Debrecen, 30-31. 03. 2009.

Debreceni Egyetem Főépület III. em. 316.

A konferencia plakátja innen letölthető.

More information: http://delfin.unideb.hu/~history/okor/X_epigraphicai_kerekasztal.html

March 30, 2010

18.00: Ioan Piso (Klausenburg): Die Anfänge der Provinz Dakien.

18.30: Marc Mayer (Barcelona): La céramique avec inscriptions de La Maja (La Rioja, España)

19.00: Discussion

March 31, 2010

09.00: Giulia Baratta (Macerata): Riefelsarcophage und Bildersprache

09.20: Radu Ardevan (Klausenburg): Nochmals ueber eine Fabia-Familie von Apulum

09.40: Élodie Cairon (Paris): Présentation du numéro 18 d’Hungarian Polis Studies : Les épitaphes métriques hellénistiques du Péloponnèse à la Thessalie

10.00: Discussion

10.30: Péter Kovács (DAI Kommission für Alte Geschichte und Epigraphik): A Phrygian soldier in Pannonia

10.50: Szabó Ádám: Divus Commodus in Scarbantia.

11.10: Szabó Edit: Sau mit drei Ferkeln. Beiträge zur politischen Propaganda des Vespasian.

11.30: Discussion

13.00. Péter Forisek: The Logistics of Arrian’s Alan Campaign

13.20: Péter Kató (Heidelberg): Bemerkungen zur “militärischen Kultur” in den hellenistischen Städten

13.50: László Szabó: Das Cognomen Sarmaticus und die Sarmatenfeldzüge

14.10: György Németh: Une inscription magique de Carthage

14.30: Krisztina Szalai: Die Verehrung des Silvanus im religiösen Leben der pannonischen Vereinen

14.50: Gradvohl Edina: Women doctors on inscriptions

15.10: Discussion

Constructing Lives from Stone: Inscriptions and Biographical Traditions
Dr. Polly Low, Manchester

This lively seminar set out to explore whether the development of literary biography in the 4th C can be seen to be reflected in the epigraphic practice of the period. There is a change in style detected in the epigraphic material in the Classical and early Hellenistic periods and, concentrating on mostly Athenian examples, Dr. Low certainly posed some very interesting questions.

In exploring how an epigraphic text may be classed as biographical, Dr. Low looked at honorific decrees which concentrate on the moral qualities of the individual – for example IG i³ 158 (honours for Corinthios) the honorand is simply an ἀνὴρ ἀγαθός, or IG i³ 97 (Eurytion and his father) shows a shift to abstraction in describing them as possessing ἀνδραγαθία. These moral qualities are presented as paradigms of behaviour. The publication formula states the reason for the publication: “so that all other men may know”. This method and intention is seen in literary texts also: Isocrates’ Evagoras describes his individual characteristics (ἐυσεβία, σοφία) in order that he be emulated by the young (Evagoras 73-77). Therefore there is an overlap between the literary and the epigraphic with regard to individual character but this is not the same thing as biography. Dr. Low stated that it is the interaction between the abstract and the individual that is biographical and while Greek epigraphy is a good source for character at this stage, it is less so for action.

There is a change in epigraphic practice in the 4th C when the speaker believes that biography and epigraphy converge. Looking briefly at funerary epitaphs, there is certainly more biographical detail than before, and a much higher number produced, but the information has more to do with the deceased’s relationship to his family and polis rather than being about himself. They have little to do with biography and more to do with the polis, as evidenced by the now more frequent inclusion of the demotic in the epitaph. Honorific decrees of this period, on the other hand, show a surge in interest in the recording and celebrating of achievements – it is the actions of the honorand which serve as evidence of good character. 5th and early 4th C decrees refer to abstract and general virtues but give only minimal detail. In the 4th C the motivation clause expands and becomes an extended narrative. Dr. Low looked at IG ii² 448 (honours for Euphron of Sicyon) which includes two decrees, in the first of which (323/2) Euphron is an ἀνὴρ ἀγαθός and is praised for his ἀρέτη. The second (318/7) also praises him as a good man but spells out in great detail how this goodness manifested itself through his actions. The question was asked if this change was epigraphic or political. Was this a change in the level of detail presented in the assembly or simply a change to the inscribed monument? The latter is supported by IG ii² 1191 (Eleusis honours Xenokles) which refers to a law which regulates epigraphic practice but it is possible that this refers only to this specific honour. Much more, then, must have been said in the assembly; the things omitted or included on stone were not accidental and this must imply a change in epigraphic practice.

This move towards verbosity in the motivation clause happens alongside other changes and there must be interaction between these. Going back to IG ii² 448 (Euphron of Sicyon) a shift in chronological focus can be seen. The earlier decree emphasises the present-continuous nature of doing good, while the second decree emphasises his past actions. Earlier decrees show a bi-lateral relationship between Athens and the benefactor and it is an immediate one: the good deed elicits a response and more good deeds follow. Later decrees introduce another party, the reader, but this relationship is subordinate to the bi-lateral one: the good deed is responded to, after some time, by Athens and people other than the honorand find their relationship with Athens changes in the future. IG ii² 682 (honours for Phaidros of Sphettos) opens with the past honours of his ancestors, followed by extensive narrative of his good actions and then bestows honours on him and his descendants: it is less concerned with day-to-day politics and more with longer term past and future influence.

Dr. Low went on then to look at the process of creation. In SEG 28.60 (honours for Kallias) his section of past achievements is much longer than his present services. This was not to imply that his recent actions were less successful, but it was likely that the detailed parts were provided by the honorand himself and the rest was formulaic. Normally it was the friends and family who requested an honour and this was not unusual. They could therefore contribute to, and to a limited extent shape, the content. The publication clause provides the justification for the inscribing of a decree, but decrees with long motivation clauses state that the purpose of the decree is to let everyone know the way in which the city rewards good deeds: IG ii² 223 – “so that all other men may know that the demos and the boule know how to return thanks to those who always do the best things on behalf of the boule and demos…”

Athenian generosity is the key element of these decrees. The accounts of Euphron’s achievements are selective. The destruction of the first decree by the oligarchy is the highlight of the motivation clause of the second, for purely political reasons. This is an Athenocentric document and the polis, not the honorand, is the most important part.

In conclusion, earlier inscriptions can be used as a source of evidence for moral qualities but this does not hold into the Hellenistic period. There is a change in the function of honorific decrees as they become a more extensive political tool. Athens takes control: the lives of the honorands are constructed but by Athens and for her own purposes.

Athenian Decrees Honouring Priests and Priestesses to 20/19BC.
Stephen Lambert, Cardiff University

In this seminar Stephen Lambert presented a series of Inscriptions from the forthcoming IG II³, which are concerned with Athenian decrees honouring Priests and Priestesses from the early Classical period to 20/19BC.

Dr Lambert highlighted that the decrees honouring the Priests and Priestesses were inscribed on stone, thus indicating the worth of the individual, or individuals, being honoured. They are presented as being worthy of praise in the eyes of the citizens, and in the eyes of Athens, and therefore, in the eyes of the gods.

The presentation was divided into three sections, the outlines of which are detailed below:

1. Social Construction of Priests and Priestesses

Dr Lambert asked what similarities the roles of Priest and Priestess shared with other official roles in the state. Both priests and officials performed a religious service in the city, yet the priests and priestesses also had ‘clients’ other than the city. Lambert stressed that it is not always clear from these decrees whether those being honoured are γενος priests, or those who have been democratically elected. He rationalised that this was likely due to Pericles’ Citizen Law, which gave all Athenians equal birth status – it would be somewhat contentious in an honorific decree to emphasise any difference of birth right.

The motivation for the honorific decrees for the priests and priestesses, whatever their social background, appears to be the good performance of sacrifice, and the success of its outcome. Honours are also given – as shown in IG II³ 976 (SEG XVIII 28) – for recurring services such as the ‘all-night revel’, and for specific services, such as supplying sacrificial victims, robes, invitations to the council, and monetary donations.

2. Articulation of Gender

Are priestesses honoured differently from priests? They often execute identical practices as their male counterparts, performing sacrifices, and making donations, all for the wellbeing of Athens. Dr Lambert noted however that there are some differences in the details of these honours, especially regarding the donations. The male relations of the priestesses are frequently referred to – the husbands or sons may have their own report within the honours given to the priestess eg. SEG XXXIII 115, and are honoured themselves for their own contributions or for supporting those made by their wives eg. IG II³ 776.

3. Diachronic Development

Dr Lambert showed that those inscriptions dating to the Classical Period show a greater distinction between the priests and the officials in the city. Priests are praised for their performance of religious function, whereas the Officials are praised for the performance of their duties and councils.

In the Hellenistic period, this distinction becomes more blurred, with both the Priests and Priestesses and the Officials praised for what appears to be a very similar religious function. Lambert stressed that this may be due to an attempt to avoid any contention between the religious and secular groups.

The Hellenistic period can also be categorised as showing greater emphasis on the private contributions made by Priests and Priestesses, perhaps owing to the changed perception of the role – the level of wealth of the period meant that disposal of it was necessary to obtain and hold on to the position.

The only inscription to date to the Augustan period – SEG XXX 93 – highlights a completely different ideological world. Those concerned are shown to be aristocrats, with long ancestral connections. Such a blatant reference to birth right was wholly inappropriate during earlier periods due to its divisive nature. Lambert closed his presentation with the suggestion that not only is this inscription indicative of the change in socio-political behaviour in 1st century BC Athens, but that it also represents the archaising reform of 21 BC in which the original state of Athens was ideologically renewed, with all citizens organised in γένη and all γένη were made up of citizens.

This was another stimulating and thought provoking seminar, in which the epigraphic sources have yet again proven invaluable.

2nd István Hahn Lecture (2010)

Venue:
István Hahn Seminar Room
ELTE BTK Múzeum krt. 6–8. Rm 138.
Date: 10 AM, 29 March 2010

10.00. Opening:
Tamás Dezső, Dean of the Faculty

10.20. Honorary lecture:
Ioan Piso (Klausenburg): Capitolia, epulum Iovis und dies Iovis. Die Beispiele von Dakien, Pannonien und Hispania Tarraconensis

11.00. Conference
Marc Mayer (Barcelona): La céramique avec inscriptions de La Maja (La Rioja, España).

11.20. Radu Ardevan (Klausenburg): Die Verteilung der römischen Provinz Dakien in der Geschichtschreibung

11.40. Giulia Baratta (Macerata): Riefelsarkophage und Bildersprache.

12.00. Élodie Cairon (Paris): Présentation du numéro 18 d’Hungarian Polis Studies : Les épitaphes métriques hellénistiques du Péloponnèse à la Thessalie

12.20. Péter Kató (Budapest-Heidelberg): Philoi kai symmachoi: Polis-Netzwerke und der Krieg in der hellenistischen Zeit

12.40. Discussion

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

This course will introduce attendees to EpiDoc markup, an XML schema for epigraphic and papyrological editions. The workshop is targeted at Classical scholars: we shall assume knowledge of Greek and/or Latin and some experience in Classical history or adjacent disciplines, but no technical expertise is required. We shall introduce students to 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. Students will also be given hands-on experience in the use of the “Son of SOL” editing tool, currently implemented by the Duke Databank of Documentary Papyri, which facilitates the creation of validating EpiDoc XML via a ‘tags-free’ interface.

Registration for the summer school costs €300 students / €400 staff.
Subsidized/free places are available for members of Irish universities,
and we hope that a few bursaries will also be available for EpiDoc
students. Please get in touch with <gabriel.bodard@kcl.ac.uk> if you want more information.

Announcement: DHO Summer School registration now open

On the Meaning of “Common” in Herodotus 8.144: Shared Sanctuaries and the Gods of Others
Irene Polinskaya, King’s College London

“τὸ Ἑλλενικόν consists in being of the same blood and of the same language, in sharing sanctuaries and sacrifices of the gods, and in the sameness of customs”

While most scholars acknowledge τὸ Ἑλλενικόν as an idealised vision of Greekness, Dr. Polinskaya believes the religious element continues to be misread and challenges the standard interpretation of τὸ Ἑλλενικόν as proof of religious unity across the Greek world. She believes that κοινός and ὅμοιος do not convey the same meaning, and ignoring the distinction is ignoring Herodotus’ choice of words. There is a conceptual and mathematical difference between ‘same’ and ‘common’ and the architectural, textual and epigraphic evidence bears this out: there is no sameness, but there are common sanctuaries and sacrifices.

Exploring then the precise meaning of κοινός, Dr. Polinskaya highlights two possibilities: an abstract, non-specific commonness – a typological similarity, or a commonness in a concrete sense limited to specific Greeks under specific conditions. Citing Thucydides (1.25; 3.57.1) and Isocrates (Panegyricus 43) Dr. Polinskaya believes a pattern emerges of common prayers and sacrifices, at a common altar, at a specific occasion – a festival, or after proclaiming a truce. Epigraphic evidence also shows that κοινός was used only with a specific sanctuary, festival or ritual:

IG II2 4355 (Athens Acropolis) refers to Ἀσσκληπιῶι ἠδὲ ὁμοβώμοις; IG IX 12 2:583 (Elis, Olympia) refers to κοινοῦ γενομένου τοῦ ἱεροῦ τοῦ Ἀπόλλωνος τοῦ Ἀκτίου (ll.15-16) and κο[ινὸν] εἶμεν τὸ ἱερὸν πάντων τῶν Ἀκαρνάνων (ll 22-24). Only at Delphi is there a “common sanctuary of the Hellenes” (IG II2 680). Dr. Polinskaya believes Herodotus’ common sacrifices and altars refer only to Panhellenic shrines and settings which brought Greeks together in a joint religious action, but worshipping their own specific gods, and cites among others Pausanias (4.27.6): “when all was in readiness … the Thebans then sacrifices to Dionysus and Apollo Ismenius … the Argives to Argive Hera and Nemean Zeus, the Messenians to Zeus of Ithome and the Dioscuri and their priests to the Great Goddess and Caucon”. There were many different deities among the Greeks, not one common one.

For epigraphic evidence Dr. Polinskaya examines the potsherds found at the Hellenion at Naucratis, to which Herodotus refers at 2.178 as τὸ τέμενος, and asks if, as the name Hellenion was chosen, it was a sacred enclosure where Greeks worshipped as one undifferentiated group in a Panhellenic setting, on a par with Delphi. A table of 27 graffiti was provided, and while there are many examples of Ἑλλήνες and Θεοί (in both genitive and dative plurals) only 2 possibly have the words together on the same potsherd. Herodotus tells us that the Hellenion was limited to the use of the founding 9 members and no others: membership did not extend to all Greeks as a whole and was common only to those involved in its foundation. Therefore the Hellenes of the graffiti is possibly an umbrella term referring to the Hellenes of the Hellenion, indicating ownership of the property of the Hellenes and is not necessarily a dedicatory formula.

The second half of this talk focussed on how the Greeks looked upon religious deities that were not their own, or shared. Dr. Polinskaya restated her belief that ‘common gods’/’same gods’/ ‘Greek gods’/gods of the Greeks’ are not commonly Greek and cites examples such as Herodotus 5.92-93 where Socles calls upon the Greek gods when urging Hippias not to invade, and Hippias in response calls upon the same gods to support him in his takeover. This leads to the question of value and respect of other Greek gods and the speaker believed this to be tied up with ownership. Gods were tied to specific regions and entering the land of other Greek states also meant entering the land of other Greek gods. In Thucydides 2.74 the Spartans apologised to the local gods of Plataea before invading, explained why, and expressed hope for aid from them. These were not Spartan gods and yet they felt entitled to address them as potentially their own gods. The stealing, cooptation and transfer of deities, relics and cult images is also a sign of how Greeks evaluated other cults – they were valuable in the sense that they belonged to another state and were therefore desirable: Herodotus 5.82-86 tells of the Aeginetans theft of statues of goddesses from Epidauros – they are stolen, but when they are on Aegina they are given due respect and ritual worship.

This interesting paper opened up a lively discussion and yet again in this series of talks, the use of inscriptions to discuss topics of historical interest is shown to greatly enhance our interpretations and/or allow for new interpretations of long standing points of view.

A day of lectures and shorter presentations in Room G.21 of the Classics Faculty Building, Sidgwick Avenue, Cambridge, starting (with coffee) at 10.00 am. (Lunch will be available in Newnham College opposite).

The first speaker will be Richard Gordon on “Putting the gods to work: the new prayers for justice in Latin from Moguntiacum / Mainz”.

Anyone who would like to offer a paper or make a short presentation is asked to get in touch with Joyce Reynolds (jmr38@cam.ac.uk with a copy please to djt17@cam.ac.uk) as soon as possible so a programme can be finalised. This will then be posted on the Faculty website. It would also be helpful but not essential to have some idea of numbers in advance (to djt17@cam.ac.uk).

‘A Hellenistic List of Donors (?)’
Riet van Bremen

Dr van Bremen’s paper was concerned with a puzzling inscription from Stratonikeia in Karia (SEG 55, 1145). Unlike the seminars of the previous weeks, which have been dealing with specific themes or ‘types’ of inscription, she took what she referred to as the ‘minimalist’ approach; trying to learn as much as possible from one text. The inscription in question does not obviously belong to any particular category, nor have any direct parallels in the ancient world. On its original publication by M. Ç. Şahin in 2005 (EA 38, pp. 9-12) it was classified as a ‘Hellenistic list of donors’; yet, as he admits, ‘I do not understand the inscription either, because there is no intelligible sentence in it, although there are no vocabulary problems involved, and the inscription is easy to read.’ Van Bremen was hoping to comprehend something about the nature of the decree through close examination of the text, yet also its possible archaeological context; she was hoping to reveal the value of analysing in depth certain unusual texts.

The Text
The text is inscribed on the left front side of an architectural block in two columns. It follows a standardised pattern; thus to take the example of lines 3-4: [τοῖς ἔ]χουσι τὰ Ἱεροκλείους τοῦ Ἑρμοφάν/[του] Ῥο(δίου) δεδωκότος < ξ’ ἡμέρα καὶ νύξ. The first thirty six lines of the text follow this example, ‘those who have the things/property/possessions of (name) who has given (amount) drachmae, day and night.’ From line 9, the amounts recorded change, and we find groupings of names; however, the total amounts consistently add up to around 60 drachmae, before we again find the phrase ἡμέρα καὶ νύξ. The final grouping differs slightly: those who have the things of Diodoros son of Muonidos, of Rhodes, who has given ten drachmae καὶ τὸ εἰς τὸ τέμενος τῆς Δήμητρος (ll.44-46). It seems that the list was awarding someone the right to do something, or have access to something ‘day and night’; the 60 drachmae figure also seems significant, and the groupings of names perhaps act as a syndicate, who are collectively awarded the right. However, the anonymity of the τοῖς in the inscription suggests that those who were entitled did not necessarily remain constant.

After line 46 there is then a space, before we find a reference to ‘those outside the gates’, and then three months, followed by numbers. Van Bremen suggests that this part of the text is a calendar cycle, and refers to the right conferred by the above list to do or have access to something on certain dates. She draws a parallel with a text from Tegea in Arkadia, which concerns the rights of pasturage in the temple of Athena Alea in the late fifth or early 4th century BC (IG V, 2 3); it is stipulated that ‘a foreigner passing through has the right to pasturage for one draft animal during one day and one night.’ She thus proposes that the list could be ensuring rights of pasturage or access to something, perhaps water.

The Stone
The two columns of text are inscribed on a marble block that was found to the south of Stratonikeia, during the construction of the new road between Yatağan and Milas. Its dimensions are rather unusual: length: 2.67m; height: 0.90m; depth: 0.60m. The right hand side of the block is uninscribed, and roughly worked, and Şahin suggests that this may have been where a corner block was attached. This leads to questions of where the block came from; Şahin proposes that it belonged to the temple of Demeter, yet van Bremen points out that the proportions make this unlikely. Rather, she draws attention to the potential compatibility of the block with the structure that is also located in the south of the city, called the ‘nymphaeum,’ where the remaining balustrade blocks measure between 2-4 m in length; this would perhaps add weight to her suggestion that the inscription is related to water rights.

Date
Şahin dated the text to the period of Rhodian domination in Stratonikeia (188 – 167 BC), both because of the number of Rhodians listed in the text, and because the letter forms fit such a dating. However, based on her analysis of the letter forms, van Bremen challenged such a date; looking at the broken bar alpha, the full size omega, and the right hasta on the nu reaching down to the line, she preferred a date in the second half of the second century BC. She also notes that the Rhodian calendar month in IIC has been adapted, which might further suggest the period after Rhodian domination.

Interpretation
Van Bremen proposes that the interpretation of the text would depend on the architectural context; thus if her suggestion that the block came from the wall of the ‘nymphaeum’ is correct, it seems that the text relates to water rights. The use of water was carefully circumscribed in a number of cities in the ancient world, and often there were restrictions on access. The text in question could thus give ‘those who have something’ the right to use the water supply. The role of the individuals who initially seem to have donated money is not clear; van Bremen tentatively suggests that they may have been involved in the initial funding of the monument, which may have dated to the period of Rhodian domination, or just after (hence the large number of Rhodians listed). How their privilege was then conferred is not known, and indeed exactly what this privilege was remains unclear; we also do not know why people living in the city would have limited access to water. While many questions still remain over any exact interpretation of the text, van Bremen’s paper demonstrates how a close analysis of the text and its potential architectural context can offer many interesting lines of thought for a historian, making such a puzzling inscription somewhat less of a mystery.