The Diolkos and the Emporion: How a Land Bridge Framed the Commercial Economy of Roman Corinth

CHAPTER SEVEN

THE DIOLKOS AND THE EMPORION: HOW A LAND BRIDGE FRAMED THE COMMERCIAL ECONOMY OF ROMAN CORINTH

David K. Pettegrew

Introduction

Territory has always formed a common theme in explanations of the wealth and power of the city of Corinth.1 Thucydides was the first to con- nect Corinthian wealth to the city’s situation on the Isthmus and its commercial facility (1.13.5). When the Greeks developed navies, he noted, the Corinthians built a fleet, suppressed piracy, and provided a trade market making their city wealthy and powerful. Roman writers repeated, expanded, and reinterpreted the explanation of Thucydides about the commercial facility of the Isthmus and its relationship to Corinthian wealth.2 By the end of antiquity, Corinth was inextricably associated with the image of a maritime city whose Isthmus fostered commerce, prosperity, and power.3 In the 18th and 19th centuries, when Corinth became the subject of historical study, scholars again invoked territory to make sense of the city. Historians drawing on ancient texts regularly remarked on two factors in particular that influenced the city’s historical fortunes.4 They noted firstly that the commercial facilities of the Isthmus and the harbors created mar- kets that generated revenues in the form of duties on imports and exports, and profits through trade. They pointed secondly to the commercial flow of ships and cargoes over a trans-Isthmus portage road called the diolkos that created revenues for the city through traffic and services, transit duties, and transport fees. According to the first assertion, a commercial emporion made the Isthmus a market for merchants arriving from east

1 I am grateful to the participants in conference in Austin and to the others in atten dance for their questions, comments, and suggestions. Thanks also to Melissa Hogan for her valuable feedback on this paper. 2 E.g., Strabo 8.20; Ael. Arist. Or. 27; Favorinus [Dio Chrys.] 37.8 and 36. 3 E.g., John Chrys. Hom. 1 Corinthians, Preface 1–2; Libanius Decl. 25.2.46. 4 Chandler 1776, 240; Dodwell 1819, 191; Lemprière and Anthon 1831, 408; Curtius 1852, 521, 539, 545–46, 596; Curtius 1868, 270–74; Wyse 1865, 326–27. the diolkos and the emporion 127 and west; according to the second, a portage road called the diolkos made the Isthmus a thoroughfare for maritime traffic and shipping between Italy and Asia. These arguments, which were already present when the first archaeologists began work in the Corinthia in the early 20th century, were quickly absorbed into scholarship related to Paul and the Corinthian epistles.5 Each has also reappeared in recent discussions of the social and economic background to the ancient city and Paul’s problematic assemblies.6 The arguments for the diolkos and the emporion have constantly influenced interpretations of the city. My goal in this paper is to reconsider each of the explanations about the commercial facilities of the Isthmus in light of the extant textual evidence. As I shall argue, the second of these ideas (the thoroughfare thesis) has no basis in ancient texts while the first (the commercial emporion) is found in an array of textual evidence. The ancients had little conception of the Isthmus as an actively used commercial thoroughfare but they did view it consistently as a commercial destination and marketplace for the exchange and redistribution of goods. In the conclusion of this paper, I will offer some thoughts on the implications of an emporion for address- ing the economy of Roman Corinth, the social opportunities, and forms of inequality.

The Diolkos of Corinth and the Thoroughfare Thesis

At the center of the thoroughfare thesis is the diolkos of Corinth. Scholars today use the term to refer to the paved limestone portage road that runs across the narrowest part of the Isthmus.7 This road, which was partially excavated by Nikolaos Verdelis in the late 1950s, was made of poros slabs 3.5–6.0 m wide and had deep parallel grooves spaced 1.5 m apart suggesting rails for moving heavy loads.8 Verdelis argued that the road was constructed by the tyrant Periander in the late 7th century bce, subsequently refurbished after the late 5th century bce, and used repeatedly throughout antiquity.

5 E.g., Davies 1877, 165–66; Farrar 1879, 555–56; Linton 1881, 3–4. 6 Wiseman 1979, 438–47; Engels 1990, 59; Hafemann 2000, 22–25; Murphy-O’Connor 2002, 61–62; Horrell and Adams 2004, 1–8. 7 For overviews of the archaeology of the road, see Verdelis 1956a, 1956b, 1957, 1958, 1960, 1966a and 1966b; Raepsaet 1993; Papafotiou 2007; Pettegrew 2011b; Lohmann forthcoming; and Koutsoumba and Nakas forthcoming. 8 Lewis 2001.