Durham University Department of Classics & Ancient History: MA Greek Epigraphy Poster Exhibition

Department of Classics & Ancient History, Durham University www.durham.ac.uk/classics

Master’s Degree: Greek Epigraphy Poster Exhibition

Students on our MA in Classics and MA in Greece, Rome and the Near East produced posters as one of their assignments for our module in Greek Epigraphy.

Since we were unable to hold a physical exhibition of their work this year, we have created this online poster display.

We hope you enjoy it!

Online exhibition open until

th 30

September 2020

Images included in the posters here are used for non-commercial educational purposes under fair dealing.

None of the material included in this exhibition should be reproduced or disseminated without permission.

The Elephant Captors of Ptolemy IV Philopator & Their Inscription To Ares Adam Burge – Durham University Historical Context

Dedication of the Elephant Captors

The inscription to the right (Figure 2) was inscribed between 208-206 BC in Ptolemaic Egypt by two mercenary elephant captors, Alexander and Apoasis, who were employed by Ptolemy IV Philopator. Modern scholars recognise every historical figure mentioned in the inscription, as each appears in other historical texts, except these two mercenaries who set up the inscription. Scholarship on this inscription has largely passed over these two persons as lost in history. However, an investigation of the inscription itself conveys much of import concerning them and the relationship of mercenaries like them to the Ptolemies.

FINDSPOT : Egypt? Otherwise unknown MATERIAL : White Marble

1. The ὑπέρ βασιλέως, or ‘on behalf of the king’, informs the reader the purpose of this inscription at the

outset. Another inscription from this era honouring Antiochus I highlights the understood social contract between king and people: ‘[Antiochus] has restored the cities to peace and the kingdom to its former state; and...so that the people may be seen to be well disposed to the king...[they] offered continuously prayers and sacrifices on his behalf to all the gods (ὑπέρ αὐτοῦ πᾶσι τοῖς θεοῖς)’ (OGIS 219; Austin 162). This social contract, also noted by John Ma, dictates that the king ensure peace and that the people pray and make sacrifices on his behalf so he remains in ‘collaboration’ with the deity for the prosperity of the entire kingdom (Ma 1999). This inscription is an action on the side of the people to fulfil their side of the social contract. This can be seen in a similar grammatical construction between the two inscriptions. Both have the ὑπέρ plus the king in the genitive and the deity in the dative.

Pisidians were known for hiring themselves out to the larger empires and kingdoms around the Mediterranean and Near East. Pisidians wishing to enlist as mercenaries would travel to the major trading city of Aspendos to do so. For this reason, these mercenaries came to be known as Aspendians and were particularly renowned for their ability to trek rigorous landscapes, due to the rugged and mountainous nature of their homeland, and for their exceptional skill as slingers (Hall 278).

2. André Bernand overlooks important context by attributing the epithets ‘victory bearing’ and ‘who favours

Despite living well within the boundaries of the Seleucid empire, Aspendian warriors preferred to work for the Ptolemaic kingdom, which is likely the result of the long-standing trading relationship between the two areas. Evidence of this relationship appears in that an area in Alexandria was referred to as ‘Aspendia’ after the many Aspendians who had settled there (Hall 278; Lanckoroński 86; Athn. 4.174D). © British Museum

H.R. Hall provides a speculative location for this stela’s (Figure 2) place of inscription by following the progression of the Ptolemies’ elephant capturing posts. Ptolemy Euergetes established posts near the Red Sea, then Ptolemy Philadelphos established others more southward towards Ethiopia (280). Hall asserts that the inscription would have been somewhere between these two areas, though this is, again, entirely speculative.

Figure 2. The Inscription of the Elephant Captors. OGIS 86, I.Pan 85, Austin 281 and BM 1897,0511.195 ὑπὲρ βασιλέως1 Πτολεμαίου καὶ βασιλίσσης Ἀρσινόης καὶ Πτολεμαίου τοῦ υἱοῦ, θεῶν Φιλοπατόρων, τῶν

4 ἐκ Πτολεμαίου καὶ Βερενίκης θε-

ῶν Εὐεργετῶν, Ἄρηι Νικηφόρωι [[Εὐάγρωι2 Ἀλέξα]]νδρος3 Συνδαίου Ὀροαννεύς,

8

ὁ συναποσταλεὶς διάδοχος4

Χαριμόρτωι τῶι στρατηγῶι ἐπὶ τὴν θήραν τῶν ἐλεφάντων, καὶ Ἀπόασις Μιορβόλλου Ἐτεννεὺς ἡγεμὼν καὶ οἱ ὑπ’ αὐτὸν τετα-

12 γμένοι στρατιῶται.

Figure 1. A possible Aspendian route to where the inscription was likely set up The fact of the elephant chase reveals much about how Ptolemy may have deployed the Aspendian mercenaries (see Figure 1 for a possible mercenary route). However, we must first address a problematic trend in the translations of the word θήρα, as the translations of this crucial word have the ability to mislead concerning Ptolemy’s motivation. In English translations of this inscription, the word ‘hunt’ is frequently translated for θήρα. The English ‘hunt’ implies to ‘hunt and kill’. André Bernard’s French translation is a faux-ami, as ‘la chasse’ has the same connotation as the English ‘hunt’. Despite this, the English word ‘chase’ in my translation more closely connotes the capture-and-keep motive behind the Ptolemies and their elephant captors.

Hall explores the culture of capturing elephants and the importance of gaining them at this particular time.

Ten years prior to the creation of this inscription, Hannibal had set out from Carthage with 38 elephants and an intention to desolate Rome. Nine years prior, Ptolemy IV had challenged Antiochus III the Great at the Battle of Raphia. Antiochus had 102 war elephants from India (known to be smarter and better for war than their African counterparts); Ptolemy had 73 (Polybius V.79.2-13). Ptolemy was victorious and took most of Antiochus’ elephants. Hall explains how, though after this defeat Ptolemy was ‘debarred from the hunting-grounds of India by the hostile power of Antiochus the Great’, Ptolemy was still attempting to build his elephantry for war purposes, a fact revealed by this inscription (278).

CURRENT LOCATION : The British Museum ; EA1207 DIMENSIONS : H. 15.25 in. ; W. 19.75 in.

DATE : Ptolemy (Philopator) IV reigned from 222-204 BC. His son, Ptolemy V (Epiphanes) was born c. 9 October, 210 BC, but was not publicly associated with his father until 208. Arsinoe III, Queen to Ptolemy IV, was murdered by Agathokles of Syracuse about 206 BC. This dates the inscription to 208-206 BC.

Alexander and Apoasis provide the names of their places of origin: Alexander is from Oroanda and Apoasis is from Etenna. The exact location of Oroanda is still relatively unknown, yet it is certain that it is located in the general area of Pisidia in Asia Minor. The location of Etenna is much more certain. It is known to have been a small town near lake Trogitis in Pisidia (Hall 277).

© Adam Burge

Comments On The Inscription

On behalf of King Ptolemy (IV) and Queen Arsinoe (III) and Ptolemy the son (V), Father-loving Gods, (descended from) 4 Ptolemy (III) and Bernice (II), Benefactor Gods, to Ares the Victory Bringer and Peacemaker.

Alexander, son of Syndaeus of Oroanda, the deputy sent 8 on behalf of Charimortus the general to the elephant chase, and Apoasis, son of Miorbollus from Etenna, the commander and the soldiers 12 under his command (made this dedication).

the chase’ simply to the soldiers’ desire for safety ‘dans leur chasse dangereuse et difficile’. H.R. Hall, whom Bernard had read and comments on, explores the culture of capturing elephants and the importance of gaining them at this particular time. The entire purpose of capturing elephants is for war. While I grant that Εὐάγρωι could reveal some desire on the soldiers’ part to be safe in their chase, it seems these elephant chasers primarily dedicate this inscription to Ares not on their own behalf, but on the behalf of the Ptolemies and the entire kingdom (see Point 1). They are dedicating it to Ares so that he will provide them with the ‘equipment’, or elephants, necessary to ‘bring victory’.

3. The letters Εὐάγρωι Ἀλέξα are inscribed over top of erasures. I also disagree with Bernand’s translation

of Εὐάγρωι as ‘Qui-favorise-la-chasse’ or ‘who favours the chase’. A king who was victorious in battle was a bringer of peace (see Point 1). This ‘Peacemaker’, as I have very loosely translated it, is derived from the literal translation of the Greek word meaning ‘good fields’. While the image of ‘Peacemaker’ is a far cry from common conceptions of Ares, the epithet ‘Victory Bringer’ ought to return us, as Bernand says, to Ptolemy I’s epithet: ‘Saviour’. This idea combined with the connection between the saviour/conquering king and a land of peace put forward in the inscription listed in Note 1 renders it not too far-fetched to assume Εὐάγρωι connotatively means something like ‘Peacemaker’.

4. According to scholarly consensus, διάδοχος (literally ‘successor’) refers to a specific position. Though

Hall takes the word to mean ‘sent as Charimortus’ successor’ (275), Wilhelm Dittenberger counters him by claiming that ‘διάδοχον is not interpreted as “successor”, but “deputy”’ (137). Bernand enters the conversation and presents a section of Polybius (3.87.9) describing what seems to be the same position Alexander holds here. The position is the Hipparchos (Master of the Horse), who is under the dictator but is a ‘διάδοχον τῆς ἀρχῆς’ when the dictator is away. It seems likely that Alexander was the deputy under Charimortus.

Epigraphical Context

Bibliography

It was not uncommon for mercenary elephant captors to set up inscriptions. The common trend was to commemorate the chase with the stock phrase ‘ἐπὶ τὴν θήραν’ followed by a name list specifying the leaders (πολιτικοί) and the chasers (κυνηγοὶ) (e.g., I.Pan 1a, 4; I.Kanais 9bis; OGIS 82). The ubiquity of this trend shows that there was something of a common culture and understanding concerning the protocol for setting up these kinds of inscriptions.

The inscription in Figure 2, for example, includes this trend, though the name list is shorter than normal. It is known that the elephant hunters were able to build their rapport with the Ptolemies by providing them with elephants or by going out of their way to capture any sort of wild animal they found.

Diodorus reports on a group of elephant captors who go out of their way to capture a large snake and bring it to him and are greatly rewarded (Diod. Sic. 3.36.3-37.8). While it may not be possible to know these mercenaries’ true motivation for inscribing their names, tasks, and accomplishments, it seems that a desire to build their reputations would have been a definite contributing factor. Because these mercenaries contributed to an industry of particular interest to the Ptolemaic kings, the prospect of individual reward would plausibly account for the consistent use of name lists. If this is the case, the likely audiences for these inscriptions would be the deputies and generals working directly under the Ptolemies (see Point 2 in the commentary), as well as the plethora of merchants, mentioned by Strabo, who travelled through the Red Sea area as they came from Arabia and India to Coptos (Strabo 17.1.45).

Austin, Michel. The Hellenistic World From Alexander To The Roman Conquest: A Selection Of Ancient Sources In Translation (Austin). 2nd Ed., Cambridge University Press, 1981.

Bernand, André. Le Paneion d’El-Kanaïs (I.Kanais). Brill, 1972.

Bernand, Andre. Pan Du Desert (I.Pan). E. J. Brill, 1977.

Burstein, Stanley M. “Elephants for Ptolemy II: Ptolemaic Policy in Nubia in the Third Century BC.” Ptolemy II Philadelphus and His World, edited by Paul McKechnie and Philippe Guillaume, Brill, 2008, pp. 135–47.

Casson, Lionel. “Ptolemy II and the Hunting of African Elephants.” Transactions of the American Philological Association (1974-), vol. 123, 1993, pp. 247–60.

Cobb, Matthew. “The Decline Of Ptolemaic Elephant Hunting: An Analysis Of The Contributory Factors.” Greece and Rome 63.2 (2016): 192-204.

Dittenberger, Wilhelm. Orientis Graeci Inscriptiones Selectae (OGIS). Apud S. Hirzel, 1905.

Hall, H.R. “Greek Inscriptions From Egypt”. in The Classical Review vol. 12 no. 5., 1898.

Lambert, S. D., editor. “What Was the Point of Inscribed Honorific Decrees in Classical Athens?” Sociable Man: Essays on Ancient Greek Social Behaviour: In Honour of Nick Fisher, by S. D. Lambert, The Classical Press of Wales, 2011, pp. 193–214.

Lanckoroński, Karl. Städte Pamphyliens Und Pisidiens. Edited by George Niemann and Eugen Adolf Hermann Petersen, vol. 1, F. Tempsky, 1890.

Ma, John. Antiochos III and the Cities of Western Asia Minor. Oxford University Press, 1999.

Scullard, Howard Hayes. The Elephant in the Greek and Roman World. Thames and Hudson, 1974.

Despite this particular inscription’s similarities to the others in this dossier, it is unique regarding the aspect of an additional intended audience, demonstrated by the phrase ὑπέρ βασιλέως, or ‘on behalf of the king’. All other known inscriptions made by elephant captors are either dedicated to the king (βασιλεῖ Πτολεμαίωι) by use of the dative case, or else they simply state the names of those involved. As mentioned in Note 1 of the commentary above, this phrase should remind of the social contract between the ruler and the ruled, and it should clarify who the audience is—the gods, and in this case, Ares. The erasure in the inscription reveals that the epithet ‘Εὐάγρωι’ was added to it, potentially as an afterthought, since the spacing seems perfectly designed to be textually justified without the epithet. It is likely that Alexander and Apoasis primarily intended this inscription to be seen and honoured

by Ares (see Point 2 in the commentary). The divine audience here should recall the Classical honorific decrees that were frequently placed near religious sanctuaries in Athens with the expectation that the gods would both notice the inscription and bind the honorand to the oath (Lambert 202). As Pisidia maintained a peaceful alliance with Egypt before and throughout the Ptolemaic era, it is likely that Alexander and Apoasis’ purpose for inscribing this stone to Ares on behalf of king Ptolemy is revealed by the following two Arean epithets. The first, ‘Victory Bringer’, entreats that they, as mercenaries, would maintain their source of income; the second, roughly translated as ‘Peacemaker’, entreats that the peace between the Ptolemaic kingdom and Pisidia would persist.

Tomos Lloyd-Evans

THE GREEK EDICTS OF ASHOKA Greek Inscription IKEO 291 & 292 Arachosia - Alexandria in Arachosia (Kandahar) - mid-3rd c. BC - CRAI 1964.126-134 & 134-140 - Merk.-Staub., Jenseits Euphrat 201, Edikt XII & Edikt XIII

Photograph of the ruins of old Kandahar citadel from the 'Bellew Collection: Photograph album of Surgeon-General Henry Walter Bellew' taken

by Sir Benjamin Simpson c.1881. British Library Online Gallery Item No. 50173

The Edicts Nothing attests the power and scale of the Greek Epigraphic tradition quite as much as the Greek and Bilingual Inscriptions of Ashoka at Kandahar. Espousing the Buddhist philosophy of an Indian emperor in high-class Greek, together with imperial Aramaic or on its own, makes these inscriptions a rare glimpse into a lost part of the history of the Hellenistic world. With the eastern reaches of Alexander’s former empire notoriously difficult to get a hold of in the sources, all evidence is invaluable.

The Edicts of Ashoka refers to a collection of more than thirty inscriptions on pillars, stones, and in caves that espouse the moral philosophy of the emperor Ashoka. The content declares his Buddhist philosophy and focuses on ideas of divine or natural law shared with Hinduism, called ‘Dharma’. Ashoka is portrayed as devoted to Dharma and dedicated to its spread throughout his realm, as well as recounting his remorse for the destruction caused by his conquest of Kalinga, one of the stories of his conversion.

would be required to make such an authentic epigraph for a Greek polis (it is not as if Ashoka could rely on his Megadhan scribes to do the work) it can therefore be stated that “the edict was composed specially for the frontier region, its precise counterpart is found nowhere else” (Kasambi, 1959). Since, as far as we can tell, Ashoka made no such effort to translate his edicts for a local audience for most of his empire, the importance of making his propaganda available to a Hellenic audience cannot be dismissed. In the other Ashokan edicts, both the Yona (Ionanians – a synecdoche for all Greeks and Macedonians) and the Kamboja (native Iranian inhabitants of the area around the north-eastern Afghanistan-Pakistan border) are listed as subjects of Ashoka (MRE V). Setting aside the possibility of baseless imperial boasting, this would imply that Ashoka at least considered himself as the ruler of large populations of Greek-speakers, as well as much of the land to the west of the Indus.

The Inscriptions The bilingual inscription (H55xW49.5cm) was discovered in 1958, inscribed on a stone on the side of the Chil Zena mountainous outcrop, which marked the western bastion of ancient Alexandria Arachosia (now Kandahar’s Old City). Written in the tenth year of Ashoka’s reign, the bilingual inscription of Kandahar is possibly the oldest known extant example of Ashoka’s Edicts (Sircar, 1979). A copy exists in the Kabul museum and the original is still in situ.

The Greek Inscription, discovered in 1963, is inscribed on a plaque of limestone measuring 45x69.5cm and 12cm thick, possibly taken from a building. It was purchased from a market in Kandahar but was originally excavated from Kandahar’s Old City. It was placed in the Kabul museum until its looting in the early nineteen-nineties and is currently missing. The beginning and ending are missing, suggesting that the plaque could have been significantly larger, perhaps including all fourteen of Ashoka’s Edicts as in several sites in India. At the very least it includes Edicts XII and XIII.

English (Translation)

1 [.εὐ]σέβεια καὶ ἐγκράτεια κατὰ πάσας τὰς διατριβάς· ἐγκρατὴς δὲ μάλιστά ἐστιν 2 ὃς ἂν γλώσης ἐγκρατὴς ἦι. Καὶ μήτε ἑαυτοὺς ἐπα[ι]νῶσιν, μήτε τῶν πέλας ψέγωσιν 3 περὶ μηδενός· κενὸγ γάρ ἐστιν· καὶ πειρᾶσθαι μᾶλλον τοὺς πέλας ἐπαινεῖν καὶ 4 μὴ ψέγειν κατὰ πάντα τρόπον. Ταῦτα δὲ ποιοῦντες ἑαυτοὺς αὔξουσι καὶ τοὺς 5 πέλας ἀνακτῶνται· παραβαίνοντες δὲ ταῦτα, ἀκ(λ)εέστεροί τε γίνονται καὶ τοῖς 6 πέλας ἀπέχθονται. Οἳ δ’ ἂν ἑαυτοὺς ἐπαινῶσιν, τοὺς δὲ πέλας ψέγωσιν φιλοτιμότερον 7 διαπράτονται, βουλόμενοι παρὰ τοὺς λοιποὺς ἐγλάμψαι, πολὺ δὲ μᾶλλον βλάπτου[σι] 8 ἑαυτούς. Πρέπει δὲ ἀλλήλους θαυμάζειν καὶ τὰ ἀλλήλων διδάγματα παραδέχεσθα[ι].

9 Ταῦτα δὲ ποιοῦντες πολυμαθέστεροι ἔσονται, παραδιδόντες ἀλλήλοις ὅσα 10 ἕκαστος αὐτῶν ἐπίσταται. Καὶ τοῖς ταῦτα ἐπ[α]σκοῦσι ταῦτα μὴ ὀκνεῖν λέγειν ἵνα δει11 αμείνωσιν διὰ παντὸς εὐσεβοῦντες. Ὀγδόωι ἔτει βασιλεύοντος Πιοδάσσου 12 κατέστρ(α)πται τὴν Καλίγγην. Ἦν ἐζωγρημένα καὶ ἐξηγμένα ἐκεῖθεν σωμάτων 13 μυριάδες δεκαπέντε καὶ ἀναιρέθησαν ἄλλαι μυριάδες δέκα καὶ σχεδὸν ἄλλοι τοσοῦ14 τοι ἐτελεύτησαν. Ἀπ’ ἐκείνου τοῦ χρόνου ἔλεος καὶ οἶκτος αὐτὸν ἔλαβεν· καὶ βαρέως ἤνεγκεν· 15 δι’ οὗ τρόπου ἐκέλευεν ἀπέχεσθαι τῶν ἐμψύχων σπουδήν τε καὶ σύντα(σ)ιν πεποίηται 16 περὶ εὐσεβείας. Καὶ τοῦτο ἔτι δυσχερέστερον ὑπείληφε ὁ βασιλεύς· καὶ ὅσοι ἐκεῖ ωἴκουν 17 βραμεναι ἢ σραμεναι ἢ καὶ ἄλλοι τινὲς οἱ περὶ τὴν εὐσέβειαν διατρίβοντες, τοὺς ἐκεῖ οἰκοῦ18 ντας ἔδει τὰ τοῦ βασιλέως συμφέροντα νοεῖν, καὶ διδάσκαλον καὶ πατέρα καὶ μητέρα 19 ἐπαισχύνεσθαι καὶ θαυμάζειν, φίλους καὶ ἑταίρους ἀγαπᾶν καὶ μὴ διαψεύδεσθαι, 20 δούλοις καὶ μισθωτοῖς ὡς κουφότατα χρᾶσθαι, τούτων ἐκεῖ τῶν τοιαῦτα διαπρασσο21 μένων εἴ τις τέθνηκεν ἢ ἐξῆκται, καὶ τοῦτο ἐμ παραδρομῆι οἱ λοιποὶ ἥγεινται, ὁ δὲ 22 [β]ασιλεὺς σφόδρα ἐπὶ τούτοις ἐδυσχέρανεν. Καὶ ὅτι ἐν τοῖς λοιποῖς ἔθνεσίν εἰσιν

"...piety and self-mastery in all the schools of thought; and he who is master of his tongue is most master of himself.

And let them neither praise themselves or disparage their neighbors in any matter whatsoever, for that is vain. In acting in accordance with this principle, they exalt themselves and win their neighbors; in transgressing in these things they misdemean themselves and antagonize their neighbors. Those who praise themselves and denigrate their neighbors are self-seekers, wishing to shine in comparison with the others but in fact hurting themselves. It behoves to respect one another and to accept one another's lessons. In all actions it behoves to be understanding, sharing with one another all that which one comprehends. And to those who strive thus let there be no hesitation to say these things in order that they may persist in piety in everything.

(Beginning of Edict Nb13) In the eighth of the reign of Piodasses, he conquered Kalinga. A hundred and fifty thousand persons were captured and deported, and a hundred thousand others were killed, and almost as many died otherwise. Thereafter, piety and compassion seized him and he suffered grieviously. In the same manner wherewith he ordered abstention from living thing, he has displayed zeal and effort to promote piety. And at the same time the king has viewed this with displeasure: of Brahmins and Sramins and others practicing piety who live there [in Kalinga]- and these must be mindful of the interests of the king and must revere and respect their teacher, their father and their mother, and love and faithfully cherish their friends and companions and must use their slaves and dependents as gently as possible - if, of those thus engaged there, any has died or been deported and the rest have regarded this lightly, the king has taken it with exceeding bad grace. And that amongst other people there are..."

Victory of Dharma An alternative reading of the political situation places Kandahar outside of the Mauryan grip, and suggests that this would match up with the proselytising claims of Ashoka. “In fact, the victory of Dharma meant for him the ability to disseminate his message both to the West, in the Hellenistic kingdoms, and to the other populations of southern India as far as Tamraparni” (Maniscalco, 1979). Maniscalco also suggests that we cannot know one way or the other since the inscriptions are clearly made in the spirit of “propaganda and cultural outreach” and accounting for the use of Greek, “it should not be seen as a sign of physical possession of Arachosia in the Indian Empire.” The consensus does seem to favour Schlumberger’s hypothesis, since there are no other examples of rock or pillar edicts that imply Mauryan epigraphy outside of the reach of their empire, and the presence alone of such propaganda effectively rules out any strong control by a competing power. The question is, therefore, the extent of Mauryan influence and control, rather than whether it existed.

Dharma and Eusebeia

Mauryan Hegemony The presence of Ashokan propaganda in Kandahar has led to some debate over the nature of political control over the area. Was Alexandria Arachosia fully under the control of the Mauryan Empire, still nominally Seleukid, or, more exotically, some sort of frontier republic able to maintain some degree of independence wedged between two great imperial powers? Strabo and ancient authors let us know that the territory of the ‘Arachotoi’ was ceded by Seleucus I to Sandracottus (Chandragupta, grandfather of Ashoka) as part of their ‘Epigamia’ contract. Unfortunately, it is unclear whether the territory ceded only covered parts of those provinces that bordered the Indus (Maniscalco, 2018) or was more comprehensive, including the provincial capitals such as Alexandria Arachosia (Coloru, 2009). The presence of Ashokan propaganda within the boundaries of Alexandria Arachosia seems to rule out any strong control by Ashoka’s imperial rival, Antiochus (Schlumberger, 1958). A great deal of effort would have gone into the production of these edicts for a Greek (and Aramaic) audience, since educated Hellenic subjects and craftsmen

Greek (Transliteration)

Major Pillar Edict of Ashoka,in Lauriya Araraj, Bihar, India.

2018, Wikimedia Commons.

Ministers of Dharma The absence of any mention of ministers of Dharma, the ‘Dhammamahamata’ of other edicts, is sometimes used to imply that Ashoka’s agents had no jurisdiction over the area of Kandahar (Schober, 1981), but since both Kandahar decrees are some of the earlier inscriptions of Ashoka, it is possible that the function of ‘Dhammamahamata’ had not yet been established (Maniscalco, 1979).

The creators of the Greek edicts had a difficult task of taking the ideas of Ashoka’s own dictated edicts and expressing them in a way compatible with Greek culture, “to render Indian philosophical concepts to a Hellenistic readership” (Maniscalco, 2018). Both titles for Ashoka, ‘mr’n Prydrs’ in Aramaic and ‘Πιοδασσης’ in Greek, are calques of the Indian ‘Piyadassi/Priyadarshin’, meaning “benevolent grace”. This appears in Ashoka’s Indian inscriptions and appears most likely to be a form of throne name. The creators of the Greek and Aramaic inscriptions rendered the difficult term of ‘Dharma’ as ‘Eusebeia’ in Greek and ‘Truth’ (ksty) in Aramaic. This seems appropriate to both audiences, with Aramaic in the region being associated with Achaemenid imperial propaganda and its Zoroastrian emphasis on truth as a fundamental good, and a roughly analogous Greek term for piety probably best reflect the established idea of Dharma being “‘innate natural law’ for each group of men, whether tribe, caste, or guild” (Kasambi, 1959).

The later Hellenic king, and probable Buddhist, Menander would describe himself as ‘dhammaka’, borrowing the term directly, and ‘dikaios’, which is a common appellation used by Hellenized rulers of kingdoms such as Parthia and Cappadocia. In the context of the moralising tone of the edicts, Ashoka’s ‘Dharma’ is less about promoting Buddhism per se than a set of behavioural codes for all of society which would not impede on any older “group-dhammas[sic]” (Kasambi, 1959).

Bilingual Inscription (Greek Section) IKEO 290 Arachosia - Alexandria in Arachosia (Kandahar): Shar-i Kuna - 259/8 BC - CRAI 1958.189-191 Merk.-Staub., Jenseits Euphrat 202 - SEG 20.326, 34.1433, 42.1327, 45.1882, 48.1842; BE 1959.488 Greek (Transliteration) δέκα ἐτῶν πληρη[θέντ]ων βασι[λ]εὺς Πιοδάσσης εὐσέβεια[ν ἔδ]ε[ι]ξεν τοῖς ἀνθρώποις, καὶ ἀπὸ τούτου εὐσεβεστέρους τοὺς ἀνθρώπους ἐποίησεν καὶ πάντα εὐθηνεῖ κατὰ πᾶσαν γῆν· καὶ ἀπέχεται βασιλεὺς τῶν ἐμψύχων καὶ οἱ λοιποὶ δὲ ἄνθρωποι καὶ ὅσοι θηρευταὶ ἢ ἁλιεῖς βασιλέως πέπαυνται θηρεύοντες· κα[ὶ] εἴ τινες ἀκρατεῖς πέπαυνται τῆς ἀκρασίας κατὰ δύναμιν, καὶ ἐνήκοοι πατρὶ καὶ μητρὶ καὶ τῶν πρεσβυτέρων παρὰ τὰ πρότερον καὶ τοῦ λοιποῦ λῶιον καὶ ἄμεινον κατὰ πάντα ταῦτα ποιοῦντες διάξουσιν.

Bilingual Inscription World Imaging, from Ancient History Encyclopaedia. https://www.ancient.eu/image/259/

English (Translation) Ten years (of reign) having been completed, King Piodasses (Ashoka) made known (the doctrine of) Piety (εὐσέβεια, Eusebeia) to men; and from this moment he has made men more pious, and everything thrives throughout the whole world. And the king abstains from (killing) living beings, and other men and those who (are) huntsmen and fishermen of the king have desisted from hunting. And if some (were) intemperate, they have ceased from their intemperance as was in their power; and obedient to their father and mother and to the elders, in opposition to the past also in the future, by so acting on every occasion, they will live better and more happily." (Trans. by G.P. Carratelli)

• • • • •

•

•

•

• •

•

Bibliography Appian, The Syrian Wars, 55. Accessed through Livius.org.

Coloru, Omar, Da Alessandro a Menandro. Il regno Greco di Battriana (Pisa, 2009), p. 136.

Dupree, L., Afghanistan (Princeton, 2014), pp. 272-296.

Gallavotti, Carlo, ‘The Greek Version of the Kandahar Bilingual Inscription of Asoka’, East and West, Vol. 10, No. 3 (1959), pp. 185-191.

Kosambi, D. D., ‘Notes on the Kandahar Edict of Asoka’, Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient, Vol. 2, No.2 (Brill, 1959), pp 204-206.

Maniscalco, Francesco, ‘A New Interpretation of the Edicts of Asoka from Kandahar’, Annali di Ca’ Foscari. Serie Orientale Vol. 54I (Giugno, 2018), pp. 239-263.

Pompeius Trogus, The Epitome of Justin, 15, 4, 21. Accessed through Attalus.org.

Schlumberger, Daniel, ‘Introduction. L’inscription grecque’ in Schlumberger, Daniel; Dupont-Sommer, André; Benveniste, Émile, ‘Une bilingue gréco-araméenne d’Asoka’, Journal Asiatique, 246 (1958), 1-48.

Schober, Ludwig, Untersuchungen zur Geschichte Babyloniens und der Oberen Satrapien von 323-303 (1981), p. 167.

Sircar, D. C., ‘Minor Rock and Pillar Edicts at Kandahar and Amaravati’, Asokan Studies (Calcutta, 1979), pp. 113-122. Available online at: https://archive.org/stream/in.gov.ignca.67068/67068 Strabo, Geographica, 15, 2, 9. Accessed through LacusCurtius.

A PROXENY INSCRIPTION FROM MALTA: IG XIV 953

Jonathan Sinclair

This tablet is a record of the bestowal of proxeny upon Demetrios son of Diodotus, a citizen of Syracuse, by the city of Melita/Malita on Malta.

The tablet is made of bronze, is 37 cm tall and 23.5 cm wide, and appears to be part of a pair, the other recording the bestowal of proxeny on Demetrios under the authority of the people of Akragas. The inscription is framed by a depiction of a Greek temple, complete with columns and pediment, and Bonanno (2017, 123) suggests that the capitals best resemble the Egyptian Lotus capital. He postulates that this is due to them being a later addition by Demetrios himself, who was influenced by the Egyptian style which was coming into fashion in Rome at the time. Thus, the slight obscuring of the text by the frame should not be regarded as poor design or lack of forethought on the part of the scribe.

The institution of proxeny is one found primarily in a Greek context; we have many inscriptions recording the bestowal of proxeny by the governments of Greek poleis, especially in Athens.

Proxeny could be extended to non-Greek individuals, as seen in the proxeny inscription for Straton, the King of Sidon (IG II2 141), but it is rare to see this privilege extended by cities which did not trace for themselves a Greek origin. It is difficult to know whether Melita was attempting to forge an identity as a Greek polis at this time, as Malta appears to have been originally settled

by Phoenicians (Diodorus Siculus, Library, V, 12).

Whilst proxeny technically appointed the receiver as a representative of the state which bequeathed it, a role comparable to that of an ambassador, Rhodes and Osborne suggest that when proxeny is awarded with the title of benefactor (in this case εὐεργέτην), this usually indicates that the position is honourific (Rhodes and Osborne, 2003, 45). Using the office of proxenos as an honorific suggests an intimate understanding of Greek culture, which, depending on the inscription’s dating, could be evidence of either close cultural contact between Punic Melita and the Greek poleis on Sicily, or evidence that the institution of proxeny continued well into the late Republican period. It is pertinent to draw attention to where this tablet was found, as it seems to have been stored in a building used to house administrative and religious documents.

Thus, we see that this bestowal of proxeny was considered legitimate by the authorities of Rome; despite Melita’s size and lack of Greek origin, the tablet was stored as an official document rather than remaining in Demetrios’ estate as a trophy might.

The inscription is difficult to date, but the general consensus of scholars is that it was created between the late 3rd century BCE and the first half of the 1st century BCE, this being from the end of the 2nd Punic war to the end of the Republican period. During the latter, Melita appears to have lost the ability to mint its own coinage, which scholars have taken to be indicative of a broader lack of autonomy in the settlement (Bonanno, 2005, 159). Prag (Bonanno, 2017, 42 n.98) argues for an earlier date due to the style of the lettering; Bonanno (2017, 20) dismisses this as unreliable, and rather draws attention to Manganaro’s observation that the formula of the inscription matches one of those found in Syracuse which has been dated to 46-5 BCE (Manganaro, 1963, 213). Bonanno also suggests that this Demetrios may have been mentioned in an inscription from the Greek sanctuary at Delos dated to 173/2 BCE, or, alternatively, that he adheres to the profile of a proxenos present at the trial of Verres (Bonanno, 2017, 29-33). This does, however, disregard Ashby’s observation regarding the number of senators mentioned in the Akragas inscription, this being one hundred. Ashby (1915, 24) refers to part of Cicero’s Against Verres (2.2.123-5), a text which suggests that the composition of the senate of Akragas would have been ‘uneven’ after Scipio brought in a new constitution in 207 BCE, which apparently had not changed by the time of Cicero’s speech (70 BCE). Whilst Cicero is not the most reliable of sources, it should be noted that he held an administrative position in Sicily before this speech, and therefore his account should not be completely dismissed.

Manganaro’s argument, whilst not devoid of merit, does not seem sufficient to overwrite those of other scholars, the majority of whom argue for an earlier dating. Bonanno similarly fails to convince that the document must be from a later time period.

The coinage from Malta during this time period provides an interesting comparison with this epigraphic evidence, especially in the use of language. One example with links to this inscription is RPC I 672 (Figures 2 and 3). The obverse of the coin depicts a veiled head, which some have taken to be a representation of the Syrian goddess Astarte; however, the accompanying legend reads ‘ΜΑΛΙΤΑΙΩΝ’, the Greek ethnicon of the people of Melita, which is typical of provincial coinage from the poleis of the Roman Empire (see, for example, RPC I 626, 658, 4213). This ethnicon is the same as that used in the Demetrios inscription, but it contrasts with our evidence from the city of Tyre, where we see the Phoenician language used for the ethnicon ('‫ 'לצר‬which means ‘of Tyre’) even into the reign of Hadrian (see RPC III 3884-3902). Thus, it appears that the people of Melita were attempting to mimic those cities of Hellenistic foundation, rather than those of Phoenician origin. On the reverse of RPC I 672 we see a curule chair and the name of the local magistrate in Latin, which would suggest that the people of Melita, whilst possibly trying to forge a new identity as a Greek polis, were also embracing their position as a part of the Roman Empire.

This coin, therefore, shows us the complicated composite culture of Melita, with Phoenician or Punic imagery used in tandem with both Greek and Latin. Whilst the Demetrios inscription is not multilingual, there are similarities to this coin in the adoption of both the Greek language and the Greek institution of proxeny, which seems to demonstrate the desire of the people of Melita to emulate the Graeco-Roman world of which they had become a part. This is most easily understood in the context of Melita’s economic position, as the tiny island was well situated for trade and would have relied upon it given the lack of arable countryside, motivating them to emulate their Greek neighbours and their Roman overlords (Sagona, 2015, 264-7).

Figure 1: Malta. The tablet was created on the authority of the city of Malita on Malta, although it was found in the mid 16th century CE in Rome, and is currently located in the National Museum of Archaeology in Naples.

‘ὑπὲρ προξενίας καὶ εὐργεσίας Δημητρίῳ Διοδότου Συρακοσίῳ καὶ τοῖς ἐγγόνοις αὐτοῦ. ἐπὶ ἱεροθύτου Ἱκέτα Ἱκέτου, ἀρχόν των δὲ Ἡρέου καὶ Κ.τητος·, ἔδοξε τῇ συγκλήτωι καὶ τῷ δήμῳ τῶν Μελιταίων, ἐπειδὴ Δημήτριος Διοδότου Συρακόσιος διὰ παντὸς εὔνους ὑπάρχων τοῖς τε δημοσίοις ἡμῶν πράγμασιν καὶ ἑνὶ ἑκάστῳ τῶν πολιτῶν παραίτιος ἀγαθοῦ πολλάκι γεγένηται ἀγαθῇ τύχῃ δεδόχθαι Δημήτριον Διοδότου Συρακόσιον πρόξενον εἶναι καὶ εὐεργέτην τοῦ δήμου τῶν Μελιταίων καὶ τοὺς ἐγγόνους αὐτοῦ ἀρετῆς ἕνεκεν καὶ εὐνοίας ἧς ἔχων διατελεῖ εἰς τὸν ἡμέτερον δῆμον. τὴν δὲ προξενίαν ταύτην ἀναγράψαι εἰς χαλκώματα δύο καὶ τὸ ἓν δοῦναι Δημητρίῳ Διοδότου Συρακοσίῳ.’

‘For his hospitality and benevolence, to Demetrios, son of Diodotos, the Syracusan, and to his progeny. When Hiketas, son of Hiketas, was officiating priest and Hereas and Kotes were magistrates, the Council and Assembly of the Maltese decided that, whereas Demetrios, son of Diodotos, the Syracusan, has been at all times well-disposed to our public affairs, and has often given advantage to each of the citizens, it should be resolved for good fortune that Demetrios the Syracusan, son of Diodotos be a proxenos and benefactor of the Maltese people, together with his progeny, on account of his virtue and the well-mindedness that he continues to show to our people; and that this same [decree of] proxenia be inscribed on two bronze tablets and one of them to be given to Demetrios the Syracusan, son of Diodotos.’ Translation Bonanno (2017, 18) as this is the most recent English translation.

There are other Greek inscriptions from Malta which have survived, the most famous of which Whilst letter styles cannot be reliably used to date inscriptions, it is still important to look at the are the twin cippus inscriptions set up by the Tyrian ‘Dionysius’ and ‘Serapis’ (IG XIV 600). presentation of the inscription itself. The letters are neat for the most part, although it appears that Whilst some scholars originally used these inscriptions as evidence of the use of both Greek and the scribe did not attempt to align them in a grid form, with their numbers varying from line to line.

Phoenician on Malta, it should not be overlooked that these were the languages spoken in Tyre, All the letters are legible despite the inscription’s age, although it should be noted that the second which had been under the control of the Hellenistic kings for centuries before the inscription was letter in the main body of the inscription appears to have been an erroneous Latin P. This seems to created. The Demetrios inscription, created by the people of Melita, serves as more substantial underline the multi-cultural nature of Melita at this time, as the overwhelming influence of Greeks in evidence of Greek influence for several reasons. The first of these is that the inscription is in Sicily,in addition to Rome’s contentment to allow Greek to remain an official language, make such an Greek, and is not translated into other languages. Whilst it is very likely that Greek was error seem odd. Perhaps one might expect a Latin document to contain accidental Greek letters, as understood on Malta before this period, it is certainly important that there is no Punic translation, the majority of the scribes in the province of Sicily were probably Greek, but the opposite seems as this appears to have been the primary spoken language on the island until the 1 st century CE difficult to explain. It is possible that the scribe may have been a native Punic speaker, and that (Bonanno, 2017, 38). It is also necessary to note the use of the terms ‘σύγκλητος’ and ‘δῆμος’ the neither Greek nor Latin were their primary language, but the general accuracy of the document former of which is common to Greek poleis in the Western Mediterranean, whilst the latter is used makes this unlikely (see IG XIV 297 for a Greek and Latin text with obvious errors, possibly widely throughout the Greek speaking world. This suggests that after the city’s annexation into representing a Punic author). There is some inconsistency in the use of the genitive with ‘Ἱκέτα the Roman province of Sicily (218 BCE, Livy, ab urbe, XXI, 51), it was afforded a degree of Ἱκέτου’, but this seems to be a dialectic error rather than one born of a lack of familiarity with the autonomy, and chose to emulate the institutions common to a local democratic Greek polis.

Greek language (Bonanno, 2017, 19).

Bibliography: Primary Sources Burnett, A., Amandry, M., and Ripollès, P., 1992, Roman Provincial Coinage Vol. I : From the death of Caesar to the death of Vitellius (44 BC–AD 69), British Museum Press: London.

Burnett, A., Amandry, M., Mairat, J., 2015, Roman Provincial Coinage Vol. III: From Nerva to Hadrian (AD 96–138), British Museum Press: London Cicero, Against Verres, Translated by Yonge, C., 1903, George Bell and Sons: London.

Diodorus Siculus, Library of History, Translated by Laurén, G., 2014, Sophron.

Kirchner, J., ed., 1913-40, Inscriptiones Graecae. Vol. II et III. Inscriptiones Atticae Euclidis anno posteriores. Editio altera, De Gruyter: Berlin.

Kaibel, G., ed, 1890, Inscriptiones Graecae XIV. Inscriptiones Siciliae et Italiae, additis Galliae, Hispaniae, Britanniae, Germaniae inscriptionibus, De Gruyter: Berlin.

Livy, Ab Urbe Condita, translated by Sélincourt, A., 1965, Penguin Books Ltd.: London.

Secondary Literature Ashby, T., 1915, ‘Roman Malta’, The Journal of Roman Studies, V, 23-80.

Bonanno, A., 2005, Malta. Phoenician, Punic and Roman, Midway Books: Firenze.

Bonanno, A., 2017, ‘A Friend in High Places: Demetrios, son of Diodotus, the Syracusan’, Melita Classica, IV, 11-57.

Manganaro, G., 1963, “Tre tavole di bronzo con decreti di proxenia del Museo di Napoli e il problema dei proagori in Sicilia”, KΩKAΛOΣ IX, 205-220.

Rhodes, P., and Osborne, R., 2003, Greek Historical Inscriptions 404-323 BC, Oxford University Press: New York.

Sagona, C., 2015, The Archaeology of Malta: From the Neolithic through the Roman Period, Cambridge Figure 3: RPC I 672, Reverse Figure 2: RPC I 672, Obverse.

University Press: Cambridge.

Elina Tzoka

The Prolonged Pregnancies of the Epidaurian Miracle Inscriptions The Sanctuary of Asclepius in Epidaurus

A Great Place for Healing!

The sanctuary of Asclepius was not the first resort for patients; on the contrary, it was reserved for the long-term sick; those who could not be healed utilizing contemporary medicine (Cilliers and Retief 2013, 74), or those who seeked an alternative treatment (King 1998, 105). The emergence of the thriving, 4th century cult of Asclepius did not prevent contemporary people to consult medical experts of the time (Cilliers and Retief 2013, 74). It was the same era when Hippocrates compiled his medical corpora. As a result, it was common for cures recommended by the two authorities -the Asclepieia and the doctors- to coincide (Ibid). ///………………………………..

Asclepieia remained informed of the occasional medical advances(Ibid). That said, the typical procedure for a healing at the sanctuary of Asclepius for those who requested it was as follows (Ibid,75-81):

About seven kilometres southwestern of the city of Epidaurus (Rhodes and Osborne 2007, 539), in the region of Peloponnese, lies the sanctuary of Asclepius, declared a World Heritage Site by UNESCO since 1998. //////////////// \ The area had been considered sacred since the Bronze age, and during the classical period, it became the place of worship of Apollo Maleatas (Ibid). Beneath it, in the fifth century a temple of Asclepius was also established (LiDonnici 1995,5). //////////////// The Asclepieum quickly became a Panhellenic sanctuary when the popularity of the god as divine healer increased, and in the 4th century B.C.E. a new building plan was implemented (Dillon 1994, 239); it included the infamous 'tholos' or 'thymele', a theatre, and the 'abaton' where the patients slept (Rhodes and Osborne 2007, 539). ...Towards the end of the same century, during the Hellenistic Period, a hotel or 'katagogeion', a stadium, and exercise grounds were also risen within the sanctuary. (Pedley 2005, 32). //////////////// The main feature that made the Asclepium unique among the two hundred other Asclepieia that were founded in the 4th century (King 1998, 100), was that it was considered the god's dwelling, despite his birthplace being Trikka (Dillon 1994, 242). It continued being in use during the Roman Era, and until the first half of the 5th century C.E. (Kavvadias 1900, 23).

Pre-healing Ritual bathing

Fasting

Healing Sacrifice on the altar of the temple

Healing in the ‘Enkoimeterion’

Post-healing Return Offerings to God

The pre-healing rituals aimed to achieve purification, so that the ‘faith’ healing would be successful (Rhodes and Osborne 2007, 539-540). Correspondingly, it was forbidden for people to die or give birth within the boundaries of the sanctuary, for they were considered impure (Dillon 1994, 255) The healing process would last from a few days to months for the most severe cases (Luck 2006, 185), and when the patients were cured, they were expected to devote votives to the temple to please the god.

(Hughes 2017, 41).

(Pedley 2005, 33)

The ‘Iamata’ Inscriptions of Epidaurus The 'Iamata' of Epidaurus, are a set of about seventy 'thanksgiving’, votive inscriptions, placed in four slabs of stones: four stelae (Cilliers and Retief 2013, 69). They were discovered from 1883 to 1928 by P. Kavvadias, and after his death, the remaining fragments were discovered by B. Staϊs (LiDonnici 1995, 15). They narrate various cures of people who were healed by Asclepius. The Stelae were initially situated near the entrance of the temple (Cilliers and Retief 2013, 72).

That was the place were patients would walk past in order to conduct their sacrifices, undergo the ritual bathing, and finally the spot they would walk past in order to go to the 'enkoimeterion’ or Abaton where they would spend the night and receive Asclepius' cure. (Ibid). Of the four Stelae, Stele A displays unity in the themes and stylistic context of its tales, which are usually grouped (LiDonnici 1995, 24-25). Stelae B and C are partially fragmental and D is mostly fragmental (Ibid, 30, 38-39). The stories narrated in B,C, and D are presented in random order (Ibid).

For reasons of space, the focus of this poster will lay on Stele A, and more specifically on the opening stories of Kleo and Ithmonika and their prolonged pregnancies. I will attempt to answer why they were carved on the starting point of Stele A. Also, considering the limited amount of photographic materials from the late 19 th and earlier 20th century and their poor resolution, the image of the inscribed stone presented, is that of the full 126 lines of Stele A, instead of lines 3 to 22 of the selected narratives.

Dating: It is safely dated in the 4th century, based on the form of the letters and the stoichedon style of writing (Kavvadias 1983, 23-24). That was the date when the sanctuary was rebuilt. Furthermore, Kavvadias has stated that they were put up by the priests of the temple and that probably they were a collection of older folklore tales (Ibid).

Type of stone:

Findspot:

limestone rock

Medieval house on the Sanctuary (spolia) (LiDonnici 1995, 15)

Dimensions: Height: 1.75 Width: 0.75 Depth: 0.17 (Kavvadias 1983, 24)

Other technical features: • • • • •

It consists of 126 lines.

The dialect is a combination of Doric and Attic.

The letters are 6mm high.

The lines are 6mm apart horizontally The columns are 8mm apart vertically.

(Ibid, 16-17)

The five-year-long pregnancy of Kleo (lines 3-9)

The three-year-long pregnancy of Ithmonika ( lines 9-22)

Transcription (IG IV²,1 121, PHI):

Transcription (IG IV²,1 121, PHI): 9. ‘‘ τριέτης . [φο]ρά. v (II) Ἰθμονίκα Πελλανὶς ἀφίκετο εἰς τὸ ἱαρὸν ὑπὲρ γενεᾶς. ἐγ[κατα][κοι]μαθεῖσα δὲ ὄψιν εἶδε· ἐδόκει αἰτεῖσθαι τὸν θεὸν κυῆσαι κό12.[ραν]. τὸν δ’ Ἀσκλαπιὸν φάμεν ἔγκυον ἐσσεῖσθαί νιν, καὶ εἴ τι ἄλλο α[ἰτ]οῖτο, καὶ τοῦτό οἱ ἐπιτελεῖν, αὐτὰ δ’ οὐθενὸς φάμεν ἔτι ποιδε[ῖ]σθαι. ἔγκυος δὲ γενομένα ἐγ γαστρὶ ἐφόρει τρία ἔτη, ἔστε πα15.ρέβαλε ποὶ τὸν θεὸν ἱκέτις ὑπὲρ τοῦ τόκου· ἐγκατακοιμαθεῖσα . δὲ ὄψ[ι]ν εἶδε· ἐδόκει ἐπερωτῆν νιν τὸν θεόν, εἰ οὐ γένοιτο αὐτᾶι πάντα ὅσσα αἰτήσαιτο καὶ ἔγκυος εἴη· ὑπὲρ δὲ τόκου ποιθέμεν 18.νιν οὐθέν, καὶ ταῦτα πυνθανομένου αὐτοῦ, εἴ τινος καὶ ἄλλου δέ. οιτο λέγειν, ὡς ποησοῦντος καὶ τοῦτο. ἐπεὶ δὲ νῦν ὑπὲρ τούτου . παρείη ποτ’ αὐτὸν ἱκέτις, καὶ τοῦτό οἱ φάμεν ἐπιτελεῖν. μετὰ δὲ 21 τοῦτο σπουδᾶι ἐκ τοῦ ἀβάτου ἐξελθοῦσα, ὡς ἔξω τοῦ ἱαροῦ ἦς, ἔτε. κε κόραν.’’

3. ‘‘(Ι) [Κλ]εὼ πένθ’ ἔτη ἐκύησε. v αὕτα πέντ’ ἐνιαυτοὺς ἤδη κυοῦσα ποὶ τὸν [θε]ὸν ἱκέτις ἀφίκετο καὶ ἐνεκάθευδε ἐν τῶι ἀβάτωι· ὡς δὲ τάχισ[τα] ἐξῆλθε ἐξ αὐτοῦ καὶ ἐκ τοῦ ἱαροῦ ἐγένετο, κόρον ἔτεκε, ὃς εὐ6. [θ]ὺς γενόμενος αὐτὸς ἀπὸ τᾶς κράνας ἐλοῦτο καὶ ἅμα τᾶι ματρὶ [π]εριῆρπε. τυχοῦσα δὲ τούτων ἐπὶ τὸ ἄνθεμα ἐπεγράψατο· "οὐ μέγε- . [θο]ς πίνακος θαυμαστέον, ἀλλὰ τὸ θεῖον, | πένθ’ ἔτη ὡς ἐκύησε ἐγ γασ9. τρὶ Κλεὼ βάρος, ἔστε | ἐγκατεκοιμάθη καί μιν ἔθηκε ὑγιῆ’’.

Translation (LiDonnici 1995, 85) : ‘Kleo was pregnant for five years. After the fifth year of pregnancy she came as a suppliant to the god and slept in the Abaton. As soon as she had left it and was outside the sacred area, she gave birth to a son who, as soon as he was born, washed himself at the fountain and walked about with his mother. After this success, she inscribed upon an offering: ‘The wonder is not the size of the plaque, but the act of the god: Kleo bore a burden in her stomach for five years, until she slept here, and he made her well.’

Translation ( LiDonnici 1995, 87): ‘A three-year pregnancy. Ithmonika of Pellene came to the sanctuary for a family.

Sleeping here she saw a vision. It seemed that she asked the god if she could conceive a daughter, and Asclepius answered that she would and that if she asked anything else that he would do that as well, but she answered that she didn’t need anything more. She became pregnant and bore the child in her stomach for three years, until she came back again to the god as a suppliant, concerning the birth. Sleeping here, she saw a vision.

The god appeared, asking whether everything she had asked had not happened and she was pregnant. She had not asked anything about the birth, and he asked whether there was anything more she needed and he would do it. But since now she had come to him as a suppliant for this, he said he would do it for her. Right after this, she rushed out of the Abaton, and as soon as she was outside the sacred area, gave birth to a daughter.’

Commentary: Lines 3-4: ‘‘πέντ’… ἀφίκετο’’. The patient only seeked for a cure after fife years, confirming that the Asclepium was a patient’s last resort (Cilliers and Retief 2013, 74).

Lines 4-5: ‘‘ὡς δὲ τάχισ[τα]..ἔτεκε’’ . The patient gave birth as soon as she exited the sanctuary, respecting its purity rules (Dillon 1994, 255).

Lines 5-8: ‘‘ὃς εὐ-θ]ὺς …[π]εριῆρπε’’ . The miraculous description of a baby walking and washing itself, adds to the bizarreness of the narrative.

Line 8: ‘‘πίνακος’’: pinax, was a small, wooden tablet that would be devoted to Asclepius as a post-healing gift (LiDonnici 1995, 85). It thus, adds to the theory of Kavvadias that the cures were older, and possibly compiled by the priests (Kavvadias 1983, 23-24).

Lines 7-8: ‘‘ἐκύησε ἐγ γαστρὶ’’. The womb and stomach were regarded as one organ (LiDonnici 1995, 86).

Commentary:

(Kavvadias,1900, 256)

Line 9: ‘‘τριέτης’’ was duration of the pregnancy of Ithmonika.

Lines 12-20 ‘‘τὸν δ’ …ἐπιτελεῖν’’: This extensive narrative explains why the woman visited the sanctuary twice; ‘‘ἐδόκει..κυῆσαι’’ and ‘‘ἔστε…ἱκέτις ὑπὲρ τοῦ τόκου’’.

Initially she had asked to conceive. Afterwards, she asked to go into labour. Both wishes were granted.

Lines 21-22: ‘‘ἐκ τοῦ ἀβάτου…κόραν.’’, is similar to Kleo’s story.

Conclusion There has been a lot of scholarly debate surrounding the ‘iamata’ Epidaurian cures (see Cilliers and Retief 2013, 87-9) and whether they were miraculous (Edelstein and Edelstein, 170) or not. Personally, I stand by Dillon’s argument, that ‘iamata can be taken as indications of the beliefs held about Asklepios, and they can be used, in conjuction with other evidence, to describe the experiences which individuals underwent at Epidauros and other healing sanctuaries’ (Dillon 1994, 243). // Taking into consideration their position on the Stelae in total and on Stele A in particular, I believe that their purpose was to draw the patients’ attention. The readers would not probably spend a significant amount of time reading every column. They would instead focus at the heading, and then at the beginning of the narrative; that is the miraculous pregnancies. Then they would possibly skim the rest of the text to come across a story that would be similar to their own that would console them. // Consequently, both stories held another significant role: they were introducing the patients to the most essential rules of the sanctuary. They would demonstrate that by the 4th century Asclepius had been healing patients for a long time (Rhodes and Osborne 2007, 539-540). They would highlight that purity was highly critical in the sanctuary, since both women gave birth outside of its limits. It would also remind them that they had to have precise demands and expectations; otherwise, they could end up partially healed. Lastly, that Asclepius could heal them more than once.

Concluding, the position of the extravagant stories attracted the patients’ attention and served as a reminder that the god could heal even the most extraordinary of problems, provided that the patients followed the rules.

References: Cilliers, L. and Retief, F. P. (2013). Dream Healing in Asclepieia in the Mediterranean. In Oberhelman, S. M. (Ed.) (2013).

Dreams, Healing, and Medicine in Greece. From antiquity to the Present. Surrey: Ashgate Publishing Limited, pp 69-92 Dillon, M. (1994). The Didactic Nature of the Epidaurian Iamata. Zeitschrift Für Papyrologie Und Epigraphik, 101, 239260.

Edelstein, E. J. and Edelstein, L. (1945). Asclepius A Collection and Interpretation of the Testimonies. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins Press.

Hughes, J. (2017). Votive Body Parts in Greek and Roman Religion. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Kavvadias, P (1893). Fouilles d’ Epidaure. Volume I. Athens: Imprimerie S.C. Vlastos.

Kavvadias, P (1900). Το Ιερόν του Ασκληπιού εν Επιδαύρωι και η θεραπεία των ασθενών. Athens: Εκ του Τυπογραφείου των αδελφών Περρή.

King, H (1998). Hippocrates’ Woman. Reading the female body in Ancient Greece. London: Routledge.

LiDonnici, L. (1995). The Epidaurian Miracle Inscriptions. Text, Translation and Commentary. Atlanta, Georgia: Scholars Press.

Luck, G. (Ed.) (Transl.) (2006) Arcana Mundi. Magic and the Occult in the Greek and Roman Worlds. A collection of Ancient texts (2nd ed.). Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.

Pedley, J. (2005). Sanctuaries and the Sacred in the Ancient Greek World. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Rhodes, P. J. and Osborne, R. (Eds.) (2007). Greek Historical Inscriptions 404-323 B.C. New York: Oxford University Press.

The Packard Humanities Institute (PHI)—Searchable Greek Inscriptions. (n.d.). Retrieved March 25, 2020, from https://epigraphy.packhum.org/text/28551?bookid=7&location=233

A SKELETON, AND A WARNING ON THE EQUALITY OF DEATH 1 εἰπεῖν τίς δύναται σκῆνος λιπόσαρκον ἀθρήσας, ❦ | εἴπερ Ὕλας ἢ Θερσείτης ἦν, ὦ 5 παροδεῖτα

‘Who can say, having looked at a fleshless corpse, whether it was Hylas or Thersites, passer-by?’

Cook 1987: 26

Material: Marble Height: 430 millimetres Width: 340 millimetres Diameter: 40 millimetres Thickness: 63.5 millimetres Weight: 12 kilograms Current location: British Museum

Introduction The idea of the memento mori is not far removed from that of omnia mors aequat (see Dunbabin 1986: 213). Certainly Horace in his Odes uses both concepts together and interchangeably (1.4.1320; 2.3.12-15, 21-28; 2.14.9-12). A possible missing link between these two themes exists in the second-century grave altar of Antonia Panace (Figure 2, CIL 6.12059, Rome). Whilst it is a funerary context, this example is very much related to the skeleton-as-banqueter motif: the carved skeleton assuming the position of a banqueter with drink in hand represents the pleasures of life that the deceased will miss out on, having died at the age of nine (Vout 2014: 293n25; Dunbabin 2003: 136).

Skeletons in Roman Imperial funerary art are such a rarity that it seems apt to also mention the tomb of Critonia Philema (Figure 3, CIL 6.9824 = AE 2005, Rome), whose inscription is flanked by two skeletons. It appears that all current scholarship is concerned with her supposed occupation as a ritual sacrificer (unprecedented for a woman) and the skeletons are mentioned only in passing. It is likely due to the presence of two that they represent Critonia and the acquaintance with which she shares her tomb, and as such it is possible that they were intended as a memento mori to passersby.

The specific find-spot of this inscription (Figure 1) is unrecorded, other than that it was discovered in Rome. Smith, quoting the Townley Manuscripts, notes that it was “cut from the front of a cippus” (no. 2391). In the process it was apparently separated from any other inscription that may have accompanied it. All succeeding commentary locates it in a funerary context. It has been variously dated to the second or third centuries AD. Text The couplet asks a passer-by if they can tell from looking at a skeleton whether the deceased was Hylas, the most beautiful youth, or Thersites, ‘the ugliest man who had come to Ilium’ (Hom.Il.2.220). The concept mirrors closely a second-century passage by Lucian, in which Nireus replaces Hylas and is judged by Diogenes to be equal to Thersites in death (Luc.Dial.30).

The text is by no means typical of Greco-Roman funerary inscriptions. Throughout much of the Hellenistic and Roman Imperial periods epitaphs were concerned with re-establishing the deceased’s personal identity, as it was a source of anxiety that this was felt to be lost at the point of death (Garland 1985: xv; Sourvinou-Inwood 1995: 299). In his study on Images of Eternal Beauty in Funerary Verse Inscriptions of the Hellenistic and GrecoRoman Periods, Wypustek opens by tracking the progression of funerary epigrams from being interested primarily in the deceased’s virtues, to an additional concern for ‘the individual, … their biographies and the everyday aspects of their lives’ (2013: 3).

Commentators have noted the mocking and pessimistic tone of this inscription (Cohen 1973: 22-3; Walker 1985: 62), however the numerous inversions it contains of common funerary epitaph practices have not been collated.

The Second Sophistic era, to which this epitaph likely belongs, saw resurgence in interest in archaic mythology, with many children named after mythological heroes, and an increase in funerary epigrams comparing the deceased to heroes (Wypustek 2013: 7980). In addition, Wypustek’s study demonstrates the practice of recalling the physical desirability of the deceased. This in turn lead to examples of consolatory rhetoric in which the deceased was transported by the gods to the afterlife on account of their beauty (ibid: esp. 128). The first to third centuries AD saw an increase in Hylas’ abduction being referenced on tombs (ibid: 166), which could even be the reason Lucian’s Nireus was replaced.

This inscription inverts the aforementioned themes, comparing a hero to a villain and warning: omnia mors aequat. Parallels occur in funerary contexts throughout antiquity: an epigram attributed to Anyte of Tegea from the third century BC, in which King Darius’ slave becomes his equal in death (AP 7.538); another by Theaetetus of Cyrene says eighty men, a mix of freedmen and slaves, died together in a fire and their bones were indistinguishable (AP 7.444).

Any potential afterlife is not alluded to, perhaps even implicitly discounted, however eschatological pessimism is fairly common on epitaphs from the later Greco-Roman period (Wypustek 2013: 19, 19n49). Implicit in the use of σκῆνος is the role of the body as host for the soul (Liddell and Scott). The GIBM further notes that σκῆνος defines the state of the body once the soul has exited upon death (see GIBM 1114; Cf. CIG 1656). The commissioner of this inscription has chosen the soulless corpse as their subject rather than the potential fate of the soul that has left it. The use of σκῆνος was accordingly rare, with only ten examples evident on the PHI database.

Conclusion

Figure 1: IG XIV.2131 = CIG 6309, Epitaph, British Museum, no. 1805,0703.211

Bibliography

Primary Sources Homer, The Iliad, P. Jones (tr.) (2003) London: Penguin Books Ltd. Horace, Odes, D. West (tr.) (1997) Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Lucian, Dialogues of the Dead , M. D. Macleod (tr.) (1961) Loeb Classical Library.

Secondary Sources

Image The skeleton is skilfully carved, yet inconsistent. Whilst the skull, ribs, shoulders and kneecaps appear in somewhat skeletal form, the arms and legs seem to have muscle definition. The carver would almost certainly have had little knowledge of or experience with anatomy, as dissection was an illegal practice for much of antiquity (Nutton 2013: 219).

The carver created a rectangular indent around the skeleton, thus deliberately situating it in its tomb. Despite ancient anxieties over speedy and correct burial of the dead, it is perhaps too much of a stretch to say that the inscription also betrays a hint of: ‘stick to your customs and maintain civic order if you like; we’ll still all end up like this’ – but it is worth considering. Such cynicism is present on Cup B of the Boscoreale Treasure: a skeleton pours a libation over a crumpled pile of bones on the ground (Campania, first century BC, Dunbabin 1986: 226, 231, 233).

Dunbabin’s 1986 paper remains the most recent comprehensive study of skeletons in Greco-Roman art. She cautiously suggests the following developments in the theme (229, 233): the inanimate skeleton as an object displayed at banquets; depictions of the animate skeleton as a participant in the banquet [simultaneously to this: the philosopher pondering an inanimate skull; the philosopher accompanied by a skeleton]; the philosopher in the form of a skeleton; depictions of the animate skeleton accompanied by warnings to live a good life, and enjoy it (for example Cup A of the Boscoreale Treasure: a purse warns that ‘the accumulation of wealth leads only to envy’, ibid: 226). Many examples appear on symposium paraphernalia. It is thus apparent that the majority of skeleton depictions acted as a memento mori – a call to enjoy the moment because one day life will end.

That the epitaph, being the final opportunity to glorify the deceased, would be used to warn of the equality of death is extremely atypical. Instead of consolatory rhetoric, we find a mockery of it; in place of a flattering relief, a skeleton; beauty is immediately equated with ugliness.

Dunbabin concludes that use of skeletons to illustrate the general ‘eat, drink and be merry’ theme faded throughout the first century AD, perhaps because ‘a more serious mood discouraged the open hedonism of the theme’ (1986: 234). I tentatively suggest that the theme may have merged with the idea of omnia mors aequat after this time. The circulation of Lucian’s Dialogues of the Dead in the mid-second century further points to a dating of the late second to third centuries.

Dunbabin’s study concludes that in Greek and Roman art skeletons are very rarely used as simple images of the dead, and she says of this inscription: ‘the image of the skeleton gains its point only as an illustration of the epigram’ (1986: 245; see also Vout 2014: 292-3). Due to the infrequency of skeletons depicted in a funerary context I do rather believe that either the skeleton or the inscription alone would impart their message – the skeleton as an Epicurean memento mori, the inscription warning omnia mors aequat – but together, they perform in a dialogue with one another to complement each other’s message.

Figure 2: CIL 6.12059, Grave altar of Antonia Panace, Rome

Figure 3: CIL 6.9824 = AE 2005, Tomb of Critonia Philema, Rome

Imogen Willetts

Cohen, K. (1973) Metamorphoses of a Death Symbol: The Transi Tomb in the Late Middle Ages and the Renaissance , Berkeley: University of California Press.

Cook, B. F. (1987) Greek Inscriptions , London: British Museum Publications Ltd. Dunbabin, K. M. D. (1986) “Sic Erimus Cuncti: The Skeleton in Graeco-Roman Art”, JDAI 101, pp. 185-255.

Dunbabin, K. M. D. (2003) The Roman Banquet: Images of Conviviality, Cambridge University Press.

Garland, R. (2001) The Greek Way of Death, Second Edition, New York: Cornell University Press.

Liddell, H. G. & R. Scott (1940) A Greek-English Lexicon, Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Nutton, V. (2013) Ancient Medicine, Second Edition, London: Routledge.

Smith, A. H. (1901) A Catalogue of Sculpture in the Department of Greek and Roman Antiquities , British Museum, London: British Museum Publications Ltd. Sourvinou-Inwood, C. (1995) “Reading” Greek Death: to the End of the Classical Period, Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Vout, C. (2014) “The funerary altar of Pedana and the rhetoric of unreachability”, in J. Elsner & M. Meyer (eds.), Art and Rhetoric in Roman Culture, pp. 288-315, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Walker, S. (1985) Memorials to the Roman Dead , London: British Museum Publications Limited.

Wypustek, A. (2013) Images of Eternal Beauty in Funerary Verse Inscriptions of the Hellenistic and Greco-Roman Periods, Boston: Brill.

Thank you for visiting our online poster display.

To find out more about our Masters programmes, visit https://www.dur.ac.uk/classics/postgraduate/taught/ To learn more about the Department of Classics & Ancient History, visit www.durham.ac.uk/classics

Many thanks to our exhibitors: Adam Burge, Tomos Lloyd-Evans, Jonathan Sinclair, Elina Tzoka, Imogen Willets Images included in the posters here are used for non-commercial educational purposes under fair dealing. None of the material included in this exhibition should be reproduced or disseminated without permission.