COMPETITION AND MEMORY IN AN EPHEBIC

VICTOR LIST FROM HERACLEA PONTICA

NIGEL M. KENNELL*
Abstract: An inscription from Heraclea Pontica recording the names of victors in competitions in the city’s
gymnasium provides a glimpse into the activity and ideology of its citizen training system in the Roman period.
Unusually for the time, several of the competitions are military in nature. In this article I present a new restoration
of the text, which removes several anomalies in the published version, and explore the text’s implications for our
understanding of the later Greek ephebate.

Introduction

Heraclea Pontica was one of a string of Greek poleis on the south coast of the Black Sea.
Founded c. 560 bc by Megarians and Boeotians, who utilized the original inhabitants, the
Mariandyni, as a helot-like labour force, Heraclea became significant enough to found
cities in its own right. The best known were Callatis in modern Romania and Crimean
Chersonesus.1 The notorious Spartan regent Pausanias supposedly visited the city to seek
solace after his killing of a girl in Byzantium during his command of the Hellenic fleet.2
Heraclea gained renown as the site of the Acherousian cave, where Heracles had brought
Cerberus up from the Underworld; an alternative tradition named the hero as the city’s
founder.3 Heraclea prospered in the fourth century after the overthrow of the old oligarchy
in 364/3 by Clearchus, a former pupil of Plato’s, who established a tyranny and undertook
ambitious building projects, including a library that was the forerunner of similar foundations
by Hellenistic kings.4 The tyranny survived his death, but it and the city’s independence
were no match for the powers unleashed in the conflicts of Alexander’s successors.
Lysimachus was in control for four years after the assassination of the last member of
Clearchus’s dynasty until his death in 280 bc, after which Heraclea became a democracy
and, for a period, regained its independence. After 188, the city became a Roman ally, but in
73 the Heracleans threw their support behind Mithridates VI, like many other disillusioned
friends of the Romans, and massacred the publicani in their city. In reprisal, as part of the
campaign to subjugate Mithridates’ Pontic kingdom, Aurelius Cotta laid the city waste after

* I was delighted to receive an invitation to contribute to a Festschrift celebrating Mark Golden’s career and
scholarly achievements. Even when I was a mere MA student newly entering the rather intimidating environs
of the University of Toronto’s Department of Classical Studies (as it was called years ago) and first met Mark,
already an experienced player on the departmental scene, he offered friendship and approachability. As his many
friends, colleagues, and students can attest, he has not changed one whit in respect to these admirable attributes.
All translations are by the author.
1
Ephorus FGrH 70 F44; Memnon FGrH 434 F13.
2
Nymphis FGrH 432 F3, F9; BNJ 596 Comm.
3
Xen. An. 6.2.2; Lib.1.30.
4
Hoepfner 1966: 10; Burstein 1976: 61.

BICS-61-1  2018 79

© 2018 Institute of Classical Studies University of London

BICS 61-1 June 2018 To Press (1 June).indd 79 01/06/2018 10:56:32

 80 BICS-61-1  2018

a two-year siege (72/1–70 bc), and Heraclea was incorporated into the province of Pontus.
Julius Caesar attempted to revive its fortunes by settling veterans in 46/45 bc. Around 40
bc, Mark Antony gave the original Greek quarter of the city and some territory to a Galatian
leader, who some ten years later had all the Roman settlers slaughtered. Finally, in 31/30
bc, Heraclea was assigned to the province of Bithynia-Pontus.5 Roman Heraclea was by all
accounts prosperous, though its neighbours Amastris and Pontus eclipsed it in prestige.6
Despite its varied and turbulent history, the city’s epigraphical record is remarkably thin,
perhaps due to later destruction of inscriptions under various circumstances.7
Among the documents in Lloyd Jonnes’s 1994 volume of inscriptions from Heraclea
Pontica is an agonistic list of sufficient to warrant a comment in the following year’s Bulletin
épigraphique.8 Working from articles by Pargoire and Derenne, Jonnes published two texts:
the first a slightly expanded edition of Derenne’s text; the second Reinhold Merkelbach’s
‘tentative reconstruction’.9 The list repays closer attention since it is one of the very few
Greek inscriptions posterior to the first century bc to contain a reference to any ephebic
competition with an explicitly military character, and may have something to contribute to
an understanding of the contests in physique (εὐεξία) and discipline (εὐταξία) that are so
common in the Hellenistic period.10 I offer here a re-edition and study of this interesting text,
which, I hope, may pique the interest of our honorand (and others) in how the ubiquitous
Greek citizen training system called the ephebeia manifested itself in this city, distant from
classicists’ and ancient historians’ usual stomping grounds.

The texts

For the sake of economy, I reproduce below only Merkelbach’s text (without his idiosyncratic
layout, but adding some punctuation), and note major variations from Jonnes’s readings in
the commentary.

[σταδίον‧ παίδων‧ N(omen) N(ominabatur)

[ἐφήβων νεωτέρων‧ Τρύ]φων Ἡρακλε[ίδου πρεσβυτέρων‧ N. N.]
[ἀνδρῶν‧] Ποντικὸς Τίτου. δί[αυλον‧ ἀνδρῶν‧ N. N. ἐφήβων νεωτέρων‧ N. N.]
[πρεσβυτέρων‧] Δωρόθεος Λουκίου πα[ίδων‧ N. N. δόλιχον‧]
ἐφήβων νεωτέρων‧ Δημήτ[ριος - - - πρεσβυτέρων‧ N. N.]
5 [ἀνδ]ρῶν‧ Διοκλῆς Διονυσίου. πά[λην‧ παίδων‧ N. N.]
[ἐφήβων νεω]τέρων‧ Λονγείνος Ὑψιγόνου κὲ [N. N.]
[πρεσβυτέρων‧ N. N.] κὲ Δωρόθεος Λουκίου. παρε[λείφθη ἡ τῶν ἀνδρῶν πάλη]??
πανκράτιον‧ ἐφήβων νεωτέρων‧ [N. N.]
[πρεσβυτέ]ρων‧ Στρατωνίδης Ἀπολλο[ . . . ου]

5
Strobel 2005.
6
On the history of Heraclea, see Magie 1950: 307–10; Burstein 1976.
7
Jonnes 1994: 1–2.
8
Jonnes 1994: 35–38 no. 60; BE 1995: no. 5.
9
Derenne 1933: 81–87 no. 14.
10
Outside Heraclea, explicit references to military-related competitions and instruction are found only at Acraephia
(IG 7 2712: ἀγὼν ὁπλιτικός), Athens (e.g. IG 22 1994, 2038: ὁπλομάχος; 2030: κεστροφύλαξ; 2115: ὅπλον;
2087: σάλπιγξ), Cyrene (SEG 20 [1964] 741: ἀπορυτιάζων [cavalry instructor]) and Oxyrhynchus (POxy. 1.42:
σύμβλημα [assault in arms]). The Heraclea list is also the sole testimony for survival of competitions in εὐεξία
and εὐταξία during the first centuries of our era. On these competitions, see Crowther 1985, 1991, and below.

© 2018 Institute of Classical Studies University of London

BICS 61-1 June 2018 To Press (1 June).indd 80 01/06/2018 10:56:32

 NIGEL M. KENNELL: AN EPHEBIC VICTOR LIST FROM HERACLEA PONTICA 81

10 [ἀνδρῶν‧ - - - ]ος Ἡρακλεῶνος. ἀσπίδι καὶ δ[ολίχῳ‧ N. N.]

[σφε]νδόνῃ‧ Λονγεῖνος Ὑψιγόν[ου]
[ἐφήβ]ων νεωτέρων εὐταξίᾳ‧ Σιλ[ - - - ]
[- - - ]ου κὲ Ἡρακλείδης Χρυσίωνο[ς κὲ Ν. Ν. οἱ ὑπὸ Αὐρήλιον]
Ἀρτέμωνα κὲ Ἥλιον Κο[ΐντου κὲ]
15 [Σατορν]εῖνον Διονυσίου εὐεξίᾳ‧ Σ[- - - ]
[λαμ]πάδαρχος Καλλίστρατος [- - - ἐφήβων πρεσβυτέρων εὐταξίᾳ‧]
[- - -]ς Ἡρακλέωνος εὐεξίᾳ‧ Συνν[- - - ]
[λαμ]πάδαρχ[ος N. N].

What follows is of necessity almost as tentative as what precedes, since no photograph

of the inscription has ever been published, nor any concerted attempt made to locate the
stone since 1898. Nevertheless, in the hope that some advance in understanding can be
realized while awaiting a modern publication of the list’s remaining fragment, I offer the
following comments.
First, the date. As Jonnes noted, the appearance of the names Ponticus, son of Titus,
Dorotheus, son of Lucius, and Saturninus points to a Roman date for the inscription, as does
the consistent phonetic spelling κέ for καί. The absence of Aurelii on the unrestored portion
of text also means that the Constitutio Antoniniana had not yet been promulgated, which
would make a date in the first or second centuries of our era quite comfortable. However,
the absence of anyone who could unarguably be considered a Roman citizen makes a date
earlier in that period more likely.11
In Merkelbach’s version, the inscription comprises a list of victors in four age categories
— paides, epheboi neoteroi, epheboi presbuteroi, and andres — in an array of events ranging
from the stade race to a form of hoplite race called the ‘long distance with the shield’ (ἀσπὶς
καὶ δόλιχος).12 The first events are those known from very many athletic victor lists from
all over the Greek world. In the restored Heraclea Pontica text they occur in the following
order: stade race (στάδιον), double-length race (δίαυλος), long-distance race (δόλιχος),
wrestling (πάλη), boxing (πύγμη), all-in wrestling (πανκράτιον). Jonnes comments that
this sequence is one found ‘not infrequently’. In fact, this would be an extremely unusual
sequence since the order of events in victory lists and even in literary texts is almost always
dolichos, stadion, diaulos, palē, pugmē, pankration, which together constituted the core
athletic events of a gumnikos agōn (γυμνικὸς ἀγών).13 The order in which victories in the
different age categories were recorded, according to Merkelbach, is also anomalous: paides
come first in the stade race, last in the double-length race, first again in the wrestling, but
are absent from both the long-distance race and the pankration.14 The men are listed last,
after the two ephebic categories in the stade, before them in the diaulos, and last again in the
remaining events. The highly speculative restoration in line 7, παρε[λείφθη ἡ τῶν ἀνδρῶν
πάλη], was apparently devised to produce a reference to the men’s age category in the

11
None of the men with Roman names boasts a full panoply of tria nomina. Rather, the naming system is that of
the traditional name-and-patronymic type, which indicates that the bearers of the names were likely still peregrines.
12
An improvement over Jonnes’s (1994: 36–37) odd ‘long course with shield and sling’ (ἀσπίδι καὶ δ[ο|λίχῳ σφε]
νδόνῃ).
13
Kennell 1999: 250 n. 5.
14
Whatever scruples were felt by organizers of the Olympics, boys competed in both these events in local
festivals such as the one at Heraclea. E.g. δόλιχος: SIG3 959 (Chios); IG 12.9 952 (Chalcis); IvE 1101 (Ephesus).
πανκράτιον: TAM 3.1 205 (Termessus); IG 12.9 952 (Chalcis); I. Mylasa 909, ll. 15–19 (Hydae).

© 2018 Institute of Classical Studies University of London

BICS 61-1 June 2018 To Press (1 June).indd 81 01/06/2018 10:56:32

 82 BICS-61-1  2018

wrestling, a reference which is unnecessary, as we shall see. Something odd also happens
in the listing for the contest in discipline (εὐταξία) for the younger ephebes. Merkelbach
restores three victors, followed by the names of their three respective troop leaders. I know
of no parallel for such a listing. Usually, single individual victors in the contest are listed.15
At Samos, where the eutaxia was a team event, the members of the victorious team are
listed together.16 In arriving at this restoration, Merkelbach has moreover disregarded the
sigma at the beginning of line 14 in Pargoire’s text, which excludes the possibility that
the word preceding Ἀρτέμωνα is a name in the accusative case, as well as ignoring the
homonymous patronymic symbol that follows.17 These oddities and anomalies prompt a
fresh look at the text.
A decade before the main portion of the text was discovered, another fragment had been
published.18 Although this second smaller piece was most likely destroyed many years ago,
its published text can be palpably helpful in improving our understanding of the text as a
whole. The text Jonnes presents as fragment (a) is as follows.19

[- - - - - ]
]νωνος‧ ἐφήβων [νεωτέρων
]ου‧ πυγμὴν ἐφήβων [νεωτέρων
πρεσ]βυ<τέ>ρων Διοκλῆς Διονυ[σίου
] κὲ Ἀντώνιος Σεβή[ρου

The appearance of ephebic age categories and the reference to boxing are enough to
associate the two fragments, and the appearance of Diocles, son of Dionysius, on both
shows they carried portions of a single document.20 Not only are the two pieces from the
same inscription, but they can also be combined to produce the following serviceable text
with only a single change in Jonnes’s restorations of the smaller fragment.

[στάδιον‧ ἐφήβων νεωτέρων - - - ]φων Ἡρακλε[ίδου, ἐφήβων πρεσβυτέρων - - - ]

[ - - - παρευτάκτων] Π̣οντικὸς Τίτου. δί[αυλον‧ ἐφήβων νεωτέρων - - - ]
[ - - - , ἐφήβων πρεσβυτέρων] Δωρόθεος Λουκίου‧ πα[ρευτάκτων - - - ]
[ - - - πάλην‧ ] ἐφήβων νεωτέρων Δημήτ[ριος - - - κὲ? - - Ζη- ]
5 νῶνος, ἐφήβων [πρεσβυτέ]ρων Διοκλῆς Διονυσίου, πα[ρευτάκτων - - - κὲ? - - - ]
ου. πυγμήν‧ ἐφήβων [νεω]τέρων Λονγεῖνος Ὑψιγόνου κὲ [ - - - , ἐφήβων ]
[πρεσ]βυ<τέ>ρων Διοκλῆ<ς> Διονυσί[ου] κὲ Δωρόθεος Λουκίου, παρε[υτάκτων - - - ]
[ - - - ] κὲ Ἀντώνιος Σεβή̣[̣ ρου]. πανκράτιον‧ ἐφήβων νεωτέρων [ - - - ]
[ - - - , ἐφήβων πρεσβυτέ]ρων Στρατωνίδης Ἀπολλο[δώρου, παρευτάκτων - - - ]
10 [ κὲ? - - - ]ὸς Ἡρακλεῶνος. ἀσπίδι καὶ δ[όρατι‧ - - - ]
[ - - - σφε]νδόνῃ‧ Λονγεῖνος Ὑψιγόν[ου - - - ]
[ - - - ἐφήβ]ων νεωτέρων εὐταξίᾳ ΣΙΛ[ - - - ]
[ - - - ]ου κὲ Ἡρακλείδην Χρυσίων[ος - - - ]

15
E.g. I. Erythrai 81; SEG 44 (1994) 902 (Cnidus); ID 1958 (Delos).
16
IG 12.6.1 180, ll. 21–24.
17
Both Jonnes and Merkelbach ignore the sign inscribed after Artemon which Derenne (1933: 87 n. 32) recognized
as denoting a homonymous patronymic.
18
Hirschfeld 1888: 884 no. 48.
19
Jonnes 1994: 35 no. 60a.
20
As Derenne (1933: 82) realized.

© 2018 Institute of Classical Studies University of London

BICS 61-1 June 2018 To Press (1 June).indd 82 01/06/2018 10:56:33

 NIGEL M. KENNELL: AN EPHEBIC VICTOR LIST FROM HERACLEA PONTICA 83

[ - - - ]ς Ἀρ<τ>έμωνα (Ἀρτέμωνος) κὲ Ἥλιον Κο[ - - - ]

15 [ - - - κὲ - - - ]εῖνον Διονυσίου. εὐεξίᾳ Σ[ - - - ]
[ - - - ὧν λαμ]παδάρχος Καλλίστρατος [ - - - ]
[ - - - ]ς Ἡρακλέωνος. εὐεξίᾳ ΣΥΝ[ - - - ]
[ - - - ὧν λαμ]παδάρχ[ος - - - ]

Notes
Line 2. Pargoire: ΟΝΤΙΚΟΣ
Line 7. Hirschfeld, Derenne: ΒΥΡΩΝ?ΔΙΟΚΛΗΔΙΟΝΥ
Line 14. Pargoire: ΣΑΡΕΜΩΝΑ⳽

Lines 1–2: The last two preserved letters in the second line lead to the certain supplement
δί[αυλον, as all editors since Derenne have recognized. The preceding name Π̣οντικὸς
Τίτου should be that of a victor in the last age category listed in the stade race, which
invariably precedes the diaulos (the double-length race) in victor lists. Ponticus’s age
category can be determined by comparison with lines 5–9, as supplemented by the addition
of the smaller fragment to the text. In the unrestored text, victors in the category of younger
ephebes (ἔφηβοι νεώτεροι) are listed first for both the boxing (line 6) and πανκράτιον
(line 8), indicating that no one from the younger category (παῖδες) competed in these or
the other events since lists invariably recorded victors’ names in order of age, usually from
youngest to eldest.21 Next in logical sequence to be listed would be victors from among
the elder ephebes (ἔφηβοι πρεσβύτεροι), followed by an even older age group. Once the
text of fragment (a) is taken into consideration, the letters ρων at the beginning of line 5
on fragment (b) become insufficient to support Merkelbach’s ἀνδ]ρῶν. I therefore restore
here ἐφήβων [πρεσβυτέ]ρων. If this restoration is accepted, then no positive evidence
exists in the surviving text for an age group either of ἄνδρες or νέοι, both terms used in
agonistic contexts to denote young male adults between the ages of twenty and thirty.22
Another age category was most likely listed here, however; its first letters occur twice in the
preserved text, in lines 5 and 7, if Merkelbach’s restoration is ignored. Derenne, followed
by Chankowski, who supplied a strong argument in support, suggested that the next age
category was that of the pareutaktoi (παρεύτακτοι), which appears in Athenian and Delian
inscriptions to denote young contestants who had recently left the ephebate.23
Thus, Ponticus was victorious among the pareutaktoi in the stade race, not in the elder
ephebes’ category as per Jonnes’s text or in the andres (ἄνδρες) category as Merkelbach
suggests.24 The fragmentary ]φων Ἡρακλε[ίδου who appears in line 1, I propose, won the
same event as a younger ephebe. In the portion of the text lost from the top of the document
should have come the victors in the long-distance race, the dolichos. The style of listing
victors appears consistent throughout the events from the stade race to the pankration, in
other words, in the gumnikos agōn. In every case, the name of the age category was recorded
in full, as in lines 5–7. In the military-flavoured events that follow in line 10, however, the
text becomes less formulaic and consequently much harder to supplement.

21
E.g. SIG3 952 (Chalcis); 959 (Chios); Kontorini 1975; 102-3 (Rhodes).
22
E.g. SIG3 959 (Chios); IG 11.2 203A (Delos).
23
Derenne 1933: 83-85; Chankowski 2010: 246–47.
24
Jonnes 1994: 35, 60b, ll. 1–2: [στάδιον παίδων‧ ὁ Δεῖνα τοῦ Δεῖνα. ἐφήβων | νεωτέρων‧ Τρύ]φων
Ἡρακλε[ίδου. πρεσβυτέρων]‧ Ποντικὸς Τίτου.

© 2018 Institute of Classical Studies University of London

BICS 61-1 June 2018 To Press (1 June).indd 83 01/06/2018 10:56:33

 84 BICS-61-1  2018

Lines 3–4: Both Jonnes (line 3) and Merkelbach (line 4) restore δόλιχον as the next
event, which violates the normal sequence of events indicated above. Instead, the next event
would have been wrestling. Thus, I restore [πάλην] in line 3, before the victor Δημήτ[ριος]
in the category of younger ephebes.
Lines 4–5: The text carried on the smaller fragment begins with line 5. The letters on
the first line of fragment (a), -νωνος‧ ἐφήβων, line up with -ρων Διοκλῆς Διονυσίου in
line 5 of the main portion of the text to produce -νωνος‧ ἐφήβων [πρεσβυτέ]ρων Διοκλῆς
Διονυσίου.25 This necessitates a significant increase in the line length estimated previously.
Derenne took Pargoire’s statement that the larger fragment was ‘entamée à gauche, brisée
à droit’ to indicate that the original left edge was preserved.26 But this is not necessarily the
case, because when he supplied the full texts of other inscriptions in his article, Pargoire did
not mention the state of preservation. Moreover, all stones need to be cut to shape before
carrying a text, so Pargoire must have meant that the stone was cut after being inscribed for
secondary use, probably as a wall block.
Since the pareutaktoi category should follow that of the elder ephebes in the list, the
letters πα- at the end of line 4 are to be restored πα[ρευτάκτων], not πά[λην] as proposed
by both Jonnes and Merkelbach.27 The letters -νωνος at the beginning of the line represent
a patronymic ending in -νων. They can take forms such as Ἐπαμείνων, Ἀγαμέμνων,
or even Ἐπιτυγχάνων. But a disyllabic name like Κόνων, Ἅγνων, Μέμνων, or most
probably Ζήνων is preferable.28 Such a short name for the father of Demetrius, victor of
the younger ephebes’ wrestling, causes problems at the end of line 5, which has insufficient
space for the name and patronymic of the winner in the pareutaktoi category and for
the name and patronymic of the joint winner of the younger ephebes’ boxing in line 6. I
therefore tentatively suggest that the sons of Zeno and Demetrius were themselves joint
winners. Draws such as those listed here were not uncommon in the combat events.29 They
occurred even at Olympia, where the pankratiast Tiberius Claudius Rufus received an
honorific decree for enduring ‘until the stars came out’ in a match that ended in a draw.30
Lines 6–7: These lines contain the names of the victors in the boxing, the fullest
surviving set in the text. In line 6, very little supplement is needed between the text on the
two fragments to produce ἐφήβων [νεω]τέρων. Hirschfeld’s transcript of the next line on
fragment (a) can be easily corrected, as Derenne showed, to produce [πρεσ]βυ<τέ>ρων
Διοκλῆ<ς> Διονυσί[ου]. I restore [πρεσ]βυ<τέ>ρων completely on line 7, as some space
in line 6 is needed for the name and patronymic of the other joint victor of the younger
ephebes, and there is no reason to believe that the first letters Hirschfeld read began the
line. A word beginning with παρε- ends the preserved portion of the line in which appear
Diocles and Dorotheus, joint victors in boxing among the elder ephebes. As noted above,
Merkelbach converted this into a reference to the omission of the men’s boxing, but, as
Chankowski observed, no trace of this age category exists on the preserved part of the

25
Jonnes: [πρεσβυτέ]ρων Διοκλῆς κτλ; Merkelbach: [ἄνδ]ρων Διοκλῆς κτλ.
26
Derenne 1933: 86.
27
For the restoration of Derenne (1933: 83–84), see the discussion of ll. 6–8, below.
28
A search of the LGPN online database for attestations in the first two centuries of our era produced the following
results: Ἐπαμείνων, 1; Ἐπιτυγχάνων, 54 (25 from Athens); Ἀγαμέμνων, 2; Μέμνων, 15; Κόνων, 28; Ζήνων,
174.
29
E.g. Hom. Il. 23.736; IG 12.9 952, col. 3; SEG 2 (1924) 745; I. Selge 46. See also Poliakoff 1987: 22, 107.
30
IvO 54: l. 35.

© 2018 Institute of Classical Studies University of London

BICS 61-1 June 2018 To Press (1 June).indd 84 01/06/2018 10:56:33

 NIGEL M. KENNELL: AN EPHEBIC VICTOR LIST FROM HERACLEA PONTICA 85

stone.31 In his commentary on fragment (b), Derenne proposed to restore παρε[υτάκτων]

here.32
Lines 8–9: Victors in the pankration, the final event of the gumnikos agōn, are listed
here, with the names of the first two age categories either wholly or partially preserved.
Lines 10–11: The preserved part of line 10 begins with the name -ὸς Ἡρακλεῶνος, who
was probably pankration victor in the pareutaktoi category. If the putative line length is
correct, then he may well have been another joint victor in a heavy event. After the events
of the gumnikos agōn come at least two events in which prowess in handling weaponry
was tested: the competitions in shield and spear (ἀσπὶς καὶ δόρυ) and in the slingshot
(σφενδόνη). I restore the first event as ἀσπίδι καὶ δ[όρατι in place of Merkelbach’s ἀσπίδι
καὶ δ[ολίχῳ, which Chankowski interpreted as a long-distance race with a shield.33 This too
would be unprecedented, as the hoplite race, in which contestants entered wearing helmets
and carrying shields, was normally run over two lengths of the stadium.34 The most famous
exception was the race at the Eleutheria games in Plataea, whose victors over a gruelling
course of fifteen lengths were awarded the title ‘Best of the Greeks’.35 At this point in the
Heraclea inscription, however, I believe a combat event is more appropriate. Weapons-
handling (hoplomachia) is quite well attested as an ephebic event, and its instruction had
been an important part of citizen training since the creation of the first ephebate by the
Athenians in the fourth century bc.36 An event in the Theseia festival in Hellenistic Athens
provides a good parallel for restoring a reference to such a contest here since lists from the
second century bc describe individuals who won ὁπλομαχῶν ἐν ἀσπιδίωι καὶ δόρατι.37
The other military event, the slingshot (sphendone), is not attested elsewhere, though some
ephebes received instruction in its use from the first century bc onwards.38
With these two events, the syntax and format of the listings change dramatically,
rendering the principle of arrangement opaque. Both these and the other events in the
remaining preserved text are in the dative, not the accusative. In addition, no age categories
are recorded for the victors of the competitions in either the shield and spear or the slingshot.
This could mean either that these two events were limited to a single age category or that
they were open to all regardless of age.
Lines 12–18: In these lines, the syntax and format change yet again, making any but
the most conservative restoration impossible. First appears the competition in discipline
(εὐταξία), which is often, as at Heraclea, paired with the competition in physique (εὐεξία)
that follows in lines 15 and 17. The eutaxia competition was evidently again subdivided
into age categories, though the name of the competition itself is placed, unusually for
this text, after the name of the age category. Then come two lines in which the names
of victors appear in the accusative. In his ‘speculative’ restoration, Merkelbach seems to
have understood lines 12–15 to refer either to three joint victors or to single victors in

31
Chankowski 2010: 535.
32
Derenne 1933: 82-3, 84.
33
Chankowski 2010: 535.
34
Ar. Av. 291–92; Paus. 2.11.8.
35
Robert 1929.
36
Event: E.g. I. Erythrai, ll. 11–12; Samos (IG 12.6 182 1, l. 15); I. Sestos 1, l. 81. Instruction: Arist. [Ath. Pol.]
42; IG 12.9 234, l. 9 (Eretria); SIG3 578, ll. 26–27 (Teos), SEG 9 [1944] 3, ll. 43–45 (Cyrene).
37
IG 22 957: l. 47; 958: ll. 67, 71, 75; 960: ll. 29–35; 962b: ll. 1–2.
38
Athens: see below. Amphipolis: Lazaridi 2015: 3, ll. 26-8.

© 2018 Institute of Classical Studies University of London

BICS 61-1 June 2018 To Press (1 June).indd 85 01/06/2018 10:56:33

 86 BICS-61-1  2018

three (unexpressed) age categories, each of whom belonged to one of three torch-racing
teams whose leaders’ names were governed by his restored preposition ὑπό. As pointed out
above, this is unprecedented and should be rejected, though I can suggest no satisfactory
restoration.
Lines 15–18: The preserved part of the text concludes with two victories in the euexia
competition. At Heraclea, as elsewhere, teams in the torch race (λάμπας, λαμπαδεδρομία)
contended in this event, with the prize given to the team leaders called lampadarchoi
(λαμπάδαρχοι).39
The euexia and the torch race to which it was linked were divided into at least two age-
based competitions each, probably of ephebes collectively and of pareutaktoi. A further
division of the ephebes is highly unlikely, as this was not the practice elsewhere. Torch-
race teams were assembled by one of two methods, with the competitors either divided up
according to the city’s civic divisions (tribes, etc.) or selected from among the gymnasium-
users without regard for their civic affiliation, as at Beroea where the gymnasiarch is simply
instructed to choose competitors from among the paides and youth, ‘whoever seem suitable
to him’.40 Which method prevailed at Heraclea is completely obscure, but the genitive plural
relative pronoun (ὧν) in line 15, also restored in line 17, indicates that their antecedents,
concealed by the large lacunae after Σ and ΣΥΝ, were plural too. As compilers of ephebic
victory lists never included the names of a winning team’s individual members, only that of
its leader, the words missing in these two spaces may have been plural nouns that denoted
their tribal affiliation. We have no idea what the name or names could have been. Although
some commentators have suggested that the city’s original tribes were Megaris, Thebais,
and Dionysias, reflecting the composition of Heraclea’s first settlers, no evidence for its
later organization has survived.41

Examining the contests

We should bear in mind that this is still rather a notional text, since it is far from clear
that the leftmost letters preserved in lines 5 and 6 of fragment (a) are actually the first in
those lines. Still, there are some gains: the five events of the gumnikos agōn in the contest
now appear in their canonical order, and the age categories are listed in the same sequence
for each of its events. Those age categories, of younger and elder ephebes, show that the
ephebes served for two years, making Heraclea a member of an exclusive club of cities with
training systems lasting more than a single year.42
First, however, the contest commemorated here needs identification. The age categories
listed are not those in use for international competitions such as the Panhellenic festivals
or the Panathenaea. Instead, the contest could have been part of a festival celebrated in the
gymnasium that was limited to Heraclea’s younger and elder ephebes and the pareutaktoi.
The most common gymnasial festival was the Hermaea, in honour of Hermes, who with
Heracles was the patron deity of gymnasia throughout the Greek world.43 At Heraclea,

39
See below, n. 82.
40
Gauthier and Hatzopoulos 1993: 117; SEG 43 (1993) 381 B, ll. 82–84: οἱ ἂν αὐτῶι δοκῶσιν ἐπιτήδειοι εἶναι.
41
Burstein 1976: 21; Jones 1987: 281–83.
42
SEG 16 (1959) 652 (Halicarnassus); TAM 5.2 104 (Apollonis); IG 5.1 1386 (Thuria); SIG3 959 (Chios).
43
In the words of Jeanne and Louis Robert (BE 1962: no. 248), ‘Les Hermaia sont une fête qui existe en tout
gymnase, en chaque ville.’

© 2018 Institute of Classical Studies University of London

BICS 61-1 June 2018 To Press (1 June).indd 86 01/06/2018 10:56:33

 NIGEL M. KENNELL: AN EPHEBIC VICTOR LIST FROM HERACLEA PONTICA 87

where Heracles famously entered the underworld, we can comfortably suppose that either
both divinities were celebrated together in a festival called the Hermaia kai Hērakleia, or
the Hērakleia, for Heracles alone.44 These festivals marked the end of the gymnasial year
and the graduation of that year’s crop of new citizens.45 The details varied considerably from
city to city, but certain features were common to most, if not all, celebrations. The official
in charge of the gymnasium, the gymnasiarch, usually presided over the festivities; this
was probably the case at Heraclea. Sacrifices and honorific announcements accompanied
the competitions of the gumnikos agōn, which generally included both a long-distance race
(dolichos or makros dromos) and some events peculiar to gymnasium-centred contests,
such as the euexia, eutaxia, and philoponia.
But the Hermaea did not usually include explicitly military events such as the hoplomachia
or slingshot, which tells against its being the contest here.46 A better candidate would be one
of the widespread periodic gymnasial contests, known collectively as diadromai (‘races’).47
In a well-endowed gymnasium many diadromai might be expected.48 Every month in the
Hellenistic period, for instance, the youth of Samos contended amongst themselves in
competitions predominantly military in nature: catapult, javelin, archery, heavy and light
weapons-handling (hoplomachia and thureamachia), foot race, and discipline (eutaxia).49
Although special diadromai were sometimes held to honour royals, ‘races’ not necessarily
linked to any particular cult or political observance were a regular feature of life in the
gymnasium.50 In some places they were held jointly with torch races.51 The balance of
probability favours the contest at Heraclea being of this latter sort.
The events of the gumnikos agōn pose no problems of interpretation. They are divided
into three categories based on the ages of those participating. Single victors are listed for
the track events (stadion and diaulon), while joint victors cluster in the combat events,
with perhaps at least five of the nine matches ending in draws. Ancient commentators
recognized that track (‘light’) and combat (‘heavy’) events required individuals with
different body types, and thus victors rarely won in both.52 Although the list from Heraclea
is too fragmentary to judge whether its athletes conformed to this rule, it may be possible
to identify a ‘specialist’, if that is not too strong a word, in the heavy events. Diocles, son
of Dionysius, the elder ephebe, won outright in wrestling, while in boxing he drew with
Longinus, son of Hypsigonus.
The first preserved combat event, in the shield (aspis/hoplon) and heavy spear (doru),
shows that Heraclea’s ephebes were trained in one of the most traditional Greek military
skills available to them, the hoplomachia. Greeks attributed the elaboration of fighting with
spear and shield into a highly specialized skill to a Mantinean named either Demonax or

44
Hērakleia: SEG 57 (2007) 1037 (Heraclea Salbace); IG 122 Supp. 121 (Eresus); IG 122.9 234 (Eretria); I. Iasos
110. Hermaia kai Hērakleia: I. Arykanda 162; MAMA 6.173 (Apamea).
45
On the Hermaia, particularly the festival at Macedonian Beroea, see Gauthier and Hatzopoulos 1993: 95–123.
46
E.g. Knoepfler 1979: 170.
47
IG 12.6.1 179, l. 5; 181, l. 5; 182, l. 1; cf. Iscr. di Cos ED 145, ll. 43–45.
48
Michel, 544, ll. 21–22 (Themisonion); I. Sestos 1, ll. 36–37, 64.
49
IG 12.6.1 179, 180, 182.
50
Holleaux 1906: 357.
51
E.g. OGIS 764, l. 43 (Pergamum).
52
Paus. 6.24.1; Philostr. Gym. 3.

© 2018 Institute of Classical Studies University of London

BICS 61-1 June 2018 To Press (1 June).indd 87 01/06/2018 10:56:33

 88 BICS-61-1  2018

Demeas, better known as the man sent to Cyrene as lawgiver by the Delphic oracle in the
early sixth century bc.53 By the late fifth century, hoplomachia had become a specialized
skill, and professional teachers (hoplomachoi) were a familiar enough sight at Athens to
arouse the disdain of Socrates, as reported by both Plato and Xenophon.54 Travelling from
city to city, they put on displays to attract clients. According to Theophrastus, hoplomachoi,
along with sophists and musicians, sometimes used private palaistrai for their exhibitions.55
Athenians had elected citizen hoplomachoi to instruct their young citizens-to-be from the
fourth century bc through to the end of the ephebate in the later third century ad.56 The
practice elsewhere in the Hellenistic period was different, with the onus usually on individual
gymnasiarchs to hire itinerant specialists, who might only teach for several months out of the
year.57 Epigraphical evidence for hoplomachoi outside Athens dries up in the Roman period,
with the only exception a possible attestation from Gythium in Laconia.58 Hoplomachia
itself survived, however, to be counted among the properly ephebic disciplines the youthful
hero Habrocomas has mastered by the beginning of Xenophon’s Ephesiaca, though this
description may be tinged with the nostalgia characteristic of the Greek novel.59 Galen also
refers to the martial art of hoplomachia as one of several healthy types of exercise.60 Like
the Greek community in Babylon under the Arsacids, by including this discipline in their
ephebic training Heracleans presented themselves as heirs to a brilliant ancient Hellenic
heritage stretching back to the battles against the Persians in the early fifth century bc and
before.61 We are of course in the dark as to who taught the young Heracleans — a foreign
professional or an enthusiastic local amateur?
The slingshot (sphendonē) was even more ancient, appearing in Mycenaean art and
mentioned by archaic poets such as Archilochus and Tyrtaeus, but with nowhere near the
same status as the hoplite’s spear and shield.62 Archilochus poured scorn on those who
fought with either bow or sling, and Xenophon had Cyrus the Persian dismiss it as the
weapon most suitable for slaves.63 Fighters with slingshots figured in battle from very
early times in Greece, and generals came to deploy them more and more effectively in the
Hellenistic period. Although training in the skills of light-armed troops such as archery and
javelin-throwing figured in the first ephebic curriculum in the fourth century, no reference
to training in the slingshot appears until the 80s ad, after the Athenians had incorporated it
into their ephebic programme.64 From that time until the end of the ephebate in the second

53
Demonax: Hdt. 4.161; Hermippos FGrH 1026 F2. Demeas: Ephoros FGrH 70 F54.
54
Pl. Lach. 179e; Xen. Mem. 3.1.
55
Theoph. Char. 5.10.
56
Arist. [Ath. Pol.] 42.3.
57
Hired by gymnasiarchs: IG 12.9 234, ll. 8–12 (Eretria). Paid by city: (through the paidonomos and gymnasiarch)
SIG3 578, ll. 21–23 (Teos). Teaching period: SIG3 578, l. 26 (Teos). Hoplomachia as discipline: Launey 1949–50:
817–18.
58
IG 5.1 1523.
59
Xen. Ephes. 1.2.
60
Gal. Kühn 6.153–54.
61
I. Estremo Oriente 107, l. 12.
62
Archil. F3 West; Tyrt. F11, l. 36 West; Pritchett 1991: 1–53.
63
Archil. F3 West; Xen. Cyr. 7.4.15.
64
Early curriculum: Arist. [Ath. Pol.] 42.3. First appearance: IG 22 1993, l. 14. Latest appearance: Oliver 1942: no. 37.

© 2018 Institute of Classical Studies University of London

BICS 61-1 June 2018 To Press (1 June).indd 88 01/06/2018 10:56:33

 NIGEL M. KENNELL: AN EPHEBIC VICTOR LIST FROM HERACLEA PONTICA 89

half of the third century ad, Athenian ephebes were trained in the use of a variation of the
standard military slingshot, the kestrosphendonē, perhaps to replace the catapult training that
is not attested after the end of the second century bc.65 The kestrosphendonē was a fearsome
weapon used to hurl a projectile with a six-inch iron tip, which became so identified with
Athenian ephebes that they styled themselves ‘bearers of the kestros’ (kestrophoroi) on a
cosmete herm from the reign of Trajan. As this weapon was invented during the war against
the Macedonian king Perseus in the early second century bc, it is tempting to consider
all mentions of either a kestros or sphendonē appearing in later ephebic texts at Athens,
Amphipolis, Thessalonica, and Heraclea as referring to the same weapon.66
The competitions in discipline (eutaxia) and in physique (euexia) appear in ephebic
inscriptions elsewhere, together with one in diligence (philoponia).67 These martial qualities
were viewed as essential for young warriors fighting together as a military unit, but they also
powerfully signal the later Greek cities’ continuing self-identification as communities of
free citizen-soldiers. Young citizens-to-be were introduced to the benefits of good discipline
early in their training. The officials in charge of the training of males below ephebic age,
the paidonomoi, might make dedications for the health and good discipline of the paides,
while gymnasiarchs received praises for inculcating their charges with this virtue.68 Formal
assessments of eutaxia were held in several cities, where competition was either among
individuals, as at Macedonian Beroea, or among groups such as civic tribes, as at Athens.69
In Beroea’s Hermaea, the gymnasiarch himself had the duty of judging ‘whoever should
seem to him to be the most disciplined of those up to thirty years of age’.70 This was almost
certainly the case at Heraclea, since ephebic discipline would have been most efficiently
judged by the gymnasiarch, the only official with the opportunity to observe their behaviour
on a daily basis.
The same was probably true for the next identifiable contest, that in physical conditioning
(euexia), though the Beroeans preferred that a panel of three disinterested judges chosen
by lot pick the single winner.71 Competitions in physical conditioning are known from
numerous other cities, with competitors ranging in age from boys (paides) to adults (andres/
neoi).72 What specific qualities conduced to victory in this competition are unknown, but
euexia itself was much discussed in antiquity. Xenophon’s Socrates and Lucian’s Solon
many centuries later both cast the acquisition of a good physique in an explicitly military
light as the perfect balance of strength and proportion of figure that enables individuals to
withstand the rigours of war with dignity and perform heroic acts for their city which would

65
Pélékides 1962: 269.
66
IG 22 1993, l. 103; 2021, l. 7 (Athens); Lazaridi 2015: 3, ll. 26-8 (Amphipolis); IG 10.2.1 876 (Thessalonica).
67
Epigraphical evidence can be found in Crowther 1991. On their military connotations, Gauthier and Hatzopoulos
1993: 104.
68
E.g. IG 12.3 193 (Astypalaea); Iscr. di Cos EV 1; IG 12.9 235, ll. 4–8; I. Sestos 1, l. 30; IG 22 1008, l. 55
(Athens).
69
E.g. SEG 43 (1993) 381 B, ll. 45, 54 (Beroea); Lambert 2002 (Athens); I. Erythrai 81, l. 7; SEG 44 (1994) 902
(Cnidus).
70
SEG 43 (1993) 381 B, ll. 55–56: ὃς ἂν αὐτῶι δοκῆι εὐτακτότατος εἶναι | [τ]ῶν ἕως τριάκοντα ἐτῶν.
71
SEG 43 (1993) 381 B, ll. 48–51.
72
IG 12.6.1 181, l. 12; 183, ll. 3, 16 (Samos); IOSPE 4 432 (Gorgippia); I. Erythrai 81, l. 7; I. Sestos 1, l. 83; I.
Tralles und Nysa 107; Iscr. di Cos ED 145 A, ll. 33–37; EV 191; SEG 16 (1959) 652 (Halicarnassus).

© 2018 Institute of Classical Studies University of London

BICS 61-1 June 2018 To Press (1 June).indd 89 01/06/2018 10:56:33

 90 BICS-61-1  2018

gain them a lasting reputation.73 In the ideal civic world at the heart of the gymnasium,
maintenance of a well-conditioned body was virtually an obligation for the engaged citizen.
According to Xenophon, it was a duty for the Lacedaemonians, who in his eyes were
adorned better by their euexia than by any expensive clothing.74
Euexia continued to be regarded as one of the fundamental military qualities throughout
antiquity. Polybius summed up Philip II’s assessment of his chances against the Persian
Empire in terms of his weighing of the unmanliness and indolence of the Persians against
his own and his Macedonians’ euexia in matters of war.75 Onasander in the first century ad
advised generals to allow spies full view of their armies if the soldiers were well-armed and
equipped; in good, strong physical condition; obedient, well-trained and with outstanding
commanders.76 Just before Caracalla ordered the massacre of the youth of Alexandria,
so Herodian relates, he commanded them to stand in lines so that he might personally
check their age, size, and physical condition for his campaign against the Persians.77 When
Alexander Severus again confronted the Persians several decades later, he is described in
similar terms as raising contingents from Italy and throughout the empire of men considered
to be at the peak of their conditioning and suitable for battle.78 In contrast to this manly
euexia was another more dangerous sort, that of the conscientious athlete. Bulked up by
special exercise programmes and strict diets, they achieved a peak of conditioning that
provoked health concerns.79 A dictum of Hippocrates’ on the instability of euexia ‘among
fans of the gymnasium’ inspired Galen to compose a short piece on its problems, in which
he drew a distinction between detrimental athletic euexia and true euexia.80 Galen’s true
euexia is to be identified with what Aristotle earlier termed ‘citizen’s euexia’ (πολιτικὴ
εὐεξία) and was surely the aim of the competitions held among the paides, ephebes, and
neoi of the Greek world, including those at Heraclea.81
We would expect this sort of contest to be among individuals. This was true in most
places, including Beroea. But the earliest attested contest in physical conditioning, held by
the Spartan king Agesilaus II at Ephesus in 395 bc, was between units of his army, and the
tradition of group competition in euexia evidently continued in a few cities.82 The clearest
evidence is found at Kos, where one of the regulations governing the priesthood of Hermes
Enagonius requires the timely sacrifice of victims by the leaders of teams in the torch race
which were victorious in either the euexia or the race itself.83 At Heraclea too, the euexia
competition was associated with the torch race (lampas). How judges measured a team’s
collective physique is far from clear, though it has been plausibly suggested that the ephebes

73
Xen. Mem. 3.12.3; Luc. Anach. 25.
74
Xen. Lac. 4.6, 7.3.
75
Polyb. 3.6.12.
76
Onas. Strateg. 10.9.
77
Herodian 4.9.5.
78
Herodian 4.3.1.
79
Cf. Gal. Kühn 1.27–28; 6.487–88.
80
Gal. Kühn 4.752, 754–55.
81
Arist. Pol. 7.16.12. On the euexia contests in general see Crowther 1991, who does not make the distinction.
82
Xen. Hell. 3.4.16
83
IG 12.4.1 928A, ll. 33–37.

© 2018 Institute of Classical Studies University of London

BICS 61-1 June 2018 To Press (1 June).indd 90 01/06/2018 10:56:33

 NIGEL M. KENNELL: AN EPHEBIC VICTOR LIST FROM HERACLEA PONTICA 91

may have performed some sort of set routine before the race.84 Alternatively, they may
have assumed poses resembling those of modern bodybuilders. That athletes did display
themselves before contests for the public to appreciate their physique (euexia) is attested in
late antiquity; the custom may well have existed earlier.85
The remaining contest on the surviving portion of the text, the torch race, was the
characteristic ephebic event, associated with youth at Athenian festivals even before the
creation of the ephebate there.86 Training was intense, and lampadarchoi were expected
to fund the olive oil the competitors used in the period leading up to the race.87 This
represented no small expense, which some were unwilling to assume, so the authorities
at Beroea, for instance, established a procedure whereby children or youths might recuse
themselves (and their fathers) from paying for the lampadarchia, with financial penalties
for fraudulent claims.88 Among the perks for the priests of Hermes Enagonius at Kos and
of Dionysos at Priene was exemption from the lampadarchia.89 The duties of the victorious
lampadarchos also included arranging for and suitably dedicating the prize his team had
won, which naturally entailed further expense. At Kos, the victor was expected to spend
thirty drachmae of his team’s prize money on a victim to be sacrificed the following day.90
A similar practice can be envisioned at Heraclea.

Conclusion

The events in this list would not have been out of place in an ephebic contest several centuries
earlier; the fact that the Hellenistic period provides such useful parallels and supplementary
information points to the Greek gymnasium’s deep conservatism. This tendency was the
source of its abiding cultural influence throughout the Hellenistic and Roman periods.
Heraclea had maintained its ancient status as a Greek city on the Black Sea through its
turbulent history, producing several major literary figures including the historians Nymphis
and Memnon, along with the philosopher Heraclides Ponticus, and had, as mentioned, an
important library. It remained sufficiently noteworthy in the Roman period to receive an
official letter from the ecumenical synod of actors at Rome.91 The city’s Hellenic heritage
was arguably expressed through its ephebate as well, not only by means of the competitions
but also in the institution’s terminology. If the eldest age category in the inscription really
is that of pareutaktoi, as Derenne and Chankowski proposed, then Heraclea becomes the

84
Gauthier 1995: 581.
85
John Chrysostom De Maccabeis (MPG 50: 618) : οἱ μὲν οὖν ἔξωθεν ἀγωνοθέται ἀγῶνες τιθέντες μεγίστην
φιλοτιμίαν εἶναι νομίζουσιν, ὅταν νέους ἀθλητὰς καὶ σφριγῶντας εἰς τὰ σκάμματα καὶ τοὺς ἀγῶνες
εἰσαγῶσιν, ὥστε πρὸ τῆς ἐν τοῖς παλαίσμασιν ἐπιδείξεως ἀπὸ τῆς τῶν μελῶν εὐεξίας θαῦμα παρασχεῖν
τοῖς θεαταῖς; De sanct. martyr. (MPG 50.710) εἰ γὰρ ἀθλητῶν ξένων ἐπιδημούντων τῇ πόλει, πᾶς ὁ δῆμος
περιῤῥεῖ παντόχθεν, καὶ κυκλώσαντες αὐτοῦ καταμανθάνουσι τῶν μελῶν τὴν εὐεξίαν.
86
Harp. Λ3; Parker 2005: 472.
87
SEG 43 (1993) 381 B, ll. 73–74. At Athens, the main duty of the gumnasiarchia, a competitive tribal liturgy, was
to support competitors in training: Andoc. Myst. 132; Antiph. Tetr. 2.1; Xen. Vect. 4.51–52.
88
SEG 43 (1993) 381 B, ll. 77–81.
89
IG 12.4.1 928, l. 7 (Kos). At Priene, exemption from liturgies was only available to a purchaser who paid more
than 6,000 dr. for the priesthood (I. Priene 174, ll. 24–27).
90
IG 12.4.1 928, ll. 33–37.
91
I. Herakleia 2.

© 2018 Institute of Classical Studies University of London

BICS 61-1 June 2018 To Press (1 June).indd 91 01/06/2018 10:56:33

 92 BICS-61-1  2018

only city outside Athens and its possessions where this category is attested.92 The Athenian
pareutaktoi seem to have been roughly equivalent to the neoi found in many later Greek
cities, but without their institutional significance.93 The adoption by the Heracleans of the
Athenian term for young adults older than ephebic age echoes the language used in the
city where the ephebate originated, though it is unlikely that their ephebate owed anything
more to an Athenian ‘model’.94 The circumstances that gave rise to the use of an Athenian
technical term at Heraclea may lie in the ties between the two cities, for Heraclea was one
of the four cities sending the largest number of young men to enrol in the Athenian citizen
training system.95
The list of victors studied here reveals the vigour of Greek gymnasial culture and its
traditions even in the Roman period. Let us hope that future finds will further enhance
our understanding of how youths at Heraclea were trained up to be citizens in this once
important but now obscure city.

University of British Columbia

Works Cited

Bertrand, A. 1874: ‘Le kestre ou kestrosphendone’, RA n.s. 27, 73–78.

Burstein, S. 1976: Outpost of Hellenism: The Emergence of Heraclea on the Black Sea,
Berkeley.
Canali di Rossi, F. 2003: Inscrizioni dello estremo oriente greco, IGSK 65, Bonn.
Chankowski, A. 2010: L’Éphébie hellénistique: Étude d’une institution civique dans les
cités grecques des îles de la Mer Égée et de l’Asie Mineur, Culture et Cité 4, Paris.
Crowther, N. 1985: ‘Male “beauty” contests in Greece: the Euandria and Euexia’, AntCl
54, 285–91.
—— 1991: ‘Euexia, Eutaxia, Philoponia: three contests of the Greek gymnasium’, ZPE 85,
301–04.
Derenne, E. 1933: ‘ΓΥΜΝΑΣΤΙΚΑ’, AntCl 2, 81–87.
Gauthier, P. 1995: ‘Du nouveau sur les courses aux flambeaux d’après deux inscriptions de
Kos’, REG 108, 576–85.
Gauthier P., and M. B. Hatzopoulos. 1993: La loi gymnasiarchique de Beroia, Meletemata
16, Athens.
Hirschfeld, G. 1888: ‘Inschriften aus dem Norden Kleinasiens besonders aus Bithynien und
Paphlagonien’, SBBerl 35, 863–92.
Hoepfner, W. 1966: Herakleia Pontike-Ereğli: eine baugeschichtlich Untersuchung.
Forschungen an der Nordküste Kleinasiens: Ergänzungsbände zu den Tituli Asiae
Minoris 2.1, Vienna.

92
E.g. IG 22 2084, ll. 52–55 (Athens); ID 2593 (Delos).
93
Kennell 2013.
94
The concept of an Athenian ephebic model comes from Chankowski 2010: 227–28.
95
The other cities were Antioch, Miletus, and, above all, Rome: Reinmuth 1929; Perrin-Saminadayar 2007:
449–78.

© 2018 Institute of Classical Studies University of London

BICS 61-1 June 2018 To Press (1 June).indd 92 01/06/2018 10:56:33

 NIGEL M. KENNELL: AN EPHEBIC VICTOR LIST FROM HERACLEA PONTICA 93

Holleaux, M. 1906: ‘Note sur une inscription de Colophon Nova’, BCH 30, 349–58.
Jonnes, L. 1994: The Inscriptions of Heraclea Pontica, IGSK 47, Bonn.
Kennell, N. 1999: ‘Age categories and chronology in the Hellenistic Theseia’, Phoenix 53,
249–62.
—— 2013: ‘Who were the Neoi?’ in P. Martzavou and N. Papazarkadas (eds), Epigraphical
Approaches to the Post-Classical Polis: 4th century bc to 2nd century ad, Oxford,
217–32.
Knoepfler, D. 1979: ‘Contributions à l’épigraphie de Chalcis’, BCH 103, 165–88.
Kontorini, V. 1975: ‘Les concours des Grands Eréthimia à Rhodes’, BCH 99, 97–117.
Lambert, S. 2002: ‘Afterwords’, ZPE 141, 122–24.
Launey, M. 1949–50: Recherches sur les armées hellénistiques (2 vols), BEFAR 169, Paris.
Lazaridi, K. 2015: ‘’Εφηβαρχικὸς νόμος ἀπὸ τὴν Ἀμφίπολη’, AE 154, 1–48.
Magie, D. 1950: Roman Rule in Asia Minor: To the End of the Third Century after Christ,
Princeton.
Oliver, J. 1942: ‘Greek Inscriptions’, Hesperia 11, 29–90.
Pargoire, J. 1898: ‘Inscriptions d’Héraclée du Pont (1)’, BCH 22, 492–96.
Parker, R. 2005: Polytheism and Society at Athens, Oxford.
Pélékides, C. 1962: Histoire de l’éphébie attique des origines à 31 avant Jésus-Christ,
Paris.
Perrin-Saminadayar, É. 2007: Éducation, culture et societé à Athènes. Les acteurs de la vie
culturelle athènienne (229–88): un tout petit monde, Paris.
Poliakoff, M. 1987: Combat Sports in the Ancient World: Competition, Violence, and
Culture, New Haven.
Pritchett, W. K. 1991: The Greek State at War, Part 5, Berkeley.
Reinmuth, O. 1929: The Foreigners in the Athenian Ephebia, Lincoln.
Robert, L. 1929: ‘Ἄριστος Ἑλλήνων’, REA 31, 13–20, 225–26.
Strobel, K. 2005: ‘Herakleia (7)’, BNP 5, 366–67.

© 2018 Institute of Classical Studies University of London

BICS 61-1 June 2018 To Press (1 June).indd 93 01/06/2018 10:56:33