EPIGRAPHIC EVIDENCE FOR BOUNDARY DISPUTES IN THE ROMAN EMPIRE by Thomas Elliott A dissertation submitted to the faculty of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the Department of History. Chapel Hill 2004 Approved by _____________________________________ Advisor: Professor Richard Talbert _____________________________________ Reader: Professor Jerzy Linderski _____________________________________ Reader: Professor Mary Boatwright _____________________________________ Reader: Professor George Houston _____________________________________ Reader: Professor Melissa Bullard ii This page intentionally left blank. iii © 2004 Thomas Elliott ALL RIGHTS RESERVED iv This page intentionally left blank. v ABSTRACT THOMAS ELLIOTT: Epigraphic Evidence for Boundary Disputes in the Roman Empire (Under the direction of Richard Talbert) This dissertation presents all published Greek and Latin epigraphic documents relating to internal boundary disputes of the Roman empire. In date, it spans the period from 2 BC to the third century AD. Spatially, the documents derive from 12 provinces ( Achaia, Africa, Asia, Baetica, Cilicia, Creta et Cyrene, Dalmatia, Iudaea, Lusitania, Macedonia, Moesia and Syria ), plus Italy. The presentation of each includes a text, English translation, bibliography and commentary. Analytical chapters expand upon recent published work by G. Burton and B. Campbell. Terminological analysis permits classification of epigraphic and literary evidence into five categories: boundary disputes, restoration of public and sacred lands, other land disputes, the assignment of boundaries and other authoritative demarcations involving Roman officials. The analysis also provides a more focused definition of several Latin and Greek words that indicate the delivery of a verdict by a Roman official ( decretum, sententia, iudicium, ἀποφάσις, κρίσις, ἐπικρίμα ). Categorization of evidence permits a close examination of the identities and roles of Roman administrative personnel involved in such cases. This analysis indicates that boundary disputes were normally handled at the lowest possible level. In the provinces, disputes between communities or individuals were handled by the governor, sometimes through appointed judges and sometimes in consultation with the emperor. Imperial legates with responsibility for the provincial census seem also to have had authority to adjudicate boundary disputes arising in the course of their duties. Disputes that straddled provincial boundaries or boundaries of imperial estates, or that involved cities with special status or privilege, required the emperor’s attention. These cases were normally delegated to special legates. A similar procedure could be employed in Italy, where there was no governor upon whom to rely. In all boundary disputes, the presiding officials seem to have been guided in their actions by the dictates of Roman private law in boundary dispute cases, whether it properly applied to the communities involved or not. In particular, they seem to have observed a requirement that the verdict in a boundary dispute be delivered on site in the presence of the parties to a case. vi This page intentionally left blank. vii In memoriam William H. Willis viii This page intentionally left blank. ix ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS It is not uncommon to hear the Ph.D. dissertation described as both an end and a beginning. On one level, of course, it represents an important major step on the road from student to scholar. In this context, the author hopes to have crafted a fitting beginning to a career of research, teaching and publication. But a dissertation is also the culmination of long years of schooling and preparation, and as such its author owes tremendous debts not only to those who helped directly with the dissertation itself, but also to those teachers, mentors and friends who guided and encouraged him throughout the long years of formal learning. For direct help on the dissertation (and much besides), I wish to acknowledge first the members of my advisory committee: Prof. Richard Talbert, Prof. Jerzy Linderski, Prof. Mary T. Boatwright, Prof. George Houston and Prof. Melissa Bullard. From the earliest stages of exploration, through proposal, research, writing and defense, they have been unstintingly supportive, insightful and encouraging. So many errors have been avoided, and so many aspects sharpened, because of them that I hope they too will take pride in this work. If anyone envies me this committee, they are justified. I wish to single out Richard Talbert, my graduate advisor, for special thanks. Over the 10 years of our acquaintance, he has been a tireless and unfailing guide, teacher and friend. The opportunity to study with him, first at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, and then here at Carolina, has been one of the greatest privileges of my life. If I can demonstrate even a fraction of his dedication, energy and acumen in my future research and teaching, I will have done a great service to the field and to society. The help of colleagues in the History, Classics, Classical Archaeology and Information Science graduate programs here at Carolina constitutes another essential element in the completion of this dissertation and my graduate training as a whole. It is a rare experience indeed to be surrounded by minds of such caliber, and such friendliness: Jeff Becker, Hilary Becker, Prof. Lee Brice, Dr. Hugh Cayless, Jay Chhana, Noel Fiser, Christopher Fuhrmann, Dr. John Hansen, Brian Lund, Kathy McDonnell and Dr. Daniëlle Slootjes. x The present work has also benefited from the kindness and advice of colleagues and friends around the world. I can only hope that I have remembered them all: Prof. Gary Bishop, Dr. Gabby Bodard, Prof. John Bodel, Prof. Michael Crawford, Dr. Charles Crowther, Mike Dendy, Max Gilbert, Jim Hasik, Joyce Reynolds, Prof. Kent Rigsby, Charlotte Roueché, Prof. Ross Scaife, Prof. Philip Stadter and Prof. John Wilkes. An essential prerequisite for an epigraphic study – particularly one that does not confine itself to a single region – is an appropriate library collection. I am indeed fortunate that the library system of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill has one of the best collections for the study of Greek and Latin epigraphy in North America. The decision of the library, in consultation with faculty in Classics and Ancient History, to maintain and improve the special Epigraphy Room originally specified by the late Prof. T.R.S. Broughton magnifies the value of this collection immensely. The care of Dr. John Rutledge and his colleagues in Library Acquisitions to identify and procure epigraphic publications (even obscure, out-of-print ones) is exemplary. Their investment is backed up by the excellent work of the Preservation staff, which last year undertook a major conservation and stabilization effort in the Epigraphy Room. For those items that were not in the collection and could not be purchased for it, I have been happily reliant upon the staff of Interlibrary Services, and in particular, upon Dr. Sellers Lawrence, who handled the majority of my loan requests. Were it not for their alacrity and ingenuity, I would never have finished. The library here, an aggregate of people, facilities and collections, is a treasure of the institution, of the state, and of the nation. I am honored to have been able to use it. Sue Robeson and Brandon Bowman in the Graduate School Office of Enrolled Students provided invaluable assistance with formatting and document structure. I greatly appreciate their patience, guidance and approachability. This dissertation represents an important opportunity for me to record the influence of other teachers whose contributions to my intellectual growth and development were indispensable to the completion of this work. I have already mentioned Richard Talbert, who stands as the most recent in this line. I owe Latin, and thereby the opportunity of graduate school, to Prof. Richard Gerberding, whose 20-plus years of labor in the fertile soil of north Alabama has borne much fruit already. I am but one of the many seeds he has cultivated . Though he maintains that the beauty of the language he teaches, and the glory of its study, derives from its intrinsic uselessness, I will xi disagree with him eternally. Through the study of Latin, he gives to his students the most useful of all gifts: broadened horizons and the intellectual wherewithal to explore them. I owe not only Greek, but also the kindling of interest in antiquity itself, to the late Prof. Bill Willis. Most of my friends know the story of a freshman who, confronted with a College requirement for a foreign language, enrolled in Classical Greek on impulse, hoping to learn something obscure and to discover whether the preachers of my childhood had fairly represented the language and meaning of the biblical texts they expounded. In the hardest and most engaging classes of my academic career, I learned these things, and more: how to study methodically and how to persevere in the face of significant potential for personal failure. Without Prof. Willis’ unflagging encouragement, and without the infectious example of his passion for the ancient world, I would not have succeeded and would not have been inspired to study ancient history. To Marti Waite and Dr. Janet Atha, then colleagues in the English Department at Randolph School, I owe the discovery of the power and practice of written thought, the