arab “irregulars.” Some units of limitanei joined comitatenses for offensive operations undertaken in their sector. Two additional armies in praesenti – “in the imperial presence” – were quartered near Constantinople under two magistri militum praesentales. These praesental armies contained many elite units, usually designated palatini, which augmented regional armies for major operations in the Balkans and Oriens. They also functioned as “internal security” forces for suppressing dissidence or rebellion. Household troops (scholae palatinae, excubitores) guarded imperial residences and participated in ceremonies. From the late fourth century, praesental or regional comitatenses on active service were supplemented by foederati, a term originally applied to allies serving in fulfillment of treaty obligations, but now extended to “foreign legions” recruited primarily from non-Roman peoples. From the midfifth century, units of praesental and regional comitatenses were increasingly dispersed in provincial garrisons, especially at strategic points behind the eastern limes. Although differences in status and entitlements persisted, the operational roles of comitatenses and limitanei became less distinct. This “decentralization” of comitatenses may account for the prominence of duces as senior field commanders in eastern campaigns throughout the sixth century. During the reign of JUSTINIAN I (527–65), overseas expeditionary forces contained high proportions of bucellarii (officers’ private retinues) and ad hoc allied contingents,

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History. Edited by Andrew Erskine, David B. Hollander, and Arietta Papaconstantinou. © 2021 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Published 2021 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah03013.pub2

2 both effectively shortcuts to trained warriors outside the regular recruiting procedures. During the sixth century, shifting strategic priorities necessitated adjustments. Justinian created a magister militum per Armeniam (528) in response to heightened conflict in this region. Following the “reconquest” of western territories, additional magistri militum are attested in Africa (from 534), Italy (ca. 536), and Spain (589). The magistri in Italy and Africa, restyled exarchoi, gradually combined civil and military authority. In the Balkans, the depredations of AVARS and SLAVS severely disrupted the empire’s defenses. The office of magister militum per Illyricum probably became defunct after the Avars took his headquarters at SIRMIUM (582). Thereafter, the magister militum per Thracias exercised extended competence over remaining Balkan provinces. The fate of the two praesental armies is obscure: chronic warfare on multiple fronts dissipated this central strategic reserve, while periodic troop transfers between the Balkan and eastern theaters from the 570s to 620s accelerated the emergence of an amalgamated command, later renamed the Obsequium, a development possibly formalized by Herakleios (see HERAKLEIOS, EMPEROR) (610–41). Prolonged hostilities in the Near East and Balkans during the first half of the seventh century transformed Anatolia into the Byzantine Empire’s military, fiscal, and demographic heartland. Although ultimately victorious in a destructive war with the Persians (602–28), the empire was unable to repel subsequent Islamic invasions. In ca. 637–40, Byzantine forces withdrew north of the Taurus–AntiTaurus range, leaving behind the relatively urbanized and heavily fortified frontier zone of Mesopotamia–Syria–Palestine. In a series of improvised measures that, over time, acquired permanence, the remnants of Byzantine field armies were dispersed across Asia Minor, where cities and towns were sparser, military infrastructure deficient, and few troops had been previously stationed. The empire’s armed forces were now distributed

in territorial commands, typically termed “generalships” (stratēgiai, stratēgides), whose armies soon acquired regional identities and perspectives, underpinned by localized recruitment and supply. In the early ninth century, following poorly documented developments, military-fiscal divisions called THEMATA emerge, in which military governors (stratēgoi) exercised enhanced competence in civil affairs through new fiscal-administrative infrastructure and personnel. Recent studies have discarded the long-term tendency of modern scholarship to retroject the concept and/or terminology of themata into preceding centuries. These provincial or “thematic” armies were recruited primarily from peasant freeholders, who were closely integrated into rural society and culture. In response to recurrent Muslim invasions from the 640s, they increasingly served locally and seasonally, as part of regionalized “defense-in-depth” strategies, though some “selected men” (epilektoi) participated in long-distance campaigns. By the mid-eighth century, provincial soldiers were responsible for procuring weaponry, equipment, and horses at their own or their family’s expense, though civilian neighbors were obliged to assist impoverished soldiers. A “military household” (stratiōtikos oikos), one with a registered soldier, benefited from service-related pay, booty, fiscal exemptions, and legal privileges. Many soldiers possessed cultivatable landholdings, known in tenth-century sources as “military properties” (stratiōtika ktēmata), whose origin and significance remain disputed, though military obligations appear to have been personal rather than tenurial, at least up to the tenth century. While provincial or thematic soldiers continued to form by far the largest part of imperial forces, in ca. 743/4 Constantine V (741–75) instituted the tagmata, elite guard units based in or near Constantinople, creating a centrally controlled counterweight to regional armies and a nucleus of imperial expeditions. As Byzantine strategic priorities shifted from localized defense to piecemeal reconquest from the 920s, the government increasingly preferred

3 to convert the obligations of seasonal thematic soldiers into a purely fiscal liability as a means of funding full-time “professional” armies, comprising tagmata, select thematic soldiers, and foreign mercenary contingents, equipped with specialized weaponry and trained in sophisticated tactics. Thematic armies declined in significance and ultimately fade from the historical record around the mid-eleventh century. SEE ALSO: Cavalry, Byzantine; Military lands; Strat-

egy, Byzantine; Warfare, Byzantine. REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Brubaker, L. and Haldon, J. (2011) Byzantium in the Iconoclast era, c. 680–850. Cambridge. Elton, H. (2007) “Military forces.” In P. Sabin, H. van Wees, and L. M. Whitby, eds., The Cambridge history of Greek and Roman warfare, vol. 2: Rome

from the Late Republic to the Late Empire: 270– 309. Cambridge. Haldon, J. F. (1999) Warfare, state and society in the Byzantine world, 565–1204. London. Rance, P. (2021) “Soldier and civilian in the Byzantine Empire c.600–c.900. A militarised society?” In E. Bennett et al., eds., Early medieval militarisation: 31–47. Manchester. Stouraitis, Y., ed. (2018) A companion to the Byzantine culture of war ca. 300–1204. Leiden. Whitby, L. M. (1995) “Recruitment in Roman armies from Justinian to Heraclius (ca. 565–615).” In A. Cameron, ed., The Byzantine and Early Islamic Near East 3: states, resources and armies: 61–124. Princeton. Whitby, M. (2000) “The army c. 420–602.” In A. Cameron, B. Ward-Perkins, and M. Whitby, eds., The Cambridge ancient history, vol. 14: 286–314. Cambridge. Zuckerman, C. (2005) “Learning from the enemy and more: studies in ‘dark centuries’ Byzantium.” Millennium 2: 79–136.

1

Army, Greece ADAM SCHWARTZ

The concept of “army” in Archaic and Classical Greece was very different from the modern notion. With the possible exception of SPARTA, standing armies were virtually unknown during the entire period, whereas armies (perhaps more accurately termed militias), drafted ad hoc from among citizens aged between eighteen and sixty, were the norm. From the earliest times, armies were apparently organized, called up, and deployed for battle according to complex kinship ties, such as phylai (“tribes”) and their subdivisions, for example, phratriai (“brotherhoods”) (Hom. Il. 2.362–3; Hdt. 6.111.1; Meiggs and Lewis 1988: no. 51; Plut. Arist. 5.4–5; Cim. 17.3–5; for a list of the several variants with sources, see Jones 1987: 394–5); it may be inferred that early raiding parties at sub-state level were even less formally organized. The use of kinship groups as a basis for military organization was retained until the end of the Classical period, as can be seen from the common practice of tabulating casualty lists accordingly (Pritchett 1985: 139–45; Jones 1987: 395). The command structure was generally equally uncomplicated. In the case of ATHENS, we have little more than glimpses of the preKleisthenic army organization other than the office of supreme commander (polemarchos: [Arist.] Ath. Pol. 3.1); but after 501/0 BCE ten STRATEGOI (one from each phyle) were elected annually along with a corresponding number of junior officers, responsible for army subdivisions (taxeis and lochoi) or other arms (such as cavalry), but subordinate to the strategoi ([Arist.] Ath. Pol. 22.2; 61). An exception to this, in almost all respects, was Sparta. Here, full citizens (homoioi, “equals”) were raised to be professional soldiers from boyhood, and adults were expected to pursue a career of exercising and fighting as full-time HOPLITES. The army organization was comparatively sophisticated, with an intricate command

structure and rank from the polemarchoi, commanding the largest units – at different times defined as lochoi or morai (each comprising between 500 and 900 hoplites: Plut. Pel. 17.4 ¼ Ephoros FGrH 70 F 210 (500 men); Kallisthenes FGrH 124 F 18 (700); Polybius fr. 60 Bu¨ttner-Wobst (900)) – and down to the six file leaders in each enomotia (groups of thirty to forty hoplites: Thuc. 5.68.3; Xen. Lac. 11.4–6; see in general Lazenby 1985: 4–10, 52–7). The uncommon level of discipline and military efficiency resulting from this arrangement made the Spartan army the fear and envy of other Greeks, as is evident from THUCYDIDES’ approving remark: “almost the entire Spartan army, except for a small part, are officers under officers; and the responsibility for seeing that an order is carried out falls upon many” (5.66.4). The dominance of the hoplite phalanx in Greek land warfare until the end of the Classical period ensured that the hoplite corps formed the backbone of all but a few armies. Causally linked to hoplites’ military preeminence was their political influence and social status. In oligarchic poleis, citizenship and eligibility for offices were frequently conditioned by hoplite or cavalry service; and as hoplites were normally supposed to pay for their relatively expensive equipment, large parts of any given population were automatically debarred from franchise. An Athenian decree from the late sixth century BCE requires cleruchs (see CLERUCHY) on Salamis to be able to present hoplite equipment worth a minimum of 30 drachmas (Meiggs and Lewis 1988: no. 14; cf. Thuc. 8.97.1), twice the monthly income of a skilled workman one century later (Randall 1953: 207–10). The forbidding costs of maintaining horses and providing equipment meant that only the wealthiest citizens could afford to serve as horsemen ([Arist.] Ath. Pol. 7.3–4), and accordingly most poleis were unable to field a powerful cavalry force. Despite the apparent lack of political incentive for the poor, most polis armies nevertheless induced them to serve and

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 737–739. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah04047

2 included corps of light-armed warriors or skirmishers, such as various types of javelinthrowers, archers, slingers, or simply stonethrowers; and light-armed warriors serving alongside the hoplites are attested very early on (Tyrt. fr. 11.35–8; 19.2, 19–20 West; Mimn. fr. 14.5–8 West). Due to the limitation inherent in the census qualification required for hoplite service, light-armed warriors probably normally outnumbered the hoplites of any given army, though literary sources typically do not bother to give precise figures (Thuc. 2.13.6–7, 31.2; 3.87.3; 4.93–94.1 (and cf. 4.102.2); 6.69.2; Xen. Hell. 4.2.16–17; 6.1.8). The reason for this bias is partly ideological: the static and unyielding nature of hoplite fighting was idealized, and the fluid, mobile nature of skirmishing consequently perceived as cowardly (Hom. Il. 11.384–95; Pl. Leg. 706c–d; Dem. 9.48–9, and cf. Thuc. 4.126.5). The military importance of light-armed troops increased with the PELOPONNESIAN WAR, a trend that accelerated through the fourth century BCE and led to an evolution of traditional troop types and tactics (see IPHIKRATES; PELTASTS). The ideology of an amateur military notwithstanding, a number of poleis or federations introduced elite corps into their armies at some point. Equipping and training these picked troops was, at least in part, financed by the polis. This was the case at SYRACUSE (600 men: Diod. Sic. 11.76.2), BOIOTIA (300 men: Diod. Sic. 12.70.1), ARGOS (1000 men: Diod. Sic. 12.75.7), ARCADIA (1000 men: Xen. Hell. 7.4.22, 33–4; 7.5.3), ELIS (300 men: Xen. Hell. 7.4.13, 16, 31), and the famous Theban SACRED BAND (hieros lochos) formed of 150 pairs of homosexual lovers (Plut. Pel. 18). Specialized training did not meet with universal approval outside Sparta: in Plato’s dialogue Laches, two seasoned Athenian generals disagree about the merits of teaching young hoplites advanced weapons training

(Lach. 178a–183b), and a similar dismissal is startlingly expressed by XENOPHON, who argued that phalanx fighting was for everyone, since “[w]e cannot help hitting something when we strike” (Xen. Cyr. 2.1.16, cf. 2.3.9–11), but who saw nothing wrong with physical training of a more general nature (Mem. 3.12.5). Nevertheless, by the mid-330s BCE, a system of two years of compulsory training and introductory patrol and garrison duty for eighteen-year-old males (epheboi) became formalized in Athens (Burckhardt 1986: 26–75). SEE ALSO: Archers, archery; Cavalry, Greek; Kleisthenes of Athens; Phalanx (hoplite); Phratry; Slings, slingers; Warfare, Greece; Weaponry, Greece.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Burckhardt, L. A. (1986) Bu¨rger und Soldaten. Aspekte der politischen und milita¨rischen Rolle athenischer Bu¨rger im Kriegswesen des 4. Jahrhunderts v. Chr. Stuttgart. Cartledge, P. (2001) “The birth of the hoplite: Sparta’s contribution to early Greek military organization.” In Spartan Reflections: 153–66. London. Christ, M. R. (2001) “Conscription of hoplites in Classical Athens.” Classical Quarterly 51: 398–422. Jones, N. F. (1987) Public organization in ancient Greece: a documentary study. Philadelphia. Lazenby, J. F. (1985) The Spartan army. Warminster. Lissarrague, F. (1990) L’autre guerrier. Archers, peltastes, cavaliers dans l’imagerie attique. Paris. Meiggs, R. and Lewis, D. M., eds. (1988) A selection of Greek historical inscriptions to the end of the fifth century BC. Oxford. Pritchett, W. K. (1979–91) The Greek state at war, vols. 1–5. Berkeley. Randall, Jr., R. H. (1953) “The Erechtheum workmen.” American Journal of Archaeology 57: 199–210.

1

Army, Hellenistic THIBAUT BOULAY

ROYAL ARMIES The royal Hellenistic armies, heirs of Alexander the Great’s army and of the Macedonian traditions and institutions, constituted the most solid foundation for the power of the kings, warrior chiefs who had responsibility for military strategy and the selection of the trained personnel. The hierarchical structure of the great royal armies was flexible and their composition could vary significantly from one war to another. All armies had in common a nucleus of Macedonian phalanxes, trained by amaster of arms for all types of military operations and forming a compact mass. In open country, their tactics hardly changed: combat essentially consisted of a frontal assault with two phalanxes, with all the elite troops concentrated in a compact formation on the right flank, accompanied by a series of local clashes in which light troops played an important part (Bar-Kochva 1976). In these pitched battles, the presence of ELEPHANTS, the archetypal heavy weapon, quickly became essential after Alexander the Great’s expedition to India. The kings fought surrounded by a royal guard (agema) and often led the attacking section, that is to say the right flank, just as Alexander had (Polyb. 5.53.6; 5.82.8). The strength of the royal armies could be considerable. In his campaign against Ptolemy in 306, Antigonos Monophthalmos had eighty thousand infantry and eight thousand cavalry at his disposal (Diod. Sic. 20.73.2). At the battle of Raphia in 217, the Seleucid army numbered sixty-two thousand infantry and six thousand cavalry, whereas Ptolemy Philopator’s army had seventy thousand infantry and five thousand cavalry (Polyb. 5.79–85). At Magnesia in 190 BCE, Antiochos III was at the head of sixty thousand infantry and twelve thousand cavalry (Livy 37.37–44; App. Syr. 32).

In the Seleucid and Antigonid armies, new elite units made their appearance in the third century BCE, the “silver-shields” (argyraspides), “white-shields” (leukaspides), and “bronzeshields” (chalkaspides), which are hard to distinguish from the pezhetairoi and the hypaspistai. The importance of the cavalry, highly valued by Alexander the Great, increased in the armies of the kings, where heavilyarmored squadrons known as cataphracts started to appear in imitation of Persian usage. Cavalry even appeared in the armies of indigenous kingdoms, which gradually started to take the shape of classical Hellenistic armies (e.g., the Hasmonean army; cf. Shatzman 1991). The victories of the Roman legions in the east led Antiochos IV and Ptolemy IV Philometor to carry out military reforms, but nothing that significantly changed the organization of the Seleucid and Ptolemaic armies (Sekunda 1994; 1995). The subject peoples (ethne) were often called upon to participate in the conflicts between the various Hellenistic powers and in their military campaigns. The Seleucid armies incorporated contingents drafted in all the regions of the empire. A very large number of Mysian and Pisidian soldiers were integrated into the armies of the Seleucids and Attalids in this way, notably to fight the Galatians. Some of these ethne gained a reputation for efficiency in combat, particularly in mountainous regions, such as the Lydian akontistai (soldiers armed with javelins), who participated in the battle of Raphia (Polyb. 5.82.11). This battle, in which Ptolemy IV saved Egypt from a Seleucid invasion, marks the first occasion that native Egyptian troops, the machimoi, play an important part in the Ptolemaic army (Galili 1976/7). Before Raphia, their principal military activity was limited to service in the navy and in conducting transports (Peremans 1961; Van’t Dack and Hauben 1978). The Macedonian army, under the Antigonids, was composed of national contingents (cavalry, infantry, navy) drafted on the basis of

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 739–743. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah09052

2 a census among Macedonian citizens between the ages of fifteen and fifty (Hatzopoulos 2001). The raising of an army was done by “hearth” (pyrokausis), by city, or by ethnos. If needed, the army could count on troops of its Thracian, Illyrian, or Paeonian allies, or on some mercenary reinforcements. The professionalization of war, which had already started in the fourth century BCE, favored the presence of considerable contingents of MERCENARIES in the royal armies (Griffith 1935; Launey 1949/ 50). In the Seleucid army, mercenaries represented thirty-one thousand out of the sixty-eight thousand men that fought at Raphia, thirty-four thousand, five hundred out of the seven-one thousand, five hundred at Magnesia, and sixteen thousand to nineteen thousand of the forty-five thousand, five hundred participants in the procession at Daphne (Polyb. 30.25), in other words roughly onethird to half of the strength of the Seleucid army. The recruitment of troops on a stipend posed some delicate problems for the monarch who could fear mutiny, as is shown by the agreement between Eumenes of Pergamon and his mutinous mercenaries (OGIS 266, around 260 BCE). If the kings’ power was based on the territory they ruled (ge basilike), which provided them with the means to sustain their armies, the Hellenistic dynasties were equally engaged in a struggle for naval supremacy in the Aegean. This expensive rivalry gave rise to a genuine race for arms and prestige, with fleets composed of increasingly larger units that were less maneuvrable and sometimes without any strategic value (Casson 1971). Around 246, the fleet of Ptolemy II Philadelphos was said to have counted 112 great ships (penteres and heavier) and 224 smaller ships (tetreres and triemioliai), that is a total of 336 war ships and four thousand other vessels (Ath. 5.203d). Gigantism reached its peak with Ptolemy IV Philopator, who had a ship made for forty rows of rowers of which Kallixeinos of Rhodes wrote an awe-struck description (Ath. 5.203e–4d). During the second century, lighter ships of a more modest size came back in favor.

Whenever they entered enemy territory, the royal armies had no choice other than to live on that territory. Plunder was the privileged mode of supply: they obtained fresh provisions on the spot and acquired what they needed from the local population through blackmail and intimidation. It was also necessary to supply the horses with fodder: the soldiers who were going through the country looking for fodder were protected by the other soldiers. During their campaigns, the kings and their strategoi were forced to find winter quarters for their troops. The defeated cities were obliged to provide billeting (epistathmeia) for the troops, as well as food and other supplies. In order to control the conquered lands, the kings installed fixed garrisons (phrourai) in the subject cities, whereas the soldiers could be stationed outdoors or in camps. In Ptolemaic Egypt, soldiers were housed in villages where they lived together with the inhabitants. Numerous papyri reveal the complaints of villagers who had been assaulted or robbed. As for demobilized soldiers, they could be installed on revocable tenure lands of varying size, according to rank and weaponry (kleruchiai), where they remained available to the king’s call. In the second century BCE, soldiers were stationed, among other places, in the Thebaid to prevent trouble (Winnicki 1978). Seleucids and Attalids preferred the founding of military colonies to settle Macedonian soldiers and Greek mercenaries (Cohen 1995; 2006). Cohabitation with occupation troops was often feared. The subject cities were keen to claim the right to be exempted from billeting troops if they could not be exempted from a garrison. This fear combined with unfortunate experiences helped to shape the theatrical persona of the roughneck, swaggering soldier that Plautus immortalized with Pyrgopolinices, the boastful “Fortress killer” in his comedy Miles Gloriosus. The kings, aware of the potential excesses of their soldiers, established rules for their use to minimize pillaging and all kinds of exaction. The orders concerned in particular the protection and respect of

3 sanctuaries, the prevention of all sorts of abuse on the city’s territory, and the necessary discipline (eutaxia) of soldiers. Garrison soldiers and occupation troops had to have at their disposal gymnasiums for military training and would, if necessary, take over the use of these from the civilian population. The relationship between occupation troops and the local population was often limited. However, closer contacts could be established according to the circumstances, the duration, and the conditions of the mercenaries’ service (Chaniotis 2002). The gymnasium and the city’s sanctuaries could be places of exchange and socialization. At the end of their period of service, mercenaries would sometimes settle in the cities that they had occupied, married in, and started a family in. Some of them were even granted the right to acquire property (enktesis) or even citizenship (politeia). The presence of foreign troops was therefore a factor of the opening – although a limited one – of the cities to the Hellenistic era.

CIVIC ARMIES If the poleis seemed above all like the passive victims of the kings, their troops, and their commanders, they did not however cease to train their citizens militarily in order to draft, if needed, a civic army. Their capacity for violence and aggression against other cities could express itself whenever the specter of a menacing empire receded (Ma 2000). As in the Classical period, local wars would break out between cities for the control of a fertile plain or of a strategic place, thus, for example, in the low valleys of the Hermos and the Maeander rivers. Cities such as Miletos, Kyzikos, or Selge, pursued locally an imperialist policy and annexed neighboring communities. Kleomenes III (235–222) even attempted to restore the military power of Sparta by reforming and arming his army in the Macedonian way, but his ambition was broken at the battle of Sellasia in 222 by the army of Antigonos III Doson (Polyb. 2.65–70).

However, Rhodes, thanks to its powerful fleet, managed to stand up to the great Antigonid and Seleucid monarchies and to establish itself among the great powers at the end of the third century. The Hellenistic period is marked by the progress of federalism, which is explained by the need to unite to better resist the great monarchic powers. Some confederations of cities (koina), such as the Achaian League in the Peloponnese, were thus able to call to arms a federal army, commanded by federal magistrates (strategoi, i.e., Aratos or Philopoemen or hipparchos, i.e., Polybius) and to strike a common coin for the military expenses. The periods of subjection did not alter the link that existed between citizenship and the defense of territory. The military training of youth and citizens was set in the gymnasium, which held a growing place in civic life. The cities organized and supervised the participation of all the citizens for the defense of their state. Men of fighting age, from eighteen to sixty years old, who lived in towns or in the country, were subject to a census and recorded on lists according to their place of residence, which were scrupulously kept up to date. These citizens were appointed to tours of duty or as garrison soldiers in the phrouria (guard-posts) across the territory. Civic armies and fleets were supervised by military magistrates, at the first rank of which were the strategoi and nauarchoi. If needed, the cities could recruit a troop of mercenaries in order to reinforce the defense – at the beginning of the third century BCE, for example, the Ionian city of Kolophon recruited a force of mercenaries commanded by the Thessalian Asandros, son of Simos (Gauthier 2003) – but this practice was expensive and cohabitation with foreign troops always difficult. The construction, maintenance, and financing of works of defense required considerable resources; it was necessary to adapt the defenses to developments in artillery, to the power of assault machines, and to the height of wheeled towers. The art of besieging cities, indeed, reached its climax at the end of the fourth century and into the third century.

4 Civic armies could mobilize significant manpower, among which light footmen played an important part during the Hellenistic period, even in the cities that were the most attached to their hoplite tradition. In 217/16, Alexandria Troas sent an army of four thousand soldiers to the rescue of Ilion besieged by the Gauls, who had been demobilized by Attalos I (Polyb. 5.111.3–4). Plutarch notes that in 73 BCE Kyzikos lost three thousand men and ten ships in the battle of Chalcedon alongside Roman troops (Plut. Lucullus 9.1). It was not until the time of Augustus and the pax Romana that Greek cities stopped being constantly at war. SEE ALSO:

Cavalry, Greek; Cavalry, Hellenistic; Cleruchs, Egypt; Kingship, Hellenistic; Kataphraktoi; Mercenaries; Navies, Greek; Phalanx; Raphia, battle of; Sieges and siegecraft, Classical and Hellenistic Greece.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Austin, M. M. (1986) “Hellenistic kings, war and the economy.” Classical Quarterly 36: 450–66. Baker, P. (2003) “Warfare.” In A. Erskine, ed., A companion to the Hellenistic world: 373–88. Oxford. Bar-Kochva, B. (1976) The Seleucid army. Organization and tactics in the great campaigns. Cambridge. Boulay, T. Les cite´s grecques et la guerre en Asie Mineure a` l’e´poque helle´nistique. Casson, L. (1971) Ships and seamanship in the ancient world: 97–123; 137–40, on “naval arms race” in the early Hellenistic period. Princeton. Chaniotis, A. (2002) “Foreign soldiers – native girls? Constructing and crossing boundaries in Hellenistic cities with ‘Foreign Garrisons’.” In A. Chaniotis and P. Ducrey, eds., Army and power in the ancient world 37: 99–113. Stuttgart. Chaniotis, A. (2005) War in the Hellenistic world: a social and cultural history. Oxford.

Cohen, G. M. (1995) The Hellenistic settlements in Europe, the islands and Asia Minor. Berkeley. Cohen, G. M. (2006) The Hellenistic settlements in Syria, the Red Sea Basin, and North Africa. Berkeley. Galili, E. (1976/7) “Raphia, 217 BCE revised.” Scripta Classica Israelica 3: 52–126. Gauthier, P. (2003) “Le de´cret de Colophon l’ancienne en l’honneur du Thessalien Asandros et la sympolitie entre les deux Colophon.” Journal des Savants: 61–88. Griffith, G. T. (1935) The mercenaries of the Hellenistic world. Cambridge. Hatzopoulos, M. B. (2001) L’organisation de l’arme´e mace´donienne sous les Antigonides: proble`mes anciens et documents nouveaux. Athens. Launey, M. (1949/50) Recherches sur les arme´es helle´nistiques, vols. 1–2, repr. 1987, with additional comments. Paris. Ma, J. (2000) “Fighting poleis of the Hellenistic world.” In H. van Wees, ed., War and violence in ancient Greece: 336–76. London. Marsden, E. W. (1969) Greek and Roman artillery: historical development. Oxford. Marsden, E. W. (1971) Greek and Roman artillery: technical treatises, with trans. of the treatises. Oxford. Peremans, W. (1961) “E´gyptiens et e´trangers dans l’E´gypte ptole´maı¨que.” Grecs et Barbares: 125–66. Geneva. Sekunda, N. (1994) Seleucid and Ptolemaic reformed armies 168–145 BC, vol. 1: The Seleucid army under Antiochus IV Epiphanes. Montvert. Sekunda, N. (1995) Seleucid and Ptolemaic reformed armies 168–145 BC, vol. 2: The Ptolemaic army under Ptolemy VI Philometor. Montvert. Shatzman, I. (1991) The armies of the Hasmonaeans and Herod. Tu¨bingen. Tarn, W. W. (1930) Hellenistic military and naval developments. Cambridge. Van ’t Dack, E. and Hauben, H. (1978) “L’apport e´gyptien a` l’arme´e navale lagide.” In H. Maehler and V. Strocka, eds., Das ptolema¨ische ¨ gypten. 59–93. Mainz. A Winnicki, K. (1978) Ptolema¨erarmee in Thebais. Wroclaw.

1

Army, Late Antiquity CONOR WHATELY

In 235 CE, at the beginning of Late Antiquity, the Roman army was not all that different from the army of 14 CE at the end of the reign of Augustus. By the seventh century, and in the aftermath of the Arab invasion of the Near East, the Roman army had been transformed, with significant differences with regard to its organization, size, tactics, strategy, and operations. What had been a heavily armed force, which sought to engage its foes head-on and whose primary strength lay in its infantry, had become a force that often sought to avoid pitched battle unless left with no alternative, and whose strength lay in its cavalry. Our evidence for the army in Late Antiquity differs significantly, both with regard to quantity and quality, from the evidence for the earlier imperial army. The literary evidence, and historiography in particular, is much more extensive, and detailed, than it was for the imperial period; it is often written by those with real battlefield experience (AMMIANUS MARCELLINUS, JORDANES, PROCOPIUS). We also have several detailed handbooks and theoretical treatises specifically concerned with military matters, with the most significant in this regard being the Epitoma Rei Militaris of Vegetius (second half of the fourth century to first half of the fifth century CE) (see VEGETIUS RENATUS, FLAVIUS) and the STRATEGIKON OF MAURICE (ca. 590). Whereas the historians, such as Ammianus and Procopius, provide thorough discussions of several important conflicts, the principal characters involved, as well as, to a lesser degree, the experience of combat in Late Antiquity (Amm. Marc. 19f), Vegetius and Maurice provide much of the material of use for reconstructing the organization of the Roman army, its tactics (Maur. Strat. 2, 3, 5, 6) and its training methods. There is much of value to be found in the legal compilations of THEODOSIUS II (Codex Theodosianus) and JUSTINIAN I (Codex Justinianus) including, for example, an entire

section (book VII) in the THEODOSIAN CODE devoted to a range of military matters, from legal definitions of frontier soldiers (CT 7.15) to problems of desertion (CT 7.18). The papyrological material is of incredible importance, especially with regard to the various social issues connected to the Late Antique army. The voluminous evidence has, notably, been used with profit to reconstruct aspects of the supply of the army from the third through seventh centuries in Egypt (Mitthof 2001), though much work remains to be done. NESSANA, an otherwise unimportant Roman town in modern Israel, has furnished us with much of value concerning the interaction of the soldiers, who were based there, with the wider community (Kraemer 1958). Mention should also be made of the Notitia Dignitatum, or List of Offices, an extraordinary, though not unproblematic, document from the early fifth century, which provides invaluable information about the deployment of the Roman army’s multitudinous units, particularly given the dramatic decrease in the number of military inscriptions. Indeed, the student of the Late Antique army is blessed with a rich body of evidence. While the army of the Roman Empire was generally composed of stationary units, with vexillations used for expeditions, in Late Antiquity there existed a broad distinction between stationary units and mobile units. The burgarii, limitanei, and riparienses milites were stationary troops based on the frontiers of the empire enrolled in legions, auxiliary units (alae, cohortes), many of which were descended from the earlier mperial army, as well as a host of new units (auxiliares, cunei, and equites). COMITATENSES, or field army troops, made up the other major component of the Late Antique army, with the exception of the navy and the troops responsible for the protection of the emperor, such as the scholae palatinae. Like the border troops, the field army troops, comitatenses, pseudocomitatenses, and the palatini, were enrolled in legionary and auxiliary units, though also vexillationes (comites

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 743–746. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah12019

2 and equites). By the beginning of the fifth century there was an Eastern field army (Not. Dign. or. 7), a Gallic field army (Not. Dign. oc. 7), an Illyrian field army (Not. Dign. or. 9), a Thracian field army (Not. Dign. or. 8), as well as four praesental armies, two each in both east and west (Not. Dign. or. 5, Not. Dign. oc. 5, 6), based in Italy and near Constantinople, which served as central reserve forces. This field army system remained relatively intact into the seventh century, with changes occurring only with regard to placement of the respective field armies and the total of praesental armies, particularly after the fragmentation of the west into independent kingdoms. Other important new elements of the army include the scholae palatinae, the imperial guard created by Diocletian or Constantine, which replaced the older Praetorian guard; the buccellarii, private soldiers who, in the sixth century in particular, often fought under a wealthy general alongside the regular units; and the foederati, which could be either cavalry units or allied barbarians (see BARBARIANS, BARBAROI). The commanders of military units were usually comites or duces, with magistri militum in charge of the larger military commands. The size of the army in Late Antiquity is disputed, largely due to the lack of detailed information about unit sizes and totals. In the third century, there seems to have been an increase in the number of units employed, due in part to the stresses that began to emerge on the frontiers. JOHN LYDUS (de Mensibus 1.27), writing in the first half of the sixth century, claims that the army of Diocletian numbered 435,266, and that Constantine doubled this total. AGATHIAS (5.13.7–8), writing towards the end of the sixth century, seems to provide some support for John Lydus’ figures, claiming that the army totaled 645,000 at some unspecified earlier date, quite probably the fourth century. Indeed, the number of units listed in the Notitia Dignitatum seems to support the figures given by John Lydus and Agathias. Though the evidence is not clear, with the contraction of the empire in the

sixth century, we might expect that the size of the army was reduced to around 300,000 from the 600,000 strong force that existed in the fourth century. Although there does not seem to have been any significant decline in population numbers across the empire from the third through the fourth century in the west, and through the sixth century in the east, as in the imperial period the population was insufficient to meet the army’s needs. As a result, conscription was increasingly sought to make up any shortfalls. However, volunteers continued to play an important role. The legislation in the Theodosian Code that deals with recruitment problems is concerned more with specific crises (CT 7.13.16–17, 7.18) than with a general lack of interest in enlisting among Roman citizens. Service was still an attractive option, thanks in part to perks such as the – theoretically – regular payment in cash or kind, as well as the exemption from some taxes (CT 7.20.12). The emperors Marcian (Evagrius 2.1) and JUSTIN I (Procop. SH. 6.2), for example, both left their homes to seek a career in the army. As with the imperial period, nonRomans continued to play an important role in the army, a process usually called barbarization in Late Antiquity; although the evidence is inconclusive, their proportion of the total may not have exceeded one quarter (Elton 2007: 301). Some of these non-Roman (barbarian) recruits were already settled within the empire, while others were defeated enemies, such as the Vandal soldiers sent to the eastern frontier in the wake of Justinian’s reconquest in the sixth century (Procop. Wars 4.14.17) (see VANDALS). Throughout Late Antiquity, infantry remained an important part of the army’s tactics. Although cavalry units increased in number from the third through the seventh centuries, infantry soldiers were the largest contingent within expeditionary forces. In 357, 3,000 of the 13,000 soldiers deployed by the Romans at Strasbourg were infantry (Amm. Marc. 16.12). Nearly two hundred years later in 533, infantry made up at least two-thirds of BELISARIUS’ expeditionary

3 force headed for Africa (Procop. Wars 3.11). Despite the continued importance of infantry in the sixth century, the changing strategic context coupled with the increased presence of enemies who relied on their mobility resulted in a greater tactical role for the cavalry. Although set-piece infantry battles still featured in Late Antique warfare (e.g., the battle of Dara in 530), with the exception of the prevalence of siege warfare, much of the combat was low-intensity that favored cavalry, such as the engagements with the Slavs in the 590s (Theophyl. Sim. 6.8–9). In this changing tactical and strategic environment, the army experienced its share of setbacks, not the least of which was the battle of Adrianople (378) (see ADRIANOPLE, BATTLE OF). Yet, like its imperial and republican predecessors, its ability to bounce back from major defeats stands out, with the aforementioned battle, a major defeat for the eastern forces, ultimately of little significance in the East’s survival. As long as the state continued to pay the soldiers on a regular basis (and payment fluctuated between cash and kind), and supply it with the resources needed, the army performed well (Kaegi 1981). It was periods of disruption that brought the most significant harm. Indeed, the centralization of the production, storage, and distribution of supplies for the army in the early fourth century (if not earlier) undoubtedly played a significant role in the empire’s success after some reverses in the third century. SEE ALSO: Army, Byzantium; Army, Roman Empire; Historiography, ancient Near East; Kataphraktoi; Limitanei; Notitia Dignitatum; Strategy, Byzantine.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Elton, H. (2007) “Military Forces.” In P. Sabin, H. Van Wees, and M. Whitby, eds., The Cambridge history of Greek and Roman warfare, vol. II: Rome from the Late Republic to the Late Empire: 270–309. Cambridge. Hoffman, D. (1969) Das spa¨tro¨mischen Bewegungsheer und die “Notitia Dignitatum.” Du¨sseldorf. Jones, A. H. M. (1964) The later Roman Empire 284–602. Oxford. Kaegi, W. E. (1981) Byzantine military unrest: 471–843: An Interpretation. Amsterdam. Kraemer, C. J. (1958) Excavations at Nessana, vol. 3: non-literary papyri. Princeton. Lee A. D. (2007b) “Warfare and the state.” In P. Sabin, H. Van Wees, and M. Whitby, eds., The Cambridge history of Greek and Roman warfare, vol. II: Rome from the Late Republic to the Late Empire: 379–423. Cambridge. Mitthof F. (2001) Annona Militaris: Die ¨ gypten. Heeresversorgung im spa¨tantiken A Florence. Nicasie, M. J. (1998) Twilight of Empire: the Roman army from the reign of Diocletian until the Battle of Adrianople. Amsterdam. Rance, P. (2007) “Battle.” In P. Sabin, H. Van Wees, and M. Whitby, eds., The Cambridge history of Greek and Roman Warfare, vol. II: Rome from the Late Republic to the Late Empire: 342–78. Cambridge. Ravegnani, G. (1988) Soldati di Bisanzio in eta` giustinianea. Rome. Richardot, P. (2005) La fin de l’arme´e romaine, 3rd ed. Paris. Whitby, M. (1995) “Recruitment in Roman armies from Justinian to Heraclius, ca. 565–615.” In A. Cameron, ed., The Byzantine and the Early Islamic Near East, vol. 3: states, resources and armies: 61–124. Princeton.

1

Army, Late Antiquity CONOR WHATELY

University of Winnipeg, Canada

In 235 CE, at the beginning of Late Antiquity, though the Roman army had changed from the army of 14 CE at the end of the reign of Augustus, it was still broadly similar. By the seventh century, and in the aftermath of the Arab invasion of the Near East, the transformation of the Roman army had been completed, with significant differences with regard to its organization, size, tactics, strategy, and operations. What had been a heavily armed force, which sought to engage its foes head-on and whose primary strength lay in its infantry, had become a force that often sought to avoid pitched battle unless left with no alternative, and whose strength lay in its cavalry. Our evidence for the army in Late Antiquity differs significantly, with regard to both quantity and quality, from the evidence for the earlier imperial army. The literary evidence, and historiography in particular, is much more extensive, and detailed, than it was for the imperial period; it is often written by those with real battlefield experience (AMMIANUS MARCELLINUS, JORDANES, PROCOPIUS). We also have several detailed handbooks and theoretical treatises specifically concerned with military matters, with the most significant in this regard being the Epitoma Rei Militaris of Vegetius (second half of the fourth century to first half of the fifth century CE) (see VEGETIUS RENATUS, FLAVIUS) and the STRATEGIKON OF MAURICE (ca. 590). Whereas the historians, such as Ammianus and Procopius, provide thorough discussions of several important conflicts, the principal characters involved, as well as, to a lesser degree, the experience of combat in Late Antiquity (Amm. Marc. 19.2-9; Kagan 2006), Vegetius and Maurice provide much of the material of use for reconstructing the organization of the Roman army, its tactics (Maur. Strat. 2, 3, 5, 6), and its training methods. There is much of value to be found in the legal compilations of THEODOSIUS II

(Codex Theodosianus) and JUSTINIAN I (Codex Justinianus) including, for example, an entire section (book VII) in the THEODOSIAN CODE devoted to a range of military matters, from legal definitions of frontier soldiers (CT 7.15) to problems of desertion (CT 7.18). The papyrological material is of incredible importance, especially with regard to the various social issues connected to the Late Antique army. This voluminous evidence has, notably, been used with profit to reconstruct aspects of the supply of the army from the third through seventh centuries in Egypt (Mitthof 2001), though much work remains to be done. Sixth-century papyri from NESSANA, an otherwise unimportant Roman town in modern Israel, has furnished us with much of value concerning the interaction of the soldiers, who were based there, with the wider community (Kraemer 1958), and the publication of the final volume of papyri from Petra, also dating to the sixth century CE, provides a sizable body of comparable material (Arjava, Frösén, and Kaimio 2018). The Notitia Dignitatum, or List of Offices, is an extraordinary, though not unproblematic, document from the early fifth century, which provides invaluable information about the deployment of the Roman army’s multitudinous units, particularly given the dramatic decrease in the number of military inscriptions. Though questions remain about the value of its lists of western units, more recent research has demonstrated the accuracy of the eastern lists (Kaiser 2015). Indeed, the student of the Late Antique army is blessed with a rich body of evidence. While the army of the early Roman Empire was generally composed of stationary units, with vexillations used for expeditions, in Late Antiquity there existed a broad distinction between stationary units and mobile units. The burgarii, limitanei, and riparienses milites were stationary troops based on the frontiers of the empire enrolled in legions, auxiliary units (alae, cohortes), many of which were descended from the earlier imperial army, as well as a host of new units (auxiliares, cunei, and equites). COMITATENSES, or field army troops,

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History. Edited by Andrew Erskine, David B. Hollander, and Arietta Papaconstantinou. © 2022 John Wiley & Sons Ltd. Published 2022 by John Wiley & Sons Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah12019.pub2

2 made up the other major component of the Late Antique army, with the exception of the navy and the troops responsible for the protection of the emperor, such as the scholae palatinae, the imperial guard created by Diocletian or Constantine, which replaced the older Praetorian guard. Like the border troops, the field army troops, comitatenses, pseudocomitatenses, and the palatini, were enrolled in legionary and auxiliary units, though also vexillationes (comites and equites). Although our evidence is limited, what little we have for unit nomenclature reveals a demonstrable institutional memory for the Roman army, with some units and their names surviving in some capacity or other for hundreds of years. By the beginning of the fifth century there was an Eastern field army (Not. Dign. or. 7), a Gallic field army (Not. Dign. oc. 7), an Illyrian field army (Not. Dign. or. 9), a Thracian field army (Not. Dign. or. 8), as well as four praesental armies, two each in both east and west (Not. Dign. or. 5, Not. Dign. oc. 5, 6), based in Italy and near Constantinople, which served as central reserve forces. This field army system remained relatively intact into the seventh century, with changes occurring only with regard to placement of the respective field armies and the total of praesental armies, particularly after the fragmentation of the west into independent kingdoms. Other important new elements of the army include the scholae palatinae; the buccellarii, private soldiers who, in the sixth century in particular, often fought under a wealthy general alongside the regular units; and the foederati, which could be either cavalry units or allied barbarians (see BARBARIANS, BARBAROI), and which according to some were the elite troops of the sixth-century army (Koehn 2018). The commanders of military units were usually comites or duces, with magistri militum in charge of the larger military commands. The size of the army in Late Antiquity is disputed, largely due to the lack of detailed information about unit sizes and totals. In the third century, there seems to have been an increase in the number of units employed, due in part to the stresses that began to emerge on the

frontiers. JOHN LYDUS (de Mensibus 1.27), writing in the first half of the sixth century, claims that the army of Diocletian numbered 435,266, and that Constantine doubled this total. AGATHIAS (5.13.7–8), writing toward the end of the sixth century, seems to provide some support for John Lydus’ figures, claiming that the army totaled 645,000 at some unspecified earlier date, quite probably the fourth century. Indeed, the number of units listed in the Notitia Dignitatum seems to support the figures given by John Lydus and Agathias. Though the evidence is not clear, with the contraction of the empire in the sixth century we might expect that the size of the army was reduced to around 300,000 from the 600,000-strong force that existed in the fourth century. Although there does not seem to have been any significant decline in population numbers across the empire from the third through the fourth century in the west, and through the sixth century in the east, as in the imperial period the population was insufficient to meet the army’s recruitment needs. As a result, conscription was increasingly sought to make up any shortfalls. However, volunteers continued to play an important role. The legislation in the Theodosian Code that deals with recruitment problems is concerned more with specific crises (CT 7.13.16–17, 7.18) than with a general lack of interest in enlisting among Roman citizens. Service was still an attractive option, thanks in part to perks such as the – theoretically – regular payment in cash or kind, as well as the exemption from some taxes (CT 7.20.12). The emperors Marcian (Evagrius 2.1) and JUSTIN I (Procop. SH. 6.2), for example, both left their homes to seek a career in the army. From the end of the fourth century into the sixth, military service became more attractive and the empire seems to have had little trouble getting recruits. That said, the outbreak of the Justinianic plague in 541 CE likely impacted the army’s ability to recruit new soldiers. As with the imperial period, non-Romans continued to play an important role in the army, a process usually called barbarization in Late Antiquity; although the evidence is

3 inconclusive, their proportion of the total may not have exceeded one quarter (Elton 2007: 301). Some of these non-Roman (barbarian) recruits were already settled within the empire, while others were defeated enemies, such as the Vandal soldiers sent to the eastern frontier in the wake of Justinian’s reconquest in the sixth century (Procop. Wars 4.14.17) (see VANDALS). Throughout Late Antiquity, infantry remained an important part of the army. Although cavalry units increased in number from the third through the seventh centuries, which only continued a trend evident in regions like the lower Danube before that (Whately 2016), infantry soldiers were the largest contingent within expeditionary forces. In 357, 3,000 of the 13,000 soldiers deployed by the Romans at Strasbourg were cavalry (Amm. Marc. 16.12.2; Elton 1996, 106). Nearly two hundred years later in 533, infantry made up at least two-thirds of BELISARIUS’ expeditionary force headed for Africa (Procop. Wars 3.11). Despite the continued importance of infantry in the sixth century, the changing strategic context coupled with the increased presence of enemies who relied on their mobility resulted in a greater tactical role for the cavalry. Although set-piece infantry battles still featured in Late Antique warfare (e.g., the battle of Dara in 530), with the exception of the prevalence of siege warfare, much of the combat was low-intensity that favored cavalry, such as the engagements with the Slavs in the 590s (Theophyl. Sim. 6.8–9). The increase in the use of cavalry and the growing deployment of mounted archers were part of a larger trend throughout Eurasia, borne by close contact with the armies of the steppes (Graff 2016). In this changing tactical and strategic environment, the army experienced its share of setbacks, not the least of which was the battle of Adrianople (378) (see ADRIANOPLE, BATTLE OF). Yet, like its imperial and republican predecessors, its ability to bounce back from major defeats stands out, with the aforementioned battle, a major defeat for the eastern forces, ultimately of little significance in the east’s survival. As long as the state continued to pay

the soldiers on a regular basis (and payment fluctuated between cash and kind), and supply it with the resources needed, the army performed well (Kaegi 1981). It was periods of disruption that brought the most significant harm. Indeed, the centralization of the production, storage, and distribution of supplies for the army in the early fourth century (if not earlier) undoubtedly played a significant role in the empire’s success after some reverses in the third century. SEE ALSO: Army, Byzantium; Army, Roman Empire; Historiography, ancient Near East; Kataphraktoi; Limitanei; Notitia Dignitatum; Strategy, Byzantine.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Arjava, A., Frösén, J., and Kaimio, J., eds. (2018) The Petra Papyri V. Amman. Elton, H. (2007) “Military forces.” In Sabin, Van Wees, and Whitby, eds.: 270–309. Elton, H. (1996) Roman warfare 350–425. Oxford. Graff, D. (2016) The Eurasian way of war. London. Hoffman, D. (1969) Das spätrömische Bewegungsheer und die “Notitia Dignitatum.” Düsseldorf. Jones, A. H. M. (1964) The later Roman Empire 284–602. Oxford. Kaegi, W. E. (1981) Byzantine military unrest: 471–843: an interpretation. Amsterdam. Kagan, K. (2006) The eye of command. Ann Arbor. Kaiser, A. M. (2015) “Egyptian units and the reliability of Notitia Dignitatum, Pars Orientis.” Historia 64: 243–61. Koehn, C. (2018) Justinian und die Armee des frühen Byzanz. Berlin. Kraemer, C. J. (1958) Excavations at Nessana, vol. 3: Non-literary papyri. Princeton. Lee, A. D. (2007b) “Warfare and the state.” In Sabin, Van Wees, and Whitby, eds.: 379–423. Mitthof, F. (2001) Annona Militaris: Die Heeresversorgung im spätantiken Ägypten. Florence. Nicasie, M. J. (1998) Twilight of empire: the Roman army from the reign of Diocletian until the Battle of Adrianople. Amsterdam. Rance, P. (2007) “Battle.” In Sabin, Van Wees, and Whitby, eds.: 342–78. Ravegnani, G. (1988) Soldati di Bisanzio in età giustinianea. Rome.

4 Richardot, P. (2005) La fin de l’armée romaine, 3rd ed. Paris. Sabin, P, Van Wees, H., and Whitby, M., eds. (2007) The Cambridge history of Greek and Roman warfare, vol. II: Rome from the Late Republic to the Late Empire. Cambridge.

Whately, C. (2016) Exercitus Moesiae. Oxford. Whitby, M. (1995) “Recruitment in Roman armies from Justinian to Heraclius, ca. 565–615.” In A. Cameron, ed., The Byzantine and the Early Islamic Near East, vol. 3: States, resources and armies: 61–124. Princeton.

1

Army, Pharaonic Egypt COLLEEN MANASSA

The political and economic stability of Egypt during most of Pharaonic history fostered a centralized bureaucracy, which included among its many branches the army and navy. During periods of civil war and internal strife, local rulers reproduced the national military organization at a regional level, retaining the basic hierarchical structure of the Egyptian military and its foreign auxiliaries. Expanded Egyptian territorial goals in NUBIA and Syria-Palestine, particularly during the New Kingdom, affected the organization of armies sent on foreign campaigns. Throughout Pharaonic Egypt, the army and navy were also employed in domestic projects, such as quarrying and mining expeditions. The formation of a unified Upper Egyptian state around 3250 BCE was the result of armed conflict and was commemorated by one of mankind’s first visual references to warfare – the inscription of Horus Scorpion at Gebel Tjauti (northwest of ancient Thebes; Friedman, Hendrickx, and Darnell 2002). While this image lacks non-royal combatants, they feature in a ritual context in a Late Predynastic tomb at HIERAKONPOLIS, and bound prisoners – alluding to successful warfare – appear in contemporaneous objects and rock art (Gilbert 2004; Darnell 2010). Less than two centuries after Scorpion, NARMER completed the political unification of Upper and Lower Egypt, which led to a blossoming of civil administration, without the creation of a distinct “warrior aristocracy” (Gilbert 2004: 84–86). Historical documents of the Late Predynastic and Early Dynastic Periods do not include descriptions or depictions of the Egyptian army, which fought campaigns in southern Syria-Palestine, Libya, and Nubia (Wilkinson 1999: 150–82). Pictorial evidence for the army and navy is similarly sparse for the Old Kingdom, obscuring the organization of the army and

its size, although the existence of a standing military is likely (Eichler 1993: 198–220). One 4th Dynasty inscription from Nubia suggests that a general could be accompanied by as many as twenty thousand men (Helck 1974), which may represent armed Egyptians as well as all auxiliary troops and support staff; relief images of young soldiers suggests that they trained, and probably fought, in ten-man units (Arnold 1999: 318–21). During the reign of Djedkare Isesi, specialized military officers with the title imy-ra iaaw, “overseer of Egyptianized Nubians,” replace civil administrators as leaders of Egyptian military and expeditionary activity in Nubia (Manassa 2006: 158–9). The autobiography of a 6th Dynasty royal official, Weni, provides one of the few descriptions of an Old Kingdom campaign and its organization (Raedler 2009: 322–5). According to the text, tens of thousands of men from local militia units, as well as Nubian and Libyan auxiliaries formed Weni’s force; rather than being evidence against a standing national army, Weni’s inscription demonstrates that an experienced administrator was chosen over a career general for the five-time deployment of such an unusually large and heterogeneous force (Faulkner 1953: 33–5). Although pithy, Weni’s description of the assault on “Gazelle’s Nose” indicates that by the 6th Dynasty the Egyptians utilized combined naval and infantry assaults. Old Kingdom sources also record the employment of the army and navy in non-military activities, such as labor forces for quarrying and desert expeditions (Eichler 1993) and as escorts during festival processions (Arnold 1999: 318–21). During the First Intermediate Period, the organization of the army mimicked regional power structures. The autobiography of the nomarch Ankhtyfy describes the use of local militias in civil conflict between the districts of southern Upper Egypt (Vandier 1950). Contemporaneous tombs from Asyut, in Middle Egypt, contain two and threedimensional depictions of Egyptian infantry, armed with spears and waist-level pointed

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 746–750. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah15043

2 shields, and Nubian bowmen, with dark skin tone, colored leather aprons, and long bows. Control of desert routes and acquisition of Nubian mercenaries contributed to Theban supremacy and the founding of the Middle Kingdom under Mentuhotep II (Darnell 2003). Through the 12th Dynasty, at least some nomarchs retained local armies, possibly based on city levies, whose organization was patterned on the national forces (Grajetzki 2003: 116–29). The national army hierarchy consisted of a “great overseer of the army (generalissimo),” several lower-ranking officers, and support staff, including army scribes, commissariat officers, and medical personnel (Quirke 2004: 97–110: Stefanovic 2006); quarry inscriptions attest to the frequent employment of the army in mining expeditions (Seyfried 1981). The Middle Kingdom navy was key to transport and supply of expeditions in Nubia and Syria-Palestine, and naval titles suggest that the fleet and its marine troops formed a hierarchy equivalent in stature to the land-based military (Spalinger 2005: 1–6; Quirke 2004: 97). Following the collapse of the Middle Kingdom, the loss of Nubia, and the rise of the HYKSOS hegemony in the north, a Thebanled army and navy – with the addition of chariotry – reunified Egypt. The Kamose Stela provides the first description of naval tactics from ancient Egypt (Darnell 1991: 86–93), while the autobiography of Ahmose, son of Ibana, from Elkab attests to the first use of the chariot in an Egyptian battle (Herold 2009: 201–5). Egyptian armies fought far-flung campaigns during the reign of Thutmose I, establishing the boundaries of the Egyptian empire at the Euphrates in the north and Kurgus in the south. In Nubia, a viceroy (“king’s son of Kush”) oversaw a bipartite military and civil administration (Raedler 2003); Egyptian territories in Syria-Palestine were divided into three units, each with an Egyptian governor, who oversaw a patchwork of local city-states (Morris 2005). Within Egypt, a military reorganization took place during the reign of Amenhotep III, including

the creation of an equestrian hierarchy equivalent to, though distinct from, that of the infantry (Gnirs 1996). Despite the elevation of two generals, Horemheb and Rameses I, to pharaoh, the military did not form a distinct class and/or power base in New Kingdom society (Gnirs 1996). The infantry of the Ramesside Period (as known from the reign of Rameses II) was organized into five divisions, each with approximately 5,000 men; smaller units included companies of 200 or 250 men, platoons of 50 men, and squads of 10 men (Schulman 1964). Divisions and companies had individual names, such as the divisions of Amun, Seth, Pre, and Ptah at the battle of Kadesh. While some local levies continued to exist, the commissariat and armory functioned on a national level. In addition to Nubian troops, New Kingdom auxiliaries included Libyans (particularly visible during the Amarna Period) and SEA PEOPLES (increasingly common in the Ramesside Period). Foreign soldiers during the New Kingdom and earlier were not all mercenaries, since a number of them owned land in Egypt – Papyrus Wilbour (reign of Rameses V) records that Sherden owned almost 8 percent of the land in a stretch of Middle Egypt (Katary 1999). The New Kingdom navy appears most prominently as a means of troop transport and supply, whose efficacy greatly contributed to Egyptian imperial expansion. The navy possessed at least three classes of ships: small riverine vessels, mid-sized warships, and large troop transports that could serve as massed-archer platforms (Darnell and Manassa 2007: 65–7). Many East Mediterranean merchant vessels visiting, and perhaps even based in, Egypt appear to have been manned by cosmopolitan crews (Darnell and Manassa 2007: 202), and certain of the ships may be of Levantine origin (meneshships; Fabre 2005: 94–6); among foreign groups, the Hittites at least showed interest in Egyptian nautical technology (Meeks 1997: 179–80). The end of the New Kingdom witnessed an influx of militarized Libyan tribes into the

3 Delta, and the resulting political fragmentation of the Third Intermediate Period fostered an internal use of military resources, with armies stationed at fortresses throughout Upper Egypt (Taylor 2000: 349–50). The army of Late Period Egypt increasingly assumes the international character of its succession of foreign rulers. The armies of the Nubian 25th Dynasty consisted of both Egyptian and Nubian soldiers; military texts and images suggest a maintenance of earlier weapons and armaments: bows and arrows, long spears, and chariots; occasional examples of round shields suggest the adoption of Sea People equipment, and possibly their infantry tactics (Spalinger 1979; Spalinger 1981; Darnell 1991). Soldiers in Piy’s army were expected to maintain purity and piety when interacting with the Egyptian temples they passed in their campaign northward. Cavalry may have begun to play a role in the Egyptian military during the 25th Dynasty, and the invading neo-Assyrian kings who ended the dynasty included Kushite horses as part of their plunder (Heidorn 1997). The pharaohs of the 26th Dynasty became increasingly dependent on foreign mercenaries, particularly Greeks and Carians, who fought as distinct units of heavy infantry and who garrisoned Delta fortresses (Vittmann 2003; Smolarikova 2008). Ahmose used discontent among the native Egyptian warrior class (machimoi) to aid his political coup that overthrew Apries, who had shown favor to foreign mercenary troops; these machimoi may have arisen from the creation of a militarized farming class through the settlement of veterans and foreign captives during the late Ramesside and early Third Intermediate Period (Lloyd 1983: 309–10; Vittmann 2003). The Saite Period probably saw the reemergence of Egyptian naval power as an important aspect of eastern Mediterranean politics; foreign ship designs enter the Egyptian navy, including triremes, but the terms for vessels and titles for officers during the Saite Period are for the most part conservatively Egyptian and archaizing (Darnell 1992).

The final “native” dynasties of Egypt, from the first Persian invasion to the Nektanebid Period, preserve little evidence for the organization of the Egyptian army and navy. The first Egyptian coins were minted during the 30th Dynasty to pay for Greek mercenaries, symptomatic of the trend away from native Egyptian forces in key campaigns (Helck 1977). Some of the last expressions of Egyptian military might are the success of the Egyptian phalanxes at the battle of Raphia (see RAPHIA, BATTLE OF) and short-lived Upper Egyptian independence under Ankhwennefer and Horwennefer.

ARMS, ARMOR, AND EQUIPMENT The Egyptian army possessed long-distance weapons, close-combat arms, and defensive equipment. From the Predynastic Period until the end of Pharaonic history, the bow and arrow remained a core element of Egyptian armaments; both Egyptians and Nubians used self-bows at all periods, and the composite bow was employed by infantry and chariotry after the Second Intermediate Period. Other long-distance weapons such as slings and throwsticks also appear in the textual and archaeological sources. Several types of close-combat weapons appear throughout the Pharaonic period: clubs/staves, daggers, axes, spears/lances, and maces; in pharaonic iconography, the mace is predominantly a royal weapon, but may have been used by private soldiers on the battlefield (Darnell and Manassa 2007: 74). The typology of axes and daggers changes over time, particularly with the introduction of “Asiatic” styles in the Second Intermediate Period (Herold 2009: 195–8). During the New Kingdom, a new type of sword, the khepesh, or scimitar, appears as a private and royal weapon; heavier and lighter types of khepesh swords suggest diverse uses for the weapon. Long, rapier-like swords are first attested archaeologically during the reign of Merenptah and were probably used as stabbing weapons for chariot warriors.

4 Slashing swords (the Naue II type), deriving their strength from casting of blade and hilt as a single element (Drews 1993), first appear with Mediterranean “Sea Peoples.” Egyptian strategy often employed combined arms (e.g., amphibious assaults) and relied on rapid movement of troops. Such strategies minimized the importance of body armor, and the shields remained the chief defensive equipment in the Egyptian arsenal. Large, fullbody shields common in the Middle Kingdom gave way to more maneuverable, short, roundtopped shields during the New Kingdom. Sea People auxiliaries used smaller, round shields, effective for hand-to-hand combat, and the Nubian and Egyptian forces may have partly adopted this shield type by the time of the 25th Dynasty. SEE ALSO: Chariotry, ancient Near East and Egypt; Diplomacy, Pharaonic Egypt; Foreigners, Pharaonic Egypt; Forts, Pharaonic Egypt; Horses, ancient Near East and Pharaonic Egypt; Police, Pharaonic Egypt; Ships, shipping, Pharaonic Egypt; Treaties, Pharaonic Egypt; Warfare, Pharaonic Egypt.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Arnold, Do., ed. (1999) Egyptian art in the age of the Pyramids. New York. Darnell, J. C. (1991) “Two sieges in the Æthiopic ¨ gypten stelae.” In D. Mendel and U. Claudi, eds., A im Afro-orientalischen Kontext (Gedenkschrift Peter Behrens): 73–93. Cologne. Darnell, J. C. (2010) [online] [Accessed April 1, 2010.] “The Wadi of the Horus Qa-a: a tableau of royal ritual power in the Theban Western Desert.” Available from http://www.yale.edu/egyptology/ ae_alamat_wadi_horus.htm. Darnell, J. C. and Manassa, C. (2007) Tutankhamun’s armies: battle and conquest during ancient Egypt’s Late 18th Dynasty. Hoboken, NJ. Drews, R. (1993) The end of the Bronze Age: changes in warfare and the catastrophe ca. 1200 BC. Princeton. Eichler, E. (1993) Untersuchungen zum Expeditionswesen des a¨gyptischen Alten Reiches. Wiesbaden.

Fabre, D. (2005) Seafaring in ancient Egypt. London. Faulkner, R. O. (1953) “Egyptian military organization.” Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 39: 32–47. Friedman, R., Hendrickx, S., and Darnell, J. C. (2002) “Gebel Tjauti rock inscription 1.” In J. C. Darnell, Theban desert road survey in the Egyptian Western Desert, vol. 1: 10–19. Chicago. Gilbert, P. G. (2004) Weapons, warriors and warfare in early Egypt. Oxford. Gnirs, A. (1996) Milita¨r und Gesellschaft. Ein Beitrag zur Sozialgeschichte des Neuen Reiches. Heidelberg. Heidorn, L. (1997) “The horses of Kush.” Journal of Near Eastern Studies 56: 105–14. Helck, W. (1977) “Geld.” In W. Helck and E. Otto, ¨ gyptologie, vol. 2: 518–19. eds., Lexikon der A Wiesbaden. Herold, A. (2009) “Aspekte a¨gyptischer Waffentechnologie – von der Fru¨hzeit bis zum Ende des Neuen Reiches.” In R. Gundlach and C. Vogel, eds. Milita¨rgeschichte des pharaonischen ¨ gypten, Alta¨gypten und seine Nachbarkulturen A im Spiegel aktueller Forschung: 187–216. Paderborn. Katary, S. (1999) “Land-tenure in the New Kingdom: the role of women smallholders and the military.” In A. K. Bowman and E. Rogan, eds., Agriculture in Egypt: from Pharaonic to modern times: 61–82. Oxford. Manassa, C. (2006) “The crimes of Count Sabni reconsidered.” Zeitschrift fu¨r a¨gyptische Sprache und Altertumskunde 133: 151–63. Meeks, D. (1997) “Navigation maritime et navires e´gyptiens: les e´le´ments d’une controverse.” In D. Garcia and D. Meeks, eds., Techniques et e´conomie antiques et me´die´vales, Le temps de l’innovation: 20–8. Paris. Morris, E. F. (2005) The architecture of imperialism: military bases and the evolution of foreign policy in Egypt’s New Kingdom. Leiden. Raedler, C. (2003) “Zur Repra¨sentation und Verwirklichung pharaonischer Macht in Nubien: Der Vizeko¨nig Setau.” In R. Gundlach and U. Ro¨ßler-Ko¨hler, eds., Das Ko¨nigtum der Ramessidenzeit: 129–173. Wiesbaden. Raedler, C. (2009) “Zur Prosopographie von alta¨gyptischen Milita¨rangeho¨rigen.” In R. Gundlach and C. Vogel, eds., Milita¨rgeschichte ¨ gypten, Alta¨gypten und seine des pharaonischen A

5 Nachbarkulturen im Spiegel aktueller Forschung: 309–44. Paderborn. Schulman, A. (1964) Military rank, title, and organization in the Egyptian New Kingdom. Berlin. Seyfried, K.-J. (1981) Beitra¨ge zu den Expeditionen des Mittleren Reiches in die Ost-Wu¨ste. Hildesheim. Smolarikova, K. (2008) Saite forts in Egypt, political‐ military history of the Saite Dynasty. Prague. Spalinger, A. (1979) “The military background of the campaign of Piye.” Studien zur alta¨gyptische Kultur 7: 273–301. Spalinger, A. (1981) “Notes on the military in Egypt during the XXVth Dynasty.” Journal of the Society for the Study of Egyptian Antiquities 11: 37–58.

Spalinger, A. (2005) War in ancient Egypt. Oxford. Stefanovic, D. (2006) The holders of regular military titles in the period of the Middle Kingdom: dossiers. London. Taylor, J. (2000) “The Third Intermediate Period.” In I. Shaw, ed., Oxford history of ancient Egypt: 279–348. Oxford. Vandier, J. (1950) Mo’alla, La tombe d’Ankhtifi et la tombe de Se´bekhotep. Cairo. ¨ gypten und die Fremden im Vittmann, G. (2003) A ersten vorchristlichen Jahrtausend. Mainz am Rhein. Wilkinson, T. A. H. (1999) Early Dynastic Egypt. London.

1

Army, Roman Empire MICHAEL A. SPEIDEL

The Roman Empire is unthinkable without its army, mainly, of course, because of the army’s role in the conquest, the occupation, and the defense of the vast territories under Roman rule. Yet the significance of the imperial army of the first three centuries CE extended well beyond its role as a fighting force. For it was by far the largest state-run institution of imperial Rome, and the only such institution with members present throughout the empire in significant numbers. With the emperor as de facto chiefin-command, the army of the mid-second century CE counted some 400,000–450,000 soldiers and officers (equaling about 5–7.5 per thousand of the empire’s inhabitants) from all levels of free-born society, and from nearly all parts of the empire. Its organization as a standing army of professional soldiers was governed by largely rational principles, and characterized by specific values and ideal behaviors (e.g., obsequium, labor, modestia, industria, virtus, pietas, concordia), and by a hierarchic structure and bureaucratic procedures. As a fighting force the Roman army remains unparalleled in terms of success and efficiency. Much of this was due to its specific military culture and to the continuous training of its soldiers. The imperial army’s success was further enhanced by its ability both to adapt itself to new tasks and military challenges and to uphold through times of crisis many of its traditional and time-tested characteristics.

SERVICE CONDITIONS, SIZE, AND STRUCTURE (27 BCE–14 CE) reorganized and redefined the Roman army in many ways and in several steps over the many years of his sole rule. He provided the city of Rome, for the first time in its history, with a permanent garrison, and the Mediterranean Sea with permanent

AUGUSTUS

Roman fleets. Most importantly, however, he officially transformed the army into a fully professional and permanent institution with continuously improving equipment. The vast majority of soldiers were soon stationed in the outer provinces (mainly along the northern and eastern frontiers), where they were to ensure peace and prosperity for the empire. That did not exclude punitive expeditions or recurrent short periods of conquest, particularly under Augustus, CLAUDIUS (41–54), TRAJAN (98–117), and SEPTIMIUS SEVERUS (193–211). Yet for the vast majority of Roman soldiers of the first two centuries CE, military service was determined not by major warfare, but by military training and routine duties (for the most part) in and around their camps. In the third century, however, hostile invasions into the empire and civil wars substantially increased the army’s deployment in battle. In 13 BCE Augustus (and the Senate) formalized service conditions, hierarchies, and discharge grants for all branches of the Roman army (with alterations in 5 CE). Augustus also defined a military code of behavior, the disciplina Augusti, which formalized military training and discipline and thereby governed the soldiers’ daily routine as well as their commanders’ rights and responsibilities. Later emperors amended, revised, augmented, or reconfirmed these regulations. The emperor’s role as de facto commander-in-chief and his significance as the one ultimately responsible for victory, and for the welfare of all soldiers and all inhabitants of the empire, were increasingly emphasized. The military oath (SACRAMENTUM), the emperor’s presence during campaigns, imperial pronouncements and favors (e.g., military decorations or money presents), images on coins, military equipment and monumental reliefs, and rituals (like those involving the units’ standards) etc. served to create strong bonds with the monarch throughout all ranks and units. At the same time, the notion was upheld throughout the imperial period that serving in the Roman army was service for the res publica (see AE

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 750–754. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah18012

2 1992, 1534; CIL III 14214; VI 31640; Dig. 4.6.40, 45; Veg. 2.5, etc.). The imperial soldiers’ motivation was further influenced by the (generally favorable) conditions of service, the regulations of military law (ius militare), or the prospects of honors, promotion, booty, and awards. Other measures, such as the ban on legal marriage or on buying land within the garrison province, were to keep soldiers from bonding outside their military world. The typical structure of regular units divided the rank and file into a vast majority of common soldiers earning basic pay (which varied in the different branches of the army), junior under-officers earning pay and a half, and senior under-officers receiving double pay. Next in rank (and subdivided into several hierarchy levels) were the centurions, who commanded a CENTURIA of about eighty men, or were given other important commands. Decurions, their equivalent in the cavalry, were in command of a TURMA of about thirty-two horsemen. As professional commissioned officers with a wide range of military and administrative responsibilities, the centurions were the backbone of the imperial army’s officer corps. Whole units were under the command of senators or knights, who rarely served for more than two or three years with the same troop, and who were not professional soldiers. Senators of consular rank commanded whole provincial armies for equally short terms (except in the provinces of Egypt and Mesopotamia, where all commands were reserved for equestrian officers). The Roman imperial army was made up of infantry, cavalry, and naval units based mainly in the outer provinces, where the legions of Roman citizens, commanded by senatorial officers, remained the backbone of Rome’s military forces until the later third century CE. As a result of annihilation in battle, disbandment, and the raising of new legions (usually in connection with plans to occupy new territories), their total number fluctuated between twenty-five after the Varian disaster in 9 CE and thirty-three early in the reign of Septimius Severus. Thus, during most of the second

century there may have been something over 150,000 legionary soldiers in the imperial army. Another approximately 230,000 soldiers, recruited mainly (but not exclusively) from provincials without Roman citizenship, may have served in the AUXILIA (cohortes, cohortes equitatae, and alae) and in the provincial fleets (classes) under the command of equestrian officers. However, these figures are based on (often disputed) theoretical book-strengths, and actual numbers may have been much lower. The remaining provinces usually had only very small garrisons of, perhaps, one or two auxiliary units. Several troops were also stationed in Rome and in Italy. Augustus garrisoned the city of Rome with several thousand soldiers serving in nine praetorian (ten by the reign of Domitian, 81–96) and three urban cohorts (the imperial and city guards), as well as in seven cohorts of VIGILES (initially paramilitary fire brigades). Of the latter, Claudius stationed one cohort at OSTIA and another at PUTEOLI. The imperial bodyguard of the Julio-Claudian emperors, the Germani corporis custodes, may also be counted to the garrison of Rome, but not to the regular units of the Roman army. To these troops Trajan added about 1000 EQUITES SINGULARES AUGUSTI (the imperial horse guard) at the end of the first century CE. In the early years of his reign, Septimius Severus increased the size of Rome’s garrison, and permanently stationed his newly raised legio II Parthica in the Castra Albana near Rome. The size of the imperial fleets based at the Italian harbors of RAVENNA and MISENUM is not known, but they certainly also counted several thousand soldiers. Finally, incursions into Italy by hostile armies (foreign and Roman) from the later second century eventually led to the establishment of longterm garrisons in cities of northern Italy. In times of war, soldiers from all branches of the Roman army were assembled into large expeditionary armies. For such purposes (and other specific tasks), individual units were increasingly organized as detachments (vexillationes). Especially during the third century, such vexillations could become ever more

3 independent, and eventually formed a unit type in their own right. This was part of the complex transformation of the imperial expeditionary armies, which eventually ceased to be disbanded after campaigns and developed into the permanent field army of Late Antiquity, with a new structure and new ranks. The same period of transformation also saw the gradual replacement of senatorial commanders and governors with equestrian officers, and the rise of the cavalry (including the creation of new elite units and heavy armored formations). The comparatively small size and attractive service conditions of the Roman army usually guaranteed a sufficient influx of able recruits. In practice, most recruits signed up as volunteers, yet in times of crisis conscription continued to play an important role. Citizenship (Roman or peregrine) and social status determined a recruit’s future type of unit and his initial rank (as officer or soldier), and, consequently, his service conditions and the package of privileges and bonuses he would receive upon honorable discharge. Body size, physical strength, and useful skills were, of course, also important criteria, but slaves, convicted criminals, as well as actors and others from professions considered unsuitable, were officially banned from serving in the Roman army. The Roman Empire’s military resources were, however, not limited to the units of its regular army. The troops of dependent kingdoms, local militias, irregular contingents, and units of foreign mercenaries or prisoners of war could also be placed under supreme Roman command. Many of these fought as elite troops with specialist fighting skills and were eventually transformed into regular units of the Roman army. THE IMPACT OF THE ROMAN IMPERIAL ARMY By far the most significant achievement of the imperial army was its success in maintaining the integrity of the empire, and in ensuring unusually long periods of peace and prosperity for its inhabitants. But it would also be difficult

to overestimate the economic significance of this permanent professional army with respect to both state finances and the regional economic impact of large military garrisons. The annual cost of the army was the empire’s largest regular expenditure and therefore the most important reason to develop and maintain an efficient and reliable system of revenue and taxation. Recruitment, supplies, communication, and the army’s mobility also required the development of complex administrative systems, empire-wide institutions, and a network of roads. On the other hand, large amounts of coined money flowed into local and distant markets as a result both of soldiers’ individual spending and of the acquisition of supplies and labor by the military administrative services. The imperial army was also Rome’s largest resource of professional manpower, and of technical and administrative skills. The empire therefore also relied heavily on its soldiers as builders (particularly when technical skills were required) and as administrators (mainly in the staffs of provincial governors), and involved them in messenger, escort, and transport duties (contexts that were especially prone to the abuse of power against civilians). Under particular circumstances, soldiers could also be ordered to collect taxes or to carry out police duties. Finally, serving in the army and the settlement of veterans also had an important influence on the social and cultural developments both of the provincial recruits who joined the military community and of neighboring local societies. For the Roman imperial army provided contact with new, Roman sets of values, foods, clothing and lifestyle, religious thought and rituals, legal practices, architectural styles and building techniques, Roman social structures and behavior, and, of course, the Latin language and script. Moreover, non-Roman provincials were rewarded with citizenship at the completion of their military service. Large garrisons, in particular, could therefore act as a nucleus (especially on the northern frontiers) for the diffusion of important elements of Roman

4 culture. Furthermore, the otherwise unusual concentration of Roman senators and knights worthy of imperial service, a great many Roman citizens, their families and servants, non-citizen provincials and foreigners, as well as the contacts and connections of this military community with members of local societies and suppliers from near and far, offered countless opportunities for the creation of farreaching networks. SEE ALSO:

Ala; Army, Late Antiquity; Booty, Greece and Rome; Camps, military; Cavalry, Roman; Centurio; Cohort; Cohortes urbanae; Diplomata, military; Disciplina; Feriale Duranum; Forts, Roman; Frontiers, Roman; Imaginiferi; Imperialism in the Roman Empire (east); Imperialism in the Roman Empire (west); Law, military; Legati legionis; Legion, Roman republican; Legions, history and location of; Military standards, Roman; Navies, Roman; Optio; Praefectus; Praetorian cohorts;

Principales; Principia; Recruiting, military; Signifer; Spolia opima; Tabellarii; Tesserarius; Veterans; Vexillatio; Vexillum; Voluntarii; Warfare, Roman; Weaponry, Rome. REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS de Blois, L., and Lo Cascio, E., eds. (2007) The impact of the Roman army (200 BC–AD 476). Leiden. Eich, A., ed. (2010) Die Verwaltung der kaiserzeitlichen ro¨mischen Armee. Stuttgart. Erdkamp, P., ed. (2007) A companion to the Roman army. Malden, MA. Le Bohec, Y. (2002) L’Arme´e romaine sous le Haut-Empire, 3rd ed. Paris. Le Bohec, Y., ed. (forthcoming) Encyclopedia of the Roman army. Malden, MA. Sabin, P., van Wees, H., and Whitby, M., eds. (2007) The Cambridge history of Greek and Roman warfare, vol. 2. Cambridge. Speidel, M. A. (2009) Heer und Herrschaft im ro¨mischen Reich der Hohen Kaiserzeit. Stuttgart.

1

Army, Roman Republic PATRICK ALAN KENT

During the period of the Republic (ca. 509–27 BCE), the army was central to Roman politics, society, and the creation of a transMediterranean empire. Roman armies were flexible, efficient, and built upon a massive manpower pool. Roman legionaries, armed with short swords and fighting in loose formations, would prove themselves among the best soldiers of the ancient world. From the fourth to the second centuries BCE, the Romans conquered Italy and much of the Mediterranean littoral. But success bred its own problems, and the late Republic (ca. 133–27 BCE) witnessed radical changes in the Roman army that would contribute to the collapse of the state into civil war. The earliest periods of Roman history are shrouded in myth, tradition, and poor historical evidence, which obscure a definitive interpretation of the development of the army. Archaeological finds from Etruria and Latium dated to the seventh century BCE show the influx of Greek hoplite armor alongside Greek cultural influence. Etruscan and Latin warfare likely remained open in its formations despite this gear, akin to the other peoples of Italy and later Roman forms, rather than realizing an adoption of close formation phalanxes. Roman tradition assigned the division and organization of the army, and its political form as the Centuriate Assembly, to king SERVIUS TULLIUS in the sixth century BCE. Ancient sources claim that Roman armies slowly evolved over time, adopting the best tactics and equipment of the enemies that they faced. There seems to have been an indistinct division between public and private warfare, with indications of warbands playing a significant role in the small wars of early Rome. In 479 BCE the Fabian clan (see FABII, FAMILY OF), supported by clients and companions, waged a private war on behalf of the Roman state against nearby VEII (Livy 2.48; Dion. Hal. Ant. Rom. 9.15). An inscription dated to the early fifth century BCE records

a dedication by the companions of one Poplios Valesios, who likely formed his personal band of warriors. Poor sources for the earliest periods of Roman history make it difficult to reconcile tradition and reality, but such stories may contain a kernel of truth at their core that cannot be readily dismissed. By the middle of the fourth century BCE the Roman army had developed into its historical form, and would form a central institution of the Republic and the foundations of Roman power over large swaths of the ancient world. Republican armies were organized as LEGIONS, each of which numbered around 4,400 men. Legions were split into smaller units and divisions (Polyb. 6.21–5). The maniple (Latin: MANIPULUS, “handful”) was the fundamental tactical unit of the Roman army, and was made up of around 120 men formed from two centuries commanded by two officers known as centurions (see CENTURIO). There were thirty maniples in total. A legion was made up of a variety of soldiers, including 1,200 light infantry (typically called VELITES, but also accensi and rorarii early on), 3,000 heavy infantry (legionaries), and 300 CAVALRY (equites). The heavy infantry were divided into three distinct lines: the youngest men were called the HASTATI (1,200) and formed the first line, those in the prime of life were called the principes (1,200) and formed the second line, and the triarii (600), who were seasoned veterans, the last. Each of these lines was made up of ten maniples, with the triarii at half strength (around sixty men per maniple). The cavalry was organized into ten TURMAE of thirty men, each led by three officers called DECURIONS, one of whom had overall command. The light infantry fought with little apparent overall organization. The role of a soldier was determined by his ability to provide his own weapons and armor, which was informed by his personal wealth. The costs associated with weapons, armor, and any other necessary supplies were significant, and as such necessitated land ownership. The Servian organization of the army divided the population into wealth categories called centuries. There were 193 total centuries, with

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, and Andrew Erskine. © 2018 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Published 2018 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah30490

2 the wealthiest eighteen forming the cavalry and the next seventy providing the bulk of the heavy infantry. Each of the three lines of legionaries was not only divided by age, but also by equipment to some degree. In his valuable account of the Roman army, the Greek historian POLYBIUS (6.23), writing in the second century BCE, says that the hastati and principes were similarly equipped while the triarii were different. LIVY (8.2) suggests that the hastati and principes were armed differently, but his account is later than Polybius and often less reliable in describing military details. Roman cavalry was drawn from the elite classes of society, who were able to afford horses and had the leisure time for learning horseback combat. The velites were minimally armed and armored, and as such drawn from the poorer citizens. Roman legionaries were typically equipped with two main weapons: the short sword and two throwing spears (pila; see PILUM). The short sword is found in early Italian grave goods, but the classical form of the gladius was adopted from Spain. The sword was designed as a stabbing weapon to be used in quick thrusts in combination with the shield for maximum efficiency. The triarii were armed with eight-foot spears instead of swords. The pila were designed with a long iron tip fitted into a wooden shaft. When thrown the iron tip bent in such a way as to be impossible to throw back, or, if it struck a shield or person, be difficult to remove. Legionaries also carried a large oblong or shield (scutum) made from a combination of leather and thin strips of wood ringed with iron that served defensively, covering the individual from ankle to neck, or offensively to knock enemies off balance. They wore a bowl-shaped bronze helmet that left the face and ears uncovered so as not to disrupt their senses during the fighting. Feathers were often affixed to the helmets. Depending on their wealth, legionaries wore either small bronze plates covering their hearts or chainmail (lorica hamata). Both forms of armor allowed for mobility of the legionary, while providing some protection. Since this equipment was not provided by the

state, there was a great deal of variation between individuals. The cavalry were armed with somewhat longer spears and wore chainmail. However, they lacked saddles or stirrups, which prevented them from performing the stereotypical cavalry charge like a medieval knight. Such an action would knock the rider off of his horse. Instead, the effectiveness of the cavalry was determined by the rider’s superior mobility, reach, height, and mount, which itself was a weapon trained to bite and kick enemies. At times, Roman cavalry chose to dismount before engaging. Velites were armed with javelins for throwing and wore minimal armor, which would have restricted mobility in addition to being too expensive. Every Roman army of the Republic down to the SOCIAL WAR (91–88 BCE) was accompanied by soldiers of their Italian allies. Roman alliances with Italian communities dictated that soldiers be provided when asked. The Italians were organized into two large units known as alae, each of which was roughly the same size as a legion. Each ALA was commanded by eight Roman officers (praefecti sociorum). Italian cavalry fought in turmae, like the Romans. Italian soldiers were called up annually by the Romans according to a system called the formula togatorum, which determined the numbers required (Polyb. 6.21; Livy 22.10). Allied communities had to provide their own pay and supplies. The peoples of Italy fought in a manner similar to the Romans, and by the third century BCE were equipped and organized in the same fashion as the legionaries. In 91 BCE, Italian discontent led to a general revolt that ultimately ended with the Italians integrated into the Roman citizen body, which meant that they were then recruited into the legions. Roman armies would, at times, also include non-Italians. These were primarily drawn from local allied communities in the theater of operation, including Numidians, Spaniards, and Greeks. Roman generals valued these forces as they could provide specialties that the Romans lacked, such as SLINGERS, ARCHERS, and missile cavalry. However, in contrast to the

3 Italians they were not regularly recruited and were generally few in number during the Republican period. Each CONSUL commanded their own army, which included one legion apiece before 311 BCE and two thereafter. Each consular army was further accompanied by a roughly equal number of allied forces drawn from the peoples of Italy, giving a total of around 20,000 men in a normal Roman army. In crisis situations the size of armies could be increased, as happened before the battle of CANNAE when the size of the two armies of the consuls was doubled (Polyb. 3.107). At times, other Roman magistrates (dictators, praetors, and prorogated officials) also commanded armies of various sizes. Roman generals were invested with IMPERIUM, the right to command, and exercised complete authority over their men during campaigns. The right to appeal death sentences was suspended in the army. Some generals exacted harsh punishments, including execution for failure to keep watch or the execution of every tenth man, called DECIMATION (Polyb. 6.38). Typically, Roman armies were deployed with the legions forming the center, flanked on either side by the alae of Italian infantry. The cavalry was deployed on the edges of the infantry to provide protection, and the velites were positioned in front of the heavy infantry. The legionaries themselves were deployed into their three lines (triplex acies), which were positioned with gaps in between the maniples. Each maniple covered the gap in the line in front of it, forming a checkerboard formation. Each individual legionary had roughly three feet of space separating him from the other men of the unit, which allowed them to more effectively use their swords without injuring those around them. There was less reliance on surrounding soldiers in the legions than in a Greek PHALANX with its overlapping shields. Overall, the formation was far looser than that of a Greek phalanx and held a significant portion of the soldiers in reserve. The tactics of Republican armies were, in general, simple, relying on an overwhelming forward assault with few battlefield maneuvers.

Livy (8.9–10) provides the classic description of a battle in the Republican era in his discussion of the battle of Veseris (340 BCE), where the Romans fought their rebellious Latin allies. The two armies were similarly organized and arrayed in their triple lines of heavy infantry. The velites engaged first in a haphazard manner, throwing their javelins at the opposing velites and heavy infantry as opportunity dictated. The first line of heavy infantry, the hastati, then came together, first throwing their pila and then closing to hand-to-hand combat. The close-quarters fighting was bloody and intimate work, resulting in high casualties. The Roman general’s main responsibility was in deciding when to commit his reserves, the principes and triarii, for maximum effect, either bolstering the wavering hastati or providing a sudden charge that would break the enemy. Livy says that the triarii waited patiently, kneeling, and that the saying “it has come to the triarii” came to mean the situation was dire. At Veseris, the Romans were able to hold out their triarii longer than the Latins and thus sent them in after the Latin troops had become tired, winning the day. In general, Roman cavalry were ineffective and of poorer quality than most of their opponents. As such, they were more often used for scouting, protecting the flanks of the legionaries, and pursuing broken enemy forces rather than for aggressive flanking maneuvers during battle. The organization of Roman armies was such that, under the right circumstances, they were flexible and capable of complex battlefield maneuvers. Some generals, such as Publius Cornelius SCIPIO AFRICANUS during the Second Punic War (218–202 BCE, see PUNIC WARS), were able to train up their armies to near professional levels and perform more advanced battlefield maneuvers. Scipio spent months preparing his men in Sicily before crossing to Africa, where he defeated HANNIBAL at the battle of ZAMA (202 BCE). He was able to order his men to make avenues for the Carthaginian elephants to pass through, prepare tactics against them, extend his line just before combat, and effectively stop Hannibal’s counterattack

4 during the fighting (Livy 30.33–5). The Roman manipular formation also gave Republican armies a great deal of flexibility, which Hellenistic Greek armies in particular lacked. At the battle of KYNOSKEPHALAI (197 BCE), a Roman army engaged a Macedonian one on a ridge of hills. In the fighting, the Macedonian right wing pushed back the Roman left, while the Roman right wing pushed back the Macedonian left. This resulted in a gap in the Macedonian sarissa phalanx that an unnamed junior Roman officer was able to exploit (Polyb. 18.26). On his own initiative he led several maniples from the victorious Roman right wing to attack the Macedonian right wing in the rear, breaking it. Similarly, at the battle of PYDNA (168 BCE) the Roman infantry were able to take advantage of small gaps in the Macedonian phalanx caused by rough terrain (Livy 44.41; Plut. Aem. 20). The Romans during the Republican era were constantly at war. During their conquest of Italy, a roughly seventy-year period, the Romans were not fighting in only three nonconsecutive years. The same was generally true for most Italian communities, with war being endemic on the peninsula. In these conditions, participation in war was a civic duty of citizens. Romans were expected to participate in sixteen campaigns if they were infantry, and ten if cavalry (Polyb. 6.19). Before the third century, campaigns typically lasted only a few weeks to a couple of months during the summer. As Rome’s wars expanded in scale and distance from the city, those campaigns lengthened as well. Perhaps as early as the fifth century BCE, the Roman state provided a stipend to soldiers to help ease the pressures of long campaigns. This constant fighting resulted in a broad militarization of society throughout Italy, including Rome. Individual Romans were highly skilled in war, even though they were technically militia. Common soldiers participated in multiple campaigns over their lifetimes, while generals typically had years of experience in lower ranks before earning a command. While Roman armies may not have been as skilled as the

professional armies of some Hellenistic states, they were nevertheless high quality. Just as important, though, was the number of men the Romans could call upon. According to Polybius (2.23–4), by the mid-third century BCE Roman armies had access to around 273,000 Roman citizens and 500,000 Italian allies. Whatever the precise numbers, Roman armies would at times suffer horrendous losses but were always able to recruit more men to continue to fight. The Romans were constantly at war, expanding from a single Italian city in the fourth century BCE to a Mediterraneanspanning empire by the second. Throughout all of these conflicts, the relentless nature of ROMAN WARFARE, the quality of their soldiers, and the large pool of men they could call on were key to their success. Inside Italy, they faced a variety of peoples, most prominently the Samnites, in a series of wars that lasted from 343 to 275 BCE. The Samnite wars were long and brutal, with both sides inflicting severe losses on the other in bloody wars of attrition. These were followed by the largest wars of the ancient world, the first two Punic wars (264–241, 218–202 BCE), during which the Romans lost hundreds of thousands of men but were always able to field more. By 216 BCE, the Carthaginian general Hannibal killed around 100,000 Romans and Italian allies on the battlefield while campaigning in Italy. Hannibal was able to take advantage of predictable aggressive Roman tactics, outmaneuver his Roman opponents, and at the battle of Cannae (216 BCE) alone kill some 50,000 Romans and Italians. But he could not destroy the foundational strengths of the Roman armies. The next year after Cannae, the Romans put fifteen legions and allies into the field (some 150,000 men), and the year after that twenty-five legions (250,000 men). Roman armies excelled at long wars of attrition, which had been common in Italy, and eventually overwhelmed the Carthaginians too. The professional, and difficult to replace, armies of the Hellenistic kingdoms in the eastern Mediterranean fared little better. By the mid-second century BCE,

5 they too were defeated after a series of conflicts. The Roman armies, forged in the chaotic militarized environment of Italy, won the Romans a Mediterranean empire. Constant warfare made the army a key institution in the Roman state and an important part of society. War permeated the daily life of the Romans, and was a vital means of personal and community identity. Fighting was a civic duty that reinforced social cohesion. Political life revolved around warfare. In the Republic, magistrates drawn from the noble class were annually elected by assemblies of citizens. Nobles ran for office based on their own military reputations and those of their ancestors. Military glory was seen as a vital attribute in order to be elected by the populace. Once chosen for the highest offices of the Republic, the consuls, these men led Rome’s armies in annual campaigns that increased their own military reputations. Indeed, successful campaigning was central to continuing political relevance and election to future offices. The Roman military and political system thus created a self-reinforcing cycle of warfare and aggression. (This structure was common among the other communities of Italy as well.) Success in warfare led to success in politics led to success in warfare in an endless loop. In addition, Roman aristocrats competed with one another for these opportunities, which created a large pool of experienced commanders eager to lead armies. This system also fostered aggression on the part of Rome’s generals, which could lead to disasters against capable enemies, such as Hannibal at Cannae. Political and military success also translated to social standing in the community for individual Roman nobles and their families. Warfare was central to a noble’s place in the Roman society and Republic. Although to a somewhat lesser extent, warfare was also central to the lives of common Romans. The most important popular assembly, the Centuriate Assembly (comitia centuriata), was organized along military lines that were a central means of political participation. The assembly was made up of 193 centuries that functioned as voting blocks. Men were

assigned to centuries based on wealth qualifications based on their military role (e.g., cavalry, infantry, light infantry). Landowning was important, as every soldier had to supply their own arms and armor. Those with greater means to contribute to the Roman military had disproportionate power in the assembly and were largely able to dictate its decisions over the poor, who could not participate in war. The plebeians were able to gain their own exclusive magistrates (tribunes of the plebs), assembly (concilium plebis), and other rights through popular secession during military crises in the fifth to third centuries BCE. For common Romans, warfare also played an important part in their daily lives. Loot taken on campaign supplemented their economic situations. Rewards given for achievements during battle (such as saving a fellow citizen, being the first over an enemy’s walls, or other examples of personal bravery) enhanced their social standing. At all levels of Roman society, the army was a foundational element. The gods also played an important role in the success of Roman armies. The Romans were a highly religious people, and consulted their gods before many decisions, both major and minor. Prior to battle, Roman generals divined the will of the gods through animal sacrifices or the actions of sacred animals. Taking the auspices, as it was called, was seen as vital. In a famous example, the Roman admiral Publius Claudius Pulcher at the battle of Drepana (249 BCE) ignored the sacred chickens he had on board, which indicated that he should not engage by refusing to eat. He had quipped that “if they are not hungry, then let them drink,” and threw them overboard (Val. Max. 1.4.3). He promptly lost to the Carthaginians. The involvement of the gods was seen as an important part of the army’s activities. Divine power was an important part of an army’s success, and in Roman eyes could prove unstoppable. The aristocratic family of the Decii Mures was famous for invoking the chthonic deities during battle, through the sacrifice of their own lives in a ritual known as a DEVOTIO. During three different battles

6 (Veseris in 340, Sentinum in 295, and Ausculum in 279 BCE) in which they served as generals, three of them dedicated themselves to the gods of the underworld in exchange for victory, and then plunged alone into the enemy ranks to be killed. The Romans were victorious at Veseris and Sentinum, but the Decius at Ausculum was thwarted in his efforts by PYRRHOS, king of Epirus (Zon. 8.5; Cicero Tusc. 1.89). The religious life of Romans was also intimately connected with the army. Roman armies had gained them a vast empire by the mid-second century BCE, but that success would have a significant impact on those armies, resulting in changes that would contribute to the collapse of the Republic into civil war. In centuries prior, campaigns had been limited to a few months during the conquest of Italy, but steadily increased as Rome’s wars became larger in scale and further from the city itself. By the end of the second century, the Romans were often fighting wars of occupation rather than conquest. These conflicts, especially those in Spain, tended to be long, difficult, and offered little material reward. Roman generals therefore increasingly found it difficult to recruit men to fight when they were assigned to such unpopular wars. Long wars also damaged the economic stability of some Roman citizen-soldiers who were gone from their farms for extended periods, which wealthy nobles took advantage of, but not to the degree historians once thought. As a result of these issues, the property qualifications for service were lowered several times, but even these efforts did little to solve the recruitment problems. The recruitment and organization of Roman armies changed significantly in the campaigns of Gaius Marius against the Numidian king Jugurtha (107–105 BCE) and then against the Teutones and Cimbri (104–101 BCE), which directly contributed to the breakdown of the Republic (see MARIUS, GAIUS). Instead of adhering to the property qualifications for recruitment, Marius accepted any volunteers no matter how poor. This action was possible thanks to a law passed by Gaius Sempronius Gracchus in 122 BCE that provided weapons

and armor to soldiers at state expense. Marius’ volunteers were required to sign up for the duration of the campaign, no matter how long it lasted. But as a reward beyond their normal pay and looting, Marius also promised land, which was particularly enticing to the landless urban poor that now flocked to his army. This system quickly became standard in Late Republican armies. The Marian reforms resulted in a slow process of professionalization of the army over the first century BCE as well as changes in organization and equipment. Soldiers served longer than they ever had before. By the end of JULIUS CAESAR’S campaigns in Gaul (58–50 BCE), many of his men had been under arms for nearly a decade, giving them a level of skill individually and as a whole that was unprecedented in Roman warfare. The manipular organization of the legions changed into one based on the COHORT. The cohorts had their roots in the campaigns of Scipio Africanus in Spain in the Second Punic War (Polyb. 11.23), but became standard during the campaigns of Marius. The cohorts provided a more effective and flexible organizational unit capable of operating independently of and within a larger unit. Each legion comprised ten cohorts, each of which was formed from three maniples. The officer who commanded a cohort is not recorded in the ancient sources, but was perhaps the senior centurion of the unit. The old distinctions of age and equipment of the manipular legions disappeared, with all legionaries armed and armored identically with state-provided equipment. They still fought with the short sword, carried an oblong shield, and wore chainmail and bronze helmets. On an individual level, Roman tactics remained largely unchanged. However, many generals put greater emphasis on training. Increasingly, Roman and Italian cavalry were replaced by foreign units drawn from Spain, Gaul, and Numidia. These changes solved Rome’s recruitment problems, but created a far more insidious one: personal armies loyal to their generals rather than the Republic. Soldiers were dependent on their generals to provide promised rewards rather than the state. Roman

7 generals now commanded powerful military forces in their own right. The SENATE would periodically attempt to constrain men like Marius by refusing to provide land to their veterans. Soldiers now often found themselves thrust into the center of political struggles. The situation was made worse by the introduction of violence into the political system. In 133 BCE, the tribune of the plebs Tiberius Sempronius Gracchus had been murdered by senators who feared his influence among the urban poor (Plut. TG; App. BC 1.16). His brother Gaius suffered a similar fate (see GRACCHUS, TIBERIUS AND GAIUS SEMPRONIUS). Once violence was employed it quickly escalated. With the creation of personal armies, Roman generals found that they could use their soldiers to assert themselves against their political rivals. When Marius could not convince the Senate to give him the land he had promised, he used his soldiers to intimidate voters and force the measure through. Lucius Cornelius SULLA chose to lead his army to march on the city of Rome in 88 BCE when he was displaced from a prestigious command by a law forced through by Marius’ soldiers (Plut. Sulla; App. BC 1.55–8). Civil war had come to the Republic. A series of civil wars plagued the Republic for much of the rest of the first century BCE, ending only when Octavian (Gaius Julius Caesar Octavianus) seized sole control of the state. Sulla, Marius, Julius Caesar, POMPEY (GNAEUS POMPEIUS MAGNUS), Marcus ANTONIUS, and others would all vie for control of the Republic. Some merely wanted to fix the Republic and return it to its historical stability, while others desired absolute power. Regardless of their intentions, their armies were their means of personal advancement. Through all of these conflicts the Senate proved incapable of asserting any sort of control, primarily because it had no military forces of its own. When one man became a threat to the state, the Senate was forced to empower another against him. The Roman army, the source of the Republic’s success, ultimately was the author of its doom. At the battle of ACTIUM (31 BCE), Octavian defeated the army of his last

rival, Mark Antony, and became the first emperor of Rome. Roman armies were a central component of the Roman Republic (see ROMAN REPUBLIC, CONSTITUTION) and played a pivotal role in its history. Every aspect of Roman life was, in some ways, informed by the army. It was a source of imperial success, social cohesion, identity, and, ultimately, the destruction of the state. Politics, religion, society, and warfare were all inseparably intertwined. SEE ALSO: Camps, military; Disciplina; Imperialism in the Roman Empire (east); Imperialism in the Roman Empire (west); Italy, northern; Italy, southern; Weaponry, Rome.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Brunt, P. A. (1971) Italian manpower: 225 B.C.–A.D. 14. Oxford. Cornell, T. J. (1995) The beginnings of Rome: Italy and Rome from the Bronze Age to the Punic wars (c. 1000–264 BC). New York. Eckstein, A. M. (2006) Mediterranean anarchy, interstate war, and the rise of Rome. Berkeley. Erdkamp, P. (2007) A companion to the Roman army. Malden. Forsythe, G. (2005) A critical history of early Rome: from prehistory to the First Punic War. Berkeley. Harris, W. V. ed. (1984) The imperialism of midRepublican Rome 327–70 BC. Oxford. Ilari, V. (1974) Gli Italici nelle strutture militari romane. Milan. Keppie, L. (1984) The making of the Roman army from republic to empire. London. Lazenby, J. F. (1998) Hannibal’s war: a military history of the Second Punic War. Norman. Lendon, J. E. (2005) Soldiers and ghosts: a history of battle in Classical antiquity. New Haven. Richardson, J. S. (1986) Hispaniae: Spain and the development of Roman imperialism, 218–82 BC. Cambridge. Rosenstein, N. (1990) Imperatores victi: military defeat and aristocratic competition in the middle and late republic. Berkeley. Rosenstein, N. (2004) Rome at war: farms, families, and death in the Middle Republic. Chapel Hill. Walbank, F. W. (1957–1971) A historical commentary on Polybius, 3 vols. Oxford.

1

Aromata Emporion SUNIL GUPTA

Aromata Emporium (Port of Spices/Spice Port) is mentioned in section 12 of the Greek sea guide Periplus maris Erythraei (first century CE) (Casson 1989: 57). References to the port also occur in the Geographia of Ptolemy (second century CE) (Stu¨ckelberger and Graßhoff 2006). The Periplus locates Aromata Emporium on a promontory jutting out of the eastern tip of Somalia (Cape Gaurdafui/Asir). The harbor is described as an open roadstead that offered a market for cassia, frankincense, and aroma among other herbs and spices. The Spice Port was an important landfall along the Somali coast in ancient times, one of the “far side” ports receiving merchant vessels from Roman Egypt and India. Aromata Emporium, like other “far side” harbors imported essentials like grain, rice, sesame oil, and cotton cloth. It is not clear whether Aromata Emporium traded in spices from India

and Southeast Asia. The reference to cassia – a Southeast Asian commodity – suggests that Aromata Emporium may have functioned as an international transshipment center for spices. The probable site of Aromata Emporium is Damo, a small village located about 5 km west of Cape Gaurdafui (Chittick 1979: 275). The presence of Roman pottery types at Damo suggests this possibility. SEE ALSO: Arabia Felix; India; India, trade with; Port of trade.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Casson, L. (1989) Periplus Maris Erythraei. Princeton. Chittick, N. (1979) “Early Ports in the Horn of Africa.” International Journal of Nautical Archaeology and Underwater Exploration 8, 4: 273–7. Stu¨ckelberger A. and G. Graßhoff, G. eds. (2006) Klaudios Ptolemaios: Handbuch der Geographie. Basel.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print page 754. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah14046

1

Arretium ERIC C. DE SENA

Arretium (modern-day Arezzo) is located at an important crossroads that joins the Arno and TIBER river valleys and a corridor through the Apennine Mountains leading toward ARIMINUM (RIMINI) and the upper Adriatic region. There is evidence for the presence of man as early as the Paleolithic period; however, the earliest physical manifestations of a settlement date to the sixth century BCE. Arretium was a flourishing Etruscan and Roman center, but the physical layout of the city and many historical vicissitudes are not well known (Torelli 1980: 297–301). Of the Etruscan city, archaeologists have revealed several sections of the fortification walls and tombs near the Duomo and in the lower-lying area near the railway. Dionysius of Halicarnassus (3.51) reported that Arretium sided with the Latins in a struggle against Tarquinius Priscus in the early sixth century. The land was ravaged by the Gauls and Carthaginians in the third century and, despite the fact that Arretium had become an ally of Rome by the early third century, the city appears to have sided with HANNIBAL during the Second Punic War. As a result, the city was forced to pay an indemnity to Rome in the form of several thousand pieces of armor and weaponry (Livy 22.3–4). Arretium gained the status of municipium sometime prior to the Social War and the liber coloniarum indicates that land around Arretium was redistributed at the time of the GRACCHI. The city sided with Gaius MARIUS the Younger and was punished in 80 BCE by SULLA, who settled several thousand veterans here. The Late Republican/early imperial Roman city thrived and possessed all the features of a Roman city, including a forum, a theater, an amphitheater, and a bath complex. Researchers have also unearthed the remains of houses and pottery workshops. Due to the fact that the city served as a bridge between the Tiber and the Arno valleys

and between the Tyrrhenian and Adriatic coasts, Arretium was an important center of trade, whose craftsmen were well known for bronze working and terracotta statuary (recently, Villuchi and Grassi 2001). The best known works of Etruscan bronze statuary are the “Chimera” (early fourth century BCE) and “Minerva of Arezzo” (third to first century BCE). During the later Etruscan phase, craftsmen based in Arretium manufactured a highquality variety of Black Gloss ware. By the Late Republican phase (ca. 80–50) this tradition of pottery transformed into the famous Arretine terra sigillata industry (Ettlinger et al. 1990; Marabini Moevs 2006). Based upon a large corpus of maker’s marks, scholars are aware of the names of several thousand potters and how the labor force of these potters was organized in workshops (Pucci 1973, 1985; Fu¨lle 1997). Under Trajan, the course of the Via Cassia was shifted to favor communication with Florentia, resulting in an inevitable demographic and economic decline. The city thrived once again in the late Middle Ages and the Renaissance. SEE ALSO: Gracchus, Tiberius and Gaius Sempronius; Minerva; Pottery, Roman Empire; Tarquinius Priscus; Trajan.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Ettlinger, E., Hedinger, B., Hoffmann, B., Kenrick, P. M., Pucci, G., Roth-Rubi, K., Schneider, G., von Schnurbein, S., Wells, C. M., and Zabehlicky-Scheffenegger, S. (1990) Conspectus Formarum Terrae Sigillatae Italico Modo Confectae. Bonn. Fu¨lle, G. (1997) “The internal organization of the Arretine Terra Sigillata industry: problems of evidence and interpretation” Journal of Roman Studies 87: 111–55. Marabini Moevs, M. T. (2006) Cosa VI. The Italian sigillata. Ann Arbor. Pucci, G. (1973) “La produzione della ceramica arretina. Note sull’industria nella prima eta` imperiale romana.” Dialoghi d’Archeologia 7: 255–93.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 754–755. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah16016

2 Pucci, G. (1985) “Terra sigillata italica.” In A. Carandini, ed., E.E.A. Atlante delle forme ceramiche II. Ceramica fine romana nel bacino mediterraneo (medio e tardo impero): 359–406. Rome.

Torelli, M. (1980) Etruria. RomeBari. Villuchi, S. and Zamarchi Grassi, P. eds. (2001) Etruschi nel tempo: i ritovamenti di Arezzo dal ’500 ad oggi. Florence.

1

Arrha, arrhabon PETER ARZT-GRABNER

The Greek term arrhabon (Latin arrha and arrhabo) is of Semitic origin and means “down-payment, earnest money, premium, hand money.” Arrha represents the advance payment, which is made payable to the seller by the buyer upon completion of a contract. The arrha serves as a guarantee to both parties that the contract, or rather the purchase conditions, are adhered to. Upon administration of the arrha and the subsequent issuing of the receipt, or written sales contract, the implementation of the business deal, as well as the payment of the remaining balance are to be completed within a set, foreseeable, and nonarbitrarily extensible period of time. In the event of a violation of the contract, the arrha is viewed as a liability. The corresponding penalty makes the possibility of withdrawal from the contract appear quite unappealing. An example, which exhibits all of these characteristics, is P.Vind.Sal. 4 (November 15, 11 CE). In the event of non-compliance with a contract, either the buyer loses his entitlement to the down payment, or the seller must issue the buyer a refund of double the amount of the arrha. The penalty, in any case, makes up the sum of the arrha.

Figuratively, arrha is used in the New Testament, when the Apostle Paul speaks of the arrha of God’s spirit. God appears as both the seller and the buyer, who offers a deposit for his spirit, which is bestowed upon Christians (2 Cor 1:22, 5:55; cf. also Eph 1:14). This, in connection with the gift of the spirit, emphasizes the fact that it depends solely on God and is, at the same time, assured in the greatest possible way. SEE ALSO: Money, Greco-Roman; Purchase, Greek and Roman.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Deissmann, G. A. (1909) Bible studies: contributions chiefly from papyri and inscriptions to the history of the language, the literature, and the religion of Hellenistic Judaism and Primitive Christianity, 2nd ed.: 108–9, 183–4. Edinburgh. Erlemann, K. (1992) “Der Geist als arrhabon (2 Kor 5, 5) im Kontext der paulinischen Eschatologie.” Zeitschrift fu¨r die Neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde der a¨lteren Kirche 83: 202–23. Pringsheim, F. (1950) The Greek law of sale: 335–429. Weimar. Taubenschlag, R. (1955) The law of Greco-Roman Egypt in the light of the papyri 332 BC–640 AD, 2nd ed.: 408–11. Warsaw.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 755–756. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah06028

1

Arrha, arrhabon PETER ARZT-GRABNER

University of Salzburg, Austria

The Greek term arrhabon (Latin arrha and arrhabo) is of Semitic origin and means “advance payment, earnest money, deposit, commission, premium, hand money, bargain money.” Arrha represents the advance payment which is paid by the purchaser to the vendor when the contract is concluded. The arrha serves as a guarantee to both parties that the contract, or rather the purchase conditions, are adhered to. Upon administration of the arrha and the subsequent issuing of the receipt, or written sales contract, the implementation of the business deal, as well as the payment of the remaining balance are to be completed within a set, foreseeable, and non-arbitrarily extensible period of time. In the event of a violation of the contract, the arrha is viewed as a liability. The corresponding penalty makes the possibility of withdrawal from the contract appear quite unappealing. An example, which exhibits all of these characteristics, is P.Vind.Sal. 4 (November 15, 11 CE), where a certain Chairemon confirms to Satabous that he has received an arrha of 300 drachmas for his house which Satabous is going to purchase for a total amount of 740 drachmas. In the event of non-compliance with a contract, either the buyer loses his entitlement to the down payment, or the seller must issue the buyer a

refund of double the amount of the arrha. The penalty, in any case, makes up the sum of the arrha. Figuratively, arrha is used in the New Testament when Paul speaks of the arrha of God’s spirit. God is depicted as a purchaser who offers his salvation for free and guarantees to complete it in the end (2 Cor 1:22, 5:55; see also Eph 1:14). Using the term arrhabon, God’s reliability and unlimited trustworthiness are emphasized. SEE ALSO: Money, Greco-Roman; Purchase, Greek and Roman.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Arzt-Grabner, P. (2011) “Gott als verlässlicher Käufer: Einige Papyrologische Anmerkungen und bibeltheologische Schlussfolgerungen zum Gottesbild der Paulusbriefe.” New Testament Studies 57: 392–414. Deissmann, G. A. (1909) Bible studies: contributions chiefly from papyri and inscriptions to the history of the language, the literature, and the religion of Hellenistic Judaism and Primitive Christianity, 2nd ed.: 108–9, 183–4. Edinburgh. Erlemann, K. (1992) “Der Geist als arrhabon (2 Kor 5, 5) im Kontext der paulinischen Eschatologie.” Zeitschrift für die Neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde der älteren Kirche 83: 202–23. Pringsheim, F. (1950) The Greek law of sale: 335–429. Weimar. Taubenschlag, R. (1955) The law of Greco-Roman Egypt in the light of the papyri: 332 BC–640 AD, 2nd ed.: 408–11. Warsaw.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History. Edited by Andrew Erskine, David B. Hollander, and Arietta Papaconstantinou. © 2021 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Published 2021 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah06028.pub2

1

Arrhephoria EVA STEHLE

At Athens, a ritual (“Bearing” ?) performed annually (?) by two young girls called “Arrhephoroi,” who lived on the Acropolis for a period and served Athena Polias. Pausanias (1.27.3), our main source, reports that, “at the time of the festival they do the following at night: placing on their heads the things which the priestess of Athena gives them to carry (without knowing what they are) – there is an enclosure in the polis not far from the Aphrodite called “in Gardens” and a natural underground passage through it – here the girls descend. They leave below the things carried and take something else concealed, which they convey.” The description, frustratingly vague, is sometimes taken to mean that they descended from the Acropolis by the covered Mycenaean staircase to a nearby cave sanctuary of Aphrodite, but Pausanias (1.19.1–5) places the temple of Aphrodite in Gardens beyond the temple of Olympian Zeus, so the underground passage was more likely a different formation (Parker 2005: 221; other sources in Donnay 1997: 203–5). This ritual must commemorate the birth of Erichthonios from the earth, the myth that

grounds the Athenians’ claim to autochthony (Burkert 1966). Pausanias mentions it just after describing the sanctuary of Pandrosos, who helped tend Erichthonios. Whether other celebrations occurred during the “festival” (as Pausanias calls it) is unknown, as is the meaning of “arrhe,” the first half of the name (Brule´ 1987: 79–82); an alternative formation with “(h)errhe-” is also found. Earlier interpretation (Burkert 1966), less accepted now (Donnay 1997), makes it a female initiation ritual. SEE ALSO: Athena; Autochthony; Erechtheus/ Erichthonios; Pandrosos.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Brule´, P. (1987) La fille d’Athe`nes: la religion des filles a` Athe`nes a` l’e´poque classique, mythes, cultes et socie´te´: 79–98. Paris. Burkert, W. (1966) “Kekropidensage und Arrhephoria.” Hermes 94: 1–25. Donnay, G. (1997) “L’Arrhe´phorie: initiation ou rite civique? Un cas d’e´cole.” Kernos 10: 177–205. Parker, R. (2005) Polytheism and society at Athens: 220–3. Oxford. Robertson, N. (1983) “The riddle of the Arrhephoria.” Harvard Studies in Classical Philology 87: 241–88.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print page 756. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah17054

1

Arrian (Arrianus, Lucius Flavius) NADEJDA V. POPOV-REYNOLDS

Lucius Flavius Arrianus (late 80s–ca. 160 CE) was a distinguished Roman politician, general, historian, and philosopher from Nicomedia in BITHYNIA. While he rose to become a Roman senator, consul in 129/30, and provincial governor of CAPPADOCIA – only the second Greek to be appointed governor of a Roman province with two legions – Arrian did not consider himself a Roman and wrote all but one of his known works in Greek. He considered himself XENOPHON’s intellectual successor, and he refers to himself as the new Xenophon on several occasions in his writings. “Xenophon” may even have been his cognomen (Stadter 1967: 155–61). Respected as a philosopher in his lifetime and well into Late Antiquity (e.g., by Photius), Arrian is best known today as the author of Anabasis Alexandrou – arguably the best extant history of the campaigns of ALEXANDER III, THE GREAT.

POLITICAL CAREER Arrian was born in Nicomedia, provincial capital of Bithynia. As his appointment to the priesthood of DEMETER and Kore at Nicomedia suggests, his family belonged to the local elite. His praenomen – Lucius – suggests that members of his family had acquired Roman CITIZENSHIP before the Flavian Dynasty. Some time in the first decade of the second century, Arrian left Bithynia for NICOPOLIS; there he studied philosophy with the Stoic EPICTETUS (see STOICISM), whose lectures he eventually transcribed and published. After completing his studies, Arrian embarked on a political career. Since his father’s rank is unknown, it is unclear whether Arrian began an equestrian military career and only subsequently was adlected to the senatorial order by Trajan or Hadrian, or whether he entered the senatorial cursus honorum directly. Syme hypothesizes that

he was adlected either by Trajan during the Parthian War or shortly thereafter by Hadrian (Syme 1982: 190). Regardless, his promotion was quick and has been attributed to a variety of factors: his interest in hunting, Trajan’s favorite sport, could certainly have endeared him to that emperor, while his philosophical training and the publication of Epictetus’ lectures could have been as strong a recommendation to Hadrian (himself another fan of hunting). Finally, while we know nothing of Arrian’s early military training, such quick advancement as his was often due to a display of considerable skill in the military sphere specifically. Epigraphic evidence places Arrian in DELPHI shortly after 110, judging a boundary dispute, as member of the private council (consilium) of Gaius Avidius Nigrinus, a distinguished senator under Trajan. Arrian subsequently became consul suffectus in 129/30, and the governor of Cappadocia from 131 to 137. The latter appointment suggests that Hadrian had a high opinion of his military skill, since governing Cappadocia placed him in charge of two legions – the XV Apollinaris and the XII Fulminata. Arrian’s military skill was certainly tested when he prevented the ALANS from invading Cappadocia in 135. While no battle ensued, Arrian put serious thought into the best military order of deployment in fighting the Alans and published a brief work on the subject. After his governorship, Arrian retired to ATHENS, where he became a citizen and was initiated into the Eleusinian Mysteries. Not one to retire quietly, he served as eponymous archon in Athens in 145/6 (see ARCHON/ARCHONTES), and that is the last known event from his life. Although a Flavius Arrianus of Paeanea is recorded as prytanis (executive officer of the BOULE) in 166/7 and 169/70, that is most likely the son of our Arrian rather than the historian himself (Bosworth 1972: 182). LITERARY CAREER While Arrian’s political career is impressive, his literary record easily eclipses it. Like some

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 756–760. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah08018

2 of the more prominent representatives of the Second Sophistic (see SOPHISTS, ROMAN EMPIRE), such as PLUTARCH, Arrian did not confine himself to one genre, but wrote a variety of short monographs and longer works on such diverse topics as philosophy, biography, geography, hunting, tactics, and history. His specific combination of interests, however, supports his claim that XENOPHON was his model in the choice of subject matter, rather than other Second Sophistic authors. The same can be said of his literary prose style. Like his contemporaries, Arrian wrote mainly in Attic Greek, but his language is closer to that of Classical Athenian authors than the one used by writers in the second century CE is. His spelling is deliberately archaizing, and some vocabulary and grammatical constructions are borrowed from HERODOTUS, whom Bosworth considers to be the main influence on Arrian’s prose style (Bosworth 1980, vol. 1: 34–8). Occasional influence from THUCYDIDES is detectable as well, especially in speeches. Arrian also composed a few works in other dialects. His philosophical works are in KOINE DIALECT, while the Indike is in Herodotus’ Ionic dialect. Finally, the official correspondence between Arrian and Hadrian, which does not survive, is known to have been conducted in Latin. Arrian cites these official reports twice in his Periplus of the Black Sea. Grouped by genre, Arrian’s works known to us are as follows. Three philosophical works from him are known: two on Epictetus – Diatribae (Discourses) and an Encheiridion (Manual) of his philosophy – and one titled On the nature, composition, and appearances of comets. Four out of the original eight books of the Diatribae survive. The work is, most likely, a direct transcription of Epictetus’ lectures, which Arrian made while he was a student and published shortly afterwards – possibly in imitation of Xenophon, who published some of SOCRATES’ teachings. The Encheiridion, a brief guide to Epictetus’ philosophy, survives intact. It may have been composed significantly later; Messalinus, Arrian’s friend and fellow admirer

of Epictetus, prompted him to compose it. Of the work on comets only fragments survive. Arrian’s foray into the genre of biography resulted in the lost Lives of Dion, Timoleon, and the bandit Tillorobus. The last one may have been a part of the Bithyniaca. Both Dion and Timoleon were liberators of SYRACUSE from tyrants and could also be seen as philosopher– generals, whence Arrian’s interest in them. There are two possible reasons for his interest in Tillorobus: first, he operated not far from Nicomedia; second, Arrian may have found him interesting for military reasons, as a representative of mountain-based guerilla tactics (Stadter 1980: 162). Arrian’s interest in the technical side of military affairs is visible in two treatises that he composed while governor of Cappadocia: the Ectaxis (Battle formation against the Alans) and the Ars tactica (Tactics). The Ectaxis is a detailed description of the author’s own experience in fighting the Alans, and it is a valuable document of the Roman army in action. The first page of the Ars tactica – which presumably contained an explanation of Arrian’s decision to write the work – is lost, but the rest survives. The first half of the work explains the military organization of Macedonian and Hellenistic armies and contains some of the same details as the military manuals of Asclepiodotus and Aelian (see AELIANUS, CLAUDIUS), indicating either that Arrian was familiar with these manuals or, as Stadter suggests, that all three manuals independently relied on a common source (Stadter 1980: 41). At the same time, the discussion of chariot tactics reflects influences from outside the sphere of military manuals: Xenophon’s Cyropaideia and the Roman experience of fighting against chariots in Britain. The second half of the work derives from Arrian’s own experience and focuses on contemporary Roman cavalry exercises. With the inclusion of contemporary material, Arrian makes clear the practical aim of his book: his is the most up-to-date military manual, and thus the one best suited for contemporary generals-in-training. Notably, Ars tactica 32.3

3 mentions an earlier treatise on tactics composed by him – namely on contemporary Roman infantry exercises. That manual was dedicated to Hadrian, a known proponent of military reform, and it is not extant. Two of Arrian’s works belong in two different genres: the Cynegeticus (On Hunting with Dogs) is modeled on Xenophon’s essay on the hunt; and the Periplus of the Black Sea, a travel narrative. The Cynegeticus combines Arrian’s personal love of hunting with his fascination with Xenophon. Arrian opens the work by summarizing Xenophon, and then turns his attention to the Roman version of the hunt, with special attention to the breeding and care of hunting dogs. The Periplus is written in the form of a letter from Arrian to Hadrian during the former’s inspection of Cappadocia in the first part of his governorship. Descriptions of official activities, especially inspection of army regiments, are included, supplementing the geographical descriptions of the coastline, which are more typical of the traditional periplus narrative. Last but not least, longer historical works form the bulk of Arrian’s corpus. Known works that do not survive are the Parthica (seventeen books on Parthian–Roman relations, ten of which documented Trajan’s campaigns of 114–117), the Bithyniaca (a history of Arrian’s fatherland in eight books), the Affairs after Alexander (a history of Alexander’s Successors in ten books, of which some fragments survive), and Alanike historia (History of the Alans, of unknown length and scope). The only two extant works are the Anabasis Alexandrou and its companion piece, the Indike. In the Anabasis, Arrian presents a history of Alexander’s campaigns that is based on the works of two of Alexander’s contemporaries – Ptolemy and Aristobulus (see ALEXANDER HISTORIANS). Since, as he argues, these two sources are the most accurate on the subject, a history based on both would be the most reliable of all. Furthermore, on account of his own expertise in historical writing, he is the most worthy of the task of commemorating Alexander – as Arrian suggests

in the preface, he is a fitting HOMER for the ACHILLES-like Alexander. The title of the work and its division into seven books openly admit a debt to Xenophon, whose own Anabasis numbered seven books. Finally, the Indike, a description of NEARCHOS’ travels from INDIA to SUSA, relies on the works of MEGASTHENES, Nearchos, and ERATOSTHENES. Stylistically, it is the most Herodotean of Arrian’s works, being composed in the Ionic dialect.

ARRIANIC PROBLEMS Understanding the relationship between Arrian’s political and literary career is essential for answering several crucial questions about him. Unfortunately, the order in which he composed his works and the individual dates of most of them are unknown; this remains a hot topic of debate. Bosworth (1972) challenges the previously accepted belief that Arrian composed the vast majority of his works, with the exception of the philosophical ones, after retirement, at Athens. The question of dates for Arrian’s works also raises the issue of whether his literary output had any connection with his political success. In other words, was Arrian known to contemporaries primarily as a military man who turned to writing in his retirement, or was he a philosopher and an avid writer throughout his life, who had been promoted as a result of his literary success? Bosworth (1972: 185) argues for the second option, as does the existence of a statue honoring Arrian as philosopher, erected by L. Gellius Menander some time in the early 130s – at the height of Arrian’s political career. Still, the two possibilities are not mutually exclusive. The separation between Arrian’s political and his literary career may be artificial, as the two appear to have coexisted – at least during some periods of his life, when the success of one fed the other. One obvious example is Arrian’s combination of military success and literary writings on military topics during his governorship of Cappadocia. A related problem concerns Arrian’s motives

4 in writing some of his works. In particular, his motivation for writing the Anabasis Alexandrou has been questioned: did he conceive of it as an exercise in preparation for composing the Bithyniaca, or did he intend it to be a serious work in its own right? Both interpretations have been proposed on the basis of an ambiguous passage in the second preface to the Anabasis. A final problem is that of errors and inaccuracies in Arrian’s works. Bosworth’s study of errors in the Anabasis specifically shows that Arrian was not infallible as a historian and sometimes mishandled his sources (1976: 117–39). Proper caution, therefore, must be exercised in utilizing Arrian as a historical source. SEE ALSO: Alexander historians; Army, Hellenistic; Army, Roman Empire; Cavalry, Greek; Cursus honorum, Roman; Eleusis, Mysteries of; Hadrian; Historiography, Greek and Roman; Hunting, Greece and Rome; Persephone, Kore; Priests and Priestesses, Greek; Trajan; Tyranny.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Bosworth, A. B. (1972) “Arrian’s literary development.” Classical Quarterly 22: 163–85. Bosworth, A. B. (1976) “Errors in Arrian.” Classical Quarterly 26: 117–39.

Bosworth, A. B. (1988) From Arrian to Alexander: studies in historical interpretation. Oxford. Bosworth, A. B. (1980) A historical commentary on Arrian’s History of Alexander i–iii, 2 vols. Oxford. Brunt, P. A. (1976) History of Alexander and Indica, 2 vols. Cambridge, MA. Gray, V. (1990) “The moral interpretation of the ‘Second Preface’ to Arrian’s Anabasis.” Journal of Hellenic Studies 110: 180–6. Hammond, N. G. L. (1993) Sources for Alexander the Great: an analysis of Plutarch’s Life and Arrian’s Anabasis Alexandrou. Cambridge. Hammond, N. G. L. (1999) “Speeches in Arrian’s Indica and Anabasis.” Classical Quarterly 49: 238–53. Oliver, J. (1982) “Arrian in two roles.” Hesperia Supplements 19: 122–9. Roisman, J. (1984) “Why Arrian wrote the Anabasis.” Rivista storica dell’antichita` 14: 253–63. Schepens, G. (1971) “Arrian’s view of his task as Alexander-historian.” Ancient Society 2: 254–68. Stadter, P. (1980) Arrian of Nicomedia. Chapel Hill, NC. Stadter, P. (1978) “The Ars tactica of Arrian: tradition and originality.” Classical Philology 73: 117–28. Stadter, P. (1967) “Flavius Arrianus: the new Xenophon.” Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies 8: 155–61. Syme, R. (1982) “The career of Arrian.” Harvard Studies in Classical Philology 86: 181–211.

1

Arruntius Camillus Scribonianus, Lucius ALISDAIR GIBSON

Lucius Arruntius Camillus Scribonianus (ca. 1 2 BCE – 42 CE, PIR A1140) was the natural son of M. Furius Camillus (PIR F574, ca. 26 BCE – 37 CE), the consul of 8 CE, and descendant of Camillus who captured Veii ca. 393 BCE (Plut. Cam; Livy 5); the brother of M. Furius Camillus (PIR F577) and Livia Medullina, who was to marry the future emperor Claudius but died on her wedding day. He was adopted by Lucius Arruntius (PIR2 A1130), the consul of 6 CE whose father was consul in 22 BCE. Tacitus comments that Arruntius was wealthy, popular, and gifted enough to have been a potential successor, a capax imperii, to Augustus (Tac. Hist. 1.49; Ann. 1.13). Scribonianus, was consul in 32 CE with Nero’s father, C. Domitius Ahenobarbus, and was later appointed by Gaius as legate with propraetorian power in command of legions in DALMATIA (ILS 5940). He was part of a network of influential and powerful families with illustrious ancestors, and was related to Augustus’ wives Livia and Scribonia and to the M. Scribonius Drusus who was earlier accused of revolutionary activity (Suet. Tib. 25; Tac. Ann. 27–32; Dio 57.15).

The execution of C. Appius Silanus (Messalina’s stepfather) in 42 CE was a signal for rebellion against the emperor CLAUDIUS. Among the conspirators was L. Annius Vinicianus, who, in need of military support, turned to Scribonianus but the latter had ideas of his own and, talking of a restoration of the republic, sought to foment a revolt of his troops, the Eleventh and Seventh legions (Dio 60.15–16). After five days, the soldiers became increasingly superstitious and the rebellion failed when they refused to march against the emperor (Suet. Claud. 13). Both legions were awarded the title Claudia Pia Fidelis for their loyalty, while Scribonianus lost his life in Illyria. His co-conspirator L. Caecina Paetus was taken as prisoner to Rome and condemned to death (Plin. Ep. 3.16), while Vinicianus and Pompeius Secundus, who were linked to the revolt, also died in the bloody aftermath. SEE ALSO:

Legati legionis.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Shotter, D. C. A. (1972) “The trial of M. Scribonius Libo Drusus.” Historia 21: 88–98. Weinrib, E. J. (1968) “The family connections of M. Livius Drusus Libo.” Harvard Studies in Classical Philology 72: 247–78.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 760–761. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah19012

1

Arsaces ¨ FER JOSEPH WIESEHO

Arsaces I (ruled ca. 247–217 BCE), whom Roman sources disparagingly call a “man of obscure origins” (Just. 41.4.6; Amm. 23.6.2), was a Parnian chieftain who became the founder of the Arsacid Dynasty and the first king of the Parthian Empire. Led by Arsaces, the Parni invaded Astauene, the northern part of the Seleucid province of PARTHIA, around the middle of the third century BCE. They subsequently occupied the whole of Parthia (against the rebellious Seleucid satrap Andragoras; see App. Syr. 65) and the neighboring province of Hyrcania, exploiting the absence of Seleukos II during his engagement in the west (Strabo 11.9.2; Just. 41.4.8) (see SELEUKOS II KALLINIKOS). Arsaces was able to secure his gains in his battles with the Seleucid king (Strabo 11.8.8; Just. 41.4.9), and later to reorganize the military and carry out city-building and infrastructural projects (Just. 41.5.1–5; Amm. 23.6.2–6). The start of the so-called Arsacid era was retroactively placed in 247, a date that may be associated with Arsaces’ coronation at Asaak in Astauene (cf. Isid. Char. 11) or with Andragoras’ secession (cf. Just. 12.4.12). The Parthians revered Arsaces’ memory (Just. 41.5.6) and his name became the official Parthian throne-name. Arsaces II (r. 217/211–191), probably the son of Arsaces I, tried to extend Arsacid

rule to Media (see MEDES, MEDIA) but had to acknowledge Seleucid suzerainty as a result of ANTIOCHOS III’s successful eastern campaign (see ANTIOCHOS III MEGAS). He made futile efforts to stop his opponent’s advance by destroying wells and irrigation canals and by fortifying the towns of Hecatompylus, Tambrax, and Syrinx (Polyb. 10.28–31; Just. 41.5.7). SEE ALSO:

Parthians, rulers; Seleucid era.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Bivar, A. D. H. (1983) “The political history of Iran under the Arsacids.” In E. Yarshater, ed., Cambridge History of Iran 3.1: 21–99. Cambridge. Curtis, V. S. (2007) “The Iranian revival in the Parthian period.” In V. S. Curtis and S. Stewart, eds., The age of the Parthians: 7–25. London. Hauser, S. (2005) “Die ewigen Nomaden? Bemerkungen zu Herkunft, Milita¨r, Staatsaufbau und nomadischen Traditionen der Arsakiden.” In B. Meißner et al., eds., Krieg, Gesellschaft, Institutionen: 163–208. Berlin. Luther, A. (2006/2007) “Zur Genealogie der fru¨hen Partherko¨nige.” Iranistik: Deutschsprachige Zeitschrift fu¨r iranistische Studien 5(9/10): 39–55. Wieseho¨fer, J. (2000) “‘Denn Orodes war der griechischen Sprache und Literatur nicht unkundig . . .’ Parther, Griechen und griechische Kultur.” In R. Dittmann et al., eds., Variatio delectat: Iran und der Westen. Gedenkschrift fu¨r P. Calmeyer: 703–21. Mu¨nster.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print page 761. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah24026

1

Arsaces (Arsakes) JOSEF WIESEHOEFER

Institute of Classics, University of Kiel, Germany

Arsaces I (ruled c. 247–217 BCE), whom Roman sources disparagingly call a “man of obscure origins” (Just. 41.4.6; Amm. 23.6.2), was a Parnian chieftain who became the founder of the Arsacid Dynasty and the first king of the Parthian Empire. Led by Arsaces, the Parni invaded Astauene, the northern part of the Seleucid province of PARTHIA, around the middle of the third century BCE. They subsequently occupied the whole of Parthia (against the rebellious Seleucid satrap Andragoras; see App. Syr. 65) and the neighboring province of Hyrcania, exploiting the absence of SELEUKOS II during his engagement in the west (Strab. 11.9.2; Just. 41.4.8). Arsaces was able to secure his gains in his battles with the Seleucid king (Strab. 11.8.8; Just. 41.4.9), and later to reorganize the military and carry out city-building and infrastructural projects (Just. 41.5.1–5; Amm. 23.6.2–6), presumably, however, still as an autonomous vassal of the Seleucid king. The start of the so-called Arsacid era (and thus of an independent Parthian realm) was, as a kind of foundation myth, retroactively placed in 247 BCE. The Parthians revered Arsaces’ memory (Just. 41.5.6) and his name became the official Parthian throne-name.

Arsaces II (r. 217/211–191 BCE), probably the son of Arsaces I, tried to extend Arsacid rule to Media (see MEDES, MEDIA) but had to acknowledge Seleucid suzerainty again as a result of Antiochos III’s successful Eastern campaign (see ANTIOCHOS III MEGAS). He made futile efforts to stop his opponent’s advance by destroying wells and irrigation canals and by fortifying the towns of Hecatompylus, Tambrax, and Syrinx (Polyb. 10.28–31; Just. 41.5.7). SEE ALSO:

Parthians, rulers; Seleucids.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Hauser, S. (2005) “Die ewigen Nomaden? Bemerkungen zu Herkunft, Militär, Staatsaufbau und nomadischen Traditionen der Arsakiden.” In B. Meißner et al., eds., Krieg, Gesellschaft, Institutionen: 163–208. Berlin. Hauser, S. (2022) “Parthia and the geography of empire.” In T. Potts et al., eds., Persia: ancient Iran and the Classical world: 165–73. Los Angeles. Olbrycht, M. J. (2021) Early Arsacid Parthia (ca. 250–165 BC): at the crossroads of Iranian, Hellenistic, and Central Asian history. Leiden. Overtoom, N. L. (2020) Reign of arrows: the rise of the Parthian Empire in the Hellenistic Middle East. Oxford. Strootman, R. (2018) “The coming of the Parthians: crisis and resilience in the reign of Seleukos II.” In K. Erickson, ed., The Seleukid Empire, 281–222 BC: war within the family: 129–50. Swansea.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History. Edited by Andrew Erskine, David B. Hollander, and Arietta Papaconstantinou. © 2023 John Wiley & Sons Ltd. Published 2023 by John Wiley & Sons Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah24026.pub2

1

Arsamosata MIHAIL ZAHARIADE

Arsamosata (Arsˇamsˇat, also Artamosata), town of Sophene, was situated somewhere between the modern Kharput (Xarberd) and Palu (Balu), not far from the left bank of the Arsanias River. The foundation of the town was traditionally attributed to the king of Sophene, Arsam (Arsames) who, according to Polyaenus (Strat. 17), supported ANTIOCHOS HIERAX in the war against SELEUKOS II KALLINIKOS. Polybius (8.23) mentions the town when he records its siege by ANTIOCHOS III MEGAS and locates vaguely the city “near the Fair plain between the Tigris and the Euphrates,” while for Pliny the Elder (HN 6.9) Arsamosata lies near the Arsanias River. There have been several attempts to locate the ancient town at Yarimca, on the right bank of the Arsanias, Haraba, Nacaran, or, most likely, Kharput. Coins with the legend Armasaithnwn have been found. The king of Armenia, Vologaeses, used the town as a place for regrouping his troops and as a refuge for his family during Corbulo’s

(Tac. Ann. 15.10; see During Trajan’s Parthian War (113–16), the town was occupied by the Roman army; a sizable detachment from Legio XII Fulminata was billeted in the town to secure the way to Armenia. Arsamosata counted among the main centers of Armenia. In the later Roman epoch, the town appears as a bishopric.

campaign in 62

CE

CORBULO, GNAEUS DOMITIUS).

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Dillemann, L. (1988) La Cosmographie du Ravenne. Brussels. Jones, A. H. M. (1971) The cities of the eastern Roman provinces. Oxford. Longden, R. P. (1936) “The wars of Trajan.” In S. C. Cook, F. E. Adcock, and M. P. Charlesworth, eds., The Cambridge ancient history, vol. 11: The imperial peace AD 70–192: 188–252. Cambridge. Manandian, H. A. (1965) The trade and cities of Armenia in relation to ancient world trade, trans. N. G. Garsoı¨an. Lisbon. Sinclair, T. A. (1990) Eastern Turkey: an architectural and archaeological survey. London.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 761–762. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah14047

1

Arsinoe I LLOYD LLEWELLYN-JONES

Arsinoe I, the first wife of Ptolemy II, is an obscure figure in the history of the Ptolemaic Dynasty, and little information beyond the key facts of her life survives. She was born around 305/295 BCE, the daughter of LYSIMACHOS of Thrace and, probably, his wife Nicaea (married ca. 320), the prestigious daughter of ANTIPATER (she had previously been the wife of Alexander’s chosen successor Perdikkas). There is some chance that Arsinoe was the daughter of Lysimachos’ Persian wife, Amestris (niece of Darius III). Arsinoe was sent to Egypt to marry Ptolemy II ca. 285, but we know nothing of the marriage negotiations which preceded the wedding, although the occasion was celebrated in the fragmentary Epithalamium of Arsinoe by, perhaps, Posidippus. Arsinoe entered into a court well-stocked with beautiful and ambitious women, since Ptolemy II was already renowned for his many mistresses; Theocritus (14.61) in fact labeled him erotikos (“amorous”). In a recent head-count (Ogden 1999: 231 ff.), eleven named mistresses have been attested at Ptolemy’s court; there were no doubt many more. Remarkably, all of Ptolemy II’s known offspring were born to Arsinoe I (although the court must have been packed with royal bastards from his numerous extramarital liaisons). At least four of Arsinoe’s children are known from a scholium on Theocritus 17.129: Ptolemy III, Lysimachos, Berenike Phernophoros, and the shadowy figure of “Ptolemy the son.” Arsinoe I’s rank was threatened by the return to Egypt of Ptolemy II’s sister, Arsinoe II, whom he married in 276 BCE with great ceremonial pomp. Arsinoe I probably fell victim, like so many others, to Arsinoe’s drive for power. The scholiast of Theocritus 17 informs

us that she was implicated in a conspiracy against the king and exiled to Koptos in Upper Egypt (ca. 274/3 BCE). Here she seems to have enjoyed a highly privileged life as a queen with her own extensive household; she also seems to have retained her royal titles. A demotic inscription from Koptos speaks of “Senu-sheps, the superintendent of the royal harem of Arsynifau [i.e., Arsinoe I], the Great Royal Wife of the King” (Petrie 1896: plate XX). Further titles found on a statue of the Queen at Koptos (Cairo 70031) endorse her status: The Princess, Great of Favor, Lady of the Two Lands, Pleasing of the Heart, Gracious and Sweet of Love, Fair of Crowns, Receiving the Two Diadems, Filling the Palace with Her Beauties, Pacifying the Heart of the King of Upper and Lower Egypt, Lord of the Two Lands. (Troy 1986: 178)

If anything, these titles speak of Ptolemy’s great affection for his first queen and the mother of his children. How long Arsinoe lived on her estate in Koptos is unknown. Her name drops away from the sources and the date of her death remains a mystery. SEE ALSO: Arsinoe II Philadelphos; Perdikkas, son of Orontes; Poseidippos; Ptolemy I Soter; Ptolemy II Philadelphos; Ptolemy III Euergetes.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Ho¨lbl, G. (2001) A history of the Ptolemaic Empire. London. Macurdy, G. (1932) Hellenistic queens. Baltimore. Mahaffy, J. P. (1895) The empire of the Ptolemies. New York. Ogden, D. (1999) Prostitutes, polygamy, and death: the Hellenistic dynasties. London. Petrie, W. M. F. (1898) Koptos. London. Troy, L. (1986) Patterns of queenship in ancient Egyptian myth and history. Uppsala.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 762–763. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah07011

1

Arsinoe II Philadelphos KATELIJN VANDORPE

Arsinoe II was one of the most prominent and popular queens of the Ptolemaic Dynasty, and set an enviable example for her successorqueens in many respects. Arsinoe was born in 316 BCE as a daughter of Ptolemy I and his third wife, Berenike I. By 300, she was married to Lysimachos of Thrace, who had gained control of Macedonia and Asia Minor. Although she spent the longest part of her life alongside her first husband, little is known about this period. She was recognized with honors by Lysimachos: for instance, the refounded Ephesos was renamed Arsinoeia (Lund 1992: 193–5). According to Pausanias (1.10.3–4), she had a hand in a conspiracy against her stepson Agathokles, but the historicity of this accusation is dubious (Lund 1992). After Lysimachos’ death in the battle of Kouropedion in 281, and after she herself was hunted by her husband’s enemies, her half-brother Ptolemy Keraunos married her for political reasons, as they both claimed Macedonia’s throne. After he had ordered the killing of two of Arsinoe’s sons by Lysimachos, Arsinoe fled via Samothrake to Alexandria in about 279. In Egypt she became queen for the third time by marrying her younger, full brother Ptolemy II; he had his first wife, Arsinoe I, banished to Koptos, and Arsinoe II adopted the children of her rival. Probably within her lifetime (Minas 2005), Arsinoe received the royal title nswt-bitj and became co-regent, wearing a special crown, different from the traditional crowns worn by later queens. She was the first Ptolemaic queen to be represented with her husband–king in ritual scenes (Minas 2005). Like other male and female members of the Ptolemaic Dynasty, eager to project an image of power in the Greek world, Arsinoe competed in the chariot races of pan-hellenic games. She gained a triple Olympic victory, probably in 272, which was celebrated in an epigram of the court poet Posidippus of Pella (Bennett 2005).

Arsinoe may have had a strong influence in Ptolemaic foreign policy, which became more anti-Seleucid and anti-Macedonian during her reign. The most explicit reference to her influence is found in the decree of Chremonides of 268, issued after her death: the decree states that Ptolemy II, supporting a coalition of Greek city-states against Macedonian domination, had been led by the policy of his ancestors and of Arsinoe (Hauben 1983). The full-sibling marriage was, according to Pausanias (1.7.1), not “in accordance with Macedonian custom but with that of the Egyptian subjects.” There are indeed Pharaonic precursors of sibling marriages (Buraselis 2008), although examples from the Hellenistic world are known as well. The court poet Theocritus legitimized the union in the eyes of the Greeks and Macedonians by comparing it with the sacred marriage of the divine sibling royal couple Zeus and Hera.

Figure 1 The Gonzaga Cameo, depicting Ptolemy II Philadelphos (285–246 BCE) and his wife Arsinoe portrayed as gods of the Greek pantheon. © The Bridgeman Art Library.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 763–765. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah07012

2 The couple laid the foundation of a successful dynastic cult, which was accepted by both Greeks and Egyptians and in which a prominent role was reserved for Arsinoe and for the Ptolemaic queens in general (Pfeiffer 2008). After elevating their deceased parents to divine rank, they had themselves associated with the cult of Alexander: they received divine honors as living Pharaohs, for the first time in Egyptian history. Ptolemy II and Arsinoe II thus became the Sibling Gods (Theoi Adelphoi) in 272/271. Later in his reign, the king instituted the Theadelpheia, a festival for the new gods. In July 270, after about seven years of marriage, Arsinoe died (Cadell 1998). A propaganda campaign spread her image and cult. The fact that she had been a well-known queen not only of Egypt, but also of Thrace, Macedonia, and Asia Minor, may have inspired Ptolemy II to use her image. Arsinoe was identified with goddesses like Isis-Hathor, Hera, Demeter, and Aphrodite, and was even elevated to the status of an individual Greek and Egyptian deity. The goddess Arsinoe Philadelphos (Thea Philadelphos) was created, glorified by poets like Callimachus. After her death a festival “Arsinoeia” was installed in her honor. As a Greek goddess, in Alexandria she received an eponymous priestess of her own in 268/267, a kanephoros or “basket-bearer,” in line with Greek custom (Minas 2000). This was the foundation for the independent eponymous cults of the later queens. A festival called the Arsinoeia was organized annually. In addition, the “Brother-Loving” goddess was transformed into an Egyptian goddess to be worshipped throughout the country, as proclaimed in the Mendes stele. She became a guest- or templesharing goddess (synnaos thea) in all of Egypt’s temples, and her statue was placed beside that of the local gods. A new tax, called apomoira or “portion” in Greek, “one-sixth” or “one-tenth” in Egyptian, was introduced on the produce of vineyards and orchards (Clarysse and Vandorpe 1998). The tax financed the libations for the new goddess in both Greek and Egyptian temples. Streets in Alexandria and

numerous towns in Egypt as far as the very south of the country were named after Arsinoe. When large-scale irrigation projects in the early Ptolemaic period had almost tripled the agricultural area of the Fayyum depression in the desert, Ptolemy II renamed this region the “Arsinoite Nome,” in honor of his wife. Several Fayyum villages were named after the new goddess as well, such as Philadelpheia and Theadelpheia, which both referred to her cult name (Mueller 2006: appendix III). The significance of the goddess Arsinoe in later periods of the Ptolemaic era cannot be overestimated. She was, for instance, the first royal after Ptolemy I and the living Pharaoh who, under the reign of Ptolemy V, received a cult of her own in the Greek city of Ptolemais in the south of the country. Her Thea Philadelphos coins showing an idealized image of the queen, and divine symbols such as the lotus bud and the ram’s horn of Ammon would inspire later queens. The last Pharaoh, Cleopatra VII, was eager to reactivate themes of the dynastic cult from the time of Ptolemy II and Arsinoe II. Arsinoe II also played a major role outside Egypt. At a time when Ptolemaic power and control in the eastern Mediterranean relied on naval forces, Ptolemy II created, possibly during Arsinoe’s lifetime, the goddess ArsinoeAphrodite-Kypris-Zephyritis as protector of seafarers. The new divinity was worshipped in several coastal cities on Cyprus and in the Aegean. Several coastal foundations were named after her (Mueller 2006: appendix III). Arsinoe II had become a goddess of Egypt and of the Eastern Mediterranean, and the history of Egypt under Ptolemy II is deeply marked by her presence as queen, and particularly as divine being. SEE ALSO: Arsinoe I; Arsinoe, Fayyum; Dynastic cults, Egypt; Ptolemy II Philadelphos.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Bennett, Ch. (2005) “Arsinoe and Berenice at the Olympics.” Zeitschrift fu¨r Papyrologie und Epigraphik 154: 91–6.

3 Buraselis, K. (2008) “The problem of the Ptolemaic sibling marriage: a case of dynastic acculturation?” In P. McKechnie and P. Guillaume, eds., Ptolemy II Philadelphus and his world: 291–302. Leiden. Cadell, H. (1998) “A quelle date Arsinoe´ II Philadelphe est-elle de´ce´de´e?” In H. Melaerts, ed., Le culte du souverain dans l’E´gypte ptole´maı¨que au IIIe sie`cle avant notre e`re: actes du colloque international, Bruxelles, 10 mai 1995: 1–3. Leuven. Clarysse, W. and Vandorpe, K. (1998) “The Ptolemaic apomoira.” In H. Melaerts, ed., Le culte du souverain dans l’E´gypte ptole´maı¨que au IIIe sie`cle avant notre e`re: actes du colloque international, Bruxelles, 10 mai 1995: and 5–42. Leuven. Hauben, H. (1983) “Arsinoe´ II et la politique exte´rieure de l’E´gypte.” In E. Van ’t Dack and P. Van Dessel, eds., Egypt and the Hellenistic world: 99–127. Leuven. Ho¨lbl, G. (2001) History of the Ptolemaic empire. New York.

Lund, H. S. (1992) Lysimachos: a study in early Hellenistic kingship. London. Minas, M. (2000) Die hieroglyphischen Ahnenreihen der ptolema¨ischen Ko¨nige: ein Vergleich mit den Titeln der eponymen Priester in den demotischen und griechischen Papyri. Mainz am Rhein. Minas, M. (2005) “Macht und Ohnmacht. Die Representation ptolema¨ischer Ko¨niginnen in a¨gyptischen Tempeln” Archiv fu¨r Papyrusforschung 51: 127–54. Mueller, K. (2006) Settlements of the Ptolemies: city foundations and new settlement in the Hellenistic world. Leuven. Pfeiffer, S. (2008) Herrscher- und Dynastiekulte im Ptolema¨erreich: Systematik und Einordnung der Kultformen. Munich. Quaegebeur, J. (1978) “Reines ptole´maı¨ques et traditions e´gyptiennes.” In H. Maehler and V. M. ¨ gypten. Akten des Strocka, eds., Das ptolema¨ische A internationalen Symposions, 27.–29. September 1976 in Berlin: 245–62. Mainz am Rhein.

1

Arsinoe III LLOYD LLEWELLYN-JONES

Arsinoe III Philapator, the sister-wife of Ptolemy IV, was born to royal parents: Ptolemy III Euergetes I and his queen, Berenike II. Her birth can probably be dated between November 246 and June 245 BCE. Arsinoe was probably her birth-name, chosen for its fitting dynastic connotations, although, confusingly, Justin (30.1) – who is notoriously inaccurate – calls her Eurydike, while Livy (37.3) calls her Cleopatra (probably under the misconception that all Ptolemaic queens were Cleopatras). Arsinoe is mentioned as a very young infant among the other children of Ptolemy III, who are listed on the exedra of Thermos in which she is titled basilissa (“princess” or “royal lady”). Ptolemy IV succeeded to his father’s throne sometime between 1 Thoth (October 18, 222) and 15 Hathyr (December 31, 222), and must have married Arsinoe almost immediately afterwards. In the late nineteenth century, Mahaffy had perceptively observed that, “it was not the practice of Ptolemaic crown princes to get married before they ascended the throne . . . though the reigning Ptolemies marry as soon as possible” (1895: 491). Certainly this had been the case with Ptolemy III’s marriage to Berenike II, although it should be emphasized that this was not a pharaonic tradition per se, but an innovation enthusiastically practiced by every Ptolemy, with the exception of the rulers of the last few generations of the royal house. Arsinoe III makes her first dramatic appearance in the sources at the battle of Raphia (June 22, 217), fought between her husband and Antiochos III of the Seleucid Dynasty to determine the rulership of Coele-Syria. The apocryphal 3 Maccabees (1.4) places Arsinoe at the head of the Egyptian troops, making a passionate appeal for bravery: “Arsinoe went to the troops with wailing and with tears, her locks all disheveled, and exhorted them to defend

Figure 1 Ptolemy IV, mounted on horseback and spearing (a now lost) Antiochos III, is followed by the sister wife, Arsinoe III. Scene on the Raphia Stele from Memphis (Cairo CG31088). Photograph by Lloyd Llewellyn-Jones.

themselves and their children and their wives bravely, promising to give each of them two minas of gold if they won the battle.” Polybius (5.83) gives a less picturesque account, but confirms that the queen was brought to the battlefield by her husband to address the troops. On all the versions of Ptolemy IV’s Raphia Decree, Arsinoe III stands behind her brother, who is represented riding a horse and smiting his foes (Figure 1); she also appears on the marble relief called the Apotheosis of Homer (British Museum 2191), wearing a kalathos (grain basket) on her head, signifying her role as provider and mother of Egypt. Arsinoe was incorporated in the dynastic cult with Ptolemy IV in Year 7 (216/5) as the Father‐loving Gods. Her Egyptian titles at Dakka, Edfu, and the temple of Thoth at Medinet Habu include Great Royal Wife, King’s Sister, King’s Daughter, Female Ruler, Lady of the Two Lands, and the lofty epithet Divine Mother of all his Mothers. The “togetherness” of the royal couple must not be overstressed, however. In some ritual scenes, Ptolemy IV consciously replaces Arsinoe with images of his mother, Berenike II. The visual ostracism of Arsinoe reflected the royal couple’s marriage generally: Ptolemy IV was notoriously licentious and dissipated, and Arsinoe seems to have suffered at his hands. The fact that their marriage produced only one

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 765–767. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah07013

2 child, the future Ptolemy V (born late Year 12 or early Year 13 of Ptolemy IV (210)), probably indicates the breakdown of their marriage. Arsinoe’s biographer, Eratosthenes, recalls a story in which the queen, standing at the palace gates, laments her husband’s drunkenness and debauchery (Ath. 7.276b). A court faction comprised of Ptolemy’s ambitious mistress, Agathokleia, her brother Agathokles, and Sosibius (who had murdered Berenike II probably on the orders of Ptolemy IV) grew up against Arsinoe III. When Ptolemy IV suddenly died in the summer of 204, Arsinoe was left almost powerless to defend herself and her six-year-old son; Sosibius and his faction swiftly moved against her, and in the late summer of 204 she was murdered by Philammon, acting as an agent for Sosibius (other traditions suggest that she was murdered by Ptolemy IV himself, or that

she possibly burnt to death in a palace fire: Polyb. 15.25.2; Justin 30.1). Arsinoe III was posthumously honored by Ptolemy V in Year 7 of his reign (199/8) by the appointment of a priestess in the dynastic cult at Alexandria. SEE ALSO: Berenike II, wife of Ptolemy III; Ptolemy III Euergetes; Ptolemy IV Philopator.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Ho¨lbl, G. (2001) A history of the Ptolemaic Empire. London. Huss, W. (1975) “Die zu Ehren Ptolemaios III. und seiner Familie errichtete Statuengruppe von Thermos.” Chronique d’Egypte 50: 312–20. Macurdy, G. (1932) Hellenistic queens. Baltimore. Mahaffy, J. P. (1895) The empire of the Ptolemies. New York. Ogden, D. (1999) Prostitutes, polygamy, and death: the Hellenistic dynasties. London.

1

Arsinoe, Fayyum FABIAN REITER

Arsinoe was the unofficial name of the capital (metropolis) of the Arsinoite nome in GrecoRoman times. The town was situated on the western side of the Nile near the Bahr Yussuf Canal in the northern part of the modern capital of the Fayyum, Medinet el-Fayyum. Arsinoe became famous at the end of the nineteenth century as one of the most important find spots for papyri. These papyri offer an enormous amount of information about the administration, economy, and social, religious, and private life of the metropolis in Roman, Byzantine, and early Arab times. From the beginning of the Old Kingdom (ca. 2800 BCE) onward, the town was, under the name Shedet, the capital of the province of the Fayyum (Davoli-Nahla 2006: 86), but according to legend (Diod. Sic. 1.89.3), it had actually been founded by King Menes (ca. 3200). It developed extensively in the 12th Dynasty, especially under Amenemhet III (ca. 1842–1795), who was worshipped as a local hero until Roman times (Gomaa` 1980). The Greeks called the town Krokodilon Polis after the main deity of the Fayyum, the crocodile-god Souchos/Sobek (cf. Hdt. 2.148 and Strabo 17.1.38 [C812] with his famous description of the feeding of a holy crocodile). After the name of the Krokodilopolites nome had been changed to Arsinoites in honor of the deified Arsinoe II around 256/5, the metropolis itself still kept the official name Krokodilopolis. Only around 116, after the death of Ptolemy VIII Euergetes II, was it changed to Ptolemais Euergetou, and then to Ptolemais Euergetis (Casarico 1987a: 133–5). This name was in use until the end of the fourth century CE. From the middle of the second century CE onward, however, yet another designation, Arsinoiton Polis, began to be used, which is the only name attested in Byzantine and Arab papyri. During the period in which both names were in use (second–fourth

century), they occur in different contexts: Ptolemais Euergetis as the indication of the place of deed in contracts, Arsinoiton Polis exclusively as the administrative district of municipal offices. At the same time, a person’s provenance from the city was indicated by the words α᾽pο tZ̑ ς mZtrοpόleoς (Casarico 1987b: 161–6). In Roman times alternative names appear occasionally, such as Z῾ Ptοlemaiέon ’Arsinοϊtω ˜n (Bernand 1975: 12, 69–75). The name Arsinoe, which also denotes two Arsinoite villages (Casarico 1987b: 165; Daris 2007: 20), though already attested for the metropolis in Strabo 17.1.38 (C812), occurs in documentary papyri only in the seventh century CE (Daris 2007: 24). Little is known about the extension and urban structure of Arsinoe in Greco-Roman times for several reasons (Davoli 1998: 149–59; Davoli-Nahla 2006: 86–7). First, its location within the limits of cultivated land exposed it to periodic inundations of the Nile and allowed permanent access to the population living in the surrounding areas; consequently, after the early explorations by Rifaud (1823/4), Lepsius (1843), and Vassalli (1862), the area was also ravaged as a source of fertile sebbakh. Second, there have never been systematic excavations, and the smaller explorations have not been published in full. Schweinfurth’s detailed survey of the relevant hills and his topographic plan (Schweinfurth 1887) are therefore still important for archaeological research. The archaeological area, limited to the east and west by two channels which furnished the town with water, was measured by Schweinfurth to be 2.41.2 km. In the period after the excavation of the Sobek Temple by Flinders Petrie in 1889, the remaining traces of the ancient settlements disappeared, and only in 1963 did new excavations begin (Davoli 1998: 152–3). Now, the area of the ruins is reduced to a few dozen square meters by the outward expansion of the modern city of Medinet el-Fayyum. Nevertheless, the various explorations and excavations at least show that the town

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 767–769. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah07014

2 expanded from north to south from Pharaonic up to Arab times. Even if the urban structure of the town remains unknown, papyrus documents offer a wealth of topographic data. Many thousands of not only Greek, but also Coptic, Persian, and Arabic papyri, which for the most part come from Byzantine and Arab times, were found by Egyptian peasants (fellahin) in the winter of 1877/8 on the Kom Fares and other hills. These have since been acquired by museums in Vienna, Berlin, London, Paris, and elsewhere. They, and many Ptolemaic and Roman papyri discovered in excavations of other Fayyum sites, mention numerous quarters and streets, public buildings, temples, and churches in the town (Wilcken in Schweinfurth 1887: 79–87; Casarico 1987a: 129, 132; Daris 2007: 25–7). About thirty inscriptions from Ptolemaic and Roman times attributed to Arsinoe, which primarily contain dedications, shed light on the town’s religious life (Bernand 1975: 15–83). The metropolis was the center of commercial life and administration of the whole Fayyum district. Most nome officials had their seats here. Its central role is reflected by the amount of documents regarding legal cases, fiscal matters, and contracts of all kinds from village inhabitants directed to officials in the town. In the second half of the first century CE, the territory was divided into about forty quarters for administrative purposes (Daris 2007: 27). Much can be learned about the administration of the town’s public water supply by the account in P.Lond. III 1177 from 113 CE (Habermann 2000). As in other metropoleis, the municipalization of Egypt led to the introduction of a council (bοulή) in about 202/3 (Casarico 1995: 70). The total population of Arsinoe in the third century BCE has been estimated to be about 4,000 inhabitants (P.Count. II, p. 100), but is thought to have grown to about 27,000 inhabitants in the first century CE

(Alston and Alston 1997: 201). A privileged elite in the Arsinoite nome, the 6,475 so-called katoikoi or Hellenes, had to pay only half of the poll tax in Arsinoe (twenty drachmas instead of forty). SEE ALSO: Arsinoe II Philadelphos; Crocodile; Fayyum; Papyrus, Greco-Roman period.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Alston, R. and Alston, R. (1997) “Urbanism and the urban community in Roman Egypt.” Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 83: 199–216. Bernand, E. (1975) Recueil des inscriptions grecques du Fayoum I. Cairo. Casarico, L. (1987a) “Crocodilopolis – Ptolemais Euergetis in epoca tolemaica.” Aegyptus 67: 127–59. Casarico, L. (1987b) “Per la storia di un toponimo: Ptolemais Euergetis – Arsinoiton polis.” Aegyptus 67: 161–70. Casarico, L. (1995) “La metropoli dell’Arsinoite in epoca romana.” Aevum 69(1): 69–94. Daris, S. (2007) Dizionario dei nomi geografici e topografici dell’Egitto greco-romano. Supplemento IV (2002–2005). Pisa. Davoli, P. (1998) L’archeologia urbana nel Fayyum di eta` ellenistica e romana. Missione Naples. Davoli, P. and Nahla, M. A. (2006) “On some monuments from Kiman Fares (Medinet el-Fayum).” Studi di Egittologia e di Papirologia 3: 81–109. Gomaa`, F. (1980) “Medinet el-Fajjum.” In W. Helck, E. Otto, and W. Westendorf, eds., Lexikon der ¨ gyptologie, vol. 3: 1254–5. Wiesbaden. A Habermann, W. (2000) Zur Wasserversorgung einer ¨ gypten. Neuedition Metropole im kaiserzeitlichen A ¨ bersetzung – von P.Lond. III 1177. Text – U Kommentar. Munich. Schweinfurth, G. (1887) “Zur Topographie der Ruinensta¨dte des alten Schet (KrokodilopolisArsinoe), nebst Zusa¨tzen von U. Wilcken.” Zeitschrift der Gesellschaft fu¨r Erdkunde zu Berlin 22: 54–88.

1

Art, Egypt HOURIG SOUROUZIAN

Inhabitants of the Nile Valley produced artifacts of high artistic quality from very early times. Their production was to develop over four millennia. Egyptian art is the fruit of religious thinking, which explains the cosmic order, and of a funerary belief system based on the survival of the components of this order. These values created a concern to reproduce an eternal world for the next life. To do this, the Egyptians chose imperishable materials such as stone, aiming to transpose the daily surrounding into an eternal one; it is this work in stone which has mostly survived. But it would be incorrect to say that Egyptian art is essentially funerary in nature, because the temples provide testimony to a religious art as well, and remains of palaces and dwellings bear witness to comfort and aesthetic concerns. For example, the officials’ houses at Tell el-AMARNA were as richly decorated as the Theban tombs, whose painted walls we admire so much. Furthermore, the village of craftsmen and artists at DEIR EL-MEDINA, far from being an agglomeration of huts, was made up of comfortable houses built of stone, decorated with paintings, and provided with altars for the worship of the gods. We know that the royal palaces gleamed every bit as brightly as the divine temples, whose original splendor is inferred from archaeological remains. The earliest attempts to perpetuate scenes of daily life, the environment, or significant events are expressed as rock carvings along the Nile, representing boats, huts, and animals, as well as in rock carvings and paintings on former water banks, today completely transformed into remote desert areas, such as Uwainat, Gilf Kebir, El Obeid, and other parts of the Eastern and Western deserts. Here animals of the desert, such as giraffes, ibex, gazelles, oryx, ostriches, and elephants, are shown among negative hand-prints, while gracious bodies of swimmers make their way

between fabulous animals (see ROCK ART). Subsequent scenes depicting hunting, fishing, and domesticated cattle reflect the emergence of hunter and shepherd in this early society and, although anonymous and not precisely dated, these depictions mark the earliest artistic manifestations of art in ancient Egypt. In the early settlements of the Nile Valley, Egyptian art manifests itself towards the beginning of the fourth millennium, already revealing the multiple facets of artistic creativity. Remarkable cultures flourished in the Delta and then Upper Egypt, named after the modern villages where they were first found and attested: Merimde and Maadi in the north, Badari, Tasa, Gerzeh, and Nagada in the south. These areas have successively flourished to constitute the Prehistoric and the Predynastic periods of Egypt (see PREDYNASTIC PERIOD, EGYPT). At a recently discovered site, Tell el-Farkha, in the East Delta, Polish excavations have revealed an important deposit of divine figurines carved of hippopotamus tusks, as well as male statuettes in gilded stone with inlaid eyes, thereby increasing our knowledge of the plastic arts of this era. Ceramics are attested in an extraordinary range unparalleled at any other period: red polished ware with a metallic sheen, dull red-ware with traced white decoration, buff colors with painted decoration in purplish red, displaying geometric motifs in addition to schematic figures, animals, plants, and human beings. There are innumerable stone vases and molded vessels, whence originate little theriomorphic vases, in a combination of skill and inventiveness. Human figures in two and three dimensions imply the birth of the cult. Dancers and idols appear simultaneously in sculpture in the round, modeled in clay, along with schematic figurines of men in ivory or stone, and statuettes of animals in clay or stone. Lithic tools reach the height of perfection, with sharp edges masterfully cut with regular microscopic teeth. They are inserted into elaborate handles, some of them in ivory,

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 769–775. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah15044

2 ornamented with representations of birds, animals, men, and boats. This practice leads to the first masterpieces of the art of bas-relief, such as the Gebel el Arak knife (Louvre E11517). The first mural painting (NAQADA II), in a tomb at HIERAKONPOLIS, reproduces in four natural colors (red and yellow ochre, white chalk, and black soot) the daily occupations of hunting, farming, and navigating, while the figure of a chieftain striking down foes in the presence of bound captives anticipates future depictions of the victorious Egyptian king. During the period of unification of Egypt, around 3150 BCE, when writing made its first appearance, the conventions of Egyptian art were already established. Ceremonial palettes shaped in the form of animals or decorated with themes such as hunting and battle scenes, with human and animal representations arranged in extraordinary compositions, take on such importance that they become votive gifts of great size deposited in divine temples. The well-preserved palette of NARMER from the temple at Hierakonpolis, now in the Egyptian Museum Cairo, shows the beginning of narrative art and established the canon of Egyptian art. On it, scenes carefully sculpted in bas-relief depict sequences of official representation, divided into episodes that are distributed in registers. They show the king in heroic scale, smiting his enemies, performing ceremonies, or visiting a temple before which lie slain captives. The conventions for twodimensional representations are already installed. The head and the body are shown in profile, but the eye is fully frontal, and the two shoulders appear in frontal view. When the subject is standing, one foot is always advanced, and it is the farther one for the observer. Hence, if the represented man faces to the left, his right leg is advanced; if he looks to the right, his left leg is advanced. This convention differs from the three-dimensional representation in the round where, in the case of a male subject, it is always the left foot that is set forward. However, in divine sculpture, certain deities have their feet joined, like MIN, the

god of Coptos, to whom, at this early stage, three colossal statues were dedicated in his temple there. Hence monumental statuary had made its appearance. The kings of the first two dynasties have their burials at ABYDOS and SAQQARA. Two large stelae in granite or limestone bearing their name mark the superstructures of the tombs in Abydos, with funerary equipment stored in rooms of the substructure. This includes various objects, ranging from furniture, ornamented with ivory legs imitating bull’s or lion’s feet, to tools and weapons, jewelry, games with magnificent game pieces in the form of lions and dogs, abundant pottery with wine and oil jars, whose mud seals bear impressions or are accompanied by small ivory or bone labels sent from different domains, and bearing marks of the workshops: elephant, dog, palm. Larger examples are more elaborate and comprise the king’s name, types of oil, and a date of issue commemorated by an important festival, or historical event (e.g., the plaque of king Aha in the Cairo Museum). Very little sculpture is left from this period; the ivory statuette of a king from Abydos, today in the British Museum and representing a striding king wearing the Upper Egyptian white crown and a ceremonial cloak with rhomboid decoration, is the best preserved example of royal sculpture in the round. A large sized limestone royal torso from Hierakonpolis, today in Oxford, attests to monumental royal statuary. The earliest royal tombs at Abydos were surrounded by satellite tombs, whose owners are depicted kneeling, or sometimes standing on small limestone stelae bearing their names or titles. Towards the end of the 1st Dynasty, high officials are endowed in Saqqara with large tombs containing a stele with their representation, names, and titles, like that of Merka, and rich funerary equipment. Smaller tombs in Saqqara and other Memphite necropoleis such as Helwan and Abu Rawash, hold small niche slabs bearing a scene carved in bas-relief and representing the tomb owner seated at the table of offerings.

3 At the end of the 2nd Dynasty, the royal tomb was already a complete complex comprising the fac¸ade of the palace, the royal apartments, and the numerous magazines for the afterlife. Royal sculpture reveals masterworks such as the two statues of king Khasekhemwy in the Egyptian Museum, Cairo and in the Ashmolean Museum, Oxford. Funerary equipment ranges from provisions of oil in terracotta jars to delightful little unguent vessels in alabaster, schist, or carnelian, and includes funerary vessels of all shapes using all kinds of stones. At the beginning of the Old Kingdom (see OLD KINGDOM, EGYPT), in the 3rd Dynasty, monumental architecture in stone is successfully realized at Saqqara during the reign of DJOSER in his funerary complex, where the pyramid makes its first appearance above the royal tomb, remaining the most dominant form in Egyptian architecture. The monument is very complex, consisting of elaborate substructures and several buildings, in addition to the pyramid forming the superstructure. The artistic masterpiece of this complex is the statue of Djoser in painted limestone, representing the king seated on a throne, wearing a pleated nemes headdress upon a large striated wig, and wrapped in a jubilee cloak. Private statuary emerges in officials’ tombs, still in rudimentary seated and standing attitudes, or, more rarely, kneeling (Hetepdief in Cairo). Large mastabas develop, like that of Hesyre, with exquisite wall paintings depicting furniture and matting, together with extraordinary wooden panels representing the owner in different costumes and accompanied by his name and titles, all finely carved in bas-relief. Other mastabas (e.g., priest Khabausokar’s) contain limestone niches decorated with representations of the owner and his wife, where again each detail and hieroglyphic sign are masterfully treated as individual sculptures. In the 4th Dynasty, after going through a transformation from step pyramid to the definitive flat-faced monument in the reign of Sneferu at DAHSHUR, the pyramid reaches its most glorious culmination at GIZA, under the

reigns of Khufu (see KHUFU (CHEOPS/KHEOPS)), followed by Khafre and Menkaure (see KHAFRE (CHEPHREN); MENKAURE (MYCERINUS)). In the plastic arts during this time, the conventions inherited from the archaic period become solid rules, which develop further during the Old Kingdom. Sculpture in the round produces masterpieces, and representations in low relief are among the best productions of all times, especially in mastabas of royalty and the elite. The principal concern of a work of ancient art is its representative ability. In three dimensions, the statue is frontal, combining all of the characteristics of a living person. The poses are limited: the king traditionally appears standing or seated majestically. The painted limestone statue of Sneferu from the valley temple of Dahshur illustrates the first attitude: the king stands with his left foot advanced, wearing the pleated shendyt kilt and the white crown; in the seated attitude, the ivory statuette of Khufu from Abydos represents the king holding a flail against his chest and wearing the short kilt and the red crown, while the diorite effigy of Khafre depicts the king in heroic size and majestic posture with hands on his knees, holding a kerchief in the right hand and wearing the nemes headdress, protected by the falcon god Horus. Between these two reigns, Djedefre has left a fragmented statue in quartzite where he is enthroned, accompanied by his consort seated near his feet (today in the Louvre). These statues show respectively variants of the seated type. Menkaure continues the tradition and enriches the repertoire with a dyad of the king with his consort, as well as triads representing him with the goddess HATHOR and a NOME deity. On monumental scale, the great SPHINX of Giza hewn in the rock in the quarries of the pyramid of Khufu combines for the first time the head of a king with the body of a lion. The courtiers imitate their king, but with their own costume and attributes. Like him, they appear individually and in group-statues with family members. Vivid colors, when preserved, enhance their liveliness. Even when they are lost, some effigies strike by their

4 extremely lifelike appearance, such as the statue of prince Hemiunu from Giza (Pelizaeus Museum Hildesheim), with his extraordinary vigor and singular corpulence. The crosslegged “scribal” type, newly invented in private statuary, finds great favor among officials, while RESERVE HEADS provide evidence for portraiture (see PORTRAITURE, PHARAONIC EGYPT). Rectangular slabs decorated with the representation of the deceased seated at the offering table at the fac¸ade of their mastabas, provide the two-dimensional version of such representative depiction. In the wall decorations of mastabas, relief displays its own set of conventions. Here the figure appears in profile, but the different elements of which it is composed are viewed from the front. A canon of proportions and conventions for two-dimensional depictions is observed. In order to represent several people or animals, one simply aligned them behind each other. Instead of superposition or subtleties of real perspective, Egyptian relief sculpture preferred to use an original code of perspective in order to give the maximum amount of characteristic and recognizable components. That which was intended to be on both sides of a figure was represented above and below it. Or both the plan and the section of an object were successfully combined into a single composition. Scenes are generally divided into registers, with a particular code for “reading;” the term is apt even when no hieroglyphic text is provided. Registers are generally read from the bottom up, but we also find that within one register, simultaneous action can occur both from right to left and from left to right. Both sculpture in the round and bas-relief are almost always covered with a final layer of stucco and enlivened with color. The representations painted upon stuccoed walls follow the same rules as apply to painted bas-relief. In the 5th and the 6th Dynasties, artistic production follows the heritage of the recent past. For the royal funerary complexes in Abusir and Saqqara, and for the sun temples (see TEMPLES, PHARAONIC EGYPT), the royal

workshops produce an extraordinary range of finely sculpted scenes along the causeways, the courts, and the halls, with ritual, festive, and naturalistic themes, which help establish and maintain cosmic order. In royal statuary, apart from traditional effigies, two 6th Dynasty copper statues discovered in the temple of Hierakonpolis represent king Pepi I in two variant poses of the standing type (see PEPI I AND II) and are striking for their impressive facial features, slender physiognomy, and by the extraordinary technique of the hammered metal and its beautifully polished surfaces. Private/elite statuary proliferated in mastabas, which increase not only in number but also in size. False doors, niches, fac¸ades, and walls are covered with reliefs and paintings, depicting domestic activities, agricultural scenes, offering bearers, etc. The Memphite ateliers maintain the artistic tradition locally during the First Intermediate Period, while a provincial art style flourishes in autonomous centers far from the capital. Sometimes naive and maybe clumsy, this style brings a new freshness within the tradition. Forms were elongated, colors were enlivened; a new canon of proportions replaced the classical one; and a new ideal of beauty emerged. During this period, small wooden models appeared, replacing more traditional sculpture and eventually, in many instances, substituted for mural representations. During the Middle Kingdom’s 11th Dynasty (see MIDDLE KINGDOM, EGYPT), with the rise to power of the Theban princes, a provincial style was promoted at the new capital of Thebes, in which force and vigor became the ideal, far from the fineness and majesty of the Memphite style. In Thebes, the mighty rulers built temples for the Theban gods MONTU and Amun (see AMUN, AMUN-RE) and carved their rock-cut tombs on the west bank under the peak of the Theban mountain, preceded by vast funerary complexes. The temple of Mentuhotep II (see MENTUHOTEP I–VII) at DEIR EL-BAHARI reveals statues of the ruler standing (Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York) or seated (Cairo Museum), hands crossed on the

5 chest and wearing the short jubilee cloak. The temple decoration shows ritual scenes sculpted in bas-relief and painted. Adjacent chapels in the mountain housed the burial of the royal women, decorated with colorful scenes of daily life, their funerary equipment comprising large stone sarcophagi decorated in sunk relief. During the 12th Dynasty, when the capital alternated between the Memphite region and the FAYYUM, art combined both of these previously conflicting styles, and their fusion engendered unprecedented masterpieces. Colossal effigies of the powerful monarchs, with austere facial features and dynamic physiognomy, emerged in the temples, along with colossal sphinxes. New statue types appear, such as the Osirid statues of the mummiform king, the double statue of Amenemhat III as a Nile god (see AMENEMHAT I–VII), or the statue of the same king as standard bearer. Luxurious furniture and sophisticated jewelery accompany burials of queens and princesses buried near the royal pyramids at Dahshur. In provincial courts, during the first half of the 12th Dynasty, powerful nomarchs (province governors) constructed elaborate tombs. The tombs of Beni Hasan, Meir, and Qau el Kebir in Middle Egypt or Qubbet el Hawa in Aswan reflect the extraordinary wealth and influence of such nomarchs in their provincial courts. Paintings with vivid colors animate the walls of the rock-cut tombs and sarcophagi. A new statue type, the block-statue, emerged, remaining popular through the Late Period. Due to internal political unrest and the foreign domination of the Delta by the HYKSOS, a perceptible impoverishment of the arts can be observed during the Second Intermediate Period. At the end of the 17th Dynasty, a cultural rebirth begins with the reunification of Egypt and the start of the New Kingdom (see NEW KINGDOM, EGYPT). It reveals the survival of the artistic tradition with such pieces as the stela of Ahmose, which adds the beauty of hieroglyphic text to the finesse of relief sculpture, and the funerary furniture and jewels of queen Ahotep at Thebes.

Under the first New Kingdom rulers at Thebes, royal tombs were cut into the mountain, with their temples located at the desert margin. The artistic creations that started in the reign of HATSHEPSUT reach technical perfection and a harmonious aesthetic of rare elegance by the time of Thutmose III (see THUTMOSE I–IV), reaching their apogee under Amenhotep III. A new taste for monumentality is reflected in the expanding constructions of the temple of Amun at Karnak, as well as in the funerary temples on the west bank of the Nile. Royal sculpture reaches ever increasing colossal proportions under Amenhotep III. Animated scenes in two-dimensional representations provide narratives of particular expeditions and annual festivals. The decoration of private tombs, carved in relief or merely painted, gradually liberates itself from strict pictorial conventions, depicting daily life as well as funerary beliefs. Narrative representation reaches its apogee under the reign of AKHENATEN (AMENHOTEP IV). However, a sharp break marks the artistic conventions and the official style, provoked by a passionate change in religious belief. The sun, the unique god worshipped, is represented as Aten, the sun disk, receiving the offerings of the king, who is his sole intermediary upon earth. With this, the “Amarna style” was initiated to culminate in the newly founded residence at el-AMARNA. The elongated face and deformed bodies with sagging bellies, buttocks, and thighs, animated under the omnipresent rays of the Aten, clash completely with previous tradition. After Akhenaten’s reign, the return to orthodoxy engendered an original, expressive art style, in which tradition resurfaces, but contains persistent vestiges of the Amarna heresy. The relief sculpture and mural painting long continued to bear the imprint of the Amarna taste for motion and love of nature. Statuary imbued with a spirit of piety produces new themes in royal iconography and new poses in the iconography of private individuals. The art of the 18th Dynasty also discovered, no doubt through contact with Asia, its taste

6 for luxury, which reflects a certain concern for refinement and beauty. Elaborate costumes and sumptuous dresses are invented. The simple garments in use since the Archaic Period give way to abundant fabrics of transparent, pleated linen wrapped around seductive silhouettes. The overlapping kilts sworn by men display loose panels and long pleated belts, terminating in fringed edges. The coiffures for men and women alike reach a high point of refinement: enveloping wigs with long locks, curls, or tresses (see HAIR, HAIRSTYLES, PHARAONIC), encircled with floral diadems and surmounted by fragrant cones. Highly wrought jewelry adorned its wearer from the ankles up to the wig, including the ears. A profusion of toilet articles in the most inventive forms were manufactured for both the living and the deceased. In the 19th Dynasty, especially under the reign of Sety I, there is a concerted return to tradition. The plastic arts are characterized by a serene beauty; relief sculpture returns to purity of line, elegance, and perfection. A Ramesside art style proper then develops, with grand architectural projects initiated by Sety I and RAMESES II (see RAMESES I–XI). In royal statuary, iconographic themes are diversified and depict the king slaughtering his enemies but also stretching out prostrate to present an offering to a deity or appearing in dyads, triads, and groups of more deities. Individuals’ personal piety emerges, hand-in-hand with the devotion displayed by pharaohs. Private statuary multiplies in the temples, including traditional types enriched with statue types invented in the New Kingdom, such as the naophorous and stelophorous statues. A new repertoire covers the walls of the private tombs: scenes of daily life are replaced with religious themes based on life in the netherworld The Third Intermediate Period, with the royal residence now in the Delta, developed its own style, inherited from the New Kingdom, but lacking in creative attempts to break new ground. The only notable changes, such as the institution of falcon-headed coffins for kings, and the highly decorated coffins for

elites, especially priests, reflect changes in religious beliefs. The 25th Dynasty, of Kushite/Nubian origin, adapted and added to the Egyptian legacy with the contribution of artistic realism from the south. Thereafter, in the Saite Period, the indigenous 26th Dynasty researched and rediscovered the grandeur of the past (see LATE PERIOD, EGYPT). Vast tombs for high officials were adorned with relief sculpture copied from the ancient corpus. Archaizing statuary was produced with extraordinary skill and sophistication. Divine statuettes, in stone or bronze, display a remarkable technical perfection. Statues of priests, admirably polished, with clean-shaven heads bearing a meditative expression, radiate high spirituality. During the succeeding period, diverse foreign influences, among them a Persian intervention, gradually infiltrated Egyptian art and altered it temporarily. The 30th Dynasty strove to imitate the 26th Dynasty. In the Hellenistic Period, new tendencies were introduced in Egyptian art, and aspects of Greek aesthetic are added to the Egyptian core. Nonetheless, an effort to maintain native traditions is observed down to the Roman Period, with the construction of great temples in which the fac¸ades of the pronaos, formed of columns with lower inter-columnar walls, replace the massive pylons, columns with composite capitals diversify the traditional lotiform, papyriform, and palmiform types. Thus architecture gained in airiness, but the plastic arts were now imbued with a new aesthetic and sometimes lacked their pharaonic vigor. Nonetheless, great ensembles, such as the scenes adorning the temple of KOM OMBO, or the sculpted and painted decoration of the tomb of Petosiris at Tuna el-Gebel find their high point in this mixed aesthetic. Likewise, in the sculpture in the round, the profusion of sculptors’ models show that technique and proportion could still be learned, and great works are still produced with competence and in colossal scale, like the colossal statues of the Ptolemaic couple found in the sea near Herakleion. Some extraordinary sculptures,

7 representing goddesses worshipped in the Greek Period, are produced with great skill and care in black granite: the example of the fabulous torso of a Ptolemaic queen discovered during underwater excavations in East Canopus (Abukir), represented emerging from the water like APHRODITE but draped in a transparent dress, which shows her admirably sculptured body, suffices to demonstrate that mixed conventions and aesthetics could achieve in the hands of great sculptors as great a masterpiece as the ones of the past. Eventually, in the twilight of the Roman Period, even a funerary mask, an Egyptian element par excellence, winds up as a portrait painted in Roman fashion on a wooden board. Nonetheless, the conventions and rules of representation that surfaced at the start of Pharaonic history survived the many changes in style down to the Roman Period. From the quarrymen to the sculptors and painters, the same techniques were at work. Similar instruments were used, the same ores ground and then diluted in the painters’ palettes. The same organization of teams divided into phyles alternated under the surveillance of the chief of works. If the Egyptian artists remain for the most part anonymous, their creative spirit is manifest in the works of art that they created throughout the millennia. SEE ALSO: Aten/Aton; Sety (Seti) I–II; Third Intermediate Period, Egypt.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Aldred, C. (1980) Egyptian art. London.

Capart, J. (1927, 1931) Documents pour servir a` l’e´tude de l’art e´gyptien. Paris. Ce´nival, J.-L. de (1973) L’Egypte avant les pyramides, 4e mille´naire. Paris. Cialowicz, K. M. (2007) “Tell-Farkha.” In Seventy years of Polish archaeology in Egypt: 69–78. Warsaw. Hawass, Z., ed. (2003) Treasures of the pyramids. Rome. Hornemann, B. (1951–1969) Types of ancient Egyptian statuary, 7 vols. Munksgaard. L’Art de l’Ancien Empire e´gyptien (1999) Actes du colloque organise´ au muse´e du Louvre 1998. Paris. Leclant, J., ed. (1979–81) Egypt, 3 vols. Munich. Le Quellec, J.-L., de Flers, P., and Philippe, G. N. (2005) Du Sahara au Nil: Peintures et gravures d’avant les pharaons. Paris. Saleh, M. and Sourouzian, H. (1987) Egyptian museum Cairo. Official catalogue. Mainz. Scha¨fer, H. (2002) Principles of Egyptian art. Oxford. Simpson, W. K. (1977) The face of Egypt: permanence and change in Egyptian art. Katonah, NY. Smith, W. S. (1998) The art and architecture of Ancient Egypt, rev. ed. by W. K. Simpson. New Haven. Spencer, J. A. (1993) Early Egypt: the rise of a civilisation in the Nile Valley. London. Vandier, J. (1952–78) Manuel d’arche´ologie e´gyptienne, Tome I–VI. Paris. Winkler, H. A. (1939) Rock drawings of southern Egypt II (including Uwenaˆt), Sir Robert Mond desert expedition, season 1937/8, Preliminary Report. London. Ziegler, C., ed. (1999) L’art de l’Ancien Empire e´gyptien. Actes du colloque organise´ au Muse´e du Louvre. Paris.

1

Art, Greece MARK STANSBURY-O’DONNELL

Greek art is probably best known for the mimetic representation of the human figure, starting from very abstract depictions during the Geometric period to more intensely naturalistic and realistic sculptures and paintings in the Classical and Hellenistic periods. Beyond style, however, Greek art served social and cultural purposes that are important for understanding the role that Greek art played in the experience of its viewers, creators, and patrons. STYLES AND CHRONOLOGY Following the end of the Bronze Age, there was a sharp decline in the production of art and very little representation of the human figure during the Submycenaean (ca. 1125–1050 BCE) and Protogeometric (ca. 1050–900) periods. During the Geometric period (ca. 900–700), there was a development of cities and sanctuaries and an expansion of contact with other Mediterranean cultures. The human figure begins to appear frequently during the eighth century in small bronzes (Figure 1) and painted on pottery. The figures have few internal details, and the parts of the body are reduced to geometric shapes such as triangles, circles, and lozenges. Though simple, the proportions of the figures are often determined through the use of numerical ratios. During the Archaic period (ca. 700–480), artists developed new media and techniques and showed increasing amounts of detail in Figure 1 Greek art: Bronze warrior, geometric Greek art, second half of the eighth century BCE. Bronze, 17.5cm. Fletcher Fund, Acc.n.: 36.11.8, 1936, Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York. Image © 2010 The Metropolitan Museum of Art/ Art Resource/Scala, Florence.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 776–782. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah04049

2 their representations. Some of the techniques, poses, and forms of stone and metal sculpture during this period reflect the influence of the art of the eastern Mediterranean and Egypt. Stone became an important medium for sculpture, particularly for large statues. Early archaic sculpture often features triangular heads, increased anatomical detail and incised patterns (Figure 2). The treatment of muscles and proportions becomes increasingly lifelike during the sixth century BCE, although the poses remain stiff and formulaic. The use of stone as a building material also provided a platform for sculptural reliefs, including the pediments or gables of buildings and in the entablature above the columns. These frequently feature narrative scenes with multiple figures, and in the last part of the period we can see experiments with more complicated poses and compositions. In archaic vase painting, the development of the black-figure technique, incising lines through the black silhouette of the figure and adding red and white, provided more details and animation in the figures. The large scale of black-figure works by the painter Exekias are particularly noteworthy for their balance of detail and monumentality (Figure 3). In the late sixth century, red-figure vase painting appeared, in which the background is painted black and details are painted with lines and washes on the red surface of the clay. Painters explored more complicated actions and poses with foreshortened figures, making the picture more three-dimensional. Even with their more lifelike appearance, late archaic figures continued to be abstract. Figure 2 Marble statue of a kouros (youth), ca. 590–580 BCE. Marble, Naxian. Height without plinth: 194.6 cm, height of head: 30.5 cm, length of face: 22.6 cm, and shoulder width: 51.6 cm. Fletcher Fund, Acc.n.: 32.11.1, 1932, Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York. © 2010 The Metropolitan Museum of Art/Art Resource/Scala, Florence.

3

Figure 3 Black-figure amphora with Achilles and Ajax playing dice. Exekias, sixth century BCE. Gregorian Museum of Etruscan Art, Vatican City. © 2010. Photo Scala, Florence.

Figure 4 Doryphoros (“Spear Bearer”) of Polykleitos. Hellenistic marble copy of bronze original of ca. 450–440 BCE. Minneapolis Institute of Arts, Minneapolis, United States, 86.1.

During the Classical period (ca. 480–330), artists created more naturalistic figures while retaining the idealism of archaic figures. Lostwax bronze casting became an important medium that allowed for more extended figures that could interact with the space of the viewer and show a more dynamic balance and understanding of skeletal and muscle structure. Like contemporary dramas, the figure acts in space and engages with viewers. The Doryphoros, or Spear-Bearer, of Polykleitos (Figure 4), known only from stone copies of the bronze original of ca. 450–440, shows an ideally proportioned male figure, poised between movement and rest, and balanced between straight/bent limbs and active/resting limbs. According to literary sources, the proportions of the Doryphoros were based on mathematical ratios that provided an underlying order to the lifelike appearance of the figure. In classical art, we can also

appreciate a sense of the ethos or character of a figure, revealed by the artist’s ability to articulate rhythmos, the structure of movement and action in the body, and to use facial features, gestures, and pose to reveal a range of emotional states, or pathos. The pensiveness in the action of the Doryphoros gives visible form to the ideals of sophrosyne (wise restraint) and arete (excellence) (Pollitt 1972; Stewart 2008). The Doryphoros and the contemporary sculptures of the PARTHENON (Figure 5) not only represent an ideal ethos, but also the idealized and balanced proportions of the human figure (symmetria). During the fifth century there were similar developments in vase painting, as well as large mural paintings that became common in the Classical period. The development of shading, foreshortening, and linear perspective provided an illusion of three-dimensionality that can be seen indirectly in surviving white-ground vases from the period.

4

Figure 5 Lapith Fighting Centaur. Metope from the Parthenon, ca. 447–442 BCE. Marble. London, British Museum, 1816,0610.2. Photo © Trustees of the British Museum.

In the Late Classical period (ca. 430–330), sculpture and painting explored a greater range of emotion in the human figure and interest in textures, colors, and visual effects. Figures show more detail in the hair, contrasts in texture, and animation in the facial expressions than in the Doryphoros, as well as a more realistic reaction to intense action. Smaller works, such as grave stelai, became common and have a contemplative ethos about them. Vase paintings are produced in smaller numbers, but richly colored, largescale works flourish in APULIA and other Italian regions with Greek settlements. According to literary sources, this is also the golden age of monumental painting. The few surviving mosaics and tomb frescoes show vigorous movement, rich colors, and strong contrasts of light and dark. The dating of works through the analysis of style becomes complicated in the Classical period by the production of figures that are deliberatly “retro” or archaic in appearance. In the Hellenistic period (ca. 330–30), multiple styles coexist, and style should be seen as primarily expressive in nature and determined by content and context. Perhaps the best-known Hellenistic style is labeled

baroque, featuring figures characterized by strong movement, bulging muscles, deep undercutting, contrast between light and dark, and extreme emotion. In the figure of the giant about to be killed by Athena from the second century Pergamon Altar, the pathos and straining of the giant are complemented by the despair of his mother Ge (Earth), emerging from the ground (Figure 6). Other Hellenistic styles include the rococo. While this, too, can have strong action, it is a more refined style, with elongated and active but less strained figures that have a playful or humorous mood. Other Hellenistic art continues the idealized naturalism of the Classical period in a neoclassical style. The well-known second century Aphrodite of Melos develops the canon of the female nude introduced by Praxiteles in the fourth century, but with more complex twists and turns of the figure. In contrast to this neoclassical ideal, there is also a highly realistic style, in which details of the figures, such as scars or the shapes of the features, more closely reflect the experiences of individuals. Portraits that capture both the appearance and the behavior of their subject become established during this period as part of this trend. Finally, one can also find examples of a neo-archaic style, imitating the stiff poses and rigid drapery of the Archaic period. CONTEXTS Greek art served a variety of social functions, and considering the context that an artifact served is critical for the interpretation of its purpose and meaning. The largest buildings in the city were generally temples, such as the Parthenon (Figure 7), which served as places for the cult statue and treasure and as a repository for the many dedications left at Greek sanctuaries. These buildings were also the most elaborate in the Greek city, using the architectural orders (Doric, Ionic, Corinthian) and having elaborate sculptural decoration in the pediments and on friezes and metopes (Figure 5). Sacrificial rituals took place at altars in open spaces near the temple. The sanctuary

5

Figure 6 Hellenistic art: Eastern frieze of the altar of Pergamon. Athena Group: Athena separating the giant Alcyoneus from the earth goddess Gaia without whom he becomes a mortal. Above right is Nike, the goddess of victory. Hellenistic, 164–156 BCE. Berlin, Antikensammlung, Staatliche Museen zu Berlin (post-restoration 2004). Inv. AvP.III.2, Pl.16.1–16.5. Photo by Johannes Laurentius. © 2010 Photo Scala, Florence/BPK, Bildagentur fu¨r Kunst, Kultur und Geschichte, Berlin.

Figure 7 Parthenon, Athens. Photograph by Mark Stansbury-O’Donnell.

6

Figure 8 Agora, Athens, with reconstruction of the Stoa of Attalos. Photograph by Mark StansburyO’Donnell.

was also filled with additional structures, including theaters, athletic facilities, treasuries, porticos or stoas, and rooms for dining and small groups. Sculptural works were placed around the sanctuary, often as commemorations and votive offerings, while smaller, individual donations, including bronze and terracotta figures, were placed in the temple, treasuries, or storerooms. Another important civic space for art was the AGORA, an open area of the city that served as a marketplace and governmental center (Figure 8). Large colonnaded buildings called stoas served multiple functions and also contained civic and individual dedications, including monumental paintings and statues, the latter of which were also placed in the open spaces (Figure 4). Gymnasia and shrines were also features of the agora. Houses were organized around an open courtyard and served as workplaces as well as residences. Weaving was a major activity of women in the house. Virtually nothing of that medium survives, although literary accounts suggest some of its value and high artistic qualities. A large range of pottery and metal vessels were developed for the SYMPOSIUM, a male drinking party held in the house on festival days and other occasions (see Lissarrague 1990). Large storage containers (Figure 3) of wine were mixed with water in a krater or mixing bowl, and then poured into the cups

of the reclining symposiasts. The room for the symposion, the andron, sometimes received elaborate mosaic floors beginning in the Classical period. Greek art also played an important role in funerary practices. Large vessels, stelai, and statues similar to Figure 2 served as tomb markers. Grave goods could include a range of pottery as well as jewelry and figurines. Special vessels for offerings of oil were used for commemorations at the grave or as grave goods, and the deceased sometimes appears seated at the tomb on the painted pottery. Much of the art produced in cities like CORINTH and ATHENS was exported throughout the Mediterranean, contributing to the diffusion of Greek artistic culture and ideas. The interpretation of the content of Greek art, however, needs to be considered not only in terms of its context, but also in terms of its eventual owner, who was frequently not Greek. The hypothesis that Greek work was purchased or copied because of its artistic superiority, as in the case of the Doryphoros (Figure 4), has been challenged in recent decades (see Marvin 2008). ICONOGRAPHY AND INTERPRETATION The elaborate decoration of even pottery vessels with figures has provided a large

7 repertory of both mythological as well as more generic subjects in Greek art. Many figures, such as the nude male figure (Figures 2 and 4) or clothed female figure, are not individualized representations of a god or individual. Rather, most figures are idealized and universal types that could become more specific through the use of an attribute or inscription. Pottery and reliefs in stone or bronze were also platforms for the representation of narrative actions. There are many mythological scenes on both monumental and small scales (Figures 3 and 5). Frequently the oldestknown representation of a mythological scene is found in art, and it must be remembered that artists were storytellers in their own right. Some scenes with mythological figures, such as ACHILLES and AJAX (Figure 3), are only found in art. In addition to mythological scenes, many works show activities drawn from the contemporary world. These are not realistic “snapshots” of daily life, but serve as universalized representations of the lives of Greek men and women. Their themes include battles, hunts, funerary scenes, symposia, and domestic scenes.

SEE ALSO: Architecture, Greek; Art, Egypt; Art, Roman; Burial, Greece; Dark Age Greece;

Mimesis; Pottery, Classical and Hellenistic Greece; Sculpture, Greece and Rome. REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Boardman, J. (2001) The history of Greek vases: potters, painters and pictures. London. Hurwit, J. M. (1985) The art and culture of early Greece, 1100–480 BC. Ithaca. Lissarrague, F. (1990) The aesthetics of the Greek banquet: images of wine and ritual (Un flot d’images), A. Szegedy-Maszak, tr. Princeton. Marvin, M. (2008) The language of the Muses: the dialogue between Greek and Roman sculpture. Los Angeles. Osborne, R. (1998) Archaic and classical Greek art. Oxford. Pollitt, J. J. (1972) Art and experience in classical Greece. Cambridge. Pollitt, J. J. (1986) Art in the Hellenistic age. Cambridge. Pollitt, J. J., ed. (forthcoming) Painting in the classical world. Cambridge. Stansbury-O’Donnell, M. D. (2011) Looking at Greek art. Cambridge. Steiner, A. (2007) Reading Greek vases. Cambridge. Stewart, A. (1990) Greek sculpture: an exploration. New Haven. Stewart, A. (2008) Classical Greece and the birth of western art. Cambridge. Whitley, J. (2001) The archaeology of ancient Greece. Cambridge.

1

Art, Late Antiquity and Byzantium ROWENA LOVERANCE

The category of Late Antique and Byzantine art involves definitions of two different kinds: Late Antique (Spa¨tantike), a term widely used in German art history before it was popularized in English by Peter Brown, is used to cover the transition from classical to medieval society, and carries no religious connotations; Byzantine art on the other hand is produced by a society defined by its Orthodox Christian worldview. It is clear, though, that many of the changes associated with Byzantine art – a preference for abstraction over naturalism, for two rather than three dimensions, for theological meaning over narrative – are not solely related to its Christian meaning, but have their origins in the pagan and secular art of Late Antiquity. Historians argue about whether historical evidence survives at random or as a reflection of conscious choices. The disproportionate survival of religious art from Byzantium presumably reflects the proportions in which religious and secular art was made, a presumption supported by many works of ekphrasis which seem to prioritize this material. But this is not entirely true: for example several descriptions survive of pagan and secular public works of art in Constantinople, which served as the backdrop for much of Byzantine public life. Had more of these survived, our understanding of Byzantine art and aesthetics would have been very different (Bassett 2004). An early reading of late Roman art was to see it as a response to the so-called third century crisis in imperial authority. This appeared to explain the harshness of portrait sculptures of soldier emperors like MAXIMINUS THRAX or Decius and the insistence on uniformity in images of the four Tetrarchs. The Arch of Constantine, once seen as little more than a rehang of significant Hadrianic and Antonine sculptures, seemed an expression of make-do-

and-mend. Recently, however, this has been replaced by an emphasis on the Late Antique reception of art, and its increasingly subjective nature (Muth 2007). The emphasis on collecting and displaying past antiquities, seen both in a third century Gallic villa at Chiragan and in the ransacking of ancient sites by CONSTANTINE I to enhance his new capital at Constantinople, is now viewed as reflecting people’s wish to create their own sense of meaning, in both private and public space. Christianity did not arrive with its own ready-made visual aesthetic. Evidence of Christian art before Constantine is tantalizingly slight. A rare surviving house church from the frontier town of Dura-Europos includes frescoes of the Good Shepherd, Adam and Eve, scenes of Christ’s miracles, and the Women at the Tomb. The Good Shepherd theme also appears frequently in the Roman catacombs and on marble sarcophagi, together with Old Testament scenes which could serve as types, anticipations, of Christ: Noah, Jonah, Daniel, Susanna and the Elders. Jonah, and the Good Shepherd feature too in an extraordinary group of small-scale marble sculptures, probably from a villa in Anatolia, now in Cleveland, which despite their lavish Greco-Roman appearance must presumably have carried a clear Christian message to their third century viewers. After Constantine’s conversion to Christianity in 312 CE, pagan and Christian salvific images are used for a while side-by-side, and their different meanings are not always easy for a modern viewer to distinguish. An openwork ivory of Bellerophon and the Chimaera may be interpreted as Christ overcoming the power of evil; in the Via Latina catacomb in Rome the same artist painted scenes of Herakles and of Samson, the former probably retaining a pagan but the latter having acquired a Christian meaning. However, as Constantine’s churchbuilding program rolled out, transforming the longitudinal form of the secular basilica into the main Christian liturgical space, it generated a demand for a more narrative art to occupy the basilicas’ long wall surfaces. Few of

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 782–785. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah03014

2 these churches survive in their original form, so the earliest such iconic program to survive, though only in part (twenty-seven of the original forty-two scenes) is in S. Maria Maggiore in Rome (432–40). A similar narrative approach survives in sculpture, in the sarcophagus of Junius Bassus (359), found below the floor of St. Peter’s, and in wood in the door panels of S. Sabina in Rome (ca. 410–20). Christian liturgical practice required easy access to the Scriptures, which brought about a change during the second century from classical rolls to bound codices. Once effected, this encouraged the development of full- or halfpage illustrations; the oldest to survive are four Old Testament leaves of the Quedlinburg Itala, probably made in Rome in the first half of the fifth century. Underlying the images are instructions to the artist about the iconography, which suggests that there was not yet an established tradition of biblical illustration (Lowden 1997). Patrons also commissioned secular works using these new techniques of binding and illumination (Vatican Vergil, ca. 400). If books were not the conduit for the new Christian iconography, this may have been effected by portable objects such as personal jewelry, ivories, textiles, and pilgrim tokens. It is notable, for example, how rapidly the decision of the Council of Ephesos in 431 to award Mary the title of Theotokos took visual effect (see THEOTOKOS (VIRGIN MARY)). An image of the Virgin and Child originally occupied the apse in S. Maria Maggiore, and a fine example, which surprisingly however incorporates the old epithet S. Maria, survives at Kiti in Cyprus. Portable examples of this new iconography include a fifth century ivory from Syria or Palestine, now in London, and a sixth century textile from Egypt, now in Cleveland. By the sixth century, this developmental phase of Christian art was complete, and the principal source of artistic patronage moved firmly to Constantinople. The reign of JUSTINIAN I is notable both for the quality and quantity of its works of art. His newly

reconquered lands required lavish new basilicas: the evidence of how marble furnishings were exported “prefabricated” from the quarries at Proconnesos, first recognized in the Marzamemi shipwreck off Sicily, has now been supplemented by finds from other naves lapidariae found off Syria and in the Sea of Marmara. A system of silver-stamping was introduced for the quantities of liturgical and domestic plate now circulating, especially in the eastern provinces, though it remains unclear whether this is a measure of quality or simply of state control. In book production, lavish bibles were produced, written in gold or silver ink on pages dyed in imperial purple: the survival of three of these magnificent books is a clear case of deliberate, rather than of random, survival. The church of HAGIA SOPHIA represents the heights of Justinian’s artistic achievements. It is also a reminder that Byzantine art does not depend for its impact on figural imagery. This was largely eschewed in Justinian’s church: its magnificence is expressed through the chiascuro effects of its deeply undercut marble capitals, the curvilinear patterns of its marble revetment, and the glitter of its plain gold mosaics and of the silver-gilt coverings which sheathed its doors and cornices. In turn all this depends on control of light, as Justinian’s awestruck contemporaries recognized. Scholars are now using modern technology to reconstruct the lighting plans of this and other Byzantine churches. Pagan themes still have their place in sixth century art, despite Justinian’s closure of the ancient Academy of Athens. Anicia Juliana, patron of the Church of St. Polyeuctos, the only church to rival Justinian’s buildings in magnificence, was commemorated in 512 CE by the gift of an illustrated manuscript, the Herbal of Dioscorides, in which she appears flanked by personifications of Magnanimity and Prudence. The same Aristotelian virtue of Magnanimity, megalopsychia, is the centerpiece of two contemporary mosaic floors from Antioch. After much discussion, the surviving floor mosaics of the imperial Great

3 Palace in Constantinople have now been firmly dated to Justinian’s reign, and, like the mosaics of Antioch, reveal an extraordinary me´lange of pagan gods, mythical beasts, and contemporary scenes from daily life. Art works give a mixed message about Byzantine prosperity from the mid-sixth century onwards. Some media dry up entirely, notably ivory: the production of carved ivory panels ceases at much the same time as the last dated consular diptych, that of Basilius (541). Three-dimensional portrait sculpture also ceases: the last surviving aristocratic or official portraits, a group from Ephesos, probably date to the mid-sixth century, and the last recorded imperial portrait was a gilded statue of Phocas erected in Rome in 608. The production of silver plate, however, flourished for a further century. At least fifty-six objects, dating from 540 to 640, have been identified as constituting the liturgical silver of the small church of St. Sergius in the Syrian village of Kaper Koraon, while the nine display plates of the Cyprus treasure, dating from 613–630, tell in classicizing detail the biblical story of David and probably represent the domestic dinner service of an aristocratic or official family close to the emperor HERAKLEIOS. The deliberate concealing of such treasures, however, reflects the uncertain times which were about to overwhelm Byzantium. A visual change of extraordinary significance was the appearance for the first time, on coins of Justinian II, of the head of Christ. It may reflect the same impetus toward personal devotion as the other main visual shift of the period, the apparent growth in use of icons. Most surviving pre-Iconoclasm icons have been preserved in the Monastery of St. Catherine on Mount Sinai (see SINAI, MONASTERY OF ST. CATHERINE); these include beautiful sixth century examples of Christ Pantokrator and the Virgin and Child. Even more accessible, though, are the small group of Coptic icons representing individual saints or holy men, Apa Abraham, bishop of Hermonthis 590–620, now in Berlin, and, now in Paris, Apa Mena, namesake of the more famous saint, who is shown together

with the protective figure of Christ. This increased stress on the human presence of Christ is reflected in the famous canon 82 of the Quinisext Council of 692, which decreed that Christ must be portrayed in his human form and not as a lamb – such symbolic portrayals had been commonplace thus far in Christian art, for example in the sanctuary vault of SAN VITALE in Ravenna. It seems likely that the iconoclasm which broke out in the eighth century may have been, in part at least, an attempt to resist this pervasive trend. In part, too, it must also have been a response to the Islamic invasions, which by the end of the seventh century threatened the empire’s very existence. Ironically, for a while at least, Byzantine art fared better in lands which passed under Islamic control than in the poverty-stricken territories which remained in Byzantine hands. Recent excavations in Jordan have unearthed many new church buildings, with high-quality mosaic floors. The Umayyad caliphs employed Byzantine craftsmen to work on the mosaics of the Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem and Great Mosque at Damascus. Hunting scenes from the Great Palace mosaics are echoed on frescoes at Qasr ‘Amra, the surviving bath building of an Umayyad hunting lodge. The impact of Iconoclasm on Byzantine art was profound. At the simplest level, it caused a massive disruption of artistic activity, though by no means a cessation: churches, such as Haghia Irene in Constantinople and Haghia Sophia in Thessalonike, were renovated, and the mechanical gold throne was commissioned for the Great Palace which so impressed Liutprand of Cremona in the tenth century. Many works of art were no doubt deliberately destroyed, as depicted in the illustrated psalters of the winning side. The arguments which raged between iconoclasts and the victorious iconophiles were to define Byzantium’s understanding of visual art for the remainder of its history. The practice of art, the turning of wood, paint, and stone into representations of Christ and the saints, was not idolatrous but rather mirrored the action of the

4 Incarnation. Icons were not to be worshipped but venerated, as representations of the divine. SEE ALSO: Architecture, Byzantine; Art, Roman; Constantinople, history and monuments; Coptic; Fresco, images and technique; Iconography, Byzantine; Ivory; Mosaics, Byzantine; Pottery, Byzantine; Textiles, Byzantine.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Bassett, S. (2004) The urban image of Late Antique Constantinople. Cambridge. Elsner, J. (1997) Art and the Roman viewer: the transformation of art from the pagan world to Christianity. Cambridge.

James, L., ed. (2007) Art and text in Byzantine culture. Cambridge. Lowden, J. (1997) Early Christian and Byzantine art. London. Maguire, E. and Maguire, H. (2007) Other icons: art and power in Byzantine secular culture. Princeton. Muth, S. (2007) “Die kaiserzeitlichen Portra¨ts der Villa von Chiragan: Spa¨tantike Sammlung oder gewachsenes Ensemble?” In F. A Bauer and C. Witschel, Statuen in der Spa¨tantike: 323–40. Wiesbaden. Onians, J. (1980) “Abstraction and imagination in Late Antiquity.” Art History 3: 1–23. Webb, R. (2009) Ekphrasis, imagination and persuasion in ancient rhetorical theory and practice. Farnham.

1

Art, Roman CRAIG I. HARDIMAN

The origins of Roman art are a complex mix of native and imported styles and concepts that ultimately coalesced into what we now view as the art created by the Romans. Questions of chronology, location, and even historiography all come into play to help us understand the artistic and cultural meaning(s) of the art we have come to call Roman. Prior to the control of the Italian Peninsula by the Romans, the landscape was littered with cultures – Villanovan, Oscan, Etruscan, and Greek – all of which had lively production centers and trade in art of all media. Of these, the two most formative precursors to Roman art styles were the Etruscan and, via the Etruscans and the colonies in the south, the Greek (see ART, GREECE). Indeed, much like their culture and broad political hegemony, Etruscan art had such an impact on the Romans that it can often be difficult to determine where Etruscan art ends and Roman art begins. Though their origins are obscure, the Etruscans (see ETRURIA, ETRUSCANS) became the dominant material culture in Italy from the sixth century BCE until the Roman hegemony of the second century BCE. Influenced by both Greece and the Near East, with which the Etruscans had extensive trade contacts, Etruscan art is perhaps most famous for its lively and brightly colored tomb paintings. Other than perhaps general interests in wall painting and mythological motifs, there seems to have been little direct influence on later Roman wall painting. It was different in the cases of architecture and sculpture. Etruscan temples were made of perishable or reusable material and so few survive beyond the foundations. Surviving material, such as the Temple of Minerva at Veii near Rome that dates to ca. 500 BCE, matches the description of Etruscan temples in Vitruvius (De Arch 4.7) and suggests the high podium, central access, and axial plan of later Roman temples.

Figure 1 Portrait of “Brutus.” Musei Capitolini, Rome. © 2010 Photo Scala, Florence.

Etruscan public sculpture, such as the Apollo of Veii (ca. 500) or the “Mars” of Todi (fourth century), generally follow contemporary Greek styles, though a sense of movement and dynamism seem Etruscan. Private sculpture and portraiture form a special category: there was a growing trend from the early fourth century onward to include more veristic features. This unique trait may relate to the importance the Etruscans placed on funerary rights and with it an importance on an individual’s specific features. An echo of this may be seen in the famous statement by Polybius (6.53) regarding the creation of Roman “death masks.” Still, many examples of such portraiture, such as the so-called Brutus (Figure 1), are from the second or first centuries and so one could question whether these are culturally Etruscan or Roman. The portrait of Aulus Metellus from the first century BCE is illustrative of such a fusion of styles and

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 786–792. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah10013

2

Figure 2 The Ixion Room, House of the Vettii, Pompeii. © 2010 Photo Scala, Florence/Fotografica Foglia. Courtesy of the Ministero Beni e Att. Culturali.

3 cultures and shows how the origins of republican veristic portraiture may be found in earlier Etruscan works. All of this suggests that a dynamic relationship between the art of the two cultures, unsurprising given the shared geography and history, existed for several centuries. Thus the art of the Roman Republic can be viewed as a syncretic fusion of native Italic, especially Etruscan, styles and the diffused “Greek” styles found throughout the Mediterranean. As Rome’s power extended further east, it came into increasing contact with the Hellenistic kingdoms, whose common artistic heritage had two large impacts on it. First, Rome became interested in Greek material brought back from its conquests. From the sack of Syracuse in 212 (Plut., Marc. 21) to the sack of Corinth in 146 (De Vir. Illus. 60) and beyond, a succession of generals and soldiers sent material back to Rome to glorify the city and interest the connoisseur. This made Rome a major center of art patronage and collecting, as the city became a major engine for art production. Second, Roman merchants and colonizers spread throughout these new areas and mixed their own material cultures with those of other populations. On an island such as DELOS, Italian merchants lived side by side with Greeks, Phoenicians, Jews, and others; the whole created a dynamic population where artistic ideas and styles could mix and flourish. This commingling put the Romans in the heart of Hellenistic styles and trends across all media, making one question whether, from an artistic standpoint at least, “republican” Rome should be considered as “Hellenistic” Rome. There were some characteristics in the art of the age, however, that one may view as definitively Roman. The first is an emphasis on historical events in art, especially reliefs. Though such material in sculpture may go back to the fifth century BCE, it was always the exception in Greek art. From the battle monument of AEMILIUS PAULLUS at DELPHI to the numerous religious and administrative reliefs (suovetaurilia, census, etc.), the Romans were uniquely interested in representing their past

as actual history, rather than through allegory. The second is a strong interest in wall painting. Again, this finds its roots in Etruscan and Greek art, but the numerous surviving remains have led to an entire taxonomy being proposed: the so-called Four Pompeian Painting Styles. The “First Style” finds its origins in earlier masonry-style paintings, while “Second Style” paintings, with a strong visual emphasis on architecture, landscape, and myth, also have clear antecedents. “Third Style” is more complex with its thin candelabra designs and small, far-off vistas, where the wall is treated more as a canvas and not as an illusionistic “window.” “Fourth Style” is a mixture of the previous three styles (Figure 2). Along with pictorial illusion and narrative, these styles highlight an interest in the decoration of domestic space. In addition, they span over a hundred years from the end of the republic to the beginning of the empire, thus illustrating the complex nature of republican art with its issues of style, chronology, and interpretive assumptions. The advent of AUGUSTUS (IMPERATOR CAESAR AUGUSTUS) and the Julio-Claudian Dynasty brought about major changes to the art of the day. The new empire required an artistic ethos to best illustrate the new political reality at Rome; Augustus and his successors saw the value in turning back to the idealism of Classical Greece. Though traditional forms such as verism and historical reliefs continued, often in non-imperial or “plebeian” art, this imperial ideology found its new voice in the ideal art of the past to suggest the timeless and exceptional nature of the empire. Now the ruler and the state became one and the same and Augustus set a visual and material standard that was to be the model for emperors until the end of the Roman Empire. A statue like the Augustus Prima Porta (Figure 3) illustrates this well, with its classical idealism in face and pose, and the highly allegorical imagery on the breastplate relating to the military prowess and the eternal and far-reaching bounty of the empire. Even the cupid on the dolphin suggests Augustus’ familial links to Venus. The whole then glorifies the new ruler and

4

Figure 3 The Augustus Prima Porta. Vatican City. © 2010 Photo Ann Ronan/Heritage Images/Scala, Florence.

the new empire, inseparable in concept, in a visual language suggesting its timeless nature. Similar ideologies are expressed on something more public like the Ara Pacis (see ARA PACIS AUGUSTAE). Though this “Augustan Classicism” was not the sole artistic style utilized, it was the main vehicle through which Augustan, and so Roman, propaganda was spread, along with extensive building programs throughout the empire to celebrate the “new world order.” This type of imagery continued among all the Julio-Claudians, especially Augustus’ immediate family and successors. Portraits of Gaius, Lucius, TIBERIUS, and CALIGULA all show a marked preference for broad classical idealism, to the point where it can often be difficult to determine the precise individual represented. This stylistic choice reinforced not only the inherent messages as set by Augustus, but

also the line of succession and the current emperor’s links to the respected first ruler. Some changes occur in the imagery of CLAUDIUS and NERO, especially in coinage, but by and large this stylistic preference was maintained. Private art seems to have been an area where individuals could express themselves more. The grotto at Sperlonga, for example, illustrates Tiberius’ interests in highly Baroque-style pieces, while Nero’s Domus Aurea is an opulent example of a villa full of Fourth-Style painting. Non-imperial art, for those who could afford it, was a mix – some filled their villas (e.g., Villa dei Papiri) with collections of classically inspired material, while others pursued images in a more linear, free, and schematized style, as witnessed on numerous grave reliefs from the period. A break of sorts occurred under the Flavians. To remove direct links to disliked emperors such as Caligula and Nero, VESPASIAN and TITUS both looked to veristic portraiture to mark an effective break and to renew the stability of the empire. No longer were emperors ideals, but “real” people for “real” problems. New expressions also occurred in relief sculpture, as the panels from the Arch of Titus show an interest in spatial illusion and depth, with a conscious mixing of idealized and veristic imagery. Similar depictions may be found on the so-called Cancellaria Reliefs, though the illusionism and sense of depth are not as natural as on the Arch. Perhaps the most famous use of such techniques at the time comes from the Column of Trajan (see TRAJAN’S COLUMN). This spiraling work references Trajan’s Dacian campaigns from start to end and is yet another version of the Roman historical relief. The work is a narrative tour de force with its scenes of battle, marching, preparations, and the famed suicide of the Dacian Decebalus. All is done imaginatively in a style that reduces accurate rendering of space and scale to a more symbolic representation that highlights the readability of the image over precise realism (Figure 4). What was most important was the message and not the style: Rome and its emperor conquer all.

5

Figure 4 Trajan Addressing the Troops. Trajan’s Column, Rome. © 2010 Photo Scala, Florence, courtesy of the Ministero Beni e Att. Culturali.

6 The column laid the foundation for many monuments to come, but with the philhellene HADRIAN there was a return to classical forms as witnessed in his portraits, reliefs such as the rondels now on the Arch of Constantine, and the numerous statues of Antinoos. Monuments built under his reign such as the PANTHEON, the Temple of Venus and Roma, and the Olympieion in Athens all attest to his interest in large-scale building programs. The Antonines followed in Hadrian’s vein, but an increase in abstraction in space, such as the base of the Column of Antoninus Pius, and in figure, such as on the Column of Marcus Aurelius, show that classicism and a more schematized style could exist side by side. The Late Empire marked major changes in Roman art. Less material survives and presumably less material was commissioned as the turbulence of the third century CE played itself out. Though the Severans produced much that was modeled on their Antonine predecessors, abstraction and schematization became more prominent. Hair on portraits was heavily drilled, with articulated clumps meant to suggest individual strands. In relief, threedimensionality in space was limited to rows of figures suggesting depth, as in the panels from the Arch from LEPCIS MAGNA, with flat, frontal figures lending an otherworldly quality. This linear and abstract style continued with CARACALLA and among the majority of the soldier emperors, whose gruff portraits all suggest the warriors that they were. This linear and abstract approach was taken to new heights with the establishment of the TETRARCHY. The portraits from St. Mark’s in Venice show nearly identical, abstract, almost alien figures, that were meant to eradicate any sense of individuality (Figure 5). The message is again what is most important: the chaos is no more and the lines of succession among four “equals” are clear. It was also the first time for almost a century when major buildings were erected at Rome. Most important is perhaps the Basilica Nova, whose massive interior space and axial plan were to be the forerunners of Christian churches. The reign of CONSTANTINE,

Figure 5 Statues of the Tetrarchs. St. Mark’s Basilica, Venice. © 2010 Photo Scala, Florence.

like that of Augustus, marked a new political reality and so he needed to express this in art. Linear and abstract, his portraits maintain a certain idealism to reflect his exalted position. His heavy use of spolia on monuments such as his Arch at Rome linked him to the great emperors of the past, but his contemporary reliefs are all line and abstraction with the emperor central and imposing in hieratic scale, like his new god (Figure 6). This was to be the foundation for later Roman, Christian, and Byzantine art for centuries to come. The art of Rome evolved along with its society over the centuries. Often adapting to profound cultural or political changes, it was an art where individual and state ideologies were paramount. Historically, Roman art was often cast in the shadow of its Greek counterpart, thought of as either derivative or outright inferior to the art it emulated. Though there existed a dynamic relationship between

7

Figure 6 Seated Constantine, Arch of Constantine, Rome. © 2010 William Storage, Nerve Net Inc.

the two, current studies on such issues as the nature of “Roman copies” and the Hellenic bias among early art historians have shed new light on the skill and invention of the Roman artists. In addition, interest in non-elite art and architecture has tried to counter an understandable bias toward seeing Roman art as the equivalent of imperial art. Such new understandings and interpretive methodologies are keys to a deeper appreciation and understanding of the material that formed the basis of the western art tradition. SEE ALSO: Arches, honorific and triumphal; Architecture, civic, Roman Empire; Architecture, Roman Republic; Art, Greece; Art, Late Antiquity and Byzantium; Gems, Greek and Roman; Glass, Greece and Rome; Mosaics, Roman Empire; Paint and painting, Greece and Rome; Rome, city of; Sculpture, Greece and Rome; Wall-painting, Greek and Roman.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS D’Ambra, E. (1993) Roman art in context: an anthology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ. Fejfer, J. (2007) Roman portraits in context. Berlin. Gazda, E., ed. (1991) Roman art in the private sphere. Ann Arbor. Kleiner, D. (1992) Roman sculpture. New Haven. Kleiner, F. (2007) A history of Roman art. Belmont. Ling, R. (1991) Roman painting. New York. Mattusch, C. C., ed. (2008) Pompeii and the Roman villa: art and culture around the Bay of Naples. London. Pollitt, J. J. (1983) The art of Rome c. 753 BC–AD 337: sources and documents. Cambridge. Ramage, N. and Ramage, A. (2009) Roman art: Romulus to Constantine. 5th ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ. Sear, F. (1989) Roman architecture. Rev. ed. London. Spivey, N. (1997) Etruscan art. London. Zanker, P. (1988) The power of images in the age of Augustus. Ann Arbor.

1

Artabanos II of Parthia LEONARDO GREGORATTI

Artabanos II ruled the Parthian Empire for much of the first half of the first century CE. He was established on the throne with the support of the Parthian nobility after some years of anarchy and internal strife, during which Rome tried to impose its own candidates, chosen among the Arsacids living in Rome. Artabanos had strong connections with the Arsacid royal house of MEDIA ATROPATENE and with the northeastern part of the empire, in particular with Hyrcania. In his first attempt to seize power he was defeated by Vonones. Only later was he successful, and he was crowned king in KTESIPHON in 10/11 CE. Vonones fled to ARMENIA and occupied the vacant Armenian throne until Artabanos, threatening military action, obtained his removal by the Romans. The first concern of the new Great King was to exploit new sources of income in order to grant the Crown a certain level of economic power and thereby counteract the overwhelming influence of the aristocracy. Artabanos conceived and tried to build a new system of controlling the territory, based on a closer and direct relationship with local political subjects, such as the leading classes of Greek cities, the vassal dynasties, and the Jewish communities. Artabanos II was the first to perceive the importance of finding new alliances to regain independence from the nobility. His policy aimed at strengthening his influence on the autonomous Greek cities of the Parthian Empire, such as SELEUKEIA on the Tigris and SUSA. The famous letter of Artabanos to the city of Susa provides an example of his policy towards the Greek cities. He was successful with minor Greek cities, such as Dura-Europos and Susa itself, but his attempts finally led to the upheaval of the Seleukeians, whose city he had tried to control by deporting JEWS in large numbers. They managed to free the city from royal control for seven years (Tac. Ann. 11.9) until the reign of Vardanes. Artabanos also sought an alliance with the Jewish communities of

Mesopotamia, Nisibis, and Nahardea, as is shown by the episode of the two Jewish brothers Asinaeus and Anilaeus who thanks to established royal support ruled over Mesopotamia (Joseph. Ant. Jud. 18.310–79). Towards the end of his reign, the Romans put into action a plan to overthrow his rule. Rome launched a military offensive in Armenia while another Arsacid living in Rome, Tiridates, was sent into Parthia to gain the throne with the support of some of the nobility (35 CE). Defeated, Artabanos was forced to seek refuge in the eastern satrapies, where he found military support among the nomadic chiefs and the Hyrcanian aristocracy (Tac. Ann. 6.36). He presented himself as a nomadic hunter imitating the legendary ARSACES, the illustrious founder of the dynasty. At the head of an army of Sacae and Dahae, he was able to regain the throne. According to western sources, in his last years of reign Artabanos became arrogant and ambitious. Tacitus says that “he meant to seize the country possessed by Cyrus and afterwards by Alexander” (Tac. Ann. 6.31), but the historical value of this statement is still debated. He died between 38 and 41 CE, leaving a kingdom again torn by internal strife for the throne. SEE ALSO:

Caspian/Hyrcanian Sea and region; Parthia; Parthians, rulers.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Dąbrowa, E. (1983) La politique de l’état parthe à l’égard de Rome – d’Artaban II à Vologèse I (ca 11–ca 79 de n. è.) et les facteurs qui la conditionnaient. Krakow. Gregoratti, L. (2012) “The importance of the mint of Seleucia on the Tigris in the Arsacid History.” Mesopotamia 47: 129–36. Gregoratti, L. (2015) “A tale of two great kings: Artabanos and Vologaeses.” In A. Krasnowolska and R. Rusek-Kowalska, eds., Studies on the Iranian world I: before Islam: 203–10. Krakow. Kahrstedt, U. (1950) Artabanos III. und seine Erben. Bern. Wolski, J. (1993) L’empire des Arsacides. 32. Leuven.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, and Andrew Erskine. © 2018 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Published 2018 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah30632

1

Artapanos DANIEL BARBU

Three fragments of the works of Artapanos have come down to us, chiefly through EUSEBIUS OF CAESAREA (Praep. Evang. 9.18.1, 9.23.1–4, 9.27.1–37; also CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA, Strom. 1.23.154, 2-3 [¼Praep. Evang. 9.27.23–5]). Eusebius quotes them from Alexander Polyhistor, along with various otherwise lost Jewish Hellenistic authors. The first two fragments are respectively concerned with the sojourns of Abraham and Joseph in Egypt. The third, by far the longest, is a retelling of the Exodus narrative. Artapanos draws his material as much from Greek and Egyptian mythology related to Sesostris (see SENWOSRET (SESOSTRIS) I–IV), OSIRIS, HERMES/THOTH, and Isis (see ISIS, PHARAONIC EGYPT) as from the biblical accounts and emerging parabiblical Jewish traditions (e.g., Abraham’s reputation as an astrologer; Moses’ military campaign in Ethiopia). He thus identifies Moses with Mousaios, the disciple of Orpheus in Greek literature, although inverting the conventional sequence in order to present him as “the teacher of Orpheus”; he further asserts that Moses assigned their gods and “sacred animals” to the Egyptians and their “sacred writings” to the Egyptian priests, who came to call him Hermes. The result is a panegyrical account of the origins of the Jews, which places their ancestral heroes upstream from both Greek and Egyptian cultures (Collins 1985: 892). Any information on Artapanos must be inferred from the fragments themselves. His name is doubtless of Persian origin. As the three fragments deal with Egypt, however, scholars generally locate their author there (Holladay 1983: 190; Collins 1985: 891). Due to his familiarity with the SEPTUAGINT, Artapanos is usually dated no earlier than the mid-third century BCE. A link with the Jewish temple at LEONTOPOLIS (in the Heliopolite district) may be surmised on the basis of his allusion to the building of a temple in

Heliopolis in the days of Joseph, which would indicate a terminus post quem in the second century BCE. The composition of Alexander Polyhistor’s Perὶ ̓Ιοudaίon in the mid-first century BCE marks a definite terminus ante quem (for diverse dating suggestions see Collins 1985: 890–1). Political instabilities consequent to inner-Ptolemaic conflicts in the late second century BCE have recently been proposed as a context (Zellentin 2009: 27–39). In all likelihood, however, Artapanos belonged to a time when Jewish–Egyptian relationships had not yet deteriorated; thus the relative tolerance of the “neighbors’ beliefs” (i.e., the Egyptian cults), since these originally go back to Moses (Kugler 2005: 75). The artificial origin and mortal nature of the Egyptian “sacred animals” is, however, made clear, and contrasted with the ultimate supremacy of the God of Moses and the Jews – that is, the “Lord of the universe” (Kugler 2005: 76–7). If Artapanos’ writings let us catch a glimpse of the complexities and dynamics of intercultural realities of Hellenistic Egypt, they nonetheless remain an expression of Jewish national pride. The Greek image of an ageold Egypt, its priests, customs, and the exploits of its primeval gods and heroes – as witnessed by HERODOTUS and Hecataeus of Abdera (ap. Diodorus Siculus) – is subverted to serve a Jewish discourse: be it a defense of Judaism against its slanderers (Collins 1985: 891–2) or a mischievous romance addressed to fellow Diaspora Jews (Gruen 2002: 202). SEE ALSO: Judeo-Greek literature; Moses; Moses, Jewish and Pagan image of.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Borgeaud, P., Ro¨mer, T., and Volokhine, Y., eds. (2009) Interpre´tations de Moı¨se. E´gypte, Jude´e, Gre`ce et Rome. Leiden. Collins, J. J. (1985) “Artapanus.” In J. H. Charlesworth, ed., The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, vol. 2: 889–903. Garden City, NY.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 792–793. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah11033

2 Gruen, E. S. (2002) Diaspora: Jews amidst Greeks and Romans. Cambridge, MA. Holladay, C. R. (1983) Fragments from Hellenistic Jewish authors, vol. 1: Historians. Chico. Kugler, R. (2005) “Hearing the story of Moses in Ptolemaic Egypt: Artapanus accommodates the

tradition.” In A. Hilhorst, ed., The Wisdom of Egypt: 67–80. Leiden. Zellentin, H. (2009) “The end of Jewish Egypt: Artapanus and the Second Exodus.” In G. Gardner and K. Osterloh, eds., Antiquity in antiquity: 2–48. Tu¨bingen.

1

Artemidoros of Ephesos ¨ RBEL KRAMER BA

Artemidoros of Ephesos was one of the most important authorities in the field of Hellenistic geography. According to Markianos, his zenith was 104–101 BCE (GGM I 3, 566, 31 ff.). Shortly after the enforcement of the lex Sempronia in 123 BCE (P.Artemid. 2008: 101) he won a lawsuit at Rome for his home town against the Roman tax collectors (Strabo 14.1.25 f. C 642). He spent time at Alexandria and Egypt and possibly also on the coast of the Red Sea. He sailed along all Mediterranean coasts, and the recently published Papyrus of Artemidoros (first century CE) shows that he passed through the Pillars of Herakles into the Atlantic Ocean northwards along the coast as far as the Megas Limen at the northwestern edge of the Iberian Peninsula (between 136 and 108 BCE, cf. P.Artemid. 2008: 102 f.). He wrote regional history (Ionika Hypomnemata) and probably around 104–101 he published the very first universal Geography (Geographoumena) in eleven books, one of the most important sources for Strabo, Pliny, and others. In the fifth century CE, Markianos compiled an epitome of Artemidoros’ work, which had declined in importance after the publication of the Geography of Strabo in Augustan times. Later authors knew only Markianos’ epitome. However, P. Artemid. preserves a passage of the original text of the second book, containing the description of Spain, and a geographical map, which is not specifically identified. According to Artemidoros, geography

is considered to be an independent discipline like philosophy. The work of a geographer ought to be based not only on critical scientific studies, but on autopsy as well. Mapping, too, was part of his work, including the measurement of distances (stadiasmos). Artemidoros’ Geography is a combination of periplus, periegesis, and cultural studies, first known before him through the work of Agatharchides and later perfected by Strabo. SEE ALSO: Agatharchides of Knidos; Geography; Navigation (science); Publicani; Strabo of Amaseia.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Berger, E. H. (1903) Geschichte der wissenschaftlichen Erdkunde: 525–9. Leipzig. Bunbury, E. H. (1879) A history of ancient geography among the Greeks and Romans from the earliest ages till the fall of the Roman Empire, vol. 2: 61–9. London. Hagenow, G. (1932) Untersuchungen zu Artemidors Geographie des Westens. Go¨ttingen. Mu¨ller, K. E. (1972) Geschichte der antiken Ethnographie und ethnologischen Theoriebildung von den Anfa¨ngen bis auf die byzantinischen Historiographen, vol. 1: 291–2, no. 29. Wiesbaden. P.Artemid. = Gallazzi, C., Kramer, B., and Settis, S., eds. (2008) Il Papiro di Artemidoro (P.Artemid), con collaborazione di G. Adornato, A. C. Cassio, A. Soldat. Milan. Stiehle, R. (1856) “Der Geograph Artemidoros von Ephesos.” Philologus 11: 193–244. Warmington, E. H. and Hornblower, S. (1996) “Artemidorus” (2). In S. Hornblower and A. Spawforth, eds., The Oxford classical dictionary, 3rd ed.: 182. Oxford.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 793–794. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah21047

1

Artemis IVANA PETROVIC

Artemis was one of the most important Greek goddesses, with a widespread cult and numerous sanctuaries all over the Greek world. In mythology, Artemis is APOLLO’s twin sister and daughter of Zeus and Leto, born either on Delos or in Ortygia near Ephesos. Artemis was a goddess of wild nature and hunting. She is an unmarried virgin, mistress of animals and all young creatures. The goddess was often represented as a huntress with her attributes bow, quiver, and arrow or with a spear, stag, and hunting dogs. In archaic art, she was represented as a stern, winged creature, holding a wild animal in each hand (often stags and leopards). In Classical and Hellenistic art, Artemis is a beautiful, slender maiden, usually represented in movement. ARTEMIS IN CULT Artemis presided over marginality, both in literal and abstract terms. Her sanctuaries were usually outside cities, often in liminal areas such as marshes and junctions of land and water. The goddess presided over areas outside the polis and protected wild vegetation and animals. She was the goddess of hunting in many Greek cities. Artemis Agrotera was worshipped as the goddess of battle in Sparta. Athenians also sacrificed to Artemis Agrotera since the battle of Marathon. In human life, Artemis also represented liminality. She presided over female rites of passage in many Greek cities (Calame 1996). She was the goddess of male initiation at Sparta (see ORTHIA). Artemis also presided over the notoriously risky event in female life – childbirth. Artemis Kourotrophos was the goddess of child-rearing. Since infant mortality in the ancient world was very high, we can summarize the role of Artemis in human life (birth, childhood, war, hunting) as one connected with peril and hazard.

Figure 1 Marble statue of Artemis (Diana) the huntress accompanied by a doe. © White Images/ Scala, Florence.

Artemis was also a city-goddess, especially in Asia Minor, where she assimilated the characteristics of great eastern goddesses. Especially prominent cult centers of Artemis in Asia were Magnesia on the Maeander, Perge in Pamphylia, and Ephesos. In Asia, Artemis was venerated as the supreme goddess of nature. Her sanctuary in Ephesos was one of the Seven Wonders of the World. Artemis was often conflated with various local deities (e.g., BENDIS, Britomartis, Diktynna, Orthia) or assimilated with other goddesses (e.g., HEKATE and Selene). This is why she played a role in Greek magic, where she was invoked together with Hekate and Persephone (Petrovic 2007). The Romans identified their goddess DIANA with Artemis at an early date. ARTEMIS IN LITERATURE In Homeric poetry, the most common epithets of Artemis are “shooter of arrows” and

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 794–796. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah17055

2 “mistress of animals.” The goddess plays a marginal role in the Iliad. Like her brother Apollo, she supports the Trojans and is also depicted as a stern slayer of women. In the Odyssey, Artemis is represented as exceedingly beautiful and accompanied by a string of comely nymphs. In the Homeric hymns, she arranges the chorus of the nymphs and delights the gods with dancing and singing. The Iliad and Odyssey played an important role in shaping the goddess’ character in later Greek poetry (Petrovic 2010). Artemis’ portrayal in tragedy accentuates her somber character. In Aeschylus’ Agamemnon, Artemis is enraged over the future destruction of Troy and orders a sacrifice of Agamemnon’s daughter Iphigenia. This episode was popular in Athenian tragedy and in vase painting. Euripides’ Iphigenia at Aulis presents a milder version of the legend, as the goddess substitutes a deer instead of Iphigenia in the last moment. However, in Euripides’ Iphigenia in Tauris, Iphigenia appears as the priestess of Artemis in Tauris and has to sacrifice the strangers at her altar. This tragedy provides an aition of the cult of Artemis in Attic Halai. Iphigenia and Orestes transport the image of Artemis from Tauris to Attica, where a milder ritual without human sacrifice is introduced. Another popular legend was that of Hippolytus. We know the version of Euripides, who presents him as a chaste hunter who reveres only Artemis. This enrages Aphrodite, who

decides to cause his death. Though Artemis could not save Hippolytus, she institutes a hero cult for him instead. Callimachus’ Hymn to Artemis is the longest Hellenistic text about the goddess. This hymn depicts her attributes and famous exploits and stresses her role as protector of the cities (Petrovic 2007). Popular myths about Artemis tell of the ways she punished those who tried to violate her (e.g., Actaeon), insulted Leto (e.g., Niobe), or neglected her sacrifices (e.g., Oineus). Her female followers are often assaulted by gods or heroes (e.g., Atalante and Kallisto). SEE ALSO: Diktynnaion sanctuary; Moon deities, Greece and Rome.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Calame, C. (1996) Choruses of young women in Ancient Greece: their morphology, religious role, and social functions. Lanham, MD. English trans. of Les chœurs de jeunes filles en Gre`ce archaı¨que, 1977. Rome. Fischer-Hansen, T. and Poulsen, B., eds. (2009) From Artemis to Diana: the goddess of man and beast. Copenhagen. Petrovic, I. (2007) Von den Toren des Hades zu den Hallen des Olymp: Artemiskult in Kallimachos und Theokrit. Leiden. Petrovic, I. (2010) “Transforming Artemis: from the goddess of the outdoors to the city goddess.” In J. N. Bremmer and A. Erskine, eds., Gods of ancient Greece: identities and transformations: 209–27. Edinburgh.

1

Artemis Brauron sanctuary JULIETTA STEINHAUER

The sanctuary of ARTEMIS at Brauron, chiefly known for having hosted pre-puberty and pre-marriage rituals for girls and young women (see RITES OF PASSAGE), was originally located directly on the eastern coast of Attica, 37 km from the center of Athens. Today, one can find its preserved structures 400 m inland in the valley of the Erasinos River, situated on the rocky slope of a mountain that was previously the site of acropoleis of Neolithic and Mycenaean settlements. According to the archaeological evidence, the actual sanctuary was in use from the eighth until the third century BCE. It consisted of a small Doric, non-peripteral temple (about 1120 m) from the sixth/fifth century, which only survived as foundation; a sacred spring with a partly artificial basin used as deposit for votive objects from 700 to 480; a hero-grave to the southeast of the temple sometimes referred to as “heroon of Iphigenia”; and an uneven pishaped Doric stoa built of local limestone and Pentelic marble around 430–420 (see TEMPLES, GREEK). Only the northern one of the three colonnades was ever finished (Mylonopoulos and Bubenheimer 1996). The rooms behind the porticoes of the north and west wings of almost standard size (approx. 66 m) were furnished with benches and tables of which some are still in place today. A late classical/ early Hellenistic decree (the unpublished “inscription of the nomothetes,” printed in part in Mylonopoulos and Bubenheimer 1996) from Brauron refers to further buildings that have not yet been identified but which suggest a much bigger structure than the present one. It also mentions a second temple, a Parthenon, which might have stood beside the known temple (Goette 2005). The site was abandoned under Roman rule, and in the sixth century CE an early Christian basilica was built in close proximity to the sanctuary, reusing

some of its material. According to Pausanias (1.23.7), the sanctuary had a branch at Athens, which can be connected with a stoa excavated on the southern slope of the acropolis and containing copies of a register of the treasury at Brauron of which the earliest entries date back to 416 BCE (Mylonopoulos and Bubenheimer 1996). Apart from specific archaeological finds, such as the krateriskoi, a special type of miniature-crater (see POTTERY, CLASSICAL AND HELLENISTIC GREECE), which clearly indicate cultic ceremonies concerned mainly with young girls (Kahil 1981), we know little about the actual rituals that took place here. Most of the krateriskoi, supposedly used for special libations within the cult, depict two different scenes in which girls of various ages are either engaged in running or dancing, both naked and dressed in short and long chitones, probably as part of the ritual representing the steps of growing from girl to woman (Waldner 2000). Herodotus (6.138) is the first to mention the Athenian women celebrating at the sanctuary of Artemis at Brauron. The term arktoi for the young girls who were supposedly initiated at Brauron is mentioned in Aristophanes’ Lysistrata (645) and can probably be associated with the girls depicted on the krateriskoi. REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Dillon, M. (2001) Girls and women in Classical Greek religion. London. ¨ berlegungen zur Topothese Goette, H. R. (2005) “U von Geba¨uden im antiken Brauron.” Archa¨ologischer Anzeiger 25–38. Kahil, L. (1981) “Arte´mis et le Brauronion.” Hesperia 50: 253–63. Mylonopoulos, J. and Bubenheimer, F. (1996) “Beitra¨ge zur Topographie des Artemision von Brauron.” Archa¨ologischer Anzeiger 7–23. Waldner, K. (2000) “Kultra¨ume von Frauen in Athen: Das Beispiel der Artemis Brauronia.” In T. Spa¨th et al., eds., Frauenwelten in der Antike: Geschlechterordnung und weibliche Lebenspraxis. Stuttgart.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 796–797. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah14048

1

Artemis Limnatis sanctuary WILLIAM C. WEST III

The sanctuary of Artemis Limnatis is located on a western slope of Mount Taygetos, roughly on the border between Lakonia and Messenia. It was accessible from the Asinaeus Sinus, the Gulf of Asine, via the Choireios River. Control of the sanctuary was disputed by the Lakonians and Messenians from early times (Paus. 4.4.2, 31.3; Strabo 8.4.9), arising from a tradition of violation by Messenians of Spartan maidens who had come to the sanctuary for a religious rite (cf. Baladie´ 1980: 69, 270). Before this outrage, according to Strabo (op. cit.), both groups had used the sanctuary in common for assemblies. The sanctuary continued to be the object of dispute between Lakonia and Messenia, possibly until the time of Tiberius. Archaic dedications to Artemis Limnatis cut on bronze vases, from Lakonia and Messenia, written in Doric, are known.

The site of the sanctuary has not been identified with certainty, but it is thought to be “near modern Volimnos close to Artemisia” by means of the road from Kalamata to Sparta over Mount Taygetos (New Pauly 2005). Some inscriptions of Roman date were found in this area (IG V.1 1373–8). SEE ALSO: Artemis; Pausanias; Strabo of Amaseia; Taygetos mountain.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Baladie´ R. (1980) Le Pe´loponne`se de Strabon. E´tude de ge´ographie historique. Paris. New Pauly (2005) 7: 606 (Lafond). Boston. Papachatzis, N. D. (1979) Pausanı´ou Hella´dos perie´gesis 4: 42–44, 99. Athens. Roebuck, C. (1941) A history of Messenia from 369 to 146 BC: 118–21. Chicago. Talbert, R. J. A., et al. (2000) Barrington atlas of the Greek and Roman world, 58C4. Oxford.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print page 797. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah14049

1

Artemisia STEPHEN RUZICKA

Artemisia was an early fifth century “tyrant” or dynast of HALIKARNASSOS; her dates are unknown. The name of her father, “Lygdamis,” is Carian; but, since official documents from Halikarnassos use “Halikarnassians” to designate the city’s Greek population (SIG3 45; Meiggs–Lewis 32), HERODOTUS’ characterization of Lygdamis as “Halikarnassian” likely identifies him as Greek, and thus Artemisia was Greek too. At some time before 480 BCE Artemisia succeeded her father, shared the dynasteia (power of rule) with her husband, and then held it alone after his death. As a vassal dynast within the Persian Empire, Artemisia participated in Xerxes’ invasion of Greece in 480 (see PERSIA AND GREECE), commanding contingents from KOS, NISYROS, and KALYMNA – island states off the Halikarnassos peninsula (Hdt. 7.99). Artemisia is the only female dynast known to have acted as commander in Persian naval battles. Her fame derives from the speeches and actions that Herodotus attributes to her during the 480 campaign, perhaps reproducing traditions current at Halikarnassos. She fought first at the indecisive battle of Artemisium off EUBOEA. Before the subsequent battle of Salamis (see SALAMIS, ISLAND AND BATTLE OF), Artemisia alone reportedly advised against engaging the Greek fleet, predicting that victory would be achieved

by waiting patiently for the end of Greek resistance or by moving on land into the PELOPONNESE (Hdt. 8.68–69). Artemisia’s exploit in the battle – eluding Athenian pursuit by sinking a Kalymnian ship that belonged to her own contingent – is the only particular encounter in the whole battle that Herodotus narrates (8.87–88). Herodotus then gives Artemisia a central role in persuading Xerxes himself to withdraw after the battle, advising him to leave MARDONIOS to command and to assume blame in the event of further defeat. Artemisia herself withdrew with her ships, carrying some of Xerxes’ sons to EPHESOS (Hdt. 8.102–103). Xerxes’ esteem may be indicated by the alabaster gift vase bearing his name found at Halikarnassos; but scholars have been skeptical about the details of Herodotus’ account. SEE ALSO: Caria; Dynasteia, idea of, Greece; Lygdamis of Halikarnassos; Tyranny.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Berve, H. (1967) Die Tyrannis bei den Griechen, vol. 1: 120–1. Munich. Evans, J. A. S. (1982) Herodotus. Boston. Meiggs, R. and Lewis, D., eds. (1969) A selection of Greek historical inscriptions to the end of the fifth century BC. Oxford (¼ Meiggs–Lewis). Strauss, B. (2004) The battle of Salamis. New York. Wallinga, H. T. (2005) Xerxes’ Greek adventure: the naval perspective. Leiden.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 797–798. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah04336

1

Artillery M. K. HEBBLEWHITE

Ancient mechanized military equipment designed to shoot projectiles, usually bolts or stones, at a velocity and over a distance a soldier could not have manually achieved, is categorized using the modern term “artillery” (Marsden 1969: 1–2). Artillery was used in siege warfare, field operations, and naval warfare. There were two broad types of artillery in the ancient world. “Tension artillery” derived its propulsive power from a bow-shaped composite structure. “Torsion artillery” relied on the propulsive power of torsion springs fashioned from hair or sinew. Tracing the technological development of artillery is difficult, as we rely primarily on a small number of Greek and Roman technical manuals and passing references in literary histories. These sources are of varying historical quality and often contain imprecise technical terminology. The earliest form of artillery was the tension powered weapon known as the belly-shooter (gastraphetes). It is possible that this weapon was developed as early as the late fifth century BCE, although most scholars believe that this breakthrough occurred in 399 under the patronage of the Syracusan tyrant Dionysios I (Campbell 2003: 4–5). Experimentation with gastraphetes led to the invention of the torsion powered sharp projectile catapult (katapeltikon) in the middle decades of the fourth century BCE. Torsion artillery allowed for greater accuracy and power and would become the dominant form of artillery in the ancient world. Under the patronage of PHILIP II of Macedon and his successors, torsion technology was significantly improved. Stone throwing catapults (katapeltai petroboloi) were developed under ALEXANDER III, THE GREAT. During the reign of PTOLEMY III PHILADELPHOS (283–246 BCE) the formulae for missile calibration were perfected.

By the late third century BCE, the Greek writer PHILO OF BYZANTIUM produced a technical manual (Mechanike Syntaxis), detailing the basic mathematical and engineering principles of catapult construction. Roman artillery was initially modeled on existing Hellenistic technology. During the republican epoch, Roman armies only used artillery sporadically and requisitioning what they needed from defeated Hellenistic enemies. It was not until the Gallic campaigns of JULIUS CAESAR (C. IULUS CAESAR) (58–51) that artillery was used in a regular and coherent manner. During the imperial epoch, individual Roman legions were equipped with artillery. Josephus writes that the Roman forces besieging Jotapata in 67 CE deployed over one hundred and sixty catapults (Jewish War 3.166). Imperial Rome introduced a new Latin lexicon to describe artillery. Most prominently, a stone-projecting catapult became known as a ballista. Around the beginning of the second century CE, catapult design was significantly refined, including the development of a mobile iron-framed catapult called a Carroballista. Following the fall of the Western Roman Empire, simple torsion artillery, such as the one armed catapult known as the onager, continued to be used on a limited scale. However, our evidence suggests that tension artillery, which was cheaper to construct and easier to maintain, enjoyed a resurgence in popularity in both the barbarian west and the Byzantine east. In the sixth century, new forms of non-torsion artillery appeared, such as the traction-powered “beam-sling” catapult (petrobolos). These nontorsion forms of artillery are considered the forerunners of medieval artillery, such as the crossbow and counterweight trebuchet. SEE ALSO:

Catapults; Warfare, technology.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Campbell, D. (2003) Greek and Roman artillery 399 BC–363 AD. Oxford.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 798–799. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah19204

2 Cheveddon, P.E. (1995) “Artillery in Late Antiquity: prelude to the Middle Ages.” In I. A. Corfis and M. Wolfe, The medieval city under siege: 131–73. Woodbridge.

Marsden, E. W. (1969) Greek and Roman artillery – historical development. Oxford.

1

Artisans, ancient Near East ELIZABETH E. PAYNE

In the ancient Near East, the term “artisan” (Akkadian: ummia¯nu) applied to a broad range of professions requiring a mastery of specialized skills and included not only those who converted raw materials into finished goods, but also those who specialized in scholarly trades. Only the former will be treated here (for others see DIVINATION, ANCIENT NEAR EAST ; SCRIBES, ANCIENT NEAR EAST). The topic can be further subdivided based on the nature of the evidence investigated. As summarized by Moorey (1994: 13), “[t]exts relate principally to the role of craftsmen in social and economic life; the information provided by field archaeology and art history more often illustrates the crafts themselves and the processes of manufacture.” The focus of the present article is the social and economic role of artisans and is, therefore, based largely on textual sources. More detailed discussions of the process and manufacture of finished goods can be found in the entries for specific types of material culture. The textual source material for studying artisans is vast. Of greatest importance are the institutional archives that provide detailed accounts of the administration of both the craftsmen and the raw materials with which they were entrusted. In evaluating the social and economic roles of these professionals, these will be the primary sources depended upon here. Another type of text is the technical manuals available for a limited number of professions (e.g., glassmaking, dyeing). These manuals provide some insight into the process of different specializations, though it is disputed whether they accurately reflect the techniques recorded, or whether they were a scribal exercise recording unusual vocabulary (Moorey 1994: 16). Historical accounts are also important in that they record the deportation of artisans as war booty and thereby attest to the value ascribed to them (e.g.,

2 Kgs 24:14, where craftsmen and smiths are specifically noted among those carried off from Jerusalem by NEBUCHADNEZZAR II). During the Late Bronze Age the movement of artisans was largely guided by the prevailing “rules of gift-exchange” (Zaccagnini 1983: 251). In this context, craftsmen, especially physicians and diviners, were included among the prestige items exchanged by the great rulers. In the first millennium, specifically during the Neo-Babylonian period (sixth century BCE), the movement of artisans was more regional in scope and frequently involved the movement of craftsmen between the major urban centers, generally at the behest of their overseeing institution, though perhaps also on their own independent initiative (Jursa 2010). In fact, the document once offered as evidence for the existence of guilds (Weisberg 1967) was actually an oath imposed on the craftsmen by the temple in order to restrict their movement and, more importantly, the movement of the valuable raw materials at their disposal (Payne 2008). The artisans were consistently one of the most mobile segments of ancient Near Eastern society. The role and status of ancient Near Eastern artisans will be outlined here on the basis of the evidence for craftsmen working for NeoBabylonian temples (Payne 2007; Jursa 2010). While these comments reflect a specific period and region for which there are abundant data, the resulting image does not differ in fundamental, structural ways from that which can be drawn using similar archives from other periods or regions (Loding 1974; Neumann 1987; Van de Mieroop 1987). Within the temple economy of the Neo-Babylonian period the artisans were generally referred to by their specific profession (e.g., weavers, goldsmiths, carpenters) and only rarely by more collective terminology (i.e., “artisans”). Within the ranks of the artisans there were several social classes working together. First were those individuals dependent upon the temple (Akkadian: shirku). Such individuals comprised the majority of the workforce in

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 799–802. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah01016

2 the craft professions and were paid a salary in kind (literally “ration,” Akkadian: kurummatu). They worked full-time for the temple and were required to do unskilled labor, such as irrigation work, when their specialized services were not needed. This undoubtedly reflects the shortage of labor prevalent at this time and can be compared with earlier periods when craftsmen were required to work only half-time for the temple and may have been free to work independently the rest of the time (Van de Mieroop 1987). The second largest social class working as artisans were those members of the urban elite who owned temple prebends. These individuals owed the temple certain services in exchange for a small payment, either in silver or in kind, for the services they provided. Ownership of these positions was a sign of social status. Such arrangements are attested only for those professions requiring direct access to the cult statues, such as the brewers and bakers who prepared the cultic meals and the weavers who prepared the ceremonial clothing. These individuals had limited obligations to the temple and a majority of their activities were related to other pursuits, which is known because they appear as participants and witnesses in other texts. Occasionally, the temple faced a shortage of labor and was forced to hire additional craftsmen who worked for a short period of time and were paid in silver wages. In unspecialized labor, it was common for wage-earners to be hired under these terms, but it was rare among the institutional craftsmen. Similarly, slaves (Akkadian: qallu) are attested performing the duties owed by their owners, but such individuals made up only a small portion of the overall workforce. Within the temple economy, the role of the artisans was to produce the items needed by the temple. For the blacksmiths, this meant fashioning the tools needed for construction, irrigation, and agricultural projects. The work of all other professions was linked directly to the needs of the cult. In this respect, they made and maintained the clothes and

jewelry adorning the cult statues, fashioned the vessels in which their meals were served, and prepared the food and beer served them. The purpose of the recordkeeping was to maintain oversight over the temple’s property; therefore, the more valuable the raw material (e.g., gold or imported dyes), the more meticulous the recordkeeping. As a result, there are thousands of texts recording the work of some artisans (e.g., goldsmiths, weavers), but almost no texts recording the work of others (e.g., reed-workers, potters). Outside the temple archives there are fewer textual sources, but one can see glimpses of craftsmen practicing their trade independently and for profit (Waerzeggers 2006). Slaves could also be apprenticed to an artisan in order to learn a trade, presumably for the profit of their owner (Zaccagnini 1983: 261). Female artisans played a limited role within the temple archives of the Neo-Babylonian period. They never appear in the preparations for the cult; however, several texts point to the continued practice of women weaving textiles, often in a domestic setting. It is possible, perhaps even likely, that they played a significant role in the production of non-cultic textiles, though such production was largely unrecorded in this period. Given the strong influence of classical and modern approaches to the study of art, one is accustomed to looking for individual masters, and the art of this period has been described rather dismissively as the work of “anonymous . . . craftsmen rather than artists” (Gunter 1990: 9, quoting H. W. F. Saggs). Such pessimism is, however, unwarranted. While works of art are never signed in this period, the individuals who created them are not entirely unknown to us. For example, Roaf (1983) has been able to recognize the styles of individual sculptors who carved the reliefs at Persepolis. Furthermore, hundreds of artisans are known to us by name (Bongenaar 1997), and some have even left behind their private archives (Radner 1999). The function of the artisans was to produce objects that were meant to be used. Whether

3 they were fashioned for the temples, the palaces, or the private sector for use in religious, political, or economic settings, the utilitarian aim should not diminish the artistic merit of the objects they created. Furthermore, artisans played a significant role in the broader history of the ancient Near East. The objects they produced were a driving force behind longdistance trade; they were instrumental in ushering in the shift from bronze to iron technology; and they played a role in international diplomacy, through gift-exchange and war booty. Artisans were an integral part of ancient Near Eastern society. SEE ALSO: Artisans, trades, and guilds, Late Antiquity; Bronze; Carpenter; Gold; Iron; Leather, leatherwork; Purple (dye, textile); Textiles, Byzantine; Textiles, Greece and Rome; Textiles, Pharaonic Egypt; Trade, ancient Near East.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Bongenaar, A. C. V. M. (1997) The Neo-Babylonian Ebabbar temple at Sippar: its administration and its prosopography. Leiden. Gunter, A. C., ed. (1990) Investigating artistic environments in the ancient Near East. Washington. Jursa, M. (2010) Aspects of the economic history of Babylonia in the first millennium BC: economic

geography, economic mentalities, agriculture, the use of money and the problem of economic growth. Mu¨nster. Loding, D. M. (1974) “A craft archive from Ur.” PhD diss., University of Pennsylvania. Moorey, P. R. S. (1994) Ancient Mesopotamian materials and industries: the archaeological evidence. Oxford. Neumann, H. (1987) Handwerk in Mesopotamien: Untersuchungen zu seiner Organisation in der Zeit der III. Dynastie von Ur. Berlin. Payne, E. E. (2007) “The craftsmen of the NeoBabylonian period: a study of the textile and metal workers of the Eanna temple.” PhD diss., Yale University. Payne, E. E. (2008) “New evidence for the ‘craftsmen’s charter.’” Revue d’Assyriologie et d’Arche´ologie Orientale 102: 99–114. Radner, K. (1999) Ein neuassyrisches Privatarchiv der Tempelgoldschmiede von Assur. Saarbru¨cken. Roaf, M. (1983) “Sculptures and sculptors at Persepolis.” Iran 21: i–xi, 1–164. Van de Mieroop, M. (1987) Crafts in the early Isin period: a study of the Isin craft archive from the reigns of Isˇbi-Erra and Sˇu-ilisˇu. Leuven. Waerzeggers, C. (2006) “Neo-Babylonian laundry.” Revue d’Assyriologie et d’Arche´ologie Orientale 100: 83–96. Weisberg, D. B. (1967) Guild structure and political allegiance in early Achaemenid Mesopotamia. New Haven and London. Zaccagnini, C. (1983) “Patterns of mobility among ancient Near Eastern craftsmen.” Journal of Near Eastern Studies 42: 245–64.

1

Artisans, Greece and Rome ROGER B. ULRICH

The Greek artisan, along with his Roman counterpart, worked with his hands to make a living (hence a Greek term for the artisan, cheirotechnes: “skilled with hands”). His status was lower than most of his contemporaries, although certainly higher than those of fellow landless members of society without any useful skills. The generally negative views of manual laborers as expressed by Aristotle (e.g., Pol. 1278A, 1337b8), Xenophon (e.g., Oec. 4.2–3), Cicero (e.g., Off. 1.150–1) and others regarding the base nature of those who earned their livings through manual labor seem representative of the opinion of the elite, even if the end product was a highlyvalued commodity, and general opinion was perhaps more favorable (Cuomo 2007: 4). Xenophon and Aristotle claimed that artisanal activities softened the body and weakened the mind, Cicero considered most manual trades as base (sordidi) occupations, yet did concede that some who practiced trades employing higher thought (e.g., the architect or doctor) should be accorded some praise. Without any stake through ownership of land, the banausoi (Greek) or fabri (Roman) were second-class citizens disinclined if not excluded from participation in governing and defense – if they were citizens at all. Nevertheless, in myths the skillful employment of craft (techne, ars) is given great credit: Daedalus, the ur-craftsman of all, is remembered as something of a (tragic) genius. Odysseus boasts of making his own marriage bed (Hom. Od. 23.195). Hephaistos is the male model of the divine artisan (even if physically imperfect), and Athena Ergane the patroness of handwork, especially weaving. Plutarch (Sol. 22) tell us that Solon, perhaps of tradesman origin himself, encouraged the development of craftsmanship in Athens of the sixth century BCE.

Terms in reference to craftsmen are varied and often used interchangeably: the Greek technites (see TECHNITAI), cheirotechnes, demiourgos, and banausos can all refer to manual laborers, just as the Roman craftsman could be referred to as a faber, artifex, or opifex. There appears to have been little distinction, at least among those of the general population, between different classes of artisans, or between what we might refer to today as the “fine artist,” the “craftsman,” or a relatively unskilled laborer. Thus the wall painter, the bed-maker, the roofer, potter, or shipwright were considered members of the same general class of person and could be referred to by the same general terminology. Having said that, inscriptions that refer to laborers, whether from the records of building accounts (as we find in Athens and Eleusis), or funerary inscriptions (both Greek and Roman; the latter in greater numbers), or references to Romanperiod guilds (collegia), often use specific terms or modifiers to suggest areas of focus or subspecialties within the larger sphere of artisanship: for example, koroplastes: a ceramic worker; persikopios: a slipper-maker; faber navalis: shipbuilder; faber pectinarius: the comb-maker. Craftsmen were overwhelmingly male, although here and there depictions in both Greek and Roman contexts show the occasional female or child at work. Sons learned the skills of a trade from their fathers, beginning at an early age (Pl. Prt. 328A). Families of craftsmen could span several generations, as long as sufficient male children were born to continue the lines. Many celebrated Greek sculptors (e.g., Skopas, Lysippos; for the latter, e.g., Plin. HN 34.51) were the sons and fathers of others who practiced the same art. Lacking male offspring, an artisan could take on an apprentice, either from a relative or elsewhere. From (a few) literary references and funerary epitaphs we know that many artisans, including the highly skilled, were slaves or of servile origin. Former slaves of the Roman period (liberti) were often bound to their

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 802–804. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah06029

2 former owners by the expectations and obligations of the client–patron relationship. While the identities and personal histories of the vast majority of ancient artisans are lost, we do hear of some remarkable personalities who achieved no small amount of fame through their craft. Some of these are remembered through the writings of their contemporaries or those who compiled later histories that included commentary on artistic masterpieces (e.g., Pliny and Pausanias). Others, such as those Greek vase-painters who worked in archaic Athens, or some sculptors and mosaicists of the Hellenistic period, signed their works. Competition among wealthy collectors of ancient art and the high prices we hear were paid for prized objects ensured a notoriety for at least a few. Artisans in the Greek and Roman world tend to be associated with town or urban settings. Work conditions must have been cramped, dirty, and dangerous for most practitioners (hence Xenophon’s admonitions of minds and bodies going “soft”). Since many important trades involved the use of fire (ceramics, metalworking, glassblowing, etc.) working areas and conditions were hazardous, both in terms of health and public safety. Thus it is not surprising to find that artisans were often clustered in zones or quarters of the urban plan (e.g., Athenian bronze workers in the Melite district and ceramic workers in the neighboring Kerameikos quarter of the city). Some classes of workers, such as bakers, fullers, or shoemakers were more evenly distributed through an urban setting, as the discovery of such establishments in Pompeii and Athens attests. Both literary references and archaeological sites indicate that many artisans worked in establishments both large and small, while others, such as wall painters or sculptors who might be employed on large-scale architectural projects, travelled, sometimes great distances, to work on site (Burford 1972: 66–7). Despite their base social status, artisans were of great importance to the quality of life and economic well-being of the ancient city; at times migration was encouraged. Both Solon

and Peisistratos, for example, encouraged the emigration of non-Athenian craftsmen from rival city-states to Athens in the sixth century BCE (Plut. Sol. 22–4). The discovery of simple houses-cumworkrooms (see ERGASTERION, ERGASTULUM) at Athens and converted rooms and porticoes in Pompeian houses indicates that many artisans practiced their craft where they lived; the modest spaces indicate that only one or two craftsmen (a master with a slave or two and an apprentice) worked in the same establishment. While such “Hausindustrie” may have dominated the artisanal communities, some operations, such as large-scale textile manufacture or brick-making, required greater numbers of organized workers (Hopper 1979: 17). For large architectural projects artisans worked on site; a notable example is the substantial workshop of Pheidias found at Olympia, where sculptors of ivory and precious metals as well as woodworkers worked on the chyselephantine cult statue of Zeus. Literary sources offer hints at larger private operations, such as the sword-making and furniture factories run by the father of Demosthenes that together employed over fifty slaves (Dem. 27.11), an armaments factory of Lysias and his brother Polemachos (Lys. 12.8; 12.19) or, on the Roman side, a gang of servile carpenters employed by Crassus who restored and rebuilt structures on lots in Rome that had been ravaged by fire (Plut. Crass. 2.4). More can be learned about orchestrated operations by examination of depictions of craftsmen at work: evidence exists from Greek painting (both vases and votive plaques), Roman shop signs, funerary depictions, and dedications to patron deities. Outstanding examples include the Berlin Foundry cup (inv. F 2294), which shows Greek bronzeworkers (chalkotypoi) engaged in various stages of making large-scale bronze statuary, the Caputi hydria, with its idealized depictions of a Greek vase-painting establishment, the baking scenes from Rome’s first century Tomb of Eurysaces, and another Roman first century depiction of a furniture shop in operation

3 from a statue base dedicated to Minerva found in Rome (Musei Capitolini, inv. 2743). Such depictions often provide valuable information about the appearance and handling of ancient tools, specialized garb, and social hierarchy within the workshop. Little can be said with certainty about the degree to which Greek or Roman craftsmen were organized by trade into anything resembling a professional organization or guild. What associations did exist, in both Greek and Roman contexts, were centered around cult activities. The archaic dedications at Corinthian Penteskouphia, for example, include a large number of terracotta plaques depicting kilns. That potters frequented the site seems clear, but to establish any collective intent is difficult. Inscriptions recording a dedication to a particular deity by a group of Greek artisans similarly may indicate common cause, but not a substantive organizational structure. For the Roman period more information on the existence and organization of collegia exists, although there remain many unanswered questions. Often translated as “guilds,” the collegia seem to have functioned primarily as social clubs organized around a patron god and open to fee-paying members of individual trades. There is no evidence that these organizations oversaw issues related to a given trade such as standardization of training, fees for

services, or working conditions. The collegia were highly popular with certain groups of artisans: those representing woodworkers of all kinds and builders are prominent, but also those for leather and textile workers (e.g., fullers) seem common; however, there are other groups that are underrepresented or not represented at all (e.g., sculptors and painters). SEE ALSO: Architects; Artisans, trades and guilds, Late Antiquity; Bread; Bricks and brick making, ancient Near East; Carpenter; Collegia; Daedalus; Fulling, fullers; Labor, Greece and Rome; Leather, leatherwork; Medicine, Greek and Roman; Metallurgy, Greece and Rome; Pottery, Archaic and republican Rome; Textiles, Greece and Rome; Wood and woodworking.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Burford, A. (1972) Craftsmen in Greek and Roman society. Ithaca. Ciarallo, A. and De Carolis, E. (1999) Homo faber: natura, scienza e tecnica nell’antica Pompei. Milan. Cuomo, S. (2007) Technology and culture in Greek and Roman antiquity. Cambridge. Hopper, R. J. (1979) Trade and industry in classical Greece. London. Neesen, L. (1989) Demiurgoi und Artifices. Studien zur Stellung freier Handwerker in antiken Sta¨dten. Frankfurt.

1

Artisans, Pharaonic Egypt PETRA MARˇI´KOVA´ VLCˇKOVA´

The status of artisans in ancient Egyptian civilization differs greatly for most of its history from that obtained by their counterparts in ancient Greece and Rome (see ARTISANS, GREECE AND ROME), as there are very few traces of their individual identity. An idea of artisans as freely-working creators driven by their artistic inventions and individual non-traditional approaches (individuality and creativity) engaged in creation of works of art cannot be justified in ancient Egyptian society, as other merits were valued at that time, such as knowledge and adherence to traditional, already proven approaches and technical skills. On the other hand, their creations, even though viewed in Egyptological literature mostly as products of a workshop-based craft industry, are unquestionably works of arts aimed at specific audiences: both living and dead Egyptians, as well as their gods. Ancient Egyptian artisans can be generally described as “craftsmen” or “skilled workmen”; consequently, the Egyptian language had no specific term that

can be translated as “artisan” or “artist.” The closest word is H : mwtj “craftsman,” which distinguishes various types of “craftsmen” by specifying the different materials with which they worked. In ancient Egypt the artisans did not work as free agents but as members of structured workshops or ateliers working for the central administration (the king) or temples or as members of large households. In consequence, they appeared in written and pictorial evidence as holders of various titles illustrating their status in the social hierarchy, with those working for royalty generally having a higher status than any others (as would have been the case for the artists living in DEIR EL-MEDINA and decorating the royal tombs). From the point of view of the social organization of their work, the ancient Egyptian artisan was always responsible to a patron. In between both might stand a designer who devised what was to be produced; this person might be, but was not always, the artisan who actually produced the piece of art (the executant). Beyond getting commissions from official patrons, the artisans probably undertook freelance work to increase their income and social status in the

Figure 1 Organization of a sculptor’s workshop as it is depicted on a relief in the tomb of Huya, Amarna. Drawn by the author after Davies, The Rock Tombs of el Amarna: Part III. The Tomb of Huya and Ahmes (1905, pl. 18).

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 804–806. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah15045

2 community. While working on some commissions, for example, in the decoration of a tomb, it seems highly probable that several artisans of the same kind (e.g., painters or relief sculptors) worked together, as is corroborated by careful examination of wall scenes and inscriptions. Workshops producing various objects of art dating to almost all periods of Egyptian history have been excavated on archaeological sites all over Egypt; see, for example, ABYDOS, EGYPT, ALEXANDRIA (EGYPT), AMARNA, AVARIS/TELL EL-DAB’A, DASHUR, ELEPHANTINE, PHARAONIC, EL-KAB, GIZA, HIERAKONPOLIS, MEMPHIS, PHARAONIC, and Thebes (Malqata). Those workshops produced a wide range of objects, including statuary, plaster casts, stone vessels, faience, bone inlays, glass objects, etc. Although the majority of ancient Egyptian artisans have remained silent through the course of history, there are several famous artisans known to us: the architects IMHOTEP, Hemiunu, Ineni, Senenmut, and Amenhotep, son of Hapu, the painters Seni or Dedia, and the sculptors Thutmose and Bak, just to mention a few. It was for their extraordinary achievements that two of these – IMHOTEP and AMENHOTEP, SON OF HAPU, were deified in later periods of Egyptian history. Additionally, there are depictions of artisans with their names and titles on tomb reliefs or on other monuments (e.g., stelae). Sometimes they even left us with opinions on their own person and skills: “I am a craftsman excellent in his craft . . . I know (how to express) the movement of a man and the stride of a woman, position of a trapped bird, the cringing of a solitary captive . . . I know the making of things . . . without letting the fire

burn them, nor do they wash off in water either” (autobiographical text of sculptor Irtisen, after Barta 1970: 78–126). SEE ALSO: Architecture, Egyptian; Art, Egypt; Paint and painting, Pharaonic Egypt; Ptah; Sculpture, Pharaonic Egypt; Stoneworking, Pharaonic Egypt.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Arnold, D., ed. (1996) The royal women of Amarna. Images of beauty from Ancient Egypt. New York. Baines, J. (2007) “On the status and purposes of Ancient Egyptian art.” In Visual & written culture in Ancient Egypt: 298–337. Oxford. Barta, W. (1970) Das Selbstzeugnis eines alta¨gyptischen Ku¨nstlers (Stele Louvre C 14). Berlin. Bogoslovsky, E. S. (1980) “Hundred Egyptian draughtsmen.” Zeitschrift fu¨r a¨gyptische Sprache und Altertumskunde 107: 89–116. Drenkhahn, R. (1976) Die Handwerker und ihre ¨ gypten. Wiesbaden. Ta¨tigkeiten im Alten A Junker, H. (1959) Die gesellschaftliche Stellung der a¨gyptischen Ku¨nstler im Alten Reich. Vienna. Kanawati, N. and Woods, A. (2009) Artists in the Old Kingdom. Techniques and achievements. Cairo. Steinmann, F. (1991) “Untersuchungen zu den in der handwerklich-ku¨nstlerischen Produktion bescha¨ftigten Personen und Berufsgruppen des Neuen Reichs.” Zeitschrift fu¨r a¨gyptische Sprache und Altertumskunde 118: 149–61. Tomoum, N. (2005) The sculptors’ models of the Late and Ptolemaic Periods. A study of the type and function of a group of Ancient Egyptian artefacts. Cairo. Wildung, D. (1977) Imhotep und Amenhotep. ¨ gypten. Berlin. Gottwerdung im alten A

1

Artisans, trades, and guilds, Late Antiquity MATT GIBBS

In Late Antiquity, artisans – ranging from goldsmiths, shippers, builders, carpenters, butchers, bakers, weavers, to ferrymen, and including a further significant range of other trades- and crafts-workers – formed into associations, or more commonly, guilds. Such an illustration of collective life was hardly an innovation of this period; rather it continued a phenomenon that had prevailed in ancient societies for a significant period of time (see ASSOCIATIONS, GREEK AND ROMAN; COLLEGIA). As earlier, these guilds fulfilled a variety of economic, religious, and social needs, both for their members and for the ruling state. Following DIOCLETIAN’s reforms, an artisan’s participation may have been compulsory, where earlier membership appears to have been largely voluntary (Boak 1937: 217–18; Carrie´ 2002: 315–19); however, obligatory membership may only have occurred in those guilds that were central to imperial interests (Łajtar 1991: 63, n. 12; Wipszycka 1966: 12–14). Nevertheless, since one of the main functions of a guild was likely to have been to safeguard its own interests, it is reasonable to assume that artisans would typically seek membership in the collective that represented their own trade. These guilds in the Late Antique period offered mutual advantages to both the artisan and the unifying collective. Partly as an instrument for the levying of taxes, the associations of this period may have been concerned with assembling as many members as possible, perhaps in part to share the tax burden. Furthermore, these collectives were apparently driven to protect their commercial interests, and those of their members, by honoring those imperial officials who could, perhaps, help them: for instance, in the late fourth century CE, the praefectus annonae was commemorated by the measurers of PORTUS in rather

effusive terms (CIL VI 1759). The artisan enjoyed a series of other benefits besides a decrease of certain tax levies and professional security, ranging from public service exemptions (CT 14.2.1; CJ 11.15; see LITURGY, GRECOROMAN EGYPT; LITURGY, GREECE AND ROME), protection from tax collectors (CT 6.29.11; see TAX FARMING; TAXATION, ROMAN) through to access to a socio-economic network that could provide reduced transaction costs, increased contract enforcement, and access to commercial partners and customers (P. Ross.-Georg. III 53; Venticinque 2010: 292–3). Personal benefits too were apparently common: mutual help and the internal provision of CREDIT (PSI XII 1265; P.Stras. IV 287), and it is likely that socio-religious aspects also played a significant role in the lives of the members (cf. Łajtar 1991: 53–70). The administration could rely on the guilds to fulfill a variety of needs, including requisitions (CT 13.4.4), transport (cf. Sirks 1991), the collection of taxation (CT 13.1.17) and, of course, their services. For instance, when VALENTINIAN III ordered the prefect of Rome to repair the parts of the wall that had collapsed or were deteriorating, the guilds of the city were apparently used for this purpose (Nov. Val. 5; Lanc¸on 2000: 6). Arguably the guilds of this period had a closer relationship to the administration than in the past, and those connected to the supply of food and the army often appear at the forefront of imperial policy. The regulation of prices for the goods and services handled by guilds may be evident in a series of declarations from OXYRHYNCHOS, dating to the early fourth century CE, addressed to a logistes (the chief civil magistrate), and several other texts illustrate that such price declarations by guilds were not uncommon during the early-mid fourth century (P.Oxy. I 85; LIV 3765; P.Oxy. XXXI 2570¼LIV 3766; LIV 3768; P.Harr. I 73¼SB XVI 12628; Coles 1980b: 115–23). These texts may illustrate that the associations were responsible for setting costs, but the need to do so was almost certainly born out of state

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 806–808. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah12020

2 interest, particularly in light of Diocletian’s recent price edict (see EDICT ON PRICES, DIOCLETIAN’S). Two theories surround these price declarations: first, the guilds declared the value of goods in stock; second, they declared the retail price of their products (cf., however, PSI III 202, which appears to fit neither). The fact that these costs were declared monthly by the associations to the logistes is perhaps indicative of the state’s interest, and suggests that specific guilds set the prices for the goods or services sold, subject to approval from the administration (Coles 1980a: 229ff). SEE ALSO: Administration, Late Antique; Artisans, Greece and Rome; Economy, Byzantine; Economy, eastern Roman provinces; Grain supply and trade; Novellae; Trade, Roman.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Boak, A. E. R. (1937) “The organization of guilds in Greco-Roman Egypt.” Transactions and Proceedings of the American Philological Association. 68: 212–20. Carrie´, J.-M. (2002) “Les associations professionnelles a` l’e´poque tardive: entre munus et convivialite´,” In J.-M. Carrie´ and R. Lizzi Testa, eds., Humana sapit : e´tudes d’antiquite´ tardive offertes a` Lellia Cracco Ruggini : 309–32. Turnhout. Coles, R. (1980a) “P. Harr. 73 and 160 Revised.” Zeitschrift fu¨r Papyrologie und Epigraphik. 37: 229–39. Coles, R. (1980b) “P. Oxy. I 85 Revised.” Zeitschrift fu¨r Papyrologie und Epigraphik. 39: 115–23.

Harland, P. A. (2003) Associations, synagogues, and congregations. Claiming a place in Mediterranean society. Minneapolis. Łajtar, A. (1991) “Proskynema inscriptions of a Corporation of Iron-Workers from Hermonthis in the Temple of Hatshepsut in Deir El-Bahari: new evidence for pagan cults in Egypt in the 4th Cent. AD.” Journal of Juristic Papyrology 21: 53–70. Lanc¸on, B. (2000) Rome in Late Antiquity: everyday life and urban change, AD 312–609. Edinburgh. Meiggs, R. (1973) Roman Ostia, 2nd ed. Oxford. Nijf, O. M. van (1997) The civic world of professional associations in the Roman East. Amsterdam. ¨ gyptisches Vereinswesen, San Nicolo`, M. (1972) A 2 vols. Munich. Sirks, B. (1991) Food for Rome: the legal structure of the transportation and processing of supplies for the imperial distribution in Rome and Constantinople. Amsterdam. van Minnen, P. (1987) “Urban craftsmen in Roman Egypt.” Mu¨nstersche Beitra¨ge zur antiken Handelsgeschichte 6, 1: 31–88. Venticinque, P. (2010) “Family affairs: guild regulations and family relationships in Roman Egypt.” Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies 50: 273–94. Waltzing, J.-P. (1895–1900) E´tude historique sur les corporations professionnelles chez les Romains: depuis les origines jusqu’a` la chute de l’Empire d’Occident. Leuven. Wipszycka, E. (1966) “Das Textilhandwerk und der ¨ gypten.” Archiv fu¨r Staat im ro¨mischen A Papyrusforschung 18: 1–22.

1

Artisans, trades, and guilds, Late Antiquity MATT GIBBS

MacEwan University, Canada

In Late Antiquity, artisans from a variety of crafts and trades came together – perhaps under compulsion – to form associations, or more commonly, guilds. These associations offered advantages not only to their members, but also to the state in respect to the collection of taxes, the control and use of labor, and the supply of food and services. Such an illustration of collective life was hardly an innovation of this period; rather it continued a phenomenon that had prevailed in ancient societies for a significant period of time (see ASSOCIATIONS, GREEK AND ROMAN; COLLEGIA). As earlier, these guilds fulfilled a variety of economic, religious, and social needs, both for their members and for the ruling state. Under DIOCLETIAN, perhaps earlier in his reign but at least after his reforms, or perhaps even earlier under AURELIAN (John Malalas 12.30; Dey 2011: 102–5; Fabiano 2019: 80), an artisan’s participation in a guild may have become compulsory, where earlier membership appears to have been largely voluntary (Boak 1937: 217–18; Carrié 2002: 315–19); however, obligatory membership may only have occurred in those guilds that were central to imperial interests (Łajtar 1991: 63, n. 12; Wipszycka 1966: 12–14). Nevertheless, since one of the functions of a guild was likely to have been to safeguard its own interests, it is reasonable to assume that artisans would typically seek membership in the collective that represented their own trade. These guilds in the Late Antique period offered mutual advantages to both the artisan and the unifying collective. Partly as an instrument for the levying of taxes, the associations of this period may have been concerned with assembling as many members as possible, perhaps in part to share the tax burden. Furthermore, these collectives were apparently driven to protect their commercial interests, and those

of their members, by honoring those imperial officials who could, perhaps, help them: for instance, in the late fourth century CE, the praefectus annonae was commemorated by the measurers of PORTUS in rather effusive terms (CIL VI 1759). The artisan enjoyed a series of other benefits besides a decrease of certain tax levies and professional security, ranging from public service exemptions (CT 14.2.1; CJ 11.15; see LITURGY, GRECO-ROMAN EGYPT; LITURGY, GREECE AND ROME), protection from tax collectors (CT 6.29.11; see TAX FARMING; TAXATION, ROMAN) through to access to a socioeconomic network that could provide reduced transaction costs, increased contract enforcement, and access to commercial partners and customers (P. Ross.-Georg. III 53; Venticinque 2010: 292–3). Personal benefits were also common, at least in the forms of mutual help and the internal provision of CREDIT (PSI XII 1265; P.Stras. IV 287). It is certain that socioreligious aspects – communal drinking, feasting, worship, the performance of sacrifices, alongside commemorative and funerary activities – played a significant role in the lives of the members (e.g., Łajtar 1991: 53–70; 2006: 95–102; Gibbs 2022: 271–86; Venticinque 2022: 207–26). The administration could rely on the guilds to fulfill a variety of needs, including requisitions (CT 13.4.4), transport (Sirks 1991), the collection of taxation (CT 13.1.17), and, of course, their services. For instance, when VALENTINIAN III ordered the prefect of Rome to repair the parts of the wall that had collapsed or were deteriorating, the guilds of the city were apparently deployed for this purpose (Nov. Val. 5; Lançon 2000: 6). Arguably, the guilds of this period had a closer relationship to the administration than in the past, and those connected to the supply of food, the army, as well as monetary supply often appear at the forefront of imperial policy (Venticinque 2016: 205–7; Bond 2016: 126–41). This is evident in the regulation of prices for the goods and services handled by guilds: a series of declarations from OXYRHYNCHOS, dating to the early fourth century

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History. Edited by Andrew Erskine, David B. Hollander, and Arietta Papaconstantinou. © 2022 John Wiley & Sons Ltd. Published 2022 by John Wiley & Sons Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah12020.pub2

2 CE,

addressed to a logistes (the chief civil magistrate), alongside several other texts which illustrate that such price declarations by guilds were not uncommon during the early to mid fourth century (P.Oxy. I 85; LIV 3765; P.Oxy. XXXI 2570 = LIV 3766; LIV 3768; P.Harr. I 73 = SB XVI 12628; Coles 1980b: 115–23). These texts may illustrate that the associations were responsible for setting costs, but the need to do so was almost certainly due to state interest, particularly in light of Diocletian’s recent price edict (see EDICT ON PRICES, DIOCLETIAN’S). Two theories surround these price declarations: first, the guilds declared the value of goods in stock; second, they declared the retail price of their products. The fact that these costs were declared monthly by the associations to the logistes is perhaps indicative of the state’s interest and suggests that specific guilds set the prices for the goods or services sold, subject to approval from the administration (Coles 1980a: 229–30). SEE ALSO:

Administration, Late Antique; Artisans, Greece and Rome; Economy, Byzantine; Economy, eastern Roman provinces; Grain supply and trade; Novellae; Trade, Roman.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Boak, A. E. R. (1937) “The organization of guilds in Greco-Roman Egypt.” Transactions and Proceedings of the American Philological Association. 68: 212–20. Bond, S. E. (2016) Trade and taboo: disreputable professions in the Roman Mediterranean. Ann Arbor. Carrié, J.-M. (2002) “Les associations professionnelles à l’époque tardive: entre munus et convivialité.” In J.-M. Carrié and R. Lizzi Testa, eds., Humana sapit: études d’antiquité tardive offertes à Lellia Cracco Ruggini: 309–32. Turnhout. Coles, R. (1980a) “P. Harr. 73 and 160 revised.” Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik. 37: 229–39. Coles, R. (1980b) “P. Oxy. I 85 revised.” Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik. 39: 115–23. Dey, H. W. (2011) The Aurelian Wall and the refashioning of Imperial Rome, AD 271–855. Cambridge.

Fabiano, J. (2019) “Builders and integrated associations in fourth-century CE Rome: a new interpretation of AE 1941, 68.” Journal of Late Antiquity 12, 1: 65–87. Gibbs, M. (2022) “Artisans and their gods: the religious activities of trade associations in Roman Egypt.” In A. Cazemier and S. Skaltsa, eds., Associations and religion in context: the Hellenistic and Roman eastern Mediterranean: 271– 86. Liège. Łajtar, A. (1991) “Proskynema inscriptions of a corporation of iron-workers from Hermonthis in the temple of Hatshepsut in Deir El-Bahari: new evidence for pagan cults in Egypt in the 4th cent. AD.” Journal of Juristic Papyrology 21: 53–70. Łajtar, A. (2006) Deir el-Bahari in the Hellenistic and Roman periods: a study of an Egyptian temple based on Greek sources. Warsaw. Lançon, B. (2000) Rome in Late Antiquity: everyday life and urban change, AD 312–609. Edinburgh. Meiggs, R. (1973) Roman Ostia, 2nd ed. Oxford. Nijf, O. M. van (1997) The civic world of professional associations in the Roman East. Amsterdam. San Nicolò, M. (1972) Ägyptisches Vereinswesen, 2 vols. Munich. Sirks, B. (1991) Food for Rome: the legal structure of the transportation and processing of supplies for the imperial distribution in Rome and Constantinople. Amsterdam. van Minnen, P. (1987) “Urban craftsmen in Roman Egypt.” Münstersche Beiträge zur antiken Handelsgeschichte 6, 1: 31–88. Venticinque, P. F. (2010) “Family affairs: guild regulations and family relationships in Roman Egypt.” Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies 50: 273–94. Venticinque, P. F. (2016) Honor among thieves: craftsmen, merchants, and associations in Roman and Late Roman Egypt. Ann Arbor. Venticinque, P. F. (2022) “Dying to belong: associations and the economics of funerals in Egypt and the Roman world.” In Cazemier and Skaltsa, eds.: 207–26. Waltzing, J.-P. (1895–1900) Étude historique sur les corporations professionnelles chez les Romains: depuis les origines jusqu’à la chute de l’Empire d’Occident. Leuven. Wipszycka, E. (1966) “Das Textilhandwerk und der Staat im römischen Ägypten.” Archiv für Papyrusforschung 18: 1–22.

1

Arval Brothers HANS-FRIEDRICH MUELLER

Without inscriptions, we would know little about the twelve priests called Fratres Arvales (“brothers of the farmfields”) and their ceremonies in the grove of the obscure goddess Dea Dia, whose sanctuary included a temple, a Caesareum, altars, and a circus (race track). First discovered in 1570 and subsequently augmented through later discoveries and excavations, these inscriptions meticulously record the acta (minutes) of the Arvals’ religious work from 14 (the last year of Augustus’ reign) to 241 CE (Gordian; some evidence for the year 304 also survives). They document the single most detailed view of the practice of Roman religion that survives. They inform us about the identity of priests, their assistants, their sacrifices, their vows, their equipment, their meals, the rites they conducted (including their dancing and singing), their horse races, their elections, where they met, and on what occasions. From the time of the priesthood’s reorganization (or restoration) under Augustus, the Arval Brothers concerned themselves with protecting through their vows the health and safety of the ruling emperor and his family. They also continued to conduct earlier rites and ceremonies, which were, according to our earliest literary reference, agricultural in focus (Varro Ling. 5.85); how authentically we cannot know with certainty, but the archaic language of a surviving hymn (the Carmen

Arvale), the prominent role of grain, and rites of expiation conducted for the use of iron within the sanctuary suggest a conservative approach. The reigning emperor was always a member (sometimes supernumerary), and he would often nominate candidates to replace those who had died, although new members were, strictly speaking, co-opted by consensus for this lifetime appointment. Members generally possessed social and political prestige. The priesthood’s main ceremonies (not all members participated every year) were conducted over three successive days in May (sometimes June). Many gods in addition to Dea Dia received a wide variety of sacrifices. According to legend, the Arvals were originally the twelve sons of Acca Larentia. When one of them died, Romulus took his place (Gell. 7.7.8). SEE ALSO:

Acca Larentia.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Beard, M. (1985) “Writing and ritual: a study of diversity and expansion in the Arval Acta.” Papers of the British School at Rome 53: 114–62. Scheid, J. (1990) Romulus et ses fre`res: le colle`ge des Fre`res Arvales, mode`le du culte publique dans la Rome des empereurs. Rome. Scheid, J., Tassini, P., and Ru¨pke, J. (1998) Recherches arche´ologiques a` la Magliana: Commentarii fratrum Arvalium qui supersunt: les copies e´pigraphiques des protocoles annuels de la confre´rie arvale (21 av.-304 ap. J.-C.). Rome. Syme, R. (1981) Some Arval brethren. Oxford.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 808–809. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah17056

1

Aryans GARY BECKMAN

Derived from Sanskrit a¯rya- “noble; nobleman,” the term “Aryan” was adopted by early modern linguists to refer to the IndoEuropean languages, particularly those of the Indo-Iranian sub-family, and their speakers. Later speculation extended the word’s meaning to designate a putative racial group, identified by (predominantly) German racialist writers of the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries as the Nordic “master race,” responsible for the greater part of the achievements of European civilization. This wider usage having long been discredited, Aryan is still often employed in relation to the ancient Near Eastern world as a synonym for IndoEuropean, or more precisely, for Indo-Iranian. The earliest textual attestation of IndoIranian vocabulary is found in cuneiform records of the Late Bronze Age. Kings of the Syrian state of Mittani bear Indo-Iranian names such as Artatama, Artashumara, and Tushratta. In a treaty between the latter ruler and Suppiluliuma I of Hatti, the gods Mitra, Varuna, Indra, and the Nasatyas, familiar from the Rig-Veda of India, appear among the pantheon of Mittani. Kikkuli, “from the land of Mittani,” employs a number of Hurrianized Indo-Iranian technical terms in his treatise on the training of chariot horses discovered at the Hittite capital Hattusa, for example aikawartanna “single lap,” terawartanna “double lap.” Most significantly,

the designation maryannu “chariot warrior; nobleman,” in use throughout the area dominated by Mittani, is based on the Sanskrit term marya “young man,” modified by passing through the Hurrian and Akkadian languages. The most cogent historical explanation for this state of affairs is that a small group of Indo-Iranian speakers had attached itself to a larger body of Hurrians prior to the rise of Mittani, becoming its ruling class and maintaining some of its traditions even after having assimilated culturally to the majority. However, there is no evidence for the active use of an Indo-Iranian language in Mittani. SEE ALSO:

Mittani.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Kammenhuber, A. (1961) Hippologia hethitica. Wiesbaden. Kammenhuber, A. (1968) Die Arier im Vorderen Orient. Heidelberg. Kammenhuber, A. (1988) “On Hittites, MitanniHurrians, Indo-Aryans, and horse tablets in the IInd millennium BC.” In T. Mikasa, ed., Essays on Anatolian studies in the second millennium BC: 35–51.Wiesbaden. Mayrhofer, M. (1966) Die Indo‐Arier im alten Vorderasien. Wiesbaden. Poliakov, L. (1974) The Aryan myth: a history of racist and nationalist ideas in Europe. New York. Thieme, P. (1960) “The ‘Aryan’ gods of the Mitanni treaties.” Journal of the American Oriental Society 80: 301–17.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print page 809. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah01017

1

Arzawa TREVOR R. BRYCE

Arzawa (variant Arzawiya) is a generic term used in Hittite cuneiform texts to apply to large parts of western and southwestern Anatolia. The name first appears in the records of the mid-seventeenth century Hittite king Hattusili I, who conducted a brief raid into the region. In the following centuries, it was frequently in conflict with the Hittites, and during the first half of the century troops from Arzawa occupied a large part of Hatti’s southwestern territories. Indeed, in this period the pharaoh Amenhotep III wrote to an Arzawan king called Tarhundaradu, seeking one of his daughters in marriage as a basis of a political alliance with his kingdom (Moran 1992: 101–2, no. 31). This was on the premature supposition that the kingdom of Hatti was finished, and that the Arzawan king would become the new overlord of the region. The Hittite king SUPPILULIUMA I reasserted his sovereignty over Hatti’s territories, expelling the Arzawan forces from them. His son and second successor Mursili II carried out further campaigns in Arzawan territory (ca. 1319–1318 BCE), and established Hittite sovereignty directly over it. The original nucleus of the Arzawa lands was probably a specific kingdom called Arzawa, often now referred to as “Arzawa Minor.” Extending inland from the central Aegean coast, perhaps in part along the Maeander Valley, it was ruled from its capital Apasa (modern Ayasuluk?), near classical Ephesus. Initially, “Arzawa Minor” may have exercised some form of political or military hegemony over the whole Arzawa complex. According to his Annals, Mursili destroyed and depopulated the kingdom, probably assigning its territory to an adjacent country, Mira. This land with three others and the former “Arzawa Minor”

constituted the group of five lands to which the label “Arzawa” is sometimes applied in Hittite texts. The other three are Seha River Land, which lay to the north of Arzawa Minor and included the island of Lesbos (Hittite Lazpas) as a dependency, Wilusa in the region known as the Troad in classical texts (Wilusa is now generally equated with Homeric Ilios/Troy), and Hapalla, which lay inland, to the west of the Salt Lake. All these territories became vassal states of the Hittite Empire under Mursili’s reign (if not before). But they remained unreliable, volatile vassals, sometimes necessitating further Hittite military campaigns in an attempt to restore stability to the region. Ethnically, the populations of the Arzawa lands were probably largely of Luwian origin. The Luwians were one of three groups of Indo-European speakers who entered Anatolia at some undetermined time, perhaps during the third millennium, and dispersed to various parts within it. Yakubovich (2009) has argued that the population of the region became predominantly a Proto-Carian one (i.e., the ancestors of the later Carians of western Anatolia), who provided the ruling aristocracies there. Luwian and “Proto-Carian” both belong to the Indo-European family of languages. In any case, the region where the Arzawa lands were located almost certainly contained an admixture of nonIndo-European population groups who had inhabited the region long before the arrival of Indo-European elements there. REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Bryce, T. R. (2003) “The Luwians in their Bronze Age Context.” In H. C. Melchert, ed., The Luwians: 35–84. Leiden. Heinhold-Krahmer, S. (1977) Arzawa. Heidelberg. Moran, W. L. (1992) The Amarna letters. Baltimore. Yakubovich, I. (2009) Sociolinguistics of the Luvian language. Leiden.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner. © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Published 2016 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah30240

1

Asˇsˇur-uballit: I

EVA CANCIK-KIRSCHBAUM

Asˇsˇur-uballit: I (whose name means “(the god) Asˇsˇur (ASHUR) has kept alive”), succeeded his father Erı¯ba-Adad I on the Assyrian throne and reigned from 1353/2 to 1318/7 BCE. With his reign commenced a systematic drive to expand the kingdom of Ashur and to exercise control over Upper Mesopotamia. Asˇsˇur-uballit: first consolidated Ashur’s rule over the Tigris Valley; he undertook restoration work in the city of NINEVEH and built or renovated fortifications, temples, and the palace in the capital, Ashur. Then, as conflict between the kingdoms of HATTI and MITTANI intensified, he took the opportunity to remake ASSYRIA as an independent political power and territorial state. He directed several campaigns westward and seized territory from Mittani upon its defeat by the Hittite king SUPPILULIUMA I. In the meantime, however, the collapse of Mittanian rule in the mountainous regions north of the Assyrian heartland created instability, which Asˇsˇur-uballit: addressed by leading several military campaigns there. He reestablished

Assyrian contact with Egypt, initiated perhaps two generations previously, by sending the pharaoh diplomatic letters and valuable gifts, herewith asserting his status as a king of equal rank and importance. He married his daughter Muballit:at-Sˇeru¯a to BURNA-BURIA¯Sˇ II, the Kassite king of Babylonia, thus not only establishing political relations with the southern Mesopotamian kingdom, but entitling him to intervene in the succession to the Babylonian throne when the son from this diplomatic marriage was killed. Although sources remain scarce, the extant administrative documentation confirms that from Asˇsˇur-uballit:’s reign onward Assyria’s growing political power could no longer be ignored by its coevals. At his death he was succeeded by his son Adad-nı¯ra¯rı¯ I. SEE ALSO: Amarna letters; Assyrian kings, Middle Assyrian period; Kassite Dynasty.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Grayson, A. K. (1987) Assyrian rulers of the third and second millennia BC. Royal inscriptions of Mesopotamia, Assyrian periods, 1. Toronto.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print page 850. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah24028

1

Asandros, satrap of Caria ¨ LLER SABINE MU

Asandros, son of Agathon from BEROIA and often erroneously called “Cassander” (Curt. 10.10.2; Just. Epit. 13.4.15), was one of the Macedonian SATRAPS of CARIA, appointed after the death of Ada, the last Hekatomnid (see HEKATOMNIDS). According to the Alexander romance (Ps.-Call. 3.31.8) and to the Liber de morte Alexandri Magni (LM 97), Asandros was present at Medios’ symposium where allegedly ALEXANDER III, THE GREAT was poisoned, but he was unaware of the plot. In 323 BCE Asandros received Caria as satrapy (Arr. Succ. 1.6; Curt. 10.10.2; Diod. Sic. 18.3.1; SIG3 311. 2–3). He joined sides with ANTIGONOS I MONOPHTHALMOS against Perdikkas in 322 and lost Caria to Eumenes (Just. Epit. 13.6.14; see PERDIKKAS, SON OF ORONTES), but was reconfirmed as satrap by ANTIPATER at Triparadeisos in 320 (Diod. Sic. 18.39.6; Arr. Succ. 1.37). The reference to a tribe named “Asandris” in the treaty between HERAKLEIA BY LATMOS in Caria and Pidasa (about 323–321) suggests that Asandros was involved in the union of these two cities (SEG 47.1563; Bulletin E´pigraphique 2006: 348). Having managed to secure a powerful position (Diod. Sic. 19.62.2–3), he joined PTOLEMY I SOTER in 315 against Antigonos. Ptolemy sent mercenaries to help him against Antigonos’ nephew Polemaios (alternatively called Ptolemaios;

Diod. Sic. 19.62.5). After a visit to Athens, where he was honored in a decree of Thrasykles son of Nausikrates (SIG 3 320.12–13), Asandros was sent back to Caria by Cassander (Diod. Sic. 19.68.5). Confronted with the Antigonid forces in Asia Minor, he came under pressure. In 313 he had to surrender his troops, relinquish the Greek cities, which Antigonos had won over through propaganda, and surrender to the latter his brother Agathon as a hostage. When Asandros secretly managed to escape and turned to Ptolemy and Seleukos for help, Antigonos ordered the invasion of his satrapy (Diod. Sic. 19.75.1–3; see SELEUKOS I NIKATOR). Asandros’ career as a partly autonomous satrap ended and he was never heard of again. SEE ALSO:

Antigonids; Asia Minor, Hellenistic; Satraps; Successors, Wars of; Triparadeisos, treaty of.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Billows, R. A. (1990) Antigonos the One-Eyed and the creation of the Hellenistic state. Berkeley. Heckel, W. (2006), Who’s who in the age of Alexander the Great. Oxford. Mastrocinque, A. (1979) La Caria e la Ionia meridionale in epoca ellenistica (323–188 a.C.). Rome. Rathmann, M. (2005) Perdikkas zwischen 323 und 320. Nachlassverwalter des Alexanderreiches oder Autokrat? Vienna.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 809–810. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah09053

1

Ascalon GIDEON FUKS

Ascalon, also known as Ashkelon, lies on the shores of the eastern Mediterranean, about 19 km north-northwest of Gaza. It is one of the oldest cities on the coastal plain. It is mentioned in the Bible as one of the five cities of the PHILISTINES. In 604 BCE it was destroyed by NEBUCHADNEZZAR II. It was resettled under Persian rule in the late sixth century BCE. It seems that there was a strong Phoenician element in the revived city. It is called “a city of Tyrians” by Pseudo-Skylax (second half of the fourth century BCE), and the recent excavations have unearthed more evidence of widespread Phoenician presence in the city. In the autumn of 332 BCE Ascalon (like the rest of the country) was incorporated into the ever-growing realm of ALEXANDER THE GREAT. In 301 BCE Ascalon, like the rest of Koile Syria, was conquered by PTOLEMY I SOTER and remained in Egyptian hands until ANTIOCHOS III MEGAS’ victory at Panion in 200 BCE. It is mentioned once in the Zenon papyri (in a letter, probably from 259 BCE, about buying papyrus scrolls and barley there). According to Flavius JOSEPHUS (AJ 12.181), Joseph son of Tobias executed some Ascalonian notables when the city refused to pay taxes to the Ptolemies (ca. 242 BCE). It seems that under Seleucid rule Ascalon surpassed Gaza in importance. Ascalon started minting municipal coinage in 169/168 BCE under ANTIOCHOS IV EPIPHANES, which is a clear sign that by that time the city had become a proper polis. In contrast to Gaza, Ascalon had good relations with the rising HASMONEANS, and was never conquered by them. Taking advantage of the failing fortunes of the Seleucids, Ascalon became “holy and inviolable” in 112/111 BCE and formally independent in 104/103 BCE (starting its own era). It was aided by the dissolution of the last vestiges of Seleucid power in the region due to the rise to power of ALEXANDER JANNAEUS in Judaea in 103 BCE.

When POMPEY conquered Judaea in the summer of 63 BCE, Ascalon was recognized by the Romans as civitas libera et immunis, but in practical terms it came under the sway of the Roman governor of the newly created province of Syria, like the rest of the Greek cities on both sides of the River Jordan. During his reign HEROD THE GREAT built a palace in Ascalon (which was outside his jurisdiction), and also bestowed upon the city sumptuous baths, fountains, and colonnades. At the beginning of the First Revolt the small Jewish community living in the city was completely annihilated by its neighbors. Ascalon was attacked by the Jewish rebels late in 66 BCE, but a Roman auxiliary force based in the city dealt the rebels two crushing defeats. In the years following the revolt Ascalon seems to have prospered. PLINY THE ELDER tells us (HN 12:109) that the cypros (henna shrub) grown around the city produced an expensive substance. Its well-known brand of onions (ascalonium) was famous already in the early Hellenistic period, and in the late Roman period the white wines of Ascalon became world famous and were exported as far as Italy and Gaul. Literary sources and archaeological finds, as well as the coins of Ascalon (especially from the Roman period), yield quite a lot of information concerning the cults and deities of the city. The Phoenician influence on the cults of Ascalon, which goes back as far as the Persian period, is revealed in the presence of such deities as Astarte/APHRODITE, ATARGATIS/Derketo, Melkart/ HERAKLES, and the enigmatic warlike Phanebalos. Some of the Olympian gods (such as POSEIDON, ZEUS, HERMES, and the DIOSCURI) also make their appearance in Ascalon. A strong Egyptianizing influence is also clear, with ISIS, OSIRIS, and SARAPIS, which is to be expected in a city that had long and intensive relations with Egypt. Of all the coastal cities, Ascalon was the only one to become a cultural center that produced some important figures from the later Hellenistic period onward. Noteworthy among them are the philosopher Antiochos of Ascalon (first half of the first century BCE), who was active in

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner. © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Published 2015 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah26190

2 Athens, and the grammarian Ptolemy, who was active in Rome at the end of the same century. Christians are first recorded in Ascalon in 308 CE. The name of Longinus, probably the first bishop of the city, is recorded among the participants of the FIRST CHURCH COUNCIL OF NICAEA in 325 CE. In 640 CE Ascalon was one of the last cities of Byzantine PALESTINE to fall into the hands of the ARABS. SEE ALSO:

Ashkelon; Cities, Roman Empire (east); Gaza (Bronze Age); Gaza (Hellenistic to Late

Antiquity); Hellenization; Revolts, Jewish; Phoenicia, Phoenicians. REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Stager, L. E. (2008) “Tel Ashkelon.” In E. Stern et al., eds., The new encyclopedia of archaeological excavations in the Holy Land, vol. 5: 1578–86. Washington. Stager, L. E., Schloen, J. D., and Master, D. M., eds. (2008) Ashkelon, vol. 1: introduction and overview (1985–2006). Winona Lake, IN.

1

Ascension of Isaiah TOBIAS NICKLAS

The Ascension of Isaiah is one of the oldest Christian apocalyptic writings. The full text of this apocryphon, which has been considered as deuterocanonical in the Ethiopian church for a long time, has only survived in an Ethiopic translation. Parts of the Greek original are preserved in the fifth- or sixth century Papyrus Amherst I. Coptic and (later) Latin and Old Church Slavonic versions of the text are also extant. The Ascension of Isaiah can be subdivided into two parts: chapters 1–5 describe the martyrdom of Isaiah. Chapters 3–4 present a vision of Christ’s descent from the seventh heaven to earth, and describe his fate and the beginning of the Christian community. The following passage presents a vision about the end of the world, Beliar’s descent in the form of Nero, situations of oppression and need, and then finally the Lord’s victory over Beliar and his followers. Chapters 6–11, clearly distinguished from 1–5, present the prophet’s vision of heaven. The question of possible Jewish sources for this Christian text has been a matter of debate for years. At least in the case of chapters 1–5 many scholars argue that the text contains an early Jewish MARTYRDOM OF ISAIAH which could even be reconstructed in detail. Today the Ascension of Isaiah is mainly regarded as a Jewish-Christian text which takes up and reworks Jewish traditional material (e.g., from the Old Testament, but also from later Haggada), but which can no longer be considered to allow the reconstruction of written Jewish sources.

Another problem is the question of the text’s literary unity. While some scholars consider the text as a unity, it can be argued that chapters 6–11 are only very loosely connected to chapters 1–5. So perhaps Enrico Norelli’s (1994, 1995) thesis that chapters 6–11 originally formed a text on its own, and chapters 1–5 were added only later, should be adopted. As indicated above, the Ascension of Isaiah contains and reworks a multitude of (mainly prophetic) Old Testament texts, but also early Jewish traditions, for example, about the presumed death of the prophet Isaiah. There is also a question as to whether the text is also dependent on some New Testament texts. However, while literary dependence on the Gospel of Matthew seems to be probable, the text’s connections to the Book of Revelation do not go far enough to allow such a conclusion. The text is usually dated to the very end of the first century CE or to the first decades of the second century. If chapters 6–11 are older they can be dated to the years around 90–100, while chapters 1–5 could have been added not very much later. In any case: the text will have its origins in a Jewish-Christian milieu at the turn of the first to the second century CE. SEE ALSO: Apocalypses, Christian; Apocalypticism in Early Christianity.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Knight, J. (1996). Disciples of the beloved one. The Christology, social setting and theological context of the Ascension of Isaiah. Sheffield. Norelli, E. (1994) L’Ascensione di Isaia: Studi su un apocrifo al crocevia dei cristianesimi. Bologna. Norelli, E. (1995) Ascensio Isaiae 1–2. Turnhout.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 810–811. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah05026

1

Ascesis/asceticism NANCY WEATHERWAX

Ascesis/asceticism (Greek askesis, “exercise,” from askein) refers to the practice of self-denial and self-discipline for the sake of spiritual growth. (The term’s root meaning of “exercise” alludes to its first use in describing the rigors of an athlete’s training. Those who practiced asceticism for religious reasons considered themselves spiritual athletes.) Asceticism, found in many of the world’s religions, played a central role in the development of ancient Christianity. Organized asceticism is referred to as monasticism (see MONASTICISM, CHRISTIAN). Although asceticism often assumed a dualism between material/ body (lower) and spiritual/ soul (higher), spiritual sins, such as pride, were usually understood to be an even greater threat to holiness than carnal sins. The transformed nature of the ascetic’s body was often believed to have special powers through its holiness (before and after death). ROOTS OF CHRISTIAN ASCETICISM Platonic philosophy provided an emphasis on the distinction between the perfect and unchanging world of ideas/forms to which the soul belongs and the imperfect and decaying material world known through the senses in which persons live temporarily; wise persons live so that they may contemplate the perfect world of ideas through intellectual vision. The Stoic philosophical tradition also provided a model for a wise and disciplined life in which reason overcame all passions. The mainstream Jewish tradition’s focus on marriage and family meant that asceticism was not central, but some Jewish groups in the period of early Christianity offered examples of withdrawal into ascetic communities that rejected marriage, personal property, and involvement in the wider society (the Essenes in Judaea and Therapeutae in Egypt). Teachings about special groups (such as the

Nazirites, who were not allowed to drink wine), fasting as an act of penitence and devotion, and sexual abstinence to avoid ritual impurity on holy occasions were provided in the Jewish scriptures and traditions and could be drawn on by ascetically inclined Christians. In the New Testament, Jesus’ strong criticism of worldly riches and his calls to abandon family to follow him were key inspirations for Christian ascetics, even after the eschatological impetus of the early Jesus movement disappeared. According to Acts 2 and 4, the earliest post-Pentecost community in Jerusalem abandoned claims to personal property, but there is no mention of abandonment of family relationships. Paul’s letters to the Corinthians point to early Christian disagreements over asceticism. Some Corinthian Christians believed marriage was forbidden. Paul (see PAUL AND PAULINE EPISTLES) took the moderate position that eventually became the norm for the mainstream church: he defended marriage as permissible though less desirable than celibacy, which allowed wholehearted concentration of the work of the Lord in the short time remaining (1 Cor 7). 1Timothy 4:3 (ca. 100 CE) repudiated Christian teachers who prohibited marriage.

EARLY CONTROVERSIES Ignatius of Antioch warned (in his letter to Polycarp 5) that celibate Christians who pridefully looked down on married Christians would lose the reward that celibacy would otherwise receive. The sometimes controversial order of widows in the early church could be interpreted as ascetic in its honoring of women who did not remarry. Tertullian complained (De praescr. haeret. 33) that the ascetic heretic Marcion held the antimarriage position condemned in 1 Timothy. Jesus’ praise of those who “made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven” (Matt 19:12) was read by most as a call to overcome sexual passion through self-control, but a few,

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 811–815. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah05027

2 including ORIGEN in his youth, took it literally and chose self-castration, a practice condemned by most Christians. Origen later wrote that castration for religious reasons represented a sincere but uninformed desire for self-control and pointed to the need for spiritual rather than literal exegesis (Comm. Matt. 15.3). The apocryphal acts presented a model of radical asceticism in which conversion was authenticated by a total break with conventional social life. The best known example is the Acts of Paul and Thecla. After hearing Paul’s preaching, THECLA, a wealthy young woman, rejects marriage, cuts off her hair, adopts male clothing, baptizes herself, runs away from home to be Paul’s disciple, and after miraculously surviving numerous ordeals is commissioned by Paul as an evangelist. The Gnostic-influenced Acts of John (a text admired by the Syrian encratites, literally “continent ones,” who disapproved of marriage) depicts a world in which marriage is rejected and female Christians are admired miracle-workers (see JOHN, ACTS OF). The Acts of Andrew presents an ascetic apostle who is persecuted and martyred for his ascetic lifestyle (see ANDREW, ACTS OF). It has been suggested that discomfort with the apocryphal acts’ rejection of social norms contributed to the development of a more status-quo-oriented image of Paul (eventual canonization of the deutero-Pauline and pastoral epistles). Clement of Alexandria’s moderate Christianity endorsed traditional householder values of marriage, begetting of children, and responsible use of worldly possessions. Clement’s sermon, “Can the Rich Man Be Saved?” (Quis dives salvetur?) answers in the affirmative, provided that the rich man does not make his possessions the center of his life and gives charity to the needy (stewardship rather than renunciation). That Clement found it necessary to preach such a sermon points to the continuing power of radically ascetic Christianity. Spiritual marriage, in which a male and female ascetic lived together without sexual

relations, was admired by some but condemned by others, including Gregory of Nazianzus, Epiphanius, Jerome, and the Councils of Elvira, Nicaea, and Ancyra. The goal of the practice was to transcend carnal temptation and cohabit on a spiritual level, thus strengthening ascetic commitment and spiritual growth through daily testing. Critics noted the likelihood of yielding to temptation and the scandalous public appearance even if temptation is resisted. Additional criticism focused on the threat to the male ascetic’s masculinity from the constant companionship of a woman (John Chrysostom, C. subintrod.). Chrysostom was expressing the obverse side of the transcending of gender limitations often attributed positively to female martyrs and ascetics (for example, Gregory of Nyssa’s praise of his ascetic sister Macrina as a father, philosopher, and “manly woman” – gyne andreia).

TYPICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF CHRISTIAN ASCETICISM Asceticism was attractive to male and female Christians of all social levels, with the ascetic life seen as lifelong martyrdom. It gave women an honored choice other than marriage and childbearing; in many cases, asceticism provided women with opportunities for scriptural and theological study, travel, close community with other women, friendship with leading intellectuals (as in the case of Jerome’s women friends), social service (both through distribution of wealth and hands-on care), and leadership (both informally through society’s respect for holiness and formally through leadership of women’s monastic communities, and in some cases, through leadership of both men and women in a double monastery). At the same time, male ascetic writings were often extremely hostile to women’s sexuality. Typical characteristics of Christian asceticism included renunciation of personal property, while sometimes still using the property as a communal base; rejection of marriage and family; rejection of comfort (abstemious diet

3 that usually avoided meat and wine, thought to inflame lust; rigorous fasts; little sleep with long vigils, prayers, and periods of silence; rough clothing; no bathing; manual labor); a deep conviction of personal unworthiness and rejection of one’s own will to follow God’s will learned through obedience to spiritual mentors; and physical separation from worldly distractions. Separation took many forms: a desert hermitage; an ascetic community in the desert or city; retreat into one’s own home, either alone or with ascetic companions – a form of asceticism especially popular with women; homeless wandering, either alone or with others (often criticized as socially disruptive); or living on top of a pillar. Cenobitic (Greek, koinos, “common,” and bios, “life”), meaning organized communal life following a rule under the authority of an abbot or abbess, was pioneered by Pachomius in southern Egypt in the mid-fourth century. Although some ascetics were scholars, many, especially in the early period, were suspicious of intellectual activity as leading to pride or the desire to own books. Despite growing admiration for asceticism, it often came under attack, especially if presented as the only true Christian life. Some Gnostics and other controversial Christian groups, such as the Montanists, were known for asceticism. To be conspicuously ascetic might raise suspicions that one belonged to such a group or concealed licentiousness under false asceticism. After the arrival of Manichaeism (see MANI/MANICHAEISM) with its cosmological dualism and its leaders’ ascetic lifestyle, ascetics risked being accused of “Manichaeism,” which, like “Arianism,” became an all-purpose term of theological attack. After the mainstream church accepted the Genesis teaching that the material world was God’s good creation, excessive denigration of the physical, including the body, was theologically problematic. Admirers of ascetics often portrayed their lives as reversing the effects of the fall by restoring the harmony of Eden in eschatological anticipation (living in harmony with all animals, as Adam did before the fall). Some criticized asceticism

for practical reasons. Refusal to marry led to the end of families. Withdrawal from society left few to carry out traditional civic leadership responsibilities. Some fled to monasteries to avoid taxes or punishment for crime. Some critics, such as the pagan Libanius of Antioch, objected to the ignorance, violence, hypocrisy, intolerance, and filth of monks (in some cases, an accurate description) and saw the movement as destructive of traditional cultural values. Some Christian critics, such as Vigilantius, argued that retreat from the world was less useful than active participation in the church’s evangelism, teaching, and charity in the world (Jerome C. Vig.).

INFLUENTIAL ASCETIC MODELS Athanasius’ Life of Antony (see ANTONY) provided the most influential ascetic model. As a youth in a third century Egyptian village, Antony was inspired by Jesus’ words to the rich young man who would be perfect (“sell your possessions, and give the money to the poor, . . . then come, follow me” – Matt 19:21). Antony sold his land and gave the money to the poor (except for a small amount saved for his sister); however, when he soon afterward heard Jesus’ words, “Do not worry about tomorrow” – Matt 6:34, he gave away that money as well, left his sister in a house of virgins (ascetic women), and became a disciple of a hermit living outside a nearby village. He devoted himself to prayer and self-denial and did manual labor to provide himself with food and the means to give to charity. Satan was enraged by Antony’s spiritual progress, and tried repeatedly, assisted by hordes of demons, to tempt him into sin through psychological and physical assaults; Antony felt intense physical pain from the attacks but remained spiritually undaunted. Taking the offensive in the struggle, Antony settled in an abandoned fort in the desert (the demons’ territory); he received divine aid in the fight. Because Satan and his demons were threatened by such spiritual power, they fought desperately to destroy

4 the ascetics. Although Antony wished to be alone, pilgrims followed him out into the desert. He reportedly refuted Arians and pagan philosophers, performed miracles, and lived to an advanced age in perfect health. All this became a common pattern for Christian asceticism. Ascetics retreated from society, but society came to them. Individuals of all ranks sought many types of help: prayers, counseling, charity, healing from sickness, exorcism, intervention with the authorities (for example, to get an oppressive tax repealed), and support in theological controversies. Thus ascetics influenced the wider society. Organized asceticism was popular first in Egypt, Syria, Palestine, Mesopotamia, and Cappadocia. It spread to the West in the fourth century, through John Cassian and others. In the nonurban Celtic world, monasteries rather than cathedrals became the religious centers, with the abbot rather than the bishop as the central figure in the church. The north Atlantic equivalent of the hermit’s desert cell was life on a small island; wandering was by coracle. The medieval seven deadly sins are rooted in Cassian’s paradigm of the eight evil thoughts (pride, vainglory, accidie, grief, anger, fornication, gluttony, avarice) that hinder ascetics’ prayer and devotion. The later penitential system is also rooted in monastic practices of penance. When the miracle-working hermit and former soldier Martin was elected bishop of Tours in Gaul (ca. 370), a new trend in church leadership was being underlined: monks becoming bishops. The early ascetics were not ordained and, to some bishops, formed a potentially uncontrollable rival group, since ascetics in the eyes of many Christians were holier than the church’s official leaders, the ordained clergy. Early ascetics rejected church office as a temptation to pride and worldliness that would interfere with their spiritual growth. In his Asketikon (mid-fourth century), BASIL OF CAESAREA provided the foundation for Eastern Orthodox monasticism. Because service to the poor was vital to Basil’s

understanding of Christian life, his monasteries were located in or near cities and provided significant poor relief. The typical Basilian community included a hospital and hostels for the poor. Basil, who had visited many ascetic communities throughout the East and was deeply influenced by his sister, Macrina, who had organized an ascetic community on the family estate, wanted a moderate lifestyle rather than the extreme physical mortification and individualism of the Syrian tradition. The Basilian model was based on the idea of spiritual growth through a communal life of chastity, poverty, and service, in obedience to an abbot, with a regular routine of worship and work. Western asceticism was shaped by the Rule of Benedict, produced by BENEDICT OF NURSIA (ca. 480–ca. 547), the founder of the monastic community at Monte Cassino. Benedict’s rule (drawing on earlier rules) focused on communal discipline, stability (not moving from one community to another), balance, and moderation in ascetic practice. Each community was independent, governed by an abbot elected by the members. The abbot should be a father to the community. His duty was to teach by word and example, to treat all without regard to social status, to provide for each member the type of discipline and teaching best suited to his individual character, and to remember that he would be held accountable for them by God. Although the final decision in all matters was in the abbot’s hands, the abbot must first allow the community to discuss issues thoroughly and should give attention to all the views expressed. Benedict believed that for most men the best monasticism was communal, following a rule in obedience to an abbot. For a few advanced monks, a hermit’s life was appropriate, but for most monks solitary life was spiritually dangerous. Communal life helped members to ascend the twelve degrees of humility. Prayer was offered by the gathered community seven times daily; these offices were based on the psalms with the entire psalter sung through weekly. No personal property was allowed; all goods were

5 held in common and distributed as the abbot saw fit. The community’s diet was vegetarian and adequate for health; wine was allowed in moderation. The hours were divided among worship, spiritual reading, and manual labor, with adequate time for rest and bodily needs. Each community was to be as economically self-sufficient as possible. Hospitality to travelers and charity to those in need were mandated. SEE ALSO: Demons, Late Antiquity; Holy men; Virginity.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Brock, S. (1987) Holy women of the Syrian Orient. Oxford. Brown, P. (1988) The body and society: men, women, and sexual renunciation in Late Antiquity. New York.

Clark, E. A. (1999) Reading renunciation: asceticism and scripture in early Christianity. Princeton. Cloke, G. (1995) This manly woman of God: women and spiritual power in the patristic age, AD 350–450. New York. Elm, S. (1994) “Virgins of God”: the making of asceticism in Late Antiquity. Oxford. Griffin, E., ed., and Gregg, R. C., trans. (2006) Athanasius of Alexandria, The life of Antony. San Francisco. Kardong, T. G., trans. (1996) Benedict of Nursia, Benedict’s rule: a translation and commentary. Collegeville, MN. Price, R. M., trans. (1985) Theodoret of Cyrrhus, A history of the monks of Syria. Kalamazoo, MI. Rousseau, P. (1994) Basil of Caesarea. Berkeley. Rousseau, P. (1999) Pachomius: the making of a community in fourth century Egypt. Berkeley. Silvas, A. (2008) Macrina the younger, philosopher of God. Turnhout. Ward, B. (1975) The sayings of the desert fathers: the alphabetical collection. London.

1

Asconius Pedianus HENRIETTE VAN DER BLOM

Asconius’ first-century-CE commentaries on a selection of CICERO’s speeches offer invaluable insights into the historical and oratorical context of the political life of the late republic. Quintus Asconius Pedianus (9 BCE–76 CE) probably came from Patavium (modern-day Padua in Italy), as did the historian LIVY (77C; Quint. Inst. 1.7.24). Jerome’s Chronicle, based on Suetonius’ De viris illustribus (On famous men), states for the year 76 CE that Asconius was considered a distinguished historical author and that he went blind at the age of 73 but lived twelve further years. This suggests that he died at the age of 85 in 76 CE and was therefore born in 9 BCE and went blind in 64 CE. Asconius was probably of equestrian birth, but had a good understanding of senatorial practice (e.g., 43C, line 27) and republican political life; he may have been a senator himself. This would explain his access to the senatorial acts he refers to in his work. He attended dinners with consuls (Servius’ commentary on Verg. Ecl. 4.11), which suggests an elite lifestyle. His work displays some familiarity with the city of Rome, especially private houses of important politicians; he probably lived in Rome during his education and adult life. Most of Asconius’ works are no longer extant. We know of a possible treatise on longevity (Plin. HN 7.159; Suda “Apikios”), a biography of the historian and politician SALLUST (ps.-Acron. on Hor. Sat. 1.2.41) which seems not to have influenced Asconius’ comments on Cicero’s speech In Toga Candida, and a work against critics of VERGIL known to fourth-century grammarians and antiquarians (Donat. Vit. Verg. 57; Macrob. Sat. 5.3.16). The only surviving work is part of a series of commentaries on the speeches of M. Tullius Cicero, written between 54 and 57 CE, and transmitted in a single manuscript (P) with two deriving copies (M and S) (see Wissowa

1896: 1526–7). The speeches (partly) covered by the commentaries are In Pisonem, Pro Scauro, Pro Milone, Pro Cornelio, and In Toga Candida. There is both external and internal evidence for commentaries on further Ciceronian speeches, now lost (e.g., Pro Roscio Amerino, In Catilinam I–IV, Pro Sestio; see Marshall 1985: 1–25), which suggests that the scope of Asconius’ work was broader, perhaps encompassing all of Cicero’s extant speeches. The commentaries are addressed to Asconius’ two sons (43C.28) as if they were to embark on a public career themselves. The comments include mainly historical background, prosopography, topography, political and legal practice, and a little on rhetorical elements such as diction, style, and technique. Most of his information is correct (Marshall 1985: 62–77 lists the few errors). Asconius’ style has no pretensions to elegance, but simply conveys his information clearly and straightforwardly. The commentaries are a treasure trove of information on the speeches, the events and individuals mentioned in them, and thus on political life in the Late Roman Republic. The sources for his commentaries mentioned explicitly by Asconius include, apart from the Ciceronian speeches themselves, official documents (senatorial acts from 59 BCE onwards), Ciceronian works (commentaries on his own speeches, edited by his freedman secretary Tiro; an explanation of his political considerations; the delivered version of the Pro Milone), works of historians (Valerius Antias, T. Pomponius Atticus, Fenestella, Hyginus, T. Livius, C. Sallustius Crispus, C. Sempronius Tuditanus, M. Tullius Tiro, M. Terentius Varro), other orators (M. Iunius Brutus, C. Iulius Caesar, P. Cominus, L. Lucceius), poets (L. Accius, Philodemus, L. Iulius Caesar Strabo Vopiscus, C. Licinius Calvus) (see Marshall 1985: 39–61). Apart from these, Asconius probably used other sources without explicit mention, although he appears not to have used a collection of Cicero’s letters to

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner. © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Published 2015 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah25033

2 Atticus, which was known to Cornelius Nepos (Nep. Att. 16) but not cited until ca. 60 CE by Seneca (Ep. 97.6). SEE ALSO:

Cicero, speeches of.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Clark, A. C. (1907) Q. Asconii Pediani orationum Ciceronis quinque enarratio. Oxford (Oxford

Classical Text and standard edition: 77C = page 77 in Clark’s edition). Lewis, R. G. (2006) Asconius: commentaries on speeches of Cicero. Oxford. Marshall, B. A. (1985) A historical commentary on Asconius. Columbia, MO. Stangl, T. (1912) Ciceronis orationum scholiastae. Leipzig. Wissowa, G. (1896) “Q. Asconius Pedianus 3.” RE 2.2: 1524–7. Stuttgart.

1

Asebeia ˜O DELFIM F. LEA

The word asebeia is usually translated into modern languages as “impiety,” although its exact religious and juridical overtones are not easy to define. Asebeia is often employed rather vaguely by the sources to describe a behavior open to criticism on ethical and religious grounds, because it implies disrespect towards the gods, the family or the community. However, there are many situations in which the ordinary usage of asebeia overlaps with its legal application, as is the case when a person was said to have disregarded ritual ceremonies, misconducted sacrifices, violated religious interdictions, robbed temples, destroyed sacred objects, or disrespected suppliants. The multiplicity of wrongdoings that could be punished under the rubric of asebeia is probably due to the vagueness of the concept itself (parallel to the legal implications of hybris). However, some of these crimes were also covered by other categories, as was the case with the robbery of sacred property (hierosylia), which represented a type of theft that was special precisely because of its religious repercussions. It is often held that accusations of asebeia were motivated by deviant practice and not by the expression of deviant beliefs, that is, by acts and not by words or the ideas behind them. However, later sources mention several prosecutions for asebeia brought against intellectuals, such as Protagoras and Anaxagoras. In legal terms, the moment that marked the reaction against the dangers of atheism would have been the decree of Diopeithes (passed perhaps in the 430s BCE), which, if genuine, represented an attempt to broaden the juridical scope of asebeia in order to include atheistic speech and thought as well as impious deeds. This assumption must be treated with caution, however, because Plutarch (Per. 32.2) is the only author attesting to this decree, and no source contemporary with the events mentions these prosecutions.

Nevertheless, the prosecution of Socrates (399 BCE), for which there is a good deal of contemporary evidence, may confirm the idea that an accusation of asebeia could also include the inner beliefs of a person. Both Plato (Ap. 24b–c) and Xenophon (Mem. 1.1.1) say that Socrates’ prosecution was due to his sharp criticism of traditional religion (he was accused of not acknowledging the gods of the city and promoting the introduction of new ones) and to the belief that he corrupted young men by teaching them these ideas. Therefore, apart from the provocative character of Socrates’ behavior, the accusation against him was also motivated by the fact that he apparently expressed and promoted a religious ideology contrary to orthodoxy. Despite the future impact of Socrates’ prosecution, the most blatant case of asebeia that the Athenians had to face was the (real or conjured) involvement of Alkibiades in the scandals of the year 415 BCE, shortly before the Athenian expedition to Sicily: the mutilation of the herms and the parodies of the Eleusinian Mysteries (Thuc. 6.27–9, 53, 60–1; Andoc. 1.11–70). The visibility of this double sacrilege motivated a ferocious political witchhunt in Athens, whose excesses would open the path to oligarchic government. SEE ALSO: Alkibiades; Anaxagoras; Atheism, Greece and Rome; Eleusis, Mysteries of; Herms; Hierosylia; Hybris; Protagoras; Religious deviance and persecution; Socrates.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Burckhardt, L. and von Ungern-Sternberg, J., eds. (2000) Große Prozesse im antiken Athen. Munich. Cohen, D. (1991) Law, sexuality, and society. The enforcement of morals in classical Athens. Cambridge. Lea˜o, D. F. (2004) “Mate´ria religiosa: processos de impiedade (asebeia).” In D. F. Lea˜o, L. Rossetti, and M. C. Fialho, eds., Nomos: 201–26. Coimbra. Todd, S. C. (1993) The shape of Athenian law. Oxford.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 815–816. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah17057

1

Ashdod (Azotus) WILLIAM ZIMMERLE

One of the five Philistine capital cities listed in the Bible, Ashdod (Greek Azotus; modern Tel Ashdod) lies 15 km north of Ashkelon and about 4 km inland from the Mediterranean Sea. Besides its citation in the Hebrew Bible, the inhabitants of Ashdod are first attested in the Ugaritic tablets as merchants of purple wool in the fourteenth century BCE, and later mentioned in the Assyrian historical inscriptions as those who revolted against Assyria in 713 BCE. Furthermore, the Hebrew prophet Isaiah also describes the conquest of the city by the Assyrians in about 712 (Isa 20:1). In the Hellenistic period and later, Ashdod is referred to as a notable small town called Azotos in Eusebius’ Onomasticon and, in the writings of the classical authors Pliny and Strabo, the city belongs to the Herodian Dynasty, before shifting hands to the Romans. The site was excavated in ten areas on two parts of the Tell, the acropolis and the lower city, between 1962 and 1970. These expeditions were a cosponsored project between the Israeli Antiquities Authority, the Pittsburgh Theological Seminary, and the Carnegie Museum of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. There were two final seasons, conducted solely by the Israeli Antiquities Authority, in 1971–72. During these seven seasons of excavations, extensive Middle Bronze, Late Bronze, Iron, Persian, Hellenistic, Roman, and Byzantine phases were uncovered revealing a full sequence of site occupation from the Middle Bronze through the RomanByzantine periods. On the basis of the archaeological stratigraphy, the excavators concluded that the acropolis was first settled toward the end of the Middle Bronze III phase, referred to in the excavation reports as stratum XXIII, and described by a city gate and an earthen rampart. The gate itself indicates that the city was built during the Hyksos Dynasty, about 1674–1567 BCE. Later, in the Late Bronze Age phase (stratum XX), an abundance of

Philistine biochrome pottery ware as well as Cypriot imports were uncovered. Additionally, stratum XIV uncovered widespread devastating destruction across the site marking the end of the Egyptian domination of Ashdod, and the beginning of the transition to the Iron Age (stratum XIII) in area G just above the late 19th Dynasty palace. In this phase, the excavators found evidence of new pottery forms from the arrival of the SEA PEOPLES. The Philistine settlement is represented in Area G of strata XIII-X, where Philistine pottery, figurines, scarabs, cosmetic wares, beads, and jewelry were all found. Stratum X yielded the greatest expansion of the city and a destruction level was uncovered in stratum IX, the first half of the tenth century BCE. A new gate, a “Solomonic” type, was constructed about a decade later. Three fragments of an inscription on a basalt stele, a copy of a victory stele from Khorsabad, in stratum VIII indicate that SARGON II OF ASSYRIA destroyed the city in 712. Babylonian destruction and a subsequent postconstruction phase throughout the Tell marks the campaigns by Psamtik I or Nebuchadnezzar in about 600. The Persian phase detected a small revival of activity on the acropolis, as well as extensive town planning in the Hellenistic phases. The RomanByzantine periods yielded a shift in architectural layout of the Herodian period. Recent salvage excavations at Ashdod North yielded the discovery of a Neo-Assyrian palace complete with bathtubs. Such a discovery corroborates the textual evidence that records the Neo-Assyrian reconstruction of Ashdod, Ashdod-Yam, and Gath into Assyrian provinces with their own governors. SEE ALSO: Assyria; Assyrian kings, Neo-Assyrian period; Nebuchadnezzar II; Philistines; Psamtik/Psammetichus I–III.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Dothan, M. (1967) Ashdod I. Jerusalem. Dothan, M. (1971) Ashdod II–III. Jerusalem. Dothan, M. (1982) Ashdod IV. Jerusalem.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 816–817. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah11035

2 Dothan, M. (1992) “Ashdod.” In D. N. Freedman, ed., Anchor Bible dictionary, vol. 1: 477–80. New York. Kogan-Zehavi, E. and Nahshoni, P. [online] Tel Ashdod-North Tel Ashdod Excavation-Summary

of Two Seasons. Available from http://www. antiquities.org.il/site_Item_eng.asp?id=210. Sudilovsky, J. (2004) “Assyrians in Ashdod: palace uncovered near Israel’s coast.” Biblical Archaeology Review 30(6): 12.

1

Asherah KLAAS A. D. SMELIK

Asherah is the name of a Northwest Semitic mother goddess. In texts from UGARIT, she is portrayed as the spouse of the supreme god EL and as mother of the gods; she is also called “Lady Asherah of the Sea.” In the BA’AL cycle, she intercedes with El to provide a palace for Ba’al. As mother goddess, Asherah is to be distinguished from Astarte, the Canaanite fertility goddess. In the Hebrew Bible, ’ashera refers not only to the goddess but also to a consecrated pole that represented the deity. At first it may have been a living tree, but in later usage it was a wooden pole. To make a complete distinction between the deity and these sacred poles is not possible. The worship of Asherah is attested in ancient Israel (see ISRAEL AND JUDAH). After SOLOMON’s death, both Jeroboam I of Israel and Rehoboam of Judah fostered Asherah worship. After the Israelite king Ahab married the Phoenician princess Jezebel, the cult of Asherah was strongly promoted in the kingdom of Israel, together with the worship of Ba’al. Jezebel is said to have supported four hundred prophets of Asherah. The Torah, however, proscribes the cult of Asherah. In the kingdom of Judah, various

attempts were made to eradicate her cult. King Josiah, for example, is said to have burned the cult objects of Asherah, which his predecessor Manasseh had brought into the temple of Jerusalem. Prophetic judgments reflect a continued devotion to the “sacred poles.” Inscriptions found at Kuntillet ‘Ajrud (in the Negev) and Khirbet el-Qom (in Judah) mention “YHWH and his ’ashera.” Some scholars interpret this phrase as proof that the goddess Asherah was worshipped as YHWH’s consort; according to others, ’ashera indicates here the cult symbol, not the goddess. SEE ALSO:

Ahab of Israel; Bible, Hebrew; Canaan.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Binger, T. (1994) Asherah: goddesses in Ugarit, Israel and the Old Testament. Sheffield. Day, J. (2001) Yahweh and the gods and goddesses of Canaan. Sheffield. Hadley, J. M. (2000) The cult of Asherah in Ancient Israel and Judah: evidence for a Hebrew goddess. Cambridge. Wiggins, S. A. (1993) A reassessment of Asherah. Neukirchen-Vluyn. Wyatt, N. (1999) “Asherah.” In Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible: 99–105. Leiden.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 817–818. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah24027

1

Ashkelon ALEXANDER VACEK

Ashkelon, also known as Ascalon, is located in Palestine, north of Gaza, and was the major PHILISTINE seaport in that region. Situated on the coast, the site is defined on the landward side by a semicircular earthen rampart, dating back to the Middle Bronze Age, which was reused in subsequent periods. The city’s settlement history covers about 6000 years from the Chalcolithic period until the Mamluk era. During the Late Bronze Age Ashkelon was controlled by Egypt. In the Onomasticon of Amenope of the eleventh century BCE, Ashkelon is described as a Philistine town, but it was perhaps already part of the Philistine “pentapolis” (along with GAZA, Gath, ASHDOD, and Ekron) as early as 1175 BCE or shortly thereafter. By the late eighth century BCE the city was incorporated into the Assyrian Empire. According to the Babylonian Chronicle and the prophet JEREMIAH (Jer 47:3–5) the town was completely destroyed by NEBUCHADNEZZAR II in 604 BCE. Following this catastrophe, Ashkelon was left unoccupied until ca. 525 BCE (Stager, Schloen, and Master 2008: 9). Excavations, conducted since 1985 by L. Stager, have revealed several Iron Age I–II layers dating from 1175 BCE to 604 BCE (Stager, Schloen, and Master 2008: 216–17). The arrival of the Philistines in Iron Age I is marked by the introduction of new pottery

types (Philistine ware), a new form of loom weights, and by a dietary change (Stager, Schloen, and Master 2008: 257, 266). During Iron Age II the city was fortified by mudbrick walls and towers. The excavations further revealed substantial evidence of Iron Age I and II occupation, including industrial quarters (a winery), residential areas, and a marketplace close to the sea. The commercial function of the harbor town is best reflected by the pottery imports, which demonstrate connections with EGYPT, PHOENICIA, CYPRUS, and Greece during the Iron Age II period (Stager, Schloen, and Master 2008; Waldbaum 2011). SEE ALSO:

Ascalon; Assyria; Fortifications, ancient Near East; Port of trade; Trade, ancient Near East.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Fantalkin, A. (2011) “Why did Nebuchadnezzar II destroy Ashkelon in Kislev 604 B.C.E.?” In I. Finkelstein and N. Na’aman, eds., The fire signals of Lachisch: studies in the archaeology and history of Israel in the Late Bronze Age, Iron Age, and Persian period in honor of David Ussishkin: 87–111. Winona Lake, IN. Stager, L. E., Schloen, J. D., and Master, D. M., eds. (2008) Ashkelon, vol. 1: Introduction and overview (1985–2006). Winona Lake, IN. Waldbaum, J. (2011) “Greek pottery.” In L. E. Stager, J. D. Schloen, and D. M. Master, eds., Ashkelon, vol. 3: 127–338. Winona Lake, IN.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner. © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Published 2015 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah26192

1

Ashur ECKART FRAHM

The city of Ashur (modern Qal’at Shirqat, located 110 km south of Mosul on the right bank of the Tigris River) was the religious, and for much of its history, the political center of the land of Assyria. First and foremost, Ashur was the site of the temple of the god Ashur, Assyria’s chief deity, with whom both the city and the country shared their name. From 1903 to 1914, Ashur was excavated by W. Andrae on behalf of the Deutsche Orient-Gesellschaft (German Oriental Society). Little is known about Ashur’s history during the third millennium BCE. In the first centuries of the second millennium, Ashur became the hub of a far-reaching commercial network, whose merchants were particularly active in Anatolia. After a period of decline in the mid-second millennium, Ashur reemerged, under King Asˇsˇur-uballit I (1363–1328 BCE), ˙ as the political capital of Assyria, now an expansive territorial state. Challenged by Aramaean incursions in the wake of the international breakdown brought about by the end of the Bronze Age, Assyria experienced another

crisis in the eleventh and tenth centuries, but recovered again and became an empire that dominated all of western Asia. Ashur remained Assyria’s religious heart, but was no longer the political and administrative capital during the height of Assyrian power in the eighth and seventh centuries, having lost this status when King Ashurnasirpal II (883–859) moved his residence to the city of Kalhu. Ashur was destroyed by a Median army in 614, but did not cease to exist. During the first century CE, when the city served as the seat of Arsacian administrators, the cult of the god Ashur still flourished. The Sasanian conquest of 241 CE, however, signaled Ashur’s final demise. Surprisingly, the city of Ashur is mentioned neither in the Hebrew Bible nor in Greek and Roman sources. SEE ALSO:

Assyria; Kalhu (Nimrud); Nineveh.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Andrae, W. (1977) Das wiedererstandene Assur, 2nd ed. Munich. Marzahn, J. and Salje, B., eds. (2003) Wiedererstehendes Assur. Mainz.

Figure 1 The ruins of the city of Ashur as seen from the Ashur ziggurat. The well-preserved structure in the background is the Tabira gate, one of the major city gates. Photograph courtesy of Eckart Frahm, 2001.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 818–819. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah01018

2 Maul, S. M. (1998) “1903–1914: Assur – Das Herz eines Weltreiches.” In G. Wilhelm, ed., Zwischen Tigris und Nil: 46–65. Mainz.

Miglus, P. (2006) “Qal’at Sirqat (Assur).” Reallexikon der Assyriologie 11: 146–52. Pederse´n, O. (1985/86) Archives and libraries in the city of Assur, 2 vols. Uppsala.

1

Ashur ECKART FRAHM

The city of Ashur (modern Qal‛at Širqāt, ˙ located 110 km south of Mosul on the right bank of the Tigris) was the religious, and for much of its history, the political center of the land of ASSYRIA. First and foremost, Ashur was the site of the temple of the god Ashur, Assyria’s chief deity, with whom both the city and the country shared their name. From 1903 to 1914, Ashur was excavated by W. Andrae on behalf of the Deutsche OrientGesellschaft (German Oriental Society). Little is known about Ashur’s history during the third millennium BCE. In the first centuries of the second millennium, Ashur became the hub of a far-reaching commercial network whose merchants were particularly active in Anatolia. After a period of decline in the mid-second millennium, Ashur re-emerged, under king Ashur-uballit I (ca. 1363–1328 BCE), as the political capital of Assyria, now an expansive territorial state. Challenged by Aramaean incursions in the wake of the

international breakdown linked to the end of the Bronze Age, Assyria experienced another crisis in the eleventh and tenth centuries, but recovered again and became an empire that dominated all of Western Asia. Ashur remained Assyria’s religious heart, but was no longer the political and administrative capital during the height of Assyrian power in the eighth and seventh centuries, having lost this status when king Ashurnasirpal II (883–859) moved his residence to the city of KALHU. Ashur was destroyed by a Median army in 614 BCE, but did not cease to exist. During the first and second centuries CE, when the city served as the seat of Parthian administrators, the cult of the god Ashur still flourished. The Sasanian conquest of 241 CE, however, signaled Ashur’s final demise. Surprisingly, the city of Ashur is mentioned neither in the Hebrew Bible nor (with the possible exception of Xenophon’s Anabasis [2.4.28], where it may appear as Kainai) in Greek and Roman sources. SEE ALSO:

Nineveh.

FIGURE 1 The ruins of the city of Ashur as seen from the Ashur ziggurat. The well-preserved structure in the background is the Tabira gate, one of the major city gates. Photograph courtesy of Eckart Frahm, 2001.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and David Hollander. © 2018 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Published 2018 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah01018

2 REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Andrae, W. (1977) Das wiedererstandene Assur, 2nd ed. Munich. Gries, H. (2017) Der Assur-Tempel in Assur. Wiesbaden. Marzahn, J. and Salje, B., eds. (2003) Wiedererstehendes Assur. Mainz.

Maul, S. M. (1998) “1903–1914: Assur – Das Herz eines Weltreiches.” In G. Wilhelm, ed., Zwischen Tigris und Nil: 46–65. Mainz. Miglus, P. (2006) “Qal‛at Širqāt (Assur).” Reallexi˙ kon der Assyriologie 11: 146–52. Pedersén, O. (1985/86) Archives and libraries in the city of Assur, 2 vols. Uppsala.

1

Ashur ECKART FRAHM

Yale University, USA

The city of Ashur (modern Qal‛at Širqāṭ, located 110 km south of Mosul on the right bank of the Tigris) was the religious, and for much of its history, the political center of the land of ASSYRIA. First and foremost, Ashur was the site of the temple of the god Ashur, Assyria’s chief deity, with whom both the city and the country shared their name. From 1903 to 1914, Ashur was excavated by W. Andrae on behalf of the Deutsche OrientGesellschaft (German Oriental Society). Little is known about Ashur’s history during the third millennium. In the first centuries of the second millennium, Ashur became the hub of a far-reaching commercial network, whose merchants were particularly active in Anatolia. After a period of decline in the mid-second millennium, Ashur reemerged, under king Ashur-uballit I (ca. 1363–1328 BCE), as the political capital of Assyria, now an expansive territorial state. Challenged by Aramaean incursions in the wake of the international breakdown linked to the end of the Bronze Age, Assyria experienced another crisis in the eleventh and tenth centuries but recovered again and became an empire that dominated all of western Asia. Ashur remained Assyria’s religious heart but was no longer the political and administrative capital during the height of Assyrian power in the eighth and seventh centuries, having lost this status when king Ashurnasirpal II (883–859 BCE) moved his residence to the city of KALHU (NIMRUD). Ashur was destroyed by a Median army in 614 but did not cease to exist. During the first and second centuries CE, when the city served as the seat of Parthian administrators, the cult of the god Ashur still flourished. The Sasanian conquest of 241 CE, however, signaled Ashur’s final demise. Surprisingly, the city of Ashur is neither mentioned in the HEBREW BIBLE nor (with the possible exception of XENOPHON’S Anabasis [2.4.28], where it may appear as Kainai) in Greek and Roman sources.

FIGURE 1 The ruins of the city of Ashur as seen from the Ashur ziggurat. The well-preserved structure in the background is the Tabira gate, one of the major city gates. Photograph courtesy of Eckart Frahm, 2001. SEE ALSO:

Nineveh.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Andrae, W. (1977) Das wiedererstandene Assur, 2nd ed. Munich. Gries, H. (2017) Der Assur-Tempel in Assur. Wiesbaden. Marzahn, J. and Salje, B., eds. (2003) Wiedererstehendes Assur. Mainz. Maul, S. M. (1998) “1903–1914: Assur – Das Herz eines Weltreiches.” In G. Wilhelm, ed., Zwischen Tigris und Nil: 46–65. Mainz. Miglus, P. (2006) “Qal‛at Širqāṭ (Assur).” Reallexikon der Assyriologie 11: 146–52. Pedersén, O. (1985/86) Archives and libraries in the city of Assur. Uppsala.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History. Edited by Andrew Erskine, David B. Hollander, and Arietta Papaconstantinou. © 2022 John Wiley & Sons Ltd. Published 2022 by John Wiley & Sons Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah24029.pub2

1

Ashurbanipal (Assurbanipal) ECKART FRAHM

Assurbanipal (Assyrian: Asˇˇsur-ba¯ni-apli) was a king of ASSYRIA who ruled from 669 to ca. 627 BCE. His reign marks in some respects the apex of Assyrian civilization but signals as well Assyria’s imminent downfall. Assurbanipal ascended the Assyrian throne after the death of his father ESARHADDON in 669, while his brother Shamash-shum-ukin, in accordance with Esarhaddon’s succession arrangement, became king of Babylonia. During the early years of his reign, Assyrian troops successfully quashed several rebellions in Egypt, taking Memphis (667; see MEMPHIS (PHARAONIC)) and Thebes (664). Not long after, however, the Egyptian king Psammetichus I, (see PSAMTIK/PSAMMETICHUS I–III), who received military aid from GYGES (GUGU) OF LYDIA (a former ally of Assurbanipal), managed to shake off the Assyrian yoke. In the east, Assurbanipal undertook several campaigns against ELAM, where his troops won a decisive battle against king Teumman in 653. One year later, Shamash-shum-ukin of Babylon, drawing on support from Elamites, Chaldaeans, and Arab tribes, revolted against Assyria. Even though Assurbanipal, after intense fighting that lasted for four years, eventually managed to conquer Babylon (where he appointed a puppet king, Kandalanu), the days of uncontested Assyrian hegemony over Western Asia were winding down. Assyrian campaigns against the Arabs brought only short-lived victories and stretched Assyria’s military resources. Almost nothing is known about Assurbanipal’s last years, but his successors found themselves

very much on the defensive, and in 612, less than twenty years after Assurbanipal’s death, a coalition of Babylonians and Medes (see MEDES, MEDIA) brought the Assyrian empire to an end. The reign of Assurbanipal saw two particularly important cultural achievements: the creation of some of the most accomplished Assyrian bas-reliefs in the king’s North Palace in NINEVEH, and, likewise in Nineveh, the formation of large libraries where Assurbanipal (who had received the education of a scholar) sought to assemble all the CUNEIFORM lore that he could get hold of. Assurbanipal’s reputation as an aesthete and scholar (and the fact that he hardly ever went on campaign himself) may have informed Greek stories according to which the last Assyrian king, Sardanapalus (clearly a distorted version of Assurbanipal’s name), was an effeminate debauche´. REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Barnett, R. D. (1976) Sculptures from the North Palace of Ashurbanipal at Nineveh. London. Borger, R. (1996) Beitra¨ge zum Inschriftenwerk Assurbanipals. Wiesbaden. Frahm, E. (2003) “Images of Ashurbanipal in later tradition.” Eretz Israel 27: 37–48. Frame, G. and George, A. R. (2005) “The libraries of Nineveh: new evidence for King Ashurbanipal’s tablet collecting.” Iraq 67: 265–84. Grayson, A. K. (1991) “Assyria 668–635: the reign of Ashurbanipal.” In Cambridge Ancient History, vol. 3.2: 142–61. 2nd ed. Cambridge. Streck, M. (1916) Assurbanipal und die letzten assyrischen Ko¨nige bis zum Untergange Niniveh’s. Leipzig. Weissert, E. et al. (1998) “Assur-bani-apli.” In K. Radner, ed., The prosopography of the Neo-Assyrian empire, vol. 1.1: 159–71. Helsinki.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 819–820. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah24029

1

Asia (Roman Province) STEPHEN MITCHELL

ATTALOS III of PERGAMON bequeathed his kingdom to Rome in 133 BCE, and thereby the western part of ASIA MINOR became Rome’s first province east of the Aegean. This province was called Asia. After suppressing the revolt of ARISTONIKOS, Manius Aquillius, its first proconsular governor, set up the basic scheme of Roman rule (Strabo 14.1.38, 646). He created a road system that extended from the Dardanelles to SIDE in PAMPHYLIA and whose milestones are measured from the major cities of Ephesos and Pergamon (Mitchell 1999). In the 120s BCE systematic measures for extracting revenue were imposed on the new province by a customs law, which inherited features of the previous Attalid system of taxation and was still in force in 62 CE (Cottier et al. 2008), and by farming out other taxes to companies of PUBLICANI, whose demands soon brought them into conflict with the Greek cities of the province (Magie 1950, 173–4). Marcus Cicero, in a letter of 59 BCE to his brother Quintus, suggests that the overriding responsibility of the governor was to arbitrate in disputes between the provincials and the tax farmers (Cicero, ad Q. fr. 1.1.32–6). The major cities of the province served as assize centers and the proconsuls, who were normally appointed only for one year, continued to make judicial tours of the province until the mid-third century CE (Burton 1975). Initially Roman rule was highly unpopular. Greek cities struggled to defend their limited freedoms against Roman encroachment (Ferrary 1991) and, when MITHRADATES VI invaded the province in 89 BCE, the inhabitants turned on the publicani and are reported to have slaughtered 80,000 Romans or Italians overnight. SULLA regained control of Roman Asia, imposed a heavy war indemnity, and reformed the tax and administrative system in 85 BCE (Brunt 1990: 1–8). Cicero’s speech Pro lege Manilia of 67 BCE highlights that the province was regarded as a lucrative source of income for the equestrian class at

Rome. Asia continued to suffer financially through the period of civil wars, as it paid large levies to BRUTUS and CASSIUS, and then to M. ANTONIUS, before stability returned in the early Principate (Plutarch, Pomp. 45). The cities of Asia formed an association, the KOINON of Asia, which represented and defended the province’s interests before the Roman authorities (Magie 1950; Drew-Bear 1972). The province’s condition improved under AUGUSTUS after the conclusion of the civil wars. The organization of the imperial cult brought major institutional change at a provincial level. Imperial temples were built at Ephesos, Pergamon, MILETOS, and KYZIKOS, and festivals and competitions were held in many Asian cities from the first century CE on (Price 1984; Mitchell 1993, vol. 1: 217–25). The provincial koinon provided a platform for the ambitions of the richest civic leaders, each of whom aspired to become the archiereus (“high priest”) of Asia. The asiarchy, which should not be distinguished as a separate office from this high priesthood, is attested from the Augustan period onward (Campanile 1994). The leading provincial cities were the old Attalid capital, Pergamon, and the newer commercial center of Ephesos, which became the main seat of Roman administration (Haensch 1997: 298–321; Halfmann 2004). These two disputed with SMYRNA the claim to be the first city of the province. Inter-city competition for titles and privileges was an endemic feature of provincial life throughout the principate (Heller 2006; see CITIES, RIVALRY BETWEEN, ROMAN EMPIRE). In 26 CE eleven Asian cities sent deputations to the Roman Senate to establish which ones should be allowed to erect a new imperial temple (Tacitus, Ann. 4. 55–6). From the later first century CE civic competition continued to focus on claims to titles, which required imperial approval – in particular that of NEOKOROS, temple warden of the imperial cult (Burrell 2004). As well as competing with one another, the cities in the western part of the province formed other associations called koina; these were distinguished from the main provincial koinon and organized festivals and

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History. Edited by Andrew Erskine, David B. Hollander, and Arietta Papaconstantinou. © 2021 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Published 2021 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wwbeah18014.pub2

2 competitions for their members. The association of the thirteen cities of IONIA, which had existed since the archaic period, continued or was revived under the Roman Empire. A rival group under the leadership of SARDIS, the ancient metropolis of LYDIA, was established by thirteen cities that had been devastated by a catastrophic earthquake in 17 CE and restored through the intervention of the emperor TIBERIUS (Hallmannsecker 2020). There were more than 300 cities and recognized communities in Asia, all assigned to one of the province’s twelve assize districts (Habicht 1975). A thriving urban culture is well documented through epigraphic and numismatic evidence that goes up to the middle of the third century CE and is corroborated by excavations at major cities such as Ephesos, Pergamon, Miletos, Sardis, and AIZANOI. Bronze coins minted by the cities are a rich source of information on local cults, public buildings, civic titles, and other aspects of local history (Price and Trell 1977). Inscribed bases of honorific statures of members of the local elite indicate a rich community life, centered around the major civic sanctuaries and the institutions of the ruler cult (Pont 2010). The wealthiest representatives of this class began to obtain membership of the Roman Senate by the early second century CE (Halfmann 1979). The products of the province include marble, in particular from the Phrygian QUARRIES around DOKIMEION, which had been imperially owned since the time of Tiberius, but Asia’s major resource was agricultural production, which was concentrated in the valleys of the Kaikos, Hermos, Kaystros, and Maeander rivers and in the hills and plains of Lydia, PHRYGIA, and the Kibyratis. In the second and third centuries CE, large areas of these internal regions formed imperial estates, farmed by tenants and administered by a powerful caste of imperial freedmen who acted as procurators and whose administrative headquarters were in the Phrygian city of Synnada (Brunt 1990: 163–87; Mitchell 1999: 37–46). Between 180 and 250 CE, the tenants of imperial and private estates were afflicted by the impositions of freedman land managers and by soldiers and officials who traveled through the province to conflict

zones (Herrmann 1990). There was no legionary garrison in Asia and Roman troops were confined to auxiliary units stationed in the capital, Ephesos, and toward the eastern frontier of the province, at Eumeneia and Apamea in Phrygia (Christol and Drew-Bear 1987). The province of Asia was split into smaller units in the Late Empire. A new province of Phrygia and Caria was created around 250 CE. By the early fourth century, proconsular Asia, which continued to prosper, was reduced to the coastal regions between Pergamon and Ephesos, and the rest of the former province was divided between HELLESPONT, Phrygia I and II, Lydia, and CARIA. SEE ALSO: Asia Minor, Hellenistic; Cicero, Marcus Tullius; Cicero, Quintus Tullius; Cities, Roman Empire (east); Ephesos, Classical and later; Imperialism in the Roman Empire (east); Provincial administration, Roman Republic; Provincial capitals; Ruler cult, Roman.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Brunt, P. A. (1990) Roman imperial themes. Oxford. Burrell, B. (2004) Neokoroi: Greek cities and Roman emperors. Leiden. Burton, G. P. (1975) “Proconsular assizes and the administration of justice in Roman Asia.” Journal of Roman Studies 65: 92–105. Campanile, D. (1994) I sacerdoti del koinon d’Asia. Pisa. Christol, M. and Drew-Bear, T. (1987) Un castellum romain près d’Apamée de Phrygie. Vienna. Cottier, M. et al., eds. (2008) The customs law of Asia. Oxford. Drew-Bear, T. (1972) “Deux décrets hellénistiques d’Asie Mineure.” Bulletin de Correspondance Hellénique 96: 435–71. Ferrary, J.-L., (1991) “Le Statut des cités libres dans l’empire romain à la lumière des inscriptions de Claros.” Comptes-Rendus de l’Académie des Inscriptions et Belles Lettres 135: 558–77. Habicht, C. (1975) “New evidence on the Roman province of Asia.” Journal of Roman Studies 65: 64–91. Haensch, R. (1997) Capita provinciarum: Statthaltersitze und Provinzverwaltung in der römischen Kaiserzeit. Mainz. Halfmann, H. (1979) Senatoren aus dem östlichen Teil des Imperium Romanum bis zum Ende des 2. Jht. n. Chr. Göttingen.

3 Halfmann, H. (2004) Ephèse et Pergame: urbanisme et commanditaires en Asie Mineure romaine. Bordeaux. Hallmannsecker, M. (2020) “The Ionian koinon and the koinon of the 13 cities at Sardis.” Chiron 50: 1–27. Heller, A. (2006) Les Bêtises des grecs: conflits et rivalités entre cités d’Asie et de Bithynie à l’époque romaine (129 a.C.–235 p. C). Bordeaux. Herrmann, P. (1990) Hilferufe aus römischen Provinzen: ein Aspekt der Krise des römischen Reichs im 3. Jht. n. Chr. Hamburg. Magie, D. (1950) Roman rule in Asia Minor, 2 vols. Princeton.

Mitchell, S. (1993) Anatolia: land, men, and gods in Asia Minor, 2 vols. Oxford. Mitchell, S. (1999) “The administration of Roman Asia from 133 BC to AD 250.” In W. Eck, ed., Lokale Autonomie und römische Ordnungsmacht in den kaiserzeitlichen Provinzen vom 1. bis 3. Jahrhundert: 17–46. Munich. Pont, A.-V. (2010) Orner la cité: enjeux culturels et politiques du paysage urbain dans l’Asie Mineure gréco-romaine. Bordeaux. Price, M. and Trell, B. (1977) Coins and their cities. London. Price, S. (1985) Rituals and power: the Roman imperial cult in Asia Minor. Cambridge.

1

Asia Minor STEPHEN MITCHELL

Asia Minor (also often Anatolia) is the name given by modern scholars, but more rarely in antiquity, to the region of modern Turkey from the Aegean to the River Euphrates (Georgacas 1971). In cultural terms, this huge peninsula is regularly seen as a bridge between east and west, a role also played by Turkey between the nations of Europe and the Near East. In fact, this metaphor reflects the east–west antinomy that underpinned all western classical perceptions of the east. The culture of Asia Minor was rather influenced and defined by its relationships with neighbors on all sides. Western Asia Minor, focused on the basins of the Kaikos, Hermos, Kaystros, and Maeander rivers, looked towards the Aegean and was especially open to Greek influence. Northwestern Anatolia, ancient MYSIA, and BITHYNIA, were connected by the Propontis to Thrace and its population was dominated by Thracian immigrants. The peoples of the north coast formed part of a closely networked BLACK SEA community throughout antiquity. Central eastern Anatolia, especially CAPPADOCIA, had eastern links to the highlands of Armenia, and was dominated politically and culturally by the oriental empire of Persia. Lowland CILICIA was closely linked to Syria and Phoenicia. However, the great range of the Taurus mountains, which snaked across southern Asia Minor from the Euphrates to LYCIA in the southwest, and the interior regions of LYKAONIA and PHRYGIA which were enclosed on the south by these mountains, were more remote from external influence and preserved a largely indigenous culture. Around 1000 BCE, when the earliest Greek settlers came to the west coast, subsequently called Ionia after these new immigrants, they encountered the indigenous peoples that had emerged in Asia Minor after the collapse of the Hittite Empire, notably the Phrygians in west central Anatolia. Greek colonists in the eastern Black Sea also made contact with the Urartians

in eastern Anatolia beyond the Euphrates. The Lydians, whose capital was at SARDIS, formed a political power that superseded the Phrygians and briefly established a dominion in western Asia Minor as far as the River Halys under CROESUS in the sixth century BCE. Sardis fell in the mid-sixth century to the expanding empire of the Persians, which remained the dominant external power in Asia Minor until the later fourth century and was a strong cultural influence thereafter. The Greek presence during this period was almost entirely confined to the coastal areas. Aiolians, Ionians, and Dorians established settlements along the west coast between Troy and Miletos in the “dark age” between ca. 1000 and 750 BCE. The emporium at Al Mina in northern Syria in the ninth century also led to early Greek contacts with southeast Asia Minor (Lane Fox 2008). The great age of Greek colonisation between 750 and 500 led to the spread of Greek settlements into the Black Sea, including colonies along the Asia Minor coast at HERAKLEIA PONTICA, Sinope, and TRAPEZOS, as well as in the south at PHASELIS and Olympos in eastern Lycia (Hansen and Nielsen 2004: 924–1137, 1211–22). Greek settlement along the coasts was matched by the spread of Persian colonists across the interior of Asia Minor. This was especially pronounced in Cappadocia (Robert 1963), but there were also important groups of Persian settlers in LYDIA (Sekunda 1985), which were still identifiable in the later Roman Empire. After the conquests of Alexander the Great, the Seleucid, Ptolemaic, and Antigonid dynasties competed with one another to secure access to the rich resources and manpower of Asia Minor, but by the second century BCE the strongest regional powers were essentially native to the region: the strongly Hellenizing Attalid Dynasty, whose capital was PERGAMON, the Mithradatids of Pontos, who controlled northeastern Anatolia from their royal centers at Amaseia and Sinope, as well as the less powerful kingdoms of Bithynia and Cappadocia. Between 133 and 63, these kingdoms, except for Cappadocia,

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 820–822. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah18013

2 had become Roman provinces (Magie 1950). Meanwhile, Greek cities had continued to thrive and develop as foci of local power and resources, and by the end of the first century CE there were more than five hundred cities in Asia Minor, nominally self-governing but subordinate to the framework and administrative structures of the Roman Empire. As may be seen from this summary, classical Asia Minor was never itself the center of a major empire, but was always influenced politically by Persia, the Macedonian kingdoms, and Rome, and culturally by Persia (especially in the east) and Greece. Greek influence spread across Asia Minor during the Hellenistic and Roman imperial periods and transformed the social and cultural landscape. Native languages gradually gave way to Greek. Lydian, Carian, and Lycian, the main languages of the western regions, were replaced by Greek, both in spoken and written forms by the third century BCE, as was Sidetan in the south. The indigenous languages of the interior, including Pisidian, became extinct by the beginning of the Roman Empire, although Phrygian, as well as Galatian, which had been introduced to Asia Minor by Celtic invaders in the third century BCE, and also Isaurian, derived from the Luwian languages spoken in the Taurus mountain areas, continued in use until Late Antiquity (Mitchell 1993: I, 172–6). However, although the linguistic pattern in Asia Minor became gradually more homogeneous, so that Greek was universally spoken by the Byzantine period, Anatolia remained culturally diverse throughout antiquity, as distinctive regional ethnic groups (Bithynians, Mysians, Phrygians, Lykaonians, Pisidians, Lycians, and many others) preserved many native features within the framework provided by Greek culture and Roman rule. Indigenous culture is particularly reflected in onomastics, the personal names used by the inhabitants (Robert 1963; Zgusta 1964), toponyms (Zgusta 1984), and above all in local religious cults, which are attested superabundantly by inscriptions. The cults found in the cities were mostly markedly Hellenised; those found in the villages

and the countryside overwhelmingly reflected an Anatolian religious culture, although the gods were generally identified by conventional Greek names (Mitchell 1993: II, 11–30). The modern historiography of Asia Minor is dominated by the work of the French scholar Louis Robert (1904–85), based on a minute and exhaustive study of inscriptions, coins, and ancient written sources, interpreted against a profound understanding of the geographical context and cultural constraints of Asia Minor’s history (Robert and Rousset 2007). Robert’s oeuvre has inspired many followers in the detailed study of Anatolia from the indigenous perspective, rather than from the viewpoint of the external political powers that controlled the region for most of its history. The dominant theoretical approach is that of ACCULTURATION, the identification of the geographical, environmental, and historical influences that shaped the culture of particular local populations, the impact of external forces and groups on them, and the reciprocal influence that the indigenous communities exercised on newcomers and outsiders. In contrast, although there have been many excavations of classical city sites in Asia Minor, the understanding of the region from an archaeological perspective through its material culture remains underdeveloped, due largely to excessive concentration on the generic features of Greco-Roman material culture and the lack of attention paid to the study of rural sites and settlement patterns. SEE ALSO: Achaemenid Dynasty; Caria; Colonization, Greek; Galatia; Greek Language in the Roman Empire; Hellenization; Hittite, Hittites; Isauria; Luwian language; Paphlagonia; Persian, Persians; Pisidia; Robert, Louis (1904–1985).

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Georgacas, D. J. (1971) The names for the Asia Minor peninsula in antiquity. Heidelberg. Hansen, M. H. and Nielsen, T. H. (2004) An inventory of archaic and classical poleis. Oxford.

3 Lane Fox, R. (2008) Travelling heroes. Greeks and their myths in the age of Homer. London. Magie, D. (1950) Roman rule in Asia Minor. Princeton. Mitchell, S. (1993) Anatolia. Land, men, and gods in Roman Asia Minor. Oxford. Robert, L. (1963) Noms indige`nes dans l’Asie Mineure gre´co-romaine. Paris. Robert, L. (2007) Choix d’E´crits, D. Rousset, ed. Paris.

Sekunda, N. (1985) “Achaemenid colonisation in Lydia.” Revue des e´tudes anciennes 87: 7–30. Thonemann, P. (2009) “Asia Minor.” In A. Erskine, ed., A companion to ancient history: 222–35. Chichester. Zgusta, L. (1963) Kleinasiatische Personennamen. Prague. Zgusta, L. (1984) Kleinasiatische Ortsnamen. Heidelberg.

1

Asia Minor, Byzantine MEREDITH L. D. RIEDEL

ASIA MINOR,

also known metonymically as (from the Greek word for “east”), refers to the westernmost peninsula of the land mass of Asia. It is bordered to the south by the Mediterranean, to the west by the Aegean, to the north by the Sea of Marmara and the Black Sea, to the northeast by the Pontic mountains, and to the east and southeast by the Taurus mountain ranges. Currently belonging to the Republic of Turkey, it formed part of the Hellenistic empire of Alexander the Great in the fourth century BCE (see ALEXANDER III, THE GREAT), was inherited by Rome starting in the second century BCE, and later held by the emperors of Byzantium until 1390 CE, when it was finally lost to the Ottoman Turks. Geographically, Asia Minor is enormous, comprising approximately 250,000 square miles of land with a wide variety of microclimates from the rainy forested north to the dry and barren center, to the fertile western coastlands of the MAEANDER (Menderes) and Hermos (Gediz) valleys. The Lamos river in Cilicia famously provided the location for regular prisoner exchanges between Byzantium and the Caliphate in the eighth to tenth centuries CE (see RIVERS). The western and southern coastlands with their milder climate are the most densely populated and agriculturally productive regions of the peninsula. The central Anatolian plateau holds a salt lake at its center, but also features agricultural plains and alluvial basins able to produce food where underground water sources are available. The peninsula of Asia Minor boasts many historically significant cities and sites ranging from Mount Ararat (the traditional landing place of Noah’s ark) in the east to the legendary Troy of Homer and the biblical Ephesos of St. Paul in the west. Its major cities in the Byzantine era were NICAEA, Ephesos ANATOLIA

(see EPHESOS, CLASSICAL AND LATER), Iconium, Amorion, and ANKYRA; archaeological investigation is ongoing. The Anatolian plains of CAPPADOCIA are honeycombed with underground cities, troglodyte cave dwellings, and painted cave churches. The Taurus and anti-Taurus mountain ranges offer a number of passes for traveling armies and merchants, most notably the Cilician Gates (see CILICIA), which lead to Syria and Mesopotamia (see SYRIA, ROMAN AND BYZANTINE). Throughout Asia Minor, one finds roads built by the Romans and maintained by the Byzantines (see ROADS, BYZANTINE). Politically, Asia Minor has played a key role in military conflict, religious development (with Constantinople, it was the site of all seven ecumenical church councils), and economic activity. Militarily, the zone of greatest concern was the eastern frontier, beyond which first the Persians and then the Muslims posed a threat. The passes through the Taurus and anti-Taurus mountain ranges were dotted with forts, which regularly changed hands in later centuries (see FORTS, BYZANTINE). However, in order for an enemy to attack the heart of the empire, that is, the city of Constantinople, the sheer size of Asia Minor inhibited successful land-based approaches. A tenth century military manual on guerilla warfare (On skirmishing) recommends exploiting the broken terrain of the eastern frontier to take advantage of fatigued invaders as they retreated after a raid. SEE ALSO: Persia and Byzantium; Sebeos of Armenia.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Brandes, W. (1989) Die Sta¨dte Kleinasiens im 7. und 8. Jahrhundert. Amsterdam. Foss, C. (1996) Cities, fortresses, and villages of Byzantine Asia Minor. Aldershot. Horden, P. and Purcell, N. (2000) The corrupting sea: a study of Mediterranean history. Oxford. Hu¨tteroth, W.-D. (1982) Tu¨rkei. Darmstadt.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 822–823. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah03016

1

Asia Minor, Hellenistic

Greater Phrygia and (eventually) LYCIA and PAMPHYLIA; Menander took LYDIA; EUMENES OF KARDIA took CAPPADOCIA (still to be wrested from king Ariarathes), PAPHLAGONIA, and (nominally) the southern coast of the BLACK SEA); Asandros took CARIA; and Philotas took CILICIA. Antigonos would eventually establish himself as ruler of the entire Asia Minor. After his defeat and death at IPSOS in 301 BCE, the largest part of Asia Minor (extending up to the TAURUS MOUNTAINS to the east) was appropriated by LYSIMACHOS of Thrace, who now controlled both sides of the Straits. Parts of Lycia and Pamphylia went to PTOLEMY I SOTER, and Cilicia was temporarily placed under the command of Pleistarchos, one of CASSANDER’s brothers. After Lysimachos himself was defeated and killed at Kouropedion in 281 (see KOUROPEDION, BATTLE

SVIATOSLAV DMITRIEV

The history of Asia Minor following the death of ALEXANDER III, THE GREAT comprised diverse forms of interaction between the Hellenistic kingdoms that emerged on the ruins of his empire, local Greek and non-Greek cities, different non-Greek peoples, indigenous or migrant, and the Romans, who would establish their control over that region through contacts with cities and client-kings and, eventually, by founding provinces. After Alexander’s death the territories of Asia Minor were divided as follows: LEONNATOS took Hellespontine PHRYGIA; ANTIGONOS I MONOPHTHALMOS (“the One-Eyed”) took

Sinope

BLACK SEA (EUXINE)

PONTOS Amisos

Kytoros

PONTIC ALPS PAPHLAGONIA

H

S

Amaseia R.

THRACE Byzantion/ Constantinople

Y AL

BITHYNIA ARMENIA Nikaia

GALATIA

t

Kyzikos

on sp lle He

Ankyra

TROAS

R.

H AL YS

Orkistos

Ilion

MYSIA

Amorion

Aizanoi

AXYLON

CAPPADOCIA

Dokimeion

PHRYGIA

Pergamon

Antioch by Pisidia Ikonion Eumeneia LYKAONIA Apamea Sardis Philadelphia Kibotos Smyrna PISIDIA E R Hierapolis ND ISAURIA IONIA Laodikeia on AEA Sagalassos R. M Lykos Ephesos Aphrodisias MT. TAUROS Priene Amyzon PAMPHYLIA Myus Alinda CARIA Attaleia Side Miletos E R. H R M OS

Cilician Gates Anazarbos

LYDIA

Tarsos

Issos

CILICIA

Oinoanda Halikarnassos

LYKIA Xanthos

Myra Kyaneai

Figure 1

CYPRUS

Asia Minor. From Andrew Erskine, Companion to Ancient History (2009: 223, map 4).

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 823–826. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah09054

2 OF), SELEUKOS I NIKATOR secured the entirety of Asia Minor for his dynasty. But the SELEUCIDS suffered several territorial losses: aside from the independent kingdom of BITHYNIA (established in 297), they lost parts of their empire at the foundation of the kingdoms of PONTOS (281?) and PERGAMON (239). The geographical borders of these states were flexible, because of their numerous conflicts among themselves and with outside powers, including the six SYRIAN WARS (from 274 to 168, with intervals), when the Ptolemies temporarily appropriated some territories in southern Asia Minor. Competing Hellenistic kingdoms vied for support from the Greek cities in Asia Minor. In return for pledges of support and goodwill, the cities received independence (autonomia) and various legal and economic benefits, which accelerated their administrative and social development (Dmitriev 2005a). Relations between Hellenistic rulers and non-Greek cities (such as SARDIS) and peoples (Lycians, Carians, Lydians) helped to involve the latter into the orbit of Greek civilization (Ma 2002). Royal dynasties likewise established complex relationships with many local sanctuaries (Dignas 2003). Hellenistic rulers also offered protection against the Gauls, who migrated to Asia Minor in 278/277. Having been defeated by ANTIOCHOS I SOTER in the famous “elephantbattle” (ca. 270) and then by ATTALOS I of Pergamon in several battles in the mid-230s (?), the Gauls would eventually settle in northern Phrygia, a region later known as GALATIA (Mitchell 1993). Attalos’ victories were famously commemorated through the erection of the Pergamon altar and of several statues. But the fight against the Gauls would continue: EUMENES II of Pergamon inflicted a major defeat on the Galatians in 184. The Romans came to Asia Minor in the course of their victorious war against ANTIOCHOS III MEGAS (192–189). By the treaty of Apamea (188; see APAMEA, TREATY OF) they pushed the Seleucids beyond the TAURUS MOUNTAINS, and they gave Asia Minor to the north of the MAEANDER River (including Galatia) to the Attalid

Dynasty of Pergamon, and its southern part (comprising mostly Caria and Lycia) to the Rhodians, while making several cities independent (Ma 2002). Dissatisfied with their allies in the 160s, the Romans set the Galatians free and took Caria and Lycia away from RHODES. In 133 the last Pergamene ruler, ATTALOS III, died, having bequeathed his kingdom to Rome and secured independence and immunity for some cities. After putting down the revolt of ARISTONIKOS – apparently an illegitimate son of Attalus III – in 129 or 126 the Romans established the Province of Asia, which extended from MYSIA in the north to the Maeander River in the south. Later in the second century the province expanded by incorporating Greater Phrygia, whereas its governor also had authority over LYKAONIA and Cilicia (Dmitriev 2005b). Parts of Asia Minor administered by Roman client-kings in the Late Republic (in Bithynia, Cappadocia) and under the Early Empire (in Pontos, Bosphorus, Cilicia, KOMMAGENE) thus coexisted with Roman provincial administration (Kallet-Marx 1995). Direct Roman rule and, especially, the collection of taxes by the PUBLICANI made the people of the Province of Asia particularly susceptible to the antiRoman propaganda of Mithradates VI of Pontos (see MITHRADATIC WARS). During his first war against Rome (89–84) some cities committed massive atrocities against the Romans and Italians. SULLA divided the provincial cities of Asia into forty-four fiscal districts (85) in order to exact the fine that was to be collected by the publicani. Indirect evidence suggests that Caria was added to the Province of Asia after the end of this war. The “customs law of Asia” (which survives as a long inscription, known as the Monumentum Ephesenum), issued in 75 and finally modified in 62 CE, points to the existence of Roman customs districts in Asia Minor (Cottier, Crawford, Crowther et al. 2009). After the death of Nikomedes IV, the last king of Bithynia, in late 75 or early 74, his kingdom, which he had bequeathed to Rome, was transformed into the Province of Bithynia. Cilicia would also be organized as a separate

3 province (ca. 74) – in the course of Roman fighting against Mithradates VI of Pontos on the one hand, and against local pirates on the other. Once he assumed command during the third Roman war against Mithradates VI (74–63), POMPEY established the Province of Bithynia and Pontos in 66 and reorganized the Province of Cilicia ca. 63. In the 40s and 30s Mark Antony enlarged territories under the control of client-kings by giving PISIDIA, Galatia, and parts of Pamphylia to Amyntas, Pontos to Polemon Pythodoros, who became known as Polemon I of Pontos (he also acquired the Bosphorus), Cappadocia to Archelaos, Cilicia Pedasa to Tarcondimotus, and Cilicia Trachea to Cleopatra, thus essentially eliminating the province of Cilicia for several decades. AUGUSTUS would counter this trend by establishing the provinces of Galatia (25 BCE?) and Cappadocia (17 CE) and by permanently joining Phrygia with the Province of Asia (Syme 1995; Dmitriev 2005b). SEE ALSO: Antonius, Marcus (Mark Antony); Apamea, Peace of; Archelaos of Cappadocia; Ariarathid Dynasty; Asandros, satrap of Caria; Asia, Roman province of; Cleopatra VII;

Kingship, Hellenistic; Kouropedion, battle of; Mithradates I–VI of Pontos; Nikomedes I–IV of Bithynia; Pergamon.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Dignas, B. (2003) Economy of the sacred in Hellenistic and Roman Asia Minor. Oxford. Dmitriev, S. (2005a) City government in Hellenistic and Roman Asia Minor. Oxford. Dmitriev, S. (2005b) “The history and geography of the Province of Asia during its first hundred years and the provincialization of Asia Minor.” Athenaeum n.s. 93.1: 71–133. Cottier, M., Crawford, M. H., Crowther, C. V., Ferrary, J. L., Levick, B. M., Salomies, O., and Wo¨rrle, M., eds. (2009) The customs law of Asia. Oxford. Kallet-Marx, R. M. (1995). Hegemony to empire: the development of the Roman imperium in the east from 148 to 62 BC. Berkeley. Ma, J. (2002). Antiochos III and the cities of western Asia. Oxford. Mitchell, S. (1993) Anatolia: land, men, and gods in Asia Minor, vol. 1. Oxford. Syme, R. (1995) Anatolica: studies in Strabo, ed. A. Birley. Oxford.

1

Asia, Central JEFFREY D. LERNER

As a construct, Central Asia has varied according to the methodologies that scholars have employed, based on the focus of their research. This has led to different definitions to which the term may refer, depending on whether the perspective taken is social and economic, historical and ethnic, linguistic and cultural, military and political, climatic and geographic, or any of a myriad of others. The result is a patchwork of disparate meanings (Gorshenina 2006). For this reason it is best to understand the term in the broadest sense possible. “Central Asia” can be defined as all the states and regions that extend from Mongolia in the east to the Caspian Sea in the west, and those from the southern Siberian taiga in the north to the northwestern Indian subcontinent in the south. The term signifies the region roughly between 48 and 115 E and 25 and 55 N. It thereby encompasses southern Siberia, Mongolia, Chinese Xinjiang, Qinhai, and Gansu; the Central Asian republics of Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, and Turkmenistan; and the Russian Federation, Afghanistan, Pakistan, northwest INDIA, Kashmir, and Tibet. The designation is also commonly used as a synonym for “Inner Asia,” as well as to signify the Islamic western portion of Inner Asia (Masson 1992; Cowan 2007). Central Asia is a landlocked land mass composed of three climatic zones. The north is characterized by a prodigious belt of coniferous forest called the taiga, which mixes in places with deciduous forests extending from the Urals to Eastern Europe. To the south is a vast zone of semi-arid steppelands, composed primarily of level, treeless plains, largely covered with grasses. These expand from the Altai and Tian Shan Mountains to northern Xinjiang and Mongolia, skirting the Gobi

Desert to Manchuria. Another belt extends from Kazakhstan and the Ural Mountains to Eastern Europe, continuing southward until they reach the deserts of Uzbekistan and Tajikistan. Below the steppelands are the deserts of the Taklamakan, in southern Xinjiang, and the Gobi, situated between Xinjiang and Mongolia. The Ustyurt Plateau lies between the Caspian and Aral Seas in Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan, while the deserts of the KaraKum and Kyzyl Kum are located in Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan. Central Asia is the homeland of Altaic, IndoEuropean, and Uralic speakers. While much of the region was populated by pastoralists, a peculiar feature of the area is oases, formed by rivers that enable irrigated agriculture to be practiced, and which thereby serve as major urban centers north of the Indian subcontinent. These desert kingdoms functioned as the main stepping stones for the various waterways and overland routes that made up the Silk Road. SEE ALSO:

Achaemenid Dynasty; Ai Khanum; Alexander III, the Great; Alexandria Arachosia; Alexandria Ariana; Alexandria Eschate; Alexandria in Margiana; Alexandria Oxiana; Alexandria Paropamisadai; Antiochos I Soter; Bactria; Camel; Desert; Frontiers, ancient Near East; Frontiers, Hellenistic; Hellenistic period (concept of ); Historiography, ancient Near East; Historiography, Greek and Roman; Historiography, Late Antique; Huns; Kushan Empire; Lapis lazuli; Oxus; Parthia; Scythia; Scythians; Seleucids; Seleukos I Nikator; Silk; Tanais; Water; Zoroastrianism.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Cowan, P. J. (2007) “Geographic usage of the terms Middle Asia and Central Asia.” Journal of Arid Environments 69: 359–63. Golden, P. B. (2011) Central Asia in world history. Oxford.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner. © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Published 2015 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah26191

2 Gorshenina, S. (2006) [online] [Accessed May 16, 2014.] “Central Asia: a designation open to debate?” Available from http://www.reseau-asie. com/edito-en/central-asia-a-designation-open-todebate-by-svetlana-gorshenina/.

Masson, V. M. (1992) “The environment.” In A. H. Dani and V. M. Masson, eds., History of civilizations of Central Asia, vol. 1: The dawn of civilization: earliest times to 700 B.C.: 29–44. Paris.

1

Asia, Roman province of STEPHEN MITCHELL

III of PERGAMON bequeathed his kingdom to Rome in 133 BCE, and the western part of ASIA MINOR thereby became Rome’s first province east of the Aegean, called Asia. After suppressing the revolt of ARISTONIKOS, the first proconsular governor, Manius Aquillius, set up the basic scheme of Roman rule (Strabo 14.1.38, 646) and created a road system that extended from the Dardanelles to SIDE in Pamphylia, whose milestones are measured from the major cities of Ephesos and Pergamon (Mitchell 1999). In the 120s systematic measures for extracting revenue were imposed on the new province by a customs law, which inherited features of the previous Attalid system of taxation, and which was still in force in 62 CE (Cottier et al. 2008), and by farming out other taxes to companies of PUBLICANI, whose demands soon brought them into conflict with the Greek cities of the province (Magie 1950: 173–4). Marcus Cicero, in a letter of 59 BCE to his brother Quintus, suggests that the overriding responsibility of the governor was to arbitrate in disputes between the provincials and the tax farmers (Cic. Q. Fr. 1.1.32–6). The major cities of the province served as assize centers, and the proconsuls, who normally served for only a single year, continued to make judicial tours of the province until the mid-third century CE (Burton 1975). Initially Roman rule was highly unpopular. Greek cities struggled to defend their limited freedoms against Roman encroachment (Ferrary 1991), and when Mithradates VI invaded the province in 89 BCE, the inhabitants turned on the publicani and are said to have slaughtered 80,000 Romans or Italians overnight. SULLA regained control of Roman Asia, imposed a heavy war indemnity, and reformed the tax and administrative system in 85 (Brunt 1990: 1–8). Cicero’s speech Pro Lege Manilia of 67 highlights that the province was regarded as a lucrative source ATTALOS

of income to the equestrian class at Rome. Asia continued to suffer financially through the period of civil wars, as it paid large levies to Brutus and Cassius, and then to Marcus Antonius, before stability returned in the early principate (Plut. Pomp. 45). The cities of Asia formed an association, the KOINON of Asia, which represented and defended the province’s interests in face of the Roman authorities (Magie 1950; Drew-Bear 1972). The province’s condition improved under Augustus after the conclusion of the civil wars. The organization of the imperial cult brought major institutional change at a provincial level. Imperial temples were built at Ephesos, Pergamon, MILETOS, and KYZIKOS, and festivals and competitions were held at many Asian cities from the first century CE (Price 1984; Mitchell 1993: 217–25). The provincial koinon provided a stage for the ambitions of the richest civic leaders, who aspired to become archiereus (high priest) of Asia. The asiarchy, which should not be distinguished as a separate office from this high priesthood, is attested from the Augustan period (Campanile 1994). The leading provincial cities were the old Attalid capital, Pergamon, and the newer commercial center of Ephesos, which became the main seat of Roman administration (Haensch 1997: 298–321; Halfmann 2004). These disputed the claim to be the first city of the province with SMYRNA. Inter-city competition for titles and privileges was an endemic feature of provincial life throughout the principate (Heller 2006). In 26 CE eleven Asian cities sent deputations to the Roman Senate to establish which should be allowed to erect a new imperial temple (Tac. Ann. 4.55–6). From the later first century CE civic competition continued to focus on claims to titles, which required imperial approval, in particular that of NEOKOROS, temple warden of the imperial cult (Burrell 2004). There were over 300 cities and other recognized communities in Asia, all assigned to one of the province’s twelve assize districts (Habicht 1975). A thriving urban culture is well documented by epigraphic and numismatic

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 826–828. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah18014

2 evidence until the middle of the third century CE, and this is confirmed by the excavations of major cities such as Ephesos, Pergamon, Miletos, SARDIS, and AIZANOI. Bronze coins minted by the cities are a rich source of information about local cults, public buildings, civic titles, and other aspects of local histories (Price and Trell 1977). Inscriptions, in particular honorific inscribed statue bases of members of the local elite, attest a rich community life based on the major civic sanctuaries and the institutions of the ruler cult (Pont 2010). The wealthiest representatives of this class began to obtain membership of the Roman Senate by the early second century CE (Halfmann 1979). The products of the province include marble, in particular from the Phrygian quarries around DOKIMEION, which had been imperially owned since the time of Tiberius, but Asia’s major resource was agricultural production, which was concentrated in the valleys of the Kaikos, Hermos, Kaystros, and Maeander rivers, and in the hills and plains of LYDIA, PHRYGIA, and the Kibyratis. Large areas of these interior regions formed imperial estates in the second and third centuries CE, farmed by tenants and administered by a powerful caste of imperial freedmen procurators, whose administrative headquarters was in the Phrygian city of Synnada (Brunt 1990: 163–87; Mitchell 1999: 37–46). Between 180 and 250 the tenants of imperial and private estates were afflicted by the impositions of freedman land managers and by soldiers and officials traveling through the province to conflict zones (Herrmann 1990). There was no legionary garrison in Asia, and Roman troops were confined to auxiliary units stationed at the capital, Ephesos, and toward the eastern frontier of the province at Eumeneia and Apamea in Phrygia (Christol and Drew-Bear 1987). The province of Asia was split into smaller units in the later empire. A new province of Phrygia and Caria was created around 250. By the early fourth century, proconsular Asia, which continued to prosper, was reduced to the coastal regions between Pergamon and Ephesos, and the rest of the

former province was divided between HELLESPONT, Phrygia I and II, Lydia, and CARIA. SEE ALSO: Asia Minor, Hellenistic; Cicero, Marcus Tullius; Cicero, Quintus Tullius; Cities, Roman Empire (east); Ephesos, Classical and later; Quarries; Ruler cult, Roman.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Brunt, P. A. (1990) Roman imperial themes. Oxford. Burrell, B. (2004) Neokoroi: Greek cities and Roman emperors. Leiden. Burton, G. P. (1975) “Proconsular assizes and the administration of justice in Roman Asia.” Journal of Roman Studies 65: 92–105. Campanile, D. (1994) I sacerdoti del koinon d’Asia. Pisa. Christol, M. and Drew-Bear, T. (1987) Un Castellum romain pre`s d’Apame´e de Phrygie. Vienna. Cottier, M. et al., eds. (2008) The customs law of Asia. Oxford. Drew-Bear, T. (1972) “Deux inscriptions d’Aphrodisias.” Bulletin de Correspondance Helle´nique 96: 444. Ferrary, J.-L. (1991) “Le Statut des cite´s libres dans l’empire romaine a` la lumie`re des inscriptions de Claros.” Comptes-Rendus de l’Acade´mie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres 135: 557–77. Habicht, C. (1975) “New evidence on the Roman province of Asia.” Journal of Roman Studies 65: 64–91. Haensch, R. (1997) Capita Provinciarum: Statthaltersitze und Provinzverwaltung in der ro¨mischen Kaiserzeit. Mainz. Halfmann, H. (1979) Senatoren aus dem o¨stlichen Teil des Imperium Romanum bis zum Ende des 2. Jhs. n. Chr. Go¨ttingen. Halfmann, H. (2004) Ephe`se et Pergame: urbanisme et commanditaires en Asie Mineure romaine. Bordeaux. Heller, A. (2006) Les Beˆtises des grecs: conflits et rivalite´s entre cite´s d’Asie et de Bithynie a` l’e´poque romaine (129 a.C.–235 p.C). Bordeaux. Herrmann, P. (1990) Hilferufe aus ro¨mischen Provinzen: ein Aspekt der Krise des ro¨mischen Reichs im 3. Jh. n. Chr. Hamburg. Magie, D. (1950) Roman rule in Asia Minor, 2 vols. Princeton.

3 Mitchell, S. (1993) Anatolia: land, men, and gods in Asia Minor, vol. 1. Oxford. Mitchell, S. (1999) “The administration of Roman Asia from 133 BC to AD 250.” In W. Eck, ed., Lokale Autonomie und ro¨mische Ordnungsmacht in den kaiserzeitlichen Provinzen vom 1. bis 3. Jahrhundert: 17–46. Munich.

Pont, A.-V. (2010) Orner la cite´: enjeux culturels et politiques du paysage urbain dans l’Asie Mineure gre´co-romaine. Bordeaux. Price, M. and Trell, B. (1977) Coins and their cities. London. Price, S. (1984) Rituals and power: The Roman imperial cult in Asia Minor. Cambridge.

1

Asiarch BARBARA BURRELL

Though long subject to debate, the preponderance of (mainly inscriptional) evidence shows that Asiarch was another term for the chief priest (archiereus) of Asia, who presided over both the provincial cult of the Roman emperors and the koinon of Asia in general. In some cases a woman, often the wife or relative of a chief priest or Asiarch, also served as chief priestess (archiereia) of Asia. This office was considered the summit of a provincial career, and was generally held by members of elite families with Roman citizenship. It was very costly, as its holders were either expected or required to subsidize special enhancements for koinon festivals, such as gladiatorial games, wild beast hunts, or feasts. When presiding over such festivals, these officials could dress in purple, wear a golden crown set with busts of emperors and empresses, and walk at the head of the koinon procession. Asiarchs were elected by a koinon assembly. There was probably only one chief priest per year when the Temple of Roma and Augustus at Pergamon was the sole provincial temple of Asia (from 29 BCE), but a second was needed once the Temple to Tiberius, his mother, and

the Senate was built at Smyrna, after 26). As further cities obtained provincial imperial cult temples, thus becoming neokoroi (see NEOKOROS), at least five chief priests/Asiarchs could be distinguished by the name of the major city whose temple(s) they presided over, as documented for Pergamon, Smyrna, Ephesos, Sardis, and Kyzikos. SEE ALSO: Asia, Roman province of; Ephesos, Classical and later; Koinon; Kyzikos; Pergamon; Ruler cult, Roman; Sardis; Smyrna.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Campanile, M. D. (1994) I sacerdoti del koino`n d’Asia (I sec. a.C.-III sec. d.C.): Contributo allo studio della romanizzazione delle e´lites provinciali nell’Oriente greco. Pisa. Campanile, M. D. (2006) “Sommi sacerdoti, asiarchi, e culto imperiale: Un aggiornamento.” Studi ellenistici 19: 523–84. Carter, M. (2004) “Archiereis and Asiarchs: A gladiatorial perspective.” Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies 44: 41–68. Hayward, C. (1998) “Les grandes-preˆtresses du culte impe´rial provincial en Asie Mineure, e´tat de la question.” In R. Frei-Stolba and A. Bielman, eds., Femmes et vie publique dans l’antiquite´ gre´coromaine: 117–30. Lausanne.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print page 828. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah17058

1

Asine ANTONIA LIVIERATOU

The acropolis of Asine is located on a promontory on the east coast of the Argive Bay. The first substantial remains of a settlement on the lower, northwestern slopes of the acropolis hill, the so-called “Lower Town,” a tumulus cemetery to the east, and other burials and settlement remains to the north date to the Middle Helladic period (ca. 2000–1550 BCE). Settlement remains of the Late Bronze Age have also been found at the acropolis, while burials took place in two chamber-tomb cemeteries on the slopes of the Barbouna hill to the northwest of the acropolis. The Late Helladic IIIB evidence (thirteenth century BCE) is not very rich, while the Postpalatial period appears to have been prosperous. An organized settlement, including a cult room, has been excavated at the Lower Town, while most chamber tombs were reused in this period. Asine was continuously inhabited into the Early Iron Age, as especially indicated in the area to the east of the acropolis hill by three successive buildings dating from the end of Late Helladic IIIC to the Late Protogeometric period (eleventh and tenth centuries). Cult activities as well as burial rituals (libations) are attested at Protogeometric Asine. Single burials in cists or pits took place among Mycenaean ruins of the Lower Town or close to Protogeometric buildings. Settlement continuity has been claimed for the Geometric period (ninth and eighth centuries). In addition, burial rituals were probably performed in

relation to a Late Geometric apsidal building and round enclosures at the foot of the Barbouna hill, in the vicinity of graves. The summit of the Barbouna hill hosted an apsidal cult building ca. 750 and its successor, the temple of Apollo Pythaeus, which according to PAUSANIAS (2.36.4–5) was the only building spared by the Argives when they destroyed the city ca. 710 BCE. The sanctuary was indeed continuously visited into the Hellenistic period. Although Asine was not abandoned in the intervening Archaic and Classical periods, it only appears to regain significance in the third century BCE, as indicated by fortifications of the acropolis and other remains. SEE ALSO: Apollo; Argolis; Argos; Libations, Greek; Walls, city, Greece.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Frizell, B. (1986) Asine II, 3. Results of the excavations east of the acropolis 1970–1974. The late and final Mycenaean periods. Stockholm. Fro¨din, O. and Persson, A. W. (1938) Asine I. Results of the Swedish excavations 1922–1930. Stockholm. Nordquist, G. C. (1987) A Middle Helladic village: Asine in the Argolid. Uppsala. Sjo¨berg, B. L. (2004) Asine and the Argolid in the Late Helladic III period: a socioeconomic study. Oxford. Wells, B. (1983) Asine II, 4. Results of the excavations east of the acropolis 1970–1974. The Protogeometric period. Part 2: an analysis of the settlement. Stockholm.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 828–829. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah02027

1

Asinius Pollio, Gaius ANTHONY A. BARRETT

Gaius Asinius Pollio (ca. 76 BCE–4 CE) was a Roman literary and political figure of the Late Republican and early imperial periods. His brother was the Asinius Marrucinus accused by CATULLUS of stealing napkins (Catullus 12). Pollio entered public life in the mid-50s and supported JULIUS CAESAR (C. IULIUS CAESAR) in the civil war. He subsequently backed Mark Antony (see ANTONIUS MARCUS (MARK ANTONY)), serving as his legate in Transpadane Gaul. As consul, in 40 BCE, Pollio brokered the Treaty of Brundisium between Antony and Octavian (see AUGUSTUS). He celebrated a triumph in 39 for victories in Illyricum. He became a supporter of Octavian but declined to participate at Actium. Thereafter he retired from public life and devoted himself to his literary pursuits. Pollio founded the first public library in Rome, from the spoils of the civil war. He was an accomplished orator (Vell.Pat. 2.36.2; Plin. HN 7.115), and was said to have introduced the custom of an author reciting his own works

to a public audience (Sen. Contr. 4. praef. 2). He was a distinguished patron and critic; he faulted SALLUST for his archaisms, and rebuked LIVY for his provincial style (patavinitas) (Suet. Gramm. 10, Quint. Inst. Or. 1.5.56, 8.1.3). He was on close terms with Catullus and was an early patron of VERGIL, honored by the poet in his Fourth Eclogue, which anticipates an era of peace beginning in Pollio’s consulship. Pollio composed a history of the civil wars from the consulship of Metellus in 60 BCE down, at least, to the Battle of Philippi in 42 (Hor. Od. 2.1; Tac. Ann. 4.34). He wrote light, possibly erotic, verse, as well as tragedies (Verg. Ec. 3.86, Hor. Sat 1.10.42, Piny Ep. 5.3.5).

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Morgan, L. (2000) “The autopsy of C. Asinius Pollio.” Journal of Roman Studies 90: 51–69. Ne´raudau, J. P. (1983) “Asinius Pollion et la poe´sie.” ANRW 30.3: 1732–50. Berlin. Zecchini, G. (1982) “Asinio Pollione: dall’ attivita` politica alla riflessione storiografica.” ANRW 30.2: 1265–96. Berlin.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 829–830. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah08019

1

Asklepiades of Bithynia JULIUS ROCCA

Although none of his works survive, Asklepiades of Cius (Prusias ad Mare) in Bithynia was one of the foremost physicians of the late Hellenistic era. His floruit is anywhere from the late second century (CICERO, MARCUS TULLIUS) to some forty years later (according to PLINY THE ELDER, who depicts Asklepiades as dying in advanced years after falling down a flight of stairs). It is sufficient to state that Asklepiades was successful in late republican Rome. According to Pliny, a hostile source for Greek medicine, this was principally due to Asklepiades’s rhetoric, deemed sufficient to rouse the moribund. Pliny claims Asklepiades was a teacher of rhetoric who took up medicine for a living. Pliny is conflating, perhaps deliberately, Asklepiades with the eponymous first-century BCE grammarian from Myrleia in Bithynia. Scribonius Largus (fl. ca. 40 CE ) on the other hand, regarded Asklepiades as the “greatest medical authority” (maximus auctor medicinae). Asklepiades’s popularity in Rome was based on a holistic system that stressed moderation both in lifestyle and in therapeutic intervention. Purging and blood-letting, mainstays of medical practice, were used sparingly. Exercises such as walking, a gentle form of swinging from a suspended couch, massage (rubbing), bathing, drinking of water and of wine (moderately) were all advocated. These would have been discussed in his On hygiene and On common aids. Some of his critics contended that Asklepiades used no drugs; rather he opposed the growing practice of polypharmacy, and his own pharmacological text maintained that every practitioner should have two to three basic preparations available. Methodology aside, Asklepiades’ definitive break with Hippocratic orthodoxy lay in his rejection of humoral theory and its underlying physiological concepts. The fundamental constituent parts of the body, according to Asklepiades, consisted of invisible particulate units called “jointless masses” (anarmoi ogkoi)

which lacked sensible qualities. They were not atomous, “atoms,” for they were capable of breaking, and were “passive” (patheta), unlike “impassive” (apathe) atoms. Asklepiadean theory here owes more to HERAKLEIDES OF PONTOS than to Epicurus. Conglomerates of these “jointless masses” formed the parts of the body, through which ran pores or channels. The Asklepiadean particles also moved through these channels, and blockage or too swift a passage resulted in disease. The contribution to METHODISM may here be noted, as is a possible reaction to Erasistratean physiology. This mechanistic view of health and disease found its harshest and most relentless critic in GALEN, who devoted much effort, including two lost treatises on Asklepiades, in refutation. Galen often deliberately collapses the distinction between Asklepiadean particles and Epicurean atoms for polemical purposes, while remaining aware of the distinctions. To Galen, Asklepiades not only denied humoral pathology and pneumatic physiology, but promoted what Galen regarded as an atheistic concept of purposeless particulate motion, outside nature’s control. As CAELIUS AURELIANUS put it, for Asklepiades nature is only “matter and its motion.” The rise of Methodism, as well as evidence of an Asklepiadean “school” in the third century CE , may attest to his influence, but Asklepiades’s real legacy lay in securing the legitimacy of Greek medicine in Rome. SEE ALSO: Atomism; Disease, conceptions of; Epicurus and Epicureanism; Erasistratus, physician; Medicine, Greek and Roman; Pliny the Elder.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Asmis, E. (1993) “Asclepiades of Bithynia rediscovered?” Classical Philology 88, 2: 145–56. Polito, R. (2006) “Matter, medicine, and the mind: Asclepiades vs. Epicurus.” Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy 30: 285–335. Vallance, J. T. (1993) “The medical system of Asclepiades of Bithynia.” Aufstieg und Niedergang der ro¨mischen Welt II.37.1: 693–727.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 830–831. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah21048

1

Asklepieion sanctuary MILENA MELFI

The Asklepieion of KOS was one of the most famous cult places of Antiquity and a renowned healing center. Worshippers and physicians flocked to the island of Kos from all parts of the Greek and Roman world. By the early Roman period the story had become widespread that HIPPOCRATES OF KOS had learned medicine from the iamata – the tablets recording the god’s cures – on display at the Asklepeion (Plin. HN 29.2). The site, excavated in the early 1900s by the German archaeologist Rudolf Herzog, is located 4 km west of the ancient city of Kos, on a hillside commanding a spectacular view of both coast and sea. The cult buildings are distributed on three monumental terraces facing northwards. Although controversial literary and epigraphic testimonies point to a date within the fifth century BCE, worship of ASKLEPIOS is attested on the site only from 350, when the god took over an area originally dedicated to Apollo Kyparissios. The establishment of the sanctuary therefore coincided with the foundation of the polis of Kos, in 366. An altar, possibly a temple (under temple C) and an incubation hall (building E or D), were built for Asklepios in the middle terrace, following an east–west axis. These were the essential structures for the practice of the healing cult: the worshippers performed sacrificial rituals in honor of Asklepios and his children on the altar inscribed with their names, and spent the night in the incubation hall, hoping for a dream and a miraculous cure. They offered money and dedications in order to ingratiate themselves with the god (Herondas Mim. 4). Under the patronage of PTOLEMY II PHILADELPHOS, who was born on the island, a grandiose building project transformed the appearance of the sacred site. Upon its completion, in 242, a new Panhellenic festival with athletic and musical competitions was

founded in the name of Asklepios. The central area was given a new temple (temple B) and a monumental altar, with sculptures by the sons of Praxiteles and paintings by APELLES, while north and south of the main cultic center two monumental terraces extended the sacred space along the hillside. These consisted of large porticoed squares where votive dedications and functional structures were accommodated. The lower terrace defined an area devoted to the reception of the supplicants, where fountains, porticoes, and rooms offered shelter, bathing, and cooking facilities. Here pilgrims could carry out the preliminary rites and wait to be admitted to the holiest part of the sanctuary. The upper terrace was only embellished in the early second century BCE, with the construction of a pi-shaped stoa in marble, a temple larger than all its predecessors (temple A), and a monumental stairway, which provided formal access to the terrace from a new north–south axis. This arrangement emphasized the vertical succession of the three terraces and the ascending route of the sacred way. Pompai (processions) along this way were performed in honor of the deceased ATTALOS I and EUMENES II. The honors bestowed

Figure 1 Ruins of the Asklepeion, Kos. © Travel Library Limited/SuperStock.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 831–832. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah14050

2 on the Pergamene kings at the Asklepieion, and the overall architectural style of the upper terrace, have suggested Pergamene patronage (see PERGAMON). The connection with Asklepios, the tradition of the Hippocratic School, and the affiliation with Ptolemies and Attalids helped the island of Kos maintain a privileged status of inviolability in the Hellenistic period (see ASYLIA). The growing involvement of Rome in the east and the favorable location of the island on the coastal route from the Aegean to Asia Minor induced the Koans to redefine their role. Inscriptions and dedications from the Asklepieion document the final establishment of Roman control in the area and the effort of the local elites to gain the favor of the newcomers. The most famous example is that of C. Stertinius Xenophon, the Koan physician sent to Rome as part of an embassy to plead for the inviolability of the sanctuary, who later became the physician of emperor Claudius. After the death of Claudius, he returned to Kos and contributed his wealth to the embellishment of the Asklepieion and the establishment of the imperial cult therein. He dedicated a library and had a fountain and a number of basins installed in a row along the eastern part

of the lower terrace. After the devastating earthquake of 142 CE, a new temple (temple C), two baths, and a hostel were built to accommodate the long-term sick, following a development attested in all the main contemporary Asklepieia. SEE ALSO: Healing deities, healing cults, Greece and Rome; Incubation.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Herzog, R. and Schatzmann, P. (1932) Kos I. Asklepieion. Berlin. Ho¨ghammar, K. (1993) Sculpture and society: a study of the connection between the free-standing sculpture and society on Kos in the Hellenistic and Augustan periods. Uppsala. Interdonato, E. (2004) “Evergetismo e dediche nei santuari greci di eta` romana. Il caso dell’Asklepieion di Kos.” In M. Ce´beillacGervasoni et al., eds. Autoce´le´bration des e´lites locales dans le monde romain: contextes, texts, images (IIe. s. av. J.-C. – IIIe s. ap. J-C): 267–85. Clermont Ferrand. Segre, M. (1993) Iscrizioni di Cos. Rome. Sherwin White, S. (1978) Ancient Cos. An historical study from the Dorian settlement to the imperial period. Go¨ttingen.

1

Asklepios IOANNIS MYLONOPOULOS

In Greek antiquity, the omnipresence of illness and death transformed the process of healing into one of the most powerful areas of communication with the divine sphere. The human craving for divine assistance in moments of grave despair, such as in cases of serious illness, led to the association of countless deities with various aspects of the curative process. From the fifth century BCE onwards, Asklepios was the dominant healing god/hero. It is interesting that he never lost his ambiguous nature as both god and hero (Riethmu¨ller 1999) – an ontological duality that makes him comparable to Herakles. Despite his importance, Asklepios remained a relatively obscure figure in the Homeric poems, where he was not yet the Panhellenic healing deity of the Classical period, but was characterized merely as a “blameless physician” (Il. 4.194). Although he was identified as the father of the heroes Podaleirios and Machaon, his precise status – deified king, local hero, or simply famous healer – was of no interest to the author(s). It seems that Hesiod was the normative literary authority in shaping some of the early myths about Asklepios (Edelstein and Edelstein 1998: II.24–34). According to the Hesiodic version of the myth of Asklepios’ birth, Koronis – a young Thessalian maiden – was the god’s mortal mother, while Apollo was his divine father. While pregnant with Asklepios, Koronis married Ischys, which led to her murder by Artemis. Apollo killed Ischys, saved the unborn child, and delivered it to Chiron. The similarities here to Dionysian narratives are obvious. Important variants of the birth myth existed in Messenia, Lakonia, Arcadia, and most importantly in Epidauros (Riethmu¨ller 2005: I.39–45). Despite the occasionally significant discrepancies among them, most of the narratives recognized Asklepios as an exceptionally gifted healer who was even able to revive the

dead. Indeed this was why Zeus killed him with his thunderbolt near Delphi (Edelstein and Edelstein 1998: I.53–6). The importance of the Epidaurian sanctuary and its architectural and sculptural magnificence led E. J. and L. Edelstein (1998: II.97–9) to claim mistakenly that the cult of Asklepios began in Epidauros. The early date of the Thessalian birth myth, however, reveals that its origins are traceable to Thessaly, most probably around Trikka, although the most important sanctuary of the god is certainly the one in Epidauros that flourished during the fifth and especially the fourth centuries BCE. The Asklepieia on Kos, in Pergamon – a perpetual point of reference for Aelius Aristides, antiquity’s chief hypochondriac – and Messene were also major cult sites. The innumerable inscriptions found at the sanctuary in Epidauros offer invaluable information on cures – real and imaginary – attributed to Asklepios. Firsthand stories about diseases and extraordinary cures effected in Epidauros through the deity’s power are known from a lengthy inscription – something like an antique banner – originally displayed near the incubation hall. The text presents a long list of stories about miraculous cures, the iamata, which the priestly officials of the sanctuary had collected over a long period of time. The first of these retells the fantastical story of Kleo: “Kleo was with child for five years. After she had been pregnant for five years she came as a suppliant to the god and slept in the abaton. As soon as she left it and got outside the sanctuary she bore a son who upon his birth washed himself at the fountain and walked about with his mother. In return for this favor, she inscribed on her offering: ‘Admirable is not the greatness of the tablet, but the divinity, in that Kleo carried the burden in her womb for five years, until she slept in the temple and he made her sound’” (IG IV2 1, 121 l. 3–9). In addition, Epidauros is also the mother sanctuary for countless cult sites dedicated to Asklepios in Athens, Balagrai, Lebena, Pergamon, Rome, and across the Mediterranean.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 832–834. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah17059

2 Although not among the god’s principal sanctuaries, the Asklepieion in Athens offers precious insights into the history of the transmission of Asklepios’ cult in the fifth century BCE. In the early days of the Peace of Nikias after the catastrophic plague that took Perikles’ life, the Athenians introduced the cult of Asklepios into their city. According to the famous monument of Telemachos (IG II2 4960a–c; 4961), the god traveled by sea from Epidauros to Piraeus. He himself (a cult image?) or his sacred snake – the part of the inscription relating to this is damaged – was then brought by wagon to a sanctuary newly founded in his honor on the southern slope of the Acropolis. Within a few years, Asklepios became the most important curative deity in Attica, quickly overshadowing local healing heroes such as Amynos (Aleshire 1989; Melfi 2007: 313–409; Mitchell-Boyask 2008). The transition to and the early cult of Asklepios in his numerous new cult places around the Mediterranean must have been quite similar to the Athenian story of success. In his images, Asklepios demonstrates a rather repetitive iconography. This has been frequently justified by his late “arrival” in the Greek Olympian pantheon. Although literary sources do refer to famous statues of the god from the earlier fifth century BCE, such as the beardless chryselephantine image by Kalamis in Sikyon, hardly any of the preserved Roman statuary types can be securely linked to a Greek original from before 420. The main types show a standing mature bearded male holding a staff with snakes and wearing a long cloak draped around the lower part of his body and his back before falling over his left shoulder. Even when portrayed young and beardless, his principal characteristics, the long cloak and its typical

arrangement around the god’s body as well as the staff with snakes, remain constant. The famous chryselephantine statue in Epidauros, a work by Thrasymedes supposedly inspired by the colossal statue of Zeus in Olympia, depicted the god accompanied by a dog, probably an allusion to one variation on the birth myth, in which a dog was said to have guarded or even suckled the exposed infant Asklepios. SEE ALSO: Asklepieion sanctuary; Disease and health, Greece and Rome; Epione; Healing deities, healing cults, Greece and Rome; Hygieia; Incubation; Medicine, Greek and Roman; Springs, sacred.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Aleshire, S. B. (1989) The Athenian Asklepieion: the people, their dedications, and the inventories. Amsterdam. Edelstein, E. J., and Edelstein, L. (1998) Asclepius. A collection and interpretation of the testimonies. 2 vols. 2nd ed. Baltimore. Holtzmann, B. (1984) “Asklepios.” In Lexicon Iconographicum Mythologiae Classicae, vol. II.1: 863–97. Zurich. Melfi, M. (2007) I santuari di Asclepio in Grecia, vol. 1. Rome. Mitchell-Boyask, R. (2008) Plague and the Athenian imagination. Drama, history, and the cult of Asclepius. Cambridge. Riethmu¨ller, J. (1999) “Bothros and tetrastyle: The Heroon of Asclepius in Athens.” In R. Ha¨gg, ed., Ancient Greek hero cult: 123–43. Stockholm. Riethmu¨ller, J. (2005) Asklepios. Heiligtu¨mer und Kulte, 2 vols. Heidelberg. Wickkiser, B. L. (2008) Asklepios, medicine, and the politics of healing in fifth century Greece: Between craft and cult. Baltimore.

1

Askra ANTHONY T. EDWARDS

HESIOD, BOIOTIA,

describing Askra, a village in central recalls how his father

settled close by Helikon in a miserable village, Askra, bad in winter, oppressive in summer, never good (Op. 639–40).

Hesiod’s passing mention of his home village makes it prominent both in the landscape of Greek history and of Greek poetry. Strabo (9.2.25.7–21) locates Askra forty stades from the city of THESPIAI on a rough and elevated site. Both Plutarch (fr. 82 Sandbach) and Aristotle (fr. 524 Rose) attest that Askra was overrun by Thespiai and that the refugees, along with Hesiod’s bones, were received by the city of Orchomenos. Plutarch claims in the same passage that Askra is no longer inhabited (cf. Paus. 9.29.2). Such are the ancient sources. There is general agreement among modern scholars that the site of ancient Askra lies at the base of the hill Pyrgaki, about 7 km from Thespiai in the plain below and 2 km from the Sanctuary of the Muses (see MUSES OF HELIKON SANCTUARY) higher up on Helikon. The archaeological evidence suggests that Askra was the principal settlement of its neighborhood, though secondary to Thespiai, over a period of occupation extending from the Dark Age through the sixth century CE, with an interlude of abandonment between the second and fourth centuries, corresponding to Plutarch’s testimony. The wealth of detail provided by Hesiod about life in Askra makes his village important to our understanding of Archaic Greece. Askra is revealed to us in terms of its farming regime, staple foods, and food storage; technology and trade; debt, borrowing, and obligations among neighbors and kin; rivalry and hierarchy in the village; and values and measures of success. Some see in Hesiod’s testimony evidence that Askra was a peasant village, under the control of the “gift-eating kings” (Op. 38–9), the lords of

Thespiai, who through such mechanisms as debt, trade, and judging lawsuits had enriched themselves but left Askra in a state of economic and social crisis. It is, however, possible to regard Hesiod’s conflict with the kings of the city as secondary to his dispute with a fellow villager, his brother Perses. From this perspective Askra appears as a yet autonomous village, defending itself from encroachments by Thespiai’s rulers, but primarily concerned to manage affairs peacefully within its own boundaries and in the interest of its own leadership. Askra, however, remains preeminently a poetic place. Hesiod situates his village within the opposition between the pre-Pandoran world of ease and plenty and the fallen world of disease and toil, between the Golden Age, when men enjoyed effortless prosperity in harmony with justice, and the Iron Age, where a decent livelihood could be won only through relentless labor or else injustice. As a place chiefly inhabiting the landscape of poetry, Askra is thus split between the antinomies of labor and indolence, plenty and shortage, autarky and dependency, village and city, justice and violence, and Hesiod and Perses. The Askra of poetry offers itself as an emblem of the struggle by small communities to hold want and hunger at bay. SEE ALSO: Agriculture, Greek; Golden Age; Peasant society; Villages, Greek.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Edwards, A. T. (2004) Hesiod’s Askra. Berkeley. Fossey, J. M. (1988) Topography and population of ancient Boiotia, vol. 1. Chicago. Millett, P. (1984) “Hesiod and his world.” Proceedings of the Cambridge Philological Society 30: 84–115. Snodgrass, A. M. (1985) “The site of Askra.” In G. Argoud and P. Roesch, eds., La Be´otie antique. Actes du colloque international “La Be´otie antique” a` Lyons et a` Saint-E´tienne du 16 au 20 mai 1983: 87–95. Paris. Tandy, D. (1997) Warriors into traders. The power of the market in early Greece. Berkeley.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 834–835. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah14051

1

Asoka RACHEL MAIRS

Asoka (ca. 304–232 BCE; Sanskrit As´okah, “without sorrow,” also commonly transliterated “Ashoka”) was ruler of the Indian Mauryan empire from around 269 until his death (Thapar 1997; Falk 2006). He was son of Bindusara and grandson of CHANDRAGUPTA Maurya, the founder of the Maurya Dynasty. Asoka occupies an important position in the ancient Indian historical and epigraphic tradition, where he appears as a ruthless conqueror and subsequently as a patron of Buddhism. He is also one of the few Indian rulers whose dealings with the west, especially with the kings of the Hellenistic eastern Mediterranean and with the Greek-speaking population of Arachosia, are well documented (Karttunen 1997; see ALEXANDRIA ARACHOSIA). At the time of Asoka’s ascension to the throne the Mauryan empire already covered most of the Indian subcontinent. His grandfather Chandragupta had moved into the power vacuum left by ALEXANDER III, THE GREAT’s brief occupation of the former Achaemenid provinces of northwestern India and Arachosia and consolidated his control over these regions in a war with SELEUKOS I NIKATOR in 305 BCE. Asoka’s father Bindusara, of whom little is known, also maintained a diplomatic relationship with the Greek world to the west. Under the name “Amitochrates,” a transliteration of one of his Sanskrit titles, he is the subject of an anecdote (Ath. 14.67): Bindusara sent an envoy to ANTIOCHOS I SOTER asking for some sweet wine, dried figs, and a sophist – to which Antiochos replied that he would gladly send the wine and the figs, but that Greek sophists were not for sale. Asoka’s bloody conquest of Kalinga in eastern India, early on in his reign, around 265, apparently precipitated his conversion to Buddhism. This conquest and the subsequent conversion are documented in a series of edicts engraved on rocks and pillars throughout the

empire, in which Asoka described his repentance after the terrible destruction and huge loss of life wrought on Kalinga. He outlined his new “ethical code” (Prakrit dhamma, a cognate of the Sanskrit dharma) of respect for one’s elders, vegetarianism, charity, non-violence, and thrift – a code that he expected his subjects to adhere to. In these edicts Asoka bears the Prakrit title Piyadassi (“he who regards [everyone] with affection”); he was also described by the title Devanampiya, “the one beloved of the gods” (Thapar 1997: 226–7). The edicts (text edited in Allchin and Norman 1985, translated in Thapar 1997: 250–66) provide a unique insight into Asoka’s world-view and into the administration of his empire. Asoka’s great interest to Classical scholarship lies in the evidence contained in his edicts for relations with the Hellenistic kingdoms, and also with Greek populations who lived within his empire. In his Second Major Rock Edict, Asoka outlined his missionary programme for the lands bordering his empire, and these included southern India, Sri Lanka, and the lands “of the Greek king Antiochos and of those kings who are neighbours of that Antiochos” (Thapar 1997: 251). The Greeks are again mentioned as subjects of a mission of this sort, alongside people of the Indo-Iranian borderlands, in the Fifth Major Rock Edict. In the Thirteenth Major Rock Edict (ca. 256–255), Asoka mentions the Greeks as the only people among whom Indian religious orders are not to be found; but he also makes a grand claim: The Beloved of the Gods considers victory by Dhamma to be the foremost victory. And moreover the Beloved of the Gods has gained this victory on all his frontiers to a distance of six hundred yojanas [i.e., about 1,500 miles], where reigns the Greek king named Antiochos, and beyond the realm of that Antiochos in the lands of the four kings named Ptolemy, Antigonos, Magas [of Cyrene], and Alexander [of Epirus]. (Thapar 1997: 256)

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 835–837. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah09055

2 We have no record of the reception of missionaries among these Hellenistic kings, or indeed any knowledge of Asoka’s dhamma coming from them (see ANTIOCHOS II THEOS; PTOLEMY II PHILADELPHOS; ANTIGONOS II GONATAS; MAGAS; ALEXANDER II OF EPIRUS).

But Asoka’s claim to have promulgated his ethical creed among the Greek populations of the IndoIranian borderlands of his empire received remarkable confirmation with the discovery of two Greek versions of his edicts at Kandahar. This city was the capital of Arachosia, which Chandragupta had received from SELEUKOS I NIKATOR. Of the Greek community there, which was descended from the garrison of Alexander the Great, we know little (Fraser 1979; Bernard, Pinault, and Rougemont 2004). One of the Asokan edicts found at Kandahar was a translation of the Twelfth and Thirteenth Major Rock Edicts; the other was a short Greek–Aramaic document with a freer rendering of some moral precepts (Pugliese Carratelli and Garbini 1964; Schlumberger and Benveniste 1968; now in Canali De Rossi 2004: nos. 290–2). Although the Greek-speaking community of Kandahar was still significant enough in mid-third century BCE, both numerically and politically, to be courted in its own language, the reproduction of the same text of the edicts displayed throughout the Indian subcontinent

demonstrates Asoka’s consolidation of Arachosia as an integral part of his empire. SEE ALSO: Achaemenid Dynasty; India; Kingship, Hellenistic; Megasthenes.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Allchin, F. R. and Norman, K. R. (1985) “Guide to the Asokan inscriptions.” South Asian Studies 1: 43–50. Bernard, P., Pinault, G.-P., and Rougemont, G. (2004) “Deux nouvelles inscriptions grecques de l’Asie Centrale.” Journal des Savants 2004: 227–356. Canali De Rossi, F. (2004) Iscrizioni dello estremo oriente Greco: Un repertorio. Bonn. Falk, H. (2006) Asokan sites and artefacts: a source-book with bibliography. Mainz. Fraser, P. M. (1979) “The son of Aristonax at Kandahar.” Afghan Studies 2: 9–21. Karttunen, K. (1997) India and the Hellenistic world. Helsinki. Pugliese Carratelli, G. and Garbini, G. (1964) A bilingual Graeco-Aramaic edict by Asoka: the first Greek inscription discovered in Afghanistan. Rome. Schlumberger, D. and Benveniste, E. (1968) “A new Greek inscription of Asoka at Kandahar.” Epigraphia Indica 37: 193–200. Thapar, R. (1997) As´oka and the decline of the Mauryas, rev. ed. Delhi.

1

Aspasia ROBERT W. WALLACE

Athens’ most famous and misunderstood woman, Aspasia of MILETOS was the beloved of Athens’ democratic leader PERIKLES from ca. 450 until his death in 429. Daughter of Axiochos, of an aristocratic family (IG II2 7394; Bicknell 1982), she came to Athens with her older sister, who had married ALKIBIADES’ grandfather at Miletos in the 450s. Perikles lived with her after divorcing his wife, but by his own citizenship law of 451/0 ([Arist.] Ath. Pol. 26.3) probably could not marry her. Their son Perikles became a citizen by special dispensation after Perikles’ two legitimate sons died in the plague. The demos executed the younger Perikles, a general at Arginousai (406 BCE) (see ARGINOUSAI, BATTLE OF). As Perikles’ beloved, Aspasia attracted much hostile comment from Perikles’ critics. Despite increased awareness of the unreliability of ancient biographical practices, many scholars still accept what ancient biographers report about her from Athens’ comic poets and anti-democratic philosophers (see esp. Plut. Per. 24). Because she necessarily lived unmarried with Perikles, comic poets variously called her HETAIRA (courtesan), PALLAKE (concubine), porne (whore), brothelkeeper, “Helen,” or fellatrix (e.g., Kratinos, Cheirones frs. 258, 259 Kassel-Austin). Because some of Perikles’ intellectual friends were harassed or prosecuted, probably a comedy by Hermippos invented Aspasia’s prosecution for impiety and pimping

women for Perikles (Plut. Per. 32; Wallace 1994: 131–2). Just as many politicians were accused of borrowing ideas from others, so comedians (Kallias Pedetai fr. 21 KasselAustin) claimed that Aspasia taught Perikles rhetoric, and anti-democratic philosophers mockingly transformed her into a wise teacher, notably in the Platonic parody Menexenos where she teaches SOCRATES. In Aeschines of Sphettos’ Aspasia, Socrates recommended Aspasia as a teacher for wealthy Kallias’ son. After Perikles’ death Aeschines alleged that she married his political successor, the “sheepdealer” Lysikles, also teaching him rhetoric until he was killed in 428. None of these fanciful traditions is factual. SEE ALSO:

Comedy, Old; Women, Greece.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Bicknell, P. J. (1982) “Axiochos Alkibiadou, Aspasia and Aspasios.” L’Antiquite´ Classique 51: 240–50. Ehlers, B. (1966) Eine vorplatonische Deutung des sokratischen Eros. Der Dialog Aspasia des Sokratikers Aischines. Munich. Henry, M. M. (1995) Prisoner of history: Aspasia of Miletus and her biographical tradition. Oxford (cf. R. W. Wallace’s review in Bryn Mawr Classical Review 96.04.07). Wallace, R. W. (1994) “Private lives and public enemies: freedom of thought in Classical Athens.” In A. L. Boegehold and A. C. Scafuro, eds., Athenian identity and civic ideology: 127–55. Baltimore.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 837–838. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah04050

1

Aspendos HARTWIN BRANDT

Aspendos is an ancient city located in southern modern Turkey, whose name is not only known to experts of the ancient world, but also to thousands of modern tourists who visit the impressive ruins; the Roman theater, built in the second century CE, is one of the best preserved Roman monuments. The known history of Aspendos starts in the fifth century BCE when it was – together with other Pamphylian cities – involved in the conflicts between the Greeks and Persians. In the 460s a Persian fleet, stationed in the harbor at the mouth of the River Eurymedon near Aspendos, was destroyed by the Athenian KIMON (Thuc. 1.100). Soon afterwards Aspendos seems to have been part of the Persian empire again, and when ALEXANDER III, THE GREAT appeared in PAMPHYLIA he forced the Aspendians to deliver the tribute that had been regularly paid to the Persian king to him as the new ruler (Arr. Anab. 1.26.3).

Figure 1 Alamy.

In the following centuries, southern Anatolia was a bone of contention between the Seleucids and the Ptolemies, and so was Aspendos. This did not prevent the city from flourishing: Aspendian coins circulated throughout all Anatolia, and a big agora, with store-houses, a bouleuterion (council house), and an impressive hall, show the wealth of Hellenistic Aspendos, which was based on a large territory and a rich production of grain, wine, and olive oil. In the Roman imperial period, Aspendos was part of the provinces of Galatia and later LyciaPamphylia. Bronze coins issued by many cities in Roman Asia Minor (the so-called “Greek Imperials”) tell us something about local cults and myths. Aspendos claimed to be founded by the mythical hero Mopsos, who was said to have sacrificed a boar to the goddess Aphrodite Kastnietis, whose statues appear on Aspendian coins (Brandt 1988). Several temples for other gods must have existed in Aspendos but without further excavation nothing certain can be said. Nevertheless, Aspendos evidently belonged to the first rank of Pamphylian cities, side by

Roman Theater of Aspendos, Turkey. Photograph © Robert Harding Picture Library Ltd/

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 838–839. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah14052

2 side with PERGE, Side, and Attaleia. The theater was erected with the generous help of Aspendian citizens, and the same holds true for the aqueduct. This monument, extending over a length of 13 miles and leading to a lavishly decorated nympheum, was the gift of Tiberius Claudius Italicus who – according to the inscription set up by the Aspendians in honor of their benefactor – had made a donation of two million denarii. The prominent role of festivals and games in the city life of Roman Aspendos is shown by the big stadium and the epigraphically attested existence of a gymnasium. In Late Antiquity things changed. In the early fourth century CE a separate province Pamphylia appears in the sources, to which Aspendos from now on belonged. From 325, bishops of Aspendos are attested in the council lists. New buildings are lacking, with the exception of a Christian basilica; the

inhabitants of early Byzantine Aspendos seem to have still used the urban structures of the Roman city. SEE ALSO: Eurymedon, battle of; Kimon; Theater, Greek and Roman; Water supply, Greek and Roman.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Arena, G. (2005) Citta` di Panfilia e Pisidia sotto il dominio romano. Catania. Brandt, H. (1988) “Kulte in Aspendos.” Istanbuler Mitteilungen 38: 237–50. Brandt, H. (1992) Gesellschaft und Wirtschaft Pamphyliens und Pisidiens im Altertum. Bonn. Brandt, H. and Kolb, F. (2005) Lycia et Pamphylia. Eine ro¨mische Provinz im Su¨dwesten Kleinasiens. Mainz. Hellenkemper, G. and Hild, F. (2004) Tabula Imperii Byzantini 8: Lykien und Pamphylien. Vienna.

1

Assault, Greek and Roman CHRISTOPHER FUHRMANN

People experienced various kinds of legitimate violence in the ancient world, such as military service, corporal discipline within the household, or judicial penalties. Assault is a violent attack (or threat thereof) that takes place outside these norms. The society described in the Homeric epics lacked institutional mechanisms to negotiate conflicts or prevent status contests coming to blows (note, e.g., Iliad Book 1). Thucydides cannot have been far off the mark in describing primitive Greece as violent and lawless (1.2–8). In both archaic Greece and Rome, the development of written law, courts, and magistracies helped these societies contain violence and define their stance on its use (Thuc. 2.37). For Greece, our fullest information comes from classical Athens, where bia and HYBRIS are key terms in our sources. Bia shares with its Latin cognate vis the neutral meaning of “force”; like vis, it also signifies acts of violence, and sometimes relates to rape (e.g., Lys. 1.32). Hybris is notoriously difficult to translate; it covers these same elements of bia, with a wider and more negative semantic range; in some senses it combines aspects of violence, insult, and moral outrage committed against a person or group for no valid reason (Arist. Rh. 1374a 13–5; 1378b 23–5). As members of a status-conscious and often factious community, Athenian thinkers realized that a perceived dishonor (ATIMIA) could escalate into egregious violence (Dem. 54.17–19). Assault was a common feature in Roman life as well (Fagan 2010; see VIS). Ancient societies employed varied approaches to check such bloody disorder. Since the late twentieth century, scholars have tended to stress non-institutional self-help and social control (e.g., Hunter 1994; Nippel 1984, 1988). In the case of Athens, Harris (2007) has aptly challenged this consensus by arguing that the strength of the law and public officials

curtailed self-help (for the Roman world, cf. Fuhrmann forthcoming). But responsible officials, night patrols, or police forces (where these existed) could only help so much. Premodern societies shared certain basic strategies for dealing with assailants. Most fundamental was shouting for help, which served multiple purposes: it might deter the attacker, alarm any family members or neighbors in earshot to come to one’s aid, and (assuming anyone heard the cry) ensure witnesses for a later trial (Ar. Nub. lines 1297 and 1321–5 are prime examples; see also Lysias 3.11–19; P.Tebt. 804; Hunter 1994: 137–9; Lintott 1982: 18–23 and 1999: 11–15; Dig. 29.5.1.28; Suet. Ner. 45.2; Petron. Sat. 9, 21 and 78; Apul. Met. 1.14, 3.27, 4.10, 7.7, 8.29). The TWELVE TABLES (8.13) demanded that if a victim of theft is to be blameless for killing the thief in self-defense, he or she must cry out (plorare). In case a deterred assailant tried to leave the scene, bystanders would ideally take up the “hue and cry,” pursue the offender, alert others, and, it was hoped, seize him (e.g., Dig. 47.2.7.2–3). There were several commonsense precautions one could take to avoid being the victim of an assault, including watchfulness against a thief in the night (Mark 3:27, Matt 24:43; Luke 12:39; 1 Thess 5:2; Gospel of Thomas 21 and 103). Dogs guarded homes and shops. A person of any substance would only leave home accompanied by a retinue – lone strollers were easy targets for nocturnal thugs (Juv. 3.277–308). Urban dwellers would not ordinarily go about town carrying weapons, but long-distance travel was dangerous and numerous anecdotes show that careful travelers were armed and wary (Hor. Sat. 2.1.39–46; Petron. Sat. 62; Joseph. BJ 2.125; Apul. Met. 2.18; Dig. 48.6.1). Or one could rely on the arms of others: the Stoic philosopher Epictetus remarked, “Here is how the more safety conscious travelers behave. A man, having heard that the road is infested with bandits, doesn’t venture to set out alone, but instead waits to journey in company with an ambassador,

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 839–841. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah13024

2 a governor’s assistant, or a governor, so that he may travel along safely” (Diss. 4.1.91–2; cf. Apul. Met. 2.18). Here we are reminded that over the centuries, thousands lost their lives or freedom to bandits and pirates (e.g., Suet. Aug. 32; Plin. Ep. 6.25; ILS 8504–8), even if the most colorful depictions of them in novels are fanciful exaggerations. Petitions on papyri from Greco-Roman Egypt constitute our fullest documentary sources on this kind of criminality. Close analysis of these texts reveals that what normally generated assaults was either regular disagreements between people that escalated to physical violence, or opportunistic robbery perpetrated by ordinary people (rather than bands of specialized brigands). The Egyptian evidence suggests these types of assault rarely led to the victim’s death (Riess 2001). The fact that so many humble assault victims bothered to submit these petitions to the authorities shows some faith in state remediation. Official follow-up was patchy, but the state invested energy in safeguarding people’s security and well-being. While posted soldiers in the Roman imperial provinces assumed greater policing duties during the Principate, they also increasingly abused civilians. The episode in Apuleius’ novel in which a soldier violently “requisitions” a donkey is entirely realistic (Met. 9.39–40; cf. Mitchell 1976). But one reason we know as much as we do about Roman soldiers’ abuse of civilians is occasional promulgations of official edicts on stone and papyrus, which represent effort by governors and emperors to end this sort of injustice (Fuhrmann, forthcoming; on Ptolemaic Egypt, cf. Bauschatz 2005). Punishment of assailants was a key way in which the state sought to prevent assault. Low-class bandits suffered spectacular humiliation on the cross or in the arena, so as to deter others from crime (see CRUCIFIXION). In the later Roman Empire, penal procedures became ever more savage (MacMullen 1986). In all eras of antiquity, penalties for assault depended largely on the status of the victim and the

victimizer (e.g., Code of Hammurabi 195–214; Garnsey 1970). For instance, according to the laws of Gortyn (IC 4.72 II.2–20, inscribed ca. 450 BCE), rape of a free man or woman brought a heavy fine, but a far lower amount for low-status victims. Supernatural forces played a large role in committing and defending against assault. The reality of magic to the ancients led to the proliferation of curses, defensive charms, and counter-spells (see CURSES, GREECE AND ROME). A threatened person might try to find safety in the sanctuary of a sacred place or an imperial statue (Naiden 2006: 252–6). Apuleius’ novel suggests the practice of calling out “O Caesar!” when attacked, as if to invoke the emperor’s divine protection (Met. 3.29; cf. 9.42 and Lucian Asin. 16). In Late Antiquity religious disputes frequently led to violence, sometimes committed by Christians against pagans, but often against fellow-Christians who belonged to competing sects (Gaddis 2005; Drake 2006). Ammianus Marcellinus may have had this disconcerting violence in mind when he remarked (22.5.4) that “no savage beasts are so menacing to mankind as most Christians are bestial to one another.” SEE ALSO:

Banditry, brigandage; Rape.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Bauschatz, J. (2005) “Policing the choˆra: law enforcement in Ptolemaic Egypt.” PhD diss., Duke University. Drake, H. A., ed. (2006) Violence in Late Antiquity: perceptions and practices. Burlington. Fagan, G. (2010) “Violence in Roman social relations.” In M. Peachin, ed., The Oxford handbook of social relations in the Roman world: 467–95. Oxford and New York. Fuhrmann, C. (2012) Policing the Roman Empire. Oxford and New York. Gaddis, M. (2005) There is no crime for those who have Christ: Religious violence in the Christian Roman Empire. Berkeley. Garnsey, P. (1970) Social status and legal privilege in the Roman Empire. Oxford.

3 Harris, E. (2007) “Who enforced the law in classical Athens?” In Symposion 2005: Vortra¨ge zur griechischen und hellenistischen Rechtsgeschichte: 159–76. Vienna. Hunter, V. (1994) Policing Athens: Social control in the Attic lawsuits, 420–320 BC. Princeton. Lintott, A. (1982) Violence, civil strife and revolution in the classical city, 750–330 BC. Baltimore. Lintott, A. (1999) Violence in republican Rome. 2nd ed. Oxford. MacMullen, R. (1986) “Judicial savagery in the Roman Empire.” Chiron 16: 147–66. Reprinted

(1990) in Changes in the Roman Empire: Essays in the ordinary: 204–17. Princeton. Mitchell, S. (1976) “Requisitioned transport in the Roman Empire: A new inscription from Pisidia.” Journal of Roman Studies 66: 106–31. Naiden, F. (2006) Ancient supplication. New York. Nippel, W. (1984) “Policing Rome.” Journal of Roman Studies 74: 20–9. Nippel, W. (1988) Aufruhr und “Polizei” in der ro¨mischen Republik. Stuttgart. Riess, W. (2001) Apuleius und die Ra¨uber: Ein Beitrag zur historischen Kriminalita¨tsforschung. Stuttgart.

1

Assemblies, ancient Near East BRIGITTE LION

While ancient Near Eastern polities usually took the form of monarchy, this did not exclude the existence of assemblies, termed unkin in Sumerian and puhrum in Akkadian. Such organs of collective governance, which bore different names in different regions and periods, are attested from the late fourth millennium BCE onward. Divine assemblies that take decisions in common figure in mythological texts (for example, in “Enki and the World Order,” and in Enuma Elish, the Babylonian poem of creation; see EA [ENKI]; enuma elish). In several epic poems, assemblies are consulted by kings; thus, in “Gilgamesh and Aga,” a group of elders and a group of young men advise the king of Uruk. Practical documents confirm the existence of such assemblies. According to the late third-millennium collection of Sumerian laws compiled under Ur-Namma, they exercised judicial functions. In the early second millennium, assemblies having the same capacity are found at Ashur and in various Babylonian cities, where they continued to exist during the first millennium BCE. Several types of collective bodies are known, under diverse denotations. They include the ka¯rum, or merchants’ congress, in the Old Assyrian colonies in Anatolia. The ka¯rum of Kanesh was composed of “great” and “small” men (see KARUM). This institution is also found in Mesopotamia: in early second-millennium Sippar, the ka¯rum, often in association with the mayor, seems to have been the city’s principal governing body. At Emar and

Tuttul, also centers of commerce, the local assembly, called tahtamum, dealt with juridical, economic, and political affairs. Nomadic groups, meanwhile, sometimes assembled for a rihsum, “parley.” The residents or “heads” of a town also took collective decisions on occasion. Groups of elders (or “senates”) are attested both in cuneiform sources and in the Bible. In Israel, this institution existed before monarchy was established, and subsequently the elders continued to advise kings. The existence of assemblies has sometimes led to postulating “democratic” practices in the ancient Near East. However, while collective decision-making often coexisted with monarchic power, what criteria were for membership in assemblies, how often they met, and the extent of their autonomy in relation to kings, who might consult assemblies but still retain executive power for themselves, are unknown. SEE ALSO: Apellai; Democracy, Athenian; Democracy, non-Athenian; Gerousia.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Dercksen, J. G. (2004) Old Assyrian Institutions. Leiden. Durand, J.-M. (1989) “L’assemble´e en Syrie a` l’e´poque pre´-amorrite.” In P. Fronzaroli, ed., Miscellanea Eblaitica 2: 27–44. Florence. Fleming, D. E. (2004) Democracy’s ancient ancestors. Mari and early collective governance. Cambridge. Jacobsen, T. (1943) “Primitive democracy in Ancient Mesopotamia.” Journal of Near Eastern Studies 2: 159–72. Reviv, H. (1989) The elders in Ancient Israel. Jerusalem. Seri, A. (2005) Local power in Old Babylonian Mesopotamia. London.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 841–842. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah01019

1

Assessores ANJA STEINER

Assessores (adsessores, consiliarii, pάredrοi) were legal assistants to Roman magistrates who had studied law at law schools, eventually in advanced training (iuris studiosi). They might have first appeared as informal advisors (consilium) of praetors in the later Republic, their activity being an act of friendship (amicitia) rather than the execution of an official duty. Under the principate, they particularly assisted provincial governors and undertook vital tasks in the fields of jurisdiction and public administration. According to Paul (Dig. 1.22.1) in his monograph On the duties of Adsessores, these advisors had a wide range of responsibilities: they heard legal cases alongside the magistrate in the cognitio extraordinaria and examined applications submitted in the formulary procedure (postulationes); they answered written requests of individuals (libelli) on the magistrate’s behalf, expressed their legal opinions by letter (epistulae), and edited decrees (edicta); and they drafted verdicts (decreta). The relationship between the magistrate and his assessor remained a private-law contract for a long time, and it was categorized as a gratuitous contract of mandate rather than a contract of service. The assessores were granted a voluntary

emolument called a salarium (“money for salt”), which was regarded as a cost-of-living allowance, not a wage. It was Antoninus Pius (Dig. 50.13.4) who decreed the claim for a salarium legally enforceable in the cognitio extraordinaria, but only at the end of the Severan Dynasty were the assessores appointed with a fixed government salary, which prompts the conclusion that by that time the adsessura must have been considered a public office. Since assessores were usually chosen for their legal knowledge, a certain social rank was not a prerequisite for their appointment (Marci. Dig. 1.22.1). The contributions of the jurists Ulpian and Paul as assessores to the praefectus praetorio Papinian certainly helped to establish their reputations and political influence. SEE ALSO:

Consilium.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Behrends, O. (1969) “Der Assessor zur Zeit der klassischen Rechtswissenschaft.” Zeitschrift der Savigny-Stiftung, Romanistische Abteilung 86: 192–226. Bu¨rge, A. (1993) “Salarium und a¨hnliche Leistungsentgelte beim mandatum.” In D. No¨rr and S. Nishimura, Mandatum und Verwandtes: 319–38. Berlin. Hitzig, H. F. (1893) Die Assessoren der ro¨mischen Magistrate und Richter. Eine rechtshistorische Abhandlung. Munich. Honore´, T. (1982) Ulpian. Oxford: 16–17.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 842–843. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah13025

1

Assidui NATHAN ROSENSTEIN

Assidui were Romans whose property, according to the Servian reforms (see TULLIUS, SERVIUS), was such that they were subject to taxation (tributum) and conscription into the army. According to Cicero (Rep. 2.40), their name comes from the fact that they rendered their taxes with the bronze as. Those who lacked enough wealth to be assidui were known as PROLETARII or capite censi. Initially, assidui were liable for conscription due to their ability to furnish their own arms, armor, and supplies for campaigns. The state eventually began to furnish food and even weapons for the assidui, although in theory these were only rented and their cost was deducted from a soldier’s stipendium. The censors designated a citizen an assiduus or proletarius at the census, when he declared the value of his property. Several ancient authors provide figures for the minimum wealth necessary to be an assiduus: 11,000 asses (Livy 1.43.7 for the sixth century BCE); 400 drachmae (= 400 denarii or 4,000 asses, Polyb. 6.19.3 for the late third century BCE), and 1,500 asses (Cic. Rep. 2.40 for ca. 129 BCE). Scholars at one time believed these figures reflected a gradual lowering of the threshold for assiduate status resulting from a serious decline in the number of assidui and consequently the need to enlarge the pool of potential recruits. The decline, it was argued, resulted from the rise of slave-based commercial agriculture and the deleterious effects of this and the republic’s continuous overseas warfare in the later third and second centuries. Together, they ruined many of the small farms that represented most of an assiduus’ wealth and brought about a general impoverishment of the citizenry. In 218 assidui who were of draft age (17–46 years old) were thought to number only about a hundred thousand out of a total adult male citizen population of about 325,000. Thus, over the course of the

second century, a smaller and smaller proportion of the citizenry qualified as assidui and had to bear the republic’s military burdens. This accounts for the reluctance of assidui to be drafted for the Spanish wars and the support for Tiberius Gracchus’ agrarian legislation, the aim of which was in part to increase the number of assidui (see GRACCHUS, TIBERIUS AND GAIUS SEMPRONIUS). Recently, some scholars have challenged this reconstruction. Assidui of draft age in 218 probably numbered around two hundred thousand, about 90 percent of citizens in that age group. Earlier arguments based on figures in Livy, Polybius, and Cicero overlooked a devaluation of the as ca. 211. Livy’s figure thus may represent 1,100 of the older coins, which in weight of bronze were only about 28 percent heavier than Polybius’ 4,000 post-211 coins. The enlarged number of assidui this decrease produced may therefore reflect only the losses sustained early in the Hannibalic War and the continuing need for manpower and tributum (cf. Livy 23.48.7–8). Cicero’s figure, too, may refer to pre-211 asses. Slave-based plantation agriculture developed mainly in the early first century, not the second, and was not antithetical to small-scale farming. The two forms are interdependent, and archaeological evidence indicates that they often existed side by side. Conscription of assidui for long wars overseas did not undermine the viability of their farms since these tended to have a surplus of labor, not a shortage. And draft-aged assidui typically were unmarried. They wed and took on the responsibility for a farm and raising a family only when their military service was completed, around age 30. The difficulty and unprofitability of the Spanish wars account for assidui’s reluctance to serve there, while overpopulation may better explain the problems Tiberius’ land law sought to solve. For his Numidian campaign in 107 BCE, Gaius MARIUS sidestepped conscription of assidui entirely and recruited volunteers from the proletarii, which was controversial at the

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 843–844. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah20014

2 time but provided an example frequently imitated throughout the Late Republic. However, it is clear that conscription of assidui did not cease during these decades, and in fact continued into the Principate. SEE ALSO: Agrarian laws; Agriculture, Roman Empire; Agriculture, Roman Republic; Army, Roman Empire; Census; Coinage, Roman Republic; Stipendium (military pay); Warfare, Roman.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Brunt, P. A. (1971) Italian manpower, 225 BC–AD 14. Oxford.

Frederiksen, M. (1981) “Cambiamenti delle strutture agrarie nella tarda Repubblica: La Campania.” In A. Giardina and A. Schiavone, eds., Societa` romana e produzione schiavistica, vol. 1: L’Italia: insediamenti e forme economiche: 265–87. Bari. Rathbone, D. (1981) “The development of agriculture in the ‘Ager Cosanus’ during the Roman Republic: problems of evidence and interpretation.” Journal of Roman Studies 71: 10–23. Rich, J. (1983) “The supposed manpower shortage of the later second century BC.” Historia 32: 287–331. Rosenstein, N. (2004) Rome at war: farms, families, and death in the Middle Republic. Chapel Hill, NC.

1

Assinnum MARTTI NISSINEN

Persons termed assinnu(m) (Sum. UR. SAL, “man-woman”) appear in both Sumerian and Akkadian texts, from the mid-third to the midfirst millennium BCE, as devotees of the goddess Ishtar (Sum. Inanna; see INANNA (ISHTAR)). They engaged in various functions, including crossdressing, ritual dance, healing, and prophecy. For instance, in the Hymn of Iddin-Dagan to Inanna, they walk in front of the goddess, dressed in both men’s and women’s clothing. At Mari, two assinnus are attested as prophets of the goddess. The assinnu’s role was institutionalized because such persons constituted a link between myth and reality, providing them with divine power. The mythological explanation of their existence is provided by Inanna’s descent to the underworld, according to which assinnus were created to revive the goddess and bring her back to the world of the living. This was also the justification of their manifest transgression of conventional sexual roles: being neither men nor women, they embodied Ishtar’s own transgression of sexual boundaries and her power to turn masculinity into femininity. While there is ambiguous evidence

indicating that assinnus could be castrated and that they engaged in sexual acts with males, they were not “homosexuals” but rather assumed a third-gender role. A similar role was assumed by the kurgarruˆ (Sum. KUR. GAR. RA), who often appear together with the assinnus, as well as by the kaluˆ/kulu’u (Sum. GALA), who were singers of laments. Moreover, the role of the assinnu was analogous to that of the Syrian emasculated priests of Cybele called galli. SEE ALSO: Eunuchs, ancient Near East; Galli; Prophecy and oracles, ancient Near East; Sex and sexuality, ancient Near East.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Leick, G. (1994) Sex and eroticism in Mesopotamian literature. London. Nissinen, M. (1998) Homoeroticism in the biblical world. Minneapolis. Roscoe, W. (1996) “Priests of the goddess: gender transgression in ancient religion.” History of Religions 35: 195–230. Teppo, S. (2008) “Sacred marriage and the devotees of Isˇtar.” In M. Nissinen and R. Uro, eds., Sacred marriages: the divine-human sexual metaphor from Sumer to early Christianity: 75–92. Winona Lake, IN.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 844–845. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah24030

1

Assinnum MARTTI NISSINEN

University of Helsinki, Finland

Persons termed assinnu(m) (Sum. saĝ-ur-saĝ or ur.sal, “man-woman”) appear in both Sumerian and Akkadian texts, from the mid-third to the late first millennium BCE, as devotees of the goddess ISHTAR (Sum. Inanna). They engaged in various functions, including ritual processions, healing, purification, and prophecy. For instance, in the Hymn of Iddin-Dagan to Inanna, they walk in front of the goddess, dressed in both men’s and women’s clothing. They may also perform together with musicians in ritual battle scenes. At MARI, two assinnus are attested as prophets of the goddess. The assinnu’s role was institutionalized because such persons constituted a link between myth and reality, providing them with divine power. The mythological explanation of their existence is provided by Inanna’s Descent to the Underworld, according to which assinnus were created to revive the goddess and bring her back to the world of the living. This was also the justification of their manifest transgression of conventional sexual roles: being neither men nor women, they embodied Ishtar’s own transgression of sexual boundaries and her power to turn masculinity into femininity. The assinnus cannot be easily classified according to modern essentialist categories such as “homosexuality” or “transvestism.”

Their otherness was related to their liminal or queer socioreligious role and unusual gender performance. A role similar to that of the assinnu was assumed by the kurgarrû (Sum. kur.gar.ra), who often appear performing together with the assinnus. In lexical lists, the semantic environment of the assinnus includes prophets and other ecstatics, as well as experts of lamenting and magic. Moreover, the role of the assinnu was somewhat analogous to that of the Syrian emasculated priests of Cybele called GALLI. SEE ALSO:

Eunuchs, ancient Near East; Prophecy and oracles, ancient Near East; Sex and sexuality, ancient Near East.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Leick, G. (1994) Sex and eroticism in Mesopotamian literature. London. Nissinen, M. (1998) Homoeroticism in the biblical world. Minneapolis. Peled, I. (2016) Masculinities and third gender: the origins and nature of an institutionalized gender otherness in the ancient Near East. Münster. Svärd, S. and Nissinen, M. (2018) “(Re)constructing the image of the assinnu.” In S. Svärd and A. Garcia Ventura, eds., Studying gender in the ancient Near East: 373–411. University Park, PA. Zsolnay, I. (2013) “The misconstrued role of the assinnu in ancient Near Eastern prophecy.” In J. Stökl and C. L. Carvalho, eds., Prophets male and female: gender and prophecy in the Hebrew Bible: 81–99. Atlanta.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History. Edited by Andrew Erskine, David B. Hollander, and Arietta Papaconstantinou. © 2022 John Wiley & Sons Ltd. Published 2022 by John Wiley & Sons Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah24030.pub2

1

Assiros, Macedonia KEN WARDLE

Excavation at the prehistoric settlement mound (toumba) at Assiros in Greek Central MACEDONIA by the British School at Athens between 1975 and 1989 has provided important evidence about social organization and agricultural production in this region during the Late Bronze Age, about its connections between Mycenaean Greece and the Balkans, and for the absolute date of the end of the Aegean Bronze Age. Located in the Langadas Basin, 23 km from Thessalonike, Assiros lies on the main route from the coast to the valley of the River Strymon/Struma and the interior of Bulgaria. Measuring 10070 m at the base, this steepsided 14 m high mound is composed of the debris of successive timber-framed mud-brick buildings destroyed by earthquake or fire. Ten building levels, dating from the fourteenth to the eighth centuries BCE, have been excavated in the upper 4 m of the mound (Wardle 1989; Wardle and Wardle 2007). The mound is encircled by a massive casemated retaining wall, which served as both terrace and defensive perimeter. Three parallel streets, already established in the earliest levels explored (Phase 9), divided the area of the settlement into regular blocks of rooms and open spaces and were maintained almost until the end of the Bronze Age. This earliest phase includes large granaries, which contained well over seventy-five tons of wheat, barley, millet, and other crops stored in pithoi and large wicker baskets at the time of a destructive fire ca. 1320 BCE. This quantity of grain indicates that the site was a local center storing far more food-stuffs than required for the population of the site itself. In addition, the grain, chaff, and weeds preserved by charring have enabled studies of agricultural practices (Jones 1992), while preserved DNA has demonstrated the presence of wheat suitable for making risen bread (at

present the earliest record in Europe; Brown and Jones 2010). Around 1200 BCE, the centralized storage in granaries was replaced by scattered storage on a household rather than community scale. One of many similar mounds in the region, the settlement belongs to a Macedonian cultural group, which used hand-made pottery with characteristic shapes such as cut-away neck jugs and wishbone handled bowls. Imports and local imitations of Mycenaean pottery demonstrate links with southern Greece (Buxeda i Garrigos et al. 2003), while some decorative elements on the local pottery reflect influences from the contemporary cultures of the Danube valley. The settlement remained occupied continuously into the early part of the Iron Age, with minor changes in its layout and cultural repertoire. Nothing found at Assiros suggests that new cultural elements arrived from the north at the start of this period. Oak building timbers from the construction of the buildings of Phases 3 and 2 were dated by dendrochronology and wiggle-matched C14 techniques to ca. 1080 and 1070, respectively (Newton et al. 2005). These dates give a terminus ante quem for the manufacture of a circle-decorated amphora of Protogeometric style found on the Phase 3 floor, and consequently provide evidence for the start of the local Iron Age (marked in southern Greece by the introduction of Protogeometric pottery in Athens and on EUBOEA). The settlement was abandoned not long after this, and the mound remained unoccupied until the later part of the eighth century BCE, when a pair of large apsidal buildings was erected on the summit and used for a short period. SEE ALSO: Chronology, Bronze and Iron Age; Kastanas in Macedonia; Mycenaean archaeology.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Brown, T. A. and Jones, G. (2010) [online] “New ways with old wheats.” Available at http://

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 845–846. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah02028

2 www.shef.ac.uk/archaeology/research/wheat/ wheat2.html. Buxeda i Garrigos, J., Jones, R. E., and Kilikoglou, V. (2003) “Technology transfer at the periphery of the Mycenaean world: the cases of Mycenaean pottery found in Central Macedonia (Greece) and the Plain of Sybaris (Italy).” Archaeometry 45, 2: 263–84. Jones, G. (1992) “Weed phytosociology and crop husbandry: identifying a contrast between ancient and modern practice.” Review of Palaeobotany and Palynology 73: 133–43. Newton, M. W., Wardle, K. A., and Kuniholm, P. I. (2005) “A Dendrochronological 14C WiggleMatch for the Early Iron Age of north Greece:

a contribution to the debate about this period in the Southern Levant.” In T. E. Levy and T. Higham, eds., Radiocarbon and the Bible: 104–13. London. Wardle, K. A. (1989) “Excavation at Assiros Toumba 1988: a preliminary report.” Annual of the British School at Athens 84: 447–63. Wardle, K. A. and Wardle, D. (2007) “Assiros Toumba: a brief history of the settlement.” In H. Todorova, M. Stefanovich, and G. Ivanov, eds., The Struma/Strymon River Valley in prehistory. Proceedings of the International Symposium Strymon Praehistoricus, Kjustendil–Blagoevgrad (Bulgaria), Serres–Amphipolis (Greece) 27.09–01. 10.2004, vol. 2: 451–79. Sofia.

1

Assiros, Macedonia KEN WARDLE

University of Birmingham, UK

Excavation at the prehistoric settlement mound (toumba) at Assiros in Greek Central MACEDONIA by the British School at Athens and the University of Birmingham between 1975 and 1989 has provided important evidence about social organization and agricultural production in this region during the Late Bronze Age and, about its connections with Mycenaean Greece and the Balkans. Robust 14C determinations have provided absolute dates for different phases of the Aegean Late Bronze Age and, for the first time, for the transition from Bronze to Iron Age in the Aegean as a whole. Located in the Langadas Basin, 23 km from THESSALONIKE, Assiros lies on the main route from the coast to the valley of the River Strymon/Struma and the interior of Bulgaria. Measuring 100 x 70 m at the base, this steep-sided 14 m high mound is composed of the debris of successive timber-framed mud-brick buildings destroyed by earthquake or fire. Ten building levels, dating from the fourteenth to the eighth centuries BCE, have been excavated in the upper 4 m of the mound (Wardle 1989; Wardle and Wardle 2007). The mound is encircled by a massive casemated retaining wall, which served as both terrace and defensive perimeter. Three parallel streets, already established in the earliest levels explored (Phase 9), divided the area of the settlement into regular blocks of rooms and open spaces and were maintained almost until the end of the Bronze Age. This earliest phase includes a series of large granaries, which together could have contained well over seventy-five tons of wheat, barley, millet and other crops stored in pithoi and large wicker baskets at the time of a destructive fire ca. 1360 CAL. BCE. This quantity of grain indicates that the site was a local center storing far more foodstuffs than required for the population of the site itself. In addition, the grain, chaff, and weeds preserved by charring

have enabled studies of agricultural practices (Jones 1992) and of a newly identified variety of glume wheat (Jones, Valamoti, and Charles 2000), while preserved DNA has demonstrated the presence of wheat suitable for making risen bread (at present the earliest record in Europe; Brown and Jones 2000). Around 1260 CAL. BCE, the centralized storage in granaries was replaced by scattered storage on a household rather than community scale. One of many similar mounds in the region, the settlement belongs to a Macedonian cultural group, which used hand-made pottery with characteristic shapes such as cut-away-neck jugs and wishbone-handled bowls. Imports and local imitations of Mycenaean pottery demonstrate links with southern Greece and the partial adoption of Mycenaean pottery technology locally (Buxeda i Garrigos, Jones, and Kilikoglou 2003), while some decorative elements on the local pottery reflect influences from the contemporary cultures of the Danube valley. The settlement remained occupied continuously into the early part of the Iron Age, with minor changes in its layout and cultural repertoire. Nothing found at Assiros suggests that new cultural elements arrived from the north at the start of this period (Wardle 1998). The settlement was abandoned not long after this, and the mound remained unoccupied, apart from a single pithos burial on the summit, until the later part of the eighth century, when a pair of large apsidal buildings was erected on the summit and used for a short period (Wardle and Wardle 2012). Over sixty recent 14C analyses of animal bones, plant remains, and building timbers from Assiros form an unique series from the 14th–10th century (Wardle, Higham, and Kromer 2014). Bayesian analysis of this series indicates that the absolute dates for this period are between 100 and 60 years older than expected from the conventional (Egyptian historical) chronologies. In particular, oak timbers from the construction of the buildings of Phases 3 and 2 were precisely dated by dendrochronology and wiggle-matching techniques to ca. 1080 and 1070, respectively (Newton, Wardle,

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History. Edited by Andrew Erskine, David B. Hollander, and Arietta Papaconstantinou. © 2021 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Published 2021 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah02028.pub2

2 and Kuniholm 2005). These dates give a terminus ante quem for the manufacture of a concentric circle-decorated amphora of Protogeometric style found on the Phase 3 floor and sealed by the Phase 2 floor above. In consequence, it provides evidence first for the date of the introduction of Protogeometric pottery in Athens (where the style is presumed to have originated) and on EUBOEA and second, for the start of the southern Greek Iron Age which is marked in southern Greece by the introduction of this style. SEE ALSO:

Chronology, Bronze and Iron Age; Kastanas in Macedonia; Mycenaean archaeology.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Brown, T. A. and Jones, G. (2000) [online] [Accessed March 16, 2021] “New ways with old wheats.” NERC Ancient Biomolecules Initiative, item 9. Available from https://archaeologydataservice.ac. uk/archives/view/abi_nerc/ Buxeda i Garrigos, J., Jones, R. E., and Kilikoglou, V. (2003) “Technology transfer at the periphery of the Mycenaean world: the cases of Mycenaean pottery found in Central Macedonia (Greece) and the Plain of Sybaris (Italy).” Archaeometry 45, 2: 263–84. Jones, G. (1992) “Weed phytosociology and crop husbandry: identifying a contrast between ancient and modern practice.” Review of Palaeobotany and Palynology 73: 133–43. Jones, G., Valamoti, S., and Charles, M. (2000) “Early crop diversity: a ‘new’ glume wheat from Northern Greece.” Vegetation History and Archaeobotany 9: 133–46.

Newton, M. W., Wardle, K. A., and Kuniholm, P. I. (2005) “A dendrochronological 14C wigglematch for the early Iron Age of north Greece: a contribution to the debate about this period in the Southern Levant.” In T. E. Levy and T. Higham, eds., Radiocarbon and the Bible: 104–13. London. Wardle, K. A. (1989) “Excavation at Assiros Toumba 1988: a preliminary report.” Annual of the British School at Athens 84: 447–63. Wardle K. A. (1998) “Change or continuity: Assiros Toumba at the transition from Bronze to Iron Age.” Archaeological Work in Macedonia and Thrace (AEMTH) 10 1997: 443–60. Wardle K. A., Higham, T., and Kromer, B. (2014) [online] [March, 12, 2021] “Dating the end of the Greek Bronze Age: a robust radiocarbon chronology from Assiros Toumba.” PLoS ONE 9(9): e106672. Retrieved from https:// journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/ journal.pone.0106672 Wardle, K. A. and Wardle, D. (2007) “Assiros Toumba: a brief history of the settlement.” In H. Todorova, M. Stefanovich, and G. Ivanov, eds., The Struma/Strymon River Valley in prehistory. Proceedings of the International Symposium Strymon Praehistoricus, Kjustendil–Blagoevgrad (Bulgaria), Serres–Amphipolis (Greece) 27.09–01. 10.2004, vol. 2: 451–79. Sofia. Wardle K. and Wardle, D. (2012) [online] [March, 12, 2021] “Assiros Toumba in the 8th and 7th centuries BC: the apsidal structures of phase 1 and their function.” In Μελέτες για την Αρχαία Μακεδονία. Προς τη γένεση των πόλεων, D. Grammenos, ed., Αρχαία Ελληνική Γλώσσα και Γραμματεία. Retrieved from http://www.greeklanguage.gr/digitalResources/ancient_greek/macedonia/cities/page_033.html?prev=true

1

Associations, Greek and Roman JINYU LIU

Many associations were voluntary and private organizations of some durability, with formal structural features such as a name, magistrates, member lists, by-laws, admission requirements such as entrance fees, some sort of common treasury, meeting places called schola, domus, templum, oikos, and so on, and benefactors and/or patrons. Voluntary associations had a long history in Greece and Rome, and flourished particularly in the Hellenistic world and the Roman Empire, as shown by a large number of inscriptions and papyri. The evidence for associative life is particularly abundant in port cities and/or cosmopolitan centers such as Delos, Rhodes, Ephesos, Rome, Ostia, and Lugdunum. A variety of Greek and Latin terms may denote an association: for example, koinon, synodos, synergion, thiasos, and hetaira in Greek; collegium, corpus, sodalitas, and even familia in Latin. Nominative plurals such as the worshippers of Serapis (Serapiastai), the weavers (gerdioi), or the builders and carpenters (fabri tignarii) may sometimes designate formally structured associations. The size, membership base, and recruitment policy varied from association to association. Although many associations had a few dozen members, some could have been as large as a few thousand members. Association members usually came from the lower classes, although they were not necessarily poor. The associations were usually formed around a common ethnic or geographic origin, a common occupation, common neighborhood, or a cult of a deity. The boundaries between these categories are by no means clear-cut. In Hellenistic Delos, for example, the merchants, ship owners, and warehousemen from Berytos, styled themselves as Poseidoniastae (worshippers of Poseidon; IDelos 1772–96). A group of doctors (medici) from Roman Taurini

(modern Turin) called themselves worshippers of Asclepius and Hygia, both deities of health (CIL V 6970). In addition, regardless of the membership base or the title of the association, the convivial, religious, and funerary activities were common features among all type of associations. The surviving meeting places of associations often included spaces for convivial and cultic activities (Bollmann 1998). All the extant bylaws of the associations contained brief or elaborate regulations in relation to eating and drinking. Some included detailed rules concerning the distribution of food according to rank within the association (ILS 7213). Conduct at communal banquets was often carefully regulated, and fines could be imposed for failure to comply with the regulations (P.Lond. 2710; ILS 7212). Exclusion from banquets was used by some associations – the Iobacchoi of Athens, for example (IG II.2 1368) – as a means of punishment for members. In some associations, especially the Egyptian associations, participation in banquets and funerary activities was made compulsory, subject to a fine (P.Mich. V 244; 43 CE). Associations in the Greco-Roman world were usually local organizations. In the Hellenistic and Roman periods, however, the Dionysiac artists (technitai) of theatrical performance, as well as athletes, formed translocal organizations. Because of their importance for festivals and games, members of these associations enjoyed a wide range of protections and privileges, such as personal inviolability (asylia), exemption from taxes (ateleia), and immunity from compulsory public services. According to a clause in the TWELVE TABLES, which survives only as an excerpt in Justinian’s Digest and was reportedly derived from Solon’s legislation, associations could make internal agreements (pactio) as they wished, provided they did not violate public law (Dig. 47.22.4, Gaius). The formation and the activities of the associations seem to have been increasingly subject to governmental regulations after the

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 846–849. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah22017

2 turbulence of the Late Roman Republic, when associations of all kinds were reportedly involved in seditious activities and violence (see COLLEGIA). Recent research, however, has called into question the depth and width of these restrictive regulations and their actual implementation in the Roman Empire. Not only regional variations in the governmental attitude towards the associative phenomenon have been noted, but scholars have also suggested that there did not seem to have been any general ban of associations (Ausbu¨ttel 1982; Harland 2003)