Theorodokoi, Asylia, and the Macedonian Cities
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Theorodokoi, Asylia, and the Macedonian Cities Ben Raynor n influential picture of the ancient Macedonian king- dom in twentieth-century scholarship was of a polity A somehow inimical to the presence or development of the polis as a political or social formation. Macedonia had urban communities, but it was argued that they possessed no genuine civic life.1 An increasing body of epigraphic evidence has overturned such a picture. Civic decrees, laws, and dedica- tions now leave us in no doubt that, from at least the mid- fourth century B.C., the Macedonian kingdom was a land of genuine poleis. Cities throughout Macedonia possessed civic institutions recognisable from elsewhere in the Aegean world (magistrates, councils, etc.) which structured meaningful local political life.2 Much recent work on Macedonia has focused on 1 For a clear summary see M. B. Hatzopoulos, “L’état Macédonien an- tique: un nouveau visage,” CRAI (1997) 7–25, at 11–12. Macedonia as hostile to the polis: A. Heuss, Stadt und Herrscher des Hellenismus (Leipzig 1937) 279–280; F. Schachermeyer, Alexander der Grosse: Ingenium und Macht (Graz/ Vienna 1949) 29; H. Bengtson, Philipp und Alexander der Grosse (Munich 1985) 121. 2 The epigraphic evidence to date was compiled in M. B. Hatzopoulos, Macedonian Institutions under the Kings I–II (Athens 1996); see also his “Some New Documents from the Macedonian Chancery. Problems of Form and Content,” in ΚΕΡΜΑΤΙΑ ΦΙΛΙΑΣ. Τιµητικός τόµος για τον Ιωάννη Τουρα- τσογλου (Athens 2009) II 47–55, “The Cities,” in R. Lane Fox (ed.), Brill’s Companion to Ancient Macedon (Leiden/Boston 2011) 235–241, and annual commentary in Bulletin épigraphique. Poleis were present at least in Mace- donia’s coastal heartland, where the kingdom was divided into civic ter- ritories. It appears that poleis as institutional forms did not exist in Upper Macedonia: Hatzopoulos, Institutions I 77–104. ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 56 (2016) 225–262 2016 Ben Raynor 226 THEORODOKOI, ASYLIA, AND THE MACEDONIAN CITIES further investigating the importance and antiquity of civic culture in the kingdom.3 However, this new scholarly emphasis on the polis as an important institutional and social form in Macedonia has not definitively determined the cities’ degree of self-government. It has only made more pressing the question of how a multitude of separately constituted urban com- munities were successfully integrated into a state whose most recognisable feature was a powerful military monarchy. Part of the answer must be sought in the balance between central control and local self-government that existed in the Macedonian kingdom.4 This problem has often been framed in terms of what level of ‘autonomy’ the Macedonian cities pos- sessed.5 This term permits multiple uses and is difficult to de- fine. Nor do the series of concepts associated with the modern English word ‘autonomy’ map easily onto the ancient Greek term autonomia.6 Autonomia was open to a range of readings in the ancient world depending on the context, and often derived its meaning from the state with which it was contrasted.7 Bickerman and Ostwald identified its general use in the clas- 3 E.g. Hatzopoulos, Institutions; A.-M. Guimier-Sorbets et al. (eds.), Rois, cités et nécropoles. Institutions, rites et monuments en Macédoine (Athens 2006); M. Mari, “Macedonian poleis and ethnē in the Greek Sanctuaries before the Age of Philip II,” Ancient Macedonia VII (Thessaloniki 2007) 31–49; R. M. Erring- ton, “The Importance of the Capture of Amphipolis for the Development of the Macedonian City,” Ancient Macedonia VII 275–282. 4 By no means the only approach—the integrative role of the royal court has recently received fruitful attention: P. Paschidis, “The Interpenetration of Civic Elites and Court Elite in Macedonia,” in Rois, cités et nécropoles 251– 267; J. Ma, “Court, King, and Power in Antigonid Macedonia,” in Brill’s Companion 521–543. 5 Eg. Hatzopoulos, Institutions I 472–486. 6 M. H. Hansen, “The ‘Autonomous City-State’: Ancient Fact or Mod- ern Fiction?” in M. H. Hansen and K. Raaflaub (eds.), Studies in the Ancient Greek Polis (Stuttgart 1995) 21–43, at 22–25. 7 R. Sealey, A History of the Greek City States ca. 700–338 B.C. (Berkeley 1976) 397; A. B. Bosworth, “Autonomia: The Use and Abuse of Political Terminology,” StIt 10 (1992) 122–152, at 123. ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 56 (2016) 225–262 BEN RAYNOR 227 sical period as a term used to defend the self-governing status of a weaker state from the imperialist encroachments of a stronger one.8 But this aspect of the term’s use seems to have changed by the Hellenistic period, and it became compatible with subordination to a greater power.9 Therefore autonomia, at least by the Hellenistic period, need not imply full political indepen- dence, or complete freedom from outside interference by a more powerful state, but rather self-governance in local affairs. In considering the ‘autonomy’ of the Macedonian cities, then, we are not considering whether or not they were completely in- dependent of any outside influence by a greater power when making decisions.10 We are considering the degree of political self-government the cities possessed in this period. Were they free to govern their own affairs in many areas? Or were their civic institutions organs only for limited quotidian admini- strative functions, with decisions on any important matters of political, religious, military, diplomatic, or financial weight re- served for the king? Or did their scope for independent action lie somewhere between these two poles? And did this change over time? Some aspects of this problem have been much discussed, such as whether or not the dikastai or epistatai attested in Mace- donian cities acted as royal functionaries, or whether the cities enjoyed some freedom of action in foreign relations.11 In his 8 E. J. Bickerman, “Autonomia: sur un passage de Thucydide (1, 144, 2),” RIDA III.5 (1958) 313–344; M. Ostwald, Autonomia: its Genesis and Early His- tory (New York 1982). 9 Hansen, in Studies 38–43. 10 This was basically impossible within a king’s sphere of influence: see J. Ma, Antiochos III and the Cities of Western Asia Minor (Oxford 1999) 160–165, for the precarious position of the Seleukid ‘autonomous’ cities. 11 Magistrates: Hatzopoulos, Institutions I 372–429, with previous bibli- ography; F. Papazoglou, “Polis et souveraineté,” ZAnt 50 (2000) 169–176; R. M. Errington, “König und Stadt im hellenistischen Makedonien: die Rolle des Epistates,” Chiron 32 (2002) 51–63. Foreign relations: A. Gio- vannini, “Le statut des cités de Macédoine sous les Antigonides,” Ancient Macedonia II (Thessaloniki 1977) 465–472; F. Papazoglou, “Sur l’organisa- ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 56 (2016) 225–262 228 THEORODOKOI, ASYLIA, AND THE MACEDONIAN CITIES influential study of the institutional structure of the Mace- donian kingdom, Miltiades Hatzopoulos, as well as delivering resounding volleys in such traditional battlegrounds, opened up a new front by turning to previously underexploited evidence: several theorodokoi lists from the fourth and third centuries.12 At some point in the Classical period, certain cities began to send out delegations of messengers known as theoroi to an- nounce and invite participation in their panhellenic agonistic festivals.13 The theorodokoi lists recorded the communities visited by these theoroi, and the members of those communities who were appointed as responsible for receiving the theoroi, known as theorodokoi.14 Some scholars, starting with Robert, have ar- gued that in order to make a meaningful announcement of the festival, the delegation of theoroi would have needed access to an authority that could guarantee recognition of the sacred truce.15 Therefore, only independent political communities were visited. Others have followed Kahrstedt in seeing the toponyms in a theorodokoi list as merely a record of where the theoroi lodged, making no assumptions about the political status of the communities.16 Consequently, theorodokoi lists have played ___ tion de la Macédoine sous les Antigonides,” Ancient Macedonia III (Thes- saloniki 1983) 195–210, and ZAnt 50 (2000) 170. 12 Hatzopoulos, Institutions I 472–486. 13 On theoroi see I. Rutherford, State Pilgrims and Sacred Observers in Ancient Greece (Cambridge 2013). 14 P. Perlman, City and Sanctuary in Ancient Greece: The Theorodokia in the Pelo- ponnese (Göttingen 2000). 15 L. Robert, “Villes de Carie et d’Ionie dans la liste des théorodoques de Delphes,” BCH 70 (1946) 506–523, and “Documents d’Asia Mineure XX: Ptolémaïs de Troade,” BCH 106 (1982) 319–333; G. Daux, “Listes del- phiques de théarodoques,” REG 62 (1949) 1–30. P. Perlman, “ΘΕΩΡΟΔΟ- ΚΟΥΝΤΕΣ ΕΝ ΤΑΙΣ ΠΟΛΕΣΙΝ: Panhellennic Epangelia and Political Status,” in M. H. Hansen (ed.), Sources for the Ancient Greek City-State (Copenhagen 1995) 113–164, argues, in relation to Crete, that cities appointing theorodokoi there had at least been independent poleis at some point; in Theorodokia 30– 34 she tends toward following Robert. 16 U. Kahrstedt, “Chalcidic Studies,” AJP 57 (1936) 416–444; J. M. ————— Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 56 (2016) 225–262 BEN RAYNOR 229 a prominent role in discussions of polis status and polis auton- omy.17 In one of the earliest surviving theorodokoi lists, dating to 360 and originating in Epidauros, king Perdikkas III appears as sole theorodokos for the Macedonian kingdom; no Macedonian cities individually appointed theorodokoi.18 Then, in other lists from later in the fourth century, Macedonian cities begin to appear appointing theorodokoi.19 By the late third century, theorodokoi for 28 Macedonian cities were recorded in the ‘Delphi Great List’.20 Hatzopoulos followed Robert in seeing the appointment of a theorodokos as indicative of a city’s political independence. Therefore, he argued that the Epidaurian list of 360, with Perdikkas theorodokos for the whole kingdom, shows that the Macedonian cities had no capacity for independent action at that time.