ABSTRACT

SMITH, LAURA CORRINE. Integrated Communities: Acculturation among Diaspora Communities in Two Roman Port Cities. (Under the direction of Dr. S. Thomas Parker)

Scholars have examined diaspora communities to understand the relationship between these communities and the host society and to analyze the mechanics of trade. However, most scholars do not consider the interactions among diaspora communities or the levels of acculturation that each community experienced.

This thesis fills that gap by examining commercial diasporas at two Roman port cities,

Delos and Puteoli, between the 2nd century B.C. and the 2nd century A.D. The evidence presented in this thesis suggests that diaspora communities experienced different levels of acculturation and that some communities took intentional steps to integrate into the host society and mitigate their differences.

© Copyright 2021 by Laura Corrine Smith

All Rights Reserved Integrated Communities: Acculturation among Diaspora Communities in Two Roman Port Cities

by Laura Corrine Smith

A thesis submitted to the Graduate Faculty of North Carolina State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts

History

Raleigh, North Carolina 2021

APPROVED BY:

______S. Thomas Parker William Adler Committee Chair

______Tate Paulette

ii DEDICATION

For Mom, a queen among women.

iii BIOGRAPHY

Laura Smith is an almost-native Wilmingtonian and lover of all things books and puppets. She is an accomplished playwright and award-winning author. In 2016, she graduated with her B.A. in History from North Carolina State University. In Fall 2021, she will begin her doctoral studies at the University of Indiana at Bloomington.

iv ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Like every writing project I undertake, this thesis sprawled far beyond my original vision for the project. I am greatly indebted to the colleagues, family, and friends who not only made this project succeed but helped it to become so much better than I hoped.

I thank my God who guides and counsels me, who equips every call, and sustains me in all things so that I can say with confidence that I have seen the goodness of the Lord in the land of the living.

There are not sufficient words to express my thanks to Dr. S. Thomas Parker for his guidance, insight, and honest and detailed feedback. He has guided me through two theses with great patience and dedication and much laughter, and has helped me to become a better scholar than I ever imagined I could be. If I could do it all over again, I would.

Dr. William Adler is the epitome of scholarly dedication. He has willingly given up hours of his time to help me translate Greek inscriptions and discuss the grammatical nuances. Some of the key inscriptions in this thesis would have been inaccessible without his excellent guidance. I so appreciate his time, his advice, and his friendship.

Early on, a few key conversations about Kanesh with Dr. Tate Paulette helped me to examine the ways that scholars have treated diasporas in the ancient world. Many thanks also for all the practical advice about navigating graduate school and applications.

Dr. Dudley Marchi, Dr. Akram Khater, and Grace Parker all assisted with various aspects of French translation. I appreciate their attention to detail and their willingness to give me so much of their time. Dr. Khater also introduced me to the methodology that helped me to expand my framework so I could study people within Roman territory who may not have been citizens.

His seminar on global migration provided the perfect environment to ask new questions about

v movement within and across borders in the Roman world and to test drive the methodology through a case study of Delos. His insightful comments have helped to reframe the way I view people in the Roman world.

Kelsey Horn has been the best friend and colleague anyone could ask for. Her wonderful sense of humor has kept me laughing for the past three years and I deeply appreciate all the times that she patiently listened to my concerns about the thesis and then told me to get out of my head and whisked me away to Mexican. Lacy Keeter is the most exquisite and treasured friend. I am so thankful for her prayers and her support, both concerning the thesis and in every other aspect of my life.

Again, there are not enough words to adequately thank my mother for everything she does. She has been my sounding board for every aspect of this thesis and has patiently listened to me lecture. For the past few months, she has made my dinner materialize, and sometimes my lunch as well, so that I could hide in my office and work. Thanks, Mom. My father has shared anecdotes about his days as a graduate student and writing his doctoral dissertation, and I appreciate his advice and insight. Julie, Jacob, and Matthew have all listened to me lecture about trade diasporas and I appreciate their patience. Julie, you’re the queen of perfectly-timed phone calls. Thanks for getting me out of my head. Very special thanks go to my dear Zoe and Zeke.

You guys are the best.

vi TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES ...... vi LIST OF FIGURES ...... vii Chapter 1: Introduction ...... 1 Chapter 2: Merchant Diasporas at Delos (166-69 B.C.) ...... 15 History of Delos ...... 16 Primary Sources ...... 17 Diaspora Communities...... 21 Communal Life in Delos ...... 24 Romaioi ...... 32 Berytian Poseidoniastes ...... 36 Tyrian Heracleistes ...... 40 Samaritans ...... 43 Signs of Integration ...... 48 Conclusion ...... 56 Chapter 3: The Integration of Diaspora Communities in Puteoli ...... 58 History of Puteoli ...... 60 Diaspora Communities...... 65 Tyrians ...... 66 Nabataeans ...... 74 Berytians ...... 79 Signs of Integration ...... 85 Ostian Evidence ...... 87 Conclusion ...... 93 Chapter 4: A Comparison of Diaspora Communities in Delos and Puteoli ...... 94 Similarities Between Delian and Puteolan Diaspora Communities ...... 96 Differences Between Delian and Puteolan Diaspora Communities ...... 103 Evaluation ...... 105 Conclusion ...... 111 Chapter 5: Conclusion ...... 113

vii LIST OF TABLES

Table 1.1 Breakdown of cities represented by attendants of the gymnasium in ID 2598 ...... 116

viii LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1 The location of Delos in the Aegean Sea ...... 117

Figure 2 Map of Delos ...... 118

Figure 3 Plan of Maison de Q. Tullius, House 1C ...... 119

Figure 4 The Lares Compitales wall painting outside Maison de Q. Tullius ...... 120

Figure 5 Clubhouse of the Poseidonastes, final phase ...... 121

Figure 6 Ground plan of the Maison des Dauphins ...... 121

Figure 7 Tanit mosaic from the Maison des Dauphins ...... 122

Figure 8 Stele of Inscription n° 1 ...... 123

Figure 9 Stele of Inscription n° 2 ...... 124

Figure 10 Ground plan of House IIA, first phase ...... 125

Figure 11 Ground plan of House IIA, second phase ...... 125

Figure 12 Proximity Puteoli on the Bay of Naples, just northeast of Neapolis, to Rome ...... 126

Figure 13 Partial site plan of Ostia with the Piazzale delle Corporazioni ...... 127

Figure 14 Piazzele delle Corporazioni behind the theater in Ostia ...... 128

Figure 15 Mosaic of boats from the north side of the Piazzale delle Corporazioni ...... 129

Figure 16 Mosaic of a corn measurer from east side of the Piazzale delle Corporazioni...... 129

Figure 17 Elephant mosaic with the inscription “Stat(io) Sabratensium” from the east side of the Piazzale delle Corporazioni ...... 130

Figure 18 Ship mosaic with the inscription “Navi(cularii) et negotiantes | Karalitani”, shipowners and traders from Sardinia, from the east side of the Piazzale delle Corporazioni ...... 130

1 CHAPTER 1

Introduction

Since the 1990s, there has been a surge of interest in diaspora studies. The interest grew out of a larger movement that sought to look beyond the borders of nation-states to examine transnational movements of people and ideas. For many scholars, diaspora has proved to be a useful lens through which to examine the movements of people and the extent to which they integrate into a new society.1 The idea of “diaspora” is intimately connected to ancient history, and the Jewish people are arguably the most well-known diaspora in antiquity. Thus, ancient historians have studied Jewish communities in great detail.2 However, many other groups of people left their mother cities and eventually settled in distinct communities within larger settlements across the ancient Mediterranean world. These diaspora communities are documented by various sources, but especially by inscriptions, which offer insight into their activities.

Using a social historical perspective, this thesis seeks to examine diaspora communities at two port cities of the Mediterranean world: Delos in the Aegean and Puteoli on the coast of

Italy, between the second century B.C. and the second century A.D, i.e., a period of Roman political domination of the region. More specifically, this thesis considers the level of acculturation and assimilation among these communities, utilizing both a vertical and a horizontal perspective. How did these different diaspora communities interact with the local population and local authorities? How did diaspora communities interact with other diaspora

1 Braziel and Mannur, 2-3, 7-8; Kenny, 134. 2 On the Jewish diaspora, see Gruen, Erich S. Diaspora: Jews Amidst Greeks and Romans. Cambridge: Harvard, 2002; Smallwood, E.M. The Jews under Roman Rule: From Pompey to Diocletian. Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1976. The literature on the Jewish diaspora is, of course, far more extensive, but these monographs present a good overview of the topic.

2 communities in the same city? Most studies of diaspora communities examine the relationships between the diaspora community and the host community, a vertical perspective. This is useful, as each community had varying levels of familiarity with Romans and Roman culture. While many cities in the eastern Mediterranean had a common Hellenistic cultural backdrop beginning in the late fourth century B.C., each diaspora community responded differently to the predominant culture of Hellenism. However, few studies examine the connections among diaspora communities in the same city. What connections did these communities share? How did they navigate a multicultural world? Did diaspora communities experience different levels of assimilation and if so, what accounts for the differences?

This thesis will examine diaspora communities in the port cities of Delos and Puteoli for a few reasons. As the native population was expelled from the island in the early 2nd century

B.C., Delos became a society made up almost entirely of diaspora communities and thus, it is an ideal site to examine interactions among diaspora communities. Although the island was theoretically under the governance of Athens, it does not seem that this city played a major role in administering the island for very long. During the mid-second century and the mid-first century B.C., Athens was technically a “free ally” of Rome but under its indirect control. Hence, preconceived ideas about status may not have applied on the island. Additionally, the island was largely uninhabited after trade declined, leaving the ruins easily accessible and not obscured by subsequent centuries of occupation. Further, there are abundant primary sources available.

Numerous ancient writers reference Delos in their works. In particular, Strabo (c. 63 B.C. – c.

A.D. 23) and Pausanias (c. A.D. 110- c. A.D. 180), record information about Delos’ tenure as the premier trading entrepôt in the eastern Mediterranean. These sources directly reference the presence of Roman merchants on Delos but do not mention other diaspora communities by

3 name. However, thousands of inscriptions survive on the island, and these contain valuable information about the diaspora merchants who made Delos their home. The benefit of this evidence is that some inscriptions were erected by the diaspora communities themselves. They thus communicate information which these communities wanted to share with the broader Delian community. Other inscriptions stem from the gymnasium, providing more insight into which diaspora communities participated in and networked through this institution.3 Additionally, significant archaeological evidence remains on the island. Several residential blocks with well- preserved houses are entirely excavated with some decorative elements and statuary still in situ.4

This provides a wide of body evidence to piece together the interactions among diaspora communities on Delos.

Delos had deep trade connections with Puteoli; several Campanian merchants maintained a presence on the island though their freedmen, and luxury goods and slaves moved through

Delos before arriving in Puteoli. These goods catered to Italy’s demand for slave labor and luxury products. Notably, some of the same diaspora communities are attested at both Delos and

Puteoli, providing an opportunity to contrast interactions for the same communities at two different sites. On the other hand, Puteoli has been continuously inhabited since antiquity and this makes it more difficult to reconstruct the ancient city. Portions of the ancient city are now underwater in the Bay of Naples, and underwater archaeology has not yet fully revealed these ruins. Ancient writers also reference Puteoli in several works. Livy (64/59 B.C. – A.D. 12/17) and Strabo record some of the city’s history, while Diodorus Siculus (c. 80 – 20 B.C.) and

3 These inscriptions were published in several volumes during the 1920s and 1930s. The volume referenced in this thesis is one of those compiled by Pierre Roussel and Marcel Launey. This work is abbreviated throughout as ID. Roussel, Pierre and Marcel Launey. Inscriptions de Délos: Décrets Postérieurs A 166 AV. J.-C. (Nos. 1497-1524) Dédicaces Postérieures a 166 AV. J.-C. (Nos. 1525-2219). Paris: Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres: Fonds D’Épigraphie Grecque Fondation Du Duc De Loubat, 1937. 4 Nevett, 66-68.

4 Ennius (239-169 B.C.) provide more information about the city as a site of trade and luxury goods. Although inscriptions are also fewer than on Delos, enough survive to provide insight into the diaspora merchants residing there. Additionally, the Murecine tablets, a set of writing tablets found inside the remains of a villa just outside Pompeii (also known as the Sulpicii archive), list the business transactions of this family with numerous individuals in Puteoli, including some apparent individuals from diaspora communities. This archive thus provides additional evidence for interaction between diaspora communities and the Puteolan community.

There are, of course, significant differences between the sites. One of these is chronological. Delos was the most prominent eastern Mediterranean port between 166 and 87

B.C. The town sustained heavy damage during the First and Second Mithridatic Wars and was then sacked by pirates. Finally, Pompey’s successful war against these pirates in the mid-60s

B.C. made it safer for merchants to trade at other ports. Delos then rapidly declined. Conversely,

Puteoli was a prominent commercial city on the Bay of Naples by the third century B.C. The port was most prominent as the primary port of Rome from the second century B.C. to the first century A.D. The construction in the mid-first and early second centuries A.D. of port facilities

(Portus) near Ostia, at the mouth of the Tiber downriver from Rome, decreased the amount of traffic at Puteoli. However, inscriptions from the second century A.D. attest to the fact that diaspora merchants were still living and working in Puteoli, likely in close conjunction with diaspora communities in Ostia and Portus. Additionally, there are important administrative differences between the cities. Delos seems to have largely administered itself, perhaps initially with loose oversight from Athens. Puteoli, however, was under Roman administration, first as a colony and then as a city in the late Republic and early Empire. These differences had important implications for the diaspora communities. While the Delian communities needed permission

5 from Athens to establish trading stations, it seems that there was no need for them to adapt to

Athenian patterns of social organization. The diaspora merchants seem to have formed a unique community, and their tenure at the port may have led to a more hybridized society, with less clear distinctions among communities. However, the diaspora communities at Puteoli had to adapt to existing social patterns in the city and to work more directly with the Roman administrative and legal systems. Additionally, the longer lifespan of the port allows one to see how some of these communities evolved as successive generations grew up in Puteoli. While

Delos allows one to examine how diaspora communities coexisted with each other, Puteoli provides more opportunity to examine how they interacted with their host community. Because some of the same diaspora communities resided in both Delos and Puteoli, one can also compare the extent of the cultural acculturation within these communities.

The literary sources provide some historical context for Delos and Puteoli. They describe the events that led to the prominence of both ports but do not discuss diaspora merchants per se.

Hellenistic literary sources, written by and for the elite, do not take a favorable view of trade.

The Graeco-Roman elite typically viewed agriculture as the only “respectable” form of economic activity and believed that the people who engaged in commerce were inherently deceitful and

5 untrustworthy. Thus, these sources rarely discuss traders. While sources such as Pliny the

Elder’s Natural History contain information about different goods traded across the empire, the focus is on the products, not the traders who transported them. However, these sources still provide valuable information. Strabo, Livy, and Diodorus Siculus mention both cities in their works, noting what each was known for and some key events in their history. Most accounts

5 D’Arms 1981, 6

6 focus on events relevant to the Romans and traders rarely appear in any detail. Thus, it is necessary to turn to other types of primary source evidence.

Most primary sources for the diaspora communities in Delos and Puteoli are inscriptions.

These provide a unique window into the lives of the diaspora communities because they are, in a sense, autobiographical. That is, members of the diaspora communities commissioned most of these inscriptions and erected them to be seen by others. Inscriptions erected by specific communities usually honor a member of that community for services rendered. Some of the inscriptions on Delos also contain vital information about the formation of the trading stations.

The Puteolan inscriptions demonstrate close ties between diaspora communities and their home cities. In this sense, the inscriptions allow historians to see what kind of information merchants wanted to share and to be seen by other residents of the port. There are, however, several biases in such evidence. To erect an inscription, merchant communities needed the funds necessary to hire a stone mason, a luxury perhaps unattainable for less prosperous communities. Most inscriptions are laconic, consisting of the name of the dedicatee, usually a deity, and the dedicator. Additionally, many inscriptions are undated and no longer in their original context, making it difficult to put them into conversation with other kinds of evidence. Inscriptions do not provide information about a community throughout their residence in a port but instead capture a specific moment in time. These communities are thus otherwise silent until erecting an inscription and return to silence afterward.

Archaeological evidence also helps to fill in some of the gaps. The remains on Delos are well-preserved and the agorai, dwellings, and other buildings, such as the gymnasium and the headquarters of the Berytian trade association, survive. This allows one to reconstruct a fairly good picture of how different diaspora communities may have functioned on the island and

7 where they worked and lived. Archaeological evidence is harder to come by in Puteoli, now the modern city of Pozzuoli, since the modern city is built over remains of the ancient one. Portions of the ancient city are also submerged in the Bay of Naples. However, Ostia, another prominent port city for Rome at the mouth of the Tiber, is about 200 kilometers north of Puteoli. Ostia replaced Puteoli as the premier Italian port and also attracted a sizable diaspora community.

Remains of the Piazzale delle Corporazioni, perhaps a headquarters for several merchant diaspora communities, provides evidence into how these merchants conducted business.

Much of the work concerning diaspora communities in the ancient world centers around the Jews for good reason. The term “diaspora” was originally associated with the Jewish community. The Greek term diaspeirein means “to scatter or sow” and was first used by

Thucydides to refer to the scattering of the population of the city Aegina after the city was destroyed during the Peloponnesian War.6 Greeks typically used this term to refer to the scattering of people through colonization or migration. When Jewish scholars translated the

Torah into Greek in the third century B.C., they used diaspeirein to refer to their captivity and exile and added an element of collective trauma or longing for home to this idea. 7 For many scholars, the Jewish diaspora is an intrinsic part of the definition.8 However, a forced exile is not necessarily inherent to the idea of diaspora. In the ancient world, people left their homes for a variety of reasons, and scholars recognize several distinct types of diaspora, including commercial diaspora: people migrating to settle and trade in other cities, usually creating social and economic networks at different ports. A trade diaspora refers not to itinerant merchants traveling to different cities, selling their wares, and then moving on, but rather to merchants who

6 Kenny, 140-41. 7 Kenny, 141; Cohen, ix 8 Cohen, 21

8 settle in a new city and learn the language and cultural norms of the new society.9 In this way, they functioned as “cross-cultural brokers”, finding ways to negotiate their differences with their host communities to carry out their business more effectively.10 In many cases, while merchants adapted to cultural influences in their home, they retained their own unique identity and culture, sometimes going to great lengths to protect their culture.11 In this way, different groups of diaspora merchants might experience different levels of acculturation.

Unlike most merchant diasporas, the Jewish Diaspora is extremely well-documented. The

Septuagint records the dissolution of Israel as it was conquered by the Assyrian and then

Babylonian Empires, and several books concern the Jews in exile. Additionally, the Jews wrote prolifically in exile, writing works set in the diaspora, such as Tobit and Esther, and retelling stories about the patriarchs.12 The philosopher Philo wrote from Alexandria in the first century

A.D. and recorded interactions between Jews and both their Alexandrian neighbors as well as their Roman rulers. In the same century Josephus wrote a history of the Jewish people, including about the first revolt against Rome, in which he was a participant. Graeco-Roman literary sources also discuss the Jews and include accounts of the three Jewish revolts. Additionally, there are surviving edicts concerning Jews under Roman rule. Because the Jews maintained their own unique cultural identity, one may recognize the presence of Jews at some sites through their material culture, e.g., the presence of mikvahs. After the destruction of the Temple in A.D. 70,

Jewish rabbis wrote extensively about how Jews should live and conduct themselves in the

Talmud.13 The plethora of evidence available about Jewish communities includes a vast body of

9 Cohen, xii, 83; Curtin, 2-3. Scholars also use the term “commercial diaspora” to refer to these merchants. Both terms are used interchangeably in this thesis. 10 Curtin, 11 11 Curtin, 11 12 Gruen, 10 13 Neusner, 6-7

9 literature about their Diaspora and interactions with Greeks and Romans. Any discussion of diaspora in the ancient Mediterranean world seems to find itself in conversation with the Jewish diaspora, with similar ideas and models applied.

However, not all the evidence about the Jewish Diaspora can be neatly applied to commercial diasporas. There are several key differences. The Jews were one people following the same religion. Merchant diasporas in the Hellenistic and Roman periods did not define themselves solely by religion. They did not share an overarching religious identity nor religious restrictions that kept them from participating in some aspects of Graeco-Roman life. The catalytic event sparking the emergence of a Jewish Diaspora was the Babylonian Captivity, an involuntary event. However, commercial diasporas formed as merchants voluntarily left their mother cities to settle in new ports.

Scholars have extensively researched trade in the Levant, analyzing individual cities and peoples. Palmyrene merchants have received much attention for their unusually high status in this city.14 Likewise, scholars have researched the Nabataeans and their role in the spice trade.15

Berytus has received much attention during the Roman period.16 Additionally, scholars have

14 See Jørgen Christian Meyer, Eivind Heldaas Seland, and Nils Anfinset, eds., Palmyrena: City, Hinterland and Caravan Trade Between Orien and Occident. Proceedings of the Conference Held in Athens, December 1-3, 2012 (Oxford: Archaeopress, 2016); Fergus Millar, “Caravan Cities: The Roman Near East and Long-Distance Trade by Land,” Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies. Supplement, no. 71, Modus Operandi: Essays in Honour of Geoffrey Rickman (1998), 119-137; M. Gawlikowski, “Palmyra as a Trading Centre,” Iraq, vol. 56 (1994), 27-33; M. Gawlikowski, “Palmyra and its Caravan Trade,” Annales archologiques arabes syriennes, vol. 42 (1996), 139-145. 15 See Tali Erickson-Gini and Yigal Israel, “Excavating the Nabataean Incense Road,” Journal of Eastern Mediterranean Archaeology and Heritage Studies, vol. 1, no. 1 (2013), 24-53; Zeyad al-Salameen, “The Nabataeans and Asia Minor,” Mediterranean Archaeology and Archaeometry, vol. 11, no. 2 (2011), 55-78; Caroline Durand, “Crossing the Red Sea: The Nabataeans in the Egyptian Eastern Desert,” Navigated Spaces, Connected Places: Proceedings of Red Sea Project V: Held at the University of Exeter, 16-19 September, 2010 (2010), 85-90. 16 See Linda Jones Hall, Roman Berytus: Beirut in Late Antiquity (New York: Routledge, 2004); Simone Eid Paturel, Baalbek-Heliopolis, the Bekaa, and Berytus from 100 BCE to 400 CE: A Landscape Transformed (Leden: Brill, 2019).

10 examined the networks that made this trade possible.17 Interestingly, though, most of these studies examine the mechanics of trade and much is Rome-centric. Scholars have largely ignored

Levantine merchants diasporas and, in fact, the merchants themselves are seldom the object of study. When scholars focus on these traders, it is usually to make a larger point about the mechanics of trade across the Mediterranean.18 “Diaspora” is a term that rarely appears in these works, although scholars recognize a Greek and Phoenician diaspora between the eighth and fifth centuries B.C.19 However, the merchant networks seen in the Hellenistic and Roman periods fit the definition. Failing to recognize these networks as diaspora communities means a missed opportunity to study the same group in multiple settings. One reason for the lack of diaspora studies of these groups is the paucity of evidence. At many sites, scholars rely on surviving epigraphy to identify which merchant communities were in residence and some sites lack sufficient evidence about a group’s activities at a site or connections among cities.

For this case study, the definition of merchant diaspora is a group of merchants from the same city or region who migrated to a new location, took up long-term residence for the purpose of commerce, and maintained some measure of their ethnic or civic identity in their new home and connections to their mother city.20 Connections to the mother city can be difficult to demonstrate explicitly. Only one of the inscriptions under consideration in this thesis directly addresses these ties.21 This thesis does not attempt to prove these external linkages but rather

17 See Evers, Worlds Apart, Trading Together, 2017; John S. Kloppenborg and Stephen G. Wilson, eds, Voluntary Associations in the Graeco-Roman World (London: Routledge, 1996); Dominic Rathbone, “Merchant Networks in the Greek World: The Impact of Rome,” Mediterranean Historical Review, vol. 22, no. 2 (Dec. 2007): 309-320; Philip F. Venticinque, “Family Affairs: Guild Regulations and Family Relationships in Roman Egypt,” Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 50 (2010): 273-294. 18 Evers, for example, examines Levantine merchants to study trade networks. Terpstra 2013 examines the Tyrian merchants in Puteoli in detail to determine how traders conveyed information and enforced contracts. 19 Curtin, 75-81 20 Cohen, ix; Curtin, 2-3, 6-7; King, 145. 21 Vol. 1, inscription 421 in René Cagnat, Jules Toutain, Pierre Jouguet, and Georges Lafaye. Inscriptiones Graecae ad Res Romanas Pertinentes, 3 vols. Paris, 1911– 1927.

11 focuses on how these diaspora communities functioned as a whole and how they integrated into

Delian and Puteolan society.

Merchants in the ancient world usually were members of a collegium, a social and religious organization. These are not to be confused with medieval trade guilds. There were two kinds of collegia, official associations created by the Roman state, such as the Augustales, and unofficial associations created by private groups. The collegia under consideration here fall into the latter category. Their members were mostly peregrini, people who lacked Roman citizenship, and resident aliens.22 These associations were usually based in one city. While the city may have sent out numerous traders to establish stationes (trading stations) in multiple cities, these stations were not different branches of the same association. For example, there could be a network of

Tyrian merchants at different port cities who all had membership in their local association. When traders came to a new city, they may have worked briefly with the local association without gaining membership.23 For the most part, collegia were not regulatory bodies but rather served as a way for merchants to socialize with others, in part through worshipping the same deity. These were not professional organizations for people of one trade; most of the magistri, the leaders of these organizations, do not list their professional background on inscriptions. Instead, these associations brought together devotees of the same god, sometimes from the same city or region, and the members sponsored games, feasts, and religious rites. Such an organization provided key opportunities to network with other merchants and extend business connections.24

This thesis uses multiple terms to refer to diaspora merchants, namely peregrini, negotiatores, and foreign merchants. Many of them likely did not have Roman citizenship, with

22 Wilson, 1; Kloppenborg, 16 23 Wilson, 3; Kloppenborg, 17-8. 24 Kloppenborg, 18-20, 24-5; Rauh, 38-9

12 a few exceptions. Freedmen at Delos were Roman citizens, and perhaps also some Berytians at

Puteoli. However, most of these merchants were peregrini. Negotiator can be a slightly problematic term. It refers to a practitioner of a wide variety of business activities, ranging from banking to real estate to trade. Scholars seem to use this term to refer to business activities carried out by Romans; however, if diaspora merchants carried out the same activities, it seems logical to apply the same term to them.25 “Foreign merchant”, again, is slightly problematic; if successive generations remained in Puteoli and Delos, they were locals and the only marker of foreignness may have been their citizenship in another city.

This thesis uses the terms “acculturation” and “integration” to refer to interactions and relationships among diaspora communities. Many scholars interpret acculturation as follows: smaller cultural groups borrowing cultural traits from a larger and more powerful group of people, resulting in the absorption of the minority groups. This definition can be problematic because it assumes that change and influence flowed in only one direction, from the larger, sometimes dominant, cultural group to the smaller. It does not account for agency on the part of minority groups.26 Scholars also argue that the term “integration” can be difficult to define and sometimes becomes a catch-all term, without a concrete meaning.27 In this thesis, integration refers to separation and togetherness. Did diaspora communities attempt to cross cultural barriers, or did they form more closed communities? Acculturation refers to the intentional adoption of dominant cultural traits and the steps that diaspora communities took to negotiate their identities in a new cultural setting.28

25 D’Arms 1981, 27-9; Hollander, 144. 26 Stein, 905 27 Hamberger, 3 28 Bhatia, 57

13 Chapter 2 provides a case study of Delos between 166 B.C. and 87 B.C. It examines the archaeological, literary, and epigraphic evidence for four diaspora communities, the Romaioi, the

Poseidoniastes from Berytus, the Heracleistes from Tyre, and the Samaritans from Palestine and evaluates the level of acculturation displayed by each community. The excavation of residential blocks allows the examination of the houses where such members lived. Inscriptions from the gymnasium demonstrate the potential for deep integration into the broader community. The evidence suggests that while the level of acculturation differed among communities, the diaspora merchants living on Delos were quite integrated, intermarrying with each other and sending their sons to the gymnasium to learn and exercise side by side. The communities seem to have taken intentional steps to mitigate the differences between them, using common religious imagery to establish a framework within which each community was comfortable. By the time of the port’s demise, the Delian residents seem to have established a unique hybridized identity. The evidence speaks to a sophisticated understanding of other cultures and intentional construction of a Delian community.

Chapter 3 provides a case study of Puteoli in the first two centuries A.D. It examines the literary and epigraphic evidence of the Tyrian, Berytian, and Nabataean communities and also incorporates evidence from Ostia for a fuller picture of the interactions of these merchants, with both other communities and the Romans. Again, certain communities seem to have intentionally fit themselves into Puteolan society and gained a high degree of familiarity with Roman law and social customs. Because the site had a longer lifespan than Delos, the Puteolan evidence allows one to see the differing levels of acculturation that diaspora communities experienced.

Chapter 4 compares the diaspora communities at both sites. What similarities and differences exist among these communities and what explains them? The chapter also discusses

14 the hybrid identities that emerged as seen through epigraphy. Finally, the conclusion summarizes the key points and outlines the possible direction of future research.

15 CHAPTER 2

Seeking an Integrated Community: Merchant Diasporas at Delos (166-69 B.C.) 29

Delos is an ideal subject of such research as it was a key center of trade during the late

Hellenistic period and is relatively well documented. The epigraphy attests the presence of almost 70 different ethnic groups.30 The island lies in the middle of the Aegean Sea, halfway between Asia Minor and Greece (fig. 1), a natural center for trade in this region. The island is tiny, comprising less than 3.5 km2, requiring all the inhabitants to live in close proximity to each other (fig. 2).

This case study analyzes four merchant diaspora communities at Delos to determine their level of integration within the wider Delian community. Additionally, this chapter considers whether merchants from specific regions controlled certain economic activities. The communities of the Romaioi (“Romans”), the Poseidoniastes of Berytus, the Heracleistes of

Tyre, and the Samaritans, originally from Palestine, are the focus because they are among the best documented diaspora communities on Delos with specific evidence about their lives. Apart from some scattered literary sources, nearly all the relevant evidence is epigraphic in nature. This chapter first discusses the historical background of Delos, focusing specifically on the events that led to the island’s prominence in trade and the circumstances that ended this relatively brief but extraordinary situation. The nature of the evidence is the next aspect of discussion. Finally, this chapter introduces the diaspora communities present at Delos to evaluate the level of acculturation for specific communities.

29 All dates are B.C. unless given otherwise. 30 Martin, 263

16 History of Delos

From early antiquity, Delos was a significant Aegean religious center. According to

Greek mythology, Apollo and Artemis were born on Delos and the island became the center of a cult to the twin deities. For most of the island’s history, foreign powers dominated the island.

However, Delos was independent between 314 and 167.31 During the Fourth Macedonian War

(171-167) between Rome and Macedonia, the residents of Delos supported King Perseus of

Macedonia and allowed a Macedonian pirate to use their port to launch attacks on the Romans.

Upon their victory, the Roman Senate ordered the expulsion of the residents of Delos and put the island under Athenian control. The Roman government wanted to punish their erstwhile ally

Rhodes for an unwelcome attempt to mediate between Rome and Macedonia in this war. Given that Rhodes was a regional naval power that relied heavily on trade, the Roman Senate through a grant of ἀτέλεια (ateleia, exemption from public duties) made Delos a duty-free port, and it quickly replaced Rhodes as the foremost commercial center in the eastern Mediterranean.32 For the next century (166-69) the island experienced a trade-based economic boom. Because Delos had heretofore been primarily a religious center, it was necessary to build the infrastructure required to handle trans-Mediterranean commerce. As merchants flocked to the island, the new residents constructed this infrastructure, putting up dedications to honor people who played a key role in this construction.33 Delos remained an important center of commerce until 87, during the

First Mithridatic War (88-85 B.C.). As King Mithridates VI of Pontus in Asia Minor waged war against Rome, his navy assaulted Delos, pillaging the Temple of Apollo and demolishing the harbor. Much of the violence was directed against Romans and Italians living on Delos and many

31 Reger, 1 32 Rauh, 1-2 33 Rauh, xv

17 evacuated the island. While Rome ultimately won the war, the commercial infrastructure was severely damaged. The residents of Delos attempted to return to normal life on the island. The

Agora of the Italians was repaired, apparently assisted by Tyrian merchants, evidence of their ongoing investment in the community.34 There are no inscriptions for the gymnasium after 88 and it is likely that this building was destroyed.35 The second Mithridatic war began in 74 and

Cilician pirates raided the island in 69, effectively delivering the coup de grâce to the port.

Although the island was never abandoned and the grant of ἀτέλεια remained in place, Delos never regained its prominence as a commercial site. Scholars suggest that between the

Mithridatic wars and the creation of a stable environment for trade (e.g., the removal of pirates from the region by Pompey in the mid-60s), merchants began doing business at other ports.36

The once thriving port had reached the end of its commercial life.37

Primary Sources

Although literary sources reference trade on Delos, these shed no light on the diaspora communities on the island. Most relevant primary sources are epigraphic, providing evidence for the social organization of Delos. Many are acclamations, dedicatory plaques erected by merchants residing on the island. These inscriptions usually recognize an individual for services to the community. Additionally, some inscriptions were put up by certain groups of merchants, such as the Tyrian Heracleistes and the Berytian Poseidoniastes. Many of the inscriptions erected by certain groups of merchants likely stemmed from collegia.

There are also numerous ephebic dedications. These are inscriptions dedicated by the gymnasium on Delos that list some young men, known as ephebes, involved in this institution.

34Laidlaw 265-6 35 Laidlaw 263; Roussel 326 36 Laidlaw 269, 274 37 Rauh, 68-71

18 While the gymnasium originated in the Greek world as an institution to train the militia of a city- state, with membership restricted to young men with citizenship, over time it became a cultural and educational facility. In the Hellenistic period, the gymnasium began to lose its emphasis on military preparedness and instead focused on intellectual and athletic achievements, with membership open to foreigners living in the city. In a trading center like Delos, this has important implications for the acculturation of different diaspora communities. Traditionally, young men exercised in the nude, a fact that made it a somewhat problematic institution for some people, such as the Jews and probably also the Samaritans.38 However, such an institution would have been an ideal place for young men to foster connections with other diaspora communities.

While the inscriptions, written and erected by the inhabitants of the island during the second and first centuries, provide a first-hand account of Delos, they have limitations.

Inscriptions are often undated and generally fail to provide a wider context. They typically capture a specific moment in time, leaving scholars with many lacunae to fill. Additionally, epigraphy is usually class-biased; it typically represents the elite portion of the community that could afford to hire a stone-cutter.

Archaeological evidence, such as building remains and artifacts, also sheds light on the inhabitants of Delos. Many early excavations on the island focused on monumental structures, while later excavations focused on the larger domestic buildings. Recent work included research on the rural areas. The evidence produced by these excavations illuminates certain groups residing on the island, the Romaioi in particular. Much of the town is still unexcavated and

38 There is some evidence that Jews attended the gymnasium. Gruen notes a few Jewish names on ephebic lists from Cyrene, dating to the late first century B.C. and the early first century A.D. The Jewish philosopher Philo wrote about activities that took place in the gymnasium and seems to assume that his Jewish readers would have understood all of his references. However, it is unclear to what extent Jews participated and whether Samaritans also attended. See Gruen 2002, 123-26.

19 further study may reveal more evidence to connect certain merchant groups to particular places on the island.39

One valuable literary source is the first century A.D. Greek geographer Strabo. In his

Geography, Strabo described the different regions of the Mediterranean World. He writes:

Now although Delos had become so famous, yet the razing of Corinth to the ground by the Romans [in 146 B.C.] increased its fame still more; for the importers changed their business to Delos because they were attracted both by the immunity which the temple enjoyed and by the convenient situation of the harbor; for it is happily situated for those who are sailing from Italy and Greece to Asia. The general festival is a kind of commercial affair, and it was frequented by Romans more than by other people, even when Corinth was still in existence. And when the Athenians took the island they at the same time took good care of the importers as well as of the religious rites. But when the generals of Mithridates, and the tyrant who caused it to revolt, visited Delos, they completely ruined it, and when the Romans again got the island, after the king withdrew to his homeland, it was desolate; and it has remained in an impoverished condition until the present time. It is now held by the Athenians.40

This primary source demonstrates the prominence of trade at Delos. It attests to the grant of ἀτέλεια, as well as the presence of Romans and other unnamed communities. However, only the Roman merchant community is specifically listed; Strabo provides no insight into other merchants on the island. Thus, it is necessary to turn to other sources. The inscriptions on the island demonstrate that merchants from several cities operated on Delos. These include traders from Berytos, Tyre (both on the Phoenician coast), Syria, and Egypt, as well as Ascalon and

Samaria (both in Palestine).41 These traders seem to have formed more or less permanent diaspora communities of merchants on the island.

The inscriptions provide many intriguing insights into these foreigners on Delos. As an

Athenian cleruchy, or colony, Delos had its own boule, a council that proposed legislation, and

39 “Delos—a history of the excavations,” École Française D’Athènes, last modified January 30, 2018, accessed December 9, 2019, https://www.efa.gr/index.php/en/recherche/sites-de-fouilles/cyclades/delos/delos-historique-des- fouilles. 40 Strabo Geography 10.5.4. 41 Rauh, 45

20 ecclesia, an assembly of citizens that voted on legislation. These citizens likely had Athenian citizenship, not Delian, as they were the colonists who came from Athens when the city began administrating the island. There was also a chief executive magistrate, the Epimeletes, who served as a provincial governor of the cleruchy.42 However, the cleruchy does not seem to have been in place for very long. For the first few years of Athenian rule after 166, the boule and ecclesia passed decrees and kept accounts for the island. However, none of these decrees and records date after 145/144 and the next type of official records from the island is acclamations, typically honoring a resident of the island for some service provided to the Delian community.

It is not clear what happened to the cleruchy. Scholars have suggested that perhaps a slave revolt broke out on the island around 130, which would not be surprising, given the number of slaves that passed through Delos. In this situation, the cleruchy may have lacked the resources or the ability to act swiftly, causing the resident population to unite to put down the revolt and dissolve the cleruchy once they had restored peace. However, there is no direct evidence for this putative narrative.43 What is certain is that there is a gap of about twenty years in the evidence for administration on the island until the appearance of inscriptions as proclamations from the whole community instead of decrees from the boule and ecclesia. It is also unclear what kind of administrative system might have replaced the cleruchy. One possibility is that an assembly of cleruchs with Athenian citizenship passed decrees. However, this idea is largely discredited, as an inscription from 142/141 demonstrates that a new gymnasiarch was elected not by cleruchs but by the people who frequented the gymnasium, suggesting a more communal process. A second possibility is the existence of two assemblies, one for the cleruchs and one for the foreigners. It is unclear, though, how proclamations that include the whole community could

42 Roussel, 97, 121; Laidlaw, 176. 43 Laidlaw, 191-2

21 come from two assemblies. One also wonders how much weight the decrees of an assembly of foreigners would carry and what impetus the cleruchs would have for following them. The last possibility is that there was one assembly on the island that allowed participation by foreigners.44

This leads one to wonder who had citizenship on Delos and whether citizenship was a prerequisite for political power. Citizenship was usually a prerequisite for membership in the boule and ecclesia. The cleruchs who came from Athens likely retained their Athenian citizenship and while the members of the diaspora communities likely had citizenship in their cities of origin, residence in Delos would not necessarily have qualified them for Delian citizenship. Perhaps after the dissolution of the cleruchy, the Delian administration opened membership in the boule and ecclesia to the diaspora communities. However, there is no direct evidence for this. Alternatively, in a place like Delos, where everyone essentially was an immigrant, citizenship may not have mattered as much, especially since the island was reliant on foreign merchants who seem to have dominated the local economy. The distinction between colonists from Athens and resident foreigners may not have existed to the same extent as in

Athens itself. In this situation, it may not be so surprising to find foreigners as acting members of an assembly. This is a compelling possibility, but it is still unsupported by hard evidence.

Whatever the actual governing authority of Delos was in this period after 145/144, we must now turn to the evidence for specific diaspora communities attested in the epigraphic record.

Diaspora Communities

Ancient diaspora studies usually do not consider Roman citizens living in other

Mediterranean cities as part of a diaspora community. They usually view them as a host community, asking how Jews and other ethnic groups moved through Roman society and

44 Laidlaw, 193-4

22 interacted with Roman officials.45 On Delos, the Romaioi are a diaspora community in their own right, taking up residence on the island for commercial purposes. Because so many luxury goods and slaves ultimately destined for Italy moved through Delos, the port was an ideal base for

Roman merchants, and Romaioi were possibly the largest diaspora on the island.46 How do members of a large and politically dominant but still minority community transition to being a diaspora community? How does the size of a diaspora community affect its relations with other communities? The Romaioi may help to answer these questions.

The Berytian Poseidoniastes were established at Delos at an early date and had constructed their headquarters by 153 or 152.47 Additionally, they seem to have had a unique position in the Delian economy, as they also served as warehouse keepers for the stores of other communities.48 Did their position as a middlemen affect their interaction with other diaspora communities? How did diaspora communities negotiate differences among each other? The

Poseidoniastes provide a good lens for these questions.

The Tyrian Heracleistes also appear early at Delos, having also established their headquarters by 153 or 152, around the same time as the Berytian merchants. Yet the two communities maintained separate headquarters. The Tyrian community provides insight into the connections that diaspora communities maintained with others and their responsibilities toward the entire Delian community, e.g., the performance of liturgies. The Tyrians also seem to display a high level of familiarity with Hellenistic culture and provide another way to examine how diaspora communities negotiated their differences.

45 There are, of course, exceptions. Errington discusses levels of acculturation among Romans living in Greek cities. 46 Errington, 145 47 ID 1520 48 Picard, 272

23 Epigraphy and literary sources attest to the existence of a Samaritan diaspora community.

Josephus suggests that Samaritans lived in Egypt since the fourth century and papyri demonstrate their presence as early as the late third century. Other Samaritan communities appear in

Thessalonica and Sicily but these inscriptions date to the third and fourth centuries A.D. The best evidence for a Samaritan diaspora derives from late antiquity.49 Thus, the Samaritan community at Delos presents an opportunity to examine one of their earlier manifestations.

Some scholars have suggested both a Jewish and a Samaritan presence on Delos.

Although two inscriptions demonstrate the presence of a Samaritan community, the evidence for a Jewish community seems sparse. 50 Bruneau has connected six inscriptions to a Jewish community but only one has a secure context, i.e., inside a house. However, none of these inscriptions explicitly refer to Jews. One is dedicated ἐπὶ προσευχῆι , “for the prayer hall”.51

Three inscriptions are dedicated “to the highest god”.52 While many scholars associate these phrases with Jewish communities, they may just as easily refer to Samaritans. One study of 62 inscriptions from Palestine, all utilizing the phrase Θεῷ Ὑψίστῳ, revealed that at least nine were probably dedicated by Samaritan communities.53 Meerson notes that the phrase “to the highest god” was mostly used to refer to Greek gods and that Jewish communities for the most part seem to have avoided use of this phrase.54 Because two Delian inscriptions explicitly reference a

Samaritan community, perhaps these more ambiguous inscriptions were also erected by the

Samaritans and not by Jews. One building on Delos, GD 80, has been interpreted as a synagogue, potentially supporting the notion of a Jewish community. However, the interpretation of this

49 Pummer, 148-150 50 These two inscriptions do not seem to have a number. Bruneau refers to them as Inscription n° 1 and Inscription n° 2. Bruneau 1982, 467-475. 51 ID 2329 52 Bruneau, 1970, 484, ID 2328, 2330, and 2331 53 Meerson, 34 54 Meerson, 43

24 building is disputed because the identification comes from four inscriptions with a dedication to

“the highest god”.55 However, scholars disagree about when, if ever, this structure was converted into a synagogue; some suggest that it saw use as a synagogue from the second century, while others suggest that Jews met in the structure after 88. Hellenistic synagogues do not have a standard architectural form and, other than the inscriptions, the building does not contain features that suggest use as a synagogue.56 If GD 80 did indeed function as a synagogue, it may have been for the Samaritan community. However, the widespread destruction on the island after the

First Mithridatic War means that it is more difficult to say with certainty that GD 80 assumed this purpose after 88. The four inscriptions referencing a high god may have been placed there after the assault on the island and may have no connection to the building itself.

Is there evidence of acculturation among the Samaritans, as sometimes seen in Jewish diaspora communities, or did they remain a homogenous group? What was the purpose of their community at Delos? Were they participants in trade? One author has suggested that violence on the Levantine coast in this period may have driven some people, including Samaritans, to seek refuge in Delos. An examination of the Samaritan community may address these issues.

Communal Life in Delos

The leaders of the various collegia on Delos may have been in a key position to administer the port if, indeed, de facto Athenian administration lapsed over time. There is certainly precedent at other cities for traders managing their own affairs. Rauh notes that religious associations became more important in Capua and the surrounding region after the suppression of a revolt in 211 B.C. Collegia became more prominent in managing municipal affairs and Rauh suggests that merchants from Campania may have brought these ideas of

55 Bruneau and Ducat, 207 56 Meerson, 38-9

25 management with them to Delos.57 Roussel notes that in 148/147 B.C., there were three epimeletai (overseers or superintendents) on the island and that this number steadily decreased.

He suggests that representatives from various diaspora communities initially worked alongside the Athenian magistrates, albeit without titles, and potentially eventually supplanted the

Athenians. He does not discuss how this new method of administration might have worked but suggests that they may have held positions similar to those of the προστάται ἐμπορίου (prostatai emporiou), the officials in charge of the market, as at Naukratis, a sixth century B.C. Greek commercial settlement in Egypt.58

Whether this was the case at Delos remains to be seen. If collegia played any role in the administration of the port, it may have been necessary for different associations to collaborate.

This might suggest the possibility of a more integrated community; with goods coming from all across the eastern Mediterranean and beyond, it was in the interest of every diaspora community to facilitate the port’s commerce as efficiently as possible. However, without more conclusive evidence of the role of merchant associations in administering the port, it is difficult to say how this administration played out on the ground and whether this type of cooperation suggests a more integrated community.

The oldest surviving acclamation from this new administration dates from 126/125:

Θεόφραστον [Ἡρ]ᾳ[κ]λ[είτου Ἀχαρν]έα, ἐπιμελητὴν Δήλου γενόμενον καὶ κατασκευάσαντα τὴν ἀγορὰν καὶ τὰ χώματα περιϐαλόντα τῷ λιμένι, Ἀθηναίων οἱ κατοικοῦντες ἐν Δήλωι καὶ οἱ ἒμποροι καὶ οἱ ναύκληροι καὶ Ῥωμαίων καὶ τῶν ἂλλων ξένων οἱ παρεπιδημοῦντες, ἀρετῆς ἓνεκεν καὶ καλοκἀγαθίας καὶ τῆς εἰς ἑαυ[το]ὺς εὐεργεσίας ἀνέθηκαν.

“[The Statue of] Theophrastos, son of Heraklitos, of Acharnai, who served as Epimeletes of Delos and who constructed the agora and the quays of the harbor, dedicated by the Athenians who reside at Delos and the Roman and other foreign merchants and shippers

57 Rauh, 35-6 58 Roussel, 184-5

26 who do business there, on account of his excellence, his kindness, and his generosity toward themselves.”59

This inscription specifically names two communities living at Delos: Athenians, which is only natural given that the port was under Athenian control, and Romans. It is interesting to note that the Romans are mentioned while other groups known to reside on the island are referred to as τῶν ἄλλων ξένων, “all the other foreigners”. The Romans were likely singled out because

Rome politically dominated the region and possibly also because they constituted the largest group on the island. Alternatively, as Delos was a key site in the slave trade and Roman Italy was then a major destination for slaves, the Roman community on Delos may have been particularly prosperous, resulting in their special recognition in this inscription. The key in this inscription is the word used to describe these various groups: οἱ παρεπιδημοῦντες, from the Greek ἐπιδημέω,

“to be at home” or “to live at home”. These acclamations typically use three different participles to refer to the residents of Delos; in addition to οἱ παρεπιδημοῦντες, residents are also referred to as οἱ κατοικοῦντες (“those settling in or colonizing”) and οἱ καταπλέοντες (“those sailing down”). One scholar has suggested that these different participles may suggest a shift in the perception of the diaspora communities living on Delos, transitioning from those frequenting the island to do business there to those living there on a more permanent basis.60 However, an examination of the inscriptions demonstrates that this is not the case. The inscribers seem to have used all three participles interchangeably. The earlier inscriptions do not demonstrate a clear progression between people sailing down to Delos and people settling there.

What is interesting is that diaspora communities are almost silent in island-wide proclamations prior to 126. Fourteen inscriptions record decrees passed by the ἐκκλησία κυρία,

59 ID 1645. After the translation provided by Rauh, 23. 60 Rauh, 24-5

27 the legislative assembly. These usually honor specific people for their services to the Athenian community on Delos. Most of these refer only to the Athenians on the island, ὁ δήμος ὁ

Ἀθηναίων τῶν ἐν Δήλωι κατοικούντων, “the Athenian people settling in Delos”. If one read only these inscriptions, one would infer that this is a community solely of Athenians. Obviously, this is not the case. The Berytian and Tyrian merchants were numerous enough to each have a dedicated community building in 153/2, implying a more permanent presence. Yet neither of these communities is referenced in these decrees from the Ecclesia. However, two decrees from the Ecclesia briefly mention Romaioi on the island.61 In both they are included in a larger group of people and the participle κατοικούντων is linked to the Athenians, making it sound as though the Romaioi do not have a status worth mentioning. However, this is noteworthy when one considers that they are the only diaspora group mentioned in these declarations by the Ecclesia on Delos. This is most likely because of the size or political importance of the Romaioi community. However, potentially the dedicatees of these inscriptions, Euboulos of Marathon in one and Delian priests in the other, performed a function that heavily involved the Romaioi.

Other diaspora groups are not included in island-wide proclamations issued by the community until 126. This may speak to the standing of members of other diaspora communities in the early years of the Athenian cleruchy. The Ecclesia likely made a nod to the Romaioi for political and economic reasons but there may have been no incentive to recognize publicly other communities.

Perhaps diaspora communities had a more tenuous status before the mid-120s. Acclamations made by the Athenians to the Romaioi and other foreigners on the island may imply a more cohesive community or the widely acknowledged permanence of these communities.

61 ID 1498 and 1499.

28 What are the implications of a more permanent community for integration? Diaspora merchants likely brought their families with them if they intended to live permanently on Delos.

Traders at a busy entrepôt like Delos needed goods and services even if they only resided at the port intermittently, and this could easily entice tradesmen to move to the island to meet these needs. Additionally, during this 80-year period, warfare in the Levant may have driven traders from Berytos and Samaria, among other groups, to seek a permanent home on Delos, at least until it was safe to return.62 Ephebic lists also contain the names of numerous young men from eastern cities.63 Potentially these young men were enrolled into the gymnasium on Delos as they resided on the island to learn the business from a family member. However, their presence could suggest that more merchants and tradesmen were setting up shop at Delos on a more permanent basis and bringing their families with them. Merchants who visited Delos briefly to do business may have had little inclination to integrate into a wider community beyond establishing new connections. However, families living on the island invited a greater possibility of integration.

While the first generation may have had at least a basic knowledge of Greek or even required a translator to conduct trade, a second generation could grow up fluent in both their native language and Greek. First generation traders were likely well accustomed to Hellenic culture; the second generation might even have Greek names, a practice widely attested in the eastern

Mediterranean, and be accustomed to navigating a multi-cultural setting. This seems to suggest that even if a first generation did not fully integrate into the Delian community, their children might, especially as their sons met young men from other cities at the gymnasium.

With such an array of diasporic communities living on Delos, is it possible to determine if certain groups traded specific items? Strabo writes that many of the goods passing through the

62 Rauh, 45 63 Rauh, 27

29 port were not products but people—Delos was a key site in the slave trade, with slaves usually taken in the eastern Mediterranean, moved west, then dispersed among latifundia in Italy. Strabo names Cilician pirates as key captors and traffickers of slaves. He also notes that the rulers of

Egypt and Cyprus did not hinder this trade but rather seemed to encourage it.64

Further, Delos was not simply a center to exchange products via trade. It also hosted several industries. Pliny writes that Delos was a center of perfume production, a fact corroborated by archaeological evidence, that also demonstrates the existence of a purple dye factory.65

Initially, it may seem that one could connect certain merchant groups to products. Several authors, such as Ovid, refer to “Tyrian purple”, and one might assume that the Tyrian

Heracleistes specialized in trade of this product. However, the evidence is a bit more complicated. Tyre was not the only city that harvested the murex shells necessary for the dye; purple dye production is also evidenced at Sidon, Rhodes, Lesbos, Motya (Sicily), Carthage, and elsewhere. One Latin inscription from Rome describes a Roman merchant as a purpurarius, a trader in purple dye.66 Additionally, there may be connections between Italian families and the slave trade.67 It is important to note that in the ancient world, pirate and merchant could be synonymous.68 Strabo also notes that the pirates both kidnapped and sold slaves. This suggests that some pirates were also merchants who found slaves to be an especially lucrative commodity.

Although Strabo only refers to these traders as Cilician pirates, it seems that other merchants also traded slaves taken as cargo during routine stops at eastern Mediterranean ports.

64 Strabo 14.5.2 65 Pliny, Natural History 13.2; Karvonis, 196. 66 ILLRP 809 in Rauh, 55 67 Rauh, 49-51, 54-5 68 Manning, 124

30 Archaeological evidence may suggest connections between merchants and their specialty.

The excavators of the Maison des Sceaux on Delos found numerous amphorae, more than were likely needed for domestic consumption, suggesting that the residents may have been wine merchants. The presence of Campanian ceramic ware and Roman busts suggests that the occupants may been Italians.69 In this instance, it is possible to connect a particular merchant with a trade. However, this kind of evidence is not common and analysis of other ethnically identified residences do not always yield a conclusive answer about the occupant’s commercial activity.

While it may not be possible to connect certain diaspora groups to specific products, it is also important to consider the places of commercial exchange for evidence of integration. Delos has four agorai: the Agora of the Compitaliastai, the Agora of Theophrastos, the Tetragonal

Agora (also referred to as the Agora of the Delians), and the Agora of the Italians, although some question whether this latter structure was indeed an agora. These markets naturally all lie close together, all bordering the Sacred Harbor, the natural debarkation point for the island (fig. 2).

However, commerce does not seem to have been limited to these areas. Commercial installations line both sides of major streets and cluster around buildings such as the sanctuary of Apollo, the theater, and the agorai. In the theater quarter, commercial installations seem especially plentiful.

The higher elevation in this quarter apparently hosted commercial buildings that served the daily needs of the Delian residents. The lower area, particularly streets close to the waterfront, are packed with apparent commercial buildings.70 This demonstrates that commerce was the most important element of the Delian economy and that there was no single commercial area. Most buildings appear to have served both domestic and commercial and/or craft activities. In one

69 Rauh, 215-17 70 Karvonis, 217

31 building in the stadium quarter, for example, it seems that two rooms were devoted to artisanal work and the rest of the building functioned as living space, while a building in the theater quarter appears to have had one room dedicated to commercial purposes.71 The Maison des

Sceaux is another example of a building used for multiple purposes. While the downstairs lacked decoration such as mosaics, the upstairs had both mosaics and wall paintings, suggesting that the merchants used the downstairs to conduct business and lived on the second floor.72 Because of this mixed use, it is difficult to tell if the buildings identified as commercial installations were always used for commerce or adapted for other purposes.73

However, not all commerce took place in permanent structures. Literary sources mention numerous temporary installations in Athens where merchants displayed their wares. This kind of activity is not recorded on Delos but it seems likely. Many such installations were likely made of perishable materials and thus do not leave a trace in the archaeological record. However, in the

Agora of the Compitaliastai, excavators found square and circular holes in the pavement, leading to the suggestion that they may have been fastenings for temporary racks or tents.74 These allowed itinerant merchants to take advantage of sporting events, plays, and religious feasts. All provided opportunities for merchants to sell their goods to the residents.

Based on the archaeological evidence, it is unclear if merchants from different communities worked in close proximity to each other. One supposes that merchants who utilized temporary racks and stalls regularly found themselves in company with other groups. However, this gives no insight into the integration of these communities on the island. The home workshop may prove to be more promising; if one could connect certain buildings to members of different

71 Karvonis, 196 72 Rauh, 216 73 Karvonis, 196 74 Karvonis, 159

32 communities, one could demonstrate whether merchants of Delos lived in mixed neighborhoods or in ethnic enclaves. Accordingly, it will be necessary to evaluate the evidence for three such communities, the Romaioi, the Poseidoniastes, and the Samaritans.

Romaioi

Both literary and epigraphic sources attest to the presence of Romans at Delos. Of the nearly 70 ethnic groups attested, the Romans appear to be the largest single group.75 Hatzfield notes that inscriptions referencing the Romaioi indicate the status of 221 men on the island.

Within this group, 88 appear to be ingenui, or freeborn men, while 95 seem to be freedmen, and

48 apparently are slaves. Additionally, 27 out of the 88 ingenui are Greeks from Italy.76 Based on the number of these inscriptions and the prevalence of Roman names of many merchants, scholars have suggested that the Agora of the Compitaliastai was frequented by Romans.

Additionally, one scholar has suggested connections between the altars to Mercury, Maia, and

Herakles on Delos and those in Rome, noting similar architectural features and the primacy of the Mercury and Maia cult in Rome.77 If in fact Romans merchants had their own agora, one must establish the identity of these figures. It seems that two different Roman collegia were active in the agora, the Mercuriales and the Compitaliastai, a cult centered around the deities of the crossroads. The earliest inscriptions attesting to the presence of the Mercurialies date to the mid-140s, while it seems that the Compitaliastai put up their first inscriptions around 99.78 The

Compitaliastai may represent a shift in the makeup of the Roman merchants on Delos. The personal names seem to shift from Roman personal and family names in the Mercuriales inscriptions to Greek personal names with Roman family names among the Compitaliastai. The

75 Martin, 263 76 Hatzfield, 247-8 77 Rauh, 106, 121 78 Rauh, 106, 110

33 Greek personal names suggest that the members of the Compitaliastai were freedmen and slaves of prominent Roman families, sent to Delos to conduct trade.79 However, it is not clear if the earlier Roman merchants on Delos were truly Roman citizens, accumulating wealth, likely through the slave trade, who then sent their freedmen back to the island to carry on their family business.

One cannot easily determine ethnicity in the ancient world; one could easily have a nesting doll identity—citizen of a town, member of a collegium, subject to a larger power, such as the Romans or Ptolemies, etc. Many people who were not Greek took on Greek names, making it difficult to determine whether someone was from Greece or simply emulating Greek culture. Thus, it is possible to have Romaioi who gained Roman citizenship upon manumission by citizen owners and worshiped Roman deities because of their exposure to Roman religion, yet had Greek names because they were taken from the eastern Mediterranean as slaves and were therefore not ethnically “Roman.” It is difficult to determine how such Romanized freedmen were received at Delos. Their status as former slaves may have carried a stigma that did not allow them to integrate into a wider Delian community. Conversely, their knowledge of Greek and other languages and their understanding of other cultures may have allowed them to pursue business more successfully and penetrate deeper into the community, as they had insider connections to both Rome and eastern Mediterranean traders. Additionally, once someone gained

Roman citizenship, the difference between a freedman and a Roman citizen who had never been enslaved might have been indistinguishable to people outside Rome. Hatzfield notes that categorizing who was and was not a “true Roman” on Delos could be complicated. The Greek inscriptions do not record the subtleties of Latin names and it is not clear which Romaioi were

79 Rauh, 110

34 free-born Roman citizens, or ingenui, and which were freedmen and slaves. Scholars feel somewhat confident in some of these identifications, resulting in the numbers of ingenui, freedmen, and slaves listed above. However, these numbers are certainly not comprehensive.

Hatzfield suggests that while one might be able to distinguish between ingenui and slaves, it is more difficult to distinguish between ingenui and freedmen. He suggests that an eastern- sounding name could allow one to distinguish freedmen and slaves from free-born Roman citizens, the ingenui.80 However, there is also evidence that some Romaioi were Greeks from

Italy. Thus, the term Romaioi likely has more cultural connotations than anything else. It may suggest that the Delian community saw people from Italy as one homogenous cultural group, not recognizing the differences that might have been apparent in Italy.

How integrated were Romaioi into the Delian community? A few buildings have been identified as the homes of Romans or Italians. The Maison de Q. Tullius is one residence confidently identified as belonging to the Romaioi (fig. 3). The excavators found Greek and

Latin graffiti on the walls and a statue base bearing a bilingual inscription honoring Q. Tullius, apparently erected by three freedmen.81 The Maison des Sceaux was also likely inhabited by

Romaioi because of the Campanian ceramic ware and Roman busts found inside.82 Additionally, the Maison de l’Hermes seems to have been a Romaioi residence. Dedications inside the building indicate that the residents were the freedmen of the Paconii family, an Etrurian family connected to trade and banking in the eastern Mediterranean.83

External features may indicate the presence of Romaioi in more buildings. An altar painting in the Maison de Q. Tullius, interpreted as representing a scene associated with the cult

80 Hatzfield, 245-7 81 Rauh, 195-99 82 Rauh, 215-15 83 Rauh, 223

35 of the Lares Compitales, leads to the possibility of identifying Romaioi residences by the iconography of this cult (fig. 4). If this suggestion is correct, then at least 25 other buildings may have been the residences of Romaioi, including some of the most opulent houses on the island.

As Romans in particular traded in slaves, it follows that the wealth from this trade funded extravagant dwellings.84 External wall shrines for the Lares Compitales appear on three buildings in the stadium quarter, all in close proximity to each other, with two on the same insula block and the third just across the street.85 Another sector of the city has been described as “a large Roman enclave” because excavations revealed Roman dedications, Italian amphorae, and wall paintings associated with Roman religious rites.86

However, is this enough to describe such areas as ethnic enclaves? The stadium quarter has also been referred to as a “mixed neighborhood” because of the presence of the Delian gymnasium and residences possibly for Samaritans and others from the eastern Mediterranean.87

Additionally, one must consider the possibility that some of the people painting Lares

Compitales imagery on their houses were Greeks originally from Italy. Notably, all the inscriptions erected by the Compitaliastai are in Greek. The most common assumption is that freedmen who learned about the Lares Compitales rites while enslaved in Italy dedicated these inscriptions. However, Greeks colonized portions of the southern Italian coast and some cities, such as Puteoli, retained a strong Greek influence into the mid-second century B.C. and beyond.

Thus, Greeks residing in these areas could have been influenced by Roman culture and incorporated Roman religious rites into their own practices. These merchants may also have participated in the Lares Compitales cult on Delos. One inscription in the Agora of the

84 Rauh, 201-3 85 Rauh, 196-7 86 Rauh, 217 87 Rauh, 197

36 Compitaliastai appears to dedicate a statue to Roma. The worship of a personified Rome was mostly a Greek phenomenon, lending credence to the idea that some Romaioi merchants were

Greeks.88 Additionally, Romans may have purchased slaves from other places in Italy and given them Greek names. These slaves would likely have grown up familiar with the Lares Compitales cult and thus were ideally positioned to carry out the rites for this cult on Delos.89

There are two other possible explanations for these shrines. Other residents may have set up these shrines as a sign of outward conformity to the Romaioi majority. Additionally, houses may have changed hands frequently. Merchants may have come to Delos for a season and then returned home. Would landlords have been picky about leasing buildings to members of certain communities or would they have rented to whoever could pay? In this situation, people may not have had much choice about the external decoration of a home. If the presence of a Lares

Compitales shrine indicates the presence of Romaioi, then one expects to see a shrine in many of the domestic buildings on Delos. However, if other merchants painted this imagery on their homes to conform to their Romaioi neighbors, then one still expects to see them all over the island. These factors make it problematic to determine if the Lares Compitales imagery is indicative of Roman inhabitants or merely demonstrates the spread of certain religious beliefs.

Berytian Poseidoniastes

The Poseidoniastes at Delos are attested in several inscriptions. It seems that these

Berytian merchants honoring Poseidon were established on Delos quite early, in either 153 or

152. One inscription honors M. Minatius, a Roman, for being a good and righteous man and praises him for his actions toward the community. M. Minatius raised 7,000 drachmae for construction of the headquarters of the Poseidoniastes and promised to continue as a patron of

88 Rauh, 112-3 89 Bruun, 716-7

37 the community. In return for his services, the Berytian merchants allowed him to put up a statue wherever he wanted in the courtyard, as long as he did not put it inside the temple or the shrines.90

This inscription is interesting for a number of reasons. Chief among them is the fact that the Berytian merchants honored a Roman for his patronage. Not only did the Poseidoniastes accept the financial assistance of Minatius, they also allowed him a statue, presumably either of himself or of a god (based on the restrictions of location, perhaps Minatius was invited to erect a bust of himself). A bilingual inscription and a Latin inscription demonstrate an association of

Roman worshippers of Poseidon; in the bilingual inscription, they are referred to as both

“Ποσειδωνιασταὶ Ποσειδῶνι” and “Neptunales Neptuno.”91 M. Minatius is not among the men listed as magistrates of the association; ID 1520 appears to be the only reference to him on

Delos. However, the text does describe him as a follower of Poseidon and perhaps he was a member of the association of Roman worshippers of Poseidon.92 This would provide more incentive for Minatius to offer financial assistance to the Berytians and give them greater reason to accept it. However, he also could have been a banker with financial interest in the Berytians’ dealings on Delos; providing money and serving as their patron may have given him an unofficial say in some dealings and ensured that he received a good return on his investment.

The early date (153/152) of this text in Delos’ tenure as a prominent entrepôt may be significant. If there was indeed a shift in the ethnicity of the Romaioi, this inscription predates it.

It seems that these merchants were accepting the aid not of other easterners but of a Roman citizen. This might suggest that, at least as far as financial matters were concerned, there was a

90 ID 1520 91 ID 1751 and 1752 92 ID 1520 in McLean, 198.

38 hint of integration or cooperation on the island. Conversely, a newly established merchant community may have lacked the funds to erect a large communal building. The Poseidoniastes apparently occupied a unique business niche on Delos. They were not only merchants but also shipowners and warehouse keepers and apparently the only professional establishment to hold all three professions.93 Perhaps funding the building of a professional headquarters helped to establish good business relations between the Romaioi and the Poseidoniastes.

Other inscriptions that reference the Poseidoniastes seem to be dedications in honor of benefactors of the association.94 However, all but two were found inside cisterns, i.e., in secondary contexts; these two appeared in the small court of the headquarters of the

Poseidoniastes. Thus, the original context of these other inscriptions is unknown. One would assume in or near the association’s headquarters, but it is difficult to speak conclusively.

The headquarters of the Poseidoniastes had both a secular and a religious function (fig.

5).95 It was originally thought that the Berytian merchants built their headquarters to include three chapels for three Berytian gods and, upon expansion, added a fourth deity, the personified

Roma, by relocating one of their native gods to give precedence to this new deity. However, recent research suggests many other reasons to expand the headquarters and that Roma was a deity worshiped by the association from the beginning. The other two deities were likely

Poseidon and Aphrodite-Astarte.96 Both the incorporation of a deified personification of the city of Rome and the statuary suggest the high level of integration of the Berytian merchants in the

Delian community. None of the statuary inside the clubhouse depicts obviously Levantine

93 Picard, 272-3 94 ID 1772-1776 95 Picard, 286-7; Bruneau, 133 96 Bruneau, 133-4

39 themes.97 The statues depict the same figures popular across the island: Aphrodite, the Erotes, and Herakles. There are also twelve bases for other Greek and Roman portrait statues, as well as a Hekate herm, and a goddess who may be either Cybele or an Eleusinian Demeter.98 One might mistake this clubhouse for the headquarters of a Greek merchant association were it not for the inscription on the structure identifying it as the headquarters of the Berytian Poseidoniastes.

These sculptural arrangements may have helped the Poseidoniastes to negotiate across social and economic boundaries. With a close reading of the sculptures from the clubhouse, one can make associations between the Greek gods and their counterparts from the Levant. The Berytian merchants also seem to have incorporated the statues into the function of the room, a technique borrowed from Italian sculptural arrangements.99 This kind of arrangement would have created an environment familiar to the Roman merchants with whom the Berytians had close business connections.100

Multiple layers of associations within the same sculptural arrangements implies a deep understanding of other cultures. It suggests that the Berytian merchants were shrewd businessmen who knew exactly how to make other merchants feel at home in their headquarters.

Additionally, it suggests that the same images could have had a different meaning for each diaspora community. Merchants from different groups could have met in the same room, observed the same group of statues, and attached different associations to them. To Greek

97 Martin 266. The exception to this is a statue of a nymph that was part of a sculpture group. Scholars have identified this nymph as Beroē and suggested that the hand on her drapery belonged to Poseidon. If these identifications are correct, this would be the only statue in the Poseidoniastes clubhouse that has a direct connection to Berytos itself. 98 One of these busts likely depicts M. Minatius. 99 Martin, 262, 276. The marble support for one statue group has traces of blue paint. Mosaic fragments and the remains of colored stucco found around the statue group suggest that the piece was located in an ornately-decorated room. Martin suggests that a portion of the room was painted to resemble the outdoors and that the statue group was positioned in front of this wall, setting the piece in a “wilderness” inside. 100 Martin 256, 269, 273, 276

40 merchants, statues of Greek gods may have seemed very traditional, while Roman merchants may have associated them with the influx of Greek art into Rome and connected them with the expansion of Rome’s political dominance. Merchants from the Levantine coast may have connected these statues to their native gods. These statues would thus provide a common frame of reference for each merchant.

Identifying the residences of the Poseidoniastes has been more problematic. Some suggest that the Maison des Dauphins was inhabited by a Levantine trader because the mosaic in the entranceway, room A, depicts a symbol of Tanit, an important Phoenician deity (figs. 6 and

7). However, this building also has an exterior wall shrine for the Lares Compitales, making the identification of this house inconclusive.101 The blending of religious elements might point toward integration; however, it could also indicate the presence of people from the eastern

Mediterranean who incorporated the worship of the Lares Compitales into their religious observance.

Tyrian Heracleistes

There is also evidence of a Tyrian community at Delos. One inscription records the creation of a temple to Herakles in 153/152. It is the only inscription that directly references the

Tyrian Heracleistes.102

With the archon Phaidrius, the eighth of Elaphebolion,103 the ecclesia in the temple of Apollo; Dionysus son of Dionysus, the head of the association, said: Since Patron son of Dorotheus, who is a member of the association, approached the assembly and reaffirmed the goodwill existing in him toward the association and because he has fulfilled many needs without hesitation and continues to speak and do what is advantageous both for the community and the association all the time in accordance with his own existing goodwill to each of the merchants who sail and the ship captains, and now even more since his goodwill has increased with the goodwill of the gods, he called upon the community to send out an embassy to the Athenian people so that a place may be given to them in

101 Rauh, 204 102 Roussel, 89 103 Late March, 153/2.

41 which they would build a sanctuary of Herakles, who has become for men the source of many good things, also being a founder of the native lands. Having been chosen as ambassador to the Boule and the people of Athens, after accepting enthusiastically, he sailed from his own expenses and after pointing out the goodwill of the assembly to the people, he encouraged the demos, and for this reason he fully accomplished the will of the association and he increased the honor of the gods, just as it was fitting for him. Having shown his love of humanity in the fitting times, he said the right things on behalf of the association on the most necessary occasion with all willingness and love of honor, and he received the company for two days on behalf of his son.104

Therefore, so that he may prepare himself for the future without being called on, so that the community might be clearly shown to be considerate to the men who have good disposition to the community and so that they might be shown returning worthy thanks to the benefactors and so that many others might become admirers of those from the community because of their thanks to Patron and they might compete out of love of honor to do something for the community, for good fortune, it seemed fit to the association of Tyrian Heracleistes merchants and shippers to praise Patron son of Dorotheus and to crown him with a golden crown in the sacrifices carried out for Poseidon on account of his goodness and nobility which he showed constantly to the association of Tyrian merchants and shippers. And it seemed fit to set up an inscribed image of himself [Patron] in the precincts of Herakles and elsewhere wherever he might want; and let him be exempt from paying for and performing public duties in all the general meetings that take place; and let it be a concern to those who have been set up as chiefs of the association and those set up as treasurers and to the secretary so that in the sacrifices and meetings that take place, Patron may be publicly proclaimed according to this proclamation: “The community of Tyrian merchants and shippers crown Patron son of Dorotheus a benefactor.” And let them record this decree on a stone stele and set it in the precinct of Heracles; and let the treasure and the head of the association share the cost for these things.105

During the time when Dionysus son of Dionysus was head of the association and Patron son of Dorotheus was priest.106

This inscription provides several insights into the Tyrian community. One is the statement at the beginning that Patron did what was advantageous “both for the community and the association.” This seems to suggest that the Tyrians saw the community and the association as two different things. The inscription uses the word “koinos” to refer to the community and

“sunodos” to refer to the association. “Koinos” could refer either to people from a shared

104 The text here is incomplete. The text reads “ὑπὲρ τοῦ ὑοῦ.” ὑοῦ is perhaps ὑιοῦ. 105 The cost of inscribing and erecting the stele. 106 ID 1519. Translation by Laura Smith and Dr. W. Adler.

42 background or to something that is common or public, and in this case may refer to the public.

However, it is not clear to which group of people that “koinos” refers. The dedicators could have meant Tyrians who lived on Delos and worshipped Herakles. If this was the case, it would suggest that not all Tyrians on Delos were part of the Heracleistes but were still seen as part of the Tyrian community. However, the dedicators may also have used “koinos” to refer to a broader community composed of people who were not Tyrians. In this case, this would suggest that Patron was acting on behalf of the entire Delian community and the Tyrian Heracleistes when he went to Athens and requested permission to build a sanctuary. This may demonstrate that the Tyrian community was fully integrated into the broader community. However, the rest of the inscription suggests that the first interpretation is more likely. The Tyrian association decided to crown Patron with a golden crown so that the rest of the community will know how to properly honor the men who work on their behalf. In these references to the community, the inscribers used the word “sunodos.” This may suggest that the inscribers were referring to the rest of the Tyrian community specifically, to ensure that it recognized the people who enhanced the status of the community. These references to a community and not just members of the association at such an early date suggests that the Tyrian merchants brought their families to live on Delos and they needed to set a precedent for their public image that they hoped to pass down to the next generation of merchants. The construction of a sanctuary also suggests a more permanent presence. This sanctuary seems to be known only from this inscription.

Additionally, this inscription gives insight into the familiarity that the Tyrians, and probably other communities, had with the Athenian authorities. The Tyrians understood the importance of appearing before the boule in Athens and formally requesting permission to construct a temple to Herakles. This suggests that the Tyrians were already familiar with the

43 Athenian political and legal system or had learned quickly how to operate under this new authority. The Tyrians’ chief deity was Melqart, often equated with Herakles. In building a temple to Herakles and not Melqart, the Tyrians demonstrated their understanding of Greek religion. It is unclear if the Tyrians were translating “Melqart” as “Herakles” and thus equating the gods or if they recognized a distinct difference and were using “Herakles” as a way to make this Greek god part of their identity in Delos, thus mitigating some of the differences between themselves and other Delian residents. Herakles may have been a mediating figure, giving the

Tyrians an aspect of familiarity, especially since they stress that this god is one of their foundational deities. This could have helped the Tyrians form business connections.107

Another interesting aspect of this inscription is the benefits Patron receives for working with the Athenians. The Heraclesistes say that he should be “exempt from paying for and performing public duties in all the general meetings that take place.”108 This likely refers to liturgies, duties people performed on behalf of the community. Because the inscribers refer to general meetings, these are probably liturgies for the Tyrian association, although it is not clear what these were.

Samaritans

Two inscriptions attest to the presence of Samaritans on Delos. These are particularly interesting because they suggest that these communities also had Roman patrons. The excavator,

P. Bruneau, dated the first inscription between 150 and 50 and the second between 250 and 175 by palaeography. However, the dates are disputed. Kartveit suggests that both inscriptions date to

107 Martin, 270 108 ID 1519

44 the first half of the second century B.C., although he acknowledges that is still a tentative window.109 The translations read as follows:

“The Israelites in Delos who send their temple tax to sacred Argarizein crown with a golden crown Serapion, son of Jason, from Knossos, on account of the favor, the favor unto them.”110

“Israelites who send their temple tax to sacred, holy Argarizein honor Menippos, son of Artemidoros, from Herakleion, himself and his family, (him,) who built and kept of his own means a synagogue to Go[d]…”

The rest of this inscription again seems to mention crowning someone with a gold crown but is too fragmentary to restore in full.111

Clearly, Serapion and Menippos are not Jewish but Greek names. As the latter is recognized for construction and maintenance of a synagogue, it is possible that these men were

Samaritans from Crete (both Knossos and Herakleion are cities on this island) who took Greek names. However, there is also precedent for Gentiles serving as patrons of a Jewish community.

The Gospel of Luke (7:5) records the healing of a centurion’s slave in Judaea and the Jews in this passage say that the centurion built their synagogue. The Jewish community of Acmonia in Asia

Minor also had a non-Jew as a patron—the priestess of the local imperial cult. An inscription attests to the fact that this woman paid for the restoration of the local synagogue.112 Both of these examples date to the first century A.D., about a century after Delos’ decline, and both concern

Jewish, not Samaritan communities. However, it is possible that this kind of patronage took place earlier to benefit both Jews and Samaritans. Gentiles living on Delos may not have noticed or fully understood the differences between Jews and Samaritans and may not have preferred to serve as patrons of one community over the other.

109 Kartveit 2009, 218-19 110 Translation from Kartveit 2014, 466 111 Translation from Kartveit 2014, 467 112 Van der Horst, 326

45 There are two potential interpretations for the Samaritan inscriptions. The benefactors of the Samaritan community were either Greeks from other cities or other Samaritans. The wording of the inscriptions makes it difficult to tell which is more likely. On the one hand, the inscriptions employ the same style as other inscriptions on the island: the benefactor is

Σαραπίωνα Ίάσονος Κνώσιον and Μενίππον Ἀρτεμιδόρου Ἡρακλείον, with the descriptive information about the benefactor in the genitive (“son of this man, from this place”). This is how the ephebes are listed in the gymnasium inscriptions from the island, with the youth’s name in the nominative and parentage (not included in all the gymnasium inscriptions) and city of origin in the genitive. Sarapion and Menippos could be Greeks from Knossos and Herakleion living on

Delos, providing financial aid for the Samaritan community and continuing to be identified by their city of origin. Conversely, they could also be Samaritans supporting their coreligionists but who took Greek names to blend into their host communities. In the Berytian and Tyrian inscriptions, these communities also recognize someone for his assistance to the community. In the case of the Berytians, this individual is a Roman, while the Tyrians recognize someone from their own community. In both inscriptions, one gets the sense that the benefactor is still present in the community. The Samaritan inscription honoring Menippos also seems to suggest some continuing involvement with Samaritans on Delos. This makes it more difficult to tell whether these benefactors are Samaritan or Greek. A Samaritan benefactor might suggest a lower level of acculturation and more group cohesion among the Samaritans, as they sought financial support from other members of their own diaspora. If true, though, it still suggests acculturation on some level, as taking on Greek names suggests a desire or at least a vested interest in publicly fitting into a wider community. Conversely, seeking financial support from Greeks on Delos suggests

46 that the Samaritans had, at the very least, business interests to maintain, and that accepting financial support was one way in which they interacted with the broader Delian community.

One scholar also notes that the form of these inscriptions is very Greek, with the stele using a design found across the Mediterranean (figures 8 and 9).113 One author notes that the second inscription seems carved in rasura, i.e., the stele was repurposed to honor Menippos publicly.114 Both of these observations may not reveal much about the Samaritans’ acculturation.

The standard stele design may reveal more about stonecutting practices on Delos than about the

Samaritans’ preference for a Greek design. Carving an inscription in rasura may suggest that the community lacked the necessary funds to commission a brand new inscription but used what was available, either repurposing one of their own stele or another used elsewhere on the island.

It is not clear from the inscriptions why the Samaritan community took up residence on

Delos. The Hasmonean leader John Hyrcanus (r. 134-104), campaigned against several cities in

Samaria in Palestine. He destroyed the city of Shechem and its Samaritan temple between 112 and 107. Additionally, the nearby cities of Samaria and Beth Shean were besieged, with much destruction, a few years later.115 However, it is unlikely that this caused Samaritans to take up residence on Delos. The text of the inscriptions suggests that the Samaritans were on Delos before Hyrcanus’ Samaritan campaigns. The Samaritans at Delos were sending their temple tax to Argarizein, implying a still functioning temple with staff in Palestine who could receive the tax. Additionally, although there is no direct evidence, this could suggest that the Samaritans migrated directly from Samaria to Delos. Nevertheless, although it did not spark the creation of the Samaritan community on Delos, Hyrcanus’ campaign may have resulted in the flight of more

113 Kraabel, 45 114 Kartveit 2009, 216 115 Bourgel, 510-14

47 Samaritans to Delos and thus the enlargement of their community. The logical explanation for the Samaritans’ presence on Delos is trade, but its nature is not clear.

The two inscriptions erected by the Samaritan community may help explain their presence on Delos. If Serapion and Menippos were Samaritans, these inscriptions may suggest commercial connections between these Cretan cities and Delos. Additionally, Samaritans in

Egypt, particularly in Alexandria, may have been involved in this trade.116 The Delian

Samaritans may have maintained trading connections with their Egyptian and Cretan coreligionists.

One building at Delos has been identified as a potential residence of Samaritans. There are two phases for this house. In the first phase people entered the structure through two entrances in room A (Fig. 10 for the first phase). In the second phase, these entrances were blocked and a new entrance created at the other end of room A. The residents also added a latrine and a peristyle. (Fig. 11 for the second phase).117 The building has two Samaritan dedications and a circular stairwell that leads to an underground well. Some scholars have assumed that this well is a mikvah (Jewish ritual bath). However, this house also has an exterior Lares Compitales shrine, making the identification more problematic. Some scholars suggest that the Samaritans practiced religious syncretism to account for these contrasting religious symbols. However, this idea is now largely discredited.118 Rauh has suggested that the inhabitants may have been Jews with membership in the Compitaliastai.119 However, this does not explain why the inhabitants would have closed off the entrances to room d later on. Two entrances into the same room seem to imply the movement of a larger number of people in and out of the space. Trümper suggests

116 Pummer, 149 117 Tang 245 118 Kartveit, 220 119 Rauh 204 n. 22

48 that, perhaps early on, this was not actually a house but a synagogue and, in the second phase, was inhabited by Romaioi who added the Lares Compitales wall painting and remodeled the house.120 Determining the function of this structure as a synagogue seems to lie with the putative mikvah. It initially seems the most plausible possible identity for the underground well, given that the dedications in the building are Samaritan. However, as the Samaritans on Delos were not entering their temple and as it is unclear if they handled goods intended to return to Samaria specifically for use in the temple, it is unlikely that a ritual bath was required.121 The site plan suggests that this building was larger than the neighboring ones, so it is possible that the structure had its own cistern instead of a mikvah. Several Delian houses had their own cisterns, so this would not be out of the ordinary.122

Signs of Integration

One drawback about the inscriptions for each merchant community is that they do not usually reference other communities. Some inscriptions, like those of the Berytian, Tyrian, and

Samaritan communities, do reference benefactors, although with the Samaritans it is not clear if this benefactor was a coreligionist or not. These inscriptions reveal business connections with other diaspora groups and demonstrate that diaspora communities had an understanding of the protocols utilized by other cities. However, these inscriptions do not demonstrate the depth of the connections among communities. Did they interact only for business purposes or did they gather socially for community-wide events? There is evidence that members of diaspora communities had more than surface level interactions with the members of other communities.

120 Trümper, 223 121 From an email correspondence with Jocelyn Burney, Ph.D. candidate in religious studies at UNC. 122 Rauh, 196

49 Two inscriptions from the Agora of the Compitaliastai demonstrate that the Romaioi were not the only people who made dedications in this public square. Excavators found fragments of a marble fountain or basin dedicated by a certain Theodorides son of Theodoros, an

Athenian. He may also have been the Athenian archon in 127/126. Additionally, a Tyrian dedicated a statue to Artemis, Apollo, and Leto.123 These dedications could indicate close ties between the members of these communities. Additionally, the dedication by the Tyrian may demonstrate another form of interethnic negotiation. Erecting a statue of the mythological figures associated with Delos may have demonstrated the commitment of the Tyrian community to their new place of business. Some residents of the Levantine coast mixed Greek and Phoenician religious elements and used these combinations to create religious innovations that tied deities more closely to Phoenician cities.124 The statue of Apollo, Artemis, and Leto may show that the

Tyrians used this kind of innovation with these deities. By making them part of Tyrian religious and social identity, the Tyrians at Delos would have had one more way to connect to the other diaspora communities in residence, while interpreting these figures in a way unique to themselves. If this is the case, it would demonstrate an intentional step toward constructing a more integrated community.

Additionally, the domestic architecture points toward a more integrated community. The houses display a mix of architectural features associated with different cultures. While many houses in Delos display architecture similar to contemporary Greek houses, Delian homes also feature broad-rooms reminiscent of Eastern architecture and several Roman characteristics, e.g. a clear axial layout, two-story porticoes, and T and U-shaped triclinia.125 Additionally, the statuary

123 Rauh, 122 124 Martin, 270 125 Tang, 32-43

50 in some houses depict the same figures—Aphrodite and her followers, Dionysus, Herakles, and herms.126 Based on domestic architecture and the artifacts inside homes, it is difficult to reconstruct which homes were inhabited by which diaspora groups. The most concrete evidence of habitation by a specific community is the Lares Compitales imagery. As noted above, however, even this evidence lends itself to more than one interpretation and may not be the clearest determinant of the identity of the inhabitants. These mixed architectural features and shared iconography suggest that features typically associated with one cultural group blended to create a hybrid aesthetic. Delian residents likely used the same kind of interethnic negotiation displayed in the clubhouse of the Berytian Poseidoniastes, intentionally blending features to make their guests feel more comfortable. People made numerous changes to their houses. One of the most interesting changes is the addition of peristyles and porticoes. Many houses with these added features did not have enough space for a full portico or peristyle, so the residents adapted these features to fit their space, reducing the number of columns and creating narrow peristyles.

Additionally, people rarely used marble for these added features but constructed them out of reused material.127 This speaks to the intentional creation of a certain aesthetic.

The blending of architectural features may have occurred because the Delians wanted their houses to contain popular elements and displayed the same statues because of the connections between Aphrodite, Hermes, and Herakles and their commerce. Because the island’s economy was entirely reliant on safe voyages and regular movement of goods, deities associated with trade and safe harbors would likely have been popular among every diaspora community.

However, these shared architectural features and iconography could also be associated with mixed marriages. Funerary stelae from Rheneia, the neighboring island where all Delian

126 Tang, 50 127 Tang, 39

51 residents were buried, testify to the existence of mixed marriages.128 These marriages may have been formed to enhance trade or political connections or simply because residents lived in such close proximity. Both explanations seem likely. These marriages would also have fostered more interaction among diaspora groups, and the domestic architecture may reflect the influence of these marriages. These mixed marriages speak to a high level of integration among the diaspora communities.

The gymnasium provides additional intriguing evidence for the level of integration of diaspora communities on the island. Several inscriptions commemorate important events for the gymnasium. One of these provides a glimpse into the range of young men present in the institution. The inscription, dated to 119/118, reads as follows:

“The one who served as gymnasiarch during the year when Hipparkos was archon, Ariston son of Ariston, a member of the Hermeios deme, recorded those who served as ephebes and those who served as members of a particular class of ephebes for him and those of the anointed who performed priestly duties at the festival of Apollo.”129

The rest of the inscription records the names of eighty-eight young men, organized in two columns. The left-hand column lists the Ἔφηϐοι, the ephebes, and the right-hand column lists the Παρεύτακτοι (literally “attending”), those who served as a particular class of ephebe. The names of the young men who performed priestly duties are in the lower portion of the right-hand column. Table 1 provides a breakdown of the cities from which these young men hailed.

The young men serving in various capacities during the festival of Apollo hail from a broad range of cities. Most lie in the eastern Mediterranean, either on the Levantine coast, in

Asia Minor, or Aegean islands. A few, such as Amphipolis, Meliteia, and Megara, are on the

Greek mainland. For an island under Athenian administration, there are very few young men

128 Tang, 65 129 ID 2598

52 listed from Athens; only three are explicitly referred to as Athenians. The number of Athenians increases if one considers six young men listed only by their deme, all apparently Athenian. It is not clear why these ephebes are not listed as Athenians if they had membership in an Athenian deme. Possibly, they lacked Athenian citizenship. That still makes for a total of nine young men from Athens. Additionally, the ephebe from Piraeus (the port of Athens) likely had strong ties to

Athens, and possibly also the ephebe from Salamis, if this Salamis refers to the island near

Athens and not the Cypriot city. This seemingly low number of Athenians could be explained in a few different ways. ID 2598 mentions young men serving during a festival and is not meant to be a comprehensive list of every young man enrolled in the gymnasium. Additionally, some

Athenian families may have preferred to send their sons to a gymnasium in Athens. The gymnasium was a place of both learning and networking, and perhaps some Athenian families wanted to take advantage of better connections in Athens.

Young men from Tyre served in all three capacities during the festival of Apollo. This suggests full integration into the Delian community. With six young men in the festival, Tyre is the second most represented city on this list. Only Antioch has more young men in the festival, at sixteen.

It is unclear why no Samaritans were recorded as members of the gymnasium. The young men at the gymnasium were listed by city and not by religion. With potential trade connections to Alexandria, they may have been recorded as Alexandrians and not as Samaritans. Samaritans from other cities may have been listed under these cities, as well. Conversely, Samaritans may have had religious or other cultural reservations about joining the gymnasium. If Samaritans did not join the Delian gymnasium, this may suggest more limited integration into the community.

They may have formed business connections with other diaspora communities and accepted

53 financial support but declined to socialize and network through the gymnasium, suggesting a more exclusive community.

The paucity of Romaioi is also notable. Among 88 young men total, only four are listed as Romaioi. Given the prominence of Romans at Delos, this number seems low. As with the

Athenians, there could have been larger numbers of Romaioi enrolled in the gymnasium, with only these four chosen to serve in the festival. However, another inscription from the gymnasium shows a similarly low number of Romaioi, with only three young men listed, while seventeen young men are listed as Athenian. This inscription lists 44 men total.130 Looking over the numbers of cities represented on ID 2598, one sees that, for the most part, only one young man from a city, sometimes two, was chosen to serve in the festival. Only eight cities have young men serving in more than one capacity during the festival, and even when young men from the same city serve in several capacities, the numbers are still low. For example, three Tyrians served as ἔφηϐοι, while one served as a παρεύτακτος, and two performed priestly duties. Only

Antioch has a large number of young men serving in the festival of Apollo, with a total of sixteen young men represented in all categories. This increased number could result from the fact that more than one city in the ancient world was named Antioch; these young men could have been from several different cities bearing the same name. Do the numbers of young men from each city on ID 2598 correspond at least approximately to the numbers of young men enrolled in the gymnasium from their respective communities at Delos? That is, is this a representative sample of the diaspora communities in the overall make-up of the gymnasium? If the answer is

130 ID 2595 lists the young men who served during the festival of Hermes. Some of these young men may have been listed in more than one category. The name Zoilos from Samos is listed in two categories, as a priest and as a leader of the gymnasium. It is not clear what role this latter category performed during the festival. It seems unlikely that two young men from Samos would share the same name, and therefore this is probably the same young man serving in two capacities.

54 yes, then one expects to see more Romaioi. It may not signify that some cities in the Levant and in Asia Minor had fewer young men in the gymnasium because when one considers the list as a whole, these regions are well-represented. If the answer is no, then one understands that the gymnasiarch likely chose young men who had distinguished themselves in some way and that the numbers listed below cannot be used as an indication of the size of a community.

Additionally, the gymnasiarch may have selected young men from different cities so that each diaspora community was represented during this festival. This kind of strategic action could have resulted in more support for the gymnasium and encouraged more families to enroll their sons.

One scholar has suggested that the Romaioi may have preferred not to enter the Delian gymnasium but instead had their own facility, the structure known as the Agora of the Italians, and that freedmen may have been barred from the gymnasium.131 However, this seems unlikely.

The difference between an ingenuus and a freedman was likely indistinguishable outside Rome, especially when one considers the opulence of the houses on Delos known to belong to Romaioi, inhabited by freedmen working on Delos for absentee patrons. D’Arms notes an instance of a freedman receiving honors at Naxos by the local population.132 There does not seem to be any reason why the inhabitants of Delos would prohibit freedmen from entering the gymnasium or why wealthy financiers would help pay for a separate gymnasium (if in fact at the Agora of the

Italians) when there was already a gymnasium on the island. Inscriptions from the Agora of the

Italians honoring other residents are more likely evidence of business connections, while the

Agora of the Italians is likely not a segregated gymnasium but a facility used for other purposes.

131 Rauh, 309-11. Rauh bases this suggestion on the ground plan of the Agora of the Italians and the fact that it includes a bath complex. 132 D’Arms 1981, 30

55 Additionally, Romaioi had a history of being involved in the Greek social environment.

Inscriptions from across the eastern Mediterranean demonstrate Roman men and boys taking part in festivals, as well as engaging in and winning Greek intellectual and athletic events. Romaioi are attested in the gymnasiums at Pergamum, Athens, Larissa, and Naxos.133 It is a non sequitur that Romans would participate in aspects of Greek social life in other cities but not in Delos.

What, then, does one make of the low number of Romaioi attested in the gymnasium inscriptions? Is this evidence of low integration into the Delian community? Many scholars seem to think that this was the case. Errington, for example, notes that the acculturation of Romaioi probably depended on the location and suggests that on Delos, they had a “superficial participation” in the wider community because there are few inscriptions dedicated by Romaioi to the traditional Delian deities.134 Additionally, he writes that they “show many of the social characteristics of such isolated and relatively homogenous groups, which we know better mutatis mutandis from modern European colonies. In particular the Delian inscriptions provide evidence for characteristic club activities (χοινά)” and points to the Hermaistai, Poseidoniastes, and

Apolloniastai as important organizations for the Romaioi community.135

However, one wonders about the validity of this argument. Romaioi had no apparent hesitation about joining Greek social life. Would a sizeable Romaioi community really keep individuals from joining the gymnasium and engaging in other activities with their co-residents in Delos? At the very least, good business practices might require Romaioi to be involved in

Delian cultural life. As the largest group on the island, Romaioi may have tended to congregate separately. However, this does not necessarily mean that strong group cohesion would be the

133 Errington, 146-9 134 Errington, 144 135 Errington, 144

56 reality. A small diaspora community may, on the one hand, be more likely to integrate into the local population. However, a small group might also be more likely to exhibit strong group cohesion and resist acculturation into the wider population. In a setting like Delos, where there was no longer a native population and all the inhabitants were part of a diaspora community, the traditional “rules” concerning diaspora communities may have had no relevance. Trade at Delos, after all, took place against the cultural backdrop of Hellenism. Many of the cities represented at

Delos had already been working in multicultural environments and by 120/119, Roman merchants were also likely well-accustomed to working in a multicultural environment.

Additionally, freedmen working for Roman patrons were likely often from the eastern

Mediterranean and were thus already used to a multicultural environment. After years as a slave in Italy, freedmen on Delos may have wanted to congregate with people from their city of origin.

Based on the wide geographical diversity of the cities of origin for these ephebes, the gymnasium at Delos was likely a place where preordained boundaries disappeared. Families from all over the eastern Mediterranean who were living and working on Delos sent their sons to the same gymnasium for both Greek education and recreation. The gymnasium was thus an ideal location for young men to forge connections with other diaspora communities. Establishing and maintaining social ties likely fostered business connections. On an island essentially lacking a host community, the gymnasium likely helped to break down barriers between diaspora communities and fostered a broader sense of community.

Conclusion

The evidence suggests that the Delian diaspora communities were relatively well- integrated into the whole population. The evidence from the gymnasium demonstrates that, with the potential exception of the Samaritans, each diaspora group enrolled young men in the

57 gymnasium, and this environment helped them foster both personal and business connections.

Mixed marriages also formed closer ties between communities. Additionally, it seems that people took intentional actions to make other communities feel comfortable in their business headquarters and homes. Homogenous statuary across the island suggests a Delian aesthetic that played up the hybrid identities of these communities, as each community could interpret the figures and motifs in a way specific to their cultural background and then reinterpret them in the context of a shared Delian environment. These tactics allowed diaspora communities to retain a sense of their original identity and culture while providing them with the tools to forge a new identity and culture on Delos. Because there was no native population, diaspora communities could find ways of living and working that fostered connections. However, it must be stressed that Delos is of course an exceptional case for considering the cultural interactions among diaspora communities in the ancient Mediterranean world. A more “typical” case study, the city of Puteoli in Italy, will be considered in the next chapter.

58 CHAPTER 3

The Integration of Diaspora Communities in Puteoli

This chapter presents a case study of the integration of diaspora communities into

Puteolan Society in the first two centuries A.D. Puteoli is an ideal site to examine such integration because of its prominence as a trading center and the presence of several diaspora communities. It was long the primary Italian port serving Rome, despite being roughly 150 miles south of the city. Merchants could move goods from the port at Puteoli to Capua, 25 miles to the north, and from there along the Via Appia to Rome.136 (Fig 12). The satirist Lucilius referred to

Puteoli as “Lesser Delos.”137 Puteoli was one of the key sites for the annona, the grain imports to

Rome; as Rome expanded, imported grain became necessary to feed the burgeoning population and many ships involved in this trade docked at Puteoli.138 Inscriptions attest to the presence of numerous diaspora communities living and working in Puteoli, among them Tyrians, Nabataeans and Berytians from the eastern Mediterranean. Because of Puteoli’s proximity to Rome and

Italy’s central location in the Mediterranean, merchants from western Mediterranean cities such as Carthage and regions such as Gaul and Baetica (modern Spain) are also attested at the site.

Puteoli is thus an ideal location to examine merchant diasporas in the Mediterranean world.

This case study considers the relationship among diaspora communities and with local authorities, in this case the Romans. Did diaspora communities in Puteoli exist inside their own boundaries, interacting with the wider community only for business? Or did they have a larger

136 Richard Stillwell, MacDonald, William L. McAlister, and Holland, Marian, “Puteoli (Pozzuoli) Campania, Italy” in The Princeton Encyclopedia of Classical Sites, Princeton, N.J. (Princeton University Press), 1976. 137 Lucilius, Satires 3. 118 138 Taco T. Terpstra Trading Communities in the Roman World: A Micro-Economic and Institutional Perspective. (Leiden: Brill, 2013), 20, 32-33; “Puteoli” in Oxford Classical Dictionary (4th edition), edited by Simon Hornblower, Antony Spawforth, and Esther Eidinow.

59 presence in the social fabric of Puteoli? The evidence suggests that at least some of these diaspora communities were integrated to some degree into the Puteolan community, interacting with local Roman citizens for religious and social purposes. To demonstrate this conclusion, this chapter examines the inscriptions pertinent to the Tyrian, the Berytian, and the Nabataean communities at Puteoli. These communities have been selected because of the unique evidence they provide. One key inscription attesting to the Tyrian diaspora is a lengthy one which demonstrates the length of time the Tyrians had worked in Puteoli as well as the extent to which the Tyrians participated in Puteolan social life. Although Berytian merchants are also attested at

Puteoli, there is much less evidence for their presence compared to Delos. Still, the available evidence provides more context for the trading station on Delos. Examining the Tyrians and the

Berytians at both Puteoli and Delos allows for further comparison between these sites. The

Nabataeans were Arabs from the southern Levant who conducted overland trade between the

Arabian Peninsula, the Persian Gulf, and the Mediterranean Sea; the inscriptions demonstrate that they traded across the Mediterranean as well with a trading station in Puteoli.139

Because of Puteoli’s proximity to Ostia, a port at the mouth of the Tiber that would eventually supersede Puteoli by the 2nd century as the primary port of Rome, this chapter also considers evidence from Ostia. While merchants from the Levantine coast are not well-attested in Ostia, one structure, the Piazzale delle Corporazioni, contains intriguing evidence about the ways in which diaspora merchants carried out their business.

This chapter first discusses the history of Puteoli and then considers the evidence for the

Tyrian, the Nabataean, and the Berytian communities. It concludes with the implications of this

139 Terpstra 2015, 73-94

60 evidence for the integration and acculturation of these communities into Puteolan society and how evidence from Ostia may further enlighten the picture.

History of Puteoli

The early history of Puteoli is obscure. Some literary sources claim that Cumae

(northwest of Puteoli) established the city as a colony to set up a port on the Bay of Naples.

Other ancient writers thought that Greeks from Samos settled at the site around 520 B.C. There are few archaeological remains from before the mid-fourth century B.C. to verify either theory, and it is possible that the Greeks from Samos joined an established site. Puteoli probably joined the Roman alliance system in the late 4th century B.C. The first literary source to reference

Puteoli is Livy’s History of Rome. Livy mentions the city in his discussion of the Second Punic

War (218-201 B.C.): “At the end of that year [215 B.C. ] Quintus Fabius by the authority of the senate fortified and garrisoned Puteoli, which as a commercial centre had grown in population during the war.”140 Thus, by the late 3rd century, Puteoli was already a commercial city. The battle at Cannae in 216 B.C. was a disastrous defeat for Rome at the hands of Hannibal.

However, even after this battle, when many cities in southern Italy switched their allegiance to

Hannibal, Puteoli remained loyal to Rome, likely because the city profited from trade during peace time. By 212 B.C., the city was the key port resupplying the Roman army for operations against Hannibal in southern Italy and in 199 B.C. the Romans set up a customs station. By 194

B.C. the Romans had established a Roman citizen colony at Puteoli.

In Books 5 and 6 of his Geography, Strabo focused on Italy, including bits of local lore and information about what made each region distinct. He writes, “Next in order come the headlands that are in the neighborhood of Dicaearchia, and then the city itself. In earlier times it

140 Livy, 24. 7.

61 was only a port-town of the Cumaeans, situated on the brow of a hill, but at the time of

Hannibal’s’ expedition the Romans settled a colony there and changed its name to Puteoli from the wells there.”141

This passage attests to the fact that Puteoli was known for its port even before Roman occupation; Strabo states that the residents of nearby Cumae used the town to import and export goods. Additionally, Strabo includes the original name of the city. When it was founded, Puteoli was a Greek city called Dicaearchia. Some scholars suggest that the Romans changed the name when they established a colony there in 194 B.C.; however, it is possible that the city was already known by this name during the preceding period. Coins bearing the inscription “Phistlus” may be associated with the city; these date to a period before Roman occupation and some historians suggest that “Phistlus” may be an earlier version of the name Puteoli. Livy is the first historian to refer to the city as Puteoli (in the passage cited above). This alternate name for the city is important because even after Rome colonized Puteoli, Greek writers such as Strabo and

Diodorus Siculus continued to refer to it as Dicaearchia and Greek continued to be prevalent in the city.

In his Library of History, Diodorus Siculus includes more concrete information about trade at Puteoli. He discusses the process of quarrying iron ore on the island of Elba, in the

Tyrrhenian Sea, and explains the processing of the iron.

These are purchased by merchants in exchange either for money or for goods and are then taken to Dicaearcheia or the other trading-stations, where there are men who purchase such cargoes and who, with the aid of a multitude of artisans in metal whom they have collected, work it further and manufacture iron objects of every description. Some of these are worked into the shape of armour, and others are ingeniously fabricated into shapes well suited for two-pronged forks and sickles and other such tools; and these are then carried by merchants to every region and thus many parts of the inhabited world have a share in the usefulness which accrues from them.142

141 Strabo, 5. 6. 142 Diod. 5. 13. 2.

62

This passage demonstrates that Puteoli was one of the most prominent ports on the

Tyrrhenian coast. Elba lies off the coast of Tuscany, and Puteoli is far to the southeast. Diodorus

Siculus portrays Puteoli as a key site for both the importation of raw materials and the exportation of finished products. Additionally, the passage gives insight into the many layers of the trading process. Diodorus mentions four layers of trade: merchants who obtain the raw materials and transport them to a commercial center; buyers of the raw materials; artisans; and merchants transporting the finished products to other commercial centers across the

Mediterranean. Sometimes the same person may have filled more than one of these roles; for example, merchants may have purchased pieces of iron and given them to artisans with whom they worked closely, or they may have transported the raw materials to Puteoli and then transported the finished products to other cities. Some of the products manufactured at Puteoli, such as the sickles and two-pronged forks, were common-use objects, to serve the general population. These may not have travelled far beyond Puteoli. However, higher-quality goods, such as the armor Diodorus mentions, were likely transported to other ports.

During the next four centuries, Puteoli was the premier port in Italy. Between 200 B.C. and A.D. 200, trade across the Mediterranean was at an all-time high; with the Romans as the dominant power in the entire region, trans-Mediterranean trade was relatively safe. Ship sizes increased so that traders could carry larger cargoes to meet the demands of the urban populace in

Rome and other metropolitan centers of the Mediterranean.143 Puteoli had a natural harbor, making it a safe location for ships to dock, and the port quickly became a key site for the importation of luxury goods as well as everyday staples into Italy.144

143 Manning, 130; D’Arms 1981, 8-9. 144 Dubois, 1-27

63 Puteoli began to decline as the new port at Ostia (constructed by Claudius in A.D. 41-54 and expanded by Trajan in 98-117) gained prominence. Some merchants transporting the annona brought their shipments directly to Ostia for transport up the Tiber to Rome, bypassing Puteoli entirely. Additionally, a lengthy inscription erected by Tyrian merchants working in Puteoli laments the group’s inability by the 2nd century to pay their rent.145 However, D’Arms disputes this argument. He notes that the first concrete evidence of Egyptian grain moving through Ostia comes from Commodus’ reign (180-192).146 This rebuttal is somewhat problematic. Claudius and Trajan may have considered the grain dole as they constructed and expanded the Ostian port facilities, and merchants may have shipped grain for the annona to Ostia at earlier dates. The evidence for these shipments may no longer exist. The improved port facilities at Ostia do not necessarily demonstrate that Puteoli lost all significance as a commercial port. D’Arms notes that there does not seem to be much evidence that merchants from the eastern Mediterranean stopped doing business at Puteoli. The financial straits of the Tyrian merchants may reflect the finances of the entire port. The Tyrians erected their inscription in A.D. 174, just nine years after the outbreak of a plague that soldiers carried back to Rome.147 Port cities were likely especially vulnerable to this plague, as large amounts of people and goods moved through on a regular basis. Although the Tyrian traders make no reference to the plague, it is likely that it was one factor behind their declining financial circumstances. Inscriptions erected in Puteoli in the late second century demonstrate that merchants from Eastern Mediterranean cities were still working in Puteoli.148 The new harbor at Ostia almost certainly moved some business up the coast but it seems that Puteoli continued to thrive for longer than previously thought.

145 D’Arms 1974, 104 146 D’Arms 1974, 104 147 Duncan-Jones, 116-17 148 D’Arms 1974, 120-121

64 Many literary sources demonstrate Puteoli’s commercial importance. In The Histories, the Greek historian Polybius (c. 208 – c. 125 B.C.) does not discuss Puteoli by name. However, his description of the surrounding countryside attests why Puteoli was an ideal site for trade.

Polybius writes, “The plain round Capua is the most celebrated in all Italy, both for its fertility and beauty and proximity to the sea, and because it is served by those seaports at which voyages to Italy from nearly all parts of the world land.”149

The fertility of the surrounding countryside made Campania an ideal location for latifundia, large estates run by the Roman elite. These landowners grew a variety of crops, such as olives and grapes, to make olive oil and wine for export and to sell other produce in nearby markets. Because Puteoli was on the north coast of the Bay of Naples, it was easy for ships to access. Ships could unload goods at Puteoli, such as grain and luxury goods from the eastern

Mediterranean, and pick up locally-grown produce to transport to other locations.

Puteoli was also a key site in the trade of luxury goods. Rome had a high demand for spices, perfumes, ivory, and silk from the eastern Mediterranean. Additionally, Puteoli was not far from Pompeii and Herculaneum; these and other cities on the Bay of Naples were the equivalent of resort towns for the Romans. One Roman writer, Ennius (239-169 B.C.) mentioned young men “spending the summer holidays in playful recreation at Puteoli.”150 As a vacation destination, there was a high demand for luxury goods via Puteoli. As many of these luxury goods came from the eastern Mediterranean, Puteoli became an ideal city in which to set up trading stations with diaspora communities involved in the trade across the Mediterranean.

Thus, the ancient literary evidence suggests a complex economy at Puteoli involving agricultural production of cash crops, industries such as metal-working, trade of a wide range of

149 Polyb., 3. 91, 2-3. 150 Ennius, Testimonia, 85.

65 products, and some level of tourism. This apparently offered significant economic opportunities for various diaspora communities.

Diaspora Communities

This chapter considers the evidence for the Tyrian, Nabataean, and Berytian communities at Puteoli. The surviving epigraphic record from Puteoli is much smaller than that from Delos.

However, several inscriptions provide key evidence about how these communities interacted with other diaspora communities and with the Roman authorities. Unlike the Delian inscriptions, which provide evidence about the origins of trading stations, these inscriptions for the most part are much shorter. They consist mostly of honorary inscriptions and capture a snapshot of these communities. Additionally, the extant archaeological remains do not allow one to reconstruct residences or the headquarters of these associations.

The Berytian and the Tyrian communities are the subjects of analysis because they were present at both Delos and Puteoli. This allows for comparison between the sites. Did these merchant communities operate in the same ways in both cities or did they change their tactics in a different environment? Do they exhibit similar levels of acculturation? These communities allow one to trace the activities of diaspora merchants in different settings.

The Nabataeans were Arabs usually associated with the spice trade across the eastern deserts in the southeast corner of the Roman Empire. However, they did not limit themselves to this region. Inscriptions attest to their presence in Sidon, Rhodes, Delos, Athens, and Rome, while Nabataean coinage has been found at Antioch in Syria and Kourion on Cyprus.151 Puteoli is one of the few sites outside Nabataea with multiple Nabataean inscriptions.

151 Roche, 75-90

66 Tyrians

Several Greek inscriptions attest to the presence of Tyrians at Puteoli. Most are only a few lines long. However, a lengthy inscription from A.D. 174 provides a fascinating insight into the Tyrians’ standing in the community. The inscription includes a letter from the Tyrians resident at Puteoli to officials in Tyre, as well as their response. The provenance of this Greek inscription is unknown.

Letter written to the city of Tyre, the sacred, inviolable, and autonomous metropolis of Phoenicia and of other cities, and mistress of a fleet. To the chief magistrates, council, and people of their sovereign native city, from the [Tyrians] resident in Puteoli, greeting.

By the grace of the gods and the good fortune of our lord the Emperor there is many a station in Puteoli, as most of you know, and ours excels the others both in adornment and in size. In the past this was cared for by the Tyrians resident in Puteoli, who were numerous and wealthy; but now this care has devolved on us, who are few in number, and since we pay the expenses for the sacrifices and services to our ancestral gods consecrated here in temples, we do not have the means to pay the station’s annual rent of 250 denarii, especially as the expenses of the Puteoli Ox-Sacrifice Games have in addition been imposed on us. We therefore beg you to provide for the station’s continued existence. And it will continue if you make the 250 denarii paid annually for rent your concern; for the remaining expenses, including those incurred to refurbish the station for the sacred festival-days for our lord the Emperor, we set down to our own account, so as not to burden the city. And we remind you that the station here—unlike the one in the capital, Rome—derives no income either from shipowners or from merchants. We therefore appeal to you and beg you to make provision for this unfortunate circumstance. Written in Puteoli, July 23, in the consulship of Gallus and Flaccus Cornelianus.

From the minutes of the council meeting, 21 Dios in the year 300152, under chairmanship of C. Valerius Kallikratês son of Pausanias, president.

A letter from the Tyrian station-operators was read, a letter delivered by one them, Laches153… After this reading, Philocles, son of Diodorus, said, “The station-operators in Rome have always had as their custom to pay, from what they themselves receive, 250 denarii to the ones in Puteoli. The station-operators in Puteoli now wish that this (custom) be observed for their sake; if the Tyrians in Rome no longer want to grant them (the money), they wish to take charge of both stations themselves on the same condition.” The (councilors) proclaimed approval: “Philocles has spoken well; what the Tyrians in

152 The boule in Tyre used a different dating system. 11 Dios year 300 is the equivalent of December 8, 174. 153 This portion of the inscription recaps the contents of the letter.

67 Puteoli wish is just. It has always been thus, let it be so now. It is to the benefit of the city (i.e., Tyre); let the custom be preserved.154

The inscription raises more questions than it answers. The letter writers say that they do not make money “either from shipowners or from merchants” but do not indicate the sources of money for the trading station. Presumably, the station was privately funded by the resident

Tyrians. As the inscription does not mention their professions, it is difficult to say how the

Tyrians fit into the economic life of the city. In his Natural History, Pliny the Elder (A.D. 23/4-

79) discusses the making of purple dye and says that because of a certain manufacturing technique “the dark purple of Pozzuoli [Puteoli] is more highly praised than that of Tyre or

Gaetulia or Laconia, places which produce the most costly purple.”155 Purple dye is closely associated with Tyre, so perhaps the Tyrians in Puteoli were involved in its manufacture and sale. However, the technique of making purple dye spread beyond Tyre and local Puteolans could also have been responsible for dye-making, while the Tyrians served other economic functions. For instance, they may have been involved in the glass industry, for which Tyre was famous, and this product would have been well-received around the Bay of Naples and in

Rome.156

One interesting feature of this inscription is that the Tyrians do not connect their association to a specific deity. While they called themselves the Tyrian Heracleistes on Delos, here they are simply the Tyrians resident in Puteoli. This does not necessarily mean that the association did not have a patron god. Perhaps the Tyrians did not need this form of identification when they wrote to officials in Tyre, as the officials would have known exactly who was sending the letter. Perhaps identifying the community with a deity was a practice that

154 IGRR, I, 421. Translation by Taco Terpstra, Tersptra 2013, 70-1. 155 Pliny, Natural History, 35, 45. 156 Strabo, 2.25

68 diaspora communities adopted in a port city and used as a marker of identification. The Tyrian

Heracleistes may have functioned more as the official name of the association and helped other residents to tell the diaspora communities apart.

This inscription has received several different interpretations. Some scholars have argued that the trading station was in a decline because Puteoli was no longer the premier port for goods en route to Rome viz. Ostia; thus the station in Puteoli may have seen less revenue from trade.

With the establishment of a trading station in Rome, by traders receiving goods at Ostia and selling them in Rome, many Tyrian merchants based in Puteoli may have shifted their base of operations to Rome to take advantage of the increased trade via Ostia. These developments may have resulted in fewer Tyrians residing in Puteoli, and a smaller Tyrian population may have resulted in decreased revenues.157 Conversely, the Tyrian community may have lost both revenue and merchants to the plague that began in 165. One interpretation suggests that the Tyrians living in Puteoli, Rome, and Tyre all had different ideas about the political and fiscal policies employed by overseas residents and that the inscription demonstrates a debate among these factions. This interpretation is largely based on the Tyrian magistrates’ answer to the letter.158 Both views raise questions about interactions among the same diaspora community and with their city of origin.

However, from the text alone, one cannot conclusively demonstrate which interpretation is correct. The Tyrians do not reference the events which led to their decreased numbers.

There is some debate about the amount of rent that the community paid for the trading station. Scholars interpret the sum as either 250 denarii or 100,000 denarii. In the inscription, the letters are written as “CN”, with a line over both letters. Dubois reads this as 100,000 denarii and uses this as an example of the declining financial circumstances the Tyrians experienced, directly

157 Terpstra 2013, 73; Dubois, 94-97. 158 Sosin, 275– 284.

69 tying their circumstances to the decline of Puteoli and rise of Ostia.159 Terpstra suggests that 250 denarii is a more credible rent and draws comparisons with rent prices from the Sulpicii archive.

He notes that a certain man leased a grain stall for 100 HS a month to store 13,000 modii of wheat.160 He estimates that if the Tyrians paid 250 denarii annually, they would have spent about

83 HS each month.161 There are a few problems with this interpretation. The contracts in the

Sulpicii archive were made in the first century A.D. By the time the Tyrians wrote their letter, rent prices may have gone up, in part because of the progressive debasement of the denarius by

174. The prominence of Ostia may have caused local negotiatores to raise the rent for the station.

Conversely, the plague could have caused the Tyrians such drastic financial losses that 250 denarii was no longer feasible. Even though the statio did not receive income from shipowners and merchants, Tyrian negotiatores may still have relied on new shipments of goods to do their business and the plague may have killed enough members of the association that the remainder could not bear the cost alone. Regardless of which figure is correct, the letter still demonstrates that the Tyrians knew they could rely on aid from and still maintained strong connections with their mother city.

One interesting aspect of this inscription is that it is in Greek, long the lingua franca of the eastern Mediterranean, while Latin was the lingua franca of the western Mediterranean.

There is much precedent for Tyrians writing in Greek and it makes sense that the Tyrians at

Puteoli would write their letter in this language. Greek had long remained an important language in the city, as seen from Strabo and Diodorus Siculus. The Tyrian inscription is forty-one lines long, a rather lengthy text. An inscription of this length was usually erected in a public space. It

159 Dubois, 89-92 160 TPSulp 46 in Camodeca 1999 161 Terpstra 2013, 75

70 is possible that the Tyrians may have set up this inscription simply for the Tyrian community. An unpublished inscription mentions a pagus Tyrianus in Puteoli. This suggests that there was a

Tyrian quarter, as pagus can refer to an area with fixed boundaries, such as a district.162 The presence of a Tyrian quarter suggests that at one point, the diaspora community was fairly large.

Whether this Tyrian quarter was physically separated from other areas of Puteoli is unclear; if it existed, it may have simply been a few streets acknowledged as the home of the Tyrians.

Because the provenance of the inscription is unknown, it is unclear whether the Tyrians set it up in front of their communal building, in a central place in the quarter or somewhere else entirely.

Numerous public inscriptions in Puteoli were written in Greek during the imperial period, which implies that the Tyrian inscription probably had a wide readership. The public readership of an inscription which seems to address personal business matters suggests that the Tyrians were an accepted part of their community and were invested in remaining in Puteoli, even though much of the revenue which initiated the presence of a station (namely, trade) had shifted north to

Rome. One might expect that the Tyrians would have commissioned a bilingual inscription. By

174, Puteoli had been under Roman governance for roughly three centuries, and a bilingual inscription would have been a way to express the ties that the Tyrians had with their local community and with the Roman authorities. However, this inscription does not give any nod toward the Roman authorities. The Tyrians were capable of working in Latin; the documents from the Murecine archive are in Latin, and one concerns a Tyrian.163 Perhaps a Greek inscription was a way to emphasize which networks were most important to the Tyrians and also that the Tyrians were locals but still foreigners. It may also demonstrate preference—they used

Latin and Greek for business and Aramaic and perhaps also Greek at home.

162 Terpstra 2013, 76-7. 163 TP 70 in Camodeca 1982, 23

71 The way that the Tyrians refer to themselves demonstrates that they were permanent members of the Puteolan community. They call themselves “οἱ ἐν Ποτιόλοις κατοικοῦντες” or

“those residing in Puteoli.”164 The root word “κατοικέω” means to settle in or colonize, and usually this refers to long-term habitation. “Οἱ ἐν Ποτιόλοις κατοικοῦντες” implies that the

Tyrians made a permanent home in Puteoli. The inscription does not state how long Tyrians had been living in the city; however, it is likely that the authors were long-standing residents born in the city.

Different scholars have different translations of the inscription and, for the most part, these differences are minor. One passage could have two different connotations depending on the translation of the preposition εἰς.165 This can have different meanings depending on the case and construction. According to the Tyrians, one of the reasons they cannot afford the 250 denarii rent on their building is the fact that “the expenses of the Puteoli Ox-Sacrifice Games have in addition been imposed on” them. Different translators agree that expenses are being imposed on the community. The phrase in question is “ᾗ καὶ ἀναλώματα εἰς τὸν ἀγῶνα τὸν ἐν Ποτιόλοις τῆς

βουθουσίας.” One interpretation uses εἰς to mean “at,” rendering the translation of the above phrase as “the payments of the bull sacrifice at the games at Puteoli.”166 An alternate translation reads “payments for the games of the bull festival at Puteoli.”167 The first translation given suggests that the Tyrians are paying for a bull sacrifice at a local festival and that this is one sacrifice among many that will occur. The second translation suggests that the Tyrians are bankrolling the entire festival. Obviously, the difference in cost would be massive. Other uses of

εἰς in the inscription usually suggest purpose, leading to the conclusion that the accurate

164 OGIS 595, lines 3-4 165 I am deeply indebted to Dr. W. Adler for his assistance and careful reading of the Greek. 166 Sosin, 278 167 Terpstra 2013, 70-71. This is the translation used in the full text of the inscription on page 71.

72 translation of “ᾗ καὶ ἀναλώματα εἰς τὸν ἀγῶνα τὸν ἐν Ποτιόλοις τῆς βουθουσίας” is “payments for the games of the bull festival in Puteoli.” Unfortunately, this inscription seems to be the only reference to this particular festival, the βουθουσίας (Bouthousias). A search of the term in the

Thesaurus Linguae Graecae brings up only this inscription. Because of this, scholars do not know much about this festival. Theodor Mommsen speculated that the Emperor Antoninus Pius

(r. 138-161) may have started the festival to honor his predecessor and adoptive father Hadrian

(r. 117-138).168

What is important about the payments for the games of the bull festival is the implication.

Footing the bill for a local festival sounds like an unpaid public service. Roman officials encouraged wealthy citizens to perform unpaid public services for the prestige (“liturgies”), such as donating olive oil to the baths or paying for a sacrifice. If paying for the games of the bull festival is indeed a liturgy, this demonstrates that the Tyrians had a commitment to the city of

Puteoli. They were an accepted part of the community and were willing both to participate and to invest financially in community activities.

The performance of liturgies also brings up questions about citizenship. The inscription does not reveal whether the Tyrians have Roman citizenship. In 88 B.C., Rome granted citizenship to all the free inhabitants of Italy. By A.D. 174 many people living in the provinces, especially the higher urban classes, had obtained citizenship. It is possible that the Tyrians in

Puteoli had citizenship, but it is difficult to know for sure. If the trading station was established before 88 B.C., then they may have received citizenship. In the early imperial period, provincial elites performed liturgies as part of their civic duties and over time could gain citizenship. It is not clear if non-citizens living in an Italian city would have been required or expected to perform

168 Terpstra 2013, 71, n. 72

73 liturgies. As long-established residents, the answer is probably yes, particularly since the grant of near universal citizenship to all free inhabitants of the empire (the Constitutio Antoniniana) was proclaimed less than forty years later.169

Another intriguing aspect of this inscription is that it suggests two layers of interaction. It demonstrates that the Tyrians were engaged in the broader civic life of Puteoli and also hints at the interactions in different cities of the same diaspora community. The response of the Tyrian magistrates more clearly lays out these interactions.

The station-operators in Rome have always had as their custom to pay, from what they themselves receive, 250 denarii to the ones in Puteoli. The station-operators in Puteoli now wish that this (custom) be observed for their sake; if the Tyrians in Rome no longer want to grant them (the money), they wish to take charge of both stations themselves on the same condition.” The (councilors) proclaimed approval: “Philocles has spoken well; what the Tyrians in Puteoli wish is just. It has always been thus, let it be so now. It is to the benefit of the city (i.e., Tyre); let the custom be preserved.170

The magistrates’ answer to the Tyrians demonstrates that members of the same diaspora community shared financial resources even when not in the same city. Members from one city could even take over the management of a trading station of their own community in another city. Perhaps some of members of the Puteolan diaspora community moved to Rome to take advantage of the trade coming through Ostia. In this situation, the two communities would be linked not only by same home city but by shared community or even family ties. Even if members of the Puteolan community did not move to Rome, perhaps they still maintained a personal connection, sharing a common origin and cultural heritage from Tyre; members of either the Roman or the Puteolan community could easily have visited either city for business needs.

169 Lavan, 5 170 IGRR, I, 421. Translation by Taco Terpstra, Tersptra 2013, 70-1.

74 Nabataeans

There is also evidence of Nabataeans, Arabs living and working in Puteoli. The

Nabataean Kingdom lay between the Mediterranean and the Persian Gulf, with their capital at

Petra. The kingdom was a Roman client state from 63 B.C. until its annexation in A.D. 106 as the province of Arabia. They were mainly associated with overland routes through the Arabian

Peninsula and in Egypt but also moved goods via the sea, with ports at Aila and Leuke Kome on the Red Sea.171 Twelve inscriptions attest to the presence of Nabataeans in Puteoli. One interesting feature of these texts is their lingual diversity. Two are in Nabataean Aramaic, one is in Greek, and the other nine are in Latin. The use of different languages may suggest differing layers of integration for the local Nabataeans or that the inscriptions were intended for different audiences.

The Latin inscriptions for the most part contain the exact same text, either “Dusari” or

“Dusari sacrum.” These phrases translate as “to Dushara” and “sacred to Dushara”, who was the principal Nabataean deity. 172 One inscription is on an altar, while three are inscribed on marble bases. The other Latin inscriptions are on architectural fragments. It is possible that one of these inscriptions reads “[Cae]sar[i sacrum] [C.] Iul(ius) T[---]” instead of “Dusari sacrum.”173 All of the Latin inscriptions date to around the first century A.D.

Analysis of the Latin inscriptions reveals similar paleography and scholars suggest that these pieces all came from the same building. Because all but one of the inscriptions refer to

Dushara, this building was likely a Nabataean temple, dedicated to this god. Many of the Latin inscriptions were found off the Puteolan coast, suggesting that the temple is now submerged in

171 Terpstra 2015, 73-4 172 ILS 435ob; ILS 435oc; CIL 10.1556; AE 1994, 422; AE 1994, 423; AE 2001, 843; AE 2001, 844, as cited in Terpstra 2015, 92-3. 173 AE 2001, 844 in Terpstra 2015, 93.

75 the Bay of Naples. The region is subject to volcanic activity that causes the land to rise and sink.

This has caused the submergence of parts of ancient Puteoli, where it seems that the Nabataean temple was located.174 Terpstra suggests that inscribing “Dusari sacrum” and “Dusari” on the temple may have made the entire building sacred, a common practice for Semitic peoples.175

The fact that these inscriptions are in Latin is intriguing when one considers that the vast majority of extant Nabataean inscriptions are written in Nabataean Aramaic, with a few written in Greek. All known Nabataean inscriptions in Latin come from Italy. It is unlikely that the

Nabataeans spoke Latin before coming to Italy; during the first century A.D. Nabataea was still a client kingdom of the Roman Empire. Rome also did not impose Latin on conquered territories;

Greek served as the administrative language of the eastern portion of the empire. Latin was used primarily by the imperial government, the higher law courts, and the army as the language of command. It seems more likely that the Nabataeans living in Puteoli began using Latin upon arrival. Additionally, it is noteworthy that there are no bilingual inscriptions associated with the

Nabataeans in Puteoli. The use of Latin alone for these inscriptions sanctifying the entire temple suggests that the Nabataeans used the language to send a message to the residents of Puteoli.

Latin inscriptions may have demonstrated an intention to adopt the local language, customs, and culture; in other words, Latin may have demonstrated the Nabataeans’ commitment to being

Roman. The religious nature of the inscriptions does not present an obstacle to this hypothesis.

Rome willingly adopted deities from other parts of the Mediterranean. A notable instance of this practice occurred during the Second Punic War when in 205 B.C. the Romans incorporated the

Anatolian goddess Cybele into their pantheon. It would have been considered normal for the

Nabataeans to bring their god with them from Nabataea. Sanctifying the temple in Latin may

174 Terpstra 2015, 82-3. 175 Terpstra 2015, 83.

76 have been a demonstration of the “Romanization” of this deity. The alternative translation of one of the Latin inscriptions also fits into this scenario. Terpstra notes that the paleography for this inscription is different from the other Latin inscriptions, indicating that it was carved by a different hand and possibly at a different time. If his alternative reading “[Cae]sar[i sacrum]

[C.] Iul(ius) T[---]” instead of “Dusari sacrum,” is right, then this inscription is likely a votive offering. If correct, the translation would be closer to “Sacred to Caesar, C. Julius T.”176 Erecting a statue of the emperor in temples and making offerings on his behalf was a common practice in the Roman Empire. Julius Caesar had been deified soon after his death in 44 B.C. and his successor Octavian Augustus (reigned 30 B.C.-A.D. 14) was also deified after his death. Erecting a votive inscription to Julius Caesar may have helped to establish goodwill between the

Nabataeans and the Romans. However, this interpretation is problematic. There was no “T” in

Julius Caesar’s name. If “Caesari” is correct, the “T” may refer to the dedicator of the inscription.

The two Nabataean Aramaic inscriptions also date to the early first century A.D. One is a marble plaque commemorating the enlargement of the temple. The text says that Banhobal constructed the temple (one wonders if this really means he paid for it) around 50/49 B.C., and that the temple was enlarged in A.D. 5. The text of this inscription is not readable in places, so it is unknown to which Nabataean deity the temple was dedicated. Because the Latin inscriptions potentially sanctify a temple to Dushara, one would assume the Nabataean text concerns this temple. However, the Nabataeans may have had more than one temple in Puteoli and the

Aramaic inscription may concern a temple to a different Nabataean deity. The inscription includes well-wishes to the Nabataean king and queen, Aretas and Huldu.177 The second

176 AE 2001, 844 in Terpstra 2015, 93. 177 CISem 2.1.158 in Terpstra 2015, 81.

77 Nabataean Aramaic inscription dates to A.D. 11. Two Nabataeans, Abdelge and Zaidu, offered two camels to Dushara. It is unknown if these camels were votive images or live animals.178

Potentially, the camels were sacrificed elsewhere and then Abdelge and Zaidu placed votive images in the temple. It is likely that both of these inscriptions were carved in Puteoli, as the stone is Carrara marble, quarried in Tuscany. If the Nabataeans had carved the inscriptions in

Nabataea, it is more likely that they would have used a local stone instead of importing marble from Tuscany. Because the marble is Italian, the Nabataeans may have ordered the stone to be shipped to Puteoli.

Local production of the inscriptions and the presence of the temple to Dushara suggests a significant Nabataean presence in Puteoli. This diaspora community was not a small handful of merchants or agents arranging trade between Nabataea and Puteoli. Building a temple requires significant financial resources that would have been difficult for a small community.

Additionally, Carrara marble was likely an expensive imported stone, also used in construction of the Temple of Jupiter and the Pantheon in Rome.179 Augustus launched massive public works projects to employ unskilled laborers in Rome. These projects were ongoing in this period when the Nabataeans commissioned these inscriptions. Carrara marble was likely in high demand during this time and purchase of such marble for inscriptions was probably expensive. This suggests that the Nabataean community in Puteoli had significant financial resources available.

Puteoli was an important port for the import of incense and perfume, two products associated with the Nabataeans.180 With such a demand for these goods in Rome, Puteoli, and the

178 CISem 2.1.157 in Terpstra 2015, 81. 179 “Marble: The History of Marble from the Roman Age Until Today.” 12 March 2018. www.carraramarbletour.it. Accessed 21 April, 2020. 180 Wenning, 9, 11

78 surrounding cities, the Nabataeans in Puteoli were likely able to do quite well. Local carving of the inscription also indicates the presence of Nabataean craftsman in Puteoli.

Why are these inscriptions in Nabataean Aramaic and not in Latin, if the Nabataeans wanted to demonstrate their commitment to Puteoli? Commemorating the enlargement of the temple in Latin, especially with well-wishes to the Nabataean rulers, would surely demonstrate that the Nabataeans were an established part of the Puteolan community and it might point to a deeper level of Romanization for these diaspora merchants. However, these inscriptions are not even bilingual. This suggests that while the Nabataeans were committed to maintaining a permanent presence in Puteoli, their integration into the community was perhaps only surface- level. The Nabataeans may have wanted to project a certain level of Romanization to the

Puteolan community but this Romanization may have ended once the Nabataeans were in the privacy of their own temple. Terpstra suggests that the Nabataean Aramaic inscriptions may have been placed inside the temple, while the Latin inscriptions were visible from the outside.181

Without knowing what this temple looked like and the context of these inscriptions, it is difficult to say, but it is certainly plausible. The different languages may also demonstrate that members of the Nabataean community had different levels of acculturation. Inscriptions in Nabataean

Aramaic may have made new members of the community feel more comfortable in their new environment, especially as they were still learning Latin. Additionally, not all diaspora merchants put down permanent roots in Puteoli. Some Nabataean merchants may have come for short periods of time and the Nabataean inscriptions would still have been accessible to them.

One Greek inscription of the first century B.C. or A.D. references a Nabataean in Puteoli.

This grave stele records that it belongs to Tholomaios son of Thaimallos from Petra and adds that

181 Terpstra 2015, 84

79 he was “ὁ καὶ Μάξιμος”, also known as Maximus.182 This Roman nickname suggests that some members of the Nabataean community found it useful to go by Roman names. Perhaps it helped to remove some element of foreignness and facilitated business. However, taking a new name may also be an expression of a new identity and a deeper commitment to the Puteolan community. This suggests that some Nabataean merchants had a deeper level of acculturation and felt more comfortable navigating Puteolan society.

Berytians

Prior to Roman rule, Berytus and the Bekaa region of central Lebanon had been under the

Ptolemaic and then Seleucid empires. As Pompey marched through the Levantine coast in 64

B.C., Berytus came under Roman control as part of the new Roman province of Syria. Around

15 B.C., Augustus established a colony at the site.183 Strabo writes:

But though Berytus was razed to the ground by Tryphon, it has now been restored by the Romans; and it received two legions, which were settled there by Agrippa, who also added to it much of the territory of Massyas, as far as the sources of the Orontes River … For the most part, indeed, the barbarians have been robbing the merchants from Arabia Felix, but this is less the case now that the band of robbers under Zenodorus has been broken up through the good government established by the Romans and through the security established by the Roman soldiers that are kept in Syria.184

The Greek influence in the region had already resulted in the renaming of the city of

Baalbek as Heliopolis. Roman presence in the area resulted in religious syncretism, with the

Aramaean god Baal associated with Jupiter as Jupiter Heliopolis.185 The Romans erected a temple to this deity around A.D. 60, and the city maintained strong military ties to Rome, supplying troops for the Roman governor of Syria to suppress Jewish uprisings in Judaea

182 IG XIV add. Et corrig. 842a in Terpstra 2015, 93 183 Hall, 46; Paturel, 72 184 Strabo XVI 2. 18-20 185 Grainger, 159

80 between 7 and 4 B.C. and again in A.D. 66.186 Additionally, Josephus reports that Vespasian visited the city during his reign (69-79): “After this Caesar passed to Berytus, a city of Phoenicia and a Roman colony. Here he made a longer sojourn, displaying still greater magnificence on the occasion of his father’s birthday, both in the costliness of the spectacles and in the ingenuity of the various other items of expenditure.”187

In the early second century A.D., the temple to Jupiter Heliopolis underwent refurbishment and expansion. It is not clear who funded the renovation; perhaps both Trajan (98-

117) and Hadrian (117-138) funded the work as part of their building campaigns.188 The idea is plausible, although it is not backed up by concrete evidence. Macrobius writes that Trajan went to this temple before beginning his Parthian campaign: “So, too, when the emperor Trajan was going to invade Parthia from Syria and friends of his—men of unswerving piety who had put the divinity to very stringent tests—were urging him to ask it about the expedition’s outcome, he adopted a very Roman strategy, testing the ritual’s reliability lest some deception of human origin changed to lurk.”189 However, this fifth-century work seems to be the only reference for

Trajan’s visit to the temple. There is no reference to a visit by Hadrian to the temple, although he was the governor of Syria during Trajan’s rule, providing him with opportunities to visit.

However, as Berytus was the only Latin-speaking Roman colony in Syria, it is not implausible to suggest that the site was visited by the emperors and received special attention.190

This Latin and Roman influence is important for the Berytian traders at Puteoli. There is one inscription that directly references Berytus and several others that refer to Jupiter Heliopolis.

186 Hall, 47-8. There seems to be only one inscription that attests to a Roman temple to Jupiter Heliopolis at Berytus, IGLS VI, 2733. 187 Josephus, Bellum Judaicum, 7.37-9 188 Grainger, 159 189 Macrobius, Saturnalia, 1. 23. 14. 190 Grainger, 160

81 “Imp. Caesari divi Nervae f neruae Traian Optimo Aug. Germ. Dacic. Parthic. Pont. Max Trib. Potest. XX Imp. XII. Cos VI. Patri Patr. Cultores Iovis Heliopolitani Berytenses qui Puteolis consistent.”191

“To Imperator Caesar, son of the divine Nerva, Trajan, best and revered, Germanicus, Dacicus, Parthicus, Pontifex Maximus, Tribunicia Potestas for the 20th time, Imperator 12th, Consul for the 6th time, father of his country, from the Berytian worshippers of Jupiter Heliopolis who are established in Puteoli.”

This inscription (dated 116-117) is the only attestation of Berytians at Puteoli. This inscription differs from the Tyrian inscription and those at Delos. It offers little concrete information about the Berytians and makes no mention of trade. However, it does have some important implications for the diaspora community.

The inscriptions that refer to Jupiter Heliopolis could be connected to the Berytian merchants.

“Hic ager iug. VII cum cisterna et tabernis eius eorum possessorum iuris est, qui in cultu corporis Heliopolitanorum sunt eruntque, atque ita is accessus iusque esto per ianuas itineraque eius agri qui nihil adversus legem et conventionem eius corporis facere perseveraverint.”192 “This seven iugera field with its reservoir and funerary buildings193 is our possession, who are and will be in the care of the corporation of Heliopolis, and so entrance through the doors and paths of its field will be for those who have persisted to do nothing against the laws and customs of its body.”

Although this inscription does not mention Berytus, it seems likely that this is the same association. Additionally, there is evidence for a temple to Jupiter Heliopolis in Puteoli.

Inscriptions record a dedication by C. Stennius Crispus, a veteran soldier and priest for Jupiter

Heliopolis.194 One Marcus Ulpius Sabinus described himself as the curator and restored the temple after it had fallen into ruins. Scholars suggest that both of these inscriptions date to the second century A.D. Another priest and another curator are known from inscriptions, perhaps

191 CIL X, 1634 192 CIL X, 1579. No date is mentioned for this inscription. 193 “Tabernis” usually means “shops” but that is obviously not the case in this context. 194 AE 2006, 312

82 from the third century.195 This adds yet another layer to the Berytian community at Puteoli.

These priests have names that sound firmly Roman. Therefore, the community could have included Berytians of both Phoenician and Roman origin.

None of these inscriptions directly reference trade. However, this is the most likely occupation of at least some members of the Berytian community. It is not known when they established this station but the inscription of Trajan provides a terminus ante quem of 116. It is tempting to say that the station was founded around the same time as the Delian statio in 153

B.C.; after all, many luxury products moved through Delos, and Puteoli was a key destination for many of these products. It would make sense for Berytians to establish a trading center at both ports around roughly the same time so that they could be involved in several aspects of the trade: sending goods from the Levantine coast to Delos, perhaps selling and/or buying some goods

(e.g., slaves?) there, and then moving on to Puteoli, with reliable members of their own shipping community handling the goods. Contemporaneous trading stations on Delos and in Puteoli would also allow Berytian merchants to stay with their own community when they docked. However, all this is speculation. It is certain that by A.D. 116, the Berytian community was already firmly established at Puteoli. If trade migrated north to Ostia beginning in the mid-first century A.D., it seems unlikely that merchants would have established a new trading station at Puteoli after that date. Ostia would be the more logical location, and there does not seem to be much evidence of a

Berytian merchant community at this port. Inscriptions at Ostia attest to the presence of merchants from the Levantine coast, but they do not always include the city of origin. There is one Ostian inscription dedicated to Jupiter Heliopolis by one Gaionas, who also erected inscriptions in Rome.196 This could indicate that there was a Berytian community in either Ostia

195 Grainger, 161 196 Terpstra 2013, 122

83 or Rome, but it may also demonstrate the spread of the cult or the possibility that Romans who had spent time in the Levant had adopted the cult before moving to Ostia or Rome.

Are the other inscriptions that reference Jupiter Heliopolis connected to the Berytian community? The inscription dedicated by the Berytian community does not reference a temple.

However, there does not seem to be a community made up of Heliopolitans, and the Berytians would likely have worshipped Jupiter Heliopolis at the temple in Puteoli. There is no reason to suggest that there were two associations in Puteoli known as the corporation of Heliopolis.

Dubois mentions the possibility of merchants from Heliopolis and Berytus working together in the same association.197 However, there does not seem to be any evidence to support this suggestion. It seems most likely that CIL X, 1579 was erected by Berytian merchants.198

These two inscriptions have interesting implications for the Bertyian community. Like the community at Delos, the Berytians at Puteoli connect themselves to a specific deity. On

Delos, Poseidon is their patron god. However, the Berytians at Puteoli describe themselves as the worshippers of Jupiter Heliopolis. If the community did put up other inscriptions acknowledging

Poseidon, these are no longer extant. However, it seems that the Berytians chose to connect themselves to Jupiter. In both Delos and Puteoli, Poseidon would be an ideal god to serve as the patron god of the association, as merchants were reliant on good weather and a calm sea to bring their goods to both ports. At Delos, the Berytians seemed to be shrewd observers of other traders, potentially setting up their headquarters in such a way to accommodate the preferences of other merchants. The change in god could be one of the ways that the Berytians negotiated the differences between themselves and their Roman neighbors and fitted themselves into Puteolan society. Some who dedicated inscriptions to Jupiter Heliopolis in Puteoli appear to be not

197 Dubois, 97 198 Terpstra 2013, 85

84 Berytian but Roman. Grainger identifies one of these as a veteran soldier, potentially a Berytian who served in the auxilia.199 Terpstra discusses a votive statue to Heliopolis in Nîmes that appears to have been dedicated by a solider from Berytus, while two Roman citizens dedicated a votive statue in Deir el-Qala’a in the territorium of Berytus.200 Roman adoption of the cult to

Jupiter Heliopolis may have resulted in some Puteolan residents being familiar with the cult.

This may have removed some aspects of foreignness and fostered business connections between the Berytians and Puteolans. Naming the association after Jupiter Heliopolis may have been politically wise, as it represented the combination of the Aramaean deity Baal with the Roman

Jupiter, allowing the Berytians to retain a nod to their cultural heritage while outwardly conforming to Roman religious practices. Berytus’ status as a Roman colony also likely helped the merchants integrate into Puteolan society. The merchants would already have been familiar with Roman institutions and the Latin language, allowing a smoother entrance into Puteolan society.

However, it seems that the Berytian merchants also maintained a firm sense of their

Levantine identity. The corporation of Heliopolis maintained its own field, apparently a cemetery. The size of the field (7 iugera or 1.76 hectares) may attest to the size or importance of the Berytian community.201 The cemetery was exclusively for people associated with the corporation of Heliopolis. Members who refused to follow the rules could be barred from entering the cemetery and presumably from being buried there as well. This suggests that perhaps there was a difference between being a worshipper of Jupiter Heliopolis and being from

Berytus. The worship of the deity may have spread among Roman citizens who lived in the city,

199 Grainger, 161 200 Terpstra 2013, 85 n. 128 201 Dubois 98; Terpstra 2013, 85. Given the size of the field and the presence of a reservoir, perhaps the Berytians also cultivated this field.

85 but in Puteoli, the important distinguishing factor seems to have been that one was Berytian and not Roman. One wonders about the possibility of Romans in the association. However, city of origin or citizenship seems an important aspect of membership in trade associations. If the

Berytians were familiar with Roman culture and intentionally aligned their association with a deity who would be accepted in both Berytus and Puteoli, they seem to have maintained some distance in some of their customs. One wonders about the level of Romanization of many

Berytians by A.D. 116 and whether one stopped being Berytian and became Roman or if they blended features of their identity.

Signs of Integration

The inscriptions from Puteoli offer concrete evidence about the presence of Tyrian,

Nabataean, and Berytian communities. How did members of these communities interact with members of other diaspora communities and with the Romans? One document from the Sulpicii archive offers valuable evidence for possible interaction among these communities.

The Sulpicii archive, also known as the Murecine tablets, is a set of writing tablets found in 1959 in an ancient villa ca. 600 meters south of Pompeii. One of the triclinia contained a wicker basket with writing tablets. The 127 documents, not all complete, concern business transactions carried out by the Sulpicii banking firm in Puteoli. The documents date from A.D.

26 to 61. Both Roman citizens and peregrini, free people lacking Roman citizenship, engaged in business transactions with the Sulpicii firm, demonstrating that the firm worked with different communities in Puteoli.202 One document concerns a business transaction with a Syrian in A.D.

52:

“[Vadimonium] fa[ctu]m [Zenoni] Zenobi l. [T]yri[o] [in] III idus Iunias primas [P]uteolis in foro [an]te ra[m] A[u]gusti Hordionianam hora tertia; [H]S∞ CC da[r]I

202 Terpstra 2013, 11-15, 52

86 fide r[o]gavit C. Sul[picius] Cinnamus f[ide promi]sit Zenon Zenob[i] l. Tyrius. Act[um P]uteolis V idus Iunias Fausto Cornelio Sulla Felice Q. [Ma]rcio Barea Sorano cos.”203 “Vadimonium made to Zenon the Tyrian, freedman of Zenobus, for the third day before the Ides of June204 in Puteoli in the forum before the altar to Augustus Hordionianum at the third hour. C. Sulpicius Cinnamus asked to be given 1200 sesterces with faith. Zenon the Tyrian, freedman of Zenobus, promised with faith. Done in Puteoli on the fifth ides in June205 when Faustus Cornelius Sulla Felice and Q. Marchus Barea Sorano were consuls.”

The vadimonium is a summons to appear before the local magistrate.206 Camodeca notes that because Zenon was not a Roman citizen, he made the promise of good faith, fidepromissio, not the sponsio made by Roman citizens.207 This demonstrates that noncitizens used the same method of dispute resolution as Roman citizens. Using the local legal system was not unique to

Puteoli. Strabo writes, “Athenodorus, a philosopher and companion of mine, who had been in the city of the Petraeans, used to describe their government with admiration, for he said that he found both many Romans and many other foreigners sojourning there, and that he saw that the foreigners often engaged in lawsuits, both with one another and with the natives.”208 When

Romans traveled to other regions of the empire, they used the local legal system to settle their business disputes, and diaspora merchants in Italy did the same. This implies an understanding of

Roman legal customs and an expectation that those doing business in Puteoli would adapt to local customs. As merchants set up trading stations in other cities, it was necessary to learn not only a new language but also new customs. Using the Roman legal system would have simplified business transactions between merchants from different regions. This suggests that diaspora

203 TP 70 in Camodeca 1982, 23. There appear to be two different ways to identify these documents. Camodeca refers to this document as TP 70, while Terpstra 2013 references it as TPSulp 4. 204 June 11. 205 June 9. 206 Camodeca, 25; Terpstra 2013, 61 207 Camodeca, 25 208 Strabo 16. 4. 21

87 merchants took steps to understand the laws and customs of their new community to conduct business more smoothly.

Additionally, the legal dispute in TP 70 involves just one Tyrian, Zenon, and not the entire Tyrian community. This demonstrates that merchants worked as individuals; a business transaction between a diaspora merchant and a Roman banker did not involve the entire trading station and individual merchants had to manage their own affairs. Each merchant coming to

Puteoli, regardless of the length of his stay, had to become familiar with the Roman legal system.

If there was a business dispute, the Tyrian corporation was not going to step in for a merchant newly arrived in Puteoli. Merchants who had been living in Puteoli for several years or even generations were likely more knowledgeable about the nuances of the Roman legal system. As they also performed liturgies, they may have been highly acculturated to Roman laws and customs. However, even a merchant who had never before worked in Puteoli had to develop a basic level of acculturation to negotiate smooth business transactions.

Ostian Evidence

The city of Ostia, 200 kilometers north of Puteoli, was also a key site for trade. (Figure

13.) With the construction of a new harbor under Claudius in A.D. 42, the port was capable of receiving increased amounts of shipments of goods destined for Rome. Trajan expanded the harbor, and scholars have suggested that this expansion led to the decline of Puteoli, as merchants could dock in Ostia and sell their cargo to local negotiatores, who would transport these goods to Rome.209

Ostia also attracted its fair share of foreign merchants. One building in the city offers an interesting glimpse into some of the ways that these merchants conducted their business. The

209 Meiggs, 54-60

88 Piazzale delle Corporazioni is a structure located behind the theater. (Fig. 14). The theater is attributed to Agrippa, from a fragmentary monumental inscription bearing his name beneath the remains of the stage.210 Behind the theater is a double-colonnaded portico with fifty small rooms.

The structure was remodeled during Hadrian’s reign to increase floor space, and eleven new small rooms were added. The main entrance to this building was in the northern wall, with 12 piers of tufa blocks. However, this entrance was later closed off so that people accessed the structure through passages in the southern wall. Terpstra suggests that these changes made the structure a more private space.211 Scholars have suggested several different purposes for the building, but it seems to have been a place of business.212 Many of the sixty-one floor mosaics in the Piazzale delle Corporazioni are poorly preserved; however, some suggest that merchants and negotiatores worked inside this building. (Figs. 15-18). Thirteen mosaics reference navicularii, while three mention negotiantes, and one bears the inscription, “Stat(io) Sabratensium.”213

Additionally, the mosaics seem to depict the occupations of the people who worked inside each room. The mosaic with “Stat(io) Sabratensium” has an elephant, while several other mosaics contain images of boats, wild animals, and people measuring corn.214 Some mosaics also list the city of origin of some who worked in these rooms. The mosaics attest to the presence of people from primarily western Mediterranean cities, with African provinces in particular well- represented. Merchants from Alexandria, Hippo, and Carthage rented these rooms, as did merchants from two Sardinian towns and Narbo in Gaul. Some demonstrate that members of

Ostian associations also worked in the building.215 Additionally, sixteen inscribed pedestals were

210 Meiggs, 42 211 Terpstra 2013, 101-3 212 One scholar has argued that the small rooms were used by the theater and that wealthy patrons were granted the use of some rooms after financing productions. See Terpstra 2013, 103. 213 Terpstra 2013, 112; Calza, 187-9; CIL XIV, Supplement 1, 4549. 214 Meiggs, 283; Terpstra 2013, 109. 215 Calvza, 187-9; Meiggs, 283; Terpstra 2013, 110.

89 set up by people who worked in the building; many of their inscriptions honor procurators of the

Annona and some honor the patron of an association. To erect these inscriptions, associations needed formal permission from the Ostian city council. Several inscriptions include the phrase,

“L(ocus) d(atus) d(ecreto) d(ecurionum) p(ublice),” “place given by the decree of the head of the decuria at public expense.”216

Scholars have reached several different conclusions about the Piazzale delle

Corporazioni. No one disputes the primary commercial purpose of the building; however, they disagree about the types of activities that took place here. One scholar suggests that each small room was associated with a different group and that they carried out religious activities in these spaces. The rooms were a place for people to interact during municipal festivals.217 Others interpret these rooms as stationes for different groups.218 However, these interpretations need not be mutually exclusive. These rooms could have functioned as stationes for different merchant associations, who put in a new floor mosaic or hung a sign over the door to advertise the name and purpose of the association. Because there is apparently no storage space within these rooms, merchant associations likely used these spaces as offices or headquarters and rented out storage space elsewhere if necessary.219 The word statio is not included in every mosaic and it is not inscribed on the outside of this building, but if Ostian residents knew that the Piazzale delle

Corporazioni served as the headquarters for various groups of merchants, a sign may have been redundant. Terpstra suggests that stationes were usually not large and may have only consisted of one large room or a few small ones.220 If stationes typically were modest structures, then the

216 Terpstra 2013, 105 217 Steuernagel, 63. 218 Terpstra 2013, 108-111; Meiggs, 285. 219 Meiggs, 287 220 Terpstra cites a passage from Suetonius in which Nero orders a man’s execution after the man leased out three shops which were part of his house. Suetonius, Nero¸37.1 in Terpstra 2013, 78.

90 rooms at the Piazzale delle Corporazioni may have been sufficient for merchant associations to carry out their business. The inscription concerning the Tyrian trading station in Puteoli suggests that the association had a building that was considerably larger than the other trading stations, and it is not clear if perhaps the Tyrians had access to more financial resources when they first began working out of the building. However, merchant associations may have used the rooms in the Piazzale delle Corporazioni for certain aspects of their business and maintained a separate headquarters elsewhere.

The Piazzale delle Corporazioni has intriguing implications for the diaspora communities who worked there. It seems that, although the building was not constructed with this purpose, it became the headquarters of several merchant diaspora associations. Because the honorary inscriptions reference the decuria, who decided where these inscriptions could be placed, the

Piazzale della Corporazioni was likely a public building and the merchant associations rented their spaces directly from the city of Ostia. As such, the placement of dedicatory statues was likely subject to municipal law. Because the building does not have external labels that connect it to trade and shipping, with all of these markers found on the inside, it seems that the public knew the purpose of the space. Negotiatores came to this building to find both local and foreign associations. The presence of several associations in one building would have been very convenient; people could walk down the hall or across the courtyard to write contracts, receive loans, and negotiate business deals.

A central location for merchant associations means that diaspora merchants worked in close proximity to each other and to local merchants and businessmen. This suggests that they would have been quite familiar with each other and comfortable working in such an intimate setting. While the Tyrian inscription from Puteoli mentions other stationes, it does not specify

91 their location relative to the Tyrian statio. Was there a similar building in Puteoli where people could go to find diverse trade associations or perhaps a street near the harbor associated with merchants? The available archaeological remains from Puteoli do not evidence either possibility but Ostia provides an attractive model.

The Tyrians, the Nabataeans, and the Berytians were all from Levantine cities but seem to have had different levels of integration into Puteoli. The Tyrians seem fully integrated into the broader Puteolan community, while the Nabataeans may have had more reservations about entering this community. The Berytians seem to have been well acclimated to Roman culture yet still kept some barriers in place. This would imply that they were not the direct descendants of the Roman legionary veterans who settled in Berytus as all these would have been Roman citizens. As the diaspora groups probably knew Greek before coming to Puteoli, there was likely not a language barrier, as Greek continued to be prominent in the city. The content of the Tyrian inscription seems more personal to the Tyrians, yet they did not carve this inscription in a language native to their homeland in the Levant (i.e., Aramaic) but in Greek, guaranteeing a wider readership. Perhaps making the content of this inscription public demonstrated that while the Tyrians still had business, and probably family, ties to Tyre, they were wholly committed to their Puteolan community. The performance of liturgies demonstrates that the Tyrians also invested financially in Puteoli and were dedicated to its civic and cultural life. This level of engagement suggests that the Tyrians were an accepted part of the Puteolan social fabric.

It seems that the Nabataeans took steps to remove some of the elements of “foreignness” as they both posted Latin inscriptions on their temple and may have paid tribute to a member of the imperial family in Latin. The Nabataean Aramaic inscriptions, however, if in fact erected inside their temple, suggest that this community preferred to keep their personal life to

92 themselves, quietly commemorating important events in the privacy of their temple. The construction of a temple suggests a long-term presence in Puteoli as a community of considerable means, as no community would invest significant financial resources in a building if not intending to stay for an extended period. However, forming business ties may have been more important than social ties and the Nabataean engagement in the Puteolan community may not have been as deep as the Tyrians.

Like the Tyrians, the Berytian merchants seem well integrated into Puteolan society.

Their ties to Rome as a Roman colony likely meant greater familiarity with Roman culture.

Choosing to inscribe an inscription in Latin allowed them to acknowledge their home city’s status and show outward signs of adoption of Latin norms. However, they recognized a firm difference between being Roman and being Berytian, suggesting that they were not direct descendants of the legionary veteran colonists and that group cohesion was important for the association. Worshipping at a temple to Jupiter Heliopolis that may also have been frequented by

Roman members of the cult suggests that they were comfortable carrying out religious rites alongside Romans. They were likely accepted into Puteolan society.

The evidence for the Nabataean presence in Puteoli suggests that most of their activity occurred in the late Republic and Augustan period.221 The Tyrian and Berytian inscriptions do not indicate how long these communities had been in Puteoli or when the trading stations were first established. The Tyrian inscription does establish that the community had been in Puteoli long enough to experience a change in fortune. As the port began to grow in prominence during the second century B.C., it is reasonable to suggest that the Tyrians had been in Puteoli since the port’s heyday. The Tyrian inscription dates to A.D. 174, 163 years after the last securely dated

221 Terpstra 2015, 87.

93 Nabatean inscriptions. This time difference could account for the differing levels of integration.

The inscriptions about the Nabataeans may display a diaspora community still finding their bearings in a new home and not yet comfortable with a deeper level of social interaction, while the Tyrian and Berytian inscriptions may display diaspora communities comfortable in their environment because successive generations had already grown up calling Puteoli home. If the

Nabataeans had had such a prolonged stay in Puteoli, perhaps their inscriptions might demonstrate a similar level of integration.

Conclusion

The evidence suggests that diaspora communities in Puteoli had differing levels of acculturation and integration. One determining factor seems to be the amount of time that each community spent in the port. Newer communities likely had to go through an adjustment period and learn about the Roman legal system, and some merchants may have needed to learn Latin.

Well-established communities seem to have been more comfortable moving through Puteolan society, likely because many members had been born and raised in Puteoli. The inscriptions suggest that the Tyrian, Nabataean, and Berytian communities took intentional steps to join

Puteolan society. Performing liturgies, aligning associations with deities that had strong connections to Rome, and erecting Latin inscriptions likely helped remove elements of foreignness. Are there similarities between the tactics used by the Delian and Puteolan diaspora communities? Does the nature of the site itself determine the level of acculturation or integration? The next chapter considers these questions.

94 CHAPTER 4

A Comparison of Diaspora Communities in Delos and Puteoli

Delos and Puteoli are similar in many ways. Both were major trade entrepôts, with vast amounts of goods moving through the ports. Both attracted numerous diaspora communities who seem to have put down roots and carved out lives in their new homes. However, there are also notable differences. On Delos, it seems that the Athenians were not very involved in the administration of the port after 145/144 B.C., while Puteoli became a Roman colony in 194 B.C. and was thus under direct Roman administration. Additionally, while many of the same diaspora communities worked at both ports, some notable ones, such as the Nabataeans, were absent at

Delos. This chapter discusses the possible reasons behind these differences. What similarities exist among the diaspora communities at both ports and what accounts for these similarities?

How does one interpret the differences? Can one use these conclusions to draw a picture of the degree to which diaspora communities integrated into port societies and existed alongside each other? Can this picture serve as a model for diaspora communities in the wider Hellenistic and

Roman world? This chapter compares and contrasts the diaspora communities in both ports and then evaluates the implications for such diaspora communities in the Hellenistic and Roman

Mediterranean.

Before we compare and contrast the diaspora communities of these two ports, we must acknowledge significant differences in the nature of the evidence. One of the most obvious differences is the period in which they operated. Delos was a commercial boom town, artificially created by the Roman government for a political purpose (i.e., to punish Rhodes, an ally deemed less than fully loyal). However, this boom lasted only about a century (166-69 B.C.), after which the port sank into permanent obscurity. Conversely, Puteoli was a well-known commercial center

95 during the Second Punic War (218-201 B.C.) and prospered through the second century A.D.

This complicates any comparison between the two ports. That is, the only information about each diaspora community comes from the inscriptions they erected and other epigraphic references.

On Delos, the Tyrians and Berytians set up lengthy inscriptions around the time they established their headquarters. There are numerous inscriptions erected by the Romaioi and they are also referenced in two decrees by the Ecclesia. Additionally, members of all three communities are mentioned in the gymnasium inscriptions. Of the four diaspora communities examined here, the

Samaritans are the least well attested; however, the two inscriptions set up by their community provide enough information to make plausible interpretations about their interactions on the island. Additionally, all these inscriptions were erected within a relatively short time. By contrast, only one lengthy inscription in Puteoli provides concrete information about the Tyrians, dating late in city’s prominence as a trading center. The Berytian inscriptions also date to a later period, while the Nabataean inscriptions offer a short window into the community’s activities in the first century A.D. This means that in Puteoli, one is evaluating communities at different period of development, while at Delos, all the communities were new to the island. This bias in dating makes it difficult to interpret the Puteolan inscriptions. The Tyrian and Berytian inscriptions seem to demonstrate a higher level of acculturation and more familiarity with

Roman customs, while the Nabataean inscriptions seem to suggest a more private, enclosed community, with firmer barriers between insiders and outsiders. However, the differences among the dates suggests that this is not a completely valid conclusion. In the first century A.D., the

Nabataeans may still have been adjusting to Roman cultural norms. Nabataea became a client kingdom in the first century B.C. and was not brought under direct Roman rule until A.D. 106.

While the Nabataeans had contact with the Seleucid and Ptolemaic empires, they were not under

96 their direct rule.222 They also seem to have had few overseas trading stations during the

Hellenistic period.223 The Nabataean trading station in Puteoli may have been one of the first times that a group of their merchants would permanently settle as a commercial diaspora community. They were likely used to moving through multicultural environments, such as the port at Gaza, but an unfamiliar setting may have resulted in more group cohesion for a more settled community. It is unclear how long the Nabataean trading station remained in operation at

Puetoli. If the Nabataean traders were still present in the second century A.D., they may have been more acclimated to Roman culture. But there is simply no such evidence.

Similarities Between Delian and Puteolan Diaspora Communities

Several diaspora communities took up residence in both ports. The Tyrians and Berytians were present at both sites. There were also merchants from cities in Asia Minor and Greece, though they seem less numerous in Puteoli than those from the Levantine coast.224 Nabataean

Arabs and Jews are attested at Puteoli. Delos housed a Samaritan community and some scholars suggest a Jewish community there as well. Although there is no explicit evidence that Samaritans and Jews were engaged in trade on Delos, this is the most likely reason for their presence on the island. Likewise, the inscriptions of the Jewish community at Puteoli are silent about possible mercantile activity although again it is the most likely explanation for their presence.

Nabataeans are not only attested at Delos and Puteoli but also at a variety of other ports in the eastern Mediterranean by epigraphic evidence. The Nabataean inscriptions at Puteoli date to the first century A.D. A bilingual inscription from Delos in Nabataean and Greek records a dedication to the Nabataean god Dushara by a certain Syllaios in honor of the Nabatean King

222 MacDonald, 45 223 Roche, 75-85 224 Dubois, 104

97 Obodas in the twentieth year of his reign (9/8 B.C.).225 By this time, Delos was no longer the primary port in the Aegean and it is likely that this Syllaios stopped there briefly on his journey elsewhere. A certain Zaidos referenced in an undated funerary inscription from Rheneia perhaps was a Nabataean. Other Nabataean inscriptions at Sidon and Cos (an island in the Aegean) date to roughly the same period. The inscription from Antioch dates to either the first century B.C. or the first century A.D. A second century B.C. inscription from Rhodes mentions an Arab, perhaps a Nabataean. A Nabataean is also mentioned in a Greek inscription from the Aegean island of

Tinos.226 Inscriptions referencing Nabataeans in Rome also date to the first century B.C. and the first century A.D. All the inscriptions demonstrate the widespread presence of Nabataean merchants in the eastern Mediterranean and the Aegean in the second and late first centuries B.C.

The Nabataeans played an important role in the spice trade. Merchants docked at eastern ports, such as Gaza, to pick up these goods would have relied on Nabataean merchants to bring these goods from the Arabian Peninsula to the Mediterranean coast. However, the Delian inscriptions do not reference Nabataeans until after the island was no longer the premier port. This makes one wonder if the Nabataeans did not establish trading stations until the first century B.C. This would suggest that the second century B.C. references to Nabataeans represent individual merchants and not a diaspora community.

The presence of the same communities at both ports suggests that some mother cities found their overseas trading stations to be very profitable. Only the Tyrian inscription from

Puteoli demonstrates some level of administrative oversight by officials in Tyre. However, it

225 ID 2315 in Bruneau 1970. This Syllaios was not a merchant but a pretender to the Nabataean throne. See Josephus, Jewish Antiquities, 16. 220. 226 Roche, 75-85

98 seems probably that other merchant communities also maintained regular communication with their cities of origin.

Another similarity is that at both ports, diaspora communities seemed to use intentional tactics to negotiate the differences between themselves and both their host community and other groups. That is, they selected religious and visual elements with dual meanings. On Delos, for example, the headquarters of the Berytian Poseidoniastes seemed to demonstrate an intentional visual program that allowed members of diverse communities to feel at home. Their building contained three shrines: one to Poseidon, one to the deified Roma, and the third perhaps for

Aphrodite.227 Other sculptures in the structure included a figure who could be either Cybele or

Eleusinian Demeter and twelve portrait bases of Greek and Roman men.228 All of these figures drew strong visual ties between the Berytians and the Greeks and Romans with whom they worked. Aphrodite was acknowledged for her role in trade and sea voyages and was an esteemed goddess around the Mediterranean. Aphrodite allowed the Berytians to draw connections to multiple communities simultaneously; there were cults to the goddess on the Levantine coast, where she was worshipped as both Aphrodite and Aštarte, while to the Romans she was

Venus.229 The identification of a statuette as either Cybele or Eleusinian Demeter depends on the interpretation of the figure. The statuette is similar to other images of Cybele found on Delos; however, the figure sits on a bench, not a throne. Cybele was an Anatolian goddess welcomed to

Rome before the emergence of Delos as a key port. If the statuette depicts Eleusinian Demeter, it visually depicts the relationship between the Berytians and the Athenian authorities.230 The busts of the Greeks and Romans allowed the Berytians to honor their benefactors but also

227 Martin, 264-5 228 Martin, 266 229 Martin, 273 230 Martin, 266

99 provided firm visual evidence of the connections that they maintained with both communities.

Perhaps most interesting is the choice of Poseidon as the patron deity of the association. As a sea god, Poseidon was an ideal patron, as merchants were reliant on fair seas and good weather.

However, he may also have had unique connections to Berytus.

An especially intriguing example of an artifact that advertised connections between the

Berytians and other communities on Delos was another sculpture found inside the Berytian clubhouse: a statue of a nymph, formerly part of a statue group. Another figure’s hand remains clutched to the nymph’s himation (an outer garment worn by the ancient Greeks over the left shoulder and under the right). Many scholars identify this nymph as Beroē, who has strong ties to

Berytos. Nonnos, a later Greek poet from Roman Egypt, includes two stories about Beroē. In one, she is a primordial entity and essentially the personification of Berytus. In the second,

Dionysus and Poseidon compete for Beroē, and Zeus decides that Poseidon will have her.231

Some scholars suggest that the hand in the nymph sculpture group belongs to Poseidon; this is all conjecture. However, the second story that Nonnus records about Beroē does connect Poseidon to the nymph, providing a connection to the city as well. Thus, the choice of Poseidon as the patron deity was an intentional choice. It provided a very Greek face for the association but also allowed them to draw connections to their home. Poseidon could thus have a double meaning.

Greeks and Romans working with the Berytians might consider Poseidon’s obvious connection to maritime travel, while Berytians living at Delos and moving through the port would associate the god with their home city.

A statue of Roma, the deified personification of the city of Rome, was also an intentional choice. Notably, it is the only such Roma statue on Delos, and Martin suggests that it is one of

231 Martin, 268

100 the earliest extant statues of the goddess.232 Additionally, the headquarters contains an altar dedicated to Roma around 130 to 125 B.C. This demonstrates that the Berytians advertised their strong ties to the dominant power in their world and to the community of Romaioi on Delos and made these ties part of the visual program of their headquarters.

At Puteoli, the Berytians also seemingly employed these same intentional tactics.

Because the archaeological remains of their trading station are not extant, one cannot compare the visual program that they utilized and we must therefore rely on epigraphic evidence.

However, the name of their association suggests that they used a similar strategy. Jupiter

Heliopolis has connections to both Roman and Phoenician cultures, much like Poseidon. In the case of Jupiter Heliopolis, the Aramaean Baal and the Roman Jupiter are more closely entwined and seem to draw clearer connections to both cultures. Because Berytus became a Roman colony around 15 B.C., it is a bit more difficult to tell how much the Roman presence in their home city affected the choices that Berytians made at Puteoli. However, it seems plausible to suggest that the Berytians were strategic about the connections they made. In the dedicatory inscription for their Delian headquarters, they acknowledged the patronage of the Roman M. Minatius and allowed him to set up a bust on the premises, perhaps because he also was a follower of

Poseidon, probably as a member of the Roman association, in 153/152 B.C., almost one hundred and fifty years before Rome established the colony at Berytus. Conversely, the Tyrians, who established their Delian headquarters around the same time, did not acknowledge outside supporters but instead praised one member of their community who petitioned the Athenian government for space to build a temple to Herakles. This difference suggests that soon after they

232 Martin, 266

101 established a trading station, regardless of location, the Berytians were very strategic about forming and maintaining business connections.

Additionally, it seems that at both Delos and Puteoli, diaspora communities were intentional about forming close contacts with others. The inscriptions from the Delian gymnasium demonstrate that young men from cities across the eastern Mediterranean were members of this institution and probably formed both social and business networks there.233

Although there was almost certainly a gymnasium in Puteoli, there are no extant inscriptions from its putative gymnasium. Diaspora merchants probably enrolled their sons to take advantage of the recreational and educational activities and to forge firmer connections with Roman citizens. The gymnasium brought young men from diverse backgrounds into close contact with each other. While there is no direct evidence of the gymnasium at Puteoli, the Tyrian inscription does reference another event that would have brought Roman citizens and diaspora communities together—the Bouthousias. The bull festival was likely a holiday for the entire Puteolan community. The Tyrian community seems to have footed the bill for the entire festival or at least a portion of it, suggesting significant investment in Puteoli. Not all diaspora communities may have participated in these festivals; the Jews and the Samaritans perhaps abstained from these gatherings, as they also had a religious connotation.234 These festivals would likely have been an ideal place for merchants to sell their wares, allowing people to demonstrate their communal ties and do business at the same time.

Additionally, the Piazzale delle Corporazioni in Ostia provides another example of diaspora communities working in close proximity to each other and to Roman merchants. One early interpretation of this building is that the Roman authorities required all foreign merchants

233 ID 2595 and 2598 234 Iddeng, 25

102 to work in the same structure so that the imperial government could closely regulate overseas trade. However, this idea is no longer accepted. Economic historians agree that in the early

Empire there is no evidence that the Roman government sought to regulate merchants and their wares.235 Instead, the merchants likely grouped themselves in the building for practical purposes.

Because the Romans did not regulate trade to any significant degree, the traders themselves had to ensure fair commercial transactions.

In De Officiis, Cicero discusses some of the ethical questions involved in trade deals:

Let it be set down as an established principle, then, that what is morally wrong can never be expedient—not even when one secures by means of it that which one thinks expedient … The following are problems of this sort: suppose, for example, a time of dearth and famine at Rhodes, with provisions at fabulous prices; and suppose that an honest man has imported a large cargo of grain from Alexandria and that to his certain knowledge also several other importers have set sail from Alexandria, and that on the voyage he has sighted their vessels laden with grain and bound for Rhodes; is he to report the fact to the Rhodians or is he to keep his own counsel and sell his own stock at the highest market price? … According to Antipater all the facts should be disclosed, that the buyer may not be uninformed of a detail that the seller knows; according to Diogenes the seller should declare any defects in his wares, in so far as such a course is prescribed by the common law of the land; but for the rest, since he has goods to sell, he may try to sell them to the best possible advantage, provided he is guilty of no misrepresentation.236

This passage demonstrates that ethical business practices were a concern. Traders in

Puteoli likely worked within set standards generally agreed upon with other merchants.

Maintaining offices in the same building seems an intentional choice. It would be easier for merchants to conduct their business ethically if competitors were right across the hall. Operating in such close proximity also allowed merchants to forge new connections as new traders set up shop.

235 Meiggs, 283-5 236 Cicero, De Off. 3. 50-1

103 Differences between Delian and Puteolan Diaspora Communities

The Berytian and Tyrian inscriptions at Puteoli date to the second century A.D., thus making it difficult to understand how these communities interacted with other diaspora merchants and with the Romans when they first established their trading stations. It is not clear when they first came to Puteoli, although it seems likely that they were probably in residence when the Nabataeans established their trading station. When Berytian and Tyrian traders first came to Puteoli, were they also more cohesive communities or were they more receptive to

Roman cultural influences? The Delian inscriptions may provide a few clues.

The Berytian community on Delos seems to have had few qualms about seeking outside assistance when they first established their trading station. Conversely, the Tyrians on Delos seem more focused on the integrity of their own community. ID 1519 references the Boule in

Athens but focuses mainly on the accomplishments of Patron and the example that he sets for other members of the community. Like the Berytians in ID 1520, the Tyrians grant permission for an individual to set up a bust inside a space that belongs to them; in ID 1520, this space is the headquarters of the Berytian merchants, while in ID 1519, the space seems to be the temple to

Herakles. However, the Berytians allow a Roman to set up a bust, while the Tyrians grant this permission to a member of their own community. It seems that from the beginning of their tenure on Delos, these communities had different ideas about their interactions with outsiders. The

Berytians embraced them and used these encounters to further their business opportunities. The

Tyrians seem more reluctant about receiving outsiders into their private spaces. When they established their trading stations at Puteoli, perhaps the Tyrian and Berytian merchants carried these ideas with them. The Berytians may have been more willing to forge connections with the

104 Greeks and Romans in Puteoli, while the Tyrians may have kept more distance. If so, the Tyrians would have been more like the Nabataean community at the beginning of their tenure in Puteoli.

The administration and social environment of the port itself, of course, could also account for some of the differences. On Delos, the Athenians initially administered the port. However, records from the boule and the ecclesia disappear in the 140s B.C., suggesting that the diaspora communities were only under direct Athenian administration for two decades, and one can only guess about the administrative structure of the port afterward. The apparent lack of formal authorities provided an opportunity for the diaspora communities to play a role in administering the port. Political cooperation may have resulted in increased interactions among separate diaspora communities and led to stronger ties among them.237

There do not seem to be surviving legal documents from Delos, but as the island was initially administered by Athens under Athenian law and institutions, perhaps these continued in some form even after the end of direct Athenian administration. However, it seems that the

Athenians were never the majority on the island. Without a dominant culture and social patterns, the diaspora communities on Delos likely experienced fewer restrictions. Although the Delian administration did not allow the intermarriage of Delian citizens and foreigners during the period of its independence (314-167 B.C.), funerary stele from Rheneia during the subsequent period of

Athenian administration under consideration here demonstrate that this practice did not continue after 167.238 With the expulsion of the native Delian community in 167 and the arrival of the various diaspora communities, their members almost certainly had their own connections to eastern Mediterranean cultures with fewer indigenous cultural barriers to navigate.

237 Curtin, 7 238 Tang, 65

105 On the other hand, Puteoli was under Roman administration from 194 B.C. and the city’s proximity to Rome resulted in heavy Roman cultural influence. When diaspora communities came to Puteoli, they entered a society that already had deep roots and accepted social and cultural patterns. This likely required more adjustment for diaspora communities. Merchants had to learn a new language and how to navigate a new legal system. Additionally, when they brokered new trade deals and sought loans, diaspora merchants went to Roman bankers in the city. Diaspora communities also likely had little political involvement. There may not have been much incentive to cooperate with other foreign merchants outside of their trade deals. Foreign merchants may have focused more on creating ties with their Graeco-Roman hosts than with other diaspora communities.239

Evaluation

Overall, the evidence suggests that while there are some noteworthy differences between the ports, there are striking similarities, and it is these similarities that offer the most compelling implications for diaspora communities in the Hellenistic and Roman periods. The most notable difference between the sites is the identity of the actors involved in long-distance trade deals. On

Delos, the merchants worked with members of other diaspora communities. Berytian merchants rented out warehouses to other merchants. Philostrates from Ashkelon set up a banking firm by

106 B.C. and served as one of the principal financiers on the island.240 In Puteoli, however, diaspora merchants rented spaces from Roman negotiatores and secured funding from Roman banking firms such as the Sulpicii family. However, it seems that diaspora communities used similar business tactics at both ports. Whether they entered a community that already had deeply entrenched social and cultural patterns, such as Puteoli, or a community essentially being created

239 Curtin, 7 240 Rauh, 52

106 de novo, such as Delos, diaspora merchants had a set of practices that helped to forge business connections. However, diaspora communities could use similar tactics and still experience different levels of acculturation. The Tyrians and Berytians, for example, do not appear to take

Roman names at Puteoli but were still relatively well-integrated into the society. Conversely, a

Nabataean took Maximus as a Roman nickname but the Nabataeans overall seem to have comprised a more separate community.

One of the tactics that diaspora merchants utilized was the trading station. At both Delos and Puteoli, merchants formed an official association. This association could serve multiple purposes. It provided a public face for merchants from a specific locale so that local traders knew where to go to access certain products.241 However, it also provided vital services for the merchants themselves. The Cicero passage quoted above demonstrates concerns about ethical business practices but also shows how much merchants relied on information. Merchants working in either Delos or Puteoli had information about local conditions but were unaware of situations beyond the port that might affect their business until a traveler arrived bearing news, such as which goods were in demand and at what price. Without access to information about market conditions across the Mediterranean, merchants could make business deals based on faulty information and assumptions, making long-distance trade even riskier.242 The trading station provided a way for merchant diasporas to monitor local conditions and exchange information to their community based at other ports.243 Trading stations were thus vital to a trade

241 Terpstra 2013, 67 242 Terpstra 2013, 53; Morcillo and Rosillo-Lόpez, 4-5 243 Tran, 231. Morcillo and Rosillo-Lόpez, 5-7. The Roman authorities seemed to have had a very hands-off approach to local markets. In the first century A.D., aediles introduced regulations that would make sellers liable for product defects. However, merchants would still have been reliant on their networks to pass on crucial information. In his Natural History, Pliny includes a list of customary prices for goods in Rome so that readers would not be cheated by unscrupulous mercatores. However, Diocletian’s Edict on Prices (A.D. 301) seems to be the first widespread attempt at regulating prices.

107 diaspora’s network. They allowed the efficient transmission of information and permitted merchants to develop lasting connections with negotiatores and mercatores at the port. If diaspora merchants wanted to conduct business in a port city such as Puteoli, they had to demonstrate their trustworthiness and the trading station allowed associations to monitor its members so that the entire community maintained a good reputation.244 One of the Berytian inscriptions from Puteoli explains the consequences that merchants faced if they did not abide by the group’s standards: denial of burial in the community’s cemetery.245 Such measures allowed merchant associations to set and enforce rules, ensuring that all the traders of the association made fair deals and upheld the community’s reputation.

At both Delos and Puteoli the associations identified themselves by the merchants’ city of origin. This served multiple purposes. In the second century B.C., when diaspora merchants established trading stations at Delos, cities were ruled by different regional powers, but some cities, like Tyre, had existed for centuries with their own unique identity and culture. For example, although cities such as Tyre and Berytus were then under Seleucid Greek rule, they were Phoenician in culture. Organizing a trading station by city of origin allowed merchants to advertise their background while providing more accountability and trustworthiness for overseas merchants. It allowed them to work with their own municipal authorities instead of imperial powers to regulate trade. The Tyrian merchants in Puteoli reached out to officials in Tyre about their financial difficulties, implying that diaspora merchants could rely on their home cities for aid. Merchants sharing a common home may have felt more inclination to work together and abide by the same rules. Organization by city also allowed for clearer communication. Merchants at a station in Delos or Puteoli needed regular shipments of goods from the Levantine coast and

244 Terpstra 2013, 67-8 245 CIL X, 1579

108 thus relied on responsible shippers to transport both high-quality goods and accurate information.

Trust was of the utmost importance in these relationships.246 By establishing a trading station associated with a specific city in multiple ports, merchants could collaborate with shippers from their home towns who they knew would be more inclined to provide accurate information and be more invested in the outcome of the trading ventures.

However, it also allowed them to maintain a unique cultural identity by clearly laying out which traders belonged to the association. In this sense, the trading station promoted the idea of insiders and outsiders.247 Although the Berytian and Tyrian inscriptions from Puteoli do not reveal when these trading stations were established, they seem to have been fixtures in the community by the time these inscriptions were erected. Both of these communities seem to have retained a strong regional identity, even after a long history in a Roman city. In the second century A.D., both communities still seemed to retain a strong sense of being Berytian or Tyrian as opposed to Roman. If any of these merchants had Roman citizenship, they did not think it important enough to convey through their inscriptions. Gruen notes that ancient texts seem to convey two primary ways of expressing identity. One was through genealogy, whether the bloodline was real or fictitious.248 This is a strategy that the Romaioi utilized on Delos, with freedmen identifying themselves through their former owners. Alternatively, ancient writers stress identity through culture. Shared language, religion, and behavior determined membership in a certain group.249 However, this does not mean that a person necessarily belonged to only one

246 Tran, 242 247 Tran, 231. This does not seem to be a feature of all collegia. Tran points out that some collegia united merchants from several cities in the same association, with the common tie being their occupation. In this case, the association could help integrate merchants into the social fabric. It is not clear why the Puteolan trading stations appear to be exclusive to merchants from a specific city; however, this does not preclude the existence of business ties and collaboration with members of other communities in Puteoli. 248 Gruen 2020, 5 249 Gruen 2020, 5-6

109 group. Gruen discusses a fragment written by the poet Ennius in the second century B.C. The poet writes that he has three hearts because he spoke three languages: Greek, Oscan, and

Latin.250 Gruen suggests that this statement has more to do with Ennius’ identity than his linguistic abilities. He suggests that Ennius had a hybrid identity: “The poet associated himself with three cultures, the Hellenic in which he was educated, the Oscan with which he grew up, and the Latin of which he became a part. They existed simultaneously in his life and his work.”251

This idea of hybrid identities has important implications for the diaspora communities at

Delos and Puteoli. Especially at Puteoli, there was a possibility that some members of the community had not been back to their city of origin since they first left, or that members were born in the port and had even never visited Tyre or Berytus. At Delos, however, intermarriage may have made it more difficult for people to maintain a unique cultural identity. If one of the

Romaioi married a Tyrian, Berytian, or Alexandrian, to which association did the children belong? Almost certainly, the father’s identity determined their son’s association; however, mothers would likely also teach their children their own cultural practices and, with relatives on

Delos, the children would probably grow up immersed in both cultures. In this case, the children would likely have a hybrid identity.

This raises the question of why diaspora communities would continue to organize themselves according to their city of origin. One factor could be the practical elements listed above. Diaspora communities found this type of organization to be convenient for their business practices and continued using it even if they were as much Roman as they were Tyrian or

Berytian. However, the setting of the trading station in a foreign port may also have helped

250 Ennius, apud Aulius Gellius, 17.17.1 in Gruen 2020, 103 251 Gruen 2020, 103

110 diaspora merchants cling to their regional identities. When diaspora merchants first arrived in a port, they had to learn how to navigate new social, cultural, and legal norms. There was likely comfort in working with co-nationals and group solidarity may have helped merchants to overcome the anxiety of entering a new society. According to one diaspora scholar,

The sense of unease or difference that members of the diaspora feel in their countries of settlement often results in a felt need for protective cover in the bosom of the community or a tendency to identify closely with the imagined homeland and with co-ethnic communities in other countries. Bonds of language, religion, culture and a sense of common history and perhaps a common fate impregnate such a transnational relationship and give to it an affective, intimate quality that formal citizenship or even long settlement frequently lack.252

Cohen also discusses the creation of the Jewish diaspora. He notes that while the Jews grieved the destruction of Jerusalem and viewed Babylon as a place of oppression, residence in a foreign land also compelled them to compile their history and further define their identity.253 In other words, becoming a diaspora furthered the idea of Jewish cultural heritage and identity. The diaspora communities at Delos and Puteoli may have done the same. Residing in a foreign port may have forced merchants to solidify and hold on to what made them Tyrian or Berytian, nevertheless while assimilating some Greek and Roman cultural influences.

This process may not have been as necessary for the Samaritans at Delos. They had a unique religious identity and had lived in a multicultural environment, both in Palestine and in cities like Alexandria since the Assyrians had conquered their homeland in 721 B.C. By the time these merchants arrived in Delos, they may already have had a firm sense of what it was to be

Samaritan in a foreign land. It is not clear what this process might have looked like for the

Nabataeans. Puteoli seems to be one of their first overseas trading stations and the surviving

252 Cohen, 20 253 Cohen, 3-4

111 inscriptions seem to display a strong sense of Nabataean identity. There is not enough evidence to evaluate whether they formed a hybrid identity during their tenure in Puteoli.

How did diaspora communities navigate their hybrid identities? One tool that people may have utilized is code-switching, the idea that people use more than one language in the same conversation or even in the same sentence.254 The inscriptions give some insight into how diaspora merchants used codeswitching in their daily practices. The inscriptions on the

Nabataean temple, for example, may have appeared in Latin on the outside of the structure and

Nabataean Aramaic on the inside.255 The Nabataean community used Latin to project their investment in the Puteolan community but expressed their Nabataean identity through Aramaic inscriptions. Conversely, they may have helped newcomers find their footing in a multilingual society. The grave stele of a Nabataean indicates that he also went by “Maximus.”256 Taking a

Roman name may have expressed two identities and allowed him to traverse both Nabataean and

Roman society more easily. In Delos, three freedmen erected a bilingual inscription in honor of their patron. Using both Greek and Latin may have allowed them to express two aspects of their identity and demonstrate their ties to two communities.257

Conclusion

An evaluation of the diaspora communities at Delos and Puteoli demonstrates that they experienced multiple layers of acculturation. Within the same community, some merchants were more integrated into the larger society than others. Additionally, they used certain tactics to forge connections both with other diaspora communities and with their Roman hosts at Puteoli. Some

254 Adams, 19 255 ILS 435ob; ILS 435oc; CIL 10.1556; AE 1994, 422; AE 1994, 423; AE 2001, 843; AE 2001, 844, as cited in Terpstra 2015, 92-3. 256 IG XIV add. Et corrig. 842a in Terpstra 2015, 93 257 Rauh, 195-99

112 of these tactics, such as relying on an outsider for financial support, were used by multiple communities. The Berytians used this tactic at Delos and possibly the Samaritans did as well.

However, the Berytians also utilized a visual program to mitigate the differences between themselves and other communities. There is not enough evidence to determine whether other diaspora communities also used this kind of visual programming. It is difficult to compare the evidence from both sites because of the varying dates of the inscriptions and the paucity of evidence at Puteoli compared to Delos. Puteolan merchants may have also enrolled their sons in the gymnasium, intermarried with members of other diaspora communities, and employed a strategic visual program at their facilities, but the evidence is no longer extant.

One question, of course, is whether diaspora communities used these tactics to foster business connections, personal connections, or both. There is not enough evidence to suggest a conclusive answer. The Tyrian sponsorship of a festival at Puteoli would seem to suggest personal connections, as they do not emphasize business in the inscription, as would the participation in the gymnasium at Delos. However, both of these activities may have resulted in stronger business connections as well. Perhaps the question is not whether diaspora communities intended to form business or personal connections but how they used one type of connection to strengthen the other.

113 CHAPTER 5

Conclusion

The evidence suggests that diaspora communities experienced different levels of acculturation and integration depending on the community and the port in which they did business. Some communities, such as the Tyrians and the Berytians, seemed to be more integrated into the entire community at both Delos and Puteoli. However, the Samaritans at

Delos and the Nabataeans at Puteoli seemed to have more barriers between themselves and other communities.

Port administration determined the level of involvement by the host society. At Delos, there virtually was no host society. Although the island was at least nominally under Athenian rule, the evidence suggests that they did little administering after the 140s B.C. and that the diaspora communities were left largely to their own devices. This provided more opportunities for merchant diasporas to come together to form their own community. Because the host society was not present on the island, foreign merchant communities may have found themselves on equal footing and felt more comfortable forming business and personal connections. Because they worked in such close quarters, maintaining their own separate spaces may have been a difficult task. Proximity likely bred familiarity, resulting in stronger cross-communal ties. At

Puteoli, however, merchants entered a port that already had a long history and had to fit themselves into the existing social fabric. There may have been fewer opportunities for diaspora communities to come together and cooperate outside of their business ventures and they may have had stronger ties to the Romans than to other diaspora communities. Maintaining a strong regional identity may have been more important when foreign merchants found themselves immersed in a different culture where few people held the same cultural values and social norms.

114 Diaspora communities may have found it necessary to do a careful balancing act. It may have been easier to forge business ties if they adopted Roman customs and names. However, they also had to maintain ties with their mother city. These communities thus had to be versed in at least two sets of cultural practices. They had to remove enough elements of foreignness that they could be familiar, and presumably trustworthy, faces in their new home but also had to demonstrate to their mother cities that they were still invested in furthering the home city’s business prospects. They had to keep some cultural barriers in place if the trading station was to be effective as a cultural bridge.258

Epigraphic evidence provides a great deal of insight into merchant diaspora communities but does not paint a full picture. Archaeology helps to fill in some gaps, particularly at Delos, but there are still many unanswered questions. There are no extant remains of the gymnasium at

Puteoli, for example, but it seems a safe assumption to say that there was a gymnasium in the city. Without evidence, one cannot determine the extent to which sons of diaspora merchants penetrated this institution or whether they were present at all. Additionally, archaeological and epigraphical evidence do not attest to the physical appearance of foreign merchants. Did they use their clothing to project their identity and if so, which identity did they choose to advertise? Did they dress in Roman garb to smooth away elements of foreignness so that Roman merchants would be more comfortable in their business interactions or did foreign garments allow them to capitalize on their connection to the trade of luxury products? Did merchants dress differently depending on whether they were permanent or temporary residents of a port? Unfortunately, this kind of evidence does not survive.259

258 Curtin, 38 259 An examination of Roman satirical writing may provide some insight to these questions but is beyond the bounds of this thesis.

115 Additionally, the surviving evidence does not allow one to account for the preferences of each community. Some diaspora communities may have embraced a multicultural environment and intentionally sought connections both with other diasporas and with their hosts. However, other communities may have had more reservations about entering a foreign society, even one comprised mostly of other diaspora communities. A multicultural Delos and Roman Puteoli likely looked very foreign to some merchants and they may have preferred to keep more distance between themselves and others. The inscriptions simply do not allow one to account for this.

There is still plenty of room for further research on merchant diasporas. One ideal step would be to analyze these communities as diasporas in their own right and not just as a tool to examine trade. Depending on the available evidence, this could prove difficult. However, examining the same merchant diaspora across multiple ports could allow one to determine if a certain community had a set of tactics used to insert themselves into the local social fabric and how these tactics might have differed among merchant diasporas. This may determine whether it was common to utilize a specific visual program, as the Berytians did at Delos. This may also help scholars measure different levels of acculturation and determine which factors led to more integrated societies.

While professional associations are a useful category, they may sometimes result in scholarly blinders. For example, scholars study the Tyrian Heracleistes and the Berytian

Poseidoniastes because this is how the groups categorize themselves. However, this does not necessarily mean that these were the only circles in which people travelled. It may be helpful to find other ways to analyze merchant diasporas for a broader picture of the way they operated.

116 TABLE

Table 1. Breakdown of cities represented by attendants of the gymnasium in ID 2598. Bolded names are repeated cities. ID 2598 Cities Represented by Ephebes Cities Represented by Pareutaktoi Cities of those assigned priestly duties Amphipolis 1 Alexandria 1 Aethalides 1 Anagurous 1 Amisus 1 Antioch 4 Anaphlystus 1 Amorgos 1 Apollonieus 1 Anthedon 1 Amphitrope 1 Ardus 1 Antioch 7 Antioch 5 Athens 1 Ardus 2 Apamea 1 Coele 1 Athens 2 Berytos 1 Delos 1 Berytos 2 Chios 1 Hermeios 1 Carpasia 1 Cnidus 1 Kudathenaieus 1 Heraclea 1 Elea/Hyele 1 Marathon 3 Hieropolites 2 Hallicarnassus 1 Pallene 1 Hierpytna 1 Hieropolites 1 Paros 1 Kephisieus 1 Kephisieus 1 Phlueus 1 Laodicea 1 Lyttus 1 Piraeus 1 Naxos 1 Mallus 1 Tyre 2 Nicopolis 1 Megara 1 Phlamenios 1 Meliteia 1 Ptolemais 1 Patara 1 Rheneus 1 Polurenios 1 Romaios 4 Ptolemais 2 Salamis 1 Tyre 1 Sidon 2 Syria 1 Tricorynthus 1 Tyre 3

117 FIGURES

Figure 1. The location of Delos in the Aegean Sea. Delos is circled in black. From UNC Greensboro, Course Resources in Classical Studies. https://classics.uncg.edu/course- resources/mythology/maps/map-of-the-aegean/

118

Figure 2. Map of Delos. From Rauh, xxiv.

119

Figure 3. Plan of Maison de Q. Tullius, House 1C. From Zarmakoupi, 56.

120

Figure 4. The Lares Compitales wall painting outside Maison de Q. Tullius. From Plassart, 177.

121

Figure 5. Clubhouse of the Poseidonastes, final phase. From Martin, 259.

Figure 6. Ground plan of the Maison des Dauphins. From Bruneau 1983, 240.

122

Figure 7. Tanit mosaic from the Maison des Dauphins. From Bruneau, 1983, 241.

123

Figure 8. Stele of Inscription n° 1. From Bruneau 1982, 468

124

Figure 9. Stele of Inscription n° 2. From Bruneau 1982, 470

125

Figure 10. Ground plan of House IIA, first phase. From Trümper, 218-9.

Figure 11. Ground plan of House IIA, second phase. From Trümper, 218-9.

126

Figure 12. Proximity Puteoli on the Bay of Naples, just northeast of Neapolis, to Rome. From the Ancient World Mapping Center, UNC-CH.

127

Figure 13. Partial site plan of Ostia with the Piazzale delle Corporazioni. From Meiggs, 284.

128

Figure 14. Piazzele delle Corporazioni behind the theater in Ostia. From Meiggs, Plate XXII b.

129

Figure 15. Mosaic of boats from the north side of the Piazzale delle Corporazioni. From Meiggs, Plate XXV a.

Figure 16. Mosaic of a corn measurer from east side of the Piazzale delle Corporazioni. From Meiggs, Plate XXV c.

130

Figure 17. Elephant mosaic with the inscription “Stat(io) Sabratensium” from the east side of the Piazzale delle Corporazioni. From Meiggs, Plate XXIII a.

Figure 18. Ship mosaic with the inscription “Navi(cularii) et negotiantes | Karalitani”, shipowners and traders from Sardinia, from the east side of the Piazzale delle Corporazioni. From Meiggs, Plate XXIII c.

131 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Primary Sources:

Cagnat, René, Jules Toutain, Pierre Jouguet, and Georges Lafaye. Inscriptiones Graecae ad Res

Romanas Pertinentes, 3 vols. Paris, 1911– 1927.

Cicero. De Officiis. Translated by Walter Miller. Cambridge: Harvard University, 1951.

Ennius. Fragmentary Republican Latin, Volume I: Ennius, Testimonia. Epic Fragments. Edited

and translated by Sander M. Goldberg, Gesine Manuwald. Loeb Classical Library 294.

Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2018.

Diodorus Siculus. Library of History, Volume III: Books 4.59-8. Translated by C. H. Oldfather.

Loeb Classical Library 340. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1939.

Josephus. The Jewish War. Translated by H. St. J. Thackeray. Loeb Classical Library 203.

Cambridge, MA: Harvard, 1927.

Livy. History of Rome, Volume VI: Books 23-25. Translated by Frank Gardner Moore. Loeb

Classical Library 355. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1940.

Macrobius. Saturnalia, Volume I: Books 1-2. Edited and translated by Robert A. Kaster. Loeb

Classical Library 510. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2011.

Pliny. Natural History. Translated by H. Rackham. Loeb Classical Library 371. Cambridge, MA:

Harvard University Press, 1950.

Polybius. This Histories, Volume II: Books 3-4. Translated by W. R. Paton. Revised by F. W.

Walbank, Christian Habicht. Loeb Classical Library 137. Cambridge, MA: Harvard

University Press, 2010.

Roussel, Pierre and Marcel Launey. Inscriptions de Délos: Décrets Postérieurs A 166 AV. J.-C.

(Nos. 1497-1524) Dédicaces Postérieures a 166 AV. J.-C. (Nos. 1525-2219). Paris:

132 Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres: Fonds D’Épigraphie Grecque Fondation Du

Duc De Loubat, 1937.

Strabo. Geography. Translated by Horace Leonard Jones. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University

Press, 1988.

Secondary Sources:

Adams, J. N. Bilingualism and the Latin Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University, 2004.

Bhatia, Sunil. “Acculturation, Dialogical Voices and the Construction of the Diasporic Self.”

Theory and Psychology 12, no. 1 (2002): 55-77.

Bourgel, Jonathan. “The Destruction of the Samaritan Temple by John Hyrcanus: A

Reconsideration.” Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. 135, no. 3 (2016): 505-523.

Braziel, Jana Evans and Anita Mannur. “Nation, Migration, Globalization: Points of Contention

in Diaspora Studies.” In Theorizing Diaspora: A Reader, edited by Jana Evans Braziel

and Anita Mannur, 1-22. Malden, MA: Blackwell, 2003.

Bruneau, Philippe. Recherches sur les cultes de Délos à l’époque hellénistique et à l’époque

impériale. Paris: Bibliothèque des Écoles françaises d’Athènes et de Rome 217, 1970.

------. “Deliaca.” In Bulletin de Correspondance Hellénique. Vol. 102, livraison 1 (1978): 109-

171.

Bruneau, Philippe and Pierre Bordreuil. “Les Israélites de Délos et la juiverie délienne.” In

Bulletin de Correspondance Hellénique. Vol. 106, livraison 1 (1982): 465-504.

Bruneau, Philippe and Jean Ducat. Guide de Délos. Third Edition. Paris: École Française

D’Athènes, 1983.

Bruun, Christer. “Dancing in the Street. Or in the Kitchen? Slaves, Freedmen, Magistri Vici, and

Grassroots Leaders.” Journal of Roman Archaeology 33 (2020): 707-722.

133 Calza, G. “Il Piazzale delle Corporazioni e la funzione commerciale di Ostia.” Bulletino della

Commissione Archeologica Communale di Roma 43 (1915): 178-206.

Camodeca, Guiseppe. “Per Una Riedizione dell’ Archivio Puteolano dei Sulpicii.” Puteoli, Studi

di Storia Antica 6 (1982): 3-53.

------. Tabulae Pompeianae Sulpiciorum (TPSulp.): Edizione Critica dell’ Archivio Puteolano

dei Sulpicii. Rome: 1999

Carrara Marble Tour. “Marble: The History of Marble from the Roman Age Until Today.” 12

March 2018. Accessed 21 April, 2020. www.carraramarbletour.it.

Cohen, Robin. Global Diasporas: An Introduction. London: Taylor and Francis Group, 1997.

Curtin, Philip D. Cross-Cultural Trade in World History. Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press, 1984.

D’Arms, John H. “Puteoli in the Second Century of the Roman Empire: A Social and Economic

Study.” The Journal of Roman Studies 64 (1974): 104-124.

------.Commerce and Social Standing in Ancient Rome. Cambridge: Harvard University Press,

1981.

Dubois, Charles, Pouzzoles antique (histoire et topographie) Paris, 1907.

Duncan-Jones, R. P. “The Impact of the Antonine Plague.” Journal of Roman Archaeology 9

(1996): 108-136.

École Française D’Athènes. “Delos—a history of the excavations.” Last modified January 30,

2018. Accessed December 9, 2019. https://www.efa.gr/index.php/en/recherche/sites-de-

fouilles/cyclades/delos/delos-historique-des-fouilles.

Errington, Robert Malcolm. “Aspects of Roman Acculturation in the East under the Republic.”

In Alte Geschichte und Wissenschaftsgeschichte: Festschrift für Karl Christ zum 65.

134 Geburtstag, edited by Peter Kneissl and Volker Losemann, 140-157. Darmstadt:

Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1988.

Evers, Kasper Grønlund. Worlds Apart Trading Together: The Organisation of Long-Distance

Trade Between Rome and India in Antiquity. Oxford: Archaeopress, 2017.

Grainger, John D. Syrian Influences in the Roman Empire to A.D. 300. London: Routledge,

2017.

Gruen, Erich S. Diaspora: Jews amidst the Greeks and Romans. Cambridge: Harvard University

Press, 2002.

------. Ethnicity in the Ancient World—Did It Matter? Berlin: De Gruyter, 2020.

Hall, Linda Jones. Roman Berytus: Beirut in Late Antiquity. London: Routledge, 2004.

Hamberger, Astrid. “Immigrant Integration: Acculturation and Social Integration.” Journal of

Identity and Migration Studies 3, no. 2 (2009): 2-21.

Hatzfield, J. Les trafiquants italiens dans l’orient hellénique. Paris: E. de Boccard, 1919.

Hollander, David. “Risky Business: Traders in the Roman World.” In Traders in the Ancient

Mediterranean. Edited by Timothy Howe. Chicago: Ares Publishers, 2015.

Hornblower, Simon, Spawforth, Antony, and Eidinow, Esther, eds. “Puteoli” in Oxford Classical

Dictionary (4th edition). Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012.

Iddeng, Jon W. “What is a Graeco-Roman Festival?” In Greek and Roman Festivals: Content,

Meaning, and Practice, edited by J. Rasmus Brandt and Jon W. Iddeng, 11-38. Oxford:

Oxford University, 2012.

Kartveit, Magnar. The Origin of the Samaritans. Leiden: Brill, 2009. Accessed December 8,

2019. ProQuest Ebook Central.

135 ------. “Samaritan Self-Consciousness in the First Half of the Second Century B.C.E. in Light of

the Inscriptions from Mount Gerizim and Delos.” Journal for the Study of Judaism 45

(2014): 449-470.

Karvonis. Pavlos. “Les Installations commerciales dans la ville de Délos à l’époque

hellénistique.” In Bulletin de Correspondance Hellénique. Vol. 132, livraison 1 (2008):

153-219.

Kraabel, A. T. “New Evidence of the Samaritan Diaspora Has Been Found on Delos.” In The

Biblical Archaeologist, Vol. 47, no. 1 (March 1984): 44-46.

Kenny, Kevin. “Diaspora and Comparison: The Global Irish as a Case Study.” The Journal of

American History, vol. 90, no. 1 (Jun. 2003): 134-162.

King, Russell. “Geography and Migration Studies: Retrospect and Prospect.” Population, Space

and Place 18 (2012): 134-153.

Kloppenborg, John S. “Collegia and Thiasoi: Issues in Function, Taxonomy and Membership.”

In Voluntary Associations in the Graeco-Roman World, edited by John S. Kloppenborg

and Stephen G. Wilson, 16-30. London: Routledge, 1996.

Laidlaw, W. A. A History of Delos. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1933.

Lavan, Myles. “The Spread of Roman Citizenship, 14-212 CE: Quantification in the Face of

High Uncertainty.” Past and Present 230, no. 1 (Feb. 2016): 3-46.

MacDonald, Burton. The Southern Transjordan Edomite Plateau and the Dead Sea Rift Valley:

The Bronze Age to the Islamic Period (3800/3700 B.C.—A.D. 1917. Oxford: Oxbox,

2015.

Manning, J. G. “Hellenistic Traders.” In Traders in the Ancient Mediterranean. Edited by

Timothy Howe, 101-139. Chicago: Ares Publishers, 2015.

136 Martin, S. Rebecca. “Revisiting the ‘Slipper Slapper’ and Other Sculptural Dedications in the

Clubhouse of the Poseidoniasts of Beirut.” Journal of Greek Archaeology 2 (2017): 253-

282.

McLean, B. Hudson. “The Place of Cult in Voluntary Associations and Christian Churches on

Delos.” In Voluntary Associations in the Graeco-Roman World, edited by John S.

Kloppenborg and Stephen G. Wilson, 186-225. London: Routledge, 1996.

Meerson, Michael. “One God Supreme: A Case Study of Religious Tolerance and Survival.”

Journal of Greco-Roman Christianity and Judaism 7 (2010): 32-50.

Meiggs, Russell. Roman Ostia. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1960.

Meijer, Fik and Onno van Nijf. Trade, Transport and Society in the Ancient World: A

Sourcebook. London: Routledge, 1992.

Morcillo, Marta García and Cristina Rosillo-Lόpez. “Managing Information in the Roman

Economy: Introduction.” In Managing Information in the Roman Economy, edited by

Cristina Rosillo-Lόpez and Marta García Morcillo, 3-20. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan,

2021.

Neusner, Jacob. Narrative and Document in the Rabbinic Canon: From the Mishnah to the

Talmuds. Maryland: University Press of America, 2010.

Paturel, Simone. Baalbek-Heliopolis, the Bekaa, and Bertyus From 100 BCE to 400 CE: A

Landscape Transformed. Leiden: Brill, 2019.

Picard, Charles. “Fouilles de Délos (1910): Observations sur la société des Posdidoniastes de

Bérytos et sur son histoire.” In Bulletin de Correspondance Hellénique. Vol. 44 (1920):

263-311.

137 Plassart, André. “Fouilles de Délos, exécutées aux frais de M. le Duc de Loubat (1912-1913).

Quartier d’habitations privées à l’est du stade.” Bulletin de correspondance hellénique

Vol. 40 (1916): 145-256.

Pummer, Richard. The Samaritans: A Profile. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2016.

Rauh, Nicholas K. The Sacred Bonds of Commerce: Religion, Economy, and Trade Society at

Hellenistic Roman Delos, 166-87 B.C. Amsterdam, J.C. Gieben, 1993.

Reger, Gary. Regionalism and Change in the Economy of Independent Delos. Berkeley:

University of California Press, 1994.

Roche, Marie-Jeanne. “Remarques sur les Nabatéens en Mediterranée.” Semitica 45 (1996): 73-

99.

Roussel, Pierre. Délos: Colonie Athénienne. Réimpression augmentee de complements

bibliographiques et de concordances épigraphiques par Philippe Bruneau, Marie-

Thérèse Couilloud-Ledinahet, and Roland Etienne. Paris: Bibliothèque des Écoles

Françaises d’Athènes et de Rome, 1987.

Sosin, Joshua D., ‘Tyrian Stationarii at Puteoli’, in Tyche: Beiträge zur alten Geschichte,

Papyrologie und Epigraphik 14 (1999): 275– 284.

Stein, Gil J. “From Passive Periphery to Active Agents: Emerging Perspectives in the

Archaeology of Interregional Interaction.” American Anthropologist 104, no. 3 (2002):

903-916.

Steuernagel, Dirk. “Stationes and Associations of Merchants at Puteoli and Delos: Modes of

Social Organization and Integration.” In Roman Port Societies: The Evidence of

Inscriptions, edited by Pascal Arnaud and Simon Keay, 63-84. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press, 2020.

138 Stillwell, Richard, MacDonald, William L. McAlister, and Holland, Marian. “Puteoli (Pozzuoli)

Campania, Italy” in The Princeton Encyclopedia of Classical Sites. Princeton, N.J.:

Princeton University Press, 1976.

Terpstra, Taco. T. Trading Communities in the Roman World: A Micro-Economic and

Institutional Perspective. Leiden: Brill, 2013.

------“Roman Trade with the Far East: Evidence for Nabataean Middlemen in Puteoli.” In Across

Nine Oceans: Nine Essays on Indo-Mediterranean Trade, eds. Frederico De Romanis and

Marco Maiuro, 73-94. Leiden: Brill, 2015.

Tran, Nicolas. “Roman Professional collegia and Economic Control: A Monopoly of

Information?” In Managing Information in the Roman Economy, edited by Cristina

Rosillo-Lόpez and Marta García Morcillo, 229-248. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan, 2021.

Trümper, Monika. Wohnen in Delos: Eine baugeschichtliche Untersuchung zum Wandel der

Wohnkultur in hellenistischer Zeit. Internationale Archäologie Bd. 46. Rahden/Westf:

Verlad Marie Leidorf GmbH, 1998.

Van der Horst, Pieter W. “Judaism in Asia Minor.” In The Cambridge History of Religions in the

Ancient World. Volume 2: From the Hellenistic Age to Late Antiquity edited by William

Adler, 321-340. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013.

Wenning, Robert. “Towards ‘Early Petra’: An Overview of the Early History of the Nabataeans

in Its Context.” In Men on the Rocks: The Formation of Nabataean Petra. Proceedings of

a Conference Held In Berlin, 2-4 December, 2011, edited by M. Mouton and S. G.

Schmid, 7-22. Berlin: Logos, 2013.

139 Wilson, S. G. “Voluntary Associations: An Overview.” In Voluntary Associations in the Graeco-

Roman World, edited by John S. Kloppenborg and Stephen G. Wilson, 1-15. London:

Routledge, 1996.

Zarmakoupi, Mantha. “The Spatial Environment of Inscriptions and Graffiti in Domestic Spaces:

The Case of Delos.” In Inscriptions in the Private Sphere in the Greco-Roman World.

Leiden: Brill, 2016.