An EpiDoc training workshop will be offered by the Department of Digital Humanities, King’s College London, and the Institute of Classical Studies in September this year. The workshop is free of charge and open to all, but spaces are limited and registration as soon as possible is essential.

This workshop is an introduction to the use of EpiDoc, an XML schema for the encoding and publication of inscriptions, papyri and other documentary Classical texts. Participants will study the use of EpiDoc markup to record the distinctions expressed by the Leiden Conventions and traditional critical editions, and some of the issues in translating between EpiDoc and the major epigraphic and papyrological databases. They will also be given hands-on experience in the use of the Papyrological Editor tool implemented by the Duke Databank of Documentary Papyri, which facilitates the authoring EpiDoc XML via a ‘tags-free’ interface.

The course is targeted at scholars of epigraphy and papyrology (from advanced graduate students to professors) with an interest and willingness to learn some of the hands-on technical aspects necessary to run a digital project. Knowledge of Greek and/or Latin, the Leiden Conventions and the distinctions expressed by them, and the kinds of data that need to be recorded by philologists and ancient historians, will be assumed. No particular technical expertise is required.

Places on the EpiDoc training week are limited so if you are interested in attending the workshop or have any questions, please contact charlotte.tupman@kcl.ac.uk and gabriel.bodard@kcl.ac.uk as soon as possible with a brief statement of qualifications and interest.

Course fees will be in the region of £70 – £90 but, as in previous years, we hope to be able to offer a number of generous bursaries. Participants on the course will stay in Bed & Breakfast accommodation in Corbridge (we will book this for you but regret that the cost is not included in the course fee).

If you wish to apply for a place on this course, or for further details, please contact Charlotte Tupman by e-mail as soon as possible: charlotte.tupman@kcl.ac.uk

The closing date for applications is 6th May.

The Practical Epigraphy Workshop is sponsored by the British Epigraphy Society, an independent ‘chapter’ of the Association Internationale d’Épigraphie Grecque et Latine.

Students wishing to apply for one of the bursaries should contact the
Secretary by e-mail (u.roth@ed.ac.uk) by November 1st with the
following information:

1. Name and contact details
2. Programme of study/research
3. A brief description (max. 200 words) of how attendance at the
meeting would benefit their studies/research
4. The name, position and e-mail address of one academic referee who
is happy to be contacted by BES
5. An estimate of expenses

Full information of the programme for the Autumn Colloquium can be
obtained from the BES website.

There is also a special student introductory offer for BES membership
available until November 30, 2010.

Saturday 20 November 2010

The Autumn Colloquium of the British Epigraphy Society has been organised by Dr. Michael Scott, and will be held at The Old Library, Darwin College, Silver Street, Cambridge, CB3 9EU.

Many of the inscriptions from the Greek and Roman worlds are related to the processes of constructing those worlds: the naming of benefactors, awarding of contracts, listing construction work still to be done, laying out of plans, etc. Such inscriptions play a crucial role not just in revealing the processes of ancient building and the socio-economic worlds of those involved in building them, but also in the formation of the perception and meaning of the structures themselves, as well as of the politics and economics that surrounded them at the time of their construction, repair and eventual decay.

The British Epigraphy Society website contains the full programme along with details of how to register.

Whether publishing new inscriptions, reinterpreting old ones, or critically analysing editions, this course provides training for historians, archaeologists and textual scholars alike in the discipline of reading and interpreting epigraphic evidence. Students will be guided through the process of producing editions of inscriptions, gaining practical first hand experience with the stones as well as instruction in editorial and bibliographic skills. Guest lectures on historical and thematic subjects will explore the ways in which epigraphic evidence can inform a wide range of Classical subjects. The course will be taught at the BSA and will utilise the most significant epigraphic collections around Athens, where students will be assigned a stone from which they will create a textual edition. The importance of seeing inscriptions within their archaeological and topographical contexts will be explored during site visits around Athens, Attica, and Delphi. Some prior knowledge of Greek is essential, although students with only elementary skills are advised that reading inscriptions is a very good way to advance in the language!

The course fee of £700 includes accommodation in shared rooms at the BSA, where self catering facilities are available, as well as 24 hour access to the superb library, entry to all sites and museums, and BSA membership for one month. Free membership for the remainder of the session will be offered to students wishing to remain at the BSA after the course to continue their research. Travel to and from Greece is the sole responsibility of the course participant.

The course is limited to 12 places, and open to students of any university pursuing Masters or Post-graduate degrees. Students are recommended to apply to their universities for financial support; a number of BSA-administered bursaries are available for students who would otherwise be unable to attend.

Further information can be obtained from the BSA website. Completed application forms and an academic reference letter should be emailed to the Assistant Director (assistant.director@bsa.ac.uk) no later than January 14th 2011.

Formality and informality in Attic epigraphy

Graham Oliver

In the first paper of the day, Graham Oliver applied the theme of the colloquium (formality and informality in epigraphy) to a selection of inscribed materials ranging from the Archaic to the Imperial period. Noting that the method of categorising inscriptions in traditional corpora tends to prevent us from fully examining the potentially complex nature of those inscriptions, Oliver introduced three topics through which we might begin to interpret the subject of formal and informal epigraphy: authority, institutions and location; the formalities of formal and informal epigraphy; and genre.

Addressing the first of these issues, Oliver described the ways in which inscribed texts constitute a direct (or indirect) reflection of the actions or decisions of specific institutions. If we can define formal epigraphy in this manner, then informal epigraphy must necessarily be defined as the expression or reflection of non-institutions. We therefore need to identify the formal elements of institutional epigraphy. Illustrating the point with the example of IG II² 2946, the bilingual Phoenician/Greek koinon of the Sidonians, Oliver noted that whilst there are specific features within the text that might be considered formal, the formality of a text is not limited to its content, but also includes the location in which it is set up, and the form of the monument itself. The very act of inscribing formalises the decision of an institution; yet in fact we know relatively little about the actual process by which inscriptions were allowed to be set up.

We also need to consider the question of whether formal epigraphy must look formal. Oliver demonstrated that some forms of epigraphy might at first be considered informal, but should in fact be classified as formal. Examples include amphora stamps, weights and measures, and even dipinti found on public objects: their formality derives from the fact that they represent the operation of institutions. The appearance of a text, then, does not necessarily bear any relation to its inherent formality or informality. Taking the example of boundary inscriptions, Oliver showed that a text can still be formal even when its lettering bears a close resemblance to calligraphic writing, because it represents the output of an institution. We do not necessarily know whether the institutions represented by texts had authority to set up inscriptions where they did: did the pyloroi, for instance, have the authority to inscribe on the Acropolis? Texts such as IG II² 2292 and 2304, the latter of which re-used an older, previously inscribed surface, force us to question our notions of authority: Oliver noted that despite the fact that it constitutes a clear reflection of an institution, if the list of names in IG II² 2304 had been inscribed on a ceramic surface we might have been tempted not to consider it as a formal text.

If we include dipinti under the umbrella of epigraphy, Panathenaic vases can illustrate the way in which texts that might be considered informal are in fact undoubtedly reflections of state institutions: the vases were given as prizes in the state festival, and the formula (‘(one of) the prizes from Athens’ or ‘I am (one of) the prizes from Athens’) is standardised across the body of vases. Oliver was inclined, however, to the general view that the majority of dipinti and graffiti should be considered informal epigraphy.

Oliver then examined the issue of the introduction of stoichedon (the layout of the text in a grid formation aligned both vertically and horizontally) and its relationship to the development of inscriptions on stone. Stoichedon, which became established in the later sixth and fifth centuries, was a particular feature of epigraphy on stone, and was a common element of formal state documents in fifth century Athens. It was almost never used in dipinti or graffiti, except as a possibly self-conscious imitation of state documents. Oliver warned that despite the limited use of stoichedon, we should not fall into the trap of considering certain epigraphic texts as informal simply because they bear similarities to calligraphic writing.

In the final part of his paper, Oliver employed elements of linguistic and literary criticism to address the question of formality and informality in epigraphy. Following Cobley (Cobley, P., “Objectivity and immanence in genre theory”, in G. Dowd, L. Stevenson and J. Strong (eds), Genre Matters. Essays in Theory and Criticism (Bristol, 2006), 41-54) and others in defining genre as a set of expectations rather than a specific set of features, Oliver put forward the point that we can still define a text as a decree even if lacks certain elements, because the genre ‘decree’ is not fixed absolutely but can be transformed. For Todorov (Todorov, T., “The Origin of Genres”, in D. Duff (ed.), Modern Genre Theory (Harlow, 2000), 193-209), genre is seen as a codification of discursive properties, which Oliver noted might be useful for analysing formality and informality in inscribed texts: these ‘discursive properties’ include the semantic aspects of the text, such as relationships within the text; relationships between persons who read the text; and meanings of symbols that occur in the text or on the monument. Analysing genre in epigraphy exposes the institutions that lie behind the texts, but cannot cover all areas of society, as not all parts of society are institutionalised. Oliver suggested that genre theory might provide one way in which we can define formal epigraphy (the transformation of a ‘speech act’ into genre) and informal epigraphy (the non-transformation of a ‘speech act’ into genre).

Oliver’s paper presented an interesting and thought-provoking argument that we need to identify and consider more carefully the authority behind an inscription, as well as examining the space, location and monument on which the text is inscribed. We might also utilise approaches originating in other disciplines that could prove useful to epigraphers in interpreting aspects of formality and informality. If we are to understand formality and informality in epigraphy, we must define the institutions (or indeed the lack of institutions) behind their creation.

This colloquium investigates the phenomenon of the cupae, which are roughly semi-cylindrical or barrel-shaped tomb monuments found at various sites across the Iberian Peninsula from the first to the third centuries A.D. Many are inscribed with funerary texts in Latin. Scholars from many areas of the Peninsula as well as elsewhere in Europe are gathering for the three-day colloquium at Uncastillo to discuss a number of questions relating to these monuments: their origins, which remain a source of contention; their diffusion across the Peninsula; their practical and symbolic uses by members of different social groups; and their typology, which has thus far proved difficult to establish. This is the first conference to be devoted to this enigmatic type of funerary monument.

Further information and the conference programme can be found here:

Las Cupae Hispanas

The letter: a diplomatic history

Robin Osborne

Osborne began his paper by explaining that his main focus would be upon examining structural points in the genre of the letter. A letter is a composition of a very strong generic type: whatever the context of the letter, its writer is bound by conventions that lead to what is written being framed in a particular way, which in turn defines the relationship between the letter-writer and the recipient. Letters must not only be seen in the context of other letters; rather, they must be viewed in the context of other methods of transmitting information. In this way we can examine how convention influenced content.

Making use of some of the earliest epigraphic examples of letters, including the Berezan lead letter (L. Dubois, Inscriptions Greques Dialectales d’Olbia du Pont (1996), no. 23, 550-500 B.C.), Osborne discussed their characteristics. These included the identification of the addressee; a presupposition of prior knowledge on the part of the addressee as to the information being conveyed; and the inclusion of two or more apparently unconnected messages. This placed the receiver of the letter into an intimate contact with the letter-writer: a letter conveyed information directly from one individual to another, in a private manner. However a letter was also susceptible to interception, and private comments could ultimately be transmitted to a wider public.

The earliest example of a political letter that surivives is a communication from Darius to Gadates (R. Meiggs and D. Lewis, A Selection of Greek Historical Inscriptions to the End of the Fifth Century B.C. (Oxford, 1988), 12, which is illustrative of the fact that the use of letters in this period is not associated with the Greek city, but with the Persian Empire. Greek cities in the Archaic and Classical periods communicated using messengers rather than documents. They sent representatives, whereas in the world of Persian kings letters were seen as a more appropriate mode: there was no need for an intermediary. The recipient saw exactly what the sender wanted him to see, and thus the recipient entered into a relationship with the sender, rather than with a messenger. The letter from Darius to Gadates is almost conversational in tone: it begins with a criticism (“I learn that you do not in all respects obey my orders,”) and then commends some aspects of the behaviour of the recipient (“…I praise your application, and because of this great gratitude will be laid up for you.”).

The interception of letters as a tactic for obstructing insurgency is demonstrated in a letter from Aeneas Tacitus, How to survive a seige 10.5-6, 8-10, 13, 14 (tr. Whitehead): “Both outgoing and incoming letters must be submitted to a board of inspectors before delivery.” A passage from Thucydides (7.8, tr. Crawley) demonstrates that despite the fear of interception, Nicias was more worried by the thought that his messengers “…either through inability to speak, or through failure of memory, or from a wish to please the multitude, might not report the truth, and so thought it best to write a letter to ensure that the Athenians should know his own opinion…” By sending a letter, the writer could control the way in which the message was received by the recipient, and could convey his own words in a way that would not be guaranteed by the use of a messenger.

Whilst Greek cities did not use the medium of the letter to transmit information, a large number of Hellenistic kings did so. These letters were modelled on both personal letters and city decrees, but were closer in form to personal letters. Such letters were suitable for use by Hellenistic kings because by transmitting the words of the ruler they conveyed royal authority, and his subjects could feel a personal connection with their king, who had personally demonstrated his concern for them. These letters were highly rhetorical, in that they tried to transmit something of the tone of voice of the writer, and their verbosity gave an impression of an unedited text. Moreover, the use of the form of a letter permitted, and indeed encouraged, an explanation of the thinking behind the decisions and judgments of the sender. In contrast, city decrees were highly edited and simply stated the decisions that had been made, with no room in the format for a description of the process by which they had been reached.

From the second century B.C. onwards diplomatic relations were dominated by the letter, an example which is the letter of Flaminius to Khyretiai (197-4) (R. Sherk, Rome and the Greek East to the Death of Augustus: Translated Documents of Greece and Rome, 4.4). It follows the form of the letters of Hellenistic kings in giving explanations for the decisions that were made: “Whatever properties have been lost by you… we give to your city, in order that also in these matters you may learn our nobility of character and because in no way at all have we wished to be avaricious…” This is in clear contrast to texts such as P. J. Rhodes and R. Osborne, Greek Historical Inscriptions 404-323 BC (Oxford, 2003), 101, on the restoration of exiles at Tegea, which is simply a set of instructions: “The exiles who are returning shall recover their paternal possessions…”; “…If a house has a garden adjacent to it, let him not take another…” There is no room in the format for a discussion of principles or reasoning.

Osborne concluded by reasoning that although letters varied in content, the letter form itself encouraged relationships to form between the writer and the receiver, and promoted explanation rather than simple statement of fact. Letters therefore contrasted considerably with city decrees that essentially offered no possibility of correspondence. Roman officials adopted the letter form of Hellenestic kings, even though individual magistrates could not act with the same level of authority: this mismatch in form is comparable to that which occurred when Roman generals were celebrated with Hellenistic-style statues. Subsequently, of course, this type of communication was adopted by Roman emperors. The genre of the letter, then, carries its own diplomatic history. Only when letters are compared with the other formats that were available at the time can we understand the significance of this particular form of communication.

‘Inscriptions, Landscape, and the Built Environment in the Eastern Mediterranean and Iran in Late Antiquity’ (Oxford, November 2009)

Matthew Canepa, Oxford, November 21

In this paper, Professor Canepa demonstrated how the rulers of the Sassanian Empire used monumental sculpture and inscriptions to create and emphasise their cultural and racial decent from the Achaemenids, as well as simultaneously interacting with and differentiating themselves from their more recent predecessors, the kings of the Hellenistic Seleucid empire. A crucial feature of this interaction and hence of Canepa’s study was the way in which rock reliefs and other inscriptions interact with and become part of the landscape or building on which they are placed; this interaction can be a key part of their significance.

Various functions of inscriptions, including their role in creating and reinforcing memories, symbolising links to earlier and previously forgotten dynasties, claiming space, projecting power and establishing and maintaining cult were discussed, and Canepa then proceeded to illustrate these points by a fascinating and impressive array of examples.

Canepa explained how the Sassanid empire had resuscitated Persian culture, in particular the rituals of kingship first created by the Achaemenids, after the disruption caused by Alexander’s invasion and Hellenistic rule. The Achaemenids had themselves inherited inscriptional practices from ancient near eastern powers, and had developed them further, especially during the reign of Darius (arguably the first “Achaemenid”). Canepa pointed out that texts which claim to have been commissioned by Cyrus might actually date to the time of Darius.

Canepa then discussed one of the best known Persian inscriptions, Darius’ Bisitun inscription, emphasising the way that it dominates the E-W pass SW of Ecbatana. He discussed the possibility that Bisitun was already a sacred site, thus bringing out the complexity of the link between the presence of the inscription and the importance of the site, showing the difficulty of deciding which came first. The point of the Bisitun inscription was perhaps to claim the space, and its innovative nature is clear from the fact that Darius states that he ordered the creation of the cuneiform script for recording Old Persian specifically for inscriptional purposes. Elsewhere inscriptions of Xerxes placed next to those of Darius provide clear examples of the way in which later Persian monarchs positioned inscriptions in order to create visual links between themselves and their forebears.

Bisitun is also the site of the only known Seleucid rock relief, which shows a reclining Herakles and a Greek inscription on a Stele behind him; this suggests that the presence of the earlier relief suggested to the Seleucids that the site was particularly important.

Canepa then moved on to discuss Xerxes I’s inscription at Van in Turkey, the only Persian royal inscription known from outside Iran. It records that Darius made the niche in which the inscription was placed, but that it was left to Xerxes to complete the work of his predecessor, again showing how inscriptions could be used to forge links with the past.

From the Sassanid period, one memorable site discussed in some detail was the cube of Ka’ba-ye Zartosht at Naqsh-e Rustam, an early tower which was supposedly an ‘Achaemenid’ building. Monumental inscriptions were carved on the W, S and E side of this structure, thereby laying claim to Achaemenid work and implying a link between the two dynasties. In addition, the inscription was used to establish a cult at the site: since there were no sanctuaries in Sassanian cult, Canepa suggested that the tower might have been a Sassanian version of a dynastic sanctuary.

Canepa ended his paper by concluding that the Sassanian world was responding to both the imperial trilingual inscriptions of the Ancient Near East, and to Hellenistic inscriptions, in order both to link themselves with past elites, and to forge their own cultural identity.

This was a very interesting introduction to what was (at least for some listeners) a previously unfamiliar field, as well as to a range of fascinating sites and inscriptions.

Claiming Space and Memory: the Development of Priestly Inscriptional Practices in Late New Kingdom Egypt (ca. 1190-715 BC)

Elizabeth Frood, Oxford, November 21

Dr. Elizabeth Frood of St. Cross College, Oxford, began with a paper which showed that although “epigraphy” does not exist as a discrete discipline within Egyptology, and there are elements to the study of Egyptian texts which do not pertain to the study of inscriptions in Greek and Latin, there is much that is familiar to the classical epigrapher.

Frood introduced a new project, currently in its development phase, to study the epigraphy of Egyptian temple environments. There were three elements to Frood’s paper: an overview of epigraphy in a temple context; a description of the nature and range of this inscribed material; and a case study of one particular inscription that could affect the way in which we understand Egyptian temple environments.

Frood drew our attention to the visual character of hieroglyphic texts, whose meaning was bound directly to their context. Both hieroglyphic and hieratic (i.e. cursive) texts allow a delineation between text and image, and the distinction between media and between forms of script was sometimes used deliberately by the creators of the inscriptions to shape or enhance their message. Epigraphic texts in temple contexts focused mainly upon the relationship between the king and the gods, and these themes are found in both the internal and the external areas of temple complexes. Extended texts addressed royal actions and endowments, while non-royal figures were rarely included, with the occasional exception of anonymous priests.

The primary means for elites to display their presence in temple complexes was through statues and stelae, but most non-royal stelae are no longer in their original contexts. An exception can be found at the Temple of Amun-Re at Karnak (Thebes), at which statues of four scribes have been found in context. This temple was part of a larger complex in Thebes dedicated to one of the pre-eminent state gods, Amun-Re. Frood is in the process of recording and editing a number of non-royal inscriptions found at this temple, some of which are classed as “graffiti”. The identification of a text as a graffito does not mean that it was not officially sanctioned, and so it might be preferable to refer to these texts instead as “secondary texts”. These more informal texts tend to be found in the external areas, and illustrate aspects of temple bureaucracy, whereas the more formal texts are found in inner spaces and refer, amongst other things, to cultic practices. A shift in the scope for non-royal representation towards the end of the New Kingdom can be identified at this site, beginning around 1200 BC. The increase in the representation of non-royals in this period suggests a change in the meaning of the temple space itself, which became a more communicative environment.

As a case study, Frood discussed a hieratic text found at this temple, inscribed at head-height in sixteen lines on a block in the wall of a gateway into the central courtyard, and dated to the period 945-715 BC. This text, whose subject is a priest named Horkhebi, raises questions about how we define and delineate space in temple environments. It begins with a prayer to Amun, followed by a semi-fictional genealogy stretching back five hundred years. Horkhebi’s personal access to the sanctuary is mentioned, which, in addition to his priestly ancestry, establishes his claim to initiated status. The text then contains an appeal to Amun, and finally a curse against anyone who might interfere with the inscription. The context and content of this text are unusual: the closest parallels are donation stelae, on which people recorded the dedication of part of their property to temples. Parallels are also apparent between this text and the priestly induction texts that were set up in the centres of sanctuaries. The use of monumental hieratic text aligns it with legal texts. Frood explained that the text points towards a transformation in the meaning of space in the temple context, and that integrated studies of these inscriptions can illustrate the meaning and delineation of Egyptian sacred spaces.