No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
The Macedonian Era. II
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 11 October 2013
Extract
In the last volume of this Annual (xxiii. 206 ff.) I attempted to restate the arguments for the view that the provincial era of Macedonia dates from 1st Dios, 148 B.C., and the Actian (or, to give it the name which it bore in Macedonia, the Augustan) era from 1st Dios, 32 B.C.
I mentioned (p. 210) Prof. M. Holleaux as having expressed in 1914 a doubt of the continued existence of separate Macedonian and Achaean eras running concurrently and a desire for further investigation of the question. This was, indeed, the starting-point of my own inquiry. I regret, however, that I overlooked a later statement of the same scholar (Rev. Et. Anc. xix. 81), who in 1917 accepted as fully established the Macedonian era of 148 B.C., and pointed out that the Oxyrhynchus Epitome of Livy proves that the defeat of Andriscus and the submission of Macedonia took place in that year (cf. Kornemann, Die neue Livius-Epitome aus Oxyrhynchus, 91 f., 113 f.). Further, in an article which became accessible to me only after my own discussion was already in print, Pomtow himself has declared in favour of the earlier starting-point of the Macedonian era, on the ground both of the Macedonian and also of the Delphian documents.
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © The Council, British School at Athens 1921
References
page 54 note 1 Oxyrhynchus Papyri, iv. No. 668, ll. 100 ff., 127.
page 54 note 2 Klio, xvi. 150 note, 155 ff.
page 55 note 1 Kaestner, p. 54, gives the three (Nos. 19, 20, 23) known when he wrote.
page 55 note 2 The inscription, dated in 1. 37 ἔτους βις Σεβαστοῦ Πανἡμου δευγἑρᾳ, also bears (l. 29) the double dating ἔτους βις Σεβαστοῦ τοῦ καἱ ηκτ.
page 55 note 3 Delacoulonche gives ЄΤΟΥССГΞССЄΒΑСТОΥ in his copy, but ἔτους СГξσєβστοῦ in his transcript. Demitsas transcribes ἔτους сγξсΣεβαστοῦ τοῦ, calls attention to the ‘peculiar union of four letters for the date сγξс, which cannot be determined without some alteration’, and misstates Delacoulonche's solution. P. Perdrizet in B.C.H., loc. cit. writes ἔτους σγξ′ Σεβαστοῦ. In view of the almost invariable observance of the ascending order of the numerals in Macedonian year-dates, I accept without hesitation the reading wrongly attributed by Demitsas to the original editor. So also Kaestner, p. 54.
page 56 note 1 Kubitschek's statement (Pauly-Wissowa, i. 640, l. 38) that this era pflegt auf den Inschriften als die Aera τοῦ Σεβαστοῦ bezeichnet zu werden overlooks the fact that the definite article is not used with Σεβαστοῦ in the date-formula: in No. 22 it goes with ἔτους, in No. 24 with ἔτει subauditum. The difficulty would have been solved if the abbreviation Σєβ. in No. 24 had been written out in full.
page 57 note 1 Cumont transcribes inadvertentlyτῷ ζπς ἔτ(ε)ι.
page 57 note 2 Delac. read ΓΝΓ: I accept the restoration ΓΝС (with Dem.) rather than Kaestner's ΤΝΓ.
page 58 note 1 These are, I feel sure, the correct readings of the text No. 76 (79), wrongly copied by its original editor.
page 58 note 2 Delac. and Hogarth (in J.H.S.) read διτ followed by Kaestner (p. 61): Duch. and Dem. read δοτ.
page 58 note 3 Rev. Et. Gr. and B. ph. W. read επ[τ]: but see ᾿Αθηνῦ xii. 77.
page 58 note 4 See p. 61, note 2.
page 59 note 1 Kaestner's remark Cousineryus edidit titulum, quem descripsisse se contenait e fundamentis aedis sacrae Mohammedanorum, quae est in oppidulo Eski-Djumna dicto, sed Le Basius eundem titulum Thessalonicae vindicat is based on a misunderstanding.
page 60 note 1 He proceeds bien que, d'un autre côté, une inscription de l'empereur Zénon nous montre l'ère d'Auguste se maintenant à Thessalonique jusqu'en l'an 512 après J.-C. The last words are due to inadvertence, the year being 512 of an unknown era, not 512 A.D. For the inscription referred to see above, No. 111.
page 61 note 1 Heuzey restored ᾿Αντω[νεἱνῳ Γορδι]ανῷ but a glance at his copy will show that this restoration is too long for the available space, and the name of Gordian III is Antonius, never Antoninus, (Prosop. Imp. Rom. i. 99, No. 666Google Scholar; Dessau, , Inscr. Lat. Sel. 497–504Google Scholar, etc.). He also restored [ἔτους ε]πτ (Oct. 237–Oct. 238), which is inadmissible, for the third Gordian did not enter on his second tenure of tribunician power till Dec. 10, 238. We must therefore read [Ғ]πτ or possibly [ζ]πτ Kaestner appears to have overlooked this inscription.
page 61 note 2 The only copy of No. 108, that of Cousinéry, gives the date as ΕΤΟΥСΟΥ (ou ΘΥ). Kaestner is inclined to accept the alternative θυ: I, for the reasons implied in my present argument, am convinced that this is the correct reading.
page 62 note 1 In this paragraph I follow mainly Gibbon's, Decline and Fall, chs. x, xi (ed. Bury, , i. 259 ff.).Google Scholar See also Tafel, T. L. F., De Thessalonica eiusque agro, xl f.Google Scholar; Finlay, G., Greece under the Romans, ch. i. § 14Google Scholar; Hertzberg, G. F., Geschichte Griechenlands unter der Herrschaft der Römer, iii. 182 ff.Google Scholar; Schiller, H., Geschichte der röm. Kaiserzeit, i. § 82.Google Scholar
page 63 note 1 See J. Hatzfeld, Les Trafiquants Italiens dans l'Orient Hellénique, and the same writer's list of Italians resident at Delos, in B.C.H. xxxvi, 10 ff.Google Scholar
page 63 note 2 Groag, E., s. v. Claudius in Pauly-Wissowa, iii. 2667, l. 3 ff.Google Scholar
page 63 note 3 Klebs, , s. v. Aelius in Pauly-Wissowa, i. 489, l. 4 ff.Google Scholar
page 63 note 5 In No. 46 the name apparently occurs as early as A.D. 59/60. But I feel sure that Kaestner is right in his conjecture (p. 59) that ΖС stands for ξσ, though I do not believe that a numerical sign preceded the Ζ. In No. 4 ϚΖР unquestionably stands for Ϝξρ, and it would be easy to multiply similar instances, e.g. [Φ]ΙΛΟΖΕΝΟ⌈С⌉ in an Ancyran inscription (A.-E.M.Ö. ix. 127, No. 91). Thus No. 46 would belong, like No. 56, to A.D. 112/13.
page 63 note 6 I pass over No. 27, dated ἔτους ΘΛ in which a P. Aelius and an Aelia are mentioned. The reading is vouched for by two independent authorities, but the ancient engraver was certainly careless (he wrote twice over the μη of μηνός) and may have omitted a τ after θλ. In any case, the character of the writing seems to me inconsistent with the supposition that the inscription belongs to the year 39, whether calculated by the provincial or by the Augustan era.
page 64 note 1 It is fair to add that in No. 91 the reading ΖΟΜ has been conjecturally altered to ΖΟΤ because of the occurrence of the name Aurelius. The name Aurelianus (-a) is found in 249/50: see No. 101 (105).
page 64 note 2 I do not regard the Στραττὡ δοὐλη θεᾶς ἀνικἠτου Μᾶς (No. 99) as an exception: the Αὐρηλἰα Λύκαα ή Λύκου (No. 106) may be only an apparent exception, for Lycus may have died before A.D. 213.
page 66 note 1 The inscription contains the phrase κατἀ τὁ δὀξαν τῇ κρατἱστῃ βουλῇ καἱ τᾠ λαμποτρἁτῳ δἡμῳ τῆς Θεσσαλονεικἐων μητροπὁλεως καἱ κολωνεἱας.
page 66 note 2 A.-E.M.Ö. xvii. 118. Cf. B.M. Coins: Macedonia, lxiii.
page 66 note 3 Z. f. N. xxiv. 297 ff.
page 67 note 1 Mowat, R., Bull. Soc. Nat. Ant. de France, 1902, 311Google Scholar; Dressel, H., Fünf Goldmedaillons aus dem Funde von Abukir, Plate III. 3Google Scholar; Journ. Intern. d'Arch. Num. x. Plate XII. 1.
page 67 note 2 Z. f. N. xxiv. 245 ff. xxv. 1ff. (especially xxiv. 311 ff., 317 ff., xxv. 32 ff.). Cf. Kaestner, 54 f.; Coins, B. M.: Macedonia, lv. 23, 26, 62Google Scholar; Head, , H.N. 2241–3.Google Scholar