Inscriptions and People: Nuanced Readings on Cultural Interaction Between Greeks and Italic Populations in Magna Graecia*

doi: 10.2143/AWE.18.0.3287206 AWE 18 (2019) 1-16

INSCRIPTIONS AND PEOPLE: NUANCED READINGS ON CULTURAL INTERACTION BETWEEN GREEKS AND ITALIC POPULATIONS IN MAGNA GRAECIA*

Airton Pollini

Abstract This article focuses on the exchanges between Greeks and Italic peoples in Magna Graecia. Forms of expression borrowed from the Greek model are analysed through some case studies, such as the Tortora horos and the monetary issues of Italic communities. Nevertheless, these uses do not necessarily represent the adoption of Greek values, as is shown by the disap- proval of homosexual behaviour such as the ostrakon of Pisticci. Conversely, the inscription on the olpe of Fratte indicates the spread of the pederastic practice in the Etruscan environment of Campania. The aim is to tackle textual sources and artefacts, with nuanced analyses of the modalities of cultural interaction between Greeks and locals.

Introduction For the study of the interaction between texts and material culture, the relatively recent approach of historical archaeology provides a particularly relevant framework.1 An in-depth development of its methodological contribution is unnecessary here, but it would be interesting to recall its major attributes. Indeed, historical archaeology was strongly inspired by anthropology and the social sciences and concentrated originally on the study of American society formed after the conquest by Europeans. Thereafter, the possibilities of applying this approach have been extended to any historical context that allows the confrontation between written sources and material culture.2 Without establishing a hierarchy between the two types of sources,3 its main contribution consists in deconstructing the archaeological objects according to a literary method of text interpretation, analysing each detail separately, and then

* I owe a profound gratitude to Prof. Gocha Tsetskhladze for his great kindness and patience. A previous draft of this paper was read by Dr Madalina Dana and by Dr Arianna Esposito; I thank both for the continuous support and friendship. I acknowledge the very valuable inputs and references suggested by the two anonymous reviewers. All remaining mistakes are my own. 1 Orser 2000; 2002. See also Meskell 2001; Lawrence and Shepherd 2006. 2 Funari 1999; Funari et al. 2005; 2010. 3 Small 1995a; 1999; Dyson 1995; Johnson 1999. For the archaeology of the classical Greek world, see concrete examples in Ober 1995; Small 1995b. 2 A. POLLINI reconstructing the whole with a thorough understanding. The aim is to highlight themes such as class exploitation, differences in status and gender. Consequently, emphasis is given to the power relations between social groups and individuals, the mechanisms of domination and resistance.4 In this respect, it is now accepted that archaeological remains allow us to apprehend traces of the lowest social strata, in particular by careful analysis of everyday objects, especially pottery.5 In our specific case, it is also a question of apprehending the relations of interethnic inter action between Greeks and Italic populations. Our point of departure consists of an epigraphic document with a certain will to delimit a space. If the very idea of an inscribed stone with a reference to a limit seems obvious, the analysis is much more complex. In this regard, J. Ober6 argues for the utmost caution in interpreting the material signs of boundaries, which must be systematically contextualised. Indeed, the best-known example is the two boundary stones of the Agora of Athens, discovered in 1938 (Agora I 5510 = IG I3 1087) and 1967 (Agora I 7039 = IG I3 1088) and found in situ, the first immediately east of the Tholos, where the western route of the Agora is forked. The stone carries, on the upper and eastern sides, a short text: ‘I am the boundary of the agora’ (hόρος εἰμὶ τε̃ς ἀγορᾶς). The two inscriptions are dated around 500 BC.7 The demarcation function of the Agora seems very clear, which was important for several reasons. First, it served to delimit the domain of the public space of the central square and prevented any private appropriation. Secondly, these boundary stones were used to indicate the limit not to be crossed by several categories of persons whose access to the Agora was forbidden, in particular murderers or those suffering from atimia, that is to say deprivation of citizenship rights.8 As the Agora

4 Note the possibility of using approaches such as the ‘Third wave feminists’ (Meskell 2001) or gender studies (Scott 1986). 5 See commentary on the use of the methods of historical archaeology in other historical periods in Lawrence and Shepherd 2006; and especially for this transposition to the colonial movements of the Greeks, Phoenicians and Romans: Cunliffe 2006. 6 Ober 1995, especially 96: ‘Looking at how several texts treat horoi, and examining the horos as an “artifactual text” – as a text that is an artifact, and at the same time an artifact that is a text – should help to elucidate some methodological problems involved with moving back and forth between texts and artifacts, history and archaeology.’ 7 Shear 1939; Thompson 1968; commentaries in Lalonde et al. 1991, H. 25 and H. 26, p. 27, pl. 2. One should include a third horos (Agora I 5675 = IG I3 1089), fragmentary ([hόρος εἰ]μὶ τε̃ς ἀγορᾶς), but which must restore the same text and the same chronology (Shear 1940; Lalonde et al. 1991, H. 27, p. 27). On these boundary stones, see recent comments by F. Longo in Greco et al. 2014. 8 According to Hansen’s interpretation (Hansen 1976), several literary passages indicate the characteristics of sentences of atimia such as the prohibition of access to the Agora, understood as the market place, and to sanctuaries (Lysias 6 Against Andocides 9 and 24). See also Demosthenes, 22. 77; 24. 60; Aeschines, 1. 164; 2. 148; 3. 176. INSCRIPTIONS AND PEOPLE 3 was the public square dedicated to political and economic activities, this prohibition of access had consequences not only for a citizen who could no longer participate in the decisions of the community but also for other social categories, especially foreigners prevented from buying or selling at the market. Nevertheless, by the end of the 5th century, the first boundary stone (Agora I 5510) was already buried and no longer served to delimit the space of the Agora, while the second (Agora I 7039) was covered in the 3rd century BC. First, in the case of the limits of the Agora, in order for the statement to be functional, the stone must remain at the very location of the limits it indicates and the reader must be able to identify what represents the space that is delimited, in this case the Agora. Moreover, this document also conveys an order, at least a warning: the passer-by must be aware of the consequences if he exceeds this limit, as in the case of someone who would not have the right to enter the Agora. Here, the message is implicit, but remains clear enough. It is relatively easy to identify the space limited by the boundary; we know that the authority which defined the limits was the city of Athens, or more precisely the community of Athenian citizens, the demos; finally, one can assume a broad knowledge of the conditions of access to the Agora and the penalties for those who transgress them. From the comparison with the literary evidence at our disposal, the contemporary researcher is thus able to grasp most of the attributes borne by these boundary stones. The same conditions apply to the boundaries of sanctuaries: the conditions of access, the rituals foreseen at the entrance and the penalties for the transgressions ought to be known by a very large part of the population. In other cases, on the other hand, the many boundary stones bearing simply the mention horos constitute a much more complex issue. Here, even if the stones had remained in place, the majority of the information is implicit and elusive to contemporary researchers: what is delimited, the responsible authority, the rules of access to that space, whatever it may be, and any penalties for their infringement. In the case of these rather laconic boundary stones, they may be public, sacred or private domains, and therefore delimitations relating either to a space accessible to the majority or to the properties of individuals. Moreover, nothing prevents a stone bearing the inscription horos from being moved and, with the same text, the space it delimits may change. This example clearly shows that, even in the case of a mention so directive and so-called simple, the message it conveys depends on a much more complex context than chronology and location alone. Finally, an anepi- graphic stone (without any inscription) could also delimit spaces. In this case, all the information is lost to us since it is practically impossible to recognise the functions of a stone without any particular mark, even if its shape may relate to boundaries. 4 A. POLLINI

Native Inscription in Tortora The purpose of these introductory remarks is to emphasise the difficulties of interpreting epigraphic documents which seem, a priori, to carry a clear message. In the case of inscribed items from non-Greek communities and in contact with the Greek settlers in Southern Italy, these precautions are reinforced (Fig. 1). As far as the epigraphic evidence in Magna Graecia is concerned, the available documentation is very restricted. However, a boundary stone discovered in 1991, at Tortora in the Noce valley near the ancient city of Laos, deserves our attention.9 The fragmentary rectangular limestone weights about 100 kg, is 67 cm high, 37 cm wide and 21 cm deep, and carries a text, written in the Achaean Greek alphabet, distributed on the four lateral sides, with five lines on the larger sides (A and C) and three lines on the short sides (B and D), including an unreadable surface (D) and two lines on the upper side (E):

A: [5]ειι[.]οϝιιοι[15–22] [14–21]fεfικεδ[.]κ[.]ρε[1–2] [1–2]ισθμαδαματεσε[15–18] [1?]επυσμοιαυνοιϝι[14–19] [13–19]ντρο[.]δοσερϝια[1–2] B: [2]ενς[.]ειqοβετι[.]τοα[.]ιρνενι[19–24] [19–24]οιϝολαισυμοσfυfϝοδο vac.1fρι[1?] qτο[1-2]αστεσ[.]ιτερμανι[18–23] C: [1?]τοϝτιδνεπιεσε[14–18] [15–18]σ[.]εδϝολοσfυfυϝοδ vac.3 νεπιστα[.]ιοσqτοδ[15–19] [17–20]αα[.]ιρνενια vac.7 E: [4-5]νια[.]ε[.]ιι[?]υ [.]αμ[.]υουϝ[6–9].

The text is written in vertical lines, in boustrophedon, and was dated to the end of the 6th century BC. The object was found in the locality of San Brancato, in Tortora, about 150 m from a native necropolis, but it does not seem to have a direct relationship with it. The dimensions of the stone suggest an original location certainly near the area of its discovery, on a small height of the plateau of San Brancato. Surface surveys have not yielded any structure, but the archaeological material affirm the existence of an Archaic habitat situated between the necropolis and the place of discovery of the inscription.

9 My remarks are based on the critical edition of the inscription in Lazzarini and Poccetti 2001. For the context of the discovery, see La Torre 1995, 29–31. INSCRIPTIONS AND PEOPLE 5

Fig. 1: Map of Magna Graecia and Sicily, with indication of Greek colonial cities (© Airton Pollini).

Although the restoration of the text is very complex, some remarks are nevertheless possible. First, local people used the Greek alphabet without substantial modifications to write an Italic language that resembled the same root of what later became Oscan. On the one hand, the cultural interaction between Greeks and locals is perceptible in terms of the use of the alphabet since the Archaic 6 A. POLLINI period and, on the other hand, the Samnite conquest of the end of the 5th century may, under the linguistic aspect, be nuanced; thus, intense cultural relations between the populations of the centre and the south of the Italian Peninsula can be identified at least a century earlier. Secondly, in terms of content, without understanding the whole fragmentary text, a few lemmas have been identified. On side C line 3 and on side B line 3, the use of the imperative in –tōd (restored from qτο[1–2] on the B side) would be characteristic, in Latin and in the Italic languages, of the normative provisions of public legislative texts or prescriptions in a religious contexts, where no relation is established with a deliberative institu- tion. Then, the lexical element τερμανι[-- belongs to the family of terminus in Latin or to τέρμα / τέρμων in Greek and certainly refers to the stone itself as a boundary, in particular by the correlation with the deictic εσει (by segmentation of αστ εσ[ε]ι), which would reinforce the self-referencing function of the boundary stone. Finally, in line 1 of face C, on the lexical level, τοϝτιδ can be linked to the term toutā-, which refers to the ethnic and political organisation of Italic communities.10 The editors have restored a prepositional compound that could bind to toutā- in order to indicate ‘inside, outside, around, in front, behind or near the toutā-’,11 that is to say, the inhabited centre of the community. Here, there is probably a strong sense of identity in the affirmation of the social group as an autonomous entity. If the full message of the text is too obscure for our understanding, it is interesting to point out the existence of a boundary marker which certainly indicated a limit relating to the local community which expresses its autonomy. It is impossible to state precisely the type of space that is delimited, but it is plausible to assert that it is a domain that is either public or sacred; in any case the elements restored rule out the possibility of a private or a funeral space. The identification of an imperative sentence corroborates the interpretation of a boundary stone which exposes, in a public or sacred place, a content of normative dispositions in relation to a delimited space. Any additional comments on these issues would be totally hazardous. However, it is an exceptional document which shows a desire for a political and identity definition of a public or sacred space of a local community at the end of the 6th century BC. For this purpose, it uses a means certainly borrowed from Greek practices: the use of inscribed stones and the use of the Greek alphabet.

10 On the term toutā-/touto and its relation to the definitions of the communities of Central Italy, see Bourdin 2012. 11 Lazzarini and Poccetti 2001. INSCRIPTIONS AND PEOPLE 7

Coins and Alliance From the perspective of the analysis of the cultural interaction between Greeks and locals, a case study composed of numismatic documentation deserves to be mentioned. It consists of a number of coins bearing the symbol of the Greek city of Sybaris, the bull, but with ethnic groups that refer to other communities: Sirinos and Pyxoes; Ami or Asi; Lainos; So…; and Pal/Mol. The interpretation of numismatic evidence is difficult and attempts have been made to identify the places or peoples reported by these coins as references either to other Greek cities under Sybarite influence, such as Siris or Laos, or to local centres such as Pyxunte, Aminaia (Francavilla Marittima?), Sontini,12 Palinuro and Molpa.13 Not only the identification of ethnic groups is difficult, but the chronology of these issues is not certain either. Two phases have been proposed: a first series for the Sirinos-Pyx legend in the last third of the 6th century, and a second series for the legends Sirinos-Pyxoes, Ami, So… and Pal/Mol around 510 BC.14 Regardless of the precise location indicated by these coins, numismatics corroborates the notion of a sphere of influence of the Greek city of Sybaris, which includes several centres with important contacts with the Achaean city. On this point, coinage and the adoption of an iconography coming from Syba- ris may be a sign of a strong interaction between the Greek colonial city and several autonomous local communities. Despite all the caution required by this numismatic documentation, it constitutes the main material source for the affirmation of the ‘empire’ of Sybaris,15 in the sense of an organisation that could be comparable to the model of ‘district-based’ Eastern hegemonies, which implies contacts and a particular hierarchy of relations, but also a great autonomy of the locals.16 In this sense, the analysis should be completed by the inscription found in the sanctuary of Olympia bearing an alliance between Sybaris and the Serdaioi, with the guarantee of Poseidonia.17 If it seems rather simple to read this inscription, its

12 Sontini is mentioned by Pliny the Elder NH 3. 15 (11). 98. 13 Greco and Gasparri 1995; Greco 1992, 381; De Juliis 1996, 340; Parise 2001; more recently, Horsnaes 2011. 14 Taliercio Mensitieri 2001. See also Dubois 2002, 40–54, no. 13 15 Greco 1992. 16 The main source is the passage by Strabo (6. 1. 13) concerning the power of the city of Sybaris, which would rule over four nations and would have 25 subject cities: ὡς τεττάρων μὲν ἐθνῶν τῶν πλησίον ὑπῆρξε, πέντε δὲ καὶ εἴκοσι πόλεις ὑπηκόους ἔσχε. Bugno 1999, especially 26. 17 ἁρμόχθεν οἱ Συβαρῖ- ται κ΄ οἱ σύνμαχοι κ΄ οἱ Σερδαῖοι ἐπὶ φιλότατ- ι πιστᾶι κ΄ ἀδόλοι ἀε- ίδιον. πρόξενοι ὁ Ζε- ὺς κ΄ Ὀπόλον κ΄ ὄλλοι θ- εοὶ καὶ πόλις Ποσειδα- νία. 8 A. POLLINI interpretation is not. Indeed, discussions were first developed about the possible identification of these Serdaioi and the relationship with the ‘empire’ of Sybaris, then about the chronology of the treaty.18 According to the majority of commenta- tors, it is most plausible to situate this ethnos on the Tyrrhenian coast, certainly south of Velia, perhaps near Laos. As far as chronology is concerned, there is nothing that enables a definite determination whether the treaty was established by the Sybarites before its destruction by the neighbouring city of Crotone in 511 BC, or rather by the refugees who maintained their denomination as Sybarites.19 This latter chronology would imply that the alliance with the Serdaioi was linked to the installation of the Sybarites in Laos and Skidros, possibly on a territory granted by this Italic community. The discussion may be enriched by 17 coins (MERD-ΣΕΡΔ) attributed to a Serdaioi issue, whose stylistic analysis brings them closer to Poseidonia’s coins, despite the different metal standards. The proposed chronology falls within a range between 510 and 490 BC20 and therefore contributes to the hypothesis of the low chronology for the treaty. In any case, we follow M. Lombardo’s observa- tion on the need to analyse documents within their chronology and in a dynamic form.21 In all cases, and regardless of divergences in the exegesis of the sources, the documentation clearly indicates forms of strong cultural interaction between Greek settlers and local communities. The evidence on the ‘empire’ of Sybaris exhibit the use of identity affirmation codes, such as the monetary issue and the ethnic apposition, in addition to the Greek alphabet, according to a Greek model, but used by local communities.

SEG 22, no. 336, Museum of Olympia, B. 4750. ‘The Sybarites and their allies and the Serdaioi made an agreement for friendship faithful and without guile forever. Guarantors, Zeus, Apollo, and the other gods and the city of Poseidonia’, translation by Meiggs and Lewis 1969. Cf. Fornara 1994; Van Effenterre and Ruzé 1994, 174–77, no. 42; Dubois 2002, 36–40, no. 12; Bertrand 2004, 36–37, no. 8; and Nouveau Choix 2005, 95–97, no. 16; Vlassopoulos 2013. See the interpretation of the vocabulary of this inscription in Giangiulio 1992; Bugno 2001. 18 Greco 1990. See a review of the discussions in Polosa 2000. More recently, see Lombardo 2008; Greco 2013. 19 M. Lombardo underlined, on the one hand, that the palaeographic analysis of the forms of letters argued for a chronological range between the last decade of the 6th and the beginning of the 5th century BC. Moreover, also accounting for historical reasoning, he proposes a chronology after the defeat of 511/10 BC (Lombardo 2008). See also Dubois 2002. 20 From stylistic aspects and because of the technique of double relief (Brousseau 2010). 21 Lombardo 2008. INSCRIPTIONS AND PEOPLE 9

Condemnation of Pederasty in Pisticci In the hinterland of the Greek city of Metapontum, close analysis of the material culture from Pisticci22 also allows commentaries on the interaction between Greeks and locals in Southern Italy. The local centre of Pisticci shows signs of an important and continuous presence since the Iron Age and throughout the 6th century, without direct intervention by the Greeks. The establishment follows a polycentric pattern, known elsewhere in the Italian hinterland, with at least three habitat areas and their associated necropolis. An area of habitat in S. Maria del Casale has a necropolis, with several nuclei of tombs distributed throughout the chronological range of occupation of the site. In the place called S. Leonardo in particular, the furniture of the tombs consists of local pottery, fragments of bronze spears and iron swords in male tombs, and rich bronze ornaments for female burials. Between the 7th and 6th centuries, local pottery, with geometric decoration and without decoration, as well as ceramics of Greek colonial production are associated with a large number of Greek vases of import, especially in the areas of Via Di Giulio and Matino Soprano. In the second half of the 6th century, stronger Greek influences were established, and, on the slopes of the hill, numerous fragments of black- and red-figure vases were found, as well as bronze objects. Finally, a large number of tombs located in various areas of the modern centre of Pisticci cover a broad chronological range, from the 5th to the 4th century BC. In the turn of the century, the Greek vases of import, especially Attic, were replaced by vases of local colonial production,23 including objects of Apulian origin. The local presence in Pisticci is important enough for M. Osanna24 to support the impossibility of a Greek occupation, not only at this site but also throughout the surrounding area. Thus, an ancient hypothesis that identified here a phrourion is now completely discarded. This hypothesis of a fortification was based on the discovery of an ostrakon, dated in the 6th century BC, on which one reads κατάπυγ[ον] or καταπύγ[ων]25 (given to unnatural lust, lecherous, lewd, according to Liddell and Scott), in

22 The territory between Pisticci and Ferrandina in Basilicata is the object of research by the University of Milan, under the direction of M. Castoldi. Osanna 1992, 247; Barberis 1999; Castoldi 2007; Bottini and Lecce 2013. 23 Related to this point, it is interesting to recall that the first known painter of the Metapontum region is the Painter of Pisticci, despite the impossibility of determining precisely his origin (cf. Denoyelle 1997). See also Denoyelle and Iozzo 2009. 24 Osanna 1992, 247. 25 On the discussion of restoration κατάπυγ[ον] or καταπύγ[ων], see Manganaro and Merkelbach 1996; Bain 1997, no. 16. 10 A. POLLINI the Achaean alphabet, interpreted as an allusion to pederasty.26 It is important to emphasise that the existence of an object inscribed in Greek and certainly bearing a reference to the practice of pederasty should not lead directly to the identification of a nucleus of Greek population, a fortiori of a group of peripoloi in a fortress.27 Graffiti reading κατάπυγος, with the word alone as here or mentioning a person’s name, are well known in Greece, and the earliest known example comes from a small Geometric cup from Hymettos.28 Lombardo enumerates a total of 14 examples of this kind of graffito, ranging from the 7th to the 3rd century BC. In Magna Graecia and Sicily, one may count three occurrences: one from Cumae, one from an unknown provenance from Apulia and one from Akrai in Sicily.29 Indeed, cultural interactions between Greeks and local peoples may take many forms. A. Small30 rightly stresses that some interactions occurred in the upper strata of the society, between local elites and higher-level Greek colonists, as was probably the case in the context of wine consumption31 and of pederastic relations. The most interesting element here is the condemnation of a certain practice quite common in the Greek world but made according to the codes of expression of a Greek model. It is important to note that the condemnation was addressed to one single individual and not necessarily for the whole Greek set of cultural elements. The same kind of reprimand is well attested in the Greek world, as we recalled before, inviting us to use a very nuanced interpretation of this document. This document allows anyway some conclusions. The use of an ostrakon, the alphabet and even the Greek language does not imply the adoption of a particular practice. Thus, one sees here the use of codes borrowed from a culture to condemn a practice that is often associated with it. A further possibility is to consider the use of a Greek mode of expression to condemn an individual who could be accused of being too close to Greek colonists, of adopting some Greek practices, such as a pederastic relation.

26 Editio princeps: Tagliente and Lombardo 1985. See also SEG 35, 1032; SEG 54, 955; Arena 1996, no. 80; Dubois 2002, no. 73. 27 Tagliente and Lombardo 1985; Bottini and Lecce 2013. 28 Blegen 1934, cat. no. 1. 29 Arena 1994, no. 23; SEG 40, 908; SEG 46, 1250. For a thorough discussion on the Sicilian occurrences of inscriptions with sexual content, see Manganaro and Merkelbach 1996. 30 Small 2004. 31 The example of the various forms of wine consumption, either the Greek form of the symposion or several other forms used in South Italian local contexts, can constitute a good reference. See, for example, Esposito 2015a. INSCRIPTIONS AND PEOPLE 11

Homoerotism between Greeks and Locals in Fratte Another document conveys an opposite message and shows the evidence of a pederastic practice by people of different ethnic origins.32 Thus an inscription from a tomb of Fratte in Campania can lead to a more nuanced analysis. Indeed, the tombs of the site of Fratte33 represent good evidence of the hold of the Greek city of Poseidonia in Campania. This Greek influence is perceptible not only in trade, but also in cultural and even private contacts. The discovery in 1963, in Tomb 26, of an inscription in the Achaean alphabet on a small olpe dated in the first quarter of the 5th century, is meaningful. The careful study of the vase itself made it possible to identify its place of production as being the neighbouring Greek city of Poseidonia and it was engraved before firing in a Poseidonian workshop.34 In addition to the simple presence of Greek ceramic material in the tombs of Fratte, this inscription also informs us about personal relationships between people of different ethnic groups. The text in the Achaean alphabet is comparable with the dialectal inscriptions of Poseidonia35 and reads as follows:

απολλοδορος·ξυλλας·εραται·ϝολχας·απυγιζε·απολλοδορον· ονατας·νιξος·εραται·Ηυβριχος·παρμυνιος·ηραται·

Considering the early date of the inscription, L. Dubois corrects <ἔ>ραται instead of ἤραται on the last line. According to the author, it would be very improbable that the eta had already both functions of aspiration, as in Ηύβριχος, and as the long vowel at this early date. It would be more probable to imagine a spelling error. According to this interpretation, one reads two sentences: ‘Apollodoros loves Xylla / Volchas sodomises Apollodoros’ and ‘Onatas loves Nixo / Ybrichos loves Parmynis’. The study of onomastics shows the presence of four or five males (Apollodoros twice, Volchas, Onatas, Ybrichos and probably Parmynis), whereas Xylla and Nixo

32 For comparison, one may refer to a passage by Dio Chrysostom on Olbia in the Black Sea (Borystheniticus Or. 36. 8): διὰ πάντα δὴ ταῦτα εὐδοκίμει παρὰ τοῖς πολίταις, οὐχ ἥκιστα δὲ ἀπὸ τοῦ κάλλους, καὶ εἶχε πολλοὺς ἐραστάς. πάνυ γὰρ δὴ τοῦτο ἐμμεμένηκεν αὐτοῖς ἀπὸ τῆς μητροπόλεως, τὸ περὶ τοὺς ἔρωτας τοὺς τῶν ἀρρένων· ὥστε κινδυνεύουσιν ἀναπείθειν καὶ τῶν βαρβάρων ἐνίους οὐκ ἐπ’ἀγαθῷ σχεδόν, ἀλλ’ὡς ἂν ἐκεῖνοι τὸ τοιοῦτον ἀποδέξαιντο, βαρβαρικῶς καὶ οὐκ ἄνευ ὕβρεως. ‘For this practice has continued on among them as a heritage from the city of their origin – I refer to the love of man for man – so much so that they are likely to make converts of some of the barbarians, for no good end, I dare say, but rather as those people would adopt such a practice, that is to say, like barbarians and not without licentiousness’ (translation, Loeb edition). 33 Greco and Pontrandolfo 1990. 34 Pontrandolfo 1987. 35 Arena 1996, no. 33; Dubois 2002, 72–73, no. 28. 12 A. POLLINI must be feminine names.36 Apollodoros, present twice, and Onatas are Greek names, more or less common, and L. Dubois also includes Ybrichos, identified it as a hypocoristic Greek name. The names of the women (Xylla and Nixo) as well as Parmynis are absent from the Greek onomastic repertoire. These three references are certainly Italic names transcribed in the Greek way, and Volchas surely refers to an Etruscan name. Indeed, ϝολχας corresponds to the Etruscan gentilis or given name Velxaie. Parmynis (either the masculine Πάρμυνις or the feminine Παρμυνίς) could be a local pronunciation or spelling for the Greek names Παρμονίδες or Πάρμων. In addition to the ethnic origin of the characters, this olpe indicates cultural elements of wide circulation in the Mediterranean: the consumption of wine, since this vase form is associated with the Greek symposion, as well as the practice of pederasty. The olpe is a relatively marginal vase in the service of the banquet, but all the furniture of the tomb, with cup and skyphos, definitely refers to the consumption of wine. Moreover, the practice of pederasty, clearly indicated by the text of the inscription, leads to the identification of the Greek-type symposion rather than to the Etruscan form of the banquet.37 As pointed out by A. Pontrandolfo, this inscribed olpe is important because it attests relations of reciprocity which go beyond mere trade.38 Indeed, the first imports of Greek ceramic material in the Etruscan-Campanian environment date from the second quarter of the 8th century and present an intense trade between these local centres and the first Greek colonies established on the Tyrrhenian coasts.39 This exceptional document attests the presence of several markers of cultural interaction. The very object of the olpe is an imported vase from the neighbouring Greek city of Poseidonia. Secondly, all the furniture of the tomb belongs to the service of the banquet, but the mention of pederasty refers rather to the practice of the Greek-type symposion than to the Etruscan forms of the banquet. In addition, the onomastic study identifies the persons mentioned as being both men and

36 L. Dubois argues for the impossibility of spelling ξυλλα for the name Skylla (Σκύλλα). Contra Arena 1996, no. 33; Pontrandolfo 1987. 37 On a comparative approach to the different forms of banquet and wine-consumption in the ancient Mediterranean, see Esposito 2015b. For the Etruscan form of banquet, see especially the contribution there by M. Guggisberg. 38 Pontrandolfo 1987. The author also refers to another Greek inscription found in a tomb at Pontecagnano, which bears the name Dymeiada in the genitive (IG XIV 694); cf. Arena 1996, no. 31. The peculiarity of Fratte’s inscription, compared with that of Pontecagnano, is precisely the possibility of linking it to certain cultural practices in a local environment. This must be related, for instance, to the ‘ethnic’ implications of the iconography of the Poseidonia’s Tomb of the Diver. 39 For Etruscan trade in the Archaic period, see Gras 1985: Pontecagnano at 486–88. INSCRIPTIONS AND PEOPLE 13 women, of Greek, Etruscan and local origin. Finally, the object itself bears evidence of complex relationships, since it was manufactured and engraved in a workshop in the Greek city of Poseidonia, but it composed the furniture of a tomb of the Etrus- can city of Fratte in Campania.

Conclusion The four cases studied, the inscription of Tortora, the numismatic documentation of the local communities under the influence of the Sybaris ‘empire’, the ostrakon of Pisticci and the olpe of Fratte, present different forms of cultural and ethnic interaction in the colonial context of Southern Italy. All of them highlight certain modes of expression carried by the Greek colonists and borrowed by Italic communities: first of all, the use of the Greek alphabet, but also the use of inscriptions, a fortiori of boundary stones, of coins with the indication of an ethnic, of practices of pederasty and of the Greek form of banquet, the symposion. These contextualised objects and texts have shown important nuances in the interpretation of the borrowings of these forms of expression. First, their use does not necessarily imply the acceptance of Greek values. Conversely, the Italic communities may choose, for a certain practice such as the banquet, forms rather Greek than those used predominantly in their usual cultural framework, reflecting a more complete adherence of Greek customs. But the most remarkable feature is probably the use of Greek forms whose function was the affirmation of the political autonomy of Italic communities. It constitutes thus a sort of dialectical movement, in which the locals borrowed means of expression of a Greek type, inscribed boundary stones or coins with ethnic, to mark their autonomy, at least relative, in relation to the Greek cities. Finally, one can see that the study of documents using the approach of historical archaeology, in which texts and material culture are confronted without hierarchy between the source types, gives the possibility of seizing ambivalent messages, in which form and content are analysed in parallel and can show complex interactions between populations of diverse origins.

Bibliography

Arena, R. 1994: Iscrizioni greche arcaiche di Sicilia e Magna Grecia III: Iscrizioni delle colonie euboiche (Pisa). —. 1996: Iscrizioni greche arcaiche di Sicilia e Magna Grecia IV: Iscrizioni delle colonie achee (Alessandria). Bain, D. 1997: ‘Two Submerged Items of Greek Sexual Vocabulary from Aphrodisias’. ZPE 117, 81–84. 14 A. POLLINI

Barberis, V. 1999: ‘I siti tra Sinni e Bradano dall’età arcaica all’età ellenistica: schede’. In Barra Bagnasco, M., De Miro, E. and Pinzone, A. (eds.), Magna Grecia e Sicilia. Stato degli studi e prospettive di ricerca (Messina), 59–105. Bertrand, J.-M. 1992: Inscriptions historiques grecques, La Roue à livres / documents (Paris). Blegen, C.W. 1934: ‘Inscriptions on Geometric Pottery from Hymettos’. AJA 38.1, 10–28. Bottini, A. and Lecce, L. 2013: ‘La mesogaia lucana e il caso di Pisticci’. In Todisco, L. (ed.), La comunicazione verbale tra Greci e indigeni in Apulia nel V–IV secolo a. C.: quali elementi? (Naples), 45–60. Bourdin, S. 2012: Les peuples de l’Italie préromaine: identités, territoires et relations inter-ethniques en Italie centrale et septentrionale (VIIIe–Ier s. av. J.-C.) (Rome). Brousseau, L. 2010: ‘Le monnayage des Serdaioi revisité’. RevNum 166, 257–85. Bugno, M. 1999: Da Sibari a Turi. La fine di un impero (Naples). —. 2001: ‘Strabone VI, 1, 13 C. 263 e l’ἀρχή di Sibari’. In Bugno and Masseria 2001, 303–27. Bugno, M. and Masseria, C. (eds.) 2001: Il mondo enotrio tra VI e V secolo a.C. (Naples). Castoldi, M. 2007: ‘Nuove indagini archeologiche nel Metapontino, tra Pisticci e Ferrandina’. Acme, Annali della facoltà di lettere e filosofia dell’Università di Milano 60.1, 249–60. Cunliffe, B.W. 2006: ‘Afterword: historical archaeology in the wider discipline’. In Hicks, D. and Beaudry, M.C. (eds.), The Cambridge Companion to Historical Archaeology (Cambridge), 314–19. De Juliis, E.M. 1996: Magna Grecia: L’Italia meridionale dalle origini leggendarie alla conquista romana (Bari). Denoyelle, M. 1997: ‘Attic or non-Attic? The case of the Pisticci Painter’. In Oakley, J.H., Coulson, W.D.E. and Palagia, O. (eds.), Athenian Potters and Painters: The Conference Proceedings (Oxford), 395–405. Denoyelle, M. and Iozzo, M. 2009: La céramique grecque d’Italie méridionale et de Sicile: productions coloniales et apparentées du VIIIe au IIIe siècle av. J.-C. (Paris). Dubois, L. 2002: Inscriptions grecques dialectales de Grande Grèce 2: Colonies achéennes (Geneva). Dyson, S. 1995, ‘Is there a text in this site?’. In Small 1995c, 25–44. Esposito, A. 2015a: ‘Interpréter le banquet: de la donnée archéologique au concept’. In Esposito 2015b, 11–29. —. (ed.) 2015b: Autour du «banquet»: modèles de consommation et usages sociaux (Dijon). Fornara, C.W. (ed.) 1994: Archaic Times to the End of the Peloponnesian War (Cambridge). Funari, P.P.A. 1999: ‘Historical archaeology from a world perspective’. In Funari et al. 1999, 37–66. Funari, P.P.A., Hall, M. and Jones, S. (eds.) 1999: Historical Archaeology: Back from the Edge (London). Funari, P.P.A., Oliveira, N. and Zarankin, A. (eds.) 2010: Contemporary Issues in Historical Archaeology (Oxford). Funari, P.P.A., Zarankin, A. and Stovel, E. (eds.) 2005: Global Archaeological Theory: Contextual Voices and Contemporary Thoughts (New York). Giangiulio, M. 1992: ‘La φιλότης tra Sibariti e Serdaioi (Meiggs-Lewis, 10)’. ZPE 93, 31–44. Gras, M. 1985: Trafics tyrrhéniens archaïques (Rome). Greco, E. 1990: ‘Serdaioi’. AION, Sezioni di Archeologia e storia antica, 39–57. —. 1992: Archeologia della Magna Grecia (Rome/Bari). —. 1993: ‘L’impero di Sibari: bilancio archeologico-topografico’. In Sibari e la Sibaritide (=Atti Taranto 32) (Naples), 459–85. —. 2013: ‘Sul cosiddetto ‘impero’ di Sibari fino alla tirannide di Telys ed alla distruzione della città’. In Delia, G. and Masneri, T. (eds.), Sibari: archeologia, storia, metafora (Castrovillari), 197–203. Greco, E. and Gasparri, D. (eds.) 1995: Laos (Taranto). Greco, E., Longo, F., et al. (eds.) 2014: Topografia di Atene: sviluppo urbano e monumenti dalle origini al III secolo d.C. 3: Quartieri a nord e a nord-est dell’Acropoli e Agora del Ceramico (Athens/ Paestum). Greco, G. and Pontrandolfo, A. (eds.) 1990: Fratte un insediamento etrusco-campano (Modena). INSCRIPTIONS AND PEOPLE 15

Hansen, M.H. 1976: Apagoge, endeixis and ephegesis against kakourgoi, atimoi and pheugontes: A Study in the Athenian Administration of Justice in the Fourth Century (Odense). Horsnaes, H.W. 2011: ‘Coinages of indigenous communities in archaic Southern Italy – the mint as a means of promoting identity?’. In Gleba, M. and Horsnaes, H.W. (eds.), Communicating Identity in Italic Iron Age Communities (Oxford), 197–209. Johnson, M.H. 1999: ‘Rethinking historical archaeology’. In Funari et al. 1999, 23–36. La Torre, G.F. 1995: ‘L’iscrizione di San Brancato’. In La Torre, G.F. (ed.), Nuove testimonianze di archeologia calabrese: greci, indigeni e romani nell’Alto Tirreno Cosentino (Rome), 29–31. Lalonde, G.V., Langdon, M.K. and Walbank, M.B. 1991: The Athenian Agora 19: Inscriptions. Horoi, Poletai Records, Leases of Public Lands (Princeton). Lawrence, S. and Shepherd, N. 2006: ‘Historical archaeology and colonialism’. In Hicks, D. and Beaudry, M.C. (eds.), The Cambridge Companion to Historical Archaeology (Cambridge), 69–86. Lazzarini, M.L. and Poccetti, P. 2001: Il mondo enotrio tra VI e V secolo a.C. L’iscrizione paleoitalica da Tortora (Naples). Liddel, H.G., Scott, R. and Jones, H.S. 1996: A Greek-English Lexicon, revised ed. (Oxford). Lombardo, M. 2008: ‘Il trattato tra i Sibariti e i Serdaioi: problemi di cronologia e di inquadramento storico’. In De Sensi Sestito, G. (ed.), La Calabria tirrenica nell’antichità: nuovi documenti e prob- lematiche storiche (Soveria Mannelli), 219–32. Manganaro, G. and Merkelbach, R. 1996: ‘Fallocrazia nella Sicilia greca e romana’. Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 111, 135–39. Meiggs, R. and Lewis, D. (eds.) 1969: A Selection of Greek Historical Inscriptions: to the End of the Fifth century B.C. (Oxford). Meskell, L. 2001: ‘Archaeologies of identity’. In Hodder, I. (ed.), Archaeological Theory Today (Cambridge), 187–213. Nouveau choix 2005: Nouveau choix d’inscriptions grecques: textes, traductions et commentaires par l’Institut Fernand-Courby (Paris). Ober, J. 1995: ‘Greek Horoi: artifactual texts and the contingency of meaning’. In Small 1995c, 91–123. Orser, C.E. 2000: Introducción a la arqueología histórica, transl. A. Zarankin (Buenos Aires). —. (ed.) 2002: Encyclopaedia of Historical Archaeology (London). Osanna, M. 1992: Chorai coloniali da Taranto a Locri: documentazione archeologica e ricostruzione storica (Rome). Parise, N.F. 2001: ‘Intorno alle serie minori d’incusi di AMI, di PAL-MOL e di SO’. In Bugno and Masseria 2001, 139–43. Polosa, A. 2000: ‘Vecchie e nuove ipotesi sui Serdaioi: una messa a punto’. Annali di archeologia e storia antica n.s. 7, 49–59. Pontrandolfo, A. 1987: ‘Un’iscrizione posidoniate in una tomba di Fratte di Salerno’. AION, Sezioni di Archeologia e storia antica IX, 55–63. Scott, J.W. 1986: ‘Gender: a useful category of historical analysis’. The American Historical Review 91.5, 1053–75. Shear, T.L. 1939: ‘The campaign of 1938’. Hesperia 8.3, 201–46. —. 1940: ‘The campaign of 1939’. Hesperia 9.3, 261–308. Small, D.B. 1995a: ‘Introduction’. In Small 1995c, 1–22. —. 1995b: ‘Monuments, laws, and analysis: combining archaeology and text in Ancient Athens’. In Small 1995c, 143–74. —. (ed.) 1995c: Methods in the Mediterranean: Historical and archaeological Views on Texts and Archaeology (Leiden). —. 1999: ‘The tyranny of the text: lost social strategies in current historical period archaeology in the classical Mediterranean’. In Funari et al. 1999, 122–36. —. 2004: ‘Some Greek inscriptions on Native vases from South East Italy’. In Lomas, K. (ed.), Greek Identity in the Western Mediterranean: Papers in Honour of Brian Shefton (Leiden), 267–85 16 A. POLLINI

Tagliente, M. and Lombardo, M. 1985: ‘Nuovi documenti su Pisticci in età arcaica. 1. Lo scavo, 2. Il graffito’. PP 223, 284–307. Taliercio Mensitieri, M. 2001: ‘La monetazione degli Enotri’. In Bugno and Masseria 2001, 117–37. Thompson, H.A. 1968: ‘Activity in the Athenian Agora: 1966–1967’, Hesperia 37.1, 36–72. Van Effenterre, H. and Ruzé, F. 1994: Nomima: recueil d’inscriptions politiques et juridiques de l’archaïsme grec. 1: Cités et institutions (Rome). Vlassopoulos, K. 2013: Greeks and Barbarians (Cambridge).

Université de Haute-Alsace, Mulhouse UMR 7044 Archimede France [email protected] 161 avenue de la République 78500 Sartrouville France