Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
11Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Villages, Cities and Ethne in Upper Macedonia

Villages, Cities and Ethne in Upper Macedonia

Ratings: (0)|Views: 1,874|Likes:
Published by Makedonas Akritas
by Miltiadis Hatzopoulos

from the book "MACEDONIAN INSTITUTIONS UNDER THE KINGS, A HISTORICAL AND EPIGRAPHIC STUDY", Athens 1996, RESEARCH CENTRE FOR GREEK AND ROMAN ANTIQUITY NATIONAL HELLENIC RESEARCH FOUNDATION
by Miltiadis Hatzopoulos

from the book "MACEDONIAN INSTITUTIONS UNDER THE KINGS, A HISTORICAL AND EPIGRAPHIC STUDY", Athens 1996, RESEARCH CENTRE FOR GREEK AND ROMAN ANTIQUITY NATIONAL HELLENIC RESEARCH FOUNDATION

More info:

Published by: Makedonas Akritas on Sep 22, 2009
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

06/03/2013

pdf

text

original

 
VILLAGES, CITIES AND
ETHNE
IN UPPER MACEDONIA
Although one should not
a priori
exclude the possibility that somecivic traditions had independently developed among the pre-Greekpopulations of Eastern Macedonia,
1
the striking similarity of the institutions encountered there with those of the rest of Macedonia leavelittle doubt that the forms of local government studied in the previouschapter were introduced by the Macedonian administration and theMacedonian settlers. If we want to study these institutions in theirbirthplace, we have to turn to Upper Macedonia, the original cradle ofthe Macedonian
ethnos,
where the
kome
remained the basic unit oflocal government until Well into Roman times.
2
Unfortunately, we do not yet possess any complete Upper Macedonian decree from the pre-Roman period. The most ancient publicdocument from this area emanating from a local authority is a fragment of a fourth- or early-third-century catalogue (rather than decree)
3
from Hagios Georgios (Tsourchli)
4
in Tymphaia,
5
the UpperMacedonian canton, usually coupled with Parauaia as a single unit.
6
The surviving portion of the date is indicated perhaps by a regionalmagistrate
(stratego^),
by a day of the Macedonian month Gorpiaios,and by two local magistrates: the
skoidos
and perhaps the
poli-
1 . Such as, for instance, the primitive inhabitants of Berga.
2.
Cf., among recent discussions, Papazoglou,
Cités
315-16;
eiusdem,
"Koina"
170-71;
eiusdem,
"Aspects" 362-67;
eiusdem,
"Macedonia" 198-99;
eiusdem, Villes
442;
Kanatsoulis,
"Όργάνωσις" 184-92; Hammond,
Macedonia
I 85-123 and my discussion in "Villages" 153-60.3 . Epigraphic Appendix no 63. The document can be only dated from its letterforms,which present notable similarities with those of a whole series of Macedonianinscriptions examined in my paper "Lettre".4 . On the important site of Hagios Georgios (Tsourchli), see Papazoglou,
Villes
244.
5 . This is the opinion of the editors of the
'Επιγραφές
"Ανω
Μακεδονίας
(see mapat the end of the volume). On Tymphaia-Parauaia, see Mack 102-103, 121-25; Hammond,
Epirus
680-82; Papazoglou,
Villes
229-32 and, for my opinion, Hatzopoulos,"Atintanes" 187-88.6. Cf. Bosworth,
Commentary
76-77;
eiusdem,
"Pellion" 91, n. 22;
eiusdem,
"Illyrians"
81 ;
Hatzopoulos, "Limites" 82, η. 15;
eiusdem,
"Atintanes" 187-88.
 
78 MACEDONIAN INSTITUTIONS UNDER THE KINGS
tarches.
{
Skoidos,
of which this inscription is the first epigraphic attestation, is the title of a magistrate whose exact functions are not yetclear.
2
Nor can we be certain about the title and, therefore, the dutiesof the second official, but there can be little doubt that he was anothercivic magistrate. Be that as it may, the document provides decisiveevidence that not only under the Romans, but already under the kings,Tymphaia was composed of a number of self-governing communi
ties.
3
Apparently none of them was significant enough in order toenjoy the status of
apolli
and this explains why our literary sourcesinvariably content themselves with referring to individuals from thisregion with the general
ethnikon
Tymphaios.
5
Nevertheless, themention of civic officials as executive magistrates of this apparentlyrural community should not surprise us. That such officials weretraditionally Macedonian and were not first introduced by the Romansfollows from the fact that we find them in Orestis in Roman times,although the country was no longer a part of Macedonia at the time ofthe Roman conquest and remained outside the province thereafter.Moreover, the pre-Roman origin of the politarchs has now been alsoindependently established beyond doubt, as we shall see in more detail below.
6
The fact that we find them occupying the same position
1 . I would tend to agree with Fanoula Papazoglou, "Politarques" 448, n. 43, whobelieves that this magistracy originated in the peripheral regions (cf. Upper Macedonia) or even perhaps in the external possessions of the Antigonids. I had aired thesame hypothesis in my communication "Politarques" 142.2 . Cf. Kalléris,
Macédoniens
262-64, with references, bibliography and discussion.3 . For the importance of this document -if indeed it should be dated after the firstquarter of the third century and not earlier, as it seems to me more likely now- as evidence that Tymphaia-Parauaia had reverted to Macedonia after the death of Pyrrhos,who had annexed it to Epeiros, see Hatzopoulos, "Atintanes" 188;
eiusdem,
"Villages" 155.4 . With the apparent exception of Aiginion, on which see Hammond,
Epiws6%\;eiusdem, Macedonia
I 139, n. 1. It is, however, doubtful whether, by the time we begin to have some evidence about its institutions, it still belonged administratively toMacedonia.5 . Cf.
Αιτ.,
Ind.
18,6: "Ατταλός τε ό Άνδρομένεος Τυμφαϊος.6. My suggestion that the title of the second civic magistrate be restored asπολιτάρχης, an office which did not become general in Macedonia before the secondcentury B.C., is not necessarily contradicted by the fact that our inscription belongs toan earlier period. This office -unless it was created
de nihilo-,
before being generalised, perhaps existed in some Macedonian regions, and Tymphaia in Upper Macedonia may have been one of these regions. This would explain its diffusion in the lowervalley of the Aoos (Olympe) in the late third century, when this area came under Macedonian control (Papazoglou, "Politarques" 448, with my answer to Cabanes' objections in Gauthier-Hatzopoulos 37, n. 4; Cabanes,
BullEpigr
1994, 356, indefatigablyrepeats that the politarchy in Charadros was a Roman creation, without explaining
 
VILLAGES, CITIES AND
ETHNE
IN
UPPER MACEDONIA 79
in Upper Macedonian documents from Roman times is merely another confirmation of the remarkable stability of Macedonian institu
tions.
This institutional permanence and continuity, that we verifiedalso in Gazoros, encourages us not to reject
a
priori
later documentscontaining valuable information about the internal organisation ofUpper Macedonian
komai.
Kranochorion is today an utterly insignificant village of some 200inhabitants on the left bank of the Haliakmon,
1
in ancient Orestis.There is no reason to believe that the ancient Battyna, to which it hassucceeded, was any more important. The only decree
2
of Battyna thathas come down to us is "signed" by no more than 56 citizens.Few documents offer such a vivid picture of political institutionsat work in a Macedonian community as this decree, enacted in April
A.D.
193,
3
which provided for measures against encroachment oncommunal land (δημοσία γη, δημόσιοι τόποι) by non-Orestans. It wasvoted during a meeting of the People's Assembly, which was apparently composed of the entire citizen body, whose "signatures" wereappended at the end of the original document. The Assembly wasconvoked and presided over by the politarch (εκκλησίας αγομένηςυπό τοΰ Βαττυναίων πολειτάρχου), who appears as the sole magistrateof the community. Many citizens participated freely in the discussion-or rather the general lamentation (πολλών άποδυρομένων)- and finally a proposal -probably at the initiative of the politarch- was putto the vote and was unanimously approved (εδοξε τω τε πολειτάρχη
why in 167 B.C. the Romans chose to introduce this magistracy in this communityonly out of the entire Epeiros, which they had conquered by then).1 . According to the census of
1961
this village had 226 inhabitants.
2.
Rizakis-Touratsoglou 186; for an excellent analysis, see Gschnitzer,
"Battynäer" 149-56, and also now Hatzopoulos, "Villages" 156-58 and Buraselis,"Battynäer" 279-92. Decisive progress towards the establishment of a satisfactory textwas made by Edson in 1937, who studied the stone and took photographs andsqueezes
{Notebooks, Fourth Men's
312). A good text would have been availablemuch earlier, had the squeeze taken by A. Evans at great pain in 1910 not been stolenfrom him (letter to A.J.B. Wace, March 5, 1911, kept with Wace's papers at the library of Pembroke College, Cambridge).3 . There has been some dispute whether the era used is the "national" Macedonian
one,
as I have presumed, or a special Orestan one starting from 197/6 (or 196/5), theyear of the "liberation" of Orestis from Macedonia. For some recent discussions cf.Papazoglou, "Aspects" 363, n. 275;
eiusdem, Villes
240, n. 34; Gschnitzer,"Battynäer" 151 and 156, n. 25-27; Aichinger, "Reichsbeamten" 636-37; Buraselis,"Battynäer" 287-88. In any case, the other possibly Orestan dated inscription from Si-sani (Rizakis-Touratsoglou 187) does not seem to use some special Orestan era, butthe "national" one, and its evidence weighs against such a hypothesis for the dating ofthe decree of Battyna.

Activity (11)

You've already reviewed this. Edit your review.
1 thousand reads
1 hundred reads
YannisVarthis liked this
rokousa liked this
Teo Mit liked this
George Kast liked this
bojanabb liked this
songajla liked this

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->