No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
The Date of IG V (2) 516 (SIG3 800)*
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 11 October 2013
Extract
Since Wilhelm published, in 1909, his study of this inscription, scholars have unanimously accepted his conclusion that it belongs to the year A.D. 42. The purpose of this article is to examine the arguments both of Wilhelm and of others, notably von Premerstein, who support his conclusion, and to consider the possibility of giving the inscription a different date.
The document in question is a decree of the Arcadian polis Lykosoura honouring Nikasippos, son of Philippos, and his wife Timasistrata, daughter of Onasikrates, for their various benefactions. In particular Nikasippos ‘undertook the priesthood of Despoina during an Olympic year when no one was willing to come forward for appointment and there was no revenue for the mysteries. He paid money into the fiscus from his own private means (ἀπὲ̵ δωκεν ἐκ τοῦ ἰδὶου βὶου τῶι φὶσκωι) The following year, after the harvest had failed, Nikasippos undertook the priesthood with his wife Timasistrata at the wish of the Lykourasioi …’ The decree is dated by this second priesthood of Nikasippos (ἐπὶ ἱερὲος τᾶς Δεσποὶνας τὸ β Νικασὶππου τοῦ φιλὶππου), by the ἐπιμεληταὶ and by the formula ἒτους λ` καὶ β` κατὰ τὸν Σεβαστὸν Wilhelm's arguments for assigning it to A.D. 42 can be classed as: (i) historical; (ii) chronological; (iii) epigraphical and stylistic; (iv) prosopographical. Premerstein adds (v) further historical arguments.
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © The Council, British School at Athens 1954
References
1 Wilhelm, A.Beiträge zur griechischen Inschriftenkunde (Wien, 1909), 153–7, 311–12.Google Scholar
2 von Premerstein, A., Jahreshefte des österreichischen archäologischen Institutes XV (1912), 200 ff.Google Scholar; cf. also SIG 3 800.
3 Op. cit. 156. ‘Leider muss ich bekennen, dass dieser mir wenigstens bisher dunkel geblieben ist’.
4 Plutarch, Mor. 815D; IG IX (2) 520; Suetonius, , Tiberius 8.Google Scholar
5 Appian, , BC II 88Google Scholar; Plutarch, , Caes. 48Google Scholar; cf. Jones, A. H. M., The Greek City 324, n. 63.Google Scholar
6 Pausanias IV 31. 1, VIII 8. 12, 46. 1.
7 D.C. LI 2. 1, 4. 1.
8 Pausanias VIII 46. 1.
9 The Tegean inscriptions which are dated from Actium exclusively are IG V (2) 49 (no mention of the later Hadrianicera) and probably 84. Both the Actian and Hadrianic eras are used ibid 51. The present writer cannot agree with the remark of Jones (op. cit. 117) that ‘new eras celebrate the beginning of freedom’. The Macedonian and Corinthian eras marked the beginning of a new Roman régime, as did the Actian era in the Peloponnese. For the Macedonian and Actianeras, cf. Kubitschek, W., Grundriss der antiken Zeitrechnung (München, 1928), 74–5.Google Scholar Kubitschek does not, however, mention the Peloponnesian inscriptions.
10 Bogud of Mauretania had held Methone for Antony and was killed there when the place was taken by Agrippa. D.C. L 11. 3, Porphyrius, , de abstinentia I 25Google Scholar, Orosius VI 19. 6.
11 IG V (1) 1398, dated ἒτους σοз` The frequency of the appearance of the name Aurelius makes it obvious that the date is later than A.D. 212, and that the so-called Corinthian era of 146 B.C. is therefore out of the question. On the other hand, the 277th year of the Thessalian era would bring the date down as far as A.D. 286/7, and it is extremely unlikely that the ephebeia of Korone could have flourished, as the inscription describes, at so late a date and in such unsettled times. The commencement of the era is clearly Actium.
For Spartan ownership of the towns mentioned: Pausanias III 26. 7, IV 31. 1, HN 2 433, IG V (1) 34, 36, 44.
12 GV (1) 375, dated ἒτους σ̣μθ` For the same reasons as those given in note 11, this, like the date in the Korone inscription, must refer to the Actian era.
13 Ibid. 1468, 1469, 1392(?), 1359 and 1346(?). For the probable attribution of 1346 to a Messenian city, cf. Woodward, A. M., Historia I (1950), 632–3.Google Scholar The fate of Pherai after Actium was, in the words of Pausanias (IV 30. 2), συντελει̇ν . . . . ὲς τὸ Λακωνικὸν
14 Tod, M. N., BSA XXIII (1918–1919), 213Google Scholar (à propos the use of different eras).
15 Wilhelm, op. cit. 153, Kubitschek, J. W., Festschrift für H. Kiepert (Berlin, 1898), 351 ff.Google Scholar, id., RE I 651, Premerstein, loc. cit. 201–2.
16 Tod, loc. cit. 208, 212–13.
17 Mentioned in the inscription quoted. Cf. also IG V (2) 50, 52.
18 In any case, Hadrian probably did not go straight to Arcadia, but called first at other places, e.g. Epidauros, (IG IV 2606)Google Scholar, Argos, (BCH LXVIII–LXIX (1944–1945), 397–401)Google Scholar, Nemea (Pausanias VI 16.4), Troizen, (IG IV 1758).Google ScholarIG IV2 606, dated by the formula δημαρχικῆς ὲξσυσὶας τὸ η `, υ̇πατον τὸ γ` proves that Hadrian was honoured by Epidauros between 10th December A.D. 123 and 9th December A.D. 124. The honours recorded in this inscription can thus be dated more precisely to some time in October or November A.D.124. Hiller's note (IG IV2Prolegomena xxxiii 36), stating that the first year of the Hadrianic era in Epidauros ran from September A.D. 123 to September A.D. 124, must therefore be corrected: it ran from A.D. 124 to A.D. 125. His restoration [δὲ ἒτους τεσσαρακοοτοῦ] in IG IV2 88, l. 22 must also be emended to [ἒτους τριακοστοῦ ὸγδὸου] or [ἒτους τριακοστοῦ ὲνὰτου] depending on whether the document was published before or after the end of the Epidaurian year in A.D. 163. Cf. also Hermes LXIV (1929), 66.
For the chronology of Hadrian's activities in Greece, cf. in particular Kolbe, W., AM XLVI (1921), 112 ff.Google Scholar, Graindor, P., Athènes sous Hadrien (Cairo, 1934), 3–8Google Scholar; also Wolters, P., AM XXVIII (1903), 294Google Scholar, n. 1, Dürr, J., Die Reisen des Kaisers Hadrian (Wien, 1881)Google Scholar, Kornemann, E., Kaiser Hadrian (Leipzig, 1905), 50–1Google Scholar, Weber, W., Untersuchungen zur Geschichte des Kaisers Hadrianus (Leipzig, 1907), 150 ff., esp. 180–91.Google Scholar
19 Not A.D. 123/4, as Premerstein (loc. cit. 212–14) concluded, on the assumption that the Actian era began in 32/1 B.C. Cf. Kolbe, loc. cit. 115–16.
20 Corinth VIII 1, 14; cf. SEG XI 61.
21 The use of ω, noted in SIG 3800, can be paralleled in other inscriptions of Augustan date, e.g. IG 2 II–III 3177, 3264, 4038, to mention only a few which occur most readily to mind. Cf. in general Wilhelm op. cit. 153–4.
22 E.g. IG V (1) 1359 A. Cf. Tod, loc. cit 212–13.
23 Op. cit. 154–6.
24 Ch. Cornelius Pulcher of Epidauros had been gymnasiarch and agoranomos at the age of four (IG IV2 652/3). In times of financial difficulty the main qualifications for many of the state leitourgiai were not of age, but of wealth; cf. Dow, S., Hesperia, Suppl. VIII (1949), 123–4.Google Scholar
25 Tacitus, , Annals VI 18.Google Scholar Wilhelm (op. cit. 156) gives the reference wrongly as VI 8.
26 Taylor, L. R. and West, A. B., AJA XXX (1926), 389 ff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Chrimes, K. M. T., Ancient Sparta (Manchester, 1949), 183 and n. 6.Google Scholar
27 For the date of birth of Spartiatikos, cf. Chrimes, op. cit. 185–7.
28 Loc. cit. 202–5.
29 JRS XI (1950), 22–9.
30 Seneca, de beneficiis IV 39. 3, VII 6. 3.
31 Loc. cit. 25.
32 In a letter Professor Jones has suggested the possibility of an alternative interpretation, according to which φὶσκος might be a very early use of the word meaning the emperor's financial department, including his private revenue: Lykosoura may have owed money to Augustus as Chios did, Josephus, , Ant. Jud. XVI 2.2.Google Scholar
33 IG V (2) 268, ll. 29–30: προσηνὴς ὲγὲνετ[ο] καὶ τῆ θειοτ[ὰτ]η συνκλὴτῳ μὴ κομὶзων κατηγορὶαν ὰν̣[θυ]π̣ὰτων ὰλλ᾿ ὲπαινον
34 Tacitus, , Annals I 76.Google Scholar