Ancient Greek History

Sport en festivals in Hermeneus 84.2, 2012, 90-97

by Onno van Nijf

Land Ownership in Babylonian Cuneiform Documents

by R.J. (Bert) van der Spek

R.J. van der Spek,  ‘Land Ownership in Babylonian Cuneiform Documents,’ in: M.J. Geller, H. Maehler, A.D.E. Lewis eds., Legal Documents of the Hellenistic World. Papers from a Seminar arranged by the Institute of Classical Studies, the Institute of Jewish Studies and the Warburg Institute, University of London, February to May 1986  (London: The Warburg Institute, University of London 1995), 173-245.

This article discusses the concept of ownership of land in the Late Babylonian period, especially the Hellenistic... more This article discusses the concept of ownership of land in the Late Babylonian period, especially the Hellenistic period. All kinds of transaction concerning land ownership are discussed, such as contracts of sale, lease, pledge, donation and quitclaims. Attention is paid to different legal formularies and the ways in which ownership was protected. The article challenges the accepted opinion, expressed by Koschaker, Petschow and Cardascia, that the Babylonians lacked a concept of ownership that knew the distinction between ownership as ultimate right (in Latin dominium) and actual possession or holding (in Latin possessio and detentio). Koshaker and Petschow argued for a Babylonian concept of  “divided ownership” of e.g. lessor and lessee of land and Cardascia calls pledge a “conditional alienation” and lease a “temporal alienation”. In my view the Roman distinction between ownership as highest and ultimate right and actual possession, though not identical, is closer to the Babylonian situation.
Another point at issue is the status of temple land and royal land, that was in the possession of individuals, could be sold and leased, yet remained in ownership of the temple or palace (bIt ritti).

At the end of the article ten cuneiform texts are presented in transcription, translation and brief commentary. One of these texts is a very important tablet, discovered already the beginning of the 19th century and copied by Carl Bellino by c. 1818. It was published by Robert Ker Porter in 1822. It was one of the first published tablets, copied and published in a time when the cuneiform script was not yet deciphered. Yet the copy is quite good and readable. I first edited this tablet in my dissertation, where I reproduced Bellino’s copy op p. viii and a transliteration and Dutch translation in the Appendix, text 5, p. 202-11. My dissertation, Grondbezit in het Seleucidische Rijk (Amsterdam: VU Uitgeverij 1986), is available online:
http://dare.ubvu.vu.nl/handle/1871/15433 ; or
http://dare.ubvu.vu.nl/bitstream/1871/15433/2/Grondbezit%20in%20het%20seleucidische%20rijk.pdf

In this article I provide an edition with English translation in the appendix as text 9, pp. 238-241. Meanwhile, however, after this publication (1995) a new (partial) edition was provided by Francis Johannès, ‘La Babylonië méridionale: continuité, déclin ou rupture?’ in: P. Briant, F. Joannès eds., La Transition entre l’empire achéménide et les royaumes hellénistiques (vers 350-300 av. J.-C.). Actes du colloque organisé au Collège de France par la « Chaire d’histoire et civilisation du monde achéménide et de l’empire d’Alexandre » et le « Réseau international d’études et de recherches achéménides » (GDR 2538 CNRS), 22-23 novembre 2004, (Paris: De Boccard, 2006), 101-35, on pp. 113-4. In the same volume Michael Jursa discussed the text in note 32 of his article ‘Agricultural management, tax farming and banking: aspects of entrepreneurial activity in Babylonia in the Late Achaemenid and Hellenistic periods’, ibid., 137-222, esp. p. 148.
Both authors suggested improved readings which I shall present here and I shall present a new English translation of lines 4-15, slightly differing from Joannès’s and Jursa’s (esp. line 10).

4. Add ina IGI in the break (Jursa)
7. Add KUR in the break (Joannès)
9. Read [i-(te)-ri-i]š instead of [iš-ku]n; Joannès reads ina áš-bi instead of ina qí-bi, but Bellino’s copy has a very clear qí (KI), so I shall not follow him in this. He reads the personal name mPar-ta-ri-ih?-li-su as mtu!?-ri-il!-li-su (Troilos?). The copy, however, has a clear par-ta. The reading of the first sign, par (UD, tú), is a mere guess. The reading –ut-  is a good alternative. The sign read as ih or il is difficult to interpret. Collation (1984) did not help. It seems indeed that a Greek name is at issue, ending on –lēs, -lios or –klēs perhaps.
10. Read [lúGAL] É LUGAL (Jursa) and ig!-re-e’ instead of EN re-‘i (Joannès and Jursa), from the verb gerû, ‘to start a lawsuit’. See CAD G, p. 62, s.v. gerû, 1 b 3’: dīna gerû. Certainly correct. It is uncertain whether the phrase mišil ... našatat?, “half of the barley which returns from the land, the property of Shamash, is (to be) brought(?) to the royal treasury”, is the result of the verdict (so Jursa), or the reason to start the lawsuit. I opt hesitatingly for the latter option: I suspect that the legal dispute originated in the fact that suddenly in year 9 the chief of the royal treasury requisitioned half of the yield of the entire estate of the Shamash temple.
11. Joannès reads ta-tu-ru instead of ta-tur-ru, but this is erroneous. Taturru is the present tense, which means that the barley is not harvested yet or is in the process of being harvested. Jursa reads na-šá-ti?! sup. ras. instead of na-šá-tat?; both readings problematic. Collation did not help. I assume that the form is a fem. stative of našû. Note that taturru is also feminine . The subject, uțțatu, “barley”, is feminine.
13. Read mu-šu-ur instead of  MU-šu lu (Joannès and Jursa). Certainly correct. From the verb uššuru (wuššuru, muššuru), “to let go; to release; the hand over; to exempt, remit debts, annul obligations”; cf. CAD U and W, s.v. uššuru, p. 310-325. It is probably a stative: muššur ; cf. undašar for undaššar in line 13.
19. Both Joannès and Jursa read É LUGAL TIN.TIR.KI as Bīt šar Bābili, and do not interpret it as Treasury (Bīt šarri =lit.  ‘house of the king’, but always ‘royal office’, ‘royal treasury’ or ‘royal estate’) of Babylon (TIN.TIR.KI), but as the locality with the name Bīt šarri Bābili (mostly written, however, with the determinative for ‘city’ URU), a locality close to Babylon. N.B.: the royal treasury is mentioned in line 10! If so, Iltalimatu has nothing to do with the royal treasury of Babylon and is no more than some city governor who accidentally had rented an estate belonging to the temple of Shamash.

New translation of lines 4-20:

4.  [.......... arable land,] property (makkūru) of Shamash, king of the world,
5.  [.......... was at the disposal of Ilt]alimatu, the governor
6.  [of Bīt-šar-Bābili,] the slave of Intaphernes, the governor
7.  [of the land? Sa?]-gashtu. Later, in the 9th year
8.  [of Alexand]er, son of ditto (=308-7 BC), he jointly (with the temple) [cultivate]d(l. 9)  the land in question
9.  and he started lawsuits at the command of Partarihlisu (Uttari x lisu),
10. [the chief] of the royal treasury (on account of the fact that) half of the barley in question, which will return from the arable land,
11. [the pro]perty (makkūru) of Shamash, is (to be) brought to the royal treasury.
12. Iltalimatu will leave(l.13)  the arable land at the disposal
13. of the exchequer (makkūru) of Shamash and the barley, the rent (sutu) of this arable land,
14. is relinquished(l. 15) by the exchequer of Shamash to Iltalimatu.
15. There will not be(l. 17) any lawsuit, legal proceeding or claim on the part of the Temple Council (kiništu)
16. of Ebabbar with regard to the barley, the rent (sutu) of these arable lands,
17. against Iltalimatu in perpetuity
18. and there will not be(l. 21) any lawsuit, legal proceeding or claim on the part of Iltalimatu,
19. the governor of Bīt-šar-Bābili, with regard to these arable lands
20. against the exchequer of Shamash and the Temple Council of Ebabbar in perpetuity.

This document is a verdict concerning a legal conflict between two parties, namely Ebabbar, the temple of the god Shamash in either Sippar or Larsa, and a certain Iltalimatu, the governor of Bit-šar-Babili (= a settlement at the edge of the city of Babylon, perhaps the summer palace of Babylon). Apparently some arable land, belonging to the Ebabbar had become at the disposal of Iltalimatu and he cultivated it jointly with the temple, which probably meant that the profit should be divided, half would go to the temple, half to Iltalimatu. The conflict seems to concern the fact that half of the harvest was requisitioned by the state (represented by Partarihlisu), so that Iltalimatu could not pay half of the harvest to the temple (his sutu, his rent). Now Partarihlisu seems to have ordered or advised a lawsuit (or perhaps better a settlement), so that the mutual claims by temple and Iltalimatu were rescinded: Iltalimatu relinquishes his right to cultivate the temple land and at the same time is freed from the obligation to pay his rent to the temple. One should note that it was during or briefly after the Babylonian War between Antigonus and Seleucus (311-308) when the grain prices were extremely high.  Now the result of this lawsuit is: half of the yield of year 9 (308-7 BC) goes to the royal treasury and the contract between Iltalimatu and the temple is dissolved: the temple is granted ownership rights of the arable land and Iltalimatu is freed from paying rent to the temple in perpetuity.

‘Hoplici pod piramidami: Tukidydes o ateńskiej kampanii militarnej w Egipcie (1. 104; 109–110)’

by Bogdan Burliga

[w:] Świat starożytny. Ideologia i polityka, red. R. Kulesza i inni, Warszawa 2012 (w druku)

‘Wolność w Peryklejskim epitaphios logos’

by Bogdan Burliga

Symbolae Philologorum Posnaniensium 13 (2000), ss. 15-30

‘Pomiędzy praktyką a teorią: prawdziwa natura demokracji ateńskiej’

by Bogdan Burliga

Symbolae Philologorum Posnaniensium 14 (2002), ss. 5–23

The cult of Pan in ancient Greece

by philippe borgeaud

L'homme grec

by philippe borgeaud

Thessalians and theirs neighbours in classical period

by sprawski slawomir

Jason of Pherae a leader of the Thessalians

by sprawski slawomir

The attic Weights and the Economy of Athens

by Mario Trabucco

to be published in the Proceedings of the 15th Symposium of the Mediterranean Archaeology (Catania 3-5 March 2011)

In the new post-Finley environment for the studies on the Athenian economy in the classical period, this study offers... more In the new post-Finley environment for the studies on the Athenian economy in the classical period, this study offers an updated evaluation of a often misconsidered object class: the Attic weights. The careful consideration of the various (but all of them attic) weight standards, once put in their proper historical and economical context, can offer a new insight in the many fluctuations of the economic conditions of the Athenian state, from the 6th to the 2nd century BC. Moreover the study points out the value of these market weights (in their role of objects performing a function in the market but constituted according to the law) as a contribution to enlight the complex dialectic between the economic and the social aspect of athenian political life, in the frame of a neo-institutionalist perspective.

Why Did Nebuchadnezzar II Destroy Ashkelon in 604 BCE?

by Alexander Fantalkin

Fantalkin, A. 2011. Why Did Nebuchadnezzar II Destroy Ashkelon in Kislev 604 B.C.E.? In: Finkelstein, I. and Na'aman, N. eds. The Fire Signals of Lachish: Studies in the Archaeology and History of Israel in the Late Bronze Age, Iron Age, and Persian Period in Honor of David Ussishkin. Winona Lake: 87–111.

The End of the Pheraean Tyranny

by sprawski slawomir

Philip II and the Freedom of the Thessalians

by sprawski slawomir

All the King's Men. Thessalians and Philip II's Designs on Greece

by sprawski slawomir

Kathryn Simonsen, "Demaenetus and the Trireme"

by Mouseion (Journal)

Published in Mouseion 9.3 (2009), pp. 283-302. Actually published in 2012.

The London fragments of the Hellenica Oxyrhynchia begin with an account of how Demaenetus, an Athenian, stole a... more The London fragments of the Hellenica Oxyrhynchia begin with an account of how Demaenetus, an Athenian, stole a trireme from the Piraeus and used it to sail to Cyprus to join up with the Persian navy led by the exiled Athenian commander, Conon. The historian links this action with other evidence for increasing dissatisfaction with the Spartans in Athens and other poleis in the early 390s bc. Xenophon, whose Hellenica also covers this time period, does not mention the incident at all. This paper explores what Demaenetus’ act might have meant, why the Oxyrhynchus historian includes it and why Xenophon does not.

E.Gagliano, Il medico pubblico e il medico privato, in M.E. Gorrini (ed.), Ascelpio sul ticino. Un percorso per immagini nella storia della medicina greca antica. Catalogo della mostra, Pavia 2012, pp. 58-62.

by Elena Gagliano

WHAT WAS THE MAIN PURPOSE OF THE EPHEBEIA: To become a citizen, a rite of manhood or a preparation for warfare?

by Jonathan Recaldin

Penultimate draft of MA dissertation

The premise of this study was to ascertain the exact purpose of the ephebeia, through three key aspects, spanning from... more The premise of this study was to ascertain the exact purpose of the ephebeia, through three key aspects, spanning from its Classical roots in the 4th century BC, through the Hellenistic era and into the Imperial Roman period, eventually ending sometime in the 4th century AD. My title is:

What was the main purpose of the ephebeia: to become a citizen, a rite of manhood or a preparation for warfare?

To explore this question, I examined the institution of the ephebeia, principally the well-known Athenian ephebeia but also other Hellenic examples, with three aspects in mind and in chronological order. First, I studied the institution from a military viewpoint, looking at how the ephebes trained and how important polis defence was to them, all the while seeing how this changed over time.  I also explored how the ephebeia prepared boys for citizenship, how they worked together, and what their concept of polis and chora was, as well as looking at symbolic representations of citizenship. My last chapter investigates how the ephebeia prepared boys from manhood, and what their ideals of manhood were.

I approached the subject by researching both ancient and modern sources, using them to make my own interpretations and to cast new light on the subject. I believe my findings indicate that we should move on from outdated, structuralist scholarship, which previously viewed the ephebeia as an essentially unchanged ritual, towards seeing the ephebeia as something that was constantly adapting over time and provided a combination of training for creating an adult, a citizen and a soldier – these terms are virtually synonymous in Ancient Greece.

Pyrrhus of Epirus: Statesman or Soldier? An analysis of Pyrrhus’ political and military traits during the Hellenistic Era

by Jonathan Recaldin

Final BA dissertation draft before print

The context of the study was to explore the nature of leadership in the early-middle Hellenistic era with a specific... more The context of the study was to explore the nature of leadership in the early-middle Hellenistic era with a specific view on the rule of King Pyrrhus of Epirus and how he fitted in to aspect of political and military leadership during that era. My research question was:

Pyrrhus of Epirus: Statesman or Soldier? An analysis of Pyrrhus’ political and military traits during the Hellenistic Era.

To explore this question, I explored both sides of the question, and decided that to analyse his political strengths, I would concentrate on diplomacy and economy, while the military side required me to analyse his generalship and his military campaigns. I approached the subject by researching both ancient and modern sources, using the modern sources to criticise the ancient sources to try and create new argument and questions surrounding the subject. In the end, it wasn’t a hugely significant study, my progress mainly hampered by the lack of modern material in which to keep the subject up to date. I think I came up with one new view in the debate, but most of the work hasn’t veered significantly from what has already been said.

Catherine Rubincam, "The Numeric Practice of the Hellenica Oxyrhynchia"

by Mouseion (Journal)

Published in Mouseion 9.3 (2009), pp. 303-329. Actually published in 2012.

A study of all the numbers in the more complete portions of the Florentine and London fragments of the Hellenica... more A study of all the numbers in the more complete portions of the Florentine and London fragments of the Hellenica Oxyrhynchia, using a methodology that captures a standard constellation of aspects of each number, makes it possible to create a statistical profile of that work’s numeric practice. Comparison of the Hellenica Oxyrhynchia’s numeric profile with those of the six earliest extant works of Greek history (Herodotus, Thucydides, Xenophon’s Anabasis and Hellenica, Polybius, and Diodorus Siculus) makes one more aware both of this author’s position in the development of Greek historiographic tradition and of his individuality. More specifically, it generates some new observations on particular passages of this much-studied text, which call into question some of the restorations proposed by editors who strove to produce the closest possible correspondence between the narrative of the papyrus historian and that of Diodorus.

Work Notes on Etruscan Mirrors and Murals, Part I

by Mel Copeland

This is a PDF file from our website covering Etruscan Mirrors and Murals, with images compiled from the Etruscan Phrases website http://www.maravot.com/Etruscan_Phrases_a.html.

In contrast to offerings from the British Museum and University of Bologna, where their analyses, following Pallottino, are generally speculation based on guesswork relating to short funerary inscriptions, the Etruscan Phrases work is supported by a strong grammar and vocabulary based on all texts, small and large. Thus, to clear the mystery of the Etruscan language alleged by such esteemed institutions, it is imperative that the Etruscan Phrases GlossaryA.xls be audited. We mention this since the only prospect of clearing up the Etruscan Mystery is through a verifiable audit of the Etruscan Grammar recorded in Etruscan Phrases. The British Museum, University of Bologna and other "Pallottino School" works have not produced a vocabulary or grammar that can be audited, since their theory is that the Etruscan language is unlike any other known to man, not Indo-European. Etruscan Phrases claims that the Etruscan Language is similar to Latin, French, Italian and Romanian, an Indo-European language. It offers a grammar, declension patterns and regular, measurable shifts between Etruscan and these languages; ergo the work can be easily audited.

Most important to the work are the Etruscan mirrors and murals that contain known Classical stories and the names of the principle characters in the stories. The star of the mirrors is Helen of Troy who was the young daughter of King Tyndareüs of Sparta and abducted by the equally beautiful son of King Priam of Troy, thereby causing the Trojan War. While the entire story has captured the hearts and imaginations of generations since that event (Troy was destroyed ~1180 B.C.) we can presume through Etruscan mirrors that the event was part of their history – and they had a somewhat different recollection of it than the Greek version passed down to us.

Because the story is familiar and linking the genesis of Greek heroes and gods, containing their names and actions, we have comparative texts to use in analyzing the Etruscan language, its shifts from Greek and Latin to Etruscan. For instance the heroes of the story follow a regular shift, of dropping vowels and final consonants, etc. Heracles (L. Hercules) is Hercle (almost like the French, Hercule). Helen’s name declines: Helenai and Helenei, leading us to the declension of other nouns. Her father was Zeus who transformed into a swan and raped the goddess Nemesis THALNA (retribution) who had transformed into a goose. She laid an egg or two eggs, one of which was Helen which was found by shepherds near Sparta and taken to Tyndareüs and Leda to bring up. From the egg came Helen, the most beautiful woman in the world.

The most beautiful man at the time was Alexander, spelled ELCHSENTRE and he abducted Helen from her husband Menelaus, MENLE, the brother of King Agamemnon: ACHMEMNVN. His wife Clytemnestra is CLVTHVMVSTHA who murdered her husband in the bath upon returning from the Trojan War, and their son, Orestes (VRSTE) killed her and her lover in revenge. Athena (L. Minerva) is MENRFA; Hera (L. Juno) is VNI, her consort is Zeus (L. Jupiter) Etr. TINIA. Thetis is THETIS and THETHIS, she was a dangerous shape-changer and compelled by the gods to wed her husband Peleus, PELE; they produced the Greek hero of the Trojan War, Achilles who the Etruscans call ACHLE. The mother of Helen, Leda, is LATFA and her brothers, Castor and Polydeukes (Pollux) are CASTVR and PVLTVCEI. Their father Tyndareüs is TVNTLE. Aphrodite (Etr. TVRAN) was a cause of the Trojan War when she was judged by Alexander as “The Fairest” as written on an apple thrown into the wedding of Thetis and Peleus by Eris (Etr. ERIS). Aphrodite’s son was Eros (Etr. ERVS) – appearing in many texts. Another popular figure in Etruscan mirrors is Hermes (L. Mercury) TVRMS.

Apollo (APLV) and Artemis are represented frequently in the texts. Ajax Telemonos EIFAS TELMVNVS committed suicide after Achilles was killed, because he did not deserve Achilles’ armor. Apollo (APLV) and his sister the virgin huntress Artemis (ARTVMES) were highly active in the Trojan War. The Etruscans introduce a new character like Artemis called MEAN who crowns Alexander, awarding him the hand of Helen, though we understand from the Greek version that it was Aphrodite (Etr. TVRAN) that awarded Alexander the hand of Helen in the Judgment of Paris. MEAN appears to be a goddess of the hunt like Artemis from Lydia, recalling the old name of Lydia, Maionia (Μαιονία). This is just a tease, for the mirrors and murals carry amazing details never before known to modern man. The images, names and texts associated with the mirrors and murals set the baseline for understanding Etruscan Grammar and the words recorded in Etruscan Phrases GlossaryA.pdf. (The most current version available at http://www.maravot.com/Etruscan_Phrases_a.html.

We should hope, therefore, that there will be many linguists / scholars who will jump at the chance to clear up the Etruscan Mystery and rewrite the histories so clearly overshadowed by the Pallottino School theories, to help even the museums containing Etruscan artifacts explain a bit more about the items in their displays.

Etruscan GlossaryA.pdf an index to about 2,500 Etruscan words that are similar to Latin, French, Italian and Romanian. Declension patterns follow those in Latin. The 2,500 words equal the repeated words in 6,000 words of the major extant texts. The texts have been frozen in time, covering ~700-400 B.C., representing a lens to understanding the early formation of Indo-European languages, particularly the early Italic-Latin-Celtic languages, such as Italian, French & Romanian / Dacian. (By 45 BC. the language was a dead language - no one understood or could write Etruscan)

This GlossaryA works together with Indo-European Table 1 which refutes theories by the Pallottino school of thought that the Etruscan language is not Indo-European and an isolate, unlike any other language. It is very close to Latin and, curiously, Romanian, Italian and French. The Latin suffix, "us" shifts to "o" as in Italian (Titus vs Tito); first person conjugation patterns are similar to French and Romanian. This GlossaryA provides a quick look at the grammatical structure of the Etruscan language, how closely it coincides with Latin. A more detailed Declension Table can be seen on the Etruscan Phrases website. These PDF documents facilitate independent confirmation of the words in GlossaryA.xls , the Grammar and Declension Table. All words can be examined from actual images of texts on the Etruscan Phrases website. Over 150 texts, with about 6,000 words can be examined at Etruscan Phrases.

The Etruscans surfaced in Italy about 1,000 B.C., reputed to have arrived from Lydia / Phrygia. The Phrygians originated near Macedonia in Thrace, according to Herodotus. One may therefore inquire whether the ancient Thracians (Dacians, Gettae, modern Romanians), spoke a language common to the Phrygians, at the time of the Trojan War and after (~1180 B.C.). The Thracians, Phrygians and Lydians (also dead languages) were allies of the Trojans, according to the Iliad. Etruscan Phrases finds a common vocabulary among Latin, Italian, French, Romanian, Etruscan and Phrygian. While French, Spanish, Italian and Romanian are considered Romance languages, showing a similar Latin heritage, Etruscan is not, of course, a Romance language, as it preceded Latin, at least in the written form (giving Rome its alphabet).

Resolution of the Etruscan Mystery may be likened to Michael Ventris' decipherment of Linear B and Jean-François Champollion's decipherment of Egyptian hieroglyphics using the Rosetta Stone - written in Egyptian hieroglypics, Demotic and Greek. The decipherment of Etruscan is a bit more challenging, since we have no multilingual Rosetta Stone, but we do have enough vocabulary and grammar to establish that Etruscan is similar to Latin, French, Italian and Romanian. (Certainly far more vocabulary and a more extensive grammar is provided in Etruscan Phrases than that used by Ventris to claim translation of Linear B as an old form of Greek)

The mirrors with the Devotional Plates may be an easy entry into an audit, for those who are hesitant to examine the larger texts, such as the Zagreb Mummy (Script Z).