Epigraphical Approaches to the Post-classical Polis (Fourth Century BC to Second Century AD) ||

Page 1 of 11 Τ# τ#ν #µποριτ#ν φιλ#νθρωπα:PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2013.All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of amonograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber: FordhamUniversity; date: 01 March 2013

Epigraphical Approaches to the Post-classical Polis: FourthCentury BC to Second Century ADParaskevi Martzavou and Nikolaos Papazarkadas

Print publication date: 2012Print ISBN-13: 9780199652143Published to Oxford Scholarship Online: Jan-13DOI: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199652143.001.0001

Τὰ τῶν ἐμποριτῶν φιλάνθρωπα:

Miltiades B. Hatzopoulos

DOI: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199652143.003.0002

Abstract and Keywords

The discovery in 1990, in the region of Philippoupolis/Plovdiv (Bulgaria),of a 46 line Greek inscription dating from the mid-fourth century bc hasprovoked great interest, has been the object of a special conference, and hasoccasioned the publication of an important number of studies. Nevertheless,several crucial points remain unsettled: To what diplomatic category doesthe document belong? Who is its author? Where does the locality Pistiros,mentioned in the document, lie? What is the exact nature of the relationshipbetween the different population groups (Thracians, Emporitai, Pistirinoi,Maronitai, Thasians, Apolloniatai) mentioned therein? What punctuationsshould lines 20–27 receive and how should they be interpreted? How shouldlines 24–26 be read and understood? Such are the questions which thischapter reviews and to which it attempts to give satisfactory answers. Thenew analysis allows a better understanding of the trade privileges granted toMaroneia by the rulers of the Odrysian kingdom.

Keywords: Apolloniatai, Emporitai, Maroneia, Odrysian kingdom, Pistiros, Philippoupolis,population groups, rulers, trade, Thasians

http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy


Fig. 1.1. Pistiros in Eastern Thrace

In 1990, a 46-line inscription was discovered near the ruins of the Romanwaystation known as Bona Mansio, in the region of Philippopolis (Fig. 1).1Although the beginning and end of the text are not preserved in theirentirety, it was evident from the start that what we have is a document of aThracian king from the middle of the fourth century bc which concerned thegranting of privileges to groups of merchants. The inscription was presentedfor the first time at the Tenth International Congress of Greek and LatinEpigraphy in 1992. It was published in a Polish scientific journal in 1993,2in the Bulletin de Correspondance Hellénique in 1994,3 and in the firstvolume of the archaeological series Pistiros in 1996.4 It was the subject in1998 of an international symposium convened in Bulgaria and attendedby distinguished scholars whose contributions were published in 1999 inthe Bulletin de Correspondance Hellénique.5 On account of its importanceand uniqueness, the inscription has been republished and commentedupon many times since its original publication. Nevertheless, specialistshave yet to agree on many basic points. The contested issues include: (1)the classification of the document; (2) the identity of its ‘issuer’; (3) theidentification of Pistiros; (4) the exact relationship between the mentionedgroups (Θρᾷκες, ἐμπορῖται, Πιστιρηνοί, Μαρωνῖται, Θάσιοι, Ἀπολλωνιῆται):Thrakes, emporitai, Pisterenoi, Maronitai, Thasioi, (p. 14 ) Apollonietai; (5)the punctuation, and consequently the meaning of lines 20–7; 6) the readingof lines 24–6.

1. The text consists of two parts separated by punctuation inline 27, which suggests that we are dealing with two distinctdocuments. The first one is made up of a series of sentences inthe imperative and the infinitive. The alternation between these



two modes is typical of both civil laws6 and royal ordinances.7Given the context, it has been unanimously accepted that it is anordinance emanating from a Thracian king or dynast. The secondpart begins after the punctuation mark in line 27 and consists ofa series of sentences in the first person indicative future tense,which are characteristic of solemn proclamations, usually underoath, that accompany treaties. What is odd about this document isthat it contains guarantees and privileges accorded to only one ofthe contracting parties, by the other party, the grantor. Unilateralproclamations sanctioned by oaths are indeed attested in the caseof the surrender of cities or armies, such as, for example, the treatyof Eupolemos with the people of Theangela which is accompaniedonly by the oath of the dynast.8 This is (p. 15 ) natural given thatafter the surrender of the city, which was provided for in the sworncontract made by Eupolemos, the people of Theangela would havebeen at his mercy. We do not know under what circumstancesthe Odrysian king Kotys (383/2–359 bc) made this proclamationwhich was incorporated verbatim in the ordinance of one of hissuccessors.2. Even though it is clear, in the light of the above, that the‘issuer’ of the document was a Thracian dynast who incorporatedKotys’ proclamation in his own ordinance, there is no agreementconcerning his identification. The reference to the latter inline 27 leaves us in no doubt that what we have is one of hissuccessors. But, which one? In the treaty of 357 between theAthenians and Thracians, the single kingdom of Kotys, just twoyears after his death, appears to have been divided into threeparts, from west to east, between three Thracian rulers: Berisades,Amadokos, and Kotys’ son Kersebleptes, respectively.9 The natureof relations between the first two, and between them and Kotysand Kersebleptes, is obscure. Just one year later, in a treaty of theAthenians with the kings of the Illyrians, Paionians, and Thracians,Ketriporis and his brothers have succeeded Berisades.10 Given thegeographical position of the inscription’s find spot, the anonymoussuccessor to Kotys was, in all likelihood, the king of the centralsection of the old kingdom, in other words, Amadokos, who reigneduntil 253.11

3. The first editors of the inscription and excavators of thearchaeological site near the find spot identified this place with thePistiros mentioned in the inscription. A Greek fortification fromthe Classical and Hellenistic periods has been discovered at the



site.12 The identification of the site with Pistiros was adopted bymost scholars. Bravo and Chankowski formulated a different view,13

according to which they identified the inscription’s Pistiros withPistyros in Aegean Thrace mentioned by Herodotos.14 Salviat hassubmitted the more novel suggestion that Herodotos’ Pistyros andthe ethnic Kystirioi, which occurs in the Athenian tribute lists,15

should be identified with the settlement in the Thracian hinterlandnear the find spot of the inscription.16 It would, though, be verypeculiar if the regulative document recorded in the inscriptionwere unrelated to the only trading centre that has been excavatedin precisely the same area. As has already been noted, the closeresemblance in name between the trading centre of Pistiros and thesettlement on the Aegean (p. 16 ) coast is owed, in all probability,to the fact that it was founded by citizens from the latter.17

4. The fourth contested issue is the degree to which the variousgroups mentioned in the document—emporitai, Pistirenoi, and theMaronitai, Thasioi, and Apollonietai—ought to be identified withor distinguished from each other. Careful reading of the text18

leads to the conclusion that the general category of Greek tradersconsists of merchants settled in Pistiros and merchants active inother markets. The privileges granted by the anonymous dynastin lines 4–20 refer to all merchants in general and, with referenceto the presence of a guard and the taking of hostages, it refersparticularly to those living in Pistiros; those in lines 20–32 referto the people of Maroneia, while those in lines 32–6 refer to themerchants of Thasos and Apollonia. Although all merchants ofMaroneia, irrespective of their places of origin, benefit from therelevant order, only the Thasians and Apollonietai ‘ἐμ Πιστίρωι’ (inPistiros) are conceded special royal protection.

A secondary question concerns the precise identity of the ‘Apollonietai’.These are citizens of either Apollonia in Mygdonia near Lake Bolbe;19

or Apollonia in Pieria20 on the Strymonic Gulf between Galepsos andOisyme and opposite Thasos; or Apollonia on the Black Sea. Each of theseidentifications has its supporters,21 but the great distance of the latter fromthe excavated settlement of Pistiros, on the one hand, and the association ofthe Thasians and Apollonietai in lines 32–3, on the other, lead us to concludein favour of the identification of the Apollonietai with the citizens of the cityon the Strymonic Gulf.



5. Lines 20–7 have been punctuated in various ways. Mostscholars consider the first part of the colon to be τέλεα κατὰ τὰςὁδοὺς μὴ πρήσσειν ὅσα εἰς Μαρώνειαν εἰσάγεται ἐκ Πιστίρου ἢἐκ τῶν ἐμπορίων ἢ ‘γ Μαρωνείης εἰς Πίστιρον καὶ τὰ ἐμπόριαΒΕΛΑΝΑΠΡΑΣΕ[—]Ν, while they hold the second unit to be thecolon τοὺς ἐμπορίτας τὰς ἁ(μ)άξας καὶ ἀνοίγειν καὶ κλείειν ἅμα[καθ]άπερ καὶ ἐπὶ Κότυος, where there is a punctuation mark on thestone. Some scholars attach the last four words to the precedingclauses22 and some to the following colon, which continues untilline 32.23 Only one scholar, Avram, takes τέλεα κατὰ τὰς ὁδοὺς μὴπρήσσειν as the first unit, and the rest of (p. 17 ) the text down toalmost the end of line 27 as the second unit.24 Most scholars haveinterpreted the letters ̣Β̣Ε̣ΛΑΝΑΠΡΑΣ̣Ε[—]Ν as the name of a groupof trading centres Βέλανα Πρασε[νῶ]ν. An opposing view has beenvoiced only by Iris von Bredow, who doubts the correctness of anethnic Πρασενῶν instead of the expected Πρασηνῶν, and readsinstead the word πράσε[ω]ν (purchases), which she associatedwith the non-payment of customs duties;25 and by L. Loukopoulou,who recognizes in the controversial letters some form of the verbἀναπράσσω (to resell), while subsequently instead of τὰς ἁμάξαςshe reads #τὰς# ἁπαξ[άπαν] καὶ ἀνοίγειν καὶ κλείειν.26

In my opinion, the following factors should be taken into account with regardto the punctuation:

a. All the preceding colons are introduced by the direct object:γῆγ καὶ βοσκήν…˙ἐπαυλιστάς…˙φρουρήμ…˙[ὁμ]ήρους…˙τὰ τῶυἐμποριτέωμ. Therefore, it is unlikely that punctuation was intendedin line 21.b. One would expect there to be an exact correspondence betweenthe goods imported into Maroneia and those exported from thesame city. It would then follow that both colons ought to concludewith a reference to trade centres other than in Pistiros. Therefore,there is no justification for restoring Βελανα Πρασε[νῶν] andinterpreting it as an indicator of place alluding only to tradingcentres that import from Maroneia and not trading centres thatexport to Maroneia, which are mentioned first. Consequently, it ismore likely that there must have been punctuation in line 24 afterthe word ἐμπόρια.27



Therefore, the exemption indeed refers to commercial transactions withMaroneia and constitutes part of the privileged treatment of this city by theanonymous Thracian dynast.

It remains to understand the colon ΒΕΛΑΝΑΠΡΑΣΕ[—]Ν τοὺς ἐμπορίτας τὰςἁμάξας καὶ ἀνοίγειν καὶ κλείειν ἅμα [καθ]άπερ καὶ ἐπὶ Κότυος. This requiressomewhat intricate argumentation.

a. We have the good fortune to possess a quite detailed ancienttext which allows us to see the wagons of traders in action.Arrian, in the first chapter of the first book of his Anabasis ofAlexander, describes in detail an episode during the campaign ofthe Macedonian king in Thrace (Arrian, Anabasis 1. 1. 6–7):

Then he (Alexander) crossed the river Nestos and is said in ten days to havereached Mount Haimos, where he was met in the defile of the approach tothe mountains by many of the merchants in arms and by the independentThracians; prepared to bar his (p. 18 ) advance, they had occupied theheight of Haimos with their caravan. They collected carts (ἁμάξας) and setthem up in their front as a stockade from which to put up a defence, if theywere pressed…’28

From Arrian’s description it is clear that Alexander was involved by chancein a collision, in a pass of the Haimos Mountains, with a caravan (τῷ στόλῳsuggested correction of τὸν στόλον) of merchants who were returning fromthe far side of the mountain range, their wagons loaded with merchandiseand accompanied by armed Thracians. Even though Arrian (or his source,Ptolemy) alludes to an armed encounter of political significance,29 it isobvious that the purpose of the merchants’ defence was simply to protectthe precious merchandise they were transporting, in order to sell it in theGreek cities along the coast. The Macedonians would certainly view themerchandise as lawful booty in wartime—and indeed we subsequentlyread that ‘Alexander sent the booty back to the coastal cities, having givenit to Lysanias and Philotas to dispose of’.30 The description furnishes uswith interesting material regarding the way of life of these daring Greekmerchants, who clearly led a life on the road with their wagons together withtheir ‘wives…as many as were traveling with them…and children’,31 just ascenturies later other daring traders would live in the American Wild West.Details concerning these wagons, which presumably the Greek merchantsadopted in imitation of the local population, are provided in the Hippocratictreatise On Winds (18) which refers to the Scythians:



There too live the Scythians who are called Nomads, because they haveno houses, but live in wagons (ἁμάξῃσιν). The smallest have four wheels,others six wheels. They are covered over with felt and are constructed likehouses, sometimes in two compartments and sometimes in three, which areproof against rain, snow and wind. The wagons are drawn by two or by threeyoke of hornless oxen. They have no horns because of the cold. Now in thesewagons live the women, while the men ride alone on horseback, followed bythe sheep they have, their cattle and their horses.32

Such were the wagons with regard to which Kotys’ successor had grantedthe merchants the right to ‘open and close’. Louisa Loukopoulou haspointed out that this last expression is a technical term used in connectionwith trading centres or market places,33 as today it would be used inconnection with shops, (p. 19 ) and signifies the permission or not to makecommercial transactions.34 In other words, permission had been grantedto the merchants to sell their goods, at will, from the wagons in which theywere transporting them. It is more likely that this privilege held good onlyon the roads leading to and from Maroneia and not in the trading centresthemselves, since duties collected on them constituted a basic source ofincome for the Thracian kings, as we are informed by Demosthenes.35

b. It remains to interpret the most difficult point of the text in lines24–5. If the hypothetical name of unattested trading centres isout of place at this point, what can the letters ̣Β̣Ε̣ΛΑΝΑΠΡΑΣ̣Ε|[—]Ν mean? Iris von Bredow had already suggested reading πράσε[ω]ν at the end of the line of letters,36 while Louisa Loukopoulousought a verb or substantive with, as its first compound, the prefixἀνά.37 In my opinion, the problematic word is the technical termἀνάπρασις which is found and explained in the Onomastikonof Polydeukes: τὸ δὲ δεύτερόν τι πιπράσκειν ἀναπωλεῖν καὶἀναπιπράσκειν λέγουσι καὶ τὸ ἔργον ἀνάπρασιν, καὶ τοὺς τοῦτοποιοῦντας ἀναπιπράσκοντας καὶ ἀναπωλοῦντας, καὶ τὰ δεύτερονπιπρασκόμενα ἀναπωλούμενα καὶ ἀναπιπρασκόμενα, παλίμπρατα ἢπαλίμβολα, καὶ ὁ ταῦτα πωλῶν παλίμβολος καὶ παλιγκάπηλος. (Poll.Onom. 7.12). The meaning of this rare term (=‘retailer of importedproduce’) is illuminated by the related verb παλιγκαπηλεύω, ‘ tobe a retail dealer’. Consequently, there is no doubt that ἀνάπρασιςmeans the retail sale of goods.

Which, though, is the word which the three preceding letters form? The stonedoes not permit a clear answer. The first letter has undergone a corrective



intervention. Today it resembles a Cyrillic B. Originally, it may have been aΓ, Ε or Κ. The second letter today is an Ἐ, but originally it may have beenanother rectangular letter. The third letter is a poorly carved Α. Obviouslyat this point (and not only here) the carver had a serious problem readingand understanding the text he had been given. The preposition that wouldbring all together is ἐπί (=‘concerning’). The meaning of the entire sentencewould then be: ‘Whatever is imported into Maroneia from Pistiros or fromthe trading centres or from Maroneia into Pistiros or the trading centresshall be exempt from duties along the roads. Concerning the retail saleof goods, the merchants may open and also shut their wagons exactly asthey did under Kotys.’ In other words, the privilege of the merchants fromMaroneia to sell as they wished outside the trading centres only appliedto retail goods. This, then, is the explanation of why full asylum is grantedto the people of Maroneia without geographical specification or limitation,whereas the asylum granted to the (p. 20 ) people of Thasos and Apolloniais strictly confined to Pistiros. Only the Maroneians were granted the right toconduct retail trade, without paying duty, even outside the trading centresdetermined, and taxed, by the kings of Thrace. There thus can be no doubtabout the privileged position of Maroneia in the Odrysian kingdom.

• [‐‐‐‐‐ c.20 ‐‐‐‐‐]ΚΚΚ/• [‐‐‐‐‐ c.12 ‐‐‐] ΔΕΝΝΥ..Η εἰ δὲ..• [….ὀμνύτ]ω τὸν Διόνυσογ καὶ• 4 [….] ὀφειλέτω· ὅ τι ἂν δέ τις τῶν• [ἐμπ]οριτέων ἐπικαλῆι ὁ ἕτερος τ-• [ῶι ἑ]τέρωι κρίνεσθαι αὐτοὺς ἐπὶ τ-• [οῖς] συγγενέσι καὶ ὅσα ὀφείλετα[ι]• 8 τοῖς ἐμπορίταις παρὰ τοῖς Θραιξ-• [ί]ν, τούτωγ χρεῶν ἀποκοπὰς μὴ• ποιεῖγ· γῆγ καὶ βοσκὴν ὅσην ἔχουσ-• ιν ἐμπορῖται, ταοτα μὴ ἀφαιρεῖ-• 12 [σθ]αι· ἐπαυλιστὰς μὴ πέμπειν το-• [ῖς] ἐμπορίταις· φρουρὴμ μηδεμίαν• εἰς Πίστιρον καταστῆσαι μήτε α-• [ὐτ]ὸμ μήτε ἄλλωι ἐπιτρέπειν·• 16 [ὁμ]ήρους Πιστιρηνῶμ μὴ λαμ-• [βάν]ειμ μηδὲ ἄλλωι ἐπιτρέπειν·• [τὰ] τῶν ἐμποριτέωμ μὴ [ἀ]φαιρεῖ-• [σθ]αι μήτε αὀτὸμ μήτ[ε το]ὺς ἑ-• 20 [αυτ]οῦ· τέλεα κατὰ τὰς ὁδοὺς• μὴ πρήσσειν, ὅσα εἰς Μαρώνεια[ν]• [εἰσ]άγεται ἐκ Πιστίρου ἢ ἐκ τῶν ἐ-



• [μ]πορίων ἢ ‘γ Μαρωνείης εἰς Πίτ-• 24 [ιρ]ον ἢ τὰ ἐμπόρια· #ἐπὶ# ἀναπράσε-• [ω]ν τοὺς ἐμπορίτας τὰς ἁ#μ#άξ-• [ας] καὶ ἀνοίγειγ καὶ κλείειν ἅμα,• [καθ]άπερ καὶ ἐπὶ Κότυος: ἄνδρα Μ-• 28 [αρω]νίτην οὐ δήσω οὐδὲ ἀποκτ-• [ενέ]ω οὐδὲ ἀφαιρήσομαι χρήμα-• [τα] οὔτε ζῶντος οὔτε ἀποθανόν-• [τος] οὔτε αὐτὸς οὔτε τῶν ἐμῶν• 32 [οὐ]δείς· οὐδὲ Ἀπολλωνιητέων, οὐδ-• [ὲ Θ]ασίων, ὅσοι ἐμ Πιστίρωι εἰσί[ν],• [οὔ]τε ἀποκτενέω οὐδένα, οὔτε• [δήσω] οὔτε ἀφαιρήσομαι χρήμα-• 36 [τα οὔ]τε ζῶντος οὔτε ἀποθανό-• [ντος οὔτε]αὐτὸς οὔτε τῶν ἐμῶν• [οὐδείς· εἰ δέ τις] τῶν οἰκητόρων• [‐‐‐‐ c.13–14 ‐‐‐‐]των οὗ ὁ ἐμπορ-• (p. 21 ) 40 [‐‐‐‐ c.15–16 ‐‐‐‐]ον εἰσὶν ΑΙΜ-• [‐‐‐‐ c.15–16 ‐‐‐‐]ν, ἐὰμ μὴ ΑΜ-• [‐‐‐‐ c.15–16 ‐‐ τ]ις ἀδικῆι τὸ• [‐‐‐‐ c.15–16 ‐‐‐‐] τε ΕΨΩΑΛΛΑ• 44 [‐‐‐‐ c.16–17 ‐‐‐‐]χεὺς τὴν ἐπι-• [‐‐‐‐ c.10–11 ‐‐‐‐ δι’ ἑκάστ]ου ἐνιαυτοῦ• [‐‐‐‐ c.16–17 ‐‐‐‐]Α.

(p. 22 )

Notes:

The translation of the difficult and controversial passage of the inscription (ll.20–7) is given at the end of the chapter.

(1) On the circumstances of the discovery, see Velkov and Domaradzka(1994) 1.

(2) Domaradzka (1993) 55–7, non vidi.

(3) Velkov and Domaradzka (1994) 1–15.

(4) Velkov and Domaradzka (1996) 205–16.

(5) BCH 123 (1999) 247–371.


http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/view/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199652143.001.0001/acprof-9780199652143-bibliography-1#acprof-9780199652143-bibItem-1007





(6) Cf. IG XII. 6, 1, 169.

(7) Cf. Hatzopoulos (2001) 161, no 3, fr. A, col. I.

(8) S.V. 429.

(9) Meiggs-Lewis, GHI 47.

(10) Ibid. 53.

(11) Salviat (1999) 260, prefers Kersebleptes.

(12) For the excavations on the site, see now Bouzek, Domaradzka, andArchibald (1996, 2002 2007).

(13) Bravo and Chankowski (1999) 281–7, 297.

(14) Herod. 7. 109. 2.

(15) Meritt, Wade-Gery, and McGregor (1939) 509.

(16) Salviat (1999) 267–72.

(17) Velkov and Domaradzka (1999) 7.

(18) Veligianni-Terzi (2004) 320–2.

(19) Hatzopoulos (1994) 159–88.

(20) Papazoglou (1988) 399–400.

(21) Velkov and Domaradzka (1996) and Bravo and Chankowski (1999)supported Apollonia on the Strymonic Gulf; Bredow (1997), Loukopoulou(1999), Picard (1999), and Salviat (1999) prefer the homonymous city on theBlack Sea.

(22) Avram (1997–8) and Loukopoulou (1999) (only to the immediatelypreceding clause [lines 25–6]); Lefèvre apud Velkov and Domaradzka (1994);Picard (1999) (to all the clauses beginning from l. 10).

(23) Velkov and Domaradzka (1994); Bredow (1997); Bravo and Chankowski(1999).

(24) Avram (1997–8).


http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/view/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199652143.001.0001/acprof-9780199652143-chapter-2#acprof-9780199652143-bibItem-101
























(25) Bredow (1997).

(26) Loukopoulou (1999).

(27) Ibid. 361.

(28) Trans. P. A. Brunt, Loeb Classical Library (modified).

(29) Cf. Bosworth (1980) 54: ‘Arrian’s text suggests that the remote Haemuspasses were thronged by merchants, who were prepared to take arms for theliberty of the native Thracians’, which is of course absurd.

(30) Arr., Anab. 1. 2. 1.

(31) Ibid. 1. 1. 13.

(32) Trans. W. H. S. Jones, Loeb Classical Library.

(33) Dem. 2. 16; 19. 153; Lys. 22. 14; D.S. 1. 68. 1.

(34) Loukopoulou (1999) 362 n. 14.

(35) Dem. 18. 110.

(36) Bredow (1997) 118.

(37) Loukopoulou (1999) 361–3.










Documents

Epigraphical Approaches to the Post-classical Polis (Fourth Century BC to Second Century AD) ||