doi: 10.2143/AWE.18.0.3287206 AWE 18 (2019) 1-16 INSCRIPTIONS AND PEOPLE: NUANCED READINGS ON CULTURAL INTERACTION BETWEEN GREEKS AND ITALIC POPULATIONS IN MAGNA GRAECIA* AIRTON POLLINI Abstract This article focuses on the exchanges between Greeks and Italic peoples in Magna Graecia. Forms of expression borrowed from the Greek model are analysed through some case studies, such as the Tortora horos and the monetary issues of Italic communities. Nevertheless, these uses do not necessarily represent the adoption of Greek values, as is shown by the disap- proval of homosexual behaviour such as the ostrakon of Pisticci. Conversely, the inscription on the olpe of Fratte indicates the spread of the pederastic practice in the Etruscan environ- ment of Campania. The aim is to tackle textual sources and artefacts, with nuanced analyses of the modalities of cultural interaction between Greeks and locals. Introduction For the study of the interaction between texts and material culture, the relatively recent approach of historical archaeology provides a particularly relevant framework.1 An in-depth development of its methodological contribution is unnecessary here, but it would be interesting to recall its major attributes. Indeed, historical archaeol- ogy was strongly inspired by anthropology and the social sciences and concentrated originally on the study of American society formed after the conquest by Europeans. Thereafter, the possibilities of applying this approach have been extended to any historical context that allows the confrontation between written sources and material culture.2 Without establishing a hierarchy between the two types of sources,3 its main contribution consists in deconstructing the archaeological objects according to a literary method of text interpretation, analysing each detail separately, and then * I owe a profound gratitude to Prof. Gocha Tsetskhladze for his great kindness and patience. A previous draft of this paper was read by Dr Madalina Dana and by Dr Arianna Esposito; I thank both for the continuous support and friendship. I acknowledge the very valuable inputs and references suggested by the two anonymous reviewers. All remaining mistakes are my own. 1 Orser 2000; 2002. See also Meskell 2001; Lawrence and Shepherd 2006. 2 Funari 1999; Funari et al. 2005; 2010. 3 Small 1995a; 1999; Dyson 1995; Johnson 1999. For the archaeology of the classical Greek world, see concrete examples in Ober 1995; Small 1995b. 2 A. POLLINI reconstructing the whole with a thorough understanding. The aim is to highlight themes such as class exploitation, differences in status and gender. Consequently, emphasis is given to the power relations between social groups and individuals, the mechanisms of domination and resistance.4 In this respect, it is now accepted that archaeological remains allow us to apprehend traces of the lowest social strata, in particular by careful analysis of everyday objects, especially pottery.5 In our specific case, it is also a question of apprehending the relations of interethnic inter- action between Greeks and Italic populations. Our point of departure consists of an epigraphic document with a certain will to delimit a space. If the very idea of an inscribed stone with a reference to a limit seems obvious, the analysis is much more complex. In this regard, J. Ober6 argues for the utmost caution in interpreting the material signs of boundaries, which must be systematically contextualised. Indeed, the best-known example is the two bound- ary stones of the Agora of Athens, discovered in 1938 (Agora I 5510 = IG I3 1087) and 1967 (Agora I 7039 = IG I3 1088) and found in situ, the first immediately east of the Tholos, where the western route of the Agora is forked. The stone carries, on the upper and eastern sides, a short text: ‘I am the boundary of the agora’ (hόρος εἰμὶ τε̃ς ἀγορᾶς). The two inscriptions are dated around 500 BC.7 The demarcation function of the Agora seems very clear, which was important for several reasons. First, it served to delimit the domain of the public space of the central square and prevented any private appropriation. Secondly, these boundary stones were used to indicate the limit not to be crossed by several categories of persons whose access to the Agora was forbidden, in particular murderers or those suffering from atimia, that is to say deprivation of citizenship rights.8 As the Agora 4 Note the possibility of using approaches such as the ‘Third wave feminists’ (Meskell 2001) or gender studies (Scott 1986). 5 See commentary on the use of the methods of historical archaeology in other historical periods in Lawrence and Shepherd 2006; and especially for this transposition to the colonial movements of the Greeks, Phoenicians and Romans: Cunliffe 2006. 6 Ober 1995, especially 96: ‘Looking at how several texts treat horoi, and examining the horos as an “artifactual text” – as a text that is an artifact, and at the same time an artifact that is a text – should help to elucidate some methodological problems involved with moving back and forth between texts and artifacts, history and archaeology.’ 7 Shear 1939; Thompson 1968; commentaries in Lalonde et al. 1991, H. 25 and H. 26, p. 27, pl. 2. One should include a third horos (Agora I 5675 = IG I3 1089), fragmentary ([hόρος εἰ]μὶ τε̃ς ἀγορᾶς), but which must restore the same text and the same chronology (Shear 1940; Lalonde et al. 1991, H. 27, p. 27). On these boundary stones, see recent comments by F. Longo in Greco et al. 2014. 8 According to Hansen’s interpretation (Hansen 1976), several literary passages indicate the characteristics of sentences of atimia such as the prohibition of access to the Agora, understood as the market place, and to sanctuaries (Lysias 6 Against Andocides 9 and 24). See also Demosthenes, 22. 77; 24. 60; Aeschines, 1. 164; 2. 148; 3. 176. INSCRIPTIONS AND PEOPLE 3 was the public square dedicated to political and economic activities, this prohibition of access had consequences not only for a citizen who could no longer participate in the decisions of the community but also for other social categories, especially foreigners prevented from buying or selling at the market. Nevertheless, by the end of the 5th century, the first boundary stone (Agora I 5510) was already buried and no longer served to delimit the space of the Agora, while the second (Agora I 7039) was covered in the 3rd century BC. First, in the case of the limits of the Agora, in order for the statement to be functional, the stone must remain at the very location of the limits it indicates and the reader must be able to identify what represents the space that is delimited, in this case the Agora. Moreover, this document also conveys an order, at least a warning: the passer-by must be aware of the consequences if he exceeds this limit, as in the case of someone who would not have the right to enter the Agora. Here, the message is implicit, but remains clear enough. It is relatively easy to identify the space limited by the boundary; we know that the authority which defined the limits was the city of Athens, or more precisely the community of Athenian citizens, the demos; finally, one can assume a broad knowledge of the conditions of access to the Agora and the penalties for those who transgress them. From the comparison with the literary evidence at our disposal, the contemporary researcher is thus able to grasp most of the attributes borne by these boundary stones. The same conditions apply to the boundaries of sanctuaries: the conditions of access, the rituals foreseen at the entrance and the penalties for the transgressions ought to be known by a very large part of the population. In other cases, on the other hand, the many boundary stones bearing simply the mention horos constitute a much more complex issue. Here, even if the stones had remained in place, the majority of the information is implicit and elusive to contemporary researchers: what is delimited, the responsible authority, the rules of access to that space, whatever it may be, and any penalties for their infringement. In the case of these rather laconic boundary stones, they may be public, sacred or private domains, and therefore delimitations relating either to a space accessible to the majority or to the properties of individuals. Moreover, nothing prevents a stone bearing the inscription horos from being moved and, with the same text, the space it delimits may change. This example clearly shows that, even in the case of a men- tion so directive and so-called simple, the message it conveys depends on a much more complex context than chronology and location alone. Finally, an anepi- graphic stone (without any inscription) could also delimit spaces. In this case, all the information is lost to us since it is practically impossible to recognise the func- tions of a stone without any particular mark, even if its shape may relate to boundaries. 4 A. POLLINI Native Inscription in Tortora The purpose of these introductory remarks is to emphasise the difficulties of inter- preting epigraphic documents which seem, a priori, to carry a clear message. In the case of inscribed items from non-Greek communities and in contact with the Greek settlers in Southern Italy, these precautions are reinforced (Fig. 1). As far as the epigraphic evidence in Magna Graecia is concerned, the available documentation is very restricted. However, a boundary stone discovered in 1991, at Tortora in the Noce valley near the ancient city of Laos, deserves our attention.9 The fragmentary rectangular limestone