Interstate Arbitrations in Hellenistic Messenia

Home , Aigosthena, Amyzon, Andania, Aristomenes, Asine, Asine (Messenia)

A dissertation submitted to the

Graduate School

of the University of Cincinnati

in partial fulfillment of the

requirements for the degree of

Doctor of Philosophy

in the Department of Classics

of the College of Arts and Sciences

Simone Agrimonti

M.A., Università di Bologna, October 2013

B.A., Università degli Studi di Genova, July 2011

Committee Chair: Peter van Minnen, Ph.D.

i ABSTRACT

This dissertation explores inscriptions recording interstate arbitrations that involved Messenian polities during the Hellenistic period. We can define interstate arbitrations as a legal and diplomatic tool, in which a third party—either an individual or a community—adjudicates a conflict between two polities by passing a binding verdict after a trial. While previous scholars have compiled corpora of arbitrations and studied only their legal characteristics, I address the full range of diverse messages these documents conveyed, and their broader function for the civic community of the polis. Through close examination of a small corpus of inscribed arbitrations, I show that through these documents Greek poleis conveyed a range of messages and achieved many goals.

First, I argue that inscriptions recording interstate arbitrations helped Hellenistic poleis define the relationship between communities and civic elites in terms of mutual benefits. Cities were able to channel the ambition of prominent individuals, which if left unchecked could represent a threat to the democratic institutions of the polis, by encouraging them to participate in the arbitral process. Poleis thus gained access to their influence and expertise, which could be decisive in court.

Second, I study the various narratives that poleis constructed within these documents.

Some narratives gave emphasis to specific elements of the arbitration and reinforced the importance of one’s victory, while others allowed a polis to put forward a specific representation of itself and to make claims about its civic and ethnic identity. For Messene, this was part of a broader project of self-definition that lasted throughout the Hellenistic period.

ii Third, I argue that, thanks to their intrinsic connection with interstate parity, arbitrations stressed parity between poleis. Through inscriptions recording arbitrations, a city thus advertised its status as a self-governing community and its belonging to the network of Hellenistic poleis.

Finally, arbitrations help explain how Greek communities reacted to Roman expansion throughout the 2nd century BCE. Inscriptions from Messenia attest that Greeks often had Rome act as an arbiter, thus placing Rome into the network of Hellenistic diplomacy and normalizing

Roman political presence. Moreover, by participating in arbitrations Rome implicitly submitted to the dynamics of parity that permeated arbitrations, allowing Greek poleis to deal with the

Republic on a level of formal parity.

This project argues that inscriptions recording arbitrations conveyed a broad spectrum of ideas, which fundamentally impacted the relations of the poleis with their own citizens and with the polities that surrounded them. The words and ideas we see expressed in these inscriptions had a real impact on the life of the city, as they helped the polis advertise its autonomy, better define its identity, and deal with powerful neighbors. The practices and communication strategies that we see at work in inscriptions recording arbitrations were part of the larger process of adaptation through which Greek poleis were able to survive throughout the Hellenistic period.

iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Even though completing a dissertation during a pandemic may sound like a solitary process, I was able to rely, every step of the way, on the help and support of many people. First and foremost, the members of my committee. I thank my advisor Peter van Minnen for the valuable advice, the learned suggestions, and his constant guidance in this long project. My second reader,

Marion Kruse, has been instrumental with his insightful feedback and helped significantly improve each draft. Towards the end of the project, I was lucky enough to rely on two experts in ancient Messenia. Jack Davis especially contributed with his knowledge of the region and its topography. I am also grateful to him for letting me participate in the excavations at Pylos, which gave me a chance to know Messenia beyond books. I am honored to have had Nino Luraghi as external reader of this dissertation.

I thank the American School of Classical Studies in Athens for the amazing experience of the Summer Session and the Regular Program, and the people with whom I shared those great moments. The staff of the School also helped secure study permits for several inscriptions, which

I was able to see in person during a trip that was generously funded by the G. Cohen Travel

Award. A special thanks goes to Sylvian Fachard, an amazing guide throughout Greece.

During all these years, the Department of Classics has been a wonderful place to work, learn, and grow as a scholar. I thank all the Classics faculty, as I learned something from each one of them. Additionally, I owe much to former faculty members Duncan MacRae, for convincing me to come to Cincinnati and teaching me a lot about history, and Lauren Ginsberg, for all her pedagogical and professional advice.

My gratitude also goes to the people in the Blegen building. The staff of the John Miller

Burnam Library, in particular Mike Braunlin and Shannan Stewart, were of constant help, always

v ready to go the extra mile to support my research. John Wallrodt, Joe Katenkamp, Lindsay

Taylor, and Emilie Pierce helped in a thousand ways.

Still, I would have never made it without the support of the many friends I made in the

Department. I first thank my buddies, Mohammed Bhatti, Mitch Brown, and CJ Miller, as I cannot image graduate school without them. Also, thank you to their wives Laura, Sabrina, and

Amber for putting up with us. Sarah Beal, Alice Crowe, and Charles Sturge were there from the very beginning and made Cincinnati feel like home. Taylor Coughlan and Kyle Helms were always of support and gave me great advice. I spent many happy moments, in Cincinnati and in

Greece, with Jeff Banks, Anna Belza, Efi Tsiolaki, and Valia Tsikritea. Thank you to Haley

Bertram, Maura Brennan, and Sarah Wenner for their friendship and for many thoughtful conversations, and to Allie Pohler for all the good talks. Finally, I thank Carina Moss for countless chats, over lunch and coffee, about our respective dissertations and much more.

Outside of Blegen, I was also lucky enough to count on the friendship of many people, too many to mention here. I just single out two groups, the Hodgepodge Hedgehogs and the

Quaranteam, for countless fun hours together. Last but not least, a special thanks to Chris Motz and Ploy Keener, who have been like a second family to me.

I finish by mentioning those who supported me from home. My Italian friends were always ready to welcome me back as if I had never left. However, I owe my greatest debt to my family. To my brother, for always believing in me, and to my parents. I would not be here without their constant love and unwavering support, in my studies and in my life.

vi TABLE OF CONTENTS

Abstract ...... ii

Acknowledgements ...... v

Table of Contents ...... vii

List of Tables ...... xi

List of Charts ...... xii

List of Figures ...... xiii

List of Abbreviations ...... xiv

Introduction ...... 1 1. The arbitrations of Messenia ...... 2 1.A. Presenting the Evidence ...... 2 1.A.i. Why Arbitrations? ...... 2 1.A.ii. Why Messenia? ...... 3 1.A.iii. Definitions and Criteria for Evidence ...... 6 1.B. Previous Scholarship on Arbitrations ...... 9

2. The History of Messenia and its Arbitrations ...... 13 2.A. The Foundation of Messene ...... 13 2.B. Expansion and Regional Control ...... 18 2.C. Independent Hellenistic Messenia ...... 24 2.D. Achaean and Roman Messenia ...... 30

Chapter 1. The Role of Individuals ...... 38 1. Recording of Individuals ...... 39 1.A. Document 1. Mediation between Messene and Phigaleia ...... 39 1.B. Document 2. Messene’s Arbitrations with Megalopolis and Achaea ...... 41 1.C. Document 3. Arbitration between Thouria and Megalopolis ...... 44 1.D. Document 6. Milesian Arbitration between Messene and Sparta ...... 45 1.E. Document 7. Patraian Arbitration between Thouria and Megalopolis ...... 48

vii 2. Elite Participation ...... 50

3. Arbitrations and Euergetism ...... 58 3.A. Participation in Arbitrations as Acts of Euergetism ...... 59 3.B. Rewards for Citizens ...... 61 3.C. Elite Participation: Advantages for the Polis ...... 66

4. Arbitrations, Individuals, and the Hellenistic Polis ...... 69

Chapter 2. Epigraphic Narratives ...... 75 1. Textual Narratives ...... 78 1.A. Document 1. Mediation between Messene and Phigaleia ...... 78 1.B. Document 2. Messene’s Arbitrations with Megalopolis and Achaea ...... 80 1.B.i. The Dispute ...... 81 1.B.ii. Constructing the Narrative ...... 83 1.B.iii. The Meaning of the Arbitration ...... 93 1.C. Document 8. Rhodian Arbitration between Sparta and the Achaean League ...... 100 1.C.i. The Dispute ...... 101 1.C.ii. The Narrative ...... 104

2. Visual Narratives ...... 111 2.A. Document 6. Milesian Arbitration between Messene and Sparta ...... 111 2.A.i. Textual Narratives Again ...... 113 2.A.ii. The Monument ...... 117 2.A.iii The Visual Narrative: Messenian Past and Identity ...... 123

3. Not Just About the Dispute: Civic Narratives in Messenian Arbitrations ...... 133

Chapter 3. Arbitrations and Parity ...... 137 1. Interstate Arbitrations and Peer Polity Interaction ...... 137 1.A. Peer Polity Interaction and Hellenistic Diplomacy ...... 137 1.B Just Propaganda? Arbitrations and IR Realism ...... 142

2. Arbitrations and Interstate Parity ...... 146 2.A. Parity as the Basis for Arbitrations ...... 146 2.A.i. The Case of Pagai ...... 148

viii 2.A.ii. Parity Explaining Arbitrations ...... 149 2.B. Arbitrations Reinforcing Parity ...... 155 2.B.i. Echoing Language ...... 155 2.B.ii. Publishing Documents from Other Poleis ...... 159 2.B.iii. Creating New Peer Interactions ...... 161

3. Arbitrations, Parity, and Polis Status ...... 177

Chapter 4. Rome and Parity ...... 180 1. Rome as Arbiter ...... 182 1.A. Formal Aspects of Roman Arbitration ...... 183 1.A.i. Alternatives to Rome ...... 183 1.A.ii. Rome Delegating ...... 186 1.A.iii. Roman Documents in Arbitration Dossiers ...... 190 1.B. Informal Aspects of Roman Arbitration ...... 194 1.B.i. Interest from Both Sides ...... 194 1.B.ii. Frequency of Roman Arbitration ...... 199 1.B.iii. Enforcing the Verdict ...... 200

2. Rome and Interstate Parity ...... 203

Conclusion ...... 208

Bibliography ...... 211

Epigraphical Dossier ...... 230 1. Aetolian Mediation between Messene and Phigaleia ...... 230

2. Messene’s Arbitrations with Megalopolis and Achaea ...... 233

3. Arbitration between Thouria and Megalopolis ...... 240

4. Arbitration between Messene and Phigaleia ...... 245

5. Arbitration between Messene and an Unknown Polity ...... 248

6. Milesian Arbitration between Messene and Sparta ...... 250

7. Patraian Arbitration between Thouria and Megalopolis ...... 256

ix 8. Rhodian Arbitration between Sparta and the Achaean League ...... 260

Images ...... 265

x LIST OF TABLES

Page

Table 1. Elite individuals mentioned in Messenian arbitrations ...... 54

xi LIST OF CHARTS

Page

Chart 1. Frequency of Roman arbitrations ...... 201

xii LIST OF FIGURES

Page

Figure 1. Map of Messenia ...... 20

Figure 2. Reconstruction of the complete Messenian pillar in Olympia ...... 266

Figure 3. Drawing of the text of IvO 52 ...... 267

Figure 4. Modern view of the pillar as reconstructed in Olympia ...... 268

Figure 5. Modern view of the pillar as reconstructed in Olympia (detail) ...... 269

Figure 6. The Nike of Paionios ...... 270

Figure 7. The original block with 5th century dedicatory inscription of the Nike ...... 271

xiii LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

Abbreviations of epigraphic corpora follow those of the Supplementum Epigraphicum Graecum. Journals, book series, and reference works follow the abbreviations of the Année philologique and of the AJA. The following exceptions apply.

Ager Ager, S. L. 1996. Interstate Arbitrations in the Greek World, 337-90 B.C, Berkeley.

Choix Delphes Jacquemin, A., D. Mulliez, and G. Rougemont, Choix d'inscriptions de Delphes, traduites et commentées (Études épigraphiques 5), Athens.

Dubois Dubois, M. 1885. Les ligues Étolienne et Achéenne, Paris.

Harter-Uibopuu Harter-Uibopuu, K. 1998. Das zwischenstaatliche Schiedsverfahren im achäischen Koinon, Köln; Wien.

I.Olympia Suppl. Siewert, P., and H. Taeuber, eds. 2013. Neue Inschriften von Olympia: die ab 1896 veröffentlichten Texte, Wien.

L&M Luraghi, N., and A. Magnetto. 2012. “The Controversy between Megalopolis and Messene in a New Inscription from Messene,” Chiron 42, pp. 509–550.

MRR Broughton, T. R. S., 1951-1960. The Magistrates of the Roman Republic, 2 vols, and supplement, New York.

Poilloux, Choix Pouilloux, J. 1960. Choix d'inscriptions grecques; textes, traductions et notes, Lyon.

WCP Walbank, F. W., 1957-1979. A Historical Commentary on Polybius, 3 vols., Oxford.

xiv INTRODUCTION

In this dissertation, I study inscriptions recording interstate arbitrations that involved

Messenian polities during the Hellenistic period.1 The historical, legal, and political characteristics of these diplomatic interactions have been thoroughly explored by previous scholars and my intent is not to repeat their work. Instead, I approach Messenian arbitrations as ideological documents, which did much more than solve local disputes, though that was their primary goal. I argue that through their epigraphic publication they were used to construct and express civic ideology in the Hellenistic polis. Through a close reading of inscriptions attesting interstate arbitrations, I explore the messages they conveyed and their impact on the life of Greek poleis. Thanks to their ideological potential, arbitrations helped poleis fulfill a number of important tasks, such as preserve their autonomy and institutions against external and internal threats, better define their identity, and deal with powerful neighbors. Ultimately, arbitrations help us better understand the process of adaptation and change that poleis underwent during the

Hellenistic period, which determined their survival as a pivotal institution in the Greek world.

This Introduction first discusses the ancient evidence, including a definition of interstate arbitrations and the reasons to focus on Messenian inscriptions. The second part surveys the history of Hellenistic Messenia and describes the arbitration cases that will be analyzed throughout the dissertation. The relevant inscriptions are reproduced and translated in the

Epigraphical Dossier.

1 Ancient Greeks developed and used both private and interstate arbitrations, which both relied on the idea of resorting to a third party to solve a dispute between the two litigants. In this work, I solely focus on the latter category. Even without further specifications, the term arbitrations refers to interstate arbitrations. On private arbitrations, see Roebuck 2001. All ancient dates are BCE unless otherwise stated.

1 1. The arbitrations of Messenia

1.A. Presenting the Evidence

1.A.i. Why Arbitrations?

Arbitrations existed in a crowded field of ideological documents on stone, which in addition to fulfilling their immediate goals, could help construct civic ideology and identity. Texts such as honorary decrees for proxenoi and kings defined the relationship the polis had with its own past and identity, elite citizens, kings, and other polities.2

However, interstate arbitrations have a number of features that make them particularly interesting to study. First, since their aim was to solve a dispute between polities, their backdrop is always two communities at odds with each other, in an “us versus them” type of situation. This competitive environment encourages the polity inscribing the document to express its identity and the otherness of the rival in a clear way, emphasizing the differences between the two communities.

Second, arbitrations always involve three or more polities. Contacts between one of the litigants and the arbiter or any additional polity (the city in control of a sanctuary, an additional set of judges, etc.…) involved many diplomatic interactions, which attested the good relations between communities and took place by means of envoys and reciprocal honorific awards. A single arbitration case thus attests to a network of diplomatic contacts. This makes arbitrations particularly useful for studying diplomatic ties that reinforced the existence of a network of peer poleis.

2 On proxeny decrees, see Mack 2015. On poleis and kings, Ma 2002. On the ideological potential of honorary decrees, see Forster 2018, esp. pp. 51-96; Shear 2012; Luraghi 2010, pp. 252-260; Culasso Gastaldi 2003. For a more detailed discussion of these elements in inscriptions, see Chapter 2.

2 Third, arbitrations often involved very prominent individuals, from local elites to Roman senators and magistrates. These people played an important part in the arbitration process, acting as judges, advocates for their city, or intermediaries. Arbitrations thus provide good insight into the elite’s behavior during Hellenistic times and their role in the political life of the polis.

Finally, arbitrations have the advantage of attesting Roman policies in the East.

Throughout the 2nd century, Greek poleis included the Republic in their disputes in the role of arbiter. Rome’s participation in arbitrations runs parallel to its involvement in Greek diplomacy and its final annexation of mainland Greece. Arbitrations help us better understand how Greek diplomacy changed as poleis dealt with the new superpower, and how Rome engaged with the complex web of Greek interstate relations. The far-reaching implications of this topic, which has the potential to affect the way we think about Rome’s expansionist policy and imperialist nature, explain why I devote significant attention to the role the Republic played in arbitrations. When taken individually, none of the characteristics of interstate arbitrations is unparalleled among other types of diplomatic tools. However, the sum of several elements makes arbitrations particularly valuable evidence for research about Hellenistic inscriptions and for their contribution to shaping political life in Greek poleis.

1.A.ii. Why Messenia?

Although other material appears as well, the main focus of this analysis is arbitrations from

Messenia. I have included in my corpus of inscriptions only those which involved at least one polity situated in the region of Messenia. All the cases known to this day involve either Messene or Thouria, and there are no instances of any arbitration between two polities within the region.

The eight inscriptions that appear in the Dossier range in date between ca. 240 and the second

3 half of the 2nd century. Messenian arbitrations do not have special features setting them apart from those of other regions. Their legal and judicial features appear elsewhere, and so does their use to solve political and territorial disputes. Although the arbitrations of Messenia are not unique, there are several factors that make them particularly interesting, and which led me to choose this region for my analysis.

First, Messenia’s peculiar history gives us the chance to observe how the construction and communication of ideologies in arbitration documents fit within a broader attempt to redefine civic and regional identity. For centuries, Messenia did not exist as an independent polity but was under strict Spartan control. In addition to political dependence, part of the

Messenian population was enslaved and cultivated the land that Spartan citizens owned in the region. Subjection to Sparta lasted until 369, when the city of Messene was finally created as the center for a free Messenian state. After centuries of subjection and exploitation, the Messenians did not have a place in the shared perception of the Greek past until the 5th century.3 As a consequence of these unusual circumstances, the polis of Messene made significant efforts towards the creation of a new ethnic and civic identity for its citizens.4 Through different media, including literary texts, art, and religious practices, the community sought to convey a specific image of itself, reinterpreting its past and thus shaping its identity. As I will show, arbitrations were an integral part of this project.

Second, Messenian arbitrations attest a number of different situations and the involvement of various polities. As a middling regional power, the Messenian state often relied on the protection of more powerful polities. Its very creation was a product of the Theban desire

3 Luraghi 2008, pp. 46-67; Figueira 1999. 4 Luraghi 2008, pp. 230-238, 269-291. For a more detailed discussion and analysis of the evidence, see Chapter 2.3.A.iii.

4 to keep the Spartans in check, and throughout its early history Messene avoided destruction by

Sparta only thanks to a series of similarly motivated patrons: the Thebans, the Arcadians, and

Philip II. Throughout the Hellenistic period, Messene maintained this policy of seeking foreign diplomatic and military assistance against impending threats; hence the frequent recourse to arbitration as a way to avoid military conflicts. Messenian cities took part in disputes that saw the involvement of poleis near and far, such as Phigaleia, Megalopolis, Miletos, and Sparta, as well as both the Aetolian and the Achaean leagues and the city of Rome. Messenian arbitrations thus dealt with a variety of issues, ranging from local territorial disputes and their place in the

Achaean League, to the centuries-long rivalry with Sparta and the growing hegemony of Rome.

Messenian arbitrations thus touch upon the full range of contexts in which Greek poleis conducted arbitrations in the Hellenistic period.

A third element that informed my choice of this region is the presence among Messenian arbitrations documents of some well-preserved and lengthy inscriptions.5 Such texts provide helpful information, which we cannot always find in other documents. Even with such elaborate texts, the corpus of Messenian Hellenistic arbitrations remains a fairly small one, with only seven documents.

Finally, when studying arbitrations from Messenia we have the advantage of relying on the archaeological and historical context of what we already know about the region. Excavations at Messene have been ongoing for more than a century, and the city is now one of the most thoroughly excavated sites in Greece. The well-document archaeological record provides us with the archaeological context for some of the inscriptions and a better understanding of the image the city was constructing for itself through public architecture. At the same time,

5 Documents 2, 6.

5 historiographical sources provide some information on the political events of Messenia. Our knowledge of the history of the region is spotty and we know far less than we would like; however, sources like Polybius, Livy, and Pausanias inform us about the territorial extent of the

Messenian state, its international relations and conflicts with neighboring polities, and its domestic politics. All the information from material and literary evidence offers a limited but significant context for analyzing arbitrations and their role within the community.

For all these reasons, Messenia offers a unique opportunity to study interstate arbitrations. Thanks to the peculiar history of the region and the nature of the evidence that has survived, Messenian arbitrations do not just describe territorial disputes, but also offer us valuable insight into the self-representation of the city of Messene, its attempts to construct a local and regional identity, and how it asserted its status as an autonomous polis.

1.A.iii. Definitions and Criteria for Evidence

One of the challenges of working with interstate arbitrations is the difficulty of deciding what properly constitutes an arbitration, in order to separate them from other types of diplomatic interactions, with which they share many features. Ancient vocabulary helps only to a point.

Epigraphic sources quite consistently refer to the arbitration trial as a κρίσις or κρίμα, even though it is not always clear whether these terms apply to the entire arbitration process as well.6

Unfortunately, such terms may appear only once (if ever) in an entire arbitration, and most such documents are lacunose. Moreover, arbitrations are attested by different kinds of documents, such as verdicts, decrees, and honorific awards. These elements, combined with the fragmentary

6 Within my corpus, see document 2, 87, 97, apparently referring to the trials; document 6, 1, in which the term κρίσις does seem to apply to the entire arbitration dossier; document 8, 15-16, 20-23, 41, 50.

6 state of many inscriptions attesting such documents, make it so that we rely more on the analysis of content than on specific formulae or vocabulary.

The main challenge comes from interstate mediations, since, just like arbitrations, they are also defined by the presence of a third party, and their goal is to peacefully settle a dispute without resorting to violence.7 In this work, I define arbitrations as a judicial and diplomatic interaction in which two polities willingly submit their dispute to a third party, which agrees to judge the case and pass a binding verdict.8 The defining characteristic of arbitrations is the use of properly judicial and legal instruments, such as the presence of judges and advocates, and the passing of a verdict at the end. This definition has the advantage of following the ancient Greek view, which emphasized the judicial aspect of the transaction by calling it a

κρίσις or κρίμα.

Even with this legal criterion, it should be noted that the distinction between arbitrations and mediations can be blurry. The case of the Aetolian mediation between Messene and

Phigaleia is a clear example. I have included this document in my study, despite the fact that it seems to attest the activity of mediators, not of judges stricto sensu.9 However, other features of this text, such as the diplomatic praxis of the mediation process, and the formalization of its results through epigraphic publication, are shared with arbitrations.

7 Ager, the most comprehensive corpus of arbitrations to this date, includes both arbitrations and mediations, only differentiating between the two in the commentary for each text. For a critique of this approach, see Gauthier 1998, his review of Ager. Ager herself (Ager 2009) later admitted that she had not been strict about defining her terms. Both Harter-Uibopuu and Magnetto, Arbitrati instead included only those texts they saw as arbitrations. For a discussion of the difference between arbitration and mediation, see Kaščeev1997. For a corpus of ancient treaties, see Staatsverträge III (338-200) and now IV (200-30). 8 For a different definition, see Magnetto 2016, “Interstate arbitration is an instrument of diplomacy that allows two parties in conflict, usually two poleis, to resolve their dispute by entrusting the decision to a third party agreed by both of them: a private citizen, another city, a king or, from the second century BCE, Rome.” 9 Document 1. The debatable nature of this text has given scholars troubles classifying it; for example, Magnetto included it in her corpus of arbitrations (Magnetto, Arbitrati 38), but more recently called it a mediation (Magnetto 2016).

7 While other scholars have divided arbitrations in several legal subcategories, this study will focus on the genre as a whole.10 The only categorization that I have applied to arbitrations is based on the medium of their preservation, that is epigraphic and literary. All the cases I included in my dossier are attested on stone, as inscriptions are the most suitable kind of evidence to answer the questions in which I am interested. Inscribed documents are primary evidence for the ideas ancient polities wanted to communicate and give us direct access to how communities represented themselves and others. By contrast, literary sources reflect the agendas and biases of the author, and there is no guarantee that they preserve the perspectives or messaging of the communities involved.

Although Messenian inscribed arbitration documents will be the main focus of my study, throughout this work I will rely on other categories of evidence as well. This will provide me with a wider basis for my analysis. Whenever possible, I have broadened my focus only to arbitrations from the rest of the Peloponnese. These do not necessarily share specific traits with

Messenian arbitrations, and there was no distinctly Peloponnesian epigraphic habit.11 However, geographic proximity means that some of the same polities are involved, such as Sparta and the

Achaean League, and that the historical background for arbitrations does not radically differ from that of Messenia. In the absence of good parallels from the Peloponnese, I have considered

10 The main distinction is between compromissory and obligatory arbitrations. While the first group depends on an agreement between two polities (compromissum), in the latter case the arbitration originates from an arbitration clause in a previous document, such as an alliance or an isopoliteia agreement (see Magnetto 2016, ch. 1.1; Tod 1913, pp. 74-82; Raeder 1912, pp. 143-236). Giovannini 2007, pp. 177-180 introduces a third category (arbitrage imposé), where one party appeals to a powerful state and the other party is then compelled to take action as well, trying to avoid an unfavorable sentence. These categories unnecessarily complicate things. Arbitrations were always based on the agreement between the two parties; for obligatory arbitrations, such agreement was simply expressed at a previous stage, and independent polities were under no obligation to accept an arbitration. Moreover, my analysis moves beyond the legal and formal details of arbitrations, to focus on their impact on civic practice and ideology. 11 Against the existence of a Peloponnesian epigraphic habit, see for example the stark difference between Messene, with its many inscriptions, and Corinth, which genuinely lacked the epigraphic habit (Dixon 2014, p. 6; Rhodes 1997, p. 73; Corinth VIII.3, p. 1).

8 arbitration inscriptions from the rest of continental Greece, Asia Minor, and Crete. Given the limited number of epigraphically attested arbitration documents, I have at times resorted to other types of inscriptions. Finally, non-epigraphic evidence also plays a role. Throughout my analysis,

I rely on both Greek and Latin authors, in particular Polybius, Pausanias, Plutarch, and Livy.

These texts are especially helpful in shedding light on the historical events forming the backdrop against which disputes and arbitrations took place. Material evidence is mostly limited to

Messenia itself. In particular, I focus on the public architecture at Messene, the city’s coinage, and the data coming from archaeological surveys in Messenia.12

1.B. Previous Scholarship on Arbitrations

The first attempts to tackle interstate arbitrations in a systematic way took place at the beginning of the 20th century. Within two years of each other, Anton Raeder and Marcus Tod each published a monograph dedicated to international arbitrations among the Greeks.13 Both works include a survey of arbitrations known in their day but do not include the Greek texts. The surveys are then followed by a discussion of the functioning of arbitrations and their development throughout Greek history. Recent epigraphic discoveries and the publication of new corpora have made the surveys obsolete; however, Raeder’s and Tod’s volumes still offer valuable information on the legal details of arbitration procedure.

After these two books, for many years no other work specifically focusing on arbitrations was published. The only exception to this trend is Luigi Piccirilli’s book, a corpus of all known arbitrations down to 338, which includes not just a description of each arbitration, but also the

12 On surveys, see below, n. 37. 13 Tod 1913; Raeder 1912.

9 text of the source and a short commentary.14 Because of the chronological focus on the earlier periods of Greek history and the predominance of cases attested in literary sources, I have made limited use of this work. After Piccirilli’s book, no work specifically focusing on arbitrations followed for the next twenty years. Arbitrations became part of a broader discussion, namely the debate over Roman involvement in Greek politics and diplomacy. Scholars like Erich Gruen,

Robert Kallet-Marx, and Anthony Marshall analyzed the role arbitrations played within the relations between Greeks and Romans, as these works appeared either as articles or sections of monographs on Rome’s eastern policy.15 Despite some differences, all these scholars agree that

Romans did not revolutionize the practice of arbitration, nor did they use it to heavily interfere in

Greek affairs. On the contrary, Rome was often reluctant to intervene, and even delegated the role of arbiter to other cities. My study of Roman arbitrations from the point of view of interstate parity confirms these scholars’ argument that Rome did not radically change arbitral practices and did not turn them into a tool of imperialistic control.

Interest in arbitrations peaked in the 1990s, with the activity of three scholars: Sheila

Ager, Kaja Harter-Uibopuu, and Anna Magnetto. In addition to other publications on the topic, these scholars produced in rapid succession (1996-1998) three monographs that greatly improved our understanding of arbitrations and inform my study. Ager’s book is a comprehensive corpus of arbitrations and mediations from the Hellenistic period (337-90), in which she offers a text and a commentary for both literary and epigraphic cases.16 A short introduction describes some of the main features of arbitrations, including the nature of disputes, the arbitral procedure and the involvement of different polities. Because it collects all known arbitration cases, Ager’s

14 Piccirilli 1973. 15 Kallet-Marx 1995a, pp. 161-183; Gruen 1984, pp. 96-131; Marshall 1980, pp. 641-649. Cf. Chapter 4, n. 3. 16 Ager.

10 volume was a crucial resource for my project, facilitating the assembling of evidence and providing easy access to comparanda outside of Messenia. Magnetto’s book—a continuation of

Piccirilli’s volume—is similar in structure: a corpus of arbitrations and mediations, providing text, Italian translation, and commentary, with a very short description of historical and legal characteristics of arbitrations.17 Because of the limited chronological focus, including cases only from the period 337-196, it includes but one of the inscriptions that I study, and it mostly provided me with information on arbitrations outside of Messenia. Finally, Harter-Uibopuu focused on a specific topic, studying the arbitrations of the Achaean League.18 She provides text,

German translation, and commentary for twelve cases, all epigraphically attested. She then discusses the role of the League in favoring arbitrations between member cities, arguing that there was no fixed federal procedure forcing poleis to solve their disputes through arbitrations.

Because at least four of the arbitrations I study involved Achaean cities, I rely on Harter-

Uibopuu’s arguments against mandatory arbitrations within the League. The lack of federal policies supports my view of arbitrations as a diplomatic tool that relied heavily on the agency of the poleis involved. As poleis were the ones taking the initiative, we can more confidently analyze the messages that these cities conveyed about themselves through arbitrations.

Another selective corpus is the dissertation by Michael Dixon, which explores arbitrations from the northeast Peloponnese.19 By studying only six arbitrations from the

Corinthia and Argolid, Dixon carries out an in-depth analysis. However, his main interest is not in arbitrations themselves but in their value as evidence for the study of the territories of the poleis involved in the disputes. Most of Dixon’s analysis thus focuses on the topographical

17 Magnetto, Arbitrati. 18 Harter-Uibopuu. 19 Dixon 2000.

11 information that the inscriptions contain and does not add much to our understanding of the ideological potential of arbitrations.

In more recent times, Francesco Camia has focused on the role played by Rome.20 He assembled twelve territorial disputes that were solved through arbitrations in which the Republic intervened. For all these inscribed arbitrations, he provides text, Italian translation, and a historical commentary. In the second half of the book, Camia uses the evidence he gathered to argue that Roman participation in arbitrations did not revolutionize Greek arbitration practices.

Rome did not use arbitrations for its political gain, and arbitrations were not a tool of Roman imperialism. Camia’s work provided me with an excellent starting point for discussions of

Roman involvement in arbitral practices, both in terms of ancient evidence and scholarly debates on the topic. Unlike his, my analysis of Rome’s impact on arbitrations focuses on the issue of parity and ultimately explores not Roman interference but Greek attitudes and responses to

Rome’s presence in the Aegean.

The scholarly work that I have here summarized has significantly improved our understanding of interstate arbitrations, by collecting and studying the evidence, and by describing the historical and legal features of arbitrations. However, past research also had a quite narrow focus: the main elements we see discussed are the legal and diplomatic details of the arbitral procedure, the types of disputes they aimed at solving and their effectiveness to do so, and their specific usage by certain polities, such as the Achaean League and Rome. There has been no major attempt so far to investigate the broader implications of arbitrations in terms of civic ideology and political practice within the polis.21 My dissertation aims at filling this gap in

20 Camia 2009. 21 A partial exception is Magnetto 2018, which briefly discusses document 2 in terms of intentional history (for this, see Chapter 2.1.B).

12 current scholarly work, by studying how poleis used arbitration documents to articulate and convey complex messages about the relationship with prominent individuals, the identity of their citizens, and their status as independent communities.

2. The History of Messenia and its Arbitrations

I now briefly survey the history of Messenia, from the foundation of Messene in 369 to early

Roman times. Extending my focus into the Roman period allows us to detect how some territorial disputes—in particular the one between Messene and Sparta—continued well after interstate arbitrations had become obsolete, attesting the diachronic importance of these local quarrels. Together with the history of Messenia, I also introduce the seven arbitration cases that form my corpus of inscriptions, and which I will later discuss in detail. Both the historical survey and the description of arbitrations will provide the reader with the necessary background in which to place the analysis I carry out in the following chapters.

2.A. The Foundation of Messene

After centuries of Spartan domination, the year 369 saw the creation of an independent

Messenian state.22 The foundation of the city of Messene took place with the support of several polities.23 Thebes had a large role, in particular in the figure of Epameinondas.24 The founding of the city was the direct result of his successful military efforts against Sparta, namely the battle of

Leuctra in 371 and the invasion of Laconia in the following year. As a way to permanently

22 For a survey of Messenian history, see also Kralli 2017; Themelis 2010, pp. 27-61; Luraghi 2008; Grandjean 2003; Roebuck 1941. 23 The two main accounts of the foundation itself are D.S. 15.66; Paus. 4.26-27. On the date see Roebuck 1941, p. 31, n. 20. 24 Epameinondas himself may have considered this as one of his main achievements, see Plut., Mor. 194b, 504d-e; Paus. 9.15.6; both texts may however date to a later period, after the refoundation of Thebes in 316; cf. Luraghi 2008, p. 216, n. 28, p. 220.

13 contain Sparta, Epameinondas promoted the creation of two new cities, Messene and

Megalopolis. In addition to his personal role, Theban participation in the foundation of Messene appears from other aspects, the most prominent being the technique used to build the impressive city walls.25 Argive help is embodied in the figure of Epiteles, who according to Pausanias played an important role in performing the religious rites for the foundation of Messene.26 The

Arcadians mostly supported Messene in the following years, being reliable allies and helping extend the Messenian territory by conquering Kyparissia and Pylos in 365/4 and turning them over to the Messenians.

The site of Mt. Ithome, which was chosen as the location for the new city, had numerous advantages. First, it was a strong location that could be easily fortified and defended. Second, it dominated the fertile Stenykleros valley. It seems Spartiates had owned much of the land in this area, and, after independence, their property could be distributed to the new citizens of Messene.

Finally, the place had a strong symbolic meaning, representing opposition to Sparta. It had been the center of Messenian resistance during the Third Messenian War (464-454), and it may already have had legendary association with Aristomenes.27

Ancient sources do not offer clear indications of who the citizens of the new city were, but only two opposing and equally problematic views. Diodorus and Pausanias reflect the

Theban and Messenian position, and mention a grande rentrée of Messenians who had scattered across the Mediterranean and finally came back to inhabit their ancestral home.28 The Spartans

25 On this, see below, n. 46. D.S. 15.67.1 also says Epameinondas left a large garrison in the city. 26 Most of Pausanias’ account, and in particular the many religious details of the foundation, seem to date to after the foundation, probably to the 3rd century; see Luraghi 2008, pp. 92-95, 294-299. 27 On the Third Messenian War and its role in the creation of a Messenian ethnic identity, see Luraghi 2008, pp. 173-208. Most of the legendary Messenian past originated after the creation of the city; but Tyrtaeus (F 5 West) already mentioned Ithome. 28 D.S. 15.66.6; Paus. 4.26.5. For ancient and modern skepticism about this version see Lyc., Leocr. 62 (implying no continuity between old and new Messenians); Asheri 1983, p. 39.

14 instead refused to acknowledge the legitimacy of the new polity, considering these Messenians rebel slaves.29 Once we move away from these biased versions, the available evidence suggests a different scenario.30 Important contributions to the new citizen body came from the helots and perioikoi of Messenia, but also from helots and perioikoi of Laconia, who had deserted during

Epameinondas’ invasion. To these two main groups he added people from the rest of the Greek world, looking for a fresh start.

The ancient debate over the identity of its citizens shows that the status of the new polity was contested. The Spartan view that they were simply runaway slaves was an extreme one. Still, the Messenians lacked international recognition because of their long subjection by Sparta and their resulting absence from the shared mythistory of the Greeks that had taken shape since the

6th century.31 The crucial role of kinship and mythical precedents in political and diplomatic interactions made the lack of a commonly recognized history especially problematic.32 The formal recognition of Messenian independence by many poleis within the context of the koine eirene of 362 only partially solved the problem.33 The need to justify the existence of an independent Messene and make it acceptable at a Panhellenic level played a large role in pushing towards the definition of a new Messenian identity for both the polis and the region. The other major goal of such effort was to contrast the centrifugal tendencies of the other cities of

Messenia, which often tried to free themselves from the control of the polis of Messene.

29 Xenophon nowhere discusses the liberation of Messene, despite mentioning the Messenians. The other main source for the Spartan view is Isokrates’ Archidamos. 30 Luraghi 2008, pp. 219-230. 31 On Greek mythistory, see Saïd 2007; cf. Mali 2003. A first step towards the inclusion of the Messenians in Greek mythistory had taken place during the 5th century, with the myth of the division of the Peloponnese among the Herakleidai, on which see Luraghi 2008, pp. 46-67. 32 On the diplomatic importance of kinship, see Jones 1999; Curty 1995. Arbitrations often relied on mythical history to set a precedent; for a Messenian example, see Tac., Ann. 4.43. 33 D.S. 15.98.1; Plb. 4.33.9.

15 Our information about the political institutions of the new city is scanty. However, scattered passages from literary works make clear that for most of its history Messene was controlled by a wealthy elite.34 Despite the existence of a popular assembly, in many crucial moments of Messene’s history we see oligarchs either making the important decisions or trying to stop the common people from taking action.35 The construction of luxurious intramural tombs—an exception to common Greek practice—attests the prominence that certain elite individuals obtained in the community.36

Many members of such an elite must have derived their wealth from vast plots of land.

The territory controlled by Messene included large areas of fertile plain, and we know human activity in Messenia significantly increased in the 4th century. Archaeological surface survey data shows that the overall number of sites in the region tripled and that this enhanced occupation lasted until the late Roman period.37 Despite the difficulties in providing secure dates for some of the ceramic material, it seems the end of the Spartan domination over the region brought an increase in occupation of the landscape. Such expansion points to a more intensive cultivation and exploitation of the countryside. The area around Mt. Ithome was marked by a particularly heavy use of the land. This is to be linked to the foundation of Messene, as the citizens of the new polis were quick to start exploiting the fertile land in the area. Both in the area around

34 Plb. 4.31-32; 23.16.2; Plut., Arat. 49. The democratic coup of 215/4 seem to be the exception to the rule, since in 182 a small number of citizens seems in charge again. 35 For decisions made by the assembly, see IG V,1 1425, proxeny decree, late 4th/early 3rd, ἔδοξε τῶι δάμοι; documents 1, 9-10, ἔδοξε τᾶι [πόλει τᾶι Μ]ι̣σσανίων; 2, 90, δεδόχθαι τῶι δάμωι. 36 Fröhlich 2008, pp. 204-217; Themelis 2000, pp. 88-102, 114-136. 37 The evidence comes from two survey projects which targeted Messenia between the 1960s and the 1990s. The first was the University of Minnesota Messenia Expedition (UMME), which covered all of Messenia and some parts of ancient Triphylia. The project also carried out a more intensive survey in the so-called Five Rivers Region, around the ancient sites of Nichoria and Korone. On UMME, see McDonald and Rapp 1972. On the “Five Rivers,” see Nichoria I. The more recent project is the Pylos Regional Archaeological Project (PRAP), which between 1991 and 1994 intensively surveyed a total surface of about 70 km2. The investigated area is in the Western part of Messenia, centered around the modern village of Chora and the Palace of Nestor. On PRAP, see Davis and Bennet 2017, in particular chapters 1 (overview of the project) and 7 (the historical period); cf. Davis 2008; and the project’s website (https://classics.uc.edu/prap/).

16 Messene and in the whole region, the coexistence of smaller isolated farmsteads and larger sites points to a diversified social presence.38 The discovery of some elite burials in the Pylos region suggests that Messenian elites were involved in the exploitation of the land. However, their large estates do not seem to have been the only human presence, and less wealthy citizens had a role as well.39

It is difficult to draw conclusions about the overall economic effects of this increase in human presence. We can guess that at least in the 4th century this is the sign of increased wealth.

For the citizens of Messene in particular, the end of Spartan control meant the chance to directly exploit the fertile plains around the newly founded polis. Some epigraphic evidence seems to confirm this impression. An inscription recording Cyrene’s gift of grain to various Greek polities does not mention Messenia, suggesting that local cereal production was enough to sustain the local population even in bad years.40 In the following centuries, things become less clear. While

Messenia is on average more fertile than other regions of Greece, this may have also led to a higher population density and to a higher pressure on the landscape.41 One constant element is that the population of Messenia must have heavily relied on agricultural and pastoral activity, either to accumulate wealth or to feed a large population. The desire to make a profit out of grain production appears in an inscription regulating the grain supply for Thouria (IG V,1 1379). The text, dating to the 2nd or 1st century, is not responding to a grain shortage, but shows that the city

38 According to D.S. 15.66.1, the land around Messene was divided into lots and distributed to the original settlers. At least originally, the countryside of Messene must have hosted a number of small landowners. Unfortunately, for the area around Messene we do not have any survey data, as there has been no intensive surface survey of the area around the city. 39 Alcock et al. 2005, pp. 179-188 40 SEG 9.2 (=IG Cyrenaica 010900 [https://igcyr.unibo.it]), dating to 330-326; on it see Laronde 1987, pp. 30-33. On its meaning for Messenia, see Grandjean 2003, p. 85. 41 The fertility of the region is already mentioned by Tyrtaeus F 5 West; Paus. 4.4.3, 15.3; Strab. 8.4.6. Alcock 1993, passim, shows that in Messenia the drop in the number of sites during the late Hellenistic and early Roma period was less marked than in other areas.

17 aimed at obtaining a large profit from the available surplus. What further stresses the importance of local production is that significant signs of trade only appear in coastal sites, with the inner areas showing a limited number of imports.42 Because of the apparent reliance on local production, it is important to remember the value of this fertile and much needed land when studying Messenian arbitrations, since they all deal with territorial disputes. While not the only factor at play, the economic significance of the disputed territories was one of the key elements in arbitrations.

2.B. Expansion and Regional Control

Already at its foundation in 369, the polis of Messene could rely on a territory of respectable size, which seems to have originally included both the upper and lower parts of the Stenykleros plain. To the west, we know its territory bordered with Kyparissia and Pylos, both initially independent. To the south, the status of Korone is less clear. We have no direct attestation of its adhesion to Messene; however, Pausanias describes it as being refounded by a Boiotian in 369 as well. This story, although somewhat suspicious, suggests that Korone (modern Petalidhi) was part of Epameinondas’ plan and belonged to Messene from the very beginning.43 The status of the perioikic settlements of eastern Messenia, Thouria, Kalamai, and Pharai, is also unclear.

Some scholars believe they did not originally belong to the Messenian state, but were added to it

42 On trade from coastal sites: in the Pylos area, Hellenistic burials have material from the western Peloponnese but also Rhodes, Athens, Macedonia, and Pergamon, see Danali 2011; a sanctuary on the island of Prote has dedications by people from the eastern Aegean, see IG V,1 1539 (Miletos), 1541, 1550 (Smyrna), 1544 (Ephesos), 1548 (Assos), 1549 (Mytilene); a 3rd century law from Kyparissia (IG V,1 1421; on it, see Bresson 2017, p. 308) concerning harbor fees attests to the trading activity at this community; Paus. 4.35.6 mentions wine being sold at Methone. On Messene’s locally produced pottery, see Shipley 2018, pp. 220-222. 43 Paus. 4.34.5, according to whom the city was refounded by Epimelides of Koroneia, who named it in honor of his hometown. As Luraghi 2008, p. 228 points out, the story might be an a posteriori explanation for the similarity of the two names. However, Messenian control over the eastern part of the Akritas peninsula would fit well the later attack on Asine (see below). Contra, see Hansen and Nielsen 2004, p. 563. Note that the medieval and modern town of Koroni is identified with ancient Asine (Hansen and Nielsen 2004, p. 561).

18 only later by Philip II.44 However, others have preferred to consider Thouria as dependent on

Messene from the very beginning.45 One piece of evidence pointing towards the latter reconstruction is the city walls of Thouria. Built with the emplekton technique, this fortification work closely resembles the walls of Messene, and must have been the product of Theban craftsmanship.46 We should then link the fortification of Thouria with Epameinondas’ initiative at the time of the foundation of Messene in 369. At its birth, the Messenian state thus would have extended eastward to the slopes of Taygetos.

Map of Messenia (from Luraghi 2008, p. 2)

44 Grandjean 2003, p. 69; Shipley 2000, p. 385; Roebuck 1941, pp. 56-57. 45 Luraghi 2008, pp. 32-33, 229-230; Hansen and Nielsen 2004, p. 566. 46 On the walls of Thouria, see Hope Simpson 1966, pp. 123-124.

This initial nucleus was soon expanded with Arcadian help. In 365/4 the Arcadians took

Kyparissia and Pylos, which they turned over to the Messenians.47 At this stage, the Spartans retained control of just Asine and Methone.48 It is interesting to note that both Kyparissia and

Pylos do not seem to have spontaneously joined the Messenian state, but were brought into it by force. We may interpret this as an early sign of the disaffection other Messenian towns will later show towards political control by Messene.49

With the decline of Theban hegemony, Messene found in Philip II a new powerful ally.

After the peace of Philokrates in 346, Philip began to support the Messenians, apparently earning their good will, judging from the fact that no Messenian troops fought at Chaeronea in 338.50

Messene’s pro-Macedonian policy paid off soon after that. In the fall of 338, Philip descended into the Peloponnese and ravaged Laconia, at the request of Sparta’s neighbors. After that, he curtailed its territory, awarding several border districts to Argos, Tegea, Megalopolis, and

Messene.

The details of Philips’ settlement are unclear and were a matter of debate already in antiquity.51 The Spartans claimed the Macedonian king had personally assigned such territories to Peloponnesian cities, in a clear attempt to damage the Laconian polis.52 Conversely, the anti-

Spartan tradition, favorable to Philip, presented his intervention in a more positive light. He had

47 D.S. 15.77.4; see also Roebuck 1941, p. 29 n. 9. 48 As confirmed by Ps.-Skylax 45. On the date of this text see Grandjean 2003, pp. 94-95 (with additional bibliography). An Arcadian attack on Asine in 369/8 was repelled by the Spartans (Xen., Hell. 7.1.25). 49 See below, p. 26. 50 Philip backing up Messene: Dem. 6.13-19, 26; Paus. 4.28.2; see also Roebuck 1941, p. 49. For a probable treaty between Messene and Philip, see Dem. 9.72; IG II3,1 308. On Chaeronea, Paus. 4.28.2. 51 The earliest available evidence, Polybius, dates to more than two centuries after the fact. To make things worse, Polybius discusses Philip’s settlement within two speeches given by ambassadors to the Spartans, respectively recalling the faults and merits of Macedonian kings towards the city. For a survey of the evidence see Kralli 2017, pp. 60-62. 52 Plb. 9.28.4-8; cf. Tac., Ann. 4.43.1.

20 only answered an appeal by several Peloponnesian states. Furthermore, Philip had not decided the issue himself, but had appointed arbiters taken from all over Greece.53

Regardless of the details of this settlement, it is clear that Messene benefited from it. The

Messenians gained control over the Dentheliatis and the coastal area along the Gulf of Messenia, as far south as Leuktron, with the Little Pamisos river probably forming the new border.54 At this time both Asine and Methone probably became Messenian as well.55 Thanks to these new additions, the territory of Messene reached its peak, covering a surface of about 2900 square kilometers.56 It now included all land south of the river Neda and west of Taygetos and of the

Little Pamisos. For his benefits to the city, Philip came to be held in great esteem in Messene.57

However, retaining the Dentheliatis proved extremely difficult. Sparta never accepted the loss of the area, in which were located both a famous sanctuary of Artemis and passes leading into

Laconia.58 Philip’s decision thus started a dispute between the two polities that would drag on for more than 400 years and involve at least one arbitration.

As the result of such expansion, the whole geographical region of Messenia was now part of the new Messenian state. The city of Messene was the center of power, and it established control over the rest of the Messenian communities, which were in a subordinate position.

53 Plb. 9.33.8-12; cf. Tac., Ann. 4.43.1. The text of Ager 137, 30-38, may refer to this possible arbitration; on this problem and the scholarly debate about it, see Chapter 2.1.C.i. 54 Strabo 8.4.6; Paus. 3.26.3. 55 Luraghi 2008, p. 254. Scholars who do not believe that Thouria and the cities of eastern Messenia formed Messene’s original territory date their annexation to this settlement; see above, n. 44. 56 Grandjean 2003, pp. 15-17, 69. 57 Tac., Ann. 4.43.1; Strabo 8.4.8; Plb. 18.14. 58 On the location of the sanctuary and the surviving evidence, see Koursoumis 2014. According to Paus. 4.4.1-3 the sanctuary was the scene of the first conflicts between Messenians and Spartans, and this gave it great symbolic importance. The use of the Langada pass as the most direct route between Messenia and Laconia is disputed; see Shipley 2018, p. 280; Koursoumis and Kosmopoulos 2013, pp. 57-58.

21 Unfortunately, these are the only facts that we know with certainty. The little surviving evidence about the organization of the Messenian state only allows for some working hypotheses.59

Historiographical works mentioning Messenia give an overall impression of unity when it comes to external affairs. Polybius, for instance, implies that Messene controlled the other

Messenian communities.60 Additionally, in his description of Messenia the Pseudo-Skylax calls it an ethnos.61 Epigraphic sources confirm this picture. To this day we do not have any attestation of independent foreign policies carried out by the other Messenian cities, which do not seem to have passed such decrees. Between the end of the 4th and the beginning of the 3rd century, we have three Delphic proxeny decrees for Messenians. In these texts, each individual is described with the formula “Μεσσάνιος ἐκ + his community name.”62 During the 3rd century, Messene’s self portrayal confirms the impression of centralized authority. In a mediation with Phigaleia,

Messene is described as ἁ [πόλις τῶν Μ]εσανίων, and in that text and in an asylia request from

Kos its citizens are simply called οἱ Μεσσάνιοι.63 The fact that Messene confidently portrayed itself as “the city of the Messenians” and that it could speak for all Messenian citizens suggests that it represented the entirety of the region abroad. A final piece of epigraphic evidence comes from the Magnesian inscription for the festival of Artemis Leukophryene of 208; in this document mention is made of a κοινὸν τῶμ Μεσσανίων.64 Finally, numismatic evidence as well

59 Luraghi 2008, p. 266, “The nature of the new Messenian state created in 369 BC and the way the relations between Ithome and the other Messenians were structured are difficult to grasp;” Grandjean 2003, p. 91, “Ces théories [about the organization of the Messenian state] sont intéressantes […], mais les sources dont nous disposons ne permettent pas de les fonder.” 60 Plb. 2.5.2, καὶ διὰ τὸ μεσογαίους εἶναι τὰς δυναστευούσας ἐν αὐταῖς πόλεις. While discussing the frequency of piratic raids against Messenia and Elis, Polybius implicitly puts Messene on the same level as Elis, being the δυνάστης of its region. 61 Ps-Skyl 45. 62 F.Delphes III 4, 5, Παμκράτει Πασιτέλους Μεσσανίωι ἐκ Θουρίας; F.Delphes III 4, 6, Δεινίππωι Δεινύλου Μεσσανίωι ἐξ Ἰθώμας; SEG 12.219, Ἀριστεῖ, Φιλί[δαι] Νεοκλέος Ἀσιναίοις ἐγ Μεσσαν[ίας]. 63 Document 1, 10; SEG 12.371 ll. 6-19 (=Rigsby, Asylia 15). 64 I.Magnesia 43 (=Rigsby, Asylia 93), ll. 5-6, 17. Luraghi 2008, p. 267, n. 69 points out that in Magnesian asylia decrees the term κοινόν seems to be used quite consistently. Contra see Grandjean 2003, pp. 97-98 and n. 30.

22 points to a firm political control by Messene.65 From the very foundation of the new state, the coinage minted in Messene bore the ethnic Μεσσανίων. This type thus promoted the idea of

Messenian unity and survived well into the 3rd and early 2nd century.66 Conversely, no other

Messenian community minted coinage before obtaining its independence and joining the

Achaean League, between the end of the 3rd and the early 2nd century.

While this body of evidence shows that Messene had some sort of political control over the other Messenian cities, available evidence does not allow to precisely define the link that bound them to the main polis, such as a federal state or a system of perioikic communities.67

Still, what matters most for my analysis is simply to recognize that since the end of the 4th century Messene controlled the entirety of Messenia, including a number of subordinate communities. Another crucial factor is that Messenian cities do not appear fond of this centralized structure. None of them spontaneously joined the newly created Messene in 369 but was either conquered or assigned to it by foreign powers (the Arcadians, Philip II). And whenever any of these communities was detached from the Messenian state, it was for good; none of them joined it again. The citizens of Messene instead valued control over the region. In

220 they tried to have the Achaeans return to them Pylos and Asine, which had both become part of the League.68

65 Grandjean 2003. 66 Grandjean 2003, pp. 93, 96 “les types monétaires adoptés pour ces premières émissions n’ont pas été abandonnés avant le début du IIe siècle.” The ethnic monogram ME or ΜΕΣ appears consistently throughout the history of the city (series I-XVI), down to Imperial times. 67 Scholars have variously interpreted the evidence I surveyed and come to different conclusions. Shipley 2018, pp. 137-138 admits the evidence is insufficient and only proves there was some sort of formal association among Messenian poleis; Luraghi 2008, pp. 266-269 considers the evidence for a federal state more reliable, but also emphasizes that the ambiguity in ancient onomastics may reflect a fluid and constantly evolving political situation; Grandjean 2003, pp. 91-105 argues that nothing definitely points to the existence of a federal state; Roebuck 1941, pp. 109-117 believes a proper federal state existed since 369, and further developed with the territorial expansion. 68 Plb. 18.42.7.

23 Moreover, after the foundation of the city, Messene devoted much energy to fostering a sense of Messenian ethnic identity through the creation of a shared mythical past, a unified religious landscape, and a common historical memory. One of the main goals of this ideological construction was to help promote the political unity of the region, of course with Messene in a hegemonic role. Both political events and the cultural policies carried out by Messene show that its citizens considered it a priority to maintain the position of regional preeminence and the control they exercised over the other communities.

2.C. Independent Hellenistic Messenia

Although after Philip’s death the pro-Macedonian party may have suffered a setback, Messene did not participate in Agis’ war against Macedon; hostility to Sparta was still strong among the

Messenians.69 After Alexander’s death, Messene joined the Hellenic League in rebelling against

Macedon, but it is not clear whether they actually fought in the Lamian War.70

At this time, Messene entered the political and diplomatic network of independent

Hellenistic polities, and we see it trying to maintain its autonomy and pursue its interest through a range of solutions, including the protection of stronger allies and the recourse to arbitrations.

The city was involved in the wars of the Diadochs, when it changed sides and was occupied several times.71 Even in these difficult times, Messene retained control over the rest of Messenia, and the epigraphic text of a treaty with king Lysimachos mentions the Messenians and their allies.72 Around 279 the Messenians seem to have been involved in a conflict against Sparta, and

69 On the war see Kralli 2017, pp. 70-75; Cartledge and Spawforth 2002, pp. 14-24. 70 D.S. 18.11.2; Paus. 1.25.4, 4.28.3. 71 Roebuck 1941, pp. 58-65. On the situation in the Peloponnese at the end of the 4th century, see Kralli 2017, pp. 88-102. 72 SEG 51,457, l. 9: τοὺς] Μεσσανίων συμμάχους. The text also mentions that the king is required to help the Messenians in case anyone tries to alter the constitution or bring back the exiles (ll. 9-10, τὸ πο[λίτευμα καταλ]ύη[ι

24 it may have been at this time that Messene lost the Dentheliatis area to Sparta, but we do not have enough evidence to prove it.73

The middle of the 3rd century saw an important change in Messenian foreign policy, one that would have long-lasting repercussions, namely the establishment of good relations with the

Aetolian League.74 The first friendly contacts date to the 260s, when several Messenians became proxenoi of the Aetolians.75 The next piece of evidence on the Messenian-Aetolian relations is the first document from my epigraphical dossier, a mediation between Messene and Phigaleia by the Aetolians.76

Phigaleia is a small Arcadian polis situated immediately across the river Neda, which constituted the northern border of Messenia. Because of its geographical position, the city often opposed Messene, both by challenging its control over the northern liminal areas and by launching raids against Messenia. As we will see, the rivalry between the two cities will periodically reoccur until the 2nd century. The documents concerning the mediation are inscribed on a stele, which breaks off after about twenty-five lines. The main document is a decree of the polis of Messene, followed by a shorter Phigaleian decree and by the oath sworn by the

Messenians. The fact that the stone was found in Phigaleia indicates that this was their copy. In all probability, another copy was set up in Messene. The text informs us that three prominent

Aetolians met with representatives from both cities and mediated an agreement. This included a grant of isopoliteia (reciprocal citizenship) and epigamia (right of lawful marriage) between the

σφῶν ἢ προδιδ]ῶι ἢ φυγάδας κατάγηι). Apparently, recurring external wars had coincided with internal strife, which still threatened the city. 73 Paus. 4.28.3. On Dentheliatis: Marasco 1980, p. 74; WCP I, p. 288; Roebuck 1941, p. 62; contra Shipley 2000, p. 386, saying that the arbitration under Antigonos does not imply a recapture by Sparta. Grandjean 2003, p. 74 does not decide between Kleonymos and Kleomenes III. Kralli 2017, p. 136, 250 suggests the Spartans never reconquered the Dentheliatis. 74 Kralli 2017, pp. 278-281; Luraghi 2008, p. 257; Grandjean 2003, pp. 75-76; Roebuck 1941, pp. 66-71. 75 IG IX 12 1:17; 18. On Aetolian proxenies, see also Fossey 1996. 76 Document 1.

25 two communities, with the possibility of creating symbola (judiciary agreements) on specific issues. The disputed land, which must have been the main issue at stake, was to be used by both parties, with a return to the status quo. The text includes one important clause: for the agreement to remain valid, both sides must remain friends of the Aetolians. This clause shows that at the time of this mediation around 240 both poleis were in good terms with the Aetolian League, possibly their allies.77 It was in their role of friends of both communities that the Aetolians mediated the peace. This was part of their efforts to expand their influence in the Peloponnese at the time.78

Contacts between Messene and Aetolia culminated in an alliance. While Polybius mentions it in the context of 220, he describes it as existing for a long time.79 Scholars agree in dating it to the late 240s, in connection with the Aetolian invasion of Laconia of 240 and the mediation between Messene and Phigaleia.80 Despite the alliance, Messene did not take part in the war Aetolians and Achaeans waged against Demetrios II.81 However, it may be at this time that the city lost control of Pylos, which joined the Achaean League. Once again, we do not know the exact context, but only that by 220 Pylos was Achaean, since the League complained about an attack against it.82 What is clear is that the Messenians opposed this defection, as they will later ask for the return of Pylos on several occasions.83

77 On this clause and the degree of Aetolian involvement and influence, see Chapter 3.2.B.iii. 78 On the Aetolian expansion in the area during the 240s, see Scholten 2000, pp. 116-130. 79 Plb. 4.6.11, οὔτε τῆς ὑπαρχούσης αὐτοῖς ἐκ παλαιῶν χρόνων πρὸς τοὺς Μεσσηνίους φιλίας καὶ συμμαχίας οὐδ᾽ ἡντινοῦν ποιησάμενοι πρόνοιαν. 80 Kralli 2017, p. 280; Grandjean 2003, p. 75; Roebuck 1941, pp. 66-68. 81 On the war, see CAH2 VII, pp. 446-453 (F. W. Walbank). 82 Plb. 4.25. On the date for the loss of Pylos, see Luraghi 2008, p. 258. One possible reason for Pylos’ defection is that Messene failed to protect it from piratic attacks during the Illyrian War, which we know targeted the western coast of Messenia. On this, see Plb. 2.5.2. Paus. 4.35.6-7 mentions an Illyrian raid against Methone. See also Kralli 2017, p. 281; Luraghi 2008, p. 258 and n. 31. 83 Pace Marasco 1980, pp. 120-121. Messenian protests for the return of Pylos in 209 in Liv. 27.30.13; in 196 in Plb. 18.42.7. Since Pylos did not seem to have joined the Messenian state willingly in 365 (D.S. 15.77.4), it may have seen in the Achaean League a way to gain independence from Messene.

26 During the Cleomenic War (228-222), Messene was once again able to isolate itself and did not officially take part in the hostilities, as Polybius (4.5.5) specifically states that Messenia was the only region untouched by the war.84 Despite its isolationist policy, Messene benefited from the defeat of Cleomenes. Antigonos Doson took away from Laconia many liminal areas, and it is probable that the Messenians were now given back the Dentheliatis.85

After 221, Aetolian-Messenian relations took a turn for the worse, as the Aetolians carried out several incursions in both Messenia and Achaea.86 While these actions may have been meant as a show of force to back-up the pro-Aetolian faction in Messene, they had the opposite effect, and the Messenians first asked the Achaeans for help, and were later admitted in the Hellenic League.87 Messene then participated in the Social War (220-217) with the Achaeans and Philip V against Aetolia, but played a secondary role throughout it.88 The recurring appearance of Phigaleia as a thorn in Messene’s side suggests that the Aetolians were taking advantage not only of its favorable geographic position, but also of the hostility between the two cities, which the arbitration had not fully solved. The end of the war in 217 did not bring any

84 On Messene’s unofficial involvement: Plb. 2.55.3, some Messenians exiles helped Cleomenes’ surprise attack against Megalopolis; Plut., Cleom. 19, the Messenian Tritymallos acted as Cleomenes’ representative to Aratos; Plb. 2.62.10; Paus. 4.29.8, 8.49.4; Plut., Cleom. 24, Philopoem. 5, Messene hosted Megalopolitan refugees after the Spartan sack of the city. 85 Tac., Ann. 4.43; cf. Ager 50; Grandjean 2003, p. 77. Kralli 2017, p. 250 believes the Messenians never lost control of Dentheliatis after 338, and Antigonos simply confirmed their possession over it. In Tacitus’ passage “it is unlikely that the Spartans would have failed to mention a re-conquest, had it existed.” However, confirming Messenian possession would make more sense in presence of a Spartan legal claim. And it seems hard to imagine Cleomenes had put forward such claim, since he had just occupied other boundary districts, such as the Aigytis and the Belminatis (Plut., Cleom. 6; Plb. 2.54). 86 Plb. 4.3-4; 4.6-12; cf. Kralli 2017, p. 286, n. 6. 87 On the goal of the raids, see Luraghi 2008, p. 258. On Messene in the Hellenic League, see Plb. 4.7, 9 (cf. Scholten 2000, p. 281; WCP I, pp. 455-457). CAH2 VII, pp. 474-476 (F. W. Walbank); and Roebuck 1941, p. 73 suggest that Aratos saw in helping Messene a chance to expand the League’s influence over the western Peloponnese; cf. Kralli 2017, p. 283. 88 For a recent and detailed survey of the Social War, see Kralli 2017, pp. 267-300. Polybius (4.15.6; 4.31-32) attributes this timid policy to the oligarchs in power. Roebuck 1941, pp. 77-78 suggests that the Messenian elite was probably concerned with the safety of their estates. Kralli 2017, p. 284 wonders whether Polybius is exaggerating the disagreement in policy between the people and the magistrates.

27 territorial losses or gains for Messene; however, the city was now closer to the Achaean sphere of influence.

The following years proved difficult for Messene. During a period of stasis between the local aristocracy and the common people in 215/4, a number of prominent citizens were exiled and killed, new citizens were enrolled, and a democratic government was established.89 Then

Messene lost control of Asine, possibly within the context of the First Macedonian War (215-

205), in which they sided with Rome and Aetolia.90 The terminus ante quem for the loss of Asine is 196, when the Messenians asked the Romans for the return of both Pylos and Asine (Plb.

18.42.7).91 However, the Roman commissioners left both cities in Achaean hands.92

While we do not know what the Messenians’ position was during the Syrian War (192-

189), it did not do them any good.93 By 191 the Romans had defeated Antiochos III (r. 222-187) at Thermopylae, forcing him to abandon Greece, and then then launched a campaign against

Aetolia. The Achaeans realized the Aetolians would not be able to protect their allies in the

Peloponnese, and therefore asked both Eleians and Messenians to enter the League. The

89 Plb. 7.10, cf. WCP II, pp. 56-60; Plut., Arat. 49-51. Unfortunately, relative chronology between Polybius’ and Plutarch’s accounts is not secure. I agree with WCP II, p. 57 in seeing the democratic change as a result of the stasis, although the presence of strategoi does not necessarily point to another institutional change; cf. Grandjean 2003, p. 80. Contra see Roebuck 1941, p. 81. 90 We do not know the exact year of the alliance between Messene and Aetolia, but in 210 the Aetolians listed Messene among their allies (Plb. 9.30.6); cf. Luraghi 2008, pp. 260-261; Grandjean 2003, p. 80; Roebuck 1941, p. 84, n. 88. Since Livy 26.24.9 does not mention Messene while listing the Aetolian allies in 212 or 211, Roebuck suggests the alliance may have taken place between 212 and 210. However, Livy may just have failed to mention the Messenians. The new change in alliances is an effect of Philip V’s attacks on Messene around 215. On this, see Plb. 3.19.11; 8.12.1; Plut., Arat. 51. Paus 4.29.1 also describes Demetrios’ attack but confuses him with Philip’s son Demetrios. This possibly happened in the fall of 214 (WCP II, p. 87). Philip’s goal must have been to acquire a secure base for his plans in the Adriatic against Rome; see Kralli 2017, p. 300 n. 122; Grandjean 2003, p. 80. 91 209 provides a solid terminus post quem, since at that time Pylos was the only Messenian request (Liv. 27.30.13). 92 Kralli 2017, p. 325 and n. 66; L&M, p. 515; WCP II, p. 606; Roebuck 1941, pp. 89-91. 93 On the events of the war, see CAH2 VIII, pp. 274-289 (R. M. Errington). It is unclear whether the city did anything more than sympathize with Antiochos, as an ally of Aetolia. Liv. 42.37.8 says both the Eleians and Messenians had fought for Antiochos against Rome but he also incorrectly places Eleians and Messenians on the side of Philip V in the earlier war. Both Errington 1969, p. 123; and Roebuck 1941, p. 91 and n. 113 take Livy at face value; contra, Luraghi 2008, p. 161 n. 49, who argues for Messenian neutrality; Grandjean 2003, p. 82, is also cautious.

28 Messenians did not give the envoys a reply and might have prepared for war.94 The Achaean strategos Diophanes then invaded Messenia, devastating its territory and finally laying siege to

Messene. With no other solution in sight, the Messenians contacted Flamininus and offered him their deditio to Rome. While it is unclear whether he formally accepted the offer, Flamininus met with Diophanes in Andania and he there decided the fate of Messene.95 The Achaean army had to retreat, but the Messenians were to recall the exiles and to join the League.96

Besides its full autonomy, Messene lost some of its dependent communities. A list of nomographoi—a body of Achaean legislative officials, to which each city contributed a certain number of delegates—dated to this period attests that both Kyparissia and Korone became independent, and the same may have happened to Methone.97 Messene retained Abia, Thouria, and Pharai and became somewhat integrated in the institutions of the League, being allotted two nomographoi itself. However, as other communities like Argos and Sparta, the city never came to fully belong to the League. According to our evidence, in the almost fifty years until the dissolution of the League, no Messenian citizen ever achieved the highest magistracies of strategos or hipparchos, and no federal assembly took place in Messene.98 Moreover, both the

94 Our knowledge of all these events depends on Liv. 36.31.1-9. Liv. 36.31.4 depicts the Messenians as starting the war, Messenii sine responso dimissis legatis moverant bellum. However, Kralli 2017, p. 326 wonders points out that Livy (depending on Polybius) may be trying to blame the Messenians for the following hostilities. 95 Roebuck 1941, p. 92 n. 117; Aymard 1938b, pp. 342-4 and n. 7 both deny that Flamininus accepted the deditio; contra WCP III, p. 193. 96 The identity of these exiles is unknown. Errington 1969, pp. 125-127 suggests they may have belonged to the pro- Roman faction, driven out between 195 and 191; the future separatist leader Deinokrates may have been among them. 97 Achaïe III, 116, ll. 4-9, dated to 191-182. Kyparissia, Korone have one nomographos each. Asine also has one nomographos, though we know it had become independent at an earlier stage. Luraghi 2008, p. 262 n. 50, points out that Methone would have been geographically isolated from Messene, and thus probably became independent as well. 98 O’Neil 1984; Aymard 1938a, p. 307 and n. 8.

29 restoration of the exiles and the way in which Philopoemen applied Flamininus’ orders seem to have caused further political troubles.99

2.D. Achaean and Roman Messenia

While we do not have the complete picture, the loss of dependent communities, the internal troubles with the exiles, and the lack of integration within the Achaean League were among the factors that pushed Messene towards rebellion against the League. To these, one should add the belief that Rome would be willing to support a secession.100 We do not know to what extent the people of Messene supported the secession, but the city minted a new series of silver tetradrachms, which did not follow the Achaean type but recalled the early Messenian coinage of mid-4th century, with Zeus Ithomatas and the head of Demeter. This coinage looked back at

Messene’s independent past, and at its role as political center for all Messenians.101 It seems that the Achaeans were the first ones to act, even though Messene had not yet formally rebelled. The intervention of Q. Marcius Philippus, who asked the matter to be arbitrated by Rome, did not solve things.102 By the winter of 183/2 the Achaeans voted on war.103

99 Plb. 22.10.6; see also Luraghi 2008, p. 262 n. 52; WCP III, p. 193; Roebuck 1941, pp. 94-95. We hear of such troubles during a synodos in 185; Philopoemen’s actions probably date to his strategy in 190/89. It is unnecessary to link the return of the exiles to some constitutional change. 100 Plb. 23.5, the Messenian Deinokrates, depicted as the pivotal figure of the rebellion, was a friend of Flamininus and thought he could count on his support. After a visit to Rome, Deinokrates returned to Greece with Flamininus, confident he could manage Messenian affairs as he pleased. Even though Flamininus was not able to support him, Deinokrates pushed on. 101 On this type, see Grandjean 2003, pp. 110-112, 126-130. On its ideological meaning, see Luraghi 2008, p. 263. 102 Plb. 24.11.12-13. This information is recalled by Kallikrates in his speech in front of the Senate in 180; on this speech, see Chapter 3.2.A.ii. 103 The exact time is unknown, but Philippus’ report to the Senate in the winter is the terminus ante quem; see Kralli 2017, p. 360; Roebuck 1941, pp. 97 n. 126; contra Larsen 1968, p. 457. Liv. 39.48.5 is wrong in placing the revolt before Marcius’ arrival, see Briscoe 2008, p. 385. Cf. CAH2 VIII, pp. 297-298 (P. S. Derow).

30 We only have scanty information on the following conflict, the only well-known episode being the one that led to the capture of Philopoemen.104 It seems his actions were linked to a

Messenian attack on Korone.105 That the only recorded Messenian action was against a former dependent city suggests one of the aims of the secession was to reestablish Messene’s control over the region.106 After Philopoemen’s capture and his death in Messene, the Achaeans elected

Lykortas as new strategos, and he started ravaging the territory of Messene.107 The Messenian people now were prone to ask for peace, and Deinokrates and the magistrates were no longer in control of the situation. This is one of many instances in which our sources allude to disagreement between the elite and the demos, with only the first being actively anti-Achaean.108

With the assistance of two Boiotian envoys, the Messenians sued for peace.109

Lykortas demanded the surrender of the authors of the revolt, the placement of a garrison on Ithome, and the acceptance of all future terms decided by the koinon; the Messenians accepted all terms.110 At a federal assembly later in the year, Messene was officially

104 For modern discussions of the secession, see Kralli 2017, pp. 359-363; L&M pp. 518-521; Luraghi 2008, pp. 262-263; Grandjean 2003, pp. 227-229; Errington 1969, pp. 183-194; Roebuck 1941, pp. 98-105. 105 Liv. 39.49.1. Plut., Philop. 18.3. while describing the same events, says the target was Kolonides, which neighbors Korone. The Messenians probably aimed at recovering the whole area, see Kralli 2017, p. 360; Luraghi 2008, p. 263, n. 54; Errington 1969, p. 190 and n. 2. 106 The goal was perhaps to gain control of the harbor of Korone, in the hope of importing supplies from overseas and Italy in particular, see Roebuck 1941, p. 99. Moreover, Paus. 4.29.11 mentions that Lykortas, who was acting as commander, attempted to invade Messenia but had to retreat since Deinokrates had troops guarding all the passes leading into the region. 107 On Philopoemen’s role in the war and his death, see Liv. 39.49-50; Plut., Philop. 18-21; Paus. 4.29.12, 8-51.5-8; Plb. 23.12 (briefly). All these sources probably depend on Polybius. The Treasury in which Philopoemen was imprisoned has been identified during the recent excavations, see Themelis 2006, pp. 49-52. Errington 1969, pp. 191-192 wonders whether Philopoemen simply died of his previous illness. The last phase of the war is in Plb. 23.16. 108 Liv. 39.50.5-7, the magistrates killed Philopoemen while the people were thinking of sparing him; Plb. 23.16.2-4, the people pushed for peace talks and the leaders of the secession retired in their own houses, 23.16.7, the Achaeans asked for the leaders of the revolt to be handed to them. 109 Plb. 23.16.5. Apparently, the two Boiotians were in town with the goal of trying to mediate between the two sides. Ager 115 includes this attempt in her corpus of arbitrations. 110 Upon entering Messene, Lykortas had Deinokrates and the other responsible for the death of Philopoemen committed suicide, while others were stoned to death during his funeral (Plb. 23.16.13; Plut., Philop. 21.5). Some other citizens seem to have been exiled and were later restored by Kallikrates during his generalship around 180 (Plb. 24.9.13, 10.15). On the date of Kallikrates’ generalship, see WCP III, p. 264; Errington 1969, pp. 263-5.

31 reincorporated in the Achaean League. As further punishment, the polis lost control of Abia,

Thouria, and Pharai, which all became independent members of the League.111 In the following year, the Achaeans somewhat mitigated such harsh treatment, and Messene was allowed a three- years exemption from the federal tax as reparation from the devastations of Lykortas’ invasion

(Plb. 24.2).

The long process of curtailment of Messene’s territory, which had started in the 3rd century, reached its conclusion at this time. Its territory was still of respectable size, and included fertile areas, such as the upper Stenykleros plain and at least part of the western Pamisos valley.

However, Messene no longer controlled any major Messenian center and did not have direct access to a harbor; its hegemony over Messenia was over. The years after the reincorporation of

Messene into the League are crucial for my analysis, as they saw a spike in the number of arbitration cases. While Messene resorted to arbitrations to preserve its remaining territory, the newly independent polis of Thouria defined its borders with Megalopolis.

Messene was involved in a long territorial dispute only months after its return into the

League. Through the years 182 to 179/8 the Megalopolitans repeatedly challenged Messenian control over Andania and other liminal areas, Pylana, Akreiatis, and Bipeiatis. None of these three regions is securely identified, but they are probably to be located in the mountainous areas around Mt. Tetrazion, between Messenia and Arcadia. Our information about this complex dispute comes from a long arbitration inscription recently found in the agora of Messene, which describes in detail the legal process.112 The inscription, carved on a large rectangular block, is a whole dossier, but to this date only one document has been fully published. The published

111 Plb. 23.16.12-13, 17.1-2, 24.2.1-3; Plut., Philop. 21. 112 Document 2. For a more detailed description of this dispute and further information on the disputed land, the parties involved, and its monumental setting, see Chapter 2.1.B.

32 document is a decree of Messene, which recalls and commemorates the city’s long legal struggle against Arcadian communities and Achaean federal authorities. The Messenians went to court twice to defend their ownership of the disputed land, first against Megalopolis and then against the Kaliatai, the citizens of an unidentified Arcadian community. Even though Messene won both cases, Megalopolis challenged it to undergo yet another trial. Messene’s refusal caused the

Achaean damiorgoi—federal magistrates in charge, among other things, of the administration of justice—to fine the city. Messene appealed the decision and found itself in court once again. Six arbiters from Miletos judged the case, and voted in favor of Messene, voiding the fine and putting an end to the long dispute.

An arbitration between Thouria and Megalopolis also seems to date to the years immediately following Messene’s forced return into the League.113 We know that a third city was chosen as arbiter but the stone stele, set and found in Olympia, is unfortunately fragmentary, and the name of such polis is missing. The surviving text starts with the description of the newly fixed border, confirming that the dispute concerned some piece of land. It then mentions the

Achaeans and a federal assembly in Sikyon, showing that the League’s authorities had played a part in solving the conflict. We also have a partial list of those men who acted as representatives of both cities. Megalopolis sent many powerful individuals, including the historian Polybius, his brother Lykortas, and the former Achaean general Diophanes. Finally, the text may end with an address by a Roman magistrate, possibly putting his sanction on the whole issue. The text dates to the period after 182, when Thouria became independent of Messene, and before Polybius’ exile to Rome in 167. Now an autonomous polis, Thouria shared a border with Megalopolis, and this must have created the need for an officially sanctioned definition of the border.

113 Document 3.

33 During the first half of the 2nd century, Messene undertook other arbitrations with neighboring polities. A stone found in Messene attests that the city was still at odds with

Phigaleia.114 The very fragmentary text only consists of a border description and of some personal names, acting as city representatives. We have no information about the arbiter. The two cities must have been fighting over border areas, possibly the territory around Mt. Tetrazion and Hagios Ilias, just south of the river Neda. Since during the 2nd century Phigaleia belonged to the Achaean League, federal authorities may have pushed for a peaceful solution for this local dispute. The stone is broadly dated to the early 2nd century on letter forms, perhaps with a slight preference for 191 or 182, when Messene joined the League, as the Achaeans often tried to solve outstanding disputes among members.115 Another fragmentary stone from Messene may attest to a second arbitration case.116 The name of Messene is the only one that has survived, so the identity of the other litigant is unclear. However, some scholars have suggested that this fragment may also belong to the other stone from Messene and be part of the very same arbitration with Phigaleia.117 The surviving text has two main parts, a border description and an honorific decree, possibly a proxeny. The latter must have been a decision taken by Messene to thank some of the individuals involved in the arbitration, either its representatives in court or the arbiters who judged the case.

Besides these arbitrations, we do not hear about Messene in following years, until the dissolution of the League. As previously mentioned, the Messenians did not produce any federal magistrate and no assembly was ever held in Messene. This only partial integration into the

League may explain why the Messenians did not send any troops to Corinth during the Achaean

114 Document 4. 115 Ager 38 (=Harter-Uibopuu 3) 116 Document 5. 117 See the Commentary to document 5 in the Epigraphical Dossier.

34 War in 146.118 Messene may have benefited from the Roman conquest, since it was liberated from Achaean control and was now a free city, not paying tribute to Rome.119 However, the polis was not able to restore its hegemony over the rest of Messenia. Epigraphic and numismatic evidence shows that cities like Thouria and Korone remained independent, and the same is probably true for the rest of the Messenian communities.120 Still, Messene had its fertile territory and even kept control of the Dentheliatis, as an arbitration dating to around 138 confirms.

Our evidence for this case comes from a dossier consisting of three different documents pertaining to an arbitration between Messene and Sparta which also involved Rome, Miletos, and

Elis.121 The two litigants first asked the Republic to settle the dispute. However, the Senate only set the terms of the dispute and then delegated the issue to Miletos. The polis which owned the land in 146, at the time of L. Mummius’ stay in Greece, was to keep it. While the stone nowhere names the disputed territory, an independent testimony by Tacitus (Ann., 4.43.1) points to the

Dentheliatis. Messene and Sparta each sent to Miletos a representative, who spoke in front of a large popular jury. Messene won by a landslide. The Messenians then obtained a letter with an official copy of the verdict and travelled to Elis. Here they obtained permission to inscribe the dossier at Olympia, on the stele of the Nike of Paionios. Thanks to the detailed nature of its documents, this dossier provides valuable information about many different aspects of arbitrations. Consequently, it will feature prominently in my analyses of textual and visual narratives, and of arbitrations as indicators of polis status.

118 Plb. 38.16.3 says that both Messene and Elis feared an attack from the Roman fleet, but this explanation seems aimed at providing an excuse for the two polities after the events. See also Kralli 2017, p. 378; Grandjean 2003, pp. 229-230; Roebuck 1941, p. 106. 119 Grandjean 2003, p. 230. 120 Grandjean 2003, pp. 231-232; particularly suggestive is the fact that both poleis minted coinage after 146. 121 Document 6.

35 The last securely attested Messenian arbitration involves another dispute between

Thouria and Megalopolis, this time with Patrai acting as judge.122 The object of the dispute is unknown. The text, a Thourian decree, bids the civic magistrates to travel to Patrai to represent the interests of the city, and allows any private citizen to go as well. In case of victory, the polis will then record the names of all those who travelled. Thouria indeed won, since a long list of personal names follows the decree on the stone. The date of this document is unclear, and scholars have put forward different hypotheses. The best seems to be the second half of the 2nd century, based on both letter forms and the mention of civic magistrates that often appear in

Roman times.123

After this, we have no further epigraphical attestations of arbitrations in Messene. The 1st century is a watershed moment for Roman influence in Greece. Owing to the many political and military crises that the Republic faced, Roman control became stricter. Among other things, this led to the end of interstate arbitrations as they had previously existed in the Greek world. Now all disputes would be solved by means of appeals to Roman authorities.124 Despite these changes, we know that Messene was still involved in some arbitrations while trying to maintain control over its territory, in particular opposing Sparta for the Dentheliatis. Antony and Octavian awarded the Dentheliatis to Sparta, but at a later stage the otherwise unknown praetor of Achaea

Atidius Geminus returned it to Messene.125 In 25 C.E. the Senate confirmed Messenian control over the Dentheliatis, and when an Imperial surveyor carefully defined the border between

122 Document 7. 123 On the institution of Roman Messene, see Deshours 2004. 124 On this period, and the Mithridatic Wars in particular, as a time of decisive change, see Camia 2009, pp. 214- 215; Heller 2006, pp. 27-56 (continuity before and after 129 in Asia Minor), pp. 57-83 (changes in dealing with territorial conflicts during the 1st century); Kallet-Marx 1995a, p. 181. On the effects of Roman imperial control on Greek diplomatic institutions, see Mack 2015, pp. 233-281. 125 On Messene during the Civil Wars, see Grandjean 2003, pp. 248-249. Rome arbitrations for the Dentheliatis are attested in Tac., Ann. 4.43.

36 Messene and Sparta in 78 C.E., the situation had not changed. Although there is no evidence of a new dispute at this time, this demarcation shows both sides paid much attention to the territory.

The border was precisely defined by several inscribed boundary-stones, some placed on the mountain peaks of Taygetos, at considerable altitude.126 The centuries-old rivalry for

Dentheliatis may have continued even further. A fragmentary inscription from 177/8 C.E. from

Pharai mentions the Spartans in regard to an unknown matter, possibly a border dispute. If that was the case, it means Sparta had once again acquired control over Dentheliatis, attesting to the diachronic vitality of this territorial dispute.127

126 The imperial survey of the border is attested in IG V,1 1431. The most recent studies of the boundary-stones and of the border are Koursoumis 2104; Koursoumis and Kosmopoulos 2013. 127 IG V,1 1361; cf. Cartledge and Spawforth 2002, p. 128.

37 CHAPTER 1. THE ROLE OF INDIVIDUALS

In this chapter I explore the connection between individuals and interstate arbitrations. The prominent mention of several individuals in Messenian inscriptions recording interstate arbitrations suggests that individual agency was valued as much as collective agency. Citizens serving as judges, advocates, or representatives played key roles and saw their service to the polis acknowledged in arbitration inscriptions. Messenian arbitrations show that many of the men involved were wealthy aristocrats who had access to extensive social networks and occupied positions of power. The parallels between arbitrations and acts of euergetism indicate that elite individuals sought to enhance their prestige and their social standing within their community by participating in arbitrations.1 Arbitrations were an opportunity for elite citizens to promote a specific image of these proceedings, according to which citizens equipped with legal and rhetorical expertise improved the chances of victory in court, ultimately benefiting the poleis.

Arbitration inscriptions conveyed a powerful ideological message, as they were one of the means poleis used to depict the relationship between elites and demos in positive and mutually beneficial terms. The participation of elite men also shows that both individuals and the citizen body were invested in the results of arbitrations. Cities tried to secure victory by mobilizing their most prominent citizens, who in turn considered arbitrations as opportunities to display their civic virtues and earn honors. The attention paid to arbitrations and border disputes indicates that local matters were of the utmost relevance even in the highly interconnected

Hellenistic period.

1 The modern scholarly term euergetism, indicating the phenomenon of voluntary donations by individuals to a community, which then rewarded them with various honors, first appears in Boulanger 1923, p. 25. For a concise definition of the term, see OCD. For further bibliography on euergetism and contrasting scholarly opinions over its effects on the polis, see below, n. 98.

1. Recording of Individuals

Individuals filled several key roles in interstate arbitrations, even though interstate arbitrations were transactions between polities. Some inscribed arbitration documents recorded these persons by name, giving them prominence over their fellow citizens.

By surveying the corpus of Messenian arbitrations, I show the different roles for which the inscribed texts mention specific individuals. This survey attests that arbitrations provided chances for individual distinction in a form that was officially recognized by the polis. I exclude from this analysis four individuals whose names are preserved partially in a fragmentary boundary regulation between Messene and Phigaleia (which followed an Aetolian mediation).2

The fragmentary state of the stone makes it impossible to determine who the four men were and what their function was within the arbitration process. As far as we can tell from their incomplete names, none of them is otherwise known.

1.A. Document 1. Mediation between Messene and Phigaleia

I begin with the Aetolian mediation between Messene and Phigaleia, attested by a fragmentary stele.3 The bulk of the preserved text (about twenty-five lines) is a decree by Messene, which conveys most of the information about the agreement between the two polities: shared use of the disputed borderland and the grant of mutual civic rights to their citizens. The decree mentions two sets of individuals, the Aetolian ambassadors and the representatives from Phigaleia.

2 Document 4. 3 On the broader context for this text, see the Introduction.

39 The status of the Aetolian ambassadors is unclear. They were not judges, because this was not technically an arbitration, and the two parties never faced each other in a proper trial.4

Even in the context of a mediation the fragmentary text forces us to partially reconstruct their official title, which is π]ρεσβε[υ]ταὶ καὶ διαλ vac | […].5 The long lacuna in the following line does not allow for a definitive restoration of the word. I have followed previous editors of this text and adopted διαλ[λακταὶ], the official title of mediators. The verb διαλ[ύοντες], “solving

(the dispute)” is, however, a possible alternative. A common element in both these restorations is the attempt to reconcile the two litigants.6 Possible reasons for inscribing the names of Timaios and Kleopatros—the two Aetolian envoys—are their important role in the diplomatic transaction, and/or their elite status and ties with local politics. The process of mediating between two parties involved a high degree of personal discretion and individual judgment. We know that Timaios and Kleopatros received some instructions from the Aetolian League, because the stele mentions an Aetolian decree containing provisions for the reconciliation of the two cities, and the two individuals repeated the same concepts in person (ll. 3-6). Still, their position as mediators involved more than simply relating their instructions, and the specific mention of their names helps acknowledge their good services. Moreover, mentioning the envoys by name highlighted the importance of the diplomatic action because of their high status. Since at least one of the two attested envoys, Timaios, previously held important political offices and played a role in

Peloponnesian interstate relations, his presence stressed the Aetolians’ commitment to the agreement and reinforced the deal itself.7

4 On the distinction between arbitrations and mediations, and the reasons for the inclusion of this text, see the Introduction. 5 Document 1, 1-2. For a full discussion of this textual problem, see the Epigraphical Dossier. 6 Ager, p. 123, n. 1 and Magnetto, Arbitrati, p. 236 n. 4. 7 On Timaios, see below, section 2.A.

40 The text also mentions eight men who came from Phigaleia (6-7, συνπαρόντες δὲ καὶ τῶν

ἐ Φιαλείας παρελθόντων) to take part in the resolution of the dispute. The men are listed by name with no further indications of their function in the arbitration or any office they were holding at home. Still, it is clear from the text that they were in Messene to represent Phigaleia. It seems as if they at least took part in the final steps of the mediation process, agreeing to the written and oral dispositions proposed by the Aetolians. The inclusion of the Phigaleian names emphasized the peer status of the two poleis. Messene had to acknowledge in its own decree the reciprocity of the process: each party was sending delegations before the Aetolian judges.

1.B. Document 2. Messene’s Arbitrations with Megalopolis and Achaea

The names of two sets of judges and of an Achaean strategos appear in the text of the arbitration between Messene and its Achaean neighbors. The document is a Messenian decree from 179, inscribed on a statue base together with three other documents pertaining to the same dispute.8

The decree commemorates the long judicial struggle against Megalopolis, the Arcadian community of the Kaliatai, and the Achaean federal authorities. The Messenians won two trials against the Megalopolitans and the Kaliatai for control of some border territories, and then challenged a fine the League had inflicted on them for refusing to undergo yet another trial. After a final success in court, the Messenians inscribed the dossier as a memorial of their victory.

The decree first names individually the seventeen Achaean ἁγεμόνες that the two parties agreed were to judge the dispute in Karneiasion, the first trial pitting Messene against

Megalopolis (ll. 17-28). Each judge is recorded carefully by name, patronymic, and ethnic. The

8 The three other documents are still unpublished; cf. Chapter 2.1.B.i.

41 ἁγεμόνες were not members of a specific board of magistrates; they were prominent individuals chosen to judge the trial.

The precision of the decree had important advantages for the Messenians, as it made clear that many of the judges were men of great influence, whose judgment carried significant weight.9

Additionally, the inclusion of their ethnics showed that all the judges were from cities in the actual region of Achaea, where the first core of the League had originated. The choice to emphasize position and city of origin was likely a deliberate attempt to avoid any Arcadian presence that could be partial to Megalopolis because of shared ethnic identity.10

The list of Achaean judges was also part of the detailed description of the trial in which they took part. As I will discuss in the next chapter, the legitimacy of the trial was contested, so the Messenian decree sought to demonstrate its validity through an abundance of accurate details. Elements such as the exact place of the trial, a delimitation of the disputed land, and the identity of the judges were to prove that, contrary to the account of the Megalopolitans, a full trial had taken place, in which Messene had won. Together with other legal specifics, the recording of individual names reinforced the communication goals the Messenians were trying to achieve in their decree.11

The second board of judges mentioned in the text are the six Milesians that made the final decision in the dispute (98-100). The six judges are named because of the importance of their decision. The judgment regarded the legitimacy of the fine imposed on Messene by the federal authorities; however, it was closely tied to all previous disputes. By voiding the fine, the

9 For the presence of elite men in this and other arbitrations, see below, section 2.A. 10 The origin of the judges also fits broader trends in the politics of the Achaean League, as it confirms the observations of O’Neil 1984, who points out that the vast majority of the Achaean politicians came from only three places: “old Achaia,” Megalopolis, and Sikyon. 11 On the Messenians’ communication goals in this decree, see Chapter 2.1.B.ii.

42 Milesians confirmed the Messenian version of the story: the Messenians twice defeated the

Megalopolitans in arbitrations over the contested land. The judges’ intervention put an end to the long juridical dispute, or at least this was the message the Messenians decided to convey. The

Milesian judgement marks not only the end of the dispute, but also the crowning of the

Messenian narrative we see constructed carefully in the document, which highlighted their victory and portrayed it as definitive.12 From a diplomatic and political point of view, Milesian participation marked the escalation of the dispute, which crossed the borders of the Achaean

League and required the intervention of another polity from across the Aegean. The Milesian judgment is probably the case in which the victory of Messene is most clearly expressed without the complications that followed all other judgments: “and after they brought us in front of the court of the Milesians, we won with all the votes.”13 For all these reasons, this judgment is of particular importance, and the mention of the six names in the document is linked to its relevance.

The Messenians wanted to record this particular judgment in detail, to give their victory the appearance of finality. The identity of the judges attests the importance of that final step. At the same time, this list of names also gives additional prominence to the final decision. As I have noted, the long epigraphic dossier contains only two lists of personal names. The mention of the six names marked this as an important section in the text and thus added to the significance of this moment in the dispute. Therefore, the recording of these personal names reflected the importance of the court’s decision, but also helped reinforce it.

12 For an analysis of how the narrative was constructed, see Chapter 2.1.B.ii. 13 79-81, καὶ εἰσαγαγόντων εἰς τὸ δικαστήριον τῶν Μιλησίων ἐνικάσαμεν πάσαις ταῖς ψάφοις.

43 Besides these two sets of judges, the only other individual mentioned is the Achaean strategos Ainetidas (97). His name appears only to provide a dating for the fine attributed to the

Messenians by the δαμιοργοί.14

1.C. Document 3. Arbitration between Thouria and Megalopolis

This document, a judgement between Megalopolis and Thouria regarding their border, includes the names of city representatives for both sides.15 The two groups, one per city, appear on side B of the stone. Because of textual lacunae, we cannot reconstruct how these individuals were presented; however, what can be reconstructed points to a generic description similar to that of the Aetolian mediation. Both groups are introduced with a simple formula: “those coming from the city of the…” (4 and 8-9, τοῖς ἥκουσιν/παραγενομένοις ἀπὸ τᾶς πόλιος τῶν…). The presence of few well-known individuals from Megalopolis (such as Polybius and his brother Lykortas) confirms that these were not neutral third-party judges, but citizens of the litigant poleis.16 In the text there are no other indications of their exact role, but the most likely one is that of legal representatives of their cities, arguing their cases in front of the judges.17 What is interesting in this case is the asymmetry between the two delegations: the text lists nine personal names for the

Megalopolitan delegation, while Thouria only sent three men (5-10). Even accounting for some margin of error due to the fragmentary state of the text, the disparity remains striking. It is true that a different number of representatives did not legally make a difference. According to what we can reconstruct as “standard procedure” from other inscriptions, each party was allotted a

14 On Ainetidas, see the prosopographical appendix by Habicht in L&M, pp. 545-546. 15 Document 3. 16 A significant asymmetry exists also in terms of name recognition of the individuals involved. For a discussion on this “all-star” group of Megalopolitan representatives, see below, section 2.A. 17 Ager 116; IPArk 31; Harter-Uibopuu 9, all agree in identifying the two groups as the representatives from the two poleis.

44 fixed amount of time to present the evidence and argue their case in front of the judges, with only a few people giving a speech.18 Despite the absence of immediate legal advantages, many elite Megalopolitans were involved, showing that the individual participation was not just a matter of legal representation. As I discuss below, arbitrations provided elite men with the opportunity to act in favor of the polis and receive honors for their euergetistic behavior.19

1.D. Document 6. Milesian Arbitration between Messene and Sparta

The long inscription from Olympia about Miletos’ arbitration between Messene and Sparta includes mentions of city advocates and other individuals.20 After the Milesians passed their verdict, the Messenians obtained a copy of it and went to Elis to ask for permission to have it inscribed in the sanctuary. The actual judgment is described in copious detail in section C, the copy of the arbitral award that the Milesians sent to the Eleian magistrates (41-70). The award specifies that each party addressed the 600 judges twice. The first time they talked for fifteen

Milesian water measures, only five for the second time (55-59). The text specifies that both sides had agreed to this solution.21 The award also records the names of the representatives, one per side: Eudamidas son of Euthykles for the Spartans and Nikon son of Nikon for the Messenians

(60-62). The mention of both representatives is mostly due to the attention to detail that characterizes the Milesian document, which records not only these two individuals and the time given to them but also the number of judges and votes that each side obtained. As I will explore in the next chapter, through the precise mention of several details, the Milesians constructed a

18 See for example Ager 21 (Knidos arbitrating between Kalymna and Kos); and document 6, which provide abundant information about the legal details of the judgment, including the number of advocates per side and the time granted them for their speech. On document 6, see below, 1.D. 19 See below, 3.A-C. 20 Document 6. 21 59, καθότι καὶ αὐτοὶ εὐδόκησαν.

45 narrative that portrayed them as thoughtful judges, ready to perform their task with the utmost care.22 The inclusion of the representatives’ names and patronymics contributes to this image of precision.

The arbitration dossier also mentions several other individuals from the various polities involved. First, the text names two sets of Messenian ambassadors, identified by name and patronymic, who travelled to Miletos, to obtain a copy of the arbitration award, and to Elis, to have it inscribed in Olympia.23 The only one to appear in both cases is Menodoros son of

Dionysios, who took part in both diplomatic missions. His double participation and the initial position of his name suggests he had a prominent role, probably leading the embassies.24

Magistrates, both local and foreign, also appear in this text. The first one to appear is

Philonikos, the Eleian treasurer: the Eleian decree instructs him to provide the Messenian ambassadors with the largest gifts (ξένια) permitted by law (25-26). The presence in the arbitral award itself of the Milesian stephanephoros Eirenias (1), the Roman praetor Quintus Calpurnius

(2-3), and the (pro)consul Lucius Mummius (53-54, 64) is even more meaningful. The presence of the stephanephoros in a Milesian document comes as no surprise: as the city’s eponymous magistrate, it appears in many types of decrees as the dating criterion.25 More surprising is the mention of two Roman magistrates. Q. Calpurnius is introduced early on in the text, immediately after the Milesian stephanephoros: “since the praetor Quintus Calpurnius, son of Gaius, wrote to

22 Chapter 2.2.A.i. 23 The ambassadors appear in documents A and B of the dossier, therefore technically not properly in the arbitration award (C). However, documents A and B are crucial to the overall narrative, and the Messenians considered the inscribed dossier as one unit. Mentions of individuals (and other features) in these two documents fit well in the discussion of this arbitration. 24 Lines 4, 32. Unfortunately, Menodoros is otherwise unknown (LGPN IIIa, s.v.), so we have no further evidence about his position in Messene. 25 On the stephanephoros in the superscript of Milesian decrees, see Nawotka 2014, p. 22 and n. 169. The importance the Milesians attributed to this magistracy in relation to their past is proven by the seven lists of stephanephoroi they carved, which cover the period 525/4 – 31/2 CE (Milet I.3 122-128). Unfortunately, the names for the period 184/3 – 89/8 are missing, so we do not know in which exact year Eirenias held office.

46 us” (42-43, ὡς δὲ ὁ στρατηγὸς ἔγραψε Κόιντος Καλιπόρνιος Γαίου υἱός). A few lines below, L.

Mummius is mentioned twice, with the identical formula: “when Lucius Mummius was consul or proconsul in that province” (53-55, 63-65, ὅτε Λεύκιος Μόμμιος ὕπατος ἢ ἀνθύπατος ἐν ἐκείνηι

τῆι ἐπαρχίαι ἐγένετο. In both cases, the mention of Roman magistrates by name fits well the structure of the document. By sending the Milesians a letter containing the senatus consultum, the praetor Calpurnius initiated Miletos’ involvement in the arbitration process; his presence explains why a court would be assembling in the theater. Mummius’ mention also has a crucial legal role in the dispute: his consulship or proconsulship in 146-145 is the chronological reference point used to establish the ownership of the disputed territory. Besides defining important chronological and legal parameters, the mentions of Roman magistrates have another effect on the text, that of evoking Roman presence in the arbitration. Other elements contribute to the partial “Romanness” of document C, such as the many typical Roman institutions: praetor

(στρατηγός), senatus consultum (δόγμα τῆς συγκλήτου), consul or proconsul (ὕπατος ἢ

ἀνθύπατος), province (ἐπαρχεία).26 But names are particularly strong indicators that this is not solely a Greek context, since their Italian origin is unmistakable. Because of their alterity, personal names also help identify other Roman elements whose foreign nature might not otherwise be immediately clear. After all, nothing in the word στρατηγός necessarily points to a non-Greek context. This is because the word had for long been part of Greek political vocabulary, unlike other terms used to designate Roman officials, such as ὕπατος, which had only recently taken a political connotation.27 In the case of στρατηγός, it is especially through the combination of personal name and office that the document records Roman presence. Thus,

26 See below, Chapter 4.2 on how the juxtaposition of Greek and Roman institutions normalized Roman presence in the arbitration process. 27 Holleaux 1918.

47 personal names of Greek and Roman magistrates, placed side by side in the document, reinforce the idea of Greek and Roman institutions as equivalent and peers, at least in form, if not in political practice.

1.E. Document 7. Patraian Arbitration between Thouria and Megalopolis

The last document I discuss is a 1st century arbitration between Thouria and Megalopolis, arbitrated by Patrai.28 The inscription gives additional information on the role of city representatives (σύνδικοι). Not only were they to speak in favor of the polis, but they also represented their polis in the steps leading to the trial. In this case, they met with their

Megalopolitan counterparts and agreed on Patrai as the judge (3-4). As the document explains, the synedroi (board of magistrates) of Thouria decreed that several different groups were to travel to Patrai: the representatives, the synedroi themselves, and any citizen who wished to do so (9-10, πορευέστωσαν δὲ καὶ τῶν ἄλλων οἱ θέλοντες). All their names were to be inscribed on the stone in case of victory in court. The Thourians were successful and the stone recorded 112 names.29 While the inscription does not divide the names according to category, the official representatives of the city must have been a minority; the rest of those who travelled to Patrai did not formally take part in the trial. Still, we can imagine they showed their support by watching the trial as spectators. They may even have tried to influence the judges’ decision by cheering their advocates and booing the opponents.30 Their role, although informal, was close to that of the actual representatives of their polis. In addition to those who travelled to Patrai, the decree

28 Document 7. 29 Although only 104 names survive, the presence of eight more can be safely reconstructed. 30 While we do not have direct evidence for arbitration trials, see Lanni 1997 on the presence of spectators in Athenian trials and their role. Cf. Morstein-Marx 2004 for a discussion of the importance of unequal speech acts in public oratory.

48 also includes the names of two civic magistrates, the eponymous priest of Athena and the secretary of the synedroi (1-2). The priest provides the official dating, while the secretary’s name attests that the document is an official decree passed by the synedroi. Through these additional specifications, Thouria displayed the functioning of its civic institutions, thus reinforcing the validity of the decree.31

This survey of personal names recorded in Messenian arbitration inscriptions has shown that there were several roles in the arbitration process that offered citizens a chance for individual distinction as they acted alone or as part of small groups. The carving of their name emphasized this distinction, giving individuals preeminence over the rest of the citizen body. Both city representatives and small panels of judges often had their names inscribed, and civic magistrates and other individuals appear as well. The limited available evidence and the fragmentary state of some documents make it difficult to identify any hard rule that dictated the specific choices about including personal names. However, documents from Messenia confirm that poleis were willing to record the names of persons who had taken part in the arbitration. While multiple causes could lead to the carving of personal names, I highlight three main ones. First, a mention in an official document was an honorific reward for the selected citizens, who saw their contribution to the prosperity of the polis formally acknowledged. Second, as the polis publishing the inscription was almost always the winner of the dispute, it could use the presence of elite individuals in the arbitration process to stress the authority of the verdict and the importance of the result. Finally, the insertion of personal names in specific locations within the

31 On the secretary as a “faux éponyme,” see Deshours 2004, p. 139.

49 text could contribute to the construction of specific narratives in the document, for example one describing the inscribed verdict as final.

Both the existence of important roles for individuals and the cities’ willingness to record their names in inscriptions made arbitrations a means for citizens to showcase their skills and advertise their goodwill towards the polis. This chance for distinction must have been particularly attractive for elite men, who could use their expertise, wealth, and social network to help the cause of their city, while also receiving proper recognition and thus improving their status within the community. I will next explore the involvement of elite individuals in

Messenian arbitrations.

2. Elite Participation

When looking at the names of the men involved in the arbitrations I have studied, one notices famous politicians of the time as well as men of noble and influential families, who held high magistracies in their communities and in federal leagues (see Table 1). Surveying the Messenian corpus of inscriptions shows that most arbitrations saw the involvement of very prominent individuals, whose influence was not limited to local disputes. The participation of politicians whose importance was felt at a regional or even pan-Mediterranean level makes arbitrations stand out among other local diplomatic issues, marking the relevance they had for both poleis and individuals.

Timaios and Kleopatros, the two Aetolian judges who arbitrated between Messene and

Phigaleia, are a good example of this trend. Timaios is attested both epigraphically and in

Polybius.32 We know he held the strategia, the supreme magistracy of the Aetolian League. The

32 LGPN IIIa, s.v. Τίμαιος (3-5); RE VI.A,1, 1936, coll. 1075-1076 (K. Ziegler).

50 most probable date of this is 240, when he led an Aetolian raid against Laconia together with

Charixenos.33 He was also hieromnemon at Delphi during the 240s, holding the prestigious role

of representing Aetolia in the amphictyony.34 Kleopatros, the other Aetolian envoy in Phigaleia

whose name survived, also held the office of hieromnemon.35 Of the three judges dispatched by

the Aetolian League to solve the dispute, at least two were men of elite status, with enough

resources to win prestigious magistracies within the federal government. In the case of Timaios,

we are dealing with a magistrate of great influence, who exercised significant political and

military power.

Name Inscr. # Role (and year) Timaios 1 Aetolian strategos (240?) Diophanes 3 Achaean strategos (192/1) Federal strategoi Archon 2 Achaean strategos (184/3?, 172/1, 170/69) Apollonidas 2 Achaean strategos (182/1) Kallikrates 2 Achaean strategos (180/79) Damoxenos 2 Ambassador to the Senate (196) Achaean politicians Polybius 3 Hipparch (170/69), ambassador, and rhetor Thearidas 3 Ambassador to the Senate (159/8, 147/6) Kleopatros 1 Aetolian hieromnemon at Delphi (236-235?) Local elites Antandros 2 His son is proxenos of the Aetolians (143/2) Epikrates 2 Proxenos of the Delphians (134-130)? L. Mummius 6 Consul (146) Roman magistrates Q. Calpurnius Piso 6 Praetor and consul (135) Table 1: Elite individuals mentioned in Messenian arbitrations.

33 For his strategia, see Choix Delphes 105. The attack on Laconia (Plb. 4.34.9, cf. 9.34.9) is dated to 240 by WCP I, pp. 483-4; Scholten 2000, pp. 264-267. Flacelière 1937, p. 224, n. 5 suggests he led the attack as strategos. 34 CID 4.62, dated to 245/4, 242/1, or 241/0. 35 Syll.3 461 (=Flaceliere 1937, App. I nr. 30), dated to 236-235.

A similar pattern appears in the arbitration of an unknown polis carried out between Megalopolis and Thouria.36 The most famous individual in the Megalopolitan delegation is Diophanes son of

Diaios, an excellent general and active pro-Roman Achaean politician.37 He reached the strategia in 192/1, when he brought Messene into the League and led an Achaean contingent sent in support of Eumenes II.38 He is closely followed by Thearidas and Polybius.

As far as we know, Polybius’ brother Thearidas never held office in the Achaean League.39

Nevertheless, he played an active part in relations between Achaea and Rome in the mid 2nd century. In 159/8 he was one of two envoys sent to Rome to defend the interests of the Delians, whom the Achaeans represented, against the Athenians, while in 147/6, he spoke before the

Senate in an ultimately failed attempt to prevent tensions between the Romans and Achaeans from escalating into war.40 Outside of Rome, he was also active on a local level, as attested by dedications at Lykosoura and at Epidauros. In the latter, the city of Epidauros offered a dedication in his name out of gratitude for his euergetistic behavior.41

Polybius, famous in modern times for his Histories, also had a brilliant career within the

Achaean League.42 As the son of an Achaean strategos, in 182 he had the honor of carrying the urn with the ashes of Philipoemen during the funerary procession from Messene to Megalopolis

(Plut., Philop. 21). Two years later, even though he did not meet the age requirements, he was chosen as an ambassador to Ptolemy V. With him were his father Lykortas and Aratos III, both

36 Document 3. 37 LGPN IIIa, s.v. Διοφάνης (3); RE Suppl. XI, 1968, coll. 534-538 (J. Deininger); WCP III p. 93. 38 He is specifically attested as strategos in IG IV2,1 60 and Liv. 36.31.9. The arbitration of Flamininus is Ager 86. On his military abilities, Plb. 21.9; on the expedition to Pergamum, Plb. 22.3b. 39 LGPN IIIa, s.v. Θεαρίδας (10); RE (2) V.A.2, 1934, col. 1382 (F. Stähelin). 40 Plb. 32.7.1; 38.10.1-2. 41 Lykosoura: IG V,2 535, personal dedication; Epidauros: IG IV2.1 623. 42 On Polybius’ life see McGing 2010, pp. 129-147; Walbank 1972, pp. 1-31. I here focus on his early career in the League, leaving aside his stay in Rome.

52 of whom had family connections to the Lagids (Plb. 24.6.3-5).43 Polybius subsequently reached the office of hipparchos (commander of the Achaean cavalry and second highest federal authority) in 170/69 under Archon (Plb. 28.6.8-9). His presence in the political spotlight attracted criticism and accusations of disloyalty to Rome (Plb. 28.3.7), which eventually led to his deportation to Italy. To this liast we can also add, if Hiller von Gaertringen’s restoration of a textual lacuna is correct, Δαμέας Θε[αρίδα, possibly Lykortas’ brother and thus Polybius’ uncle.44 In this case, Polybius’ family would have played an even larger role in representing the city.

A good number of prominent figures also appear in Messene’s dispute against

Megalopolis and Achaea.45 Among the seventeen ἁγεμόνες first called to arbitrate the dispute between Messene and Megalopolis (ll. 17-28), we find three Achaean strategoi, another Achaean politician, and two members of families with ties to central Greece. The first one to be mentioned is Apollonidas son of Etearchos, from Sikyon.46 The only attestation of his generalship is in this very text (30-31), but he also appears in the pages of Polybius as an influential politician. In

186/5 he opposed accepting gifts from king Eumenes II in the federal assembly (Plb. 22.8). In the following year he spoke, either alone or as head of a delegation, in front of the Roman

Senate, contrasting Metellus’ report on the affairs of the Peloponnese with his own (Plb. 22.11-

12). Later on, in 169, he was again involved in determining Achaean international policies, trying to prevent the League from taking the side of Rome (Plb. 28.6.2-6). The second elite member of the commission of ἁγεμόνες is Archon son of Philokles, from Aigira.47 We know

43 More on this embassy below, p. 68. 44 IG V.2 p. XXVII; cf. Document 3, 5. 45 Document 2. 46 LGPN IIIa, s.v. Ἀπολλωνίδας (16); RE (21) II,1, 1895, col. 119 (U. Wilcken). 47 LGPN IIIa, s.v. Ἄρχων (1), cf. PP 14806; RE (6) II,1, 1895, coll. 564-5 (U. Wilcken), the latter with outdated chronology.

53 from Polybius that he was elected strategos three times, probably in 184/3, and then in two successive years in the period 172-170.48 In addition to his accomplishments as strategos,

Archon represented the League at several points. In 185 he was one of the Achaean magistrates who met with Q. Caecilius Metellus in Argos to discuss recent Achaean policies (Plb. 22.10.8).

In 169/8 he was part of the delegation sent to reconcile the Seleucids and Ptolemies during the

Sixth Syrian War (Plb. 29.25.6). At a regional level, he was on good terms with the Spartans, who made a dedication for him at Epidauros (IG IV2.1 625).

The third strategos of the group is Kallikrates son of Theoxenos, from the Achaean polis of Leontion.49 Elected to the supreme Achaean magistracy in either 180 or 179, Kallikrates is well-known from the pages of Polybius, who paints a very negative portrayal of him.50 His speech in front of the Senate, in which he promoted active support for pro-Roman parties in

Greece, is for Polybius a pivotal point in the negative evolution of Roman policy in the Greek world.51 Kallikrates maintained his pro-Roman position throughout his career, speaking against an alliance with Perseus (Liv. 41.23) and supporting Achaean neutrality in the Sixth Syrian War

(Plb. 29.23.1-25.7). Locally, he brought Messenian and Spartan exiles back to their communities.

For this the Spartan exiles thanked him with a dedication in Olympia (IvO 300).

Another prominent figure in the list is Damoxenos son of Kleoxenos, from Aigion.52 He is not attested as a magistrate, but in 196 he addressed the Senate about a treaty formalizing the

48 First strategy: Plb. 22.19; in support of the 184/3 dating see WCP III pp. 13 and 209; Aymard 1938a, pp. 31-32. Second strategy: Plb. 27.2.11-12. Third strategy (with Polybius as his hipparch): Plb. 28.6.8-9; SGDI 1774. 49 LGPN IIIa, s.v. Καλλικράτης (2); RE (7g) Suppl. IV, 1924, coll. 859-862 (P. Schoch-Bodmer). 50 Plb. 24.10.14-15. In favor of 180/79 is WCP III, p. 264; for 179/8 is Errington 1969, pp. 263-5. 51 Plb. 24.9. Many scholars have discussed this interpretation: see WCP III, 263 for a summary of scholarly positions to 1979. While often dismissed, Polybius’ view still influences modern scholarship. See for example Nottmeyer 1995, who uses Kallikrates’ mission as a starting point for his book on Roman-Achaean relations. Contra, see Gruen 1984, pp. 497-499. 52 LGPN IIIa, s.v. Δαμόξενος (1).

54 Roman-Achaean alliance (Plb. 18.42.6).53 Damoxenos is followed in the list by a man likely to be his son: Antandros, son of Damoxenos, also of Aigion.

Of the remaining names in the list of ἁγεμόνες, two belong to families that are attested at a local level. Epikrates son of Kampsias, of Pharai, also appears in a Delphic decree granting him proxeny and other honors.54 According to the LGPN, the decree dates to the 130s, about fifty years after the date of our arbitration; the man honored by the Delphians is either our Epikrates, now old, or his grandson. The inscription thus attests to the importance of his family, which was influential enough to have significant ties with Delphi. Similarly, Antandros of Dyme appears in a mid-2nd century Aetolian proxeny decree as the father of the honoree, a Dymean whose name is now lost.55

The number of individuals from the list of ἁγεμόνες who are otherwise attested in literary and epigraphic sources shows that the group was composed of elite men with political and social connections both within and outside the Peloponnese. The other group of participants in this arbitration are the six Milesian judges. However, they are only attested by their personal names, all of which are too common to aid in their identification.56

A partial exception to the trend I have so far noted is Miletos’ arbitration between

Messene and Sparta, in which only a few of the individuals named are known to be of high status.57 However, two factors suggest even they may be elite individuals otherwise unknown to

53 The editor of Milet I.3 148 believes Damoxenos is one of the Achaean delegates in the peace treaty between Magnesia and Miletos (l. 18). However, the text only has Δα[…, and Errington 1989, p. 279, n. 5 calls this emendation “mere phantasy”. While the dating would fit, I consider this evidence too flimsy to incorporate in my argument. 54 LGPN IIIa s.v. Ἐπίκρατης (1); SGDI 2683. 55 LGPN IIIa s.v. Ἀντάνδρος (3); IG IX,12 34, 19. A son of Antandros, LGPN IIIa (2), also appears as a judge in an arbitration of the second half of the 3rd century (SEG 13 278, 30). However, we only have a patronymic, and the Dymean origin is not sure, so we cannot know whether he belonged to the same family. 56 For Miletos’ large population, see Carlsson 2010, pp. 245-246. 57 Document 6.

55 us. First, we only know a limited number of individuals from Messene and Sparta. Additionally, this arbitration is surely to be dated after the establishment of Roman power in Greece in 146.

The dissolution of the Achaean League in that year explains the lack of elite politicians such as those we find in texts in which the League had been involved. In parts A and B, we find the names of four Messenian ambassadors, three to Elis and two to Miletos; one ambassador,

Menodoros, was part of both missions. With the exception of Apollonidas, none of these individuals is otherwise attested in Messene. The name Apollonidas appears on the reverse of a silver coin from Messene, but the identification with the Messenian envoy is far from secure.58 A similar situation recurs for the two representatives who spoke in front of the Milesian court. The

Messenian Nikon son of Nikon appears only here. We run into the opposite problem for the

Spartan Eudamidas, since his is a very common name in Laconia, with several individuals in our time frame, and little chance of a secure identification.59 For this inscription I do not discuss the

Greek civic magistrates, namely the Eleian treasurer Philonikos and the Milesian stephanephoros

Eirenias, even though they must have both been wealthy men.60 Their mention only reflects their institutional role and does not indicate an actual participation in the arbitration. Therefore, they have no place in this analysis of the role of elites in arbitrations. On the Roman side, we read of the involvement of the praetor Q. Calpurnius, who would become consul in 135.61 The presence

58 For the coin, see BMC X. p. 110, nr. 17 (dated 280-146). The LGPN dates it to the period 146-132, but still does not suggest an identification between the two. 59 LGPN IIIa, s.v. Εὐδαμίδας, lists 28 total occurrences throughout time, and four that could date to the mid-2nd century. 60 On the stephanephoria as an expensive liturgy, see I.Didyma 488, ll. 10-14. For the treasurer, we have the parallel of Classical Athens, where treasurers of Athena were personally responsible for the money and were thus chosen among the Solonian pentakosiomedimnoi (Ath. Pol. 47.1). 61 On Calpurnius, see RE (86) III.1, 1897, col. 1386 (F. Münzer); cf. MRR I, pp. 488-9.

56 of an important Roman magistrate and successful politician parallels the previous involvement in this dispute of L. Mummius, acting as either consul or proconsul.62

With this short survey of the individuals who appear in Messenian arbitrations, I hope to have shown the high participation of members of both local and regional elites in such documents. Taken together, these four inscriptions name an impressive number of prominent individuals. Of the twenty-eight Achaean strategoi we know, four had an active role in these arbitrations.63 To these, one adds three other men who, while never reaching the strategia, held very important magistracies (such as the hipparchia), influenced Achaean politics with their speeches, or acted as ambassadors to powerful polities (such as Rome or the Ptolemaic court).

Polybius is an excellent example for this category: though he never became strategos, he was from an influential family and played an important role in Achaean politics. The Aetolian

League is also fairly well-represented, with one strategos and one federal representative to

Delphi (hieromnemon). At the same time, we can also detect a parallel level of regional networks, with elite individuals who had connections with poleis and koina other than their own.

This network is represented by some individuals, such as Antandros and Epikrates, whose most significant accomplishment, so far as we know, was to become proxenoi of the Aetolians and of the Delphians. Of course, these two levels, the regional and the federal/Mediterranean, were in no way mutually exclusive. Kallikrates, just to mention one example, held the highest Achaean magistracy, and contributed (very significantly, if we are to believe Polybius) to shaping Roman policy towards Greece. At the same time, his deeds as strategos affected the regional level as well, creating new ties with local groups, as attested by the dedication made in his honor by the

62 On Mummius, RE (7a) XVI,1, 1933, coll. 1195-1206 (F. Münzer); his previous involvement in the ongoing dispute over this territory is also confirmed by Tac. Ann. 4,43,1-3 (Ager 150). 63 O’Neil 1984, p. 39; to his calculation I add the (very probable) name of Ainetidas (document 2, 97; L&M pp. 545- 546).

57 Spartan exiles. The fact that local and regional elites played a role in interstate relations is not particularly surprising. What we should note is instead the high number of very prominent individuals: these men were not just local aristocrats, but some of the most powerful men in continental Greece.

Finally, there is a limited but important presence of Roman magistrates. The Milesian arbitration between Messene and Sparta attests the participation of a praetor and a consul in two successive arbitrations for the Dentheliatis region. Local arbitrations, in this case between

Messene and Sparta, saw the involvement of the supreme magistrates of the most powerful polity in the Mediterranean. While technically not involving an individual, the participation of the

Senate reinforces this view: members of the most influential families in Rome became somewhat involved in the local quarrels of Greece.

3. Arbitrations and Euergetism

The participation of elite individuals, many of them men of significant influence, in arbitrations solving local disputes suggests that certain factors encouraged these men to become judges or representatives. Arbitration documents do not state explicitly whether elite individuals were willing and enthusiastic about volunteering for assignments, or if they gave in to social pressure and explicit requests from their communities. The many points of contact between participation in arbitrations and euergetism shed further light on the matter. These similarities suggest that both individuals and poleis perceived service in arbitrations as acts of euergetism. The participation of elite men in arbitrations falls into the broader category of the mutually beneficial relationship between the Hellenistic polis and its prominent citizens.

58 3.A. Participation in Arbitrations as Acts of Euergetism

At some point after 195, an unknown polis in Laconia (most probably Epidauros Limera) had a border dispute with the neighboring city of Zarax.64 The arbitration that followed involved two different trials, in which the unknown community was successfully represented by two brothers,

Angeles and Theodoros. They won both cases and “freed [the citizens] from the accusation” (ll.

19-20, καὶ τοὺς πολίτα]ς ἠλευθέρωσαν τᾶς αἰτί[ας). The polis thereafter decreed honors for them, “so that it is clear to all those who want to benefit the city, that the city returns worthy favors to its benefactors” (21-24, [ὅπως οὖν φανερὸν] ε̣ἶ πᾶσι τοῖς θ[έλου]σι εὐ[εργετεῖν τὰν

πόλιν, ὅ] τι τὰς καταξίας χάρι[τας ἀποδίδωτι τοῖς ἑαυτᾶς] εὐεργέταις). The honors attributed to the brothers included public praise, a statue, public maintenance in the archeion, the proedria during spectacles, and the carving of the decree itself on a stele to be placed in the sanctuary of

Apollo (25-37). The text is clear in identifying the conduct of the two brothers. Benefiting the city in the same way as they did is εὐεργετεῖν, and the decree refers to them as εὐεργέται.65 The text exemplifies well the link between euergetism and arbitrations by its explicit use of the vocabulary of euergetism. Similar examples survive from the Peloponnese. In the second half of the 2nd century, Gorgippos of Troizen travelled to Rome, establishing friendship and alliance with the Republic. He also involved the Romans in an agreement (ὁμολογία) between Troizen and Hermione. His fellow-citizens dedicated a statue to him and gave him the title of euergetes because of his judgement (in their favor?).66 At around the same time as the dispute between

Zarax and Epidauros Limera, the Laconian polis of Geronthrai honored some Euboean judges,

64 Ager 80. Because of its location, Epidauros Limera is the best candidate for a border dispute with Zarax. I will here take this identification as correct. Still, my considerations on the text of the decree would equally apply to other Laconian poleis. 65 For a brief summary on the vocabulary of euergetism see Gauthier 1985, p. 7. 66 Ager 151. For the dating of the inscription after 146 cf. Gruen 1984, p. 738 and n. 39.

59 who had probably served in an arbitration.67 For their services, the judges obtained the official titles of proxenoi and euergetai of the city, in addition to other honors that came with such titles.

Similarly, between the end of the 3rd and the beginning of the 2nd century, a few Corinthians went to Elis to act as judges, either in an interstate arbitration or to solve internal disputes. The

Eleians made them proxenoi and euergetai of their community.68 The new titles came with a grant of citizenship (πολιτεία), exemption from taxes (ἀτέλεια), and personal safety (ἀσφάλεια).

The four honorary decrees I have discussed show how poleis sometimes considered individuals involved in arbitrations their benefactors and granted them the official title of euergetai.

Unfortunately, in two of the cases, the evidence for an actual interstate arbitration is not as solid as one would like it to be owing to the poor preservation of the stone. If we expand our focus outside of the Peloponnese, however, we find four more texts mentioning both arbitrations and euergetism.69 The explicit use of the vocabulary of euergetism (εὐεργετέω, εὐεργέτημα,

εὐεργέτης) to praise judges and advocates confirms the connection Greeks made between the two.

A slightly different example of this connection comes from a 2nd century inscription from the Lycian city of Araxa. In this decree the Araxians honored their fellow citizen Orthagoras son of Demetrios “for the many and large demonstrations he has made of his benevolence towards the demos” (πολλὰς καὶ μεγάλας ἀποδείξεις πεποίηται τῆς πρὸς τὸν δῆμον εὐνοίας).70 The text then lists all such proofs of benevolence, namely the different deeds with which Orthagoras

67 Ager 81, also dated after 195. The part of the text describing the merits of the honored foreigners is very fragmentary; an arbitration seems the most convincing interpretation. 68 Ager 87 (=Robertson 1976). The fragmentary state of the stone does not allow one to distinguish between arbitrators and foreign judges. While the very word euergetai is a reconstruction, it is a very probable one. 69 Ager 24, l. 4, εὐεργέτηκεν ἡμὰς (Samothrace); Ager 66, ll. 28-29, τῶν γεγονότων […] εὐεργε[τημάτω]ν (Kallatis); Ager 117 I, ll. 30-31, and Ager 117 II, ll. 12-13, καὶ τἄλλα πάντα ὅσα καὶ τοῖς ἄλλοις προξένοις καὶ εὐεργέταις τᾶς πόλιος (Delphi). 70 Ager 130, ll. 6-7.

60 helped the city. Among them, we find an arbitration in which Orthagoras acted as advocate for the polis (49-54). His activity in the arbitration is inserted among numerous other services he carried out for the city: the first part of the text lists mostly military enterprises (8-49), while the second half focuses on embassies to neighboring poleis, the Lycian koinon, and Roman envoys

(54-77). The description of Orthagoras’s role in the arbitration marks the transition between the two spheres. More importantly, the decree indicates that participation in an arbitration was considered a service to the city, equal and parallel to leadership in war and service as an ambassador.

The stone breaks before the section listing the honors attributed to Orthagoras, so we do not know whether he officially received the title of euergetes. One can hardly call into question, however, whether the nature of his relationship with the polis falls under the sphere of civic euergetism. The decree confirms that in the emic perspective the role of judge or advocate in arbitrations belonged to acts of euergetism that individuals performed towards communities.

3.B. Rewards for Citizens

The overlap between euergetism and elite participation in arbitrations includes how communities thanked individual citizens. For both euergetism and arbitration, the overall process was very similar. The honors were decided and formalized through a civic decree, which was often carved in order to make its content explicit and well-known. In addition to the stele bearing the decree, the gratitude of the city would often be memorialized through some form of dedication or physical object (e.g., a golden crown or a statue). The benefactor received some tangible advantages, such as exemption from taxes, free meals, or, in the case of non-citizens, proxeny or rights of property. The four honorific decrees for individuals involved in arbitrations from the

61 Peloponnese fit such generic standard.71 Unfortunately, only a few texts outside the Peloponnese concerning arbitrations attest to the specific honors awarded to individuals. In those few cases, the proedria seems to have been a standard honor, obviously together with the carving of the decree.72

In order to complement the evidence, one can look at decrees honoring foreign judges which are sometimes difficult to distinguish from texts concerning arbitrations; however, they share similar features with arbitration documents and strengthen the arguments outlined above.

For example, during the first half of the 2nd century, the city of Eresos received the judges they had requested from Aigai, Samos, and Miletos. Eresos then issued a decree thanking for their service the Milesian demos and the two judges the city had sent.73 Both the demos and the judges were awarded several honors, including citizenship, proxeny, asylia, and proedria (80-92).

Similar in spirit, while more in the realm of symbolic, were the honors tributed by Smyrna to judges from Knidos, who were given a crown and a bronze statue.74 The rewards for foreign judges and those for participants in arbitrations match well the ones contributed to Athenian euergetai who had successfully represented Athens abroad. In the early 3rd century, both the comic poet Philippides and Kallias of Sphettos received a golden crown, a bronze statue, the proedria, and had the decree inscribed on a stele.75 Most of these honors are not typical of

Athens alone, but occur in other regions as well. Among the honors attributed by Priene to its

71 Ager 80, 81, 87, 151. 72 Ager 117 I-II, 169. 73 Milet I 3 152. 74 I.Knidos I 231, ll. 3, 19-23. 75 On Philippides (PA 14356), see IG II3,1 877, 60-70. In 283/2 the Athenians awarded him great honors because of his success in several embassies to Lysimachos. On Kallias (PA 7824), see IG II3.1 911, ll. 91-107 (cf. Shear 1978). He helped the city gain its independence from Antigonid control in 287. During the defense of the city, Kallias played a significant role as a military commander. He then started an intense diplomatic activity, which culminated in a trip to Cyprus, at his own expense, in order to meet the new king Ptolemy II and obtain large gifts for the Athenians (44-55).

62 great benefactor Moschion, we once again find some from our list: a golden crown, a statue, the proedria, and the right to have the decree inscribed.76

Among the honors I have discussed, it is worth paying particular attention to the carving of the decree itself and, in general, the publication of the polis’ decisions. Cities took measures to make resolutions about individuals and their merits accessible and known. I have already mentioned the four honorary decrees for individuals involved in arbitrations that are attested in the Peloponnese (from Epidauros Limera(?), Troizen, Geronthrai, and Elis). Three of the four decrees include a publication clause, calling for the carving of the decree and the placement of the stone in a sanctuary.77 The intent of making the decision visible is clear even for the fourth text: the text is inscribed on a base for a dedication (Ager 151). When carving the text of honorary decrees, the polis was also advertising their gratitude as a community towards benefactors.

Texts attesting individuals’ involvement in arbitrations received prominent publication in the rest of the Greek world as well. In 179 the Delphians attempted an arbitration against

Amphissa. The trial did not take place in the end, but the Delphians must have obtained what they wanted, since they thanked both their Athenian advocate and the Rhodian judges with two different decrees.78 The text for the advocate was inscribed on the wall of the Athenian Treasury, while the Rhodians had theirs carved on the base of a golden chariot Rhodes had previously

76 I.Priene (2014) 64, 314-326. In Ager 80, the Epidaurians awarded the brothers who had successfully represented them in an arbitration with a statue, the proedria, and the inscription of the decree itself (see above, p. 59). 77 Ager 80, 34-37, ἀναγράψαι δὲ] κ̣αὶ τὸ ψάφισμα τόδε εἰς̣ σ̣τ̣[άλαν λιθίναν τοὺς] ἐφόρους τοὺς ἐνάρχου[ς] κ̣[αὶ ἀναθέμεν εἰς τὸ ἱ]ερὸν τοῦ Ἀπόλλωνος το[ῦ Ὑπερτελεάτα]. Ager 81, 34-38, τὰν [δὲ] προξενίαν ταύταν ἀναγραψάντ[ω τοὶ ἔφο]ροι τοὶ ἐπὶ στραταγῶ Ξενοφάνεος [εἰς] στάλαν πετρίναν ἐν τοῖ ἱεροῖ τῶ [Ἀπόλ]λωνος. Ager 87, 13: ἐν τ]ὸ ἰερόν. 78 Ager 117 I (Rhodian judges); II (Athenian advocate).

63 dedicated in the sanctuary.79 In these cases, the Delphians decided to advertise their gratitude by placing the decrees in prominent locations within the sanctuary, which also had strong symbolic and material ties to the communities of the honored individuals.

Another example of the desire to publicize civic decisions comes from Abdera. When involved in a dispute arbitrated by Rome, Abdera asked its mother city Teos to provide two citizens who could represent them in front of the Senate. At the end of the process, Abdera passed a decree thanking and honoring both the Teian demos and the two advocates. What is particularly worth noting is the publication clause:

Let the nomophylakes under the priesthood of […] inscribe this decree on a marble stele and place it in the most conspicuous place in the agora, so that everyone may know the goodwill that the people have towards good and noble men. And let the nomophylakes choose two envoys to Teos, who will go to the Teians, give them this decree, and ask them to announce the honors decreed for their citizens by our people, and to allow the ambassadors to place a marble stele in the most conspicuous place, on which this decree will be inscribed.80 The Abderitans wanted to maximize the visibility of this decree by placing it “in the most conspicuous place” (ἐν τῶι ἐ]πιφανεστάτωι τόπωι). Carving the text of the decree was not just an archival procedure, but a means to truly advertise the citizens’ gratitude.81

79 Ager 117 II 14-15, [ἀνα]γράψαι… τὸ [δὲ ψάφισμ]α ἐν τὸν τοῖχον τοῦ οἴκ[ου τοῦ] Ἀθηναίων. Ager I 34-36, ἀναγράψαι… [τὸ δὲ ψ]άφισμα ἐν τὰν βάσιν τοῦ χρυσέου ἅρματος τοῦ [ἀνατεθέντος τῶι θεῶι ὑπὸ] τοῦ δάμου τοῦ Ῥοδίων. 80 Ager 169, 34-44, οἱ δὲ νομοφύλακες οἱ ἐπὶ ἱερέως ΗΡΑ[․․․․․ ἀν]αγραψάτωσαν τόδε τὸ ψήφισμα εἰς στήλην λευκοῦ λίθ[ου καὶ στησά]τωσαν ἐν τῶι ἐπιφανεστάτωι τόπωι τῆς ἀγορᾶς· ἵνα [δὲ Τήϊοι γ]ινώσκ̣ωσιν τὴν τοῦ δήμου προθυμίαν, ἣν ἔχει πρὸς τ[οὺς καλοὺς] καὶ ἀγαθοὺς τῶν ἀνδρῶν, ἑ<λ>έσθωσαν οἱ νομοφύλακ[ες πρεσβε]υτὰς δύο πρὸς Τηΐους, οἵτ[ιν]ες ἀποδημήσαντες εἰς Τέ[ων καὶ δό]ντες τόδε τὸ ψήφισμα παρακαλέσουσιν Τηΐους προσαγγ[εῖλαι τὰς ἐ]ψηφισμένας ὑπὸ τοῦ δήμου ἡμῶν τοῖς πολίταις αὐτῶν [τιμὰς καὶ σ]υγχωρῆσαι τοῖς πρεσβευταῖς στῆσαι στήλην λευκοῦ λίθ[ου ἐν τῶι ἐ]πιφανεστάτωι τόπωι, ἐν ἧι καὶ ἀναγραφήσεται τόδε τὸ ψή[φισμα. 81 For a survey of scholarship stressing the importance of the physical aspect of the stone, see Chapter 2, n. 6. Of course, publication clauses were not in any way exclusive of honorary decrees. Within my body of evidence, it is important to consider document 2, which contains precise instructions on where to inscribe the text (91-101).

64 The people of Abdera took one additional step: they informed the Teians of their decisions and asked them to announce the decisions publicly and carve them on their own stele to be placed in a visible spot. We know their request was effective, and the Teians agreed to publish the decree as well, since the stone from Teos is the one that has survived to the present day. The “reciprocity of publication” was a common feature in Hellenistic diplomacy, appearing in many honorific decrees. The decrees helped improve relations between different states because the decrees honored individuals and their home city. Additionally, as John Ma has pointed out, it had the effect of highlighting the institutional similarity between poleis, and of enhancing parity.82 There are other cases where the clause itself does not explicitly appear in the text. However, as the stone bearing the decree was found not in the city passing the decree, but in the city of origin of the honored individual, we must conclude the text somehow found its way to the second polis.83 The practice of reciprocal publication meant that individuals who benefited other cities in arbitrations saw their merits acknowledged in their own polis as well as abroad.

One’s community would be informed, by means of proclamation and inscriptions, of the positive impact one made.

The Abdera decree is also important because it demonstrates the importance of oral communication, which contributed to spreading the news of an individual’s merits. The

Abderitans requested that the Teians set up a stele and announce (προσαγγεῖλαι) their decisions.

Judging from comparanda in other Greek cities, we should imagine that this announcement took place in front of the assembled people.84 The announcement during the assembly involved even

82 Ma 2003, esp. pp 19-20, with some interesting examples. Within interstate arbitrations, the only other attested case of a clause for the mutual publication of honors is in Ager 66; however, I am not sure that this text attests an arbitration and not a simple mediation. 83 This is the case for Ager 78 and 91, both honorific decrees linked to arbitrations. 84 See for example IG II3,1 911, ll. 91-94: the golden crown awarded to Kallias of Sphettos was to be announced in the theater during the Great Dionysia, giving it great publicity (καὶ σ̣τεφανῶσαι αὐτὸν χρυσῶι στεφάνωι κατὰ τὸν νόμον, καὶ ἀνειπεῖν τὸν στέφανον Διονυσίων τῶν μεγάλων τραγωιδῶ[ν] τῶι ἀγῶνι τῶι καινῶι).

65 more people, in addition to those who had discussed and voted on the text of the decree. The city’s decisions concerning its euergetai were well publicized, and a significant number of citizens from the communities involved must have been aware of the content of the decrees. This publicity aligns well with one of the goals of honorific decrees: as the texts themselves state,

Greek poleis wanted people to know “that the city returns worthy favors to its benefactors.”85

The evidence I have analyzed shows that the participation of elite individuals in arbitrations falls under the heading of euergetism. Honorary decrees refer to city representatives as euergetai and cities rewarded both categories with similar honors and privileges. In other words, elite men received honors that were widely advertised and that increased their symbolic capital and their standing within the community in exchange for their service to their polis.86 Because the demos was the only figure that could award such honors, performing civic duties and acts of generosity towards the community was the main way for elite individuals to enhance their status.

Arbitrations provided a valuable opportunity for distinction within one’s polis.

3.C. Elite Participation: Advantages for the Polis

Poleis also benefited from the involvement of elite men in the arbitration process, and fellow citizens must have appreciated their participation. Prominent citizens were in several ways well suited to support the cause of their city as judges and representatives.

Elite men were well prepared to argue a case in favor of a polis because of their personal wealth, social network, and advanced education. We should not underestimate the oral and communication skills involved in Hellenistic diplomacy, which could include music and

85 Ager 80, ll. 22-24. 86 Luraghi 2010, pp. 249-250; Domingo Gygax 2003; Wörrle 1995.

66 poetry.87 Similarly, the opposing parties in an arbitration often based the legitimacy of their claims over a territory on historical events, which spanned from the recent past to mythical times. The arbitrations of Messenia provide an excellent example of use of historical precedents.

Tacitus attests that, when presenting their case in front of emperor Tiberius for the control of the

Dentheliatis, the Spartans and Messenians went as far back as the time of the descendants of

Herakles. Both sides supported their case “through the record of documents and the songs of poets” (annalium memoria vatumque carminibus).88 The recourse to a distant and mythical past was a common feature of Greek diplomacy.89 While not in any way a prerequisite, both historical lore and rhetorical training were helpful tools, in order to effectively win or judge a case. Within this context, the presence in the embassy of a man of letters, such as Polybius or the Athenian comedian Philippides, could make the difference.90 We expect cities to have looked favorably on such talented individuals representing them.

Members of prominent families often relied upon a network of inherited aristocratic connections made with the elites from other polities. Family connections had a significant impact on ancient politics. Communities often appointed specific generals, ambassadors, and magistrates that were known to have pre-existing ties with the target community or region. This trend appears already in the Classical period, but continues in the Hellenistic period.91 Within the evidence I am considering we can mention the case of the Aetolian Timaios, who seems to have specialized in Peloponnesian politics, with his raid on Laconia and the arbitration between

87 See Chaniotis 1988 on diplomats performing poetry and dancing. 88 Tac., Ann. 4.43.1-3, discussed in Ager 50. 89 For more examples, see the cases discussed by Ma 2003, esp. pp. 9-23. 90 Polybius appears in document 3 B, 6. In 283/2 the Athenians tributed great honors to the award-winning poet Philippides (PA 14356) thanks to his success in several embassies to Lysimachos (IG II3,1 877). 91 For a 5th century example, one can think of the historian Thucydides, whose family ties to and possessions in Thrace secured him the mission of defending Amphipolis.

67 Messene and Phigaleia.92 Polybius states expressly that prior connections and/or experience were the criteria for choosing ambassadors. When selecting the members of an embassy to Ptolemy V the Achaeans clearly had family ties in mind:

They appointed Lycortas because, at the time when Ptolemy renewed the alliance, he had been strategus […], and Polybius, who had not attained the legal age for such post, because his father had gone on an embassy to Ptolemy to renew the alliance, and to bring back the gifts of arms and money. Aratus was chosen owing to his family’s relations with the king.93 In this case, which we have no reason to suspect was an extreme one, the status of the ambassadors and their family ties played a crucial part.94 For Polybius, it even meant disregarding federal regulations on office holding. We have little information on whether the strategy of sending individuals with family ties positively affected the outcome of diplomatic missions. While pre-existing relations with a target audience rarely hurt one’s case, the main point to consider is the widespread belief that such ties did in fact make a difference and they should therefore be exploited.

A final element that made prominent individuals excellent candidates for diplomatic missions is the fact that they often were in a position to pay for the travel expenses involved.

While conflicts were mostly local, the litigants could, and often did, call in judges from quite distant regions. Among the Messenian cases I have considered, one only needs to think of the arbitration between Messene and Sparta, in which a dispute about the Messenia-Laconia border

92 On Timaios and his career, see above, pp. 50-51. 93 Plb. 24.6.4-6, κατέστησαν δὲ τὸν μὲν Λυκόρταν διὰ τὸ κατὰ τὸν καιρόν, καθ’ ὃν ἐποιεῖτο τὴν ἀνανέωσιν τῆς συμμαχίας ὁ Πτολεμαῖος, στρατηγοῦντα τότε […], τὸν δὲ Πολύβιον, νεώτερον ὄντα τῆς κατὰ τοὺς νόμους ἡλικίας, διὰ τὸ τήν τε συμμαχίαν αὐτοῦ τὸν πατέρα πρεσβεύσαντα πρὸς Πτολεμαῖον ἀνανεώσασθαι καὶ τὴν δωρεὰν τῶν ὅπλων καὶ τοῦ νομίσματος ἀγαγεῖν τοῖς Ἀχαιοῖς, παραπλησίως δὲ καὶ τὸν Ἄρατον διὰ τὰς προγονικὰς συστάσεις πρὸς τὴν βασιλείαν (transl. Paton, Walbank, and Habicht 2012). 94 For the role political and family ties could play in the politics of the Achaean League, see O’Neil 1984, esp. pp. 41-44.

68 involved two distant cities like Rome and Miletos.95 Many cities put some funds (ἐφόδια) at disposal of the envoys, in order to reimburse them for their travel expenses. Well-off citizens, however, could do without such funds, giving some respite to the often-limited finances of the poleis. Renouncing the money one was entitled to appeared as a gesture of generosity, which would improve their reputation and standing within the community. Indeed, many honorary decrees for citizens who travelled to represent their polis mention that only private funds were used.96 Arbitrations are no exception, and for the Hellenistic period we know of two cases

(outside the Peloponnese) in which individual citizens representing their city travelled at their own expense.97 We can therefore imagine popular assemblies might appoint rich citizens as their representatives, who for their wealth and desire for distinction were more probable to turn down reimbursements. All these factors made elite citizens excellent candidates for key roles in arbitrations.

4. Arbitrations, Individuals, and the Hellenistic Polis

Interstate arbitrations attest the mutually beneficial relationship that existed between Hellenistic poleis and their elite citizens. When well-connected and highly educated citizens represented their polis abroad, a city had a better chance of winning an arbitration trial or gaining the favor of other polities (i.e., thanks to its competent judges/representatives). Wealthy individuals were often willing to pay for travel expenses out of their own pocket, saving the city significant sums.

95 Document 6. 96 On the different ways this was advertised see for example Amyzon 18, 6, ἰδίοις ἀναλώμασιν; I.Priene (2014) 64, 161-162, [ο]ὐ̣δ̣’ [ε]ἰς ταύτας τὰς ἀποδημ[ί]ας ἔλ̣[α]βεν τὰ τετ[αγμέ]ν̣α̣ [ἐφόδια; SEG 18 570, 68-69, ἄλλας τε πολλὰς πρε[σ]βείας ἄνευ μεθοδίων λελειτούργηκεν; I.Priene (2014) 67, 22, [ἐτέλεσε καὶ ταύτην] τὴν πρεσβείαν δωρεάν. 97 Ager 124 (=SEG 33.861): a citizen of Euromos spoke in front of a Rhodian court of arbitration (after 189). See esp. l. 20: αὐτεφόδιος συνηγορήσει[ν. Ager 171 (=I.Priene (2014) 67): Krates of Priene represented his city in two arbitrations against Miletos (1st century). For the first one he twice travelled at his own expenses: 22, 26, πρεσεβείαν ἐτέλεσεν δωρεὰν.

69 In turn, elite men used arbitrations as opportunities for personal distinction. Cities often rewarded the role in arbitrations with a range of civic honors that enhanced one’s status. Thanks to arbitrations, elite individuals were able to shape their personal image, having the city speak of them as generous and caring citizens, who acted with the well-being of the polis in mind.

In addition to this conclusion, my analysis of elite men in the arbitrations of Messenia improves our understanding of two broader issues: the relationship between individuals and poleis, and the relevance of local disputes in Hellenistic Greece. The first point is closely linked to the study of euergetism in the Hellenistic period. The evidence of Messenian arbitrations suggests a way to fruitfully explore the role of prominent individuals in the political life of the polis.

Past scholarship has focused on the perceived opposition between democracy and oligarchy, using inscriptions to determine whether a small number of individuals in practice controlled the political life of the polis. Some scholars argued that these elite men were able to transform euergetism into a system of government, acquiring a definite superiority over other citizens and turning the formally democratic poleis into de facto oligarchies.98 Others have instead downplayed the impact of euergetism,—pointing out that Greek poleis relied on wealthy citizens even in Classical times—while emphasizing the survival of democratic institutions well into the Hellenistic period.99 However, recent scholarship has shown that epigraphic evidence

98 On Hellenistic euergetism as a cause of oligarchic governments, see Veyne 1976. Contra, Gauthier 1985, esp. pp. 53-66, 72, who argues that such a shift only took place in the mid-2nd century. Moretti 1977 instead argued for a geographical distinction: only poleis outside of continental Greece conferred the title of euergetes to their citizens. Cf. Hamon 2005, who discusses the oligarchic evolution in citizens’ participation in city councils, which took place between the mid-2nd and the mid-1st century; Fröhlich 2005, who sees the mid-2nd century as the beginning of a gradual change in Priene, attested by public contributions; O’Neil 1995, pp. 114-120, on the increasing political control by the elite. 99 On the existence of a class of notables (Honoratiorenschicht) as a constant in the history of the polis, see Quass 1993, esp. pp. 15-17. On the vitality of Hellenistic democracies, see Carlsson 2010; and Grieb 2008, who study four different examples of Hellenistic democracies. Fröhlich 2005 admits that Priene remained a democracy even after the 2nd century. Gauthier 1993, pp. 217-218 shows that after the years 330-300 democratic institutions became

70 attests institutions, not political practices and the power relations between them. Therefore, a question about who truly controlled the polis is one that we cannot answer.100

The information gleaned from Messenian arbitrations suggests that there are other more effective ways of studying the complex relationship between elite men and Hellenistic poleis.

Epigraphic documents show both individual and collective agency as having an important role in the arbitration process and complementing each other. For example, the two aspects coexist and receive equal emphasis in the dispute between Messene and Megalopolis and the League. The inscription carefully records the names of the seventeen Achaean ἁγεμόνες who took part in on one of the trials, attesting to the key role that these powerful politicians had in the arbitration. At the same time, the inscribed document that provides all the evidence is a decree of the Messenian people, as the text explicitly states.101 Formally, the whole polis sanctioned the version of the story expressed in the decree, including the mention of the notable judges. Moreover, the decree does not single out any Messenian citizen, emphasizing instead the collective agency of the community.102 The Milesian arbitration between Messene and Sparta shows a similar pattern.

The inscribed verdict singles out some individuals who had crucial roles in the arbitration, in particular the Messenian and Spartan representatives who spoke during the trial, and two Roman magistrates. However, it was the whole Milesian demos that arranged the details of the trial during a formal popular assembly, and the final decision was taken by a jury of 600 citizens, a large portion of the civic body.103 The two texts provide good examples of the representation

widespread, and most cities identified themselves as democracies in their documents. Forster 2018, pp. 89-90, 478- 479 argues that honorary decrees show no signs of “oligarchization.” 100 Forster 2018, p. 478, on honorary decrees focusing not on daily political life, but on particularly critical moments; van der Vliet 2011, on the dichotomy between democracy and oligarchy as misleading. 101 Document 2, 1 (Ψάφισμα), 90 (δεδόχθαι τῶι δάμωι). 102 For more on this aspect, see Chapter 2.1.B.ii. 103 Document 6, 45-46 (ἐκκλησία συνήχθη κυρία ἐν̣ [τῷ θεά]τρωι), 48-49 (κριτήριον ἐκ παντὸς τοῦ δήμου τὸ μέγιστ̣ον ἐκ τῶν νόμων, κριταὶ ἑξακόσιοι,).

71 given by most arbitrations, where individual and collective agency appear as complementary.

Arbitration documents portray elite men representing the interests of their polis and then receiving well-deserved honors from the demos. On the other hand, collective action by the citizen body also appears as crucial, as the people officially sanctioned all the major decisions with their authority. Moreover, large sections of the civic body were recorded as taking direct part in some aspects of the arbitration, forming large popular juries or representing their polis in other forms, like the more than a hundred Thourians who travelled to Patrai.104

Arbitration inscriptions showcase the symbiotic relationship between the city and its elites, thus functioning as powerful ideological statements. The very publication of these documents was meant to prove that the system worked and reinforce its validity.

The epigraphic evidence does not provide us with a full picture, and we do not know whether the relationship between elites and communities always worked as smoothly as portrayed in inscribed documents. We know, however, that arbitration texts helped convey the idea of a united polis, in which both elite citizens and common citizens cooperated. By displaying ideal behavior, these documents created prescribed patterns, which could then influence actual political practice.

Apart from their more immediate practical goals, arbitration documents thus served to convey ideological messages about the proper functioning of the polis, setting an example of future behavior for citizens. This interpretation applies not just to arbitrations but to other epigraphic documents attesting acts of euergetism, which depicted individual and communal agency as complementary and their relationship as mutually beneficial. The impact of the

104 For other arbitrations in the Peloponnese that involved large numbers of citizens, see Ager 38 (=Harter-Uibopuu 3), dated to 242/1-235/4; Megara was asked to arbitrate between Corinth and Epidauros, and 181 Megarians acted as judges. Ager 36 (=Harter-Uibopuu 1), a very fragmentary Achaean arbitration between two unknown Peloponnesian states, with at least 59 judges.

72 analysis of individuals within arbitration documents thus extends to the functioning of the

Hellenistic polis as an institution. While I have solely studied arbitrations, inscribed documents dealing with individuals had the potential to depict an idealized version of the relationship between these men and the other citizens. They were one of the instruments Greek poleis used to maintain the cohesion of the citizen body in face of the changes occurring during the Hellenistic period.

The involvement of elite individuals in arbitrations also informs our understanding of actual political practices. In particular, it attests to the importance local politics and diplomacy had for poleis. Many of the arbitration cases I have discussed saw the participation of very prominent men, including the highest magistrates of the Achaean League. For example, several

Achaean strategoi and politicians participated in the dispute between Messene and its Achaean neighbors and the one between Megalopolis and Thouria.105 The high status of these individuals may seem at odds with the trivial nature of the matters at stake in these arbitrations, as both disputes involved relatively small areas of borderland. The participation of elite individuals shows, however, that both they and their communities considered what was at stake in these arbitrations important enough to mobilize prominent citizens. Elite men were interested in the prospective honors and did not consider the roles in arbitrations as beneath them. At the same time, the polities involved cared enough about the results of the arbitration to try involving their most prominent citizens, in the hope of a positive outcome. Both individuals and communities considered arbitrations and the issues as stake relevant. Attention paid to disputes and arbitrations indicates that local matters were important to poleis. Hellenistic poleis were often part of extended political, diplomatic, and religious networks that connected diverse polities and

105 Documents 2, 3.

73 spanned across distant regions.106 Local concerns and disputes, however, still had the largest impact on cities. By controlling contested pieces of land, poleis increased the size of available arable land or acquired valuable pastures. Even when the disputed areas had little economic value, victory in a local arbitration gave communities a chance to rethink their civic identity and to advertise their polis status among neighboring polities.107

Arbitrations were crucial for the two litigants and third parties, as local conflicts and border disputes could easily escalate and undermine the stability of a whole region or federal state. The Achaean League was well aware of this risk and consistently encouraged arbitrations between member cities.108 In Messene’s dispute of 179, Achaean concern led to the involvement of the seventeen ἁγέμονες; however, their verdict was not sufficient, and the litigation dragged on, until it escalated into a dispute between Messene and the League itself.109 The involvement of elite individuals attests to the significance of arbitrations and local concerns for poleis. Even in the Hellenistic world, the most relevant issues were those closer to home. The attention to local issues that Messenian poleis display in their arbitrations serves as a reminder of the importance of such matters. While some scholars have moved in this direction and pointed out the impact of local politics and of relations with neighboring polities, additional research would further improve our understanding of Hellenistic poleis and Greece.110

106 On political and diplomatic networks, see Mack 2015; Ma 2003; for some examples of religious ones, see I.Magnesia 43, the request of asylia for the festival of Artemis Leukophryene (cf. Rigsby, Asylia 93); and BCH 45, 1921, 1 (=Choix Delphes 125), the Delphic theoroi in various Greek cities (cf. Bruno 2019; Perlman 1995). 107 On arbitrations as opportunities to construct a city’s identity, see Ch. 2; on the link between arbitrations and polis status, see Chapter 3. 108 Harter-Uibopuu, esp. pp. 119-129. 109 Cf. Plb. 22.4.9-17 (Ager 105) on how private border conflicts almost caused a war between the Achaean and Boiotian Leagues. 110 For the Peloponnese, see Shipley 2018, a detailed analysis of local and regional networks; and Kralli 2017, a study of interstate relations.

74 CHAPTER 2. EPIGRAPHIC NARRATIVES

Arbitrations are about more than the solution of territorial disputes. Greek poleis used arbitration documents to construct communal and political narratives that created new identities for a community, highlighted agency in a diplomatic exchange, and promoted a positive image of the city among other Greeks. In this chapter, I explore the role that inscriptions had in the long process of Messenian self-definition, paying particular attention to the role of narratives in reinterpreting the past while simultaneously creating a new civic and ethnic identity for

Messenian citizens.

My analysis builds on a broad reevaluation of the evidentiary value of Greek inscriptions that has taken place over the past three decades. Scholars began to pay more attention to the ideological potential of inscriptions in the 1980s, stressing that epigraphic documents did not reflect objective reality, but instead idealized representation of poleis and their citizens. The main goals of inscriptions were to promote a positive image of the city, to attest the harmony among its citizens, and to stress the centrality of the polis’ civic language.1

This shift in the study of epigraphy has primarily focused on honorary decrees, a genre in which ideological elements appear clearly in the form of model citizen lives.2 By describing the positive conduct of the honored citizen (in the so-called “motivation clause”), decrees provided a normative example of honorable civic behavior and set the parameters for elite competition.3

Another crucial element was the so-called “hortatory function,” which allowed cities to advertise the fact that they rewarded deserving citizens. These decrees thus created a reciprocal

1 Bertrand 1990; Herrmann 1984. 2 Forster 2018, esp. pp. 33ff., 88-90; Shear 2012; Luraghi 2010; Culasso Gastaldi 2003; Ma 2002; Wörrle 1995; Rosen 1987. 3 On the motivation clause, see Rhodes and Lewis 1997, p. 5; cf. Rosen 1987 on its transformation in Hellenistic Athens.

75 relationship between city and citizen that encouraged euergetistic behavior and invited other prominent citizens to help the community in order to obtain public honors themselves.4 Because of the scholarly attention they have received, honorary decrees provide valuable comparanda for arbitrations.

Outside of honorary decrees, the rhetorical functions of epigraphic narratives have received relatively little attention. A notable exception is the work of John Ma, who explored the narratives that poleis constructed when dealing with Seleucid kings.5 Ma argues that the cities of

Asia Minor appropriated and reworked royal documents, using them to create new civic narratives that were centered on the cities themselves, in order to articulate their relationship with the king in terms of cordial reciprocity rather than coercive power. Moreover, Ma also introduced the issue of agency, showing that poleis were not just passive recipients of royal benefactions but played an important role in the diplomatic dynamic.

The normative ideology of honorary decrees and power dynamics in Seleucid epigraphic narratives inform my approach to Messenian arbitrations. I follow previous scholars in focusing not on the legal or historical details of these inscriptions but on the construction of narratives, with an interest in how poleis used them to redefine reality. Within this sphere, I pay specific attention to those elements that scholars have found in other inscriptions as well: the reinterpretation of the past and the creation of a new positive image of the city.

At the same time, by studying the narratives of Messenian arbitrations, my research broadens the horizons of previous work in terms of both geography and data set, since scholars

4 On the hortatory intention in Athenian honorary decrees see Miller 2016; Henry 1996; Agora XVI. Far from being confined to Athens, hortatory clauses frequently appear in the decrees of many cities. On them, see Forster 2018, pp. 31-34; Quaß 1993, pp. 30-31; Herrmann 1984, pp. 110-112. For a hortatory clause in an arbitration text, see Ager 80, cf. above, Chapter 1.3.A. 5 Ma 2002, esp. pp. 179-242.

76 who have considered the narratives and ideological elements of inscriptions have not discussed

Peloponnesian inscriptions or arbitration documents. My analysis will show that arbitrations gave poleis an opportunity not only to construct narratives about themselves, but also other polities. Cities used these narratives to stress the importance of their legal victory, to enhance their reputation, and to shape the identity of their citizens. For Messene, the latter is the most significant, and where I advance current scholarship on the region. I will demonstrate that during the 2nd century the Messenians used arbitrations to create narratives that redefined their civic and ethnic identity. Arbitration documents thus played a major role in the long-term construction of

Messenian self-perception during the Hellenistic period, and they provide new evidence for this phenomenon.

In the following pages I will carry out a close reading of some Messenian arbitration documents in which we see the construction of an epigraphic narrative. For each case, I will discuss the specific elements that constitute the narrative and its overall goals. This analysis will be divided in two separate parts. First, I focus on those narratives that are constructed primarily through the text of the document. Then I analyze a case, the narrative of which is specifically built through the combination of the text and its material context. This study will demonstrate that interstate arbitrations did more than just serve as legal documents recording local disputes.

Rather, poleis reinterpreted reality and presented a specific image of themselves by means of the narratives contained within these documents, not only to their own citizens, but also to the larger

Hellenic world.

77 1. Textual Narratives

When it comes to epigraphy, there is no such thing as a narrative that is purely textual. Both the physicality of the stone and its archaeological context and location are always part of the message that the inscription conveys.6 However, we have limited information about the stone and the original context of many of the inscriptions that survive from the ancient world, including those from Messenia. In some cases the stone itself is quite fragmentary, and we only have limited information about its original appearance and the mutual relation between text and stone. Moreover, most inscriptions had been moved either in antiquity or as a result of modern excavations, and our knowledge of their original archaeological context is limited.7 Because of this lack of information, the main focus will be on the surviving text. Nevertheless, we should be mindful of the potential for an inscription’s material context to inflect its meaning, as is the case for the one stone, discussed below, whose original context is well known.8

1.A. Document 1. Mediation between Messene and Phigaleia

This fragmentary stele attests an Aetolian mediation between Messene and the Arcadian city of

Phigaleia, dating to around 240.9 The surviving portion of the text, about twenty-five lines, shows that the dispute concerned an unidentified piece of land. The settlement included an isopoliteia (reciprocal citizenship) and epigamia (right of lawful marriage) agreement between the two cities, which were also going to share the land.

6 The bibliography on this aspect is vast, and I here only mention a few important contributions. Particularly indicative of the new interest on the materiality of inscriptions are two recent volumes: Petrovic, Petrovic, and Thomas 2019 (see esp. the Introduction and the chapters by Day; Graham; and Bolle); and Berti et al. 2017 (see esp. the Introduction and the chapters by Shear; Melfi). Cf. Cooley 2012, pp. 220-228; Burrell 2009; Corbier 2006. 7 Documents 1, 8, both inscribed on very fragmentary stelai. The former was found in a gully near the site of Phigaleia, and we can only assume it was originally placed in some public space. The latter was found in Olympia, with the fragments in different spots, so that we have no idea of where in the sanctuary it was erected. 8 Document 2. 9 Document 1.

78 Even in its fragmentary state, the document offers an interesting example of a civic narrative. Although the stone was found in Phigaleia, the text is a decree of Messene. Since both poleis had agreed to carve the agreement on stelae and place them in their sanctuaries, the

Phigaleians ended up displaying the official words of Messene.10 As a Messenian decree, the text shows a clear Messenian agenda and has the Phigaleians as its intended audience. This

Messenian perspective first appears towards the end of the decree: “but if the Phialeans do not remain in philia towards the Messenians and the Aetolians, let this agreement be void.”11 At first glance, this clause makes sense, considering the important role the Aetolians played in the agreement as allies of both sides. One party severing their ties with the Aetolian League would end the deal between the two cities. We may even interpret it as a sign that the Aetolians were using this arbitration to actively strengthen their control over the western Peloponnese.12

However, in the phrasing of the decree, the Phigaleians are the only ones imagined as responsible for breaking the deal by ending their philia with the Aetolians. The good faith of the

Messenians, meanwhile, is not questioned. The implication is that the Messenians are trustworthy and will maintain good relations with their allies, while the reliability of the

Phigaleians is implicitly questioned. Moreover, the mention of the existing friendship between

Messenians and Aetolians carries an implicit threat. If the Phigaleians chose to break the agreement, they would have to face both powers united against them. A second indicator of the

Messenian point of view is the extent to which the Phigaleian decision is summarized: “The

Phialeans decreed as well [to act according to the things that] the Messenians decreed.”13 The

10 Document 1, 16-19, ὅσα δέ κα ἄλλ]α̣(?) ὁμολογήσωμες ποτ’ ἀλλάλως, ὁμό[σαι ἀνφοτέρ]ω̣ς, καὶ στάλας καταθέ̣σθαι ἐν τοῖς [ἱεροῖς, ὁπεῖ κ]α̣ δοκεῖ ἀνφοτέραις ταῖς πολέο[ις]. 11 Ll. 19-21: [εἰ δέ κα μὴ ἐν]μένωντι οἱ Φιαλέες ἐν τᾶι φιλ[ίαι τᾶι πὸτ τὼς Μ]ε̣σανίως καὶ Αἰτωλώς, ἄκυρος ἔ[σστω ἅδε ἁ ὁμολο]γία. 12 For a discussion on whether to interpret this mediation as a tool of Aetolian imperialism, see below, Chapter 2.2.B.iii. 13 Lines 21-22: ἔδοξε δὲ καὶ τοῖς Φιαλέ[οις ποιεῖν καθ’ ἃ ο]ἱ Μεσσάνιοι ἐψαφίξαντ[ο.

79 complexity of a civic decree is here reduced to a simple two-line sentence, thus limiting the

Phigaleians’ role in defining the terms of the cooperation between the two communities. The text gives agency to Phigaleia only when implying they may break their oath.14

Even in this relatively short text, the Messenians were able to create a narrative that supported their agenda. They depicted the Phigaleians as the least trustworthy party in the agreement and gave them limited agency. The Messenian attitude is in striking contrast with the actual provisions of the mediation, which grant mutual rights and call for cooperation between the two communities. Our document reveals that, even at a time of reconciliation, a polis could use a narrative to stress its own agency and present a negative depiction of the other party.

However, two could play this game, as the Phigaleians could use their decree to construct their own narrative. Unfortunately, the stone breaks off with the Messenians’ oath, and it is not clear whether this stele also contained the Phigaleian decree. But the publication clause indicates that both cities were to put up stelae with the text of the agreement in their sanctuaries. The stone that was placed in Messene must have included the Phigaleia decree, either alone or in addition to the Messenian text I have just discussed.15 While each city controlled the narrative of its own documents, the reciprocity of the publication process reinforced parity between the two parties.16

1.B. Document 2. Messene’s Arbitrations with Megalopolis and Achaea

This inscription provides a clear example of a polis constructing an epigraphic narrative by means of both the text and the physical support of an arbitration.17 It shows that communities

14 The Phigaleians also swore an oath, see ll. 16-17, ὁμό[σαι ἀνφοτέρ]ω̣ς. 15 On both sides of an arbitration monumentalizing the same document, cf. Ager 63 (a verdict published in both Epidauros and Hermione). 16 I study this aspect in detail in Chapter 3.2.B.ii. 17 Document 2.

80 used arbitration documents to address issues beyond the legal details of the dispute. With this inscription, the Messenians redefined their political identity in the light of recent traumatic events. Moreover, the arbitration attests to the role that inscribed documents played in the long process of definition of Messenian civic and ethnic identity throughout the Hellenistic period.

1.B.i. The Dispute

The inscription is a dossier of four documents organized on four columns for a total of 190 lines.

The first and longest document is a decree of Messene. The decree recalls the complex judicial dispute that took place between Messene and its neighbors over various portions of the city’s territory. It is here that we find the clause ordering the publication of all four documents: the decree itself (ll. 1-101), the Megalopolitans’ proklesis (challenge) against the Messenians, in the form of a letter addressed to them (102-165), the fine imposed on Messene by the federal

δαμιοργοί (166-182), and the judgment of the Milesian court voiding the fine (183-190). To date, the decree is the only part of the dossier that has been fully published, and for which we have access to the Greek text. Consequently, I will here only focus on the narrative constructed within the published text, using the information from the rest of the dossier only as additional evidence.18

The decree describes a legal dispute that involved numerous steps and saw the participation of various polities. The dispute started immediately following the readmission of

Messene in the Achaean League. From the proklesis document only (104-115), we learn that the

18 In addition to publishing the text of the decree (ll. 1-101), Themelis 2008 provides a brief summary of the rest of the dossier. In 2012, Gerard Thür offered a discussion of the proklesis document, summarizing the content of the document and providing some lines of the text in the English translation only (Thür 2012). This additional information sheds new light on some aspects of the dispute, in particular the legal details. However, for the kind of analysis I am carrying out, access to the Greek text is indispensable.

81 Megalopolitans had challenged the Messenians to undergo an arbitration for the control of

Akreiatis and Bipeiatis.19 The Messenians accepted, and the two parties chose a court of

Mytilenian judges. The products of the land were shared, but only as a surety until a verdict was passed. At that point, the loser would have to return twice the value of what they had kept. Then, the decree states, the Megalopolitans asked the federal assembly to award them the chora of

Endania and Pylana (5-11).20 When the Achaeans rejected their claim, the Megalopolitans challenged the Messenians to undergo and arbitration for the possession of both these territories and of the “previous land.” The dispute over the Akreiatis and Bipeiatis was thus taken away from the Mytilenian judges and submitted to a new arbitration under the auspices of the league.21

This new judgment took place in the sanctuary of Karneiasion, with seventeen prominent citizens of Achaean poleis acting as judges. Among them was Apollonidas of Sikyon, federal strategos for the year 182/1 (11-41).22 However, before a sentence was passed, the Megalopolitans withdrew their claim. Instead, they encouraged the Kaliatai, the citizens of an unidentified

Arcadian community, to challenge Messene to a new arbitration, this time concerning the

Akreiatis and Bipeiatis territories only.23 The city of Aigion arbitrated this new case, ruling in favor of the Messenians (41-64). Messene considered its control over Akreiatis now official, and

19 None of the areas mentioned in this arbitration has been securely identified. On the possible location of Akreiatis and Bipeiatis, see Pikoulas and Bardani 2014; Thür 2012, p. 299; L&M, pp. 526-527. 20 Endania is an alternative spelling for the town and the sanctuary of Andania, on the west side of the Stenykleros Plain. The later memtion of the sacred grove of Karneiasion confirms that the sanctuary is being discussed, while the text may also refer to the nearby town as well. While the site of the sanctuary has not yet been identified, the general location is in the area of the modern villages of Konstantinoi, Polichne, and Kallirrhoe; on the location, see Gawlinski 2012, pp. 33-41, cf. Hansen and Nielsen 2004, p. 553. The location of Pylana is more problematic, but it should be located in the NE part of the Stenykleros Plain. On its location, see Pikoulas and Bardani 2014; L&M, pp. 522-523; Themelis 2008, p. 215 and n. 4. 21 The Mytilenian judges thus only participated in the initial part of the dispute and they never appear in the decree. 22 On the participation of very prominent politicians in this arbitration, see Chapter 1.1.B. 23 The identity of the Kaliatai is unclear; it probably was a community that had formerly been part of Megalopolis. On them see L&M, p. 532; Hansen and Nielsen 2004, p. 507. The chora of Andania and Pylana is not disputed in this new arbitration and it disappears from the document. On possible interpretations of this silence see below, pp. 88-89.

82 asked Megalopolis for the return of the surety that had been agreed in front of the Mytilenian judges, estimated at a talent (65-70). At this point, the Megalopolitans challenged Messene to undergo yet another arbitration for the control of Akreiatis (70-75). Clearly, they seemed to think that they had never lost in court, since the Mytilenian trial had been interrupted, they had withdrawn from the Karneiasion trial, and the last ruling was not against them, but the Kaliatai.

The Messenians instead refused to go to court again, believing they had already won two successive arbitrations about that territory. However, the federal δαμιοργοί supported the

Megalopolitans’ view, and the Messenians were fined for refusing to cooperate. A court of six

Milesian judges then decided on the legitimacy of the fine: they ruled in favor of the Messenians, recognizing the previous arbitrations as valid (75-83). Therefore, they not only cancelled the fine, but indirectly confirmed Messenian ownership of the Akreiatis. As far as the dossier informs us, this judgment marked the end of the dispute.

1.B.ii. Constructing the Narrative

The Messenians constructed their narrative by means of several complementary strategies, which appear throughout the text. Together, these strategies stress the righteousness of Messene’s victory, and its belonging to the Achaean League, in opposition to Megalopolis.

The most effective of these strategies is the characterization of the various communities that took part in the long judicial process. The text depicts the Achaeans as benevolent and without blame, the Megalopolitans as relentless enemies, and the Messenians as a united community. These features reflect a Messenian agenda.

The text portrays the Achaeans in a positive way, especially (but not exclusively) when they favor Messene. This positive depiction emerges since the beginning of the dispute, when the

83 Megalopolitans asked the League to award the territories of Endania and Pylana to them.

According to the text of the decree, the official answer was that the Achaeans “would not give to the Megalopolitans the land of the Messenians” (9-11, τῶν δὲ Ἀχαι[ῶν α]ὐτοῖς [ἀντ]ειπάντων μή

κα περιθέμεν Μεγαλοπολίταις τὰν Μεσσανίων). While it is possible that federal authorities sided with the Messenians so decisively, Achaean support of Messene must not have been as unconditional as their answer suggested, since the Megalopolitans were later able to obtain an arbitration on the matter.24 The Messenians’ goal in reporting this answer was to give the impression that the League was in their favor, and to portray the Achaeans as supportive of the

(just) Messenian cause.25 The positive portrayal of the Achaeans is maintained later in the text.

This is true even when the federal δαμιοργοί take action against the Messenians by fining them for refusing to undergo another arbitration against Megalopolis. The magistrates are spared harsh criticism, and they are only said to have complied with the Megalopolitans’ accusation: “and after the common δαμιοργοί complied with her (Megalopolis)” (75-77, τῶν δὲ κοινῶν δαμιοργῶν

ἐπακολουθησάντων αὐτᾶι). Even on this occasion, the text takes agency away from them, putting the focus, and thus the blame, on Megalopolis.26 The positive depiction of the Achaeans goes beyond the legal dispute, even affecting how contemporary political events were portrayed.

The inscription describes in these terms the conclusive moment of the rebellion and the reintegration of the city in the League: “After the Achaeans occupied Endania and Pylana, and the city was reestablished in the league of the Achaeans” (2-5, ἐπειδὴ κατασ[χόν]των τῶν

Ἀχαιῶν Ἐνδανίαν καὶ [Πυλ]άναν, τᾶς δὲ πόλεος ἀποκατασ[ταθείσ]ας εἰς τὰν συνπολιτείαν τῶ[ν

24 L&M, pp. 540-544 suggested federal authorities may have sided with Messene because with the death of the strategos Philopoemen Megalopolis had lost most of its influence within the League. 25 On the Achaean response, see L&M, pp. 524-525. 26 I argue this attitude is reflected in the word choice at the end of the decree: κρίμασιν ἐνικάσαμες τοὺς Μεγαλοπολίτας καὶ περί τε τᾶς ζαμίας ἇς ἐζαμίωσαν ἁμὲ οἱ δαμιοργοὶ ἐνικάσαμες (87-90). The Messenians won against the Megalopolitans, but won about the fine the δαμιοργοί imposed, not against them.

84 Ἀχαιῶν]). The first clause does not try to hide the fact that the secession had ended in a military defeat and the occupation of Messenian territory. However, the second clause immediately changes the perspective, describing the readmission of the city in the League in neutral terms.

Literally, the phrase ἀποκαταστῆσαι εἰς τὴν συμπολιτείαν only indicates a return to the League, with no negative connotation or specter of violence.

Strikingly, Polybius uses the same expression to describe the return of Messene in the

League: “The Messenians […] were restored to their original position in the League” (οἱ

Μεσσήνιοι […] ἀποκατέστησαν εἰς τὴν ἐξ ἀρχῆς κατάστασιν τῆς συμπολιτείας).27 In the

Histories, ἀποκαθίστημι and συμπολιτεία appear in the same phrase in only one other occasion, when describing the intention of returning Perinthos to its synoecism with Byzantium, after being freed from Philip V’s influence in 198.28 This despite the fact that both words frequently appear on their own in Polybius’ work. Συμπολιτεία is one of the many terms used to describe federal states and leagues, while ἀποκαθίστημι may indicate the return of a city to a state but also the restoration of a constitution.29 Even for cities returning into the Achaean League, Polybius chooses other expressions.30 Given the infrequency of this specific phrase, the similarity between

Polybius’ text and our inscription is unlikely to be a coincidence. Rather, it reflects a common

27 Plb. 23.17.1 (transl. Paton, Walbank, and Habicht 2012). Additionally, at 24.1.7 Polybius calls to the return of Messene into the League ἡ Μεσσηνίων ἀποκατάστασις. I believe that the use of a cognate of ἀποκαθίστημι speaks in favor of the official use of that verb. 28 Plb. 18.2.4. 29 Greek federal terminology is notoriously problematic and inconsistent, see Rzepka 2017; Lasagni 2009/10; specifically on sympoliteia, Walbank 1977; Giovannini 1971. For the Achaean League alone, Polybius switches between πολιτεία, συμπολιτεία, and σύστημα, while κοινόν appears in inscriptions and other authors. 30 The adhesion of Aigion: Αἰγιεῖς μετέσχον τῆς συμπολιτείας (Plb. 2.41.13); the adhesion of Karyneia: ἅμα δὲ τούτοις Καρυνεῖς ἀποκατέστησαν (2.41.14). Polybius could describe Karyneia as “returning” to the Achaean League because, as Polybius himself explains at 2.41.8, the city was one of the twelve Achaean poleis that had been part of the first Achaean League, which had been dissolved at some point in the third century. On the date of Karyneia’s entrance in the League, see WCP I, pp. 233-234.

85 source: the official documents of the League describing the readmission of Messene.31 Polybius, who began his political career in 182, might even have witnessed the decision in person and decided to incorporate it in his narrative.

As the officially sanctioned version, the phrase ἀποκαταστῆσαι εἰς τὴν συμπολιτείαν fit the needs of the Achaeans. They had severely punished Messene by ravaging its territory and by sentencing to death the leaders of the secession. Now that the city was being brought back into the League’s fold, the Achaeans had every interest in downplaying the level of conflict and dissent that had taken place. If this was indeed the official phrasing by the Achaean League, it makes sense that the Messenians incorporated it into their decree. This version minimizes the severity of their conduct and depicts their return to the League in fairly positive terms. If one instead understands the parallels with Polybius’ phrasing to be a coincidence, then this neutral phrasing becomes an invention of the Messenians. In either case, the Messenians tried to gloss over their recent secession and depict their return to the League in non-controversial terms.32

While the Achaeans are a positive force, the Megalopolitans receive most of the critiques.

Megalopolis disputes Messenian control over its territory from the very first lines of the decree, but the decree’s language frames their action as illegitimate: the Megalopolitans are said to have asked for “the land of the Messenians” (11, τὰν Μεσσανίων), suggesting that they were trying to obtain something on which they had no claim. After this, the Megalopolitans challenge the

31 Both Paton, Walbank, and Habicht 2012, p. 491, n. 46; and L&M, p. 524, n. 49 mention the identical word choice, but do not offer any explanation of it. The phrasing might have appeared in the stele containing the official terms of the agreement (Plb. 24.2.3). 32 L&M, pp. 524-525 believe with this expression the Messenians are also being tendentious in describing the process of reentry in the League. Polybius in fact mentions two distinct phases: the decision to readmit Messene in the Megalopolis synodos (Plb 23.17.1), and the carving of the stele establishing its membership (Plb. 24.2.3). For them, Messene’s readmission became effective only after the second step. However, Polybius considers Messene effectively being part of the League already after the first step. At 24.1.7, before the carving of the stele, he refers to Messene’s reestablishment in the League (ἀποκατάστασις). While the decree is clearly selective in reporting events, in this case it is no more tendentious than Polybius in considering Messene’s return into the League effective after the synodos in Megalopolis.

86 Messenians to arbitration three times in the decree, appearing to be relentless adversaries determined to cause trouble for Messene.33 The Messenians identified them as the main adversaries of their city. This is evident in the specific dispute that led to the arbitration by the polis of Aigion (41-64). At the end of the previous trial, the Megalopolitans had abandoned their claim, “but they did not prevent(?) the Kaliatai” (43-44, τοὺς δὲ Καλιά[τας οὐ πα?]υσάντων) from challenging Messene themselves. No matter what the official version is, the Messenians wanted to make clear that the Megalopolitans were the ones calling the shots. The exact legal status and role of Megalopolis in this new dispute are unclear and, even in antiquity, depended on the interpretation of the entire controversy as presented in the decree. It seems the Kaliatai were the official plaintiffs in this new trial, while the Megalopolitans might have only had some sort of support role. Still, the Messenians present them as actively participating in the dispute, and so they keep appearing beside the Kaliatai (48-49, 52, 58-59). This depiction of Megalopolis makes sense if we consider what the Messenians were trying to achieve. Their official position, which they also argued in front of the Milesian court, was that they had already defeated

Megalopolis for control over Akreiatis and Bipeiatis: “and even though we had already gone to court for that land, again the city of the Megalopolitans challenged us to go to court, as if they had not already been judged against us” (70-75, καὶ κεκριμένων ἁμῶν περὶ τᾶς χώρας πάλιν ἁμὲ

προεκαλέσατο ἁ πόλις τῶν Μεγαλοπολιτᾶν περὶ τᾶς Ἀκρειάτιος χώρας ὡς κριτήριον

συνελώμεθα ὡς οὐ κεκριμένων ποθ’ ἁμέ). While it seems they mainly referred to the first dispute in Karneiasion, presenting the Megalopolitans as actively participating in a second dispute as well would have helped their case.

33 For this argument on the characterization of the Megalopolitans, I am only considering the text of the decree, not what emerges from the summary of the proklesis document.

87 The Messenian point of view, for which the Kaliatai were mere pawns, becomes obvious towards the end of the decree. While summarizing their judicial victories, the Messenians stress how they won in all the judgments through the emphatic repetition of the verb νικάω (81, 87,

90). In all these instances the Megalopolitans and the federal δαμιοργοί are the only adversaries mentioned: “that we won against the Megalopolitans in trials about the Akreiatis and Bipeiatis, and that we won in the matter of the fine that the damiorgoi had imposed on us” (86-90, ὅτι περί

τε τᾶς Ἀκρειάτιος καὶ Βιπειάτιος κρίμασιν ἐνικάσαμες τοὺς Μεγαλοπολίτας καὶ περί τε τᾶς

ζαμίας ἇς ἐζαμίωσαν ἁμὲ οἱ δαμιοργοὶ ἐνικάσαμες). The Kaliatai have all but disappeared from the text, underlining their marginal role in the story.

Finally, the text does not directly characterize the Messenians themselves aside from their assumed status as the justified party. Moreover, the text does not mention any individual

Messenian. This is in contrast with the detailed lists of the seventeen ἁγεμόνες and the six

Milesian judges; Messenians only appear in the decree as “Μεσσάνιοι” or as “we.” This rhetorical strategy stresses the unity of the city. No individual citizen is given special prominence, rather agency is assigned to the whole community. The characterization of the different parties involved in the arbitration plays a large role in the construction of the narrative that portrays Messene as fully integrated in the Achaean League.

Another strategy that we can detect in the text is the selective inclusion and omission of details in order to control the information given to the reader and craft the overall narrative. One good example is the silence of the dossier on the final outcome of the struggle for the control of

Endania and Pylana. The two territories are objects of dispute at the trial in Karneiasion, where they are included in the official inspection of the borders. The Megalopolitans only renounced their claim on Akreiatis and Bipeiatis, so the seventeen judges must have reached a decision

88 about Endania and Pylana, but the text gives no clue as to the result of such decision, and both areas completely disappear from the narrative. This silence can hardly be accidental, especially given the important role the sanctuary of Andania played in Messene’s religious life, as attested in the inscriptions about the Andania Mysteries.34 While scholars have interpreted the omission in different ways, I argue that the Messenians did not lose these territories.35 Their control of the land is implied in a comment on the disputed borders: “just as we own the land” (35, καθώς ἐστι

ἁμῖν ἁ χώρα). The use of the present indicative implies Messene actually still controls the area.

Such quick comment is enough to clarify the fate of the land because the decree has a different main focus: the longer dispute with Megalopolis about Akreiatis. As I argue below, one of the goals of the dossier is to show the consistent opposition and animosity of the Arcadian polis, which dragged out the dispute and even caused the fine and the involvement of the Milesian court. In this context, the victory over Endania and Pylana, though important, does not need to be explicit.36

The Messenian decree likewise omits the involvement of judges from Mytilene, who are never mentioned in any capacity in the decree and appear only in the proklesis document. Thür believes this is because the two parties first agreed to an arbitration by Mytilenians at a stage before the official readmission of Messene back in the League. Later in the dispute, “Messene

34 On the inscription and the Mysteries, see Gawlinski 2012; in particular on the procession between the sanctuary and Messene, see Nielsen 2017, esp. pp. 39-43. 35 Roebuck 1941, pp. 102-103 n. 167 thinks Andania went to Megalopolis, based on Strabo 8.3.6, 25, who calls Andania an Arkadian town. However, Andania could have changed hands at a later stage, e.g. during the 1st century, when Messene was often at odds with the Romans. Thür 2012, p. 303 believes the silence implies a Messenian defeat. He interprets the passing comment about the land as a sign that Messene may not have lost all the land, but also as veiled criticism of the verdict. Contra L&M, pp. 529-530, who cautiously suggest the Messenians may have retained the land. They point to the negative Achaean reply when the Megalopolitans first tried to claim the area, which the seventeen ἁγεμόνες could hardly overturn. Additionally, they see the comment about the land at l. 35 (see below) as a possible indication of Messenian possession. 36 If the Messenians did indeed lose the dispute, then the silence over its result becomes a clear attempt to gloss over a judicial defeat that would not have fit well the victorious narrative of the dossier.

89 being readmitted, each party tried to blur this uncomfortable choice.”37 Such a desire to omit a moment in which the League was bypassed would fit the general positive attitude towards it, which I have previously discussed. Unfortunately, without having the full text of the proklesis document we cannot know how this first trial was described. This gap also makes it difficult to pinpoint a motivation for such an omission. Still, the absence of any reference to the Mytilenian judges confirms that, while passing their decree, the Messenians were being selective in what they included.

Besides the characterization of the other polities and the significant omissions, the

Messenians used a third strategy to craft a narrative that absolved federal authorities and blamed the Megalopolitans for the long dispute. The text influences the reader by means of small elements, such as the inclusion in the text of legal details, the careful placement and choice of verbs, and the emphatic repetition of certain words and phrases. The abundance of legal details aims at stressing the importance of certain moments of the dispute. For the trial in Karneiasion, we learn the names of all seventeen judges (17-28), the process of description of the borders (29-

39), and the fact that the trial lasted two days and the allotted time was measured with water systems (39-41). None of the other trials is described with such abundance of details. This precise description has the goal of supporting the Messenian claim that, despite Megalopolis’ last-minute withdrawal, a proper trial had taken place at Karneiasion. The reader is thus encouraged to see the Megalopolitans’ later claims as invalid.38

In such precise description of the process, the detailed mention of all the judges by name, patronymic, and ethnic also plays a part. I have discussed in the previous chapter how the mention of individuals in epigraphic texts can serve a rhetorical purpose, reinforcing the

37 Thür 2012, p. 306. 38As pointed out by L&M, pp. 535-536.

90 narrative they are constructing.39 In this case, this precise catalogue contributes to supporting the validity of the Karneiasion trial. We can observe a similar intent in the mention of the Milesian judges. While this list is not as detailed as the previous one, the presence on stone of all six judges reinforces the importance of their decision. After all, it was their sentence that finally brought this years-long legal dispute to a positive end for Messene. With this verdict, the judges also implicitly endorsed the narrative we see constructed in the decree, in a way confirming its truth. The mention of their names gives additional prominence to the crowning moment of the arbitration.

Another element of the Messenian agenda is the careful choice of the verbs used in different parts of the text. I have already mentioned the use of the neutral ἀποκαθίστημι for

Messene’s forcible return to the Achaean League. We find another example in the arbitration at

Aigion, where the text summarizes the claims of the two parties. When it came to the

Messenians, they “proved” (διδασκόντων) to the judges that both Akreiatis and Bipeiatis belonged to Messenia (55-56). Unfortunately, the verb that introduces the Megalopolitans’ statement is now lost, so we have no close comparison. However, the verb διδάσκω has a strong implication that the Messenians are not just claiming that their version is correct but are showing through evidence that the land actually belonged to them.40 The careful word choice served to further stress the legitimacy of the Messenian claim. The sentence thus foreshadows the imminent Messenian victory in this trial, and the Messenians remind the reader that they are indeed the legitimate owners of these territories. There is another loaded use of verbs in the final part of the decree, where the Messenians stress their success over Megalopolis and the

δαμιοργοί. The importance of this victory, which they try to portray as definitive, is highlighted

39 Chapter 1.1.B. 40 On this meaning of διδάσκω, cf. Syll.3 593, l. 15.

91 by the almost obsessive repetition of the aorist of νικάω, which occurs three times in only ten lines (80, 87, 90).

This final section of the decree also includes another rhetorical element. As the

Messenians note, the judges unanimously voted in their favor, “since we had already been judged about that land and the Bipeiatis against the Megalopolitans” (81-83, καθότι εἴημεν κεκριμένοι

περί τε ταύτας τᾶς χώρας καὶ τᾶς Βιπειάτιος ποτὶ Μεγαλοπολίτας). This sentence repeats and parallels the way in which the Messenians had objected to Megalopolis’ challenge: “even though we had already gone to court for that land” (70-71, καὶ κεκριμένων ἁμῶν περὶ τᾶς χώρας). By having the judges repeat quite exactly the Messenians’ original objection, the decree stresses how the verdict directly supported Messene’s reconstruction of the events, depicting its success in court as logical. When taken together, the rhetorical elements I have discussed support the

Messenian interpretation of the events and make a relevant contribution to the construction of the general narrative.

The Messenians used three main strategies in order to create a specific narrative of the events that took place between 182 and 179/8. The first and main one is the characterization of the participants in the dispute. Each party is depicted in a precise and consistent way. The

Achaeans are generally favorable to Messene, the Kaliatai are only a figurehead in the dispute, while the Megalopolitans are the real opponents. Second, the decree supports Messene’s own view of the events through the omission of certain elements. For example, we never hear explicitly who obtained control of Endania and Pylana; moreover, the Mytilenian judges are completely absent from the decree, and we know of their existence only from the proklesis document.41 Third and last, the text is dotted with several smaller elements that support the

41 The little attention given to Endania is particularly puzzling, given the importance of the sanctuary. It is unclear why the Messenians chose not to advertise their success in retaining the sanctuary. The best explanation is that the

92 general narrative, reinforcing Messene’s claims and stressing the importance of specific moments in the long dispute. Among them are the accurate descriptions and legal details, the use of loaded verbs, and the emphatic repetition of key concepts. When combined, these three strategies contribute to the overall narrative. We can summarize the message the Messenians are conveying more or less in these terms. Despite the recent rebellion and the military conflict, the

Achaeans did not hold a grudge against Messene. However, the Megalopolitans tried in every way to contest territories that legitimately belonged to Messene. Because of their constant opposition, and despite Messene being in the right, they caused a dispute that dragged on for three years. Still, in the end the Messenians saw their rights confirmed in court. This narrative was mostly articulated in the first part of the dossier, the Messenian decree. However, the remaining documents provided evidence for the story the decree told. In this way, the

Messenians incorporated texts that were originally meant to be against them in their own narrative, giving them a new positive meaning.

1.B.iii. The Meaning of the Arbitration

The circumstances in which the dossier was published prove that this particular version of the events had great importance for the Messenians, who wanted to make it both permanent and accessible through monumentalization. The decree itself specifies that the dossier is published in order to be “a memorial also for the future” (84-85, ὅπως οὖν ὑπόμναμα εἶ καὶ εἰς τὸν ὕστερον

χρόνον) of the two main victories, against Megalopolis about the land and about the fine of the

δαμιοργοί. To this end, the decree has a specific publication clause, which requires to publish all four documents “in the sanctuary of Messene, on the base close to the bouleion, on which the

specific focus of the narrative constructed in the inscription—the enmity of the Megalopolitans and Messene’s successful resistance against them—took precedence even over the prominence of the religious center.

93 riders stand” (91-93, εἰς τὸ ἱερὸν τᾶς Μεσσάνας εἰς τὸ βάθρον τὸ παρὰ τὸ Βουλεῖον ἧι οἱ ἱππεῖς

ἐντί).

The choice of the sanctuary informs our reading of the inscription and attests the importance the Messenian attributed to it.42 The sanctuary of Messene occupied a central position in the agora, which made it a very visible location. Moreover, the place also hosted other documents pertaining to judicial matters with other cities, such as two decrees thanking

Messenian judges dating to the middle of the 2nd century.43 The Messenians thus considered the arbitration as evidence for their good international reputation, just as these honorary decrees.

Additionally, the publication in the sanctuary of the eponymous heroine further stressed the collective nature of the success. As the absence of any Messenian individual from the text reminds us, the city had won as a community, and the victory benefited the entire polis.

But the connection between the arbitration and the heroine Messene may run even deeper. When the cult of Messene was first created in the late 4th or early 3rd century, she represented not just the city, but the entire region it controlled, called Messene in the early

Hellenistic period.44 This cult thus constituted a centripetal force, and was one of the means used by the city of Messene to reinforce its control over the whole region. It is unclear whether this was still the case at the time of our inscription. However, it is tempting to connect the content of the arbitration, a successful attempt to maintain control over parts of Messenia, with the importance of this cult for the unity of the region. The placement of the inscription in the sanctuary of Messene attested the importance of the decree and further stressed its focus on the city’s territory and international standing.

42 On the sanctuary, see Themelis 2012, pp. 45-47; 2010, pp. 144-147; Luraghi 2008, pp. 269-275. 43 SEG 53 389-390, decrees of Smyrna and Demetrias honoring Messenian judges. Both texts are still unpublished. 44 Luraghi 2008, pp. 272-275; on the dating of the temple, see Themelis 2012, pp. 45-47.

94 Thanks to the recent excavations in the agora of Messene, we also have relevant information about the base on which the dossier was inscribed, which lay near the NE corner of the temple of Messene.45 It was made of four limestone blocks arranged in a rectangle.

Excavators have recovered two of the four blocks that were found still in situ, the southern one

(with the inscription) and the western one. The four blocks probably had a stone slab on top, which supported the sculptural group. Unfortunately, the statues have not survived, and the only secure information we have about them is that they portrayed riders, as the decrees specifies.46

The reconstructed size of the base is about 2.6x1.9 m, and so this was a fairly sized monument, which could have hosted a large dedication. Because of our limited information about the statues, we cannot tell whether the choice of this specific base for the inscription was owing to any link between the sculptures and the content of the dossier. One possible explanation is that the sheer size of both the base and the dedication made this a prominent spot, a fitting location to host an important epigraphic dossier.

Both the content of the decree, with its focus on the Messenian victory and the monumental publication it received, point toward a desire to give special prominence to the inscribed text and to the success it celebrated. But what led the Messenians to pay such attention to this specific dispute? What made this legal victory worth being celebrated with a dossier of almost 200 lines in a central location within the city?

This arbitration may have mattered because it represented a small but significant victory after the military defeat at the hands of the Achaeans, and Messene had seen its right to the land confirmed.47 This result could also provide an effective legal precedent in case of future

45 Themelis 2010, pp. 147-152; 2008, pp. 211, 221. 46 Themelis 2010, p. 152; 2008, p. 221 suggested the statues portrayed the two Dioskouroi. 47 Thür 2012, p. 309.

95 disputes.48 It appears the Achaean League had some recurring practices for arbitrations between members, and federal authorities decided whether a dispute could be brought to court.49 Showing they had already proved the ownership of their land could help the Messenians avoid another dispute against Megalopolis, especially because the re-entrance into the League was a watershed moment.50

While legal aspects played an important role, they were not the main reason for the monumentalization of the dispute. We can better understand this inscription if we consider it an example of “intentional history,” that is to say the process through which a community revisits and reinvents past events in order to shape its collective identity.51 Through the narrative of the dispute they constructed, the Messenians were reframing and reinterpreting their recent past with an eye toward its effects on their present political identity. Both the military defeat and the reabsorption into the League are framed through the lens of this arbitration. The actual judicial victory might have been a minor one, but the success in court was a sign that Messene now belonged to the Achaean League and could take part in its legal procedures as a member state.

During the dispute, moreover, federal authorities had been supportive of Messene, offering a fair arbitration and showing that the recent hostility belonged to the past. The positive depiction of the League thus acquires new meaning: it is not an expression of submission or flattery, but a

48 L&M, pp. 536-538. 49 Though we are not sure, there might have been a federal law that prohibited going to court over a matter that had already been judged. On this problem, see L&M, pp. 537-538; Arnaoutoglou 2009/10, pp. 191-196; Harter Uibopuu, pp. 119-129. 50 In the unpublished proklesis document, the Megalopolitans used this line of reasoning, maintaining that “they had the land as owners, when they joined the League,” while the Messenians “when they joined, did not” (ll. 108-112, cited in English by Thür 2012, p. 299). 51 Magnetto 2018, p. 103 briefly suggested applying the concept to this text. On intentional history, see Gehrke 2010a; 2010b; 2001; 1994. Gehrke 2001 discusses in details one example of intentional history, the creation of the festival of Artemis Leukophryene at Magnesia on Menander in the late 2nd century. For an example outside epigraphy, see Proietti 2015, who applies intentional history to the Athenian logos epitaphios.

96 collective attempt to redefine civic identity. By means of this narrative, Messenians were monumentalizing their sense of belonging to the Achaean League.

The same tools were applied to Megalopolis but with the opposite intent. During the 2nd century, Achaean leaders from Megalopolis had consistently opposed Messene, both politically and militarily.52 This, together with the latest territorial disputes, made the enmity between the two poleis too relevant to be ignored or downplayed. Instead, the Messenians constructed a narrative that shifted all potential resentment away from the League and onto their traditional local enemy. The approved non-violent setting of the arbitration gave Messene a chance to display its hostility towards Megalopolis and advertise its success against it.

The dossier’s attitude toward the league and Megalopolis demonstrates that it functions as intentional history. First, it rewrites the history of the polis by selectively including, modifying, and presenting facts and events in order to create a story that fulfills the needs of the community. In this context, the specific points of view of the text make sense, since they help form a particular version of the past. Second, the reinterpretation of the past has direct repercussions on the perceived identity of the community. The story in the dossier helps readers define themselves, and together with other elements it expresses what it meant to be Messenian in the year 179/8.

One of the goals of the inscribed dossier was to give special prominence to the documentation of the long dispute. Because of its monumental aspect, the inscription could act as a powerful future reference in case of a new arbitration and with an authority documents from

52 Diophanes attacked Messene in 191 and brought it inside the League (Liv. 36.31.1-9. Liv. 36.31.4); Philopoemen mishandled the application of Flamininus’ decree about Messenian exiles in 190/89 (Plb. 22.10.6), then in 182 he attacked Messenia trying to counter its rebellion (Liv. 39.49.1. Plut., Philop. 18.3); Lykortas brought an end to the secession by devastating the territory of Messene and then put to death a number of citizens (Plb. 23.16).

97 the city archives might have lacked.53 However, the specifically Messenian point of view and the narrative constructed in it make more sense when we read it as a document written for

Messenians themselves, as a way to interpret their recent past and define who they were. The location chosen for the publication of the dossier perfectly fits this view. What better place for a document about recent Messenian history and identity than the sanctuary of the eponymous heroine, a symbol of the unity of Messenia and of Messene’s control over it?

The desire to have a document defining Messenian identity reflects the city’s traumatic military defeat and reincorporation into the Achaean League. The new political situation required

Messenians to rethink their political stances and identity. In particular, the publication of the dossier could be a way to express the unity of intent of the citizen body after readmission into the

League. Such a desire to display unity was meant to supersede the previous divisions that had taken place during the war. From what we read in Polybius, it seems Messenians were divided on how to deal with the League. During Lykortas’ invasion, he depicts the common people as in favor of a peaceful solution, while the magistrates and supporters of Deinokrates were for continuing the war.

The Messenians had long been overawed by their leaders, but now certain of them just ventured to open their mouths, relying on the protection of the enemy, and to advise sending an embassy to ask for peace. Deinokrates and the others in power, no longer daring to face the people, as they were encompassed by perils, yielded to circumstances, and retired to their own dwellings.54

53 On the documentary value of Greek inscriptions, particularly for international treaties, see Klaffenbach 1960, pp. 26-42; Heuss 1934, pp. 252-257. 54 Plb. 23.16.1-3: πάλαι μὲν οἱ Μεσσήνιοι καταπεπληγμένοι τὸν πρὸ τοῦ χρόνον τοὺς προεστῶτας, τότε μόλις ἐθάρρησάν τινες αὐτῶν φωνὴν ἀφιέναι, πιστεύσαντες τῇ τῶν πολεμίων ἐφεδρείᾳ, καὶ λέγειν ὅτι δεῖ πρεσβεύειν ὑπὲρ διαλύσεως. οἱ μὲν οὖν περὶ τὸν Δεινοκράτην οὐκέτι δυνάμενοι πρὸς τὸ πλῆθος ἀντοφθαλμεῖν διὰ τὸ περιέχεσθαι *** τοῖς πράγμασιν εἴξαντες ἀνεχώρησαν εἰς τὰς ἰδίας οἰκήσεις. (transl. Paton, Walbank, and Habicht 2012). A similar impression emerges from Plutarch’s account, see Philop. 19-20.

98 The overall impression is that of a polis split into factions. This situation dramatically changed only when, after the city surrendered, members of the anti-Achaean party were killed or sent into exile.55 After that, the group that had been in favor of peace was probably able to decide the policy of the city. Passing a decree that stressed the community’s political belonging to the

Achaean League was an effective way to move beyond past divisions. Greek decrees hid factionalism by portraying every decision as unanimously taken by the demos.56 Following this trend, our document depicted all of Messene as united in its new pro-Achaean and anti-

Megalopolitan sentiment. The narrative we see constructed within the text thus had an important political function because it provided a representation of the city as being of one mind.57 The monumental publication of the decree then constituted the physical embodiment of this representation. By voting to make this document a memorial for the future, all Messenians accepted and endorsed the narrative and the interpretation of reality it contained.

In the previous pages, I have analyzed in detail the text of the Messenian decree, pointing out the different elements that concurred in creating a complex and consistent narrative.

Messenians then gave prominence and visibility to this narrative through a conspicuous publication of the text in a central sanctuary of their city. As I have shown, the document has different but overlapping goals. First, it attested a judicial victory for a disputed territory. This provided the city with documented evidence, which they could use in case anyone ever contested their claim again. Second, it offered a chance to celebrate a success against other polities.

However, through its carefully constructed narrative, the decree did much more than that. The

55 Plb. 23.16.13, 24.9.12-14; Plut., Philop. 21. 56 See Bertrand 1990, pp. 105-106. 57 Cf. Shear 2012 on IG II3,1 911, in which the Athenians reinterpreted the 287 revolution as anti-Macedonian, conveniently “forgetting” that it had also been a civic strife against Athenian oligarchs. This selective use of the past promoted a view of Athens as united against Macedon. In our text, the feeling of unity is reinforced by the absence of prominent Messenian citizens; the decree only refers to “the Messenians” or “we,” see above, p. 88.

99 land dispute and the arbitration became a way for Messenians to collectively revisit and reinterpret recent traumatic events in the political history of the city. Because of the impact these events had on the contemporary political situation, the Messenians were also officially rephrasing their own identity as they perceived it. By means of this document, they made clear who their enemies and allies were, and to which polities they felt they now belonged.

1.C. Document 8. Rhodian Arbitration between Sparta and the Achaean League

I will now consider my third and last example of arbitration presenting a textual narrative. This text is a Rhodian arbitration between Sparta and the Achaean League. It does not involve any polity from Messenia, and strictly speaking it does not belong in my corpus. However, it is an excellent comparison for the Messenian material I have so far discussed. It shows that the construction of narratives in arbitration documents is not an exclusively Messenian phenomenon.

On the contrary, other polities too—even from very different parts of the Greek world—used arbitrations as a chance to convey their narratives. This specific document offers a particularly valuable comparison, because it attests the narrative the Rhodians constructed in an arbitration between Sparta and the Achaean League. The starting point for the Rhodian narrative is a geopolitical and legal context that closely resembles that of the dispute between Messene and both Megalopolis and Achaean authorities.58 In this case, a dispute between Megalopolis and

Sparta, a polis that had opposed its incorporation into the League, saw the involvement of federal authorities and ultimately required an arbitration by a polity outside of the Peloponnese.59

Thanks to the similarities of the dispute we can appreciate the parallels between the two narratives, but also the different goals these narratives had. Both Messenians and Rhodians relied

58 Document 2. 59 On Sparta’s troubled history with the Achaeans, see Chapter 3.2.A.ii.

100 on the characterization of the different parties involved, and their narrative created a positive image for their city. But while Messene’s decree was meant for its own citizens to rethink their identity, the Rhodian arbitration aimed at promoting its image abroad.

1.C.i. The Dispute

The document is a verdict of the judges arbitrating a dispute between the Achaean League and

Sparta, at the time a member city. Unfortunately, the stele, found in the sanctuary of Olympia, is in a quite fragmentary condition and much information is missing. For once, the surviving portion of the text does not include the actual mention of the winner; however, as I argue below, my analysis of the narrative developed in the document points to a Spartan defeat. The dispute originally involved Megalopolis and Sparta, and concerned the control of Skiritis and Aigytis at the border between Laconia and Arcadia.60 After a court had assigned the land to Megalopolis, the Spartans refused to comply with the decision and ignored it.61 As in the Messenian dispute with Megalopolis and Achaea, a member’s refusal to comply with the result of a federal arbitration caused the League to inflict a fine on the Spartans, who then challenged that fine. The parallel with the Messenian dispute continues, since the two parties asked for an arbitration by a polity outside of the League. At the end of the document, we learn that both sides first sent letters to Rome. The Roman response is not fully preserved, but they probably asked both sides to respect previous sentences.62 The duty of acting as judge then fell to another polis. A comparison with the later arbitration, in which the Senate delegated Miletos to pass a judgment between

60 On these territories and their identification, see Shipley 2000, pp. 369-376; Harter-Uibopuu, pp. 94-97. 61 Ager, p. 379 thinks that Sparta occupied the land and did not vacate it after the verdict. L&M, p. 538, n. 88 believe that here the verb ἀντιπο<ε>ῖται indicates an attempt to legally reopen the dispute. 62 Such answer would be in line with the overall development of the arbitration. A similar formula appears in IG IX,2 89 (Ager 156), ll. 63-65, another arbitration with Roman involvement. For the Roman tendency to confirm previous verdicts, cf. also Ager 160 II.

101 Sparta and Messene, suggests that the city was chosen by Rome, possibly with the approval of the litigants.63 The text never explicitly mentions the name of the judging polis, and the stone is badly preserved in the section that bears the names of the arbiters. Of the five names originally on the stone, we only have two personal names and a patronymic. Still, onomastics allows us to pinpoint a precise origin for the judges. Hans Taeuber recently pointed out that the name

Πολυκράτευς is a rare genitive form that is only attested in Rhodes.64 The identity of the judges as Rhodians also affects the dating of the text, which should belong to the period 188-171.65

While this is the most probable date for the dispute that led to the carving of the document, the text also mentions two earlier verdicts. One, which I have already mentioned, is the previous arbitration between Megalopolis and Sparta, the results of which the Spartans did not accept. We do not have a specific date for this event, but the phrasing of the text suggests that it took place shortly before the Achaeans fined the Spartans. An interval of a few months also makes sense in light of the timing we observed in the Messenian dispute, in which no more than one or two years separate the last Megalopolitan proklesis and the Milesian judgment.66

Additionally, the document mentions an even older arbitration (22, καὶ πρότερον κρίσιος) between Megalopolitans and Spartans for the control of the same territory. The text provides further information about this judgment: 101 judges chosen according to merit, probably among

“the allies,” handed down the sentence. The reason for their decision was “that the Skiritis and

Aigytis have been of the Arcadians since the coming of the Heraklids to the Peloponnese” (35-

36).

63 Cf. document 6. 64 Taeuber 2006. Of the 41 other attestations of the form Πολυκράτευς in the PHI database, 40 belong to Rhodians, the only exception being an Argive attested in Delphi. 65 For further details on the dating, see document 8. Before Taeuber’s publication, scholars thought this text made reference to a later arbitration between Megalopolis and Sparta by two Roman legates in 163 (Ager 135). 66 Document 2.

102 When judging the dispute between Megalopolis and Sparta, the judges must have taken this older arbitration as reference. The use in court of this previous verdict explains its detailed mention in our document. Unfortunately, no element in the surviving text points to a secure date for this older arbitration. Scholars have linked this mention to other known instances of disputes between the two cities, and interpreted the reference to “the Greeks and the allies” in different ways.67 Some believe it refers to Philip’s reorganization of the Peloponnese in 337 through the

League of Corinth.68 Others point to a judgment organized by Antigonos Doson after the battle of Sellasia in 222.69 From a later reference we know that Antigonos had a iudicium through which he assigned the Dentheliatis to Messene, taking it away from Sparta.70 A separate but similar arbitration involving Aigytis and Skiritis would fit well the king’s curtailment of Spartan territory after his military victory. The mention of judges selected among the allies would be a reference to Antigonos’ Koine Symmachia, disbanded by Roman order in 198. Finally, we know of one arbitration that seems to have taken place under the auspices of the League of Corinth, and the legal procedure attested there does not match well what we read in our text.71 I will thus interpret the mentions of a previous arbitration as evidence for a judicial arrangement by

Antigonos, realizing that this interpretation does not rest on particularly solid ground.

As I mentioned, this dispute has many similarities with the one that opposed Messene to

Megalopolis and the Achaean League.72 Here as well, a polis recently incorporated into the

Achaean League (Sparta) had a territorial dispute with Megalopolis. The conflict then escalated and ended up involving both federal authorities and an external polity, which acted as arbiter.

67 19-20, αἵ τ’ ἐν τοῖς̣ Ἕλλασιν καὶ συμμάχοις γεγενημέναι πρότερον κ̣ρ[ί]σεις. 68 Camia 2009, p. 27; Harter-Uibopuu 11; Magnetto 1994 (with a detailed bibliography and a summary of the sources on the League of Corinth); Larsen 1944, p. 160 and n. 27; Roebuck 1941, pp. 55-56. 69 In favor of this interpretation, see Kralli 2017, pp. 248-250, 367; Piérart 2007, pp. 40-41. 70 Tac., Ann. 4.43.1-3 (cf. Ager 50). 71 Ager 3 (=IG XII.3 1259). 72 Document 2.

103 This case thus shows what kind of narratives poleis other than Messene could construct starting from a similar geopolitcal context.

1.C.ii. The Narrative

The narrative the Rhodians constructed has two main aspects, the positive characterization of some of the parties involved and the emphasis on the importance of verdicts.

By means of different elements, the text positively portrays the judges themselves, the

Achaeans, and the Romans. The Rhodian arbiters are the ones who composed the document, and they speak in the first person plural, as it is sometimes the case in arbitration texts.73 The peculiarity of this text is that here the judges provide the reader with information about themselves and their role, creating a succinct but effective self-depiction. The first element the judges stress is that this dispute had been going on for quite some time, and there had already been many debates.74 What they were facing was a complicated situation. Still, the arbiters make clear they did not lack eagerness and zeal (11, προθυμίας καὶ σπουδᾶς οὐθὲν [ἐλλείποντες]).

Moreover, their goal was not simply to pass a judgment. They had the interest of both parties at heart, and they wanted to reconcile the two sides through an agreement, without resorting to a formal legal decision. With this goal in mind, and since they believed this was the appropriate time for a reconciliation, they delayed the verdict, hoping this would give the litigants the time to find a compromise.75 However, because of the regulations of the Achaean

League and the oath they had taken, in the end they had to hand down a verdict.76 With this

73 Rhodian judges do this quite frequently, although not consistently, cf. Ager 63; 74. 74 7-8, [λόγων] πλειόνων ῥηθέντων; 9-10, [ὑπάρχουσαν ἐκ πολλοῦ χρόνου] διαφορὰν. 75 11-13: [οὐκ ἀ]πηνέγκαμεν ἐπιγραφὰν διὰ πο[λλοῦ], ἕνεκεν τοῦ χρόνον ἱκα[νὸν] δοθῆ̣μεν εἰς σύλλυσιν τοῖς δια[φερ]ομέ[ν]οις. 76 13-15: ἐπε[ὶ] δὲ ἀναγκαῖόν [τε] καὶ ἀκόλουθ[ον τῷ ὅρ]κωι ὃν <ὠ>μ[όσα]μεν καὶ τοῖς νόμοις τοῖς τῶν Ἀχαιῶν̣ σ[υ]ντελ̣ε[ῖ]ν τὰν κρίσιν.

104 information, the judges tried to emphasize their goodwill towards both sides, and their true desire to improve relations between the two parties. The fact that the dispute ended with a verdict was only due to the intransigence of the litigants. The Rhodians stress their reluctance to pass a verdict; they did it only to comply with their duty and the oaths they had sworn. Even through their partial failure as mediators, they underline their respect for formal commitments. In sum, throughout the first part of the document, the judges give a very positive description of themselves, in particular by highlighting their care for the task and goodwill towards other polities.

While the Rhodian arbiters receive most of the attention, the text also depicts in positive terms two other groups involved in the arbitration: the Achaeans and the Romans. The Achaeans are praised at two different moments (17-19, 39-40), both times with a focus on “institutional” merits. Their main characteristic is their concord, since they are twice described as ὁμονοοῦντες.

At the same time they are also described as δαμοκρατούμενοι. More than a technical definition about the constitution of the League, the term seems to indicate the ability to make decisions as a group and having the liberty to do so.77 The positive connotation of the term fits well the overall context of these lines.

Finally, the text states that the Rhodian verdict aimed at making it so that “the Achaeans may forever continue to be in peace and good order” (17-19: ὅπως … οἱ Ἀχαιοὶ διατελῶντι εἰς

τὸν ἀεὶ χρόνον ὄντες ἐν εἰράναι καὶ εὐνομίαι). All the traits attributed to them thus help portray a very positive picture of the Achaean League, in which the various members live in agreement

77 On δαμοκρατέω and its link with autonomy, cf. Syll.3 613, l. 4; 613B, ll. 2-3. While Polybius clearly calls the Achaean League a democracy in three passages (2.38.6; 2.44.6; 22.12.8-9), modern scholars have long discussed whether the League in fact upheld to Greek democratic standards. The debate revolves around the nature of the σύνοδος, which most scholars now accept as a primary assembly (WCP III, pp. 406-414; Giovannini 1969; Musti 1967). For a helpful survey of the debate, including an exhaustive bibliography, see Tuci 2003, p. 68 n. 72.

105 and peace. Such a description is even more striking because it expressly contradicts the current state of things. The Spartan dispute jeopardized peace in the League. In fact, the Rhodian judges created this very document precisely because the Achaeans were not ὁμονοοῦντες. Still, in their praise of the League they depict this state of discord almost as a temporary accident, only a moment in a past and future continuity of peaceful agreement among the Achaeans. It is of course their verdict that will reestablish such concord.

The text praises the Romans as well, as those “who have been the champions of the good order(?) and harmony of the Greeks” (43-44, ᾽Ρωμαίους τοὺς προεστακότας τᾶς τῶν Ἑλλά[νων

εὐνομίας(?) καὶ ὁμο]νοίας).78 The description is unapologetically in favor of Rome, supporting the dating of the document to a period of good relations between Rhodes and the Republic.

While this sentence is explicit in giving Rome a leading role in Greece, Roman preeminence is also emphasized by the fact that both sides consulted them.79 Both these elements concur in giving us a positive portrayal of Rome.

In drafting this document, the Rhodian judges used the verdict to depict many polities in positive terms. For Rome and the Achaeans, the reason was most probably the desire to strengthen the relations with these states. But the Rhodians also included praise for their own qualities as judges, stressing their concern for all parties. The verdict thus became an occasion to showcase their friendly relations with their allies, as well as their own good nature in wanting to help other Greeks solve their disputes.

However, the characterization of the parties is not the only element of the narrative in this document. The judges also make constant reference to the importance of their verdict and of its

78 Although the emendation “good order” is not secure, the second term ὁμο]νοίας (or the less probable εὐ]νοίας) was a positive one, thus confirming that the phrase portrayed the Romans in good terms. 79 For a discussion of Rome’s preeminent position in Messenian arbitrations, see Chapter 4.

106 consequences. First, they stress the value this trial has as a precedent for past and future verdicts.

In fact, they took their decision “on account of the fact that the things in need of judgment do not remain unjudged, and the adjudicated ones are not invalid” (16-17, ἕνεκεν τοῦ μήτε τὰ

ποτιδε[ό]μενα κρίσιος ἄκριτα γίνεσθαι μήτε τὰ κεκριμένα ἄκυρα). In their view, they needed to pass a judgment on this case in order to reinforce the validity of both past and future arbitrations.

The Rhodians then repeat the concept while focusing on a specific subset of verdicts: “(In order that) the judgments which have been previously passed among the Greeks and the allies may remain secure and inviolate forever, and that the stelae and the borders which have been set for the judgments may remain fully valid, and that nothing may be stronger than them” (19-22, αἵ τ’

ἐν τοῖς̣ Ἕλλασιν καὶ συμμάχοις γεγενημέναι πρότερον κ̣ρ[ί]σεις βέβαια[ι] καὶ ἀκήρατοι

δ[ι]αμένωντι εἰς τὸν̣ ἀεὶ χρόνον κα[ὶ] αἱ στᾶλαι καὶ τ[ὰ ὅρι]α τὰ τεθ̣έ[ντα] ὑπὲρ τᾶν κρισ̣[ί]ωμ

μένῃ κύρια δι’ ὅλου καὶ μηθὲ[ν αὐτῶν ᾖ] ἰσχυ[ρότ]ερον). The Spartan refusal to accept the result of the arbitration against Megalopolis could jeopardize the validity of all previous arbitrations.

By means of their verdict, the Rhodians are reestablishing the value not only of that particular decision, but of all previous arbitrations, including the borders that had been defined in the process. The judges thus give to their decision a more universal value, depicting themselves as concerned and responsible for the respect and validity of all interstate arbitrations among Greeks.

In this text, the Rhodians become the champions of justice.

The second way in which the text advertises the relevance of this sentence are its effects on the Achaean League. As I mentioned above, the document tendentiously presents the

Achaeans at harmony with each other. However, on two occasions it also explicitly links this trial with the hope of future concord. On the one hand, they specify that the need for a final verdict was not only to keep other arbitrations valid, but also “in order that the Achaeans […]

107 may forever continue to be in peace and good order” (17-19, οἱ Ἀχαιοὶ διατε[λ]ῶντι εἰς τὸν ἀεὶ

χρόνον ὄντες ἐν εἰράναι καὶ εὐνομίαι). A legal solution to disputes is seen as a direct prerequisite for peace within the League. The document repeats the point later on, specifying the importance of arbitrations: “Having decided that the Achaeans would especially keep being in harmony, if the cases adjudicated among them did not become invalid through other accusations, but a judgment of a court was the limit of the dispute among them” (39-44, κρίνοντες [οὖν ο]ὕτ̣ω κα

μάλιστα μένειν [τὰ ποθ’] αὑτοὺς τοὺς Ἀχαιοὺς ὁμονοοῦν[τας, εἰ] τὰ κριθέντα παρ’ αὐτοῖς μηκέτι

γίνοιτο ἄκυρα δι’ ἑτέρων ἐγ[κλημά]των, ἀλλ’ ὅρον ἔχοι τᾶς ποθ’ αὑτοὺς διαφορᾶς κρίσιν

δικ[αστ]η[ρίου). In these accusations (ἐγκλήματα) one can easily read a reference to the

Spartans, who refused to accept the federal arbitration and dragged out the litigation. In their persistence, the Rhodians oppose the notion that one verdict should have been sufficient to solve the matter, and insist that their new sentence is definitively putting an end to the dispute. In two different points in the inscription, the Rhodians thus connect their verdict and the need to respect previous arbitrations with the peaceful and proper functioning of the Achaean League. This is one way in which they highlight the importance of their decision, the other being by reminding the reader that this sentence gives new validity to other arbitrations and verdicts. Through these two strategies, the Rhodian judges emphasize the actual impact their decision had on the legal, diplomatic, and political sphere. In this way they are ultimately pointing out the importance of this dispute, and of course the central role they had in ending it.

The main Rhodian strategy for this narrative is to mould and redefine the image of a number of polities involved in the arbitration. They provide a positive depiction of both

Achaeans and Romans, who are described respectively as living in harmony, and as benevolent protectors of peace among Greeks. However, most of the attention goes to the self-representation

108 of the judges themselves, whose image is defined by two main elements. First, their eagerness as mediators, who have peace between communities at heart. Second, the importance of their task.

The verdict will secure harmony within the Achaean League and reinforce the rule of law, granting authority to past and future judgments. Through this narrative, Rhodes is putting forward a specific self-representation, that of a friendly polity promoting harmony between other states by following widely accepted diplomatic and legal rules.

As Messene did in their dispute against Megalopolis and the League, the Rhodians use their role in the arbitration to create a certain image of themselves. Some rhetorical strategies appear in both texts, such as the characterization of the parties involved and the emphasis on the importance of the verdict. But while the process through which the image of the city was created is similar, there is one important difference between the two cases. In the Messenian dispute, the

Messenians themselves were the intended audience of this narrative, which aimed at changing how Messenian citizens thought about their own civic and ethnic identity. The Rhodians instead use their narrative to change how other Greeks thought about them. The publication of the stele in Olympia fits this goal, since it allowed them to address a Panhellenic audience. Thanks to this narrative, the Rhodian judges turned the inscribed verdict into a means of self-promotion. The different communication objectives the two polities had reflect different concerns and needs. In

179 Messene was trying to come to terms with its loss of independence and the need to reframe its political identity as part of the Achaean League. Hence the desire to use the arbitration dossier to facilitate this process. On the other hand, evidence suggests that at the time of the other arbitration (188-171) Rhodes was not facing any crises. The island had maintained its independence and prosperity thanks to careful diplomacy. During the 3rd and 2nd century,

109 Rhodians often acted as arbiters and mediators between other states.80 In creating a narrative that described them as caring judges, the Rhodians addressed one of the policies for which they were already known and tried to put it in the most positive light.

This document provides a useful comparison to Messenian material, as it shows that

Messene was not the only polity creating epigraphic narratives from arbitrations. The Rhodians used a dispute originating in similar political and legal conditions to the one in which Messene had been involved to construct their narrative. This arbitration also reveals that different polities could share similar rhetorical strategies, and that cities were most interested in crafting a positive image for themselves. But the comparison between the Messenian and the Rhodian case makes us appreciate the influence of a city’s specific history, which determined the final goal of the narrative. For the Rhodians, it was to enhance their prestige as caring mediators and judges, while for the Messenians it was to rethink their collective identity. The Rhodian verdict thus highlights Messene’s peculiarity and the attention this polis paid, throughout the entire

Hellenistic period, to its civic and ethnic identity.

The three texts I have so far analyzed show that textual narratives have an important role in inscriptions. They convey additional information and specific messages, which complement the more immediate communication goals in those texts. I will now turn my attention to a

Messenian inscription in which both the text and the physical support work together in creating a powerful epigraphic narrative.

80 On Rhodes’ activity as mediator and arbiter, see Ager 1991. The years 188-171, saw a period of even greater arbitral activity, with four known arbitrations and mediations (Ager 109, 117, 119, 121). Ironically, it was the offer to mediate a peace between Rome and Perseus in 168 that led to a fracture in Roman-Rhodian relations and to the decline of Rhodian power. On the history of Rhodes during this period, see Berthold 1984.

110 2. Visual Narratives

I now shift my focus to an arbitration that was found in situ, and whose monumental support is still mostly intact. Because we have the evidence from the archaeological context of the inscription, we can fully appreciate the role of the monument the Messenians used to create a complex visual narrative through the interaction between text and physical support, which gave new meaning to both the arbitration documents and the monument itself. Besides its value as evidence for ancient Messene, this inscription is a reminder of the potential of analytical approaches that consider epigraphic documents in their context.

2.A. Document 6. Milesian Arbitration between Messene and Sparta

This arbitration case occurred between the poleis of Messene and Sparta, saw the involvement of both Rome and Miletos as judges, and finally was published at the Panhellenic sanctuary of

Olympia.81 By analyzing both the inscribed text and its monumental support, I will show that the narrative constructed in this inscription had two overlapping goals. First, it further stressed the importance of Messene’s victory in the arbitration, reinforcing its claim over the disputed territory. Second, it defined Messenian civic and ethnic identity through a link with the

Messenian past and their historical opposition to Sparta. The emphasis on these two points fits the long process of creating a Messenian identity, attested by both literary and archaeological evidence. The inscription presents the Messenians’ use of arbitration as an opportunity to shape their own identity, as it had been for their decree concerning the federal dispute.82 Moreover, this particular case highlights the role arbitrations had in a broader effort to redefine Messenian identity, and their value as evidence for this phenomenon.

81 Document 6. 82 Document 2.

111 The arbitration inscription is an epigraphic dossier, consisting of three individual documents passed by two different poleis.83 The first (A) is a decree of Elis, which responds to a

Messenian embassy and allows the dossier itself to be set up in Olympia. The second (B) is a letter from the Milesian magistrates to the Eleian ones, alongside a copy of the arbitration award

(the Milesians sent both at the request of the Messenians). Finally, the third document (C) is the actual arbitration award produced by Miletos. Together, these documents allow us to reconstruct the arbitration process in a detailed manner.

Around 138, Messene and Sparta were quarreling about the possession of the

Dentheliatis, a stretch of land along the Taygetos range which forms the border between

Messenia and Laconia.84 Both parties turned to the Roman senate to judge the dispute. The

Romans, however, did not fully carry out their duty as judges, and only defined some of the parameters of the judgment: the land would remain to whichever party possessed the land at the time of Mummius’ stay in Greece in 146. The senate then delegated the task of deciding who had occupied the land to the city of Miletus, which selected a court of 600 citizens. Both a Messenian and a Spartan advocate spoke in front of the judges, who ruled in favor of Messene. After the verdict was announced, the Messenians decided to have the result of the trial inscribed at

Olympia. First, they asked the Milesians to address a letter to Elis, and to attach to it a sealed copy of their ruling. With this copy they then sent ambassadors to Elis itself, asking for their permission to carve the documents in the sanctuary. The Eleians finally decreed that they would comply with the request.

83 I follow IvO 52, the first complete edition of the inscription, in referring to these as A, B, and C. 84 For the dating of the arbitration, see the Epigraphical Dossier, nr. 6. Curiously, nowhere in the entire dossier is the disputed land identified. However, we know it is Dentheliatis thanks to a later arbitration case for the same territory (Tac., Ann. 4.43.1-3).

112 Like other texts I have previously discussed, this dossier too contains textual narratives.

These are constructed through the inclusion of certain details in the text and the careful choice of vocabulary. In particular, the individual documents, which originate from different polities, contain specific textual narratives, with different goals and strategies. At the same time, the dossier as a whole constructs a narrative through the combination of text and material context, specifically the monument on which the inscription was carved. I will first examine the more specific textual narratives we see constructed in this arbitration.

2.A.i. Textual Narratives Again

A clear example of such narratives is found in document C, the Milesian arbitration award. A first aspect that is described with precision is Roman involvement and the process that led to the inclusion of Miletus in the arbitration: “since the praetor Quintus Calpurnius, son of Gaius, wrote to us in the fourteenth month and eleventh day, according to the moon, from the day in which the senatus consultum was passed” (42-45, ὡς δὲ ὁ στρατηγὸς [ἔγρα]ψε Κόϊντος Καλιπόρνιος Γαΐου

υἱὸς μηνὸς τετάρ[του καὶ δεκά]του καὶ ἡμέραι ἑνδεκάτηι κατὰ σελήνην ἀφ’ ἧ[ς ἡμέρας τὸ]

δόγμα ἐγένετο). The text includes the exact interval of time that passed between the senatus consultum and when the Milesians received the letter asking them to act as judges. Not only are readers provided with the exact number of days, but they also learn that the calculation took place according to the lunar calendar system. The text then specifies that the popular assembly that would select the judging court “was held in the theater in the aforementioned day” (45-46,

ἐκκλησία συνήχθη κυρία ἐν̣ [τῷ θεά]τρωι ἐν τῆι προειρημένηι ἡμέραι). The Milesians thus provide us with the exact time frame of their participation in the arbitration. In particular, one can note the juxtaposition of the year-long Roman delay with the speed with which they held the

113 assembly, on the very day they received the letter. This was a way to display their efficiency and willingness to cooperate, and perhaps to implicitly point out that they were not responsible for the long delay.

Such numerical precision appears again during the actual judgment. While addressing the court, the two city representatives spoke twice, the allotted time being measured with a water clock. The advocates had “for the first speech fifteen Milesian measures each, and for the second speech five Milesian measures, as they also agreed” (56-59, ἐπὶ μὲν τοῦ] πρώτου λόγου

ἑκατέροις μετρη[ταὶ Μιλήσιοι δεκα]πέντε, ἐπὶ δὲ τοῦ δευτέρου λόγου̣ [μετρηταὶ Μιλήσιοι]

πέντε, καθότι καὶ αὐτοὶ εὐδόκησαν). Here as well we detect a careful attention to detail, and a desire to convey the precision with which the Milesians conducted the business. The use of a water clock to measure time for speakers is well-known in the Greek world, and specifically attested for arbitrations as well.85 Still, the text here seems to go out of its way to provide all sorts of details, not only the exact number of measurements for each address, but also the specification that these were Milesian water measures. We also learn that both sides had agreed to such provisions. The careful listing of all these details conveys an idea of impartiality.

Through these dispositions the Milesians attempt to show that they had done everything to ensure the fairness of the process, including a large court (the largest allowed by law) and precise arrangements for the speakers. Such arrangements in fact immediately follow in the text: “and after Eudamidas son of Euthykles for the Lacedaemonians, and Nikon son of Nikonos for the

Messenians spoke in observance of the water” (59-62, [καὶ λ]ε̣ξάντων πρὸς τὴν τήρησιν τοῦ

ὕδατος παρὰ [μὲν Λ]ακεδαιμονίων Εὐδαμίδα τοῦ Εὐθυκλέος, παρὰ δὲ Με̣[σ]σ̣ηνίων Νίκ<ων>ος

τοῦ Νίκωνος). The text specifies that both spoke “in observance of the water,” as if to stress that

85 Cf. Ager 21, ll. 45, 72-73, for the use of water in a 3rd century arbitration between Kalymna and Kos.

114 the careful provisions were indeed respected. Moreover, the parallel construction of ethnics, names, and patronymics reinforced the perception of equality and fairness. A last example of

Milesian attention to details is the tally of the votes, at the very end of the document. The text explains how the Messenians won with 584 votes, while the Spartans only got sixteen. Including the number of votes for a decree or a judgment is a common feature that appears on Greek inscriptions in both the Classical and Hellenistic period.86 Arbitrations sometimes report this information as well. It not only fits the judicial precision of some of these documents, but it also makes the verdict appear more tangible, reinforcing the result of the arbitration.87 In our case, the

Milesians’ precision stresses the near unanimity of their decision.

When we put all these elements together, we find a text that pays attention to detail, numerical details in particular. This focus does not just reflect a general local epigraphic pattern.

While 2nd century Milesian inscribed documents can be long and very detailed, they usually do not include as many specifics and exact numbers.88 I argue that the explanation for the precision of this document is tied to its rhetorical agenda. The inclusion of specific details and exact numbers helps construct a narrative that conveys a precise image of the Milesian people. It attests to the careful attention they paid to the various stages of the arbitration process, and thus their desire to properly perform their duty as judges. They acted as soon as they received the letter, and carefully planned the advocates’ public addresses. Moreover, this narrative is one of

86 See for example SIG3 722, l.14: a proxeny decree of Astypalea, with a unanimous vote, ca. 100; CID 1.9, ll. 21- 23: a lex sacra by the phratria of the Labyadai, passed with 182 votes in favor, ca. 400-350; IG II2 1343, ll. 44-46: honorary decree of the koinon of the Soteriastai, passed with 60 votes in favor and none opposed, 1st century. 87 Ager 21 (=SIG3 953), 84-85: arbitration by Cnidos between citizens of Calymnos and Cos, ca 300-286; 78 voted guilty, 126 not-guilty; IG IX,2 261: arbitration by an imperial legate between Metropolis and Kierion, early 1st century CE; Metropolis won with 298 votes, Kierion got 31, and 5 votes were invalid; document 2, 56-61 (the trial in Karneiasion), 81 (the Milesian judgment). 88 Cf. Milet I.3 148, a very detailed peace treaty with Magnesia; 149, a treaty of sympoliteia with Pidasa; 150, a treaty with Heraklea on Latmos. Only the last of these documents provides some numerical details, and still less than what we find in this arbitration despite being considerably longer, at 126 lines.

115 impartiality, since the Milesians went to great length to show the transparency of the trial, by measuring the speaking time of both sides and recording the decision of the judges. While the document is mostly about the legal details and the result of the arbitration, by recording specific details the Milesians made sure to showcase their qualities as judges, willingness to act, impartiality, and transparency.

The textual narrative constructed in document C is the most detailed, but not the only one we find in the dossier. To a lesser degree, one can observe a similar phenomenon in document A, the Eleian decree. Its main goal is to respond to the Messenian requests, reciprocating the offer of friendship and syngeneia, and, most importantly, allowing for the carving of the arbitration.

The Eleians mention their compliance to all Messenian requests, and make sure to record their additional signs of benevolence, such as the large gifts of hospitality (26, ξένια τὰ μέγιστα ἐκ

τῶν νόμων). These explicit elements help them construct a narrative of friendship and mutual respect towards Messene. However, such narrative is also built more implicitly, in particular through the use of “echoing language” in their document. In the decree they list the content of the Messenian letter, and use it as a guideline to frame their own decisions. This strategy conveys a sense of institutional similarity, thus creating another link between the two cities. I will discuss these features in further details in my next chapter, within the context of Peer Polity Interaction and its link with interstate arbitrations.89 For now, it will suffice to say that the Eleian decree uses both implicit and explicit elements to construct a narrative displaying their positive attitude towards Messene. Just as document C, this decree conveys a message that goes beyond the official measures taken by the city.

89 See Chapter 3.2.B.i.

116 These two examples show that individual documents in a dossier can display their own narratives, created by the polity that originated them. At the same time, when the Messenians put together the whole dossier, they used all of these documents to create a new written record with a new independent narrative. Without the need to insert any of their official documents, they effectively created their own narrative, thanks to specific choices about the publication of the inscription. I will now move to analyze this particular narrative, in which visual elements play a crucial part.

2.A.ii. The Monument

In order to get a fuller picture, we need to analyze the monument that provided the epigraphic support for the text and to consider both its history and appearance. The objects under study here are the Nike statue by Paionios of Mende and the pillar on which it stood, both dedicated in

Olympia in the 5th century.90 The pillar (figs. 1, 3-4) is located about 30 m SE of the temple of

Zeus, and both it and the statue faced east. Even though many of the blocks were scattered in different spots of the sanctuary, the foundations helped identify the original location. The pillar itself is triangular in shape, a quite unusual choice, and it narrows towards the top.91 While the base (block A) is a yellowish-grey limestone, the rest of the pillar and the statue are constructed in an island marble, possibly Parian.92 The excavators found six of the original blocks of the pillar itself (plus two others from the base and the statue plinth), and many fragments of various dimensions. Still, thanks to the regular proportions dictating the size of each block, we know that

90 On the pillar itself, a fundamental study is Herrmann 1972; cf. Pomtow 1922. On the statue, see Palagia 2016; Pollitt 1999, pp. 118- 122; Ridgway 1981, pp. 108-111; Hölscher 1974; Borbein 1973, pp. 168-173; cf. Kallet 2016 on the circumstances of the dedication. 91 On the triangular shape, see Ridgway 1981, p. 111, who follows Borbein 1973, p. 169 in seeing an allusion to tripods. The width at the top is ca. 0.3 m more than at the basis. 92 Herrmann 1972, p. 240 speaks generally of “Inselmarmor;” Palagia 2016, p. 73 believes it is Parian.

117 there were originally six more blocks. We can thus reconstruct the total height of the pillar at

8.45 m, plus another 0.35 m for the base.93 At the top of the pillar, block N, the last block before the base of the statue, there is evidence that indicates that a bronze shield was hanging on each side of the pillar. The shields were not crafted specifically for the occasion but were spoils of war taken from the enemy. Between 1970 and 1972 the monument was restored and partially rebuilt on the original location, on top of its ancient foundations. Today, the pillar is composed of eight blocks and stands 4.5 m tall, about half of its original height.94

At the top of the pillar, almost nine m from the ground, stood the two m tall statue of

Nike. Although the statue has been damaged, we still have a good idea of its original appearance

(fig. 5). It depicted a winged Nike (Victory), leaning slightly forward. Her left leg leans as if to touch the ground, while her left arm is extended to the left. Her peplos clings to her body, while the mantle floats behind her, framing the entire composition. At her feet stood the eagle of Zeus.

The most striking feature of this statue is the imitation of free flight and the impression of levitation. The Nike seems to float in the sky, heading down to the point where she will touch the ground.95 When seen from below, it “would have seemed to be alighting on the pillar amid a violent swirling rush of air.”96 Several elements contribute to create this effect, in particular the daring pose and the rendition of the drapery. The pose, which reaches the natural limits of the marble, creates an uneven but balanced weight distribution. The robes, clinging to her body as if grasped by the wind, give the impression of in-air movement. Overall, the statue is a product of high artistic ability and a display of great technical virtuosity, while its formal characteristics

93 For the calculations behind this reconstruction, see Herrmann 1972, pp. 241-252. 94 Of these eight blocks, H is mostly reconstructed, with only two ancient fragments. E is a modern copy; since it bore the 5th century dedicatory inscription, this block was moved in the Museum, where it is now displayed, together with block P, with the Nike statue. Blocks C and D, with the Hellenistic inscription, were instead included in the reconstructed pillar. 95 Borbein 1973, p. 166. 96 Pollitt 1999, p. 119.

118 give it an almost visionary character.97 The combination of the grandiose appearance of the pillar with the refined and innovative statue of the Nike must have made this dedication a focus of attention for many of the visitors to the sanctuary.98

The pillar originally bore a four-line dedicatory inscription, inscribed on block E, at a height of 2.1-2.24 m above ground level. The text reads: “The Messenians and Naupaktians dedicated to Olympian Zeus as a tithe from the enemies. Paionios of Mende made it, having also made the acroteria of the temple after winning the competition.”99 The language of the inscription is the Northwest Ionian dialect, and the letters are in the Archaic Ionic script. This choice seems less linked to the sculptor’s provenance than to the general spread of Ionic letters in the 420s.100 The letters of the first two lines, which form the actual dedicatory part, are about three cm tall. This, together with the fact that the letters did not display particularly Archaic features, increased the legibility of the inscription, and made it easier to detect the origin of the dedication.

The most reliable criterion to date the monument is the stylistic features of the Nike, which scholars usually date to the 420s.101 The paleographic argument supports this dating, as the letters of the dedicatory inscription fit this time period. One plausible moment for its dedication is after the Eleians’ alliance with Athens in 420, when the disagreement between them and Sparta would have given the Messenians a good chance to dedicate it in the sanctuary.102

97 Pollitt 1999, p. 118; Hölscher 1974, p. 92. 98 On the “popularity” of the Nike and its capacity to attract other dedications, see below, n. 117. 99 IvO 259 (=IG V,1 1568): Μεσσάνιοι καὶ Ναυπάκτιοι ἀνέθεν Διὶ | Ὀλυμπίωι δεκάταν ἀπὸ τῶμ πολεμίων.| Παιώνιος ἐποίησε Μενδαῖος | καὶ τἀκρωτήρια ποιῶν ἐπὶ τὸν ναὸν ἐνίκα. The original block with the inscription (fig. 6) was moved into the Olympia Museum and replaced with a copy. 100 Jeffery 1990, pp. 205, 365, points out the lettering is the same as the one of the Messenian pillar at Delphi (Jacquemin and Laroche 1982; Laroche and Jacquemin 2016). Matthaiou and Mastrokostas 2000-2003, pp. 449-453 stress the similarities with the contemporary treaty between Messenians and Naupaktians, also in the Ionic alphabet. 101 Palagia 2016; Ridgway 1981, p. 108; Hölscher 1974, esp. pp. 74-75, 80, 91, 111. 102 Luraghi 2008, p. 191 and n. 67; Frazer 1898, vol 3, pp. 643-6. On the alliance, Thuc. 5.47. On the break between Elis and Sparta, see Roy 1998; Hornblower 2000.

119 Still, other scholars have pointed out that a slightly earlier date is a serious possibility.103 Even more complicated is the issue of the occasion for the dedication: who were the defeated

“enemies,” and which military victory did the monument commemorate? The only direct piece of ancient evidence is from Pausanias, who while describing the statue writes:

The Dorian Messenians who received Naupactus from the Athenians dedicated at Olympia the image of Victory upon the pillar. It is the work of Paeonius of Mende, and was made from the proceeds of enemy spoils, I think from the war with the Acarnanians and Oeniadae. The Messenians themselves declare that their offering came from their exploit with the Athenians in the island of Sphacteria, and that the name of their enemy was omitted through dread of the Lacedaemonians; for they say, they are not in the least afraid of Oeniadae and the Acarnanians.104 We can dismiss Pausanias’ hypothesis, as he is the only author who mentions a Messenian campaign against Oiniadai in the 450s, which does not match the chronology of the monument and whose historicity has been called into question.105 Some scholars believe the Messenian version, saying that the Nike commemorated the victory at Sphakteria in 425.106 However, this view is complicated by the fact that Thucydides only mentions Messenian forces at Sphakteria, and not the Naupaktians.107 Additionally, the expression ἀπὸ τῶμ πολεμίων can (but does not

103 Hölscher 1974, p. 75 believes the monument was dedicated in 420 at the latest. Palagia 2016, p. 82 points out that “there is no record that the sanctuary was inaccessible to the Athenians or their allies during the war”. This is particularly true if we think that the Spartans’ exclusion from the sanctuary was noteworthy enough to be mentioned by ancient sources (Xenophon, Pausanias). 104 Paus. 5.26.1: Μεσσηνίων δὲ τῶν Δωριέων οἱ Ναύπακτόν ποτε παρὰ Ἀθηναίων λαβόντες ἄγαλμα ἐν Ὀλυμπίᾳ Νίκης ἐπὶ τῷ κίονι ἀνέθεσαν· τοῦτό ἐστιν ἔργον μὲν Μενδαίου Παιωνίου, πεποίηται δὲ ἀπὸ ἀνδρῶν πολεμίων, ὅτε Ἀκαρνᾶσι καὶ Οἰνιάδαις ἐμοὶ δοκεῖν ἐπολέμησαν. Μεσσήνιοι δὲ αὐτοὶ λέγουσι τὸ ἀνάθημά σφισιν ἀπὸ τοῦ ἔργου τοῦ ἐν τῇ Σφακτηρίᾳ νήσῳ μετὰ Ἀθηναίων <πραχθέντος εἶναι>, καὶ οὐκ ἐπιγράψαι τὸ ὄνομα τῶν πολεμίων σφᾶς τῷ ἀπὸ Λακεδαιμονίων δείματι, ἐπεὶ Οἰνιαδῶν γε καὶ Ἀκαρνάνων οὐδένα ἔχειν φόβον (transl. Jones and Ormerod 1926). 105 Paus. 4.25. CAH2 V, p. 119 and n. 95 (D. M. Lewis). Contra, Freitag 1996, pp. 78-82; Luraghi 2008, p. 188, who date it to the 450s. 106 Scott 2010, pp. 195-196; Whitley 2006; Figueira 1999, p. 215; Robertson 1985, p. 180; Ridgway 1981, p. 108. 107 However, one must note that Thucydides never mentions the Naupaktians in his work, only talking about “oἱ Μεσσήνιοι οἱ ἐν Ναυπάκτῳ.” This despite the clear epigraphical evidence from Olympia (our monument) and Delphi, were Messenians and Naupaktians made joint dedications for their military successes, see Kallet 2016, esp. pp. 21, 32-35.

120 necessarily) fit a dedication celebrating a series of victories over various enemies.108 Because of these arguments, many scholars believe the monument commemorated a number of military successes obtained by Messenians and Naupaktians during the Archidamian War (431-421), including but not limited to Sphakteria.109 In particular, the Messenians took part in two important Athenian expeditions in northwestern Greece.110 In 426 Demosthenes led an unsuccessful campaign against Aetolia with Messenian help (Thuc. 3.94-98). While Thucydides does not specifically mention the Naupaktians, he may have included them among the Ozolian

Lokrians, who also took part in the campaign (Thuc. 3.95.3). Shortly after, in the winter of

426/5, the Messenians (and possibly the Naupaktians) helped the Athenians gain a major success in Akarnania (Thuc. 3.105-114).111 Throughout the Archidamian War, the Messenians of

Naupaktos thus had several victories that were worthy of a dedication in Olympia.112 Scholars who interpret the Nike monument as a “cumulative” dedication, celebrating many battles, still point out the importance of Sphakteria, which would have loomed large among the war events.113

The primacy of Sphakteria among other victories may be confirmed by some references to this battle that were implicit in the Nike monument. First of all, the three shields attached to the pillar could be seen as a direct challenge to the golden shield located on top of the pediment of the

108 On the formula and the use of πολέμιος see Amandry 1978; Jaquemin 1999, pp. 92-94. Against Pausanias’ “fear” argument, cf. IvO 247: Μεθάνιοι ἀπὸ Λακεδαιμονίōν. 109 Frazer 1898, vol. 3, pp. 643-646; Hölscher 1972, pp. 74-75 and n. 9; Meiggs-Lewis, GHI2 74; Laroche and Jaquemin 2016; Palagia 2016. 110 For a comprehensive summary of military activities in North-Western Greece during the 420s, see Kallet 2016, pp. 23-31. 111 We know (Thuc. 3.114.1) that the booty from the campaign was divided among the allies. The Athenian themselves brought home 300 panoplies; this would have been a good chance for the Messenians (and Naupaktians?) to acquire a good amount of wealth. 112 The Athenians themselves celebrated these successes with dedications on the Acropolis: a statue of Athena Nike for the 426/5 victory in northwestern Greece (IG II3,1 444), and a bronze Nike for Sphakteria (Paus. 4.36.6). 113 Thuc. 4.40 stresses the huge resonance of this battle: “Nothing that happened in the war surprised the Greeks so much as this.”

121 temple of Zeus, which the Spartans had dedicated after their victory at Tanagra in 458.114

Because the monument faced east just like the temple, an ancient viewer would have seen both the shield on the front of the pillar and the one on the temple.115 This is worth noticing, since most of the other dedications in the area faced the temple. The Spartans themselves might have perceived this as a hint against them. After his naval victories at Ephesos and Aigospotamoi,

Lysander dedicated in Sparta two nikai standing on top of eagles, possibly a competitive response to the Messenian monument.116

After surveying the information at our disposal, we must conclude that the evidence does not allow us to definitively determine which military success the monument celebrated.

Similarly, it is unclear who the enemies of the inscription were, and whether and to what degree the monument was polemically targeting the Spartans. I believe the most probable case is that the

Nike commemorated a series of Messenian successes during the Archidamian War. At the same time, viewers must have often seen in it a reference to Sphakteria, both because of the resonance of that victory and of the monument’s possible visual allusions against Sparta.

The monument that I have so far described provides the background for its next use as an epigraphic surface, when the Messenians obtained from Elis the permission to have their arbitration carved in the sanctuary, almost 300 years later. It seems the monument had been a focus of attention, since in the decades immediately after its erection many other dedications were placed around it.117 The marble pillar was a suitable spot for carving a new text: while its height and the beautiful Nike caught the eye of the passerby, the short 5th century inscription left

114 Hölscher 1974, pp. 82-83; cf. Luraghi 2008, pp. 191-193. The Spartan shield is mentioned by Paus. 5.10.4, cf. Meiggs-Lewis, GHI2 36. 115 Hölscher 1974, p. 83; Scott 2010, p. 196: the shields hanging from the pillar were “in direct spatial, inscriptional, and artistic opposition” to Sparta. 116 Paus. 3.17.4. Hölscher 1974, p. 77. 117 Hyde 1921, p. 352: ten statues for Olympic victors, dated between 472 and 408, clustered around the Nike.

122 much available space. The text that was inscribed in the 2nd century is much longer, totaling 70 lines, divided into a title and two columns, occupying a total surface of 1.34x1.08 m (figg. 2-4).

The inscribed surface was on blocks C and D, and placed between 0.78 and 1.74 m high. The three different documents that compose the dossier are neatly organized in separate paragraphs, each having the first line outdented. The letters of the text are ca. 1.5 cm tall, while the letters of the title are larger, between 2.7 and 3.2 cm. Because of both the letter height and its position, separate from the rest of the text, the title must have been very legible. Thanks to its position near the ground level and on the front of the pillar, as well as its visibility, the new inscription was now very much a part of the monument. The integration was not seamless: a careful viewer might detect that the arbitration text had been carved more recently, on account of the different letter style and the appearance of the newly inscribed inscription set against the weathered marble. Still, this did not compromise the overall consistency of the monument.

2.A.iii The Visual Narrative: Messenian Past and Identity

The combination of this monument and the text of the dossier created a new powerful narrative, which I now turn to. The importance of this narrative goes beyond its original dispute, as its new goal was to shape Messenian civic and ethnic identity. This inscription thus attests the contribution of arbitrations to the long process of Messenian self-definition during the Hellenistic period.

The first step towards the creation of this narrative was the choice of the monument for the display of the dossier. Unfortunately, the text itself only tells us that the Messenians asked for permission to have the arbitration inscribed in the sanctuary and that the Eleians consented. It nowhere specifies whether the Messenians or the Eleians chose the spot. More generally, the

123 process through which dedications were placed in the sanctuary is only partially known, and we cannot safely rely on comparanda. It appears it was mostly a matter of negotiation between the dedicator and the authority controlling the sanctuary, and the specific conditions then varied with the occasion.118 Within this broader context, I believe the Messenians chose this specific location as it had the obvious advantage of already “belonging” to their community. Moreover, the size and proximity of the monument with respect to the Temple of Zeus placed the arbitration dossier in a highly trafficked area of the Sanctuary. This was surely a concern, since superstate (or even, as in this case, Panhellenic) visibility was one of the main goals for a city when publishing arbitrations in sanctuaries.

However, visibility is not the whole picture. I argue that the main reason for the

Messenian choice was that this specific location gave new meaning to both the text and the monument, constructing a new narrative, both visual and textual. This is particularly important since this kind of narrative, one that made use of the monument on which the arbitration text was carved, was the only one the Messenians could construct. As mentioned above, none of the three documents forming the dossier originated in Messene, but had been drafted by other polities.

Moreover, we know that the Messenians had no input on the text of the actual arbitration award

(C), since the Milesians drafted it and then sent a sealed copy directly to the Eleians. The

Messenians themselves thus had no control over the text of the dossier and did not have a chance to construct a purely textual narrative of their own. Still, through a careful choice of location, they meaningfully linked the arbitration dossier to the monument, creating a multifaceted visual narrative. We can detect three main arguments that this narrative articulates.

118 Scott 2010, p. 39.

124 First, the location of the text created a powerful parallel between the military victory of prior generations of Messenians and the recent judicial one. The arbitration text was inscribed on what was clearly a victory monument. The two inscriptions, placed side by side, both lay under the Nike, symbolizing Messenian victory against their opponents. Success on the battlefield and in court were thus two sides of the same coin. Through this parallel, the recent legal victory became more prestigious, being equated to a military success. The lavishness of the monument and the artistic quality of the statue now stressed the relevance of both events. Similarly, the repetition of the ethnic Μεσσάνιοι, which appeared at the beginning of both inscriptions, made even clearer who the winning side was. A passerby would not even have to read the texts in full to know that the Messenians had twice triumphed.

Second, the juxtaposition of the arbitration text with the 5th century dedication linked the

Hellenistic inscription to the earlier history of the Messenians. Though they might not have been able to securely date it, Greeks living in the 2nd century must have been aware that the monument was quite old. Both the style of the statue and the Archaic letter forms provided good clues that the pillar had stood long before their time, not to mention the effect of three centuries of exposure to the elements. With its archaic appearance, the monument thus projected Messenian history beyond the foundation of the city in 369, into a phase when there was no single independent Messenian polity. By inscribing their arbitration on the pillar of the Nike, the people of Hellenistic Messene were appropriating that past, implicitly claiming their role as the main focus of Messenian ethnic identity.119 This link to Messenians of the past reinforced the legitimacy of the city’s claim to the land it had just obtained from the Spartans. Arbitrations

119 Even the foundation of Messene did not unite all Messenians into one polity. However, this was the recurring narrative promoted by this city, which portrayed itself as the Messenian polity; see Luraghi 2008, pp. 251, 275, 286- 291.

125 often pivoted around the question of who first owned the disputed land, and retrojecting its history made Messene’s case stronger.120

Third, the new inscription affected the meaning of the entire monument, rebranding it as decisively anti-Spartan.121 The arbitration text clearly mentioned the Spartans as the rivals, since their name was in the very title of the dossier, inscribed in larger letters and placed at a convenient height for it to be read. Conversely, the dedicatory inscription used the vague formula

“the enemies,” and thus did not precisely identify the opponents. The other elements of the 5th century monument did not provide clear indications either. Even the possible visual allusions to the Spartans would have kept the reference implicit and not immediately evident. However, now the connection of the two inscriptions, placed side by side on the same pillar, strongly suggested to the viewer that they both had the same polemic target. Thanks to the vagueness of the

Classical dedication, the Hellenistic inscription could extend its influence on it, giving it a new and explicit anti-Spartan meaning.122 The Messenians were conscious of the “rebranding” effect the new inscription had, since addressing the Spartans as their adversaries was one of the main goals for the publication of the arbitration text. Pausanias’ evidence confirms that this was the version the Messenians themselves supported when talking about the dedication.123 Though we cannot know what this tradition was based on, I would argue that the monument played a significant role in supporting it and helping it survive. Given the new anti-Spartan message of the

120 In many cases we see both sides digging into their local myths and history to show that they originally held the land in contention; see document 8 (the descent of the Heraklids); Ager 50 (the mythical kings of Laconia and Messenia); outside of the Peloponnese, see Ager 74 (the 8th century Meliac War between Samos and Priene, and the mention of many local historians). On justifying territorial claims, see Chaniotis 2004, esp. pp. 200-203 on inheritance. 121 Cf. Maddoli and Saladino 1995, pp. 345-346. 122 One might argue that the anti-Spartan message was there from the very beginning; still, even in this case the arbitration text would have much reinforced it, by making it explicit. In both cases, the Hellenistic inscription much enhanced the anti-Spartan nature of the monument. 123 Paus. 5.26.1 (see text above, p. 120).

126 dedication, it was easy to imagine that the previous dedication also concerned Sparta and the celebrated the victory of Sphakteria.

By creating this complex narrative, the Messenians went beyond the simple act of reusing a stone by carving a new text on it, as attested for other arbitrations. One example of such a basic reuse of an epigraphic surface comes from Delphi.124 In a 2nd century decree the Delphians honored Apollodoros, an Athenian who had represented them in the initial phase of an arbitration. Because of Apollodoros’ origin, the decree was inscribed on the Athenian treasury.

Both the Delphic decree and the arbitration under study here were published on a monument already belonging to a specific community and advertising their accomplishments. However, the

Messenian arbitration dossier interacted with the physical support in a much more complex and effective way, and had an extensive impact on it. Conversely, the Delphic decree did not significantly affect the meaning and the message conveyed by the Athenian treasury, but only made use of it as a specifically Athenian space within the sanctuary.

In contrast with other instances of reusing existing monuments for new inscriptions, the tripartite narrative that we see constructed on the pillar conveyed several messages, and we can identify two main goals. First, it enhanced the importance of the verdict and strengthened its validity. As I have discussed, the parallel with an earlier victory against the Spartans increased the prestige of the legal success, while the link with 5th century Messenians publicly reinforced the city’s claim to the disputed land. Second, the narrative also had another more critical goal: helping construct Messenian identity. One can better understand this attempt through the notion of intentional history, whose criteria it matches well.125

124 Ager 117 II. Cf. 117 I, another Delphic decree, pertaining to the same arbitration. This decree honored the Rhodian judges that had been chosen to arbitrate the dispute, and was therefore inscribed on the base for a chariot the Rhodians had dedicated in Delphi. 125 On intentional history, see above, n. 51.

127 This narrative contains two elements of self-categorization that are projected back in time and connected to the monument. One is the link with the earlier history of the Messenians. The narrative created a strong connection between the Hellenistic arbitration and the Messenians of the 5th century. The citizens of Messene could project their history before the foundation of the polis in 369 by portraying themselves as direct descendants of the Messenians, the ethnic group that had always inhabited the region. In establishing such a connection, these citizens chose to highlight the continuity between the two historical phases, while conveniently forgetting the changes that had occurred, such as the decline of Sparta and the rise of the Achaean League as a local competitor, just to name a few. The other element of self-categorization is the depiction of

Sparta as the historical enemy of all Messenians. The anti-Spartan rebranding of the monument was a reminder that the Lacedaemonians had been and still were the enemy, always threatening the territorial integrity of Messenia. The narrative thus conveyed the message that part of being

Messenian was to successfully resist the Spartans, in battle or in court. These two elements show that through this narrative the people of Messene were rethinking their past and present history, and they selectively highlighted those aspects they believed defined their identity as a group.

Because of the specific context of its publication, our arbitration not only dealt with a land dispute, but addressed the important issue of Messenian collective identity.

This focus on Messenian identity is not an isolated instance, but part of a broader phenomenon. Messenian ethnic identity was the result of a long and deliberate process.126 We can trace the beginning of this trend in the 5th century, even before the foundation of Messene as an autonomous polis.127 However, the independence of Messenia from Sparta in 369 opened a

126 On the creation of a Messenian identity, see Proietti 2012; Luraghi 2009, 2008, 2003, 2002; Alcock 1999; Figueira 1999. 127 Luraghi 2008, pp. 173-208; Figueira 1999.

128 new phase, during which the phenomenon grew significantly. This was due, mostly, to the needs of the new polis. Messene tried to create a history for itself and for the Messenians, filling in the gaps of a regional historical tradition that was underrepresented at the Panhellenic level. At the same time, the city attempted to use Messenian ethnic identity and opposition to Sparta as a way to maintain control over the rest of Messenia, trying to counter the centrifugal tendencies of the other communities, which strove for independence. The surviving evidence shows that this focus on Messenian identity involved different media.

On the one hand, Hellenistic authors wrote works about the remote Messenian past and the wars against Sparta. In the 3rd century Myron of Priene and Rhianos of Bene composed literary works on this topic. Myron wrote a history of Messenia that focused on the First

Messenian War, while Rhianos’ epic poem narrated the Second War.128 Unfortunately, almost nothing of these two works has survived, and we mostly rely on what Pausanias says about them in the fourth book of his Periegesis. From Pausanias’ account it is clear that they both favorably described the Messenians’ heroic resistance against the Spartans. Both Myron and Rhianos belonged to the category of poets and historiographers who wrote encomiastic ethnographic poems and local histories. As we see from honorary inscriptions, Hellenistic communities often granted honors to those authors who celebrated their past.129 The composition of these two works was part of an attempt to fill the gap of literary works regarding the history of Messenia, while at the same time they put forth a positive depiction of the Messenians by recalling their long struggle against Sparta. The Spartans obviously featured prominently in these works as the historical enemies of Messenia.

128 A detailed commentary and update bibliography on both authors can be found in BNJ 106 (Myron) and 265 (Rhianos); cf. Luraghi 2008, pp. 83-88; Cameron 1995, pp. 297-301 (on Rhianos); Pearson 1962. 129 Luraghi 2008, pp. 87-88; Chaniotis 1988b, pp. 290-329 (for a catalogue of decrees honoring historiographers), 362-365 (a summary of the main reasons for the honors).

129 The production of literary works was not the only way in which Messene fostered a sense of ethnic identity. Many sanctuaries, both in Messenia and in Messene itself, played a similar role.130 For example, according to Pausanias (4.31.12) the temple of the heroine Messene in the agora hosted a cycle of paintings portraying a number of mythical figures from Messenia.

Together with the eponymous heroine to whom the sanctuary was dedicated, this work of art was meant to inspire a feeling of identity and belonging based on the common Messenian past.131 In

Messene we also see the duplication of regional sanctuaries whose main location was elsewhere in the region, such as the Athena Kyparissia and the Artemis Limnatis ones.132 Through these sanctuaries, Messene was able to claim control over Messenia through its links to the regional religious networks. This duplication of regional sanctuaries, which seems to have taken place in the late 4th or early 3rd century, promoted the idea of a common religious background. Moreover, at least in the case of Artemis Limnatis, this once again carried an anti-Spartan message. The sanctuary, located in the Dentheliatis region at the very border of Laconia and Messenia, was often disputed between the two poleis, as the local tradition pointed to that location as the place of the incident that first caused enmity between Messenians and Spartans.133

In sum, throughout the Hellenistic period, the polis of Messene used different measures to foster a sense of Messenian ethnic identity. This was done not only by giving literary form to the mythical and historical past of the region, long before the foundation of the city in the 4th century, but also by stressing the common cults and religious centers that Messenians shared. A

130 To this search for a common Messenian identity may also belong the tomb cult that appears in many burials in Messenia. While traces of activity date back to the 8th century, the evidence suggests a peak between the late 4th and the 2nd century. On this phenomenon, see van der Kamp 1996; cf. Antonaccio 1995; Alcock 1991. On the role played by earlier material remains in the creation of a common Messenian identity, cf. Davis and Stocker 2020, about the impact of Bronze Age heritage in the Pylia. 131 Luraghi 2008, pp. 269-275. On the sanctuary see also Themelis 2012, pp. 45-47; 2010, pp. 144-147. 132 Luraghi 2008, pp. 275-277. On the civic sanctuary of Artemis Limnatis, see Linnemann 2017; Müth 2007, pp. 211-216; on the sanctuary of Athena at Kyparissia see Paus. 4.36.7; Zunino 1997, pp. 163-164. 133 Paus. 4.4.1-3.

130 recurring element in this phenomenon is the opposition to Sparta, which was constantly referred to as the historical enemy.134 Messene had a clear agenda behind this attention to shared

Messenian identity, since the city tried to use it as a way to maintain its control over most of

Messenia, in an attempt to counter the efforts of other Messenian communities which strove for independence.

The focus of the epigraphic narrative on Messenian ethnic identity, framed especially through references to the remote Messenian past and the opposition to Sparta, was thus part of a larger phenomenon, and attests to the interest of the citizens of Messene in looking back at their perceived history when offering a representation of themselves. I argue that one should include the publication of this arbitration on the Nike monument among the pieces of evidence for

Messenian constructions of their past. The city’s process of self-assertion and the construction of a shared identity was not only left to literature and civic buildings, but inscriptions made an important contribution as well. Arbitration inscriptions thus add new information about the shaping of identity. They attest that this process was not limited to the early Hellenistic period but lasted well into the 2nd century, even after the Roman conquest of Greece, and that the definition of Messenian identity did not only take place by means of long-term strategies, like architectural projects and the commission of works of literature. Instead, the Messenians also took advantage of current political events, including a war and a territorial dispute. The flexibility in terms of communication granted by epigraphic narratives allowed the people of

Messene to give new meaning to these events, incorporating them in their agenda.

134 However, as Luraghi 2008, pp. 338-339, notes, this anti-Spartan attitude often had little or no impact on the actual foreign policy of Messene.

131 The Milesian arbitration inscription expands our understanding of the role of epigraphy and interstate arbitration in Hellenistic Greece. First, this inscription shows that epigraphic narratives did not always rely heavily on the inscribed text. Of course, there were some textual narratives constructed in the dossier. As I mentioned, the different polities involved used the documents to convey messages not explicitly stated. By including precise details, the Milesians advertised their willingness to arbitrate, their impartiality, and the transparency of the whole process, while the

Eleians stressed their friendship towards Messene. However, this is not the whole picture. When we examine the text within its material context, a more complex narrative appears, one based on the relation between the text and its physical support. The interplay between the Hellenistic text and the Classical monument, with its inscription, statue, and overall appearance, conveyed a series of new messages. It not only emphasized the importance of the Messenian success in the arbitration and strengthened their claim on the land, but it also connected the citizens of Messene with the ancient Messenians, and reinforced their opposition to Sparta. In doing so, the narrative conveyed a specific representation that Messene offered of itself.

The richness of the messages transmitted by this textual and visual narrative leads to a series of conclusions. First, it serves as a reminder of the need to study inscriptions not only as texts, but as objects, whose physical aspect is in close relation with the inscribed text and can affect the overall message. In recent years, scholars dealing with Greek and Latin inscriptions have paid more and more attention to this aspect, and it has become a tenet of epigraphy. Still, this case illustrates well how relevant the possible repercussions of the physical appearance can be.135 Moreover, this inscription is yet another example of how arbitrations can include complex epigraphic narratives, which convey a diverse range of messages. On the one hand, we find

135 It should also be noted that scholars still somewhat overlook this aspect. Even some recent works discussing this arbitration (Camia 2009, 3; Ager 159) mention its location only in passing, without considering the consequences.

132 statements about cities’ claims on land, the relevance of the arbitration they just won, and the goodwill of the judges. At the same time, the same narrative can also focus on issues that have little or nothing to do with the actual arbitration. As we saw, the inscription deals with the ethnic identity of the people of Messene, and with how they framed and perceived their past. Finally, this narrative about the identity and the past of a community is integral to the broader civic attitude towards these very issues. The concern for Messenian ethnic identity as it appears in the inscription precisely mirrors the deep interest Messene had in constructing a history for itself.

The arbitration dossier is one of the means used in this long-lasting project of intentional history, not unlike Myron’s Messeniaka or the urban sanctuary of Artemis Limnatis within the walls of

Messene. Inscriptions were not some idiosyncratic medium, used to convey ideas that existed only in the text of the stone. Rather, they were one of the means through which cities carried out their policies, and they provide valuable evidence for these phenomena.

3. Not Just About the Dispute: Civic Narratives in Messenian Arbitrations

In this chapter I have shown that arbitration documents conveyed messages that went beyond their core factual information. Scholars had so far detected this feature only in a few types of inscriptions, mostly Athenian honorary decrees and documents dealing with Hellenistic monarchs. My research proves that other kinds of inscribed texts had the potential to construct such narratives as well. Hellenistic epigraphy is thus a gateway into normative narratives that structured interstate relations. In this new context, honorary inscriptions from Athens and

Seleukid Asia Minor are revealed to be manifestations of a broader phenomenon within Greek epigraphy, which extended to other types of documents and geopolitical contexts. My study of inscriptions from Messenia shows that for poleis, arbitrations provided an opportunity to

133 construct epigraphic narratives. The Messenians made particularly good use of these chances, even though the Rhodian verdict reminds us that Messene was not exceptional, as other polities constructed narratives within arbitrations as well.

These narratives had different communication goals, which fall in two main categories.

Some of these goals center around the arbitration itself and elements closely connected to it.

Poleis used narratives to give emphasis to specific elements of the arbitration they wanted to highlight. For example, in the dispute with Megalopolis and the Achaean League the Messenians used different means, such as the repetition of the verb νικάω and the careful placement of personal names, to stress the legal importance and implications of the Milesian decision.136

Similarly, the Rhodian judges of Sparta’s dispute against the League pointed out the necessity to adhere to the verdicts of arbitration courts.137 Finally, the visual narrative of the arbitration against Sparta stressed the relevance of Messene’s legal success alongside an older military victory.138 As these cases show, poleis often used narratives to further emphasize the relevance of the dispute that they had just won or successfully arbitrated. After all, the legal significance of the arbitration and its impact on a city’s foreign relations were important issues. Through narratives, communities tried to advertise, protect, or even enhance the advantages they had gained in court.

However, arbitration inscriptions use narratives for another important goal as well. Most narratives do not focus on the legal details of the process, but concentrate on self-representation, identity, and the past of a community. The Rhodians used the text of their verdict to promote an image of themselves as caring and well-meaning judges, whose main concern was peace among

136 Document 2. 137 Document 8. 138 Document 6.

134 Greeks. In three different cases, the Messenians exploited the arbitration inscriptions to make statements about their political stance, their past, and their identity. In the mediation with

Phigaleia, the Messenians stressed their own role in the process of reconciliation, in contrast with the untrustworthy Phigaleians.139 In the decree for the dispute against Megalopolis and Achaea we see an attempt to reinterpret recent traumatic political events and to redefine what it meant to be a citizen of Messene.140 The dossier of the arbitration against Sparta achieves the same goal by looking at the more distant past, through a link with Messenian ethnicity before the foundation of the city.141 In these last two cases the Messenians constructed their identity in two different but complementary ways. First, they defined themselves in positive terms, respectively as members of the Achaean League and as descendants of 5th century Messenians. Second, they expressed identity by opposition to rival polities, specifically Megalopolis and Sparta. In both cases, this effort of self-definition was made with an eye to the past, specifically to those elements that had an impact on the current situation.

The poleis’ use of narratives to put forward a specific representation of themselves and to make claims about their civic and ethnic identity has significant implications, which deserve further discussion. Messene took advantage of the potential of arbitrations, consistently

(re)defining its own identity in relation to both recent events (the re-assimilation into the

Achaean League) and long-term policies (the enmity against Sparta). For Messene, this was part of a larger and long-lasting project of self-definition. Because of the peculiar conditions that led to the creation of the Messenian polity, after its foundation the city used a range of different media to construct and promote specific ideas about the civic and ethnic identity of its citizens.

139 Document 1. 140 Document 2. 141 Document 6.

135 The narratives of Messenian arbitrations provide new information on this historical phenomenon, as they are the only contemporary textual evidence that still survives. Epigraphic narratives show how long-lasting the interest in Messenian identity was, attested well into the second half of the

2nd century. Moreover, they reveal that the citizens of Messene did not only rely on long-term projects but were also able to reinterpret political events to their advantage. Finally, the role inscribed arbitrations played in this long process of self-definition indicates that epigraphic material was integral to how Greek poleis conveyed their ideology and portrayed themselves.

The ideas we see expressed on stone were not isolated and restricted to inscriptions. Instead inscriptions reflected, reinforced, and developed the civic ideologies of their poleis. In many cases, these inscriptions represent our primary, if not only, point of entry into the thought-worlds of ancient poleis.

136 CHAPTER 3. ARBITRATIONS AND PARITY

1. Interstate Arbitrations and Peer Polity Interaction

1.A. Peer Polity Interaction and Hellenistic Diplomacy

In this chapter, I will demonstrate that arbitrations helped frame diplomatic relations between polities in terms of parity, stressing their institutional similarity and shared civic ideology while minimizing local differences. Arbitrations also provided cities with an opportunity to advertise their status as an independent polis. The diplomatic practices associated with arbitrations reinforced the mutual parity and the independence of the poleis that participated in them. Cities could then showcase this status, especially when dealing with polities that threatened their autonomy. Foreign powers might be less prone to limiting the independence of a city that could present a widely-accepted history of interstate activity as a sovereign polis. Moreover, even when a community lost part of its autonomy, a strong polis identity could prevent the city from dissolving into a larger system of government. By supporting the connection between cities and autonomy, arbitrations and the diplomatic interactions that accompanied them were one of the factors that favored the survival of Greek poleis as self-governing communities through the turbulent Hellenistic period.

My analysis is based on the notion of Peer Polity Interaction (PPI). The concept of PPI was introduced to Mediterranean archaeology by Colin Renfrew and John Cherry to conceptualize the emergence of early states in the Aegean.1 PPI encompasses the full range of interchanges taking place between structurally similar and culturally homogeneous independent polities analyzed through consequent changes in material culture. Specifically, these interactions—which include warfare, competitive emulation, and the transmission of

1 Renfrew and Cherry 1986.

137 information—explain an increase in complexity within a civilization without resorting to influences from other civilizations, internal processes within each polity, or the diffusion of culture from a primary state.2 In addition to Aegean prehistory, scholars have applied PPI to later periods of Greek history as well, in order to explain the spread of the polis and the diffusion of many other significant elements of Greek culture associated with it, such as hoplite warfare, monumental buildings, the codification of laws, and the display of wealth at Panhellenic sanctuaries.3 One effective example is the increase in size for monumental civic temples during the Archaic period. Their growth in scale and lavishness is best explained not as the effect of foreign influence or factors internal to each polis but from the competitive emulation between different poleis, all willing to invest resources in order to surpass other communities.4

Although the original goal of PPI was to explain changes in material culture, its applications are broader. In a 2003 article, John Ma argued that this theory works well in studying the range of interstate interactions between Hellenistic poleis.5 Greek cities are excellent examples of peer polities because of their cultural homogeneity and institutional similarity.6 In particular, Ma applied the PPI model to the mental map created by diplomatic contacts between poleis. These transactions took place according to formalized, pre-scripted interactions and gestures, which assumed interstate parity and worked to reinforce it through mutual institutional recognition, common specific language (both actual and symbolic), and a shared civic culture. Because of the close link between such transactions and parity, the symbolic map of interactions between poleis itself constitutes PPI. The application of this theory to

2 Renfrew 1986. 3 Snodgrass 1986. On Greece, see also Cherry 1986, focusing on Minoan state formation, and Renfrew 1986, briefly discussing several examples from Greece during the 1st millennium. 4 Snodgrass 1986, pp. 55-56. 5 Ma 2003. 6 Against the application of PPI to Greek poleis see Hansen 1994, p. 13; for Ma’s response to this criticism, see Ma 2003, p. 30, n. 37.

138 Hellenistic diplomacy involves some minor modifications from its original application, which was limited to change in material culture. First, the main focus is no longer on material culture but on “the performing of the symbolic aspects of peer polity interaction in words.”7 This means studying a small number of texts that were inscribed and survived, or whose contents are echoed in the literature. This excludes not only all inscriptions that did not survive, but also those texts that were performed but were never meant to be inscribed. In analyzing the surviving texts, it is important to keep in mind this heterogeneous set of performances, speeches, and short-lived writings. Second, in this case the interest lies not in change, but in the structure itself, the functioning of the network of peers. While Ma acknowledges the existence of chronological and geographical differences, trying to explain them is not the goal of his analysis, and they are therefore left in the background.8

One of Ma’s main conclusions is that the different interstate interactions that fall under the category of “Hellenistic diplomacy” were based on—and at the same time reinforced—a level of homogeneity and parity between cities. Among the many types of interactions that played this role, Ma lists syngeneia, the recognition of asylia, the dispatch of theoroi, and interstate arbitrations.9 To this list, William Mack has added grants of proxeny, which also had strong links with polis identity and homogeneity between polities.10 Mack’s analysis provides a valuable parallel for my own study. It demonstrates that we can successfully apply the notion of

PPI to different aspects of Hellenistic diplomacy, and that interstate arbitrations were not an isolated phenomenon. Mack argues that proxeny networks did not only exist to fulfill a practical

7 Ma 2003, p. 24. 8 For scholarly works using PPI to focus on historical change, such as civic institutions, see Forsdyke 2011; Michels 2013. 9 Ma 2003, p. 14. 10 Mack 2015.

139 function, but also had a broader symbolic role. Participation in this common institutional network allowed cities to claim polis status and to see it recognized. Proxeny and other inter- poleis institutions were thus a way to perform polis identity.11 This happened because of the link between proxeny and political independence, since by definition only autonomous poleis could grant such an honor.12 Moreover, proxeny was based on the idea of homogeneity and communality between poleis, and it only eventually disappeared when Roman domination altered Greek interstate relations in the 1st century.13

In this chapter, I use PPI as an analytical tool to study Messenian arbitrations. Although they were only one of the many tools of Hellenistic diplomacy, arbitrations had a particularly strong connection to the ideology of parity among cities. They were especially effective in conveying “peerness” between polities and in framing interstate relations in terms of parity.

Arbitrations were based on the very idea that the two litigants existed in a state of institutional equality. Meanwhile, the legal and diplomatic steps that constituted the arbitration process reinforced the “peerness” between all parties involved at every stage. My analysis aims to prove that several of the various practices linked to arbitrations, often in play at the same time, contributed to make the connection between arbitration and parity exceptionally strong. I will therefore explore the most effective ways in which parity was established.

This message of equality existed in parallel to the fulfillment of practical concerns, such as the resolution of the dispute and the definition of the terms of agreements, not unlike what we have seen for epigraphic narratives. The difference between epigraphic narratives and these

11 Mack 2015, pp. 204-205. 12 Mack 2015, pp. 213-225. Political autonomy did not need to be absolute; e.g., belonging to a federal state did not prevent cities from granting proxeny. See pp. 216-218 for the example of Megara granting proxeny for its dependent Aigosthena. For Megara and its komai as a source on polis status, see below, 2.A.i. 13 Mack 2015, pp. 233-281.

140 expressions of parity is indeed limited, and one might argue that the latter are a type of narrative.

Nevertheless, ideas of parity are worth analyzing on their own, because of their specific focus on equality and their broader impact on the ideology and function of the Greek diplomatic system.

This chapter mainly focuses on Messenian arbitrations attested in inscriptions. I will consider most of the documents that appear in the Epigraphical Dossier, as they all address the issue of homogeneity and (in)equality in interstate relations, although in different ways.

However, in order to provide an even more complete picture, I will also introduce other types of evidence. In some instances, I will broaden the geographical horizon, including in my discussion some epigraphically attested documents from the rest of the Peloponnese or other regions.

Additionally, I will also turn to some cases of arbitration, still within the Peloponnese, that are known through literary works. These cases work as helpful comparanda for the epigraphic material. Since they involve many of the same polities that appear in stone—Messene, Sparta, the Achaean League, and Rome—literary arbitrations provide a different point of view on how these states handled their disputes. The observer in this case is not a specific community, but authors like Polybius, Livy, and Pausanias, who write from a broader perspective than that of the polis. They therefore provide information about situations that challenged equality between polities and show a more hierarchical framework. Even within these broadened horizons, however, arbitrations between poleis remain my main focus (Although other polities may have used them on occasion as a diplomatic tool, the evidence is not particularly solid).14 Therefore, whenever mentioning “peerness” and peer polities, I am referring to Greek poleis.

14 Ager includes cases of arbitrations between kings and Rome in her selection. However, these instances present several difficulties. Mainly, many of these did not take the form of proper arbitrations but were diplomatic mediations. Moreover, a large number of these attempts did not actually take place, since one of the two parties refused the mediation.

141 Finally, my analysis will be largely synchronic, without much attention to development over time, since my interest lies more in how PPI affected arbitrations than in identifying chronological trends.

1.B Just Propaganda? Arbitrations and IR Realism

Before moving on to my analysis of arbitrations through the lens of PPI, there is one important point to consider: whether or not arbitrations had an actual impact on international behavior. In other words, whether the more powerful polities perceived themselves to be subject to claims of

“peerness” and behaved accordingly or simply used rhetorical “peerness” to legitimize power politics.

This discussion is made necessary by the application of Realist international relations

(IR) theory to the ancient world. According to the Realist model, in a condition of international anarchy—that is, in the absence of an operative system of international law or of a dominant superpower—states must focus on self-preservation to the exclusion of all other concerns, generally through military dominance. In such a system, diplomatic tools such as arbitrations have little impact, since they do not affect the reality of harsh competition between polities.

While Realist IR theory has informed ancient studies since the last century, its most thorough and consistent application is found in the work of Arthur Eckstein.15 Eckstein maintains that

Realist theory is a useful tool for interpreting politics in the Hellenistic Mediterranean, a system he perceives as a textbook example of interstate anarchy. Greek Hellenistic states, from small poleis to great kingdoms, all tried to maximize their power and their chances of survival.

15 Eckstein 2006. Although Eckstein argues that this condition applies to earlier periods of Greek history as well (see Ch. 3 on Classical Greece), he mostly focuses on Hellenistic times, and the early 2nd century in particular. For earlier influences of Realism, see Kallet-Marx 1995a, passim; Gruen 1984, pp. 3-5; Harris 1979, pp. 259-260. On IR theories and their application to ancient history see Burton 2011, pp. 6-18.

142 Eckstein argues that diplomatic actions between polities were thus largely ineffective and meaningless within a framework of common violence. Even institutions specifically designed to prevent or minimize the effects of wars, such as proxeny and asylia, did not help. “The fine words on stone inscriptions should not mislead us as to the true situation.”16

In Eckstein’s view, arbitrations are no exception. While acknowledging their existence and recognizing their theoretical goal, he significantly downplays their functional role and effectiveness in structuring state behavior. Eckstein lists several reasons for his pessimistic view on arbitrations and mediations.17 First, he considers the lack of firmly established international law, which could regulate the participation in arbitrations and assist in the enforcement of verdicts. Because of this, arbitrations occurred on a voluntary basis and relied on mutual agreement, which, in Eckstein’s view, renders them useless for regulating interstate politics.

It is true that ancient Greece did not have a formal international authority on which polities could rely, and the enforcement of verdicts was a recurring problem. However, to consider these features as intrinsic weaknesses of arbitrations is to misunderstand their very nature. Interstate arbitrations did not exist and function despite these limitations. Instead, they were a perfect response to the conditions of the Greek world, as they did not require a strong central authority. Because Greeks could never rely on formalized international law or on a single polity that was powerful enough to enforce it, arbitrations relied on the mutual agreement between the two litigants, which alone conferred authority to the judges and gave legitimacy to the whole procedure.

16 Eckstein 2006, p. 80. 17 Eckstein 2006, pp. 40-41, 79-80. I am here merging his analysis of the Classical and Hellenistic period, since Eckstein’s main ideas are similar for both periods.

143 Second, Eckstein points to the fact that many attempts at arbitration failed because of the lack of a mutually accepted mediator, while powerful states simply refused to submit to arbitration. However, this almost exclusively applies to cases involving Hellenistic kings or

Rome. Because of their military power and political organization, these states were intrinsically different from poleis and leagues, and their diplomatic contacts were not understood to be interactions between peer polities. Therefore, they did not make use of diplomatic instruments such as arbitrations, which—as I will explain later in this chapter—fundamentally relied on parity.18 If we turn our attention away from these superpowers, we see that even large cities and powerful leagues, such as Sparta, Megalopolis, and the Achaean League, were often willing to undergo the arbitration process.19

Third and last, in Eckstein’s view, “a proposal for arbitration, far from being an attempt at a peaceful solution of a conflict, constituted instead merely a propaganda challenge.”20 Thus a polis would suggest an arbitration only to have the moral high ground, or to justify future aggression. This view reflects the Realist conception of diplomacy as a euphemistic accessory designed to hide the political self-interest at the heart of all interstate interactions. We cannot dismiss the idea that, in at least some cases, requests for arbitration were a form of posturing, especially since we would not expect ancient texts to explicitly mention that their desire for a peaceful arbitration was a mere façade. However, understanding arbitrations as simple propaganda fails to explain some of their most salient features. For example, litigants returned to arbitrations even for long-lasting disputes, such as the ones between Messene and Sparta or

Priene and Samos. In these cases, the history of conflict between the two parties offered both

18 On parity as basis for arbitrations, see below, 2.A. 19 Outside of the immediate focus of my work, other important polities that solved their disputes through arbitrations were Athens, Corinth, Delphi, and Samos, just to name a few. 20 Eckstein 2006, p. 41.

144 sides several pretexts to resort to violence and there was no need to create a new one by suggesting an arbitration. Moreover, communities often invested significant resources into the arbitration process, a move that verges on the suicidal according to Realist theory unless these polities viewed these arbitrations as important for their survival. For example, during an arbitration between Thouria and Megalopolis that took place in Patrai, the Thourians decided to dispatch a large number of their magistrates to Patrai to see the trial in person.21 Many private citizens then joined them, and the delegation eventually numbered more than 100 people. Since these emissaries could not formally participate in the trial, Realist theory does not provide an explanation for Thouria’s decision to invest resources to show its interest in the arbitration.

Moreover, this attempt to downplay arbitrations as mere propaganda leads to an internal contradiction. Interpreting arbitrations as only providing propaganda value requires a widespread acceptance of arbitrations as legally binding. An arbitration could give one party the moral high ground only if the arbitral process was perceived as legitimate and binding by the international community. In other words, we must accept the importance of values and ideologies of interstate interactions not predicated on sheer violence, a position that fundamentally undermines Realist

IR theory.

Finally, I argue that the Realist paradigm of exclusive pursuit of political self-interest fails to fully explain interstate arbitrations as a phenomenon. While protecting their interests was one of the main goals of the communities involved, we see other elements at play. The dispute between Messene and the Achaean League is a good example, because Realist theory makes it difficult to explain why the Achaean League agreed to undergo the arbitration process.22 While we have evidence of other arbitrations between the League and a member city, in this case the

21 Document 7. 22 Document 2, 84-101.

145 League could have easily done without one.23 After all, Messene had just been reabsorbed after its rebellion, its position within the League was delicate at best. Nothing prevented federal authorities from unilaterally deciding the matter, just as they had done when they punished

Messene by curtailing its territory only months earlier. Instead, they accepted the arbitration, which they eventually lost. While other examples are available, this case shows that political self-interest was not the only factor in play for the polities involved. A model exclusively relying on such self-interest cannot account for the surviving evidence for the function of arbitrations.

The application of Realist IR theory to ancient history has resulted in significant scholarly progress. In particular, the notion of interstate anarchy fits the Hellenistic

Mediterranean quite well, with its array of polities struggling for survival and supremacy.

However, the application of this model should not be pushed to the point of denying the value and the importance of the diplomatic tools that Greek poleis and leagues frequently used. Despite their limits, arbitrations had the important advantage of limiting interstate violence. While not always successful, their use by Greek polities was more than just mere propaganda or a façade that masked other political goals.

2. Arbitrations and Interstate Parity

2.A. Parity as the Basis for Arbitrations

Interstate arbitrations are centered around the concept that the two litigants are equals, despite their ongoing dispute. In fact, the need for an arbitration arises exactly from the fact that two parties are laying opposing but structurally equal claims in a contested issue. Consenting to undergo an arbitration requires an implicit admission that both parties are peers. While the

23 See for example the very similar case of document 8, opposing the League to Sparta after the latter refused to comply to a previous arbitral decision.

146 opponent’s specific claim over a particular object of dispute is considered invalid, a polis recognizes that the other party has the ability and the necessary authority to put forward a claim.

The process of the arbitration itself thus originates from the perception of “peerness” between the two litigants and is dependent on it: a polity will agree to arbitration only if it considers the other party its peer. At the same time, the very act of submitting a case to arbitration attests to one’s belonging to the community of peer polities. By participating in an arbitration, a community advertised and stressed its status as a polis. “From the very beginning, arbitration was closely connected to the principles of autonomy and territorial integrity of the poleis that used it.”24

Even though these were the dynamics behind arbitrations, none of these considerations explicitly appear in the ancient evidence. Greeks did not express such ideas in a form that survived. However, there are two reason why this is not sufficient cause to discard their validity.

First, we have limited evidence for the principles that guided Greeks throughout the arbitration process. One clear example is the still debated question of whether Greeks had a defined set of values somewhat comparable to international law, which could be followed when passing the verdict of an arbitration.25 Moreover, arbitration texts hardly ever make explicit references to the judges’ rationales for their choices. The little information we have on this issue mostly comes from a single text, a verdict passed by Magnesia on the Meander about a dispute between the Cretan cities of Itanos and Hierapytna.26 Towards the end of the text, the Magnesian judges list the different ways to rightfully lay claim to a piece of land. In doing so, they provide us with good examples of what (some) Hellenistic Greeks considered lawful bases for collective

24 Magnetto 2016. 25 For a review of the problem, see Chaniotis 2004, esp. pp. 186-187. 26 Ager 158 II (=I.Cret. III iv 9); see also. Chaniotis 1996, pp. 307-311, nr. 49, 333-357, nr. 57; Guizzi 1997.

147 ownership.27 If it were not for this particular inscription, our understanding of the legal basis behind the judges’ verdicts would be even more limited. Thus, the lack of explicit discussions of

“peerness” in arbitration documents should not come as a surprise and cannot be used as proof that dynamics of parity were not at work.

Secondly, even though we lack direct evidence, there are a few instances that indirectly confirm the close connection between arbitrations and the “peerness” of the litigants. These cases are attested both epigraphically and in literary sources.

2.A.i. The Case of Pagai

The most pertinent example is an inscription of Megara attesting to an arbitration between Pagai and Aigosthena.28 The stone, found in Pagai, is unfortunately quite poorly preserved; our current understanding of this arbitration is based on the reconstruction of the text and events by Louis

Robert. While Robert’s conclusions are based on limited evidence, and should thus be used with caution, I believe the overall reconstruction to be accurate.29 The main point of interest in this case is the fact that, at the time of the arbitration, Pagai was not a polis, but a kome, a dependent community of Megara.30 Because of this, Pagai did not directly enter the arbitration, but was represented by Megara. The stone is a Megarian decree even though it was placed and then

27 The four types of legal ownership, as listed in the document, are conquest, inheritance, sale, and donation. For a detailed discussion, see Chaniotis 2004. 28 IG VII 188+189; Robert 1939, 1(=SEG 13 327; Ager 85). 29 Contra Wacker 1996, who believes Robert’s emendation at l. 10, Αἰ[γοσ|θενῖται καὶ Παγαῖοι πρὸς ἀλλήλους] to be too long for the stone, and corrects it with Αἰ[τωλοὶ]. He believes this arbitration saw Kassope and Thyrreion oppose the Aetolian League for the control of the harbor of Panormos, which he places in the Gulf of Ambrakia. The judges are unknown, while the Achaeans and Boiotians (at this time incorporated in the Aetolian League), acted as representatives of the two litigants. However, Wicker’s reconstruction gets unnecessary complicated, with two poleis acting as one side in a dispute (never attested in arbitrations), and the Aetolian League asking the Boiotians to represent it. Moreover, Wicker fails to explain why the text was found in Pagai; his explanation that it received a copy as the place where the trial took place has no parallels in arbitrations. 30 It seems Aigosthena was instead an independent polis at the time, a member of the Boiotian League; cf. Hansen and Nielsen 2004, pp. 28, 462-463.

148 found in Pagai. As the decree attests, the arbitration process went on to include a number of other polities. The Achaean and Boiotian leagues were involved as representatives of the two poleis, with the city of Sikyon sending advocates for Megara. Two other cities, Kassope and Thyrreion, acted as judges. At the end of the whole process, Megara (possibly at Pagai’s request) passed a decree thanking the Achaeans and the Sikyonians for their support in the dispute.31 The

Megarian decree clearly shows that the arbitration process required the two litigants to be on a level of formal institutional equality. As a kome, Pagai could not participate against Aigosthena; instead it needed the official support of the polis to which it belonged, in this case Megara.32

Arbitration became a viable option only when the two opponents were competing peers.

2.A.ii. Parity Explaining Arbitrations

In addition to the evidence provided by the Megarian decree, the intrinsic connection between arbitrations and “peerness” works as an interesting analytical tool for other arbitrations. While different explanations might be found, thinking about these cases in terms of interactions between peers offers an original point of view and is worth considering.

Epigraphic evidence

Among the texts from Messenia, the arbitration between Megalopolis and Thouria by an unknown polis provides an excellent example of how the link with parity can explain certain arbitrations. 33 The dispute dates to the period 182-167 and thus took place at some point within the fifteen-year period after Thouria obtained its independence from Messene and entered the

31 Robert 1939, 1, ll. 29-35. 32 This kind of solution is not unique to arbitrations; we have a comparandum from Megara itself (IG VII 1). A Megarian honorary decree specifically attests that Aigosthena, at the time a kome of Megara, had asked the polis to honor Zoilos, the commander of the garrison that Demetrios Poliorketes had stationed there, who had been able to restrain his soldiers. 33 Document 3.

149 Achaean League as an autonomous polis.34 The frequent appearance of Messene in the text points to an early date within this date range. Because Thouria had been its dependent, the definition of the new border must have made reference to earlier boundaries between

Megalopolis and Messene.35 On the one hand, there were practical considerations that might have required an arbitration. Now that Thouria was no longer part of Messene, both its citizens and the Megalopolitans may have felt the need to define the new border in an agreed way. On the other hand, for Thouria this was also a means of proclaiming its newly acquired independence.

By taking part in an interstate arbitration, the city saw its status as a polis recognized. In particular, by agreeing to undergo the arbitration, its neighbor Megalopolis was accepting

Thouria’s status as a peer polis within the League, with the right to make territorial claims.

Unfortunately, because of the lacunose state of the stone we have no way of determining which of the two parties pushed for a trial in this specific instance. In either case, this arbitration gave the Thourians a chance to act like an independent polis, possibly for the very first time. Although

Megalopolis might have been the ultimate winner of the dispute and the one responsible for its publication in Olympia, the Thourians saw their independence recognized and advertised in a

Panhellenic context.36 Thus arbitrations could offer rewards to poleis even if they lost the arbitration itself.

Literary evidence

The issue of “peerness” between different polities also provides an interesting insight into the complex relations between the Achaean League, Sparta, and Rome. Despite its annexation in

192, Sparta never became a true member of the League. Several factors contributed to creating a

34 On Thouria’s independence, see Plb. 23.16.12-13, 17.1-2, 24.2.1-3. 35 Harter-Uibopuu, p. 68. 36 Unfortunately, the text of the inscription does not specify which party was responsible for placing the stele in the sanctuary. For my conjecture on Megalopolis winning the dispute, see below, p. 171.

150 state of constant tension and suspicion between the two. Among them, the most relevant were

Sparta’s long history of hegemony in the Peloponnese, the ongoing territorial disputes with other members of the League—such as Messene and Megalopolis—internal political instability, and its unwillingness to accept Achaean interference.37 This troubled relationship took different forms; first, Sparta only produced two federal strategoi in its almost fifty years of membership in the

League: Ainetidas (ca. 179/8) and Menalkidas (ca. 150).38 Second, it often tried to obtain further independence from the League and to limit federal control over its affairs. Because of the strained relationship, Sparta seceded from the League on three different occasions (189-188, 182,

149/8) and also asked for Roman diplomatic intervention in order to limit Achaean interference.39

Among the requests for diplomatic assistance, some instances are very similar to arbitrations. One way of analyzing such cases is by considering them in the light of arbitration and “peerness.” The recurring theme here is the Achaean League’s opposition to Roman involvement in Spartan matters. During the 2nd century, we see three cases in which the Spartans, despite Achaean resistance, were able to obtain from Rome a judgement concerning their relationship with the League. During the first secession, both Spartans and Achaeans sent embassies to Rome. The two main representatives from Achaea, Diophanes and Lykortas, had contrasting positions. Diophanes was in favor of letting the Senate act as judge, while Lykortas tried to preserve Achaean autonomy in this matter. In the end, the Senate’s answer was unclear,

37 On Sparta’s relationship with the League, see Kralli 2017, pp. 340-379; Cartledge and Spawforth 2002, pp.77-90; Gruen 1984, pp. 119-123, 481-496: Errington 1969, pp. 118-122, 133-152, 174-183. 38 On Ainetidas see document 2, 97; cf. L&M 2012, pp. 534-535, 545-546. On Menalkidas, see Paus. 7.11.7. On the provenance of Achaean strategoi, see O’Neil 1984. A partial counter to Sparta’s isolation is in Achaïe III 116, ll. 10- 11, 13-14, which attests how the city was represented at a federal level by three nomographoi (one more than Megalopolis). 39 On the first secession, see Liv. 38.30-34; Plut., Philop. 16; cf. Kralli 2017, p. 350. On the second one, Plb. 23.17.5-18.2; cf. Kralli 2017, p. 357 and n. 187 (with further bibliography). On the third one, Paus. 7.12; cf. Kralli 2017, pp. 374-379.

151 and it created further confusion.40 A few years later (184/3), in the face of further Spartan discontent, the Achaeans were initially able to prevent them from appearing in front of the

Senate. However, Appius Claudius Pulcher later overrode this decision, and, strangely, four sets of Spartan ambassadors addressed the senators; three Romans then arbitrated between Spartan and Achaean representatives.41 Finally, in 149/8, the Spartans went around Achaean opposition by having some exiles plead their cases in front of the Senate. This led to a series of Roman attempts to mediate between Sparta and the League. The failure of these mediations eventually led to the Achaean War and the dissolution of the League in 146.42

As I mentioned, the common element in all these cases is Achaean opposition to Spartan attempts to involve Rome as judge of their disputes. One explanation for this behavior is that the

League was trying to preserve its sovereignty in these matters; any type of Roman involvement represented a threat against its autonomy and was thus viewed with suspicion.43 However, we can also look at this from a perspective of interaction between peers. The very idea of an arbitration implies a level of “peerness” between the two parties involved. The League could at times consent to undergo a formal arbitration against one of its members, but this only happened in specific situations, namely when a member city challenged the result of a previous arbitration, organized with federal consent.44 Conversely, what Sparta was asking was a new arbitration by a powerful external polity, which the League had not approved and on which it would have little

40 Liv. 38.32; see also Ager 96. 41 Plb. 23.4 and Paus. 7.9.3-5, whose relative chronology do not fully align. For a reconstruction of the events see Kralli 2017, pp. 354-356; Ager 111; Errington 1969, pp. 177-183. 42 Paus. 7.12-14; Plb. 38.9-13; cf. Ager 147. 43 Cf. Plb. 23.9.8, “as the Achaeans did not wish to refer anything to the senate, but had a great opinion of themselves and were attempting to act in all matters on their own initiative” (τῶν Ἀχαιῶν οὐ βουλομένων ἀναφέρειν οὐδὲν ἐπὶ τὴν σύγκλητον, ἀλλὰ φρονηματιζομένων καὶ πάντα δι’ἑαυτῶν πράττειν ἐπιβαλλομένων; transl. Paton, Walbank, and Habicht 2012). On this issue see Gruen 1984, pp. 119-123, 481-496. 44 That is the case of the Milesian arbitration between Messene and the damiorgoi (document 2) and the Rhodian one between Sparta and the League (document 8).

152 control. For the Achaeans this would have meant implicitly accepting Sparta as a peer polity with a high degree of political independence rather than a dissatisfied member of the League. One possible confirmation of this reasoning by the Achaeans is the mention Pausanias makes of an agreement between Rome and the Achaeans. This prohibited any member city of the koinon from individually sending ambassadors to Rome.

Such permission was a contravention of the agreement between the Romans and the

Achaeans, which allowed the Achaeans as a body to send a deputation to the Roman senate but forbade any city of the Achaean League to send a deputation privately.45

Although this was probably a convention more than a formal agreement, it may accurately reflect an Achaean sentiment that allowing member poleis to bring their complaints to

Rome meant implicitly acknowledging their status as the League’s peer.46 Conversely, from the

Spartan point of view, being able to obtain Roman judgement represented a victory per se, independently of the final verdict. An arbitration automatically recognized Sparta as a somewhat independent city, a polity on a level of institutional equality with the League. Whenever Roman magistrates or the Senate decided to intervene and arbitrate between Sparta and the Achaean koinon, they were not taking a neutral measure. The very decision of acting as a judge sent a specific message; because of its peculiar position within the League, Sparta had the right to be considered a peer, not just another member state.47

45 Paus. 7.9.4, ἐναντία ἐφιέντες ἢ Ῥωμαίοις συγκείμενα ἦν καὶ Ἀχαιοῖς· Ἀχαιῶν μὲν γὰρ εἴρητο ἀπὸ τοῦ κοινοῦ παρὰ τὴν Ῥωμαίων βουλὴν ἀπιέναι πρέσβεις, ἰδίᾳ δὲ ἀπείρητο μὴ πρεσβεύεσθαι τὰς πόλεις ὅσαι συνεδρίου τοῦ Ἀχαιῶν μετεῖχον; cf. 7.12.5. 46 Against the existence of a formal federal law see Errington 1969, pp. 282-283. 47 The Romans may have been conscious of the impact of arbitration processes. In this view, we could interpret as a compromise the provision for the judgement of future disputes included in the agreement of 184/3 (Ager 111). Paus. 7.9.5 attests that capital trials were to be judged by foreign courts (ξενικὰ δικαστήρια), while all other charges would fall under Achaean jurisdiction.

153 Even though the tensions between Sparta and the League about involving Rome are the ones that appear most frequently in ancient sources, Messene offers a parallel for such dynamics.

We know of at least one case in which Achaean authorities seem to have opposed an attempt by

Messene to bring in Rome as an arbiter. After Messene’s secession from the League, the

Achaeans abused some citizens of Messene, “because they had appealed to Rome to judge the dispute” (διότι προεκαλοῦντο περὶ τῶν ἀμφισβητουμένων ἐπὶ Ῥωμαίους).48 Unfortunately this passage is somewhat problematic, since it is part of a speech that Kallikrates gave to the Senate, which Polybius portrays as deceptive and inaccurate.49 Elsewhere, the historiographer describes the treatment of the citizens of Messene in less harsh terms (Plb. 23.16.6-17.1). Even when considering these issues, we can say that Achaean opposition to Roman involvement was a factor that could play a role in the League’s relation with Messene. Either Polybius knew this had happened, or he considered it a serious enough possibility to be part of Kallikrates’ speech. At any rate, this instance confirms that the case of Sparta was not unique: the Achaean League did not want rebellious cities to be treated as its peers by means of Roman arbitration.

The cases I have examined demonstrate the close ties that arbitrations had with “peerness” between poleis. The very process of arbitrating between two litigants is based on the assumption that each side recognizes the other party as a peer polity. Greek sources never directly discuss this point, but we see it in action in cases where the “peerness” between the parties is either challenged or not at work. The example of the Megara decree shows that only a polis could formally enter an arbitration; a dependent kome such as Pagai had to rely on external legal assistance. Similarly, the effect an arbitration had in helping to confer the status of polis would

48 Plb. 24.9.13 49 On Kallikrates’ embassy, see Nottmeyer 1995, pp. 15-28; Gruen 1984, pp. 497-499.

154 explain well the fact that Thouria undertook one against Megalopolis in the years immediately following its independence. Finally, the troubled relation between Sparta and the Achaean

League suggests that the Achaeans were conscious of these dynamics.

2.B. Arbitrations Reinforcing Parity

Interstate arbitrations also had the effect of actively reinforcing parity among cities. Many of the different steps of the arbitration process emphasized the institutional similarity of poleis and helped create new diplomatic ties between peer polities. I will focus on three different elements that were particularly effective in reinforcing parity. Even though these aspects took place at the same time and were not mutually exclusive, to facilitate my analysis I will consider each of them separately. First, the presence in arbitrations of echoing language, with decrees from different poleis precisely quoting and responding to each other. Second, the effect of having one city’s official documents published in another’s public space. Third, the creation of new diplomatic networks, based on parity, as the result of the arbitration process and the monumentalization of its results.

2.B.i. Echoing Language

Echoing language indicates an inscription that mimics, paraphrases, or directly cites the official words of another polis.50 The original expressions may belong either to another document published on the same stone, or to the text itself, summarizing the other polity’s statements. We find such a case of echoing language in a Messenian arbitration, specifically the dossier that originated from the dispute against Sparta over Dentheliatis.51 I am particularly interested not in

50 For an introduction to this phenomenon, see Ma 2003, p. 22, who, however, refers to it as “mirror discourse.” 51 Document 6.

155 the actual verdict (part C), but in the Eleian decree that allowed for the inscribing of the whole dossier (A). This document, passed by the Eleian synedroi, originated from the visit of the

Messenian ambassadors to Elis, as explicitly mentioned in the text itself. In the motivation clause, the decree first lists the two main points conveyed by the ambassadors in their letter (ll.

6-11).

καὶ τὰ γράμματα ἀποδόντων, ἐν οἷς and delivered the letters in which it was made

διεσαφεῖτο ἀνανεωσαμένους τὰν clear that, after renewing the existing

ὑπάρχουσαν συγγένεια̣ν̣ κ̣α[ὶ] φιλίαν ταῖς syngeneia and philia of the cities with each

πόλεσι ποθ’ αὑτὰς διαλέγεσθαι ὅπως other, they discussed in order that the city

ἐπιχωρήσει ἁ πόλις ἀναγραφῆμεν εἰς allows to be inscribed in Olympia the

Ὀλυμπίαν τὰγ̣ κρ[ί]σιν τὰγ γενομέναν τᾶι judgment that took place for their city against

πόλει αὐτῶν ποτὶ τὰμ πόλι̣[ν] τῶν the city of the Lacedaemonians about the

Λακεδαιμονίων περὶ χώρας, land,

In the deliberation section, it then addresses the exact points that the Messenians raised, quoting the earlier wording in great detail (ll. 15-22).

ἔδοξε τοῖς συνέδροις, ἀπόκρισιν δόμεν, διότι the synedroi decreed: let us give the reply

τάν τε συγγένειαν καὶ φιλίαν τὰν that the existing syngeneia and philia with

ὑπάρχουσαν ποτὶ τὰμ πόλιν τῶμ the city of the Messenians is renewed and

Μεσσανίων ἀνανεοῦνταί τε καὶ ἐπὶ πλεῖομ advanced for a long time, and about allowing

προάξοντι, περί τε τοῦ ἐπιχωρῆσαι to be inscribed in Olympia the judgment that

156 ἀναγραφῆμεν εἰς Ὀλυμπίαν τὰγ κρίσιν τὰγ took place for their city against the city of the

γεγενημέναν τᾶι πόλει αὐτῶν ποτὶ τὰμ πόλιν Lacedaemonians about the land before the

τῶν Λακεδαιμονίων περὶ τᾶς χώρας ἐπὶ τοῦ people of Miletos, that they allow it,

δάμου τοῦ Μιλησίων διότι ἐπιχωροῦντι

The Messenian renewal of syngeneia (kinship) and philia (friendship), and the request to have a dossier inscribed are exactly echoed by the Eleian renewal of syngeneia and philia, and the permission to have the dossier inscribed. The parallel informs us of the Eleian deliberations, which consented to both Messenian requests, with the effect of improving the relationship between the two communities. Beside the content of the decision, it is even more important to pay attention to its form, in particular to how closely the Eleian deliberations follow the

Messenian requests. The precision is not only related to content but is also structural, since the parallel is almost word for word. The carefully constructed parallel conveys an idea of parity and the official discourses of the two poleis echoing each other is an act of mutual recognition. The

Eleian magistrates acknowledge Messene as a polis, institutionally equivalent to their own. The repetition of the words of the other polis attested the parity between them.52

Moreover, the precise parallel in the wording gives further meaning to changes and additions. While echoing the Messenian requests, the Eleians innovate in two specific points.

First, they not only renewed syngeneia and philia, as the Messenians had already done, but they also had them “advanced for a long time” (18, τε καὶ ἐπὶ πλεῖομ προάξοντι). Elis’ deviation from the parallel has the goal of going even further in their friendly disposition towards Messene, projecting the good terms between the two communities into the future.

52 Ma 2003, p. 22: “Quotation is not an act of power but of recognition — in a linguistics of equality, not of negotiation.”

157 Something similar takes place later in the text (15-28), with a mixture of literal citation and innovation. In this case, the very grammatical structure of the decree stresses the two different moments. Both the renewal of syngeneia and philia and the permission to have the dossier inscribed depend on the phrase ἀπόκρισιν δόμεν (“let us give the reply that…”), the first form of Doric infinitive to follow the enactment formula ἔδοξε τοῖς συνέδροις. This first infinitive clause addresses and echoes the two points of the Messenian discourse, both introduced by the conjunction διότι. However, three more infinitive clauses follow, each introduced by a different verb, ἐπαινέσαι, δόμεν, and καλέσαι. These clauses grant to the ambassadors additional honors, which the Messenians had not requested.53 With these infinitives, the Eleians are no longer just responding to the Messenian discourse, but are making further concessions, improving their relationship with Messene. Both parts of this twofold structure have specific goals. The first clause conveys and reinforces the notion of parity between the two communities by precisely repeating the other city’s discourse, while the other three express Eleian goodwill and positive attitude towards Messene.

The echoing language used in the Eleian decree conveys the idea of “peerness” in two different but complementary ways. The carefully crafted repetition of the ambassadors’ requests directly reinforces the notion that Elis and Messene are peers. The similarity of words reflects a similarity of institutions and civic culture. At the same time, selective innovations mark the places where the Eleians went beyond what was expected from them and showed their generosity

53 All three honors decreed by the Eleians—public praise (ἐπαινέσαι), hospitality gifts (ξένια), and invitation to the common mess (καλέσαι ἐπὶ τὴν κοινὴν ἑστίαν)—were commonly awarded to foreign ambassadors and are well attested in several parts of the Greek world.

158 and goodwill towards Messene. These two strategies created a message of parity between the two polities.54

2.B.ii. Publishing Documents from Other Poleis

Another element of arbitrations that had the effect of reinforcing parity between poleis was the practice of publishing inscribed decrees or documents that had originated in another polity. A foreign document, the manifestation of another polity’s authority, was placed in the city sanctuary or agora and integrated into the political and religious space of a polis. The city explicitly acknowledged the existence of another polity, which passed laws and decrees in its own right thanks to the authority of its demos.

The Aetolian mediation is the best example from the Messenian dossier of a polis publishing foreign documents. We know of this case because of an inscription that was found close to the site of Phigaleia (modern Pavlitza).55 However, the text inscribed on the stone is a

Messenian decree, which the Phigaleians had to place in their city (17-19). Unlike honorary decrees, this text describes Phigaleia as a peer in the agreement, but does not praise Phigaleia for it. The Phigaleians thus displayed in their agora or sanctuary a document that clearly originated from another polis and which explicitly portrayed Phigaleia as a peer in a diplomatic interaction.

In its original context this inscription was particularly effective in stressing the parity between the two poleis, reminding any citizen of Phigaleia reading it that their authority was not absolute,

54 There are no other arbitration documents from the Peloponnese that shows such clear example of echoing language. The only possible comparison may be in Ager 85, ll. 24-25 and 33-34, with a repetition of “the existing friendship and goodwill towards our city.” However, the wording does not correspond as exactly as in document 2; moreover, because of the lacunose state of the text, it is hard to tell whether the two phrases actually refer to the same subject. Arbitrations are not the only type of inscriptions to display such use of echoing language, which appears in other kinds of epigraphic documents as well. Two excellent examples are I.Priene (2014) 108, 109 (=I.Iasos 73, 74); on both documents, see also Crowther 1995. 55 Document 1.

159 but limited by the existence of other peer polities. We see a similar example of this trend in

Messene’s long dispute with its Arcadian neighbors and the Achaean League.56 In addition to the

Messenian decree, this dossier also consisted of three other still unpublished documents, the

Megalopolitan challenge to go to court (πρόκλησις), the fine imposed on Messene by the federal damiorgoi (ζαμία), and the final verdict by the six Milesian judges (κρίμα).57 While giving permanent publication to this dossier, the Messenians were inscribing in their sanctuary several documents originating from other polities. The Milesian verdict had a positive content: it certified Messene’s judicial victory and the end of the years-long dispute. But the remaining two documents, the challenge and the fine, were definitely hostile to the city. These texts clearly pointed to the existence of institutions other than the polis of Messene, but similar to it.58 They thus acted as a tangible reminder that the city operated in a world of peer polities, sometimes less than friendly, with equivalent but competing authorities and claims. Moreover, this happened within the agora itself, the symbolic center of the city. The overall narrative that the Messenians constructed gave a new positive meaning to these documents, as they were now part of the broader story of Messenian success. But even in this narrative of victory over its rivals, the arbitration inscription attested that Messene was only one polis among peers, with whose authority Messene had to deal.

The last instance I want to analyze in this section is the inscription of the arbitration between Messene and Sparta, a dossier consisting of three documents.59 This text is slightly different from the ones I have just discussed, because the inscription was not published in

56 Document 2. 57 For the structure of this dossier and the narrative created by the Messenians using these documents see Ch. 2, 2.B. 58 In this specific instance, even the Achaean League was on a level of parity with the polis, since it was willing to submit the question of the legitimacy of the fine to a third party. 59 Document 6.

160 Messene but in Olympia, and none of these texts are hostile to Messene. Conversely, the Eleian decree actually awards some honors to the Messenian ambassadors who came to Elis. While it is true that no document against Messene is part of the dossier, it is also true that the city itself is technically not represented, since we have no Messenian decree inscribed. The lack of any

Messenian document is exactly what is worth noting for this arbitration. I have previously discussed how the Messenians were able to create their own epigraphic narrative despite the absence of their own words, mostly thanks to a careful choice of the place of publication.60 Texts by other poleis here helped Messene fulfil its communication goal. At the same time, however, the exclusive presence of documents belonging to different cities made the role other poleis had in the arbitration process explicit. The Messenians were able to use foreign documents to mold the narrative of the events in a way favorable to them, but this process showed that this had been achieved through several interactions with other peer cities. Despite its recent success, Messene existed in a system of by peer polities, whose authority and sovereignty she had to acknowledge.

2.B.iii. Creating New Peer Interactions

I will now focus on a different way in which arbitrations directly promoted parity among cities by fostering further diplomatic contacts and creating new networks of interactions between polities across the Mediterranean. We can divide this broad category into several groups, according to the specific means for creating such new international contacts. I have identified four main ways in which new polities were involved in the arbitration process: the act of asking a polity to act as judge, publishing the result of the trial in a new location, having an additional set of judges, and asking to be represented by advocates from another polity.

60 Chapter 2.1.B.ii.

161 These categories all enabled PPI by including further polities in the arbitration process, in addition to the two litigants. New polities were included by means of embassies, the exchange of letters and hospitality gifts, and the mutual awarding of civic honors. As I have discussed, these civically-minded diplomatic exchanges themselves are a form of PPI, since they were based on mutual recognition of institutional similarity and reciprocal sovereignty.61 Despite this common ground, it is worth discussing each of these groups, in order to determine exactly how they created new interactions, and whether this affected the parity in the relationships between cities, and how frequently we find them in arbitrations within and outside of Messenia.

Finding an arbiter: poleis and leagues.

The most common of these categories is the request to a third party to act as a judge in the dispute. Although involving another polity as a judge is what actually constitutes an arbitration— the very root of the process, found in all cases—one should still point out that this basic feature is a crucial aspect of arbitrations. By definition, the arbitration process projected a local dispute into the broader network of interstate diplomacy through the involvement of a third polity. This meant the dispatch of embassies to request the judgement, hosting the members of the judging commission and guiding them to the disputed border, and other possible interactions, all based on parity between the polities involved.62 The position of authority attributed to the judging city did not alter the overall level of “peerness”: the primacy of this polis was only temporary, and the array of diplomatic exchanges between litigants and judge focused particularly on their institutional similarities.63

61 See above, p. 138; cf. Ma 2003, pp. 21-23. 62 On the many steps necessary to obtain a court and guide it through the process, see Ager 129, a detailed document about a Theban arbitration between Boumelita and Halai. Documents honoring arbitration judges: Ager 87, Eleian decree honoring Corinthian judges. Outside of the Peloponnese, Ager 66; 117 I; 120; 124; 127. 63 See for example the behavior of the Rhodian judges in document 8, 13-15. Even in their position of authority, the judges present themselves as bound by their oath and by the laws of the Achaeans.

162 However, despite its essential function, the involvement of a judge also had the potential to create an asymmetry of power. This could be the case when the role fell on a large federal state, a king, or the city of Rome, polities whose influence and military strength might place them above the disputing poleis.

For leagues, the asymmetry was more apparent than real. Despite their complexity and larger size, Greek federal states interacted with other polities in ways that were very similar to those of poleis. Like cities, they passed decrees, appointed their elite citizens as ambassadors to deliver them, and awarded civic honors to benefactors. We can see several examples of such behavior in Messenian arbitrations. In Messene’s long dispute with its neighbors, the Achaean

League played its role as a judge in a way that closely resembles that of a polis. On the occasion of the first trial, the arbitrating court was composed of elite citizens of the League.64 This is very close to the way in which individual poleis acted as judges, by sending small groups of citizens to investigate the disputed borders and pass a verdict.65 The only difference here is the broader geographical provenance of the judges, who came from several Achaean cities.

For the second trial, the League followed another common practice, and had the city of

Aigion act as a judge, once again with 147 of its citizens enacting this role.66 In this way, the delegated polis effectively became the judge of the dispute, and the arbitration ended up closely resembling arbitrations between cities. Moreover, when the Messenians contested the damiorgoi’s fine, the League itself entered an arbitration with Messene. This meant accepting, at least temporarily, a level of parity with one of the member cities and to comply with the

64 Document 2, 15-28. Cf. Ager 36, at least fifty-nine judges from several Achaean cities arbitrating between two unknown states; 46, judges from eleven Achaean cities arbitrating between Arsinoe and Epidauros. 65 Ager 29, Kleonymos and other Spartans arbitrating between Phalasarna and Polyrhenia; 63, six Milesian judges and an unknown number of Rhodian ones arbitrating between Hermione and Epidauros; 139, thirty-one judges from Lamia arbitrating between Sparta and Doris. 66 For the Achaean League having a city act as judge, cf. Ager 38, with Megara being asked to arbitrate between Corinth and Epidauros and sending a total of 182 judges.

163 judgment of a foreign polis, in this case Miletos.67 Despite the League’s initial appointment as arbiter, the task later passed to a city, Miletos.

The evidence from the arbitration between Thouria and Megalopolis supports the view that leagues acted similarly to poleis. The text indicates that the Achaean League was involved in some official capacity, but the border was finally defined by the commission of Aristomenes, while the unknown ἔκκλητος πόλις passed the final verdict.68 In this case as well, just like in the previous arbitration, despite the involvement of the League, the role of actually judging the issue fell on the citizens of a polis.

One last case of a federal state acting as a judge that is worth discussing in detail is the

Aetolian mediation between Messene and Phigaleia. In this mediation, the Aetolian League plays an important role, with an influence that goes beyond what we usually observe for judges. While

I argue that the Aetolians’ role is framed in a context of overall parity, scholars have interpreted their role as imperialistic interference. The main supporter of heavy Aetolian interference is

Philippe Gauthier.69 His interpretation is based on three points. First, he notices the somewhat peculiar phrasing of ll. 19-21, “but if the Phialeans do not remain in the philia with the

Messenians and the Aetolians, let this agreement be void” (εἰ δέ κα μὴ ἐν]μένωντι οἱ Φιαλέες ἐν

τᾶι φιλ[ίαι τᾶι πὸτ τὼς Μ]ε̣σανίως καὶ Αἰτωλώς, ἄκυρος ἔ[σστω ἅδε ἁ ὁμολο]γία). The presence of the Aetolians in this clause is for him a sign of their preeminence in the overall agreement.70

Secondly, Gauthier argues that the phrasing of the deliberation of the decree (10-12, ἦμεν τοῖς

67 For a similar case, cf. document 8, the League asking Rome to arbitrate between itself and Sparta, which was refusing to pay a fine. 68 Document 3, A 15-18. Aristomenes’ commission appears at l. 3; the ἔκκλητος πόλις (from where most probably came the members of the commission) is mentioned in the twin inscription IPArk 31 I, 3-4, and must have taken part in our arbitration as well (Harter-Uibopuu pp. 67-68; IPArk p. 325). 69 Gauthier 1972, pp. 366-368; cf. Larsen 1968, p. 203; and Magnetto, Arbitrati 38, who seems to accept most of his points. 70 Larsen attributed the peculiarity of this clause to the Aetolians taking the initiative in these arrangements.

164 Μεσσανίοις κ̣α[ὶ τοῖς Φια]λέοις ἰσοπολιτείαν καὶ ἐπιγαμία[ν ποτὶ ἀλλ]άλως) points to a text elaborated by a third party. He believes our arbitration document is repeating the content of an original Aetolian decree, which had unilaterally decided that the two Peloponnesian cities should be in good terms. Finally, in order to reinforce the idea that this arbitration saw a strong Aetolian influence, Gauthier points to the creation of a συμβολά between the two. He considers a

συμβολά (Doric for συμβολή) a specific category of interstate agreement, different and separate from a σύμβολον (a bilateral interstate judiciary agreement). For Gauthier a συμβολά linked multiple polities at once, and the Aetolian League made large use of it. The presence of a

συμβολά in the arbitration would point to the hegemonic role the Aetolians had in this mediation, which had tied both communities to them by means of such συμβολαί.71

While the Aetolians loom large in this document, Gauthier pushes the role of the League too far. The clause invalidating the agreement simply reflects the good relations between the two poleis and the League; because of their role in mediating the dispute, it makes sense for friendship with the Aetolians to be a requirement. As I have previously explained, the lack of a similar clause for Messenians reflects the overall Messenian point of view of the document, and speaks more to the narrative constructed here than to the actual diplomatic realities.72 About his second point, the idea that the phrasing of the deliberation proves that this originally was an

Aetolian decree seems untenable. Firstly, within the Peloponnese we have some parallels for the construction εἶναι τῷ δεῖνι ἰσοπολιτείαν and its dialectal variations. Even though all these cases are awards for individuals, the formula appears in nearby regions, such as Arcadia and western

Laconia.73 Second, it is hard to see why one should consider, as Gauthier does, the formula

71 Gauthier 1972, pp. 62-104, esp. 100-101. 72 On the Messenian point of view see Chapter 1.1.A. 73 Arkadia: IG V,2 11, 394, 396; Laconia: IG V,1 1312.

165 πολιτείαν δεδόχθαι as the standard one for Messene. All the examples he offers are from

Milesian grants of isopoliteia, which do not resemble much our arbitration, since they are much longer texts, and provide much more information.74 Moreover, even the Milesian practice is not as consistent as he depicts it, and we can find at least one grant of isopoliteia that uses the formula Μιλησίους καὶ Φυγελεῖς πολίτας εἶναι.75 Since the phrase εἶναι τῷ δεῖνι ἰσοπολιτείαν does not univocally appear in Aetolian isopoliteia decrees, I see no reason to consider it

“foreign” to normal Messenian practice and the result of Aetolian interference.76 Finally,

Gauthier’s third point, the presence of broad judicial agreements between the League and the two cities, only rests on Gauthier’s own understanding of judiciary agreements. However, other scholars have pointed out that Gauthier’s understanding of συμβολαί as a separate category—and different from a σύμβολον—seems rather arbitrary, and that our evidence does not actually attest such distinction.77 There is no reason to consider the agreement between Messene and Phigaleia as a sign and means of Aetolian interference.

After this reconsideration of Gauthier’s interpretations, the Aetolians’ presence in this mediation seems less intrusive. Certainly, they played a significant role, and their diplomatic weight as friends of both communities must have been a relevant factor, as attested by their presence in the invalidation clause. Moreover, this mediation coincides with other events that marked the beginning of Aetolian interference in the Peloponnese, such as the occupation of the

Samikon fort in southwestern Elis (Paus. 5.6.1), the attack on the Achaean city of Pellene in 241

74 Milet I.3 141, 34; 143, 17; 146, 24-25, 67-68 (from Gauthier 1972, p. 367 and n. 59). 75 Milet I.3 142, 14. Even though this text dates to an earlier date, the 4th century, I believe it proves the point that local epigraphic practices can still be quite flexible. 76 Some similar (but not identical) formulas: εἶμεν δὲ καὶ ἐπιγαμίαν ποτ’ ἀλλάλους καὶ γᾶς ἔγκτησιν τῶι τε Αἰτωλῶι ἐν Ἀκαρνανίαι καὶ τῶι Ἀκαρνᾶνι ἐν Αἰτωλίαι καὶ πολίταν εἶμεν τὸν Αἰτωλὸν ἐν Ἀκαρνανίαι, IG IX,12 1.3, 11-13 (treaty between Aetolia and Akarnania; πολί[τας] ε̣ἶ̣μ̣ε̣ν̣ τ̣ο̣ὺ̣ς̣ Ἡρα[κ]λειώτας τῶν Αἰτωλῶν, IX,12 1.173, 6-7 (grant of citizenship to Herakleia). Aetolian decrees for individuals instead have the formula τὸ κοινὸν τῶν Αἰτωλῶν ἔδ[ωκεν] τῷ δεῖνι ἰσοπολιτείαν (e.g. IG IX,12 1.6; 1.8; 1.11). 77 IPArk 17; p. 300, n. 5.

166 (Plut., Arat. 31-32, Agis 13.5-15; Polyaen. 8.59), and the invasion of Laconia (Plb. 4.34.9,

9.34.9; Plut. Kleom. 10.11, 18.3).78 It is therefore arguable that the League saw this arbitration as a chance to strengthen its ties with Messene and Phigaleia, and to further its influence over the region. However, despite their political and diplomatic interest in the area, their role as mediators did not place them above the two disputing poleis.

As I have shown, nothing in the phrasing of the deliberations suggests that this text was simply the retelling of a previous Aetolian decree, and the συμβολά agreement between the two cities did not directly involve the League. Conversely, it displays traits often associated with parity. After being chosen by both sides as mediator, the League sent its citizens as ambassadors, who delivered a speech following a written federal decree. In doing this, the League followed the common practice in arbitrations, taking part in the network of peer polities. These aspects, which we find in many other arbitrations, acted as a counterpoint to the political power of the Aetolians and their role in mediating the matter, and promoted a sense of parity between all the polities involved.

The different cases I have examined show that, despite their federal structure, Greek leagues acting as judges did not interfere with the rhetorical and ideological parity that arbitrations fostered. This is because the various steps involved in the arbitration practice tended to frame their participation in terms of parity and institutional similarity, and characterized them as another peer polity, thus countering their political power.

Finding an arbiter: kings.

78 Scholten 2000, pp. 116-118, 262-267. On the date of the attack against Pallene see Walbank 1933, pp. 182-183; Urban 1979, p. 55 and n. 249.

167 If we consider Hellenistic kings judging arbitrations, either directly or through their subordinates, a different situation emerges.79 The first obvious difference was their superior military power, which set kings apart from any polis. Moreover, their presence could alter the practice of the arbitration, affecting those diplomatic steps that normally fostered parity between all parties involved. For example, a king might communicate his decision not by means of a verdict, as poleis did, but through a letter addressed to each of the litigants.80 Additionally, in some cases royal involvement could mean that the king, not the cities, was the one setting the rules of the arbitrations.81 Moreover, in many cases the king’s participation in the dispute seems motivated by the fact that at least one of the litigants somehow fell under the royal sphere of influence.

Some examples of this are cases in which we see Ptolemaic officials in cities that were under

Ptolemaic control,82 envoys of Philip V arbitrating between two Macedonian communities,83

Lysimachos himself acting as arbiter for Samothrace and Priene,84 or Pergamene judges passing a verdict involving the city of Pitane.85 The arbitration thus reinforced not parity between the polities involved, but the cities’ dependence on the kings. Although this situation is common, there are also cases in which kings intervened in regions that were outside their formal control but within a larger sphere of influence, as we see in a Ptolemaic arbitration on Crete.86

79 Since the only case attested in the Peloponnese is Ager 138, I will make reference to some cases outside of this region. 80 Ager 26, Lysimachos’ letter to Samos passing his verdict about their arbitration against Priene. 81 Ager 54, 10, officials of Philip V arbitrating between Gonnoi and Herakleion κ[α]θάπ[ερ] ἐν τῶι διαγράμματι γέγρα[πται. 82 Ager 42, 138. On Arsinoe and Nagidos, see Bagnall 1976, pp. 111-114; on Cilician Arsinoe see also Cohen 1995, pp. 363-364. On Arsinoe-Methana, see Bagnall 1976, pp. 135-136. 83 Ager 54. Cf. Helly 1973, 93, 98. 84 Ager 24, 26. IG XII.8 150 attests that Lysimachos was honored by Samothrace for defending the sanctuary against an enemy attack. Priene’s dependence and close relation to Lysimachos is attested by several inscriptions, esp. I.Priene (2014) 2, 3(=RC 6); cf. Bencivenni 2014b; Burstein 1986. 85 Ager 146, an arbitration between independent Mytilene and the Pergamene possession of Pitane. On this inscription and the power struggle in the area of Pitane see Savalli-Lestrade 1992. 86 Ager 128, between Gortyn and Knossos. Although Ptolemy IV (r. 222-204) may have controlled Gortyn (Strab. 10.4.11), this predates the arbitration, which dates to around 167. The only city on Crete for which direct Ptolemaic control is securely attested is Itanos, which was an important naval base from the 260s to the mid-2nd century, see

168 These displays of royal power were partially balanced by other factors. First, formal arbitrations by kings, as opposed to simple diplomatic mediations, were much less common than those by a polis or a federal state.87 Their impact on the overall practice of arbitration was therefore limited. Second, the diplomatic practice and language of arbitrations helped mediate and reinterpret royal power. Not unlike the language of euergetism, arbitrations benefited both sides. Through his role as judge, the king saw his authority confirmed but also circumscribed by the norms regulating arbitrations, which channeled his power along established lines of action.88

Overall, the participation of kings in arbitrations represented a fracture in the latter’s usual function as PPI. However, both the relative infrequency of royal judgements and the mediating effect of arbitration practices tended to limit the extent of this asymmetry of power.

The act of involving a judge in the dispute often had the effect of reinforcing the parity between all polities involved. Even the potential involvement of more powerful states did little to change the situation. Federal states participated in a way that was similar to poleis, while the presence of kings in arbitration was uncommon. The only polity with the potential to significantly change this picture was Rome. However, because of both the political relevance and the peculiar traits of Roman presence in arbitrations, this question will be addressed separately.

Involving more polities

Three further diplomatic practices linked to arbitrations reinforced “peerness” between polities.

These are the publication of the verdict in a new location, the addition of a second set of judges, and the request to another city for advocates for the arbitration trial. All these practices share the

Vogeikoff-Brogan 2016, esp. pp. 816-818; Hölbl 2001, pp. 42-43, 142, 191, 195. Cf. Bagnall 1976, pp. 117-123, arguing that, although the Ptolemies recruited mercenaries on Crete, “Ptolemaic recruiting in an area is no indication that they controlled it.” 87 I count only ten within Ager’s corpus, nrr. 24-26, 42, 54, 58, 62, 128, 138, 146. 88 On the effects of the language of euergetism see Ma 2002, esp. pp. 235-242.

169 fact that they included new polities in the arbitration process, multiplying the number of interstate interactions. Within the context of Hellenistic diplomacy, these additional contacts are instances of PPI. Several factors within these kinds of interactions stressed parity between polities, but it is worth mentioning the commonalities between these categories, before exploring more specific details in each. All the cases that saw the inclusion of new polities involved poleis and poleis only; koina, kings, and Rome do not appear as additional players. The exclusive involvement of cities meant that these interactions took place between institutionally similar polities, following common civic practices and ideologies. Among these we find the regular exchange of embassies, delivering both speeches and written messages. Such diplomatic exchanges frequently ended in the mutual awarding of civic honors between communities, and the monumentalization of such measures in their public spaces. Finally, in all three categories the new polis entered the network of participants in the arbitration in a position of parity, neither as subordinates, nor as particularly preeminent. All these factors contributed to characterize contacts with additional poleis as interactions among peers.

Involving more polities: publication abroad

The first category is cases that saw the publication of the result of the arbitration in a city or sanctuary not directly involved in the dispute. This type of case is attested in three of the

Messenian arbitration documents examined here, which were inscribed in Olympia.89 Of these, the arbitration between Messene and Sparta provides us with a good indication of how these additional interstate interactions fostered parity between poleis. Inscribing a document in the sanctuary was the product of a diplomatic exchange between the community controlling it and the one placing the request. The first document of the dossier, the Eleian decree (A), shows

89 Documents 3, 6, 8.

170 precisely this process. The Messenians sent three ambassadors to Elis, who delivered a letter expressing their good relationship with Elis and asked for permission to have the verdict inscribed in Olympia. The Eleians responded not only by allowing the carving of the document, but also awarded civic honors to the ambassadors. This diplomatic back and forth and the exchange of honors and gifts had the effect of fostering a sense of “peerness” between the two communities. The Eleian decree gives particular emphasis to this aspect through its use of echoing language.90

I suggest that the diplomatic exchange we see in this inscription was quite common, and a similar process took place every time a polis wanted to publish the result of an arbitration in a sanctuary it did not control. We can imagine that an analogous interaction was what led to the publication of the arbitrations between Thouria and Megalopolis and between Sparta and the

Achaean League, both found in Olympia as well.91 In the first case, the winner of the dispute must have been responsible for erecting the stele in the sanctuary. Even though the Achaean

League played a role, we have no attestation of its involvement in the process of publishing an arbitration result.92 While the text itself does not offer any indications of who won the trial,

Megalopolis is the best candidate. The inscription was published together with another arbitration document, which shows many important similarities,93 including the size of the stele and the type of stone but also the letter form and the common mention of Aristomenes’ commission. Since the Megalopolitans participated in both arbitrations, one should conclude that they decided to commemorate their double success by placing the arbitral awards in Olympia.94

90 On the echoing language in this text, see above, 2.B.i. 91 Documents 3, 8. 92 The only possible exception being publication in the federal sanctuary of Zeus Amarios in Aigion, see Ager 36. 93 IPArk 31 I. 94 The alternative would be that the League itself took care of publication in Olympia. However, we have no solid evidence for the koinon being in charge of the publication of arbitrations, and we may assume it would have chosen

171 For the case of Sparta against Megalopolis and the League, Megalopolis’ victory is clearly implied. References to a previous verdict in favor of Megalopolis only make sense in light of its later success.95 Therefore, Megalopolis is once again the prime candidate for publishing the verdict in Olympia. For both arbitrations, this city decided to give particular prominence to the arbitration results by monumentalizing them in a Panhellenic sanctuary. In order to achieve this goal, the Megalopolitans must have been involved in a series of diplomatic contacts with Elis. As the example of the Milesian arbitration confirms, such communications consisted of mutual exchanges of gifts and honors, and of messages of friendship, which reinforced both the good relations and the parity between the two communities.96 The publication of an arbitration document in an impartial sanctuary involved new participants in the arbitration process. Because of the very nature of the interstate interactions required, this phenomenon contributed to create new relations based on “peerness.”97

Involving more polities: additional judges

Another category of diplomatic practices that created new interactions between peers is the involvement of an additional set of judges. Even though such involvement could take different forms, depending on the specific political and epigraphic context, a common feature is the participation in the arbitration process of more than one polity acting as arbiter. This feature appears in several of the arbitration documents included in the Epigraphical Dossier, which I will now discuss.

the federal sanctuary of Zeus Amarios in Aigion. Cf. Ager, pp. 116-117, who believes the presence of important delegates from Megalopolis, including Polybius himself, may have granted it the victory. 95 Document 8, 22-24, 31-36. 96 Document 6. 97 Other cases involving Peloponnesian poleis: Ager 138, arbitration between Arsinoe and Troizen published in Epidauros, the sanctuary of Poseidon in Kalaureia, and on the Athenian acropolis; 139, arbitration between Sparta and Kytinion published in Delphi; 152, arbitration between Argos and Kleonai published in Nemea.

172 In two cases the second judge is brought within the context of an arbitration by the

Achaean League. In Messene’s dispute against its neighbors we actually see three different groups acting as arbiters, namely the seventeen Achaean hagemones, the city of Aigion, and the six Milesian judges, taking part in two different arbitrations.98 While the hagemones adjudicated the trial in Karneiasion, which was technically never concluded, both Aigion and Miletos were part of the same process. Despite the verdict passed by Aigion, the dispute between Megalopolis and Messene continued, and when the Messenians refused to undergo yet another arbitration, the federal damiorgoi fined them. This dispute between the federal magistrates and the Messenians is the one that the Milesians were asked to adjudicate. Because the League was now one of the parties involved in the quarrel, the selected judge was Miletos, an outsider.99 This Messenian decree shows how an arbitration, here an inconclusive one, could then cause the involvement of another set of arbiters for an additional judgement. In this case, the spiraling of the original dispute and the federal fine led to the inclusion of a polis from Asia Minor. Its inclusion as a judge is a case of PPI. Ambassadors from both the League and Messene crossed the Aegean to deliver an official request to send a group of judges, recognizing Miletos’ status as a sovereign polis, which belonged to the network of Hellenistic diplomacy. Moreover, after the victory

Messene may have then awarded civic honors to both the six individuals and to the Milesians as a group.

A similar situation is in the dispute between Sparta and the Achaean League, where the first arbitration between Sparta and Megalopolis did not put an end to the matter, and Sparta was

98 Document 2. To these groups one should add the Mytilenian judges mentioned in the unpublished πρόκλησις document, who, according to Thür 2012, pp. 299-300, and 305-306, had been asked to judge a first arbitration about Akreiatis. 99 A comparison with the case of Sparta (document 8) suggests that the choice of a foreign polis to arbitrate disputes between a member city and the federal government was a recurring practice for the Achaeans, even though we do not have secure evidence for standard regulations (Harter-Uibopuu, pp. 119-129).

173 fined because of its refusal to respect the verdict.100 This time the task of solving a quarrel between the League and a city member fell on Rhodian judges, who confirmed the previous decision. Both Messene’s and Sparta’s cases attest how arbitrations between members of the

Achaean League could require additional judgements in case of prolonged disagreements. This led to the involvement of new arbiters, and to the creation of further diplomatic communication based on “peerness.” Cities involved in the dispute entered in contact with new poleis, which sometimes lay across the Aegean.

Besides these inscriptions from Messenia, within the Peloponnese we find other cases of arbitrations that involved more than one set of judges. Two further instances saw the participation of the Achaean League, although in a different manner to that discussed here. In these cases, there were not two successive trials, but the court adjudicating the dispute was formed by members from various member cities. Both texts are very fragmentary, but we can reconstruct the presence of eleven cities in one case and at least three in the other.101 However, arbitrations within the Achaean League were not the only ones involving multiple sets of judges.

In the Peloponnese there are three further instances in which two sets of judges participated in the arbitration, either acting together from the very beginning or passing an additional verdict. In one case, both Milesian and Rhodian judges passed a verdict in a dispute between Hermione and

Epidauros; their judgement was recorded with two identical texts, each one in the dialect of the judging city.102 A similar situation seems to have taken place in the dispute between Pagai and

Aigosthena, which I have already discussed. According to the most probable reconstruction, the

100 Document 8. 101 Ager 36, judges from at least three cities, including Dyme; 46, judges from probably eleven cities, certainly including Pellene, Aigion, and Thelpoussa. 102 Ager 63 (=Magnetto, Arbitrati 69). Even though at the time of the arbitration (late 3rd-early 2nd century, based on letter forms) both litigants were members of the Achaean League, the text makes no mention of its involvement.

174 two poleis of Kassopa and Thyrreion acted together as judges.103 Finally, the Ptolemaic arbitration between Arsinoe and Troizen contains a clause asking for an auxiliary judgement

(ἐπικρίνω) by three Athenian arbiters.104

The inclusion of additional judges increased the number of polities involved in the arbitration process. As for the other categories I have analyzed, this inclusion took place by means of embassies and mutual decrees. Judges in particular could receive honors for their service, awarded to them by the winning side.105 All cases belong to the broader phenomenon of

PPI, and these additional interactions between cities promoted the overall parity among the polities involved.

Involving more polities: foreign advocates

The last category that had a role in strengthening parity in arbitrations includes instances in which a polis asked another city to provide an advocate who would represent it in the trial.

Although poleis more commonly had their own citizens represent them, a few examples in which this happened are known.106 The only instance involving Peloponnesian states is the arbitration between Pagai and Aigosthena.107 Through the polis of Megara, the kome of Pagai asked the

Achaean League for legal representation; the League in turn gave the task to Sikyon, which provided advocates who were then awarded honors by the Megarians. The practice of rewarding foreign advocates with civic honors is very common, since all cases of poleis turning to another state for representation are attested in honorary decrees for such advocates. We cannot always

103 Ager 85. The involvement of the Achaean League was partial, since only one of the two litigants was a member city. 104 Ager 138, ll. 52-54, ἀποστειλάντω πρεσβείαν ἑκάτεροι εἰς Ἀθάνας καὶ ἀξιούντω δόμεν αὐτοῖς ἄνδρας τρεῖς, οἵτινες παραγενόμενοι τὰ γεγονότα αὐτοῖς ὁμόλογα ἐπικρίναντες. 105 For a list of documents honoring judges see above, n. 62. A comparison with honorary decrees for foreign judges—e.g. I.Priene (2014) 108—suggests that the honoring of arbitration judges must have been even more common, see Robert 1973, esp. p. 772. 106 Ager 78, 81(?), 85, 91(?), 117 II, 169. 107 Ager 85.

175 determine what led communities to look outwards for diplomatic representation. In the Pagai arbitration, Megara must have thought that involving the League and its political weight gave it better chances of winning. Alternatively, a city may have targeted communities or individuals for their specific diplomatic connections. This seems to be the reason that led the Abderitans to ask two Teian citizens to represent them in Rome. The Teians had important patrons in Rome, whom they contacted while advocating for Abdera.108 Although the recourse to foreign advocates was not very common, the few known examples demonstrate additional kinds of interstate interactions based on parity. By accepting to be represented by another community in a trial, a polis admitted this other city was its own peer, institutionally equivalent to itself. The number of related diplomatic exchanges, from the embassy carrying the request, to the frequent honorary decree for the advocates, contributed to the feeling of parity.109

Creating new peer interactions: conclusions

Because of their structure, arbitrations tended to involve several participants at once, often including not only a third party acting as a judge, but additional polities as well. In most cases, the addition of a new polity to the arbitration process took place in a way that emphasized the parity between all sides. This was because the new participant often appeared in a position of equality, not of preeminence or subordination to the other states. The very nature of the interactions bringing in the newcomers contributed to this state of things (vague). The diplomatic contacts necessary to request a set of judges, ask for legal help, or publish the result of an arbitration, were based on the existence of a similar civic ideology within different poleis, and

108 Ager 169, ll. 21-27. See in particular the mention of the Teian patrons in Rome, παραστησάμενοι δὲ τοὺς πάτρωνας τῆς [πόλ]εως εἰς τὴν ὑπὲρ τοῦ ἡμετέρου δήμου βοήθειαν; cf. Robert 1935, p. 513, confirming these were Teos’ patrons. Despite the honors tributed to the advocates, the document makes no mention of a legal victory, which means the Abderitans may have lost the arbitration. 109 Ager 117 II and 169 suggest a victory in court was not even always necessary for the advocates to receive civic honors.

176 stressed the institutional similarity between them. The exchange of embassies and mutual awarding of civic honors constructed a network of peers. This is particularly true for all cases in which more than three cities participated in an arbitration, since the addition of new poleis always took place in a context of marked “peerness.” The inclusion of additional polities seem to have occurred frequently, at least in Messenia, and reinforces even further the arbitrations’ effect on parity between Greek polities.110 The only partial exception to this trend is the possible presence of powerful polities acting as judges. Among these however, only Hellenistic kings and

Rome actually had the potential to disrupt the overall context of parity. In all other cases, the presence of a judge and the interactions with it constituted relations between peers. Therefore, we can conclude that through the inclusion of new participants in the process, arbitrations promoted parity among different polities.

3. Arbitrations, Parity, and Polis Status

Arbitrations and parity among polities were closely linked. Arbitrations were based on the concept that the two litigants are peer poleis, which recognized each other’s independence and sovereignty, and thus needed a third party to solve their dispute. Moreover, arbitrations also directly promoted “peerness” among cities, because they took place by means of diplomatic contacts that stressed the institutional similarity and the shared civic ideology of different polities. These two elements, the intrinsic relation between arbitrations and parity, and the direct role they had in promoting “peerness,” are not mutually exclusive. In fact, they operated at the same time, and together they defined the mutual dependence of parity and arbitrations. The detailed survey I have carried out shows the many ways in which arbitrations were closely

110 Half of the arbitrations in the Epigraphical Dossier (documents 2, 3, 6, 8) included more than three polities.

177 connected with interstate parity. This close link is what particularly characterizes arbitrations and sets them apart from other instruments of Hellenistic diplomacy.

The most important aspect of the connection between “peerness” and arbitrations is that it stressed parity between poleis, since cities were the main employers of arbitrations. Interstate arbitrations thus were a means to declare and reinforce one’s status as a free and independent city. Greek poleis had every interest in advertising this status, as it could not be taken for granted. For a polis, there was always the risk of losing its autonomy and becoming dependent to an external authority. The various Hellenistic kingdoms constantly sought to expand their influence, and for cities this could result in the dispatch of royal governors or the stationing of garrisons. Neighboring poleis were also a direct threat. For example, Messenian cities like Pylos and Thouria obtained their independence from Messene and entered the Achaean League as autonomous poleis. Messene, however, did not accept this situation and tried to reincorporate them.111 Against these possible threats to their autonomy, participation in the diplomatic network of peer poleis provided communities with a clear narrative of self-determination. Such narrative was implicitly accepted and given authority by other communities by means of the various diplomatic interactions between them. Diplomatic activity as a peer polis was for a city a valuable precedent, evidence of its independent status and the proof that any attempt against the autonomy of the city was unlawful, as it impinged on its officially attested free status. The result was a consistent and widely accepted ideological message, which could affect political practice by discouraging foreign powers from reducing a city into subjection. Moreover, even when falling under foreign control, the polis identity the community had developed could help prevent

111 Pylos had become independent by 220, when the Messenians officially asked the Achaean League for its return (Plb. 18.42.7). Thouria gained independence after Messene’s failed secession in 182 (Plb. 23.17.1-2) but was later attached to Sparta under Augustus (Paus. 4.31.1-2). On the wars between poleis, see also Ma 2000.s

178 the city from fully dissolving into the larger system of government. Arbitrations were one of the means that poleis used to proclaim their independence and to increase their chances of maintaining it. As such, they are one of the factors that determined the success and the survival of the polis as an institution throughout the Hellenistic period.

179 CHAPTER 4. ROME AND PARITY

In this chapter I explore how Roman involvement into Greek diplomacy affected the relationship between arbitrations and interstate parity. By looking at cases from Messenia, I study the changes that Rome brought to the functioning of arbitrations. Through an analysis of the various aspects of Roman participation, I will show that Rome did not fundamentally alter the nature of arbitrations or their role in developing interstate parity. Finally, I argue that arbitrations are one of the means by which Greek polities responded to Roman expansion. Specifically, through arbitrations the Greeks took advantage of Roman authority and power, while at the same time normalizing Rome’s political presence and trying to frame their diplomatic relations on a level of formal parity.

Scholars have in the past paid attention to Rome participating in arbitrations, and to its attitude towards this diplomatic tool. In many cases, scholarly interest lay in the role that arbitrations played in Rome’s policy in the Eastern Mediterranean during the 2nd and 1st century.1

Therefore, scholars have mostly focused on two aspects: Rome’s overall approach to arbitrations, and the impact Roman participation had on Greek arbitral practices. The earliest studies on arbitrations share a grim view of Rome’s attitude. For them, Rome treated arbitrations as a juridical fiction and used the threat of force to dictate its will to Greek polities.2 In more recent years, a scholarly consensus has emerged that attributes to Rome a more positive attitude towards arbitrations, given that it supported arbitrations and was ready to participate in them.3

1 For a helpful guide on modern discussions of Roman imperialism and further bibliography, see Burton 2019; cf. Hoyos 2013. 2 Raeder 1912, pp. 204-205; De Ruggiero 1893, p. 227; Sonne 1888, p. 37. Cf. Westermann 1907, p. 211, “When the Greek cities of Italy tried to arbitrate with Rome […], they soon found that the character and aims of the Roman Senate and people were not such as to countenance a peaceful, judicial settlement of their differences.” For an interesting exception, see Tod 1913, pp. 181-183: “This extensive and constant reference to arbitration suffers no diminution when the Romans enter the Greek world and become the dominant political factor in it.” 3 Magnetto 2015; Camia 2009; Kallet-Marx 1995a, pp. 161-183; Gruen 1984, pp. 96-131; Marshall 1980, pp. 641- 649. The most comprehensive among these studies is Camia, who surveys all epigraphic attestations of arbitrations

180 The alterity of this institution meant that the Republic was never willing to undergo an arbitration itself. Still, it was ready to respond to requests coming from Greek states by directly acting as arbiter or delegating the task. In this role as judge, Rome helped promote the use of arbitrations, which flourished during the 2nd century, even after the creation of Roman provinces in the East.4 While acting as arbiter, Rome exhibited a certain respect for Greek procedures: arbitrations did not dramatically change nor did they develop into an instrument of Roman imperialism.

By examining Roman participation in a number of Hellenistic arbitrations, my work falls within this trend of scholarship. My research, however, is organized around specific questions, and its more precise focus sets it apart from previous studies. As I have mentioned, the primary goal of this section is to understand how Roman involvement affected the “peerness” on which arbitrations were normally predicated. Because of this selective interest, I leave aside other issues linked to Roman arbitrations in order to focus only on elements of parity and hierarchy.

Moreover, to answer my questions I mostly make use of epigraphic arbitrations from Messenia, with only occasional reference to comparanda from the rest of the Greek world and literary cases. My sample is thus limited, both in terms of geography and type of documents. All these elements define this as a study of parity in arbitrations, not of Roman arbitrations, the role of arbitrations in Roman foreign policy, or Roman imperialism. At the same time, the answers to such specific question can inform our understanding of these broader phenomena.

involving Rome. It is worth noting that the overall agreement on Roman arbitrations does not exclude the existence of significantly different views on the broader issue of Roman imperialism. See for example Camia 2009, who mostly agrees with Gruen 1984 on Roman attitudes to arbitrations but does not share Gruen’s notion of a Roman lassez-fair policy in the East. 4 Gruen 1984, p. 109, “As a result, the institution […] continued to flourish in the second century. Indeed, by contrast with the few and standoffish decisions of Rome, examples of Greek arbitration abound–as never before;” p. 130, “Hence international arbitration entered into its most flourishing period, with Roman engagement and without Roman control.” Of the 170 cases collected by Ager, about 100 date to the 2nd century.

181

1. Rome as Arbiter

I now move on to the analysis of the evidence, considering Messenian inscriptions and studying the specific modes of Roman involvement in arbitrations. The goal of this examination is to determine whether arbitrations including Rome had the effect of portraying it as a peer or hegemonic power. As mentioned in the previous chapter, interstate arbitrations were based on the formal parity between the two litigants, and the very act of undergoing the arbitration process tended to stress “peerness” between the competing poleis. However, Rome never submitted to arbitration; the Republic was never willing to depend on the pronouncement of a third party when its own interests were at stake.5 Thus, Rome did not participate in the equalizing potential of arbitrations, at least not as a litigant. This meant never placing itself on a level of formal equality with other Greek states, in particular the Hellenistic kingdoms with which Rome was involved in several disputes and conflicts.

Rome’s refusal to undergo arbitration appears less exceptional when one considers that such attitude was common among Greek polities, especially the most powerful ones. In the years of the Peloponnesian War, Sparta refused one arbitration proposed by Athens and one proposed by Argos.6 Hellenistic kings also never submitted to binding legal arbitrations, allowing for third party mediation only, despite the fact that they were often ready to promote arbitration between poleis and even to act as arbiters.7 Rome’s behavior was not unprecedented or in strong opposition to Greek diplomatic practices and conventions. Furthermore, this refusal to participate

5 On Roman refusal of arbitration, see Ager 2009; Gruen 1984, pp. 102-104; Magnetto 2015, pp. 68-77; Marshall 1980, pp. 645-646. I agree with Ager and Magnetto in pointing out Rome’s unilateral view of war as the main cause for this intransigence. 6 On the Spartan refusal, see Piccirilli 1973, 21 and 29; cf. Magnetto 2016. 7 Ager has no recorded cases; Magnetto 2016.

182 in arbitrations had a limited direct impact on the broader network of poleis. Far from following

Roman example, poleis continued to use this diplomatic tool, and even felt encouraged by the presence of Rome as a powerful arbiter. As noted above, the 2nd century saw a flourish of interstate arbitrations.8

Because of Rome’s refusal to take part in arbitrations, other PPI elements related to submitting a dispute to a third party—such as publishing foreign documents in one’s city or mirroring the discourse of other poleis—did not apply to Rome. However, by frequently acting as a judge, Rome was affected by a number of other factors which were at play when it came to the interactions between litigants and arbiter. I now turn my attention to these, and they will occupy most of this discussion about Rome. I will first focus on more formal aspects, those pertaining to the legal and diplomatic procedure, stressing when Roman behavior adhered to older practices or diverged from them. I will then move to cases where practical factors had more weight than formal or legal ones.

1.A. Formal Aspects of Roman Arbitration

1.A.i. Alternatives to Rome

Rome’s position as an arbiter was neither mandatory nor exclusive. Polities were never under obligation to submit their disputes specifically to the Senate or to Roman legates, but always had the option of seeking a Greek arbiter, trying to solve the dispute by involving Greeks only. In this way, Rome followed the traditional arbitration practices, where the voluntary resort to arbitration had always been a defining characteristic.

8 See above, n. 4.

183 Messenia provides two good examples of such a trend: the Patraian arbitration between

Thouria and Megalopolis and Messene’s dispute against its neighbors. Both cases date to the 2nd century, when Roman influence on the Peloponnese was growing.9 However, in both cases the local dispute was solved thanks to judges from other Greek poleis; Rome was not involved in the process in any capacity. At first glance, the lack of Roman involvement is not too surprising.

Both documents were linked to local disputes between members of the Achaean League. In the

Thourian case, only three poleis were involved, suggesting that the litigants were able to agree on a single judge and did not require any additional help. If the intervention of a supra-polis state was required, the League would be the perfect candidate. This is shown by Messene’s arbitration, in which the League intervened at different stages, helping to arbitrate the dispute between Messene and its neighbors.10

We should not take the absence of Roman intervention in the Messene dispute for granted.11 After all, it was a Roman arbitration, carried out by Flamininus in 192, that had caused the unwilling Messene to join the League.12 The Messenians clearly considered Rome to be an important player in their relations with the League and tried to include Rome in their attempts to obtain independence during the year 183, immediately before the secession of the city. First,

Deinokrates of Messene asked for Flamininus’ help, and later the Messenians as a community appealed to the senatorial legate Q. Marcius Philippus.13 The Messenians were not the only ones looking up to Rome: during the secession, Achaean ambassadors asked the Senate to provide

9 Documents 2, 7. Document 2 dates to the year 179/8; document 7 probably to after 146. For the dating criteria of both texts, see the Epigraphical Dossier. 10 Harter-Uibopuu, pp. 119-129 convincingly argues that there was no standard practice for arbitrations between members of the League. The level of involvement of the federal government varied each time, depending on the specific situation and on the choices of the litigants. 11 Document 2. 12 Liv. 36.31 (Ager 86). 13 On Deinokrates’ attempt see Plb. 23.5. On the appeal to Philippus, as narrated by Kallikrates, see Plb. 24.9.12-13 (Ager 113). For the situation leading to Messene’s secession, see the Introduction, 2.D; cf. Kralli 2017, pp. 359-360.

184 help against the rebellious Messene, either by directly intervening or by preventing the import of food and weapons from Italy (Plb. 23.9.12-15). Because of the degree of Roman involvement in the troubled Messenian-Achaean relations in the 180s, one might expect Rome to have been further involved in the dispute recorded in the arbitration dossier.14 This is particularly true considering that all the problems originated immediately after Messene’s forced return into the

League and were linked to its status as a member of the koinon.15 Still, the years-long dispute did not include Rome. Even when things escalated into a confrontation between Messene and the federal damiorgoi, the foreign judge chosen to arbitrate was the polis of Miletos. This arbitration thus shows that, even in complicated cases involving cities and federal states, referring things to

Roman authority was an option, not a necessity. The Republic did not actively try to participate in arbitrations in order to meddle with local Greek politics, and poleis did not always feel the need to involve Rome.

A comparandum from Asia Minor shows that this pattern continued even in later years, when Rome assumed direct control over the Greek world.16 A section of an honorary decree for a citizen of Bargylia named Poseidonios mentions his merits in obtaining the role of arbiter for his city.17 He convinced the poleis of Rhodes and Stratonikeia, who were going to ask the Roman

Senate to arbitrate their dispute, to instead entrust the case to Bargylia. The decree dates to 129 or the immediately following years, precisely when Rome was organizing the area into the

14 Cf. also the several instances of Roman intervention about the situation of Sparta, even after it had joined the League. On these, see above, Chapter 3.2.A.i. 15 The epigraphic narrative constructed in the arbitration document stresses exactly this connection between the disputes and the status of Messene, see Ch. 2.1.B.iii. 16 Magnetto 2015, p. 79; Gruen 1984, pp. 109-110; Marshall 1980. 17 I.Iasos II 612 (Ager 161); on this text, see also Brun 2004, pp. 38, 49-50; Holleaux, Études II, pp. 179-198.

185 province of Asia.18 Thus, even by this time of increased Roman control, Greek poleis could still choose to solve their disputes without involving the Republic.

1.A.ii. Rome Delegating

A crucial aspect to consider when analyzing Rome’s adherence to previous Greek arbitral practices is the Roman habit of delegating judgement to another polity. This procedure is attested in several epigraphic documents, but because of my regional focus on Messenia, I will use the arbitration between Messene and Sparta as a way to concisely illustrate this practice.19 In this case, the question was which of the two polities “possessed that land when Lucius Mummius was consul or proconsul in that province.”20 This arbitration begun with a request sent to the Senate by the two litigants, asking for Roman intervention. In the absence of a previous verdict that was sufficiently authoritative, the senators determined the main parameters according to which the dispute should be judged. Rome then chose an agreeable third party polis that was willing to act as arbiter and pass a verdict within the boundaries set by the Senate.21 The praetor sent a letter to the new arbiter, informing them of their role and of the details of the judgement and probably attaching a copy of the senatus consultum (ll. 42-45).22 Roman involvement seems to have ended

18 The mention of the consul of 129 Manius Aquillius provides a terminus post quem for the decree. On the war of Aristonikos, see CAH2 VIII, pp. 378-380 (C. Habicht). Gruen 1984, pp. 605-608, argues for a later creation of the province (see n. 130 for a survey of previous scholarship). Independently of the exact date, the events described in the inscription took place against a backdrop of increased Roman presence—both diplomatic and military—in the area. 19 Document 6. For a further discussion of how Rome delegated cases, and for a list of more of such instances, see Camia, 2009, pp. 187-202. 20 Lines 52-55, ὁπό]τεροι ταύτην τὴν χώραν κατεῖχ[ον ὅτε Λεύκιος] Μόμμιος ὕπατος ἢ ἀνθύπατος [ἐν ἐκείνῃ τῇ ἐπαρ]χείαι ἐγένετο. In this text, the verb κατέχω is used in a neutral sense, without no specific mention of the lawfulness of the occupation, see Chaniotis 2004, p. 188. 21 The attempt for an agreed solution appears in Syll.3 679 (=Ager 120), 14-18. 22 Cf. Ager 120, in which the praetor is also the intermediary between the Senate and the foreign powers; this dossier also included the pertinent SC.

186 there, since the πόλις ἔκκλητος was left to independently administer the trial. We should imagine

Rome was informed of the final result and received a copy of the verdict.

One important point of Roman participation in arbitrations is the creation of parameters for the judgement, which the new arbiter was asked to follow. Scholars have stressed the innovative nature of this typically Roman practice, which did not belong to the Greek tradition and was only employed by Rome.23 By defining the parameters of the case, Rome arrogated to itself some of the powers of the judge, thus limiting the judge’s authority. This exceptional practice thus set Rome aside from other cities, establishing a hierarchy in place of the usual

“peerness” between all parties involved in an arbitration.

However, there are two elements that limited this exceptionality. On the one hand, as many scholars have pointed out, the senators’ goal was not to use the formula they provided to judges to skew verdicts in a way favorable to them.24 Rome chose delegating over the option of directly deciding the issue itself, thus passing on a perfect chance for carrying out its own agenda. Additionally, the poleis involved in the arbitration maintained much decisional power.

This is true for both the judging city, which still had ample discretion on the issue, and the litigants as well. The arbitration dossier shows that, even after Rome asked Miletos to take care of the arbitration, Messene and Sparta still had considerable agency. For example, the text explicitly says that the two cities agreed on some of the details of the procedure, such as the convocation of the Milesian assembly and the amount of time given to each advocate for their speeches.25 Lastly, the analogy with Roman civil law seems to be the main reason for the

23 Camia 2009, pp. 199-202; Kallet-Marx 1995a, pp. 170-177, esp. p. 172, the Senate’s practice “was a major departure from the former Greek practice of international arbitration;” Magnetto 2015, pp. 82-84, esp. p. 83, “queste direttive, che indubbiamente costituiscono qualcosa di nuovo rispetto alla procedura greca;” Marshall 1980, pp. 248- 250. 24 Camia 2009, p. 202; Kallet-Marx 1995a, pp. 172-173; Magnetto 2015, p. 83; Marshall 1980, pp. 248-249. 25 Lines 45-47, ἐκκλησία συνήχθη κυρία ἐν̣ [τῷ θεά]τρωι ἐν τῆι προειρημένηι ἡμέραι, καθότι Λακ̣[εδαιμόνι]οι καὶ Μεσσήνιοι συνωμολογήσαντο; l. 59, καθότι καὶ αὐτοὶ εὐδόκησαν.

187 introduction of this practice. In Roman procedure, the praetor defined the issue at law (in iure) in a binding formula; the task of the judge was then to implement such ruling according to his findings.26 When delegating an arbitration case it was not willing to examine itself, the Senate used familiar Roman legal practices as guidelines. Even though the Roman definition of the criteria of the trial did somewhat limit the authority of the Greek judge, we should not interpret this practice as a deliberate attempt to subtly manipulate verdicts and instead view it as a common practice within Roman legal procedures.27

On the other hand, delegating an arbitration to another judge was not a completely unknown practice in the Greek world. Scholars have recognized that both kings and federal states at times asked another polis to pass judgement in their place.28 This aspect is not given sufficient weight when considering the level of innovation brought by Rome. Moreover, in certain cases, Greek polities who delegated the task of arbitrating to another judge did set some parameters in a way that is not too dissimilar from Rome’s. Although we lack clear evidence, some instances pertaining to the Achaean League are worth considering.

One example comes from Messene’s dispute against its neighbors, specifically the last part of the long judicial contest. After the federal damiorgoi fined Messene for refusing to undergo another arbitration against Megalopolis, this conflict passed to the city of Miletos.

Unfortunately, we do not know the details of what the task given to Miletos was, but the main point at stake must have been the legitimacy of the fine.29 When asked to arbitrate between

Messene and the Achaean League, the Milesians received specific instructions: they were to

26 On the formulary system in Roman law, see Gaius, Institutes, 4.39ff.; see also Partsch 1905, pp. 3-52. 27 On the Roman formula as indeed limiting the judge’s authority, see Magnetto 2015, pp. 83-84. 28 On the Achaean League, see Harter-Uibopuu. On kings, see Ager 13, 15. 29 Document 2. Unfortunately, the section of the stone containing the Milesian verdict has not been published yet. Thür 2012, p. 308 (who had access to the Greek text) says that it only indirectly confirmed Messenian property over the disputed land. We should thus assume their verdict only mentioned the fine.

188 judge not on the entirety of the dispute and the ownership of Akreiatis and Bipeiatis, but only on whether the damiorgoi had been right in fining Messene. Such specification was necessary because of the long duration of the dispute, which had evolved in many different steps. The

Milesian judges needed to know on which specific legal issue they were passing a verdict.

The Achaean federal government may have also set some of the parameters for the judgement in cases between two member cities. Due to the poor state of the evidence, our understanding of the part played by the koinon is imperfect.30 However, we know that the

League often had a role in helping solve disputes. At times, yet another party, a πόλις ἔκκλητος, was chosen to act as arbiter, as in the case opposing Thouria and Megalopolis. For this arbitration, the League acted in concert with the third polis, whose name has not survived, embodied by a commission led by Aristomenes.31 Despite the fragmentary state of the text, it seems that in this instance the League did more than just choosing a judge. We read of an assembly, possibly the federal one, and of a written document passed by the Achaean synodos

(federal assembly).32 Although the commission of Aristomenes was in charge of passing the verdict, it seems that the League may have narrowed down the arbiter’s jurisdiction by setting some of the parameters for its work.33

Even though the evidence is not as secure as one would like, arbitrations within the

Achaean League seem to show instances of the League setting some legal parameters when delegating the role of arbiter. At least for the Milesian judgement in Messene’s long dispute

30 Harter-Uibopuu, esp. pp. 119-129. 31 On Aristomenes, see document 3 B 3, 14. We know of the presence of an ἔκκλητος πόλις thanks to the parallel inscription IPArk 31 I, A. 32 Document 3 A, 9, εἶμεν [δὲ κα]ὶ [ἐ]πὶ ἐκκλησί[αν; 16-17, κατ[ὰ v] τὸ γραπτὸν ὃ ἔθε[σαν οἱ Ἀχαιοὶ ․․․․․.. ἐ]ν τᾶι ἐν [Σι]κυῶνι συνόδω[ι. 33 Among Achaean cases outside of Messenia, another possible candidate is Ager 38 (=Harter-Uibopuu 3), in which Megara arbitrated between Corinth and Epidauros κατὰ τὸν αἶνον τὸν τῶν Ἀχαιῶν. However, there is no direct attestation of precise instructions given by the League to the Megarians.

189 against the League, a narrowing down of the case is indeed very probable. The Roman practice of providing a specific formula when passing an arbitration to another polity thus acquires new meaning. The extent and consistency of its application by the Senate mark it as an innovation from previous Greek practices. By arrogating the authority to define and thus limit the judicial power of the new arbiter, Rome established a certain hierarchical distance between itself and the judging polis. Still, the notion of somewhat defining the task of the arbiter was not completely alien to the Greek world, and we should not overestimate the impact this behavior had in placing

Rome above other Hellenistic polities.

1.A.iii. Roman Documents in Arbitration Dossiers

Another aspect of arbitrations that sheds light on the degree of Roman adherence to previous practices is the formal presence of the Republic in published arbitrations. Two arbitrations, the

Milesian one between Messene and Sparta, and the Rhodian one between Sparta and the League, suggest that Rome may often not appear on the stone in an official way.34

In the Milesian one, the dossier includes official documents by both Elis (a letter) and

Miletos (a letter and a verdict), but none by Rome, even though Rome produced at least two documents, which are mentioned in passing in the dossier, the senatus consultum (45, 51, τὸ

δόγμα τῆς συγκλήτου) and the letter that the praetor sent to the Milesians (50, τὴν ἐπιστολὴν τοῦ

προειρημένου στρατηγοῦ). Both documents were relevant in the arbitration process, since through them Rome delegated to Miletos the task of passing judgement on the dispute and informed the polis of the details of the case. However, such documents were not included among those inscribed in Olympia. We should consider this omission from two complementary points of

34 Documents 2, 8.

190 view. On the one hand, the absence of Roman official documents tells us that the polis crafting the inscription, Messene, did not feel the need to formally represent Rome. It is true, as I have argued before, that through this inscription the Messenians were creating a specific narrative.35

However, in doing this, they included documents from other polities; the fact that they instead excluded a superpower like Rome is striking. Particularly noteworthy is the absence of the praetor’s letter, especially when one considers the frequency with which letters were inscribed.

Recording the correspondence of Hellenistic kings in monumental form was common practice for Greek poleis.36 Roman magistrates soon followed, and we have several attestations of their letters.37 The exclusion of the letter in the dossier inscribed by the Messenians in Olympia suggests Roman involvement was not perceived as special and thus deserving of being recorded.

On the other hand, the lack of Roman documents further reinforced the perception of Rome’s normality. The dossier did not give it any special preeminence and its official words were not recorded.

Similar considerations apply to the other piece of evidence, Sparta’s arbitration against the Achaean League.38 Despite its fragmentary state, it is clear that the verdict of the Rhodian judges was the only document inscribed on the stone, since it occupies the entirety of the front of the stele, which was inscribed only on one side. No Roman document appears on the stone, despite the fact that Rome had played a small but meaningful role in the solution of the dispute.

When both sides asked them to weigh in, the Romans stressed the need to respect previous verdicts, thus giving a certain direction to the following trial. The text does not provide the

35 Chapter 2.2.A.iii. 36 On royal letters, see Bencivenni 2014a; Virgilio 2011; Ma 2002. RC still represents a fundamental corpus. Specifically on cities carving royal letters, see Bencivenni 2011. 37 See RDGE 33-78. Such letters could represent a significant intrusion into the affairs of the city, see e.g. the letter of the proconsul Q. Fabius Maximus to the Dymaeans in 144 (Achaïe III 5; cf. Kallet-Marx 1995b). 38 Document 8.

191 specifics, but this response must have taken place in an official form, either a senatus consultum or a letter by the praetor. Rome may then have played a role in choosing Rhodes as the arbiter.

However, the polity setting up the stele—either the Achaean League or Megalopolis—did not consider it necessary to include this document when attesting their judicial victory, and no

Roman document was inscribed together with the Rhodian verdict. In this case, Rome’s political influence and authority did not overcome Greek practices.

However, this situation was not universal, and further evidence from Messenia complicates things. There is one case in which a Roman document is fairly securely attested. The context for this Roman presence is the verdict of the arbitration by the unknown polis between

Thouria and Megalopolis.39 Towards the end of the inscription, starting at line 20 at the latest, the language of the text changes from Doric to koine (in bold).

20 ὤ[ιον]το δεῖν ΟΥΝ̣[․․․․․ ․․․․․ ․․․․․ ․․․․․] τὴν γεγενη-vv μ̣ένην αὐτοῖς διά̣[κρισιν ․․․․․ ․․․․․ ․ γι]ν̣ώσκετε [vvvv] καὶ ἡμᾶς ἐπ̣ι̣κεκρ̣[ικέναι ․․․․․ ․․․․․ ․․․․․ ․․․]ε̣σ̣[․]ν [ὁμολο-vv] γίαν τὴμ π<ρ>ὸς αὐτο<ὺ>ς [․․․․․ ․․․․․ ․․․․․ ․․․․․ ․․․․] 24 δεῖν. vacat

The change in language suggests that we are facing a different document, which was added at the end of the stone. The use of the second person plural in γινώσκετε indicates a direct address and points to a letter. The reference to “the agreement between them” (ὁμολογίαν τὴμ πρὸς αὐτοὺς) must refer to someone other than the two litigants. We are left with an unnamed new polity taking part in the arbitration. We can try to pinpoint the identity of this new participant with the

39 Document 3.

192 help of the specific word choices in the extant section. The use of the direct form of address

γινώσκετε does not appear in any surviving royal letter.40 However, a very close parallel in koine is in a letter of the praetor Sp. Postumius to the Delphians, informing them of a senatorial decision about privileges of the sanctuary.41 This form thus constitutes a strong clue in favor of

Roman involvement. The other telling verb is ἐπικρίνω. This is attested in Hellenistic diplomatic texts, and expresses deliberations by kings or poleis,42 but does not rule out a Roman context.

Ἐπίκριμα and ἐπικρίνειν are typically used to translate decretum and decretare, meant as a legal decision by a Roman magistrate.43 Although only few lines survive, these word choices suggest the intervention of a Roman magistrate, possibly the praetor. We cannot securely establish the communication goal of this text, but one possibility is that he was giving Roman approval to the way in which the League had solved the dispute.44 The presence of a Roman document represents a notable break in previous legal practices, since this whole dispute was internal to the

League, and Rome had no reason to intervene. In the Greek tradition, no additional sanctioning was needed, since the authority of the arbiter was sufficient. Both the fact that Achaean authorities decided (or were pressured) to ask for Roman approval and the inclusion of the letter on the stone marked a clear shift away from parity and towards a more hierarchical structure.

Already in the period 182-167, to which this inscription dates, Rome sometimes assumed a supervisory role that indicated its preeminence, outside of traditional arbitral practices.

40 IPArk, p. 321, “Die seltene Anrede sucht man in den Briefen hellenistischer Herrscher vergebens.” 41 RDGE 1 B, l. 4, γινώσκετε οὖν δεδογμνένον τῆι συγκλήτωι. 42 See for example RC 3 (letter of Antigonos Monophthalmos to Teos), ll. 29, 51-52, 60-, 108. For other instances see RDGE, p. 195. 43 On ἐπικρίνειν as the verb of decrees see RDGE, p. 195; Mason 1974, pp. 128-129; cf. P.Tebt. 2.286 for a later use of ἐπίκριμα to indicate an imperial edict. IPArk, p. 322 points out that we are dealing with a Roman magistrate, since the Senate would have used the verb δοκέω. 44 IPArk, p. 324.

193 1.B. Informal Aspects of Roman Arbitration

After examining instances of Roman adherence to and divergence from previous Greek legal practices, I will now focus on aspects that relate less to the formality of legal procedures and more to how these were put into practice. I do not see this as a stark distinction, and I do not want to overemphasize it or to create the impression of a dichotomy between legal fiction and what actually took place. The two aspects fully complement each other, and in some cases a clear distinction between the two is somewhat arbitrary. At the same time, however, looking at the practical aspects provides us with a better understanding of the dynamics of interstate arbitrations, since they balance what we see in more formal legal terms. In order to detect broader trends, I will sometimes make larger use of evidence from outside of Messenia.

1.B.i. Interest from Both Sides

All parties involved in arbitrations, both Greeks and Romans, were willing to partake in the process. Greek poleis and federal states showed a remarkable inclination to submit their disputes to the Republic, once Rome established itself as a player in the international scenario, and submitting to Rome was always a matter of choice.45 The large number of attested arbitration cases in which Rome took part illustrates well that Greeks were ready to ask Rome to be the arbiter of a dispute.46 Among the inscriptions I am studying, there are two examples of Greeks taking the initiative and involving Rome.

45 On Greek polities never being forced to request Rome as a judge, see above, 1.A.i. When one side approached the Senate, this could pressure the other party into accepting to undergo arbitration (Marshall 1980, pp. 642-643; Magnetto 2016); however, there was still no formal compulsion. Giovannini 2007, pp. 177-180, argues for a category of arbitrage imposé, but this only includes specific cases, in which an arbitration is prescribed in a previous agreement, like an isopoliteia. 46 Ager has twenty-one epigraphically attested arbitrations for which Roman involvement is securely attested.

194 The clearest case is Sparta’s arbitration against Megalopolis and the Achaean League, in which the inscription itself specifies that Megalopolis and Sparta first contacted Rome about the dispute: “And having learned from [the letters] provided to us by both sides that the Romans, who have been the champions of the [good order?] and harmony of the Greeks, when

Megalopolitans and Lacedaemonians came to them when disputing over this land” (ἐ]γνωκότες

δὲ ἐκ τ[ῶ]ν παρατεθ̣έντων ἁμῖν παρ’ ἀμφοτέρ[ων γραμμάτων] καὶ Ῥωμαίους τοὺς προεστακότας

τᾶς τῶν Ἑλλάν[ων εὐνομίας(?) καὶ ὁμο]νοίας, ὅκ[α π]αρεγενήθησαν̣ ποθ’ αὑτοὺς

Μεγ[αλοπολῖται καὶ Λακεδαιμόνιοι ὑ]π̣ὲρ ταύτας τᾶς χώρας διαφε[ρόμενοι).47 Rome’s response by means of letters and its involvement in the dispute originated from the joint decision of the two poleis to ask Rome to act as arbiter. The arbitration shows that Megalopolis and Sparta involved Rome willingly.

In the other instance, opposing Messene and Sparta, Greek initiative is not expressly mentioned; the earliest phase of the process about which we hear is the senatus consultum delegating Miletos with solving the dispute.48 However, the vast majority of the arbitrations that saw senatorial intervention started with an embassy by Greek polities to Rome, and there is no reason to believe this case was exceptional.49 Messene and Sparta must have decided to involve

Rome in order to solve their recurring dispute.

Despite the significant number of cases involving Rome, the exact reasons for this Greek desire to involve the Italian city are difficult to pinpoint. On the one hand, they seem to have perceived Rome as an impartial and fair judge. We have evidence for some instances that confirm this perception. Once again, the arbitration between Messene and Sparta provides a

47 Document 8, 42-45. 48 Document 6. 49 Camia 2009, pp. 187-192, esp. p. 192, “Emerge inconfutabilmente da questa rassegna come furono i Greci a cercare Roma.”

195 fitting example. When asked to arbitrate about the ownership of Dentheliatis, Rome simply delegated the issue to Miletos. The Senate did not seize the chance to make a decision itself and did not side with Sparta. This is noteworthy, since Rome had recently supported the Laconian city in preserving its autonomy from the Achaean League, even to the point of going to war for it.50 However, this previous connection with Sparta did not prevent the Senate from remaining impartial and delegating the decision to a third party. Part of Rome’s appeal for poleis involved in litigations was that it showed respect for previous verdicts, often passed by Greek arbiters.51

In Messenia, Roman respect for previous verdicts is firmly attested only this case, but it is also implied in the decision of giving Mummius’ verdict as a point of reference to Miletos (ll.

53-55, 63-66).52 However, several other inscriptions from the rest of the Mediterranean attest the

Roman attitude towards previous decisions.53 Among these, perhaps the most striking case is that of 135 between Samos and Priene. On this occasion, the Senate overturned the most recent decision, made by the proconsul Manlius Vulso in 188, in favor of an earlier Rhodian verdict dating to the years 196-192.54 We thus see that Rome was not afraid of favoring the results of

Greek judicial activity against decisions taken by its own representatives.

This perception of Roman impartiality and respect for Greek legal practices was bolstered by the power and political authority of the Republic. While discussing early Achaean history,

50 Camia 2009, pp. 176-177. On Roman diplomatic attempts to prevent Achaean violence against Sparta, see Paus. 7.12-14; Plb. 38.9-13 (Ager 147). For a summary of the events of those years, see Kralli 2017, pp. 374-379. 51 Camia 2009, pp. 194-195; Kallet-Marx 1995a, pp. 169-170; Marshall 1980, pp. 649-650. 52 To this one may add the senatorial response at the end of document 8, 46, διότι δεῖ τὰ [κεκριμένα εἶμεν κύρια(?)]. Even though much of the text is here reconstructed, many parallels (see next note) suggest that this should be the general meaning of the sentence. 53 Ager 156 between Melitea and Narthakion (=Camia 2009, 5; RDGE 9), 158 between Itanos and Hierapytna (=Camia 2009, 10 I; RDGE 14), 160 II between Samos and Priene (=Camia 2009, 8; RDGE 10 B). Cf. RGDE 5, Demetrios of Rhenea against Athens, 15 the Dionysiac artists against the Nemeans. 54 On this long-lasting dispute and the various arbitrations linked to it, see Magnetto 2008.

196 Polybius implies that political power was a desirable quality in an arbiter.55 Many Greeks states must have believed that Rome’s hegemony in the Aegean would give validity to its judgements.

In their view, Roman power could be the solution to one of the endemic problems of arbitration, the enforcement of verdicts.56 Moreover, by asking Rome to arbitrate their disputes “appellants reinforced and renewed their ties to the center of power and attempted to exploit this connection to their advantage.”57

Although important, Rome’s political influence alone does not provide a sufficient explanation for why Greeks requested Roman authorities as arbiters. In this sense, a comparison with Hellenistic monarchs is illuminating. Kings also held preponderant military and political power, which set them outside of the network of peer city-states, even though they still had ties with it. This asymmetry of power theoretically made them excellent judges for arbitrations, since it meant they could, if necessary, enforce the verdicts they had passed. Yet, despite their apparent suitability, we have few attestations of kings and royal officials acting as arbiters in disputes between poleis.58 Unfortunately, the surviving evidence does not allow us to draw a detailed picture, and it is difficult to pinpoint the causes of such scarcity of examples. I would tentatively argue that neither of the two sides, king and poleis, was particularly interested in getting too involved with the other party. There are a few attestations of kings prescribing arbitrations through their διαγράμματα; Hellenistic rulers were not a priori opposed to the process of

55 Plb. 2.39.9-10, “They, however, referred the points in dispute to the Achaeans alone among all the Greeks, not taking their power into consideration, for they were then almost the weakest state in Greece, but in view of their trustworthiness and high character in every respect” (οὐ μὴν ἀλλά γε περὶ τῶν ἀμφισβητουμένων ἐπέτρεψαν Θηβαῖοι καὶ Λακεδαιμόνιοι μόνοις τῶν Ἑλλήνων Ἀχαιοῖς, οὐ πρὸς τὴν δύναμιν ἀποβλέψαντες –σχεδὸν γὰρ ἐλαχίστην τότε δὴ τῶν Ἑλλήνων εἶχον– τὸ δὲ πλεῖον εἰς τὴν πίστιν καὶ τὴν ὅλην καλοκἀγαθίαν). See also Magnetto 2016. 56 This even though Rome was always reluctant to actually enforce its verdicts; on this, see below, 1.B.iii. 57 Kallet-Marx 1995a, p. 183. 58 On the participation of kings in arbitrations, see above, p. 169; cf. Gruen 1984, pp. 97-99. For the list of the only ten attested cases, see Chapter 3, n. 87.

197 arbitration itself.59 However, in such cases the judge tends to be not the king himself or his officials, but a third polis. Greek monarchs did not actively try to become judges and may not have seen it as particularly beneficial to their policies and status. At the same time, initiative by poleis to secure the arbitration of a Hellenistic king was also limited.60 The kings’ power and ability to enforce their verdicts did not seem to have been sufficient incentives for Greek poleis to seek their assistance.

Conversely, during the 2nd and 1st century, we have a large number of arbitrations involving Rome. Poleis continually requested Roman intervention, with a constant stream of embassies heading to Italy.61 Unfortunately, ancient sources do not provide explicit explanations for such preference.62 I argue that this preference for Roman arbitration was caused by both

Roman authority and its peculiar foreign policy in the East. At least during the first half of the

2nd century, Roman hegemonic presence in Greece was intermittent. The Senate did not show a consistent policy of control. This particularly favored smaller communities, since Rome was more willing to intervene when it came to fighting or controlling powerful kingdoms (Macedon,

Syria) and federal states (Aetolia, Achaea). Individual poleis could often count on a certain

Roman disinterest in their matters, which kept the threat of interference and conquest somewhat limited.63 This, paired with the authority conferred on Rome by its victories, provided a great enticement for poleis to submit their disputes to the Romans. Greek desire to have Rome act as arbiter is matched by Roman willingness to play a part in arbitrations. It is true that the senators usually did not show particular enthusiasm for this responsibility, and they often undertook it in

59 Royal διαγράμματα prescribing arbitration: Ager 13, 15, 54. In Ager 13 Mitylene is the designated judge, while in 15 Kos actually acted as arbiter. Only in nr. 54 the διάγραμμα caused the involvement of royal officials. 60 Ager 26, 42, 148. In a few other cases of royal arbitrations, it is not clear who took the initiative. 61 Canali de Rossi 1997. 62 Cf. Gruen 1984, pp. 316-356, for Greek attitudes towards Rome. 63 Kallet-Marx 1995a, pp. 42-56 on the lack of interference by the governor of Macedonia in Greek affairs; cf. Gruen 1984, pp. 502-505.

198 their own way, delegating the task to legates or a third polis.64 Despite this, the sheer number of attested arbitrations involving Rome shows that, no matter their attitude, Roman senators and magistrates often complied with requests asking them to be involved in the resolution of disputes. The bottom-line is that Greek poleis saw Roman arbitration positively and requested it and that Rome mostly agreed to participate to some degree in the solution of local disputes.

1.B.ii. Frequency of Roman Arbitration

Another relevant aspect, closely linked to the one that I have just examined, is the frequency with which Greek poleis resorted to Roman arbitration. As I have discussed, involving Roman authorities in a dispute was never mandatory, not even at the end of the 2nd century, when Roman power was firmly established in the Aegean. However, the number of arbitrations attested on stone shows a clear trend. At the beginning of the 2nd century, before the Third Macedonian War, only about one third of arbitrations saw some sort of Roman involvement. This remains true even until the destruction of Corinth in 146. But the number of cases involving Rome rises sharply in the second half of the century, accounting for more than two thirds of the attested disputes.65

These percentages are only reliable up to a point, because of the small size of the sample and the possible biases in the survival of the evidence. Still, even if we just consider the absolute numbers, it is evident that Roman participation increased in time. These numbers reflect the increased political importance of the Republic in the Aegean, and therefore its arbitral role.

While Roman involvement always remained optional, with the passing of time more and more

Greek polities found its intervention desirable. By the second half of the century, Rome had

64 On “senatorial reluctance to take an active role” in arbitrations, see Gruen 1984, p. 108; contra Magnetto 2015, pp. 79-82, who corrects this view by showing how Rome did take interest in some cases. On the modes and significance of the Roman practice of delegating to another judge, see above, 1.A.ii. 65 For the numbers behind this trend, see the chart in the next page.

199 become “The Arbiter,” and was involved in most dispute. As I have discussed in the previous section, this central role did not produce significant changes in the legal practice (with the exception of delegation, a peculiarly Roman trait). But formal continuity notwithstanding, the centrality of Rome marked a shift towards a hierarchical structure. Rome was no longer one of the peer polities involved in arbitrations, but the center of almost the entire diplomatic network and thus placed in a position of preeminence over the Greek poleis.

Rome and Arbitrations 80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0% 200-168 168-146 146-90

Percentage of arbitrations with Roman involvement

Chart 1. Frequency of Roman arbitrations. Source: inscribed arbitrations listed in Ager. Rome appears in 6 cases out of 20 in the period 200-168, 3 cases out of 8 in 168-146, and 12 out of 17 in 146-90.

1.B.iii. Enforcing the Verdict

Another noteworthy aspect in arbitral practice is Rome’s apparent reluctance to enforce its verdicts with direct interventions. Evidence shows that Rome was rarely willing to step in to

200 make sure its verdicts were respected, despite Greek perception that it would.66 The difficulty of actually enforcing the verdict, in case the defeated party refused to comply to the arbitral decision, had always been one of the endemic problems affecting Greek interstate arbitrations.67

Within Messenia, the Rhodian verdict shows that even a federal state like the Achaean League had its difficulties in trying to make a member city, fall in line.68 Sparta challenged the fine, and a second trial was necessary. Roman unwillingness to use its power to enforce arbitrations in which it had participated aligned with this Greek pattern. With its “inability” to coerce unwilling litigants (though mostly due to inaction), Rome behaved quite like a Greek polity. The lack of frequent displays of force limited Rome’s alien nature and brought it closer to the condition of a peer in the diplomatic network of arbitrations.

One example of this behavior comes from the inscribed documents related to a dispute between the Cretan poleis of Hierapytna and Itanos.69 In 141 Sulpicius Galba, legate on Crete, mediated between the two communities, but Itanos asked for a senatorial arbitration. The Senate then delegated Magnesia on Meander to pass a verdict. The following year, the Magnesians decided in favor of Itanos. This however did not put an end to the dispute. Throughout the next thirty years, violence between the two continued, despite further senatorial diplomatic interventions. Finally, in 112 Rome had to ask the Magnesians to arbitrate the issue again. In this confused situation, it is interesting to note that the Hierapytnians had been able to ignore the

Magnesian decision nonchalantly and to occupy the disputed land.70 On the one hand, the

66 Kallet-Marx 1995a, pp. 180-181; Marshall 1980, pp. 641-643; cf. Gruen 1984, pp. 119-126, in favor of the existence of a Roman policy of limited intervention in Greece. 67 Magnetto 2016, ch. 1.1, “one of the major difficulties inherent in any arbitration was the enforcement of the verdict.” 68 Document 8. 69 Ager 158 I (=RDGE 14; I.Cret. III.iv.10); see also Chaniotis 1996, 57a-b. 70 In the dossier of the second Magnesian arbitration, the consul ordered them to take down any building they may have erected in the area: Ager 158 I, ll. 93-96, ὑμᾶς θέλ[ω] φροντίσαι εἴ τι ἐν ταύτῃ τῇ χώρᾳ τῇ ἐν ἀνφιλ[ογ]είᾳ οὔσῃ ἐνῳκοδομημένον ἐστί, ὅπως ἐκ ταύτης τ[ῆς χώ]ρας καθέλητε (cf. ll. 69-71).

201 Hierapytnians had not been afraid of disregarding the result of the arbitration, despite the fact that Rome stood behind it. On the other hand, according to the dossier, the Romans did not take any step to enforce the verdict. It took another thirty years and several further complaints by

Cretans for the Romans to intervene again in the dispute. Even then, their response was only diplomatic in nature, with no display of political pressure or military force.

The Senate’s behavior in the Cretan dispute is not an isolated case, but part of a broader policy, with senators not wanting to intervene to see their arbitrations respected. Another such example appears in one of the many instances in which Rome mediated between Sparta and the

Achaean League.71 In 189 Sparta seceded from the League and tried to bring Rome on its side with a deditio in fidem in the hands of M. Fulvius Nobilior. But Nobilior refused the deditio, and after a failed mediation in front of the Achaean assembly, he asked both sides to send representatives to the Senate. The senators listened to both sides and then “decreed that no change should take place in the situation of Sparta.”72 Because of the unclear nature of this response, both Greek polities interpreted it as they pleased. The Achaeans thus proceeded with the military option, forcefully returning Sparta into the League; Rome did not intervene to try stop them. This particular instance is less straightforward than the Cretan one, since Roman intervention was in the form of a mediation rather than a proper arbitration. Moreover, Livy’s text does not specify what the original goal of the Senate was in giving its response. Such difficulties notwithstanding, this case demonstrates how Rome had little interest in making sure its decisions were respected.

Despite its position of supremacy in the East, these cases show that Rome was not always interested in enforcing the verdicts the Senate—or another polity for it—had passed. Greek

71 Liv. 32.30.1-33.2; see also ; Kralli 2017, pp. 351-352; Gruen 1984, pp. 120-121. 72 Liv. 38.32.9, novari tamen nihil de Lacedaemoniis placebat.

202 states, both big and small, seem to have been aware of this and might have even counted on it.

The threat of Roman intervention was not enough to prevent the small polis of Hierapytna from ignoring a decision that indirectly bore Rome’s sanction. As far as arbitrations are concerned,

Rome was not a threatening presence that loomed large in the international scenario. Conversely, its general unwillingness to intervene and have its verdicts respected brought it closer to the condition of a polis. This normalized Rome’s activity as an arbiter and emphasized its parity towards other polities.

2. Rome and Interstate Parity

I here draw some conclusions on the impact Rome had on the parity of arbitrations. The

Republic itself never had its sovereignty limited by other states, and this refusal detracts somewhat from the reciprocal relationship between Roman policy and interstate arbitrations.

Still, Rome had a prominent role in acting as a judge, directly or indirectly. This arbitral role and the different aspects in which it took place had a specific effect on the perceived parity between the Republic and the Greek polities involved in the solving of various disputes. As it emerged from my analysis, Roman involvement as a judge had contrasting consequences.

On the one hand, several elements constructed Rome’s parity towards other cities and limited its exceptionality. These pertained to both the legal aspects and their practical application. In line with older Greek legal practices, Roman arbitration was always a matter of choice and was never mandatory, even after the creation of the provinces of Macedonia and Asia in 146 and 133. Greek polities willingly involved Rome in their disputes, apparently considering it to be an impartial judge and not fearing its interference in internal matters. The fact that the

Romans frequently chose not to intervene to enforce their verdicts also places Rome within the

203 Greek legal tradition. Additionally, the very act of participating in arbitrations reduced the alien nature of the Republic. For Rome, arbitrations were an opportunity to enter the network of

Hellenistic diplomacy. Despite not being a Greek city, Rome could play the part of one in the arbitration process. Participating in a typically Greek procedure lessened Roman “otherness” and framed Rome within a widely accepted institutional context.

In some cases, this normalizing effect becomes explicit, as in the arbitration between

Messene and Sparta. At the beginning of the Milesian verdict, the text mentions the different institutions involved in the passing of the judgement.73 The first is the Milesian stephanephoros, followed by the Roman praetor, the senatus consultum, and the assembly of the Milesian citizens. In these lines, Greek and Roman institutions are mentioned together, in almost seamless continuity.74 The juxtaposition of Greek and Roman institutions, as if Rome was just another

Greek polity, had the effect of normalizing Roman presence in the procedure.

On the other hand, there were other aspects, both legal and practical, which placed Rome on a level of hierarchical superiority, and stressed its otherness to Greek poleis. One of them was the habit of delegating the task of arbiter to a polis, which represented the only significant innovation Rome introduced in arbitral law and marked Roman alterity through its innovative nature. This change in the legal functioning of arbitrations, together with Roman hegemony in the Aegean, eventually gave Rome a sort of “superarbitral” role. Roman magistrates and senators could delegate their function as judges, and at the same time, Rome became the main pivot for the solution of disputes. As I have pointed out, throughout the 2nd century there was a steady increase in the percentage of arbitration that saw Roman involvement. Even though recourse to

73 Document 6, 41-46. 74 I have argued before (Chapter 1.1.D) that the insertion of the praetor’s tria nomina was somewhat needed to mark the Roman nature of the office of στρατηγός and avoid confusion.

204 Roman authority was voluntary, by the end of the century Rome participated in more than two- thirds of the attested arbitrations. This concentration of arbitral powers in Roman hands pointed to the hegemonic role Rome had in the area and counterbalanced those elements which stressed parity between polities.

A good example of how these different aspects coexisted is illustrated by the dispute between Sparta and the Achaean League, where Roman presence is formally quite unobtrusive.

Rome was involved on the initiative of the litigants only, and no official Roman document appeared in the epigraphic publication of the arbitration. At the same time however, the Rhodian judges indicate that Rome was in a position of supremacy by calling the Romans “the champions of the [good order?] and harmony of the Greeks.”75 While the way in which they participated in the arbitration stressed the Romans’ parity, it did not fully counter their position of preeminence in Greece.

The analysis of the different aspects of Roman involvement in arbitrations shows that such participation did not fundamentally alter the nature of this diplomatic tool. Arbitrations remained a powerful means of attesting and reinforcing parity among different polities. This does not mean that changes did not take place, since the arrival of Rome affected Greek arbitral practices. But the overall system of arbitrations adapted to the Roman presence, incorporating new elements—like delegating verdicts—and relying more and more on Rome as a judge. These adaptations allowed the practice of arbitration not only to survive, but to thrive in the course of the 2nd century.76

75 Document 8, 43-44, καὶ Ῥωμαίους τοὺς προεστακότας τᾶς τῶν Ἑλλάν[ων εὐνομίας(?) καὶ ὁμο]νοίας. It matters little whether we read this as a form of flattery or if we believe the Rhodians genuinely considered the Romans as protectors of the Greeks. Either way, these words attest Rome’s perceived position of superiority, not parity. 76 It is only in the 1st century that significant changes in Rome’s policies of control in the eastern provinces caused interstate arbitrations to eventually disappear. On the Mithridatic War as a watershed moment, see Camia 2009, pp. 214-215; Heller 2006, pp. 27-56 (continuity before and after 129 in Asia Minor), pp. 57-83 (changes in dealing with territorial conflicts during the 1st century); Kallet-Marx 1995a, p. 181.

205 The continuous use of arbitrations and the involvement of Rome in them are one way in which Greeks responded to the appearance of Rome and its increasing importance in their diplomatic network. Arbitrations were an effective way to fulfill a number of different political and diplomatic goals. First, arbitrations offered Greek polities a chance to exploit Roman authority for their own gain. By submitting a dispute to the Senate or to a Roman magistrate, a polis could secure a judge whose influence conferred additional weight to the verdict. Even though Rome was rarely willing to actually enforce verdicts, its military power made it the most authoritative arbiter in the Mediterranean. An arbitration taking place under the auspices of

Rome could represent for a polis an effective solution to a local dispute.

Second, arbitrations were a typical instrument of Greek diplomacy, and Rome’s participation in them helped normalize Roman interference in Greece. As a foreign and culturally different polity, Rome did not operate according to the same principles as Greek states when it came to interstate relations. Despite the existence of many points of contact, this alterity made her a potentially disruptive presence in the network of Hellenistic diplomacy. Involving Rome in the arbitration process and the many ensuing diplomatic interactions could limit its otherness. By participating in such interactions, Rome implicitly declared its acceptance of the conventions and practices that regulated relations among Hellenistic states, and the prescribed nature of the diplomatic interactions helped define future contacts along accepted patterns of behavior. With each arbitration and exchange of delegations and official documents, Rome lost part of its alterity and came closer to being fully integrated in Hellenistic diplomacy. Rome’s choice of integrating itself into these diplomatic systems eased relations with Greek polities as Rome became the new hegemonic power.

206 Third, by means of arbitrations Greek polities could hope to frame their relations with

Rome in terms of relative parity. It is unclear whether poleis consciously aimed at this result, given that ancient evidence does not make connections between arbitrations and parity explicit.

However, I have shown that arbitrations were effective in characterizing participants as peers.

Rome found its international position defined by the conventions of arbitration practice, acting as one of many city states, its superior military power temporarily set aside. Even the role of arbiter, the only one Rome ever undertook, did little to change this situation. Roman recurring participation in arbitrations thus tended to frame the interactions between the Republic and

Greek poleis in terms of parity, limiting the difference in power and influence between them.

For Greek polities, involving Rome in arbitrations was a way to accomplish several goals at once, which facilitated their relationship with the Republic. Arbitrations show how poleis adapted a well-established diplomatic practice in order to deal with a new power, which potentially threatened their independence. They thus belong to the range of Greek responses to

Roman interference and territorial expansion, providing us with additional evidence and information about the conduct of Greek poleis when dealing with Rome. Beyond their specific historical context and from a cross-cultural perspective, arbitrations illustrate how small independent communities may react when they face annexation by an expansionist state. This point of view recognizes the agency of local polities, not focusing solely on the initiatives of large empires.

207 CONCLUSION

In this dissertation I have examined how inscriptions recording interstate arbitrations contributed to constructing and expressing civic ideology for Hellenistic poleis. I have focused on eight inscriptions from Messenia and the southern Peloponnese, which are included in the

Epigraphical Dossier. Through a close reading of these texts, I have been able to show that arbitrations did more than solve local disputes. All types of arbitration documents, including verdicts, civic decrees, and honorary decrees, had more than one goal. First, there was an immediate goal, to communicate the result of a trial, to vote on specific procedures, or to thank the judges for their service. Then, Hellenistic poleis also used interstate arbitration documents to construct and communicate at home and abroad a range of ideological concepts.

For one, inscriptions recording interstate arbitrations helped Hellenistic poleis define the relationship between communities and civic elites in terms of mutual benefits. Cities were able to channel the ambition of prominent individuals, which if left unchecked could represent a threat to the democratic institutions of the polis, by encouraging them to participate in the arbitral process. The poleis thus gained access to their influence and expertise, which could be decisive in court.

Also, narratives that defined the polis itself also had concrete political implications. After the traumatic events following the violent reincorporation into the Achaean League in 182 and the civil strife that followed, the people of Messene reframed their collective identity by reflecting on their new political alignment. Shared Messenian ethnicity and the constant opposition to Sparta, as we see constructed in the Milesian arbitration, had been crucial to

Messene’s cultural program since the foundation of the city. Through the Messenians’ common past and their ethnic identity, Messene tried to justify its political control over all other

208 Messenian communities. Even after its regional hegemony ended, the city kept using traditional opposition to Sparta and Messenian identity as a way to support its territorial claims.

Similarly, participation in the network of Hellenistic diplomacy as a peer polis was more than an empty statement. One’s status as a free city was always under threat by neighboring cities, Hellenistic kings, and Rome, and the ability to point to previous diplomatic interactions as a sovereign polis constituted a great advantage. International recognition by peer polities helped citizens articulate an ideology of political independence that was increasingly challenged by foreign realities, while at the same time informing these realities that if they interfered in the autonomy of the city they would be infringing on its widely-acknowledged status as a polis.

Finally, arbitrations made it easier to interact with Rome. Involving Rome in arbitrations was a chance to normalize it, helping Greek polities place the Republic into their mental map of

Hellenistic diplomacy. By acting as a judge, Rome also accepted the conventions and practices that ruled Greek interstate interactions and it implicitly submitted to the dynamics of parity that permeated arbitrations. Despite its overwhelming military power Rome, at least in this context, acted like a peer. Arbitrations gave poleis an occasion to partially bridge the power gap that separated them from Rome, while at the same time using Roman influence to solve their local disputes.

In his seminal study of the relations between cities and Seleucid kings, John Ma demonstrated that inscribed civic decrees accomplished much more than conferring honors to kings.1 Through their selective focus and peculiar language, they framed the relationship between polis and king in terms of benefaction, diverting attention from power dynamics and giving agency to the city. Likewise, this dissertation has shown that inscriptions attesting

1 Ma 2002.

209 interstate arbitrations did not only serve to advertise verdicts. Through these documents, poleis were able to accomplish the series of tasks I have just listed, which ranged from foreign policy to self-definition and from negotiating their relationship with their own prominent citizens to negationing their relationship with Rome. Unlike the decrees discussed by Ma, arbitrations were not limited to one specific aspect of the city’s policies, such as the relationship with a king or with a neighbor. Instead, arbitrations conveyed a broad spectrum of ideas, which fundamentally impacted the relations of the poleis with their own citizens and with the polities that surrounded them. The words and ideas we see expressed in arbitrations had a real impact on the life of the city, as they helped the polis preserve its autonomy and institutions against external and internal threats, better define its identity, and deal with powerful neighbors. Ultimately, the practices and communication strategies that we see at work in arbitrations were part of the larger process of institutional and ideological change through which Greek poleis adapted to the evolving

Hellenistic world and were able to survive throughout it.

The range of ideas and practices that inscriptions attesting arbitrations disclose when carefully studied reveals the potential that inscribed documents have to inform us about the civic ideology of Greek poleis, beyond their literal content and immediate goals. The type of analysis carried out in this dissertation could be successfully applied to other widely attested types of inscriptions and help us better understand how Greek poleis constructed and conveyed the set of ideologies that defined them as an institution.

210 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Accame, S. 1946. Il dominio romano in Grecia dalla Guerra Acaica ad Augusto, Rome.

Ager, S. L. 1991. “Rhodes: The Rise and Fall of a Neutral Diplomat,” Historia 40, pp. 10–41.

———. 2009. “Roman Perspectives on Greek Diplomacy,” in Diplomats and Diplomacy in the

Roman World (Mnemosyne Supplements 304), ed. C. Eilers, Leiden; Boston, pp. 15–44.

Alcock, S. E. 1991. “Tomb Cult and the Post-Classical Polis,” AJA 95, pp. 447–467.

———. 1993. Graecia Capta: The Landscapes of Roman Greece, Cambridge.

———. 1999. “The Pseudo-History of Messenia Unplugged,” TAPhA 129, pp. 333–341.

———. 2005. “The Pylos Regional Archaeological Project, 7: Historical Messenia, Geometric

through Late Roman,” Hesperia 74, pp. 147–209.

Amandry, P. 1978. “Consécration d’armes galates à Delphes,” BCH 102, pp. 571–586.

Antonaccio, C. M. 1995. An Archaeology of Ancestors: Tomb Cult and Hero Cult in Early Greece,

Lanham.

Arnaoutoglou, I. N. 2009. “Dispute Settlement between «poleis»-Members of the Achaean League: A

New Source,” Dike 12, pp. 181–201.

Asheri, D. 1983. “La diaspora e il ritorno dei Messeni,” in Tria corda. Scritti in onore di Arnaldo

Momigliano, ed. E. Gabba, Como, pp. 27–42.

Aymard, A. 1938a. Les assemblées de la Confédération achaienne, Bordeaux.

———. 1938b. Les premiers rapports de Rome et de la Confédération achaienne (198-189 av. J.-C.),

Bordeaux.

Bagnall, R. S. 1976. The Administration of the Ptolemaic Possessions Outside Egypt, Leiden.

Bencivenni, A. 2011. “Il re scrive, la città iscrive: la pubblicazione su pietra delle epistole regie

nell’Asia ellenistica,” in Studi ellenistici 24, ed. B. Virgilio, Pisa, pp. 149–178.

211 ———. 2014a. “Il discorso del re: sovrani ellenistici e comunicazione del potere a partire da «Le roi

écrit» di Biagio Virgilio,” MediterrAnt 17, pp. 311–330.

———. 2014b. “The King’s Words: Hellenistic Royal Letters in Inscriptions,” in State

Correspondence in the Ancient World: from New Kingdom Egypt to the Roman Empire, ed. K.

Radner, Oxford; New York, pp. 141–171.

Bérard, V. 1894. “De arbitrio inter liberas Graecorum civitates” (diss. Paris).

Berthold, R. M. 1984. Rhodes in the Hellenistic Age, Ithaca.

Berti, I., K. Bolle, F. Opdenhoff, and F. Stroth, eds. 2017. Writing Matters: Presenting and

Perceiving Monumental Inscriptions in Antiquity and the Middle Ages, Berlin; Boston.

Bertrand, J.-M. 1990. “Formes de discours politiques: décrets des cités grecques et correspondance

des rois hellénistiques,” in Du pouvoir dans l’Antiquité: mots et réalités (Cahiers du Centre

Gustave Glotz 1), ed. C. Nicolet, Geneva, pp. 101–115.

Borbein, A. H. 1973. “Die griechische Statue des 4. Jahrhunderts v. Chr. Formanalytische

Untersuchungen zur Kunst der Nachklassik,” JDAI 88, pp. 43–212.

Boulanger, A. 1923. Aelius Aristide et la sophistique dans la province d’Asie au IIe siècle de notre

ère, Paris.

Bourguet, É. 1927. Le dialecte laconien, Paris.

Bresson, A. 2017. “Money Exchange and the Economics of Inequality in the Ancient Greek and

Roman World,” in Économie et inégalité: ressources, échanges et pouvoir dans l’Antiquité

classique (Entretiens sur l’Antiquité Classique 63), ed. S. Fachard, P. Ducrey, S. von Reden, and

P. Derron, Geneva, pp. 271–308.

Briscoe, J. 2008. A Commentary on Livy, Books 38-40, Oxford; New York.

212 Brun, P. 2004. “Les cités grecques et la guerre: l’exemple de la guerre d’Aristonicos,” in Les cités

grecques et la guerre en Asie Mineure à l’époque hellénistique: actes de la journée d’études de

Lyon, 10 octobre 2003, ed. J.-C. Couvenhes, H.-L. Fernoux, and P. Ducrey, Tours, pp. 21–54.

Bruno, V. 2019. “L’itinerario dei «theoroi» di Delfi in Sicilia: una proposta di ricostruzione,”

Historika 9, pp. 193–232.

Burrell, B. 2009. “Reading, Hearing, and Looking at Ephesos,” in Ancient Literacies: the Culture of

Reading in Greece and Rome, ed. W. A. Johnson and H. Parker, Oxford; New York, pp. 69–95.

Burstein, S. M. 1985. The Hellenistic Age from the Battle of Ipsos to the Death of Kleopatra VII

(Translated Documents of Greece & Rome 3), Cambridge.

———. 1986. “Lysimachus and the Greek Cities: A Problem of Interpretation,” in Archaia

Makedonia, IV: anakoinoseis kata to Tetarto Diethnes Symposio, Thessalonikē, 21-25

Septemvriou 1983, Thessaloniki, pp. 133–138.

Burton, P. J. 2011. Friendship and Empire: Roman Diplomacy and Imperialism in the Middle

Republic (353-146 BC), Cambridge; New York.

———. 2019. Roman Imperialism, Leiden; Boston.

Cameron, A. 1995. Callimachus and His Critics, Princeton.

Camia, F. 2009. Roma e le poleis: l’intervento di Roma nelle controversie territoriali tra le comunità

greche di Grecia e d’Asia Minore nel secondo secolo a.C.: le testimonianze epigrafiche, Rome.

Canali De Rossi, F. 1997. Le ambascerie dal mondo greco a Roma in età repubblicana, Rome.

Carlsson, S. 2010. Hellenistic Democracies: Freedom, Independence and Political Procedure in

Some East Greek City-States, Stuttgart.

Cartledge, P., and A. Spawforth. 2002. Hellenistic and Roman Sparta: A Tale of Two Cities, 2nd ed.,

London; New York.

213 Cauer, P. 1877. Delectus inscriptionum Graecarum propter dialectum memorabilium, Leipzig.

———. 1883. Delectus inscriptionum Graecarum propter dialectum memorabilium, 2nd ed., Leipzig.

Chaniotis, A. 1988a. “Als die Diplomaten noch tanzten und sangen. Zu zwei Dekreten kretischer

Städte in Mylasa,” ZPE 71, pp. 154–156.

———. 1988b. Historie und Historiker in den griechischen Inschriften. Epigraphische Beiträge zur

griechischen Historiographie, Stuttgart.

———. 1996. Die Verträge zwischen kretischen Poleis in der hellenistischen Zeit, Stuttgart.

———. 2004. “Justifying Territorial Claims in Classical and Hellenistic Greece: The Beginnings of

International Law,” in The Law and the Courts in Ancient Greece, ed. E. M. Harris and L.

Rubinstein, London, pp. 185–213.

Cherry, J. F. 1986. “Politics and Palaces. Some Problems in Minoan State Formation,” in Peer Polity

Interaction and Socio-Political Change, ed. C. Renfrew and J. F. Cherry, Cambridge, pp. 19–45.

Cohen, G. M. 1995. The Hellenistic Settlements in Europe, the Islands, and Asia Minor, Berkeley.

Cooley, A. E. 2012. The Cambridge Manual of Latin Epigraphy, Cambridge; New York.

Corbier, M. 2006. Donner à voir, donner à lire: mémoire et communication dans la Rome ancienne,

Paris.

Crowther, C. V. 1995. “Iasos in the Second Century BC. 3: Foreign Judges from Priene,” BICS 40,

pp. 91–138.

Culasso Gastaldi, E. 2003. “Eroi della città: Eufrone di Sicione e Licurgo di Atene,” in Modelli eroici

dall’antichità alla cultura europea: Bergamo, 20-22 novembre 2001, ed. A. Barzanò, C. Bearzot,

F. Landucci, L. Prandi, and G. Zecchini, Rome, pp. 65–98.

Curty, O. 1995. Les parentés légendaires entre cités grecques: catalogue raisonné des inscriptions

contenant le terme συγγενεία et analyse critique, Geneva.

214 Danali, K. 2011. “Eλληνιστική κεραμική από τον τάφο 3 του τύμβου της Τσοπάνης-Ράχης στην

Πύλο,” in Ζ΄ Επιστημονική Συνάντηση για την Ελληνιστική Κεραμική, Αίγιο 2004, Πρακτικά,

Athens, pp. 107–116.

Daverio Rocchi, G. 1988. Frontiera e confini nella Grecia antica, Rome.

Davis, J. L., ed. 2008. Sandy Pylos: An Archaeological History from Nestor to Navarino, 2nd ed.,

Princeton.

Davis, J. L., and J. Bennet, eds. 2017. The Pylos Regional Archaeological Project: A Retrospective,

Princeton.

Davis, J. L., and S. R. Stocker. 2020. “Messenia,” in A Companion to the Archaeology of Early

Greece and the Mediterranean (Blackwell Companions to the Ancient World), ed. I. S. Lemos

and A. Kotsonas, Hoboken, pp. 671–692.

De Ruggiero, E. 1893. L’arbitrato pubblico in relazione col privato presso i Romani: studio di

epigrafia giuridica, Rome.

Deshours, N. 2004. “Les institutions civiques de Messène à l’époque hellénistique tardive,” ZPE

2004, pp. 134–146.

Dixon, M. D. 2000. “Disputed territories: interstate arbitrations in the northeast Peloponnese, ca. 250-

150 B.C” (diss. Ohio State Univ.).

———. 2014. Late Classical and Early Hellenistic Corinth: 338-196 B.C., London; New York.

Domingo Gygax, M. 2003. “Euergetismus und Gabentausch,” Métis N.S., 1, pp. 181–200.

Eckstein, A. M. 2006. Mediterranean Anarchy, Interstate War, and the Rise of Rome, Berkeley.

Errington, R. M. 1969. Philopoemen, Oxford.

———. 1989. “The Peace Treaty between Miletus and Magnesia (I. Milet 148),” Chiron 19, pp. 279–

288.

215 Figueira, T. J. 1999. “The Evolution of the Messenian Identity,” in Sparta: New Perspectives, ed. S.

Hodkinson and A. Powell, London, pp. 211–244.

Flacelière, R. 1937. Les Aitoliens à Delphes. Contribution à l’histoire de la Grèce centrale au IIIe

siècle av. J.C., Paris.

Forsdyke, S. L. 2011. “Peer-Polity Interaction and Cultural Competition in Sixth-Century Greece,” in

Competition in the Ancient World, ed. N. Fisher and H. Van Wees, Swansea, pp. 147–174.

Forster, F. R. 2018. Die Polis im Wandel: Ehrendekrete für eigene Bürger im Kontext der

hellenistischen Polisgesellschaft, Göttingen.

Fossey, J. M. 1996. “The Proxenia Decrees of the Aitolian Federation,” AncW 27, pp. 158–167.

Frazer, J. G. 1898. Pausanias’s Description of Greece, London; New York.

Freitag, K. 1996. “Der akarnanische Bund im 5. Jh. v. Chr.,” in Akarnanien: eine Landschaft im

antiken Griechenland, ed. P. Berktold, J. Schmid, and S. Wacker, Würzburg, pp. 75–86.

Fröhlich, P. 2005. “Dépenses publiques et évergétisme des citoyens dans l’exercice des charges à

Priène à la basse époque hellénistique,” in Citoyenneté et participation à la basse époque

hellénistique: actes de la table ronde des 22 et 23 mai 2004, Paris, ed. P. Fröhlich and C. Müller,

Geneva, pp. 225–256.

———. 2008. “Les tombeaux de la ville de Messène et les grandes familles de la cité à l’époque,” in

Le Péloponnèse d’Épaminondas à Hadrien: colloque de Tours, 6-7 octobre 2005, ed. C.

Grandjean, Paris, pp. 203–227.

Gauthier, P. 1972. Symbola: les étrangers et la justice dans les cités grecques, Nancy.

———. 1985. Les cités grecques et leurs bienfaiteurs (ive-ier siècle avant J.C.). Contribution à

l’histoire des institutions, Paris.

216 ———. 1993. “Les cités hellénistiques,” in The Ancient Greek City-State: Symposium on the

Occasion of the 250th Anniversary of the Royal Danish Academy of Sciences and Letters, July,

1-4 1992, ed. M. H. Hansen, Copenhagen, pp. 211–231.

———. 1998. Review of S. L. Ager, Interstate Arbitrations in the Greek World, 337-90 B.C., in

Topoi 8, pp. 309–321.

Gawlinski, L. C. 2012. The Sacred Law of Andania: A New Text with Commentary, Berlin; New

York.

Gehrke, H.-J. 1994. “Mythos, Geschichte, Politik: antik und modern,” Saeculum 45, pp. 239–264.

———. 2001. “Myth, History and Collective Identity: Uses of the Past in Ancient Greece and

Beyond,” in The historian’s Craft in the Age of Herodotus, ed. N. Luraghi, Oxford; New York,

pp. 286–313.

———. 2010a. “Greek Representations of the Past,” in Intentional History: Spinning Time in Ancient

Greece, ed. L. Foxhall, H.-J. Gehrke, and N. Luraghi, Stuttgart, pp. 15–33.

———. 2010b. “Introduction,” in Intentional History: Spinning Time in Ancient Greece, ed. L.

Foxhall, H.-J. Gehrke, and N. Luraghi, Stuttgart, pp. 9–14.

Giovannini, A. 1969. “Polybe et les assemblées achéennes,” MH 26, pp. 1–17.

———. 1971. Untersuchungen über die Natur und Die Anfänge der bundesstaatlichen Sympolitie in

Griechenland, Göttingen.

———. 2007. Les relations entre États dans la Grèce antique: du temps d’Homère à l’intervention

romaine, ca. 700-200 av. J.-C., Stuttgart.

Grandjean, C. 2003. Les messéniens de 370/369 au 1 siècle de notre ère: monnayages et histoire,

Athens.

217 Grieb, V. 2008. Hellenistische Demokratie: politische Organisation und Struktur in freien

griechischen Poleis nach Alexander dem Grossen, Stuttgart.

Gruen, E. S. 1984. The Hellenistic World and the Coming of Rome, 2 vols., Berkeley.

Guizzi, F. 1997. “Conquista, occupazione del suolo e titoli che danno diritto alla proprietà: l’esempio

di una controversia interstatale cretese,” Athenaeum 85, pp. 35–52.

Hamon, P. 2005. “Le Conseil et la participation des citoyens: les mutations de la basse époque

hellénistique,” in Citoyenneté et participation à la basse époque hellénistique: actes de la table

ronde des 22 et 23 mai 2004, Paris, ed. P. Fröhlich and C. Müller, Geneva, pp. 121–144.

Hansen, M. H. 1994. “Poleis and City-States, 600-323 B.C.: A Comprehensive Research

Programme,” in From political Architecture to Stephanus Byzantius: Sources for the Ancient

Greek Polis (Historia. Einzelschriften 87), ed. D. Whitehead, Wiesbaden, pp. 9–17.

Hansen, M. H., and T. H. Nielsen, eds. 2004. An Inventory of Archaic and Classical «poleis»: An

Investigation Conducted by the Copenhagen Polis Centre for the Danish National Research

Foundation, Oxford; New York.

Harris, W. V. 1979. War and Imperialism in Republican Rome 327-70 B.C., Oxford.

Heller, A. 2006. «Les bêtises des Grecs»: conflits et rivalités entre cités d’Asie et de Bithynie à

l’époque romaine (129 a.C. - 235 p.C.), Bordeaux.

Helly, B. 1973. Gonnoi, II: Les inscriptions, Amsterdam.

Henry, A. S. 1996. “The Hortatory Intention in Athenian State Decrees,” ZPE 1996, pp. 105–119.

Herrmann, K. 1972. “Der Pfeiler der Paionios-Nike in Olympia,” JDAI 87, pp. 232–257.

Herrmann, P. 1984. “Die Selbstdarstellung der Hellenistischen Stadt in den Inschriften. Ideal und

Wirklichkeit, I,” in Πρακτικά του η´ διεθνούς συνεδρίου ἑλλενικής και λατινικής ἐπιγραφικής,

Αθήνα, 3-9 οκτωβρίου 1982, vol. 1, Athens, pp. 109–119.

218 Heuss, A. 1934. “Abschluss und Beurkundung des griechischen und römischen Staatsvertrages, II: die

Beurkundung,” Klio 9, pp. 218–257.

Hölbl, G. 2001. A History of the Ptolemaic Empire, trans. T. Saavedra, London.

Holleaux, M. 1918. Στράτηγος ὕπατος: étude sur la traduction en grec du titre consulaire, Paris.

Hölscher, T. 1974. “Die Nike der Messenier und Naupaktier in Olympia: Kunst und Geschichte im

späten 5. Jahrhundert v. Chr.,” JDAI 89, pp. 70–111.

Hope Simpson, R. 1966. “The Seven Cities Offered by Agamemnon to Achilles,” ABSA 61, pp. 113–

131.

Hornblower, S. 2000. “Thucydides, Xenophon, and Lichas: Were the Spartans Excluded from the

Olympic Games from 420 to 400 B.C.?,” Phoenix 54, pp. 212–225.

Hoyos, B. D., ed. 2013. A Companion to Roman Imperialism, Leiden; Boston.

Hyde, W. W. 1921. Olympic Victor Monuments and Greek Athletic Art, Washington (D.C.).

Jacquemin, A. 1999. Offrandes monumentales à Delphes, Paris.

Jacquemin, A., and D. Laroche. 1982. “Notes sur trois piliers delphiques,” BCH 106, pp. 191–218.

Jeffery, L. H. 1990. The Local Scripts of Archaic Greece: A Study of the Origin of the Greek Alphabet

and Its Development from the Eighth to the Fifth Centuries B.C., 2nd ed., rev. A. W. Johnston,

Oxford.

Jones, C. P. 1999. Kinship Diplomacy in the Ancient World, Cambridge (Mass.).

Jones, W. H. S., and A. H. Ormerod. 1926. Pausanias. Description of Greece, II: Books III-V,

London.

Kallet, L. 2016. “Naupaktos, Naupaktians and Messenians in Naupaktos in the Peloponnesian War,”

in Ναύπακτος: η αρχαία πόλη και η σημασία της κατά τον Πελοποννησιακό πόλεμο και τα

219 ελληνιστικά χρόνια: πρακτικά της Διεθνούς Ημερίδας Αρχαία Ναύπακτος και Ναυπακτία,

Ναύπακτος, 15 Νοεμβρίου 2014, ed. O. Palagia, Athens, pp. 15–41.

Kallet-Marx, R. M. 1995a. Hegemony to Empire: The Development of the Roman Imperium in the

East from 148 to 62 B.C., Berkeley.

———. 1995b. “Quintus Fabius Maximus and the Dyme Affair (Syll.3 684),” CQ 45, pp. 129–153.

Kaščeev, V. 1997. “Schiedsgericht und Vermittlung in den Beziehungen zwischen den hellenistischen

Staaten und Rom,” Historia 46, pp. 419–433.

Keil, C. A. K. 1842. Analecta epigraphica et onomatologica, Leipzig.

Corinth VIII.3 = J. H. Kent, Corinth. Results of the Excavations Conducted by the American School of

Classical Studies at Athens: The Inscriptions 1926-1950 (Corinth VIII,3), Princeton 1966.

Klaffenbach, G. 1960. Bemerkungen zum griechischen Urkundenwesen, Berlin.

Koursoumis, S. 2014. “Revisiting Mount Taygetos: The Sanctuary of Artemis Limnatis,” ABSA 109,

pp. 191–222.

Koursoumis, S., and D. Kosmopoulos. 2013. “Ager Denthaliatis. Παλαιά καί νέα ορόσημα στήν

κορυφογραμμή του Ταυγέτου,” ArchEph 152, pp. 55–75.

Kralli, I. 2017. The Hellenistic Peloponnese: Interstate Relations. A Narrative History 371-146.,

Swansea.

Lanni, A. M. 1997. “Spectator Sport or Serious Politics? Οἱ περιεστηκότες and the Athenian

Lawcourts,” JHS 117, pp. 183–189.

Laroche, D., and A. Jacquemin. 2016. “L’offrandes des Messéniens et Naupactiens à Delphes,” in

Ναύπακτος: η αρχαία πόλη και η σημασία της κατά τον Πελοποννησιακό πόλεμο και τα

ελληνιστικά χρόνια: πρακτικά της Διεθνούς Ημερίδας Αρχαία Ναύπακτος και Ναυπακτία,

Ναύπακτος, 15 Νοεμβρίου 2014, ed. O. Palagia, Athens, pp. 85–103.

220 Laronde, A. 1987. Cyrène et la Libye hellénistique: Libykai historiai de l’époque républicaine au

principat d’Auguste, Paris.

Larsen, J. A. O. 1944. “Federation for Peace in Ancient Greece,” CPh 39, pp. 145–162.

———. 1968. Greek Federal States: Their Institutions and History, Oxford.

Lasagni, C. 2009. “La definizione di «stato federale» nel mondo greco,” Dike 12–13, pp. 219–270.

Leake, W. M. 1830. Travels in the Morea, London.

Linnemann, J. 2017. “Ein Versammlungsgebäude in Heiligtum der Artemis Limnatis von Messene,”

in Ιερά και λατρείες της Μεσσήνης: από τα αρχαία στα βυζαντινά χρόνια: πρακτικά Διεθνούς

Αρχαιολογικού Συνεδρίου (Αθήνα, 25 Οκτωβρίου 2014), ed. P. G. Themelis, M. Spathi, and K.

Psaroudakis, Athens, pp. 29–54.

Luraghi, N. 2002. “Becoming Messenian,” JHS 122, pp. 45–69.

———. 2003. “The Imaginary Conquest of the Helots,” in Helots and Their Masters in Laconia and

Messenia: Histories, Ideologies, Structures, ed. N. Luraghi and S. E. Alcock, Cambridge

(Mass.), pp. 109–141.

———. 2008. The Ancient Messenians: Constructions of Ethnicity and Memory, Cambridge; New

York.

———. 2009. “Messenian Ethnicity and the Free Messenians,” in The Politics of Ethnicity and the

Crisis of the Peloponnesian League, ed. P. Funke and N. Luraghi, Cambridge (Mass.), pp. 110–

134.

———. 2010. “The Demos as Narrator: Public Honors and the Construction of Future and Past,” in

Intentional History: Spinning Time in Ancient Greece, ed. L. Foxhall, H.-J. Gehrke, and N.

Luraghi, Stuttgart, pp. 247–263.

221 Ma, J. 2000. “Fighting Poleis of the Hellenistic World,” in War and Violence in Ancient Greece, ed.

H. van Wees, Swansea, pp. 337–376.

———. 2002. Antiochos III and the Cities of Western Asia Minor, 2nd ed., Oxford.

———. 2003. “Peer Polity Interaction in the Hellenistic Age,” P&P 180, pp. 9–39.

Mack, W. 2015. Proxeny and Polis: Institutional Networks in the Ancient Greek World, Oxford; New

York.

Mackil, E. 2013. Creating a Common Polity, Berkeley.

Maddoli, G., and V. Saladino. 1995. Pausania, Guida della Grecia, Rome.

Magnetto, A. 1994. “L’ intervento di Filippo II nel Peloponneso e l’iscrizione Syll.3 665,” in Ἱστορίη:

studi offerti dagli allievi a Giuseppe Nenci in occasione del suo settantesimo compleanno, ed. S.

Alessandrì, Galatina, pp. 283–308.

———. 2008. L’arbitrato di Rodi fra Samo e Priene, Pisa.

———. 2015. “L’ arbitrato dei Romani nel rapporto con la diplomazia dei Greci: alcuni spunti di

riflessione,” in La diplomatie romaine sous la République: réflexions sur une pratique: actes des

rencontres de Paris (21-22 juin 2013) et Genève (31 octobre-1er novembre 2013), ed. B. Grass

and G. Stouder, Besançon, pp. 65–86.

———. 2016. “Interstate Arbitration and Foreign Judges,” in The Oxford Handbook of Ancient Greek

Law (Oxford Handbooks Online), ed. E. M. Harris and M. Canevaro, Oxford.

———. 2018. “Interstate Arbitration as a Feature of the Hellenistic Polis,” in The Polis in the

Hellenistic World, ed. H. Börm and N. Luraghi, Stuttgart, pp. 85–108.

Mali, J. 2003. Mythistory: The Making of a Modern Historiography, Chicago.

Marasco, G. 1980. Sparta agli inizi dell’età ellenistica: Il regno di Areo I (309/8-265/4 a. C.),

Florence.

222 Marshall, A. J. 1980. “The Survival and Development of International Jurisdiction in the Greek World

under Roman Rule,” ANRW I.2, pp. 626–661.

Mason, H. J. 1974. Greek Terms for Roman Institutions: A Lexicon and Analysis, Toronto.

Matthaiou, A. P., and E. Mastrokostas. 2000. “Συνθήκη Μεσσηνίων και Ναυπακτίων,” Horos 14–16,

pp. 433–454.

McDonald, W. A., and G. R. Rapp, eds. 1972. The Minnesota Messenia Expedition. Reconstructing a

Bronze Age Regional Environment, Minneapolis.

McGing, B. C. 2010. Polybius: The Histories, Oxford.

Michels, C. 2013. “The Spread of Polis Institutions in Hellenistic Cappadocia and the Peer Polity

Interaction Model,” in Shifting Social Imaginaries in the Hellenistic Period: Narrations,

Practices, and Images (Mnemosyne 363), ed. E. Stavrianopoulou, Leiden; Boston, pp. 283–307.

Miller, J. 2016. “Euergetism, Agonism, and Democracy: The Hortatory Intention in Late Classical

and Early Hellenistic Athenian Honorific Decrees,” Hesperia 85, pp. 385–435.

Moretti, L. 1977. “Mileto, le sue colonie e l’istituto dell’evergesia,” RFIC 105, pp. 5–11.

Morstein-Marx, R. 2004. Mass Oratory and Political Power in the Late Roman Republic, Cambridge;

New York.

Musti, D. 1967. “Polibio e la democrazia,” ASNP 36, pp. 155–207.

Müth, S. 2007. Eigene Wege: Topographie und Stadtplan von Messene in spätklassischer und

hellenistischer Zeit, Rahden.

Nawotka, K. D. 2014. Boule and Demos in Miletus and Its Pontic Colonies, 2nd ed., Wiesbaden.

Nielsen, I. 2017. “Collective Mysteries and Greek Pilgrimage. The Cases of Eleusis, Thebes, and

Andania,” in Excavating Pilgrimage: Archaeological Approaches to Sacred Travel and

223 Movement in the Ancient World, ed. T. M. Krinstensen and W. Friese, London; New York, pp.

28–46.

Nottmeyer, H. 1995. Polybios und das Ende des Achaierbundes: Untersuchungen zu den römische-

achaiischen Beziehungen ausgehend von der Mission des Kallikrates bis zur Zerstörung

Korinths, Munich.

O’Neil, J. L. 1984. “The Political Élites of the Achaian and Aitolian Leagues,” AncSoc 15, pp. 33–61.

———. 1995. The Origins and Development of Ancient Greek Democracy, Lanham.

Palagia, O. 2016. “Art as Trophy: The Nike of Paionios,” in Ναύπακτος: η αρχαία πόλη και η σημασία

της κατά τον Πελοποννησιακό πόλεμο και τα ελληνιστικά χρόνια: πρακτικά της Διεθνούς Ημερίδας

Αρχαία Ναύπακτος και Ναυπακτία, Ναύπακτος, 15 Νοεμβρίου 2014, Athens, pp. 73–84.

Partsch, J. 1905. “Die Schriftformel im römischen Provinzialprozesse” (diss. Breslau).

Paton, W. R., F. W. Walbank, and C. Habicht. 2012. Polybius. The Histories, books 16-27, 2nd ed.,

Cambridge (Mass.); London.

Pearson, L. 1962. “The Pseudo-History of Messenia and Its Authors,” Historia 11, pp. 397–426.

Perlman, P. J. 1995. “Θεωροδοκοῦντες ἐν ταῖς πόλεσιν: Panhellenic Epangelia and Political Status,”

in Sources for the Ancient Greek City-State: Symposium August, 24-27 1994 (Acts of the

Copenhagen Polis Centre, 2), ed. M. H. Hansen, Copenhagen, pp. 113–164.

Petrovic, A., I. Petrovic, and E. Thomas, eds. 2019. The Materiality of Text: Placement, Perception,

and Presence of Inscribed Texts in Classical Antiquity, Leiden; Boston.

Piccirilli, L. 1973. Gli arbitrati interstatali greci, 1: Dalle origini al 338 a.C., Pisa.

Piérart, M. 2007. “La question des frontières entre Sparte et Argos: les frontières du partage des

Héraclides,” in Η συμβολή της αρχαίας Σπάρτης στην πολιτική σκέψη και πρακτική, ed. P.

Cartledge, N. Birgalias, and K. Bourazelis, Athens, pp. 33–48.

224 Pikoulas, G. A., and V. Bardani. 2010. “Καθώς ἐστι ἁμῖν ἁ χώρα. Ἡ βόρεια μεθόριος Μεσσηνίας καὶ

Ἀρκαδίας,” Horos 22–25, pp. 261–287.

Pollitt, J. J. 1999. Art and Experience in Classical Greece, 2nd ed., Cambridge.

Pomtow, H. 1922. “Die Paionios-Nike in Delphi,” JDAI 37, pp. 55–112.

Proietti, G. 2012. “«Etnicità» peloponnesiache di IV secolo: i Messeni tra memoria storica e

costruzione identitaria,” in Forme della memoria e dinamiche identitarie nell’antichità greco-

romana, ed. E. Franchi and G. Proietti, Trento, pp. 67–88.

———. 2015. “Beyond the «invention of Athens»: The 5th Century Athenian «Tatenkatalog» as

Example of «intentional History»,” Klio 97, pp. 516–538.

Quass, F. 1993. Die Honoratiorenschicht in den Städten des griechischen Ostens: Untersuchungen

zur politischen und sozialen Entwicklung in hellenistischer und römischer Zeit, Stuttgart.

Raeder, A. H. 1912. L’arbitrage international chez les Hellènes, tran. M. Synnestvedt, Kristiania.

Nichoria I = Rapp, G., and S. E. Aschenbrenner. 1978. Excavations at Nichoria in Southwest Greece,

1: Site, Environs, and Techniques, Minneapolis.

Renfrew, C. 1986. “Introduction. Peer Polity Interaction and Socio-Political Change,” in Peer Polity

Interaction and Socio-political Change, ed. C. Renfrew and J. F. Cherry, Cambridge; New York,

pp. 1–18.

Renfrew, C., and J. F. Cherry, eds. 1986. Peer Polity Interaction and Socio-Political Change,

Cambridge; New York.

Rhodes, P. J., and D. M. Lewis. 1997. The Decrees of the Greek States, New York.

Ridgway, B. S. 1981. Fifth Century Styles in Greek Sculpture., Princeton.

Robert, L. 1935. “Inscription hellénistique de Dalmatie,” BCH 59, pp. 489–513.

———. 1939. “Hellenica,” RPh third series 13, pp. 97–217.

225 ———. 1973. “Les juges étrangers dans la cité grecque,” in Ξένιον. Festschrift für P.J. Zepos, I, ed.

E. von Caemmerer, J. H. Kaiser, H. Hegel, and W. Mueller-Freienfels, Athens, pp. 765–782.

Robertson, M. 1985. “Greek Art and Religion,” in Greek Religion and Society, ed. P. E. Easterling

and J. V. Muir, Cambridge, pp. 155–190.

Robertson, N. 1976. “A Corinthian Inscription Recording Honors at Elis for Corinthian Judges,”

Hesperia 45, pp. 253–266.

Roebuck, C. A. 1941. “A History of Messenia from 369 to 146 B.C.” (diss. Univ. of Chicago).

Roebuck, D. 2001. Ancient Greek Arbitration, Oxford.

Rosen, K. 1987. “Ehrendekrete, Biographie und Geschichtsschreibung. Zum Wandel der griechischen

Polis im frühen Hellenismus,” Chiron 17, pp. 277–292.

Roy, J. 1998. “Thucydides 5.49.1-50.4: The Quarrel between Elis and Sparta in 420 B.C., and Elis’

Exploitation of Olympia,” Klio 80, pp. 360–368.

Rzepka, J. 2017. Greek Federal Terminology, Gdańsk.

Saïd, S. 2007. “Myth and Historiography,” in A companion to Greek and Roman historiography

(Blackwell Companions to the Ancient World), ed. J. Marincola, Oxford; Malden, pp. 76–88.

Savalli-Lestrade, I. 1992. “Eumène (Ier) et l’expansion de Pergame: à propos de IG XII Suppl., No

142,” REG 105, pp. 221–230.

Scholten, J. B. 2000. The Politics of Plunder: Aitolians and Their Koinon in the Early Hellenistic Era,

279-217 B.C., Berkeley.

Scott, M. C. 2010. Delphi and Olympia: The Spatial Politics of Panhellenism in the Archaic and

Classical Periods, Cambridge; New York.

226 Shear, J. L. 2012. “The Politics of the Past: Remembering Revolution at Athens,” in Greek Notions of

the Past in the Archaic and Classical Eras: History without Historians (Edinburgh Leventis

studies 6), ed. J. Marincola, L. Llewellyn-Jones, and C. A. Maciver, Edinburgh, pp. 276–300.

Shear, T. L. 1978. Kallias of Sphettos and the Revolt of Athens in 286 B.C., Princeton.

Shipley, G. 2000. “The Extent of Spartan Territory in the Late Classical and Hellenistic Periods,”

ABSA 95, pp. 367–390.

———. 2018. The Early Hellenistic Peloponnese: Politics, Economies, and Networks 338-197 BC,

Cambridge; New York.

Snodgrass, A. M. 1986. “Interaction by Design. The Greek City State,” in Peer Polity Interaction and

Socio-political Change, ed. C. Renfrew and J. F. Cherry, Cambridge, pp. 47–58.

Sonne, E. 1888. “De arbitris externis: quos Graeci adhibuerunt ad lites et intestinas et peregrinas

componendas, quaestiones epigraphicae” (diss. Göttingen).

Taeuber, H. 2006. “Rhodische Schiedsrichter im Achaerbund. Eine neue Einordnung von IvO 46 und

47 in die Geschichte der römisch-griechischen Beziehungen im 2. Jh. v.Chr.,” in Italo-Tusco-

Romana: Festschrift für Luciana Aigner-Foresti zum 70 Geburtstag am 30. Juli 2006, ed. P.

Amann, M. Pedrazzi, and H. Taeuber, Vienna, pp. 341–344.

Themelis, P. G. 2000. Ήρωες και ηρώα στη Μεσσήνη, Athens.

———. 2004. “Ανασκαφή Μεσσήνης,” PAAH 156 (2001), pp. 63–96.

———. 2006. “Ανασκαφή Μεσσήνης,” PAAH 161 (2008), pp. 31–67.

———. 2008. “Κρίμα περὶ χώρας Μεσσηνίων καὶ Μεγαλοπολιτῶν,” in Ιστορίες για την Αρχαία

Αρκαδία: πρακτικά / Proceedings of the International Symposium in Honour of James Roy, 50

χρόνια Αρκάς (1958-2008), ed. G. A. Pikoulas, Stemnitsa: Dimos Trikolonon, pp. 211–222.

———. 2010. Αρχαία Μεσσήνη: ιστορία, μνημεία, άνθρωποι, Athens.

227 ———. 2012. “The Agora of Messene,” in Tout vendre, tout acheter: structures et équipements des

marchés antiques: actes du colloque d’Athènes, 16-19 juin 2009, ed. V. Chankowski and P.

Karvonis, Bordeaux, pp. 37–47.

Thür, G. 2012. “Dispute over Ownership in Greek Law: Preliminary Thoughts about a New

Inscription from Messene (SEG LVIII 370),” in Symposion 2011: études d’histoire du droit grec

et hellénistique: Paris, 7-10 septembre 2011, ed. B. Legras and G. Thür, Vienna, pp. 294–316.

Tod, M. N. 1913. International Arbitration amongst the Greeks, Oxford.

Tselalis, A. 1952. Ολυμπιακά: ιστορία, αρχαιολογία, λαογραφία, τέχνη και ζωή της Ολυμπίας, Athens.

Tuci, P. A. 2003. “La democrazia di Polibio tra eredità classica e federalismo,” in Gli stati territoriali

nel mondo antico, ed. C. Bearzot, F. Landucci Gattinoni, and G. Zecchini, Milan, pp. 45–86.

Urban, R. 1979. Wachstum und Krise des Achäischen Bundes: Quellenstudien zur Entwicklung des

Bundes von 280 bis 222 v. Chr, Wiesbaden. van der Kamp, J. S. 1996. “Anonymous Tomb Cults in Western Messenia: the Search for a Historical

Explanation,” Pharos 4, pp. 63–88. van der Vliet, E. 2011. “Pride and Participation: Political Practice, Euergetism, and Oligarchisation in

the Hellenistic Polis,” in Political Culture in the Greek City after the Classical Age, ed. O. M.

van Nijf and R. Alston, Leuven, pp. 155–184.

Veyne, P. 1976. Le pain et le cirque: sociologie historique d’un pluralisme politique, Paris.

Virgilio, B. 2011. Le roi écrit: le [i.e. la] correspondance du souverain hellénistique, suivie de deux

lettres d’Antiochos III à partir de Louis Robert et d’Adolf Wilhelm, Pisa.

Vogeikoff-Brogan, N. 2016. “A Bes-Silenus Plastic Vase in the Ierapetra Archaeological Collection:

the Egyptian Connection,” in Τιμητικός τόμος για τη Στέλλα Δρούγου, Athens, pp. 808–822.

228 Wacker, C. 1996. “Der akarnanische Hafenplatz Panormos,” in Akarnanien: eine Landschaft im

antiken Griechenland, ed. P. Berktold, J. Schmid, and C. Wacker, Würzburg, pp. 209–213.

Walbank, F. W. 1933. Aratos of Sicyon, Cambridge.

———. 1972. Polybius, Berkeley.

———. “Were There Greek Federal States?,” SCI 3, pp. 27–51.

Westermann, W. L. 1907. “Interstate Arbitration in Antiquity,” CJ 2, pp. 197–211.

Whitley, J. 2006. “Classical Art and Human Agency: A Tale of Two Objects in Fifth-Century

Greece,” in Γενέθλιον: Αναμνηστικός τόμος για την συμπλήρωση είκοσι χρόνων λειτουργίας του

Μουσείου Κυκλαδικής Τέχνης, ed. N. Stampolidis, Athens, pp. 227–236.

Wörrle, M. 1995. “Vom tugendhaften Jüngling zum ‘gestreßen’ Euergeten. Überlegungen zum

Bürgerbild hellenistischer Ehrendekrete,” in Stadtbild und Bürgerbild im Hellenismus:

Kolloquium, München, 24 bis 26 Juni 1993 (Vestigia 47), ed. P. Zanker and M. Wörrle, Munich,

pp. 241–250.

Youni, M. 2012. “Remarques sur une inscription messénienne. Réponse à Gerhard Thür,” in

Symposion 2011: études d’histoire du droit grec et hellénistique: Paris, 7-10 septembre 2011,

ed. B. Legras and G. Thür, Vienna, pp. 317–328.

Zunino, M. L. 1997. Hiera Messeniaka: la storia religiosa della Messenia dall’età micenea all’età

ellenistica, Udine.

229 EPIGRAPHICAL DOSSIER

1. Aetolian Mediation between Messene and Phigaleia Ca. 240 BCE

Phigaleia. Stele of white veined limestone, broken to the left and at the bottom. H. 0.49, w. 0.42, d. 0.095-0.098. Letter h. 0.011-0.15 (0.007 for ο). Stoichedon 37 (l. 1), 36 (ll. 2ff.). Found in 1859 in a gully (νεροφάγωμα) in Pavlitza. Now Athens, EM 11523.

Edd.: Koumanoudis, Ὁ Φιλόπατρις nr. 231, 7.1.1859 (AA 1859, pp. 111-112); Pittakis, AEph 1859, pp. 1823-1824, nr. 3493—both from a drawing by Vlastos—(Foucart in LBW 328a; Cauer 1877, 12; Cauer 1883, 45; Syll.1 181; Dubois VII; Syll.2 234; Michel, Recueil 187; SGDI 4645); IG V.2 419 (Ager 40 I); Syll.3 472 (DGE 71; Bourguet 1927, p. 91, nr. 22; Tselales 1952, p. 280- 282, nr. 1; Staatsverträge III 495); IPArk 28 (Magnetto, Arbitrati 38).

Cf.: Conze-Michaelis, Annali dell'Instituto di corrispondenza archeologica 1861, pp. 56-57, nr. 23 (new readings based on new copy); Sonne 1888, p. 24, nr. 41; Wilhelm, GGA 1903, p. 791 (new readings based on autopsy); Raeder 1912, 51; Tod 1913, 5; Hiller v. Gaertringen, AEph 1914, pp. 134-135 (corrections of the text of IG); Roebuck 1941, pp. 67-68; Accame 1946, p. 135; WCP I, p. 452; Gauthier 1972, pp. 366-368; Urban 1979, p. 77 n. 370; Daverio Rocchi 1988, pp. 162-164, n. 16; Kralli 2017, pp. 279-280.

[Ἐπειδὴ παραγενόμενοι π]ρεσβε[υ]ταὶ καὶ διαλ- v [λακταὶ(?) παρὰ τῶν Αἰτω]λῶν Τίμαιος, Κλεόπατρος̣, [․․․․․․․ τό τε ψάφισ]μα τὸ παρὰ τῶν Αἰτωλῶν ἀπ- 4 [έδωκαν καὶ αὐτοὶ] διελέγοντο ὅμοια τοῖς ἐν τ- [ῶι ψαφίσσματι, ἀ]ξιῶντες διαλυθῆμεν ποτὶ τὼ- [ς Φιαλέας, συνπ]αρόντες δὲ κ̣αὶ τῶν ἐ Φιαλείας [παρελθόντων] Θαρυκίδας, Ὀν̣[ό]μανδρος, Ἀνφίμα- 8 [χος, ․․․․․․․]δ̣ας, Ὀρθολαίδα[ς], Κραταιμένης, Τι- [․․․․․․․․, Δ]αμάρετος τὰ αὐτὰ̣ ἀξίων, ἔδοξε τᾶι

230 [πόλει τῶν Μ]εσανίων, ἦμεν το[ῖ]ς Μεσσανίοις κα- [ὶ τοῖς Φια]λ̣έοις ἰσοπολιτείαν καὶ ἐπιγαμία- 12 [ν ποτὶ ἀλλ]άλως· ποιή̣σασθαι δὲ [κ]αὶ συνβολὰν ἅ- [νπερ δοκεῖ] ἀνφοτέραις ταῖς πολέ[ο]ις· τὰν δὲ χ- [{χ}ώραν(?) καρπ]ίζεσσθαι ἑκατέρως, τώς τε Μεσανίω- [ς καὶ τὼς Φι]αλέας, καθὼς καὶ νῦν κ̣αρπιζόμεθα. 16 [ὅσα δέ κα ἄλλ]α̣(?) ὁμολογήσωμες ποτ’ ἀλλάλως, ὁμό- [σαι ἀνφοτέρ]ω̣ς, καὶ στάλας καταθέ̣σθαι ἐν τοῖς [ἱεροῖς, ὁπεῖ κ]α̣ δοκεῖ ἀνφοτέραις ταῖς πολέο- [ις. εἰ δέ κα μὴ ἐν]μένωντι οἱ Φιαλέες ἐν τᾶι φιλ- 20 [ίαι τᾶι πὸτ τὼς Με]σανίως καὶ Αἰτωλώς, ἄκυρος ἔ- [σστω ἅδε ἁ ὁμολο]γ̣ία. ἔδοξε δὲ καὶ τοῖς Φιαλέ[ο]- [ις ποιεῖν καθ’ ἃ οἱ] Μεσσάνιοι ἐψαφίξαντ[ο. ὅρκ]- [ος Μεσσανίων· ὀμν]ύω Δία Ἰθωμάταν, Ἥρ̣[αν ․․․․․] 24 [․․․․․ ․․․․․ ․․․․]ον καὶ θεὼς ὁρκ̣[ίως πάντας ἦ] [μὰν ἐνμενεῖν ․․․] ἐν τᾶι φιλία̣[ι τᾶι ὑπαρχώσαι(?)] [ποτ’ Αἰτωλὼς καὶ Φι]αλέας Π[․․․․․ ․․․․․ ․․․․․] [․․․․․ ․․․․․ ․․․․․]μεν̣[․․․․․ ․․․․․ ․․․․․ ․․․] stone breaks off

1 Foucart; [Ἐπειδὴ ἐπελθόντες ο]ἱ IG 1-2 IPArk; διαλ|[λακταὶ] Pittakis (ΔΙΑΛΙ̣ Vlastos); διαλύ|[οντες οἱ παρὰ] IG; διαλυ|[ταὶ] Koumanoudis 3 IG; κατὰ τὸ ψήφισ]μα Pittakis 4 Foucart; ἀπ|[οσταλέντες δὲ Pittakis 5 IG after Foucart (ψηφίσματι) 6 Foucart; τὼ[ς| Φιαλέας, π]αρόντες Pittakis 7 IG 10 τᾶι Μ]ισσανίων Vlastos; τᾶι Μ]εσανίων IG 14 Hiller, AEph.; χ|[ώραν καρπ]ίζεσσθαι Koumanoudis 16 Syll3; [ἃ δέ κα δίκαι]α Koumanoudis; [ὁπόσα δε κ]α Foucart 22 Koumanoudis 23 possibly Ἥρα̣κλέα IG 24 Koumanoudis 25 IPArk after IG (ἐμμενεῖν); [μὰν ἐμμένειν ἡμᾶς] Foucart; παραμενεῖν Koumanoudis; ἐν τᾶι φιλία[ι: Koumanoudis; ΦΙΑΛΙΑ Vlastos; τᾶι ὑπαρχώσαι: IG 26 Π[ Wilhelm; τ̣οῖς Μεσσανίοις IG.

Translation: (a) Motivation clause

231 Considering that, after the ambassadors and mediators from the Aetolians, Timaios, Kleopatros, and… had arrived, they |4 delivered the decree from the Aetolians and themselves discussed similar things to those in the decree, asking that we should be reconciled with the Phialeans, and considering that Tharykidas, Onomandros, Anphima[chos], |8 […]das, Ortholaidas, Krataimenes, Ti[…], and Damaretos, being also present among those who had come from Phialea, also asked the same things,

(b) Enactment formula the polis of Messene decreed:

(c1) Contents of the decree: deliberations let there be between the Messenians and the Phialeans isopoliteia and epigamia |12 with each other. Let a symbola be made, as it seems fit to both cities; let Messenians and Phialeans both exploit the land, as we exploit it now.

(c2) Publication clause |16 Whatever else we agreed with each other, let us both swear (to it), and let us put stelae in the [sanctuaries, where] it seems fit to both poleis;

(c3) Invalidation clause but if the Phialeans do not remain in the philia |20 with the Messenians and the Aetolians, let this agreement be void.

(d) Phigaleian decisions The Phialeans decreed as well [to act according to the things that] the Messenians decreed.

(e) Oaths Oath of the Messenians: I swear by Zeus Ithomatas, Hera, |24 […] and all the gods of oaths, [to indeed remain] in the [existing?] philia [towards the Aetolians and] Phialeans…

Dating:

232 Ca. 240. The terminus ante quem is 221, when Polybius (4.3.6) tells us Phigaleia had a sympoliteia agreement with the Aetolians, although he is probably referring to the isopoliteia mentioned at ll. 19-20 (WCP I, p. 243; Rzepka 2017, p. 65). The broad chronological context seems to be the Aetolian expansion in the Peloponnese during the late 240s (Scholten 2000, pp. 116-121, 262-267). It is tempting to exactly date this arbitration to the year 240, during Timaios’ turn as strategos (Plb. 4.34.9, cf. Choix Delphes 105).

Commentary: For Gauthier’s view of this text as attesting heavy Aetolian interference, see Chapter 3.2.B.iii. Technically this text is not a proper arbitration, since the Aetolians are not appointed as judges and they did not pass a verdict. However, many of the dynamics at work closely recall those of arbitrations, including the dispatch of elite individuals to solve a local dispute, and the presence of productive land as object of contention. I have considered it useful to include this document in my analysis, like other scholars before (Ager 40, Magnetto, Arbitrati 38).

2. Messene’s Arbitrations with Megalopolis and Achaea 179/8 BCE

Messene. Orthostate of grey limestone, the southern one of four from the base for an equestrian statue. H. 0.96, w. 1.915, d. 0.4. Letter h. 0.012-0.017 (ll. 1, 102, 167, 183: 0.02-0.022). The stone was found in 2004, in situ.The base is located close to the NE corner of the temple of Messene, in the agora of Messene. For further information on its finding, see EAH 2004, pp. 29- 30.

Edd. Themelis 2008 (SEG 58, 370); Arnaoutoglou 2009/10; L&M (SEG 62, 226); Thür 2012; Bardani, in Pikoulas and Bardani 2010-2013 (SEG 62, 226).

Cf. Themelis 2004, pp. 42-47 (SEG 54, 453); Youni 2012; Kralli 2017, pp. 363-366; Magnetto 2018, p. 103.

233

The text of the whole dossier is 190 lines long, inscribed on four columns. The last two columns are still unpublished.

Ψάφι[σμ]α ἐπειδὴ κατασ[χόν]των τῶν Ἀχ v αιῶν Ἐνδανίαν καὶ [Πυλ]άναν, τᾶς δὲ πόλε- 4 ος ἀποκατασ[ταθείσ]ας εἰς τὰν συνπολι- τείαν τῶ[ν Ἀχαιῶν], τὸ μὲν πρῶτον ἠθέλη- σαν Μεγ[αλοπολῖτ]αι διὰ τῶν Ἀχαιῶν ἀφελέ- [σθαι ἁμῖν τά]ς τε πόλεις καὶ τὰν χώραν τὰν 8 [Ἐνδανίκαν κ]αὶ Πυλανίκαν πᾶσαν αἴτημα [- - -9- - -]ο τοὺς Ἀχαιούς, τῶν δὲ Ἀχαι- [ῶν α]ὐτοῖς [ἀντ]ειπάντων μή κα περιθέμεν Μεγαλοπολίταις τὰν Μεσσανίων· πάλιν 12 [---]φαν ἐν τᾶι ἐν Ἄλει συνόδωι θέλειν κριθῆ- [v μ]v ὲν ποθ’ ἁμέ, περί τε τᾶς πρότερον χώρας ἀ̣ντελέγοσαν ἁμῖν καὶ περὶ τᾶς Ἐνδανίκας καὶ Πυλανίκας καὶ ἁμῶν συνελομένων κρι- 16 τήριον ποτ’ αὐτοὺς ὃ καὶ αὐτοὶ συνευδόκη- σαν τοὺς ἁγεμόνας, Ἀπολλωνίδαν Ἐτε- άρχου, Ἀλέξανδρον Ἀλεξάνδρου, Κλέαν- δρον Κλεάνδρου Σικυωνίους, Ἄρχωνα Φιλο- 20 κλέος, Ἐξαίνετον Ἐξαινέτου Αἰγιράτας, Φά- λακρον Φαινολάου, Λαφείδη Ξενοκλέος, Στιάπυρον Στιαπύρου, Δαμόξενον Κλεο- ξένου, Ἄντανδρον Δαμοξένου Αἰγιεῖς, Ἄν- 24 τανδρον Ὑπερβίου Δυμα v ῖον, Ἐπικράτη Καμ- ψία, Γοργίδαν Νικίδα, v Ἀρκαδίωνα Λέ- οντος Φαραιεῖς, Καλλικράτη Θεοξέ- νου Λεοντήσιον, Νικόδρομον Φιλιστίδα,

234 28 Φίλωνα Σατύρου Ἁλείους, καὶ περὶ τούτων ἐνστάλου(?) γενομένου ἁμῖν, ἀποδόν- τες oἱ Μεγαλοπολῖται ὅρους Ἀπολλωνί- δαι τῶι στραταγῶι τᾶς τε Ἐνδανίκας 32 καὶ Πυλανίκας καὶ τᾶς Ἀκρειάτιος καὶ Βιπειάτιος· καὶ ἁμῶν ἀποδόντων τοὺς περιέχοντας ὅρους ἀπὸ Νέδας ἄχρι Κλε- ολαίας, καθώς ἐστι ἁμῖν ἁ χώρα, παρα- 36 γενομένων τῶν δικαστᾶν εἰς τὸ Καρ- νειάσιον καὶ ἀποδειξάντων ἁμῶν ἑ- κατέρων τὰν χώραν καθὼς καὶ τοὺς ὅ- [ρο]υς ἀπεδώκαμες, καὶ γενομένας 40 [ἐν] τῶι Καρνειασίωι δικαιολογίας ἐπὶ [δύο ἁ]μέρας μεθ’ ὕδατος, ἀπὸ μὲν τᾶς [Ἀκρειά]τιος καὶ Βιπειάτιος ἀποστάντων [τῶν Με]γαλοπολιτᾶν, τοὺς δὲ Καλιά- 44 [τας 3-4-]υσάντων ἀντιποιήσασθαι [ἀμῖν ὅπως] ἄλλο κριτήριον μεταλα- [ca. 8 - Κ]αλιατᾶν πάλιν κρίνωνται [--- 9 ---]ν ποθ’ ἁμέ, ἁμῶν δὲ συ- 48 [-- 9-10 -- κρί]σιν ποτί τε Καλιάτας [καὶ Μεγαλοπολίτ]ας περὶ τᾶς Ἀκρειάτιος [-ca. 11 -- συ]νελομένων δικασ- [--- ca. 14 ----]ν Αἰγιέων καὶ δικαι- 52 [ολογίας γενομένας] Μεγαλοπολιτᾶν [μὲν? ca 11 --- ὅτι] Ἀκρειᾶτις vacat Col. II καὶ Βιπειᾶτις Ἀρκαδία ε[ἴη καὶ] Με- γαλοπολῖτις, ἁμῶν δὲ δι[δ]ασκόν- 56 των ὅτι Μεσσανία εἴη, ὄντων ἑκατὸν τεσσαράκοντα ἑπτὰ τῶν κρινόντων καὶ ταυτᾶν μεταλαβόντων Καλια-

235 τᾶν καὶ Μεγαλοπολιτᾶν ψάφους 60 ἑπτὰ, ἁμῶν δὲ ἑκατὸν τεσσαρά- κοντα, κρινάντων Μεσσανίαν εἶ- μεν τὰν χώραν τὰν Ἀκρειᾶτιν καὶ Βιπειᾶτιν κατὰ τοὺς ὅρους οὓς ἀπε- 64 δώκαμες τοῖς κοινοῖς δαμιοργοῖς, ὕστερον, ἐπεὶ ὑπεγραψάμεθα περὶ τῶν καρπῶν τῶν ἐκ ταύτας τᾶς χώ- ρας τᾶι πόλει τῶν Μεγαλοπολιτᾶν 68 ταλάντου διπλασίου, ἐπεὶ λαβοῦ- σα μεσοκοίνους τοὺς καρποὺς οὐ- κ ἀπεδίδου, καὶ κεκριμένων ἁμῶν περὶ τᾶς χώρας πάλιν ἁμὲ προεκα- 72 λέσατο ἁ πόλις τῶν Μεγαλοπο- λιτᾶν περὶ τᾶς Ἀκρειάτιος χώρας ὡς κριτήριον συνελώμεθα ὡς οὐ κεκριμένων ποθ’ ἁμέ, τῶν δὲ κοι- 76 νῶν δαμιοργῶν ἐπακολουθησάν- των αὐτᾶι καὶ ζαμίαν ἁμῖν ἐπι- βαλόντων ὅτι οὐ συναιρούμεθα κριτήριον καὶ εἰσαγαγόντων εἰς τὸ 80 δικαστήριον τῶν Μιλησίων ἐνικά- σαμεν πάσαις ταῖς ψάφοις καθότι εἴημεν κεκριμένοι περί τε ταύτας τᾶς χώρας v καὶ τᾶς Βιπειάτιος πο- 84 τὶ Μεγαλοπολίτας. ὅπως οὖν ὑπό- μναμα εἶ καὶ εἰς τὸν ὕστερον χρόνον ὅτι περί τε τᾶς Ἀκρειάτιος καὶ Βιπειά- τιος κρίμασιν ἐνικάσαμες τοὺς Με- 88 γαλοπολίτας καὶ περί τε τᾶς ζαμίας ἇς ἐζαμίωσαν ἁμὲ οἱ δαμιοργοὶ ἐ-

236 νικάσαμες, v δεδόχθαι τῶι δάμωι ἀναγράψαι εἰς τὸ ἱερὸν τᾶς Μεσ- 92 σάνας εἰς τὸ βάθρον τὸ παρὰ τὸ Βου- λεῖον ἧι οἱ ἱππεῖς ἐντὶ τάν τε πρόκλη- σιν τὰν γενομέναν ὑπὸ τῶν Μεγα- λοπολιτᾶν καὶ τὰν ζαμίαν τὰν 96 ἀπὸ τῶν δαμιορ v γῶν γενομέναν ἐπὶ Αἰνητίδα καὶ τὰν κρίσιν τὰν γε- νομέναν ὑπὸ τοῦ δικαστηρίου τῶν Μιλησίων Βίωνος, Βάβωνος, Αἴσχρου, 100 Ἡραγόρα, Φιλίσκου, Ἀρτέμωνος, ὁμοί- ως δὲ καὶ τὸ ψήφισμ v α τοῦτο. vacat vacat (5 lines)

Coll. III.1-IV.9: πρόκλησις Μεγαλοπολιτῶν Col. IV.10-IV.25: ζαμία Col. IV.26-IV.32: κρίμα

9 [τε ᾐτήσαντ]ο(?) L&M 10 L&M; π̣[ρο]ειπάντων Themelis 12 Themelis; L&M tentatively suggest [v ἔ]φαν 13 L&M; [μεν μ] v εν Themelis. 29 ἔνσταλος/-ον is not otherwise attested, and its exact meaning is unclear 41 L&M; [τρεῖς] Themelis 44 [τας οὐ πα]υσάντων Themelis, probably correctly 45 L&M; [ἁμῖν καὶ] ἄλλο Themelis 46 [βόντων τῶν Κ]αλιατᾶν Themelis 47 [ἐκάτεροι αὐτῶ]ν L&M, perhaps correctly 48 L&M 50 [καὶ Βιπειάτιος συ]νελομένων Themelis 51 [τήριον τὰν πόλιν τῶ]ν Themelis 53 L&M; [μὲν προειπάντων ὅτι] (?) Thür; [ -- ca. 15 -- ὅτι] Themelis.

Translation: (a) Heading Decree.

(b1) First Megalopolitan request to the League

237 Considering that, after the Achaeans occupied Endania and Pylana, and the city |4 was reestablished in the sympoliteia [of the Achaeans], the Megalopolitans wanted to take away from us the cities and all the land of |8 Endania and Pylana through the Achaeans, [and presented] a request to the Achaeans, but when the Achaeans replied to them that they would not give to the Megalopolitans the land of the Messenians,

(b2) The first trial, in Karneiasion and |12 [they (the Megalopolitans) said?] in the synodos in Elis that they wanted to go to court against us, and disputed with us about the aforementioned land, and about the land around Endania and Pylana, and after we selected a court for the trial |16 against them, to which they also agreed, namely the hagemonas Apollonidas son of Etearchos, Alexander son of Alexander, Kleander son of Κleander, (all three) of Sikyon, Archon son of Philokles, |20 Exainetos son of Exainetos, (both) of Aigira, Phalakros son of Phainolaos, Lapheides son of Xenokles, Stiapyros son of Stiapyros, Damoxenos son of Κleoxenos, Antandros |24 son of Damoxenos, (all five) of Aigion, Antander son of Hyperbios, of Dyme, Epikrates son of Kampsias, Gorgidas son of Nikidas, Arkadion son of Leon, (all three) of Pharai, Kallikrates son of Theoxenos, of Leontion, Nikodromos son of Philistidas, |28 Philon son of Satyros, of Elis, and about these things an official decision(?) was taken by us, the Megalopolitans gave to the strategos Apollonidas the borders (of the chora) of Endania |32 and Pylana and of the Akreiatis and Bipeiatis, and we gave the encompassing borders, from the Nedas to the Kreolaias, just as we own the land, (and) when the judges |36 came to Karneiasion, and after we both showed (them) the land just as we had given them the borders, and after |40 in Karneiasion there was a trial for two days with water- measured time,

(b3) The second trial, by Aigion the Megalopolitans on the one hand renounced the Akreiatis and Bipeiatis, but on the other hand they did not prevent(?) |44 the Kaliatans from disputing (the same) with us and in order that the Kaliatans having had another trial, could again go to court against us, and after we |48 [agreed to?] a trial against the Kaliatans and Megalopolitans about the Akreiatis and Bipeiatis and we selected as a judge the city of Aigion and there |52 was a trial, (and) when the Megalopolitans [claimed? that] the Akreiatis and Bipeiatis are Arcadia and Megalopolitan territory, and we

238 informed them |56 that they are Messenia, when there were one hundred and forty-seven judges, of these the Kaliatans and Megalopolitans obtained |60 seven votes, while we obtained one hundred and forty, who judged that the lands of Akreiatis and Bipeiatis, according to the borders we gave |64 to the common damiorgoi, are Messenia.

(b4) Megalopolis' new accusation, the federal fine, and the trial by Miletos Later, since we had sued the city of the Megalopolitans about the crops from that land |68 for a double talent, because (Megalopolis), having taken the equally-shared crops, did not return them, and even though we had already gone to court for that land, again the city of the Megalopolitans |72 challenged us to go to court about the Akreiatis chora, as if they had not already been judged against us, and after |76 the common damiorgoi complied with her and imposed a fine on us because they said we did not cooperate in choosing a court, and they brought us in front of |80 the court of the Milesians, we won with all the votes, since we had already been judged about that land and the Bipeiatis against |84 the Megalopolitans.

(c) Purpose of the decree In order that there be a memorial also for the future that we won against the Megalopolitans |88 in trials about the Akreiatis and Bipeiatis, and that we won in the matter of the fine that the damiorgoi had imposed on us,

(d) Enactment formula and content of the decree: publishing the dossier the people decreed: let us inscribe in the sanctuary of Messene, |92 on the base close to the bouleion, on which the riders stand, the challenge which took place at the hands of the Megalopolitans, the fine which took place |96 at the hands of the damiorgoi who served at the time of Ainetidas, the judicial decision taken by the court of the Milesians Bion, Babon, Aischros, |100 Eragoras, Philiskos, and Artemonos, and also this decree.

Dating: L&M, pp. 534-535, convincingly argue that Ainetidas was the Achaean strategos for the year. Contra, see Arnaoutoglou p. 187 n. 24, who thinks he could be federal grammateus. However, the parallel he brings forth is not convincing. According to the traditional chronology, after the

239 end of the Messenian secession in 183/2 (Plb. 23.17.1-2), the first free year is 179/8, after the strategy of Kallikrates. The decree was most probably inscribed during that year. The long judicial process related in the document spanned from 183/2 to 179/8.

Commentary: The text consists of a single long decree of Messene. Since Themelis granted him access to the unpublished section of the text, Thür 2012 provides further information on the legal process, including the involvement of Mytilenian judges and an explanation of the common fruits (ll. 65- 68) double talent as surety for an initial trial. He also tries to create a subtle legal distinction between an issue of land property and one of definition of boundaries. However, in a response in the same volume, Youni rightly challenges this idea. Thür also explains (this time probably correctly) how the common fruits (ll. 65-68) were a deposit for the trial following Megalopolis’ challenge.

3. Arbitration between Thouria and Megalopolis 182-167 BCE

Olympia. 5 fragments (a, b, e, f, h) of Peloponnesian marble, inscribed on both sides (A, B) once belonging to a stele; the bottom part of the stone is preserved, and the text actually ended at l. 24. e+f+g. H. 0.386, w. 0.237, d. 0.065. a+b. H. 0.31, w. 0.23, d. 0.066-0.068. Stone minimum h. ca. 0.44. Letter h. 0.006-0.011. Stoichedon (?), except ll. 1-3. Found in different locations within the sanctuary, between 1878 and 1881. For further details about findspots and dates, see IvO 46.

Edd. b. Dittenberger, AZ 1879, p. 131, nr. 260. a, b, e, f. IvO 46 (Ager 116 III, I); IG V,2 p. XVII. a, b, e, f, h. IPArk 31 II (Harter-Uibopuu 9; I.Olympia Suppl. 14 I).

Cf. Tod 1913 8; Roebuck 1941, pp. 102-104; WCP III; Daverio Rocchi 1988, pp. 100ff. nr. 3; Harter-Uibopuu pp. 193-195; SEG 52,48; L&M p. 521, n. 35; Kralli 2017, p. 366-367.

240

A — — — [— — — — — Μεγαλο]π̣ολι[τ— — — — — — — — — —] [— — — — — — —] ἐπ’ εὐθε[ίας — — — — — — — —] [— — — — — — Παρ]θενίαι εὐθέ[ως — — — — — — — —] 4 [․․․․․․․․]Λ̣εστις καὶ Θο[υρι(?)․․․․․ ․․․․․ ․․․․․ ․․․․․ ․․] [․․․․․․․]ακα τὸν̣ [πο]ταμὸ[ν․․․․․ ․․․․․ ․․․․․ ․․․․․ ․․]ν v [εὐδώκ]ησαν α̣ἰ̣ε̣ί̣ τε Μεσσα̣[νι․․․․․ ․․․․․ ․․․․․ καὶ ἀ]πὸ v [․․․]α․νος τοῦ ․․Λ̣Μ̣[ ]ΙΟΥ Ε[․․․․․ ․ ․․․․․ ․ ὁρισμ(?)]ὸς v 8 τᾶς χώρας τᾶς ὑπὲρ τὸ ἐν[ ․․․․․ ․․․․․ ․․․․․ ․․․․․ ]Ν vvv εἶμεν [δὲ κα]ὶ [ἐ]πὶ ἐκκλησί[αν ․․․․․ ․․․․․ ․․․․․ κατ(?)]ὰ̣ vvvv

πόλιμ Με[σ]σ̣ανί[ω]ν προ․Κ[․․․․․ ․․․․․ ․․․․․ ․․․․․]ΩΝ vvv ὑπερβάντ[ε]ς τὸ ․․ΑΙΕΙ̣․ΝΕ[․․․․․ ․․․․․ ․․․․․ ․․․]εχω vv 12 τατον ὡς ΕΙ̣Λ̣Ι̣Τ̣․․ΑΤΕ[․․․․․ ․․․․․ ․․․․․ ․․․․․ ․]θέω- vv μεν κατὰ τὸν νόμον[ ․․․․․ ․․․․․ ․․․․․ ․․․․․ ․․․․․] Ι̣ κα[ὶ(?)] Με[σσανίων πό]λ̣ις [․․․․․ ․․․․․ ․․․․․ ․․․․․ ․․]ΚΑΙ̣․․․․․ οἱ Μεσσάνιοι τα․Τ̣Α̣[․․․․․ ․․․․․ ․․․․․ ․․․․․]σ̣αν κατ[ὰ v] 16 τὸ γραπτὸν ὃ ἔθε[σαν οἱ Ἀχαιοὶ ․․․․․ ․․․․․ ․ ἐ]ν τᾶι ἐν [Σι]- κυῶνι συνόδω[ι, Μεγαλοπολιτᾶν εἶμεν τὰν χώρα]μ πλὰν̣ [vv] τὰν Δωρίδα [․․․․․ ․․․․․ ․․ ἀπὸ τοῦ ποταμοῦ το]ῦ̣ Ἀνάπου [τ]ο[ῦ] ἐξ Αἰγυνέ[ας ῥέοντος ․․․․․ ․․․․․ ․․․․․ ․․․․] τᾶς χώρας 20 τᾶς Μεσσ[ανίων ․․․․․ ․․․․․ ․․․․․ ․․․․․ ․․․]Σ̣[․ κ]αὶ ποτὶ τὰν ὁδὸν τ[ὰν ․․․․․ ․․․․․ ․․․․․ ․․․․․ ․․․]․Α̣ πό[τ]εστιν v τᾶς Δωρίδ[ος ․․․․․ ․․․․․ ․․․․․ ․․․․․ ․․․․]․․․Γ̣․ΕΓ̣ΟΝ v [․․․․․ ․․․․․ ․․․․․ ․․․․․ ․․․․․ ․․․․․ ․․․․]Λ̣Π̣Ε̣ΗΙ̣․Ι̣․․․ 24 [․․․․․ ․․․․․ ․․․․․ ․․․․․ ․․․․․ ․․․․․ ․․․]․․․․․ ․․ΠΕΝ v

241 [․․․․․ ․․․․․ ․․․․․ ․․․․․ ․․․․․ ․․․․․ ․․․]․․․ΚΑ․․․․․․ [․․․․․ ․․․․․ ․․․․․ ․․․․․ ․․․․․ ․․․․․ ․․]Ε․․․․․ ․․․․․ ․ [․․․․․ ․․․․․ ․․․․․ ․․․․․ ․․․․․ ․․․․․ ․]․․․․ ․․․․․ ․․․․ 28 [․․․․․ ․․․․․ ․․․․․ ․․․․․ ․․․․․ ․․․․․ ․]․․․․ ․․․․․ ․․․․ vacat

[․․․․․ ․․․․․ ․․․․․ ․․․․․ ․․․․․․ ]ἀπε[γρ]α̣[ψάμεθα ․․․․․․] [τ]ῶν̣ [․․․․․ ․․․․․ ․․․․․ ἐν οἷς γ]εγράφαμεν[ ․․․․․ ․․․․․ ․] γράμ̣[μασι κατὰ τὸ ὑπ’ Ἀριστομέ]νεος γραπτὸν̣ [․․․․․․․․․] 4 τοῖς μ̣[ὲν ἥκουσιν ἀπὸ τᾶς πόλιο]ς τῶμ Μεγαλο[πολιτᾶν vv Διοφάν[ει Διαίου, ․․․․․․․․․ Λί]χα, Δαμέαι Θε[αρίδα(?), vvvv] Θεαρίδα[ι Λυκόρτα, ․․․․․․․․]ένεος, Πολυβίω[ι Λυκόρτα, v] Ποσειδίπ[πωι ․․․․․ ․․․․․ ․․․]ι Πασίππου, Κ[αλ]λιφίλω̣[ι] 8 Δαμαίνου, [τοῖς δὲ παραγενομ]ένοις ἀπὸ τᾶ[ς] π̣όλιος vvvv τῶν Θουρ[ιέων ․․․․․ ․․․․․ ․․] Σ̣ωκράτει Ἀ[γ]αθία, vacat7 Τρ[․․․․․ ․․․․․ ․․․ περὶ τᾶς χ]ώρας τᾶς ἀμφιλλεγομέ-vvv νας [․․․․․ ․․․․․ ․․․․․ ․․․ κα(?)]ιρῶ ἃν εὐ̣δώκησαν οἱ vvvv 12 Θο[υρ]ι̣έες [․․․․․ ․․․․․ ․․․․․ ․ τ]ὰν χώ[ρα]ν κατά τε τὰν vvv [κ]ρ̣ίσιν ἃν [․․․․․ ․․․․․ ․․․․․ ἔδω]κ̣αν̣ [οἱ] περὶ vacat9 Ἀριστομ[έ]νη [․․․․․ ․․․․․ ․․․․․ ․․․․ ἔδ]ωκαν οἱ Μεγαλο- πολῖτα[ι] ἀπ̣ο̣δε[․․․․․ ․․․․․ ․․․․․ οἱ Μεγ]αλοπολῖται vv 16 ἀποστ․․․ν Κ̣ΑΙ̣[․․․․․ ․․․․․ ․․․․․ ․․․ τῶ]ν χρόνων vvvvv ἐκ [ταῦτ]α̣ς τᾶς χῶ̣[ρας ․․․․․ ․․․․․ ․․․․․ ․․] καὶ τοὺς ὅρους οὓς [ἀπ]έ[δ]ωκαν Ε̣Κ[․․․․․ ․․․․․ ․․․․․ ․․․․․ ․]αι πόλεις vv εκ․․․․Λ̣ΕΙΣΑΜ̣Α[․․․․․ ․․․․․ ․․․․․ ․․․․․ ἐ]νιαυτῶι vvv

242 20 ὤ[ιον]το δεῖν ΟΥΝ̣[․․․․․ ․․․․․ ․․․․․ ․․․․․] τὴν γεγενη-vv μ̣ένην αὐτοῖς διά̣[κρισιν ․․․․․ ․․․․․ ․ γι]ν̣ώσκετε [vvvv] καὶ ἡμᾶς ἐπ̣ι̣κεκρ̣[ικέναι ․․․․․ ․․․․․ ․․․․․ ․․․]ε̣σ̣[․]ν [ὁμολο-vv] γίαν τὴμ π<ρ>ὸς αὐτο<ὺ>ς [․․․․․ ․․․․․ ․․․․․ ․․․․․ ․․․․] 24 δεῖν. vacat (6 lines)

A. 5 IPArk; ΙΑΚΑΤΟΙΩ [πο]ταμο[ῦ IvO 6 ἐυδώκ]ησαν, cf. B 11; ἐὐδόκ]ησαν IPArk; α̣ἰ̣ε̣ί̣ τε Μεσσα̣[νι- IG; ἀπ[ό] τε Μεσσ[ανίων IvO 7 [πρ]α[ό]νος τοῦ Π[α]λισκίου IG 9 [δὲ κα]ὶ [ἐ]πὶ IG 12/13 IG; θεῶ μέν IvO 17 IG 19 [εἰς τούτους τοὺς ὅρους] (?) IPArk B. 4 ἥκουσιν IPArk; παραγενομένοις IvO (too long) 5 Θεαρίδα (?) IG 7 IPArk; καὶ Φιλί[ωι] IvO 13-14 perhaps ἀπέδωκαν, cf. B 18 16 ἀπόστ[ησα]ν with no augment (?) IPArk 18 [ἀπ]έ[δ]ωκαν IPArk 19 ἑκ[ατέρ]α εἰς Ἀμά[ριον (?) IPArk 23 πός ἀὑτὸς IPArk, see pp. 319-320, n. 29.

Translation: A (a) Involvement of Messene and the Achaean League the Megalopolitans… straight to… |4 Parthenia straight…and Thouri-(?)… the river… agreed forever the Messenians… and from… |8 the delimitation(?) of the land beyond… also let it go before the assembly… the city of the Messenians… (after) transgressing… |12 we set according to the law… and the city of the Messenians… |16 the Messenians… according to the document that the Achaeans drew up… in the synodos in Sikyon, [let the land be of the Megalopolitans] except for the Doris…

(b) Border description from the river Anapos which |20 flows from Aigynea… of the land of the Messenians… and to the road… is adjacent to the Doris…

B (a) ??

243 we wrote down… in which we have written… the letters according to what was written (by Aristomenes)…

(b) List of delegates for both cities |4 to those who came from the city of the Megalopolitans, Diophanes son of Diaios, – son of Likas, Dameas son of (Thearidas?), Thearidas son of Lykortas, […] son of […]-eneus, Polybius son of Lykortas, Poseidippos… son of Pasippos, Kalliphilos |8 son of Damainos, and those who came from the city of the Thourians… Socrates son of Agathias, Tr-[…]

(c) Instructions about the land? about the disputed land, ... which the Thourians |12 agree… the land according to the judgment which… those around Aristomenes… the Megalopolitans gave… the Megalopolitans… |16 of the times from this land… and the borders that they indicated… cities… in a year |20 they thought it was necessary…

(d) Address by a Roman magistrate? the judgment(?) that took place between them… and know that we have decreed… (agreement?) between them…

Dating: The reference to Polybius and his political activity dates the text to the period 182-167, after his debut into politics at the funeral procession of Philopoemen and before his exile to Rome. This dating matches the presence of Thouria in the arbitration, which gained its independence from Messene in 182 (Plb. 23.17.2). While both Polybius and Thearidas took part in the arbitration, Lykortas does not appear. IPArk, pp. 309-310 suggests this might be because the arbitration took place in 182/1, when he was federal strategos and could not get involved as city advocate. Such an early date would help explain the references to Messene, to which Thouria belonged until recently. We can also imagine the newly independent Thouria would want to establish its border sooner rather than later. However, we have no way to prove this hypothesis. Additionally, see now L&M, pp. 541-543, arguing against Lykortas’ strategy in 182/1.

244 Commentary: This inscription has several parallels with IPArk 31 I. On the one hand, the stone used and the (approximate) size of the two stelae are very similar. On the other hand, the text also shows parallels; not only the similar letterforms, but also the mention of Aristomenes and his committee. While side B is fairly legible, side A is much worn. For further information on these traits, see IPArk 31. In the last lines (20-24) of B, the language switches from Doric to Attic koine. This change, together with the specific word choices, suggests the speaker is a polity from outside the Achaean League, probably a Roman magistrate. On this, see chapter 3.3.B.i.

4. Arbitration between Messene and Phigaleia Ca. 191-150 BCE

Messene. No dimensions given.

Edd. Leake 1830, vol. 1, nr. 46; Keil 1842, 98; Foucart in LBW 317a; SGDI 4646; Berard 1894, 2,III; IG V.1 1430 (Ager 40 II; Harter-Uibopuu 7).

Cf. Daverio Rocchi 1988, p. 164, n. 16; Kralli 2017, pp. 280, 303-304, n. 38.

[— — — — — — —] τὰν [— — — — — — — — — — — — —] [— — — — ἐπ’ εὐ]θ̣είας εἰ[ς τὰν κράναν τὰν καλουμέναν] [— — — — — θέντ]ες τοὺς ὅρο[υς — — — — — — — — —] 4 [— — — — Μ]εσσάνιοι ἐκ τᾶν Δευκ[— — — — — — — —] [— — — — —] ὕδωρ κοινόν. vacare videtur [— — — Ἄν]δρων Πατερίνου, Φιλ<ι>[στίων — — — — — —] [— — — — —]σηνος Φιαλεῦσι καὶ Μ[εσσανίοις — — — — —] 8 [— — — — —]ν οἱ Μεσσάνιοι κράναν τ[ὰν καλουμέναν — —] vacat [— — — — —]αλος Φιλῶτα, Αἴσχρων Τιμα[— — — — — — —]

245 [— — — τῶ]ν ὅρων· τῶν [δὲ] ἀντιλεγομ[έ]ν<ω>[ν — — — — — —] [— — — τοὺ]ς ὅρους· ἀπὸ [δὲ] τοῦ κολωνοῦ τοῦ [καλουμένου Κρη]- 12 [σίου — —]αι ἐπ’ εὐθείας εἰς τὰν κρά[ναν τὰν καλουμέναν — —] [συμφώνως Μεσσα]νίοις, καθὼς τὰ σαμεῖα [δεικνύει· ἀπὸ δὲ τοῦ κολω]- [νοῦ τοῦ καλουμ]ένου Κρησίου εἰ<ς> τὸ σαμεῖ[ον — — — — — — — — —] [— — ἀπὸ δὲ τούτο]υ εἰς τὰν κράναν τὰν κα[λουμέναν — — — — — —] 16 [καθὼς ἠξίωσαν οἱ Μεσσ]άνιοι. vacat [— — — — — — Ἄνδρων] Πατερίνου, Φιλιστί[ων — — — — — — —] [— — — — — — — — — —] Φιαλεῦσι καὶ Μεσσα[νίοις — — — — — —] [— — — — — — — — — — —]αν ἀπὸ τοῦ κ[ολωνοῦ(?) — —] 20 [— — — — — —αι ἐπ’] εὐθεία[ς εἰς τὰν κράναν τὰν καλου]- [μέναν — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —]

2 IG; [εὐ]θείας ἐ[πί] Meister 3 IG; ἐς τοὺς ὅρους Meister 10-11 [ἔκριναν περὶ τῶ]ν ὅρων· τῶν [δὲ] ἀντιλεγομ[έ]νω[ν ἐθἠκαμεν τοὺ]ς ὅρους Hiller ap. Kolbe 12 [ἐν τᾶι στεφάν]αι Hiller ap. Kolbe 14 IG; εἶ τὸ σαμεῖ[ον] Meister 19-20 ἀπὸ τοῦ κ[ολωνοῦ τοῦ καλουμένου Κρησίου] IG

Translation: … straight to the spring called… the borders… |4 the Messenians from the Deuk-… common water… vacat [An]dron son of Paterinos, Phil[istion]… to the Phigaleians and… |8 the Messenians the spring called… vacat […]-os son of Philotas, Aischron son of Tima-[…] … of the borders; but of the disputed… the borders; from the hill called Kresios… |12 straight to the spring called… in agreement with the Messenians, just as the landmarks show; from the hill called Kresios to the landmark… from that to the spring called.. |16 just as the Messenians resolved. vacat Andron son of Paterinos, Philistion… to the Phigaleians and the Messenians… from the hill(?)… |20 straight to the spring called…

246 Dating: Ager tentatively suggest this document may also belong to the late 240s (as Ager 40 I) but does not exclude a date in the early 2nd century. Daverio Rocchi suggested this arbitration may date to 221, when Dorimachos was dispatched to Phigaleia. However, given his aggressive actions against Messene, I found it hard to believe this would have been a suitable time for a peaceful compromise. Harter-Uibopuu dates it to period immediately after 191 when Messene joined the Achaean League. Although she does not elaborate on this, the implication seems to be that, since Phigaleia was already part of the League, federal authorities would have encouraged the two poleis to arbitrate their dispute. Kralli reports the opinion of Voula Bardani, who dates the letter forms of this inscription to the mid-2nd century or later. While it is not possible to determine a secure dating, I believe the period 191-150 ca. provides the most probable timeframe, based on both paleographical and historical considerations (Messene’s presence in the Achaean League).

Commentary: Because of the poor conditions of the stone, it is not possible to reconstruct the exact details of the proceeding. However, the description of a border and the presence of named individuals point to an arbitration document. The repetition of certain elements and the creation of distinct paragraphs on the stone may suggest that the document included different decisions, and that the judges were making reference to previous verdicts. The provenance of the judges is unknown, but it seems they were part of a small court. Part of their work probably was to establish the boundary between the two polities, as suggested by the placement of boundary stones (τὰ σαμεῖα). It is interesting to note that the result of this arbitration was a careful definition of the boundary and not of a shared usage of the land, as in the previous settlement between Messene and Phigaleia. The topographical references in the text do not help identifying the disputed area. However, the mountainous area around Mt. Tetrazi and Hag. Elias, south of the Neda river (Harter-Uibopuu, pp. 51-52) is a good candidate.

247

5. Arbitration between Messene and an Unknown Polity Ca. 191-150 BCE

Messene. Dimensions unknown. The stele is inscribed on both sides (A and B).

Edd. Martha, BCH 1881, p. 150, nr. 1; SGDI 4647; Berard 1894, 2,II; IG V.1 1429 (Ager 40 III).

Cf. Bingen, BCH 1953, p. 622; Harter-Uibopuu, p. 50; Kralli 2017, pp. 280, 303-304, n. 38.

[— — — — — — — — — — — —]ει[— — — — — — — — — — — — — —] [— — — — — — — — —] κατὰ δέραν [— — — — — — — — — — — —] [— — — — — κατ]ὰ τὸ κοῖλον εἰς τὰν κ̣[ράναν — — — — — —] 4 [— — — — ὅπω]ς οὖν τὰν χώραν με[— — — — — — — — — — — —] [— — — Μεσσά]ν̣ιοι διὰ τὸ παράδει<γ>μ[α — — — — — — — —] [— — — — ἀσφ]αλεῖς κτήσεις ἐν στάλα̣ι λ[ιθίναι — — — — —] [— — — Μεσσα]νίοις περὶ τᾶς [χ]ώρας ποτὶ ΜεỊ[— — — —] 8 [— τὰν ἐνιαυ]σίαν τῶν καρπῶν ἀπόλα[υσιν — — — — — — — —] [— — — — — τᾶς] κρινομένας χώρας κα[— — — — — — — — — — —] [— — — — — — — τᾶς] κρινομένας χώρα[ς — — — — — — — — — —] [— — — — — — — — — προ]ν̣ομία, ἃ ἔπραξε [— — — — — — — — —] 12 [— — — — — — — — — — — —] ἀγαθοῦ τοῦ [— — — — — — — — — —] [— — — — — — — — — — — — —] ἀπὸ πρα[— — — — — — — — — — —] [— — — — — — — — — — — — — —]ς Μεσ[σαν— — — — — — — — —]

[— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — ἀσφάλειαν(?)]. [καὶ πολέμω κ]αὶ εἰράνα[ς· ὑπάρχειν δὲ αὐ]-

248 [τοῖς καὶ τ]ὰ <λ>οιπὰ τίμια [ὅσα καὶ τοῖς] 4 [ἄλλοις ε]<ὐ>ε̣ργέταις· ἀν[αγράψαι δὲ τὸ ψά]- [φισμα τοῦ]το εἰς στάλαν [λιθίναν καὶ ἐς τὰν] [παραστ]άδα τὰν ἐν ἀγο[ρᾷ — — — — — — — — —] [․․․ τῶν] Μεσσανίων πε[— — — — — — — — — —] 8 [— — — — —] τὸ ἱερὸ[ν τᾶ]ς [— — — — — — — —] vacat [ἐπεὶ παραγενόμ]ε̣νοι δικ[ασταὶ παρὰ τῶν — —] [— — — — — — —κ]ράτης Ε[— — — — — — — — —] [— — — — — — —φ]ρ̣ονος, Τ[— — — — — — — — —] 12 [— — — — — — — κ]ρίσει [— — — — — — — — —] [— — — — — — — —]ία̣ς̣ ․[— — — — — — — — — —]

A. 2 κατ’ἄδειαν Martha 5-6 Φ|]ιαλεῖς κ<ρ>ίσεις [ἐ]ν<ε>στα<κ>ότα[ς ἐκ τούτου] Meister 7 Μεγ̣[αλοπολιτας] Martha, with reservations 8 εἰ]ς τὰν τῶν καρπῶν Meister 11 ἐπινομία Meister

Translation: A (a) Border description … along the gully… along the hollow to the spring… |4 therefore the land… the Messenians through the precedent… firm possessions in a stone stele… for the Messenians about the land against… |8 the annual(?) enjoyment of fruits… of the adjudicated land… of the adjudicated land… the right of pasture, which did… |12 of the good…

B (a1) Honorific decree (proxeny?) … safety(?) both at war and at peace, let them also have the other honors, which belong to |4 the other euergetai; let us inscribe this decree on a stole stele and on the pilaster in the agora… of the Messenians… |8 the sanctuary… vacat (a2) Verdict?

249 Considering that the judges had arrived… personal names(?)… |12 to the judgment…

Dating: Although Martha initially dated the letterforms to the 3rd century, Kolbe in IG preferred a date in the 2nd century. Bardani recently argued that the same stonecutter engraved both this text and document 4; the two fragments may even belong to the same stone. In lack of more precise evidence, we can date the text to the period 191-150.

Commentary: Despite the fragmentary conditions of the stone, the text seems to be constituted of three different documents. A definition of the border between the two polities (a), a decree granting proxeny or similar honors to one or more individuals, possibly the judges or the city representatives (a1), and a last part concerning the actual judgement (a2). While the details are lost in the many lacunae, the combination of these three elements definitively points to an arbitration concerning a disputed area. Unfortunately, only the name Messenians has survived, and we are not sure of who the other party was. Martha himself considered his emendation Μεγ̣[αλοπολιτας “très-problématique.” Kralli mentions a personal communication by Bardani, who argues the fragments belong to the same stone as document 4. We would then only have one case, opposing Messene and Phigaleia. However, the evidence currently available does not allow for a final answer to this question.

6. Milesian Arbitration between Messene and Sparta Ca. 138 BCE

Olympia. Two inscribed blocks (C-D), belonging to the triangular pillar of the Nike of Paionios. The inscription, almost complete, is now preserved in 7 fragments (a-g). For the inscribed surface: h. 1.18, w. 1.4, d. 1.26. Letter h. 0.027-0.032 (ll. 1-2), 0.013-0.016 (ll. 3-70). Found in different locations within the sanctuary, mostly around the temple of Zeus, between 1875 and 1896.

250

Edd. a, c, e, f. Neubauer, AZ 1876, pp. 128-138 (c. Hirschfeld, AZ 1876, p. 230); Hicks 1882, 200. g. Neubauer, AZ 1878, p. 104. a-g. IvO 52; de Ruggiero 1893, 16; Michel, Recueil 31; Syll.2 314; IG V.1 p. XV; Syll.3 683 (Ager 159; Camia 2009, 3).

Cf. Raeder 1912, 28; Tod 1913, 1; Roebuck 1941, pp. 106-107, 118-121; Accame 1946, pp. 130, 135, 146; Gruen 1984, pp. 98, 108; Burstein 1985, 80; Luraghi 2008, pp. 19-20, 26-27.

The text is organized in a title and two columns (I, II).

Kρίσις περὶ χώρας Μεσσανίοις καὶ Λακεδαιμονίο[ις]. vacat I A Πρεσβευτᾶν παραγενομένων παρὰ τᾶς πόλιος 4 τῶμ Μεσσανίων Μηνοδώρου τοῦ Διονυσίου, Ἀπολλωνίδα τοῦ Νικάνδρου, Χαρητίδα τοῦ Δορ- κωνίδα, καὶ τὰ γράμματα ἀποδόντων, ἐν οἷς διεσα- φεῖτο ἀνανεωσαμένους τὰν ὑπάρχουσαν συγγένει- 8 α̣ν̣ κ̣α[ὶ] φιλίαν ταῖς πόλεσι ποθ’ αὑτὰς διαλέγεσθαι ὅ- πως ἐπιχωρήσει ἁ πόλις ἀναγραφῆμεν εἰς Ὀλυμπίαν τὰγ̣ κρ[ί]σιν τὰγ γενομέναν τᾶι πόλει αὐτῶν ποτὶ τὰμ πόλι̣[ν] τῶν Λακεδαιμονίων περὶ χώρας, ἀποδόντων 12 δὲ τῶμ πρεσβευτᾶν καὶ ἐπιστολὰμ παρὰ Μιλησίων ἐσφραγισμέναν, περιέχουσαν τάν τε γεγε[ν]ημ[ένα]ν κρί- σιν, διαλεγέντων δὲ καὶ [τῶ]μ πρεσβευτᾶν ἀκολ[ού]- θως τοῖς γεγραμμένοις· ἔδοξε τοῖς συνέδροις, ἀπόκρι- 16 σιν δόμεν, διότι τάν τε συγγένειαν καὶ φιλίαν τὰν ὑπάρ- χουσαν ποτὶ τὰμ πόλιν τῶμ Μεσσανίων ἀνανεοῦν- ταί τε καὶ ἐπὶ πλεῖομ προάξοντι, περί τε τοῦ ἐπιχω- ρῆσαι ἀναγραφῆμεν εἰς Ὀλυμπίαν τὰγ κρίσιν τὰγ γεγενη- 20 μέναν τᾶι πόλει αὐτῶν ποτὶ τὰμ πόλιν τῶν Λακεδαι-

251 μονίων περὶ τᾶς χώρας ἐπὶ τοῦ δάμου τοῦ Μιλησίων διότι ἐπιχωροῦντι καθὼς ἁ πόλις τῶμ Μεσσανίων ἐγεγράφει καὶ οἱ πρεσβευταὶ παρεκάλεον· ἐπαινέσαι 24 δὲ καὶ τοὺς πρεσβευτὰς ἐπί τε τᾶι ἐνδαμίαι καὶ ἀνα- στροφᾶι ἇι πεποίηνται, δόμεν δὲ αὐτοῖς καὶ Φιλόνι- κον τὸν ταμίαν ξένια τὰ μέγιστα ἐκ τῶν νόμων, καλέσαι δὲ αὐτοὺς καὶ τοὺς ἄρχοντας ἐπὶ τὰγ κοινὰν 28 ἑστίαν. vacat B Μιλησίων οἱ πρυτάνεις καὶ οἱ ἡιρημένοι ἐπὶ τῆι φυλακῆι Ἠλείων τοῖς ἄρχουσι καὶ τοῖς συνέδροις χαίρειν· παρα- γενομένωμ πρὸς ἡμᾶς πρεσβευτῶν παρὰ Μεσσηνίων 32 Μηνοδώρου τοῦ Διονυσίου, Φιλοίτου τοῦ Κρατίου, καὶ παρακαλούντων δοῦναι αὐτοῖς ἀντίγραφον πρὸς ὑ- μᾶς τῆς γεγενημένης κρίσεως Μεσσηνίοις τε καὶ Λακεδαιμονίοις κατὰ τὸ δόγμα τῆς συγκλήτου, καὶ τῆς τε 36 βουλῆς καὶ τοῦ δήμου συγχωρησάντων τὰ προδεδηλ<ω>μέ- να καὶ ἐπιταξάντων ἡμῖν δοῦναι αὐτοῖς τὴγ κρίσιν, ὑπο- [τ]άξαντες αὐτὴν τῆι ἐπιστολῆι ἐδώκαμεν τοῖς πρεσβευ- [τ]αῖς, ὅπως διακομίσωσιν αὐτὴμ πρὸς ὑμᾶς ἐσφραγισμέ- 40 [νη]ν̣ τῆι [δημ]οσίαι σφραγῖδι.

II C Ἐπὶ στεφανηφόρου Εἰρηνίου τοῦ Ἀσκληπιάδο[υ], μηνὸς Καλαμαιῶνος δευτέραι, ὡς δὲ ὁ στρατηγὸς [ἔγρα]ψε Κόϊν- τος Καλιπόρνιος Γαΐου υἱὸς μηνὸς τετάρ[του καὶ δεκά]- 44 του καὶ ἡμέραι ἑνδεκάτηι κατὰ σελήνην ἀφ’ ἧ[ς ἡμέρας τὸ] δόγμα ἐγένετο, ἐκκλησία συνήχθη κυρία ἐν̣ [τῷ θεά]- τρωι ἐν τῆι προειρημένηι ἡμέραι, καθότι Λακ̣[εδαιμόνι]- οι καὶ Μεσσήνιοι συνωμολογήσαντο, καὶ ἀπ[ε]κληρώθη 48 κριτήριον ἐκ παντὸς τοῦ δήμου τὸ μέγιστ̣ον ἐκ τῶν νόμων, κριταὶ ἑξακόσιοι, καὶ εἰσήχθη ἡ κρίσις κατά τε

252 τὴν ἐπιστολὴν τοῦ προειρημένο[υ] στρατηγοῦ καὶ κατὰ τὸ δόγμα τῆς συ[γκ]λ̣ήτου π̣[ερὶ τοῦ] ἐπαμφιλλο- 52 [γου] τ̣ο[ῦ κ]α[τ]ὰ [Λ]ακ̣ε̣δαι[μον]ί[οι]ς τ̣ε κ̣[αὶ Μεσσηνίοις, ὁπό]- τεροι ταύτην τὴν χώραν κατεῖχ[ον ὅτε Λεύκιος] Μόμμιος ὕπατος ἢ ἀνθύπατος [ἐν ἐκείνῃ τῇ ἐπαρ]- χείαι ἐγένετο, ὅπως οὗτοι οὕτ[ως κατέχωσιν· — —] 56 ηιρήθη αὐτοῖς τὸ ὕδωρ πρὸς τὴμ [ — —, ἐπὶ μὲν τοῦ] πρώτου λόγου ἑκατέροις μετρη[ταὶ Μιλήσιοι δεκα]- πέντε, ἐπὶ δὲ τοῦ δευτέρου λόγου̣ [μετρηταὶ Μιλήσιοι] πέντε, καθότι καὶ αὐτοὶ εὐδόκησαν· [καὶ λ]ε̣ξάντων 60 πρὸς τὴν τήρησιν τοῦ ὕδατος παρὰ [μὲν Λ]ακεδαιμονί- ων Εὐδαμίδα τοῦ Εὐθυκλέος, παρὰ δὲ Με̣[σ]σ̣ηνίων Νίκ<ων>- ος τοῦ Νίκωνος, καὶ ῥηθέντων τῶν λόγων̣ [ὑ]φ’ ἑκατέ- ρων, ἐκρίθη κατεισχῆσθαι ἡ χώρα ὑπὸ Μεσσ̣[η]νίων ὅτε 64 Λεύκιος Μόμμιος ὕπατος ἢ ἀνθύπατος [ἐ]ν ἐκεί- νηι τῆι ἐπαρχείαι ἐγένετο, καὶ ὅπως οὕτ̣[οι] οὕτως κατέχωσιν. τῶν ψήφων, αἷς ἔδοξεν κατεισ[χῆσθαι] ἡ χώρα ὑπὸ Μεσσηνίων καὶ ὅπως οὕτοι οὕτω[ς κα]- 68 τέχωσιν, πεντακόσιαι ὀγδοήκοντα τέσσα- ρες· αἷς κατεισχῆσθαι ὑπὸ Λακεδαιμονίω[ν], δεκαέξ.

42 IvO; στρατηγὸς [Ῥωμαίων] Neubauer 43-44 IvO 51-52 IvO; ἐπ' Ἀμφιάλο[υ το| -- ἐπὶ τούτῳ] Neubauer; ἐπ' Ἀμφίλλο[υ- de Ruggiero; ἐπ' ἀμφιλλο[γ|ίᾳ ... Λ]α[κε]δαι[μον]ί[οι]ς [τ]ε [καὶ Μεσσηνίοις] Syll.2 55 [κατέχωσιν· καὶ δι-] Syll.3 56 [μέτρησιν, ἐπὶ μὲν τοῦ] Syll.3 57 IvO 61 IvO; Νί[κω]νος Hicks; Νίκ<ι>ος Syll.3

Translation: Heading Judgment about the land between the Messenians and the Lacedaemonians.

253 (a1) Eleian decree, allowing for the carving of the dossier: the request After the ambassadors from the polis |4 of the Messenians, Menodoros son of Dionysios, Apollonidas son of Nikandros, and Charetidas son of Dorkonidas, came and delivered the letters in which it was made clear that, after renewing the existing syngeneia |8 and philia of the cities with each other, they discussed in order that the city allows to be inscribed in Olympia the judgment that took place for their city against the city of the Lacedaemonians about the land, and after the ambassadors |12 also gave the sealed letter from the Milesians, which contains the (text of the) judgment that took place, and after the ambassadors also discussed in accordance with what was written,

(a2) Eleian decree, allowing for the carving of the dossier: deliberations the synedroi decreed: let us give |16 the reply that the existing syngeneia and philia with the city of the Messenians is renewed and advanced for a long time, and about allowing to be inscribed in Olympia the judgment that took place |20 for their city against the city of the Lacedaemonians about the land before the people of Miletos, that they allow it, just as the city of the Messenians had written and the ambassadors had asked; and let us also praise |24 the ambassadors for their sojourn (here) and behavior they had; and also let the treasurer Philonikos give them the largest gifts allowed by the laws; and let us summon them and the magistrates to the public |28 table.

(b) Letter of the Milesians to the Eleians The Milesian prytaneis and those elected for the defense of the city to the magistrates and the synedroi of the Eleians, greetings. After the ambassadors of the Messenians |32 Menodoros son of Dionysios, and Philoitos son of Kratios, came to us, and after they asked us to give them a copy for you of the judgment which took place between the Messenians and the Lacedaemonians according to the senatus consultum, and after |36 the boule and the people granted the aforementioned things, and ordered us to give them the text of the judgment, having attached it to the letter we gave it to the ambassadors, in order that they convey it to you, sealed |40 with the public seal.

(c1) Copy of the Milesian arbitration award: the trial

254 Under the stephanephoros Eirenias son of Asklepiades, in the second day of the month of Kalamaion, since the praetor Quintus Calpurnius, son of Gaius, wrote to us in the fourteenth month |44 and eleventh day, according to the moon, from the day in which the senatus consultum was passed, a valid(?) assembly was held in the theater in the aforementioned day, in a manner as the Lacedaemonians and the Messenians agreed, and the largest jury allowed by law |48 was chosen by lot from all the people, six hundred judges, and, in accordance with the letter of the aforementioned praetor and in accordance with the senatus consultum of the senate, the case was introduced, about the dispute |52 between Lacedaemonians and Messenians, whoever of the two possessed that land when Lucius Mummius was consul or proconsul in that province, so that they will similarly possess it. And the water |56 [for the delivery of speeches?] was allotted(?) to them, for the first speech fifteen Milesian measures each, and for the second speech five Milesian measures, as they also agreed;

(c2) Copy of the Milesian arbitration award: the verdict and after |60 Eudamidas son of Euthykles for the Lacedaemonians, and Nikon son of Nikonos for the Messenians spoke in observance of the water, and the speeches were pronounced by both, it was judged that the land was possessed by the Messenians when |64 Lucius Mummius was consul or proconsul in that province, and that they similarly possess it. Of the votes, those who judged that the land was possessed by the Messenians, and that they similarly |68 possess it, were five hundred eighty-four, those (who judged) that it was possessed by the Lacedaemonians, were sixteen.

Dating: We can quite precisely date this dossier on a prosopographical basis. The terminus post quem is Mummius’ consulship in Greece in 146. The terminus ante quem is instead provided by Quinctus Calpurnius, who we know was consul in 135. In accordance with the lex Villia annalis, he must have been praetor in 138 at the latest. Document C, the Milesian arbitration award, thus dates to 146-138. The other two documents and the actual carving of the dossier in Olympia must have taken place shortly after that (allowing for enough time for the ambassadors to travel to and from Miletus).

255 Commentary: The dossier consists of three different documents: A, an Eleian decree allowing for the publication of the dossier itself; B, a letter from the Milesian magistrates to the Eleian ones, with attached a copy of the arbitration award; C, the text of the actual Milesian award. For more information on the pillar and the monument see Kallet 2016, Palagia 2016, Herrmann 1972. The exact meaning of the expression ἐκκλησία κυρία for Miletos is unclear; on it, see Nawotka 2014, p. 146. According to Tac., Ann. 4.43.1-6, Mummius had also carried out an arbitration in 146-145, assigning the land to Messene (Ager 150).

7. Patraian Arbitration between Thouria and Megalopolis Ca. 146-100 BCE

Thouria. Limestone stele, inscribed on both sides. H. 1.12, w. 0.8, d. 0.14. Letter h. 0.01-0.02. Found in Thouria, 50m south of the Roman baths.

Edd. Valmin, Årsberättelse. Bulletin de la Société Royale des Lettres de Lund 1928/9, pp. 1-16, pl. XVII (SEG XI 972); ISE 51 (Ager 145).

Cf. Guarducci, RFIC 1932, pp. 85-86; Roebuck 1941, pp. 103-104, n. 168, 113, n. 25; Accame 1946, pp. 138-139, 142; Robert and Robert, BE 1966, pp. 378-379; Zunino 1997, p. 165, n. 60.

After the text of the decree, the names of those who travelled to Patrai are inscribed in three columns.

Ἐπὶ ἱερέος τᾶς Ἀθάνας Δαμίωνος, γραμματέος τῶν συνέδρων Ἀριστομέ- νεος τοῦ Ἀριστίωνος. Ψάφισμα. Ἐμφανιζόντων τῶν συνδίκων διότι ἀνθαιρέμεθα κριτήριον τὰν πόλιν 4 τῶν Πατρέων ἐπὶ τὰς δίκας, ἃς ἔχει ἁ πόλις ἁμῶν ποτὶ τὰν πόλιν τῶν Μεγαλοπολιτᾶν, ὥστε κριθῆμεν ἐν τοῖς συνέδροις πάντοις

256 τοῦ δωδεκάτου μηνὸς τᾷ δυοδεκάτᾳ v, ἔδοξε τοῖς συνέδροις πορεύεσθαι εἰς Πάτρας ἐπὶ τὰς κρίσεις, ἂν ἐπιδέξωνται οἱ Πατρεῖς 8 τὸ κρίμα, τούς τε συνδίκους καὶ τοὺς συνέδρους πάντας πλὰν τῶν τῆς Οὐπισίας καὶ τῶν ἐπικριθέντων v πορευέστωσαν δὲ καὶ τῶν ἄλλων οἱ θέλοντες· v τοὺς δὲ ἐλθόντας ἀναγραψάσθω ὁ γραμμα- τεὺς τῶν συνέδρων ἐμ Πάτραις, καὶ ἂν νικά- v -σωμες, ἀναγραψάτω 12 ἐν τῷ ἱερῷ τᾶς Συρίας εἰς στάλαν λιθίναν v τούς τε συνδίκους πάντας πατριστί v, ὁμοίως δὲ καὶ τοὺς ἐλθόντας ὑπογράψας τὸν ἱερῆ τᾶς Ἀθάνας καὶ τὸ ψάφισμα. vacat Σύνδικοι. vacat vacat 16 Καλλισθένης Σωτάδα Ἄκρων Φιλοδάμου Νεόπολις Ξενοστράτου Ἀριστομένης Ἀριστίωνος Φιλόξενος Φίλωνος Φιλόστρατος Ἀριστωνύμου Λύσων Δάμωνος Δαμόφαντος Δαμοθάλεος Σωτέλης Δεξιάδα Δεινίας Κορινθίου Χαιρήμων Δαμοκράτεος Κλέανδρος Κλεάνδρου 20 Λυσίας Παγκράτεος Δαμοθάλης Δαμοφάντου Ὀνασικλῆς Δαμίωνος Ἄλκανδρος Ἀριστοκράτεος Νομᾶς Ἀριστάρχου Ἀπολλόδωρος Σατύρου Φίλων Φιλοξένου Λέων Ἀλκέτα Χαίρων Εὐδαμονίδα Ἀριστόξενος Κλεάρχου Καλλίστρατος Νομᾶς Ξένων Θεοδότου 24 Ἀριστοφάνης Φίλωνος Ἀρίστων Νίκωνος Πλειστίας Καλλικράτεος Δαμαρχίδας Κλεωνύμου Ἀγαθίας Εὐδαιμονίδα Πρατόνικος Ἀριστοκλέος Νικοτέλης Δαμέα Λυσίστρατος Λυσικράτεος Εὐχάρης Φίλωνος Γοργίδας Ἀριστέα Δαμόστρατος Εὐνικίδα Φιλόξενος Ἀριστοφάνεος 28 Ἀρίστων Ἀλεξίωνος Ἀριστόδαμος Εὐμνάστου Πολυκλῆς Τεταρτίδα Εὐεργέτας Ἀρισταίου Δαμίων Καλλικράτεος Πολυκράτης Κλήτωνος Λύσιππος Δεινία Ἀρήσιππος Ἀγαθοκλέος Δεξίας Ἀντιγένεος Σοιξίνικος Δαμίσκου Καλλίμαχος Δόκωνος Στράτιος Δείνωνος 32 Σόφιος Ἐχεδάμου Ξενόδαμος Σίμου Κράτων Φιλοκλέος Δεξίας Καλλινόμα Κλέων Δαμoσθένεος Εὐμαρίδας Ὀλβιάδα Ἐπικράτης Σάωνος Ἀριστόδαμος Δάμωνος Κλεάρετος Θαλίου Ἀρίστιππος Ἀπήμωνος Φιλόδαμος Σίωνος Καλλικράτης Σωστράτου 36 Φίλις Φιλοστράτου Δαμίων Νικάδα Εὐκρατίδας Καλλικλέος

257 Λυσικράτης Ξενάρεος Λύσανδρος Φιλοκράτεος Κλεαιθίδας Φιλοδάμου Αἰνέας Τεταρτίδα Δαμοθάλης Χαρησιδάμου Θεοκλείδας Δάμωνος Ἀλεξίων Γλαύκου Νικάνωρ Νικάδα Τίμων Ἀριστέα 40 [Λ]υσικράτης Νικία Στέφανος Πράτιος Χαρίξενος Χαριξένου [Ἀρισ]τοφάνης Τιμοκράτεος Κλεόνικoς Δάμωνος Εὔξενος Θαλίνου . . .⁵. . ητος Εὐμνάστου Πυθόδωρος Αὐτοκλέος Ἀγαθοκλῆς Φίλωνος . . .⁶. . . ις Ἀπημάντου Φίλαιος Γλαύκου Δαμάτριος Τιμοκράτεος 44 [. . . .⁸. . . . Ἀ]πημάντου Τρίτιος Ἐπικρατίδα Εὐάμερος Διοδώρου [. . . .⁷. . . κ]ράτεος Σῖμος Σιμωνίδα Θεόδοτος Θεοδότου ------Χηρικράτης Ἀγιτέλεος Νικάριστος Φιλοκράτεος ------Τεισικλῆς Καλλικράτεος Δαμάτριος Δαματρίου 48 ------Δάμων Φιλομήλου Νικάνωρ Θεοκλέος ------Χαρίδαμος Ξένωνος Ἀρίστων Ἀριστομήδεος ------Τιμοσθένης Κλέωνος Ἀριστόδαμος Ἀριστοφάνεος ------Παγκράτης Νικία Ξενόδαμος Ἱππολέοντος 52 ------. . .⁶. . . ης Κρατίππου Φίλιππος Νικιάδα ---(name)--- Λ̣α̣κεδαιμ̣[ό]νιος̣ ἐποί]η̣σ[ε].

Translation: (a) Prescript When Damion was priest of Athena, and Aristomenes son of Aristion was secretary of the synedroi. Decree.

(b) Motivation clause Because the advocates reported that we choose the city |4 of the Patraians as court for the dispute that our city has against the city of the Megalopolitans, so that we are to be judged by all the synedroi (of Patrai) on the twelve of the twelfth month,

258 the synedroi decreed:

(d1) Content of the decree: travelling to Patrai if the Patraians accept (to pass) |8 the judgement, let the advocates and all the synedroi, except for those of the Oupisia and those who have been selected, travel to Patrai. And let also travel (there) the others who want to.

(d2) Content of the decree: inscribing names And let the secretary of the synedroi record those who went, and if we win, let him inscribe |12 in the sanctuary of the (goddess) Syria, on a stone stele, all the advocates with their father’s name, also adding those who went, the priest of Athena, and the decree.

(e) List of names [Untranslated]

Dating: The dating of this arbitration has been the subject of scholarly dispute. Valmin suggested a date within the first half of the 2nd century. Guarducci argued that the presence of σύνεδροι is due to Roman influence (cf. Deshours 2004); the text would thus date to after 146. Moretti instead believes the Aristomenes γραμματὴς τῶν συνέδρων to be identified with the one of IPArk 31 II, and thus dates the stone to the same period. He follows Accame in dismissing Guarducci’s argument by saying that after the Roman gave the Dentheliatis to Messene in 146, Thouria and Megalopolis would no longer have shared a border. This last argument is in no way a secure indication of date. The Dentheliatis region seems to stretch mostly east of Thouria, and not to extend further north. We cannot rule out that, even after 146, Thouria and Megalopolis were still neighbors. Moreover, the identification of the Aristomenes of this inscription with the one of IPArk 31 II should be rejected as well. Aristomenes does not only appear in the latter text, but also in its twin inscription IPArk 31 I, an arbitration between Megalopolis and Helisson. The presence of Aristomenes in both judgements rules out that he could have been a citizen of Thouria. He more probably headed the board of arbiters that passed the verdict. Therefore, there is no solid evidence pointing to the first half of

259 the 2nd century. Conversely, the presence of σύνεδροι in the Peloponnese may point to a later date. While we should not imagine a sudden transition to σύνεδροι around 146, a date in the second half of the 2nd century may better fit the available evidence.

Commentary: Scholars disagree on the interpretation of Οὐπισία. Valmin initially thought it could be either a village of Thouria or one of its tribes. Because of an inscription from Messene mentioning the οἱ τᾶς Ούπησίας ἱεροὶ γέροντες, Jeanne and Louis Robert considered it a religious gerousia, in charge of the cult of Artemis. Contra Moretti, who believes Οὐπισία to be the name of a tribe. In my analysis, I follow Moretti in taking it as a tribe name.

8. Rhodian Arbitration between Sparta and the Achaean League 188-171 BCE

Olympia. 10 fragments (a-i, k) of a stele of white marble, broken to the right and at the bottom. H. ca 0.7, l. ca 0.52-0.54, d. 0.05-0.06. Found in different locations within the sanctuary, between 1875 and 1878 (a-g), and 1880 and 1887 (h, i).

Edd. a-g. Dittenberger, AZ 1879, pp. 92-98, nr. 47; Dubois XIV. h. Purgold, AZ 1881, p. 191. a- k. IvO 47; Syll.2 304; Syll.3 665 (Ager 137; Harter-Uibopuu 11; Camia 2009, 2; Mackil 2013, pp. 478-479, nr. 45).

Cf. Tod 1913, 2; Roebuck 1941, pp. 53-56; Gruen 1976, pp. 50ff.; Magnetto 1994; Chaniotis 2004, p. 208, n. 21; Taeuber 2006; Piérart 2007, pp. 40-41; Kralli 2017, pp. 248-250, 367.

Ἀπόφασις δικαστᾶν π̣[ερὶ χώρας ἀμφιλλεγομένας, τῶν αἱρεθέντων] δικάσαι τοῖς Ἀχαιοῖς κ[αὶ τοῖς Λακεδαιμονίοις, — — — — — — — —] τοῦ Ἐπιγόνου, Ἀριστάρχου [τοῦ — — — — —, — — — — — τοῦ — —άν]- 4 δρου, Πολυκράτευς τοῦ Πολυ[— — — —, — — — — — τοῦ — — — —, καὶ]

260 περὶ τᾶς ζαμίας ἇς ἐζαμίωσα[ν — — — — — — — — τὸν δᾶμον τὸν Λα]- κεδαιμονίων, ὅτι ἀντιπο<ε>ῖτ[αι — — — — — — — — — τῷ δάμῳ τῷ] Μεγαλοπολιτᾶν ταύτας τᾶς χ̣[ώρας — — — — — — — — — λόγων δὲ] 8 πλειόνων ῥηθέντων, ἐπεὶ πολ[— — — — — — — — — — — — — — —] τας διὰ τῶν συνδίκων, καὶ τὰμ [μὲν ὑπάρχουσαν ἐκ πολλοῦ χρόνου] διαφορὰν ταῖς πόλεσι δι’ [ὅλ]ο[υ — — — — διαλῦσαι ἐπειρασάμεθα], προθυμίας καὶ σπουδᾶς οὐθὲν [ἐλλείποντες]· Α̣․․․․․Λ̣ [οὐκ ἀ]- 12 πηνέγκαμεν ἐπιγραφὰν διὰ πο[λλοῦ], ἕνεκεν τοῦ χρόνον ἱκα[νὸν] δοθῆ̣μεν εἰς σύλλυσιν τοῖς δια[φερ]ομέ[ν]οις· ἐπε[ὶ] δὲ ἀναγκαῖόν [τε] καὶ ἀκόλουθ[ον τῷ ὅρ]κωι ὃν <ὠ>μ[όσα]μεν καὶ τοῖς νόμοις τοῖς τῶν Ἀ- χαιῶν̣ σ[υ]ντελ̣ε[ῖ]ν τὰν κρίσιν, [<ὣστ’> εἰς] τὰ γράμματα τὰ δαμόσια ἀπενεγχθ̣ῆ̣- 16 μεν, ἕνεκεν τοῦ μήτε τὰ ποτιδε[ό]μενα κρίσιος ἄκριτα γίνεσθαι μή- τε τὰ κεκριμένα ἄκυρα, ὅπως δα[μ]οκρατούμενοι καὶ τὰ ποθ’ αὑτοὺς ὁμονοοῦντες οἱ Ἀχαιοὶ διατε[λ]ῶντι εἰς τὸν ἀεὶ χρόνον ὄντες ἐν εἰ- ράναι καὶ εὐνομίαι, αἵ τ’ ἐν τοῖς̣ Ἕλλασιν καὶ συμμάχοις γεγενημέ- 20 ναι πρότερον κ̣ρ[ί]σεις βέβαια[ι] καὶ ἀκήρατοι δ[ι]αμένωντι εἰς τὸν̣ ἀεὶ χρόνον κα[ὶ] αἱ στᾶλαι καὶ τ[ὰ ὅρι]α τὰ τεθ̣έ[ντα] ὑπὲρ τᾶν κρισ̣[ί]- ωμ μένῃ κύρια δι’ ὅλου καὶ μηθὲ[ν αὐτῶν ᾖ] ἰσχυ[ρότ]ερον, γεγεν[ημέ]- νας καὶ πρότε[ρ]ον κρίσιος Μεγ[αλοπολίταις καὶ Λακεδ]αιμον[ίοις] 24 [ὑπὲ]ρ ταύτα̣[ς τᾶ]ς χώρας, ὑπὲρ ἇς [νῦν διαφέρονται, — —]․․[— —] [— — — — — — —]ων τῶι προδίκωι [— — — — — — — — — — — — —] [— — — — — — —]στα κατακολουθ[— — — — — — — — — — — — — —] [— — — — — — ἐ]ν̣ Μεγάλαι πόλει ἐ[ν — — — — — — — — — — —] 28 [— — — — — — — ἐ]ν τῶι ἀσύλ[ω]ι κ[αὶ — — — — — — — — — — — —] [— — — — — — —μ]έναις εὖ ὑ[πὸ] Μ̣ε[γαλοπολιτᾶν(?) — — — — — —] [— — — — ὑπὸ τῶ]ν συμμάχων αἱρε[θέντες — — — — — — κρ]ιτα[ὶ — —] [— — — — — ἀμφοτ]έρ̣ων ἐπιτρε[ψάντων, εἰ δοκεῖ τὰ]ν Σκιρῖ[τιν κατεσ]- 32 [χῆσθαι ὑπὸ Μεγαλοπο]λιτᾶν —— ἐν ἇι κ[αὶ ἁ Αἰγῦτι]ς χώρα —— ἢ ὑπ̣[ὸ Λακεδαι]- [μονίων, καὶ ὁρισ]μὸς τᾶς χώρας ἀπ[ογεγραμμένο]ς, καὶ ὅτι ὤμοσ[αν αἱρήσε]- [σθαι ἐκ πά]<ν>των ἀριστίνδαν, κ[αὶ ὅτι ἔκριν]αν οἱ δικασταὶ γ̣[ενέσθαι] [τὰν Σκιρ]ῖτ̣ιν καὶ τὰν Αἰγῦτιν Ἀρκ̣[άδων ἀπὸ] τοῦ τοὺς Ἡρακλείδας εἰς

261 36 [Π]ε̣λοπόννασον κατελθεῖν, καὶ [ὁ ὅρκο]ς̣ τὸν <ὀ>μόσαντες οἱ δικασταὶ ἐ- [δ]ίκασαν, καὶ τῶν δικασάντων τὰ [ὀνό]ματα, οἳ ἦσαν τῶι πλήθει ἑκατὸν [κα]ὶ εἷς, καὶ οἱ παρόντες Λακεδα[ιμ]ονίων ἐπὶ τοῦ ὅρκου. κρίνοντες [οὖν ο]ὕτ̣ω κα μάλιστα μένειν [τὰ ποθ’] αὑτοὺς τοὺς Ἀχαιοὺς ὁμονοοῦν- 40 [τας, εἰ] τὰ κριθέντα παρ’ αὐτοῖς μηκέτι γίνοιτο ἄκυρα δι’ ἑτέρων ἐγ- [κλημά]των, ἀλλ’ ὅρον ἔχοι τᾶς ποθ’ αὑτοὺς διαφορᾶς κρίσιν δικ[αστ]η- [ρίου, ἐ]γνωκότες δὲ ἐκ τ[ῶ]ν παρατεθ̣έντων ἁμῖν παρ’ ἀμφοτέρ[ων γραμ]- [μάτων] καὶ Ῥωμαίους τοὺς προεστακότας τᾶς τῶν Ἑλλάν[ων εὐνομί]- 44 [ας(?) καὶ ὁμο]νοίας, ὅκ[α π]αρεγενήθησαν̣ ποθ’ αὑτοὺς Μεγ[αλοπολῖται] [καὶ Λακεδαιμόνιοι ὑ]π̣ὲρ ταύτας τᾶς χώρας διαφε[ρόμενοι, ταύταν] [ἀποφάνασθαι (?) τὰν γνώμα]ν, διότι δεῖ τὰ [κεκριμένα εἶμεν κύρια (?)— —] [— — — — — — — — — — —]αι[— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —] 48 [— — — — — κρ]ίσ̣ιν κα[ὶ — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —] [— — — — —μ]ένας πόλιο[ς — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —] [— — — — —] κ̣ρίσεις πα[— — — — — — — — — — — — — —— — —] [— — τὰν ζα]μίαν ἃν ἐζα̣[μίωσαν — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —] 52 [— — — ὑπό(?)]δικον εἶμε[ν — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —] [τᾷ πόλει τ]ᾶι Λακεδαιμ[ονίων].

1 IvO; ἡ[ιρημένων Dubois 11 ἐλλείποντες IvO 15 IvO 23 Dittenberger, AZ 27 ἐ[ν τῶι ἀρχείωι Syll.3 31-32 IvO; κατέχεσθαι Syll.3; κατεχῆσθαι Harter-Uibopuu; κατεσχῆσαι Chaniotis 44 IvO (possibly right, but with no direct parallels) 46 IvO (probably close to the overall meaning)

Translation: (a) Introducing the matter Judgement of the judges [about the land disputed, of those chosen] to arbitrate between the Achaeans and the Lacedaemonians, … –] son of Epigonos, Aristarchos [son of –, – son of - an]dros, |4 Polykrates son of Poly[-.., – son of –, and] about the fine which they inflicted […] the people of the] Lacedaemonians, because it contends [… to the people of the] Megalopolitans for this land […]

262 (b1) The judges' desire for reconciliation |8 and having many speeches being made, because […] through advocates, and [we wanted to solve] completely the dispute which [has existed for a long time] between the cities, not [lacking] any of eagerness and zeal, |12 we did not bring back the minutes for a long time, on account of the fact that the appropriate time was given to the disputants for reconciliation;

(b2) The need for a verdict but because it was necessary and in accordance to the oath we swore and to the laws of the Achaeans to complete the judgement, so that it is returned to the public records, |16 and on account of the fact that the things in need of judgement do not remain unjudged and the adjudicated ones are not invalid, in order that the Achaeans, who have a democratic constitution and live in harmony with each other, may forever continue to be in peace and good order, and that the judgements which have been |20 previously passed among the Greeks and the allies may remain secure and inviolate forever, and that the stelae and the borders which have been set for the judgements may remain fully valid, and that nothing may be stronger that them,

(c) The previous trial since a judgement between the Megalopolitans and the Lacedaemonians has already taken place in the past |24 [about] the same land, which [they now dispute] […] advocate […] in Megalopolis [...] |28 in the inviolate […] by the Megalopolitans […] judges(?)] chosen from the allies [...] entrusted by both [if it seems that the] Skiritis [was occupied |32 by the] Megalopolitans, in which also lies the Aigytis, or by the Lacedaemonians [and the marking of the boundaries] of the land [which was copied/recorded], and that they swore to choose (the judges) from all according to merit, and that the judges decided that the Skiritis and Aigytis have been of the Arcadians since the coming of the Heraklids |36 to the Peloponnese, and the oath having sworn which the judges decided, and the names of those who judged, who were one hundred and one in number, and those of the Lacedaemonians present for the oath.

(d) Respecting past verdicts Having decided that the Achaeans would especially keep being in harmony, |40 if the cases adjudicated among them did not become invalid through other accusations, but a judgement of a

263 court was the limit of the dispute among them, and having learned from [the letters] provided to us by both sides that the Romans, who have been the champions of the [good order?] and harmony |44 of the Greeks, when Megalopolitans and Lacedaemonians came to them when disputing over this land, also [gave this answer], namely that it is necessary that the [judgements made are valid] […] |48 judgement […] of the city […] judgements [..] the fine which they inflicted […] to the city of the Lacedaemonians.

Dating: Paleographic arguments point to the first half of the 2nd century. The identification of the genitive Πολυκράτευς as a typically Rhodian form (Taeuber 2006) seems correct; the arbitration should then be dated to a period of good relations between Rhodes and Rome. The years 188-171, after Rome’s victory in the Syrian War and before the 3rd Macedonian War, are the best candidates.

Commentary: For the identification of the “previous arbitration” (ll. 22-24), debated among scholars, see chapter 3.2.C.i.

264 IMAGES

Figure 1. Reconstruction of the complete Messenian pillar in Olympia (Herrmann 1972, p. 254, fig. 14).

265

Figure 2. Drawing of the text of the arbitration (IvO 52).

266

Fig. 3. Modern view of the pillar as reconstructed in Olympia. Photo Simone Agrimonti.

267

Fig 4. Modern view of the pillar as reconstructed in Olympia (detail). Photo Simone Agrimonti.

268

Fig 5. The Nike of Paionios, Olympia Museum. Photo Simone Agrimonti.

269

Fig. 6. The original block with 5th century dedicatory inscription of the Nike, Olympia Museum. Photo Simone Agrimonti.

270