Old and New Worlds in Greek Onomastics (Proceedings of the British Academy)

Contents Elaine Matthews: Introduction Jean-Claude Decourt & Athanasios Tziafalias: Mythological and Heroic Names in the onomastics of Atrax (Thessaly) Laurence Darmezin & Athanasios Tziafalias: The Twelve Tribes of Atrax: a Lexical Study Jean-Luis Garcia Ramon: Thessalian Personal Names and the Greek Lexicon Peter M Fraser: the Ptolemaic Garrison of Ptolemais Hermiou Denis Knoepfler: Was there an Anthroponymy of Euboian Origin in the Chalkid-Eretrian Colonies of the West and of Thrace? Thomas Corsten: Thracian Personal Names and Military Settlements in Hellenistic Bithynia Rudiger Schmitt: Greek Re-interpretation of Iranian Names by Folk Etymology Stephen Mitchell: The Persian Presence in the Religious Sanctuaries of Asia Minor Margaret H Williams: Semitic Name-Use by Jews in Roman Asia Minor and the dating of the Aphrodisias Stele Inscriptions Maurice Sartre: The Ambiguous Name: the Limitations of Cultural Identity in Graeco-Roman Onomastics

Introduction ELAINE MATTHEWS

THE PAPERS IN THIS VOLUME derive from the second Lexicon of Greek Personal Names colloquium, held at St Hilda’s College, Oxford in March 2003. As for the first colloquium in 1998,1 the theme and timing were chosen to mark a progression in the work of the LGPN project, and in the hope of generating scholarly discussion which would reflect and respond to that progress. The first colloquium had been something of a celebration, as Peter Fraser’s eightieth birthday coincided with a turning point in the progress of the project, with three LGPN volumes published, and only the North remaining to complete coverage of the Greek mainland. It seemed a good moment to assess the impact of LGPN, to see to what extent the hopes and expectations had been met, both those of Peter Fraser when he proposed the project to the British Academy in the early 1970s,2 and those of users of the work. Our speakers were invited to explore the contribution which names can make to a broad sweep of classical studies: philology, religion, historiography, fiction, and political history. By 2003, LGPN’s work on Northern Greece and the Black Sea was nearing completion.3 The project was already engaged with Thracian and Iranian influences on names, which awaited us, with greater force, across the Bosporos in Asia Minor. This colloquium would look both ways, back to the ‘old’ world, and forward to the ‘new’ world of Asia Minor.

1 Held at the British Academy in July 1998. See S. Hornblower and E. Matthews (eds.), Greek Personal Names: their Value as Evidence, Proceedings of the British Academy 104 (Oxford, 2000). 2 See ‘A New Lexicon of Greek Personal Names’ in Tribute to an Antiquary: Essays presented to Marc Fitch (London, 1976), 73 ff. Fraser picked out religion, social history, and comparative philology and dialectology as major areas where LGPN would make most impact. 3 LGPN IV: Macedonia, Thrace, Northern Shores of the Black Sea (Oxford, 2005).

Proceedings of the British Academy 148, 1–7. © The British Academy 2007.

2

Elaine Matthews

In compiling the onomasticon of the ancient Greek-speaking world, LGPN ranges over a period of more than 1,000 years. It embraces periods of epichoric alphabet, dialect, and koine; city states and colonies, Hellenistic kingdoms, and the Roman Empire; the spread of new religions, including Christianity; and territories where earlier cultures had left their mark in institutions and language (and therefore names), and where ethnically diverse communities lived side by side. For LGPN, the challenge is to present this range and diversity within one coherent onomastic framework. It is a recurring underlying theme in this volume that we should recognize the limits of what can be achieved with names, despite, and to some degree even because of, the ready availability of an ever-growing body of onomastic evidence through LGPN. Some limits are imposed by the state of the evidence, especially documentary evidence: its uneven distribution in space and time, the dependence on excavation, the rate at which results are published, and the potential of new discoveries to change the picture, making onomastic studies, to some extent, always ‘work in progress’. At the same time, recognition of these limitations, and corresponding attention to details of distribution in space and over time may yield new insights. The second limitation is the ‘human’ element—while general principles may be clear, we are hardly ever in a position to know the reason why a name was chosen in any individual case. This argument has particular force when we are dealing—as in Asia Minor we usually are—with multicultural, multilingual societies, where the choice of personal names offered scope for subtle manoeuvres to assert and maintain cultural identity, while remaining in apparent harmony with the dominant culture or political power.

OLD WORLDS Thessaly was chosen as the archetypal ‘old’ world: in mythology, the home of gods and heroes, in historical times apparently a fairly static society. Aside from the long-established tradition of serving in the armies of foreign rulers,4 a capacity in which they are found in far-flung places, Thessalians are not found abroad in large numbers. Thessaly is also a region of outstanding linguistic, and therefore onomastic interest, not least because of the survival of the Aeolic adjectival form of the patronymic adjective.

4 For Thessalians on military service, see still M. Launey, Recherches sur les armées hellénistiques (Paris, 1950), ii. 1139 ff.; for Egypt, see now C. A. La’da, Foreign Ethnics in Hellenistic Egypt (Louvain, 2002).

INTRODUCTION

3

In one respect, however, Thessaly is resoundingly ‘new’, and that is in the rate of new epigraphical discoveries, notably from the excavations of the 13th Ephorate of Prehistorical and Classical Antiquities of Larissa, under the direction of A. Tziafalias. It was a foregone conclusion that we would invite members of the ‘Lyon Thessalian team’, who are collaborating with Tziafalias in the publication of the inscriptions, and their close colleague and collaborator José-Luis García Ramón. All three papers draw out the deep-rootedness of Thessalian names. Decourt and Darmezin deal with Atrax, a modest town which until recently had only fifteen inscriptions to its name, but now numbers more than 500, making it second only to Larissa in the epigraphical league of Thessalian cities. These statistics are astonishing enough, but they do not convey the onomastic richness of these texts, which contain many rare and even unique names. Decourt draws attention to the high proportion of names at Atrax attested there only once—out of a total of 600 names only 70 appear more than twice. As he stresses, this is a pattern observed elsewhere, but it is worth adding that of the 28,316 individual names recorded in LGPN I–III B, 15,203 occur only once.5 Decourt’s survey of the names which reflect mythology and epic uncovers a relative under-representation of names reflecting the Achilles or Herakles Cycles, and by contrast a concentration of names linked to Centaurs and Lapiths, and the Thessalian strands of epic. That is, precisely to a mythology and a history which relate to early episodes in the settlement of the region. Darmezin draws on an unpublished inscription which reveals the names of the twelve tribes of Atrax (previously only one was known), and a number of other civic subdivisions. This is an important discovery, for while civic divisions are attested at several other Thessalian cities, their names are for the most part not known. While most of the tribal names can be related to known anthroponyms, there are some rarities, and some interesting links to the early settlement of the region. The tribe Thamieies —also found at Larissa—relates to Thamiai, the region where the Thessaloi originated. Kelaindai, the name of a genos, is probably derived from kelainos, a poetic word (Prometheus’ wife was Kelaino), later superseded by melas. Such linguistic continuities are fully explored in García Ramón’s study of Thessalian personal names. This paper gives us insights into the methods he is using in the preparation of a Thessalian Grammar, a major project on which he is engaged with Bruno Helly. Through detailed analysis of names 5

These statistics continue: twice: 3,957; 3 times: 1,904; 4 times: 1,237; 5 times: 806; only 342 occur more than 100 times, and only 4 exceed 1,000. LGPN IV has not been included, because the large number of Thracian names, together with names showing Iranian, Sarmatian etc. influence, means that the statistics may be less directly informative about Greek naming practices.

4

Elaine Matthews

selected because of their morphological or semantic interest, or because they contain words specifically stated by ancient authorities to be ‘Thessalian’, he examines ‘latent vocabulary’, that is, vocabulary found in Mycenaean, Homer or the early poets but no longer in use in the contemporary lexicon. He thus traces the persistence of Mycenaean–Homeric elements into the historic period, where in due course they may be replaced by the contemporary term. These Thessalian studies are a demonstration of the linguistic continuities to be found in Greek names, continuities which give names their value as measures (sometimes in the absence of other evidence) of Greek cultural responses to new environments. With Fraser’s paper we are in the garrison town of Hermoupolis Magna in Middle Egypt in the last quarter of the second century BC, i.e. about 200 years after the establishment of Ptolemaic rule. Two hundred soldiers, members of a religious koinon, make a dedication; since they give the names of their fathers (patronymic), the list is a rich haul of about 400 names; interestingly, though they collectively describe themselves as xenoi, they do not give ethnics. Fraser’s question is: on the basis of the names alone, can we work out where these soldiers (or rather their forebears), came from? His is a classic onomastic exercise, which produces some surprises along the way: names which have a familiar ‘feel’ turn out to be very rare (Theombrotos, for example, even though names in -brotos are otherwise numerous), and names on the root Megalo- as opposed to Mega- turn out to be special to Thessaly. A significant proportion of the names can indeed be ‘localized’ in the ‘old’ world, and on this basis Fraser draws some wider conclusions about recruitment to the Ptolemaic army. Like recruitment to the Ptolemaic administration, it drew heavily on Cyrene, Crete, Thessaly, and the cities of southern Asia Minor. Interestingly, there are (probably) no Macedonian names. Knoepfler’s paper is nothing less than a survey of the onomastics of the Euboian colonies of Sicily and Magna Graecia, and of Thrace, looking for continuities with the names of the mother cities of Eretria and Chalkis. Justifiably, given the nature of the enterprise, Knoepfler flags at the outset the methodological pitfalls. Fundamental problems lie in the nature of the available evidence: Eretria much better documented than its neighbour Chalkis, though Chalkis was the more prolific colonizer; the colonies themselves very uneven in the extent to which they have been excavated, or have produced onomastic results. Above all, the dearth of Archaic evidence at both Eretria and Chalkis makes it impossible to measure exactly the extent to which the Euboian colonists retained or, conversely, renewed their stock of personal names in their new environment.

INTRODUCTION

5

Knoepfler accordingly begins each section with a survey of the modern excavation and the modern literature, before examining the onomastic evidence from each colony, provided by the historiographical tradition, and, where it exists, the epigraphical record. It is an enquiry which reveals some striking convergences, with very rare names or distinctive patterns of names found in both mother city and the colony, and on the whole confirms the historiographical picture. It is good to discover in Strabo a supporter of the use of names to measure historical change: he observed creeping ‘Oscanization’ in the chronological list of Neapolitan demarchs, as the purely Hellenika onomata of the early years were gradually joined by Kampanika onomata (5. 4. 7 246C).

NEW WORLDS From now on we are in Asia Minor, a ‘new’ world for LGPN but a world which had absorbed, and still reflected, many external cultures from east and west over hundreds of years. The remaining papers all examine non-Greek languages and cultures. Corsten is concerned with Thracians, who, it is known, crossed the Bosporos into what later became the kingdom of Bithynia at some unknown date. By examining carefully the distribution of Thracian names on monuments and inscriptions in the vicinity of Nikaia, Prusa, Kios, and Nikomedeia, he notes that they are almost exclusively attested in the countryside, not the cities. These Thracian Bithynians, however, were not rural poor: their monuments demonstrate by their craftsmanship and their military subject-matter that they were high-ranking members of the Bithynian army, and people of considerable wealth. Schmitt explores the interpretation of Iranian names in Greek by socalled ‘folk etymology’, the phenomenon by which a name is assimilated according to sound and morphology into the ‘host’ language, often acquiring a pseudo-etymology as part of the process. A classic case is the rendering of names with Old Iranian baga- ‘god’ as their first element, by Greek ‘Mega-’; thus, ‘Bagapata’, Greek ‘Megabates’. There are many instances of Iranian names thus represented in Greek sources, but precise understanding of the process is often elusive, and it is only rarely that a prosopographical identity is available to provide the indisputable link between two versions of the same name. Such identity is provided by combining the evidence of the Bisutun inscription, in which Bagabux8a is named as one of Darius I’s fellow-conspirators, with the naming of the same man as Megabyxos by Herodotus (3. 153. 1). It is also notable that Ctesias, alone among our sources,

6

Elaine Matthews

gives the form ‘Bagapates’ rather than ‘Megabates’ and variants—Ctesias spent considerable time at the royal Persian court. Iranian names also appear in Mitchell’s study, which is a re-examination of the phenomenon, long observed and variously interpreted, of the longterm presence of people with Iranian names in sanctuaries of Asia Minor. Officials with names such as Bagadates, Ariaramnes, Megabyxos are found at the sanctuaries of Greek cults at Amyzon, Ephesos, and Priene, and it is possible to trace their descendants still holding those offices a century or more later. Indeed, the name Megabyxos later functioned as the name of the priestly office. Persian presence in the cult centres of Asia Minor was not limited to hellenized cults, but is observable in various guises, including cults with Persian cult practices, for example at Hypaipa and Hierocaesarea, but also in indigenous cults such as those of Anaitis and Mên in Lydia. The picture which emerges from a survey of the epigraphical and literary evidence is one of a sustained, and respected, Persian presence in hellenized, overtly Persian, and indigenous cults, over the whole of Asia Minor, over several centuries. This presence became significant when Parthians and Sassanians reasserted their claim to control over Asia Minor in the third century AD. Jewish communities of the Diaspora in Asia Minor date from around 200 BC, and their subsequent spread across the region is documented by a variety of literary sources; but these sources provide virtually no onomastic evidence, on the basis of which to study Jewish response to their new, culturally predominantly Greek environment. Epigraphical evidence from three Diaspora communities of western Asia Minor—Hierapolis, Sardis, and Aphrodisias—dating from the second century AD onwards, now makes it possible to carry out such a study, and Williams analyses the names in these documents in order to observe shifts in naming-patterns over time. In the earliest evidence, from Hierapolis, the nomenclature is overwhelmingly Greek, with very few overtly Hebraic names, though the proportion increases if we take into account culturally ambiguous, ‘crypto-Semitic’ names, that is, Greek names chosen because of their phonetic similarity to a Jewish name (Iason is phonetically similar to Iesus, the Aramaic form of Hebrew Joshua), or because they embody and translate concepts important to Judaism (for example, Heortasios, Theophilos, Theodorianos). Williams charts, over time, a growing preference for Hebraic names, in an undeclinable form: for example, Shime{on, often represented by the Greek name Simon, at Aphrodisias appears as uninflected Samouel. The marked increase in such names in the Aphrodisias texts leads Williams to put back their date to the sixth century at earliest. She interprets the increasingly conscious use of Hebraic names as the Jewish response to the more hostile environment of the Christianized Roman Empire.

INTRODUCTION

7

Culturally ambiguous names are at the heart of Sartre’s study of Syrian onomastics. Taking apparently clear-cut cases of ‘Roman’, ‘Greek’, or ‘Thracian’ names (for example, Annius, Cheilon, Sadalas), he shows, by close observation of their geographical distribution, that the ‘obvious’ explanation is unlikely to be the right one. His study has the advantage, as he acknowledges, of rich epigraphical documentation in the indigenous languages of the region, and by drawing on Semitic philology he can offer alternative explanations for the popularity of these names. Essentially, they are ‘ambiguous’ names, chosen because they have a ‘Greek’ look, but have phonetic and semantic parallels in the language of the bearer of the name. Sartre’s study is a sustained warning not to jump to conclusions based on modern understanding of the classification of names, or the meaning of the words embodied in them. In multilingual societies, rooted in two or more cultures, people did not necessarily think consciously whether to choose a Greek or an indigenous name, or whether they were worshipping a Greek or an indigenous god; words were not always translated from one language to another. This is timely advice as the LGPN project moves on through Asia Minor, through Caria to Lycia and beyond; and to the third LGPN colloquium, which will focus on indigenous names attested in Greek, the relationship between them and Greek names, and what their interaction means in terms of cultural history. *** I should like to thank my colleagues on LGPN, Richard Catling and Thomas Corsten, for discussions in the early stages of planning the colloquium; Robert Parker, Chairman of the LGPN project, and Stephen Mitchell, for their vital support in bringing it to fruition, as well as for their participation; all the speakers for agreeing to participate and Simon Hornblower, Anna Morpurgo Davies, Amélie Kurht, and Ted Kaizer for chairing sessions; and Ji-Eun Lee for practical support on the day. For support in the preparation of this volume, I have to thank James Rivington, Publications Officer of the British Academy; Susan Milligan for her expert copy-editing of a demanding volume; Mat Carbon for initial translation of the articles submitted in French; Fabienne Marchand for assistance with Professor Knoepfler’s paper; Nikoletta Kanavou and Maggy Sasanow for assistance in preparation of the papers, and Charles Crowther for making his expertise available when dealing with the multiplicity of Greek fonts. Above all, I take this opportunity to put on record the gratitude we all owe to Peter Fraser for the vision and sheer intellectual vigour and commitment which brought the LGPN project into existence, and saw it well on its way to completion.

1 Mythological and Heroic Names in the Onomastics of Atrax (Thessaly) JEAN-CLAUDE DECOURT AND ATHANASIOS TZIAFALIAS

THE LONG-AWAITED EPIGRAPHIC CORPUS of Atrax is now in the process of being completed. Since O. Kern’s volume IG IX (2), published in 1908,1 a systematic survey of the site and its territory by the team from Lyon, and active monitoring by the Ephorate of Larissa have resulted in an impressive increase in the available documentation. Where we once had a mere fifteen inscriptions, we now possess approximately 510, which makes the corpus of Atrax, among the Thessalian cities, second only to that of Larissa, which can lay claim to over 700 inscriptions, although the precise number eludes us. The distribution of the inscriptions in the different categories can, in some cases, be a source of disappointment or, rather, frustration. For example, we only have about twenty civic documents, of which eleven are (often very fragmentary) decrees, and little more than ten stones bearing manumissions.2 Consequently our knowledge of the civic institutions has not advanced as much as we could have wished, even though the contribution by L. Darmezin to the present volume opens up interesting perspectives on the subdivisions of the citizen body. Similarly, while our knowledge of the cults at Atrax has made substantial progress, since we have progressed from five to more than a hundred dedications, and we now know of about twenty deities and can advance sound arguments for Apollo as the poliadic deity, yet we have to recognize that the present state of field research has enabled us to locate only a very small number of sanctuaries on the acropolis, in the lower town or beyond the walls, and that we are still unable to attribute these to specific deities, with two exceptions: Poseidon, at the village of Koutsochero, and 1

O. Kern, Inscriptiones Graeciae Septentrionali. Pars secunda: Inscriptiones Thessaliae (Berlin, 1908). 2 L. Darmezin is responsible for the publication of civic documents, G. Lucas of the manumissions of Atrax. Proceedings of the British Academy 148, 9–20. © The British Academy 2007.

10

Jean-Claude Decourt and Athanasios Tziafalias

the Nymphs, on the banks of the Peneus.3 However, there is one area where the increase in the documentation, here as elsewhere, has completely revolutionized our knowledge, and that is without a doubt the area of onomastics, due in particular to more than 340 funerary inscriptions, the best represented epigraphic category at Atrax.4 In this connection, we should recall that right from the first years of the Lyon team’s work, Michel Casevitz was interested in the onomastics of Atrax, which he suspected to be original,5 and that Olivier Masson was in regular contact, requesting information relevant to his own onomastic researches. Finally, the contributions that we have been able to provide to the editors of the LGPN in respect of all matters concerning Thessaly have, of course, drawn the onomastics of Atrax in particular to our attention.

A FEW STATISTICS? In the matter of names from Atrax, it is tempting to start by presenting some statistics, even if they can only be approximate, and liable to rapid reappraisal in the light of continuing discoveries—though in fact such a reappraisal is likely to have only a marginal effect, since the vast majority of recent acquisitions are not fortuitous but the result of a few systematic campaigns of epigraphic surveying. The following numbers, therefore, may be taken to be significant, in that Atrax was a city of modest rank, but is one for which fieldwork has yielded a rich body of material. We have counted approximately 600 different names in Atrax, calculating on the basis that different spellings of a name (Θεσσαλ, Πεθθαλ, Πετθαλ, for example, or even Αγαθων ´ , Αγαθουν ´ ) count as one, as do the masculine and feminine forms, the latter, as always, being far less often attested. In the current state of the Atrax corpus, roughly seventy names appear more than twice, whilst the number of those attested more than three times diminishes rapidly. One name is attested ten times, Φλιππο —in the vast majority of instances in the fourth and third centuries BC —and another is attested eighteen times, namely Λων/Λουν —in nearly all instances at the turn of our era. Among the other prevalent names, there are different variations of Θσσαλο (five instances), of Αλξανδρο (six) and of Παυσανα (thirteen)—in the latter two a Macedonian influence can be 3 J.-C. Decourt has prepared the publication of the dedications and honorific inscriptions. See also, by the same author, ‘Dédicaces et cultes d’Atrax’ in: Actes du second Congrès épigraphique panhellénique, Thessalonique, novembre 2001 (forthcoming). 4 B. Helly has prepared the publication of the funerary inscriptions. 5 M. Casevitz, ‘Sur l’onomastique des stèles d’Atrax (Thessalie)’, REG 94 (1981), 151–9.

MYTHOLOGICAL AND HEROIC NAMES IN ATRAX

11

discerned— as well as the names Επικρατη ´ (five), Εδ μο (eight) and Θρασ!λοχο (six). All of these names are very commonplace in Thessaly and elsewhere— but please note that I have chosen to limit myself in the comparisons offered here, except where I specifically indicate to the contrary, to LGPN III B. Only the last name, Θρασ!λοχο, appears to be typically Thessalian, perhaps even specifically Atragian:6 all the attestations cited are from Thessaly, and half of those are from Atrax. Ultimately, this wide variety of names ought not to cause surprise, since it has been observed elsewhere, and in Thessaly it is, for example, the norm in two cities whose onomastics are relatively abundant and have been the subject of comparable studies: Pharsalos and Krannon.7 I am, therefore, not at all sure that we are in a position to say that this taste for a varied nomenclature is more or less pronounced in one city or the next. In any case, it is not unique to Atrax. Moreover, B. Helly cautions us, on the basis of recent publications, to distrust the various hasty statistical treatments that the publication of a reference work such as LGPN may permit, when it is badly or precipitously used. In the case of Atrax, as in other cities, it is appropriate in onomastic studies to take a number of factors into account. I will draw your attention to only one of these: the importance of chronology. At Atrax, the great majority of known inscriptions date back to— roughly— the third and second centuries. The names from the Archaic period, though not negligible, are not very abundant. More surprising, at first glance, is the poor showing of Roman names. It is, however, an accurate reflection of the paucity of known Imperial dedications (five or six examples) and, more generally, of the modesty of the traces— still visible in the numerous surface remains on the acropolis— of the site’s occupation during the Roman period, before its Byzantine renewal. It is thus extremely difficult to bring into play the question of the influence of fashion, for example, since in most cases we simply lack the evidence for significant variations in the number of occurrences over time.8 It is also risky to assert that such or such a type of name was popular, unless one takes great care to date all the attestations in the category under investigation.

6

There are frequent attestations in the islands, especially at Rhodes, and also at Athens, while they are rare in the Peloponnese and in Western Greece, according to the first three volumes of LGPN. No hero bears this name. 7 Specifically on Pharsalos: J.-C. Decourt, ‘Décret de Pharsale pour une politographie’, ZPE 81 (1990), 163–84. On Krannon: J.-C. Decourt and A. Tziafalias, ‘Une liste civique à Crannon: la stèle dite des Ménandridai’, ZPE 137 (2001), 139–52. 8 More generally, any attempt to unearth an onomastic fashion— a phenomenon which certainly could occur, as we know, for example, from the popularity of theophoric names borrowed from foreign deities— must be cautiously undertaken, otherwise one risks falling into the trap of anachronistic analysis. Today such fashions are not only more pronounced and quick to appear, but also more ephemeral.

12

Jean-Claude Decourt and Athanasios Tziafalias

At Atrax, names composed of #ππο (forty-six instances) are numerous; it is tempting to add ‘as could be expected’, but in fact they occur throughout Thessaly. They are, in any event, more frequent than in Boiotia, and some even appear to be specifically Thessalian. On the other hand, many of these names are extremely commonplace and are found all over Greece. Finally, one ought to examine more closely whether their frequency varied across the centuries, not only at Atrax but in the rest of Thessaly as well. It may be purely chance that four of them have as yet been attested only at Atrax: $ Ιππαιχμο,9 &Ιπποκλεαδα ´ , &Ιπποκρατεια ´ , &Ιππνοο, two in the fourth and two in the third–second centuries. There is a study waiting to be done here. Prudence, therefore, is of the essence, and we will delve no further into a statistical study.

ON THE CORPUS During the preparation of this paper, it soon became apparent that it is especially tricky to define the scope of the corpus of names to submit to analysis. To provide a benchmark against which to assess the names of Atrax, we have drawn on the index of Pierre Grimal’s Dictionnaire de la mythologie,10 which is an accepted authority in French and has the advantage that it is based almost exclusively on a systematic review of the literary sources. On this basis, approximately 130 theophoric names, or names which more generally refer to mythology or epic, have been identified; that is, just under a quarter of the total of the names from Atrax— prima facie a considerable number. But that number itself is misleading. Being guided by Grimal or by any other lexicon or encyclopaedia for that matter, leads to selections which are too inclusive, and probably also biased. I will briefly give a few examples. Does the fact that Α γα´θων is the name of a son of Priam entail that it has an epic flavour? Obviously not, it is tempting to say, and for two reasons. First, the Homeric Agathon is a very obscure figure, with no proven connection to Thessaly.11 Second, the name could have been chosen with reference not to a person but to a quality. Α λξανδρο and Περδκκα both figure in 9 LGPN, following Αρχαιολογικ'ν Δελτον 48B (1993 [1998]) 254 no. 5, proposes $ Ιππαιχνο, an absolute hapax. A revisiting of the stone yields the reading $ Ιππαιχμο, for which there is one parallel, at Athens. &Ιπποκλεδα and &Ιπποκλεδη are not common in any of the regions published in LGPN (seven in all); &Ιπποκρατεα is never found elsewhere, unlike the masculine, which is common; &Ιππνοο is also a hapax. 10

P. Grimal, Dictionnaire de la mythologie grecque et romaine, 1st edn. (Paris, 1951). The obscurity of a god or a hero is not in itself an argument for rejecting it, since we would on that basis quite absurdly have to reject purely local deities. 11

MYTHOLOGICAL AND HEROIC NAMES IN ATRAX

13

Grimal as heroes, but these names were also very common in Macedonia. It is, therefore, virtually impossible to determine why they were given to a particular inhabitant of Atrax: was it as a reference to Homeric epic? out of ‘philo-macedonianism’ in its widest sense? out of a taste for hunting (in the second case)? or even for more than one of these reasons at the same time? We cannot answer these questions. Λων, which is the most frequent name at Atrax and which is also commonplace elsewhere, is without any doubt a reference to the animal and its qualities, whether real or presumed, rather than to some obscure mythological figure who bears this name.12 More examples could be adduced. We have, therefore, eliminated from consideration the most frequent and most commonplace names, because these are not, except perhaps for statistical studies, clear markers, and I have at the same time abandoned the idea of giving a precise list and number. To conclude on this point: over a hundred names fall into the category that is left, a little less than one out of six. It is a significant proportion of the whole corpus, without being disproportionate. I do not believe, however, that the situation at Atrax is fundamentally different from that in the rest of Thessaly, at least if one compares it to the onomastics of the cities in the Enipeus valley, Krannon and the Tripolis of Perrhaibia, on which we have been able to work. We will, nevertheless, remain cautious. The study of Thessalian onomastics, notwithstanding, or thanks to, the quantity of data amassed in LGPN, remains nearly virgin territory. It must also be conceded that not all the prerequisites for such a study are in place: a plentiful and upto-date onomastic corpus is still lacking for many Thessalian cities, though the example of Atrax proves that such an update and enhancement are possible. We can no longer today base our studies on Hiller von Gaertringen’s index for the IG of Kern, and it is to be feared that current and future research will in turn undermine the data supplied by LGPN. Comparisons between cities are slanted by the imbalance between the corpora, that imbalance itself a result, for the most part, of recent research. I am thinking in particular of the poleis of the Tripolis of Perrhaibia, on which G. Lucas is at work, and of the corpus of Skotoussa, now modest, but which will be entirely rejuvenated by the projects of the Ephorate, if they are brought to fruition.

12

And why is the name, at Atrax, attested almost exclusively in the first centuries BC and AD? What is the situation elsewhere, in Thessaly and in Greece? The chronological spread is much more even in Athens, even allowing for the fact that names of the Imperial period are very numerous; in the first volume of LGPN there are many names of the second and first centuries BC. This leads us back to questions of chronology and of fashion.

14

Jean-Claude Decourt and Athanasios Tziafalias THEOPHORIC NAMES

Let us now examine the names of Atrax category by category. The first category is that of theophoric names.13 A dozen deities form the basis of about twenty different names,14 which means that individual deities are often represented by only a single name. More importantly, there is no privileged or outstanding name, neither Apollo, the civic god of Atrax (one Απολλδουρο, two Α πολλω´νιο), nor Asklepios the Thessalian god par excellence (three Ασ(σ)κλαπια´δα). At the most, one can observe, on a wide chronological spread (from the fourth century BC to the beginning of the first century AD), a significant presence of Peitho (two Πειθλαο, one Πε)θο, three Πεθουν, -ων), without being able to determine whether the name alludes to the goddess or to the mental quality of persuasion.15 Attention should also be drawn to the originality of three names related to Zeus, Δο!δουν, Δουδο!ναιο (here not used as a patronymic adjective), and Δουδο!να, all doubtless referring to Dodona. They are all hapax, though we know of a Δωδων, mother of Θεσσαλσκο16 at Thebes: at Thebes we are still in the Thessalian domain. In any event, we know that for Homer Dodona belonged to Perrhaibia17 —and Atrax itself was long considered Perrhaibian.18 The names are therefore at home in the city, and a good marker of its identity. There is, finally, only a single instance of a foreign deity, namely Σαραπων, found in an inscription of the end of the second or the beginning of the first century BC. It is a hapax both in Thessaly and in LGPN III B. The cult of Egyptian deities is only rarely attested at Atrax, and the same is true of the rest of Thessaly: there is, aside from a few objects and representations, only a single inscription, of the end of the third century BC.19 13 On this matter, see the bibliography given in B. H. McLean, An Introduction to Greek Epigraphy of the Hellenistic and Roman Periods from Alexander the Great down to the Reign of Constantine (Ann Arbor, 2002), 77–82 and 107–8. 14 Aphrodite, Apollo, Artemis, Athena, Daimon, Demeter and Kore, Dionysos, Ge, Helios, Hermes, Isis and Sarapis, Leukathea, the Mother of the Gods, the Nymphs, Poseidon, Themis, Zeus; to which can be added the hero Herakles and the hero Polyphylax. 15 On this theme, the three other volumes of LGPN offer a variety of names, but with few instances in each case. 16 There is a literary attestation of the name, in Aristotle, Politics 1398b. No anthroponym of the same family exists in any of the other volumes of LGPN. 17 Homer, Iiad 2. 750; Strabo 9. 5. 20; B. Helly, L’État thessalien. Aleuas le Roux, les tétrades et les tagoi (Lyon, 1995), 168. 18 On the Perrhaibian character of Atrax cf. B. Helly, ‘Une liste des cités perrhèbes dans la première moitié du IVe siècle av. J.-C.’, in B. Helly (ed.), La Thessalie. Actes de la table-ronde Lyon 1974 (Lyon, 1979), 165–92, and B. Helly, L’État thessalien, 166 and 169. 19 On the cult of Sarapis in Thessaly, see T. Axénidis, Pelasgis Larisa (Athens, 1949), 179–80; L. Vidman, Sylloge Inscriptionum Religionis Isiacae et Sarapiacae (Berlin, 1969), 42–8, nos. 91–106; F. Dunand, Le culte d’Isis dans le bassin oriental de la Méditerranée (Leiden, 1973), ii. 46–52;

MYTHOLOGICAL AND HEROIC NAMES IN ATRAX

15

I will not add anything further on this topic, because it seems to me that in this respect there is little that is original in the onomastics of Atrax. To be more precise, if Atrax does not seem to be partial to theophoric names in general, neither is there one deity in particular that stands out; the Perrhaibian exception (Doudoun etc.) thus takes on an even greater significance.

MYTHOLOGICAL NAMES IN THESSALY To find originality, one has to look elsewhere. Beside the series of theophoric names given above, we can highlight several clusters of Atragian names whose mythological, historical, and geographical connotations are more strictly speaking Thessalian. First, two names which draw on both the geography and the mythology of the region.20 We know of a certain Ενπα or Ενπα (the inscription does not allow us to decide the gender), and of a Πεινειδουρο, names which refer to two rivers and their eponymous deities. For all practical purposes the distinction is a fine one; in any event they are both hapax in LGPN III B. On this basis, it is relatively easy to trace the thread of the legend in the nomenclature. First, Peneus is traditionally considered to be the ancestor of the Lapiths.21 In the onomastics of Atrax, we note, from the names which feature in this legend, a Στλβουν, the masculine equivalent of Στλβη, the mother of Kentauros and Lapithes, and also a Φρβα whom the mythological tradition considered her great-grandson.22 These names occur as hapax in

B. Helly, Gonnoi 2 (Amsterdam, 1973), 205; K. Rakatsanis and A. Tziafalias, Cultes et sanctuaires (Ioannina, 1997), 59 and L. Bricault, ‘Les cultes isiaques en Grèce centrale et occidentale’, ZPE 119 (1998), 117–22. J.-C. Decourt, ‘Cultes et divinités isiaques en Thessalie: identité et urbanisation’, in L. Bricault et al. (eds.), Nile into Tiber: Egypt in the Roman World (Leiden and Boston, 2007), 329–63. A dedication to Isis and Sarapis, GHW 4493, comes from Atrax. 20 Names with a geographical or ethnic origin are not at all numerous at Atrax, nor more generally in Thessaly, according to B. Helly; ethnic names seem to be the more numerous. Besides Ενπα and Πεινειδουρο, and Θεσσαλ and its variants (six examples), we encounter, from the third to the second century BC, Εβη ´ as ˜ ο, Κυρηνα˜ιο, Πηλοπονν σιο, and Σαμο masculine names, Αργεα, Σικλα, Σπαρτα ´ , and Σ!ρα (a second name) as feminine names, which have a higher representation than usual in this category. In each case, the name is attested once only. 21 Apollo had at least two sons with Stilbe, the daughter of Peneus and Kreusa: Kentauros and Lapithes. For the literary sources: Grimal, Dictionnaire, s.v. ‘Lapithes, Stilbe’ and the genealogical chart no. 23; RE IIIA, col. 2522, s.v. ‘Stilbe 1’ (Türk); XI, col. 178–9, s.v. ‘Kentauros’ (Bethe); Supplbd. IX, s.v. ‘Lapithes 1’ (Geisau); Ausführliches Lexikon der griechischen und römischen Mythologie, ed. W. H. Roscher (Hildesheim, 1965) III2, s.v. ‘Peneios’, col. 1898–1900. 22 Phorbas is, in some versions, the son of Lapithes and Orsinome, in others the son of Triopas, and hence the grandson of Lapithes: RE XX, col. 527–8, s.v. ‘Phorbas 1A’ (Schmidt); XVIII, col. 1420, s.v. ‘Orsinome’ (Türk). The genealogy of the hero is highly complex.

16

Jean-Claude Decourt and Athanasios Tziafalias

Thessaly, but we know of at least one Στλβων in Boiotia23 and of another at Megara. Σωσ, in the feminine, which is specifically Thessalian in LGPN III B and which appears once at Atrax, is not common. It is the name of the wife of Triopas,24 the brother of Phorbas (or his father, in some versions of the legend). Three instances of Καινε! ought to catch our attention. If Kaineus is not, as I have shown elsewhere, himself a Lapith, he is nonetheless closely linked to the legend and to the traditions pertaining to the history of the settlement of Thessaly— sufficiently linked, in any case, to be considered as one of the Lapiths by the modern vulgate.25 He is, moreover, closely linked to Atrax itself, because at least some versions of the myth make him, before his metamorphosis into a man by Poseidon, the daughter, with the name Kainis, of the nymph Atrax, the pale eponym of the city. The name appears only at Atrax. $ Οπλουνο is also found three times in the onomastics of the city, and, with the variant $ Οπλων, appears to be a specifically Thessalian name;26 it is, furthermore, the name of one of the Lapiths on the François Vase.27 Finally, though no Chiron occurs as a Thessalian anthroponym,28 Μ δειο, son of Jason and Medea, a character about whom nothing else is known, was thought to have been raised by the Centaur. He appears once at Atrax under the form Μεδειο. Under the form Μ δειο, the name has a distinctly Thessalian colour, since it is the name traditionally borne by a prominent family of Larissa, and is perhaps a reference to Medea herself.29 One might also wonder if the name does not, like Mardonios which will be discussed below, contain a hint of Thessalian ‘Medizing’. Finally, we meet a certain Φλο at Atrax (yet again an anthroponymic hapax) who, without being Thessalian, was together with Chiron, one of the only two good Centaurs according to tradition.30 To this well-identified and characteristically Thessalian group we could link several more modest clusters of names which are related to the mythology and the history of the region. The Thessalian strands found in Greek epic Στλβων is known from an allusion in Aristotle, Politics 1398b, where Δωδων and Θεσσαλσκο (cf. supra) are also mentioned. This is obviously not a coincidence. 23

24

This

On Triopas: B. Helly, ‘Les premiers agriculteurs de la Thessalie’, in: M.-C. Cauvin (ed.), Rites et rythmes agraires (Lyon, 1991), 135–47. 25 J.-C. Decourt, ‘Caïnis-Caïneus et l’occupation humaine de la plaine orientale de la Thessalie’, REG 111 (1998), 1–42. 26 Perrhaibian evidence appears later than that from the rest of Thessaly. 27 Cf. A. Minto, Il Vaso François (Florence, 1960), no. IIB. In Hesiod, Aspis 180, he is called &Οπλε!. 28 The name does not appear in LGPN III B. 29 Μ δειο and Μεδειο are exclusively Thessalian in LGPN III B. 30 Literary sources in Grimal, Dictionnaire, s.v. ‘Pholos, Chiron’. The first is not known elsewhere as an anthroponym; Chiron is very rare: Andros, Chios, Cyrenaica, and an Athenian potter of the sixth century BC. On Pholos: RE XX, s.v. col. 517–22 (Schmidt).

MYTHOLOGICAL AND HEROIC NAMES IN ATRAX

17

are, of course, also present in onomastics. Πρωτεσλαο, who was the leader, 0γμων, of Phylake, the city which probably preceded Thebes of Phthiotis: the name is only known from two occurrences, one at Magnesia, the other at Atrax. And Ευ1μειλο, the son of Admetos and of Alkestis, who took part in the Trojan war. These names occur, as is well known, in the Catalogue of ships.31 Νικμαχο, however, is a name altogether too widespread and too explicable in terms of its components for it to be firmly associated with the hero, who was the son of Machaon, doctor-king of Trikke, Ithome, and Oichalia,32 and who also fought at Troy. This Nikomachos has only a tenuous connection with Thessaly, for if he is a native of the region and rules over Pherai, it is the city of Messenia and not of Thessaly that is meant. The association, nonetheless, cannot be ruled out. The ‘Achilles Cycle’ seems curiously under-represented. Νεοπτολμο is fairly common outside Thessaly and therefore not particularly significant; Πηλεδωρο is, on the contrary, a hapax, as is Α λκιμα´χα (the name of the sister of Peleus— we could also link to it a Πελεα, the feminine form of Πηλε!, which can be found at Atrax), while the masculine Α λκμαχο is a little more widespread, in Thessaly and elsewhere (ten examples in LGPN III B of which three are from Thessaly, though none from Atrax). To these may be added Αντλοχο, the son of Nestor. The hero, beloved of Achilles, also took part in the Trojan War: a kantharos represents him making a libation with Nestor, Patroklos, and Thetis.33 Φο)νιξ, the son of the Boiotian Amyntor, can also be adduced. He took refuge from his father with Peleus, was cured of his blindness by Chiron, and commended by Peleus to Achilles, who made him king of the Dolopes.34 Phoinix is not stricto sensu Thessalian, since his father is Boiotian and he himself becomes king of the Dolopes, but it is surely significant that his mother was called Hippodamia (the same as the wife of the Lapith Perithoos) and the concubine of his father was called Phthia, a rare and special anthroponym. The deeds of Herakles have only distant links with Thessaly, except for the brief stay with Admetos at Pherai and, above all, the death by burning on Mount Oita. Atragian names which go back to Herakles are indeed rare: we

31

Protesilaos: Homer, Iliad 2. 698; Eumelos: Iliad 2. 714. There are approximately 100 examples of Nikomachos in LGPN III B, of which twenty-six come from Thessaly. The name is particularly well represented at Pythion in Perrhaibia. On the hero: Pausanias 4. 3. 10 and 4. 30. 3. 33 Cf. LIMC, s.v. ‘Antilochos 1’ no. *I3: the author of the entry, A. Kossatz-Diessmann, believes that the scene takes place at Phthia, which is possible. Cf. also Grimal, Dictionnaire, s.v. ‘Antiloque’. The hero, while not Thessalian, is often related to Chiron and, less frequently, intervenes in the quarrel between the Lapiths and the Centaurs. 34 For the literary sources: Grimal, Dictionnaire, s.v. ‘Phoenix 2’; RE XX, s.v. ‘Phoenix 3’, col. 404–14 (Würst). 32

18

Jean-Claude Decourt and Athanasios Tziafalias

know only of &Ηρακλεδα/-δη (five instances, between the fourth and the end of the first century BC), to which could be added Α λκεδα (a single example in LGPN III B, but also two instances of Α λκδα in Thessaly). The claim of major Thessalian families to be descended from the Heraklids was well known among ancient authors,35 but I am not certain that one can find the trace of this claim in the dozen or so Atragian names which are also those of the sons of Herakles or of the Heraklids. These names are, for the most part, very frequent, not to say commonplace (e.g. thirteen cases of Αριστμαχο in Thessaly out of a total of eighty-two in LGPN III B). They are found everywhere in Greece and may refer to something completely different from the legend: Περδκκα is the name of a Heraklid, but it is also a Macedonian name, for the dynasty of the Argeadai claimed to be descended from Herakles. The name appears seven times in Thessaly— but it is also the name of the pheasant. It is impossible to determine which is the prime derivation in each case. We may also note the name of Herakles’ companion, Ιλαο: the name occurs twice in Thessaly and is rare elsewhere except in Macedonia.36 More obscure, and at the same time more Thessalian, is Ο4νοκλο, king of the Ainianai, known from Plutarch as the leader of the migration of his people towards Kirrha.37 The name appears only at Atrax, although we have, elsewhere in Thessaly, three instances of Ο5νοκλ6. The name Στρατονκη is a relatively popular name; in any event it is, as I have already mentioned, the name of the mother of Eurytos, king of Oichalia in western Thessaly. There are, finally, a few rare mythological names, the choice of which we are entirely unable to explain. I will give here only one example. Φα´ραξ is an epigraphical hapax in LGPN III B. It is the name of the father of Kyanippos, the Thessalian hero of an exemplary love story transmitted to us only by Parthenios of Nikaia, Plutarch, and Stobaios.38 Ought we to see a veiled intention behind the choice of the name? Perhaps, but a merely mythological explanation does not seem sufficient. Pharax is in fact a name with a very pronounced Spartan flavour, demonstrated notably in the examples gathered by Lippold.39

35

Cf. for example Pindar, Pythian Odes 10. 1–4. Eleven cases in LGPN I–III B, including two from Atrax. LGPN IV, however, has nine examples, eight from Macedonia and one from Thrace. For the Boiotian Iolaos: RE IX, s.v. ‘Iolaos 1’, col. 1843–6 (Kroll). 37 Plutarch, Moralia 294a. 38 Parthenios 10; Plutarch, Moralia 310e; Stobaeus 66. 34. 39 RE XIX, s.v. ‘Pharax’, col. 1815–17; Lippold totally ignores the Thessalian hero, who is merely mentioned as Vater des Kyanippos in Ausführliches Lexicon der griechischen und römischen Mythologie. We ought perhaps to attempt to relate this name to two Atragian toponyms: Πηλοπονν σιο and Σπα´ρτα. Beneath a strong Macedonian overtone, we would therefore have the trace of a more subtle Lakedaimonian undertone. 36

MYTHOLOGICAL AND HEROIC NAMES IN ATRAX

19

It is, therefore, clear that there was an underlying inspiration in the onomastics of Atrax linked to a mythology and a history which we could qualify as pre-Thessalian. Some elements are also connected to the group of those called properly Thessaloi, as defined by B. Helly.40 Besides the Medeios mentioned above, it is probably also the case with Αλε!α, a quintessentially Thessalian name and one which, while undoubtedly historical, was surrounded by a legendary aura. There are two examples at Atrax (from the fourth and third centuries BC)— but Atrax was admittedly for a long time a Perrhaibian city and was not, in the strict sense, Thessalian. This onomastic trend, which we would be happy to call ‘historicizing’, is found again in the Atragian name Μαρδνιο, which is, as is well known, the name of the Persian general who was defeated at the battle of Plataia. It is also the name of a treasurer (and thus of a citizen, and a prominent one at that because he was a magistrate— it is not the name of the freedman) on a manumission document from Atrax that can be dated, without further precision, to the turn of the Christian era. The name appears to contain some element of provocation: would it be reading too much into it to affirm that it betrays the Medizing tendencies for which the Thessalians were traditionally reproached? In any case, the name seems to refer to a distant past and to belong, in a sense, as much to legend as to history.

OTHER SOURCES? The different onomastic groups outlined in this paper do not, in themselves, exhaust the Atragian names that can be seen to borrow from mythology and epic. The objective was not to compile a complete catalogue, whose content, as explained in the introduction, would have been difficult to delimit, but we do believe that the groups selected are the core ones. The other names that can be identified are few in number, and do not fall easily into groups. Ultimately, the motivation for the choice of one name or another often eludes us. Some names, of course, are related to those in the Homeric epic and have no specific connection with Thessaly. There is nothing startling or original in this: the names are drawing on a common culture. Other names refer to a region or city, like Σπα´ρτα, which refers to the city (cf. note 39), but also to the eponymous nymph of the Lakedaimonian city. Finally, there are a few names that attract our attention because of their rarity: this is the case with Προμαθε!, a rare name, but one already attested in Thessaly, and perhaps

40

B. Helly, ‘Le dialecte thessalien, un autre modèle de développement’, in Actes du 4e colloque international de dialectologie grecque, Berlin, September 2001 (forthcoming).

20

Jean-Claude Decourt and Athanasios Tziafalias

more of a ‘sobriquet’ than a first name. It was once the focus of a study by J. Ducat41 and is now evoked by L. Darmezin in this volume (Chapter 2).

CONCLUSION To conclude: if there is one aspect of the nomenclature of Atrax that deserves to be emphasized, it is the inspiration that it draws from various facets of Thessalian mythology and from the Achaian substratum, that is to say, from the early historical episodes of the settlement of the region, to which B. Helly and I have repeatedly referred. This paper does not ask the question whether or not the same phenomenon can be observed elsewhere in Thessaly and, more generally, what are the principal characteristics of Thessalian onomastics. It is only as a result of such future comparative research that we will truly be able to assess the originality of the onomastics of Atrax. Note. This paper owes much to our colleagues in Lyon, L. Darmezin, B. Helly, and G. Lucas.

41

J. Ducat, Les Pénestes de Thessalie, Annales littéraires de l’Université de Besançon 512 (Besançon, 1994), 54–7; and Helly, L’État thessalien, 306–9 and 350–1.

2 The Twelve Tribes of Atrax: a Lexical Study LAURENCE DARMEZIN AND ATHANASIOS TZIAFALIAS

AN INSCRIPTION FOUND ON THE SITE of the ancient city of Atrax1 offers a key to the understanding of the history of that city: the name and number of tribes. We will only examine here the names of these tribes as provided by the inscription, whose dialect and script lead us to date it to the end of the third or the beginning of the second century BC. The text records a court ruling: a panel of judges, composed of at least seven members,2 excludes a genos from the community because of unacceptable acts committed by one of the members of that genos. The troublemaker’s name is Promatheus, the genos complained of is that of the Kelaindai and the matter has engaged the entire city since the judgement was pronounced in front of twelve ξενδκοι κοινο, official witnesses, whose names are listed together with the names of their respective tribes as follows: the personal name and the patronymic adjective in the  nominative  the group name φυλα in the genitive singular, and the name of the tribe also in the genitive singular, with a single exception where the name of the tribe appears in the genitive plural:  e.g. Φιλοκ!δει &Οπλο!νειο φυλα Δαμο!νδα (lines 19–20)  but Πολ!αρχο & Ιππομα´χειο φυλα Θαμιεουν (line 25).

1

The Corpus of the inscriptions of Atrax is almost complete and will be published in the near future by A. Tziafalias and the ‘Thessalian team’ of Lyon (L. Darmezin, J.-C. Decourt, B. Helly, and G. Lucas). 2 Six names are preserved, and the end of a seventh, but the exact number of names is unknown as the top of the stone is broken. Proceedings of the British Academy 148, 21–28. © The British Academy 2007.

22

Laurence Darmezin and Athanasios Tziafalias THE TRIBES

The names of the twelve tribes, which we present here in the nominative singular because they qualify only one individual in each case, appear in the following order:

Βουλεπαρδα, which is the tribe affected by the trial and to which the γνο Κελανδα belongs Εμενδα &Οδαδα [Φυλο!]νδα or [Φυλιο!]νδα3 Αρογιο!νδα Δαμο!νδα Κονθδα Αθαναδα &Αγειμο!νδα &Ρινυο!νδα Θαμιε)ε ( Θαμιε)ο, hence the plural Θαμιε)οι) Οροβδα Most of these names derive from known anthroponyms that identify the eponymous hero of the tribe. This is the case for the tribes Εμενδα (based on Εμνει/Εμνη); Δαμο!νδα (based on Δα´μουν/Δ μων); Αθαναδα, the only name which could plausibly be argued to be theophoric, though the use of the ethnic as a personal name, Α θανα)ο, cannot be entirely excluded; Α & γειμο!νδα (built on Α & γεμουν/ &Ηγ μων). The name of the tribe Οροβδα is derived from an anthroponym well attested in Thessaly ( 1 Οροβι at Pharsalos and Οροβτα at Demetrias), and elsewhere in Greece (1 Οροβο in Boiotia, Οροβων at Kos), names which themselves go back to ;ροβο (‘lentil’, ‘vetch’), the basis for many toponyms in Asia Minor and Euboia.4 Some of these names are derived from unattested variants of anthroponyms which are more or less common in other forms. [Φυλο!]νδα goes back to an unattested form (*Φ!λων) of an anthroponym which is well attested elsewhere (Φ!λο in Crete, Φυλε! in Attica as well as at Eretria on Euboia and on Samos, Φ!λη at Rhodes). It also makes

3 The name of this tribe is hard to read because of the condition of the stone,  which is eroded in this spot. Moreover, the engraver has obviously forgotten the word φυλα, since there is only room for three or four  letters before the sequence ΝΔΑ. Hence, we can infer a conflation: [Φυλο!]νδα for [(φυλα) Φυλο! ]νδα. 4 See L. Robert, Noms indigènes dans l’Asie Mineure gréco-romaine (Paris, 1963), 74–5.

THE TWELVE TRIBES OF ATRAX

23

one think of a name like [Φυλιο!]νδα, based on the name Φυλων attested at Chyretiai or of Φ!λιο known at Epidauros. Κονθδα5 theoretically presupposes an as yet unattested form *Κονθο, deriving from κοντ (‘spear’, ‘javelin’). However, we already know of fluctuations between tau and theta in Thessalian, for which we have an illustration in a term which was until now a hapax, and attested precisely at Atrax, where κονθινα´ρχεντε6 (‘leaders of the javelin-bearers’) preside at a collective dedication to a deity whose name has not been preserved. & Ρινυο!νδα is morphologically problematic because it presupposes a name that is not yet attested, & Ριν!ουν, and, more importantly, because it presents a double suffix: & Ριν-υ-ουν.7 Etymologically, the name could of course correspond with <, <ιν (‘nose’), but other possibilities are <νη (‘file’), a word that also referred to a variety of fish with a rough skin, or <ιν (‘skin’). Finally, according to Hesychius, the word <νεαι referred to a variety of figs, α= μλαιναι 5σχα´δε. Some names merit closer consideration: &Οδαδα is based on a very rare anthroponym, &Οδα)ο, attested only once, at Tegea. But we also know of $ Οδιο at Samothrace, and the same word, >διο, is an epithet of Hermes according to Photius. On the other hand, the word ?δα)α denoted transported merchandise, bought and sold by sailors (Chantraine, DELG s.v. ?δ). There is in all likelihood no reason to think here of Zeus Tritodios, whose cult is attested at Atrax, because that epiklesis does not necessarily refer to ?δ.8 One should delete from LGPN III B the entry Κυνθδα (which was presumed to be attested on a coin of the Ainianes) since R. Münsterberg, Beamtennamen auf der griechische Münzen (repr. Hildesheim, Zurich, and New York, 1985), 35 only cites the sequence of capitals ΥΝΘΙΔΑΣ, referring to the Collection of G. Philipsen, Copenhagen. Auctions-Catalog Dr J. Hirsch XVI (Munich, 1906) no. 581 (non vidimus). As B. Helly suggests, by reading [Ε]ηθδα, one could draw a parallel with the name which appears on two bronze coins of the Ainianes: Εηθιδ- - (Sylloge Nummorum Graecorum Copenhagen, pl. 1, no. 19) and Εηθ- - (BMC, p. 10, no. 8); see also K. Liampi, ‘Ein Beitrag zur Münzprägung der Ainianen’, Actes du Colloque La Thessalie, Lyon 17–22 avril 1990 (Athens, 1994), 327–34. 6 Cf. W. Blümel, Die aiolischen Dialekte (Göttingen, 1982), 158, and especially C. Brixhe, who in a forthcoming article (Actes du Colloque de la Société Italienne de Linguistique, Catane, 2002) demonstrates that the written form /νθ/ has the same value as /ντ/ at least from the third century BC. 7 According to J.-L. García Ramón that form is not morphologically acceptable. Ought one to correct ( & Ρινυο!νδα) or simply accept it as a ‘morphological hapax’? 8 B. Helly, ‘Sur quelques inscriptions d’Atrax’, ZPE 51 (1983), 157–8; the epiklesis has been studied by L. Dubois, ‘Zeus Tritodios’ REG 100 (1987), 458–61, who gives it the meaning of ‘well-travelled roads’, while J.-L. García Ramón, Katà Diálekton, Annali dell’Istituto Universitario Orientale di Napoli 19 (1997), 546–9, draws its origin from *trito (an intensive term) and *diuio (‘celestial’), which qualifies Zeus as ‘quintessentially celestial’. On the meaning of τριτο- (‘first’, ‘eldest’), see also J. Taillardat, Chronique d’étymologie grecque 2, Rev. Phil. 71 (1997), s.v. τρAτογνεια, 174–5. 5

24

Laurence Darmezin and Athanasios Tziafalias

Αρογιο!νδα is formed from the anthroponym Αρογουν. The only attestation of it, in the form of a patronymic adjective, is from Atrax ( Αγα´θουν Αρογιο!νειο). This is the only tribe whose name was already known from two city decrees, in which it is named as the ‘host’ tribe chosen by foreigners granted citizenship.9 The derivation and the etymology of this name are problematic and we can only suggest hypotheses: should we think of the particle αB, which denotes repetition or opposition, followed by a term formed on the root /ρογ/? That root has yielded various words which are for the most part only known through Hesychius: such as <ογα (‘remedy’) or <ογε! (‘dyer’), for example. There is also <ογ which designates a granary, and which could supply a reasonably satisfactory meaning for the name. One could also think of αυ1ρα (‘breeze’), associated with <ογε)ν, a word that is only found in Hesychius: <ογει˜· ?ργC, α κμα´ζει, δαμα´ζει, which could be understood to mean ‘(the one who) stirs up the breeze’ or, the complete opposite: ‘(the one who) calms the breeze’. Βουλεπαρδα is a new word that does not seem to be supported by any existing name. Here again, one can only put forward hypotheses, none of which really carries conviction. One might think of βFλο (‘clod’), or of course of βοG, combined with λπω, (‘to peel’, ‘to skin’, ‘to strike’); or with *λεπαρι/-ο, formed from the adjective λεπρ (‘rough’, ‘rugged’) but also (‘lie fallow’). Ought we to see here a link to fallow fields that were eventually cultivated by ‘striking clumps of earth’, or to a religious act, in that it is usually the priest who skins and butchers sacrificed oxen? Whatever the explanation may be, it is the tribe directly affected by the judicial decision, since the condemned genos was one of its constituents. The last tribal name Θαμιε)ε (Θαμιε)ο in koine) is different in two important ways from the others: it is the only name which does not carry the suffix -δα, and the only one which is found in the genitive plural, as opposed to the genitive singular. Furthermore, it is the only name that is very likely to be based on a toponym. Yet the one does not explain the other.10 For we know of the city in Hestiaiotis, Thamiai, which the ancient grammarians deemed to be Ithome,11 although there is no conceivable linguistic basis to support such an interpretation. The origin of the word is fairly obscure: it could come from the adverb θαμα´ (‘teeming’, ‘often’), from which derive adjectives meaning ‘close’, ‘many’ and a substantive θα´μνο (‘bush’, ‘scrub-

9 See Helly, ‘Sur quelques inscriptions d’Atrax’, ZPE 51 (1983), 160 n. 14 and id., ‘Décret de Trikka pour Orthotimos de Tylissos, officier macédonien’, BCH 115 (1991), 325–43. 10 See for example the Βασαδαι of Metropolis or the Φρυγανδαι of Larissa, whose names derive from geographical names: B. Helly, ‘La convention des Basaidai’, BCH 94 (1970), 177–8. 11 See B. Helly, ‘Thamiai et les grammairiens’, ZPE 8 (1971), 129–32.

THE TWELVE TRIBES OF ATRAX

25

land’). Its phonetic evolution is no clearer.12 An inscription codifying the sympoliteia between Gomphoi and Thamiai gives us the form Θαμα or Θαμαι for the name of the city, while the ethnic form Θαμια´ε could be linked equally well to the singular form Θαμιε! or Θαμια´(ι)ο.13 We find the toponym in the form Θαμιε!/-ε)ε not only at Atrax, but also at Larissa, in an as yet unpublished inscription and in the very same form, where it also seems to designate a tribe or the plot of land of a tribe. The ‘ubiquitous’ nature of this tribal name seems to indicate that it had the same value in each of these cities. Starting from this observation, we can surmise that the name represents a part of the population of these cities claiming the same origin that the toponym Θαμαι seems to indicate, namely the region where the Θεσσα´λοι originated and from where they conquered and populated the other parts of Thessaly.14

OTHER CIVIC GROUPS OF ATRAX Gene In parallel with the tribal names, the inscription also reveals the name of one genos, that of the Κελανδαι. The name is formed from the anthroponym Κελαιν, derived from the adjective meaning ‘black’, ‘dark’, an ancient term mainly preserved in poetry and later replaced by μλα. It would appear that the normal form of the name ought to be Κελαινο!νδα,15 but it is in fact Κελανδα (or Κελανδαι) that is inscribed on the stone, and repeated four times, a fact which eliminates a priori any possibility of haplography or any other engraving mistake. That the genos belongs to the tribe of the Βουλεπαρδαι is not explicitly stated but can clearly be deduced from the fact that Promatheus is excluded from the cults ‘common to the Kelaindai and to the other Bouleparidai’ (=εροGν τοGν κοινοGν Κελανδαι καH το) α1λλοι Βουλεπαρδαι). Incidentally, according to a mythological tradition, Prometheus was the husband of one of the Pleiades named Kelainô. It is probably not pure chance that the two names appear in the same context, even

See C. J. Ruijgh, ‘Le problème du degré zéro dans les adverbes du type κα´ρτα et dans d’autres types morphologiques’, in Recherches de linguistique. Mélanges Maurice Leroy, ed. J. Bingen, A. Coupez, and F. Mawet (Brussels, 1980), 189–98. 13 B. Helly in Dialectologica Graeca: Actas del II coloquio internacional de dialectologia griega (Madrid, 1993), 169 and 179 n. 69, and J.-L. García Ramón, ‘Geografía intradialectal tesalia: la fonetica’, Verbum 10 (1987), 128–9 §11. 14 See B. Helly, ‘Le dialecte thessalien, un autre modèle de développement’, a forthcoming article in the Actes du 4e colloque international de dialectologie grecque, Berlin, September 2001. 15 J.-L. García Ramón (personal communication). 12

26

Laurence Darmezin and Athanasios Tziafalias

if nothing, to our knowledge, establishes a particular link between the city of Atrax and the myth of Prometheus. Σιμμδαι: this name appears in a dedication to Zeus Thaulios made by a group of twenty individuals, whose names are listed after the initial heading: Σιμμδαι ΔH Θαυλο Iνεθεκαεν. There is no indication of the character of this group, but we can reasonably suppose that it is a genos. The name is constructed from an anthroponym, Σμμο, which is widespread in Greece.16 &Ηρακλεδαι: a dedication to Herakles, made by the κοιν'ν τοGν &Ηρακλειδα´ουν, could also refer to a genos. We know that the leading Thessalian families considered themselves to be the descendants of the same mythical ancestor: Herakles.17 So a genos of the &Ηρακλεδαι at Atrax would not be surprising. & Ιπποτα´δαι? A very fragmentary inscription could reveal the name of another genos: ο= & Ιπποτα.´ [δαι - -]. This name is very probably derived from the anthroponym & Ιππτα, beyond which there is little that can be said. Syngeneia or phratry Another civic subdivision is attested at Atrax, where two inscriptions make reference to & Jραοι: one of these inscriptions deals with a treaty and is unfortunately very fragmentary (συνθεκα & Ορα´[ουν - -]), the other is a dedication from which we learn that the group was headed by three magistrates called archons. At the same time, it is stipulated, in the fragment of the treaty which has survived, that the text was engraved on ‘triple stelai’ (τα` τρικινια ταGτα). These two clues lead us to suppose that the name & Jραοι was that of a syngeneia or of a phratry comprised of three gene. We know of similar examples from Metropolis where the syngeneia of the Basaidai consisted of four gene,18 as well as from Krannon where a long list of names divided into four groups also seems to refer to a similar civic division.19 As for the name itself, J.-L. García-Ramón drew our attention to the fact that it comes from >ρο (‘border’, ‘frontier’) and not from ;ρο (‘mountain’) which could not yield a suffix in -α (Ορ-α-οι). We consequently have to do with ‘frontier men’ and not ‘mountain dwellers’.

16 See especially at Krannon, the neighbour of Atrax, J.-C. Decourt and A. Tziafalias, ‘Une liste civique à Crannon: la stèle dite des Menandridai’, ZPE 137 (2001), 139–52. 17 See B. Helly, L’État thessalien. Aleuas le Roux, les tétrades et les tagoi (Lyon, 1995), 106 f. 18 See Helly, ‘La convention des Basaidai’, 161–89. 19 See J.-C. Decourt and A. Tziafalias, ‘Une liste civique à Crannon’, 146–8.

THE TWELVE TRIBES OF ATRAX

27

OUTSIDE ATRAX A civic division into tribes is attested in a few cities of Thessaly, at Larissa, Krannon, Phayttos, and Metropolis (that is to say, in Pelasgiotis and in Hestiaiotis), in that the choice of a ‘host’ tribe, if one can so describe it, forms part of the honours bestowed by cities on foreigners; but the names and number of these tribes are, as a general rule, unknown. This is the case at Phayttos, where the choice of a tribe is granted as a privilege without the name of the  tribe in question being specified.20 But we do know of the tribe of the Βοατε at Larissa21 (and that name seems to be attested again in the inscription cited above where Θαμιε)ε appear), of the tribe of the Ονθ!ρει at Metropolis22 and of two tribes with very fragmentary names at Krannon.23 Syngeneiai or phratries are known, as we have seen, at Metropolis, namely the Βασαδαι, and at Krannon: the Μενανδρδαι, Βοιουνδαι, Ολυμπια´δαι, and Σιμαιθδαι. Incidentally, we should point out that a subdivision according to phratries in Thessaly is only attested in one inscription, an extract of the cadastre of Larissa,24 which mentions φρατρικα´ πλεθρα. The second attestation of the term, in a list of sales of land attributed to Homolion, should not be considered here since the stone more plausibly comes from its Macedonian neighbour, Phila, now located at the northern limit of the delta of the Peneus.25 Other inscriptions from Larissa attest to names whose reference to a civic division cannot be specified. The more salient examples are the following: ●

a list of thirty names,26 suffixed with -δα, whose precise nature is unknown;

IG IX (2) 489: . . . καH φυλ6  εKιναι Lμ Φα!ττωι M αN[ν ατ' βο!ληται]. . .  IG IX (2) 513: . . . καH φυλα Oλστειν ποα κε βλλουνθειν, καH ε#λονθο Βοατε. . . 22 See C. Habicht, ‘Eine Burgerrechtsverleihung von Metropolis’, Klio 52 (1970), 139–40: . . . καH φυλ6 εKιναι M α1ν βο!λωνται  , ε#λοντο Ονθυρων. . . 23 IG IX (2) 458: . . . καH φυλα[| Pμ]μεν τα˜  κε δε[λη|τα]ι, ε#λετο Pμμεν Α |[γε]λα´ουν . . . (instead of δε[λη|τα]ι, we propose to restore δε[!ει  |τα]ι, as ininscription no. 6 in the forthcoming Corpus of Atrax), and 459: . . . καH φυ[λα Pμμεν τα κε]| ατοH Qλουν[ται - - -]. . . 24 See C. Habicht, ‘Die deutschen archäologischen Forschungen in Thessalien’, in Demetrias I (1976), 161, fragment F.3. 25 See A. S. Arvanitopoulos, ‘Inscriptions inédites de Thessalie’, Rev. Phil. 35 (1911), 132–9 no. 36.104: παρα` τ6 φρατρα τFν [- - -] and the comments of L. Robert, Hellenica I (Limoges, 1940), 68–9 and BE 1951, no. 125 (see also, of course, M. Guarducci, L’istituzione della fratria nella Grecia antica, II (Rome, 1938). On the attribution of this inscription to Phila in Macedonia rather than to Homolion, see Helly, L’État thessalien, 319–20. 26 IG IX (2) 524. 20 21

28

Laurence Darmezin and Athanasios Tziafalias ●

●

a dedication to Zeus Homoloios made by the Α νδραγαθδαι ο= Lν Κυλλια´δαι:27 perhaps a genos whose members resided in various wards of the city, hence the required toponymic precision; a dedication to Herakles made by the Σουιδα´ουν τ κοινν, where the names of twelve individuals (name and patronymic adjective) who made up this koinon are listed.28 Similarly, the [κοιν'ν τFν] Α . ζωριαστFν, which made a dedication to Egyptian deities at Larissa,29 is to be considered an association of citizens originally from Azoros in Perrhaibia.

We have left out of account here the names of the tribes of Demetrias, which were creations associated with the synoikism at the founding of the city, and which could form the subject of a separate study. We may all agree that the subject of subdivisions in Thessalian cities is far from being resolved, even though recent finds such as those from Atrax have enriched the corpus. Let us hope that other such inscriptions will help us in the future to a better understanding of their mechanisms. Note. This paper owes much to our colleague José-Luis García Ramón. During a workshop on the Thessalian dialect at the Institut für Sprachwissenschaft of the University of Cologne (February 2003), he was very forthcoming with criticisms and suggestions to improve it, generously giving us the benefit of his expertise as a linguist. Errors of interpretation or of understanding, however, are the responsibility of the authors.

A. Tziafalias, Ανκδοτε Θεσσαλικ  Lπιγραφ, Thessaliko Himerologio 7 (1984), 216–17 and Helly, L’État thessalien, 320. 28 IG IX (2) 580. 29 IG IX (2) 589. While preparing the future Corpus of the Tripolis of Perrhaibia, G. Lucas has revisited the stone and was able to read Α . ζωριαστFν instead of ΖωριαστFν (IG). 27

3 Thessalian Personal Names and the Greek Lexicon JOSÉ-LUIS GARCÍA RAMÓN

1. Aims and scope of this study 1.1. Exclusions: non-Greek names; Macedonian variants? 1.2. Dialectal and non-dialectal forms 1.3. Difficulties encountered in interpreting names 2. The Greek lexicon in Thessalian compound names 2.1. Compound names based on compound epithets found in poetry and prose 2.2. Compounds attested exclusively in names reflecting junctures in poetry or prose 2.3. Compounds attested exclusively in names but intelligible as Greek phrases 3. Names interpretable only in the light of IE comparison 4. ‘Short’ forms of compound names— or mere derivatives? 5. Nicknames reflecting aspects of everyday life 5.1. Physical appearance 5.2. Human character and behaviour 5.3. Animals 5.4. Plants 5.5. Utensils 5.6. Pastry- and bread-making 6. The Greek lexicon in Thessalian names 7. Thessalian names and the Thessalian lexicon 8. Concluding remarks

Proceedings of the British Academy 148, 29–67. © The British Academy 2007.

30

José-Luis García Ramón 1.

AIMS AND SCOPE OF THIS STUDY1

AN OVERVIEW OF THE PROPER NAMES OF EVERY GREEK REGION offers an extremely variegated picture. It is true that many of them (especially religious and geographical names, but also personal names) defy interpretation in terms of Greek, and are simply evidence of the existence of prehistoric and/or foreign populations. When the names are intelligible, either from the Greek language itself or with the help of comparative philology, they reflect, directly or indirectly, all conceivable aspects of the Greek world; mythology, religion, history, and literature, as well as Greek Weltanschauung (including moral values and taboos) appear repeatedly in personal names, and the same holds true for even the most prosaic details of daily life, as is shown especially, but not exclusively, by names based on common nouns. Names in this last category, which can also occur as compounds, often sound rather bizarre and display an impressive degree of creativity: they are in fact first-hand evidence for the more prosaic aspects of daily life, not usually found in Greek literary records. It should be stressed at the outset that Thessalian personal names, now readily available in LGPN III B, present a picture which is not fundamentally different from that of other regions: naming patterns are basically the same, including the strong presence of poetic (especially Homeric) names; the lexicon concealed by proper names (what we might call ‘latent’ vocabulary) is for the most part either of a literary or of a supra-dialectal character (i.e. common to other regions), and dialectal words in the strict sense are not very numerous. The same holds good for the names based on them. The most one

1

For alphabetic Greek names reference is made to the corresponding entries in LGPN: I, II, III A, and III B, and to Bechtel, HP. See also H. Frisk, Griechisches etymologisches Wörterbuch (Heidelberg, 1960–72) and especially Chantraine, DELG; for zoonyms, see R. Strömberg, Studien zur Etymologie und Bildung der griechischen Fischnamen (Göteborg, 1943) and W. d’A. Thompson, A Glossary of Greek Birds (London, 1936), A Glossary of Greek Fishes (London, 1947); for verbal roots see Lexikon der indogermanischen Verben: die Wurzeln und ihre Primärstammbildungen, ed. H. Rix (Wiesbaden, 1998). Quotations follow the current conventions. References to IG are IG IX (2) unless otherwise stated. Unpublished texts are quoted according to their number in GHW: the unpublished database (Lyon) by V. von Graeve, B. Helly, and C. Wolters, Dossier de documentation thessalienne; I.Thess is J.-C. Decourt, Inscriptions de Thessalie, I: Les Cités de la vallée de l’Enipeus (Athens, 1995). Place-names are abbreviated according to the Greek form of the name: AINis, ANTHion, ARGoussa, ATRax, AZORos, CHALai, DEMetrias, ERIKinion, GOMPHoi, GONNoi, GYRTon, HALos, HERakleia, HYPata, KIERion, KONDaia, KRANNon, LAMia, LARissa, LIMNaion, MATRopolis, MELITaia, MOPSion, NARTHakion, OITaia, OLOOson, PARasopia, PELina, PEUma, PHALanna, PHARSalos, PHAYttos, PHERai, PYTHion, SKOToussa, THAUmakion, THEBai, TRIKka. All centuries are BC unless otherwise stated.

THESSALIAN PERSONAL NAMES

31

can say is that some names are especially frequent, e.g. Πετθαλ and its variants (over twenty instances) or Λων (over seventy attestations), and the very numerous names in $Ιππο-: that the ethnic of the region is used as a personal name is easily understandable, that lions were known in Thessaly has been shown by Bruno Helly,2 and that horses were common in the Thessalian plain is a well-known fact. But things are not always so transparent: for instance, the fact that ΦρGνο and its variants are surprisingly frequent in Thessaly (over twenty-five occurrences) does not necessarily imply that toads are more characteristic of Thessaly than of other regions. The possibility that names based on zoonyms or phytonyms reflect the fauna or flora of the region3 must be examined in each instance. On the other hand, as far as we know, there are no major differences from one Thessalian city to another. The present contribution will deal with Thessalian personal names based on words which may be understood or explained in terms of Greek; names which remain opaque from the linguistic point of view will be left out of consideration. My aim is twofold: on the one hand, an overview of Thessalian personal names according to the current conventional classification (compound names and ‘short’ forms, simplicia); on the other, a more detailed analysis of some nicknames belonging to a variety of concrete semantic groups (physical appearance, human character and behaviour, zoonyms, phytonyms, utensils, pastry- and bread-making), which will cast light on the Greek lexicon in Thessaly, and, conversely, on the contribution of Thessalian ‘latent’ vocabulary to our knowledge of the Greek lexicon. On the basis of the names discussed, I shall attempt to determine which lexical items underlying Thessalian names may be understood as properly Thessalian and which of them may be assumed to be specifically Thessalian. For obvious reasons the present paper does not attempt to be exhaustive. I have selected a set of names which are, in my opinion, especially interesting because of their morphology or semantics, or because they are (so far) attested exclusively in Thessaly. Within the framework of this inevitably arbitrary selection of nomina potiora, some original interpretations will be suggested. As a rule, only names which are securely attested will be taken into account: exception is made only in the case of the woman’s name (WN) Οκορναλ probably noted OKORMALIS, cf. below §5.3.2.

2

B. Helly, ‘Des lions dans l’Olympe’, REA 70 (1968), 270 ff. Cf. the thorough study for Boiotia by G. Vottéro, ‘Milieu naturel, littérature et anthroponymie en Béotie à l’époque dialectale (7e–1e s. av. J.-C.)’, in id., Dialectologica Graeca. Actas del II Coloquio Internacional de Dialectología Griega, Miraflores de la Sierra (Madrid), 19–21 June 1991 (Madrid, 1993), 340–81. 3

32 1.1.

José-Luis García Ramón Exclusions: Non-Greek Names; Macedonian Variants?

This study excludes from consideration a significant number of personal names attested in Thessaly which defy interpretation in terms of Greek, or of any specific non-Greek language: for example, the man’s name (MN) Τορ!ββα (HYP, 2nd cent.), and Τορ!μβα (PHARS, 424 BC; cf. Thuc. 4. 78. 1), which point to Macedonia or Epiros,4 but remain linguistically opaque. The number of such names is higher than one could wish: all one can say about them is that they are simply non-Greek. The extremely interesting question of the Macedonian element in Thessalian anthroponymy also falls outside of the framework of this paper. It is true that some names attested in Thessaly may be the Macedonian variant of a Greek name, for they show the main phonetic peculiarity which is recognizably Macedonian, namely the presence of voiced occlusives corresponding to Greek voiceless aspirates as the reflex of IE voiced aspirates.5 For example, the MN Βερκκα (or Βερεκκα˜) and the WN Βερενκη, which correspond to Φερκκα (or Φερεκκα˜), a ‘short’ form of Φερε-κρα´τη or Φερε-κ!δη, and to the MN Φερ-νικο respectively. The same holds for Β!λιππο (LAR, 4th/3rd cent.), which may correspond to Φ!λιππο (attested also in Attica, 405 BC); the MN Β!λο (patron. adj. Β!λειο LAR?, 3rd cent.) may be interpreted as a ‘short’ form of it.6 On the other hand, some proper names conceal terms which are transmitted by Greek Glossaries as Macedonian, e.g. the byname Θα!λιο of Zeus in Pharsalos (Διο Θαυλιου I.Thess 63, 4th cent.  GHW 4242; also 62  GHW 4241) corresponds to the Gloss Θα!λιο V ΘαGλο. 1Αρη Μακεδνιο, even if it does not refer to the same god. In other cases, variants and deviations from the form attested in Greek may be due to a non-Greek, but not precisely Macedonian, component. This is, for instance, the case with the WN Τολβα (ATR, 4th cent.), which we might plausibly interpret as a variant of τολ!πη ‘clew, ball of wool’7 (Ar.; Hsch.), a pre-Greek word. Further speculations about Macedonian linguistic elements in Thessalian anthroponymy will be avoided in this paper. Cf. O. Masson, ‘Quelques anthroponymes rares chez Thucydide’, in Φιλα χα´ριν: miscellanea di studi classici in onore di Eugenio Manni (Rome, 1980), iv. 1486 ff.  OGS II, 328 ff. 5 On this point, and on the whole problem of Macedonian, cf. C. Brixhe and A. Panayotou, ‘Le macédonien’, in F. Bader (ed.), Les Langues indo-européennes (Paris, 1994), and, especially, C. Brixhe, ‘Un “nouveau” champ de la dialectologie grecque: le macédonien’, in Katà Diálekton (Atti Napoli Faiano d’Ischia, 25–28 September 1996)  AION 19 (1997), 41–71; I. Hajnal, ‘Methodische Vorbemerkungen zu einer Paleolinguistik des Balkanraums’, in A. Bammesberger and T. Venneman (eds.), Languages in Prehistoric Europe (Heidelberg, 2001), 123 ff. 6 On the Thess. MN Κορραβο-ν as possibly a Macedonian form for Gr. *ΚορραφFν, see below n. 45. 7 On this term cf. N. Maurice, ‘Τολ!πη ou les écheveaux de l’étymologie’, in Étymologie diachronique et étymologie synchronique en grec ancien (Actes du Colloque de Rouen, 21–22 November 1991  Revue de Philologie 65 (1993)), 161–7. 4

THESSALIAN PERSONAL NAMES

1.2.

33

Dialectal and Non-Dialectal Forms

Two further preliminary remarks at this point: the first on the relation between dialectal and koine forms, the second on the existence of old words underlying names. Whether a Thessalian name displays dialectal or Attic phonetics is entirely irrelevant as regards the lexical items it conceals, and their value as a naming motif: forms recognizable as dialectal, with characteristic spellings ει, ου for Attic η, ω make no difference in this respect. As a rule, Thessalian names appear in Attic form when they occur in metrical texts and in inscriptions written in Attic or North-West koine, and in their dialectal form when the inscription as a whole is in dialect. This is, for instance, the case with names with Αστο or Ασστο for Αριστο,8 with τ- for πτ- (Τολεμα)ο for Πτολεμα)ο), or with Περρ for Περι, and one interesting case of Ερρ for Ερι ( Ερρ-ανα, cf. §2.3). Hybrid forms are also common: a very instructive case is that of the representation of labiovelars, especially evident in the Greek form for IE *gˆ huer- ‘wild animal’ ˜ (: Att. θ ρ), which occurs both as Φειρ (Φερουν, Φειρο!νδα ) and φειρο (Φιλ-φειρο), with labial representation of the labiovelar, alongside forms in Θηρ- and -θηρο; there are also examples of compromise forms with Θειρ (Θειραμνει, Θειροκρα´τει, Θειρων). Similarly with compounds whose first element is Πεισι and Τεισι (Πεισι-κρα´τει vs. Τεισικρα´τει), for IE *ku˜ ei- ‘pay’ (Att. τνω), or Πειλε/ο along with Τηλε/ο ˜ (Πειλο-κλα vs. Τηλ-μαχο , -φα´νη, -φαντο), for *ku˜ e¯le- ‘far’. For our purposes it is important to remember that the fact that a name is attested in its dialectal form does not in itself mean that the word(s) on which it is based belonged to the Thessalian dialect, still less that it may be considered as specifically Thessalian. Conversely, words labelled as Thessalian by grammarians and in Glosses, or quoted as such by poets or historians, are transmitted in their Attic form, yet turn out to be absolutely reliable, as I have tried to show recently.9 The question is to determine which words among those underlying Thessalian names may be taken to be Thessalian, i.e. as

8 From *arsto-, with dialectal syncope of unaccented -i- in *áristo-, J.-L. García Ramón, ‘Geografía intradialectal tesalia’, Actes de la première rencontre internationale de dialectologie grecque (Nancy, July 1986) ( Verbum 10 (1987)), 114. 9 Cf. J.-L. García Ramón, ‘Del trabajo en una gramática del tesalio: Para una valoración lingüística de las glosas’, Colloquio Internazionale de Glottologia ‘Dialetti, dialettismi, generi letterari e funzioni sociali’ (Milan, 12–13 Sept. 2002) (Alessandria, 2004), 235–64. In the cases where the words transmitted as glosses may be checked on the inscriptions (or in the literary sources) they turn out to be amazingly authentic, irrespective of whether they are Greek or pre-Greek, exclusively Thessalian or not. Cf. also my ‘Lexicographica Graeca: algunos nuevos lemmata a la luz de las glosas y la onomástica’, Myrtia 22 (2007), 5–18.

34

José-Luis García Ramón

belonging to the lexical stock of the Thessalian dialect. This point will be dealt with below (§7). Thessalian onomastics (like those of every Greek region) provide us with formal variants of well-attested words, or with old words not attested elsewhere. It does not follow that these anomalous forms may be understood as dialectal, even less as specifically Thessalian. Such is the case, for instance, with the MN Βρεχα˜ (PHARS, 3rd/2nd cent.), which presupposes a form *mrégˆ h-u- ‘short’ (Lat. breuis) as against Βροχ- in MN Βροχα˜ (PYTH, 3rd cent.), Βρχυ (KRANN, 2nd cent.), WN Μροχο-´ (PHAL, 2nd cent.),10 which presuppose the zero-grade form *mr gˆ h-ú- (: Att. βραχ!, Litt. Lesb. ˚ type of root-alternance to be βρχυ). The MN Βρεχα˜ reflects an archaic traced back to Proto-Greek, rather than a specifically Thessalian form of the epithet βραχ!. The same applies to the MN Στρεβουν* (patron. adj. Στρειβο!νειο, LAR, 3rd cent.), which points to *στρεβω ‘turn’: the present is not attested, but its existence is indirectly guaranteed by the glosses στροιβ. δ)νο, στροιβα˜ν. α ντιστρφειν, which clearly underlie the Athenian MN Στρο)βο (Thuc. 1. 105. 2). Though both names are only attested in Thessaly, it is highly improbable that an adjective *βρεχ! or a present στρεβο/ε- existed as common terms in the Thessalian dialect in the classical period. This is well illustrated by another old term which is attested in names in Thessaly, though this one also occurs in other regions. The MN Κρρο (and the first element Κορρ(ο) in compounds such as Κορρμαχο : Κοιρμαχο) reflects an old term IE κρρο* ‘army’11 (i.e. a synonym of στρατ or Hom. λα): the form is not attested as a common appellative in Thessaly or elsewhere, but the name is attested, not only in Thessaly but also in Macedonia and in Athens. Further instances of old, inherited words will be discussed below (§3). 1.3.

Difficulties Encountered in Interpreting Names

A final remark before proceeding: the fact that a name may be interpreted in terms of Greek does not of course mean that that is the only interpretation possible. We may note two difficulties which may confront philologists trying to interpret names. First, it is not always easy to assign a name to one single group, either because the underlying appellative is not clearly recognizable as belonging to

10 Cf. also the variants Βορχ- (with metathesis) and (supra-dialectal) Βραχ- (both from *mrgˆh-ú-) ˚ in Βορχδα Βραχ!λλου (LAR). 11 On this form cf. §3.

THESSALIAN PERSONAL NAMES

35

a given class, or because it designates different appellatives. For instance, Φα´λαρο (KRANN, 3rd/2nd cent.) and Φαλαρουν (PHARS, 3rd cent.)12 may be based on one of two possible forms: Hom. φα´λαρον ‘metal boss of a helmet’, or ‘cheek-pieces’ of a horse’s head-stall (Hdt.), whence later ‘bandages’ and ‘ornaments’, which is a derivative of φα´λο ‘horn of a helmet’; or alternatively, on the adjective φα´ληρο ‘patched with white’ (κ!ων (Theocr.), Wρο (Nic.)), which is based on φαλ13 (same word?,14 cf. φαλ. λευκ Hsch.); this form is also used as a ram’s name (Theocr. 5. 103), and as a zoonym φαλα-ρ ‘coot’: Fulica atra ‘with white head’ (Ar.). A remarkably complicated example is provided by compound and derivative names containing Δρουπ- (: Δρωπ-), such as Δρουπ!λο (cf. Δρωπο!λο Boiotia, Δρωπ!λο West Lokris), Δρο!πακο* in patron. adj. Δρουπα´κειο (both PHARS, 230–200 BC), Δρουπακδα (PHARS, 4th cent.), and Δρω´πακο (LAM 3rd/2nd cent.). These names are currently assumed to contain the appellative ‘man’ transmitted in the gloss δρω´ψ. α1νθρωπο; the form is generally believed to go back to *nr-op-, taken to be a compound with a first element *h2ner- (α ν ρ, Hom. νω´ροπι χαλκY, νω´ροψ. λαμπρ). On this assumption, Δρουπ!λο and Δρο!πακο are onomastic forms in -!λο and -αξ (or -ακο) based on the old term δρω´ψ ‘man’.15 However, the existence of the common appellative δρω´παξ ‘pitchplaster’ (Hipp.), with the verb δρωπακζω ‘apply a depilatory’ clearly related to δρπω ‘pull out’ (assuming the existence of a root form δρωπ-), allows a rather less poetic interpretation, at least for Δρο!πακο*, namely a nickname ‘the pitch-plaster’ or ‘the depilated one’. There is, however, a third possibility suggested by the Glosses δρω´πτη. πλαν τη, πτωχ, δρωπα´ζειν. Lμβλπειν, δρω´πτειν. [διακπτειν. Z] διασκοπε)ν. Α5σχ!λο Ψυχαγωγο), which point to a variant of δρκομαι, in which case, the Thessalian names formed on Δρουπ- could be nicknames meaning ‘vagabond’ or ‘spy’. Whatever the etymology and meaning of δρωπ-, the difficulties of interpretation are evident. This statement of facts—and difficulties—brings us to the WN Δρουττα.λ (ATR, 4th cent.), which also underlies the patron. adj. Δρου[ταλ]δαιο (PHARS, 4th cent.).16 Since the spelling ττ is usual in Thessaly to note the outcome of *(-)pt-,17 it is The names are attested elsewhere; cf. also Φα´λαρι in Boiotia. Gr. φαλ- goes back to the zero-grade of IE *bhel-, cf. Sanskrit bha¯lam ‘forehead, brightness’, Gaul, balio- and Welsh bal ( φα´ληρο), OCS be˘ lu˘ ‘white’. 14 The MN Φαλ-ια´δα (KRANN, 3rd cent.) may be based on either of the meanings of φαλ. 15 Cf. O. Masson, ‘Anthroponymie, dialectes et histoire’, Actes de la première rencontre . . .  Verbum 10 (1987), 257 ff.  OGS II, 597 ff. 16 The reading Διο!τταλι, as quoted in LGPN III B (following I.Thess I 80) must be discarded. 17 Cf. Thess. αρχιττολι-αρχεντο for αρχιπτολι-, and the new forms εττασθειν, ετταμενο for Att. Lκτ6σθαι, Lκτημνο, in an unpublished decree from Larissa (GHW 5800), which I had 12 13

36

José-Luis García Ramón

easily conceivable that Δρουττα- conceals a former *Dro¯ pta¯ -, or *Dro¯ p-ta¯ -, corresponding to the gloss δρω´πτη (see above).18 A second, strictly linguistic difficulty concerns the identification of a name as a ‘short’ form of a compound or as a simplex. Some significant instances of this type will be dealt with below, §4.

2.

THE GREEK LEXICON IN THESSALIAN COMPOUND NAMES

Let us turn now to the different types of names attested in Thessaly. As in every Greek region, Thessalian personal names show a strong presence of Homeric (and Mycenaean) and literary names of more of less heroic character (with or without Thessalian phonetics), which are not specifically Thessalian. We may note briefly the compounds Βαθυκλ6, Ι& πποδα´μα, Ι& ππλοχο, Πρωτεσλαο (and Πρωτλαο), Τ λεφο, Τηλμαχο, Τλαπλεμο, Υ & περα´νωρ, and Προμαθε! (ATR, 3rd cent.) with etymological -a¯-,19 as against Προμηθε!, which is also attested. Among the non-compound names (and/or non-Greek), cf. Α#μων (and dialectal Ε#μουν), Θστουρ, Νειλε! (if not a ‘short’ form of Myc. ne-e-ra-wo /Nehela¯wos/), Πλοψ, Πτολεμα)ο, Σσυφο, Τηρε!. Many compound personal names which are not specifically Thessalian deserve attention because they illustrate the influence of poetry in Greek onomastics. Of those which can be interpreted with certainty ex graeco ipso, a threefold classification is possible, which I set out in §§2.1, 2.2, and 2.3. 2.1. Compound Names Based on Compound Epithets Some compound names are based directly on compound epithets, especially those found in poetry (whether or not they are appropriate for people). New

the opportunity of discussing with Bruno Helly on the occasion of his visit to Cologne in May 2003. 18 As we shall try to show elsewhere (García Ramón and Helly in preparation), the WN Δρουττα.λ (*Δρωπταλ) would stand to δρ\πτη in the same relation as WN Ακροταλ to α κρτη, and have the meaning ‘the vagabond one’ or ‘the depilated one’ (if ultimately belonging to δρωπ-, and δρ\παξ). 19 Non-Attic-Ionic μα- θ (προ-μα- θ-) has convincingly been related to Ved. (pra-)math ‘steal’ by J. Narten, ‘Das vedische Verbum math’, Indo-Iranian Journal 4 (1995), 135 n. 40 ( id., Kleine Schriften i (Wiesbaden, 1995), 11–25. The comparison with Ma¯thava- in the S´atapathaBra¯hman.a, the king who bears fire in his mouth, points to an inherited myth, cf. T. Goto¯, ‘Puru¯ravas und Urvas´¯ı aus dem neuentdeckten Vadhula-Anvakhyana (Ed. Ikari)’, in Anusantatyai: Festschrift für Johanna Narten, ed. A. Hintze and E. Tichy, Münchener Studien zur Sprachwissenschaft, Beiheft 19 (Dettelbach, 2000), 110.

THESSALIAN PERSONAL NAMES

37

names may subsequently be created by substituting one of the elements with a synonymous term. Excellent examples are provided by compound names with -πρπη, -πρπο, and snyonymous -φαντο.20 An example of the first is Εσπρπει* in patron. adj. Εσπρπεια (LAR, 3rd cent.), which reproduces Hom. Lκπρεπ  ‘highly distinguished’, obviously with the same meaning as 1Εκπροπο (Boiotia); of the second, Θεπροπο (DEM, 130 BC), Θεοπροπδα* (patron. adj. Θεοπροπδαιο, LAR, 4th cent.), Θεοπροπδη (LAR, 108 BC), for which compare Hom. θεοπρπο ‘prophetic’ (θεοπρπο ο5ωνιστ  Il. 13. 70), θεοπροπα ‘prophecy’, ‘oracle’, also θεοπρεπ  ‘meet for a god’ (of δFμα Pind. Nem. 10. 2).21 The MN 1Εκφαντο (4th cent.) reflects a synonymous epithet: cf. Pκφαντον. φανερν (Hsch.). Further Examples

Α5χμαρετο* (patron. adj. Α5χμαιρτειο LAR, 3rd/2nd cent.), Α5χμαρτα (attested once, as Αιχναρετα I.Thess I 9, LIMN 3rd cent.), ‘short’ forms Α4χνουν (KRANN), Α4χνα (LAR), Α4χμων (MOPS), all 3rd cent.: there is no corresponding compound attested, but the names are obviously built on Hom. α5χμα´λωτο ‘captured by the spear’ and provide interesting examples of substitution of one of the elements of a poetic compound, namely α´λωτο, by synonymous αρετο.

Αμω´μητο (passim, 3rd cent.), Αμωμ τα (TRIK?, 2nd cent.): Hom. α μω´μητο ‘blameless’ (Πολυδα´μαντο α μωμ τοιο Il. 12. 109). Αφθνητο/-α (around thirty attestations passim): α φθνητο ‘beyond the reach of envy’, of αιKνο ‘praise’ (Pind. Ol. 10. 7). Τρπνο (ARG, 2nd–1st cent.): τερπν ‘delightful, pleasant’ (Pind.). A feminine form Τρπνη is attested once in Cyprus (Imperial). The adjective is used very seldom for persons, e.g. Soph. Ai. 966–7 ΕμοH πικρ' τθνηκεν Z κενοι γλυκ!, / α]τY δ^ τερπν ‘to his own content’. The following four compound names are attested so far only in Thessaly.

$Ελανδρο* (patron. adj. &Ελα´νδρειο, ATR, 3rd cent.): pejorative adjective Qλανδρο ‘men-destroying’, used of Helen (Aesch. Ag. 689–9 Qλανδρο, Oλ |πτολι). The epithet obviously reflects Hom. α1νδρα Oλε)ν, as well as Both lexemes are built on IE roots: πρεπ , πρπο and Hom. πρπει go back to IE *prep- (Arm. erewim “φανομαι”), φα´ντο (Hom. φανεται) to IE *bhan- (Ved. bhán-a‘decla¯ra¯re’, Arm. ban “ο4γειν” from *bhn h2-o/e-, causative to IE *bheh2- ‘be visible’). ˚ 21 On πρπο cf. the ‘short’ form Προπα (PEU, 2nd cent.); cf. Πρπο (LAR, 2nd cent. AD), Πρππει, Προππδα (Boiotia). 20

38

José-Luis García Ramón

synonymous ζωγρε)ν, which in its turn is reflected in the MN ΖFγρο (Lakonia). B. Forssman22 showed that the collocation may be traced back to Indo-European.

Παρτνα (ATR, 4th/3rd cent.): dialectal form of the adjective παρα´τονο ‘stretched beside’, with Thessalian apocope of παρα and masculine suffix -α. The adjective is used of hands (παρα´τονοι χρε Eur. Alc. 399), but may also have the sense ‘ill-sounding’ (Hsch. s.v. βαρβαρισμ. παρα´τονο δια´λεκτο). Περπλα (LAR, 4th cent.): dialectal variant of *Περπολα, with apocope of περι, reflecting περπολο ‘watchman’, as Bechtel correctly saw,23 or περιπολα)ο ‘open all round (the eyes)’, cf. Arist., Physiogn. 810a Pστι γα`ρ Pχον πρσωπον μικρν, στμα μγα, Iφθαλμο_ μικρο!, Lκλε!κου, Lγκολου, ατο_ δ^ περιπολαιοτρου. The Thessalian name reflects probably the poetic sense, for in Thessaly the term for ‘watchman’ is φρουρ.24 The form Πειρι is simply the Homeric variant, without apocope, of Περι with metrical lengthening (cf. Πειρθοον for non-metrical Περθοον). WN &Υπανεμ (ATR, 3rd cent.): reflects ]π νεμο ‘sheltered from the wind’ (Soph.) and/or ]πηνμιο ‘lifted by the wind’ (Soph.), or ‘full of wind’ (of eggs which do not produce a chicken, Ar. frg. 186 ]πηνμια τκτουσιν aα` πολλα´κι). Whether the meaning of the name is the poetic or the pejorative one, we cannot say. At any rate, the name evokes poetic reminiscences, in the light of the Homeric phrase ]π' λιγεων α νμων (Il. 13. 334).25 2.2.

Compound Names Reflecting Junctures in Poetry or Prose

Some compounds are attested exclusively in names, but reflect junctures in poetry or prose, and their equivalents, with replacement of one or both of the elements by synonyms. Some examples follow.

Φαιναρτα (LAR, ARG, 3rd cent.), Φαινα´ρετο (ATR, 4th/3rd cent.): cf. Od. 8. 237 α ρετbν σbν φαινμεν. Φειδλαο (PHER, c.311 BC), Φειδστρατο (PHER, 4th cent.?), with the variants Φειδλα (LAR, 4th cent., also Φειδλαο c.200–190 BC): cf. such B. Forssman, ‘Ved. jı¯vagrbh, jı¯vagrham, gr. ζωγρω’, Studien zur Indologie und Iranistik 13/4 ˚ the perfect ˚ semantic parallel of Ved. j¯ıvagrbh, j¯ıvagra¯ ham: the first (1987), 69–76, who invokes ˚ Gr. α=ρω. element is the same as Gr. Ζωο, the second grabh is synonymous with 23 Bechtel, HP 515, who quotes also the MN Πειρπολο (Chalkis) under the label ‘Heereswesen’. 24 Cf. B. Helly, Gonnoi, i: La cité et son histoire. ii: Les inscriptions (Amsterdam, 1973), i. 145. 25 Cf. also ]πανεμω ‘breathe over’ (Liban. Descr. 30. 18 Pρωτι τα` παρεια´). 22

39

THESSALIAN PERSONAL NAMES

phrases such as Od. 22. 54 σ_ δ^ φεδεο people’, or Soph. Ai. 844 μb φεδεσθε . . .

λαFν / σFν ‘save your own στρατοG.

Φεδιππο26 (PHER, 4th cent., ATR, NARTH; also in Hom. Il. 2. 678): cf. the Homeric phrase: Il. 5. 202 #ππων φειδμενο ‘using the horses sparingly’.27 Φρασιμ δα (PHER, c.440–430 BC): cf. Il. 23. 176 κακα` δ^ φρεσH μ δετο Pργα. Two names which are attested only in Thessaly show clear Homeric reminiscences:

Βο!πλαγο (four examples, PYTH, 4th/3rd cent.) reflects the Hom. hapax βουπλ6γι in Il. 6. 135 θεινμεναι βουπλ6γι ‘struck with an ox-goad’, rather than the late compound βουπλ ξ* attested in causal forms (βουπλ6γο, βουπλ6γε, βουπλ6γα) in late Epics. Σ!λανδρο* (patron. adj. Συλα´νδρειο, LAR, 3rd cent.) is readily intelligible (cf. Il. 10. 343 c τινα συλ σων νεκ!ων ‘strip the bodies of the dead’), even if the exact phrase is not attested. 2.3. Compounds Attested Exclusively in Names but Intelligible as Greek Phrases We also find compound names which are intelligible in the light of common Greek phraseology, even if the actual combinations are not attested elsewhere. The following names occur exclusively in Thessaly, and some show a remarkable familiarity with Greek literature. The patron. adj. Α ργολα´ειο (PHER c.303 BC), of which Α 1 ργουν (KRANN, PHARS 3rd cent.) may, but need not, be a ‘short’ form, raises difficulties as to the name (and noun) on which it is based. In my opinion, the underlying name was Α ργλα-,28 reflecting α ργλα, a kind of snake, which was also called α ργ6 (Hipp.), Dor. α ργαˆ . The Suda explains that the α ργλαι were native to Pelasgian Argos ( Αργλαι. ειK δο ;φεων, οd Φεδα (PHARS, Φεδιππο. 26

3rd cent.),

Φειδουν

may be short forms of both

Φειδλαο

and

The comic effect produced by the Aristophanic Φειδιππδη (Nub. 60 ff.) is due to the context, not to the compound itself, cf. O. Panagl, ‘Zur Problematik der semantischen Rekonstruktion in der Etymologie’, Lautgeschichte und Etymologie. Akten der IX. Fachtagung der Indogermanischen Gesellschaft (Vienna, 1978), 326. 28 The form Αργλαο (LGPN) has no clear support: the assumed names Αργ-λαο and Αργ-λαο (Bechtel, HP, 64, s.v. Αργε-, Αργι-) are mere conjectures on the basis of inconclusive ‘short’ forms, as the author himself admits (‘ Αργ-λαο vielleicht wegen Αργα’, and ‘ Αργ-λαο vielleicht wegen Αργι-λα’). 27

40

José-Luis García Ramón

Vνεγκε Μακεδω`ν Αλξανδρο Lκ τοG 1Αργου τοG ΠελασγικοG ε5 Αλεξα´νδρειαν), and etymologizes the word ingeniously (. . . α ργλαι οBν Lκ τοG Αργου 1 λαιο ) by resorting to the term λαι (Arist.) designating a kind of thrush. The appellative α ργλα seems to be a compound with α ργο- ‘bright’ as its first element, though its second element remains obscure. That this bird-name might be used as a nickname finds strong support in the fact that the synonymous α ργ6 is attested precisely as a nickname of Demosthenes (Aeschin. 2. 99; Plu. Dem. 4). Its occurrence in Thessaly fits well with the allusion to Pelasgian Argos. It should be noted that Αργλα is also the name of a hill in Lokris: . . . Mκον ε5 τbν Λοκρδα καH

συνα´ψαντε μα´χην το) ΦωκεGσι περH λφον Αργλαν Iνομαζμενον 0ττ θησαν (Diod. Sic. 16. 30. 4). The second element of the personal name Αργλα, surely λα´α, λαˆ ‘stone, rock’, provides a conceivable meaning for

the place-name, namely ‘white rock’ or the like. But it does not necessarily follow that the second element of the bird name α ργλα-  is the same.29 I do not think that the Thessalian anthroponym is based on this place-name, for in that case we would expect a derivative * Αργολα´ιο (or Αργολα)ο) as the name, and a formation in -ειο (* Αργολαειο) as the patronymic adjective. Ε ρρανα occurs in the recently published ‘stele of the Menandridai’ (KRANN, 3rd cent.).30 The name is to be interpreted as Ε ρ-αινα, with dialectal representation of prevocalic -ri- as ρρ31 (cf. Thess. κυρρον, Περρανδρο  κυρον, Περανδρο); in which case it is the first attestation of the combination in a compound of emphatic Lρι and αιKνο ‘tale, praise’, or ‘decree’. The MN Ε ρρανα with its peculiar formation in -α¯ , may be understood as ‘having high/good thoughts/expressions’. Semantic parallels might be names of the type Αρστ-αινο (patron. adj. Αριστανειο GYRT 2nd cent.), Αριστ-ανα, Αριστ-ανετο, Αριστ-αιντα/η, or Ευ1 αινο (Ευ1 ηνο in Boiotia), Εανετο (CHAL, THEB, 2nd/1st cent.); all these names are attested outside Thessaly. Λιμναρχο (PHAL, 3rd cent.) reflects the characteristically Thessalian (and Cypriot) meaning of λιμ ν ‘square’32 (corresponding to Attic α γορα´), as The gloss α1ργο. τ πεδον λγεται παρα` το) νεωτροι, παρ &Ομ ρe δ^ οδ α$παξ. μα´λιστα μ^ν ο4ονται, μακεδονικ'ν καH θεσσαλικ'ν ειKναι (Strabo 8. 6. 9) does

29

not apply here. 30 J.-C. Decourt and A. Tzafalias, ‘Une liste civique à Crannon: la stèle dite des Ménandridai’, ZPE 137 (2001), 139–52 (Tables IX–XII). The name is listed by the editors among those unanalysable (150, ‘peut-être dérivé d’un autre mot en Lρρ- ou Lρσ-’). 31 The spelling ρρ instead of ρι notes a geminate -rr-, as the result of *-ri-, which in its ˆ ‘Geografía turn goes back to the iotization of /i/ before vowel in Thessalian, cf. García Ramón, intradialecta tesalia’, 135 f. 32 Cf. B. Helly, ‘Accord de sympolitie entre Gomphoi et Tamiai’, Dialectologica Graeca Miraflores. Actas del II Coloquio Internacional de Dialectología Griega, June 1991. Madrid,

THESSALIAN PERSONAL NAMES

41

shown by the glosses λιμ ν. ο=ονεH τbν α γορα`ν Lκα´λει λιμνα ΘετταλFν α κο!σα (Dio Chr. 11. 24), and λιμ ν. α γορα` καH Lνδιατριβ . Πα´φιοι. The glosses are confirmed by the evidence of the great inscription of Larissa (το ταγο . . . εσθεμεν αυτο εν τον λιμενα IG 517, 42: 214 BC), and in a fragmentary text from Hestiaiotis (late 3rd cent.):33 εν τει λιμενι line 2, ει το λιμενεν line 6, ενλιμενα line 11  Att. Lν τY λιμνι, ε5 τ' λιμνιον, Lνλιμνια. On this assumption, the MN Λιμναρχο is synonymous with * Αγραρχο, which is itself unattested, but the MN Α ρχα´γορο (a compound of the type φερ-οικο, Φερε-κ!δη), conveys the same meaning, and is thus a perfect semantic parallel to Thessalian Λιμναρχο.34 However, this interpretation encounters a serious difficulty in the participle λιμεναρχ σα attested in Boiotia (IG VII 1826, 2: Thespiai): λιμεναρχησα δι / Διοσκουροιν και τη πολι. The form seems to refer to the activity of the manager of the harbour, as suggested by Hiller von Gaertringen, followed by Bechtel.35 Σπ!ραγο, attested in the politography decree IG 234.3 (PHARS, 230–200 BC), has reappeared in Thessaly under the form Σπουραγο (MATR, 3rd cent.), in which ου denotes [u¯].36 Since α-γο may be understood as the second element of the compound, namely a nomen agentis of α1γω, the only possible interpretation of the name is that its first element is σπfρ, a variant of πfρ ‘wheat’, attested in some Doric dialects.37 This 176. The same probably holds good for λμνη ‘pool’, ‘marshy lake’ (Hom.), which may conceal the special meaning ‘square’ in the Thessalian epiclesis Πανλμνιο (Απολλονι Πανλιμνιωι SEG XXIX 515. GONN). As to the pair λμνη : λμνιο, cf. τιμ : τμιο. A similar situation may be assumed for Lakonian in view of the place-name Λμναι, a name for a square in Sparta (Paus. 3. 2. 6–7; Strabo 8. 5. 1. et al.). The synonymity of λιμ ν (and λμνη) with Attic α γορα´ suggests that meetings were held originally in an area close to a meadow or to the harbour (F. Gschnitzer, ‘Zu griech. λιμ ν: Hafen, *Wiese, Versammlungsplatz’, in Sprachwissenschaftliche Forschungen: Festschrift für Johann Knobloch, ed. H. M. Ölberg and G. Schmidt (Innsbruck, 1985), 123 ff. ( Kl. Schr. I, 331–334); García Ramón, ‘Cuestiones de léxico y onomástica tesalios’. Katà Diálekton (Atti Napoli — Faiano d’Ischia, 25–28 September 1996)  AION 19 (1997), 531 ff. 33 Edited by B. Helly, ‘Accord de sympolitie entre Gomphoi et Tamiai’, 167–200. 34 Once the equivalence of λιμ ν with Attic α γορα´ is established, the same argument can be applied to a further Thessalian gloss, Pνορμο. 0 α γορα` παρα` Θετταλο). Although Pνορμο is a hapax, its synonymity with λιμ ν is assured by its derivatives e.g. Lνορμζω ‘bring a ship to land’ (C. Thg. 1274), Lνορμω ‘ride at anchor in a harbour’ (Plb.); cf. García Ramón ‘Del trabajo en una gramática del tesalio’, 241 ff. 35 Bechtel, HP, 514 (‘Verwaltung und Rechtspflege’). Cf. also MN Λιμεν-ο[χ]ο (rather than -οGχο. Megara 500–475 BC, SEG XIII 300). 36 Line 17 of the text, published by B. Helly, ‘La convention des Basaidai’, BCH 94 (1970), 161–89; cf. García Ramón ‘Geografía intradialectal tesalia’, 117 ff. 37 Cf. J.-L. García Ramón, ‘Der thessalische Name Σπ!ραγο, σπυρ “Weizen(korn)” und att. πυρ, πυρο_ α1γειν “Weizen(korn) zu Wasser transportieren” ’, in Indogermanica: Festschrift für Gert Klingenschmitt, ed. G. Schweiger (Regensburg, 2006), 127–44. Since σπ may

42

José-Luis García Ramón

is strongly supported by the well-attested collocation πfρο_ (and κριθα`) α1γειν ‘transport wheat (and barley) by sea’ (cf. Thuc. 6. 22. 1 . . . τ'ν δ^ καH ατθεν σ)τον Lν ?λκα´σι, πυρο_ καH πεφρυγμνα κριθα´, α1γειν, . . . ‘to transport from there grain, and wheat and dried barley in merchant vessels’)38 as against πfρο_ (and κριθα`) φρειν, which designates transport ‘by land’, as well as by parallel combinations with σ)το, namely σ)τον α1γειν, σιτηγ, and σιταγωγ (of ships) in contrast to σ)τον φρειν, σιτοφροι. It is possible that the MN Σπ!ραγο reflects a title, like Λιμναρχο (§2.3), or even Κρραγο (§3). Χαν!λαο* (patron. adj. Χανυλα´ειο), with the ‘short’ forms Χα´νυ* (patron. adj. Χαν!ειο, both PHARS, 3rd cent.), Χα´νο (KRANN, 3rd cent.), and Χαναˆ (Pelasgiotis, 1st cent.) is not easy to interpret. Its first element Χανυ- surely conceals a verb χαν!ω ‘call, shout’, attested in the glosses χαν!ειν. βοαˆ ν, χαν!σσει. βα καλε) (Hsch.).39 The meaning of the verb finds a semantic parallel in the construction of βοα´ω with accusative of the person called, first attested in Pindar (Pyth. 6. 36 Μεσσανου δ^ γροντο / δονηθε)σα φρbν βασε πα)δα >ν), and common in classical prose (cf. Hdt. 8. 92 β\σα τ'ν Θεμιστοκλα).40 The clearest semantic parallel of the juncture *χαν!ω λαν is the phrase τbν α1λλην στρατιbν Lπεβ\σαντο ‘they called the rest of the army for help’ (Hdt. 9. 23), which provides a possible, post-Homeric model for the creation of the compound name. Ψλαυχο (MATR, 3rd cent.) combines the adjective ψιλ ‘bare’ (of land), ‘smooth, stripped of hair’ (Hom.), and αυ1χη ‘boasting’, αυ1χημα (Pind.), αχω ‘boast, exult’ (cf. Hitt. huek -‘swear’). The meaning of the ˘ ˆ ψιλ' λγο ‘prose’, pl. ‘unsupjuncture is clear in the light of synonyms ported speech’, ψιλF λγειν ‘speak without proofs’ (Plat.), and of compounds with κενε(ο), μεγαλ, such as κενεαυχ  (Hom.), μεγα´λαυχο

represent not only [sp] but also [sph] in Thessalian (cf. García Ramón, ‘Geografía intradialectal tesalia’, 144) as well as in Boiotian and in the West Greek dialects (cf. J. Méndez, Los dialectos dorios del Noroeste (Salamanca, 1985), 348 ff.), the first element of the compound could be σπυρ ‘large basket, creel’ (Hdt., with late variant σφυρ Papp.), or σφυρν ‘ankle’ (Hom.), or σφGρα ‘hammer’ (Od.), ‘beetle, mallet’ (Hes.), ‘balk between the furrows of ploughed land’ (Poll. 7. 145), whence a land measure (cf. Hsch. s.v. ?μσφυρο. α δελφ . τ6 δ^ τρτη συλλαβ6 Lκτεινομνη, δηλο) τ'ν ?μχωρον. ΣφGρα γα`ρ τ6 σπορμου γ6 τ' μτρον), or even the name of a fish. None of these forms, however, is attested (or conceivable) as the first element of a compound with αγο, i.e. as the object of α1γω. 38 Cf. also Herond. 2. 17 . . . Lξ 1Ακη Lλ λουθα / πυρ]ο_ α1γων κVστησα τbν κακbν λιμν ‘I have come from Ake, bringing a last of wheat and I have stopped the bad famine’. 39 Bechtel, HP, 464; Chantraine, DELG s.v. χανω. On the phraseological background cf. García Ramón, ‘Lexicographica Graeca’, 14 ff. 40 The current meanings of χανω ‘open’, χα´σκω ‘yawn, gape’ (Hom.), also ‘speak with open mouth’, ‘utter’ (Soph.), also ‘swallow’ (Paus. 6. 21. 13 χανε)ν . . . τbν γbν . . . τ' α$ρμα). The form χα´νο ‘mouth’ (Com.) can hardly be assumed for χανυ.

THESSALIAN PERSONAL NAMES

43

‘vainglorious’ (Pind. Pyth. 8. 15), μεγαλαυχα (Plat.), μεγαυχ  (Aesch.): the name characterizes its bearer as someone who speaks vain, unsupported words. A parallel of ψλαυχο is the MN Πα´νταυχο (KRANN, 2nd cent., and in other regions), which reproduces the synonymous πα´νταυχο (Plb.). We may note other compound names, of diverse character and difficulty, which are attested only in Thessaly:

Καιριμνει (LAR, c.200 BC; its ‘short’ form Καριμο occurs in Attica): cf. Καιρογεν  Ν!σσανδρο (LAR, 2nd cent.), and Ν!σανδρο (ATR, 4th cent.), with ‘short’ form Νυσσλο (LAR, 109 BC), which is usually connected with ΝGσα41 Τα´ξιππο (PHER 371 BC, quoted by Val. Max. 9. 10) Φιλοπτα* (patron. adj. Φιλοπταιο, KRANN 215 BC?), with -πτα ‘drinker’42 (or ‘lord’, cf. δεσπτη ‘house lord’?, cf. MN Μανδρο-πτη). 3.

NAMES INTERPRETABLE ONLY IN THE LIGHT OF IE COMPARISON

Thessaly provides names which are only interpretable with the aid of IE comparisons, for they conserve inherited words which were not immediately intelligible from Greek itself. Compound names provide nice instances of semantic continuity, with ‘old’ words lexically renewed, i.e. replaced by synonymous ‘new’ terms. Let us look at three remarkable instances.  Μενκορρο (ATR, PHARS, 3rd cent.), of which Μενεκκα43 (KRANN, GONN: 3rd cent.) may be a ‘short’ form, has as its second element *κρρο ‘army’ (IE *korio- : Goth. harjis, Gaul. corii, Lit. ka~rias), which probably underlies Hom.ˆ κορανο.44 The term also occurs in the MN Κορρα)ο, Κορρα´τα and is equivalent to στρατ or to Hom. λα. The compound MN Μενκορρο turns out to mean ‘who withstands the (foreign) army’, a theme continued by Μενλαο, Μενστρατο (passim 2nd cent.), fem. So Bechtel, HP, 338. One may wonder if the first element reflects the present stem of ν!σσω ‘touch with a sharp point’, although one would a priori expect Νυξι based on aor. ν!ξε (Il. 5. 579). 42 So Bechtel, HP, 382 (‘aus einem Spitznamen erwachsen’), with reference to the MN Μεθ!στα. 43 The MN Μενεκκαˆ may be a ‘short form’ of Μενκορρο, or of Μενε-κλ6, or of Μενεκρα´τη. 44 Cf. A. Heubeck, ‘Κορανο, Κρραγο und Verwandtes’, Würzburger Jahrbücher für die Altertumswissenschaft 4 (1978), 91–8. 41

44

José-Luis García Ramón

Μενεστρα´τα (PHER), and Μενεστρα´τη (LAR, 1st cent.). The name is reflected in the Homeric phrase, Il. 17. 720–1 . . . οh τ' πα´ρο περ / μμνομεν Iξ_ν 1Αρηα παρ α λλ λοισι μνοντε; cf. 5. 527 i ΔαναοH ΤρFα μνον Pμπεδον οδ^ φβοντο. The correspondence between compound names with Κορρο- or -κορρο and those with Λαο-, Στρατο- or -λαο, -στρατο make a coherent group, irrespective of whether their internal syntax is understandable. On the one hand, Νικρρα (LAR, 3rd cent.) and patron. adj. Νικρραιο (KRANN, 3rd cent.) presuppose a haplology of *Νικ-κορρα, which matches semantically the well-attested names Νικλαο (-λα), Νικ-στρατο and inversely, Λα-νικο, Στρατ-νικο (and, in another type of compound, Νικησ-λα). On the other hand, Κρραγο (DEM, 3rd cent., GONN, KIER, 2nd cent.), matches the widely attested MN Λαˆ γο (in Thessaly only in OLOO, 2nd cent. AD), Λαγτα (PHER, 4th cent.), and Στρα´τ-αγο. Finally, Κορρμαχο (LAR, 3rd cent.) matches Λα´μαχο passim, and Στρατμαχο in other regions.45 Κα´σσανδρο, Κασσα´νδρα, both attested in other regions, show in Thessaly an interesting ‘short’ form, namely the feminine Κασσ\ (PYTH, 125 BC). The name conceals a compound with a first element κασσ(), which goes back to Καστι (cf. Hom. Καστι-α´νειρα). The underlying root *kˆendˆ nd-ti- in the compound) is obviously that of Hom. κκασμαι ‘excel’ (i.e. *k ˚ be traced back to IE *(s)kˆend- ‘become visible’.46 The meaning is and may transparent, ‘who excels among men’, which indicates that the name was originally masculine, with the feminine form a secondary creation. The evolution from *kast(i) to *kass(i), is parallel to (and guaranted by) the pair *Nest(i) : : Ness(i) (cf. Myc. ne-ti-ja-no : : alph. Gr. Νσσανδρο, see below). The existence of a compound name with a second element καστο or κα´στα, namely *Ναυσικα´στα, is assured by the ‘short’ form Ναυσικκαˆ * (patron. adj. Ναυσκκαιο, PHAL, 3rd cent.), cf. Ναυσικα´α. κεκασμνη (> Lστι κεκοσμημνη) τα) ναυσ, cf. Myc. na-u-si-ke-re[-we (dat. /Nausiklewei / (: Ναυσικλη). Obvious semantic parallels are the names with πρπη and φαντο, φα´νη (§2.1 above), for example Λαπρπει (PHER, c.224 BC), which is equivalent to Πρεπλαο (cf. Il. 2. 579 κυδιων, παˆ σιν δ^ μετπρεπεν 0ρ\εσσιν). Νσσανδρο (ATR, c.350–300 BC) is the formal outcome of the Myc. name from Pylos ne-ti-ja-no /Nesti-a¯no¯r/ (Dat. -a-no-re /a¯norei/), as M. Peters It is possible that Κορραβο¯ν (Macedonia) reflects a Greek name *Κορρα-φFν; cf. Heubeck, ‘Κορανο, Κρραγο und Verwandtes’, 95; in this case, it would be a perfect parallel to the --φα´ντη, Λε\-φαντη or of Λεω-φντη) compound names Λεω-φFν (‘short’ forms of Λα and Στρατο-φFν. 46 Cf. García Ramón ‘Homérico κκασμαι : védico s´ as´ ad, protoario *sc´ and-, IE *(s)kˆend“aparecer, hacerse visible” ’, Die Sprache 34 (1988–90), 27–58, with discussion of the Greek and Vedic material. 45

THESSALIAN PERSONAL NAMES

45

recognized.47 A ‘short’ form Νεσσ!λο (LAR, 1st cent.?) stands along with Νσσανδρο, which evokes Νστωρ (in its turn a ‘short’ form of ne-ti-ja-no). The first element Nes-ti conceals IE *nes- ‘come home, escape’ (: νομαι, and Causat. *nos-éi o/e- ‘save’, cf. Goth. nasjan σFσαι’, OE nerian). As I have tried ˆ 48 to show elsewhere, the juncture is continued as an onomastic motif in classical Greek. The verbal lexeme is replaced by the contemporary term for ‘save’, namely σ\ζω, in the first element Σωσι. Νσσανδρο ‘who brings his men home’ matches perfectly Σο!σανδρο (GYRT, MATR 3rd cent.). The onomastic juncture reflects Homeric phraseology, as in Od. 3. 231 (Athena to Telemachos):

ρ&ε)α θε γ Lθλων καH τηλθεν α1νδρα σα\σαι. βουλομην δ αNν Lγ\ γε καH α1λγεα πολλα` μογ σα ο4καδ τ Lλθμεναι καH νστιμον cμαρ 5δσθαι where explicit allusion is made to returning (νστιμον attested in Thessaly reflect similar Homeric junctures.

4.

cμαρ). Other names

‘SHORT’ FORMS OF COMPOUND NAMES— OR MERE DERIVATIVES?

It is sometimes difficult to know whether a particular name apparently based on a common adjective or substantive is derived from it, or is the ‘short’ form of a compound the second element of which has disappeared. A name may confidently be interpreted as a ‘short’ form of a compound only when the first (and/or second) phoneme of the second element of the  compound has been retained (types Φιλομμα : Φιλομ δη or Πα´τροκλο : Πατροκλ1η). This is the case with Βο!δουν, Π!ρκο, and Ξοροννο!. Let us consider some instances of this type, which is very common throughout Greece. Αγορα)ο (HYP, late 3rd cent., THEB, 1st cent.) may be based on α γορα´, or it may conceal the first element of a compound. It is important to remember that the name may reflect α γορα´ meaning ‘assembly’, which is characteristic of the Thessalian dialect, as shown by the Gloss α γορα´. ;νομα τπου Z λιμνο. ΘετταλοH δ^ καH τ'ν λιμνα α γορα`ν καλοGσιν. Κρ6τε δ^ τbν Lκκλησαν. παρ’ &Ομ ρe δ^ καH πα´ντα α θροισμν.49 The

47

M. Peters, ‘Indogermanische Chronik 32b’, Die Sprache 32:2 (1986), no. 727. J.-L. García Ramón, ‘Mycenaean Greek personal names: a 2000 survey’, Proceedings of the XII Colloquium for Mycenaean Studies (May 2000) (Colloquium Austin) (forthcoming). 49 On the wrong use of the article by Hesychius cf. García Ramón, ‘Del trabajo en una gramática del tesalio’, 239 n. 7. 48

46

José-Luis García Ramón

α γορα´ is thus the same as that of Homer (Il. 2. 93) and the Lλευθρα α γορα´ (Arist. Pol. 1231a).50 The form is also attested in dialectal inscriptions in the formula αγορα ενσα.51 The byname Αγοραα attested in Atrax ( Αθαναι Αγοραια SEG XXVII 184.1, Θεμιστι Αγοραιαι SEG Thessalian

XXVII 183.1, both 4th cent.),52 suggests Athena as protector goddess of the assembly, rather than of the square or market (which would correspond to the meaning of Attic α γορα´, α γορα´ζω ‘buy in the market’). Αριθε! (ATR, 3rd cent.) is a variant of the bird name Lριθε! ‘robinredbreast’ (Theophr. Sign. 39; Arat. 1025), with a first element α ρι instead of Lρι. The appellative Lριθε! is synonymous with Lρθακο (Arist. HA 592b22) and with Lρθυλο, as shown by the gloss Lριθε!. Lρθακο, τ' ;ρνεον (Hsch.) and by Schol. ad Ar. Vesp. 927 “ο τρφει μα λχμη δ!ο Lριθα´κου”. Pστι δ^ ;ρνεον ]π' μν τινων καλο!μενον Lριθε!, ]π' δ^ Oτρων Lρθυλο. Formations in -ε!, in -ακο and in -υλο are common both as morphemes derived from a basic word and as onomastic suffixes of ‘short’ forms of compound names. The coexistence of all three formations in the case of Lριθ-, at least in the common noun, may point, in the case of the MN Αριθε!, either to a (rather enigmatic) basic form with different derivatives, or to ‘short’ forms of a compound of the type Lρθαυλο (Schol. Ar. Vesp. 922), Lριθαλ  or the like. Non liquet.53 Βατθεα (PHARS, 3rd/2nd cent.) presupposes *Βατθε!, i.e. *Βαθ-ε!, rather than Βαθα, which is actually attested (HER, 4th cent.). The name shows dialectal notation τθ for θ, θθ and may be a nickname based on βαθ! ‘profound’, or a ‘short’ form of Hom. βαθυ-κλ6 or the like. Βο!δουν (PHARS, 3rd cent.), corresponding to Βο!δων (and parallel to Βο!δα, Βουδων) in other regions, immediately evokes the names Βουδ μων, Βουδρκα attested in other regions: in both cases, the second element begins with δ-, which is retained in the corresponding ‘short’ form Βο!δ-. Other compounds with βου of the same type are attested in two glosses of Hesychius, namely βουδα´κη. 0 βο!πρηστι (a ‘poisonous beetle’ which kills cows, Hipp.), and βουδρe. νμe, k βοG δρουσιν. It is irrelevant at this point whether Βου in Βου-δ μων, Βου-δρκα has the

50 B. Helly, ‘À Larisa. Bouleversement et remise en ordre des sanctuaires’, Mnemosyne 23 (1970), 258. 51 LAR, IG 512, 22 (SEG XXXI 574: 2nd cent.) et passim, SEG XXIX 529, 7–8 (αγορα εονσα); cf. XXXI 575, 8–9 (171 BC). 52 Even if SEG XXVII 183 is earlier (first half of 5th cent. according to K. I. Gallis, Athens Annals of Archaeology 7 (1974), 273 ff.), its first line (Θεμιστι Αγοραια) is to be dated to the first half of 4th cent. 53 The illuminating discussion of Lριθε! by J. L. Perpillou, Les Substantifs grecs en -ε! (Paris, 1973), 319 ff. does not allow any optimism: ‘Les problèmes posés . . . sont insolubles.’

THESSALIAN PERSONAL NAMES

47

same augmentative function as it has in such compounds as βο!-παι ‘big young child’ (Ar.) or βο!-συκον ‘big fig’.54 Βο!μουν* (patron. adj. Βουμο!νειο, KOND? 3rd cent.) may be based on βωμ ‘platform, altar’, or may be a ‘short form’ of a compound of the type βωμο-νκη, βωμο-λχο and the like. Δαυχνα)ο (PHAL, 3rd cent.) is based on δα!χνα, which is equivalent to δα´φνη, ‘bay’ (cf. Hsch. δα!χνα. δα´φνη): the term, being itself pre-Greek, may be considered as belonging to the Thessalian lexical stock,55 for it is attested in dialectal texts, cf. συνδαυχναφοροι (LAR, 5th cent., IG 1027 a, 22), αρχιδαυχναφορεισα (PHAL, 2nd cent., IG 1234, 4).56 The name may be based on the common appellative, or reflect the first element of a compound. Π!ρκο* (patron. adj. Π!ρκειο, ATR, 3rd cent.) is a ‘short’ form of *πυρ-κα1-, cf. Myc. pu-ka-wo /pu¯rkawoi/ (Pylos), as the designation of a trade used as a title, and alph. Gr. πυρκαε! ‘fire kindler’ (cf. Hom. πυρκαι ‘pyre’). The name may also be built on πυρκαι ‘for burnt-offerings’ (Myc. MN pu-ko-wo [Pylos]), on πυρ-κο ‘watcher of sacrificial fire’ or on π!ρκορο (lex sacra of Argoussa: GHW 4270); the form occurs in Mycenaean, cf. the MN pu-ko-ro (Knossos, Pylos). Χα´δα* or Χαδαˆ * (patron. adj. Χαδα)ο, Perrhaibia, 3rd cent.), is based on a compound with χα´δη of the type πολυ-χαδ  (Theocr., Nic.), ερυ-χαδ  ‘wide-gasping’ (of cups, Anth. Pal. Luc.), which are the only attested nominal formations corresponding to χανδα´νω ‘take’.57 Χοροννο! WN (ATR, 3rd cent.) is a ‘short’ form of Χορονκη (attested in Attica), with banal gemination of ν, and is the feminine counterpart of Χορνικο (THEB, 4th–3rd cent.), which reflects the compound χορνικο ‘victorious with the chorus’ (Alex. 19: Χορνικο ? ποιητb ?δ ).

5.

NICKNAMES REFLECTING ASPECTS OF EVERYDAY LIFE

As in other regions, Thessalian names based on common nouns are extremely informative about what we may call the latent vocabulary. Here we are The existence of an Athena Βουδουνεα (as B. Helly points out to me) and of a place name Βωδ\νη in Perrhaibia, as transmitted by Stephanus of Byzantium (Βωδ\νη, πλι

54

Περραιβικ , l Απολλδωρο, ο= δ IρθF Θετταλα, α π' ΒωδωνοG mρωο. ? πολτη Βωδωνα)ο) are not enough, in my opinion, to justify assuming that Βο!δουν is a

‘short’ form of one of them. 55 The form is also Cypriot, cf. ta-u-ka-na-po-ri-o /Daukhna¯ phorio¯ / (gen.) as a byname of Apollo. 56 García Ramón, ‘Del trabajo en una gramática del tesalio’, 249. The magistrate’s title shows both variants of the phytonym in a text from Atrax (SEG XLVII 679: end of the 5th cent.): Ευφορβο αρχιδαυχν| αφορε και σ|υνδαφναφο|ροι. It remains open whether the presence of δα´φνη precisely in the local title συνδαφναφρο is due to the literary influence. 57 The nasal present goes back to IE *ghed-, cf. Lat. prae-hendo¯, praeda, Goth. bi-gitan ‘find’.

48

José-Luis García Ramón

dealing basically with nicknames, dialectal or not, which conceal appellatives belonging either to the common Greek lexical stock or to the specifically regional lexicon.58 Needless to say, the motifs of the nicknames embrace all aspects of human life. We shall deal with some rather heterogeneous groups: those referring to physical appearance, to human peculiarities and behaviour, to zoonyms, phytonyms, utensils, and bakery. The choice of names is inevitably arbitrary, and should be understood as a sample to illustrate the contribution of Thessalian onomastics to our knowledge of the Greek lexicon. In each group distinction will be made between (1) names which are attested in other regions and (2) names which are (for the present) exclusively attested in Thessaly. Words underlying names of type 2 are not necessarily specifically Thessalian: each instance must be discussed separately. 5.1.

Physical Appearance

First, some names referring to physical appearance.59 For the sake of simplicity the names will be given in alphabetical order,60 irrespective of whether they are based on parts of the body, physical characteristics and disabilities, or personal care or fashion. 5.1.1.

Thessalian Names which are also Attested in Other Regions

 Βα´ττα or Βαττα (ATR, 4th cent.), Βαττα´ρακο* (patron. adj. Βατταρα´κειο, THEB, 2nd cent.): βα´ττο and βατταρ ‘stammerer’; βατταρζω ‘stammer’, βαττλογο NT.61 The existence of an adjective  βατταρ is plausible in view of the MN Βα´τταρο (Herondas), Βατταρα.62 58

Cf. García Ramón, ‘Cuestiones de léxico y onomástica tesalios’, 523 ff. To this list may be added the compound Π!ρρανδρο (Achaia Phthiotis, 1st cent.), an individualizing hypostasis of πυρρ ‘reddish’ and α ν ρ of the type Θοα´νωρ (Hom., also Myc. to-wa-no /Thowa¯no¯r/ as the individualization of [θο' α ν ρ]; cf. J.-L. García Ramón, ‘Anthroponymica Mycenaea: 3. Mykenisch to-wa-no /Thowa¯no¯r/, homerisch Πρθοο and Προθο νωρ’, Z˘iva Antika 50 (2000), 205–12. The MN Π!ρρο, Πυρρα, Πυρρα, Πυρρ)νο and the like, which may be ‘short’ forms of compound or nicknames based on simplicia. 60 Several names referring to physical appearance are  attested in the Politography Decree of Pharsalos IG 234 ( I.Thess 50: 230–200): Βρεχα, Γα´σστρουν, Δενδλο*, Μιλτα*, Σμουν, Φξινο, or Φοξ)νο. 61 For the names based on Βα´ττο, which  are frequent in Cyrene and recall the founder of the colony and the dynasty of the Βαττιαδαι, cf. O. Masson, ‘Le nom de Battos, fondateur de Cyrène, et un groupe de mots grecs apparentés’, Glotta 54 (1976), 84 ff.  OGS I, 269 ff. The Thessalian names must be added to the dossier. 62 Cf. O. Masson, ‘En marge du Mime II d’Herondas: les surnoms Ioniens Βα´τταρο et Βατταρα’, REG 83 (1970), 356 ff.  OGS I, 111 ff. 59

THESSALIAN PERSONAL NAMES

49

 Βρεχα: βραχ! ‘short’ (cf. §1.2). Γα´σστρουν (: γαστρ\ν ‘pot-belly’): γαστ ρ ‘stomach’. Δενδλο* (patron. adj. Δενδλειο): δενδλλω ‘turn the eyes quickly’. Λεττνα (KRANN, 3rd cent.): λεπτ ‘thin’ (with dialectal shift pt  tt). Μιλτα* (patron. adj. Μιλταιο): μλτο ‘red earth’ (Hdt.), ‘red lead’ (Nic.).

Μ)κο (KRANN, 3rd cent.), Μκκων (LAM, 125 BC), Μικκ!λο (PHARS, 230–200 BC): μικ, μικκ as synonyms of μικρ. Μλυκκο (LAR, 316 BC, KRANN, GONN, 3rd cent.) may be connected with μολ!νω ‘stain, sully, defile’ and designate the bearer of the name as ‘dirty’.63 The same may be assumed for Μολ!σων (PHARS, 4th cent.),64 and for Μολα´κκα (AZOR, 4th/3rd cent.). The meaning of the verb implies the existence of a basic noun *μλο,65 which is not attested but is assured by Sanskrit málam ‘dirt’66 and by the parallel with the pair φλυ (Hsch.) :: φολ!νω (φολ!νει. μολ!νει Hsch.). A form *μλο (or *μλυ) is also attested as the first element of compounds (Μολο-, Μολυ-), cf. MN Μλοβρο (: Myc. mo-ro-qo /Mologwros/), reflecting Hom. μολοβρ ‘devourer of dung’, as has been shown by Günter Neumann.67 Whether -κκο in Μλυκκο is simply an onomastic suffix or is a ‘short’ form of a compound, we cannot say.

Σα´θων (ATR, LAR, 4th cent.): σα´θη ‘penis’ (Arch.), σα´θη. τα` α νδρε)α α ναγκα)α (Hsch.). Σα´θων was also a nickname applied to Plato by Antisthenes (Athen. 5. 220d).

Σμουν (ATR, LAR, PHER, PHARS, 3rd cent.): σιμ ‘snub-nosed’ (Hdt.). Variants with different suffixes are common in Thessaly as elsewhere: Σιμουν, Σιμη (LAR, 3rd cent.), Σμιο (2nd cent.). Forms with expressive geminate are very frequent: Σμμα (ATR, 4th cent.), Σιμμουν (KRANN, 215 BC), and especially Σιμμα, Σμμιχο (passim), Σμμακο, Σιμμα´κα. The basic form is attested as the first element of a compound in Σμαργο (MELIT, 80 BC), probably an ‘irrational compound’.68

63

On the word-family and onomastic dossier cf. O. Masson, ‘Nouvelles notes d’anthroponymie grecque’, ZPE 110 (1996), 95 ff.  OGS III, 251 ff. 64 According to Bechtel, HP, 509 (‘beschmutzend’). 65 IE *mol- underlies also Gr. μλα ‘black’. 66 Whether the Homeric MN Μολων belongs here must remain open. 67 G. Neumann, ‘Griechisch μολοβρ’, Historische Sprachforschung 105 (1992), 75–80. 68 Aliter Bechtel, HP, 64: ‘Leute, die eine stumpfe und zugleich funkelnde Nase haben’.

50

José-Luis García Ramón

Στλβουν*69 (patron. adj. Στιλβο!νειο, ATR, 3rd cent.) may be a participle of στλβω ‘glitter, glisten’ (Hom.) or a derivative with suffix -on based on στιλβ (Gal., Gloss. as a synonym of στιλπν ‘glittering, glistening’ (Hom.); cf. also στλπων, Sybar. name for ‘dwarf’ (Athen.), στλβη ‘lamp’ (Ar.), ‘mirror’ (. Α ττικοH δ^ Pσοπτρον Hsch.).  Στρα´βα or Στραβα (LAM, 3rd cent.): στραβ ‘squinting’ (cf. Στρα´βων). Τρπνο (§2.1).  Τριχα (a Thessalian in Delphi, 6th cent.): θρξ ‘hair’. Φα´λακρο (very frequent, 3rd cent.) and Φαλακρουν (LAR, 2nd cent.): φαλακρ ‘baldheaded’. Φα´λανθο (PARA, 4th/3rd cent.): φα´λανθο ‘bald in front’ (late, Anth. Pal.), φα´λανθον ‘bald patch’ (Papyri, 2nd cent.), or φαλα´νθη. Lριουγ Hsch. (cf. also Φαλα´νθειο, epithet of Hermes). Φξινο or Φοξ)νο (PHARS, 230–200 BC and passim; once in Boiotia) patron. adj., Φοξινδα: φοξ ‘pointed’ (Hom.), designating the bearer as having a pointed head. The term is glossed as Iξυκφαλο by the Grammarians. Φρ)ξο (KRANN, 3rd cent.): φριξ ‘standing on end, bristling’ (Arist.; also the name of a demon in Anth. Pal.) and φρ)ξ ‘ripple’ (Hom.), ‘bristling up’ (of hairs, Babr.). Cf. Φρ)κο (MELIT, 3rd cent.), Φρκα (4th cent.), Φρικα (PEL, 508 BC). Φ!σκο (HER, 156 BC): φ!σκη ‘large intestine’ as in ‘stuffed with pudding, sausage’ (Ar., Cratin.), whence metaphorically the nickname ‘pot-belly’ (φ!σκα Sophr.). Other names formed on the same basis include Φ!σκα, Φ!σκων, Φυσκων (Boiot. Φουσκων).70

Χα´ββο* (ATR, c.474–450 BC; PHARS, 3rd cent., patron. adj. Χα´ββειο), cf. Χαβαˆ , Χα´βων in other regions: χαβ. καμπ!λο, στεν ‘bent, curved’ (Hsch.).

Cf. Στλβων (Boiotia), Στλπων (Megara). A variant of the name may be assumed for Myc. pu2-za-ko (Pylos), which may conceal /Phuska¯kos/ (J. L. Melena, per litteras), but also /Phudzakos/, cf. Hom. φ!ζα, φυζακιν (Il. 13. 102 φυζακινo Lλα´φοισι), as suggested by B. C˘op, ‘Zwei mykenisch-griechische ˘ iva Antika 8 (1958), 254 n. 25. Pairs with -o- :: -ino- are well attested, cf. πεζ Wortdeutungen’, Z :: πεζιν, α$λιο :: α&λιν, and let us assume a pair Myc. */Phudza¯kos/ :: Hom. φυζακιν (cf. J.-L. García Ramón, ‘Zu den Personennamen der neuen Texten aus Theben’, in Die neuen Linear B-Texte aus Theben, Akten des Internationalen Forschungskolloquium an der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften (Vienna, December 2002), 37–52. 69 70

THESSALIAN PERSONAL NAMES

5.1.2.

51

Names so far Attested only in Thessaly

In addition to Παρτνα and Περπλα (§2.1) above, the following nicknames are notable:

Κ!λλο (HYP, THEB, 1st cent.), Κυλλα (LAR, THEB, 3rd cent.): κυλλ ‘deformed’. Alternative forms (Κυλλ, Κ!λλων) occur in other regions. The name is already attested in Mycenaean cf. MN ku-ro2, gen. kuro2-jo (Knossos and Thebes), which may be interpreted as /Kullos/, although /Ku¯rros/ (: Κ!ριο) is also possible.

 &Ρ!βα or Ρ & υβα (LAM, 2nd cent.): a form <υβ, only transmitted by Herodian: <υβ. <αιβ, and by Etymologicum Magnum: &Ρυβ'ν γα´ρ Lστι τ' Lπικαμπ^ παρα` τοι~ Α5ολευ~σι. The term is thus attested at least in Lesbian, and is the basis of a name in Thessaly.71 Whatever the etymology of these words, the meaning of <αιβ is well established: ‘crooked, bent’ of bandy legs, noses and limbs in general; cf. <αιβο-ε5δ  (Hipp.), κρα- νο, σκελ  (Anth. Pal.). &Ρ!βα thus belongs in the category of names based on physical defects.

 Σαβ!ττα (or Σαβυττα) (MELIT, 3rd cent., HER 2nd cent.): σα´βυττο ‘a fashion of cutting hair’ (Lξυρημνο σαβ!ττου Eup.), more precisely σα´βυττα (Com.), σαβ!ττη (Phot.) ‘pudenda muliebria’. Σκλλο (PHARS, 3rd cent.), Σκολλα (PHER, 2nd–1st cent.): σκλλυ ‘a style of hair with a fringe’ (cf. σκλλυ. κορυφb 0 καταλελειμμνη τFν τριχFν. τιν^ δ^ μαλλν, πλκαμον Hsch.). The name is also attested in Mycenaean, cf. MN ko-ru /Skollus/, dat. ko-ru-we /Skolluwei/ (Knossos, Thebes), as proposed by J. L. Melena.72

Στρεβουν (§1.2). Φλο (ATR, 2nd cent.), like Φλλο (Attica), appears to be based on an appellative *φλο or φλυ ‘stain’, which is not attested but may be assumed on the strength of the gloss φολ!νει. μολ!νει, καταπμπλησιν (Hsch.). The name could also be formed from φολ ‘horny scale’ (of reptiles, Arist.; cf. λοπ of fishes), φολλ ‘scab, leprous sore’ (Hipp.), or φλυ*, attested in the Gloss φλυε κ!νε. οh πυρροH ;ντε μλανα στματα ειK χον. ο= δ^ φυλακα´. The verb φορ!νω (Hom.) may also be taken into account here; it is synonymous with both μολ!νω and φολ!νω, as is shown 71 Bechtel, HP, 491; id., Die griechischen Dialekte, 3 vols. (Berlin, 1921–4), i. 125. García Ramón, ‘Lexicographica Graeca’, 13. 72 J. L. Melena, ‘On the structure of the Mycenaean Linear B Syllabary I. The untransliterated syllabograms’, Proceedings of the XII Colloquium for Mycenaean Studies (May 2000) (Austin, forthcoming).

52

José-Luis García Ramón

by the glosses φορ!νει. φυρC, μολ!νει, συγχε) and φορ!νετο. Lμολ!νετο.73 Whatever their etymology, phonetic cross-influences between the verbs are more than plausible. Φλο (and Φλλο) are to be considered as synonymous with Μλων, Μλ(λ)ι, Μολων on the one hand, and with Φρυ, Φρυλλο and the like on the other: at least at a synchronic level, they must all depend on a basic form (*φλο, *μλο, φρυ) underlying a factitive present in -!νω (φολ!νω, μολ!νω, φορ!νω). Names in Φολ-, Μολ-, Φορmay be derivatives based on a single word and/or be ‘short’ forms of compounds.

Ψαδαρο (HER, 4th cent.): variant of ψαιδρ ‘thin’ or ‘having thin hair’, cf. the Glosses ψαιδρα´. α ραιτριχα and ψαιδρν. φαιδρν. α ραιν, which is also quoted as Cypriot by Herodian (ψαιδρν. αι δφθογγο, τ' φαιδρν Κ!πριοι). In my opinion, the Thessalian name conceals a variant with -αρο- for -ρο-, as in the case of the MN Σναρο and Σνδρο, which reflect σιναρ (Hipp.)/σινδρ ‘hurt, damaged’ (cf. σνδρων. πονηρFν, βλαπτικFν Hsch.). Ψα)θο (THEB, 3rd cent.): reflects a term attested only by the gloss ψαιθν. ]ποφοινσσον (the participle of ]ποφοινσσω, -ομαι ‘become purple’ Nic.); the etymology of the word remains obscure, but its meaning is transparent. The nickname probably refers to the colour of the hair rather than the skin.

Ψακαδα (ERIK, 4th cent.): reflects ψακα´ ‘drop of rain’ (and ψακα´ζω ‘rain in small drops’ Ar.), and may have the metaphorical sense ‘splutterer’, like the MN Ψακα´ (referring to a ‘splutterer’ in Ar. Ach. 1150): the variant ψεκα´ is also attested as a name (WN Ψεκα´). A special case is that of Βρουν* (patron. adj. Βιρο!νειο PHER, 3rd cent., PHARS 230–200 BC). The name may be related to βερρν. δασ! (Hsch.) and to βρροξ. δασ!. Μακεδνε, both glossed as ‘hairy’. Once the adjective is labelled as Macedonian, or of Macedonian origin, it remains open whether the graphic fluctuations (ι ~ ε, ρ ~ ρρ) may be explained in terms of loan-word. 5.2.

Human Character and Behaviour

Next, some names reflecting peculiarities of human character and behaviour. In addition to the compounds Χαν!λαο and Ψλαυχο (§2.3), let us look at some which simply reproduce common adjectives. 73

Cf. also the variant φορ!σσω, cf. φορυσσμεναι.

μολ!νειν.

THESSALIAN PERSONAL NAMES

5.2.1.

53

Thessalian Names which are also Attested in Other Regions

Αβα´σκαντο (LAR, GONN, 1st–2nd cent. AD; also in Boiotia): α βα´σκαντο ‘secure against enchantments, free from harm’, also ‘not harming’ (Imperial, Papyri.). The term α βα´σκανο is only attested in Late Greek as the privative verbal adjective corresponding to βασκανω ‘envy, grudge’ (Dem.), ‘bewitch’ (Dem.); cf. βασκανα ‘witchery, malign influence’.

Βαβ!ρτα (PAR, 4th–3rd cent.), Βαβυρτα´δα (PHAY, 3rd cent.?): βαβ!ρτα. ? παρα´μωρο ‘foolish’ (Hsch.). ΓαGρο (LAR, 4th cent.): γαGρο ‘exulting, disdainful’ (Arch., Ar.). Δα´οχο (ATR, 27 BC, IG 474, 10: Ανδρομαχου του Δαοχου or Δαουχου; PHARS attested in Delphi, 5th cent.: FD III (4) 460, 5–6),74 may a priori be interpreted as ‘adulterer’ on the strength of the gloss δα´οχο. μοιχ (Hsch.). It is, however, not impossible that the form transmitted may be an error for δαλιοχ. μοιχ. Θβρουν (and Θβρων), Θιβρουνδα (Pelasgiotis passim, PHAR): θιβρ ‘hot’, applied to the eggs of the tortoise (pεα` χελ!νη Nic. Al. 555, Th. 35), as well as ‘delicate, luxurious’ of the goddess Cypris (Call. fr. 267).

Σνι MN (LAR, 186 BC): σνι ‘plunderer’ (as a γλFσσα apud Arist.), or σνο ‘lesion’ (Hipp.); possibly a short form of Σιν(ν)α ‘angry’ (Men., Arat.). Σκ!θρο (Perrhaibia, 5th cent.; Σκ!θρων, Σκυθρων, Σκουθρων in Boiotia): σκυθρ ‘grumpy’.75 Υ & βρστα patron. adj. Υ & βριστα)ο (also written Υ & βρστα),76 Υ & βρισστα)ο, Υ & βριστδα: ]βριστ  ‘arrogant’. Cf. also the compound Υ & βρλαο* (SKOT, 2nd cent.), patron. adj. Υ & βριλα´ειο (PHARS, 230–220). Χα´ροπο (LAR, 1st cent.), Χαροπ (ATR, 3rd cent., TRIK, 2nd cent.). The name is attested in Hom. (Χα´ροψ and Χα´ροπο), as well as in 74

In literary sources it is the name of one of the Thessalian citizens who encountered Philip: Dem. 18. 295: το_ ]πα´ρχοντα Qκαστοι πολτα LξαπατFντε καH διαφθεροντε, Qω δο!λου Lποησαν, Θετταλο_ Δα´οχο, Κινα, Θρασ!δαο. (Cf. Plb. 18. 14. 4; Plut. 54. 18. 2 et al. Suda: Δα´οχο. εq Lστιν οrτο τFν προεμνων Φιλππe τα` ΘετταλFν πρα´γματα; Harpocr.). The Δα´οχο father of Andromachos attested in Atrax may be the same man, or a member of the same family; cf. Helly, L’État thessalien, 51 f. 75 Established by O. Masson, ‘Notes épigraphiques: Thessalie et Dalmatie’, BCH 115 (1991), 353 ff.  OGS III, 188, on SEG XLI 537 (Edessa): Σ(ο| )υθρο αρχ(o)ν απεθα/ν(ε) παν διαδασ(σ)αμενο. 76 The notation by Ε reflects the opening of i in contact with r, cf. Thess. κρεννεμεν ( κρνειν). The open articulation of vowels before or after r is attested sporadically, but may safely be assumed even for those cases in which the orthographic norm prevails, cf. García Ramón, ‘Geografía intradialectal tesalia’, 130 f.

54

José-Luis García Ramón

Mycenaean ka-ro-qo /Kharokws/ or /Kharokwos/ (Knossos, Pylos) and reflects χαροπ ‘fierce, greedy’ (Od.), ‘with flashing eyes’.77 5.2.2.

Names so far Attested only in Thessaly

Μαρα´ντα (THAU, 160 BC?): μαραντικ ‘withered’ (of γρων, Phryn.), and μαρανω ‘quench’ (of fire) (Hom.). The existence of the compound α μα´ραντο ‘unfading’ (Late Greek, LXX), also as a phytonym α μα´ραντον, with the adjective α μαρντινο ‘unfading’, ‘of amaranth’ makes it reasonable to assume that the MN Μαρα´ντα is formed from *μα´ραντο (or μαραντικ) with the onomastic suffix -α. Στρο!φακο (KRANN, 3rd cent.) with the non-dialectal form Στρ\φακο (a Thessalian in Attica, 4th cent.), together with Στρωφακδη (SKOT, 2nd cent.), Στρωφ)νο (AZOR, 4th/3rd cent.) may be understood as ‘short’ forms with a common root στρωφ- (and στρωφα´?), a root also shared by the verb στρωφα´ω ‘turn continuously’ (Od.). The MN Στρφακο* (patron. adj. Στροφα´κειο in PHARS, 4th cent.; also Thuc. 4. 78. 1) is based upon στρφο ‘twisted band/cord’ (Od.), ‘women’s girdle’ (Aesch.), or even στροφ ‘turning, twist’ or στρφι ‘twister’ (Ar. Nub. 450). The coexistence of quasi-synonymous στροφω and στρωφα´ομαι makes it readily conceivable that nominal pairs with στροφ- and στρωφ- would evolve, both in common nouns and adjectives, and in names.

Στ!φων (THAU, 1st cent.) may be an old participle of στ!φω ‘draw together’ (Soph., Hipp.) or a formation with suffix -on- built on the adjective

στυφ ‘astringent’ (of wine, Gal.) or στυφει with the same meaning (v.l. in Nicander), στυφ\δη in Late Greek. The meaning of the name may be somewhat bizarre, but the basic form is clearly understandable. 5.3.

Animals

Names based on zoonyms are very frequent in Thessaly, as elsewhere. Many of them are attested throughout Greece and are not necessarily informative about Thessalian fauna, though they are certainly very informative about the Greek lexicon.78 Among the compounds79 presented above (§2.3), Αργολα´ειο was based on a zoonym. Cf. the late variants χα´ροψ ‘bright-eyed’ (Opp.) and χαρωπ (Man.). Zoonyms used as names occur in long texts, such as the Politography Decree of Pharsalos (IG 234  I.Thess I 150, c.230–220 BC) or the stele of the Menandridai of Krannon (above n. 30). On the first, cf. Αττλεβο*, Γα´λιο, Τα!ρουν*, Φρυνσκο, Χορρουν. On the second, cf. Γνα, Λουν, Λ!κο, Ψ!λλακο. 79 Cf. also Thessalian compound names such as 1Αρνιππο, Βουθ ρα, 1Ονιππο, Κ!νιππο, Ο5λυκδα (patron. adj. Ο5λυκδαιο), Ο5λυκο, Τα!ριππο, both elements of which are 77 78

THESSALIAN PERSONAL NAMES

5.3.1.

55

Thessalian Names which are also Attested in Other Regions

Αριθε! ‘robin-redbreast’ (§4). Αττλεβο* patron. adj. Α ττελβε[ιο] (PHARS, 230–200 BC): α ττλεβο α ττα´λαβο ‘grasshopper’. Βατραχων (LAR, 3rd cent.): βα´τραχο ‘frog’. Βο)διον WN (a Thessalian in Attica, 3rd cent.): βοιδον, diminutive of βοG ‘ox’; cf. also Βισκο, WN Βιννα. Βουβαλ (DEM, 3rd cent.): βουβαλ ‘antelope’ (Hdt.), a variant of βο!βαλο designating a kind of deer; cf. βο!βαλο. δορκα´διον. καH μγα καH πολ! (Hsch.), and βουβα´λιον. γυναικ' κοσμα´ριον (Diph. fr. 59). Γα´λιο (PHARS, 230–200 BC): γα´λιο ‘weasel’. Δορκα´ (DEM, 293

BC), Δορκαλ (LAR, 4th/3rd cent.), Δρκαλο (ATR, 2nd cent.) are based on the popular form for ‘deer’, a folk-etymological variant of ζορκα´ (Hdt.).80

Κα´πριο (THEB, 3rd cent.): κα´προ ‘boar’, also a sea-fish capros aper (Arist.).

Καρκνο (PYTH, 3rd cent.), Κερκνο (GOMPH, Imperial): καρκνο ‘crab’.

Κττυφο, Κοττ!φα (very frequent, passim, 4th cent.): κσσυφο ‘blackbird’ Turdus merula (Arist.), also a sea-fish (Ael.).

Λουν (Λουν, Λων) passim, though attested in other regions, is partic ularly frequent in Thessaly, with many formations: Λεον(ν)α, Λεοντε!, Λεοντα, Λεντιο, Λεοντ, Λεοντσκο, Λεντιχο, Λεοντ\, also Λεο!νδα, Λεουνδα (and their non-dialectal forms). The noun also occurs in compounds.81 This can hardly be unconnected with the fact that lions were well known in Thessaly, as B. Helly has shown.82

Λ!κο (PHARS, 230–200 BC): λ!κο, ‘wolf’. zoonyms. Compound names with a zoonym as one element, e.g. &Ιππλοχο, Ιχθ!λοχο (cf. Ιχθ!βολο in Delos), Πεθιππο* in patron. adj. Πειθππεια (LAR, 4th/3rd cent.; the MN is also attested in Athens) are rather opaque since they are not supported by common compounds or phraseology which could cast light on their meaning. 80 The form with initial ζ- is surely etymological (cf. Wal. iwrch: IE *i ork-); that with δ- is due to ˆ the association with δρκομαι, which evokes the nice eyes of the animal. Cf. Λεοντογνη, Λεοντοδα´μα, Λεοντοκρα´τει, Λεοντομνει, Λεοντλυκο; Λυκολουν, Δαιλουν. 81

82

See above n. 2.

also

56

José-Luis García Ramón

Μα´λεικο (PHER, 2nd cent.): μα´ληκο,83 a bird according to Herodian (1. 151).

  Περδκκα (or Περδικκα passim, 3rd cent.): a variant in -κκα or -κκα of πρδιξ, ‘partridge’, cf. also Πρδιξ (Boiotia), Περδικα. Πορτ)νο (ATR, KRANN, LAR, AZOR, 4th cent.), with WN Πορτνα (PEL, Hellenistic): πρτι (Hom.) ‘calf, young heifer’, also metaph. ‘young woman’ (Lyc.).

Π!ραλλο (Perrhaibia, Imperial): πυραλ(λ) ‘a kind of pigeon’ (Arist.). Σκορπων (OIT, 3rd cent.): σκορπο ‘scorpion’ (Aesch.), also a sea-fish, Scorpaena scrofa (Arist.) and σκορπ Scorpaena porcus (Arist.). Σ!ιλλο (SKOT, 3rd cent.), also Σ!αγρο (Dolopes, 2nd cent.): σG ‘pig’ and the compound σ!αγρο ‘wild boar’. Τα!ρουν* (patron. adj. Ταυρο!νειο, PHARS, 230–200 BC), also Ταυρσκο (THEB, 3rd cent.) and ΤαGρι (AIN, coin, 2nd cent.), as well as compound names with a second element ιππο (LAR, 324 BC), κλεα (LAR, 4th/3rd cent.), μνη (3rd cent.). Ττυρο (LAR, 3rd cent.): ττυρο ‘he-goat’ (Schol. Theocr.), ‘bell-wether’ (Serv.), also ‘short-tailed ape’ ( σα´τυρο). ΦρGνο (passim, 4th cent.): φρGνο, φρ!νη ‘toad’ (Arist.); cf. also ‘short’ forms Φρυνουν, Φρυν, Φρυνσκο, Φρ!νιχο, Φρυν\νδα. Χορρουν* (patron. adj. Χορριο!νειο, PHARS, 3rd cent.) presupposes χρρο*, the dialectal form of χο)ρο. Cf. also Χο)ρο (LAR, 4th cent.), Χοιρλη (DEM, 3rd cent.): χο)ρο ‘a young pig’. Χρμα* (patron. adj. Χρομαα, LAR, 3rd/2nd cent.) and Χρομλο (GHW 1997): χρμο ‘neighing of horses’, attested only by the Hesychian gloss χρμο. ψφο ποι. ο= δ^ χρεμετισμ; cf. χρεμετζω ‘to neigh’, and χρμι ‘a sea-fish’ (Arist.).84 Both possibilities being morphologically in order, the question whether the basic form is a noise or a fish must remain open.85 83

For the complete dossier cf. O. Masson, ‘Vocabulaire grec et anthroponymie’, in Mélanges P. Chantraine: Le substantif μα´ληκο et le nom Μα´λε¯ο| ο ou Μα´ληκο (Paris, 1972), 119 f.  OGS I, 117 f. 84 Cf. L. Robert, Noms indigènes dans l’Asie Mineure gréco-romaine, I (Paris, 1963), 168 n. 5. 85 The verb is a remodelling of an inherited *χρμω (cf. Part. YAv. graman.t- ‘furious’; for other formations cf. LIV 2 s.v.*ghrem-). The present is recognizable in the MN Χρμων, which matched YAv. graman.t-; cf. also Χρεμ!λο, Χρεμα. The MN Χρμμων (*χρμω) stands to Χρμο in the same relation as Στρεβων (*στρεβω) stands to στροιβ, cf. §1.2.

THESSALIAN PERSONAL NAMES

5.3.2.

57

Names so far Attested only in Thessaly

For some of them a new interpretation will be proposed.

Αριθε! see above §5.3.1. Γνα* (patron. adj. Γναιο, KRANN, 3rd cent.): γ)νο (Ialysos, Abdera, 4th cent.) designating the offspring of a mare and mule of less than normal size; cf. γ)ννο, or γννο, or γινν (Arist., HA 557b25; Strabo 4. 6. 2) and the Gloss γννο . ζYον οr ? πατbρ #ππο, 0 δ^ μ τηρ ;νο, νθη.86

Οκορναλ WN (SKOT, 3rd cent.), written ΟΚΟΡΜΑΛΙΣ according to the editor A. Tzafalias,87 may be based on the zoonym ;κορνο ‘locust’ (glossed as α ττλεβο, πα´ρνοψ Hsch.). The name could be a feminine derivative in - from a noun *Iκρναλο (cf. α κρ- ‘locust’ (Hom.), βασσαρ ‘fox’), but it is easier to assume a feminine derivative in -αλ (as usual with nouns and names) from ;κορνο; cf. δορκαλ (Call.) and WN Δορκαλ (: δορκα´ ‘deer, gazelle’), μυρταλ (glossed by Hesychius as a Lakonian form for Iξυμυρρνη) and WN Μυρταλ (: μ!ρτο) or τευθαλλ (v.1.) Polygonum auiculare ‘knot-grass’ (: ΤεGθο). Σιττ!ρα (AIN, HYP, 2nd cent.): obscure, perhaps better understood as a formation in -!ρα based on σττο ‘nut-hatch’ (: Sitta europaea) and σττη. ;ρνι ποι. ο= δ^ δρυοκολα´πτη (Hsch.), rather than upon σττα ‘a cry of drovers’ (Theocr.); cf. MN Σττων (Boiotia). Σκα´ρο* (patron. adj. Σκα´ρειο, KRANN 3rd cent.): σκα´ρο, a sea fish Scarus cretensis (Epich., Arist.), related to σκαρω ‘skip, dance’ (Hom.). The name evokes the movement of the fish, cf. Arist. fr. 332 α π' τοG σκαρειν.88

A variant of the form may be that of the gloss 4ννοι δ^, ο= Lκ τFν Lναντων Lξ #ππου πατρ' καH ;νου μητρ (Hsch.), with fluctuation between γι and ι (cf. (γιερο for =ερ). The glosses 4ννου. πα)δα and 4ννην. κρην μικρα´ν86 (Hsch.) point to 4νι ‘son,

86

daughter’. SEG XLV 655, stele. Needless to say, the assumption of the existence of a WN Οκορναλ presupposes either that the form on the stone (non uidi ) had a ν, and not a μ, as given by the editor, or that the μ is a scribal error. Fluctuations of μ and ν are attested, but in the opposite direction; Αιχναρετα and ‘short’ forms Α4χνουν, Α4χνα in relation to the correct spelling in patron. adj. Α5χμαιρτειο, WN Α5χμαρτα and Α4χμων (cf. Hom. α5χμα´λωτο). 88 On this and similar fish names, see Strömberg, Studien zur Etymologie und Bildung der griechischen Fischnamen, 52. 87

58

José-Luis García Ramón

Σερακο (LAM?, m. 3rd cent.; also LAR) is a formation in -ακο (with ει for e¯ ) based on σ ρ ‘silkworm’ (Paus.), which underlies the ethnic Σ6ρε (Strabo 11. 11. 1 et al.). Τροχλο (PHARS, 4th cent.): τροχλο (Hdt. 2. 68. 5; Arist., HA 612a), name of a bird, identified as Charadrius melanocephalus andas Hoplopterus spinosus. The MN has a variant Τροχλλα (or Τροχιλλα), attested in Epiros (3rd/2nd cent.). The appellative τροχλο is based on τρχι ‘messenger’ (Aesch. Prom. 941 τνδε τ'ν Δι' τρχιν [Hermes]), this being a CóC-i- formation to τρχω ‘run’ (IE *dhregˆ h, which is also attested as a name, cf. [Τ]ρο[χ]ι, Oropos, 2nd cent.). The system constituted by τροχλο : τρχι and reflected in onomastics (Τροχλο, Τροχλλα or Τροχιλλα) is supported by a Mycenaean parallel, as I have tried to show elsewhere:89 MN o-ki-ro /Orkhilos/, o-ki-ra /Orkhila¯s/ or /Orkhilla¯s/) and the nickname o-ko /Orkho¯n/ are based on Iρχλο, a bird of bad omen in weddings (Lit. erzˇilas ‘stallion’, Latv. èrzelis id.), and on ;ρχι ‘testicle’90 (IE *h1orgˆhi- cf. Hitt. arkiid., IE *h1egˆh-, cf. Iρχομαι), from which Iρχλο ultimately derives. The association of the bird with testicles is clear in Ar. Av. 568–9 . . . Iρχλο ;ρνι / δε) σρφον Lνρχην σφαγια´ζειν. The forms of the dossier make the following system: *dhregˆh*h1ergˆh-

τροχ ;ρχι

τροχλο, Τροχλο Iρχλο, Myc. /Orkhilos/,/Orkhil(l)a¯s/



Τροχλλα (-α)

The Thessalian name Τροχλο turns out to be of great importance in elucidating the status of three Mycenaean names o-ki-ro, o-ki-ra, and o-ko, which had previously defied interpretation.

Χλουν* (patron. adj. Χελο!νειο, PHER c.211 BC): χλυ ‘tortoise’ (H.Merc.), and χελ\νη, which underlie other nicknames such as Χελ\νη (Samos) or Χελων, Χλι. Ψακελα (ERIK, 375–350 BC): reflects a formal variant91 of ψα´καλον, -ο ‘new-born animal’ (Ar. Byz.; Ael.),92 which in turn is a derivative of ψακα´, ψεκα´ ‘drop of rain’.93 The meaning of ψα´καλον, -ο is clear: ψακα´λου. τα` 89 García Ramón, ‘Anthroponymica Mycenaea: 2. Mykenisch da-te-wa /Daitewas/ und e-u-dai-ta, alph.gr. Δατα, Πανδατη’, Minos 35–6 (2000–2001), 432 ff. 90 Cf. C. Watkins, ‘La famille indo-européenne de grec ;ρχι: linguistique, poétique et mythologie’, Bulletin de la Société de Linguistique de Paris 11 ff.  C. Watkins, Selected Writings, ed. L. Oliver (Innsbruck, 1994), 520 ff. 91 With suffix alternation -αλο-/-ελο- (as in -αρο-/-ερο-, cf. =ερ/=αρ). 92 Cf. García Ramón, ‘Del trabajo en una gramática del tesalio’, 246 f. Less attractive is an explanation in terms of ψα´κελον. μγα (v.1. μσα) Hsch. 93 On the MN Ψακαδα cf. §5.1.2.

THESSALIAN PERSONAL NAMES

59

δ^ τFν Iρνθων καH τα` τFν ;φεων καH τα` τFν κροκοδελων Pνιοι καH ψακα´λου καλοGσιν, uν ε5σι καH Θετταλο (Ael. De anim. 7. 47). The semantic shift of ‘rain’ to ‘young animal’ is not problematic in view of the semantic parallel of δρσο (Aesch.), Qρση (Od.), both meaning originally ‘dew’.

Ψ!λλακο* (patron. adj. Ψυλλα´κειο, KRANN, 3rd cent.) is another instance of a name built on a zoonym by means of the suffix -(α)κο (cf. supra Σερακο : σ ρ). The basic form is ψ!λλα ‘flea’ (Ar.), or ψ!λλο (Epich.), which are also attested as names in other regions; cf. Ψ!λλο, Ψ!λλα or even Ψ!λλαξ (cf. ψ!λλακα. τα` ψ!λλα Hsch.), in its turn a derivative with -(α)κ-. 5.4.

Plants

Some Thessalian names are based on the names of plants and fruits; this does not necessarily mean that the plants are characteristic of the region. 5.4.1.

Thessalian Names which are also Attested in Other Regions

Ακ!λα (incerti loci), cf. also Ακυλεδα, Ακ!λλη in Boiotia: α1κυλο (Hom.) ‘acorn of quercus ilex’, also ‘ornament’ (inscr.).

Δαυχνα)ο: δα!χνα ‘laurel’ (§4). Κσσο* (patron. adj. Κσσειο, KRANN, 3rd cent.): κισσ (Att. κιττ) ‘ivy’.

Μυρτλο (Antron, 2nd cent.), Μ!ρτιχο (KRANN, 3rd cent.): μ!ρτο, μ!ρτον ‘myrtle(berry)’, also ‘twig / spray of myrtle’.94 1Οροβι* (patron. adj. Οροβειο, PHARS, 230–200 BC): ;ροβο ‘bitter vetch’ (Hipp., Arist.), also Iρβαξ, Iροβα´διον (Ps.-Diosc.). Πεταλλα* (patron. adj. Πεταλλαιο, ATR, 3rd cent.), Πεταλλ (LAR, 3rd cent.) are variants, with geminated lambda, of names of the type

Πεταλα, Πταλο, Πεταλ\ et sim., which are well attested in Thessaly. They clearly derive from πταλον ‘leaf’ (Hom.), πτηλον (καλα` πτηλα Hes. frr. 204, 125), as is the case with πετηλ ‘locust’ (Hsch.); cf. πτηλο ‘outspread’ (Arat.). It must remain open whether the name conceals a second meaning of the term, namely ‘full-grown’ (of calves or cows, cf. μσχοι Ath.

94 The secondary sense, pudenda muliebria of hardly preferable.

μ!ρτον (Ar. Lys. 1004), is a priori possible, but

60

José-Luis García Ramón

9. 376b: α π'

τFν κερα´των >ταν ατα` Lκπταλα Pχωσι); cf. also Hsch. βοG πετηλ. ? α ναπεπταμνα τα` κρατα Pχων. Στα´χυ (LAR, 2nd cent.): σταχ! ‘ear of corn’ (Hom.). 5.4.2.

Names so far Attested only in Thessaly

$Ιλξινο or &Ιλξ)νο MN: Ιλοξινο- μναμα, GHW 1624 (KRANN, 2nd half |

5th cent.) Needless to say, accentuation, and especially spiritus, are hypothetical and rely on the twofold assumption that the name has been formed on *=λξνα- and that this is a variant of Oλξνη (Diosc.), a plant identified as Conuuluulus aruensis, and/or Parietaria officinalis, as well as smilax asera. A synonymous form is Oλξ)τι (Ps.-Diosc.). $Ιλξινο (or &Ιλξ)νο) would thus reflect an old form which was later transformed to Oλξι- (Oλξνη, Oλξ)τι) by folk etymology. This is fairly conceivable for a phytonym which gives the impression of drawing or whirling: an assimilation to Qλκω ‘drag’,95 Qλξι ‘dragging’, Qλιξ ‘whirl’ (Hom.), Oλκη ‘winding’ (cf. ε5λω ‘wind, turn round’, aor. ε5λησα-, also pres. 4λλω, aor. 5λλα- from IE *uel-, cf. Lat. ˆ formerly uoluo¯ ).96 It is a priori conceivable that the Thessalian name was *&Ελξ)νο, to be interpreted as a ‘short’ form in -)νο of a compound with the first element &Ελξι, cf. WN &Ελξππα (Messene, 2nd cent.). ‘Short’ forms in -)νο of compounds of the τερψμβροτο type are well attested with the first element both in -ξ(ι) (corresponding to an aorist in -ξα, e.g. MN Αναξ)νο, Δεξ)νο, Πραξ)νο), and in σ( ι), cf. aor. in -σ(α) (Α γασ)νο, Α κεσ)νο, Ερασ)νο, &Ηγησ)νο, Μνησ)νο, Πεισ)νο, Τελεσ)νο). However, the initial I- would remain unexplained. An explanation as the result of a secondary association with the phytonym would in any case imply that this one, irrespective of its being Greek or pre-Greek, had actually an initial i.

Κορμ WN (ATR, 3rd cent.): κρμο ‘trunk of a tree’ (Od.). Cf. also the MN Κρμο (Attica) and Κορμνα (Sikyon, 5th cent.), both hapax. Ρ & ουξνα (LAR, Hellenistic): may be based upon <\ξ (Nic. Ther. 716), <α-ξ ‘grape’, ‘berry’ (Arch., Class. Greek), also a kind of spider (Ael.),97 with suffix -να, a formation parallel to -)νο (cf. &Ιλξ)νο).

The relation with Qλκω is absolutely clear in the case of the synonymous phytonym Oλκνα (Ps.-Diosc.), cf. R. Strömberg, Griechische Pflanzennamen (Göteborg, 1940), 111. 96 The absence of aspiration in the verb is phonetically unexpected, for a form with initial ProtoGr. *uelnéu-, remodelled from IE *ul-néu- (Ved. vrn.óti) would have yielded *ε=λω. It is reasonˆ assume ˆ ˆ ˚ ˆ the MN˚ noted Ιλξινο¯  shows Homeric psilosis, or able to that the form underlying that aspiration was simply not noted. 97 Cf. L. Gil Fernández, Nombres de insectos en griego antiguo (Madrid, 1959), 41. 95

THESSALIAN PERSONAL NAMES

61

Σκρδο* (patron. adj. Σκρδεια, LAR, 4th cent.): may reflect σκρδον, a variant of σκροδον ‘garlic’, probably a pre-Greek word98 corresponding to Allium sativum (Hdt.), σκρδιον ‘garlic germander’ (Teucrium scordium Diosc.). Σκρδο stands alongside Σκορδα (Lakonia, 2nd cent. AD),99 which is also a hapax.

Σμ)λα (HAL, 315–280 BC), attested form Σμ[ιλ]α (FD III (2) 182, 1). If this is the correct restoration, the name would reflect the phytonym (σ)μ)λαξ (Ar.; Eur.) ‘holm oak’ Smilax aspera, ‘milax’ Quercus ilex (Theophr.). The form is a variant of (σ)μ)λο (Call.; Nic.; Diosc.) ‘yew’ Taxus baccata. The new name joins other nicknames such as Σμ)λι (Aigina, 6th cent.) and Σμλων (Thasos, 2nd cent.). 5.5. 5.5.1.

Utensils Thessalian Names which are also Attested in Other Regions

Βα´σανι or Βασανε! (PHARS, 3rd cent.): βα´σανο ‘touchstone’ (C. Thg. 417), but also ‘wren’ (Arist. HA 592b27), and ‘queen bee’ (ibid. 623b9).

Καπανε! (KRANN, 3rd cent.), which is also attested in Homer (Il. 2. 564, a Theban hero), is of special interest. The name obviously relates to the term

καπα´νη ‘chariot’ (Hom.) and designates the cross-piece of a chariot (cf. also καπα´νακε ‘side pieces’). The term, being itself of pre-Greek origin, is

explicitly labelled as Thessalian by the Comic poet Xenarchos, who gives it as a synonym of α π νη (fr. 11 Β. τ λγει; καπα´να; Α. να. καπα´να ΘετταλοH / πα´ντε καλοGσι τα` α π να. Β. μανθα´νω). The text is transmitted and commented on by Athenaeus, who stresses the metaphorical sense ‘enormous’ of καπανικ in Aristophanes (fr. 492; cf. Athen. Deipn. 10. 418a ταGτα δ^ καπανικα` ε4ρηκεν Αριστοφα´νη Lν Ταγηνιστα) . . . τ πρ' τα` ΛυδFν δε)πνα καH τα` ΘετταλFν; τα` Θετταλικα` μ^ν πολ_ καπανικ\τερα, οqον τα` α&μαξια)α. ΘετταλοH γα`ρ τα` α π να καπα´να Pλεγον. Ξναρχο Σκ!θαι). The statement is also referred to by Hesychius (καπανικ\τερα. α π' τ6 φα´τνη, χορταστικ\τερα. τιν^ δ^ α ντH τοG μεζονα. καπα´να γα`ρ α π να λγουσιν). In view of the explicit labelling of καπα´νη as Thessalian, one may assume that Homeric Καπανε!, despite

A connection of σκρδον with Sanskrit chardana- (ntr.) ‘vomit’ (Strömberg, Griechische Pflanzennamen, 83) is very uncertain, in spite of the vomiting effect of garlic. Cf. also Alb. hurahë. 99 The sexual connotation of σκροδον in Ar. Thesm. 494 et al. (LSJ, Suppl. s.v.) is probably absent in the case of the MN Σκρδο. 98

62

José-Luis García Ramón

καπα´να being of non-Greek origin, belongs to the Thessalian elements in the Greek Epic. Σαιτα´δα* (patron. adj. Σαιτα´δαιο, KRANN, 215 BC): σαwτη ‘a liquid measure’, equivalent to twenty-two ξσται, along with the diminutives σατιον, σα)τι ‘plaster’ (Late Greek). Σα´ρδουν* (patron. adj. Σαρδο!νειο, PHARS, 230–200 BC): σαρδ\ν ‘rope’ sustaining the upper edge of a hunting-net (Poll.); cf. σαρδνιον (Xen. Cyr. 6. 9.)100

Φαικα (ANTH, 2nd cent.), Φα)κο (Dolopia, 4th cent., THAU, c.204): φαικ  λαμπρ (Soph.); φαικF. λαμπρF (Hsch.); φαικα´ ‘a kind of shoe’ (Anth. Pal.). The term is surely related to φαι ‘grey’ (Aesch.), but the formation with -k- is different from the one underlying the name Φααξ. Φαλια´δα (KRANN, 3rd cent.): φα´λο ‘horn of a helmet’ (cf. §1.3). Φορμων (passim, 4th cent.): φορμ ‘basket’ for corn (Hes.). 5.5.2.

Names so far Attested only in Thessaly

Βερβνα MN (LAM, 3rd/2nd cent.): appellative βρβινο (or βρβινον) or βερβνα, which underlies the diminutive βερβνια ‘pegs for hanging up vases’. The term is known to us exclusively from the Glosses: βερβνια. ξ!λα καθηλωμνα, Lξ uν τα` ληκ!θου Lκρμων ο= δ^ γνο τι Αρκαδικ'ν το_ Βερβενου (Hsch. quoting Hermippos). Κοπβιδαˆ  MN (patron. adj. Κοπβιδα)οIG 517, 59; LAR, 214 BC)is based upon a non-attested nickname *Κοππιδα, reflecting either κοπιδα ‘merchant of κοπδε’ [Corycus] or simply a nickname based directly on κοπ, a ‘curved sabre’ of a type used in Thessaly and also in Doris, as is explicitly shown by Eur. El. 836–7: Φθια´δ α ντH Δωρικ6 / ο4σει τι 0μ)ν κοπδα).101 Κοπβιδ-102 instead of Κοππιδα for *Κοπδα displays the The name could a priori be related to σαρδα´νιο, σαρδνιο ‘bitter smiling’ (Hom.), but this would raise morphological difficulties. 101 Cf. García Ramón, ‘Del trabajo en una gramática del tesalio’, 244 f.; and ‘Zur Problematik des thessalischen Dialekts’, Akten Kolloquium Berlin (September 2001) (forthcoming). 102 The spelling πβ for *-pp- reflects the Thessalian tendency to a strong articulation of consonantal clusters: cf. πβ for *pb (and *tb), e.g. επβα´σκει ( Lπιβα´σκει), καπβολαια ( καταβολαα) or τδι for -dd- (as the result of secondary *di before a vowel) e.g. ιτδιαν ˆ and ιδδιαν or Εμ/πετδιουνο ( 5δαν, Εμπεδωνο). A nice instance of the spelling πβ for *-pp- is επβοκια ‘unshorn animals’ ( Lπιπκια), to be interpreted as a possessive compound Lπι-πκιο ‘having his/its own wool on’, i.e. ‘unshorn’, with second element πκο ‘sheared sheep’s wool’ (Hom.), cf. Myc. po-ka. The form επβοκια can be read in an unpublished text from Larissa, GHW 5765 (3rd cent.?): 1–2 . . . τελεσσειν επβοκια δυα του μεν Δι 100

THESSALIAN PERSONAL NAMES

gemination common in names; cf. e.g. Σιμων) in the same inscription (517).

63

Σιμμα, Σιμμουν (: Σιμα,

Χαουν (KRANN, 215 BC): χα)ον ‘shepherd’s staff’ (Ap. Rh. 4. 972; Call. fr. 292), which is glossed as χαι. ? <α´βδο (Suda). The term is well attested in Celtic languages (cf. O.Ir. gáe and Gaul. gaiso-), and was adopted as a loan-word in Lat. gaesum (Gr. γα)σο, -ον ‘javelin’).103 Whether Δρ\πακο* belongs here must remain open (§1.3). 5.6. Pastry- and Bread-Making Finally, three names based on rare terms belonging to the curious vocabulary of pastry- and bread-making, namely Att. β ραξ, κριμματα, and ο5νοGττα, of which only the last is attested in Classical Greek literature. The names are so far attested only in Thessaly.

Βερακο MN (THAU, 3rd cent.; HER, 2nd cent.): appellative Ion. β ρηξ, Att. β ραξ, a kind of loaf;104 cf. the Hesychian gloss β ραξ. μα´ζα μεγα´λη, β ρηκε. μα´ζαι Iρθα. ο= δ^ α&πλF μα´ζα. α1λλοι μα´ζα α1νωθεν). If the form βα´ραξ ‘a kind of cake’ (Epil.) is the same noun, this would point to a long a¯ in the first syllable of the word. In that case, the Thessalian name might conceal the non-Thessalian, Attic form. The letters ΚΡΙΜΜΑΤ in an unpublished epitaph (PYTH, 2nd cent., GHW 5247) make possible a name Κριμμα´τ[ιον], or Κριμματ[\], or Κριμματ[]. Whichever of these alternatives is preferred, the WN is based on the appellative κριμματα ‘coarse loaf’, a term labelled as Thessalian by Athenaeus (3. 112a: τετριμμνο εB κατα` χε)ρα κλλιξ Θεσσαλικ σοι ]παρχτω, xν καλουσι κε)νοι κριμματαν, ο= δ’ α1λλοι χνδρινον α1ρτον). The geminated μν could be understood as expressive, or simply an onomastic device, as against the MN Κρμων (Thera, 7th cent.?) or the .. like. But an appellative κρ)μο or : κρμο is not attested. More plausible is ορσεν, τα μα /Εννοδια θειλυ . . . “. . . τελσαι Lπιπκια δ!α τY μ^ν ΔιH α1ρρεν, τo δ^ Εν(ν)οδy θηλ!” (interpretation by B. Helly and myself, June 2001), which strongly recalls Hom. πκον α1ρσενο. The compound Lπ-ποκο is attested, with exactly the same meaning, in a Calendar of offerings (SGDI 3731, 5–6, 3rd cent.): [Εκ]αται εμ πολει / [οιν] επιποκον τελε[αν (cf. οιν. 4). As to ποκο, cf. πκο. For further details cf. García Ramón, ‘Zur Problematik des thessalischen Dialekts’. The form could also a priori be related to Lit. Lac. χα´ιο (Ar. Lys. 90–1) ‘genuine, noble’, from χα´σιο. α γαθ, with dialectal aspiration of -s-. 104 It is to be stressed that, if Α in the first syllable of the gloss βα´ρακο. βα´τραχο (Hsch.) conceals a long a¯, which may not be ruled out, the Thessalian name could reflect a kind of frog, or even a freshwater fish (Akraiphia, 3rd–2nd cent.). Non liquet. 103

64

José-Luis García Ramón

to associate the name with κρ)μνον (Hipp.), which is synonymous with κριμματα, under the assumption of an assimilation -mn-  -mm-. The heroic name Ο5νουσσε!, (KRANN, 4th cent.) is attested in a dedication with the text Οινα Φιλολαεια / γυνα Οινουσσει / ειρουι ονεθεικε (SEG XLV 612). It immediately evokes the term ο5νοGττα ‘cake of barley mixed with wine’ (Ar. Pl. 1121), also an intoxicating plant (Arist.).105 The name of the dedicant was Ο4να; let us assume that the hero was her eponym.

6.

THE GREEK LEXICON IN THESSALIAN NAMES

Stress has been laid throughout this paper on nicknames attested (exclusively or not) in Thessaly which derive from words transmitted by glosses and ancient grammarians without a concrete dialectal label. The words underlying these names may safely be assumed to belong to the Greek lexicon: in this sense, Thessalian onomastics corroborate the authenticity of the information provided by ancient glosses and grammarians, and so contribute to our knowledge of ancient Greek vocabulary. To recapitulate them in alphabetical order:

Αριθε! (§4): Lριθε!. Lρθακο; also Arist. Lριθε! (Theophr., Arat.),

Lρθαυλο (Schol. Ar.). Βαβ!ρτα (§5.2.1): βαβ!ρτα. ? παρα´μωρο ‘foolish’ (Hsch). Βερακο (§5.6): βα´ραξ (β ρηξ, β ραξ) ‘kind of cake’ (β ραξ. μα´ζα μεγα´λη, β ρηκε. μα´ζαι Iρθα. ο= δ^ α&πλF μα´ζα. α1λλοι μα´ζα α1νωθεν Hsch.). Βερβνα (§5.5.2); βερβνια. ξ!λα καθηλωμνα, Lξ uν τα` ληκ!θου Lκρμων. ο= δ^ γνο τι Αρκαδικ'ν το_ Βερβενου (Hsch.). Βρουν* (§5.1.2), if really related to βερρν. δασ! (Hsch.), βρροξ. δασ!. Μακεδνε. Δρο!πακο* (§1.3): δρ\ψ. α1νθρωπο. Δρουτταλ (§1.3): δρ\πτη. πλαν τη. Μα´λεικο (§5.3.1): μα´ληκο, a kind of bird (Herodian). Οκορναλ (§5.3.2): ;κορνο. α ττλεβο, πα´ρνοψ (Hsch.).  &Ρ!βα or &Ρυβα (§5.1.2): <υβ. <αιβ (Hsch.), &Ρυβ'ν γα´ρ Lστι τ' Lπικαμπ^ παρα` το) Α5ολεGσι (EM). Σιττ!ρα (§5.3.2): σττη. ;ρνι ποι. ο= δ^ δρυοκολα´πτη (Hsch.). 105

Cf. also the Lakonian toponyms Ο5νοGσσαι (a river name) and Ο5νοG.

THESSALIAN PERSONAL NAMES

65

Σκλλο, Σκολλα (§5.1.2): σκλλυ. κορυφb 0 καταλελειμμνη τFν τριχFν. τιν^ δ^ μαλλν, πλκαμον (Hsch.). Cf. also Myc. MN ko-ru /Skollus/.

Φλο (§5.1.2): φολ!νει. μολ!νει, καταπμπλησιν (Hsch.), but also φολ ‘horny scale’ of reptiles (Arist.).

Χα´ββο* (§5.1.1): χαβ. καμπ!λο, στεν ‘bent, curved’ (Hsch.). Χαν!λαο* (§2.3): χαν!ειν. βοαˆ ν, χαν!σσει. βα καλε) (Hsch.). Ψαδαρο (§5.1.2): ψαιδρα´. α ραιτριχα, ψαιδρν. φαιδρν. α ραιν ‘thin’. Ψα)θο (§5.1.2): ψαιθν. ]ποφοινσσον ‘becoming red’. Ψ!λλακο* (§5.3.2): ψ!λλακα. τα` ψ!λλα (Hsch.), cf. ψ!λλα ‘flea’ (Ar.), ψ!λλο (Epich.). Χαουν (§5.5.2): χα)ον ‘staff’ (Ap. Rh., Call.), χαι. ? <α´βδο (Suda). Whether the words underlying these names belong to the Thessalian dialect is impossible to say. Since their occurrence as names in Thessaly may be haphazard, they are inconclusive as to their Thessalian character, for they do not fulfil the conditions for this: the underlying words do not occur in Thessalian inscriptions, nor are they transmitted with the label ‘Thessalian’ (§7). However, bearing in mind that the terms they reflect are none of them literary and, consequently, they are not liable to travel from one region to another, one cannot help thinking that, in addition to belonging to the Greek lexicon, they also belong to the current lexical stock of Thessaly.

7.

THESSALIAN NAMES AND THE THESSALIAN LEXICON

The recognition of which names among those attested in Thessaly may be understood as reflections of Thessalian dialect obviously depends on the extent to which it is possible to determine whether the words on which they are based belong to the lexical stock of the dialect spoken (or written) by the inhabitants of the region. This is extremely difficult in the case of compound names, unless they are lexicalized as common adjectives or nouns, and, what is more, are transmitted with the label ‘Thessalian’ by the ancient sources. The most promising field is that of names based on common nouns and adjectives, and their onomastic variants. Even more difficult is to decide whether a Thessalian name (and word) is exclusively Thessalian. A word may be taken to be ‘Thessalian’, whether or not it occurs outside Thessaly, on one of the following conditions: (1) when it is attested in inscriptions from Thessaly; (2) when it is transmitted as a gloss explicitly

66

José-Luis García Ramón

labelled as Thessalian; and (3) when it is explicitly quoted as Thessalian by poets, historians, and other ancient sources. It must be stressed at this point that words fulfilling conditions (2) and/or (3), in spite of the fact that they are transmitted in their Attic form, are more reliable than is usually assumed: in all (admittedly few) cases where the epigraphical data allow us to check the Thessalian authenticity of a gloss or a literary source, the information turns out to be astonishingly correct.106 The following names, from among those dealt with in the present paper, fall into these categories (for the sake of simplicity (2) and (3) are put together): (1) Names based upon words attested epigraphically:

Δαυχνα)ο (§4): δα!χνα ‘laurel’ (δα!χνα. δα´φνη Hsch.). (2, 3) Names based upon words labelled as Thessalian in Glosses or literary sources: Αργλα* (§2.3): α ργλα, a type of snake; Δα´οχο (§5.2.1), if corresponding to δαλιοχ. μοιχ (Hsch.); Καπανε! (§5.5.1); Κοπβιδαˆ * (§5.5.2); Κριμμα´τ[ιον], or Κριμματ[\], or Κριμματ[] (§5.6); Ψακελα (§5.3.2). If the recognition of words as Thessalian is relatively easy on the basis of the above criteria, the attempt to identify specifically Thessalian names encounters major difficulties. A word attested in Thessaly may only be considered as specifically Thessalian under one of the following conditions:107 (1) when it is attested only in Thessalian, and, moreover, stands in contrast with other terms attested as their synonymous counterparts in Attic and/or in other dialects; (2) when it has in Thessaly a special meaning different from those attested for the same term in Attic. In other words, the label ‘specifically Thessalian’ may be applied to a lexical item when it stands in contrast to another item, or to a different sense of the same item, in Attic and other dialects. The conditions are fairly refined, and I have not been able to find any name fulfilling condition (1). Condition (2) may be fulfilled by Αγορα)ο (§4), provided that it conceals the meaning ‘assembly’, and perhaps also by Λιμναρχο (§2.3).

106 This point was extensively set out in García Ramón, ‘Del trabajo en una gramática del tesalio’, 259 ff. (with a list of the dialectal glosses, which partially enlarges the excellent presentation by C. Charalambakis Συμβολ στ μελτη τFν ΘεσσαλικFν “ΓλωσσFν”, Θεσσαλικα` Χρονικα´ (1980), 367–406. 107 For an extensive presentation of these criteria cf. García Ramón, ‘Cuestiones de léxico y onomástica tesalios’, 523 ff.

THESSALIAN PERSONAL NAMES

8.

67

CONCLUDING REMARKS

This overview of Thessalian personal names which are recognizable as (and understandable in terms of) Greek has made evident the variety of the lexical items underlying personal onomastics. On the basis of samples from some lexical groups, I have attempted to draw attention to the richness and variety of Thessaly’s contribution to our knowledge of the Greek lexicon: lexical items transmitted only by Glosses turn out to be real in the light of the ‘latent’ vocabulary from which Thessalian names derive, and in some cases it is possible to identify the underlying words as Thessalian proper. In addition, new criteria have been suggested. Practically every name, and every word, presents challenges, and many questions remain open, for which an answer can only be given by taking into account the broader historical aspects. This is especially clear in the case of names which are unexpectedly frequent in Thessaly compared to other regions, but the same holds good for the classification of foreign, non-Greek names, or for anthroponyms related to placenames or to theonyms and bynames, to quote only some of the most difficult domains we have to deal with for the elaboration of the Thessalian Grammar which Bruno Helly and I are preparing. Note. This paper has been written as part of the Project PROCOPE (PKZ D/0205729: 2003–2004), the aim of which is the preparation of the Grammar of the Thessalian Dialect by Bruno Helly (Maison de l’Orient et de la Méditerranée, Université Lyon II) and the author. The final version has benefited from the comments of Bruno Helly. Any remaining infelicities are my responsibility.

4 The Ptolemaic Garrison of Hermoupolis Magna PETER M. FRASER

THE SITE OF HERMOUPOLIS MAGNA IN MIDDLE EGYPT, close to the modern Aschmunein, has yielded three very long inscribed lists of garrison troops, two copied in the early twentieth century by French archaeologists, and one discovered by the German Archaeological Institute during its excavations of the site in the years between the wars. In these lists the garrison troops (ο= παρεφεδρε!οντε Lν ΕρμοG πλει ξνοι) are formed as a religious koinon making dedications which were erected in the shrine of the deity concerned; they are called in that capacity κτσται. Two of the inscriptions, containing together nearly a thousand names, are of the same date, 73/2 BC; the third, which I want to examine, contains approximately four hundred names: in each case the total is formed by the presence, without exception, of the name of the soldier and his patronymic.1 These twin inscriptions of 73/2 BC, each several feet high, were published in 1938 with great insight and thoroughness by Friedrich Zucker 2 in a study which analyses the two texts, and a third similar, but earlier, text of a garrison stationed at Memphis, and in this publication he was especially concerned with the names of the troops. (He did not analyse the text I want to look at, for a reason that I will make clear in a moment.) His investigations showed that the garrison of 73/2 BC, which describes  itself by the ethnic Απολλωνιαται (as also the earlier one of Memphis, though here the prescript containing the ethnic is not preserved, and the origin of the troops has to be inferred from the similarity of names with the 1

A fourth piece published by the late Peter Herrmann is very fragmentary, and does not add anything to my arguments concerning the names I want to consider; see Hermopolis 1929–39 (Hildesheim, 1959); cf. JEA 46 (1960), 95 no. 6. 2 ‘Doppelinschrift spätptolemaischer Zeit aus der Garnison von Hermopolis Magna’, Abhandlungen der Deutschen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin 6 (1937). Proceedings of the British Academy 148, 69–85. © The British Academy 2007.

70

Peter M. Fraser

Hermoupolite texts), consisted mainly of Idumaeans and (to a lesser degree) Nabataeans, whose names, frequently theophoric, were translated from Semitic into Greek in such a way that the Semitic origin of the names was not evident. The percentage of names thus concealed under a Greek dress as Απολλο- names, representing the theophoric name of the local god Kos, amounted to 13 per cent of the two inscriptions.3 There were also much smaller numbers of other persons: persons with genuine Macedonian, Illyrian, and Thracian names; persons with what he called ‘entwertete’, deval ντοχο, ued, Macedonian names— that is, such names as Αντπατρο, Α Λυσμαχο, Πτολεμα)ο, which did not represent a corresponding authentic Macedonian racial element; persons with Egyptian names, with GreekEgyptian names (such as & Ωραπλλων), and some with purely Semitic names without the Apollo- theophoric element, names like Ζα´βδαδο and  Ναθινα. Zucker did not discuss the Hermoupolite inscription that I want look at in the same way as he did his pair, because the names in it are predominantly Greek, and it belongs to the later second century, c.125 BC (see his p. 11 n. 1). All the Hermoupolis garrison-inscriptions have now been republished by Étienne Bernand,4 and it is his text which is cited here; but his commentary lacks onomastic substance. Before we look at these names, there are some general points to be borne in mind. First, that when we assign a name exclusively to a specific region we must have very good statistical reasons for doing so: that is, if possible, in terms both of bulk and of uniqueness. Second, that people could have both Greek and Egyptian names according to the circumstances in which they found themselves, and therefore that a Greek name might be borne by an Egyptian in the appropriate context. This latter point was brought out in an interesting article by W. Clarysse some years ago,5 which shows quite clearly that in some cases in the late Ptolemaic period in Upper Egypt (notably Edfu  Apollinopolis Magna) a very small number of persons might have one native name, recorded in demotic, and one Greek name, whether in translation or transliteration, according to the office they held in the local bureaucracy, and it also seems that instances occur in which one person might have two tombstones, one inscribed with the name in demotic and one in Greek. This point is of considerable interest in itself, but I do not think that it applies to the list we are considering, or indeed to Zucker’s lists. The third point is a

3

Zucker also demonstrated that the city Apollonia was that listed by Stephanus as Απολλωνα

0 νGν Ιππη, that is, Joppa.

4 Inscriptions grecques d’Hermoupolis Magna, et de sa nécropole (BIFAO, 1999); our text is no. 4. 5 W. Clarysse, ‘Greeks and Egyptians in the Ptolemaic army and administration’, Aegyptus 65 (1985), 57; cf. J. Yoyotte, Bakhtis, Colloque Strasbourg (1967), 127–41.

THE PTOLEMAIC GARRISON OF HERMOUPOLIS MAGNA

71

simple matter of fact. The lists are of military personnel, and they are divided into the conventional units and sub-units of the Ptolemaic army, but these are irregularly indicated, and since the subdivisions do not show variations in the onomastic element, I shall ignore the point. I shall, however, look at two of the unit-commanders, Komanos and Dryton, names known in other contexts in Egypt, the latter especially as a military commander elsewhere in Upper Egypt. To turn, finally, to the stone itself: the heading, which contained a regnal dating, and some opening lines of the three columns with which it is inscribed, have been lost in subsequent re-use. We are therefore dependent on the letter-forms to give us an approximate date: c.125 BC or slightly later, it may be guessed, somewhere in the reign of Euergetes II; and we are not able to determine whether the religious koinon into which the garrison was formed for the purpose of the list (to judge by the formal similarity with the later stelai from Hermoupolis, and the earlier acephalous one from Memphis) was honouring a Greek, an Egyptian, or a Semitic deity; our list contains only Greek names, in the widest sense of Greek (with the exception of one native Libyan name, which has been repeated in error, it caused the lapicide such surprise); no Egyptian or Semitic names occur, and they are equally absent from the small fragment published by Herrmann, of about the same date. It does not appear, therefore, that they have a continuous link with the Idumaean mercenaries of Zucker’s lists. The garrison troops, none of whom has an ethnic (the same is true of Herrmann’s small fragment and the much larger aggregate of names in Zucker’s stelai), are not of a single ethnic origin (e.g. Thracian), since nominal Cyrenaean and Cretan units are mentioned collectively in the list, and in any case the names exclude a single origin. So I want to see what the name-frequency outside Egypt may suggest for the origin of a few of the two hundred soldiers, represented by four hundred names, including their patronymics. I use the published volumes of LGPN for this purpose; our present coverage from Asia Minor is substantial but not comprehensive, but there are no specifically Anatolian names in the list, though of course there is a large number of common names which might occur anywhere, including the Greek cities of Asia Minor, and it may well be that my statistics should be modified as our coverage increases. The total absence of ethnics is itself a matter of interest, in view of the Greek nationality of the persons listed. We may set their absence against two other very short lists, both Ptolemaic. The first (IGLS 1261) is a fragmentary list found near Laodikeia in Syria (Latakia), of about the middle of the third century, thus about a century, or a bit more, earlier than our list. It consists of twenty-five lines of single names (of which a third is missing, only the ethnics being preserved) with ethnics, or, in one case, a probable Ptolemaic

72

Peter M. Fraser

Figure 1. Inscription from the garrison of Hermoupolis Magna, c.125 BC. From E. Bernand, Inscriptions grecques d’Hermoupolis Magna, et de son nécropole (BIFAO, 1999), no. 4.

THE PTOLEMAIC GARRISON OF HERMOUPOLIS MAGNA

73

74

Peter M. Fraser

THE PTOLEMAIC GARRISON OF HERMOUPOLIS MAGNA

75

76

Peter M. Fraser

demotic of Ptolemais Hermiou, Φιλωτρειο. There are no patronymics. The ethnics include five Cyrenaeans, four Salaminioi from Cyprus (whose names are registered in koine, not in the Cypriot dialect), three Pisidians (two of whom are Ετεννε), and one plain Πισδη), two Thessalians, two Thracians, one Λυσιμαχε!, one Aspendian, one Athenian, and one Macedonian. These ethnics show that at that date, when there was a substantial overseas Ptolemaic Empire which included Cyprus and the cities of southern Asia Minor, recruits were drawn substantially from that area; we are reminded of the so-called ‘Carian’ nest of administrators and other contacts that Zenon the Kaunian, the personal assistant of Apollonios the dioikete of Philadelphus, imported from his native Caria. Another, even shorter list (SB 6831), from an unknown location in Egypt, adorns the dust jacket of Greek Personal Names: their Value as Evidence. This fine marble fragment, almost unique both in its material and in the quality of its lettering, must belong to the very early third century. Here we see the same phenomenon, personal names and ethnics, but no patronymics; the ten persons are from different parts of the Greek world, three Rhodians, one from Mytilene, two Bosporitai, one Akarnanian, and one Athenian; in this tiny sample, for what it is worth, there are no men from the Ptolemaic Empire— naturally, for there was no Ptolemaic Empire yet. I only refer to these two fragments to point the contrast between them and our long list, where everybody has a patronymic, and nobody has an ethnic. There is something very much more rooted in the Hermoupolite list, and of course Zucker’s lists show how such communities of soldiers and their families continued to flourish, after they had lost their links with their places of origin. I have selected from our list some twenty names, whose interest lies largely in their rarity and/or in their localization, in so far as we can determine it. They are referred to by their line-numbers in the text (Figure 1). I begin with 4 and 22, Κομαν, a unit commander; he constitutes a problem, because there are one or two other bearers of the name in Egypt, including, particularly, a member of the highest administration in the reign of Ptolemy Philometor, a τFν πρ\των φλων, who together with his brothers received the award of proxeny at Delphi in 188, along with a whole group of Alexandrians.6 The only two other ethnics for the name from the Ptolemaic period in Egypt are that of a shadowy scholar described as ? Ναυκραττη, and of an Αλαβανδε!, a kleruch from Alabanda in Caria.7 There are no instances of the name in LGPN I–IV and I have found none myself in Asia Minor, so when Walbank, in his detailed note on Polybius 6

SIG 3 588, 141–4. For the Naukratite see my note in Ptolemaic Alexandria (Oxford, 1972), ii. 674 n. 182; for the Alabandan kleruch, PTebt I, 79 (PP 8559). 7

THE PTOLEMAIC GARRISON OF HERMOUPOLIS MAGNA

77

28. 19. 1, calls it ‘a common name’ he is overstating the case. There was a Komanos who took an active part in the Sicilian slave revolt, the brother of the leader Kleon; Kleon himself is said by Diodorus to have been initially from Cilicia, and Münzer, following a suggestion of Edouard Meyer, said that Komanos came from Komana.8 I do not think we can find a natural home for our Komanos, and I do not identify him with any of the other persons so named. The name occurs once in Zucker’s main list, as the patronymic of a Θων, and he noted (p. 55) that Holder had claimed the name as Ligurian.9 We may move on now to possible examples of Macedonians and Thracians.10 From the Macedonians we may exclude those already referred to, described by Zucker as ‘devalued’ in his texts of some fifty years later, and I have little doubt by the time of our text also. But, leaving them on one side, how many true Macedonians do we find? The answer is perhaps one, or at the most two. 21 Βλο Βλου is a remarkable name, which, however, is attested elsewhere, and has been taken to represent the Macedonian form of Φλο, like Βλιππο, Βερενκη, Βιλστχη. It certainly occurs in Macedonia in that form, and it is so understood by Russu, Masson, and others, of whom only Russu quotes our text as an example.11 I do not feel certain of this myself. If there is only one true Macedonian in this list, it is perhaps surprising that there is one at all (though there may be one other, as we shall see); moreover, the survival of the beta-form in this place at this date, when it never occurs anywhere else in the whole of Ptolemaic prosopography except in the courtcircle of the early third century BC, would be remarkable. One may wonder what the garrison adjutant’s office made of it. It is therefore worth considering an alternative: the name occurs frequently in Thessaly, as Βλο, Βλλο, and, ultimately, Βλαρο. There are other Thessalians in our list, and I think Βλο is probably one too. We can probably also identify the semantic origin of the name. Following a brief note by Adolf Wilhelm, Robert demonstrated at length that a number of variant forms of the name represent, or are derived from, the one word, glossed by Herodian (p.158): Βλλο τ' α’νδρε)ον μριον, τ' κοινF βιλλν. All the examples given by Wilhelm,12 whom Robert translates in full, have the double

8

RE (1). See A. Holder, Altkeltische Sprachschatz, 3 vols. (Leipzig, 1896), i. 1068 f. 10 For Macedonian and Thracian names, see now LGPN IV. 11 LGPN has three Macedonians called Βλο and two called Φλο. 12 A. Wilhelm, ‘Inschriften von der Grotte des Pan und der Nymphen bei Phyle’, Jahreshefte des Österreichischen Archäologischen Instituts in Wien 25 (1929), 60; L. Robert, Noms indigènes dans l’Asie Mineure gréco-romaine (Paris, 1963), 16 ff. 9

78

Peter M. Fraser

lambda, but the form Βλαρο is close to Βλλαρο, with two lambdas, which occurs in several inscriptions, particularly in Ionia.13 The absence of the geminated lambda is such a common feature of Greek of this date that it hardly seems significant, and I certainly prefer this simple interpretation to that which interprets the beta as a Macedonian phi. There are no other Greek roots in Βιλ- which would provide an alternative etymology. Thracians are also largely absent, though 11 and 97 give us two likely pairs of Τ ρη Τ ρου. Τ ρη is attested very sporadically in Greece proper, but only in Thessaly as many as five times, while in Thrace the total on the mainland is over forty, and in Egypt La’da records more than 100, male and female, and of various categories.14 The name does not occur in Zucker’s later lists. 19 and 24, Ατθανια´φαντο is certainly a Libyan name, for, although itself unique (entered in LGPN I as Α τθανια´φαν, following a suggestion of Zucker that it should be treated as a Semitic form), it is probably associated with Ατθυμα´λλαν, of which there are three examples in Cyrenaica.15 His father’s name Σθενλαο is well attested at Rhodes in the form Σθενλα, and its sibling Σθνων occurs at Cyrene, but elsewhere hardly at all.16 26 Ανδρ μων is a rare name, for which the only attestations (two) are Thessalian, in the form Α νδρεμουν, ει for η being a common feature of Thessalian.17 His father’s name is Βα´λακρο, of which there are at least fifteen examples in Macedonia, but none in Thessaly, which, on the contrary, has a like number of Φα´λακροι! However, we have two Athenian Balakroi (IG VII 304, 2, 4  I.Orop. 184; and IG II2 3864, 2) of about 200 BC, and one or two dedicants (in the form Βα´λαγρο) at Delos, who may not be Macedonians, but probably are.18 There is also a possible Cretan Balakros in 57, the son of Διον!σιο. Where does that leave my claim, hazarded apropos of Βλο, that there are no true Macedonians in the list? Well, if Α νδρ μων Βαλα´κρου is one, we might call him the exception that proves the rule, unless we include Βλο too, in which case I’m wrong. 36 Δρ!των, the other unit-commander, provides us with firmer ground: eight examples from Crete, mostly in Ptolemaic Egypt, and one in Cyrene, otherwise no examples. Ours was at some stage an eponymous officer and consequently, as in most similar cases, has no patronymic, but he could be 13 For instances in Ionia see Robert, Noms indigènes, 18, who stressed the localism (including the accentuation) of the names at Ephesos. 14 C. A. La’da, Foreign Ethnics in Hellenistic Egypt (Louvain, 2002), E 699 ff. 15 See LGPN I s.v. Ατθυμα´λλαν, Ατθυμα´λλα. 16 There are five examples at Rhodes of Σθενλα, all in the fourth or third centuries BC. For Σθνων, six from Cyrenaica and one from Thasos. 17 LGPN III B s.v. 18 F. Durrbach, Inscriptions de Délos (Paris, 1926), 298 A, 178 with Durrbach’s note ad loc.

THE PTOLEMAIC GARRISON OF HERMOUPOLIS MAGNA

79

identical with Δρ!των Παμφλου Κρb Φιλωτρειο, father of Εσθλα´δα, well known from katoikic documents as leader of a Cretan contingent and a big figure in the Pathyrite nome; his will survives,19 a most elaborate document dated 126 BC (which of course cannot be taken as the year of his death, and therefore does not help us to date our list; but the troops (lines 35–6, above) are τFν πρτερον μετα` Δρ!τωνο, so I take it he had probably retired or died), but there are other Drytons in the military world of Ptolemaic Egypt, and we have kept them apart in LGPN, as they are also in PP. In passing, Κρ!των too is a Cretan name— eight examples in Crete and one in Cyrene. 75 Ακσων, here Α κσων I and II; a frequent Rhodian name, eleven examples, compared with three at Cyrene (Masson, when writing about Cyrenaean names, said the name was particularly common at Cyrene, a misinformation repeated by Bernand: Rhodes does not get a look-in).20 Note that though the name itself is not widely spread, derivatives of it are, perhaps because of Ακεσ\, the daughter of Asklepios (Athens has one Α κεσ\). Thessaly offers two Α κεσων. Rhodes also has nine examples of the masculine 1Ακεσι (as compared with two at Barka, none at Cyrene itself, one at Mytilene, and three at Paros), and sixteen Α κεστα (as opposed to a singleton in Cyprus). The group of names is, then, statistically Rhodian, though a considerable number of compounds, mostly again single examples, are found elsewhere in the Aegean and on the mainland, but the simple masculine form Ακσων remains stubbornly Rhodian.21 76 offers us a new onomastic environment; the name is Φιλα´μμων (the son of Διον!σιο). It is clearly an Egyptian-based theophoric name, but what of its history? The same name occurs again in 106, as the father of a Πτολεμα)ο, not evidently a member of the same family. It is also the name of the father of Menekrateia, the κανηφρο of Arsinoe, in the prescript to the Kanopos decree of 239 BC;22 of the son of an Α λξανδρο very much later, in one of Zucker’s lists;23 and of the son of another Φιλα´μμων, at about the same date as our list, as a member of a synodos of βασιλιστα on the Island of Siheil, by Philai, where it occurs among a list of some thirty-five names, Egyptian, hellenized Egyptian, and a few Greek.24 The name, then, 19

Prosopographia Ptolemaica, ed. W. Peremans, E. van’t Dack et al., 9 vols. (Louvain, 1950–81) (PP hereafter), 2206; cf. F. Uebel, Die Kleruchen Ägyptens unter den ersten sechs Ptolemäern (Berlin, 1968), 27. His will is Mitteis 302  A. S. Hunt and C. C. Edgar, Select Papyri (London, 1932), 83. 20 See OGS I, 247; cf. Bernand, Inscriptions grecques d’Hermoupolis Magna, s.v. 21 LGPN s.v. Ακεσι, Ακεστα, Ακσων. 22 OGIS 56 (SB 8858). 23 Bernand, Inscriptions grecques d’Hermoupolis Magna, no. 6. 24 OGIS 130 (SB 8394).

80

Peter M. Fraser

like other Graeco-Egyptian names, was current in Graeco-Roman times, but not really frequent like Isis, Sarapis, Anubis, and Harpocration names, though the name Αμμ\νιο itself of course was frequent, especially in the Imperial period. We also find Σαραπα´μμων, mixing the old and the new, very frequently in the later Imperial period, for example in a long record of an international Dionysiac koinon (of AD 275), where there is an archon  whose name is Μαρκο Αρ λιο Σαραπα´μμων; he is identified as Αλεξανδρε_ καH & Ερμοπολτη.25 However, it is not the Egyptian examples of Φιλα´μμων that need concern us here. The second element, -α´μμων, derived from the age-old Pharaonic deity, gives us the clue. The earliest example of Φιλα´μμων comes from early fourth-century Athens (394 BC), where it was the name of a wellknown boxer,26 but, outstandingly, it occurs thirteen times at Cyrene, the home of Ammon, and nowhere else outside Egypt. So no doubt the boxer who delighted Athenian audiences was a Cyrenaean. We have, I may note in passing, a new example of an - α´μμων name in Cyrene, which provides an interesting combination of the Libyan and the Greek Αρθα´μμων, which occurs twice as a patronymic (probably the same man) in a new fragment of a list of subscribers, of c.280 BC.27 The only ethnically labelled foreigner named Φιλα´μμων known from Egypt is a Thessalian, a mercenary τFν Νικοφλου, ξεναγ, in a papyrus, probably of 207 BC.28 77 is our next victim, &Ηρα´κων Φιλσκου. &Ηρα´κων is a widely dispersed name, but it has a focal area: only one each from Cyrene, Delos, and Lesbos (Methymna), four from Euboia, but from Central Greece— Boiotia, Phokis, Lokris, and Megara— fifty-seven in all (including twenty from Boiotia and ten from Megara), though only one from Thessaly. The patronymic is pan-Greek, so we cannot press the location more precisely. 88 and 105 (conceivably father and son) both have the unusual, if not excessively rare, name Πταλο: 88 is Πταλο Τιμοκρα´του, and 105 is Θεμβροτο Πετα´λου. This name, which recalls that of the author of a deservedly acclaimed English commentary on the Iliad, and of a book on the topography of the Troad, is more common— or slightly less rare— in its feminine forms Πεταλ\ (Euboia, one), Πετα´λη (five in Athens, including the title of a Comedy by Pherekrates, where it is probably the name of a hetaira, and therefore not likely to be Athenian, one each on Paros and Tenos). The masculine is found once in Euboia, and twice on Thasos, and five or six times in Aitolia, once each in Achaia, Elis, Arkadia (where, surprisingly, it appears 25

BGU 1074 and POxy 1610. RE (3). For the Cyrenaean evidence see LGPN I s.v. 27 SEG XLVIII 2055 II, 13, 18; cf. XLVII 2170; 2182 ( Αρθμια´δα). 28 PCair.Zen 59.374; PP 4118. 26

THE PTOLEMAIC GARRISON OF HERMOUPOLIS MAGNA

81

in the form Πτηλο), and Akarnania. Once we reach Thessaly, however, the picture changes: there are sixteen examples of forms of the root with variant terminations: ten Πεταλα (including one Πεταλλα), five Πταλο, one Πετα´λων, and, for good measure, a new feminine form thrown in, Πεταλλ (note again the two lambdas). Two unexpected items, finally, lie near at hand: Πταλο Αγαθοκλου Θραιξ made a προσκ!νημα to Sarapis in the Temple of Osiris at Abydos, upstream from Hermoupolis,  some time in the Ptolemaic period.29 Perdrizet thought that Θραιξ was a pseudo-ethnic, i.e. that it represented his military unit, and that may be so; if so, the choices for his true ethnic are open. A lady named Πετα´λη (or, ungrammatically, a man called Πετα´λη) occurs in a very deeply Egyptianized context,30 of AD 91, a προσκ!νημα to Pan from the Wadi Hamamat. The word was at one time thought by Bechtel to be a reference to a physical condition, a ‘Spitzname’, indicating that the bearer of the name was as ‘broad and flat as a leaf’ (cf. Lκπταλο, a very rare adjective used once by Didymus and once by Moschus, with reference to the shape of φια´λαι in the Iliad); but in Bechtel, HP (p. 594) he simply takes it as derived from the leaf of a plant, without comment, and does not refer to his previous explanation. His δευτρα φροντ seems preferable. We may note in passing 94, Α ργα)ο, which is very little attested outside Athens (twelve occurrences) except in Macedonia (seven), and may be a Macedonian name; it sounds like one, and the total of isolated instances outside these, including Thessaly, is only seven. 105 Θεμβροτο, the son of Πταλο has a very rare name which barely occurs elsewhere, though there are at least forty-five other compound names in -βροτο. It occurs once in the second half of the fifth century BC as the name of a Klazomenian,31 and later once on Rhodes, and once on Delos, but none in any other specified region, though a Cynic philosopher of that name, without an ethnic, is recorded in a list in Diogenes Laertius 6. 95.32 Why is the name Θεμβροτο so rare? We might think that God and Man do not mix, but would the Greeks have thought that? The only other name in -βροτο named (indirectly) from a god seems to be Πυθμβροτο, which occurs twice at Rhodes. 109 Λβιο Λοβου, the evidence for which is geographically widely dispersed, but scanty. Bernand, on the authority of Robert,33 took it to 29

La’da, Foreign Ethnics in Hellenistic Egypt, E 780. SB 8588; A. Bernand, De Koptos à Kosseir (Leiden, 1972), no. 53. 31 SIG 3 134: Ισθρμιο Θεομβρτου. 32 He is RE (1); RE (2)’s name is not Θεμβροτο but Ονασμβροτο. I may also note that the [Θ]μβροτο of IG I3 1192, 23 may well be [Σ]μβροτο; the inscription (of c.410 BC) has a mixture of diphthongal forms (cf. lines 13, 16, 62). 33 Études épigraphiques et philologiques (Paris, 1938), 203, n. 3, repeating the view of Perdrizet. 30

82

Peter M. Fraser

represent ‘l’emploi de beta à la place du phi ( Λφιο)’, that is, like our friend Βλο, as a ‘Macedonian’ form. However, Robert later examined the evidence for Λοβ- names at length, and came to a very different conclusion.34 (Bernand gives the reference, but does not seem to have read the passage, since he refers to it to support the earlier view of Robert, that the name is Macedonian.) It occurs in Caria, at Stratonikeia, and Robert quoted further examples, one from Athens, one from Mantinea, already quoted by Bechtel 35 and one from Argos; there is also a Λοβων by itself on a late Telmessian tombstone.36 He regarded it, essentially following Bechtel’s interpretation, as a sobriquet, possibly connected with the ‘lobe’, λοβ , of the ear, the latter as the seat of memory, though he did not exclude a link with the vegetable pod, λβιον. He did not discuss our pair in this context, and his explanation remained conjectural. It is not really possible to know the true etymology of the group of names. At all events, I do not think the phi–beta mutation is correct for our pair (any more than it was for Βλο Βλου), or perhaps for a Λοβα)ο from Dyrrachion, recently published.37 We must admit uncertainty, then, though we should note that both father and son bear the name. 112 presents us with a homonymous pair of Italici, Νο!ιο Νουου, a nomen, Novius, encountered, not indeed with the frequency of Γα´ιο, but several times in the Greek world from the third century BC onwards; already, in 250 BC, a Νο!ιο is paid a small fee on Delos for branding the sheep belonging to the sanctuary, and there are instances elsewhere, and of course especially in South Italy. It is, however, worth noting that among the early attestations of Italici, or at least of Italic names, we find a Λευκαν in one of the lists of the Pergamene garrison of 208 BC at Lilaia,38 [Ββιο] Βιβου. The personal name Ββιο, even in its Latin form Bibius, is very rare, and it is of some interest that this is the only recorded instance of a native Italian so called, while the name, wholly hellenized, that is to say, accompanied by the Greek patronymic, occurs six or seven times at Naples; we might expect the man at Lilaia, if he chose a regional denomination, to be Καμπαν. (Whether, in the face of the evidence from Naples, the restoration of the man’s own name as [Ββιο] is acceptable, cannot be determined.) I may note in passing that another Λευκαν at Lilaia is Διον!σιο Σειρανου,39 whose father’s name is evidently a dialect-form of Σειρ νιο, a sophisticated

34

Robert, Noms indigènes, 156–7. Bechtel, HP, 481. 36 TAM II 99. 37 Corpus des inscriptions grecques d’Illyrie méridionale et d’Épire. 1. Inscriptions d’Épidamne— Dyrrhachion, ed. P. Cabanes and F. Drini (Paris, 1995), no. 266. 38 FD III (4) 134 I, 20. 39 Ibid., 135, 14. 35

THE PTOLEMAIC GARRISON OF HERMOUPOLIS MAGNA

83

local mythological name for which I can offer no parallel, while a third is Μενδημο Φανδου,40 the latter a simple name in Φαν- seemingly unattested elsewhere, though Κλεοφανδη occurs on Keos, a Κλεοφανδα at Thespiai, an Αμφανδα on Thera, and an Α ντιφανδα at an unspecified location in the Peloponnese.41 114 offers us a homonymous pair again, this time of a very localized name, Κθων; his brother Διοσκουρδη occurs in the next line. Κθων is known from four examples at Byzantion, as Robert demonstrated, and as A. Łajtar records in his edition of the inscriptions of Byzantion.42 Łajtar cites SEG XXIV 197, 27, of the early fourth century BC from Athens, as the only example known to him outside Byzantion, but, like Robert, he has not noticed our pair. Uncertainty as to the etymology of this particular name can hardly be satisfied by the entry in Hesychius, s.v. Κθων. βλαβ . I turn now to two compounds, which resemble, in a way, the case of Θεμβροτο. 133 Αλεξτιμο, the father of Perigenes, and 140 Μεγαλοκλ6 Μεγαλοκρα´του. These three regularly formed names have in common their extreme rarity. Αλεξτιμο occurs once on Amorgos and once on Crete, but nowhere else, and I have no explanation of its rarity: names in Αλεξι- form a very large family without local focus, which naturally includes some other rarities, so I have nothing to add here. Μεγαλοκρα´τη also occurs, on my present information, only here. The name of the son, Μεγαλοκλ6, is not quite so rare: one each in Chios, Crete, and Cyrenaica, and three in Euboia, one in Athens, one in the Argolid, one at Pella in Macedonia, but twenty-one in Thessaly; the contrast, except in Thessaly, with the almost ubiquitous Μεγακλ6 (of which Thessaly can offer only two examples) could not be more clear. Other Μεγαλο- names occur, though, again, rarely: Lakonia can boast a Μεγαλοστρα´τα, and Arkadia a Μεγαλοφα´νη, Amorgos even a Μεγαλοκτ μων, the heir to wide estates; and Andros, the island of rich shipowners, gives us an heiress, Μεγαλκλεια.43 Again, Thessaly provides a contrast, with two Μεγαλκλεια, seven Μεγαλοκλα, three Μεγαλοκλα, one Μεγαλοκλεδα, and one Μγαλο. Perhaps we should associate the first element with names in Ε-, rather than treat it as an expanded form of Μεγα- names: with, for example, Ευ1στρατο, Εφα´νη, Εκλ6, Εκρα´τη, Εκτ μων. However that may be (for Ε- has a far wider

40

FD III (4) 135, 10. Κλεοφανδη, Αμφανδα LGPN I; Κλεοφανδα, Αντιφανδα LGPN III. A. 42 Robert, OMS II, 1093. A. Łajtar, Die Inschriften von Byzantion, Inschriften griechischer Städte aus Kleinasien 58 (Bonn, 2000), in his note on no. 109  SEG XXVII 330. 43 See Milet I (3), 45, 7, in a list of newly elected citizens of 216 BC of varying origins. 41

84

Peter M. Fraser

notional connotation than Μεγαλο-), the rarity of these three names cannot be explained on conceptual grounds, as is conceivable for Θεμβροτο, and they are a warning to us to avoid dismissing regularly formed compound names as commonplace. 135 between the two stands Δια´δη, an unexciting name, but it too, very uncommon. The four volumes of LGPN offer one Thessalian only, the author of a book on poliorcetics of the time of Alexander,44 and I have no record of any other at present. 141 Μστο, is Macedonian and Thracian, like all names of the root Μεστ-, which barely occur outside those two regions, except on Thasos, where there are examples of two or three such names, including six of Μστο.45 In our list he is the father of a soldier with the rare and dignified name &Αγνθεο.46 172 $ Ιππαλο (Φανοκρα´του) was said by Hoffmann to be Macedonian, while Bechtel included it as Euboian in his article on names in & Ιππο- in Eretria, because a $ Ιππαλο Ερετριε! made a προσκ!νημα at Egyptian Abydos; but the name does not occur, as far as I am aware, in the inscriptions of Euboia itself, and, apart from a very dubious [& Ιπ]πα´λειο in Imperial Athens, it is almost confined to Ptolemaic Egypt, as Dittenberger noted a hundred years ago,47 particularly in the upper circles of that society,48 which is why Hoffmann claimed it as Macedonian,49 in almost the same year as Dittenberger stressed its frequency in Egypt. Those attested in PP have no ethnic. It is surprising that this seemingly unremarkable name is represented ethnically only by one Euboian and one Macedonian, and otherwise by one doubtful Athenian. It seems to have become rooted in Ptolemaic Egypt, in itself a very unusual feature, though there are instances of such localized names in Roman Alexandria. Hippalos, the famous κυβερν τη of the first

44

RE (2). LGPN I s.v. 46 The concentration of this name is at Athens, where there are over thirty instances (see LGPN II), with one or two scattered attestations elsewhere, one each on Delos, Lemnos (LGPN I), and at Potidaia-Kassandreia in LGPN IV. 47 On OGIS 103, a dedication from Ptolemais Hermiou to Ptolemy Philometor, where the priest of the Royal cult is $ Ιππαλο, τFν πρ\των φλων καH Lπιστρα´τηγο, therefore a very important person, and a contemporary and colleague of Komanos τFν πρ\των φλων, but, as is normal in such cases, neither his patronymic nor his civil status is recorded. Dittenberger said of his name ‘Omnino nomen ceteroqui rarissimum in Aegypto non ita infrequens fuisse videtur.’ 48 PP 193; 1919; 5155; 5155a; 9791(?); our man is 3440, and PP have added 3439, the same man, with a different patronymic and line-number, but he does not exist; the other numbers may include one homonym or relation. 49 O. Hoffmann, Die Makedonen, ihr Sprache und ihr Volkstum (Göttingen, 1906), 226. 45

THE PTOLEMAIC GARRISON OF HERMOUPOLIS MAGNA

85

century AD who discovered the south-west monsoon that bore his name, was probably a Greek native of Egypt.50 187 Σακλαο, the father of Κλων, has a compound name whose root, Σακ-, is common in many variant forms, and occurs particularly in the Peloponnese: there are none in Thessaly, Thrace, or Macedonia. In the Peloponnese we find single instances of Σακα´δα, Σακ, Σακλεδα, four instances of Σακλ6 in Arkadia, and Σακλα itself occurs once in Illyria, but the most conspicuous item is the root-form Σα´κων, which has four instances in Sicily, all of the Archaic period. It is explained by Robert, followed by Dubois51 as deriving from σα´κκο/σα´κο, but Buck §41. 252 prefers the root Σω/Σαο, which is surely preferable at least for Σακλ6 and Σακλαο. We may note briefly 193, the graphic name Λιβ!στρατο, attested only once, appropriately at Cyrene, a more sophisticated form of the humble Λβυ. So we come to our last item, 195, on which we have no need to linger, but I would like to make my one contribution to the text, and supply here not [Λ]ηνα)ο Αθη-, but [ Αθ ] ναιο Αθη[ναου]. There is just room for it. The name is very common, and calls for no comment. We have only looked at a handful of names, and it is natural to ask whether we can draw the same sort of conclusion from our scrutiny as Zucker did from his rather easier investigation (easier because his lists under his shrewd scrutiny gave the game away, ours don’t; they are, as he said, ‘gemeingriechische’, and that’s why he didn’t deal with the text). I would only say that the analysis of these few names does not run counter to the traditional view regarding the homelands of mercenaries in Egypt in general, particularly of those of the kleruchic period, and more specifically that it suggests that the garrison of Hermoupolis in the second and first centuries BC comprised few, if any, Macedonians, and probably contained a substantial number of Cyrenaeans, Cretans, and Thessalians; that should cause no surprise, though the absence of the appropriate dialect-forms makes the case that much more difficult to establish. Finally, I may suggest that the absence of ethnics, along with the survival of rare Greek names, may reflect a long-term settlement in the area. If so, the garrison kept itself to itself; there are no Egyptian names in our list, and they are still very rare some half century later, in Zucker’s lists. There is therefore a possibility, dare I say a probability, that we are looking at the survival of these localized names far from their place of origin into the third or even fourth generation. But they are still ξνοι. 50

RE (3). L. Dubois, Inscriptions grecques dialectales de Sicile (Rome, 1989), 189–90. 52 C. D. Buck, The Greek Dialects (Chicago, 1955). 51

5 Was there an Anthroponymy of Euboian Origin in the Chalkido-Eretrian Colonies of the West and of Thrace? DENIS KNOEPFLER

AT THE END OF THE SECOND BOOK OF HIS POLITICS, where he evokes the work of the ancient legislators, Aristotle includes among the prominent figures of the Western Greek world not only the famous Charondas of Katane but also a far less illustrious character Androdamas of Rhegion,1 about whom we learn little more than that he gave laws to the Chalkidians of Thrace (1274b:

Lγνετο δ^ καH Ανδροδα´μα & Ρηγ)νο νομοθτη το) ΧαλκιδεGσι το) LπH Θρα´κη). This quotation seems to me interesting for two reasons. First, because a Chalkidian from Rhegion was brought in to legislate for the cities of Chalkidike, which proves— whatever may have been claimed on this subject— the ethnic and cultural unity of the genos Chalkidikon shared between the colonies of the West and those of the northern Aegean. Second, because this archaic legislator (whose period of activity might in fact belong later, but that does not matter here) bears a remarkable name, a fact which has hardly been noticed. Thanks to the five published volumes of the Lexicon of Greek Personal Names, we can observe that Androdamas is indeed a rare name. It does not appear in Attica, Boiotia, Thessaly, or Macedonia, nor in the Peloponnese. The Aristotelian occurrence is in fact the only example in LGPN III A; but it is worth noting that the name is attested once on Samos, and, more importantly, twice in Eretria, the closest neighbour of Chalkis.2 Perhaps it will appear one day in Chalkidike itself. It is already certain, in my opinion at least, that we are dealing with a characteristically Ionian anthroponym of the Euboian world, which must be compared to the name of the Chalkidian hero Amphidamas known from Hesiod, and to other names

1 2

A notice on this Androdamas is not even to be found in Pauly-Wissowa’s Real Encyclopädie. So far, the name is not attested in Ionia, where names in -δα´μα are common.

Proceedings of the British Academy 148, 87–119. © The British Academy 2007.

88

Denis Knoepfler

containing the element -δα´μα, like Aristodamas and Kleodamas in Eretria. That, at least, is an encouraging fact as we embark on the present study. However, the interrogative form I gave to the title of this paper is not entirely rhetorical. Indeed, when the organizers of the Second Colloquium of the Lexicon conferred on me the honour of asking me to take part, they suggested that I return to the issue of the Euboian onomastics included in LGPN I (1987). I thought that it could be interesting to examine the links that Euboian onomastics should, at least theoretically, have with the ChalkidoEretrian settlements of the West and of Thrace. The specific issue was to determine to what extent names attested in the many apoikiai founded by the Euboians of Chalkis and of Eretria, from the mid-eighth century until the very end of the Archaic period,3 would be found in Euboia itself. But I did not know at that time what would be the result of the comparison between the rather well-known metropolitan anthroponymy and the colonial anthroponymy, far less abundant despite noteworthy recent contributions. And I confess that at the time of writing this version of the paper some aspects of the issue are still obscure. However, the lack of perfectly defined or significant results should not necessarily be considered a failure in method. It might instead reveal the limits of what can be achieved at present. It seems to me that the first task in such an enquiry must be to provide a critical survey of the evidence available, because neither for the West nor for Thrace, to my knowledge, is there a comprehensive presentation of all the evidence on the basis of which to form a synthetic view of the onomastics of Euboia and its colonies.4 I find it necessary, though, to comment first on the evidence from Euboia itself. Thanks to its abundance, it does indeed provide sufficient material to proceed with the comparison which I propose to undertake; yet it also involves two methodological problems, of unequal importance, of which one should be aware before proceeding. The first is geographical: the onomastic material is distributed unevenly between the different regions of Euboia. For largely fortuitous reasons to do with the history of the excavations, the Eretrian anthroponymy is exceptionally richly documented, whereas that of Chalkis (like that of the other Euboian cities) stems from much more limited material, since there are no inscriptions comparable to the great Eretrian catalogues of the Hellenistic period. As is well known, most of the Euboian settlements in the West as well as in Thrace were Chalkidian rather than Eretrian foundations. There is con-

3 Professor E. Voutiras has very plausibly argued (below, p. 117) that the Eretrian foundation of Dikaia in Thrace might be as late as the beginning of the fifth century. 4 The information is, of course, contained in the LGPN volumes I, III A and IV, but is not presented with the focus needed for this study. When the LGPN database is published online, it will be possible to extract the required information.

EUBOIAN NAMES IN THE CHALKIDO-ERETRIAN COLONIES

89

sequently the danger of a certain distortion, or rather of a discrepancy between the ‘metropolitan’ and the ‘colonial’ material. One can of course assume that, as both cities were very close to each other, their anthroponymy, essentially of Ionian origin, will for the most part have been very similar. It seems safer, though, to expect regional differences, particularly between the most northern part of the territory of Chalkis and the southern part of the Eretriad, because, in the latter case, one can observe some internal diversity, as I hope to have demonstrated in a recent conference at Athens (École Française d’Athènes, December 2002: the Proceedings are not yet published). Moreover, on an earlier occasion I was able to show that names derived from, or forming compounds in, Ωρωπ(ο)-, which are not uncommon in Eretria, appear never to have occurred in Chalkis.5 There is thus little likelihood of finding such names in Euboian colonies whose population is of Chalkidian origin. But in actual fact only a comparatively recent Eretrian settlement such as Dikaia in Thrace could— in theory— provide examples, since those names presuppose the transformation of the toponym Ασωπ into Ωρωπ, which did not occur until the end of the Archaic period. Therefore, as we can see, the second problem is chronological. For even in the case of Eretria, the largest part of the onomastic material dates to the early Hellenistic period. Very few documents can be dated earlier than the middle of the fourth century, and thus the onomastics of the Euboian cities remain largely unknown for the Archaic period, and even for the Classical period. But it is precisely these older names, dating to the ‘colonial’ period, that one would like to be able to compare with the names attested in the various areas of Euboian expansion. It must also be admitted that the stock of personal names received fresh elements, there as elsewhere, between the eighth and the fourth century. What is at issue here is not, of course, the phonetic evolution by which, for example, all instances of intervocalic s were transformed into r by the famous Eretrian rhotacism (a partially Chalkidian phenomenon too), because the almost total absence in the Euboian colonies6 of names affected by this rhotacism is perfectly normal, given the relatively late date at which this phenomenon took place in central Euboia. Too much importance should not, therefore, be accorded to purely phonetic or even morphological variants. For example, a man called He¯ ge¯ sias in a Chalkidian city of Sicily or of Sithonia may be regarded as bearing a name of Euboian origin, despite the fact that the form used in Eretria (and probably in Chalkis too) in the Classical period was likely to be Ηγηρη, a form which appears on a famous epitaph dated to the beginning of the fourth 5 S. Hornblower and E. Matthews (eds.), Greek Personal Names: their Value as Evidence, Proceedings of the British Academy 104 (Oxford, 2000), 81–98. 6 For a possible exception, see below p. 99 on Thrarus.

90

Denis Knoepfler

century,7 which reveals both the local rhotacism and the old Ionian termination. For it seems a priori plausible that the original form &Ηγηση, not yet affected by the rhotacism when it was transferred into the colonial milieu, was normalized into &Ηγησα because the population of the colony was mixed, or, at a later date, under the influence of koine. On the other hand, it is certain that some personal names (or even categories of names) appeared in Euboia only in the fifth century: this is not only the case, as I have just said, for names formed from the theonym and toponym Ωρωπο-, but also and especially, as demonstrated by A. Morpurgo Davies in a recent article,8 for the name Παρα´μονο and its family, so frequent in Euboian onomastics. It ought, therefore, to be perfectly clear that no conclusion should be drawn from the absence of such names in colonial settlements.

THE WESTERN COLONIES: PRELIMINARY REMARKS Three excellent tools are available for this region of the Greek world: first, of course, LGPN III A (1997), which included Sicily and Magna Graecia. As it was published very recently, all names known in the West are catalogued there, with very few exceptions or omissions. Next, two collections of dialectal inscriptions by our colleague Laurent Dubois: one published in 1989 on Sicily, and another in 1995 on Magna Graecia.9 At the same time, over the last decade or so, R. Arena has been publishing the Iscrizioni Greche Archaiche di Sicilia e Magna Grecia, of which the third fascicule, on the Euboian colonies, came out in 1994.10 As regards Euboian colonization in this area, the Proceedings of the 18th Convegno sulla Magna Grecia should be mentioned, as well as those of a more recent conference in Naples.11 For Sicily in particular, one must also consult the two volumes of the Proceedings

7 IG XII (9) 624; cf. E. Mango, Eretria XIII. Ausgrabungen und Forschungen (École suisse d’archéologie en Grèce, 2004), 62 and 150, no. 24. 8 CRAI (2001), 157–73. 9 L. Dubois, Inscriptions grecques dialectales de Sicile: contribution à l’étude du vocabulaire grec colonial (École française de Rome, Rome, 1989); Inscriptions grecques dialectales de Grande Grèce, i: Colonies eubéennes. Colonies ioniennes. Emporia (Geneva, 1995). Hereafter Dubois, IGDS and IGDGG. 10 R. Arena, Iscrizioni greche archaiche di Sicilia e Magna Grecia, i: Iscrizioni di Megara Iblea e Selinunte (1989); ii: Iscrizioni di Gela e Agrigento (1992); iii: Iscrizioni delle colonie Euboiche (Pisa, 1994); iv: Iscrizioni delle colonie Achee (Alessandria, 1996). Hereafter Arena. 11 Gli Eubei in Occidente (Taranto, 1979); Euboica: l’Eubea e la presenza euboica in Calcidica e in Occidente. Atti del convegno internazionale di Napoli, 13–16 novembre 1996, ed. M. Bats and B. D’Agostino (Naples, 1998).

EUBOIAN NAMES IN THE CHALKIDO-ERETRIAN COLONIES

91

of the conference held at Erice in 1998,12 which contain papers useful for the present study. It must be understood from the outset that while dialectal texts are, for our purposes, very interesting per se, that does not mean that inscriptions written in regular Greek are not relevant. Therefore, G. Kaibel’s corpus, IG XIV, though now more than a hundred years old, retains all its value as a work of reference. Sicily Our Sicilian tour will naturally begin with Naxos, as this Chalkidian colony, founded around 735 BC, was commonly considered to be the oldest on the island. Thanks to Thucydides and to other authors, we know the name of its oikistes, Theokle¯ s or Thoukle¯ s, a name which unfortunately does not provide pointers to his origin. The tradition making him an Athenian should be discounted, for, although the Chalkidians were finally accompanied by other Greeks, these were from Ionia and probably mostly from the island of Naxos in the Cyclades. Another Sicilian Naxian in the Archaic period was the Olympic and Pythian victor Teisandros son of Kleokritos,13 two relatively common names which are attested in Euboia. Later, Diodorus mentions a Prokle¯ s, who betrayed his homeland in support of the tyrant Dionysius I. This name was perhaps popular in Sicilian Naxos: at any rate, it is borne by a coin engraver at exactly this period.14 The site of Naxos, emptied for the first time of its original population in 476 BC to make room for Dorian colonists, was reoccupied from 461 by its original settlers, before being finally destroyed by the tyrant of Syracuse in 403. It has so far yielded only a few inscriptions on vases. But to the single Naxian name known to L. Dubois in 1989, Tittabo¯, probably an indigenous name, a few more can be added as a result of more recent discoveries, notable among them the name Archikle¯ s, which seems to confirm the taste of the Naxians, or rather of Sicilian Euboians more generally, for compound names in -κλ6, and the far less common Eudramo¯n (known, however, at Athens).15 Two unusual terracotta spheres (registration balls rather than sling bullets) brought to light some fifth-century names: Pro¯tarchos son of Epikrate¯ s, from the tribe of Pollidai, and an Onomostatos son of Epameine¯ s, two apparently new compound

12

Sicilia Epigraphica. Atti del convegno internazionale Erice, 15–18 ottobre 1998, ed. Maria Ida Gulletta (Pisa, 1999). 13 L. Moretti, Olympionikai, i vincitori negli antichi agoni olimpici (Rome, 1957), 94. 14 LGPN III A, s.v. (11–12). 15 Arena iii. 73–4; cf. L. Dubois, BE 1989, no. 852.

92

Denis Knoepfler

names, from the tribe of Hermondai, itself very characteristic of Euboia and Boiotia.16 But the history of the Naxians does not end with the destruction of their city. Diodorus tells us that in 358 Andromachos of Naxos, the father of the historian Timaeus, settled those of his fellow citizens who had survived the destruction at the safer site of Tauromenion (Taormina). To some extent, therefore, one may consider the inhabitants of Tauromenion as of Naxian, and thus of Chalkidian, origin. A few are known by name: from the time of Pyrrhus, the tyrant Tyndario¯n, whose name should almost certainly be regarded as characteristically Siciliote; under Hieron II, the engineer Phileas, a name with no local colour; and at the beginning of the second century, the proxenos of Delphi, Agatharchos son of Menon. Finally, we must ask whether we can, or indeed should, take into account the very large number of names provided by the famous late Hellenistic accounts of Tauromenion.17 However we answer that question, we have to acknowledge that most of those names are of limited interest in the present context because of their more or less ‘panhellenic’ character. We can group together the two cities of Katane and Leontinoi in the plain of the Simaithos, since both were founded a few years apart by the Chalkidians of Naxos under the leadership of the same Thoukles. Thucydides (6. 3. 3), adds that the people of Katane considered another man as oikistes, Euarchos, whose Chalkidian origin seems to me nonetheless very likely, though it has sometimes been questioned.18 For Katane in the Archaic period, we know, again from literary sources, of the famous legislator of the Chalkidian cities, Charo¯ndas, whose name, with its ‘Boioto-Euboian’ suffix in -\νδα, certainly merits our attention. From Leontinoi we know of the tyrants Panaitios and Aine¯ side¯ mos: when describing the consecration at Olympia of a statue of Zeus by three citizens of Leontinoi, Hippagoras, Phryno¯n, and Aine¯ side¯ mos, Pausanias (5. 22. 7) notes that, in his opinion, the last of these is to be distinguished from the homonymous tyrant. There is no difficulty in considering such names as belonging to the onomastic stock of central Euboia. Leontinoi would later be proud to count among its citizens the sophist Gorgias son of Charmantide¯ s, and his brother Herodikos. The last two names are hapax legomena in Sicily and the West, but Charmantides is well attested in Euboia. Herodikos may be reckoned a good Ionian name, and

16

Arena iii, 76–7; cf. BE 1989, no. 853 on the nature of these documents, typical of the wider Euboian world. For patronymics in -\νδα, see below under Katane. 17 IG XIV 421 ff.; cf. the updating article by G. Manganaro, ‘La tavole finanziarie di Tauromenion’, in Comptes et inventaires dans la cité grecque, ed. D. Knoepfler (Geneva, 1986), 155–90. 18 So in LGPN I, s.v. Not in III A as a Chalkidian from Naxos or a Katanian.

EUBOIAN NAMES IN THE CHALKIDO-ERETRIAN COLONIES

93

Gorgias too, along with all anthroponyms deriving from the root Γοργ-, which are numerous in Euboia (Gorgio¯n, Gorgippos, etc.). We may also note, among the ambassadors from Leontinoi recorded at Athens in 433/2 BC,19 the rare name Time¯ no¯r, to be compared with the female name Time¯ noris attested in Eretria. The site of Leontinoi, a city with a chaotic history during the Classical period and later, has yielded only a few inscriptions.20 The situation is hardly better in Katane, which also suffered greatly— to the point of temporarily losing its name— from its proximity to Syracuse and the ambition of her tyrants, particularly Dionysius I, who in 403 inflicted on Katane the same fate which Naxos had already endured, except that, unlike Naxos, Katane enjoyed renewed prosperity later. It is true that IG XIV contains over 100 Greek inscriptions attributed to Katane, but most of them are rather miserable fragments of the Roman period, from which unfortunately not much can be drawn concerning the onomastics of this once very brilliant Chalkidian city. The colony of Zankle, later Messana, is similarly lacking in abundant evidence, especially for the Archaic period, except for the important dedications of weapons taken from the enemy, which were found at Olympia.21 At least we have the names of the two founders of the city; on the evidence of Thucydides (6. 3. 1; cf. also Callimachus, Aitia fr. 43, 58–9), a Chalkidian from Kyme in Campania (not from Chalkis itself, as Pausanias says 4. 23. 7), Perie¯ re¯ s, guided towards the city of the Strait the pirates (lestai) to whom Zankle owed its first existence, before the arrival from Chalkis and from the rest of Euboia of a contingent led by Krataimene¯ s. The latter name is particularly interesting because, apart from the demotic Krataimeios which has recently appeared in a document from the region of Syracuse,22 the name is also attested in late Hellenistic Eretria.23 There is good reason, therefore, to consider that Krataimenes was Euboian, even though Pausanias thought that he originated from Samos (5. 23. 7), most likely a confusion with the much later arrival of Samian refugees in the city at the beginning of the fifth 19

R. Meiggs and D. Lewis, A Selection of Greek Historical Inscriptions to the End of the Fifth Century BC, rev. edn. (Oxford, 1988) (hereafter ML), 64  IG I3 54. The name of another ambassador, Gelon, is also found in Eretria. 20 For instance SEG XLV 1376–9, graffiti incised in the Chalkidian alphabet. More recently, G. Manganaro, ‘Anagrafe di Leontinoi nel V secolo (a proposito di une tavoletta bronzea dedicatoria di V sec. a.C.)’, ZPE 149 (2004) 55–67 (cf. L. Dubois, BE 2005, no. 636), has published a bronze tablet dated about 400 BC with several names of Euboian or Dorian origin: thus Κλεδημο Δαιμα´χο¯, Αναρτα, or the female Αρχεβλα. 21 Dubois, IGDS, 2. I have not seen I. Bitto, Iscrizioni greche e latine di Messina, i (2001). 22 An agreement of sale on a lead tablet published by G. Manganaro, ‘Nuove tavolette di piombo inscritte siceliota’, Parola del Passato 52 (1997), 310 f. (SEG XLVII 1462). 23 IG XII (9) 91, 4. The name also occurs in the Archaic period at Bruttium: Arena iv. 89; otherwise only at Athens (two), Sparta (one), and Arkadia (one).

94

Denis Knoepfler

century. At that time, as Herodotus tells us (6. 23–4), Zankle was ruled by a ‘king’ (that is, probably, a tyrant) Skythe¯ s, whose name is far less exotic than it appears, as there are several examples in the catalogues of Eretria.24 The name is therefore Chalkidian, as was that of his brother Pythogene¯ s. The Skythes in question, after a brief stay in Himera, took himself into exile in Persia.25 He is therefore probably identical with the Skythes who later became tyrant of the island of Kos with the help of Darius, and who was succeeded by his son Kadmos,26 whose name is quite remarkable but not completely unexpected for a man of Euboian origin.27 Herodotus tells us (7. 163–4) that Kadmos subsequently returned to Zankle at a time when the city, after occupation by the Samians, had been renamed Messana as a result of its takeover by Anaxilas, the tyrant of Rhegion, who was a Messenian and not a Chalkidian. From this date on, therefore, the population of Zankle was very much mixed, composed of συμμε)κτοι α1νθρωποι as Thucydides (6. 4. 6) rightly notes. There must have been onomastic consequences in all this of course, especially since the city experienced other demographic changes after its destruction by the Carthaginians in 396, and most of all, a century later, with the settlement of the famous Mamertines. It seems, however, that the namestock remained for a long time essentially Greek, and perhaps fundamentally Euboian. The evidence is a Hellenistic dedication made, apparently, by about fifteen naukleroi:28 a Phryneidas son of Teisandros is listed there, for example. Without being exclusively Euboian, names in Φρυν- are frequent in Eretria and in Chalkis. And is it not remarkable that the name Teisandros, which, as we saw above, belonged to a renowned member of the genos Chalkidikon at Naxos in Sicily, was perpetuated for over half a millennium in the city of the Strait? Likewise, there seems no good reason to deny a Euboian ancestry to the famous Dikaiarchos of Messana,29 disciple of Aristotle, Δικααρχο

24

References in LGPN I, s.v. The editor of the new law from Himera on land allotment, A. Brugnone, ‘Legge di Himera sulla ridistribuzione della terra’, Parola del Passato 52 (1997), 263–305 (SEG XLVII 1427), wanted to link this reform with the arrival in the city of Skythes and his companions; but see L. Dubois, BE 1999, no. 644. 26 In favour of the identification of the two Skythes, cf. G. Vallet, Rhégion et Zancle: histoire, commerce et civilisation des cités chalcidiennes du détroit de Messine (Paris, 1958), 341 ff. 27 According to one tradition, Eretria was founded by a Semitic group accompanying Kadmos (Strabo 10. 8); see also Herodotus (5. 57), according to whom the Gephyreans of Athens were Phoenicians originating from Eretria. 28 IG XIV 401. 29 That holds good even though the name Dikaiarchos has not yet appeared in Euboia itself. For the colonies of Dikaiarcheia and of Dikaia, see below. 25

EUBOIAN NAMES IN THE CHALKIDO-ERETRIAN COLONIES

95

Φειδου Σικελι\τη Lκ πλεω Μεσσ νη as he appears in the Suda,30 simply on the basis of his having shown a lively interest in Spartan institutions. The situation in Himera is quite similar to that in Zankle, its metropolis, except that the duration of its existence was much shorter. Founded in 648, it was destroyed at the end of the fifth century and never recovered its former greatness. Thucydides specifically reports that the colony was founded by the Chalkidians of Zankle, but they were joined by a contingent of exiles from Syracuse, the Myletidai (6. 5). He adds that the language spoken at Himera was a mixture of Chalkidian and Dorian. That being so, it is a priori probable that the onomastics of Himera would also not be purely Euboian, but a blend of Dorian, or more specifically Korintho-Syracusan elements mixed in with the Chalkidian heritage. But can any of this be verified? Let us start by looking at the names known from literary sources. Firstly, there are the three oikistai themselves, Eukleidas, Simos, and Sako¯ n. It seems to me clear enough that the first two names represent the Chalkidian element, one of the two founders being from Zankle itself, the other perhaps from the Euboian metropolis. At any rate, Simos belongs to a family of names well attested in Euboia, though its occurrence there in that particular form is rare. Sakon, on the other hand, does not seem to be of Euboian, or even more generally Ionian origin, despite the presence in Athens of a painter named Sako¯ nide¯ s (who could well be a foreigner like many of the craftsmen of the Kerameikos). I would see this Sakon as the representative of the Myletidae of Syracuse, the more so since Sakon is attested in inscriptions from Dorian Sicily, at Selinus and near Gela.31 From literary texts we also know the great poet Stesichoros of Himera (whose well-established origin has sometimes been disputed for no good reason). It is undoubtedly a rare name in itself (one ancient source suggested that it might be just a professional nickname) but it belongs to two wellknown series from Euboia and elsewhere: on the one hand, names in Στησι-, like Stesilaos, and on the other hand, those in -χορο, like Philochoros.32 The poet’s brother, a nomothetes and a geometrician, is said to have been named Mamertinos (or Mamertios),33 a name which might show an interesting link with the Italic component of the population. As regards the poet’s patronymic, the tradition is unclear, vacillating between four variants: Euphorbos, Euphe¯ mos, Eukleide¯ s, or Euete¯ s. Though all of these names are perfectly valid, we should prefer Euphorbos, not only because the Suda lists it first but also because of its early presence in Euboia, where it is attested as 30

F. Wehrli, Die Schule des Aristoteles (2nd edn., Basel and Stuttgart, 1967), i. F 1. LGPN III A, s.v. (3–4). 32 LGPN I, s.vv. 33 See the critique of the traditions in Vallet, Rhégion et Zancle, 259 and n. 5. 31

96

Denis Knoepfler

the name of an Eretrian notable as early as the end of the sixth century (Hdt. 6. 101. 1). Moreover, several names with the element - φορβο are attested there.34 The name of the tyrant of Himera before 480 BC, Te¯ rillos son of Krinippos (Hdt. 7. 165), is more debatable,35 for, if I am not mistaken, it remains unique in Sicily and elsewhere. Finally, a painter from Himera mentioned by Pliny (NH 35. 61) bore the name of De¯ mophilos, which unfortunately gives us no clues, though there is no reason why it should not be linked to the Euboian tradition. Until recently, there was no epigraphical evidence from Himera, aside from coin legends. New evidence has come from the Italian excavations at the site from 1963 onwards, and from a number of discoveries made outside Sicily, such as the fine epigram from Olympia, published in 1956, mentioning a famous sportsman from Himera, the Olympic victor Ergotele¯ s son of Philano¯r.36 It would have been quite easy to imagine that this athlete had a Chalkidian ancestry, for his name is well attested in Euboia, where anthroponyms deriving from ergo- are, so to speak, epichoric. This Ergoteles, according to Pindar (Ol. 12) and Pausanias (6. 4. 11), was in reality a Cretan from Knossos (and the name of his father Philanor is clearly Dorian)37 who must have settled in Himera around 470 BC when the tyrant Theron of Akragas repopulated the city with new elements of various origins. It is a timely reminder of the need for caution. The same caveat applies, mutatis mutandis, to a dedication found at the Heraion of Samos, mentioning a battle between the people of Himera and the indigenous Sicani.38 The dedicators must have been Samians, for the only name provided by this damaged Archaic text, Panthus, a very rare name in that form, is otherwise attested just once on Samos. We find ourselves on more solid ground with the short inscriptions found at Himera itself, carved in metal or clay, and occasionally on stone.39 For the end of the Archaic period, they provide an interesting series of names, some certainly quite common, such as Eukleidas (homonymous with one of Notably a Phorbas in Chalkis, and in Eretria Leophorbos son of Sophorbos, and Leophorbid es who was a proxenos of Delphi, see LGPN I, s.vv.; the last name is surely the correct interpretation of the curious Orbid es of Bechtel, HP, 495 (on IG XII (9) 449), which is a ghost-name, as I showed in Décrets érétriens de proxénie et de citoyenneté (Lausanne, 2001), 125–6. 35 Bechtel, HP, 426 linked it to teros, ‘guardian’. Terillos’ patronymic Krinippos is interesting, for it is very rare outside Euboia (two instances, otherwise only at Syracuse, Cyrene, Orchomenos). 36 CEG I 393; Arena iii. 54. 37 LGPN I, s.v. (1) and (3) (two Cretans and a citizen from Kos). 38 G. Dunst, ‘Archaische Inschriften und Dokumente der Pentekontaetie aus Samos’, MDAI (A) 87 (1972), 100 no. II, 3; cf. G. Manganaro, ‘Una dedica di Samo rivolta non a Leukaspis, ma a Hera Thespis (?)’, ZPE 101 (1994), 120–6. 39 Dubois, IGDS, 6 ff.; Arena iii. 44 ff. For a legislative text that does not contain any personal names, cf. above n. 25. 34

EUBOIAN NAMES IN THE CHALKIDO-ERETRIAN COLONIES

97

the three oikistai), Hekataios, Lykos, Charinos, and others rather more distinctive, such as the unique Sixas (which looks like a participial form) and, most notably, the three names (unless the first is a gentilicium40) Euo¯pidas, Dieuche¯s, and Daitis, engraved on a lead strip, in what is evidently a meaningful (though to us enigmatic) sequence. These three names seem to provide clear evidence of the linguistic krasis at Himera reported by Thucydides (and this is not surprising for a document dated to the mid-fifth century). The first two look fairly clearly Peloponnesian, and thus Dorian (Dieuches in particular is attested in Aigina, in Elis, and several times in Arkadia). Daitis, on the other hand, certainly masculine in this instance, could belong to the old Chalkidian stock of the colony, as anthroponyms deriving from δα/δαιτ (‘banquet’) are characteristic of the Boioto-Euboian area on both sides of the Euripos.41 Magna Graecia (Rhegion and Campania) As the classic study by G. Vallet on the history of the two Chalkidian cities of the Strait of Messina confirmed,42 the fate of Rhegion was closely linked to that of its sister city in Sicily, though there were some significant differences. The foundation of Rhegion, around 730–720 BC, seems at any rate to have been an enterprise of the people of Zankle, who, however, requested support from their metropolis in Euboia. This should be the reason behind the tradition that there were two oikistai, Artime¯ de¯ s, appointed by the Chalkidians themselves according to Dionysius of Halicarnassus (Ant. Rom. 19. 2), and Antimne¯ stos, named oikistes by the people of Zankle, according to the historian Antiochus reported in Strabo (6. 1. 6, 257C).43 The name Antimnestos is exceptional in Euboia but is attested once in neighbouring Attica.44 It is thus our first securely Ionian anthroponym. Artimedes seems to me more doubtful, at least in the form indicated by Dionysius or his manuscripts. It is apparently unique and it is notable that, unless I am mistaken, neither Bechtel nor the Lexicon have recorded it. It would be a simple move to improve this name by writing either Antim ed es,45 or, even more simply,

40

As is supposed by Arena; contra Dubois. For example, Daiton in Chalkis, Daitondas in Thebes, Daitichos in Eretria and in Thespiai, Daitadas, a Boiotian at Delphi, Daitos in neighbouring Lokris, and several ‘Vollnamen’ like Daitolaos. 42 See above, n. 26. 43 FGrH 555 F 9  F. Cuscunà, I Frammenti di Antioco di Siracusa (Alessandria, 2003), 107 ff. F 12. 44 Thuc. 3. 101. 3. Cf. LGPN II, s.v. 45 Attested in the Ionian world, notably in Chios and in Attica. 41

98

Denis Knoepfler

Artyme¯ de¯ s,46 for not only is an Artymeda known in Thera but, more importantly, we also know of several names beginning in Αρτυ- in Boiotia (e.g. Artylaos, Artyllos), in the Cyclades (Artymachos in Tenos, which, along with Andros and Keos, was under Eretrian domination in the Archaic period), and in Euboia itself (Artylochos).47 I propose, therefore, to add this apparently new but certainly soundly formed name to a future supplement of LGPN. We have already noted, in our account of Zankle, that Rhegion fell under the control of the Messenian Anaxilas at the beginning of the fifth century. It seems clear that the Messenian element, reinforced on several occasions, constituted from the beginning a significant part of the population of this colony which was, necessarily, cosmopolitan because of its position at the crossroads of maritime and land routes. One should consequently be prepared to encounter Dorian intrusions into its onomastics, even if Rhegion remained, like Himera, fundamentally Chalkidian, both institutionally and culturally. The great men of Rhegion are very often naturalized foreigners. There are, however, exceptions, the most notable among them the legislator Androdamas, who could only be a Chalkidian, as we noted at the beginning of this paper. The poet Ibykos, in the sixth century, might also be among the exceptions, though the Suda shows that the tradition was hesitant regarding the name, and perhaps the origin, of his father: Phytios, or Polyze¯ los, or Kerdas. It seems to me, however, that the first of these is very probably the correct one. First, because it is confirmed by the inscription on a hermaic bust of the poet in Tivoli;48 next, because the name was borne in Rhegion by a Pythagorean, who could well be Ibykos’ father; moreover, a Phyto¯n is known in the city, the unfortunate defender of his fatherland against Dionysius of Syracuse in 387 BC when the city was destroyed (Diod. 14. 108; 111–12);49 finally, because names of that family are well attested in Athens and in Euboia, where we find not only a Phyto¯ n and a Phytios (unpublished), but also the very original derivative Phytalinos. So, the poet should, until there is proof to the contrary, be taken as of Euboian origin, even though his name is apparently unique, and certainly enigmatic.50 On the other hand, the

46

There may have been a simple mistake due to the etacism in the MSS of Dionysius. See the relevant volumes of LGPN for the references. 48 IG XIV 1167; the missing part of the text was convincingly completed by L. Moretti, ‘Erme acefale scritte, edite e inedite’, Arch. Class. 25–6 (1973–4), 469 ff. 49 On this episode, cf. F. Chamoux in Esclavage, guerre, économie en Grèce ancienne. Hommages à Yvon Garlan, ed. P. Brulé and J. Oulhen (Rennes, 1997), 159–64. 50 It is not recorded in Bechtel, HP, and I am not aware that Olivier Masson dealt with it, even indirectly. 47

EUBOIAN NAMES IN THE CHALKIDO-ERETRIAN COLONIES

99

famous sculptor Pythagoras of Rhegion, who was a refugee from Samos,51 is clearly a foreigner settled in the city, but nevertheless of Ionian origin. Finally, we may deal with the interesting case of Mikythos son of Choiros,52 the showy regent of the children of the tyrant Anaxilas in the middle of the fifth century; we might have been tempted to consider him a representative of the Euboian element, for the name Mikythio¯n is borne in Chalkis itself by a rather well-known politician (whereas a nickname like Choiros is probably panhellenic), were it not that an epigram relating to him found at Olympia describes him unequivocally as &Ρηγ)νο καH Μεσσ νιο.53 Furthermore, it is in the Peloponnese, and in Arkadia precisely (since Messenia was probably closed to him), that he settled down after his forced retirement. Other inscriptions have enriched the once meagre prosopography of Rhegion. Again from Olympia, we have the dedication of Glaukie¯ s the son of Lykkide¯ s, an otherwise unknown athlete from Rhegion, but whose Chalkidian origin seems quite clear, if only by reason of the Ionian termination of his name.54 The treaty between Athens and Rhegion in 433/2 BC gives us two of the ambassadors of the city, Kleandros son of Xen(-) and Silenos son of Pho¯ kos,55 of which the last two belong unquestionably to the Ionian onomastic stock.56 The same conclusion applies to persons appearing in documents recently discovered in Rhegion itself: Kleophantos son of Glaukie¯ s,57 and, their names engraved before firing on two balls of clay of the type characteristic of Naxos in Sicily, Kleomene¯ s son of Emmenide¯ s and Demophane¯ s son of Thrarus. That these are Rhegines of Chalkidian stock seems very likely, though we should note that the patronymic Emmenidas is attested at Akragas and Kamarina, revealing perhaps an ultimate Dorian origin for the first of the pair. On the other hand, if we should see in the name Thrarus a rhotacised Thrasus, as leading dialectologists have suggested,58 then we would have a remarkable link with the mother-city. The problem is that the Eretrian rhotacism (which will not have missed Chalkis completely) is a rather late phenomenon in Euboia, to be dated no earlier than the end of the sixth century. In that case, one would argue that this Thrarus belonged to a 51

We should not make two artists of this name, one from Samos and the other from Rhegion, as some have done, following the notices in Pliny and Diogenes Laertius. 52 Paus. 5. 26. 2 ff.; cf. LGPN III A, s.v. 53 Dubois, IGDGG i. 35; Arena iii. 64. 54 CEG I 388; Dubois, IGDGG i. 36  Arena iii. 65. The name of his father is otherwise attested only as Lykide¯s (Attica, West and Central Greece). 55 ML 63  IG I3 53; cf. 1178. 56 Bechtel’s example, HP, 568 for Silenos was from Thasos. Though this name is not found in Euboia itself as yet, it is interesting to note its presence in Olynthos in the middle of the fourth century (cf. LGPN IV, s.v. (2)). 57 Dubois, IGDGG i. 39  Arena iii. 63. 58 For example, Arena, and following him, Dubois.

100

Denis Knoepfler

Chalkidian family recently settled at Rhegion. Even more intriguing is the stele of unknown provenance (recently acquired by the J. P. Getty Museum in Malibu), which carries the inscription Λατνο LμH το¯ & Ρε-γνο¯.59 Is this possibly a further sign— like Mamertinos, the name of the brother of Stesichoros at Himera in the Archaic period— of links established by the western Chalkidians with the peoples of central and southern Italy? Finally, let us not forget that some long-familiar Hellenistic inscriptions provide onomastic material which is not without interest: names like Andro¯n, Kleainetos, Leukios, Nikandros (several examples), So¯sipolis, Thrasias, etc., some of which could be of Chalkidian origin.60 To proceed now to the Euboian settlements in Campania, it is of course the Chalkido-Eretrian emporion of Pithekoussai (Ischia) that draws our attention first, because of the new light shed by recent excavations. Many vase inscriptions, essentially graffiti, were published or, more often, republished by the excavator in 1993.61 Despite their brevity, these small documents are very important evidence in several respects, whether it is the date of the arrival of Euboians in the Bay of Naples around 770, or the cultural level of the first colonists, their dialect and style of writing, etc.; but we have to admit that they are onomastically disappointing. Very few colonists of Pithekoussai are known by name, and even the oikistai are anonymous. If we leave out of account the famous Nestor of the widely publicized cup— no longer considered an early Euboian— there is not much to work on: we have, for example, the name Teiso¯n engraved on two Proto-Korinthian vases,62 a rather common name but for the moment unknown in Euboia. A remarkable artist’s signature— the oldest of its kind— on a sherd from a Late Geometric krater does not fulfil its promise: only the suffix -inos remains from the name preceding the verb, and while this is certainly not without interest,63 we would like to know whether the name was Charinos, Lykinos, or a much rarer name, or even (why not, after all?) an ethnic like Leontinos or Rheginos (the date of the vase, around 700 BC, does not preclude an ethnic occurring). One of the very few names completely extant is, unless I am missing something, Dazimos;64 but this name is generally held to be not Greek but Illyrian, in our

59

Cf. L. Dubois, BE 1999, no. 641. IG XIV 612–15; for the decree no. 612, written in the Doric koina common at that time to all Sicilian cities, and particularly interesting for the maintenance at a late period of certain institutions of Euboian type, cf. now Dubois, IGDGG i. 40. 61 G. Buchner and D. Ridgway, Pithekoussai, i (Rome, 1993); more recently the linguist A. Bartoneˇk took over its study in Katà Diálekton. Atti del III Colloquio Internazionale di Dialettologia Greca, ed. A. C. Cassio (Naples, 1996), 109–27; cf. L. Dubois, BE 2000, no. 753. 62 Dubois, IGDGG i. 6; Arena iii. 3. 63 Dubois IGDGG i. 9  Arena iii. 4. 64 Dubois IGDGG i. 10  Arena iii. 10. 60

EUBOIAN NAMES IN THE CHALKIDO-ERETRIAN COLONIES

101

case Messapian. Consequently, while it is evidence of very interesting links between Pithekoussai and the indigenous people of Italy, it does not provide any information about the ethnic identity of the colonists themselves. We should, therefore, concede that the fact that the inhabitants of Pithekoussai belonged to the genos Euboikon could not have been established on the basis of anthroponymy alone. In the absence of onomastic evidence, the confirmation of the Euboian origin of the first settlers of the island, mentioned in literary sources,65 comes from material remains, essentially from the alphabet used on vases and from the ceramic finds themselves. In this respect the settlement of Pithekoussai did not overshadow the old city of Kyme on the mainland. Thanks to Strabo (6. 4. 4, 243C), we know the names of the two oikistai of the colony, Hippokle¯ s of Kyme (Κυμα)ο) and Megasthene¯ s of Chalkis (Χαλκιδε!). If we accept Strabo, then Kyme was a mixed colony from the start, founded by Euboians but in collaboration with people from the remote Kyme of Aiolis. This at least is how Strabo’s testimony was usually understood in the past. But for some time now, a different view has prevailed, which regards Strabo’s account as no more than an inference drawn from the name of the colony, and the role assigned to the Aiolian Kyme in this matter an invention of the historian Ephorus, over-inclined to praise his modest fatherland. This is indeed possible; but before transferring the glory of this foundation, the first in the West except for the tradingpost of Pithekoussai, to a Euboian Kyme and consequently considering Hippokles as one of its citizens,66 we need to be sure that the latter city really existed! I personally very much doubt that it did. The only evidence, an indirect quotation in Stephanus of Byzantium, is weak or worthless. But I am aware that I am engaging in a desperate battle (though one in which I have some allies),67 since some scholars now believe that they can point to the remains of this city, and that those remains date precisely to the eighth century BC. The only problem is that the site in question is not located at Koumi on Euboia, a modern town with no archaeological past, but about ten kilometres away, at a place named Viglatouri, which I believe to be the site of

65

Liv. 8. 22. 5–6; Strabo 5. 4. 9, 247C. It was, significantly, adopted by the authors of LGPN (with some doubt, it is true: cf. I, s.v.), and by L. Dubois, with no hesitation (IGDGG i. 34–5). 67 Recent bibliography in M. H. Hansen and T. H. Nielsen, An Inventory of Archaic and Classical Poleis (Oxford, 2005), 645. Cf. also D. Musti, Magna Grecia: il quadro storico (Rome and Bari, 2005), 71. 66

102

Denis Knoepfler

Oichalia, the mythical town of the Eretriad and also a deme of Eretria in historical times.68 That said, I would not rule out that both oikistai were Euboians, quite the contrary. The name of the ‘Kymian’ founder, Hippokle¯s, is very well attested in Eretria, whereas, paradoxically, that of the ‘Chalkidian’ founder, Megasthene¯s, though quite widespread elsewhere, remains unique in Euboian onomastics. As we now know that the settlement of Pithekoussai took place one generation earlier than the foundation of the Campanian colony, it would be very easy to explain why there were two oikistai, just as there were at Zankle, Himera, and Rhegion, in short, at virtually all the Euboian colonies in the West. Having participated in the continental enterprise,69 the Euboians settled at Ischia must have sent their own oikistes, who could thus well be, according to the rule followed elsewhere, the one named first by Strabo, that is to say Hippokles, a good name for a Euboian hippobotos. On the other hand, I am profoundly sceptical that the name of the city founded in ‘Opikia’ (to quote the expression used by Thucydides, 6. 4) could have been borrowed from Euboian toponymy, any more than the name of any other Chalkido-Eretrian colony. After this necessary excursus, let us now look at the anthroponyms of Italian Kyme, known to all intents and purposes exclusively from inscriptions found in situ after the nineteenth-century excavations; the same goes for the harbour city of Dikaiarcheia, founded by the people of Kyme and of Pithekoussai, which apparently never rose to the rank of an independent polis. Literary sources provide very few names: that of the Kymean oikistes of Zankle, Perie¯re¯s, a totally unique name (excepting the attestation in the Messenian mythology) that cannot, and should not, be corrected; and at the end of the Archaic period that of the tyrant Aristode¯mos, son of Aristokrate¯s.70 These two names are not indicative of origin,71 but are perfectly compatible with the Euboian origin of the colonists. That does not, of course, mean that the colony had not counted, from the beginning, indigenous people, especially females, in its population. It is notable that one of the D. Knoepfler, ‘Le territoire d’Erétrie et l’organisation politique de la cité (demoi, ch oroi, phylai)’, in M. H. Hansen (ed.), The Polis as an Urban Centre and as a Political Community, Acts of the Copenhagen Polis Centre, 4 (Copenhagen, 1997), 385 ff. The correction I brought to the text of the MSS of Paus. 4. 2. 3 is now accepted in M. Casevitz and J. Auberger’s edition of book 4 (Paris, Belles Lettres, 2005). 69 This is suggested rather clearly by Livy (8. 22. 5); cf. Dubois, IGDGG i. 35. 70 He is mentioned only by Dionysius of Halicarnassus (8. 4–10). 71 The first element should be compared to Aristonothos (if this is the correct reading), borne, as we know, by the potter who made the famous krater of Caere, and who is often considered as a craftsman of Euboian origin, since his name is attested in Euboia in the region of Koumi, LGPN I, s.v.; cf. III A, s.v., and the observations by R. Wachter, Non-Attic Greek Vase Inscriptions (Oxford, 2001), 29 (INC 1). 68

EUBOIAN NAMES IN THE CHALKIDO-ERETRIAN COLONIES

103

earliest inscriptions of Kyme, the graffito on a Proto-Korinthian lekythos now in the British Museum, declares the owner of the lekythos to be Tataie¯, thus issuing a warning to those who might be tempted to steal it.72 This female name is not Greek, even if, as L. Dubois rightly noted,73 it belongs in the category of ‘Lallnamen’, which occur almost universally. In contrast, the names listed in an equally famous inscription engraved on a bronze cauldron, also in the British Museum, are completely Greek. The cauldron was a prize offered at the games in honour of Onomastos son of Pheidileo¯s,74 so nothing prevents us from considering these names Euboian: the first is found at Karystos and the second has a markedly Ionian character. What is more, the practice of offering such cauldrons (which Kyme was exporting to the whole of Campania) as prizes in contests for the heroized dead is attested in Euboia from the time of Hesiod and his victory at the games of the Chalkidian Amphidamas. The same interpretation applies to an interesting series of anthroponyms provided by other small texts: Archaic funerary inscriptions like those of Kritobo(u)le¯ and of De¯ mocharis,75 or graffiti on vases, like those of De¯ mo¯ n, Biot(t)os, Chairias, and Xenophantos,76 not to mention a rather odd and, it must be said, hypothetical female name that has appeared more recently, Elaphite¯ .77 Several of these names are well attested in Euboia: this is true, if not for De¯ mocharis itself (certainly masculine), at least for names of the same family such as De¯ mochare¯s and De¯ mocharide¯s; for Biottos, very frequent in Eretria, where the remarkable compound name Biottokle¯ s (a hapax at the moment) is also found; and to a lesser extent for Chairias and Xenophantos.78 But the most notable name for our argument is perhaps that of a woman (or a man?) which appears twice on a curse tablet in the National Museum of Naples, namely Opo¯ ris.79 The name appeared some time ago in Chalkidike, where it is certainly masculine (see below under the name Stolos), and, though it is not yet known in Euboia itself, it is attested on the island of Tenos,80 so close in all respects to Euboia. Thus we see that Kyme has already provided an appreciable amount of evidence— though the documentation has hardly increased in over a century— to show the enduring nature of the cultural, and notably onomastic, links with its mother-city. Dubois, IGDGG i. 12  Arena iii. 16. Dubois, IGDGG i. 12 with reference to L. Robert for that interpretation. 74 Dubois, IGDGG i. 16; Arena iii. 27. 75 Dubois, IGDGG i. 17–18; Arena iii. 13–14. 76 Dubois, IGDGG i. 21 a–d; Arena iii. 28, 22, 21, 20. 77 Dubois, IGDGG i. 21 e; but Arena iii. 17, reads and divides the words differently. 78 See LGPN I, s.vv. 79 Dubois, IGDGG i. 20 (‘sobriquet féminin’); Arena iii. 29, also considers it a female name. 80 IG XII (5) 876. 72 73

104

Denis Knoepfler

For the West, it remains to say a few words about Neapolis, for one cannot doubt that this city, founded only around 470 BC, was settled mainly by Euboians from Kyme who had come first, perhaps at the end of the seventh century, to a site closer to their city (Parthenope-Palaiopolis, on the Pizzofalcone hill), and had then participated in the founding of a new city, very close but nevertheless distinct from the older one, with the collaboration of Athenian epoikoi, and at a later date of Samnites (Strabo 5. 4. 5, 246C). As Livy noted in connection with the events of 326 BC, ‘the two cities were inhabited by one people’ (8. 22. 5: duabus urbibus populus idem habitabat). We know, moreover, that many of the institutions of Neapolis, notably the wellknown phratries, demonstrate the attachment of the Palaiopolitans and the Neapolitans to the nomima Chalkidika; but I will not go into that subject here. As regards personal names, the texts in Ionian dialect (rare and quite late since nothing seems earlier than the fourth century, and with good reason) do not provide much evidence. We may note, however, two lengthy epitaphs, one for Epichare¯s, the other (which has unfortunately disappeared and was poorly copied) for ‘someone’ the son of Eumorphos.81 Both are good Greek names. More interesting are the documents of the Hellenistic and the Imperial period published in the corpus meticulously edited some time ago by Elena Miranda,82 on which the following comments are based. When Palaiopolis (the city was clearly then still separate from Neapolis) was besieged by the Romans, two eminent citizens, Charilaus and Nymphius,83 decided to hand the city over to the Romans in order to avoid the worst. These two names alone give a very clear picture of the double character of the Neapolitan population on the eve of the Roman conquest. The first is obviously a member of the old Greek community, and he negotiates with the consul precisely as a Greek aristocrat. His name, Charilaus, that is to say Charileo¯s in the Euboian dialect, remarkably appears as a magistrate of the mint in a fourth-century issue from Neapolis,84 and even earlier on an Archaic graffito from Kyme, the immediate metropolis of the city.85 In the Late Hellenistic period, we find the name again several times in the form Chariles.86 The second Neapolitan notable of 326, Nymphius, who is shown by Livy negotiating with the Samnites, bears an Oscan name which is well attested at Neapolis (and at Samnite Pompeii), and which is in reality a wellknown hellenized form of the indigenous names Numisius, Numpsios,

81

Dubois, IGDGG i. 26–7; not in Arena. Iscrizioni Greche d’Italia. Napoli, fasc. I–II (1990–5). 83 The ‘principes civitatis’ is Livy’s description (8. 25. 9). 84 SNG American Numismatic Society, Etruria-Calabria, 359. 85 Arena iii. 25; see LGPN III A, s.v. 86 Miranda, Iscrizioni, 151 and 180. 82

EUBOIAN NAMES IN THE CHALKIDO-ERETRIAN COLONIES

105

Nympsia, etc.87 A Nypsios Neapolites, leader of mercenaries, already appears in a Sicilian episode of 356 BC recounted by Diodorus (16. 18–19), and we also find it in a curious Hellenistic inscription from Pithekoussai, along with other very characteristically Oscan names.88 Such a strong Samnite presence from the fourth century onwards did not lead, however, to the complete disappearance of the Chalkidian heritage. Strabo actually stresses the continuity of the onomata Hellenika at Neapolis, despite the romanization of the city. Even better: he mentions, probably using a local historian cited by Timaeus or Timaeus himself, that the chronological list of Neapolitan demarchs revealed a great deal about Oscan penetration, for at its beginning there were only Greek names, but later Hellenika and Kampanika onomata were mixed together (5. 4. 7, 246C). That is exactly the situation described by Livy for the year 326. Such examples seem to justify today’s efforts to use onomastic evidence for historical purposes. That is why I will complete this part of my paper with a name which has a joyous quality, Charmas. It is found in that form (but in the genitive) in a rather late dipinto from Neapolis,89 and also in the form Charme¯ —very probably a vocative of the masculine Charmes— in an inscription carved on the shaft of a fine relief stele.90 Yet, as the editor of the Corpus notes, Charmas is specifically attested in Eretria, and in the Cyclades; and there are in Euboia a large number of names formed from the root χαρμ- (Charmide¯ s, Charmantide¯ s and so forth). It is one more example of faithfulness towards the heritage of that remote metropolis, Eretria.

THE COLONIES OF THRACE It is time to turn now to the second zone of Euboian colonial activity, which dates from at least as early a period as the first— and, in the light of the most recent excavations, probably even earlier— that is to say, Thrace. By that term, interpreted in the widest sense, I mean the whole northern coast of the Aegean, from the Thermaic Gulf to the Strymon (this river is often taken as the boundary between Macedonia and Thrace proper). Euboian 87

Cf. Miranda, Iscrizioni, Index s.v. IG XIV 894; cf. BE 1951, no. 252, for the chronology. The name Pakkios, attested in another document (Miranda, Iscrizioni, 34), belongs to the same stock. It is also worth mentioning here that an unpublished epitaph from Eretria has brought to light a lyric poet from Neapolis, almost certainly the Campanian Neapolis, since the poet, who probably came to Euboia to participate in the musical contest of the Tamyneia around 100 BC, bears a name of Oscan origin very typical of the Neapolitan area, Trebios (cf. Miranda, Iscrizioni, Index, s.v.). 89 Miranda, Iscrizioni, 103: Bibios Charma. 90 Ibid., 181: Charme¯ Philiou. 88

106

Denis Knoepfler

influence is detectable all the way to Amphipolis. On the other hand, the old hypothesis of an Eretrian settlement at Neapolis in Thrace (modern Kavalla opposite Thasos) must now, it appears, be rejected. For the study of the onomastic material of this region, the working environment was until very recently— and was still when this paper was presented in 2003— quite different from that of the western zone, LGPN being at that time not yet available. The situation has considerably improved since the publication of LGPN IV in the summer of 2005;91 I have thus been able to use this precious volume in extremis, without having enough time, however, to go through it systematically. On the other hand, to my knowledge at least, we still do not have a true regional corpus92 for this coastal area, nor a collection of dialectal inscriptions (though these are rare in this region) like those available for Sicily and Magna Graecia. There is a prosopography only for the most important city of Chalkidike, Olynthos, by Mabel Gude.93 It must be said that her work was flawed, and premature since several inscriptions were published in the years succeeding her publication, not to mention the corrections applied later to Robinson’s publications. What we need today is a general prosopography of the Chalkidian federal state, for many persons, eponymous priests in particular, reappear from one city to another. In fact, the largest part of the material comes from recent publications of inscriptions discovered over the last few years (some remain unpublished: I will deal below with a document of the greatest importance concerning Dikaia). Many of these texts were published by our friend and colleague Miltiades Hatzopoulos; they often consist of sale agreements94 which contain many anthroponyms and thus contribute a great deal to the subject under review. The now classic study by Michael Zahrnt, Olynth und die Chalkidier, should also be mentioned, though his thesis about the ethnic origin of the Chalkidians has to be rejected, as I have tried to demonstrate over the past twenty years, particularly through the study of the calendar of the Chalkidians of Thrace.95 There cannot by now

91

LGPN IV: Macedonia, Thrace, Northern Regions of the Black Sea, ed. P. M. Fraser and E. Matthews (Oxford, 2005). 92 The corpus by L. Loukopoulou, S. Psoma et al., Επιγραφ^ τ6 Θρα´κη τοG Α5γαου (Athens, 2005) deals with Aegean Thrace between the Nestos and the Ebros. 93 Published as an appendix to her History of Olynthus (Baltimore, 1933), in association with the well-known series Excavations at Olynthus by D. M. Robinson. 94 See Actes de vente de la Chalcidique centrale (Athens, 1988); Actes de vente d’Amphipolis (Athens, 1991). These texts will be published anew in a forthcoming thematic corpus. 95 Michael Zahrnt, Olynth und die Chalkidier (Munich, 1971); D. Knoepfler, ‘Le calendrier des Chalcidiens de Thrace: essai de mise au point sur la liste et l’ordre des mois eubéens’, Journal des Savants (1989), 23 ff.; cf. id., ‘The calendar of the Chalcidians of Thrace’, in Greek Colonists and Native Populations, Proceedings of the 1st Australian Congress of Classical Archaeology, ed.

EUBOIAN NAMES IN THE CHALKIDO-ERETRIAN COLONIES

107

be any doubt that the colonists came from Euboia. Among recent works, we may cite, in addition to several papers given at the conference in Naples in 1996 already mentioned,96 two articles by Pernill Fleisted-Jensen dealing with political geography, as part of the research of the Copenhagen Polis Centre,97 and Selene Psoma’s Paris thesis, Olynthe et les Chalcidiens de Thrace,98 a numismatic study which is extremely important for the political history of the Chalkidian state, though it does not deal with onomastics. Olynthos and Chalkidike It is well established that the city of Olynthos was not a Euboian foundation, as it originally belonged to the Bottiaians: the Persian leader Artabazos, after taking the city in 479 BC and killing its inhabitants (who had already been brutally expelled from the Thermaic Gulf by the Macedonians), handed it over to the Chalkidians by giving authority over the city to Kritoboulos of Torone (Hdt. 8. 127). The Chalkidians at that time occupied the central peninsula of what has been called since late antiquity Chalkidike, that is to say Sithonia and the lands lying directly to the north of it. That was the zone that had been colonized by the genos Chalkidikon, as Strabo (10. 1. 8, 447C) shows us clearly by distinguishing between this Chalkidike stricto sensu, and the western peninsula, Pallene— an area of Eretrian colonization— and the eastern peninsula Akte; this last was still in Thucydides’ time (4. 109) only partially hellenized, though with some Chalkidian elements on the coast, notably at Kleonai and at Dion.99 We may therefore consider that Olynthos was already, by the time it entered the historical record, an ethnically and politically mixed city, for it is not likely that the whole Bottiaian population was eliminated in 479. We should nevertheless begin our study with this city, which was by far the most important of some thirty Chalkidikai poleis that could be counted in the middle of the fourth century, and for which, moreover, the onomastic documentation (from literary, epigraphic, and numismatic sources) is by far the most plentiful.

J.-P. Descoeudres (Canberra and Oxford, 1990), 99–127; see also C. Trümpy, Untersuchungen zu den altgriechischen Monatsnamen und Monatsfolgen (Heidelberg, 1997), 39 ff. § 34–5. 96 See above n. 11; this conference also dealt with the Euboian presence in Chalkidike. 97 ‘The Bottiaians and their poleis’, Studies in the Ancient Greek Polis, ed. M. H. Hansen and K. Raaflaub, Historia Einzelschriften, 95 (1995), 103–32; ‘Some problems in polis identification in the Chalcidic Peninsula’, Yet More Studies in the Ancient Greek Polis, ed. T. H. Nielsen, Historia Einzelschriften, 117 (1997), 117–28. 98 Olynthe et les Chalcidiens de Thrace: études de numismatique et d’histoire (Stuttgart, 2001). She has subsequently published further studies. 99 See Zahrnt, Olynth, map 1.

108

Denis Knoepfler

For this study, the Prosopography of Olynthus, already cited, can be of service, provided it is used with care. To justify this apparently severe judgement, I will point out just two cases: first, no. 114 lists as Olynthian a Strophakos who was proxenos of the Chalkidians (Thuc. 4. 78), whereas it is quite clearly established that he was a citizen of Pharsalos, bearing, what is more, a typically Thessalian name.100 With such arguments, we could make Demosthenes an Olynthian, on the grounds that he delivered the famous Olynthiakoi logoi! Second, the entry under no. 119 reads as follows: ‘Σ\σων Πρωτα´ρχου, husband of Νικησ\ IG II 3, 3249’; in reality, on this Attic stele one reads Νικησ\ Σ\σωνο Ολυνθη, then simply Πρ\ταρ[χο]. In other words, Nikeso¯ of Olynthos was the daughter of Soson; Pro¯tarchos was not her husband (the absence of ethnic or demotic should have alerted the author), but her young son,101 depicted standing in front of his sitting mother, for we are dealing with a beautiful naiskos with relief, now in the Piraeus Museum.102 In short, everything in this Prosopography must be checked. That said, let us have a look at the anthroponymy of Chalkidike. It seems to me that a good starting point is provided by the (chronologically and probably also sociologically) homogeneous series of eleven mint magistrates known from the tetradrachms issued between about 379 and 348 BC by the Chalkidian League, of which Olynthos was the capital (some of them might of course originate from another city of the League, but that is not important for our purposes). They are, according to the traditional chronological order,103 Askle¯ piodo¯ros, Strato¯n,104 Leade¯ s, Timarchos, Polyxenos, Archidamos, Olympichos, Annikas, Aristo¯n, Eudo¯ridas, and Dikaios. The first name on the list, Askle¯ piodo¯ros, clearly cannot belong to the original Chalkidian heritage, because names deriving from the theonym Asklepios did not appear in the Greek world until the very end of the fifth century. With that exception, however, all the rest could originate from Euboia. I do not believe that the name Archidamos should be considered Dorian— and thus likely to have been 100

See S. V. Tracy, Athenian Democracy in Transition: Attic Letter-Cutters of 340 to 290 B.C. (Berkeley, 1995?), 88. 101 This Protarchos was expressly discarded by A. B. Tataki, Macedonians Abroad (Athens, 1998), 140 s.v. no. 87; 129 ff. provides an up-to-date list of Olynthians attested outside Macedonia. He does not appear in LGPN IV, s.v., probably because his origin was considered uncertain (the father’s nationality being unknown). 102 IG II2 10026  12271. 103 According to the corpus of D. M. Robinson and P. A. Clement, Excavations at Olynthus, ix (Baltimore, 1938), 36 ff. For the chronology see Ancient Macedonia, i (Thessaloniki, 1970), 254; Zahrnt, Olynth, 106–7; and most of all Psoma, Olynthe et les Chalcidiens de Thrace, 186–7. 104 To be identified perhaps with Στρα´των &Ηρακλεδου Ολ!νθιο, buried after 348 in the Piraeus with his wife Κρατιστω` Πολμωνο Ολυνθα according to the stele IG II2 10027 (unknown to Gude); cf. Tataki, Macedonians Abroad, 139 no. 77 and 143 no. 104.

EUBOIAN NAMES IN THE CHALKIDO-ERETRIAN COLONIES

109

imported from Korinthian Potidaia, as M. Hatzopoulos ingeniously suggests:105 in Ionian areas names in -δαμο should be distinguished from those in -δημο and be linked instead to the root δαμ- ‘to master’106 (the case of the Eretrian named Archidamos107 whose father was called Archide¯ mos demonstrates this perfectly). To return to the list of the mint magistrates from Olynthos, most of these names are of course panhellenic (such as Straton, Dikaios, etc.) or at least widespread (like Eudoridas: here again I would not consider the suffix -δα as Dorian, as in Euboia both forms always alternated).108 But one of them, infinitely rarer, clearly points towards southern Euboia: Lead es, known from one example at Styra.109 Even more remarkable (so much so that the reading was doubted long ago, but certainly wrongly) is the name Annikas, which was studied by Friedrich Bechtel, and more recently by Olivier Masson:110 far from being indigenous, that is to say Thracian or Bottiaian, as one might easily be tempted to believe, it is an Ionian name, attested in Chios in the fifth century in the form Annike¯ s for Annikeas, and can be explained as a diminutive, probably dialectal, of A-nike¯ tos ‘invincible’. Despite its slightly strange appearance, this name could perfectly well be of Euboian origin, especially as it has now appeared in the old Chalkidian colonies of Stolos and Polichne (see below), but this time with a genitive form Annikantos, not Annika as on the coins. I believe that the same can be said, with a few reservations, about the great majority of Olynthian names provided by other sources, literary texts, and above all inscriptions. The epigraphic corpus consists of decrees and epitaphs mentioning Olynthians abroad (a rather rich external prosopography for a city whose citizens were forced to go into exile in their hundreds after the destruction of 348),111 and also, of course, of the fifteen sale agreements— or rather seventeen now, for two more have been added but remain unpublished112 —probably from the site of Olynthos itself;113 note that only the first four of these texts were available for Gude’s Prosopography. The names in 105 M. Hatzopoulos, ‘Grecs et barbares dans les cités de l’arrière-pays de la Chalcidique’, Klio 71 (1989), 62 and n. 17. 106 Cf. Bechtel, HP, 115. 107 References in LGPN I, s.vv. along with other examples. 108 See also Charondas at Katane, Eukleidas at Himera, etc. 109 No other attestations (published or unpublished) are known to LGPN. 110 O. Masson, ‘Quelques noms de magistrats monétaires grecs’, Revue Numismatique (1982), 17 ff.  OGS II, 399 ff. 111 For this external prosopography see above n. 101. 112 Cf. SEG XLVII 922. 113 D. Hennig, ‘Kaufverträge über Häuser und Ländereien aus der Chalkidike und Amphipolis’, Chiron 17 (1987), 143–4 nn. 1–2, provided a convenient list of those documents. For their re-edition in another context, cf. above n. 93.

110

Denis Knoepfler

these documents— of both men and women (female names are not insignificant in number)— are for the most part quite common, with many ‘Vollnamen’ like Andronikos, Aristophane¯ s, De¯ marchos, Diodo¯ros, Epichare¯ s, Euthukrate¯ s, Euphantos, Kallisthene¯ s (Aristotle’s nephew, the historian), Lysistratos, Nikandros, Polyxenos, So¯sandros, etc. Some of them, however, are less widespread, and are scarcely found outside Euboia or neighbouring areas (Attica, Boiotia, and the Cyclades): Antibios, Epikyde¯ s, Theogeito¯n, Ke¯ phisodo¯ros, Kritoboulos.114 Others, finally, such as Antigonos (attested only for the son of an exile at the beginning of the third century), could attest to Macedonian influence, though this seems otherwise to have been very modest in classical Olynthian onomastics (no Perdikkas, Ptolemaios, or Arrhidaios, one Harpalos115 only in the second century). Unquestionably more interesting are derived names like Lysis, Sthennis (the names of two Olynthian sculptors based in Athens),116 or Strattis (an old Ionian name): though these names are not attested in Euboia itself, such masculine names in -is are not exceptional there (a remarkable Terpsis has recently appeared in Eretria).117 It is interesting, too, to find at Olynthos names with a suffix in -ichos so characteristic of Boiotia118 and of central Euboia, like Olympichos or the much rarer Me¯trichos.119 It seems in the end that very few names in Olynthos can be qualified as ‘Bottiaian’, of the type we find in the Bottike, notably in Spartolos in a recently published sale agreement,120 and in Kalindoia in the famous list of priests of Asklepios: names such as Gouras, Poris, Sedalas, Tarbe¯ s, etc. For Olynthos, M. Hatzopoulos cites,121 though not without hesitation, Mysios, Ithyras, and E¯do¯ne¯s ( Ηδ\νη), whose indigenous origin remains to be proved. The first inhabitants of Olynthos have thus not left many onomastic traces in our documents. The only clearly foreign name (Persian as it happens) is 114

The same name as the Chalkidian who was given authority over Olynthos in 479 (cf. above). LGPN IV, s.v. (15). 116 On those two sculptors and their family, cf. C. Habicht, ‘Sthennis’, Horos 10–12, (1992–8), 21 ff. and 14–16 (2000–1), 125 ff. I have recently demonstrated that the Olynthian Sthennis should be seen in the artist who, according to all editors of Pausanias, bore the name Olympiosthene¯s (corruption of Olynthios Sthennis): cf. D. Knoepfler, in Κορυφα{ α νδρ. Mélanges offerts à A. Hurst, ed. A. Kolde, A. Lukinovich, A.-L. Rey (Geneva, 2005), 657 ff. 117 Fragment of an unpublished civic catalogue. 118 As L. Robert, Hellenica, xi–xii (Paris, 1969), 238 and nn. 4–6 pointed out. 119 To the Metrichos attested in a sale agreement from Olynthos we can now add another one probably in Amphipolis (SEG L 562, 8): cf. LGPN IV, s.v. The name Stichos (Bechtel, HP, 407; other examples in Asia Minor), an Olynthian attested at Miletos at the end of the third century (cf. LGPN IV, s.v.), probably does not belong in the same category. 120 SEG XLVI 625. 121 BE 1997, no. 402, concerning the sale agreement at Spartolos mentioned above; cf. by the same author ‘“L’histoire par les noms” in Macedonia’, in Hornblower and Matthews, Greek Personal Names, 110. 115

EUBOIAN NAMES IN THE CHALKIDO-ERETRIAN COLONIES

111

Pharnabazos —son of a citizen with the common name Eukle¯s—in a sale agreement from the first half of the fourth century.122 As for the name of the Olynthian who might have wounded Philip II during the siege of Methone, Aste¯r, attested only in late historiographical sources,123 it is reasonable to ask whether this might not be a literary invention: the name remains without parallel among the Chalkidians of Thrace. The most important of the truly Chalkidian cities was certainly Torone, at the southern end of Sithonia: we saw that the Kritoboulos who was given authority over Olynthos in 479 BC, a man probably of good Chalkidian stock,124 originated from that city. On the other hand, our sources remain silent on the identity of the oikistes of Torone (the same applies generally to the Greek colonies throughout the whole area), and it is only archaeological data, from the excavations carried out by the Australian Archaeological Institute under Alexander Cambitoglou, that enable us to date its foundation approximately to the beginning of the eighth century (or a little earlier).125 Torone’s epigraphy remains scanty, so that still today very few Toronaians are known by name, even taking into account several citizens of that city who appear in Athenian inscriptions: among Attic epitaphs, note the stele for Protho¯ of Torone, whose ethnic Τορωναα was at first read as Ταναγραα.126 Recent excavations have added virtually nothing, apart from a very interesting private letter engraved on a lead tablet and dating to the fourth century,127 whose recipient is a certain Tegeas (since the reading is certain, there is no justification for substituting the commonplace name Hegeas), while its author seems to be a resident of Mende on the neighbouring peninsula. The name is apparently a sort of secondary ethnic form for the city of Tegea in Arkadia, otherwise attested as an oxytone feminine name (Tegeas, with genitive in -ados) in Stephanus of Byzantium, quoting a verse by Sophocles;128 but it is surely worth noting that the main ethnic of Tegea (Τεγεα´τη) occurs in its Ionian form Τεγε τη as an anthroponym only in Eretria.129 Another remarkable name is that of a citizen of Torone honoured in Samos at the end

122

Cf. LGPN IV, s.v. (1). Cf. M. Hatzopoulos, D. Knoepfler, and V. Marigo-Papadopoulos, ‘Deux sites pour Méthone de Macédoine’, BCH 114 (1990), 661 ff. 124 Even though his name is not yet attested in Euboia itself, for this absence must be fortuitous, compound names in Krito- being no rarer than those in -boulos. 125 Results published in A. Cambitoglou et. al. (eds.), Torone, 3 vols. (Athens, 2001), vol. i. 126 IG II2 10454; cf. Pape-Benseler, s.v.; a useful Toronaian prosopography in Tataki, Macedonians Abroad, 190–2. 127 A. S. Henry, ‘A lead letter’, Torone i, 765 ff.; cf. id., ‘A lead letter from Torone’, Αρχαιολογικb Εφημερ 130 (1991), 65–70 (SEG XLIII 488). 128 Steph. Byz. s.v. Τεγα  Tr. Gr. Fragm. IV (1977), 1100. 129 Cf. LGPN I, s.v. 123

112

Denis Knoepfler

of the fourth century,130 Gyge¯s son of Menestheus: should we follow Fanoula Papazoglou131 in seeing here an indigenous Lydo-Phrygian name, or is it simply a heroic name borrowed from the prestigious dynasty of the Mermnades? I do not feel competent to decide. The most important document for the onomastics of Torone remains the sale agreement published in 1966 by Maria Karamanoli-Siganidou.132 This text of the middle of the fourth century lists nine persons with their name and patronymic, thus giving us eighteen different anthroponyms. The first observation to make— and it accords with that of Miltiades Hatzopoulos about the region located between Macedonia proper and Chalkidike133 —is that there is no perceptible influence from Macedonian onomastics: even a name like Asandros, popular in Macedonia, could well be explained in Torone as belonging to the stock of names in use across the whole of central Greece.134 In any case, most of the other names— including Parmeno¯n—are more or less panhellenic, as we have just seen for Olynthos. There are, however, a few exceptions, even if they are not always obvious. First, Euphrantide¯s, the name of an eponymous priest of the Chalkidian Confederation, unknown in Macedonia and quite rare outside Euboia and Rhodes.135 Then Archeptolemos: three attestations in LGPN I— all from Eretria— but it also appears in Athens, Macedonia (though without being a Macedonian name, as Hatzopoulos seems to admit), and Sinope: so we are dealing with a clearly epichoric name from central Euboia and Attica. Next, Antipho¯n, a name with a widespread distribution across the Ionian dialectal zone, and virtually unknown outside it. Finally Philo¯nichos, with the suffix in -ιχο already mentioned above. This anthroponym, at first sight as ordinary as the very common Philonikos, is in reality not ordinary at all. For the Peloponnese and the West, we have only one example, at Messene, just two at Athens, none in Thessaly, but five or six in southern Boiotia, close to Euboia, and an overwhelming number of occurrences— no fewer than twenty-six— in Eretria, and by contrast a total absence of attestations from the rest of the

130

SEG I 361; now IG XII (6) 46. F. Papazoglou, ‘Structures ethniques et sociales dans les Balkans’, Actes du VIIe Congrès international d’épigraphie grecque et latine. Constanza, September 1977 (Bucharest and Paris, 1979), 166. 132 SEG XXIV 574. 133 Thus at Kalindoia (Mygdonia) before the new foundation of the city by Macedonian colonists. See M. B. Hatzopoulos and L. D. Loukopoulou, Recherches sur les marches orientales des Téménides (Anthémonte-Kalindoia), i (Athens, 1992), 117 ff.; cf. ii (Athens, 1996), 261. 134 There are attestations in central Greece, most of all in Phokis from the Hellenistic period onwards; one example in Thespiai, however, goes back to the fifth century: see LGPN III B. 135 Cf. LGPN I and IV, s.v. Attestations at Athens are late and thus of little significance here. 131

EUBOIAN NAMES IN THE CHALKIDO-ERETRIAN COLONIES

113

islands.136 In short, it is a purely (Chalkido-)Eretrian name, which has spread only a little into the neighbouring regions. It would provide proof, if proof were needed, that the population of Torone originated from central Euboia. More recently, two modest cities of Chalkidike proper have been brought to light thanks to a series of documents published or republished by M. Hatzopoulos,137 and a document edited by the late Julia Vokotopoulou.138 These inscriptions, dating to the 350s, come from two neighbouring places in the Chalkidian hinterland, Kellion and Smixi, to be identified according to the editor with the cities of Stolos and Polichne respectively, which are best known for having been a part of the Athenian Empire and later of the Chalkidian federal state. Furthermore, we learn from the well-informed notice on Stolos in Stephanus of Byzantium that this city was originally peopled by the tribe of the Edones, until the Chalkidians integrated it into their poleis. The new inscriptions seem to show, as the editor saw immediately, that the indigenous element was still present during the fourth century. No fewer than five of the forty-three names defy interpretation in terms of Greek etymology: Biltalo¯ (feminine), Krase¯s, Peryse¯s, Potte¯s, and Poris.139 The great majority, however, are of Greek origin, and many are rare or very rare: for example, the name Annikas (two probably distinct examples), already mentioned in connection with Olynthos, and the remarkable Opo¯ris (again two examples, unless we are dealing with the same person) which was already attested, as we have seen, at Kyme in Campania and on Tenos, that is to say, in two regions linked one way or another with Euboia. It is interesting to note that this latter name has now appeared at Amphipolis,140 a city where the cultural influence of the Chalkidians was probably stronger and more lasting than that of Athens or Sparta. More generally, it emerges from the list of names compiled by M. Hatzopoulos that many names from Stolos and Polichne are found both at Olynthos and in Euboia (leaving out of account truly panhellenic names, Glaukias, Dionysodo¯ros, Euboulide¯ s, Zo¯ilos, Kte¯ so¯n, Xeno¯n, Polemarchos, Strato¯n), or at least in Euboia (for example Antiphane¯ s, Archestratos, Boularchos, Dionysophane¯ s, Polystratos, and, above all, the distinctly rarer Choronikos). The name Dinnys, another notable rarity, though not attested in Euboia is found four times on Chios, an island that had mythical links with the Abantes of Euboia. In any case, the name is clearly Ionian, 136 LGPN IV has two others, one from the Bosporos (attested in Egypt) and the other from Pydna. LGPN has no instances of the name in the Hellenic East. 137 Actes de vente de la Chalcidique centrale (Athens, 1988); SEG XXXVIII 671–2. 138 Μνη´μη Δ. Λαζαρδη (Thessaloniki, 1990), 123, A and fig. 30 (SEG XL 553) with the interesting names Bias (attested twice at Chios) and Nauton (cf. Nautes at Torone). 139 Cf. Hatzopoulos, Actes de vente de la Chalcidique centrale, 53–5 with 54 n. 1. 140 Hatzopoulos, Actes de vente d’Amphipolis, 25 no. 3, 17 (SEG XLI 557); cf. 69 n. 5 for the editor’s view that this name was of Chalkidian origin.

114

Denis Knoepfler

and so is the language of the sale agreements. In the final analysis, it is indisputable that this handful of inscriptions from Stolos and Polichne has thrown fresh light on the onomastics of the Chalkidians of Thrace. But further riches can probably be anticipated in that region, from sites which have so far been silent or had little to tell us, such as Mekyberna, Sermylia, and Assa or Assera situated farther to the East, not to mention Apollonia of Mygdonia, whose location is now identified,141 and which had close relations with the Chalkidian state. The Eretrian Sphere of Influence on Pallene and in the Thermaic Gulf In the tenth book of his Geography, in his section on Euboia, Strabo reminds us that Euboian colonization in Macedonia (as he anachronistically terms it) was not the work of Chalkis alone: Eretria founded the cities around Pallene and Athos (10 1. 8, 447C). There is as yet no confirmation of Strabo’s statement about Athos, but he could have been referring to cities like Okolon and Skabala, which were χωρα Ερετριων according to the historian Theopompus, or Pharbelos, πλι Ερετριων (Stephanus of Byzantium),142 for which there are now several pointers which locate them, if not on the Athos peninsula or Akte itself, at least in the neighbourhood of the isthmus, and certainly east of the Chalkidian sphere of influence. These small towns have not provided any onomastic material so far. The true Eretrian zone was the peninsula of Pallene, with the large city of Mende, an Eretrio¯ n apoikia according to the most reliable witness, Thucydides (4. 123. 1). The epigraphy of Mende unfortunately remains rather poor, despite excavations carried out on the site from 1985 onwards, now interrupted due to J. Vokotopoulou’s premature death.143 The exploration of the sanctuary of Poseidon has yielded important results for the history of the city, but the written documents are not numerous. Some dedications and graffiti on vases yield names like Phrygil(l)os, which could be considered as Korinthian and in that case imported from nearby

141

For the links between Apollonia and Olynthos, cf. Knoepfler, ‘Le calendrier des Chalcidiens de Thrace’, 34–5 with n. 50; 58 with additional n. 1; P. Flensted-Jensen, in Nielson (ed.), Yet More Studies in the Ancient Greek Polis, 117–28. 142 FGrH 115 F 150–1, and Steph. Byz. s.v. Φα´ρβηλο; cf. Zahrnt, Olynth, 208 (Okolon); 231 (where, however, he wrongly distinguishes the Skablaioi of Chalkidike from Skabala, said by Theopompus to be Eretrian); and 251 (Pharbelos, not to be distinguished from the Pharbelioi of the Athenian tribute lists, pace Zahrnt); Knoepfler, ‘Le territoire d’Éretrie’, 358. 143 I gave a report on the epigraphical finds from Mende in my contribution to the volume published in her memory: ‘Le culte de Poséidon à Mendè’, in P. Adam-Veleni (ed.), Myrtos (Thessaloniki, 2000), 335–49.

EUBOIAN NAMES IN THE CHALKIDO-ERETRIAN COLONIES

115

Potidaia,144 or Epichare¯s, well attested at Olynthos and at Aphytis145 on Pallene itself, not to mention in Euboia. Some citizens of Mende appear in Athens.146 Most notable among the famous sons of Mende is the sculptor Paio¯nios, whose name, without being really frequent, is found almost everywhere and thus seems to lack local colour. Much more interesting are the names Antimoiros and Kno¯po¯ n. The first is borne by a pupil of the sophist Protagoras in Plato— apparently a hapax but irreproachably formed— and the second by a thearodokos of Mende at Epidauros.147 Kno¯po¯n is surely to be linked with the Boiotian toponym Knopia near Thebes.148 The colonies founded by Mende on Pallene, Neapolis (Νεοπολ)ται Μενδαων α1ποικοι, according to Attic documents) and Eion ( Ηινα τbν LπH Θρακη Μενδαων α ποικαν, according to Thucydides),149 are little more than place-names whose location is uncertain, and no names are known from them. Skione, on the western coast of Pallene south of Mende, is slightly better known, because its population was mercilessly deported by the Athenians in 421;150 but the Skionaians, who appear to have considered themselves natives of Achaia (albeit without any proof), were later able to reestablish their homeland. In the absence of inscriptions from the site, the onomastics of Skione are still too poor for us to form any opinion about the ethnic origin of its population. We will only point out the very rare name of one Σκιωνα)ο, Ide¯ratos, buried at Athens with his father Kallias son of Eugene¯ s.151 The remarkable anthroponym Ideratos, still unknown to Bechtel, has appeared at Thasos in a list of magistrates dating to the end of the fifth century,152 implying, it seems, an Ionian and Cycladic character.153 Also on 144

There are indeed examples in Syracuse and in Korinth, cf. LGPN III A. LGPN IV, s.v. nos. 3–7. For Euboia, see LGPN I. 146 IG II2 9335–7  10526. They are recorded by Tataki, Macedonians Abroad, 120–2, in her interesting external prosopography of Mende. 147 IG IV (1)2 94b, 26. 148 A Knopiadas is indeed known in Boiotia in the sixth century BC (cf. LGPN III B, s.v.), but the Knopias mentioned by Polybius at 5. 63. 12 was from Allaria and thus a Cretan. Moreover, Knopos was the name of one of Kodros’ sons who travelled to Ionia (e.g. Strabo 14. 1. 3), whence the usual correction of Kleophos into Knopos at Paus. 7. 3. 7 (so in the Teubner edition by Rocha-Pereira, approved of by Masson, BCH 105 (1981), 202 n. 26  OGS II, 378 n. 26), but now rejected without sufficient reason in favour of the reading of the MSS by the most recent editors of book 7 (CUF and Fondazione L. Valla, 2000). 149 Thuc. 4. 7. 1. For Neapolis, cf. Zahrnt, Olynth, 207. 150 Thuc. 4. 120 ff. Cf. Zahrnt, Olynth, 234 ff. 151 IG II2 10366; cf. Tataki, Macedonians Abroad, 172 ff. nos. 5–7. 152 J. Pouilloux, Recherches sur l’histoire et les cultes de Thasos, i (Paris, 1954), 269–70 no. 31 I, 9; cf. LGPN I, s.v. 153 The Epitherses who appears as a thearodokos at Epidauros (IG IV (1)2 94b, 50) could be taken to confirm this picture, if he were really from Skione, as believed by Tataki, Macedonians Abroad, 173 nos. 4 and 9. But he should rather be considered as a citizen of Ainos, following the editors of LGPN IV, s.v. (2) who also record a homonym at Olynthos (no. 1). 145

116

Denis Knoepfler

Pallene, half-way between Potidaia and Neapolis, lies the relatively important city of Aphytis. Was that too a colony, or better still, a sub-colony of Eretria? Tradition is silent on the matter154 and until quite recently the prosopography of the people of Aphytis was confined to a few very insignificant names.155 But in 2001 Vassiliki Misaïlidou-Despotidou published a sale agreement found in the city, dating to a period prior to the Macedonian conquest.156 The onomastics revealed in this document are extremely interesting, as the editor herself rightly pointed out.157 The vendors are three brothers, whose father’s name Katastasis is new, but fits well into the small series of masculine names ending in -stasis158 (and therefore there is no question of its being a matronymic). The name Antistasis is attested on Thasos, and Nikostasis is found at Eretria;159 Antipatride¯s, the name of one of the three brothers, is attested in Chalkis.160 The buyer is called Ornymenos161 son of Time¯sianax, two names still unattested in Euboia itself but certainly Ionian. The names or patronymics borne by the three guarantors are equally interesting: Philo¯nde¯s, with the suffix characteristic of the Boioto-Euboian area,162 Archide¯mos (to be distinguished from Archidamos, as we saw above), and most of all Pitthis, which is related to Pitheus, an actor’s name at Athens, and to a large series of Boiotian and Thessalian names formed from that root.163 If we turn to the names and patronymics of the witnesses (Aristotele¯s son of Antiphane¯s, Eude¯mide¯s son of Epichare¯s and Aristoteles son of Theo¯ros), we find that they are neither common nor rare, but all are epigraphically attested at Eretria. Most of the names (thirteen out of nineteen, as the editor notes) also occur in Euboia. In short, the Euboian origin of the people of Aphytis seems beyond doubt. But the question remains: were they colonists from Chalkis, as is generally believed without proof, or were they, as their settlement at Pallene 154

Cf. Zahrnt, Olynth, 167 ff. Apart from Τκκη Π!ρρωνο Α[φ]υτα)ο buried at Athens (IG II2 8397); cf. Tataki, Macedonians Abroad, 66 nos. 3–4. But because of the uncertainty regarding the reading or the restoration of the ethnic, this person was not recorded in LGPN IV. 156 In A’ Panhellenio Synedrio Epigraphikis, Thessaloniki 1999 (Thessaloniki, 2001), 79–90 (SEG LI 795). The agreement must date to the year 351/0, for the eponymous magistrate appears in several other documents from the Chalkidian koinon. For a further inscription from Aphytis, cf. BE 2005, no. 354. 157 Cf. also M. Hatzopoulos, BE 2002, no. 282. 158 See Bechtel, HP, 405. 159 Cf. LGPN I, s.v. An Epistasichos is also found in Boiotia (LGPN III B, s.v.). 160 Cf. LGPN I, s.v. Five further examples are found in LGPN IV, one further from Telmessos (Polyaenus 5. 35). 161 For this name, cf. O. Masson, ‘Prosopographie, onomastique et dialecte des Lacédémoniens’, REG 99 (1986), 192; examples are known at Miletos. 162 See above p. 92 for Charondas from Katane. 163 For the Athenian, see references in LGPN II, s.v. For Thessalian–Boiotian names, cf. R. Etienne and D. Knoepfler, Hyettos de Béotie, BCH Suppl. 3 (Paris, 1976), 80 n. 236. 155

EUBOIAN NAMES IN THE CHALKIDO-ERETRIAN COLONIES

117

suggests, colonists from Eretria? Onomastics alone cannot provide enough evidence, but the calendar of the city will perhaps do so in the future.164 What is certain is that when Kassandreia was founded on the old site of Potidaia (316 BC), not only the survivors from Olynthos were installed in the new city, but also the inhabitants from Mende and from the Eretrian colonies of Pallene.165 The onomastics of the Kassandreis166 may therefore contribute a great deal to the subject under discussion. The Thermaic Gulf, west of Chalkidike, was another Eretrian zone of colonization. There the Eretrians founded— at an early date if we follow Plutarch,167 who links the foundation with the expulsion of the Eretrians from Kerkyra by the Korinthians around 730 BC —the city of Methone, which played a significant role, as we know, in the history of the fifth and fourth centuries. Even though the site is now located precisely enough,168 and excavations have recently been carried out, no important inscription seems to have been discovered so far. So we do not have documents comparable to those that we have for Olynthos, Torone, Stolos, and now Aphytis or Spartolos. The Methonaians known from abroad are for the moment not very numerous,169 but their names and patronymics (Eukte¯ mo¯n, Echekratide¯s, Xenneas, or Polyphantos) are perfectly compatible with the hypothesis of an Eretrian origin. A new document of considerable importance brings fresh light to the history of another Eretrian colony in that area, Dikaia, not mentioned in any literary text, but known from the catalogue of thearodokoi of Epidauros, and above all from the Attic tribute lists, in the form Δικαιοπολ)ται ΕρετριFν, as well as from silver coins bearing types borrowed from the Euboian metropolis. The new inscription will soon be published by K. Sismandis and E. Voutiras. It will enable us to determine once and for all the location of the site on the coast of Krousside, despite the vicissitudes that have occurred to

164

Dated on the basis of an intercalary month, the sale agreement is not of any use in establishing the calendar. The calendar of Eretria was indeed very close to that of Chalkis, so much so that they were assumed to be identical (cf. Knoepfler, ‘Le calendrier des Chalcidiens de Thrace’, 58; Trümpy, Altgriechischen Monatsnamen, 43–5 § 37). But the new inscription of the Eretrians from Dikaia (see below) seems to prove that they were different in one regard at least. 165 Diod. 19. 52. 2–3; Liv. 31. 45. 14. 166 See the abundant external prosopography of Kassandreia by Tataki, Macedonians Abroad, 85 ff. (over 100 entries). 167 Quaest. Gr. 11 (Mor. 293a). For a new interpretation of this text, see B. Helly, ‘Démétrias, Méthonè de Piérie, Méthonè de Magnésie et la malédiction d’Agamemmon contre les Methonéens’, in R. Biering, et al. (eds.), Festschrift für Volkmar von Graeve (Munich, 2006), 115–32. 168 See the study from 1990 cited above, n. 123; cf. M. Hatzopoulos, BE 2005, no. 316 for the question of the protos heuretes of the ancient site. 169 Tataki, Macedonians Abroad, 122–3 (five entries only).

118

Denis Knoepfler

the stone since its chance discovery;170 but it also provides ample confirmation of the Eretrian origin of Dikaia, as the editors will show with their study of the institutions, the cults, and most of all, the calendar of the city. Furthermore, it is possible that Dikaia was founded much later than was originally thought, perhaps only in the immediate aftermath of the Persian Wars, which could be an indication of the closeness of the link between the metropolis and the colony. In any case, the new legal text mentions many citizens whose names are very interesting for my present purpose. The majority of the anthroponyms (Agathokle¯ s, Argaios, Gorgythos, Daphno¯ n, De¯ marchos, De¯ mophele¯ s, Epikrate¯ s, Epichare¯ s, Hermippos, Hiero¯ n, Kephisodo¯ ros, Lykios, Polyze¯ los, Xenopho¯ n) clearly originate from Euboia, and more precisely from Eretria. Particularly relevant are the names Gorgythos,171 Daphno¯ n172 (clearly linked with the cult of Apollo Daphnephoros, the poliadic deity of Eretria), and the remarkable De¯ mophele¯ s,173 which is practically a ‘certificate of Eretrianism’. The new inscription of Dikaia allows us to conclude our study on a decisively positive note: there was an anthroponymy of Euboian origin in the colonies of the West and of Thrace. *** Until quite recently, the question posed in the title of this paper could not have been answered, because the relevant material from the two colonial zones was simply not available to us. Only a few names could have been adduced: for the West, some names from the site of Cumae to be added to the names of oikistai known from literary sources. In Thrace, the situation was even less favourable, despite the not insignificant contribution from the long-standing excavations at Olynthos. But over the past two or three decades things have changed significantly. Though the epigraphical evidence from the Euboian colonies of Magna Graecia and Sicily remains very modest, we now possess remarkable Archaic material for Pithekoussai in Campania and for Himera in Sicily (a city certainly with a mixed population) as well as isolated testimony from other cities. On the northern coast of the Aegean Sea, on the other hand, new finds have come to light one after the other in the Chalkidian

170

This was kindly confirmed, both in letters and during a recent meeting in Paris, by our colleague and friend Emmanuel Voutiras, whom I warmly thank here for his permission to use for this study the onomastic evidence gleaned from the inscription. The new names are now recorded, prior to publication of the text, in LGPN IV. For the probable localization of Dikaia at Nea Kallikrateia, some 20 km east of Thessaloniki, cf. BE 2005, no. 352. 171 Completely isolated in the Thraco-Macedonian area, this name is attested at least five times at Eretria, without being totally unknown in the rest of mainland Greece (Attica, the Peloponnese, and Boiotia: cf. LGPN I–IV). 172 This name is hardly known outside Eretria, where it is attested in the form Daphnion. 173 This name is indeed attested at Eretria only, no fewer than four times!

EUBOIAN NAMES IN THE CHALKIDO-ERETRIAN COLONIES

119

area as well as in the western zone colonized by the Eretrians, as we have just seen in the cases of Aphytis and Dikaia. It is nonetheless true that this documentation, however remarkably increased, does not yet allow us to know exactly the extent to which the Euboian colonists retained, or conversely renewed, their stock of personal names in their new environment. The main reason is that in Eretria itself, whose material is so profuse for the Hellenistic period, very few names are known for the Archaic or even Classical periods. Some convergences are nevertheless striking. They appear either in a morphological context (thus patronymics in -\νδα, -\νδη, so characteristic of the Boioto-Euboian area, or derived names -)νο, including the ethnic forms Leontinos and Rhe¯ ginos), or in a lexical context (names formed from the element διαιτο- or χαιρε- or δημο- or βουλ-). There are also some very rare names like Opo¯ris (attested at Cumae, in Chalkidike and on Tenos, so close to Euboia), or De¯ mophele¯ s (a specifically Eretrian name now attested at Dikaia). In the final analysis, we have to admit that personal names (unlike the names of months related to cults and festivals) cannot, in the present state of our knowledge, provide us with enough evidence to prove the Euboian origin of all the settlements of the West and of Thrace; but we may, I believe, argue with justification that they do not contradict, but in fact bring very welcome confirmation of the historiographical tradition concerning the foundation of these settlements by the cities of central Euboia. Note. My former assistant at the University of Neuchâtel, Fabienne Marchand, now a member of the staff of the LGPN, undertook the initial translation from the French, which was further revised by Dr Jan-Mathieu Carbon, and by Elaine Matthews. I thank them warmly for this difficult task.

6 Thracian Personal Names and Military Settlements in Hellenistic Bithynia1 THOMAS CORSTEN

IT WAS ALREADY KNOWN TO ANCIENT GREEK WRITERS that the Bithynians were, ethnically speaking, Thracians. They must have originated from the European side of the Bosporus, where modern Thrace is located, that is from Northern Greece and Bulgaria, but the date of their arrival is not known to us.2 As early as the fifth century, however, Herodotus states that the Thracians ‘who crossed over to Asia were called Bithynians’,3 and some time 1 The following abbreviations are used: IGSK  Inschriften griechischer Städte aus Kleinasien (Bonn, 1972–); I.Kios  T. Corsten, Die Inschriften von Kios, IGSK 29 (Bonn, 1985); I.Nikaia  S. S¸ ahin, Katalog der antiken Inschriften des Museums von Iznik (Nikaia), IGSK 9–10 (Bonn, 1979–); I.Prusa  T. Corsten, Die Inschriften von Prusa ad Olympum, IGSK 39–40 (Bonn, 1991–3); NPauly  Der Neue Pauly, ed. H. Cancik and H. Schneider (Stuttgart and Weimar, 1996–). Numbered texts cited as ‘App.’ are included in the Appendix at the end of the paper. 2 Nicolaus of Damascus (preserved in Const. Porph. De Them. 1. 3 p. 22 Bonn  FGrH 90 F 71), however, believes it possible to date the crossing of the Thracians from Mysia (i.e. what the Romans later called Moesia) to Asia to the reign of the Lydian king Alyattes (who is supposed to have ruled c.610–560 BC; cf. M. Mellink, in Cambridge Ancient History3 III 2 (1991), 647). He relates a fanciful story of how and why the Thracians came to settle in Asia Minor: LπH τFν

0μερFν Αλυα´ττου τοG τFν ΛυδFν βασιλω αν ρ τι μετα` τ6 γυναικ' καH τFν α]τοG τκνων Lκ Μυσα τ6 τFν ΘρyκFν χ\ρα ?ρμ\μενο . . . διεπρασεν ε5 τα` μρη τ6 Ασα ε5 χ\ραν τbν λεγομνην Λυδαν καH κατ{κισε πλησον τ6 πλεω Σα´ρδεων. . . . Finally, Alyattes πρεσβεαν πρ' τ'ν τ6 Θρy´κη βασιλα ποιησα´μενο Κτυν Iνομαζμενον, Lκε)θεν Pλαβεν α1 νδρα μετοκου μετα` γυναικFν καH τκνων ;χλον =κανν (‘In the days of Alyattes, king of the Lydians, a man with

his wife and children came from Thracian Mysia . . . and crossed over to the region of Asia into the land called Lydia and settled near the city of Sardeis. . . . [Alyattes] sent an embassy to the king of Thrace whose name was Kotys and took an appropriate number of men as settlers with their wives and children.’) However, this story was thought by F. Jacoby to be modelled on Herodotus 5. 12, where we find two Paionians instead of a Thracian family and many more differences. Given the historic value of this kind of tale, all this does not seem to have much relevance here. 3 Hdt. 7. 75: οrτοι δ^ διαβα´ντε μ^ν L τbν Ασην Lκλ θησαν Βιθυνο. Proceedings of the British Academy 148, 121–133. © The British Academy 2007.

122

Thomas Corsten

later, Thucydides has the Athenian general Lamachos lead his army ‘through Bithynia-Thracia’: δια` ΒιθυνFν ΘρyκFν.4 Especially valuable, however, is Xenophon’s testimony. In the aftermath of the uprising of Cyrus the Younger against his brother Artaxerxes, the rest of Cyrus’ army withdrew along the northern shore of Asia Minor and finally crossed over to Europe. In both regions, Xenophon calls the inhabitants ‘Thracians’. In his Anabasis as in his Hellenika, he gives the Thracians in Bithynia the double-name ΒιθυνοH ΘρCκε or ΘρCκε Βιθυνο, and the land itself is called 0 Θρy´κη 0 Lν τo or ΒιθυνH Θρy´κη.5 Later, Pseudo-Skylax in his Periplous employs the Ασ| same designation.6 The usage is again mirrored in Strabo in the first century BC, and in the second century AD in Arrian, when he writes that the river Sangarios flows ‘through the land of the Bithynian Thracians’: δια` τ6 ΘρyκFν τFν ΒιθυνFν χ\ρα.7 These quotations leave no room for doubt about the ethnic background of the Bithynians. The ancient view is followed— I think rightly— in modern scholarly literature about the Thracians and Bithynians, such as in Detschew’s Thrakische Sprachreste or in Danov’s Altthrakien.8 However, it is not only trust in the ancient sources, as well as in some archaeological evidence dated to the fourth century BC or earlier,9 that leads modern scholars to subscribe to the view that the Bithynians were ethnically Thracian. It is rather what we know about the Thracian language—little as that may be—that corroborates the common ethnicity of the Thracians and the Bithynians, or at least the close relationship between these two peoples. That is clear enough, although our knowledge of the Thracian language is largely restricted to the epigraphical attestation of names, sometimes of place-names, but mostly of personal names. As to the date of these inscriptions, it must be borne in mind that the earliest of them date to the Hellenistic period, so it is not possible to infer from them anything that would point to the circumstances of the Thracian immigration or to the early history of the 4

Thuc. 4. 75. 2. e.g. Xen. Hell. 1. 3. 2, An. 6. 4. 1–2, and Hell. 3. 2. 2 respectively. 6 Ps.-Skylax, Periplous §92: Μετα` δ^ Μαριανδ!νοι ε5σH ΘρCκε ΒιθυνοH Pθνο. 7 Strabo 12. 3. 4; Arrian, Anabasis 1. 29. 5. 8 D. Detschew, Die thrakischen Sprachreste (Vienna, 1957), p. vi; C. M. Danov, Altthrakien (Berlin and New York, 1976), 6, 97. Cf. also D. Magie, Roman Rule in Asia Minor (Princeton, 1950), i. 303–4 with n. 6 (ii. 1182–3); F. K. Dörner, Der Kleine Pauly, i. (Stuttgart, 1964), 909 s.v. Bithynia; S. Mitchell, Anatolia: Land, Men, and Gods in Asia Minor, 2 vols. (Oxford, 1993), i. 175; G. M. Cohen, The Hellenistic Settlements in Europe, the Islands, and Asia Minor (Berkeley, Los Angeles, and Oxford, 1995), 60; K. Strobel, NPauly, ii (Stuttgart and Weimar, 1997), 698 s.v. Bithynia. 9 See e.g. the description of a Thracian-type tholos tomb, dated ‘probably . . . to the 4th century BC’, at Kutluca to the north-west of Nikomedeia: A. Mansel, in M. Mellink, ‘Archaeology in Asia Minor’, American Journal of Archaeology 74 (1970), 175–6. 5

THRACIAN NAMES AND SETTLEMENTS IN BITHYNIA

123

Thracians in Bithynia. But these texts, and the monuments on which they are written, can shed some light on another question, which is of no minor importance: the social position of the men who are attested in them. This is particularly interesting since by the Hellenistic period Bithynia had been subject to Greek influence for a considerable time. Bithynia is not, of course, the only region of Asia Minor where early Greek influence played an important role. In parallel cases, the relationship between the indigenous population and the supposedly ‘superior’ Greek colonists is usually perceived in the following way. Upon the arrival of the Greeks, the indigenous inhabitants were pushed aside and eventually restricted to rural areas, where they lived a rather miserable life, whereas the Greeks lived in cities, which they had founded, and occupied the leading positions in state and society. This scenario is certainly often correct, but perhaps not always. In what follows, I will examine what can be said in this regard about the people with Thracian names in Bithynia in the Hellenistic period. As far as the Bithynian heartland (taken to be the region between the Bosporos and the Sangarios or Hypios10) is concerned, we are in the fortunate position that the inscriptions can almost completely, and very conveniently, be consulted in the Cologne series Inschriften griechischer Städte aus Kleinasien (IGSK), and for Nikomedeia, we have TAM IV (1). Bithynia was also the first region of Asia Minor to be edited for the Lexicon of Greek Personal Names (V A–B: Coastal Asia Minor). The resulting collection revealed a peculiarity in the distribution of personal names of Thracian origin in Bithynia, in that they are attested almost exclusively in the regions around Nikaia (modern Iznik) and Nikomedeia (modern Izmit), and, within these regions, seem to be concentrated in ‘clusters’. In what follows, I would like first to treat each region separately and then to try to find an explanation for the distribution of the names, as well as to draw some historical conclusions. We begin with the region of Nikaia and Prusa. There, we find, mostly on tombstones, names like Dintizila, Oastozeis, Mokazeis, Degou, Soperou, Mo(u)kaporis, Diliporis, Bisoporis, Kanas, Oelas, Mamas, Sadalas, Rhaikosos, Sallous, Ziailas/Ziaelas, Perobres, Biobris (or Biobres), Skopes, and perhaps 10

This is the region considered by most modern authors as the original area of Bithynian settlement before the expansion in the Hellenistic period, cf. e.g. G. Vitucci, Il regno di Bitinia (Rome, 1953), 13; C. Habicht, RE X A (1972), 449 s.v. Zipoites (1); K. Strobel, NPauly, ii. 698 s.v. Bithynia. However, C. Marek, Stadt, Ära und Territorium in Pontus-Bithynia und Nord-Galatia (Tübingen, 1993), 21 n. 184 opts for the mountainous area around the middle Sangarios, on the grounds that only there could the Bithynians have had fortresses, without which he thinks the defence of the territory against the armies of the Diadochoi would have been impossible. This view, however, seems to be contradicted by the evidence of Xenophon c.400 BC, that the territory of the Bithynians extended from the Propontis to Herakleia (An. 6. 4. 1–2; see below).

Bithynia: the heartland.

124 Thomas Corsten

THRACIAN NAMES AND SETTLEMENTS IN BITHYNIA

125

Lala.11 If we now take a look at the geographical distribution of these names, we realize that they are almost completely restricted to the rural area around Nikaia and Prusa. They are attested in or near modern Inegöl and the villages in the region around Yenisehir, Bilecik, Gölpazar, Sögütcük and Akçakaya. In Nikaia itself only three or four Thracian names have come to light, all of them in one list, probably dating to the first century AD.12 As we do not know to which ancient city the area around Inegöl belonged—to Nikaia or to neighbouring Prusa—we should also take a look at Prusa. There, the same picture emerges in the city itself: only the name Paparion, in an inscription of the third century AD —if Paparion is a Thracian name at all.13 If we turn to Nikomedeia, a very similar picture emerges. We find the following Thracian names, again mainly on tombstones: Gigligekos, Mokazis, Mokasios, Diliporis, Dintese, Pousa (Thracian?), Zardoelas, Ziagri(o)s(?), Zibaneilas, Pseilozeios (Thracian?14), Sadalas, Preiottas/-os, Anxa, Gerias, Zarazis, Mo(u)kaporis, Moukazos, Zielas, Dadas, and Doidalsos/-es.15 As in the case of the region of Nikaia, most of these inscriptions were found in the Διντιζλα: App. no. 3 (Inegöl). Οαστζει, Μοκα´ζει, Δηγου, Σωπηρου: App. no. 2 (Inegöl). Μο(υ)κα´πορι: App. no. 1 (region of Yeni s¸ehir); App. no. 6 (Inegöl). Διλπορι: I.Nikaia, 81 line 8 (Nikaia); 1154, line 6 (Bilecik); 1232 (Akçakaya); 1416 (?) (near Gölpazarı); I.Prusa 73 (Dedeyone, between Prusa and Inegöl). Βισπορι: App. no. 5 (Sögütcük). Κα´να: App. no. 6 (Inegöl). Ο λα, Μα´μα: App. no. 4 (Yeni s¸ehir). Σαδα´λα: I.Prusa 152 (on the back; Deydinler/Inegöl). & Ρακοσο (if Thracian): I.Nikaia 81, line 14 (Nikaia). ΣαλλοG: I.Nikaia 81, line 18 (Nikaia). Ζιαλα/Ζια λα: I.Nikaia 81 (Nikaia); 1308 (Kayabas¸ ı). Πηρβρη: I.Nikaia 1289 (near Göynük); 1308 (Kayabas¸ı). Βιβρι: I.Nikaia 1341 (near Gölpazarı). Σκπη: I.Nikaia 1434 (near Osmaneli). Λα´λα: App. no. 6 (Inegöl); I.Nikaia 1375 (Gölpazarı); 1389 (Gölpazarı); 1592 (Bilecik). See N. Fıratlı, Les Stèles funéraires de Byzance grèco-romaine avec l’edition et l’index commenté des éptitaphes par L. Robert (Paris, 1964), 74, no. 80 on the etymology of Λα´λα. 12 I.Nikaia 81 lines 8 ([Δι]λπορι), 14 ( &Ρακοσο, if Thracian), 18 (ΣαλλοG), 19 (Ζιαλα). 13 I.Prusa 150 with commentary on the name. 14 The editor of the inscription (App. no. 10) prefers a Greek explanation for this name: it may be a combination of Ψ(ε)ιλο- and another Greek element, perhaps ζεια´, ‘spelt’. He also tentatively suggests a connection between the name and the Lesbian toponym Ο5σεζεα (IG XII (2) 74 line 2). 15 Γιγλγηκο: App. no. 7 (Karamatlı). Μκαζι: App. no. 7 (Karamatlı); 8 (Kutluca); 12 (Adliye Köy); TAM IV (1) 60 line 13 (Ishakcılar); 69 (Akpınar); 144 (Nikomedeia); U. Peschlow, A. Peschlow-Bindokat, and M. Wörrle, ‘Die Sammlung Turan Beler in Kumbaba bei S¸ ile (II). Antike und byzantinische Denkmäler von der bithynischen Schwarzmeerküste’, Istanbuler Mitteilungen 52 (2002), 440–1 no. 111 (north-west Bithynia). Μοκα´σιο: App. no. 7 (Karamatlı); 9 (?) (Karamatlı). Διλπορι: App. no. 8 (Kutluca); TAM IV (1) 16 line 7 and 17 line 14 (Ihsaniye). Διντ ση, Πο!σα: App. no. 8 (Kutluca). Ζαρδο λα: App. no. 8 (Kutluca); 12 (Adliye Köy). Ζια´γρι(ο): App. no. 9 (Karamatlı). Ζιβανειλα, Ψειλοζεα/-ζειο: App. no. 10 (north-west Bithynia). Σαδα´λα, Πρειοττα/Πρειοττο: App. no. 11 (north-west Bithynia). 1Ανξα, Γηρα, Ζαρα´ζι: App. no. 12 (Adliye Köy). Μο(υ)κα´πορι: TAM IV (1) 8, line 5 (Nikomedeia?); 256 (Cumaköy); 363 (Karamatlı). Μο!καζο: TAM IV (1) 62 (Akpınar); 11

126

Thomas Corsten

countryside. They come from the villages of Karamatlı, Kutluca,16 Karakadılar, Sevindikli, Sapanca, Kıyırlı, Kumbaba/S¸ile, and Adliye Köyü. Only three texts with Thracian personal names are from the city of Nikomedeia itself: one is a list of names, the other two tombstones, and all probably date to the Roman imperial period.17 The clear concentration of Thracian personal names in the countryside could easily be accounted for by the standard explanation: that is, when the Greeks arrived, those Bithynians who did not manage to become acculturated would have stayed in or fled to the countryside, and did not even give up their ‘barbaric’ names. We will examine this explanation in a moment, but first a word about the dates of the inscriptions is warranted. The documents belong to a rather long period, since the earliest date to the second century BC and the latest probably to the third century AD. Now, when we try to arrange the stelai into groups according to their dates and then compare the similarities within each group and the differences between them, we discover some striking facts regarding their appearance and motifs. Fortunately, most of them still survive, and of those which do not we have reliable descriptions. Twelve of the preserved inscriptions which contain personal names are Hellenistic tombstones. They are all to be dated to the second and first centuries BC. Nine of them are so-called Stockwerkstelen, that is, stelai with two or more reliefs presented one above the other. Six of these show a banquet scene (the so-called Totenmahl or funerary banquet) in one relief, and a rider on horseback, either followed by a servant or striking at an enemy, in the second (App. nos. 1–3, 8, 10, 12). Another Stockwerkstele has a banquet scene at the top, and below two reliefs, each with two or three standing figures, accompanied by two small servants (App. no. 4). On the two reliefs of App. no. 9, only standing figures are depicted, in the lower relief with a horse. A battle-scene with riders is again represented in the lower relief of App. no. 11, whereas the upper relief is destroyed (it may have shown horses). Of the remaining three Hellenistic stelai (those with only one relief), one again depicts a rider. It is a late Hellenistic tombstone from Sögütcük and was set up for a man called Bisoporis; unfortunately no illustration exists (App. no. 5). The second depicts two wreaths, since there are two people buried, a husband and wife (App. no. 6). The last is a fragmentary stele of which the only preserved relief shows again a funerary banquet (App. no. 7). 218 (Kıyırlı). Ζιλα (?): TAM IV (1) 84 (Sevindikli). Δα´δα: TAM IV (1) 140 line 6 (Nikomedeia). Δοιδαλσο/η: TAM IV (1) 182 (Sapanca). 16 It may not be a mere coincidence that it was there that a Thracian-type tholos tomb was found, see above n. 9. 17 TAM IV (1) 8; 140; 144. However, the exact findspot of no. 8 is not certain.

THRACIAN NAMES AND SETTLEMENTS IN BITHYNIA

127

Compared to these almost uniform Hellenistic tombstones, the stelai from the Roman period show greater diversity. In the region of Nikaia and Prusa, we have eight stelai with Thracian personal names. Three of them testify to the deceased’s wealth, visible in the type and size of the monuments. This is notably the case of two men with the same name, Diliporis.18 The other five stones are rather simple. An illustration, apart from a squeeze of the inscription, is not always given in the publication, but the descriptions of the stones do not sound very exciting.19 From Nikomedeia and its territory, thirteen Roman stelai with Thracian names are known. Four of them are dedications, of which one has a relief (a goddess);20 two are lists of donations without reliefs;21 and there are seven tombstones (three with and four without reliefs).22 These show a great deal more variation than the Hellenistic inscriptions. I would like now to take a closer look at the Hellenistic tombstones. The fact that they have some interesting features in common provides us with a good basis for an interpretation. I suggest that we first examine them in the context of the explanation mentioned earlier, namely that the Thracian names could point to a socially inferior status of the people for whom the stelai were erected. That hypothesis is, I think, ruled out immediately by the high quality of craftmanship of the reliefs; the very size of the monuments already counts against it. Furthermore, the depiction of a rider on horseback gives an additional hint to the status of the tomb-owners: they must have been prosperous individuals. And from the fact that some are shown striking at an enemy, we can conclude that the deceased were cavalrymen, and as such belonged to the upper class in Bithynia.23 The best and clearest example of the self-depiction of such a nobleman is the stone from Adliye Köy near Adapazarı (App. no. 12). The deceased bears the name Mokazis, his wife is 18

I.Nikaia 1416 (near Gölpazarı, second century AD) and 1232 (Akçakaya, second–third century The third stone is described as a door-stele, i.e. comparable to I.Nikaia 1416. It was an expensive monument that only a few people could afford: I.Nikaia 1389 (near Gölpazarı, second–third century AD). 19 I.Nikaia 81 (Nikaia, first century AD?): marble fragment. I.Nikaia 1154 (Bilecik, first century AD?): fragment of a marble altar. I.Nikaia 1375 (Gölpazarı, first–second century BC): stele, perhaps a simple form of a door-stele. I.Nikaia 1592 (Bilecik, second century AD?): fragment of a stele with pediment. I.Prusa 73 (Dedeyone, between Prusa and Inegöl, second–third century AD): base in form of an altar with garland; both garland and inscription are carelessly executed (see illustration, ibid.). 20 Without relief: TAM IV (1), 60; 62; 84; with relief: 69. 21 TAM IV (1) 16; 17. 22 With reliefs: TAM IV (1) 140 (no description except for ‘stele with pediment’); 144 (funerary banquet), U. Peschlow et al., ‘Die Sammlung Turan Beler’, 440–1 no. 111 (two standing couples); without reliefs: TAM IV (1) 182; 218; 256; 363. 23 This has now also been pointed out by U. Peschlow et al., ‘Die Sammlung Turan Beler’, 444 in their interpretation of these depictions on the stelai from Kumbaba/S¸ile. AD).

128

Thomas Corsten

called Anxa and his three sons Gerias, Zarazis, and Zardoelas—all good Thracian names. This impressive monument dates from the first half of the second century BC, and it too shows a rider in a battle-scene. There can be no doubt that, as the editors have already rightly pointed out, Mokazis belonged to the Bithynian elite, to the aristocratic warrior-class. This conclusion is supported by the sophisticated epigram in Homeric style, showing the family as culturally quite ambitious, and by the relief showing Mokazis hunting a bear, a typical aristocratic pastime in those days. This is, of course, only part of the answer to the question of who were the people who bore these names in Hellenistic Bithynia. There might be several different reasons why they had Thracian instead of, for example, Greek names. It is not easy to decide on a single interpretation. A possible explanation might be that the men with Thracian names were mercenaries and military colonists from Thrace and, as such, estate holders who, after their service or in order to be able to pay for their military equipment, were given a stretch of land to live on and from. This explanation would make perfectly good sense, especially since all the Hellenistic tombstones considered here were found in rural areas. In these regions, therefore, there may have been several κατοικαι or military settlements. If that were so, we could consider different theories about the time of arrival of these Thracian colonists, that is about the time when they were hired, and by whom. The first candidate could be Antigonos the One-Eyed: he controlled what was later the southern part of Bithynia until his death in 301 BC, and he refounded Nikaia under the name ‘Antigoneia’.24 It would be no surprise to find Thracians among the mercenaries whom he could have settled around Nikaia. No surprise—but not obvious either. The next, and better candidate, could be Lysimachos. He ruled not only over the same southern part of Bithynia, but also over other substantial areas of Asia Minor after 301 BC, and his kingdom comprised Thrace as well. Moreover, he too played a role in the development of Nikaia, for he named it after his wife Nikaia.25 However, there is no evidence for the settlement of Thracian mercenaries in Bithynia under Lysimachos. There is no reason to exclude such a possibility, but one would be unwise to assume it. Evidence, however, comes with the emergence and expansion of the Bithynian kingdom and its progressive conquest of the Greek cities around its frontiers. Unfortunately, this type of evidence is highly ambiguous, since Stephanus Byzantinus s.v. Νκαια and s.v. Α ντιγνεια; cf. also I.Nikaia II (3) pp. 1–2; Cohen, Hellenistic Settlements 389–99. See also R. A. Billows, Antigonos the One-Eyed and the Creation of the Hellenistic State (Berkeley, Los Angeles, and London, 1990), 238–9, 296–7. 25 In addition to the citations in the previous footnote see also K. Strobel, NPauly VIII (Stuttgart and Weimar, 2000), 895 s.v. Nikaia 5. 24

THRACIAN NAMES AND SETTLEMENTS IN BITHYNIA

129

we have attestations of Thracian mercenaries as well as of Bithynian soldiers with Thracian names. Let us begin with Thracian mercenaries. According to Polybius, when Prusias I attacked Byzantion in 219 BC, he hired Thracian soldiers who blocked the gates of the city that led to the European side of its territory.26 But these Thracians need not have been a real mercenary force, constituting a contingent of the Bithynian army, as Launey has already pointed out: they might just as well have been paid for co-operating in this limited operation.27 An incident seventy years later, however, clearly reveals the use of Thracian mercenaries by a Bithynian king. When Prusias II intended to deprive his son Nikomedes of his rightful title, the latter revolted with the help of the Pergamene king Attalos. Prusias had to search for allies. Fortunately, he was related to a Thracian prince, Diegylis by name, whom Appian in his ‘Mithridateios’ calls Prusias’ κηδεστ , which means something like brother-in-law, father-in-law, or son-in-law.28 Diegylis sent a force of 500 Thracians to Prusias, who fled to the acropolis of Nikaia where he was besieged; but even with the help of the Thracians, he was not successful and was finally killed. There is no record of what happened to his mercenaries. That is, as far as I know, all the evidence we have for the employment of Thracians as mercenaries by Bithynian kings. However, we should consider another possibility, that the men in question could have been regular cavalry officers of the Bithynian army. In this case, the men would have been Bithynians and not Thracians (i.e. not from European Thrace). This is the explanation which I prefer. At first sight, it might seem astonishing that we find Thracian personal names in Hellenistic Bithynia only in the countryside and not in cities.29 However, that trend corresponds to the literary evidence about the places where the ‘Thracian Bithynians’ settled. For example, Xenophon in his Anabasis reports that ‘this [part of] Thrace [i.e. the part situated in Asia] begins at the mouth of the Pontos and extends as far as Herakleia on the right-hand side for those sailing into the Pontos . . . and between them (i.e. Byzantion and Herakleia) there is no other city, either friendly or Greek, only Bithynian Thracians’. In a later passage, he claims that ‘there are many inhabited villages’ in that

26

Plb. 4. 51. 8. M. Launey, Recherches sur les armées hellénistiques (2nd edn., Paris, 1987), 378. 28 Appian, Mithr. 6. Cf. Launey, ibid., 388. 29 There is, of course, another reason why we do not have any inscribed monuments from the lower classes. It was only the noblemen who were either literate themselves or could afford to have a Greek write an epitaph for them, whereas the ‘ordinary’, poorer part of the ThracoBithynian population could do neither. 27

130

Thomas Corsten

region.30 Xenophon also mentions a Bithynian cavalry unit in the army of Pharnabazos.31 Xenophon’s account applies, of course, to a time when the Bithynians were still restricted to the northern part of what later became the kingdom of Bithynia. In that region there simply were no cities, because the Bithynians themselves did not found any. Most of the cities in Hellenistic Bithynia with which we are familiar, for example Nikaia and Nikomedeia, were Greek foundations, and only later conquered by the Hellenistic rulers of Bithynia. At that later time, Bithynian noblemen had large estates (which may even have included entire villages) and must have felt no need to move to the cities. So it is that we find these noblemen still inhabiting the regions surrounding Nikaia, Nikomedeia, Kios, and Prusa, during the Hellenistic period. Moreover, there is one inscription which provides us with clear evidence for a Bithynian soldier with a Thracian name in rural parts of Bithynia. It is the funerary epigram of a certain Menas, son of Bioeris, dated to the Hellenistic period (to the third or first half of the second century BC).32 The stone was found in or near the village of Cihanköy between Kios and Nikaia. Bioeris seems to be a Thracian name, but Menas is called a Βιθυν in the inscription, and he states explicitly (line 5) that he killed a Thracian. Like the other men whose tombstones we have examined, he was a soldier, but he differs from them in that he was not a cavalry officer, but a foot soldier. However, Menas must also have been a member of a rich family. That can be inferred from the fact that his now very fragmentary tombstone must formerly have been quite impressive. We can conclude that Bithynia was, as a kingdom, dominated by an elite of Thracian descent whose members served as officers— primarily cavalry officers— in the Bithynian army. These elite families lived on estates in the countryside, first, before the Bithynian expansion during the Hellenistic period, in the stretch between the Propontis and Herakleia, and later also around the cities in the conquered territories to the south. As a result,

An. 6. 4. 1–2: αρξαμνη δ^ 0 Θρy´κη α}τη LστHν α π' τοG στματο τοG Πντου μχρι &Ηρακλεα LπH δεξια` ε5 τ'ν Πντον ε5σπλοντι . . . Lν δ^ τY μσe 1αλλη μ^ν πλι οδεμα ου1 τε φιλα ου1 τε &Ελλην α λλα` ΘρCκε Βιθυνο. . . . (6) . . . καH κFμαι Lν ατo ε5σι πολλαH καH ο5κο!μεναι. Cf. P. Debord, REA 100 (1998), 140 n. 10: 30

‘L’organisation des Bithyniens est celle de l’ethnos, telle qu’on l’oppose à la polis.’ An. 6. 5. 30. 32 I.Kios 98; now also, under Nikaia, in R. Merkelbach and J. Stauber, Steinepigramme aus dem griechischen Osten, ii (Munich and Leipzig, 2001), 170–1 no. 09/05/16. 31

THRACIAN NAMES AND SETTLEMENTS IN BITHYNIA

131

throughout the Hellenistic period, we have no evidence for these families from Bithynian cities.33 Note. This article is a revised version of the paper as it was delivered at the conference. As such, it has profited much from the discussion, especially from the remarks of E. Bowie and J. Ma, and the advice of P. Fraser. Added are the stelai which were published after the conference in Istanbuler Mitteilungen 52 (2002) (publ. 2003).

APPENDIX HELLENISTIC TOMBSTONES WITH THRACIAN PERSONAL NAMES IN BITHYNIA A.

Region of Nikaia and Prusa

1. I.Nikaia 195 a; Cremer34 124 no. NS 4 (region of Yenisehir; second century BC) [Ξ]ενα´κων

Μοκαπρεω, χα)ρε.

2. I.Prusa 152; Cremer 126 no. NS 1235 (Deydinler near Inegöl; second century BC) front face:

Φλα Οαστζει θυγα´τηρ. Οαστζει Μοκα´ζει καH γυνb Δηγου καH α δελφb ατου˜ Σωπηρου, χαρετε.

3. I.Prusa 80; Cremer 128 no. NSA 5 (Hamzabey near Inegöl; second–first century BC)

Α 1 ρισστο Αγρου καH γυνb ατοG Διντιζλα καH υ=οH Αγρα καH Σωκρα´τη, χαρετε. 4. I.Nikaia 1588; Cremer 128 no. NSA 3 (Yenisehir; second century BC)

Δημ τριο Ποσειδωνου, γυνb Μανα, χαρετε.

33

In contrast, it is interesting to note the completely different picture which emerges for the Roman Imperial period, when people with Thracian names in Bithynia lived in both the countryside and the cities, and seem almost entirely to have been members of the middle or even lower classes. See my paper, ‘The rôle and status of the indigenous population in Bithynia’, in T. Bekker-Nielsen (ed.), Rome and the Black Sea Region, Black Sea Studies 5 (Aarhus, 2006), 85–92. 34 Cremer  M. Cremer, Hellenistisch-römische Grabstelen im nordwestlichen Kleinasien, ii: Bithynien, Asia Minor Studien 4:2 (Bonn, 1992). 35 The text as given by Cremer contains numerous mistakes, cf. Topoi 4 (1994), 317–18.

132

Thomas Corsten relief

Σουσαρων Θεοφλου γραμματε_ [δι]οικητοG, γυνb Να´να, χαρετε. relief

Ο λα καH Μα´μα καH Απολλ\νιο ο= Δημητρου υ=ο, χαρετε. 5. I.Nikaia 1381 (Sögütcük near Gölpazarı; second–first century BC) --[Β]ισοπ[]ριο (?) -------

Βισπορι καH Μ δηο καH Πα´νταυχο ο= Σωστρα´τ[ου], χαρετε.

6. I.Prusa 56 (Inegöl; probably first century BC)

Μουκα´πορι & Ερμογνου καH Λα´λα Κα´να γυνb δ^ Διοδ\ρου, χαρετε. κτλ. B.

Region of Nikomedeia

7. TAM IV (1) no. 123 (Karamatlı; second century BC?) [Γιγ]λ. γηκ[ο] [Μ]ο.κασου

vacat vacat

Μοκα´ζει Μοκασου

8. TAM IV (1) no. 126; Cremer 123 no. NS 1 (Kutluca; second century BC)

Διλπορι [- - -], γυνb Διντ ση, relief

θυγατρε Αντιγνη καH Πο!σα relief 4

υ=οH Θ[- - -]α, Ο[- - -], Ζ.αρδο λα, Μοκα´ζι, Νουμσιο, χαρετε.

9. TAM IV (1) no. 146; Cremer 125 no. NS 9 (Karamatlı; Hellenistic) [Μοκ?]α´σιο Ζια´γρι[ο?] [?ρ?]οφ!λαξ, χα)ρε.

THRACIAN NAMES AND SETTLEMENTS IN BITHYNIA

133

10. U. Peschlow, A. Peschlow-Bindokat, and M. Wörrle, ‘Die Sammlung Turan Beler bei S¸ile (II). Antike und byzantinische Denkmäler von der bithynischen Schwarzmeerküste’, Istanbuler Mitteilungen 52 (2002), 433–6 no. 104 (north-west Bithynia; second century BC)

Ζιβανελα Ψειλοζεου Πασy Ζιβανελου. 11. U. Peschlow et al., ‘Die Sammlung Turan Beler’, 436–7 no. 105 (north-west Bithynia; second century BC) [- - - - Σαδα´]λα, Φο)νιξ, Διντιζrelief [- - - - - - - - - - - -]αλη

Πρειοττου

12. F. Rumscheid and W. Held, ‘Erinnerungen an Mokazis’, Istanbuler Mitteilungen 44 (1994), 89–106 (SEG XLIV, 1010); cf. R. Merkelbach and W. Blümel, ‘Grabepigramm auf Mokazis’, Epigraphica Anatolica 25 (1995), 67–9; R. Merkelbach and J. Stauber, Steinepigramme aus dem griechischen Osten, ii (Munich and Leipzig, 2001), 213–14 no. 09/06/18 (Adliye Köy near Adapazarı; first half of second century BC)

Μοκα´ζι Κα´λα, γυνb ατοG Α 1 νξα, υ=οH Γηρα, Ζαρα´ζι, Ζαρδο λα χαρετε (lines 4–10: epigram) (lines 11–12: curse)

7 Greek Reinterpretation of Iranian Names by Folk Etymology RÜDIGER SCHMITT

AMONG THE TENS OF THOUSANDS OF PERSONAL NAMES attested in Greek literary and (in the broadest sense) epigraphic sources, names of Iranian origin are found in great numbers. As far as Classical Greek literature is concerned, the main sources of onomastic information are the historians of this period such as Herodotus and Thucydides, and of particular importance are those authors whose subjects had some connection with the Achaemenid Empire. For instance, those who wrote on themes such as the Persian Wars, and here express mention should be made of the Persae of Aeschylus, which represents the earliest text relevant to this subject; or on themes to do with Achaemenid rule over the Greeks living in Asia Minor. Those authors are of crucial importance who were able to write from their own experience in the East, for example Xenophon, or even Ctesias, who lived at the Persian Court for a couple of years. It is well known that from the reign of Alexander the Great (whom an Iranian scholar actually should not call by this name) and even beyond the Hellenistic period, Greeks and hellenized ‘barbarians’ (as the Greeks called them) spoke and wrote Greek throughout the whole of Asia Minor, all around the Black Sea and even in the Near and Middle East from the Levantine coast to the Hindu Kush range. It is not least the Greek inscriptions from Graeco-Roman times which bear witness to that. And the Greek inscriptions from all over this area also contain the names of Iranians and personal names of Iranian origin, although the onomastic information gained from those of Iran or Central Asia is rather meagre, more so even than mainland Greece. Moreover, the two categories of names just mentioned— names of Iranians and names of Iranian origin— should be sharply separated from each other, for the fact that a person bears an Iranian name (a name to be Proceedings of the British Academy 148, 135–150. © The British Academy 2007.

136

Rüdiger Schmitt

etymologized from Iranian linguistic material) does not mean by a long way that he or she was an Iranian by birth, a Persian, Parthian, Sogdian or whatever. One has also to take into consideration the fact that the Iranian anthroponomastic heritage often was passed on and continued to be used for centuries, for example in the cities of Asia Minor or in the Greek colonies along the north coast of the Black Sea. There, as is well known, personal names of Iranian origin are quite numerous, and they belong to various layers. Apart from around a dozen names of plainly Old (Western) Iranian character like Α χαιμνη or Μιθριδα´τη, in Olbia, Pantikapaion, Tanais, etc., many personal names are attested which are typical of this area, socalled epichoric names. They are divided into two groups, an older one and a more recent one, which are generally classified as belonging to the Scythians and the Sarmatians respectively. I myself have devoted a great deal of my studies since the 1960s to the Iranian anthroponyms attested in Greek sources, particularly to those of Classical Greek literature, as part of my work on the Iranisches Personennamenbuch initiated by Manfred Mayrhofer and undertaken by the Austrian Academy of Sciences. This project will some day result in a comprehensive set of publications which will replace the old Iranisches Namenbuch of Ferdinand Justi.1 I have written on a number of authors from Aeschylus to Aristotle, from Herodotus to the Hellenica Oxyrhynchia,2 most recently on Xenophon and Ctesias.3 In parallel with those studies I have also endeavoured to achieve a better understanding of the Old Iranian system of anthroponyms as a whole, and have looked into the problems of the origin and development of this system, which in the end is rooted in the anthroponomastic system of the IndoEuropean proto-language. My efforts to ascertain the Indo-European background and context of the Old Iranian system, and to show what formations are permitted in it and what are not, had been prompted in part by quite strange etymologies proposed now and then for Old Iranian personal names attested in Elamite, Babylonian, or Aramaic garb. The Indo-European anthroponomastic system, however, can best be uncovered from the Greek side; since Greek personal names are known in remarkably large numbers, and their content and structure have been reasonably well understood from

1

F. Justi, Iranisches Namenbuch (Marburg, 1895). A full bibliography of my writings (complete up to November 1999) is found in R. Schmitt, Selected Onomastic Writings, ed. W. Breidbach and P. Huyse (New York, 2000), 225–82. 3 R. Schmitt, Die iranischen und Iranier-Namen in den Schriften Xenophons (Iranica Graeca Vetustiora, ii) (Vienna, 2002); id., Iranische Anthroponyme in den erhaltenen Resten von Ktesias’ Werk (Iranica Graeca Vetustiora, iii) (Vienna, 2006). 2

IRANIAN NAMES AND FOLK ETYMOLOGY

137

as early as the mid-nineteenth century, they have provided the basis for comparative studies with the names of other Indo-European languages.4 This is the reason why I myself, from the publication of its first volume, have followed the Lexicon of Greek Personal Names with critical attention. I must apologize for having criticized some points which seemed essential to me as a historical linguist; but since my positive appreciation of that really excellent work far outweighs my criticisms, it was a great pleasure for me to be invited to contribute to this volume.5 So as to reflect the various fields of anthroponomastic studies in which I work, and also to show the connections between them, I selected for the topic of my paper a subject in which I have long had a particular interest: Greek reinterpretation of Iranian names by folk etymology. The Greek renderings of Iranian words and names (personal names as well as others) are often rather inaccurate. That is a truism, and even the ancients were aware of the fact, and tried sometimes to do it better. As an illustration the title of satrap may be mentioned. In the ordinary Greek form, σατρα´πη reflects only imperfectly the Old Iranian initial group *xsˇ- of *xsˇaθrapa¯- (or similar) ‘protecting the kingship’, while in inscriptions and in fragments of historiographical writings we find forms with initial ξ- and in Asia Minor even Lξ- (Lξατρα´πη and variants) under the influence of some language of that region.6 One obvious reason for such differences in some loan-words (though not applicable to the example just mentioned) is the mere fact that a number of sounds or sound groups which exist in Iranian languages and dialects— such as, for example, a dental fricative like [h], a postalveolar sibilant like [∫] or a voiced [z]— were missing in the Greek system and had to be rendered approximately by way of substitution. But that sort of thing is not a prerequisite. A special case of this kind are those names which have been refashioned after some Greek model, and have been reinterpreted by so-called folk etymology or popular etymology. Best known is the type of Old Iranian anthroponyms with baga- ‘god’ as the first element, which sometimes is reflected by Greek Βαγα-, but for the most part by Μεγα-, after the model of the very numerous Greek compounds and, above all, the compound names beginning 4 The pioneering work in this field of research is A. Fick, Die griechischen Personennamen nach ihrer Bildung erklärt, mit den Namensystemen verwandter Sprachen verglichen und systematisch geordnet (Göttingen, 1874). 5 I should like to express my appreciation to the organizers for the invitation to participate in the colloquium, to Dr Elizabeth Tucker for some redrafting of the paper when I was, regrettably, unable to attend to deliver it in person, and to Dr Maria Brosius for reading it at the colloquium. 6 For all the reflexes of this title see R. Schmitt, ‘Der Titel “Satrap”’, in Studies in Greek, Italic, and Indo-European Linguistics offered to Leonard R. Palmer, ed. A. Morpurgo Davies and W. Meid (Innsbruck, 1976), 373–90.

138

Rüdiger Schmitt

with Μεγα-. That was recognized already by Michel Bréal in his doctoral thesis of 1863.7 The earliest attested Greek name of this kind is Homeric Μεγα-πνθη, but far better known is Μεγα-κλ6 with all its derivatives like Μεγα´κλεια, Μεγακλει´ δη etc. and their dialectal variants (though we should leave aside other variations of the type Μεγαλο-κλ6 or Μεγιστοκλ6).8 I shall come back later to what we may call ‘Iranian’ Μεγα-. But before going into details, I should devote a few sentences to the phenomenon of folk etymology in general. It should be stressed that it has nothing to do with the folk in general, apart from defining ‘folk’ negatively as ‘all those who have no linguistic training’. Therefore it seems better to speak of ‘reinterpretation’ or ‘adaptation’ (in German Umdeutung or Eindeutung),9 for by folk etymology a word or name is given a new, historically wrong etymology, even if with more naivety than intention. This means that it is given another— mistaken— ‘look’ in consequence of its association with, or formal adaptation to, other words. Everyone is familiar with appropriate examples from his or her mother tongue. Therefore I confine myself here to one single example taken from English, the word bridegroom, which goes back to OE bry¯d-guma ‘man of the bride’, transparently consisting of bry¯d ‘bride’ and guma ‘man’ (the Germanic counterpart of Lat. homo). Of those two Old English words only bride survived as a lexical item and thus remained recognizable. The second element, however, which got lost at some stage, had to be adapted to an existing word, in this case to groom ‘stable-lad’. Incidentally, the term ‘folk etymology’ (in German Volksetymologie) which is commonly applied to such phenomena has been established since Ernst Förstemann’s article Über deutsche volksetymologie,10 and persists despite all objections. This phenomenon of folk etymology affects not only inherited lexemes, but is also particularly common in foreign words, and still more in foreign names. They are more strongly exposed to such adaptation, since they are isolated and lack obvious explanation; in short they are ‘opaque’, i.e. incomprehensible for the speakers of the language where they end up, so that only by this means can they be reinterpreted or interpreted at all in their new

7

M. Bréal, De Persicis nominibus apud scriptores Graecos (Lutetiae Parisiorum, 1863), 15. For information on the names with Μεγ(α)- see LGPN I, 300–1; II, 299–300; III A, 290–1; III B, 271–3; IV, 225–6. 9 And E. Seebold, Etymologie: Eine Einführung am Beispiel der deutschen Sprache (Munich, 1981), 205, 227 even proposed the term ‘Nachdeutung’. A vividly descriptive designation which I find quite attractive has been coined by the psychologist Friedrich Kainz, ‘volksetymologische Zurechtdeutung’; see F. Kainz, Psychologie der Sprache, 5 vols. (2nd edn., Stuttgart, 1954), i. 264 f. 10 Published in Kuhn’s Zeitschrift 1 (1852), 1–25, it was to become the lead article of the famous Kuhn’s Zeitschrift. 8

IRANIAN NAMES AND FOLK ETYMOLOGY

139

environment. This reinterpretation is done by connecting them with lexical material which is native to the language into which they are borrowed; thus they are adopted and adapted as regards their sounds and morphological structure. A foreign name, which for such reasons has been adapted to common models in the receiving language, may thus become more transparent— a sort of ‘speaking name’— and may afterwards get an etymology, a ‘second-hand etymology’, as it were. In contrast to the straightforward sound-for-sound borrowing, such reinterpretation by folk etymology leads, of course, to a higher degree of linguistic naturalization. This is not unwelcome, I think, to the folk as well as to scholars, especially linguistic onomasticians, both of whom like trying to find etymologies for names, whenever possible. By the way, I would like to remark here that, strictly speaking, all this has very little to do with onomastics. For by establishing the etymological meaning of a name, we do no more than say something about the meaning of the common noun, on which the name in question is based or with which it agrees in its form. By becoming a proper name this common noun changes its function, so that it serves to identify a certain person or thing onomastically and thus provides a name for it. Since the etymological meaning concerns a name only in its pre-onomastic status, ‘etymologizing’ a name (and particularly a personal name) can reasonably be directed only towards pointing out the morphological elements contained in it, i.e. its lexemes and morphemes. But translations of names do not help and, though they are rather popular, it is no loss if they are dispensed with. The phenomenon of reinterpreting foreign names is caused, as I have mentioned, by the fact that they are more or less isolated and thus elude etymological understanding. Therefore it appears that the name takes a new ‘meaning’ either by a slight phonetic change or else under the influence of some other word or name. For illustration I give two examples taken from German anthroponyms: the Biblical name Michael (Hebr. Mîka¯ }e¯l ‘Who is like God?’) sometimes remains unchanged in the form Michael, but it has also become Michel through contamination with the inherited adjective OHG mihhil, MHG michel ‘great’, which was subsequently lost. On the other hand, the Greek name Τιμοθα or Latin Timothea, popular among Christians, seems to be one of the sources of the feminine name Demut or Diemut which is identical to the abstract noun OHG diomuotı¯, MHG diemuot denoting the Christian ideal of ‘humility’ (German Demut). Now it is time to come back at last to the Iranian names reinterpreted in Greece by folk etymology. I shall concentrate on personal names, but this procedure is reason enough for noting, at any rate, that the same phenomenon is found in geographical names, though there is a difference, insofar as the actual or presumed topographic conditions may provoke certain

140

Rüdiger Schmitt

associations. It is well known that the Greeks’ name for the Black Sea Πντο Ευ1ξεινο ‘the Hospitable Sea’, is nothing other than the result of a euphemistic antiphrasis. It was created as the opposite to Πντο 1Αξεινο, a name which they obviously understood as ‘the Inhospitable Sea’. Both of these forms are relatively old and are first attested in Pindar. Now this ‘Inhospitable Sea’ is a rather strange thalassonym, which demands an explanation. The answer to this puzzling question is that in reality the name is of Iranian origin; it is Old Iranian axsˇaina- ‘dark-coloured’, which in a symbolic manner also has the meaning ‘northern’. Long before the time of its first attestation in an Iranian language the Greeks must have adopted this name, which from the viewpoint of the Iranian name-givers denoted the ‘North Sea’, and they changed it slightly by assimilating it to Ionic α1 ξεινο ‘inhospitable’.11 The concern of the Iranianist looking for such Greek reinterpretation by folk etymology is to ‘de-etymologize’, so to speak, the reinterpreted and partly hellenized form in order to establish the original Iranian form which underlies it. This means that all elements of the name which seem to be Greek, i.e. seem to be meaningful in Greek, must be questioned as perhaps they are later alterations without any relation or relevance to Iranian. In general we have to reckon with more serious differences, but we cannot predict or formulate rules for what differences will appear in any particular case. For claiming the influence of folk etymology the ideal circumstances are the following. First, the name in question should be a two-stem compound. In one-stem names, shortened forms and hypocoristics, only one independent lexeme is involved, and their body may be too small and ambiguous for any reliable interpretation. Second, one of the two compositional elements should still be quite plainly recognizable as Iranian in shape, whereas the other should be reminiscent of some Greek word or contain characteristically Greek sound sequences, so that some mixture becomes evident. Third, the bearer of this name should be an Iranian. This third point is the most important, since for the second we have to take into consideration the relatively rare exceptional case, where both elements of a name seem to be of Greek form and the entire name nevertheless is of Iranian origin. In such cases any doubt can be excluded, if it is a matter of lexemes which also appear as components of other anthroponyms as, for example, in Μεγα-βα´τη against Βαγαπα´τη. We can confidently infer an identical origin for these two forms, Old Iranian *Baga-pa¯ta- ‘protected by the gods’, even if the assumed onomastic 11

For the name of the Black Sea, cf. R. Schmitt, ‘Considerations on the name of the Black Sea: what can the Historian learn from it?’, in Hellas und der griechische Osten: Studien zur Geschichte und Numismatik der griechischen Welt. Festschrift für Peter Robert Franke (Saarbrücken, 1996), 219–24 (repr. in my Selected Onomastic Writings, 158–63).

IRANIAN NAMES AND FOLK ETYMOLOGY

141

identity cannot be proved in the strict sense by prosopographical identity, or at any rate by independent extra-Greek evidence. I will come back to this name shortly. The criterion of prosopographical identity just mentioned is of particular cogency. Unfortunately, however, we cannot often apply it because of the lack of available records. In his great res gestae at Mount Bı¯sutu¯n, King Darius I mentioned among his helpers, the six fellow-conspirators, one Persian by name Bagabuxsˇa. Admittedly the Old Persian form is in part restored— b-[g-b]-u-x-sˇ (DB IV 85)— but the restoration is almost certain in view of the evidence of the parallel versions, Elam. Ba-qa-bu-uk-sˇá and Babylon. Ba-ga-bu-uk-sú. Now it is confirmed by Herodotus, who when introducing Ζ\πυρο the son of Μεγα´βυξο (3. 153. 1), adds to the father’s name12 the comment that he was one of the Seven who had removed the rebellious magus. Consequently the prosopographical identity is indisputable and, with it, the onomastic identity of O.Pers. Bagabuxsˇa and Greek Μεγα´βυξο, notwithstanding the divergence of the initials. That divergence can easily be explained, however, by assuming that the Greeks looked for a form exempt from foreign features and reminiscent of forms and models of their own language. In the present case there were names like Μεγα-κλ6, Μεγα-κρων, Μεγα-σθνη, Μεγα´-τιμο, or even Homeric Μεγα-πνθη. The Swedish philologist Gudmund Björck13 even went so far as to say that such naturalization is characteristic of self-confident languages like Ancient Greek. And indeed there is, apart from Μεγα´-βυξο, a number of other such names of Iranian origin, the initial sounds of which are transformed into Μεγα-: Μεγα-δστη and Μεγα´-πανο in Herodotus, Μεγα´-βαζο and Μεγαβα´τη from Herodotus onwards, Μεγα-φρνη in Xenophon with the variant Μεγα-βρνη in Ctesias, and Μεγα-σ!στ~ in two inscriptions from Lycian Telmessos.14 As a mere fact this correspondence between Baga- and Μεγα- has been known for a long time. But when we look for an explanation, we must state

The vulgate form Μεγα´βυζο with -ζ- has at last been removed from the text into the critical apparatus in the new Teubner edition by Haiim B. Rosén (1987–97). Already J. Wackernagel, ‘Onomatologica’, Hermes 58 (1923), 462 f.  Kleine Schriften (Göttingen, 1956), ii. 1212 f. had justified the form with -ξ-, on the basis of a detailed discussion. 13 G. Björck, Das Alpha impurum und die tragische Kunstsprache: Attische Wort- und Stilstudien (Uppsala, 1950), 336 n. 2: ‘selbstbewusste Sprachen wie das Altgriechische . . . pflegen ihre Fremdwörter zu naturalisieren’; but see his own reservation on p. 58. 14 I have not mentioned Μεγα´-σιδρο (Hdt. 7. 72. 2), since there were attempts (though not convincing to me) to explain this name as of Anatolian (Paphlagonian) origin. Μεγαπα)ο in W. Hinz, Altiranisches Sprachgut der Nebenüberlieferungen (Wiesbaden, 1975), 58 is a mistake for Ctesias’ Βαγαπα)ο, and Μεγα-βγνη in É. Benveniste, ‘Notes sur les tablettes élamites de Persépolis’, Journal Asiatique 246 (1958), 51 does not exist at all to my knowledge. 12

142

Rüdiger Schmitt

first, that such a change is by no means necessary for phonetic reasons.15 For to justify that statement it is sufficient to point to counter-examples like Βαγα)ο (Herodotus etc.), Βαγαπα´τη, Βαγαπα)ο (both in Ctesias), Βαγαδα´τη in an inscription from Carian Amyzon and Βαγαβα´τα16 on a Samarian coin, where Baga- remained unchanged.17 Then, how should we explain this rendering of O.Iran. Baga- by Greek Μεγα-? It takes a big step to bridge the considerable distance between [baga-] and [mega-], or more exactly, it takes two steps: the substitution of [m] for [b] and that of [e] for [a], so that the reinterpretation by folk etymology alone prima facie seems rather far-fetched. But one of the two phonetic alternations involved has a real background for the period in question: an alternation between the labial nasal m and the labial voiced stop b is well attested in Asia Minor, particularly in Lycia, so that we perhaps may be allowed to operate with a missing link in the form of *Maga- for Achaemenid Lycia. For Iran herself and for the Iranian languages proper, such a line of argument seems to be ruled out, however, because the evidence once adduced in favour of it by Wilhelm Eilers18 belongs to later periods only, or is far from conclusive because it is transmitted indirectly. Thus the inference made by him, that the association of Baga- with Greek Μεγα- could have been made easier by a sound change that had already taken place on the Iranian side,19 was clearly a little over-hasty. To find support for such a statement we have to look elsewhere. But on the Greek side too the evidence for such an intermediate *Maga- is quite meagre: one Μαγαδα´τη in Appian (Syriaca 49. 248–9) is only a manuscript variant of Βαγαδα´τη, the name of one of Tigran the Great’s generals, who as an Armenian noble was no doubt called Bagadat.20 Likewise we find Μαγα)ο instead of Βαγα)ο only in some manuscripts of Plutarch’s Alcibiades (39. 1. 3), but even if this reading is preferable as a lectio difficilior21 the form remains all too unreliable. It can be

15 This has been stressed recently also by A. Christol, ‘Le grec au contact des Iraniens et des Indiens’, in Langues en contact dans l’Antiquité: Aspects lexicaux (Nancy, 1999), 114. 16 For this new piece of evidence of O.Iran. *Baga-pa¯ta- see P. Briant, Bulletin d’histoire achéménide (Paris, 2001), ii. 169. 17 The form Βαγα-φρνη quoted by W. Kornfeld, Onomastica Aramaica aus Ägypten (Vienna, 1978), 102 is a ghost-name. 18 W. Eilers, Der alte Name des persischen Neujahrsfestes (Mainz, 1953), 37–44. 19 Ibid., 44. 20 This is the Parthian prototype of Armen. Bag(a)rat; for the form of the name see J. Marquart, E¯ra¯nsˇahr nach der Geographie des Ps. Moses Xorenac {i (Berlin, 1901), 174 f.; N. G. Garsoïan, ‘Prolegomena to a Study of the Iranian Aspects in Arsacid Armenia’, Handes Amsorya 90 (1976), 201 n. 34. 21 In this sense Μαγα)ο was treated by C. Werba in his doctoral thesis, Die arischen Personennamen und ihre Träger bei den Alexanderhistorikern (Studien zur iranischen Anthroponomastik) (Vienna, 1982), 240.

IRANIAN NAMES AND FOLK ETYMOLOGY

143

plausibly explained only after the model we are trying to justify at present, so we must be on our guard against a vicious circle. Among the epigraphic forms of this kind22 only Μαγεδα´τη, attested in Samothrace for an Anatolian (perhaps from Chios) by birth (IG XII (8) 162, 35), may belong here. In all, we do not receive much help from this small amount of material. There is, however, other evidence in the inscription on a Lycian rock tomb from Phellos, the tomb of a certain Xlasitini, son of Magabata (Lyc. Xlasitini Magabata-h tideimi N 310, 2), built under the rule of Arppau, i.e. Harpagos. Here we seem to have found the first evidence of the missing link we were looking for, and in Achaemenid times at that. My former proposal, based on the characteristic Lycian and perhaps South Anatolian m/b alternation, which is well attested in the epichoric onomastic material, has found wide acceptance among the specialists,23 since I first suggested it in an article of 1971.24 A point in its favour is, on the one hand, that Magabata- does not contain any element known from other Lycian personal names and in this respect is more or less isolated. On the other hand Magabata- as a reflection of the multicultural character of Lycia and her different ethnic groups points to a well-known Iranian anthroponym widely attested within the Achaemenid period for a great variety of different people. Evidence for Old lranian *Baga-pa¯ta- ‘protected by the gods’, as supposed here, is found in Greek as well as in Elamite (Ba-qa-ba-(ad/ud-)da, dozens of occurrences), Babylonian (Ba-ga-(’-)pa-(a-)ta/tú) and Aramaic (bgpt).25 That this name was rather common and widespread emerges from pieces of prosopographical information, which allow us to identify at least half a dozen persons from the Greek evidence, four different people in the Babylonian texts26 and a number which it is impossible to give precisely in the Elamite tablets from Persepolis. Thus, Lycian Magabata- seems to show the significant role of the peoples living along the south coast of Asia Minor, among them the Lycians, in passing on Iranian words and names to the West. In this connection we have to take into account the problem of the traffic routes from the Aegean Sea to 22

See R. Schmitt, ‘Nachlese zur achaimenidischen Anthroponomastik’, BzNam. NF 6 (1971), 10 n. 79, where Μαγαφρνη is shown to be a misreading. 23 G. Neumann, Neufunde lykischer Inschriften seit 1901 (Vienna, 1979), 26 f.; T. R. Bryce, The Lycians in Literary and Epigraphic Sources (Copenhagen, 1986), 161. 24 Schmitt, ‘Nachlese zur achaimenidischen Anthroponomastik’, 8–11; cf. Die Iranier-Namen bei Aischylos (Iranica Graeca Vetustiora, i) (Vienna, 1978), 41 f.; ‘Iranische Namen und Wörter im Lykischen’, in Serta Indogermanica: Festschrift für Günter Neumann, ed. J. Tischler (Innsbruck, 1982), 381; Iranische Namen in den indogermanischen Sprachen Kleinasiens (Lykisch, Lydisch, Phrygisch) (Vienna, 1982), 23 no. 15. 25 See most recently (with further references) R. Schmitt, Iranier-Namen Xenophons, 61 §2.18. 26 For those four people see M. A. Dandamayev, Iranians in Achaemenid Babylonia (Costa Mesa and New York, 1992), 59 no. 95.

144

Rüdiger Schmitt

the centres of the Persian Empire.27 Best known is the famous Royal Road from Sardis to Susa straight through Asia Minor, as described by Herodotus (5. 52–4); but an important alternative route made it possible to avoid, or at least to shorten, that arduous overland journey, by travelling by sea to the Syrian coast. In addition, the historical conditions for such an intermediary role were favourable, and particularly in Lycia, since it was closely bound to the Persian Empire during the rule of Persian dynasts there. Furthermore, the Iranian influence seen most clearly in the use of Iranian personal names was much deeper in Lycia than elsewhere, even at the time when she had become a member of the Attic-Delian League. Such a combination of strong Iranian influence and at the same time political attachment to the Greek world is found only in Lycia. The two different renderings of Old Iranian *Bagapa¯ta- that we find in Greek28 are also in full agreement with the thesis of a South Anatolian linguistic influence on borrowings from Iranian. The more common and in a way normal form of this name is Μεγαβα´τη, attested in Aeschylus, Herodotus, Thucydides, Xenophon, Strabo, and Diodorus. This form Μεγαβα´τη has been reinterpreted by Greeks not only in its first element Μεγα- from Iranian Baga- (as discussed in extenso), but also in its second element -βα´τη, for which we would expect -πα´τη. The same phenomenon can also be found in other Iranian names, for example in Herodotus’ and Xenophon’s Αρταβα´τη and Μιτροβα´τη. The explanation is similar to that in the case of Μεγα- which we have just discussed. Obviously it is the many nomina agentis in Greek -βα´τη, like Lπι-βα´τη ‘who mounts (a chariot, ship etc.)’ or =ππο-βα´τη ‘horseman’ and the personal names of this sort like Homeric Ερυ-βα´τη, literally ‘wide-stepping’, that have influenced these foreign names. In contrast to the doubly altered Μεγα-βα´τη we find in Ctesias the unchanged form Βαγα-πα´τη, which is attested ten times alone in the excerpts made by the Byzantine Patriarch Photius from Ctesias’ Persica, and which renders the original Iranian form sound for sound. Already in a paper of 1973 I had given this name as an example to show how Ctesias has not reinterpreted Iranian names by popular etymology and has hellenized them to a lesser degree than Herodotus.29 Because Ctesias lived at the Royal Court 27 Cf. J. Hofstetter, ‘Zu den griechischen Gesandtschaften nach Persien’, in G. Walser (ed.), Beiträge zur Achämenidengeschichte (Wiesbaden, 1972), 100 f. 28 The coin legend Βαγα-βα´τα known from Samaria (see above n. 16) seems to be some kind of a cross between the two forms of literary tradition. I refrain from dealing with it here in more detail, because the information available to me is only second-hand. 29 R. Schmitt, ‘Die Wiedergabe iranischer Namen bei Ktesias von Knidos im Vergleich zur sonstigen griechischen Überlieferung’, in J. Harmatta (ed.), Prolegomena to the Sources on the History of Pre-Islamic Central Asia (Budapest, 1979), 128.

IRANIAN NAMES AND FOLK ETYMOLOGY

145

and a close connection with Lycia was missing in his case, there is no reason for him to choose a form with Μεγα-. So we can conclude that the normal, as it were, western vulgate form Μεγαβα´τη and the (so to speak) ‘Orientalizing’ Βαγαπα´τη of Ctesias support one another to a certain extent. At this point a short remark on the intermediary role of the Lycians may be added. For the Lycians as subjects of the Great King this role is no more remarkable than that assumed in the case of the Ionians of Asia Minor, who were also subject to the Persian king. It is well known that eastern names passed to the Greeks above all via Ionic and in Ionic dialect form. That is shown very clearly by the name of the river Indus Ινδ, which goes back to O.Pers. Hindusˇ (attested, however, only as the name of a province) and whose form shows the loss of initial h-, in other words, psilosis, which is so typical of the Eastern Ionic dialect. Another larger group of personal names showing Greek reinterpretation of the kind under discussion are those ending in Greek -μνη, first and foremost the name of the eponymous ancestor of the Persian royal dynasty, Αχαι-μνη in Greek, but Haxa¯manisˇ in Old Persian. Its second element in Greek exactly corresponds to that of genuine Greek names like Ταλαιμνη, Εθυ-μνη, & Υπερ-μνη and differs only in the position of the accent from adjectives like ε-μεν  ‘well-disposed’ or ]περ-μεν  ‘overmighty’. Because I shall be concentrating on the second part of the name, Greek -μνη, I will just touch briefly here on the remarkable difference in the form Αχαι- instead of O.Pers. Haxa¯-. For the simple reason that there is no diphthong in either the well-attested Old Persian form or those which render it in other languages of the Achaemenid Empire (Elam. Ha-ak-qa-mannu-isˇ, Babylon. A-ja-ma-ni-isˇ-}, Aram. }h.mnsˇ), we have to conclude that Greek is responsible for it. And indeed in Greek we come across similar first elements which may have caused a formal change in this borrowed name. First there are some anthroponyms ending in -αι-μνη like Ιθαι-μνη, Ταλαιμνη, Πυλαι-μνη (all three already in Homer) and several others, but then there is also the name of the Achaeans—Α χαιο and all its derivatives— which could have had some influence.30 As to -μνη, we have to start from the observation that Greek -η not only reflects the nominative ending O.Iran.*-a¯(h), but in masculine names is also an entirely regular rendering of the Old Persian nominative ending -isˇ.

30 Cf. R. Schmitt, ‘Medisches und persisches Sprachgut bei Herodot’, Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft 117 (1967), 120 n. 8; more recently R. Schmitt, ‘Onomastica Iranica Platonica’, in ΛΗΝΑΙΚΑ. Festschrift für Carl Werner Müller, ed. C. Müller-Goldingen and K. Sier (Stuttgart and Leipzig, 1996), 84 f., but also (even if in a rather speculative manner) F. Bader, ‘Les Grands de l’Iliade et les Achéménides’, REG 112 (1999), 374 f.

146

Rüdiger Schmitt

That becomes evident from examples like the Herodotean forms Φραρτη for O.Pers. Fravartisˇ or Τ(ε)σπη for O.Pers. Cisˇpisˇ. In order to explain this striking correlation of Greek -η to O.Pers. -isˇ, it is not sufficient simply to refer to the masculine gender, as was suggested previously,31 because there is a considerable number of counter-examples, viz. masculine nouns and names ending in Greek -ι both of Greek and of foreign origin.32 However this may χαιμνη therefore is correctly traced back be, as to the termination -η, Α to O.Pers. Haxa¯manisˇ. But this does not mean that all other names in -μνη of Iranian origin must also go back to stems in O.Iran. -manisˇ-. As an alternative the synonymous stem O.Iran. -manah- ‘mind’ with the nominative *-mana¯(h) is also a possibility. Consequently, the original stem-form of Iranian anthroponyms rendered by Greek -μνη can only be established, if at all, in each individual case, when there is sufficient evidence available. For the segment -μεν- of the component -μνη we have to start from O.Iran. -man-, whether -manisˇ or -manah-. It is merely speculation, however, to suppose that this syllable was realized by a half-open [æ] and thus was rendered regularly by Greek -μεν-, as a result of which the assumption of a Greek reinterpretation by folk etymology would become unnecessary. There are absolutely no grounds for making such claims about the pronunciation of the Old Persian a vowel in such a position. This means that actually we should expect Greek forms in -μα´νη for Iranian anthroponyms of that kind, as they are attested here and there, e.g., by Ιταμα´νη in Thucydides (3. 34. 1). The rule is, however, that in most cases -μα´νη was changed into -μνη under the heavy pressure of dozens of genuine Greek names ending in -μνη. Apart from Αχαιμνη there is evidence for a number of other Iranians bearing such a name: in Plutarch one of Darius the Great’s sons by name Αρια-μνη is mentioned, and once we find for the same person the variant Αρι-μνη (Mor. 173b–c), the two forms reflecting O.Pers. *Ariya-manahand *Arı¯-manah- respectively.33 The latter form showing a contraction of *-iya- to long -ı¯- has a linguistically real background, because this contraction is authentically attested in the Old Persian royal inscriptions; and the

31

Cf. Schmitt, ‘Medisches und persisches Sprachgut bei Herodot’, 139, quoting A. F. Pott, ‘Ueber altpersische Eigennamen’, Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft 13 (1859), 363 f.  32 Iranian names like Σμρδι or Δατι are based, however, on O.Pers. *Brdı¯ and *Da¯tı¯ respec˚ Brdiya (as actually tively, i.e. contracted forms of the hypocoristic names (uncontracted) O.Pers. ˚ in Historical, attested) and *Da¯tiya-; see R. Schmitt, ‘On Old Persian hypocoristics in -iya-’, Indo-European, and Lexicographical Studies: A Festschrift for Ladislav Zgusta, ed. H. H. Hock (Berlin and New York, 1997), 167. 33 For both of these names, cf. most recently Schmitt, Iranier-Namen Xenophons, 54 with nn. 41–2.

IRANIAN NAMES AND FOLK ETYMOLOGY

147

name as such has an exact counterpart in Elam. Har-ri-ma-na, which for its part obviously requires final -manah-. But without prosopographic identity this is in no way conclusive for the Greek form. Other names of this kind are borne by a certain Α ρταμνη mentioned by Dionysius of Halicarnassus, by one of Xerxes’ generals called Σμερδομνη according to Herodotus, and in Arrian (7. 6. 4) by one Φραδασμνη. This name is quite problematic, however, not least because of the variant Φαρισμα´νη found in another passage of Arrian’s Anabasis (6. 27. 3), which probably refers to the same person. In Herodotus and Diodorus there is evidence for a name Α ρσαμνη. Incidentally, the general of Xerxes’ army who bears this name in Herodotus 7. 68 has a brother (or half-brother) by the name of Α ρσα´μη, so that we are faced here with another case of brothers bearing partially identical names, viz. O.Pers. *R sˇa-manah- and R sˇama- (contracted from *R sˇa-ama-) both ˚ ‘hero’ (in its weak ˚ stem form). A morphological ˚ containing rsˇanparallel to ˚ 34 this pair of names is that of *Spita-manah- and Spita¯ma-, the first of which is known from Arrian as Σπιταμνη, whereas the other is well attested in Iranian itself as the name of a distant ancestor of Zarathushtra’s. Finally we have in & Ιεραμνη a name which reminds us of Rhodian & Ιερο-μνη (IG XII (1) 46, 299) and on the other hand of several Greek anthroponyms with the first element & Ιερα-,35 thus a form with Greek reinterpretation of both its elements. When searching for the Iranian original form of this name, we have to take into account the fact overlooked by generations of Iranianists, that the same man who is mentioned by Thucydides (8. 58. 1) as being involved in the completion of the third Persian–Peloponnesian Treaty of the year 412/11 BC is also named in the great Lycian inscription on the stele of Xanthos (TAM I 44c, 12), in the Lycianized form Erijamãna. As a result the earlier reconstruction of an original O.Pers. form *Vı¯ ra-manahhas become untenable, although such a name is actually attested elsewhere, in the Elamite rendering Mi-ra-ma(n)-na.36 It is a matter of fact that Lyc. Erijamãna is more decisive for reconstructing the original form than Greek & Ιεραμνη, which a priori is strongly suspect of having been adapted

I have dealt in detail with all of the problems surrounding Σπιταμνη, and particularly its first element, O.Iran. *spita-, in ‘Zu einigen Namen auf -menes und zur volksetymologischen Umdeutung iranischer Namen in griechischer Überlieferung’, in Analecta homini universali dicata: Arbeiten zur Indogermanistik, Linguistik, Philologie, Politik, Musik und Dichtung. Festschrift für Oswald Panagl, ed. T. Krisch, T. Lindner, and U. Müller, 2 vols. (Stuttgart, 2004), i. 478–90. 35 See LGPN I, 231 for & Ιερα´-κριτο (Kalymnos); III B, 205 for & Ιερα-τμ~ (Phokis), and SGDI 4245, 447 for the Rhodian potter’s name & Ιαρα-κλ6 (which in this Rhodian form with -αρ- is quoted by Bechtel, HP, 217). 36 Cf. e.g. Hinz, Altiranisches Sprachgut, 263. 34

148

Rüdiger Schmitt

to Greek. Therefore Walther Arkwright’s37 old proposal of an O.Pers. *Ariya-manah- has gained credibility, and the more so, since such a formation, meaning something like ‘(man) of Iranian feelings’, is supported (as we have already seen) by Greek Αριαμνη as well as Αριμνη and Elam. Har-ri-ma-na. The difference between & Ιερα-μνη and Plutarch’s phonetically accurate rendering Αρια-μνη is best explained by the assumption that Thucydides and his sources became acquainted with the name and the person of their contemporary & Ιεραμνη in a different way than the much later author Plutarch did with the other persons, perhaps at the negotiations in Kaunos, as one may conclude from Thucydides (8. 57. 1) himself. This had led me on a previous occasion38 to consider & Ιεραμνη as a Greek rendering of *Ariyamanah- in Lycian refraction, as it were. I reckoned with an Anatolian intermediate form similar to the one attested in Lycian, which first had been adopted as Greek * Ερια-μνη. Subsequently the vowels of its first element were whirled round and round, so that the name was reinterpreted eventually as & Ιεραμνη. This may have been the work of some ‘earwitness’ or even of a participant in the negotiations in Kaunos. But I must admit, of course, that any such assumption of an informant, interpreter or other go-between speaking a third language can scarcely ever be verified. In the same way one might deal with similar cases of entire sets of Iranian names adapted to Greek words. For want of time I can only touch on the names ending originally in -φα´ρνη (from O.Pers. -farna¯(h), nom.), which are poorly attested but must have been so current that the genuine Greek name Τιμαφνη of a Trachinian military leader could be corrupted to Persianizing Τιμαφρνη in the manuscript tradition of Ctesias–Photius.39 As their normal representation we find in both Greek literature and inscriptions -φρνη (e.g. Αρτα-φρνη, Ιντα-φρνη, Τισσα-φρνη), for which already Bréal40 had thought of a remodelling after φερν ‘dowry’. The variants in -φρνη which are often mentioned as an example of the kind of reinterpretation treated here, seem to be found, however, apart from a fragmentary inscriptional passage,41 only in the two earliest instances of such names, Αρτα-φρνη (in Aeschylus and Herodotus) and Ιντα-φρνη (also 37

Cf. W. Arkwright, ‘Über das lykische Alphabet’, Jahreshefte des Österreichischen Archäologischen Instituts in Wien 2 (1899), 56. 38 Cf. Schmitt, ‘Iranische Wörter und Namen im Lykischen’, 379; Iranische Namen in Kleinasien, 21 no. 11; also recently Schmitt, Iranier-Namen Xenophons, 54. 39 This amazing case of Persianizing, as it were, a Greek name by a Greek copyist was pointed out questioningly, but quite convincingly, in LGPN III B, 406 (cf. my review in BzNam. NF 37 (2002), 87). 40 Cf. Bréal, De Persicis nominibus, 15. 41 I think of the form [Τισ]σαφρνε-ν on the decree IG I3 113, 39; cf. L. Threatte, The Grammar of Attic Inscriptions (Berlin and New York, 1980), i. 476 §40.011.

IRANIAN NAMES AND FOLK ETYMOLOGY

149

Herodotus). But this latter form is only the reading of some lesser manuscripts of Herodotus’ Histories, whereas in the authoritative manuscripts, those of the Florentine class, the contrast between Ιντα-φρνη and Α ρταφρνη is so evident that we should accept for the -φρνη type only Αρταφρνη, a form which Herodotus seems to have taken from Aeschylus.42 Obviously it was this author who adapted the foreign name to Greek φρεν-, the stem of φρ ν and plural φρνε ‘heart, mind’, which appears in this same ablaut grade at least in some compounds. The only problem is that we cannot exclude that we have to do here with a simple phonetic process, viz. the metathesis of a liquid, as is the case, for example, in Herodotus’ Τριτανταχμη for the original *Τιτραν- (from Old Iranian *Ciθran- in *Ciθrantaxma). Quoting this source form is sufficient to show that -αχμη is due to Greek forms like Homeric Πυρ-αχμη. In Herodotean Πρηξ-α´σπη, with its typically Iranian -aspa- ‘horse’, the un-Iranian initial sequence clearly is reinterpreted after Greek πρηξ(ι)(Attic πρ~ξ(ι)-) which occurs in verbal compounds43 of the Πραξι-τλη type.44 Iranian names like the feminine &Ροδο-γο!νη (attested in Plutarch and in two inscriptions of Roman Sicily)45 or the epigraphically attested &Ροδοπα´τη, &Ροδο-πα)ο in Asia Minor,46 and perhaps even &Ροδο-βα´τη on an Athenian statue of Plato,47 bear resemblance to genuine Greek names with &Ροδο-, found in the island of Rhodes and elsewhere.48 Nevertheless, they go back to Iranian originals containing an O.Pers. *vrda- ‘rose’, or perhaps a ˚ more problematic Old Iranian stem *varda-, because such names49 are actually found in several Middle Iranian languages (e.g. Sogdian wrdcwn Ward-co¯n) and in New Persian (Gulgu¯n and Gulba¯d respectively). But the

Wackernagel, ‘Onomatologica’, 463 f.  1213 f. considered -φρνη a typically Attic reinterpretation. 43 See O. Hoffmann, Die griechischen Dialekte in ihrem historischen Zusammenhange, iii (Göttingen, 1898), 328 for η due to folk etymology. 44 Cf. the evidence registered in LGPN I, 384–5 and 385–6 (for Πρηξι-); II, 378–9; III A, 373–4; IIIB, 360–1; IV, 289. 45 See LGPN III A, 385. 46 For these two names see R. Zwanziger’s doctoral thesis Studien zur Nebenüberlieferung iranischer Personennamen in den griechischen Inschriften Kleinasiens: Ein Beitrag zu dem neuen Iranischen Namenbuch (Vienna, 1973), 102 f. §§ 3.36, 3.38. 47 Diogenes Laertius 3.25 preserves information on a statue of Plato, which a Persian by the name Μιθραδα´τη, son of one &Ροδοβα´τη, has put up in the Academy. Zwanziger, Studien zur Nebenüberlieferung, 147–9 collected the arguments for rejecting the doubts about &Ροδοβα´τη. 48 Cf. LGPN I, 398–9; II, 390–1; III A, 385; III B, 371; IV, 299–300. 49 Therefore the idea should be given up, that &Ροδογο!νη might contain an adjective O.Pers. *rudra- ‘red’ (thus Werba, Die arischen Personennamen, 380 no. 287). 42

150

Rüdiger Schmitt

discussion by Ronald Zwanziger50 has made it clear that there remain a great number of uncertainties about these Iranian forms, and that the Greek process of adaptation is one of them. Although Greek reinterpretation of Iranian names has been taken into account wherever appropriate, this will remain a topic for discussion in future. To see what problems are involved, we need only think of Αστυα´γη, the name of the legendary Median king, which looks like a perfect Greek ‘town breaker’,51 or of the quite strange form Ζωρο-α´στρη, which is the only example anywhere of a name ending in -α´στρη and which seems to be associated with an adjective (Greek ζωρ) used especially for pure wine without water.52 Therefore we must conclude that there is no standard method to be followed, let alone any panacea.

50

Cf. Zwanziger, Studien zur Nebenüberlieferung, 147–9. The name Αστυα´γη has been dealt with most recently by Schmitt, Iranier-Namen Xenophons, 48–50, and Iranische Anthroponyme in Ktesias, 92–4. 52 For Avest. Zarausˇtra-, Greek Ζωροα´στρη and its probable original *Zara-usˇtra-, see Schmitt, ‘Onomastica Iranica Platonica’, 93–8. 51

8 Iranian Names and the Presence of Persians in the Religious Sanctuaries of Asia Minor STEPHEN MITCHELL

THE SERIOUS STUDY OF PERSIAN NAMES IN ASIA MINOR as a source of historical information was to a large extent initiated by Louis Robert. The benchmark was set in his Noms indigènes dans l’Asie Mineure GrécoRomaine. Although Robert’s main purpose was to show that much of the supposedly indigenous nomenclature of Hellenistic and Roman Anatolia was of extraneous, usually Greek origin, Persian names occupy a large part, above all in his analysis of the material from Cappadocia. As a historical study Noms indigènes is an extraordinary illustration of the way in which Asia Minor has absorbed and responded to external cultures, both from the West and the East, and has reflected this in onomastic evidence and the patterns of nomenclature. Names, which are so abundantly preserved in the epigraphy of the Hellenistic and Roman periods, are not only important cultural markers in their own right, but must act to some extent as a surrogate for other sources of information about external cultural influence in Asia Minor, for which there is less direct evidence. Robert returned to Persian names repeatedly in his later years, and the result was a series of well-known epigraphic tours de force: his discussions of the Droaphernes inscription from Sardis, the Bagadates inscription from Amyzon, and the coin types of the shrine of Persian Anaitis at Hypaipa, to all of which I shall return. These studies are concerned with Iranian names and other evidence for the presence or influence of Persians attested by the epigraphic and numismatic sources of the Hellenistic and Roman Imperial periods. This had the obvious implication that the chronological context of his investigations, post-Achaemenid and pre-Sassanian, concerned periods when the political or imperial interest of Persia in Asia Minor was relatively weak. Robert accordingly developed a Proceedings of the British Academy 148, 151–171. © The British Academy 2007.

152

Stephen Mitchell

model for understanding the Iranian presence in Asia Minor that was essentially non-political. Persians settlers are represented as integrated into the social structures of Asia Minor. They had been absorbed into the populations of Greek cities or had intermarried with the indigenous populations of Cappadocia, thus forming a significant minority strand in the multi-ethnic culture of Anatolia. Robert’s approach, however, paid less attention to the wider context of Iranian history. Characteristically he had relatively little to say directly about the period before the fourth century BC, and about the nature and extent of Achaemenid authority over Asia Minor. For that we need to turn to the recent work of Simon Hornblower,1 Pierre Briant, and to the series of valuable studies by a former member of the LGPN project, Nicholas Sekunda.2 Briant, in particular, has challenged Robert’s view that Persian culture persisted through the Hellenistic and Imperial periods over extended parts of western Asia Minor. He argues that Iranian religious practices were rapidly transformed by Hellenism, and that the apparent survival of Persian institutions as late as the second century AD may be attributed to local antiquarianism or the artificial revival of their exotic customs.3 Another critical omission from Robert’s perspective was the political history of the Iranian dynasties of eastern Anatolia during the later Hellenistic period, in Commagene, Cappadocia, and the Pontic regions, which, by comparison with western Asia Minor, have left a relatively meagre epigraphic heritage. The last group in particular had an authoritative claim to descent from the Achaemenid nobility,4 and their greatest king, Mithridates VI Eupator, unquestionably projected himself as an heir to the Achaemenids in his attempt to establish control over their former territories.5 Moreover, Greek and Roman writers asserted that both the Parthians and the Sassanians had aspirations to reclaim the territory of the old Persian empire in Asia Minor,

1 Simon Hornblower, ‘Asia Minor’, Cambridge Ancient History, 2nd edn. (Cambridge, 1994), 209–33. 2 N. Sekunda, ‘Achaemenid colonization in Lydia’, Revue des Études Anciennes 87 (1985), 7–30; ‘Persian settlement in Hellespontine Phrygia’, in A. Kuhrt and H. Sancisi-Weerdenburg (eds.), Achaemenid History, iii: Method and Theory, Proceedings of the London 1985 Achaemenid History Workshop (Leiden, 1988), 175–96; ‘Achaemenid settlement in Caria, Lycia and Greater Phrygia’, in Sancisi-Weerdenburg and Kuhrt (eds.), Achaemenid history, vi: Asia Minor and Egypt: Old Cultures in a New Empire, Proceedings of the Groningen 1988 Achaemenid History Workshop (Leiden, 1991), 83–143. 3 P. Briant, ‘Les Iraniens dans l’Asie Mineure après la chute de l’empire achéménide. À propos de l’inscription d’Amyzon’, Dialogues d’Histoire Ancienne 11 (1985), 167–95, esp. 187–8. 4 A. B. Bosworth and P. V. Wheatley, ‘The origins of the Pontic house’, JHS 118 (1998), 155–64. 5 S. Mitchell, ‘In search of the Pontic community in antiquity’, in A. Bowman et al. (eds.), Representations of Empire: Rome and the Mediterranean World, Proceedings of the British Academy 114 (Oxford, 2002), 35–64.

PERSIANS IN THE SANCTUARIES OF ASIA MINOR

153

and even in Greece.6 The Imperial campaigns in the East during the third century, and again under Julian in the fourth century AD, were cast ideologically in the form of the Romans siding with the Greeks against the latter’s traditional enemy, Persia.7 In other words, behind the intricate multi-racial and multi-ethnic mosaic of communities in Hellenistic and Roman Asia Minor, there were important political agendas. Asia Minor had been as crucial a part of the empire of the Achaemenids as it was of the Caesars, and we should certainly ask whether Anatolian settlers of Iranian origin may have aspired to something more than mere integration into the Greek or indigenous populations, especially at moments when they might have hoped for something better. Very occasionally the context in which an Iranian name occurs in the epigraphic evidence allows a glimpse of such a possibility. Between M. Crassus’ defeat at Carrhae in 53 BC and the raids of Shapur I into Cilicia and Cappadocia in AD 260, the only occasion on which an Iranian military force made inroads into Asia Minor was the campaign of 40 BC led by the renegade Roman senator Q. Labienus.8 The Carian city of Aphrodisias had suffered serious plundering during this Parthian incursion, and amends were made after the war by an agent of M. Antonius, Stephanus, who was based in Laodikeia on the Lykos. He restored to the Aphrodisians slaves who had been captured or absconded, and handed over for investigation various alleged collaborators with Labienus. He also returned to them a gold crown, which had been carried off by a certain Pythes, son of Oumanios.9 Oumanios is a theophoric Persian name, derived from the Iranian Vahu-manah, a god known both from Zoroastrian writings and, in the hellenized guise of Omanes, as a companion deity to Anaitis in the important Pontic shrine of Zela.10 Omanes was also the name of the leader of the Persian garrison of Magnesia ad Sipylum, belonging to the forces of Seleucus II, which are mentioned in the treaty between Smyrna and Magnesia in the mid-third century BC.11 Robert, recognizing the Iranian origins of the name, also saw 6

Tacitus, Ann. 6. 37 (Parthians); Dio 80. 4. 1–2; Herodian 6. 2. 2.; Zonaras 12. 15 (Sassanians). L. Robert, ‘Deux concours grecs à Rome’, CRAI (1970), 6–27 (Robert, OMS V, 647–68); S. Mitchell, Anatolia: Land, Men, and Gods in Asia Minor, 2 vols. (Oxford, 1993), i. 227; J. Nollé, ‘Athena in der Schmiede des Hephaistos. Militär-, wirtschafts- und sozialgeschichtliche Implikationen von Münzbildern’, Jahrbuch für Numismatik und Geldgeschichte 45 (1995), 51–77. 8 D. Magie, Roman Rule in Asia Minor, ii (Princeton, 1950), 1280–1 for the sources. 9 J. M. Reynolds, Aphrodisias and Rome (London, 1982), 99, doc. 11. 10 See R. Schmitt, ‘Einige iranische Namen auf Inschriften und Papyri’, ZPE 17 (1975), 23–4; Strabo 11. 8. 4, 512C; 15. 3. 15, 733C. In view of the association of leading Iranians with sanctuaries, the name of the son Pythes may also deliberately evoke a Delphic connection. 11 OGIS 229; I.Magnesia ad Sipylum no. 1, with Ihnken’s notes on pp. 121–2; I.Smyrna II.1, 503 with Petzl’s notes on p. 13. (O. Kern, Die Inschriften von Magnesia am Mäander (Berlin, 1900); G. Petzl, Die Inschriften von Smyrna I, II. 1, II, 2 (Bonn, 1982–).) 7

154

Stephen Mitchell

the likely significance of Pythes’ role during the incursion: ‘En tout cas son patronyme explique sa conduite. Descendant d’une famille iranienne fixée [à Aphrodisias], lorsque les Parthes de Labiènus arrivèrent sur la Carie, Pythès, fils d’ Oumanios, collabora avec eux.’12 Pythes himself also bore a name rich in Persian associations, for it was a Lydian named Pythes (according to Plutarch) or Pythios (according to Herodotus), whose estates in the Maeander valley made him the richest man in Asia at the time of Xerxes’ great expedition against the Greeks.13 At such moments as the Parthian raid of 40 BC, rare though they might be, Persian settlers were capable of forming a fifth column. It is likely that similar behaviour can be observed during Shapur’s invasions three hundred years later (see below p. 168). In order to form an impression of the extent of Persian influence in postAchaemenid Anatolia, it is particularly appropriate to concentrate on the evidence relating to the distribution of Iranian cults and the presence of Persians in religious sanctuaries. Religious institutions could form a natural focal point for opposition to secular authority in antiquity, as they do today, and religious propaganda served this purpose when outright resistance to a ruling power was out of the question.14 Prophecies purporting to derive from a dream of the Median king Hystaspes circulated between the first and fourth centuries AD, and were particularly circulated by Christians opposed to Roman rule. They predicted that the Roman empire would collapse and its power revert to Asia.15 Religious authority was always a significant factor in Anatolian history, and Iranian influence, at least to judge from the onomastic presence, is pervasive throughout the entire region.16 It may therefore not be fanciful to imagine another power structure alongside the pattern of secular authority, in which the Persians remained a force to be reckoned with. I shall attempt to survey a selection of this evidence briefly, acknowledging

12 L. Robert, ‘Documents d’ Asie Mineure XV. Iraniens à Aphrodisias’, BCH 107 (1983), 505–9 at 508 ( Robert, Documents d’Asie Mineure (Paris, 1987), 349–53). 13 Plutarch, Mor. 262d; Hdt. 7. 27–8; see Sekunda, ‘Achaemenid settlement in Caria’, 119–21. 14 A. Momigliano, ‘Some preliminary remarks on “religious opposition” to the Roman empire’, and G. W. Bowersock, ‘The mechanics of subversion in the Roman provinces’, Opposition et résistances à l’empire d’Auguste à Trajan, Entretiens Fondation Hardt 33 (Geneva, 1986), 103–29 and 291–317. 15 Lactantius, Div. Inst. 7. 15. 11; Justin, Apol. 44. 12; Clem. Alex., Strom. 6. 5. 43. 1; H. Windisch, Die Orakel des Hystaspes (Amsterdam, 1929); Momigliano, ‘Religious opposition’, 127–9; E. Schürer, A History of the Jewish people in the Age of Jesus Christ, iii.1 (revised edn., Edinburgh, 1986), 654–6; P. F. Beatrice, ‘Le livre d’Hystaspe aux mains de Chrétiens’, in C. Bonnet and A. Motte (eds.), Les Syncrétismes réligieux dans le monde méditerranéen antique (Brussels, 1999), 357–82. 16 L. Boffo, I re ellenistiche e i centri religiosi dell’Asia Minore (Florence, 1985), 21 esp. n. 28.

PERSIANS IN THE SANCTUARIES OF ASIA MINOR

155

that not all the evidence is onomastic in the narrow sense, and that it is diverse in nature.17

AMYZON In 321/0 BC, the fourth regnal year of Philip III, half-brother and successor of Alexander the Great, the people of Amyzon in Caria passed a decree, on the proposal of the satrap of Caria, Asandros, that a certain Bagadates should become temple warden of Artemis, their most important divinity, following the recommendation of the Delphic oracle, on account of his zeal for the sanctuary. He and his son Ariaramnes were to receive citizenship, tax immunity, and the right of proedria.18 Rather more than a century later, Arieramnes the neokoros, a descendant of the family, took charge of inscribing another decree on the anta of the gateway to the sanctuary, in honour of Hermias son of Pankrates, who had undertaken an embassy to Antiochus III and successfully brought about the restitution of sacred slaves, who had been abducted or had absconded during the recent war.19 The names of the family of neokoroi are transparently Iranian, and the inscriptions reveal that the practical care of Amyzon’s important sanctuary of Artemis was entrusted to a well-to-do Persian family, which had doubtless settled in the vicinity.20 The Baga- prefix, which corresponded to the Persian word for god, is particularly appropriate to the function served and we shall see that it recurs in similar contexts elsewhere (see below p. 158). The second inscription underlines the family’s continued prominence over a century later.21 Louis Robert interpreted the Amyzon inscription as paradigmatic of the way in which Persians were assimilated into the social structures and civic culture of Hellenistic Asia Minor.22 The appointment of Bagadates and his descendants at Amyzon occurred immediately after the downfall of the Achaemenid empire. The emergence of the new Hellenistic dynasties after Alexander implied that Iranian royal power had been eclipsed by the Macedonian diadochoi. However, the evidence from Amyzon demonstrated

17

The largest omission is any discussion of the complex evidence for the worship of Mithras in Asia Minor. 18 J. and L. Robert, Fouilles d’Amyzon en Carie, i: Exploration, histoire, monnaies et inscriptions (Paris, 1983), 97–118, no. 2. 19 Robert, Amyzon, 195–6, no. 18. 20 N. Sekunda, ‘Achaemenid settlement in Caria’, 93–5, conjectures that they had land-holdings in the Maeander valley. 21 J. Ma, Antiochus III and the Cities of Western Asia Minor (revised edn., Oxford, 2002), 303–4. 22 Robert, Amyzon, 97–118, with further discussion by Briant, DHA 11 (1985), 167–95.

156

Stephen Mitchell

the continued presence and influence of Persians in the religious structures of lower Asia.

EPHESOS The closest parallel to the situation at Amyzon comes from a more famous sanctuary, the Artemision at Ephesos, where Persians and Greeks lived in immediate proximity.23 In a passage of the Anabasis Xenophon notes that the neokoros of the Ephesian sanctuary in 394 BC was called Megabyxos.24 The name rendered the Persian Baga-buχsa.25 Βαγα´βαζο, a hellenized version of the name, which is closer to the original Iranian form, is quoted by Athenaeus from the Persian History of Dinon.26 As the prefix Baga- (shared with Bagadates at Amyzon) meant ‘god’, the full name should be translated as ‘one who serves god’. That was virtually an exact rendition of the Greek term νε\κορο, temple-warden, the precise function exercised by Persian families both at Amyzon and at Ephesos. The coincidence of theophoric names with priestly office is clearly intentional, and this particular name was rapidly transformed, in Robert’s phrase, from a ‘nom parlant’ to a ‘nom de fonction’. A decree of Priene of 334 BC honoured another Megabyxos son of Megabyxos, who had been zealous and well-disposed to the people and in particular had shown great enthusiasm for the completion of the temple of Athena. Indeed the terminology of this text, reflecting the Persian grandee’s enthusiasm for Priene’s most important temple, which was then under construction, recalls that of the almost contemporary decree for Bagadates at Amyzon. It is evident that this Megabyxos was the Ephesian neokoros, since his status at Priene was that of a proxenos, and he was given, among other privileges, the right to acquire land up to the value of five talents, provided that it lay more than ten stades’ distance from Priene’s territorial boundary with Ephesos.27 According to Plutarch, Alexander the Great wrote to 23

See Plutarch, Lysander 3. 3 (an exaggerated and distorted picture). Anab. 5. 3. 6. 25 J. Wackernagel, ‘Onomatologica’, Hermes 58 (1923), 462–4; E. Benveniste, Titres et noms propres en Iranien ancien (Paris, 1966), 108–15 (cf. BE 1968, no. 140). Benveniste argued that classical writers invariably used the form Μεγα´βυξο/Megabyxus, although this is frequently reproduced in our manuscripts as Μεγα´βυζο/Megabyzus. Cf. also above p. 141. 26 Athenaeus 13. 609a quoting Dinon, FGrH IIIc 690 F 1. 27 I.Priene no. 3. (F. Hiller von Gaertringen, Die Inschriften von Priene (Berlin, 1906)). It is very revealing that in this first edition of the text the editor reproduced the name in the erroneous form Μεγα´βυζο, against the clear reading of the stone, Μεγα´βυξο; SIG 3 282 II; D. McCabe, Priene Inscriptions: Texts and List (prepared for the TLG project, Princeton, 1987), no. 63. See L. Robert, Hellenica, xi/xii (Paris, 1960), 458–9; CRAI (1975), 318. 24

PERSIANS IN THE SANCTUARIES OF ASIA MINOR

157

Megabyxos about a slave who had taken refuge in the sanctuary.28 But the name clearly became habitual in the family that held the office, to the point where it became indistinguishable from the office itself.29 By the time of Strabo, who drew his information from the Ephesian Artemidorus writing around 100 BC, the family line must have ceased, since he tells us that the Megabyxos was chosen from abroad, and was a eunuch.30

SARDIS One of the key documents for understanding the nature of the Persian presence in post-Achaemenid Asia Minor was published by Louis Robert in 1975, the inscription from Sardis in Lydia, commemorating the dedication of a statue to Zeus and two regulations concerning the cult, which evidently had strong Persian associations. The text begins Lτων τρι κοντα Lννα Α ρτα|ξερξω βασιλε!οντο, τ'ν α ν|δραντα Δροαφρνη | Βαρ(α´)κεω Λυδη }παρχο Βαρα|δατω Δι. This dedication is separated by a leaf punctuation mark from the two regulations. The first, introduced by the singular verb προστα´σσει, forbade the neokoroi, who are defined as the attendants who entered the sanctuary and crowned the god, from participating in the mysteries of Sabazius, Angdistis, and Ma. The second, prefaced by the plural προστα´σσουσι, instructed the neokoros Dorates to keep away from these mysteries.31 Robert took the view that the Βαραδατω of the text should be interpreted as a dative adjectival form derived from Old Persian, describing Zeus as ‘bringer of justice’, and thus to be understood as the great god Ahura-Mazda in hellenized guise. Commentators since Robert, especially Briant, have argued convincingly that Βαραδατω should be taken as the genitive form of a personal name, and that this was a cult of Zeus, supervised or promoted by a man of Persian descent, Baradates.32 The text as a

28

Plutarch, Alex. 42. Benveniste, Titres et noms propres, 108–15. For similar continuity in a Greek priestly family which held a hereditary priesthood, compare the names Archias and Asklepiades, which recurred continually in the family that held the priesthood of Asklepios at Pergamum. See C. Habicht, Altertümer von Pergamon, viii.3 (Berlin, 1969), 93, no. 47. 30 Strabo 14. 1. 23, 641C. 31 L. Robert, ‘Une nouvelle inscription grecque de Sardes: règlement de l’autorité perse relative à un culte de Zeus’, CRAI (1975), 306–30 (Robert, OMS V, 485–509). The text is reproduced at SEG XXIX 1205. 32 F. Gschnitzer, ‘Eine persische Kultstiftung in Sardeis und die “Sippengötter” Vorderasiens’, in W. Meid and H. Trenkwalder (eds.), Im Bannkreis des Alten Orients: Studien zur Sprach- und Kulturgeschichte des alten Orients und seines Ausstrahlungsraumes Karl Oberhuber zum 70. Geburtstag gewidmet (Innsbruck, 1986), 45–54; M.-L. Chaumont, ‘Un nouveau gouverneur de 29

158

Stephen Mitchell

whole comprises several chronological layers. The initial dedication, which retains old Ionic dialect forms, was dated to the thirty-ninth year of king Artaxerxes, either Artaxerxes I in 427/6 (so, hesitantly, Briant), or Artaxerxes II in 368/7 BC (Robert). The two regulations, which were evidently not issued simultaneously, belong later, perhaps between the first century BC and the first century AD, when an association of mystai or mystai and therapeutai of Zeus is attested by a number of other inscriptions, which should probably be linked to the same cult.33 Finally, as the letter forms make clear, the three elements were combined and inscribed as a single text, probably after AD 150. As at Amyzon and Ephesos, there is no evidence that this cult of Zeus at Sardis was Persian in a strict sense. Rather, it was the object of devotion by Droaphernes, a Persian regional official, if not actually the satrap of Lydia, and it was under the supervision of a man whose name Βαραδατω shows him to be of Persian origin. Briant suggests that this might correspond to a Persian name *Databara, itself derived from the Old Persian word *dtbr, meaning ‘judge’, attested in consonantal form in cuneiform on the Persepolis tablets.34 But the elements of the name are reversed in the Sardis inscription and there is no parallel in Persian onomastics for the form Baradates. It is much more likely that the original name was in fact Bagadates, precisely as attested at Amyzon.35 The preserved text at Sardis was a copy of an original which had been written on stone or some other material at least five hundred years earlier. The copy was intended to be literal and scrupulous, as the preservation of the Ionic forms shows, but was liable to error, no doubt because the original was not always clearly legible. In the same line the copyist reproduced ΒΑΡΛΚΕΩ for the patronymic ΒΑΡΑΚΕΩ. I have no doubt that ΒΑΡΑΔΑΤΕΩ is a comparable slip for ΒΑΓΑΔΑΤΕΩ. The Persian at Sardis should thus be seen as an exact counterpart to Megabyxos at Ephesos, and Bagadates at Amyzon, occupying the function of warden of an important local sanctuary of Zeus.36 The later evidence for the Sardis cult is susceptible to a number of interpretations. Clearly there was at least an Sardes à l’époque achéménide d’après une inscription récemment découverte’, Syria 67 (1990), 579–608; P. Briant, ‘Droaphernes et la statue de Sardes’, in M. Brosius and A. Kuhrt (eds.), Studies in Persian History: Essays in Memory of David M. Lewis, Achaemenid History 11 (Leiden, 1998), 205–26. 33 P. Herrmann, ‘Mystenvereine in Sardeis’, Chiron 26 (1996), 315–48. 34 Briant, ‘Droaphernes’, 214 n. 17. 35 This is suggested, but without argument, by M. Paz de Hoz, Die lydischen Kulte im Lichte der griechischen Inschriften, Asia Minor Studien 36 (Bonn, 1999), 77. 36 This supports Frei’s arguments about the indigenous nature of the cult, in P. Frei and K. Koch, Reichsidee und Reichsorganisation im Perserreich (Freiburg-Göttingen, 1984), 19–21 (2nd edn., 1996), 91–7. Frei’s interpretation finds support from Herrmann’s demonstration in Chiron 26 (1996), 321–34 that it evolved into a cult of Zeus Polieus at Sardis, with no other obvious Iranian associations.

PERSIANS IN THE SANCTUARIES OF ASIA MINOR

159

archival memory of Iranian interest in the cult in the second century AD, demonstrated by the reproduction of the document dated to the reign of Artaxerxes. But it is an open question, disputed between Robert and Briant, whether there was an active Persian interest at this late date.37

HYPAIPA AND HIEROCAESAREA The presence of Persian colonists and Persian settlements in Lydia is well attested and has been much discussed.38 Two sites were particularly notable as centres of Persian cults, Hypaipa and Hierocaesarea. In the famous debate in the Roman senate of AD 22 recorded by Tacitus, Hierocaesarea based its claim to asylum status on the sanctuary of Diana Persica, whose cult image had been dedicated in the time of Cyrus the Great.39 Pausanias, a native of Lydia, provided the most explicit account of these two sanctuaries, and reported that the cult was served by a magus, crowned with a tiara, who read from a book and uttered chants in a barbarous tongue which Greeks could not understand, and that there was a special chamber containing a fire altar with a great accumulation of ash.40 Although the goddess worshipped at Hierocaesarea had been hellenized as Artemis Persike and the city’s coins carry a Greek figure of Artemis with a stag, the goddess at Hypaipa was represented heavily veiled, in Persian dress.41 The priesthood of Artemis Anaitis at Hypaipa was held in the inheritance of another Persian family with a theophoric name. A decree of the Asian koinon of the first or second century AD was passed to commemorate the early death of Theophron. His father, also Theophron, was also priest of the goddess, a post he had inherited from his own father Theophron, his grandfather Hermolaos and his greatgrandfather Theophron.42 The recurring name is an unusual one,43 and is 37

See also Hermann, ‘Mystenvereine in Sardeis’, 333 with n. 59; Paz de Hoz, Die lydischen Kulte, 77–8. 38 See Sekunda, ‘Achaemenid colonization in Lydia’, and in particular several studies by J. and L. Robert: Hellenica, vi: Inscriptions grecques de Lydie (Paris, 1948); L. Robert, ‘Monnaies grecques à l’époque impériale. I: Types monétaires à Hypaipa de Lydie’, Revue Numismatique 17 (1976), 25–56 (Robert, OMS VI, 137–60); ‘Documents d’ Asie Mineure XXI. Au Nord de Sardes. 4 Mermere antique et moderne: les carrières, les Iraniens’, BCH 106 (1982), 367–73 (Robert, Documents d’Asie Mineure, 329–35). 39 Tacitus, Ann. 3. 62. 3; J. and L. Robert, Hellenica, vi. 57 ff.; cf. P. Herrmann, ‘Rom und die Asylie griechischer Heiligtümer: eine Urkunde des Diktators Caesar und Sardeis’, Chiron 19 (1989), 126–59. 40 Pausanias 5. 27. 5–6. 41 Robert, ‘Types monétaires à Hypaipa’, 25–48. 42 OGIS 470; IGR IV 1611; Paz de Hoz, Die lydischen Kulte, 146, no. 3. 58. 43 Not a single example appears in the indexes of SEG between 1976 and 1996, or in the indexes of the Bulletin épigraphique, which now cover the period 1938–2001. LGPN I lists five examples

160

Stephen Mitchell

evidently a translation of a Persian form beginning with the prefix Baga-. Unlike the hellenized form Megabyxos, which disguised the theophoric nature of the Iranian name Baga-Buχsa, the transformation of a Persian name into the Greek Theophron emphasized this aspect.44 The cults at Hypaipa and Hierocaesarea unquestionably preserved distinctive features of Persian religious practice and in this respect should be distinguished from the situation at Amyzon, Ephesos, and Sardis, where no Persian cult activity is attested and the divinities in question were indigenous. One of the reasons for this was certainly the survival of a distinct group of ethnic Persians in these communities, whose existence may also be inferred from other onomastic evidence.45 However, it is impossible to imagine that there was no reciprocal influence between Greek, Persian, and local Anatolian religious practices in Achaemenid and post-Achaemenid Asia Minor. Greek religious festivals and games known as the Artemisia were introduced at Hierocaesarea and Hypaipa during the Imperial period, and attached to the Persian cults.46 At Lydian Philadelphia there was a festival known as the megala Sebasta Anaeitia.47 As Pausanias’ description was clearly written from the perspective of a curious onlooker, rather than a participant, Briant has called into question whether the Persian rites celebrated at Hypaipa and Hierocaesarea were a genuine survival from the Achaemenid period, or were an exotic ethnographic revival under the Roman empire, designed as much for touristic as for genuine religious purposes.48 Furthermore, the Droaphernes inscription from Sardis, if it has been correctly interpreted by Briant and others, cannot be used to support the belief that a distinctive Persian cult was still celebrated at Sardis in the high Roman empire. On the other hand, Pausanias’ observations may be compared with Strabo’s description of Persian rituals that he had witnessed at Zela, where Persian religious influence was clearly pervasive in his day (below p. 164).

(three at Paros, one each at Tenos and Thasos); LGPN II lists five more examples in Athens or Attica; the name was absent from the rest of mainland Greece and the West, and is attested once in the northern regions, at Kallatis on the Black Sea (LGPN IV). 44 Robert, ‘Types monétaires à Hypaipa’, 31 seems overcautious: ‘On peut se demander si le nom, qui semble rare, de Théophron et qui se transmet dans cette famille sacerdotal n’est un nom parlant, évoquant le souci réligieux et théologique de ces personnages.’ Briant, ‘Les Iraniens dans l’Asie Mineure’, 191 n. 64, emphasizes the point that the names were Greek, but noted their rarity. 45 The Iranian names Mithres and Mardonios occur at Hypaipa: Robert, ‘Types monétaires à Hypaipa’, 31. 46 Hierocaesarea: Paz de Hoz, Die lydischen Kulte, 132–3, nos. 3. 7–12; Hypaipa: 147–8, nos. 3. 60–6. 47 IGR IV 1634; Paz de Hoz, Die lydischen Kulte, 151, no. 3. 80. 48 Briant, ‘Les Iraniens dans l’Asie Mineure’, 177–81; Hermann, Chiron 26 (1996), 333.

PERSIANS IN THE SANCTUARIES OF ASIA MINOR

161

ANAITIS AND MÊN IN LYDIA The regional context of the Persian sanctuaries of Hypaipa and Hierocaesarea has been well explored.49 The rural sanctuaries of Lydia, which are to be found throughout the villages and small towns of the Hermus valley east of Sardis, were dominated by cults of Mên and of the goddess Anaitis, who was sometimes identified explicitly with Artemis. Anaitis or Artemis Persike attracted worshippers principally from the native population, and Mên and Anaitis often shared sanctuaries with one another.50 Anaitis was thus thoroughly absorbed into the regional religious culture of Lydia. The evidence for Anaitis-worship consists both of simple votive monuments and of confession inscriptions, the most characteristic epigraphic documents of this highly religious environment.51 I shall return to their significance later. It is important to note that her worshippers were not of Iranian origin, but the indigenous population of rural Lydia, who in this respect absorbed Persian as readily as Greek or Roman influences. The origins of the god Mên, which have been much debated, also need to be considered.52 Since the distribution of the cult is almost exclusively restricted to Anatolia, most scholars have tended to accept that Mên was essentially native to the region, but E. N. Lane has argued that the cult was derived from that of the Iranian moon god Mao, on the basis of iconographical similarities, the strong association of Mên and Anaitis in Lydia, and the fact that one of the most important manifestations of the god was the cult of Mên Pharnakou at Cabira in Pontos, which had a strong ideological significance for the Iranizing monarchy of the region.53 If the theory of an Iranian origin for Mên could be established it would certainly alter our perception of the spread of Persian religion in Asia Minor. While the cult of Mên was integrated into the native religious cultures of Asia Minor, to the point that its origins were hardly distinguishable from

49

P. Debord, ‘La survie des cultes iraniens en Anatolie’, in Les Grandes Figures réligieuses. Fonctionnement pratique et symbolique dans l’antiquité, Colloque Besançon 25–26 Avril 1984 (Paris, 1986), 85–91. 50 Paz de Hoz, Die lydischen Kulte, 73–9, 81 (Anaitis in combination with Mên Axiottenos, Mên Tiamou, Apollo, and Zeus Sabazios). 51 G. Petzl, Die Beichtinschriften Westkleinasiens (Epigraphica Anatolica 22 (1994)). 52 E. N. Lane, ‘A restudy of the God Mên III’, Berytus 17 (1967–8), 81–106. 53 See E. N. Lane, ‘The Italian connection: an aspect of the cult of Mên’, Numen 22 (1975), 235–9; ANRW II.18.3 (1990), 2161–74. A. van Haeperen-Pourbaix, ‘Recherches sur les origines, la nature et les attributs du dieu Mên,’ in R. Donceel and R. Lebrun (eds.), Archéologie et religions de l’Anatolie ancienne. Mélanges en l’honneur du Prof. P. Naster (Louvain, 1983), 221–57, emphasizes the links and parallels with the Persian cult of Mithras. See below p. 164 for Mên Pharnakou. P. Debord will publish further arguments for the Persian origin of the cult.

162

Stephen Mitchell

that of indigenous Anatolian deities,54 we should have to assume that the cult’s main centres, not only in Pontos and in Lydia, but also in Phrygia and Pisidia, including the major sanctuary of Mên Askaênos at Pisidian Antioch, were founded under Achaemenid rule. To date, no evidence to this effect has been identified.

PESSINUS It has been claimed that the phenomenon observed at Amyzon, Ephesos, and Sardis, by which an Iranian personal name was transformed into a priestly title, occurred also at the sanctuary of Cybele, the Phrygian Mother Goddess, at Pessinus. In 189 BC the Pessinuntine priests who were sent to treat with the Roman consul Cn. Manlius Vulso were called Attis and Battakes.55 Nearly a century later a priest called Battakes or Batakes came from Pessinus to Rome and prophesied that Marius would be victorious in his campaigns against the Teutones.56 This is the last we hear of the term, although Attis, or rather the Attis, continued to play an important and longer-lasting role in the temple hierarchy.57 Sekunda has suggested that Batakes was originally another Iranian personal name, attested in the highest level of Persian society in the time of Darius I.58 One of the riddling stories told in the first book of Esdra in the Apocrypha by the Babylonian Jew Zerubbabel, to prove the power of women, refers to the unabashed conduct of Darius’ concubine Apame, daughter of Bardakes (or, in another recension of the Septuagint text, Bazakes).59 Sekunda infers that the father’s name reproduced a Persian form *Bataka, cognate with *bata, meaning wine, and related to an Elamite name Ba-da-ka.60 However, it is illegitimate to explain the intrusive -r- as a device to show the length of the vowel, especially as the first syllable of the name in

54

Paz de Hoz, Die lydischen Kulte, 38. Polybius 21. 37. 4–7; Livy 38. 18. 9–10. 56 Diodorus Siculus 36. 13. 1–9 (Battakes); Plutarch, Marius 17. 5–6 (Batakes). 57 A Galatian called Aioiorix took the position of Attis around 150 BC, as appears from the correspondence about the sanctuary with Attalus II: C. B. Welles, Royal Correspondence in the Hellenistic Period (New Haven, 1934), 246; J. Strubbe, The Inscriptions of Pessinus [I.Pessinus] (Bonn, 2005), nos. 2, 4, and 5. I.Pessinus no. 18 was erected in honour of a local notable and Roman citizen, who was designated an Atteis hiereus. 58 See N. Sekunda, ‘Achaemenid settlement in Caria’, 134–5. 59 1 Esdra 4: 29–33. 60 Sekunda makes the further conjecture that the text of LXX at this point, Βαρτα´κου τοG θαυμαστοG, originally read Βαρτα´κου τοG Θεμασου, the patronymic reproduced by Josephus’ version of the story (Ant. 11. 3, 5), and that the latter could be identified with Θαμα´σιο, father of Sandokes, a hyparch in Aiolis who commanded part of Darius’ fleet at the battle of Artemision (Hdt. 7. 194). Thus Bardakes and Sandokes would be brothers. 55

PERSIANS IN THE SANCTUARIES OF ASIA MINOR

163

Greek onomastics is always Bat- or Bad-. Are there other grounds for treating this name as Persian in origin? The forms Βατα´κη, Βα´δακο, ΒατακFν, and Βατκων and their like are attested in texts from the Crimea and at Olbia,61 including an inscription from Pantikapaion for a Βατα´κη, son of Μαη.62 Maês, according to Strabo, was also a name typical of Paphlagonia in northern Asia Minor,63 and Batakes itself is found in Anatolia outside Pessinus, at Tyriaeum in south-east Phrygia, at Nikaia in Bithynia, and in northern Phrygia.64 The mother of the man at Tyriaeum was called Maiphateis, a name of Iranian derivation, common in central and eastern Asia Minor,65 but none of the other examples of Batakes shows a link to Persia. Moreover, an inscription from Delphi refers to a slave as Μαιφα´τα  τ' γνο Γαλαταν, demonstrating that this Iranian name at least had been taken over by other ethnic groups in Anatolia.66 Zgusta thus regarded the origin of the name Batakes as uncertain,67 and Robert treated it as indigenous, but with a distribution pattern that pointed to the links between populations north and south of the Black Sea.68 Although two other personal names, Μανδα´να and Οχο, recorded on a pair of gravestones from a village on the eastern slopes of Mount Dindymus, Cybele’s spiritual home, are probably Iranian,69 this seems improbable in the case of Batakes. There is no demonstrable Persian link to the famous Phrygian sanctuary at Pessinus, and Persian personal names are otherwise only sparsely attested in the northern part of central Asia Minor.70

TEMPLE STATES AND IRANIAN DEITIES IN PONTOS AND CAPPADOCIA Iranian religious practices were widespread in Pontos and Cappadocia. Strabo provides extensive descriptions of social and economic conditions in 61

See LGPN IV, svv. LGPN IV, 217. 63 Strabo 12. 3. 25, 553C with Robert, Noms indigènes, 532–3. 64 Sekunda, ‘Achaemenid settlement in Caria’, 134. 65 Βατα´κη Μαιφα´τει τo μητρH μν μη Qνεκεν, Lloyd Jonnes, The Inscriptions of the Sultan Dagι (Bonn, 2002), 309; see Sekunda, ‘Achaemenid settlement in Caria’, 124. 66 W. M. Ramsay, CR 12 (1898), 341. 67 L. Zgusta, Kleinasiatische Personennamen (Prague, 1964), §156–4. 68 Robert, Noms indigènes, 517–18, 533–4. 69 J. Strubbe, ‘Inscriptions inédites de la region du Mont Dindymos en Galatie’, Mnemosyne 34 (1981), 121–6, nos. 12 and 13; S. Mitchell, Regional Epigraphic Catalogues of Asia Minor II, 120–1 (SEG XXXI 1076–7). 70 S. Mitchell, ‘Population and the land in Roman Galatia’, ANRW II.7.2 (Tübingen, 1981), 1053–81 at 1065–6, contrasting a cluster of Iranian names in the area of Laodikeia Katakekaumene with their absence from Galatia itself. 62

164

Stephen Mitchell

these regions before the advent of direct Roman rule, including accounts of priest-ruled temple-states, with extensive lands and large populations of sacred slaves, hierodouloi. It is worth remembering in the context of the preceding discussion, that Strabo classified the sanctuaries of Pessinus and Pisidian Antioch alongside the Pontic and Cappadocian examples, and the general features of these temple-states were not in themselves distinctively Iranian.71 The most important passages from the religious viewpoint are Strabo’s descriptions of the Persian cults at Zela, which he had witnessed himself. There was a great fire altar tended by Magi. These wore felt turbans, conducted sacrificial rituals in which the victims were beaten to death with tree trunks, and repeated lengthy sacred incantations. Beside the main fire altar were sanctuaries of Anaitis, Omanes, and Anadatos, and the origins of these cults were traced back to Cyrus the Great.72 The political importance of Zela is clear from the fact that the people of Pontos swore their most solemn oaths there, and its sacred slaves and priestesses were honoured by the Mithridatid kings.73 Both Zela and the neighbouring shrine at Komana Pontica attracted worshippers from all over the Anatolian Pontic region and from Armenia.74 The major sanctuary of Mên at Cabira (the later Neocaesarea), was named after Pharnakes, presumably Pharnakes I around the middle of the second century BC. Its significance in regional politics is clear from the fact that the Mithridatid kings paid special reverence to it and swore the so-called royal oath there.75 I have suggested elsewhere that the public religious cults of these sanctuaries were consciously and deliberately modelled on religious ceremonies which dated back to Achaemenid times.76 The political importance of Iranian cults is clearer in Pontic Cappadocia than in any other part of Asia Minor. The same pattern is equally recognizable in southern Cappadocia, where the two most important sanctuaries were those of Ma at Komana, with six thousand, and of Zeus at Venasa, with three thousand temple slaves, each controlled by a ruling priest, who themselves acknowledged the authority of the Cappadocian king.77 This can be supplemented by valuable evidence for Strabo 12. 5. 3, 267–8: ο= δ =ερε) τ' παλαι'ν μ^ν δυνα´σται τινε cσαν, =ερωσ!νην καρπο!μενοι μεγα´λην (Pessinus) and 12. 8. 14, 577C: cν δ LνταGθα καH =ερωσ!νη τι Μην' Αρκαου, πλ6θο Pχουσα =εροδο!λων (Antioch).

71

72 Strabo 11. 8. 4, 512C (the Sakaia at Zela); 15. 3. 15, 733C refers to the temple of Anaitis and Omanes at Zela. Strabo had seen Persian rituals there for himself, ταGτα μ^ν οBν 0με) Oωρα´καμεν. 73 Strabo 12. 3. 37, 539C. 74 Strabo 12. 3. 36, 559C. 75 Strabo 12. 3. 31, 557C. 76 Mitchell, ‘In search of the Pontic community in antiquity’, 57–8. 77 Strabo 12. 2. 3, 535C (Komana) and 12. 2. 5, 537C (Venasa). For a good recent account of Cappadocia, see Silvia Panichi, ‘La Cappadocia’, in A. M. Biraschi and G. Salmeri, Strabone e

PERSIANS IN THE SANCTUARIES OF ASIA MINOR

165

Persian cults from Archelais, Tyana, and the region of Cataonia between Cappadocia and Cilicia, as the following sections demonstrate.

GODS OF THE MOUNTAIN PEAKS Herodotus said that the Persians were accustomed to ascend the highest mountain peaks and sacrifice to Zeus, and that they simply referred to the entire vault of heaven as Zeus.78 Xenophon described the younger Cyrus sacrificing to ancestral Zeus, to the Sun and to the other gods on the summits, in the Persian fashion.79 Strabo appears to echo both writers in his account of Persian religion, while adding further details from his own experience: ‘the Persians do not set up cult statues and altars, but conduct sacrifices in a high place and they consider heaven to be Zeus. They also pay honour to Helios, whom they call Mithres, to Selene, to Aphrodite, to fire, to earth, to the winds, and to water.’80 Such mountain-top sanctuaries remained important in the Hellenistic and Roman periods. Mithridates VI celebrated his victories over Licinius Murena in 82 BC with sacrifices and rituals at the fire altar of Zeus Stratios, which echoed the practices of Achaemenid rulers at Pasargadae.81 A similar Pontic sanctuary has been identified on the 1,350metre summit at Yassıçal, east of Amaseia, and also associated with the cult of Zeus Stratios. However, all the archaeological remains from the site date to the Roman period, and the ceremonies there, although they were almost certainly inspired by Persian models, are more convincingly connected to Roman emperor worship.82 In Cappadocia, some 40 kilometres north of Aksaray at Ortaköy, at the foot of Ekecik Dag, which rises to a volcanic peak of over 2,000 metres, a local woman with Roman citizenship, Flavia Prima, who was presumably

l’Asia Minore, Incontro perugini di storia della storiografia antica e sul mondo antico 10 (Napoli, 2000), 511–41. 78 Hdt. 1. 131: ο= δ^ νομζουσι ΔιH μ^ν LπH τα` ]ψηλτατα τFν ορων α ναβανοντε θυσα Pρδειν, τ'ν κ!κλον πα´ντα τοG ορανοG Δα καλοGντε. 79 Xenophon, Cyr. 8. 7. 7: Pθυε Δι τε πατρe καH 0λe καH το) α1λλοι θεο) l Πρσαι θ!ουσι. 80 Strabo 15. 3. 13, 732C: Πρσαι τονυν α γα´λματα μ^ν καH βωμο_ οχ =δρ!ονται, θ!ουσι δ Lν ]ψηλY τπe, τ'ν οραν'ν 0γο!μενοι Δα. τιμFσι δ^ καH $ Ηλιον, xν

καλοGσι Μθρην, καH Σελ νην καH Αφροδτην καH πGρ καH γ6ν καH α νμου καH }δωρ.

81

Appian, Mithr. 76. 276–8; Mitchell, ‘In search of the Pontic community in antiquity’, 57–8. D. H. French, ‘Amasian notes 5: the temenos of Zeus Stratios at Yassıçal’, Epigraphica Anatolica 27 (1996), 75–92. For the Roman Imperial cult at this site, see S. Mitchell, ‘Römische Macht in frühkaiserzeitlichen Ankara— Herrschaft oder Verwaltung?’, in Festschrift für Werner Eck, ed. R. Haensch (forthcoming 2007).

82

166

Stephen Mitchell

associated with the Roman colony which Claudius had founded at Archelais, dedicated three Cappadocian sacred slaves to θεC μεγστ| Αναειτδι Βαρζοχα´ρy. Schmitt has interpreted the Persian epithet here as meaning the goddess from the high mountain Hara. While the practice of dedicating sacred slaves is not, of course, confined to eastern Anatolia, it is inevitably reminiscent of the organization of the east Anatolian temple-states which Strabo describes. The identification of the goddess by a distinctive Iranian epithet, attested by passages from the Avesta, shows that this was a cult created by Persians, and not simply the adaptation of a local cult centre to conform to a Persian pattern.83 A close counterpart to the inscription from Ortaköy has recently been found at the site of Büyüktas¸lı Hüyük about fifteen kilometres west of Archelais. The text comprises part of the will of a landed proprietor, who had set free a group of slaves on condition that their children should not be exposed and that the clan of freedmen thus created should endure for ever. If any of them infringed the dispositions of the will, a penalty was due to the goddess of Komana. This is expressed in symbolically fanciful terms as the repeated annual payment, nine at a time, of unsullied girls, boys, bulls, white cattle with golden horns, cows, horses with golden bits, white billy-goats, shegoats, rams with golden fleece, and white swallows. The same penalties were also due to Zeus of Thymnasa (α π' Θυμνα´σων), Zeus Pharnaouas, and the goddess Anaitis.84 Apart from the reference to Persian Anaitis, the composite form Zeus Pharnaouas is analogous to Zeus Bagadateos at Sardis and Mên Pharnakou at Cabira, and was presumably a local cult of Zeus which took its name from a powerful Persian landowner in the locality.85 The text also appears to suggest a regional religious hierarchy, in which the three local cults were subordinated to the goddess Ma, the dominant indigenous deity of Cappadocia, whose main shrine was at Cappadocian Komana.86 Persians seem also to have established a presence at the sanctuary of Zeus Astrenos, which was located on a 2,000-metre peak in the heart of Isauria, a region not generally associated with the Iranian presence in Anatolia. Apart from the preserved remains of the temple itself, a small odeion, and a number of monumental heroa, the inscriptions allude to a priest of Poseidon, a gerousia devoted to the worship of Pluto, as well as dedications to Zeus 83 R. P. Harper, ‘A dedication to the goddess Anaitis at Ortaköy’, Anatolian Studies 17 (1967), 193, with discussion by J. and L. Robert, BE 1968, no. 538, and R. Schmitt, Zeitschrift für vergleichende Sprachforschung 84 (1970), 207–10. 84 M. Aydas, ‘A priest of the goddess Ma at Komana (an inscription in the Aksaray Museum’, Epigraphica Anatolica 34 (2002), 23–7. 85 C. P. Jones, ‘A Roman will in Cappadocia’, Epigraphica Anatolica 37 (2004), 95–100 at 98–99 shows that the form Φαρνουα reproduces the O.Pers. compound *farnauvaa, to be translated as ‘possessing brilliance’. 86 R. Gordon, Der Neue Pauly VII (1999), 615–17.

PERSIANS IN THE SANCTUARIES OF ASIA MINOR

167

Astrenos. Most striking, however, is the appearance of a Persian name, Sisiphernes, among the inhabitants. We cannot be certain that the origins of this important Isaurian religious centre go back to Achaemenid times, but it seems likely that Persian families were attracted to the place for cultic reasons, and they would have regarded Zeus of Astra as another manifestation of their own presiding divinity.87

ZEUS ASBAMEIOS Another important cult in Cappadocia with a Persian origin was that of Zeus Asbameios at the strategically important city of Tyana, which attracted the attention both of Philostratus, in the life of Apollonius, and of Ammianus Marcellinus. Philostratus referred to a water source there belonging to Zeus Horkios, which was called the Asbamaion. The cold water bubbled up (we can presume the effects of volcanic gases in this volcanic area) and tasted sweet to those who kept their undertakings, but spat on the eyes, feet, and hands of oath-breakers. Local people said that Apollonius was in fact the son of this Zeus.88 Ammianus simply remarked that the spring beside the temple of Juppiter Asbamaeus in Cappadocia continually bubbled up but never welled over its banks.89 Berges and Nollé have assembled the full contextual background in their comprehensive collection of the archaeological and historical documentation of Tyana and its territory. The sanctuary may be identified with the small volcanic lake of Hortasan Göl, two kilometres from the centre of Tyana, although Berges reasonably observes that no substantial ancient remains can be seen there and that other similar local springs should come into consideration.90 Nollé interprets Asbameios as a name which may have identified an indigenous god across the full extent of Cappadocia, since it is also attested by a dedication at Amastris, on the Black Sea coast, to θεY α νεικητe Ασβαμε) καH Γo κυρy.91 But there is an obvious and better 87

J. R. S. Sterrett, The Wolfe Expedition to Asia Minor, Papers of the American School of Classical Studies at Athens 3 (Boston, 1888), 46–50; G. E. Bean and T. B. Mitford, Journeys in Rough Cilicia 1964–68, Denkschriften, Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften, Phil.Hist. Klasse 102 (Vienna, 1970), 129–36; O. Ermis¸ler, ‘Astra antik kenti (Bolat ören yeri) 1992 yılı temizlik ve sondaj çalısmaları’, IV Müze Kurtarma Kazıları Semineri (Anakara, 1994), 385–403; T. Drew-Bear, ‘Antiocheia ve Astra’da yapılan arastırmaları’, 13 Arastırma Sonuçları Toplantısı 2 (Ankara, 1996), 103–7 at 104–5 (for Sisiphernes). 88 Philostratus, Vita Apollonii 1. 6 (copied by Ps.-Aristotle, Peri Thaumasion Akousmaton 152). 89 Ammianus 23. 6. 19. 90 D. Berges, in D. Berges and J. Nollé, Tyana: Archäologisch-historische Untersuchungen zum südwestlichen Kappadokien, 2 vols. (Bonn, 2000) [I.Tyana], i. 73–7; map on p. 18, fig. 3. 91 J. Nollé, I.Tyana ii, 317–18; C. Marek, Stadt, Ära und Territorium in Pontus-Bithynia und Nord-Galatia (Tübingen, 1993), 165, no. 27.

168

Stephen Mitchell

explanation, already noted by earlier scholars.92 The word asp or asb both in old Persian and modern Farsi means horse. This Persian explanation also fits well with our knowledge of the early history of Amastris, which had taken its name around 300 BC from its founder, a daughter of Darius III, the last Achaemenid ruler, who married in succession the Macedonian Craterus, Dionysius, tyrant of Heracleia Pontica, and the king of Thrace Lysimachus. Between 305 and 300 she acted as regent for the children of Dionysius, who then took power in the region.93 If Asbameios at Amastris was a Persian god associated with horses, not in this case transformed by interpretatio Graeca into a local Zeus, Gê should also be the object of an Iranian cult, confirming the observation that Strabo had made in Cappadocia (above n. 80). If Zeus Asbameios was a Persian god, then his cult had clear political implications during one of the most acute crises of the third century. Tyana was at the heart of the most famous horse-breeding region of Asia Minor in antiquity, the estates of Flavius Palmatius, a senator with Syrian connections in the time of Valerian, whose property became Imperial property apparently after he had been involved in a mutinous insurrection.94 As the Persians had received vast quantities of horses and mules from Cappadocia as tribute in Achaemenid times,95 let us not look this gift-horse in the mouth. Zeus Asbameios should be a Persian divinity associated with horse-breeding. We may then conjecture that the crime of Palmatius had not been an isolated action, but a form of collaboration with Shapur’s second great attack on Roman territory in AD 260, which had swept across most of Cappadocia and Cilicia, including Tyana,96 and had culminated in the capture of the emperor Valerian himself. Here, then, is a parallel to the actions of Pythes son of Oumanios in support of the Parthian incursion into Asia Minor of 40 BC.97 There is another point to be made about Asbameios. The god’s main function was to guarantee oaths and this appears to have been a widespread characteristic of Persian sanctuaries. In the fifth century BC the inhabitants of 92

H. Grégoire, Saints Jumeaux et Dieux Cavaliers: Étude hagiographique (Paris, 1905), 69; E. Kirsten, Reallexicon für Antike und Christentum 2 (1954) s.v. Cappadocia, 878. 93 E. Badian, Der Neue Pauly I (1996), 573–4; Briant, ‘Les Iraniens dans l’Asie Mineure’, 172. 94 Hesychius, cited by Nollé, I.Tyana ii. 302–4 Test. 2–4. At I.Tyana ii. 378 n. 302, Nollé cautiously connects Palmatius with the unnamed usurper of Oracula Sibyllina 13, 89–94. 95 Strabo 11. 13. 8, 525C. 96 RG Saporis 32 Lκεν| δ^ τη |˜ α γ\γ| Lκρατ σομεν α π' τοG Pθνου &Ρωμαων . . . Τ!ανα πλιν σ_ν τo περιχ\ρe. 97 There is persistent evidence from the third and fourth centuries which linked Tyana with a substantial insurrection against Rome. Oracula Sibyllina 13, 89–94 76 may relate to an uprising under Trajan Decius; see D. S. Potter, Prophecy and History in the Crisis of the Roman Empire: A Historical Commentary of the Thirteenth Sibylline Oracle (Oxford, 1990), 172 ff. and 268. SHA, Aurelian 22. 5–25. 1 and Petrus Patricius fr. 4 concern the capture of the city by Aurelian; see Nollé and Berges, I.Tyana ii. 378–83, Test. 53–7.

PERSIANS IN THE SANCTUARIES OF ASIA MINOR

169

Lydia swore oaths by Persian Artemis. The Mithridatid kings swore their royal oath by Mên of Pharnakes at the sanctuary of Cabira. The confession inscriptions of second- and third-century Lydia relate to admissions made under oath in sanctuaries of Anaitis. Truth-telling, overseen and judged by Ahura-Mazda, was at the moral core of Persian religious ideology, and this evidence suggests that it continued to define the authority of Persian cults through the Roman period.

CONCLUSION Religious cults with Persian associations were extraordinarily tenacious and long-lasting across the entire land mass of Asia Minor. There were significant numbers of fire-worshipping Magusaioi in Cappadocia in the 370s.98 According to the fifth-century historian Priscus, the Sassanian king Peroz sent an embassy to the emperor Leo, demanding that the Magi should be allowed to continue their traditional fire cults on Roman territory.99 Persian influence on religious activity in Asia Minor was not uniform in nature. The cults described by Strabo in Pontos and Cappadocia, and the rituals observed by Pausanias in Lydia at Hypaipa and Hierocaesarea were unmistakably Iranian, involving fire-worship, supervision by Persian magoi, and the use of liturgical books written in a strange language. This was clearly not the case at Amyzon, Ephesos, and Sardis, where Persian families played the part of guardians and promoters of important indigenous cults. There was no apparent conflict between their role and the fact that these Anatolian cults took an increasingly hellenized form. On the other hand, especially in Lydia, native cults were clearly influenced by the religious beliefs of large groups of Persian settlers, which had been established when lower Asia was under Achaemenid domination and which persisted until the Roman empire. The most conspicuous and widespread outcome of this religious and cultural fusion were the many sanctuaries of Anaitis associated with those of Mên in Lydia. If it could be proved that Mên was also of Iranian origin, the Persian influence on the religious outlook of this native Anatolian population would be even more striking. Although the Iranian name of the goddess Anahita was readily naturalized in the Greek form Anaitis, the supreme Persian god Ahura-Mazda is virtually unattested in an Iranian onomastic guise, but was interpreted, as he had been by Greek authors since Herodotus, as a manifestation of Zeus. We are only able to recognize the Persian connections of these cults, if they are explicitly described as such by Graeco-Roman authors, or if 98 99

Mitchell, Anatolia, ii. 73. Priscus fr. 41 (Blockley).

170

Stephen Mitchell

they are associated with individuals with Persian names such as Baradates at Sardis or Sisiphernes in Isauria, or if they carry Persian descriptive titles such as Asbameios or Barzochara. Many of these cults were undoubtedly of a hybrid nature and contained Greek or native Anatolian as well as Iranian features. Nevertheless there must have been a general understanding that Persian religious beliefs, based on their clearly articulated concern for truth-telling, were distinctive, and Persian priests and temple wardens who created or maintained sanctuaries, including those of non-Persian gods, were respected for precisely this quality. Persia had little direct political influence over the Roman empire, even after the Parthians supplanted the Seleucids in the East, but the eclipse of the Achaemenid empire by no means brought an end to the Persian religious presence in Asia Minor. Persian shrines exercised a significant influence on local populations, who remained aware of their Iranian heritage. In eastern Anatolia, which was hardly hellenized in the pre-Roman period, and where the great religious sanctuaries had been the main centres of economic and social power, it is significant that Roman emperor worship was calqued on an Iranian model. In western Anatolia Persian influence was of a covert ideological nature, but it remained recognizable and identifiable in the second and third centuries AD, when inscriptions still referred to the gods of the Persians or Zeus of the Persians in rural areas of Phrygia and Pisidia.100 Families of Persian origin are persistently associated with the maintenance of cults. The only Persian name to appear at the Pisidian metropolis of Sagalassus is Arsakes. He was the father of Briseis, and she, characteristically, was a priestess of the hagnai theai, Demeter and Kore.101 A letter attributed to the emperor Julian, but which was probably a fictitious document written towards the middle of the fifth century BC, purported to contain the emperor’s admonitory advice on the conduct of the pagan priesthood in Galatia. The addressee, supposedly the provincial high-priest, was called Arsacius.102 In the middle of the third century AD, Shapur I’s attacks on Syria and Asia Minor, which led respectively to the death, humiliation, and capture of three Roman emperors, Gordian II, Philip, and Valerian, were accompanied Ζε_ ΠερσFν at Nacolea in Phrygia, T. Drew-Bear, Nouvelles inscriptions de Phrygie (Zutphen, 1978), 48 no. 25; θυοH & Ελλ νων καH ΠερσFν near Karayük in western Pisidia, L. Robert, CRAI 1978, 280–6 (Robert, OMS V, 736–42). 101 Unpublished text; included in the Ph.D. thesis of Dr P. Talloen, Cult in Pisidia. Religious Practice in Southwestern Asia Minor from the Hellenistic to the Byzantine Period (Leuven, 2003). I am grateful to him and to Prof. M. Waelkens for permission to mention it here. 102 Julian, Ep. 84. The generally accepted attribution to Julian is convincingly refuted by P. van Nuffelen, ‘Deux fausses lettres de Julien l’Apostat’, Vigiliae Christianae 56 (2002), 131–50. 100

PERSIANS IN THE SANCTUARIES OF ASIA MINOR

171

by the campaign of the Sassanian religious leader Kartir to set up or revive the eternal sacred fires of Ahura-Mazda throughout the whole of lower Asia, under the control of provincial priests.103 That was a policy to realize the latent opposition of a network of religious institutions, which had long been deeply embedded in the communities of Anatolia.

103

E. Winter and B. Dignas, Rom und das Perserreich: Zwei Weltmächte zwischen Konfrontation und Koexistenz (Berlin, 2001), 322–7 (German translations and commentary on the texts relating to the religious policies of Kartir).

9 Semitic Name-Use by Jews in Roman Asia Minor and the Dating of the Aphrodisias Stele Inscriptions1 MARGARET H. WILLIAMS

NAMES ARE OF OBVIOUS SIGNIFICANCE AS CULTURAL INDICATORS. What individuals choose to call themselves or their children and how they form or spell those chosen names can speak volumes not just about their educational level, social status, and cultural identity but also, if they come from an immigrant group or ethnic minority, about the degree to which they have become integrated into mainstream society. At a community level, widespread changes in the popularity of names can shed considerable light on changing group attitudes. Given that these points are as valid for Diaspora Jewry in the GraecoRoman period as for modern societies, it is surprising that scholars engaged in research on the Jewish Diaspora in classical antiquity have not devoted more attention to its use of Semitic— and especially Hebrew— names, the most distinctive part of its mainly Greek and Latin onomasticon. Individual Hebrew names have sometimes been commented upon and occasionally discussed in detail. What have received much less attention are the shifts in the

1 The following abbreviations are cited throughout the paper: Cross  F. M. Cross, ‘The Hebrew Inscriptions from Sardis’, Harvard Theological Review 95 (2002), 3–19; Horbury and Noy  W. Horbury and D. Noy, Jewish Inscriptions of Graeco-Roman Egypt (Cambridge, 1992); JIWE  D. Noy, Jewish Inscriptions of Western Europe, 2 vols. (Cambridge, 1993; 1995); Kroll  J. H. Kroll, ‘The Greek Inscriptions of the Sardis Synagogue’, Harvard Theological Review 94.1 (2001), 3–127; Miranda  E. Miranda, Le iscrizioni giudaiche di Hierapolis di Frigia (Naples, 1999); Odelain and Séguineau  O. Odelain and R. Séguineau, Dictionary of Proper Names and Places in the Bible, English translation by M. J. O’Connell (London, 1991); RT  J. Reynolds and R. Tannenbaum, Jews and Godfearers at Aphrodisias (Cambridge, 1987); Schwabe and Lifshitz  M. Schwabe and B. Lifshitz, Beth She {arim II— The Greek Inscriptions (Jerusalem, 1967). LXX is used as the standard shorthand for the Septuagint.

Proceedings of the British Academy 148, 173–197. © The British Academy 2007.

174

Margaret H. Williams

patterns of their use over time and the reasons for those changes.2 With regard to Semitic name-use among the Jews of Asia Minor, there is, as far as I am aware, no comprehensive study along those lines. My purpose, therefore, in undertaking the present study was to make a contribution towards filling that gap by examining, in chronological order, the epigraphical evidence relating to the three best-documented Jewish Diaspora communities of western Asia Minor, namely those of Hierapolis in Phrygia, Sardis in Lydia and Aphrodisias in Caria. My examination clearly shows that during the course of several centuries and during the transition of Rome from an officially pagan to an officially Christian state (the second to the sixth century AD), there were considerable changes in Jewish naming practices in Roman Asia Minor, the most conspicuous being the growing preference in Late Antiquity for Hebrew ‘heritage’ names in an indeclinable (i.e. non-hellenized) form. But there was another result too. What my analysis proves conclusively is that the ‘almost canonical’ early third-century date (c.AD 200) for the important Aphrodisias stele inscriptions relating to Jews and Godfearers3 is no longer tenable. It will be demonstrated that the texts must be dated to a much later period than any suggested so far. By way of introduction, I offer some general comments about Jewish settlement in Asia Minor and a brief overview of the evidence available for studying Semitic name-use by Jews in that part of the Graeco-Roman world.

EVIDENCE FOR JEWISH SETTLEMENT IN ASIA MINOR Jewish settlers are rightly known to have been present in Asia Minor in fairly large numbers in the years immediately preceding 200 BC.4 The evidence for this is a letter, generally assumed to be genuine, which the Seleucid king Antiochos III wrote to his satrap in Lydia sometime between 210 and 205 BC. From this document, the text of which is cited by Josephus at Antiquities 12.148–53, we learn that, as a result of unrest in Lydia and Phrygia, Antiochos proposed to transfer to ‘the fortresses and most important places’

2

Only the Jewish evidence from Egypt has been looked at in this way. See V. A. Tcherikover in CPJ I, 27–30, 83–5, 109, and, more recently, S. Honigman, ‘The birth of a diaspora: the emergence of a Jewish self-definition in Ptolemaic Egypt in the light of onomastics’, in S. J. D. Cohen and E. S. Frerichs (eds.), Diasporas in Antiquity (Atlanta, 1993), 93–127. 3 Proposed by the first editors of these texts, RT, 19–23. For its ‘almost canonical’ status, see A. Chaniotis, ‘The Jews of Aphrodisias: new evidence and old problems’, Scripta Classica Israelica 21 (2002), 211 with documentation at n. 9. 4 The evidence for settlement before that time (e.g. in sixth-century Sardis) is very dubious. See E. Schürer, The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ (175 BC–AD 135), iii. 1, revised by G. Vermes, F. Millar, M. Black and M. Goodman (Edinburgh, 1986), 20–1.

JEWISH NAME-USE AND THE APHRODISIAS STELE

175

of those areas two thousand Jewish families from Mesopotamia and Babylonia. Such was the beginning of Jewish settlement in Asia Minor but it was by no means the end. From evidence supplied by the author of 1 Maccabees, it can be seen that by about 100 BC Jews were thickly settled not just in Lydia and Phrygia but in Lycia, Pamphylia, and Caria too.5 From our sources we can see that in the first centuries BC and AD Jewish settlement was even more widespread. Cicero, besides confirming at Pro Flacco 28. 68 the continuing existence in the 60s BC of well-established Jewish settlements in Phrygia (at Apameia and Laodikeia-on-the-Lykos), further informs us that there were also at that time flourishing Jewish communities in the Troad (at Pergamon and Adramyttion). Finally, from references in Philo’s Legatio ad Gaium, the Acts of the Apostles, and Josephus’ Antiquities, we learn that by the early Roman Imperial period there was a substantial Jewish presence in Bithynia, Pontos, Ionia, Pisidia, Lykaonia, and Cilicia as well.6

THE JEWISH USE OF SEMITIC NAMES Important as these sources are for our knowledge of the regions in which Jews lived in Asia Minor during the Hellenistic and early Roman periods, they provide us with almost no useful onomastic data: Saul/Paul of Tarsus is the only Jew with a Semitic name whom they mention. Since the literary evidence is so devoid of value for our purposes, we must of necessity turn elsewhere. In the absence of papyri and ostraka, the only resource available is that of inscriptions. For the Hellenistic and early Roman periods (i.e. down to the first century AD) these prove to be no more helpful than the literary evidence just reviewed. For the following century, however, the situation begins to improve. Hierapolis, the community with which I will be dealing first, has yielded a major cache of Jewish sarcophagi texts,7 mostly dating from the second half of the second century AD and the first half of the third. Until recently only a handful of these was available for study (most notably CIJ II nos. 775–80). Thanks, however, to E. Miranda’s work on the Jewish

5

1 Maccabees 15: 16–24. For the date, see E. M. Smallwood, The Jews under Roman Rule from Pompey to Diocletian (Leiden, 1976), 8–9, n. 15 and 121, n. 5. 6 For a summary and brief discussion of this evidence, see V. A. Tcherikover, Hellenistic Civilisation and the Jews (Philadelphia, 1959), 287–9. 7 Their Jewishness is assured, except in one case (CIJ II 777, to be discussed below), by the frequent occurrence in them of the epithet Ioudaios. Additional proof of their Jewish character is supplied by the occasional references to such institutions as the Jewish archive office and the sporadic use of typically Jewish symbols, e.g. the menorah.

176

Margaret H. Williams

inscriptions of Hierapolis,8 we now have more than twenty examples of this type of text. Since the local convention, followed by Jews as well as non-Jews in the city, was that the principal epitaph should make explicit who was the proprietor of the sarcophagus and who was entitled to entombment in it, these Jewish inscriptions are replete with onomastic data. The following example is typical: ‘[This is] the sarcophagus and ancestral tomb (heroon) of Hikesios, also called Ioudas, son of Theon, most glorious (?) victor in the sacred games and in innumerable contests, in which Hikesios will be buried and his wife, Olympias, daughter of Thyokritos (sic). Their sons Hikesios and Antoninos are to have possession of it.’9 Even when the epitaph mentions only one individual, it may still yield a plethora of names.10 Polyonymy was much in vogue at that time and the Jews of Hierapolis were nothing if not fashionable. Epitaphs, however, are not our only source of onomastic information. Recently we have at last been able to gain full access to the complete collection of benefactor inscriptions (about eighty) from the synagogue at Sardis.11 Dated mainly to the fourth and fifth centuries AD,12 they have also yielded a considerable amount of onomastic data, even though the texts are brief and frequently fragmentary, and the principal donors, nearly all of them male

8 E. Miranda, Le iscrizioni giudaiche di Hierapolis di Frigia (Naples, 1999) and ‘La comunità giudaica di Hierapolis di Frigia’, Epigraphica Anatolica 31 (1999), 109–56. It is that second, improved version that has been used in the present study. 9 For the full text, which ends by specifying the penalty for misuse of the tomb, see Miranda no. 1. 10 Best seen in Miranda no. 13, the tomb of Aurelios Antiochides Makedon Polydeukes Antoninianos. 11 See Kroll, and Cross. 12 The inscriptions embedded in the floor mosaics (all Greek and mostly well preserved) can be dated fairly precisely within the fourth century on the basis of the coins that lie beneath them. The only exception is Kroll no. 4, a late insertion. The less well-preserved inscriptions on the marble wall revetments (Greek, apart from five Hebrew fragments) must be dated later: the wall revetments began to be put in place only after the floor was laid (Kroll, 14). Although a sequence can be postulated for the Greek texts on stylistic, onomastic, and prosopographical grounds, precise dates are not possible. If the marbling started, as seems likely, in the later fourth century, the second generation additions (Kroll, 15 n. 31) would date to the fifth. Kroll, however, does not rule out the possibility that a few of the marble donor texts may even belong to the sixth century (Kroll, 13–15). The terminus ante quem is AD 616: the date of the synagogue’s destruction during Persian attacks on Sardis. For the Hebrew texts, Cross has proposed a third- or fourth-century date. That is clearly untenable. Not only is it at variance with the building history of the synagogue but it is based on a single, very dubious dating criterion, viz. the similarity of certain letter forms in the Sardis texts and Hebrew inscriptions from Palestine. Given that the Hebrew fragments come from the same context as the Greek revetment texts, we may hypothesize a similar date for them, i.e. the fifth or possibly even the sixth century.

JEWISH NAME-USE AND THE APHRODISIAS STELE

177

heads of families, generally refrain from disclosing any names other than their own.13 But richest of all as a source for Jewish names is the famous stele, found entirely by chance at Aphrodisias in 1976, two of whose faces (labelled A and B in the editio princeps) are inscribed with lists of contributors to some Jewish community project.14 Although the original editors considered that these lists formed a single, late second- or early third-century inscription (c.AD 200), with the inscription on face A acting as an introduction to the inscription on face B,15 this view has been strongly challenged recently. Last year, for instance, A. Chaniotis argued on the basis of the letter forms and some of the Greek names that the stele contains not one text but two, the earlier of which (on face B) is to be dated to ‘the fourth century or later’ and the later (on face A) to ‘probably sometime in the fifth century’.16 W. Ameling, meanwhile, has arrived independently at a similar conclusion, as he has privately informed me,17 and as his forthcoming edition of the Jewish inscriptions of Asia Minor, the manuscript of which he has kindly made available to me, will also show.18 While I think that these scholars are right to abandon the ‘single text’ interpretation and to assign the resulting two texts to the period of Late Antiquity, the following analysis of the evidence will show that the dates they favour are not late enough. In my opinion, the Aphrodisias inscriptions should be dated no earlier than the fifth and sixth centuries, the period to which much of the other evidence relating to the Jews of Aphrodisias is generally considered to belong.

HIERAPOLIS The Jewish community at Hierapolis in Phrygia is known only from the sarcophagus inscriptions referred to above. Although the community is not attested before the second century AD, it almost certainly goes back to the Seleucid period. The official term for it, katoikia,19 indicates that it was in 13

Wives are named only in Kroll nos. 15 and 29 and children only in Kroll no. 31. More typical is Kroll no. 10: ‘I, Aur(elios) Olympios, of the tribe of the Leontii, with my wife and children, fulfilled a vow.’ 14 For the Greek text, see RT, 5–7 and SEG XXXVI 970; for a translation, see M. H. Williams, The Jews among the Greeks and Romans: A Diasporan Sourcebook (London, 1998), VII.11 and 12. 15 RT, 19–23. 16 Chaniotis, ‘The Jews of Aphrodisias’, 218. For earlier expressions of disquiet about RT’s Severan date, including my own, see Chaniotis,‘The Jews of Aphrodisias’, 211 n. 9. 17 By e-mail on 8 Jan. 2003. 18 W. Ameling, Inscriptiones Judaicae Orientis, ii: Asia Minor (Tübingen, 2004). 19 See CIJ II 775  Miranda no. 16: 0 κατοικα τFν Lν &Ιεραπλει κατοικο!ντων Ιουδαων.

178

Margaret H. Williams

origin a Seleucid military colony, probably one of those founded by Antiochos III towards the end of the third century BC. Of the twenty-three sarcophagi studied by Miranda all but one were certainly used by Jews. That doubtful case (Miranda no. 23, formerly CIJ II no. 777) has been omitted here. For although the inscription shows clear signs of Jewish influence with its references to the Feast of Unleavened Bread and the Pentecost, Jewish ownership of the tomb, though sometimes asserted,20 cannot be proved.21 Also excluded are some of the early inscriptions on sarcophagi that have undergone re-use. Where, as in Miranda nos. 17a and 22a, there is nothing to suggest that the original tomb-owners were Jewish, my policy has been to exclude the texts from consideration. So what are we left with? As can be seen from Appendices Ia and Ib, the Hierapolis inscriptions enable us to draw up one list of at least sixty-three Jews22 and another containing the eighty-two personal names that they bore, sixty-eight of them different. What immediately strikes one on looking at this material is how Greek the Jewish onomasticon of Hierapolis was. Latin names (around a dozen) come a very poor second and unambiguously Semitic names, printed in bold type, an extremely poor third. There are only two of these: Sanbathios,23 a Greek formation ultimately derived from the Hebrew word shabbat and signifying ‘born on the Sabbath’,24 and Ioudas, a slightly hellenized form of the Hebrew name Judah. Interestingly, Ioudas occurs as a second or alternative name in the inscription in which it appears (Miranda no. 1, quoted above), one of the very few Jewish epitaphs at Hierapolis not containing the term Ioudaios. This suggests that the byname here is virtually acting as a substitute for that epithet— only Jews bore the name Ioudas. Aphelias, used as a byname by M. Aurelios Alexander Theophilos,25 was thought by Miranda to represent the Semitic name Hafila.26 Ameling, how20 Most recently by T. Rajak, ‘Synagogue and community in the Graeco-Roman Diaspora’, in J. R. Bartlett (ed.), Jews in the Hellenistic and Roman Cities (London and New York, 2002), 34. 21 Miranda (140–5) believes that it belonged to Godfearers. For earlier views, see P. Trebilco, Jewish Communities in Asia Minor (Cambridge, 1991), 178–9 and 261. 22 It is not possible to determine with total precision how many Jews are mentioned in these texts, as the nomenclature is sometimes ambiguous. Where we are confronted with a string of names in the genitive, are we to interpret them all as personal names, given the current practice of polyonymy, or to see at least one of them as a patronymic? In the interests of consistency, I have followed Miranda throughout. 23 Found in two texts on the same sarcophagus, namely Miranda nos. 10b and 10c. Whether the Aurelios Sanbathios Ioudaios of 10c is the same person as the Sanbathios brother of Zenon in 10b is impossible to determine. 24 For the rare Biblical cases of the analogous Hebrew name, Shabbethai, see O. Odelain and R. Séguineau. 25 Miranda no. 5: Μ. Αρ. Αλεξα´ν[δρ]ου Θεοφλου Lπκλην Αφελου. 26 Miranda, 138. For this name, see H. Wuthnow, Die semitischen Menschennamen in griechischen Inschriften und Papyri des vorderen Orients (Leipzig, 1930), 30.

JEWISH NAME-USE AND THE APHRODISIAS STELE

179

ever, in his forthcoming commentary, suggests that the name is Greek in origin, being derived from the adjective α φελ  (‘simple’, ‘artless’).27 Given the overwhelming Greekness of the Jewish onomasticon at Hierapolis and the very infrequent use by Anatolian Jews of non-Biblical Semitic names,28 Ameling’s interpretation is surely to be preferred. Small though the number of incontestably Semitic names is, the names themselves are of considerable interest. Take Sanbathios. This is only one of several Sabbath-related personal names found in use among Diaspora Jews.29 We shall be meeting another, Eusabbathios, later. They are among the most commonly occurring Semitic or, more precisely, Hebraic names in the onomasticon of Diaspora Jewry. Their popularity reflects the important part played by Sabbath observance in the maintenance of a Jewish identity in a Gentile environment.30 In a world where observation of the hebdomadal week was far from universal, the Jews’ curious custom of abstaining from activity of any kind for one day out of seven marked them out as a distinctive group. That is apparent in the numerous (and sometimes baffled) references to Jewish Sabbath practices made by Greek and Latin authors.31 That many Diaspora Jews enjoyed being thus distinguished is very clear. Proof

27

Ameling, Inscriptiones Judaicae Orientis, ii, s.v. inscription Phrygia, no. 206. None are attested in the three communities examined in this paper. A few, however, are found elsewhere in Asia Minor— e.g. at Corycus in Cilicia. See CIJ II no. 785  Monumenta Asiae Minoris Antiqua III no. 205. Unsurprisingly, they are attested more frequently in Syria and Judaea/Palestine. Note, for instance, Marouthas, Marinos, and Halaphtha at Caesarea Maritima. See C. M. Lehmann and K. G. Holum, The Greek and Latin Inscriptions of Caesarea Maritima (Boston, 2000), nos. 80, 173, and 175. 29 For a useful discussion of the hellenized forms of Shabbethai that appear in Jewish inscriptions and papyri in Egypt, namely Sabbataios, Sabbatis, Sabbatios, and Sabbathion, see Horbury and Noy no. 58. For a more wide-ranging survey, see M. H. Williams, ‘Palestinian Jewish personal names in Acts’, in R. Bauckham (ed.), The Book of Acts in its Palestinian Setting ( The Book of Acts in its First Century Setting, iv) (Grand Rapids, Mich., 1995), 101–2. For some recently published examples of this type of name, see A. Galad Abd el-Fatah and G. Wagner, ‘Épitaphes grecques d’époque ptolémaïque de Sedment el-Gebel (IIe/Ier siècles): une communauté juive dans le Chôra égyptienne’, Cahiers de Recherches de l’Institut de Papyrologie et d’Égyptologie de Lille 19 (1998), 89–91. 30 That is why they are seldom found in use among the Jews of Judaea/Palestine. Among the numerous ossuary texts from Jerusalem there are only a couple of cases. See Williams, ‘Palestinian Jewish personal names in Acts’, 102. There are no attestations at all in the corpus of Jewish inscriptions (dated from the third to the fourth century) from Beth She{arim: see Schwabe and Lifshitz, and N. Avigad, Beth She{arim III: Catacombs 12–23 (New Brunswick, NJ, 1976). 31 See J. M. G. Barclay, Jews in the Mediterranean Diaspora (Edinburgh, 1996), 440–2 and, more briefly, M. H. Williams, ‘Jews and Jewish communities in the Roman Empire’, in J. Huskinson (ed.), Experiencing Rome (London, 2000), 324–5. 28

180

Margaret H. Williams

may be seen in their insistence on maintaining the Sabbath, even when to do so gave rise to ridicule and caused them considerable inconvenience.32 Ioudas is another member of that select group (like Sabbathios and its variants), a Hebrew/Semitic name found in all periods and in most regions among Diaspora Jews.33 Its value prior to the Byzantine period, when its use marked off Jews from Christians,34 presumably lay in its ethnic and geopolitical connotations. To those Jews who chose it, it surely must have recalled their ancestral homeland, the Land of Judah, known after 63 BC as Judaea.35 The Roman attempt to obliterate that name after AD 135, by renaming the area Syria Palaestina, may have added to the desirability of the personal name Iudah/Ioudas. It is noticeable that the name Ioudas is particularly common in the two biggest collections of Jewish inscriptions dating from the second to the fourth centuries, namely those of Beth She{arim and Rome.36 The focus thus far has been on names that are incontestably Semitic. But there is another type of name that deserves to be discussed before we leave Hierapolis: those that may reasonably be termed ‘crypto-Semitic’, that is, Greek and— to a lesser extent— Latin names behind which Semitic ones may lurk. The best-known example of the phenomenon at Hierapolis is Iason (Miranda no. 3). This name was favoured by Diaspora Jews from the early Hellenistic period onwards either because of its phonetic similarity to Iesus (Iesous), the Aramaic form, slightly hellenized, of Joshua,37 or because the first syllable of Iason reminded them of the numerous Hebrew theophoric names beginning in Yah.38 Other names found in use at Hierapolis which could be analogues to Iason are Zotikos (Miranda nos. 7 and 16), suggested by some scholars to be the phonetic equivalent of Zedekiah (‘Yah is my justice’),39 and Ioulianos (Miranda no. 14b), widely regarded in rabbinical circles as a (regrettable) variant of Judah.40 Besides homophones such as these, there 32 To be inferred, inter alia, from Josephus, Ant. 16. 162–5, an edict of Augustus upholding Jewish rights. 33 See Williams, ‘Palestinian Jewish personal names in Acts’, 89–90. 34 See below, n. 87. 35 See Honigman, ‘The birth of a diaspora’, 123. 36 See Schwabe and Lifshitz, 227; JIWE II, 520; Williams, ‘Palestinian Jewish personal names in Acts’, 90. 37 On the Joshua,Yeshua, Iesous, Ieson, and Iason complex of names, see N. Cohen, ‘The names of the translators in the Letter of Aristeas: a study in the dynamics of cultural transition’, Journal for the Study of Judaism 15 (1984), 46–8. 38 W. Clarysse, ‘Jews in Trikomia’, in A. Bülow-Jacobsen (ed.), Proceedings of the XXth International Congress of Papyrologists, Copenhagen 23–29 August 1992 (1994), 199. 39 e.g. RT, 100. 40 R. Bauckham, ‘Paul and other Jews with Latin names in the New Testament’, in A. Christophersen, C. Claussen, J. Frey, and B. Longenecker (eds.), Paul, Luke and the GraecoRoman World: Essays in Honour of Alexander J. M. Wedderburn (Sheffield, 2002), 206, citing Lev. Rabbah 32: 5 and Cant. Rabbah 56: 6.

JEWISH NAME-USE AND THE APHRODISIAS STELE

181

are a number of Greek names which may well have been translations of Hebrew names. Heortasios (‘born on the day of the festival’)41 is a possibility in that its meaning is the same as that of Haggai;42 Theophilos (Miranda nos. 4 and 5) could be another43 and it is surely not fanciful to see behind Theodorianos (Miranda no. 10a) one of the many Hebrew ‘gift of God’ names (e.g. Yehonatan).44 Finally, we should note Eirenaios (Miranda no. 21) and Hagnos, byname of Glykonianos (Miranda no.16). Each of these names encapsulates a concept of fundamental importance to Jews, respectively, the peace of God and purity.45 Miranda has described names borne by the Hierapolitan Jews as constituting ‘una normale onomastica greca di età imperiale’46 and it is true that Jews and non-Jews in the city have much in common onomastically. To take one example: the most prominent entries in the Jewish onomasticon (e.g. Glykon and its derivatives, as well as the dynastic names Stratonike/os) are also frequently attested among the non-Jewish inhabitants of the city.47 But, despite the large area of commonality, perceptible differences between Jews and non-Jews remain. Most of the ‘crypto-Semitic’ names discussed above are found only in the Jewish community. This suggests that, even though the overt Hebrew element in the Jewish onomasticon was very small, names were being used as a subtle means of expressing Jewish identity.

SARDIS The Jewish community at Sardis, first attested around the middle of the first century BC,48 was in all likelihood much older. Some have tried to date its establishment as early as the sixth century BC but the evidence is very doubtful.49 The foundation of the community most probably goes back to the decision of Antiochos III, discussed above, to fortify ‘the most important sites’ of Lydia and Phrygia with Jewish colonists from Mesopotamia. Sardis, besides being the key city of Lydia, had at the time been involved in the rebellion of 41

Found in Miranda 14b: epitaph of Aurelios Heortasios Ioulianos Ioudeos (sic). RT, 99; Odelain and Séguineau, s.v. Haggai. 43 Some have suggested (see RT, 101 and Miranda, 139) that this name may be a translation of the Hebrew name Eldad. 44 On these, see Tcherikover, CPJ I, 29 and G. Mussies, ‘Jewish personal names in some non-literary sources’, in J. W. van Henten and P. W. van der Horst (eds.), Studies in Early Jewish Epigraphy (Leiden, 1994), 244–5. 45 For useful discussion of the latter, see Miranda, 138–9. 46 Miranda, 138. 47 Figures for Glykon and its derivatives at Miranda, 138–9. 48 Josephus, Ant. 14. 235: Roman ruling concerning Jewish rights at Sardis. 49 See n. 4 above. 42

182

Margaret H. Williams

Achaios against the Seleucid monarch, as S. Mitchell has remarked.50 The city needed taking in hand.51 As in the case of Hierapolis, it is only recently that we have been able to get our hands on a substantial amount of onomastic data relating to the Jewish community at Sardis.52 Fragmentary though many of the synagogue texts published by J. Kroll and F. M. Cross are, they have nearly quadrupled the number of identifiable members of the Jewish community.53 Even if we exclude for the purposes of the present study individuals mentioned in those texts who were probably not Jewish (e.g. the six donors characterized by the epithet theosebes or ‘Godfearer’),54 we are still left with a sample of thirty-three persons and some thirty-six names, thirty-three of which are different. In other words, our sample here is about half the size of that from Hierapolis. With regard to the general character of the Jewish onomasticon at Sardis (for which see Appendix II), it will be observed that, as at Hierapolis, the largest element is Greek (about two-thirds). That fact is not surprising, given that these communities had been operating within a Greek environment for about half a millennium. However, there are differences to be noted as well: Semitic names occur in equal proportion with Latin names and form a much larger proportion of the onomasticon as a whole. Whereas at Hierapolis, there were only two Semitic names out of eighty-two (approximately 2 to 3 per cent), here we have five instances out of thirty-six (13 to 14 per cent). They are: [Sy]meonios, Samoes, Samouel, Samo[el? . . . .] and Yohanan.

50

S. Mitchell, Anatolia: Land, Men, and Gods in Asia Minor, 2 vols. (Oxford, 1993), ii. 32. For a more detailed analysis of these events, see now J. Ma, Antiochos III and the Cities of Western Asia Minor (Oxford, 1999), 61–3. 52 That occurred despite the fact that the articles of Kroll and Cross were ready for publication many years ago. The long-awaited ‘Final Report’ of the Sardis synagogue excavations remains unpublished. 53 Prior to Kroll and Cross, the only Jews whose names we knew were Getiores, daughter of Menandros, attested on a marble block of uncertain date and function (CIJ II 751) and a handful of donors to the Sardis synagogue, for whom see L. Robert, Nouvelles Inscriptions de Sardes (Paris, 1964) and Trebilco, Jewish Communities, 48 and 50. 54 For these, see Kroll nos. 8–9; 22; 57; 59 and 66. I take them to be Gentile Godfearers rather than pious Jews, as some would argue. Also excluded from my analysis are four ambiguously named individuals attested in graffiti found in the shops adjacent to the synagogue. See Kroll, 8 n. 9. Although these men, named, respectively, Jakob, Johannes, Sabbatios, and Theoktistos could have been Jews, we cannot rule out the possibility that they may have been Christians. Christians as well as Jews bore Hebraic and ‘Yahwistic’ names. Further, the shops in which the graffiti were found contain both Jewish and Christian symbols. Frustratingly, the one title to occur in these texts, namely, presbyteros, was used by both Jews and Christians and so is useless as a diagnostic tool. It goes without saying that Jews known only from stray finds of uncertain date (e.g. Getiores of CIJ II 751 and Shemaryah of Cross no. 6) have not been included in this study. 51

JEWISH NAME-USE AND THE APHRODISIAS STELE

183

Symeonios is probably the earliest of those names, since it comes almost certainly from a fourth- rather than a fifth-century donor inscription.55 It is of considerable interest in that it represents a new development in Jewish use of the enormously popular name Shime{on, originally borne by one of the patriarch Jacob’s sons. Since early Hellenistic times, the name had been greatly favoured by Greek-speaking Diaspora Jews in the form Simon (with the genitive Simonis), largely, it is thought, because of its cultural ambiguity. While a Jew would have heard an echo of the original Hebrew name, it could still pass in a Greek environment for the Greek name Simon, meaning snubnosed.56 The form we encounter at Sardis lacks that appealing ambiguity. A hellenization of the LXX’s Συμων, Symeonios is not only more biblical but also, inflection apart, closer in sound to the Hebrew. Besides being unique in Jewish (as opposed to Christian) epigraphy,57 the form Symeonios marks a clear break with an onomastic tradition that stretches back some seven hundred years and foreshadows the even greater degree of Hebraization that was to be seen in the later Byzantine period. In that period, as is shown by, inter alia, papyri from Egypt, the indeclinable form Συμων became the regular form used among Jews.58 The name Samuel, which occurs in three texts considered by Kroll to be late (that is, no earlier than the fifth century),59 reveals an even more marked tendency towards Hebraization than Symeonios. In papyri and inscriptions, the form most commonly seen is Samoelos.60 Yet that form is not found at Sardis.61 Instead, we have two other versions of that popular name, favoured for having been borne by the last and most distinguished of the Judges. They are: Samoues (Kroll no. 4), a declinable form that gained a certain currency among Jews (but not Christians) in the eastern half of the Roman empire in

55

To be deduced from Symeonios’ full name, Aurelios Symeonios (Kroll no. 67). Apart from Aurelios Alexandros, also called Anatolios (Kroll no. 3), whose benefaction is to be dated on numismatic grounds to the last quarter of the third century, all the other benefactors who use gentilicia (for instance, in Kroll nos. 1 and 8–11) are to be assigned to the fourth century. In later inscriptions, the gentilicium is dispensed with and a single name used. 56 N. Cohen, ‘Jewish names as cultural indicators in Antiquity’, Journal for the Study of Judaism 7 (1976), 112–17; Mussies, ‘Jewish personal names’, 249; Williams, ‘Palestinian Jewish personal names in Acts’, 93–4. 57 For Christian examples of the name, see Monumenta Asiae Minoris Antiqua III nos. 234, 478, 645, 733–735a, 736–8 (Corycus). 58 See Tcherikover, CPJ III 501, comm. ad loc. and Appendix IIIa below. 59 Kroll nos. 4, 34, and 56. For the dating of these texts, see Kroll, 15 and 18. 60 See, for instance, CPJ I nos. 14, 15, and 112; Horbury and Noy nos. 29 and 58; Schwabe and Lifschitz, 94, 96, 115, 202, and 206. Note that the name enjoys a variety of spellings: Samoelis, Samouelos, Samoulos, Somoelos, and Soumoelos. 61 In theory it could be restored at Kroll no. 56: Σαμω[. . .]. However, the absence of any clear attestation of this form at Sardis makes such a restoration a risky procedure.

184

Margaret H. Williams

the Byzantine period,62 and the indeclinable Samouel (Kroll no. 34), the form found in the LXX, which is a straight transliteration of the Hebrew. It is the latter that is of particular interest here. It is the earliest attestation in Asia Minor (but not in Syria)63 of a form which was to become widespread among Greek-speaking Diaspora Jews in Late Antiquity.64 Whether in this case the LXX was the immediate source or whether the name was transliterated straight from the Hebrew is impossible to determine. Yohanan, the last name to be considered in this section, reveals that with some Jews at Sardis the process of Hebraization was well advanced.65 There was no attempt to hellenize that familiar Hebrew name, which in Diaspora inscriptions usually appears as Ioan(n)es.66 Furthermore, it is inscribed in Hebrew characters— a rare occurrence in a donor text from a synagogue. Throughout the Graeco-Roman period, donor texts tend not to be written in Hebrew, as N. de Lange has pointed out.67 While Aramaic is the language most commonly found in Judaea-Palestine,68 the use of Greek predominates in Diaspora communities.69 The Hebrew donor texts from the Sardis synagogue, among which the Yohanan fragment was found, are thus highly unusual, albeit not unique.70 They show that even in this most integrated of Diaspora communities, where leading Jews emphasized their status as Roman citizens, notably by the inclusion of their gentilicia in the donor inscriptions,71 there were those whose still retained a keen sense of their Jewish identity and possessed the means of expressing it onomastically and epigraphically in the purest form possible.

62 For a survey of the evidence, see M. H. Williams, ‘The Jewish community of Corycus: two more inscriptions’, ZPE 92 (1992), 250–1. 63 See B. Lifshitz, Donateurs et fondateurs dans les synagogues juives (Paris, 1967), nos. 58 and 59 for two third-century examples from Doura Europos. 64 See, for instance, Horbury and Noy no. 127 (an Egyptian inscription of unknown provenance) and JIWE I no. 69 (Venosa). 65 See Cross no. 3 for the Yohanan text. 66 See Williams, ‘Palestinian Jewish personal names in Acts’, 88, to which add Horbury and Noy no. 57. 67 N. de Lange, ‘The revival of the Hebrew language in the third century CE’, Jewish Studies Quarterly 3 (1996), 350. 68 J. Naveh, On Mosaic and Stone [Heb.] (Jerusalem, 1978) has only six examples in Hebrew of this type of text: nos. 1, 6, 13, 75, 76, and 80. 69 Lifshitz, Donateurs et fondateurs, passim. 70 A Hebrew dedicatory text (fourth century AD?), mentioning one Hananiah of Bosporos, has recently come to light at Sevastopol (ancient Chersonesos) on the Black Sea. For preliminary reports, see A. Overman, R. S. MacLennan, and M. I. Zolotarev, ‘To the study of Jewish antiquities from Chersonesus Tavrichesky’, Arkheologiya 1 (1997), 57–63 [Russian with English summary] and R. S. MacLennan, ‘In search of the Jewish Diaspora: a first-century synagogue in Crimea?’, Biblical Archaeological Review 22.2 (1996), 44–51 (especially 50). 71 For these, see Appendix II.

JEWISH NAME-USE AND THE APHRODISIAS STELE

185

Notwithstanding this shift in Jewish naming practices during the fourth and the fifth century, Hebrew and Semitic names still form only a small proportion (about one-sixth) of the onomasticon of the Sardian Jews. Most of the individuals known to us used Greek and (to a much lesser extent) Latin names.72 Some of those names, however, may have commended themselves because of their Semitic associations, as was the case at Hierapolis. Uncontroversial examples of this phenomenon are Ioulianos (Kroll no. 34), discussed above, Paulos (Kroll no. 5), a well-known and much discussed phonetic equivalent of Saulos ( Heb. Shaul),73 and Theodoros or Theodotos (Kroll no. 18),74 which had long functioned as translations for Jonathan.75 Somewhat more contentious is Ilasios (Kroll no. 7). Although Mouterde considered it, on the basis of its sound, to be the direct equivalent of the Biblical name El{asah (‘God has made’),76 that is unlikely. When adopting or adapting Biblical names, Diaspora Jews tended, as we have seen, to favour those borne by significant individuals, whether eponymous tribal ancestors, such as Judah and Shime{on, or national leaders of towering stature, such as Samuel. Significance, however, cannot be claimed for any of the men called El{asah in the Bible. None is of any distinction whatsoever and one is even a minor delinquent.77 L. Robert argued against Mouterde that the name was derived from Greek. Connecting it with a verb common in the LXX, hilakesthai, and its cognates, he saw the name as encapsulating the idea of atonement, a concept of great importance to Jews.78 The name could conceivably have been given because the individual concerned had been born on the Day of Atonement— he hemera tou hilasmou (Leviticus 25: 9)— an occasion held in great reverence by Diaspora Jews.79 If that was the case, then Hilasios would be a parallel to the far commoner Sabbath names discussed above.80

For the remnants of what is possibly an Iranian name, see Kroll no. 40: Φρα[. . .]. The most recent discussion is Bauckham, ‘Paul and other Jews’, 207–10. 74 Although Kroll (no. 18) restores the name as Theod[or]os, an equally valid reading is Theod[ot]os, a perennially popular name with Diaspora Jews. 75 See n. 44 above. If the Leontios of Kroll no. 48 is assumed to be a Jew rather than a Godfearer (for Leontios the theosebes, see Kroll no. 22), then here we have another example of this phenomenon. Leontios is well known as a name used by Jews as the Greek equivalent of Judah. See, most recently, Bauckham, ‘Paul and other Jews’, 206 n. 16, citing Leviticus Rabbah 32: 5. 76 IGLS IV no. 1319 with comm. ad loc. (dedicatory inscription at Syrian Apamea of Ilasios, archisynagogos of Antioch). 77 Odelain and Séguineau, s.vv. Elasah/Eleasah. 78 Robert, Nouvelles Inscriptions de Sardes, 47. 79 For the ancient evidence, see Barclay, Jews in the Mediterranean Diaspora, 416. 80 On the overwhelmingly Jewish character of the name Hilasios, see J. B. Curbera, ‘Jewish names from Sicily’, ZPE 110 (1996), 299–300, who discusses all the known examples. 72 73

186

Margaret H. Williams APHRODISIAS

Prior to the 1960s, it was not suspected that there had been a Jewish community at Aphrodisias, although Jews were known to have been settled in Caria since the middle of the Hellenistic period (1 Maccabees 15, cited above). Graffiti discovered in the city’s newly excavated odeion at that time, however, showed that not only were Jews present in the city in Late Antiquity (during the fifth and sixth centuries) but also that the Jewish community had both a formal organization81 and a certain profile.82 Since the 1960s several further pieces of evidence relating to the community have been discovered,83 the most important by far being the two stele texts described briefly in my introduction. It is on these texts that my discussion will be based, since the other finds, though useful in underlining the extent of the Jewish presence in Aphrodisias in Late Antiquity, have yielded no reliable Jewish onomastic data.84 I begin, as seems fitting, with the earlier of the two stele texts, namely the long list of donors on face B of the stone. About half of these are Jewish, the others are Gentile. Here my concern is solely with the Jewish contributors, whose names are recorded on the upper part of the stele. The data relating to these individuals are to be found in Appendix IIIa. It takes no more than a brief glance at that name list to show that at Aphrodisias the Semitic element in the Jewish onomasticon is much greater than it was at either Hierapolis or Sardis. Further, a careful count shows that the Hebrew names here amount to just over a third of the total list (twenty-five out of seventy-four). Some of these are familiar. Eusabbathios, remarkably occurring five times (lines 15, 16,

81

See discussion at RT, 132 (graffito referring to Jewish Elders). Like Jewish communities elsewhere in the eastern empire in the Byzantine period, Aphrodisian Jewry was known for its support of the Blues, cf. RT, 132. For a more detailed discussion, see C. Roueché, Aphrodisias in Late Antiquity (London, 1989), no. 180 (iii) with comm. ad loc. 83 For a comprehensive list of Jewish, or possibly Jewish, evidence from Aphrodisias (inscriptions, graffiti, and objects), see Chaniotis, ‘The Jews of Aphrodisias’, 236–9. 84 As is well known, the two stele texts contain the names of over 120 Gentile and Jewish contributors to a project initiated by some of the city’s Jews. In compiling the data for Appendices IIIa and IIIb, I have excluded the names of people described as theosebeis for the same reason that I rejected the Sardian theosebeis, that is, I believe them to have been Godfearing Gentiles, not pious Jews. The father of an individual characterized as a proselyte (RT, A, line 22) has also been omitted, since he will not have been Jewish either. Samuel, the priest and envoy from Perge, mentioned twice on face A, has also been left out, since he came from a different area of Asia Minor, Pamphylia. The precise nomenclature of the Jewish contributors cannot always be determined on account of the occasionally ambiguous nature of the text. In those few cases where it is impossible to be certain as to whether we are faced with a patronymic, a status indicator, or a word describing a personal quality, I have generally adopted the interpretation favoured by Reynolds and Tannenbaum. It should be stressed that the number of such instances is extremely small and their impact on my argument negligible, given the amount of data we are dealing with here. 82

JEWISH NAME-USE AND THE APHRODISIAS STELE

187

18, 24, and 32), has already been mentioned in connection with Sanbathios at Hierapolis. The form that we find here, a Greek–Hebrew hybrid, seems to have been particularly popular with Anatolian Jews.85 Its widespread use86 reflects the abiding importance of Sabbath observance as a means of underscoring attachment to Judaism. In this connection, it is worth noting that the name is also found among the Godfearers listed on the lower part of face B and is thus one of the very few names common to both Jewish and nonJewish donors on the stele.87 Ioudas, outstandingly occurring eight times (lines 6, 8, 10, 19, 22, 23, 27, and 28), has also already been discussed, as have Samouel (line 30) and Symeon (line 33). Six Hebrew names are new to the present study. Four of these, namely Iako(b) (lines 5, 13, and 20), Ioseph (lines 4, 23, and 26), Manases (line 5), and Rouben (line 26), go back to the foundational period of Jewish history, referring, respectively, to Jacob the patriarch and three of his sons. Of the remaining two names, Ioph (line 5), if it is a rendering of Job88 and not a contraction of Ioseph,89 recalls the popular biblical hero of that name. As for Zacharias (line 20), the inspiration could well have been the sixth-century prophet of that name. Of the nearly two dozen men in the Old Testament named Zachariah (‘Yah remembers’), he was by far the most important.90 With regard to the forms of these names, we note another striking difference with Hierapolis and Sardis. Of the ten Hebrew names that appear, more than half are uninflected: Iakob, Ioph, Ioseph, Rouben, Samouel, and Symeon. Of these, the last is of particular interest in that it permits comparison with Sardis. While there we found the inflected form Symeonios, at Aphrodisias we have the more Hebraic form, Symeon. However, the Jewish onomasticon of text B from Aphrodisias is striking not just in its abundant use of Hebraic names and indeclinable forms. Another notable feature is the extensive use of ‘crypto-Semitic’ names.

85

Williams, ‘Palestinian Jewish personal names in Acts’, 102. Besides Aphrodisias, it is also found at Hyllarima in Caria (Lifshitz, Donateurs et fondateurs, no. 32) and Corycus in Cilicia (CIJ II nos. 788 and 790), not to mention Rome (JIWE II no. 108). 87 On the differences between the names used by Jews and other groups (i.e. pagans and Christians) in Late Antique Aphrodisias, see Chaniotis, ‘The Jews of Aphrodisias’, 229–31. Especially sharp are those between Jews and Christians. John (Ioannes), an especial favourite with Christians, was completely avoided by Jews. Judas, the most commonly occurring name in the Jewish onomasticon, was, for obvious reasons, shunned by Christians. Theophoric names (i.e. compounds beginning with the syllable ‘theo’) are found in both communities but there are differences in their use. The Christian coinages, Theophylaktos and Theodokios, for instance, are not found in the Jewish onomasticon. 88 As argued at RT, 102. 89 Mussies, ‘Jewish personal names’, 274. The absence of analogous contractions in the stele texts, however, makes this interpretation unlikely. 90 Odelain and Séguineau, s.v. Zechariah. 86

188

Margaret H. Williams

Besides Heortasios (lines 7, 27, 31, and 34), Iason (line 14), Leontios (line 21, bis), Paulos (line 19), Theophilos (line 19), and Zotikos (line 33), which were discussed above, we have instances of Paregorios (line 32), usually seen as a translation of Menahem (‘comforter’), and Rouphos (line 26), well known in rabbinical circles (and disliked) as a homophone of Rouben.91 These are merely the more obvious cases. Mussies has suspected that Semitic influences lurk behind quite a few more of the names, for example Serapion (line 2), which he thinks is a front for the Hebrew word seraphim!92 If we turn now to the second and later of the two Aphrodisias texts, the list inscribed on face A (see Appendix IIIb), and compare it with the list on face B, the most obvious difference is the even greater prominence enjoyed here by the overt Semitic element. The ‘crypto-Semitic’ element is represented on face A only by Theodoros (line 23) and Theodotos (line 11).93 In this list we have a small number of Jews, twenty-one as opposed to seventy-four in text B. Proportionately, then, we would expect to find about seven people with explicitly Semitic names. What we find, however, is no fewer than thirteen, making up about two-thirds of the list. Besides multiple occurrences of Ioseph (lines 14, 17, and 22),94 Ioudas (lines 16 and 23), Sabbathios (lines 18 and 25), and Samouel (lines 13 and 21), we have single attestations of Beniamin (line 15), Iael (line 9), Iesseos (Jesse) (line 14) and Iosoua (line 9). The first four of these names have already been discussed. The fifth, Benjamin, though only appearing here at Aphrodisias, requires little comment. As with Ioseph and Ioudas, its inspiration was both one of Jacob’s sons and an eponymous tribal ancestor. The last three names, however, do warrant discussion in that they constitute an entirely new element in the Jewish onomasticon of Aphrodisias. Whereas the majority of the other Hebraic names we have come across so far recall the founding fathers of the nation or emphasize its ancestral customs (i.e. the Sabbath), this little clutch relates to a subsequent, more assertive phase of Jewish history. The name Joshua would have stirred memories of one of the nation’s greatest heroes, the man who led the Israelites into the Promised Land after the death of Moses and spearheaded their subsequent conquest of it.95 The name Jael, otherwise unattested epigraphically, must go back to the heroine who, by means of her 91 Cohen, ‘Jewish names as cultural indicators’, 117–28 and Bauckham, ‘Paul and other Jews’, 206, n. 19. 92 Mussies, ‘Jewish personal names’, 247. It could just as easily, however, be related to the god Sarapis/Serapis. Jews had no compunctions about using pagan theophoric names: see Tcherikover, CPJ I, 29. 93 Unless Hilarianos (line 12) be regarded as a possible equivalent of Isaac: see RT, 102. Gelasios, however, is generally regarded as the regular translation of that name: see Frey at CIJ I no. 25. 94 Two of these are in the hypocoristic form, Ioses. 95 See Tcherikover, CPJ I, 84–5.

JEWISH NAME-USE AND THE APHRODISIAS STELE

189

tent-peg, killed the victorious Canaanite general Sisera and thus helped to liberate Israel.96 It seems inconceivable to me that the Jael of Ezra 10: 43 can have furnished the inspiration for the name at Aphrodisias, as Reynolds and Tannenbaum suggest.97 He is mentioned in the Bible only because he was forced by Ezra to repudiate his foreign wife. Jesse, though himself not a heroic figure, was the father of King David. By being the ‘stock’ or ‘root’ of the royal family of Judah, he was for Jews as much as for Christians a significant founder figure.98 Exactly half of the forms of the eight different Hebrew names found in Aphrodisias A are uninflected: Beniamin, Iael, Iosoua and Samouel. Of these, the most interesting is Joshua. Previously when Diaspora Jews had used this name, the forms they had employed were Iesous, the LXX rendering of Joshua, or the Greek homophones of Iesous, namely Ieson or Iason.99 Here, for the first time in a Diaspora context, we find a straight transliteration of the Hebrew.100 This is a significant piece of evidence for showing that the Jews of Aphrodisias were not wholly reliant on the mediation of the LXX for their names and that they must instead have had direct access to the Hebrew text itself. Other names in the list that may also be direct transliterations from the Hebrew rather than borrowings from the LXX are Benjamin and Iael.101 What the above analysis of the stele texts has shown is that, onomastically, the Jews of Aphrodisias were in a different world from those of either Hierapolis or Sardis. Besides the greatly increased Hebraic element, which has been the focus of the foregoing discussion, other differences have been noted in passing. Unlike the Jews of Hierapolis who practised polyonymy (cf. Appendix Ia), those of Aphrodisias prefer, for the most part, a single personal name (cf. Appendices IIIa and IIIb). A further contrast between Hierapolis and Aphrodisias is that, while at Aphrodisias few names were shared by Jews and non-Jews,102 at Hierapolis the area of commonality was considerable. Between Sardian and Aphrodisian Jewry there are also differences to be noted. While the Jews of fourth-century Sardis emphasized their gentilicia out of pride in their status as Roman citizens (see Appendix II),

96

Judges 4: 17–22. See RT, 101. 98 Odelain and Séguineau, s.v. Jesse. 99 As noted above at Hierapolis (Miranda no. 3) and in Aphrodisias B, line 14. 100 For a broadly analogous development in Italy, compare Iason in early Imperial Rome (JIWE II nos. 474 and 538) with Gesua (gen. Gesues) at sixth-century Venosa (JIWE I no. 90). 101 Jesse is harder to interpret. The form found at Aphrodisias, Iesseos, is neither a transliteration of the Hebrew (Ishai) nor does it follow the LXX ( Ιεσσαι). 102 Noted in connection with Aphrodisias B (n. 87) but applicable also to Aphrodisias A. 97

190

Margaret H. Williams

those of Aphrodisias eschew gentilicia altogether.103 That the naming practices of the Aphrodisian Jews were different from those of Hierapolis should not surprise. After all, the evidence from the two sites differs in date by at least two centuries. But the difference between the Aphrodisian and the Sardian evidence is intriguing since, on the dating recently proposed for the former by Chaniotis and Ameling, the two bodies of material are contemporary. How are we to account for the different trends observed at Aphrodisias and Sardis? Three explanations suggest themselves. It could be that in one place, namely Sardis, we are dealing with a long-established community, whereas in the other, at Aphrodisias, we have recent immigrants from Palestine. That explanation has been put foward but the onomastic evidence argues against it. If one looks carefully at the people with Hebrew names in the Aphrodisian stele lists, one finds that nearly all of them are men whose fathers bore Greek names. What is more, many of those Greek names, as Chaniotis’s latest study has demonstrated, became fashionable only in late antique Asia Minor.104 From that observation, we may conclude that the Aphrodisian Jews were local men who gave their sons patriotic Hebrew names, and not recent immigrants from Palestine. If the differences are not to be explained in terms of length of settlement in Asia Minor, could the reason be that different Jewish communities, even within fairly close proximity to each other, had different naming practices? The evidence for the Diaspora as a whole in the Graeco-Roman period does not suggest that that could be the case. Regional differences did of course exist, as one can see by comparing, for instance, the names borne by Jews in Egypt with those borne at Palmyra.105 But I know of no case where a Jewish text of unknown or uncertain provenance has been assigned to a particular place on the basis of the onomastic data it contains. Two explanations having failed, we are left with a third: the differences between the Aphrodisian and Sardian evidence must be due to a difference in the date of these bodies of evidence. Given that during the course of the Byzantine period Diaspora Jewry gradually became more Hebraized106 and also that the Aphrodisias onomasticon is considerably more Hebraized than that of Sardis, it follows that the Aphrodisian evidence ought to be dated 103

The theosebeis do the same. Chaniotis, ‘The Jews of Aphrodisias’, 216–18 and 232–5. 105 For some of the Egyptian names borne by the Jews of Edfu, see Tcherikover, CPJ II, 116–17; for Palmyrene names (e.g. Mokim and Zenobia) borne by Jews hailing from Palmyra, see Schwabe and Lifshitz, 10–11. 106 To be seen most easily by comparing the Jewish epitaphs from Rome (third–fourth century) with those from Venosa (fifth–sixth century). Details in JIWE II, 546 (Index VIIf) and JIWE I, 335–6 (Index VIId) and 337–9 (Indices VIIf–h). 104

JEWISH NAME-USE AND THE APHRODISIAS STELE

191

considerably later than the Sardian. But can a later date safely be assigned to the Aphrodisian lists? I believe it can. In challenging Reynolds and Tannenbaum, both Chaniotis and Ameling were primarily concerned with establishing that (a) the stele contains two discrete texts, not a single continuous one, and (b) those texts belonged to Late Antiquity and not to the Severan period. Although they favoured a fourth-century date for the earlier inscription (B) and a fifth for the later (A), neither ruled out the possibility of a later dating for both. Chaniotis freely admitted that his dates were no more than rough estimates: ‘It seems impossible to me to come to a more accurate date for the two texts within the period we call Late Antiquity.’107 Ameling was equally undogmatic. With regard to text B, he simply set AD 350 as a terminus post quem. Finally, it is worth pointing out that even the original editors of the texts did not consider a fifth- or sixth-century date to be completely out of the question. Although they eventually favoured a Severan date (c.AD 200), they admitted that the abbreviation marks on text A ‘at first sight seem very Byzantine’ and that ‘some of its epigraphical features have suggested a date in the fifth or even the sixth centuries’.108 A date in the fifth or even the sixth century would fit well with other evidence from Aphrodisias. The odeion graffiti, for instance, dated to the fifth or sixth centuries, reveal a Jewish community that was both well established and well integrated into the life of the city.109 The same picture emerges from the two stele inscriptions. Finally, I find it hard not to see in lines 6–8 of text A a possible connection with the devastating plague of the 540s AD.110 We are expressly told that a memorial (mnema) had been set up for the community (to plethi) for the alleviation of suffering or grief (eis apenthesian).

CONCLUSION In the foregoing study, we have examined the progressive Hebraization of the Jewish onomasticon in western Anatolia between the second and sixth centuries AD. The Hebraizing trend became increasingly strong in the second half of this period. Onomastic change on the scale we have observed does not take place in a vacuum. It reflects changes in society as a whole. If we ask what changes were taking place in the Roman world such as to induce the onomastic evolution we have witnessed, the answer must be the establishment of Christianity as a state religion, the Christianization of the inhabitants of 107

Chaniotis, ‘The Jews of Aphrodisias’, 218. RT, 20–1. 109 See notes 81 and 82 above. 110 Roueché, Aphrodisias in Late Antiquity, p. xxvi. 108

192

Margaret H. Williams

the Roman empire, and the increasingly intolerant attitude of the Christian emperors towards people of other religions. To detail the official measures enacted against the Jews is not necessary. It is sufficient to note that as the fifth and sixth centuries progressed, Imperial rulings against the Jews became more frequent, more minatory, and more intrusive.111 Contemporaneous with such edicts was the steady encroachment by Christians upon the heritage of the Jews, illustrated, inter alia, by their hijacking of the LXX for liturgical and hermeneutical purposes and their pillaging of it for personal names. How were the Jews to respond to this? One means of response was to make greater use of biblical names in order to assert Jewish identity. Hence the revival of Old Testament names (e.g. Jesse) to which they had as good a claim as the Christians. Hence, also, the increased use of ‘heritage’ names, such as those of the patriarchs and the eponymous tribal ancestors, where the Jewish claim was older and stronger than the Christian. And hence, finally, the introduction into the Jewish onomasticon of the names of heroic figures, such as Jael, with whom the Christians could claim no affinity. But there was another way in which the Jews could assert their identity and that was by making more use of Hebrew, for this was an area where the Christians chose not to compete. Ultimately, social and political pressures led to the re-Hebraization or— as it might more appropriately be termed— the Hebraization of Diaspora Jewry, which previously had been mainly Greek. A harbinger of that cultural revolution was the growing preference for indeclinable names of Hebraic derivation, the best evidence for which is supplied by the Aphrodisias stele inscriptions. Note. Thanks are due to Professor J. A. Crook of St John’s College, Cambridge, for scrutinizing the text of this paper and suggesting various improvements. The views expressed are my own.

111

Cf. A. Linder, The Jews in Roman Imperial Legislation (Detroit, 1987), passim.

JEWISH NAME-USE AND THE APHRODISIAS STELE

193

APPENDIX Ia HIERAPOLIS: LIST OF EPIGRAPHICALLY ATTESTED JEWS The number in brackets after each person is the number assigned by Miranda to the epitaph in which that person is mentioned. Semitic names are printed in bold. Missing letters are indicated by [. . .], in each case representing an unknown number of missing letters. Alexander Kortios ( Curtius), son of Loukios (4). Ammeianos, father of Aurelia Glykonis (5). Annios, father of Polla (21). Antipatra, wife of M. Aurelios Kallistratos Apollodotos Kasmeinas (15). Antoninos, son of Hikesios I, also called Ioudas (1). Apphias, wife of Nikoteimos Lykidas (14a). Artemisios, father of Nikoteimos Lykidas (14a). Artemon, father of Charmides (22b). Aurelia Apphia, daughter of Loukianos (19). Aurelia Augousta, daughter of Zotikos (16). Aurelia Glykonis, daughter of Ammeianos (5). Aurelia Kodratilla ( Quadratilla), wife of M. Aurelios Aristodemos Glykon (11). Aurelia Meltine, wife of M. Aurelios Zoteikos Hygeinos (7). Aurelia Menandris, daughter of Papias (8). Aurelia Myrtein (15). Aurelia Stratonike, daughter of Theophilos (4). Aurelia Zenonis, wife of M. Aurelios Gaios Theodorianos (10a). Aurelios Annios Memnon (8). Aurelios Antiochides Makedon Polydeukes Antoninianos (13). Aurelios Heortasios Ioulianos (14b).

Aurelios Panphilos II, son of M. Aurelios Panphilos I (9). Aurelios Sanbathios (10c)  (?) Sanbathios, brother of Zenon (10b). Aurelios Stratoneikos, son of M. Aurelios Panphilos I (9). Charmides, son of Artemon (22b). Damiane, daughter of M. Aurelios Aristodemos Glykon (11). Glykonianos, also called Hagnos (16) DOUBLE NAME Glykonis, wife of Aurelios Heortasios Ioulianos (14b). Hikesios I, also called Ioudas (1) DOUBLE NAME Hikesios II, son of Hikesios I (1). Iason, father of [. . .] (3) Klementiane, wife of Iason (3). Loukianos, father of Aurelia Apphia (19). Loukios, father of Alexander Kortios ( Curtius) (4). Loukios Tatianos Diogenes (19). [Markos] Antonios Hygeinos (17b). M(arkos) Aurelios Alexander Theophilos, also called Aphelias (5) DOUBLE NAME M(arkos) Aurelios Aristodemos Glykon (11). Markos Aurelios Diogonides (2). M(arkos) Aurelios Eirenaios Alexandrianos (21). Markos Aurelios Gaios Theodorianos (10a). M(arkos) Aurelios Kallistratos Apollodotos Kasmeinas (15). M(arkos) Aurelios Panphilos I (9).

194

Margaret H. Williams

M(arkos) Aurelios Philoumenos Streneion (20). M(arkos) Aurelios Zoteikos Hygeinos (7). Meniskos, father of Neikanor (18). Moschon (22b). Neikanor, son of Meniskos (18). Nikoteimos Lykidas, son of Artemisios (14a). Olympias, daughter of Thyokritos (sic) (1). Papias, father of Aurelia Menandris (8). Polla, daughter of Annios (21). Sanbathios, brother of Zenon (10b)  (?) Aurelios Sanbathios (10c).

Stratoneike, daughter of M. Aurelios Aristodemos Glykon (11). Tatianos I, father of Tatianos II (18). Tatianos II, son of Tatianos I (18). Theon, father of Hikesios I, also called Ioudas (1). Theophilos, father of Aurelia Stratonike (4). Thyokritos (sic), father of Olympias (1). Tryphon I, father of Tryphon II (12). Tryphon II, son of Tryphon I (12). Zenon, brother of Sanbathios (10b). Zotikos, father of Aurelia Augousta (16). [. . .]tyche, wife of Tatianos II (18).

APPENDIX Ib HIERAPOLIS: LIST OF NAMES BORNE BY JEWS Semitic names are printed in bold. Alexander (bis, 4 and 5) Alexandrianos (21) Ammianos (5) Annios (bis, 8 and 21) Antiochides (13) Antipatra (15) Antoninianos (13) Antoninos (1) Aphelias (5) Apollodotos (15) Apphia(s) (bis, 14a and 19) Aristodemos (11) Artemisios (14a) Artemon (22b) Augousta (16) Charmides (22b) Damiane (11) Diogenes (19) Diogonides (2) Eirenaios (21) Gaios (10a) Glykon (11) Glykonianos (16) Glykonis (bis, 5 and 14b)

Hagnos (16) Heortasios (14b) Hikesios (bis, 1) Hygeinos (bis, 7 and 17b) Iason (3) Ioudas (1) Ioulianos (14b) Kallistratos (15) Kasmeinas (15) Klementiane (3) Kodratilla ( Quadratilla) (11) Kortios ( Curtius) (4) Loukianos (19) Loukios (4) Lykidas (14a) Makedon (13) Meltine (7) Memnon (8) Menandris (8) Meniskos (18) Moschon (22b) Myrtein (15) Nikanor (18) Nikotimos (14a)

JEWISH NAME-USE AND THE APHRODISIAS STELE Olympias (1) Panphilos (bis, 9) Papias (8) Philoumenos (20) Polla (21) Polydeukes (13) Sanbathios (bis, 10b and 10c) Same person? Stratonike (bis, 4 and 11) Stratonikos (9) Streneion (20)

195

Tatianos (tris, 18 and 19) Theodorianos (10a) Theon (1) Theophilos (bis, 4 and 5) Thyokritos (1) Tryphon (bis, 12) Zenon (10b) Zenonis (10a) Zotikos (bis, 7 and 16) [. . .]tyche (18)

APPENDIX II JEWS KNOWN BY NAME FROM THE SARDIS SYNAGOGUE INSCRIPTIONS Semitic names are printed in bold. For Kroll and Cross, see n. 1. Aur(elios) Alexandros, also called Anatolios (Kroll no. 3) DOUBLE NAME Aur(elios) Basileides (Kroll no. 70) [Aur. Eu?]anthi[. . .] (Kroll no. 11) Aur(elios) Euphrosynos I, father of Aurelios Euphrosynos II (Kroll no. 31) Aur(elios) Euphrosynos II, son of Aurelios Euphrosynos I (Kroll nos. 16 and 17) Aur(elios) Hermogenes (Kroll no. 37) Aur(elios) Kela[.]inos Atham[as] or Athan[asios] (Kroll no. 32) Aur(elios) Olympios (Kroll no. 10) Aur(elios) Onesiphoros (Kroll no. 30) Aur(elios) [Sy]meonios (Kroll no. 67) Flavius Stratoneikianos (Kroll no. 1) Flavius Synphoros (Kroll no. 1) Heilasios (Kroll no. 7) Hippasias (D. Feissel’s correction at BE 2000, no. 614 of Kroll no. 53) Leontios (Kroll no. 48. If different from the theosebes of that name at Kroll no. 22)

Markos (Kroll no. 55) Memnonios (Kroll no. 63) Paulos (Kroll no. 5) Pegasios I, father of Pegasios II (Kroll nos. 25 and 26) [Pe]gasios II (Kroll no. 33 but with L. Robert’s reading of the donor’s name) Philom[. . .] (Kroll no. 49) Phra[. . .] (Kroll no. 40) Regeina (Kroll no. 29) Samo[el/es/ouel/oues?] (Kroll no. 56) Samoes (Kroll no. 4) Samouel also called Ioulianos (Kroll no. 34) DOUBLE NAME Sep[tim?]ios (Kroll no. 27) Severus (Cross no. 1) Sokrates (Kroll no. 69) Theod[or]os or Theod[ot]os (Kroll no. 18) Yohanan (Cross no. 3) Zenon (Kroll no. 13) Ze[non?] (Kroll no. 68; to be distinguished from Zenon in Kroll no. 13?)

196

Margaret H. Williams APPENDIX IIIa APHRODISIAS: JEWS LISTED ON FACE B

Principles for interpreting the Greek text and compiling this list: where there is a sequence of donors in a single line of the inscription, such as Praoilios; Ioudas, son of Praoilios in line 10, I assume that the father of the second donor is identical with the first donor in the line. There are several instances of these apparent father/son sequences (e.g. at lines 14 and 18). Where a patronymic (e.g. son of Eugenios in line 24) is separated from an identical personal name by several lines of text (e.g. Eugenios at line 9), I have assumed that two people bearing a common name are indicated. In those few instances where it is uncertain whether a word is a name, an epithet, an occupation or a status indicator, my general practice has been to follow the interpretation of Reynolds and Tannenbaum, Jews and Godfearers at Aphrodisias. Semitic names are printed in bold. Achilleus, father of Heortasios II (line 31) Acholios, father of Ioudas V (line 22) Ailianos I, father of Ailianos II (line 29) Ailianos II, son of Ailianos I (line 29) Ailianos III, also called Samouel (son of Ailianos II?) (line 30) DOUBLE NAME Amantios, son of Charinos (line 12) Ammianos (line 29) Amphianos, father of Ioudas II (line 8) Anysios (line 15) Biotikos (line 8) Charinos, father of Amantios (line 12) Damonikos (line 22) Diogenes, father of Eusabbathios III (line 18) Eugenios I, the goldsmith (line 9) Eugenios II, father of Eusabbathios IV (line 24) Euodos, father of Iason (line 14) Eusabbathios I, the greengrocer (line 15) Eusabbathios II, the stranger/foreigner (line 16) Eusabbathios III, son of Diogenes (line 18) Eusabbathios IV, son of Eugenios II (line 24) Eusabbathios V, son of Oxycholios III (line 32) Eusebios, father of Ioudas I (line 6)

Eutarkios ( Autarkios), son of Ioudas VI (line 23) Eutychios I, the coppersmith (line 25) Eutychios II, the poulterer (line 27) Gemellos (line 21) Gorgonios, son Oxycholios III (line 31) Heortasios I, son of Kallicarpos (line 7) Heortasios II, son of Achilleus (line 31) Heortasios III, son of Zotikos (line 34) Hortasios IV, father of Ioudas VII (line 27) Iako, the shepherd/sheep-rearer (line 13) Iakob I, the father of Zenon (line 5) Iakob II, also called Apellion (line 20) DOUBLE NAME Iason, son of Euodos (line 14) Ioph ( ?Iob), father of Manases (line 5) [Iose]ph I, son of Zenon (line 4) Ioseph II, son of Philer[. . .] (line 23) Ioseph III, the confectioner (line 26) Ioudas I, son of Eusebios (line 6) Ioudas II, son of Amphianos (line 8) Ioudas III, son of Praoilios (line 10) Ioudas IV, son of Paulos (line 19) Ioudas V, son of Acholios (line 22) Ioudas VI, father of Eutarkios (line 23), if different from Ioudas V (line 22) Ioudas VII, son of Hortasios IV (line 27)

JEWISH NAME-USE AND THE APHRODISIAS STELE Ioudas VIII, also called Zosimos (line 28) DOUBLE NAME Kallicarpos, father of Heortasios I (line 7) Kyryllos (line 25) Leontios I, father of Leontios II (line 21) Leontios II, son of Leontios I (line 21) Manases, son of Ioph ( ?Iob) (line 5) Milon (line 16) Myrtilos (line 12) Oxycholios I, the old man (geron) (line 11) Oxycholios II, the younger (neoteros) (line 17) Oxycholios III, father of Eusabbathios V (line 32) and also (?) Gorgonios (line 31) (unless a fourth Oxycholios is indicated here) Paregorios (line 32)

197

Paulos, father of Ioudas IV (line 19) Philanthos (line 30) Philer[. . .], father of Ioseph II (line 23) Praoilios, father of Ioudas III (line 10) Rouben, the confectioner (line 26) Rouphos (line 11) Seberos  Severus (line 13) Serapion, father of ..... (name lost) (line 2) Symeon, son of Zen[on?] IV (line 33) Theophilos (line 19) Zacharias, the monopoles ( retailer?) (line 20) Zenon I, father of Ioseph I (line 5) Zenon II, son of Iakob I (line 5) Zenon III, the rag-picker/dealer (line 28) Zen[on?] IV, father of Symeon (line 33) Zotikos, father of Heortasios III (line 33)

APPENDIX IIIb APHRODISIAS: JEWS LISTED ON FACE A Semitic names are printed in bold. Amachios, father of Sabbatios II (line 18) Antipeos, son of Herme[s] or Herme[as] (line 24) Beniamin, the psalmo (logos?) (line 15) Eioseph, proselyte (line 22) Eioudas I, son of Theodoros (line 23) Herme[s] or Herme[as], father of Antipeos (line 24) Hilarianos, son of Theodotos (line 12) Iael, mother of Iosoua (line 9) Iesseos ( Jesse), father of Ioses I (line 14) Ioses I, son of Iesseos (line 14) Ioses II, proselyte (line 17)

Iosoua, son of Iael (line 9) Ioudas II, eukolos, the good-natured one (line 16) Palatinos, father of Theodotos (line 11) Politianos, father of Samouel II (line 21) Sabathios I, nektaris, the sweet one (line 25) Sabbatios II, son of Amachios (line 18) Samouel I, a proselyte (line 13) Samouel II, son of Politianos (line 21) Theodoros, father of Eioudas I (line 23) Theodotos, son of Palatinos (line 11); father of Hilarianos (line 12)

10 The Ambiguous Name: The Limitations of Cultural Identity in Graeco-Roman Syrian Onomastics1 MAURICE SARTRE

THE NEED FOR LEXICAL COLLECTIONS OF PERSONAL NAMES arose early in classical studies and, ever since the standard compendia of W. Pape and G. E. Benseler and of F. Bechtel, countless regional inventories have been published.2 We are contributing to a project whose final and legitimate ambition is to establish an exhaustive inventory of personal names. We are all convinced of the important lessons that can be drawn from it, and are already being drawn from it, thanks to the volumes that have been published. It would be superfluous to list these benefits before an already convinced audience. Instead, I will draw your attention to the dangers: like Aesop’s tongues, inventories can be both the best and the worst of things, depending on how they are used. Warnings are necessary in order to prevent less experienced students from entangling themselves in misleading analyses. Philologists and historians— or rather historians following philologists— are in the habit of dissecting anthroponyms so as to classify them in various categories. Names can be distinguished according to their composition, meaning, and linguistic origin. It is obviously this last aspect that interests us the most when we are faced with an ethnically heterogeneous area like the Graeco-Roman Near East. We can reasonably surmise that we are dealing, for the most part, with names that are Semitic, Greek, Roman, and eventually with names of other origins: Iranian, Germanic, Thracian, Gallic, etc. One can even, perhaps, go a step further: the Semitic group is far from homogeneous and, according to the endings, the composition and the meaning (for 1

I have preserved the originally oral character of this essay and, since it is a methodological exercise, I did not feel compelled to weigh it down with a bibliography which would have been difficult to restrict. References to Harding are to G. L. Harding, An Index and Concordance of Pre-Islamic Arabian Names and Inscriptions (Toronto, 1971). 2 Cf. the inventory established by the Guide de l’épigraphiste (3rd edn., Paris, 2000), nos. 1325–43. Proceedings of the British Academy 148, 199–232. © The British Academy 2007.

200

Maurice Sartre

example, the selection of theophoric elements), one could be led to distinguish between Aramaic, Phoenician, and Arabic onomastics. Indeed could one, among some of these groups, refine this classification even further, and distinguish between the names borne by Nabateans, by the peoples of the Harra, by the Palmyrenes, by Hatreans, by Edessenes? This temptation is all the stronger— and I should say, all the more legitimate— since we possess a tool which many of our colleagues working on other regions of the GraecoRoman world lack: an abundance of epigraphical documents in the indigenous languages which provides us with solid points of comparison. Is it not legitimate to declare that a certain name is ‘Nabatean’ when it is found only in that dialect in Semitic inscriptions? or to classify as ‘Palmyrene’ one that is found, in Greek or in Aramaic, only in the great oasis? These are self-evident points and I do not propose to dwell on them. For methodological reasons, it seems to me that we must distinguish between two different fields in our onomastic reasoning, namely linguistics and history. On the linguistic level, there is no doubt that one can arrive, at least in the majority of cases, at a classification based on the origins of a name. Yet the task is far from simple, and Louis Robert often chastised incautious scholars who wanted to see indigenous names where only rare Greek names were to be found. In spite of the errors that can be made, the linguistic classification of a great number of names is possible. How this classification is used from a historical perspective is an entirely different matter. Firstly, because more names than is generally believed may belong to several linguistic categories, and some ambiguity may therefore remain as to the true origin of the name in any individual case. A contextual study may suffice to clarify the issue, but that is not always the case. Moreover, many names are not what they seem: names ostensibly Greek or Roman in appearance can in fact be something completely different. I shall give some specific examples below. Secondly, one ought to wonder about the reasons for choosing a name, about the relative freedom of choice of the parents and the weight of familial traditions, as well as about fashions. I am not convinced that many definitive answers can be provided, but all these issues have some bearing on the historical interpretation that can be drawn from onomastics. Finally, one ought also to reflect on how conscious individuals were of the name they selected: can we be certain that the chosen name’s ethnic, religious, cultural, or even political dimensions were considered? These are difficult questions, to which I will certainly not be able to provide a complete or a final answer, but which it seems to me useful to raise. We must first take note of the fact that a sizeable number of names may be ambiguous. I will naturally confine myself to examples drawn from Syrian onomastic material, but specialists will perhaps be able to provide other examples from their respective fields of expertise. Let us begin with a few rel-

CULTURAL IDENTITY AND SYRIAN NAMES

201

atively simple examples of names taken from Syrian inscriptions. I give them in alphabetical order, without prejudging what is to be done with them: 1Αννιο, Βα´ σσο, Γερμαν, Κα´σσιο, Μα´ νο, Σαδαλα. At first glance, a simple explanation can be found for each of those names. The last name, Sadalas, has certainly caught the attention of those who know Thracian onomastics. The name is common in that region and one could justifiably expect to find it in Arabia: the number of Thracian auxiliary units in Syria and Arabia was large enough for the name not to come as a surprise. But, outside Bostra, where the name appears once, no troops are on record at any of the other three find-spots. What is more, in three cases out of four, including Bostra, Sadalas (or Sadallas) has a son who sports a definitely indigenous name: Orailos, Saderathos, Nasros (Table 1). This is not a propitious beginning for our investigation into Thracian origins. We might imagine that Thracian soldiers took root in those locations and married indigenous women who chose Arabic names for their sons, but that would be pure speculation. On the other hand, Sadalas or Sadallas can be explained perfectly using Semitic philology. One can distinguish s {ad followed by the divine name -allah, on the same pattern as other composite names such as Ausallas. The Arabic s {ad, ‘fortunate, lucky’, has yielded more than 300 examples of personal names in Safaitic, of which traces subsist in Greek, notably in the numerous instances of Sados. There is, therefore, every likelihood that ‘God (renders) fortunate’ has nothing whatsoever to do with Thracian onomastics, but is entirely Arabic. This is a good example of how the context can easily resolve an ambiguity. 1Αννιο ought to be the transliteration of the Latin gentilicial name Annius used as a single name (except in 1Αννιο Μα´ξιμο of Mushannaf (Hauran) where it could be gentilicial). This is not surprising since we possess other examples where a gentilicial name is used in this way, not only names of imperial gentes (Ulpius, Aelius, Aurelius, Septimius), but also rarer ones, such as Munatius, Pelagius, Petronius, etc. Yet the distribution of these names in Syria and Arabia raises some questions (Table 2). The name is present from the Apamene (Ma{aret an-No{mân) all the way to the Hauran, by way of the Emesene and Damascus. Of course, it could merely be the hellenized version of a Latin name; the context, after all, does not demand another explanation; in the one case where filiation occurs, the father’s name is Diomedes. But, we know from other sources that there exists an Arabic name prevalent among the peoples of the Harra, H . anni, of which the normal Greek transliteration would be Α 1 ννιο.3 In the Apamene and the Emesene, the name is written Α 1 ννι, which cannot be used to support one 3

Eighty-two instances for the Safaitic dialect in Harding (p. 625), but the name also appears in Thamoudean and in Minean.

Arabia. Bostra Arabia. Juwayr Arabia. Orman (Hauran) Arabia. Umm al-Rumman (Hauran)

Σαδαλα Σαδαλλα Σαδαλλα Σαδαλλα 2nd–6th cent. AD 536–7 AD 359–60 AD Imp.

Date

Note. Abbreviations for all tables: d.  daughter of; f.  father of; s.  son of. a R. Canova, Iscrizioni e Monumenti protocristiani del paese di Moab (Vatican, 1954). b Maurice Dunand, Le Musée de Soueïda. Inscriptions et monuments figurés (Paris, 1934).

Location

Sadal(l)as in Syrian and Arabian inscriptions

Name

Table 1.

IGLS XIII 9360 Canova no. 422a SEG VII 1170 Dunand, Musée, p. 101 no. 204b

Reference

s. Οραιλο f. Πορφ!ριο s. Σαρεδαθο s. Νασρο

Relations etc.

202 Maurice Sartre

Syria. Damascus

1Αννιο

1Αννιο 325 AD

Imp. Imp. Imp.

325 AD

Imp.

Date

W. H. Waddington, Inscriptions grecques et latines de la Syrie, I (Paris, 1870).

Syria. Tell Bîsse (Emesene)

1Αννιο 1Αννιο 1Αννιο

a

Syria. Ma{aret an-No{mân (Apamene) Syria. Mushannaf (Hauran) Syria. Mushannaf (Hauran) Syria. Mushannaf (Hauran)

1Αννιο

Location

Annios in Syrian and Arabian inscriptions

Name

Table 2.

IGLS V 2138

SEG VII 1082 Waddington, I.Syrie 2228a Waddington, I.Syrie 2227

Lucas & Oppenheim, ByzZ 14 (1905) 18–9 no. 1 IGLS IV 1545

Reference

1Αννιο Μα´ξιμο Αρ. 1Αννιο s. Διομ δη 1Αννι

1Αννι

Relations etc.

CULTURAL IDENTITY AND SYRIAN NAMES

203

204

Maurice Sartre

interpretation or the other, since forms in -is are frequent in Syria, as elsewhere, for names ending in -ios. Clearly we should show caution before declaring 1Αννιο to be a borrowing from a Latin name. Βα´σσο seems even less problematic, so common is it as a cognomen in Latin. One can no longer keep a tally of all the instances. I have counted eighty-two, including two instances of Βα´ σσα, from the north to the south of Syria, excluding Palmyra and Doura Europos. I will not draw any premature conclusions from the frequency of the name in the Hauran, because inscriptions from that area are more plentiful than from any other area of Syria (Table 3). It is highly likely that the majority of those thus named bear the Latin name, which was popularized by Roman soldiers and administrators. Indeed, one finds among them some Roman citizens (Aurelii), or persons whose father or son has a very classical Greek or Roman name. Yet we also find quite a number of Bassi who belonged to a milieu where people also bore a Semitic name: Alesos, Abourios, Sithros, Alphanas. There is a fairly popular Semitic name with the root bs, which yields both biss, the cat, and bâs, ‘strength, courage’ in Arabic. The name is prevalent in Safaitic.4 There also exists a name bs}, basa} in Arabic, meaning ‘sociable, friendly being’, which is even more frequent.5 There is no way of determining when Bassos is a transliteration of the Latin Bassus, or when it is the hellenized version of a Semitic name derived from one of the two possible roots. Perhaps these observations are of little consequence, but they ought at least to keep us from automatically including Bassos among the ‘Latin’ names of Syria. Κα´σσιο belongs, like Annius, to the category of gentilicial names which were also used as a single name. It is particularly well attested in Syria-Arabia (nineteen examples), from Hegra in the south and all the way to Zebed in the north (Table 4). The name Kasios, with a single sigma, should perhaps be added. All of its instances are from the southern regions of the country, except for one example from Laodicea-ad-Mare and another from Niha near Baalbek (Table 5). This root is very popular, because one also finds several Cassiani (with the same fluctuation between single and double ‘s’) as well as other variants: Kasiseos, Kasianeos, Kaseios, Kassaios, Kassanos. All of these could well derive from Cassius, although some variants are difficult to explain (Kassanos for example). Nevertheless, there exist Arabic roots that have produced names like qs, qs}, qsy, qs.y (Qus.aï). Even if Kassios is not the transcription of one of those names (they are not common among the peoples of the Harra), we can at least wonder whether the popularity of the Latin name did not stem from the existence of those roots, which were significant in the Semitic languages of the region. 4 5

Harding 105, twenty examples. Harding 105, fifty-five examples.

Location

Arabia. Charachmoba Arabia. Jaafar Arabia. Adraha Arabia. Adraha Arabia. Adraha Arabia. Adraha

Arabia. Adraha Arabia. Adraha Arabia. Adraha

Arabia. Adraha

Arabia. Ayun (Hauran) Arabia. Bostra

Arabia. Bostra Arabia. Bostra Arabia. Bostra Arabia. Bostra Arabia. Bostra Arabia. Ghariye Gharbiye (Hauran) Arabia. Ghariye Gharbiye (Hauran) Arabia. Ghariye Gharbiye (Hauran) Arabia. Ghariye Gharbiye (Hauran)

Arabia. Hut (Hauran) Arabia. Irbid (Decapolis) Arabia. Irbid (Decapolis)

Βα´σσα Βα´σσα Βα´σσο Βα´σσο Βα´σσο Βα´σσο

Βα´σσο Βα´σσο Βα´σσο

Βα´σσο

Βα´σσο Βα´σσο

Βα´σσο Βα´σσο Βα´σσο Βα´σσο Βα´σσο Βα´σσο Βα´σσο Βα´σσο Βα´σσο

Βα´σσο Βα´σσο Βα´σσο

Bassa/Bassos in Syrian and Arabian inscriptions

Name

Table 3.

2nd–6th cent. AD 238–9 AD 238–9 AD

2nd–6th cent. AD 2nd–6th cent. AD 2nd–6th cent. AD 2nd–6th cent. AD Imp. 2nd–6th cent. AD 2nd–6th cent. AD 2nd–6th cent. AD 2nd–6th cent. AD

309–10 AD ?236–7 AD

Imp.

2nd–6th cent. AD 2nd–6th cent. AD 3rd cent. AD

Byz. Byz. 262–3 AD 263–4 AD 263–4 AD 2nd–6th cent. AD

Date

Dunand, Mél. Dussaud, 572 no. 294 Syria 29 (1952), 316 Syria 29 (1952), 316

IGLS XIII 9230 IGLS XIII 9279 IGLS XIII 9280 IGLS XIII 9324 IGLS XIII 9410 Dunand, Mél. Dussaud, 567 no. 278d Dunand, Mél. Dussaud, 568 no. 279 Dunand, Mél. Dussaud, 568 no. 281 Dunand, Mél. Dussaud, 574 no. 302

Waddington, I.Syrie 1984d IGLS XIII 9318

SEG VII 951

Canova no. 62 Canova no. 328 Syria 29 (1952), 312 Syria 29 (1952), 313 Syria 29 (1952), 313 Brünnow & Domaszewski, PA II, p. 260 no. 23a MNDPV 5 (1899), 59 no. 23b PAES 3A, 626c Syria 29 (1952), 314

Reference

Αντ\νιο

s. Γλλιο f. Ουμαιθου, gen. f. Θομεραθη Βα´σσ[ο] lap.; f. Σαβειθιο f. Σαβε)νο f. Αρ, Σαβε)νο f. Θεο´δωρο

Βα´σσ, lap.

Βα´[σσ]ο, lap.; ?f. Πα´λμα f. Μα´γνα Βα´σο; s. Ζεμερο

[Βα´]σσο, lap.; s. Αννηλο [Βα´]σσο, lap.; s. Αννηλο)

f.

d. Δουσαριο Βα´σα f. Μα´γνο f. Α4λιο f. Μα´γνο s. Ζαβδο

Relations etc.

CULTURAL IDENTITY AND SYRIAN NAMES

205

Location

Arabia. Jabir (Hauran) Arabia. Mashquq (Hauran) Arabia. Rihab Arabia. Rihab Arabia. Rihab Arabia. Rihab

Arabia. Rihab Arabia. Rihab Arabia. Sabhah (Hauran)

Arabia. Sabhah (Hauran)

Arabia. Salkhad Arabia. Salkhad Arabia. Salkhad Arabia. Tell Ghariye (Hauran) Arabia. Ubtaa (Batanaea) Arabia. Ubtaa (Batanaea) Arabia. Umm al-Jimal

Arabia. Umm al-Jimal Arabia. Umm al-Jimal Arabia. Umm al-Jimal Arabia. Umm al-Jimal Arabia. Umm al-Jimal Arabia. Umm al-Jimal Arabia. Uyun (Hauran)

Βα´σσο Βα´σσο Βα´σσο Βα´σσο Βα´σσο Βα´σσο

Βα´σσο Βα´σσο Βα´σσο

Βα´σσο

Βα´σσο Βα´σσο Βα´σσο Βα´σσο Βα´σσο Βα´σσο Βα´σσο

Βα´σσο Βα´σσο Βα´σσο Βα´σσο Βα´σσο Βα´σσο Βα´σσο

continued.

Name

Table 3.

2nd–6th cent. AD 2nd–6th cent. AD 2nd–6th cent. AD 2nd–6th cent. AD Imp. Imp. Imp.

252–3 AD 369–70 AD Imp. 321–2 AD 2nd–6th cent. AD 2nd–6th cent. AD 2nd–6th cent. AD

2nd–6th cent. AD

595 AD Imp. 2nd–6th cent. AD

2nd–6th cent. AD 350–1 AD 575–636 AD 582–3 AD 594 AD 595 AD

Date e

PAES 3A, 378 PAES 3A, 415 PAES 3A, 454 PAES 3A, 455 PAES 3A, 343 PAES 3A, 344 PAES 3A, 691

Waddington, 1990 Waddington, 2001 Waddington, 1989 Dussaud & Macler, MSM, 673 no. 92h AO 18 (1950), 152 no. 336i AO 18 (1950), 152 no. 336 PAES 3A, 281–2

PAES 3A, 144

LA 6 (1955–6), 308–9 no. 8 PAES 3A, 177 QDAP 13 (1948), 69 no. 3f LA 30 (1980), 338 no. 8A QDAP 13 (1948), 69 no. 4 Arch. Heritage of Jordan, 43 pl. IXg LA 30 (1980), 332–3 no. 6A LA 30 (1980), 318 pl. 29 fig. 1a PAES 3A, 143

Reference

Βα´σσο Μαωρ s. Οκτωρ

f. Μορεα f. Βο´ ηθο s. Μα´ξιμο f. Μαωρ

f. Αλξανδρο, Βοαισαθη, Λεο´ντι

f. Εμρανου, gen.

Βα´σσο Αμμο or s. Αμμο Αβδαλλα Βα´σσο or f. Αβδαλλα s. Ου1λπιο s. Ανδρο´μαχο

date— MS

f. Ηλα Βα´σσ[ο], lap.

Βα´σο; f. Μελη

Relations etc.

206 Maurice Sartre

Syria. al-Qsayr (Apamene) Syria. Brâd (Antiochene) Syria. Burj al-Abyad (Apamene) Syria. Burj al-Seb} (Antiochene)

Syria. Dâr al-Salâm (Emesene) Syria. Dmayr (Damascene) Syria. Dunaybe (Hauran)

Syria. Emesa Syria. Epiphaneia Syria. Hierapolis-Bambyke Syria. Hîjjâne (Damascene) Syria. Imma (Antiochene) Syria. Maktabe (Chalkidike) Syria. Ma}râta (Apamene) Syria. Masharfe (Apamene) Syria. Maximianopolis (Sakkaia) Syria. Maximianopolis (Sakkaia) Syria. Nâbi Ham (Ituraia)

Syria. Nimre (Hauran) Syria. Nimre (Hauran)

Syria. Nimre (Hauran)

Syria. Qasr al-Abyad (Apamene) Syria. Rîha (Antiochene) Syria. Rîha (Antiochene) Syria. Sahr (Trachonitis) Syria. Sha{ârah (Trachonitis) Syria. Sidon

Syria. Tell Aqribîn (Antiochene)

Βα´σσο Βα´σσο Βα´σσο Βα´σσο

Βα´σσο Βα´σσο Βα´σσο

Βα´σσο Βα´σσο Βα´σσο Βα´σσο Βα´σσο Βα´σσο Βα´σσο Βα´σσο Βα´σσο Βα´σσο Βα´σσο

Βα´σσο Βα´σσο

Βα´σσο

Βα´σσο Βα´σσο Βα´σσο Βα´σσο Βα´σσο Βα´σσο

Βα´σσο

Byz.

5th cent. AD 386 AD 386 AD 2nd–6th cent. AD Imp. Imp.

Imp.-Byz.

2nd–6th cent. AD Byz.

2nd cent. AD Hell.–Imp. Byz. 244 AD 6th cent. AD Byz. Byz. Byz. Imp. 2nd half 4th cent. AD 172–3 AD

337 AD Imp. 2nd–6th cent. AD

Byz. 296 AD Imp.–Byz. 572 AD

IGLS V 2322 IGLS V 2017 SEG XXXII 1467 Waddington, I.Syrie 2560 IGLS II 625 IGLS II 340 IGLS IV 1558 IGLS IV 1728 SEG VII 1011 Waddington, I.Syrie 2145 Krencker & Zschietzschmann, RTS, 170l Waddington, I.Syrie 2174 Dussaud & Macler, Voyage, 148 no. 11m Burton & Drake, Unexplored Syria II, pl. VI, 139 and p. 387 no. 139n SEG XX 381 IGLS II 689 B IGLS II 689 C PAES IIIA 805.5 PAES IIIA 803.6 Rolland, Courrier Numism. 7 (1933), 79 no. 1o Jarry, AnnIslam 7 (1967), 181 no. 100

IGLS V 2100 Abdul-Hak, Catalogue, 66 no. 32k AO 18 (1950), 163 no. 370

IGLS IV 1766 Jarry, AnnIslam 7 (1967), 211 no. 158j IGLS IV 1568 IGLS II 478

Βα´[σσο]

Βα´σο

[Β]α´σσο

Βα´σο

s. Σιθρο

s. Χαυθαρ s. Αλεσο s. Αβουριο Βα´σο; s. Σααριτα s. Σιθρο

Φλ. Βα´σσο [Β ]α´σσο

s. &Ρωμαν

f. Σαδαραιο Αρ. Βα´σ[σο]; s. Μοενο [Β]α´σσ[ο]

Βαστου, gen. lap.; f. Συμε\νη

Βα´σο Βα´σο; s. Αλφανα

CULTURAL IDENTITY AND SYRIAN NAMES

207

Syria. Tyros Syria. Umm al-Mais (Emesene) Syria. Ûrim al-Jôz (Antiochene) Syria. Ûrim al-Jôz (Antiochene) Syria. Ûrim al-Jôz (Antiochene) Syria. Zabîre (Batanaia) Syria. Zebed (Chalkidike) Syria. Zeugma Syria. Zeugma

Βα´σσο Βα´σσο Βα´σσο Βα´σσο Βα´σσο Βα´σσο Βα´σσο Βα´σσο Βα´σσο 477 AD Byz. Byz. Imp.–Byz. Imp.–Byz. 213 AD 337 AD 3rd–4th cent. AD Imp.

Date p

Avi-Yonah, IEJ 16 (1966), 209–10 IGLS V 2627 IGLS II 672 IGLS II 666 IGLS II 666 Ewing no. 56q IGLS II 315 IGLS I 104 Wagner, Seleukeia, 224 no. 88r

Reference

α$γιο Βα´σο Βα´σο I; f. Βα´σσο II II; s. Βα´σσο I

Relations etc.

b

R. E. Brünnow and A. von Domaszewski, Die Provincia Arabia, 3 vols. (Strasburg, 1904–9). Mitteilungen und Nachrichten des deutschen Palästina-Vereins. c PAES  Greek and Latin Inscriptions in Publications of the Princeton University Archeological Expeditions to Syria in 1904–5 and 1909. d Mélanges syriens. Offerts à . . . R. Dussaud, ed. Maurice Dunand, 2 vols. (Paris, 1939). e Liber Annuus. Studium Biblicum Franciscanum. f The Quarterly of the Department of Antiquities in Palestine. g Archaeological Heritage of Jordan ([Amman, c.1990]). h R. Dussaud and F. Macler, Rapport sur une mission scientifique dans les regions désertiques de la Syrie Moyenne (1903). i Archiv Orientalni. j Annales Islamologiques. k S. and A. Abdul-Hak, Catalogue illustré du Département des antiquités gréco-romaines au Musée de Damas, I (Damascus, 1951). l D. Krencker and W. Zschietzschmann, Römische Tempel in Syrien (Berlin and Leipzig, 1938). m R. Dussaud and F. Macler, Voyage archéologique au Safâ et dans le Djebel Ed-Druz (Paris, 1901). n R. F. Burton and Charles F. Tyrwhitt Drake, Unexplored Syria: Visits to the Libanus, the Tulúl el Safa¯, the Anti-Libanus, the Northern Libanus, and the Aláh, 2 vols. (London, 1872). o Le Courrier Numismatique. p Israel Exploration Journal. q Ewing  A. G. Wright and A. Souter, ‘Greek and Latin inscriptions collected in the Hauran by the Rev. W. Ewing’, Palestine Exploration Fund Quarterly Statement (1895), 41–67, 131–60, 265–80, 346–54. r J. Wagner, Seleukeia am Euphrat (Zeugma) (Wiesbaden, 1976).

a

Location

continued.

Name

Table 3.

208 Maurice Sartre

Arabia. Abila (Decapolis) Arabia. Bostra Arabia. Bostra Arabia. Hegra Arabia. Hegra

Arabia. Motho Syria. Athela (Hauran) Syria. Mjâdil (Trachonitis) Syria. Mushannaf (Hauran)

Syria. Rimea (Trachonitis) Syria. Rimea (Trachonitis) Syria. Sidon Syria. Sidon Syria. Sijn (Hauran)

Syria. Soada-Dionysias (Hauran) Syria. Tafhâ (Hauran) Syria. Tyros Syria. Waqm (Trachonitis) Syria. Zebed (Chalkidike)

Κα´σσιο Κα´σσιο Κα´σσιο Κα´σσιο Κα´σσιο

Κα´σσιο Κα´σσιο Κα´σσιο Κα´σσιο

Κα´σσιο Κα´σσιο Κα´σσιο Κα´σσιο Κα´σσιο

Κα´σσιο Κα´σσιο Κα´σσιο Κα´σσιο Κα´σσιο Imp. 2nd–6th cent. AD Imp.–Byz. 316–96 AD 349 AD

2nd–6th cent. AD 320 AD 2nd–3rd cent. AD 2nd–3rd cent. AD Imp.

567 AD Imp. 2nd–6th cent. AD Imp.

Byz. 2nd–6th cent. AD Byz. Imp. Imp.

Date

Dunand, Musée, 15–16 no. 4 Waddington, I.Syrie 2169 Rey-Coquais, Nécropole, no. 145d PAES IIA 788.1 Lauffray, BEO 10 (1943–4), 53e

Waddington, I.Syrie 2070 p IGLS XIII 9287 IGLS XIII 9040 Huber, Journal, 407a Jaussen-Savignac, Mission, 644–5, no. 4b Canova no. 309 Waddington, I.Syrie 2375 PAES IIIA 787.7 Burton & Drake, Unexplored Syria II, pl. VI, 119 and p. 386 no. 119 Waddington, I.Syrie 2420 Waddington, I.Syrie 2393–5 SEG VII 297 SEG VII 298 Savignac, RB 14 (1905), 95 no. 9c

Reference

Κα´σσι f. Αζιζο

Κα´σσι Κα´σσιο &Ερμ6 Κα´σσι; s. Σαμακεο f. Σαμιατο f. Μα´ξιμο

s. Αβαβο s. Μαλιχαθο

s. Ανουνο I f. Μαλχο ?f. Ιο!λ. Οα´λη

Κα´σσι Κα´σσι

Relations etc.

b

C. Huber, Journal d’un voyage en Arabie (1883–4) (Paris, 1891). J. A. Jaussen and R. Savignac, Mission archéologique en Arabie (Paris, 1909–22), IIA. c Revue Biblique. d J.-P. Rey-Coquais, Inscriptions grecques et latines découvertes dans les fouilles de Tyr. i: Inscriptions de la nécropole (Bulletin du Musée de Beyrouth, 29). e Bulletin d’études orientales.

a

Location

Kassios in Syrian and Arabian inscriptions

Name

Table 4.

CULTURAL IDENTITY AND SYRIAN NAMES

209

Location

Arabia. al-Muarribeh (Hauran) Arabia. Habran (Hauran) Arabia. Orman (Hauran) Arabia. Umm al-Jimal Syria. Athela (Hauran) Syria. Laodikeia Syria. Nîha (Beqâ{a) Syria. Seeia (Hauran)

Κα´σιο Κα´σιο Κα´σιο Κα´σιο Κα´σιο Κα´σιο Κα´σιο Κα´σιο

Kasios in Syrian and Arabian inscriptions

Name

Table 5.

336–7 AD 2nd–6th cent. AD 2nd–6th cent. AD 2nd–6th cent. AD Imp. 2nd cent. AD Imp. Imp.

Date

PAES 3A, 611 Dunand, Musée, 95 no. 195 SEG VII 1179 PAES 3A, 435 Dussaud & Macler, MSM, 648 no. 20 IGLS IV 1254 IGLS VI 2935 A Unp.

Reference

f. Ευ1 νομο f. Σατορν)λο s. Ολβαν f. Μαθεαθη f. Αμο f. Αρηλα Σf. Να´ ρκισο

Relations etc.

210 Maurice Sartre

CULTURAL IDENTITY AND SYRIAN NAMES

211

A similar uncertainty surrounds Γερμαν, the well-known Latin name Germanus, which was very popular across the Empire. Syria was no exception (Table 6). We currently have fifty-one occurrences, to which ought to be added several unpublished examples from the Hauran (though in fact these make little difference). Here again the Latin explanation of the name should not be excluded a priori, but it is the case that Semitic languages possess a root which could equally well explain Germanus, and which has yielded names. The root jrm has generated a series of names generally transliterated as garam- or garm- followed by a compositional element: Γαραμηλο, Γαρμηλο. Naturally garam- or garm- was not destined to create the name Germanus, but in Safaitic one also finds grmn (cf. Harding, p. 160). Grmn ought to produce *Γαραμανο, *Γαρμανο. It is reasonable to ask whether we are not witnessing here a form of onomastic cross-contamination. This phenomenon of cross-contamination— which can always be contested— will perhaps be more palpable in a further example. We know from Syria and Arabia a few examples of a perfectly classical Greek name, Χελων (Table 7). Those seven examples are not in doubt, but they are surprising. The name, made famous by Chilon of Lakedaimon, is not very common in the Greek world. How has it come to be so popular in the Hauran (there is only one external example, from Emesa)? What is more, the name is associated with others like Malchion, Sabos, Abdaretas, which have been identified as Arabic names; one could even call the last one Nabatean. Further investigation reveals that there exist other similar names in the same regions (Table 8). Except for the last name, which may derive from another root, these names lead us to search for an indigenous root of the khltype. Safaitic has produced more than 120 examples (already 118 in Harding, p. 506) of a khl name, of which the vocalization is unknown. I would not be surprised if Χεειλο, Χειλο, were Greek transcriptions of the Arabic original. The hiatus preserves the trace of an original h. It is notable also that the names of fathers and sons are nearly all Arabic (with the exception of Magnos). But it can justifiably be observed that there is a significant difference between Χεειλο and Χελων. I agree, and I also believe that it is the difference which separates the barbarian from the Greek. It could not have escaped anyone at the time that Χεειλο was simply the Greek transcription of an indigenous name. Any stranger to the Hauran and to the Arab borderlands of Roman Syria would, without difficulty, have identified it as a barbarian name. Who took the initiative to transform Χεειλο into Χελων? We will never know. Was it a case of adopting a known Greek name? Even that is not sure, and it may have been due only to the attraction of the final -ων, presumed to be more ‘Greek’, as in Μαλχιων, and even Αζιζιων. How was this rare

Location

Arabia. Adraha Arabia. Adraha

Arabia. Adraha Arabia. Adraha

Arabia. Adraha Arabia. al-Umtaiyeh (Hauran) Arabia. Ayun (Hauran) Arabia. Bostra Arabia. Bostra Arabia. Charachmoba Arabia. Dhibin (Hauran)

Arabia. Dhibin (Hauran) Arabia. Gerasa Arabia. Gerasa Arabia. Ghariye Gharbiye (Hauran) Arabia. Hegra Arabia. Jabir (Hauran) Arabia. Jubayb (Hauran) Arabia. Mahaiy Arabia. Mahaiy Arabia. Malah as-Sarrar (Hauran)

Arabia. Orman (Hauran)

Γερμαν Γερμαν

Γερμαν Γερμαν

Γερμαν Γερμαν Γερμαν Γερμαν Γερμαν Γερμαν Γερμαν

Γερμαν Γερμαν Γερμαν Γερμαν Γερμαν Γερμαν Γερμαν Γερμαν Γερμαν Γερμαν

Γερμαν 289–90 AD

Byz. 2nd cent. AD 2nd half 2nd cent. AD 2nd–6th cent. AD Imp. Imp. 2nd–6th cent. AD 644 AD Byz. Byz.

274–5 AD 2nd–6th cent. AD 272–3 AD 2nd–6th cent. AD 320–1 AD Byz. 2nd–6th cent. AD

2nd–6th cent. AD 274–5 AD

263–4 AD 2nd–6th cent. AD

Date

Germanos in Syrian and Arabian inscriptions

Name

Table 6.

SEG VII 1172

SEG VII 1159 Welles, no. 102a Welles, no. 219 Dunand, Mél. Dussaud, 567 no. 276 Jaussen & Savignac, Mission, 649 no. 17 LA 6 (1955–6), 306–7 no. 5 RB (1905), 603 no. 17 Canova no. 392 Canova no. 401 Dussaud & Macler, MSM, 660 no. 53

Syria 29 (1952), 317 PAES 3A, 44 Waddington, I.Syrie 1984b IGLS XIII 9208 IGLS XIII 9111 Canova no. 61 SEG VII 1161

PAES 3A, 631 Syria 29 (1952), 317

Syria 29 (1952), 313 AJPh (1885), 205 no. 34

Reference

Γερμαν Μαυειλο?

f. Θεδωρο [Γε]ρμαν[], lap. Γερμ[ανικ]οG, ed.; name: Clermont-Ganneau, RAO 5 1903, p. 385 s. Εδιου, gen.

s. & ΡοGσο

Γερ[μ]αν, lap. f. Αμρο f. Μεγθιο f. Βαριχα Γερμαν[], lap.; f. ?Σιλουαν f. Μεγεθα Α4λ. Γερμαν

Γερμαν ? καH Γαννων; s. Αναμο f. Μαζαβανα

f. Αυδη

f. Σαβε)νο ?s. Μαυειλο

Relations etc.

212 Maurice Sartre

Arabia. Salkhad

Arabia. Ubtaa (Batanaea) Syria. Ainkania (Ituraia) Syria. al-Bâb (Chalkidike) Syria. al-Mishrife (Emesene) Syria. Apameia Syria. Canatha

Syria. Dakwe (Beqâ{a) Syria. Doroa (Hauran) Syria. Dunaybe (Hauran) Syria. Emesa

Syria. Emesa Syria. Hierapolis-Bambyke Syria. Hierapolis-Bambyke Syria. Jasrîn (Damascene) Syria. Kafr (Hauran) Syria. Kyrrhos

Syria. Maximianopolis (Sakkaia) Syria. Mif {ale (Hauran) Syria. Migdala (Hauran) Syria. Msayke (Trachonitis) Syria. Mushannaf (Hauran) Syria. Najrân (Trachonitis) Syria. Qara Pinar (Commagene)

Syria. Seleukeia (Pieria)

Γερμαν

Γερμαν Γερμαν Γερμαν Γερμαν Γερμαν Γερμαν

Γερμαν Γερμαν Γερμαν Γερμαν

Γερμαν Γερμαν Γερμαν Γερμαν Γερμαν Γερμαν

Γερμαν Γερμαν Γερμαν Γερμαν Γερμαν Γερμαν Γερμαν

Γερμαν Imp.

2nd–6th cent. AD 2nd–6th cent. AD Imp. 2nd–6th cent. AD Imp. 3rd–4th cent. AD Imp.–Byz.

Imp. Imp. Imp. 149 AD Imp. Imp.

6th cent. AD Imp. Imp. 160–250 AD

2nd–6th cent. AD 3rd–4th cent. AD 223–4 AD Imp. Imp. Imp.

Byz.

AAES 371 Waddington, I.Syrie 2385 Waddington, I.Syrie 2402 PAES IIIA 795.11 Waddington, I.Syrie 2220 Waddington, I.Syrie 2433 Jerphanion, MUSJ 19 (1935), 93–4 no. 24e IGLS III 1138

IGLS V 2486 IGLS I 252 Mouterde, Limes, 211 no. 45 Dussaud & Macler, MSM, 702 no. 179 Waddington, I.Syrie 2293 IGLS I 153 C

IGLS VI 2985 B Seetzen, Reisen I, 111d AO 18 (1950), 164 no. 371 IGLS V 2304

AO 18 (1950), 152 no. 335 IGLS VI 2986 Mouterde, Limes, 187 no. 13b IGLS V 2505 IGLS III 1145 AAES 413 ac

Waddington, I.Syrie 2009

s. Οσοδονου, gen.

Ιο!λιο Γερμ[αν] Νγρο ? καH Γερμαν; f. Ζεβινα f. Μασαχο, Αναμο f. Σοβολαθη s. Ουρο

[Γε]ρμαν freedman

Γερμα[ν] Φλ. Γερμαν [Γε]ρμα[ν]; f. Αθηνδωρο

Π. Α5λ. Γερμαν; f. Φλιππο

Γερμ[αν]; s. Σευθα

name: Clermont-Ganneau, RAO 4 (1901), 371 f. Βαρνη f. Αρ. Αειανη

ΙΒΡ.Α, lap.;

CULTURAL IDENTITY AND SYRIAN NAMES

213

Syria. Sha{âra (Trachonitis) Syria. Shaykh Maskîn (Batanaia)

Syria. Zeugma Syria. Zeugma

Γερμαν Γερμαν

Γερμαν Γερμαν Imp. mid-2nd cent. AD

161–9 AD 125 AD

Date

Wagner, Seleukeia, 182 no. 13 Wagner, Seleukeia, 197 no. 42

PAES IIIA 803 IGLS V 2554

Reference

f. Πρκλο Γερ[μ]αν; f. Αννα f. Αθηνδωρο f. Οβθα

Relations etc.

c

b

C. B. Welles, Gerasa: City of the Decapolis. The Inscriptions (New Haven, 1938). R. Mouterde and A. Poidebard, Le Limes de Chalcis. Organisation de la steppe en Haute Syrie romaine, 2 vols. (Paris, 1945), I. W. K. Prentice, Greek and Latin Inscriptions, in Publications of an American Archeological Expedition to Syria in 1899–1900, iii (New York, 1908). d U. J. Seetzen’s Reisen durch Syrien, Palastina, Phönicien, die Transjordan-Länder, Arabia Petraea und Unter-Aegypten, ed. F. Kruse et al., 3 vols. (Berlin, 1854–5). e Mélanges de l’Université Saint-Joseph.

a

Location

continued.

Name

Table 6.

214 Maurice Sartre

Location

Arabia. Bostra Arabia. Umm al-Jimal Arabia. Umm al-Jimal Syria. Bosana (Hauran) Syria. Emesa Syria. I{re (Hauran)

Syria. Maximianopolis (Sakkaia) Syria. Rudayme (Sakkaia)

Χελων Χελων Χελων Χελων Χελων Χελων

Χελων Χλων Imp. Imp.

320–1 AD 2nd–6th cent. AD Imp. 2nd–6th cent. AD 140 AD Imp.

Date

Cheilon/Chilon in Syrian and Arabian inscriptions

Name

Table 7.

SEG VII 1029 Waddington, I.Syrie 2193

IGLS XIII 9111 PAES 3A, 418 PAES 3A, 300 SEG VII 1090 IGLS V 2346 Savignac, RB 14 (1905), 95 no. 7

Reference

Ιο!λ. Χελων

[Χ]ε[λ]ων; f. Αβδαρετα f. Αλξανδρο ?f. Χαζμηνο

s. Μαλχων [Χ]λων; s. Μαρκο Χλον, voc. s. Σαβο

Relations etc.

CULTURAL IDENTITY AND SYRIAN NAMES

215

Syria. Nimre (Hauran) Syria. Ma{lûlâ (Damascene) Syria. Ma{lûlâ (Damascene)

Syria. Canatha Syria. Maximianopolis (Sakkaia) Syria. Canatha

Χεεμο Χειλο Χειλο

Χαιλο Χαιλο Χααλου

b

2nd–6th cent. AD Imp. Imp.

Imp. 167 AD 167 AD

143–4 AD 2nd–6th cent. AD 2nd–6th cent. AD Imp. 2nd–6th cent. AD 2nd–6th cent. AD Imp.

Date

Waddington, I.Syrie 2183 Bliss, PEFQS (1890), 79a Moritz, Mitt. Seminar 1 (1898), 147 no. 4b AAES 425 Waddington, I.Syrie 2140 PAES IIIA 762

IGLS XIII 9005 Dussaud & Macler, MSM, 664 no. 67 PAES 3A, 413 PAES 3A, 242 PAES IIIA 733 PAES IIIA 733 Waddington, I.Syrie 2410

Reference

Palestine Exploration Fund Quarterly Statement. B. Moritz, ‘Syrischen Inschriften aus Syrien und Mesopotamien’, Mitteilungen des Seminar für die orientalen Sprachen 1 (1898).

Arabia. Bostra Arabia. Qaysama (Hauran) Arabia. Umm al-Jimal Arabia. Umm al-Jimal Syria. Bosana (Hauran) Syria. Bosana (Hauran) Syria. Walgha (Hauran)

Χεειλο Χεειλο Χεειλο Χεειλο Χεειλο Χεειλο Χεειλο

a

Location

Cheeilos etc. in Syrian and Arabian inscriptions

Name

Table 8.

s. Χασετο s. Σαβδο gen.; s. Σαδο

f. Ουασιμαθο f. Μα´γνο Χεεγλο, ed. f. Οναινο; name: MS s. Αρειο; ?Χεειλο s. Ζαβδεο s. Ζαβδεο

f. Δαλσουμο s. Αβδαλλα f. Θαμαρη

Relations etc.

216 Maurice Sartre

CULTURAL IDENTITY AND SYRIAN NAMES

217

name ‘resurrected’? One would like to know, as it would inform us about the culture of the individual in question. We have to renounce this line of investigation and resign ourselves to noting that, by contamination, a relatively rare Greek name enjoyed a certain popularity in southern Syria, in Arab communities. The Greek name would never have been chosen in its own right had it not been convenient to ‘hellenize’ a popular Semitic name. The example of Χελων has for a long time attracted my attention precisely because it was a name no longer fashionable in the Greek world, whose presence among the Arabs of the Hauran seemed incongruous. The problem could therefore be clarified with relative ease. But there are similar examples that can go entirely unnoticed, when the Greek name itself seems completely commonplace. I will take Ευ1νομο and Οα´λη as two examples, both of which deserve further attention. Ευ1νομο is a relatively commonplace name, in Syria and elsewhere; at least, that is how it looks, if one has not made a detailed inventory. On closer inspection, it is found that the name only occurs between the Hauran and the land of Moab (the exception being one example from the Apamene), that is, the area in which Arabic onomastics are the strongest (Table 9). It is traditionally asserted that Syrians especially favoured auspicious names beginning in Ε-. The claim is not false since there are many names of this type, but is it more frequent there than elsewhere? LGPN will help to answer that question when it is complete. In any case, the massive presence of Ευ1νομο in the Hauran, sometimes associated with an Arabic name (e.g. Thaimos), is intriguing. At the same time, we know of many individuals in the same region who are called Αναμο or Ανεμο (Table 10). Except for one Anamos from Damascus and one Anemos from the land of Moab, all the others are from the Hauran. The similarity with Eunomos is striking. Now, a name that is found more than 330 times in Safaitic (Harding, p. 80) is }n{m. It can equally well be transcribed as Anamos, Anemos, or Eunomos. Could we not presume, as in the case of Χελων, that a cross-contamination occurred, involving an indigenous original whose inflection in -os was not sufficient to make it seem Greek? The perfectly formed Eunomos must have, in some sense, bestowed that added value. By this reasoning, I do not want to propose that Eunomos was systematically chosen to transcribe the Arabic }n{m, but only that it could have occasionally been the case. I will come back to this point below. The same schema can be proposed for Οα´λη, the Greek transcription of the Latin Valens. Here again the name could have been adopted in its own right, with its proper Graeco-Roman connotations, but I doubt that its meaning was always perceived (Table 11). In any event, it will be observed that the geographical range of the name hardly goes beyond the Hauran to the north,

Arabia. Bostra Arabia. Bostra Arabia. Charachmoba Arabia. Charachmoba Arabia. Ghariye Sharqiye (Hauran) Arabia. Mzayrib (Jawlan) Arabia. Nemara (Safa) Arabia. Orman (Hauran) Arabia. Rihab Arabia. Salkhad

Syria. Aere (Batanaia) Syria. al-Ruhaiye (Apamene)

Syria. al-Ubayr (Trachonitis) Syria. Burâq (Trachonitis)

Syria. Bûraq (Trachonitis)

Syria. Canatha Syria. Junayne (Sakkaia) Syria. Mjâdil (Trachonitis)

Syria. Nâmr (Batanaia)

Syria. Selaima (Hauran)

Ευ1 νομο Ευ1 νομο Ευ1 νομο Ευ1 νομο Ευ1 νομο Ευ1 νομο Ευ1 νομο Ευ1 νομο Ευ1 νομο Ευ1 νομο

Ευ1 νομο Ευ1 νομο

Ευ1 νομο Ευ1 νομο

Ευ1 νομο

Ευ1 νομο Ευ1 νομο Ευ1 νομο

Ευ1 νομο

Ευ1 νομο Imp.

2nd–6th cent. AD

Imp. Imp. 2nd–6th cent. AD

4th cent. AD

Imp. 4th cent. AD

45 AD 373 AD

Imp. Imp. Byz. Byz. 2nd–6th cent. AD Imp. Imp. 359–60 AD 2nd–6th cent. AD Byz.

336–7 AD 3rd cent. AD

Date

SEG VII 1110

AO 18 (1950), 161 no. 365

Séjourné, RB 7 (1898), 108 no. 2 Waddington, I.Syrie 2188 PAES IIIA 785.5

PAES IIIA 796 Burton & Drake, Unexplored Syria II, pl. IV, 56 and p. 384 no. 56 Waddington, I.Syrie 2537 a

PAES IIIA 655.2 IGLS IV 1877

IGLS XIII 9271 SEG VII 1147 Canova no. 63 Canova no. 84 Dunand, Mél. Dussaud, 574 no. 301 BCH (1897), 43 no. 17 Waddington, I.Syrie 2276 SEG VII 1170 Mittmann, Beiträge, 187 no. 25a Waddington, I.Syrie 2009

PAES 3A, 611 IGLS XIII 9009

Reference

Siegfried Mittmann, Beiträge zur Siedlungs- und Territorialgeschichte des nördlichen Ostjordanlandes (Wiesbaden, 1970).

Arabia. al-Muarribeh (Hauran) Arabia. Bostra

Ευ1 νομο Ευ1 νομο

a

Location

Eunomos in Syrian and Arabian inscriptions

Name

Table 9.

f. Δωσθεο Φλ. Ευ1νομο; s. ?Δεξα Ευ1ν[ομο]; f. Αρ. Αμμ\νιο s. Θαιμο

Φλ. Ευ1νομο; s. ?Σαλαμανη Φλ. Ευ1νομο; s. Σαυαδανου, gen.

f. Σωφρνιο

Ευ1νομο Ακντιο

f. Ιεριο [Ε ]υ1ν[ο]μο, lap. [Ευ1]νομο, lap.; name: Clermont-Ganneau, RAO 4 (1901), 370 s. &Εκτωρ Ευ1[νο]μο or Ευ1[δη]μο;

f. Σατορνε)νο

Σεπτιμιαν or Σεργιλλιαν f. Αλξανδρο s. Πα´πουνο f. Βηθο s. Γσσιο

s. Κα´σιο f. Αρ.

Relations etc.

218 Maurice Sartre

Location

Arabia. Adraha

Arabia. Bostra Arabia. Bostra Arabia. Bostra Arabia. Ghariye Sharqiye (Hauran)

Arabia. Jabir (Hauran) Arabia. Jubayb (Hauran) Arabia. Kharaba (Hauran) Arabia. Kharaba (Hauran) Arabia. Kharaba (Hauran) Arabia. Madaba

Arabia. Mashquq (Hauran)

Arabia. Musayfire (Hauran) Arabia. Nemara (Safa) Arabia. Salkhad (Hauran) Arabia. Salkhad (Hauran) Arabia. Salkhad (Hauran) Arabia. Tell Ghariye (Hauran) Arabia. Ubtaa (Batanaea)

Arabia. Umm al-Jimal Arabia. Umm al-Jimal Arabia. Umm al-Jimal

Αναμο

Αναμο Αναμο Αναμο Αναμο

Αναμο Αναμο Αναμο Αναμο Αναμο Αναμο

Αναμο

Αναμο Αναμο Αναμο Αναμο Αναμο Αναμο Αναμο

Αναμο Αναμο Αναμο

2nd–6th cent. AD 2nd–6th cent. AD 2nd–6th cent. AD

Imp. 2nd–6th cent. AD 209–17 AD 322–3 AD 294–5 AD 2nd–6th cent. AD 2nd–6th cent. AD

Imp.

Imp. 2nd–6th cent. AD 2nd–6th cent. AD 2nd–6th cent. AD 2nd–6th cent. AD 148 AD

2nd–6th cent. AD 2nd–6th cent. AD 3rd cent. AD 2nd–6th cent. AD

274–5 AD

Date

Anamos/Anemos in Syrian and Arabian inscriptions

Name

Table 10.

PAES 3 A, no. 354 PAES 3 A, no. 357 PAES 3 A, no. 358

Dunand, Mél. Dussaud, 564 no. 266 Dussaud & Macler, MSM, 696 no. 165 PAES 3 A, no. 743 Dunand, Musée, 103 no. 211 Waddington, I.Syrie 1998 Dunand, Musée, 108 no. 222 Dussaud & Macler, MSM, 674 no. 93 AO 18 (1950), 156 no. 346

LA 6 (1955/6), 306/7 no. 5 RB (1905), 603 no. 16 RB (1905), 603 no. 15 Dussaud & Macler, MSM, 694 no. 160 Dussaud & Macler, Voyage, 196 no. 79 IGLJord II 119a

IGLS XIII 9321 IGLS XIII 9335 IGLS XIII 9209 Dunand, Mél. Dussaud, 573 no. 299

Syria 29 (1952), 317

Reference

Οα´λη Αναμο or f. Οα´λη

Αναμο[]; f. Μαθων f. Νανη

f. Δαδο f. Αβαο s. Θασαμου, gen. f. Μασεχο

Ναμο, lap.; Αναμο Σιλαν freed. Γερμαν s. Αο!ιτο s. Οραιλο Αν[α]μο f. Θομσαχη Ανα[μ]ο, lap.; f. Αβδαλλα 1Αννιο Αναμο

f. Γερμαν' ? καH Γαννων f. Αυθο f. Κασσα)ο

Relations etc.

CULTURAL IDENTITY AND SYRIAN NAMES

219

Location

Arabia. Umm al-Jimal Syria. al-Hayât (Sakkaia) Syria. Borechath Sabaôn (Trachonitis) Syria. Burâq (Trachonitis)

Syria. Burâq (Trachonitis) Syria. Buthayne (Sakkaia) Syria. Canatha

Syria. Canatha

Syria. Damascene or Haurân

Syria. Dârâ (Hauran)

Syria. Harrân (Trachonitis)

Syria. Lâhithe (Trachonitis) Syria. Maximianopolis (Sakkaia) Syria. Maximianopolis (Sakkaia) Syria. Maximianopolis (Sakkaia) Syria. Maximianopolis (Sakkaia) Syria. Mif {aleh (Hauran)

Syria. Mushannaf (Hauran) Syria. Mushannaf (Hauran) Syria. Nejrân (Trachonitis)

Αναμο Αναμο Αναμο Αναμο

Αναμο Αναμο Αναμο

Αναμο

Αναμο

Αναμο

Αναμο

Αναμο Αναμο Αναμο Αναμο Αναμο Αναμο

Αναμο Αναμο Αναμο

continued.

Name

Table 10.

Imp. Imp. 1st cent. AD

2nd–6th cent. AD 2nd–6th cent. AD 2nd–6th cent. AD Imp. Imp. Imp.

397–8 AD

2nd–6th cent. AD

Imp.

Imp. Imp. 2nd–6th cent. AD

2nd–6th cent. AD Imp. 2nd–6th cent. AD Imp.

Date

Waddington, I.Syrie 2220 Waddington, I.Syrie 2231 PAES IIIA 785

Waddington, I.Syrie 2538a AAES 371 SEG VII 1019 Séjourné, RB 7 (1898), 105 no. 3 Waddington, I.Syrie 2147 Burton & Drake, Unexplored Syria, II, pl. V no. 78 and p. 385 no. 78

PAES IIIA 794.1

Jalabert, MFOBeyr. 2 (1907), 289 no. 80b Waddington, I.Syrie 2412c

AAES 427

PAES 3 A, no. 434 AAES 366 Dunand, Musée, 51 no. 77 Jaussen & Vincent, RB 10 (1901), 572 no. 7 Jaussen & Vincent, RB 10 (1901), 572 Waddington, I.Syrie 2127 AAES 424

Reference

f. Ταιβαθη s. Γαρο; f. Αμερο

s. Οσεσο Νανλου, lap.; f. Δαβο ? καH Μαλχο; name: MS

Α. ? καH Γεδαρανο; f. Αο!ιτο Αν[α]μο, lap.; s. Μαρκιαν s. Σαλμο s. Γερμαν s. Κισσου, gen.

Ευ1βουλο f. Μαββογαιο

s. Γαυτο Σαναμο, lap.; f. Κλα!διο f. Σαμεθο ? καH

f. Αυμο

f. Μοειθο s. Σαβαο

Relations etc.

220 Maurice Sartre

Syria. Zorava (Trachonitis) Syria. Zorava (Trachonitis) Syria. Zorava (Trachonitis) Syria. Zorava (Trachonitis)

Arabia. Anz (Hauran) Arabia. Bostra Arabia. Moab Arabia. Smakiyeh Arabia. Taiybeh (Hauran) Arabia. Tell Ghariye (Hauran)

Arabia. Tell Ghariye (Hauran) Arabia. Umm al-Quttayn (Hauran)

Syria. al-Ubayr (Trachonitis) Syria. Ghâriye (Hauran) Syria. Karak (Hauran) Syria. Mushannaf (Hauran)

Αναμο Αναμο Αναμο Αναμο

Ανεμο Ανεμο Ανεμο Ανεμο Ανεμο Ανεμο

Ανεμο Ανεμο

Ανεμο Ανεμο Ανεμο Ανεμο

b

Imp. 2nd–6th cent. AD 253–4 AD 2nd–6th cent. AD

2nd–6th cent. AD 2nd–6th cent. AD

2nd–3rd cent. AD 2nd half 2nd cent. AD Imp. 2nd–6th cent. AD 2nd–6th cent. AD 2nd–6th cent. AD

2nd–6th cent. AD 2nd–6th cent. AD 2nd–6th cent. AD 2nd–6th cent. AD

Imp. 2nd–6th cent. AD

2nd–6th cent. AD 2nd–6th cent. AD 2nd–6th cent. AD 2nd–6th cent. AD Imp.

PAES IIIA 796 Waddington, I.Syrie 2412 h Waddington, I.Syrie 2412 Waddington, I.Syrie 2219

PAES 3A, 196 Dussaud & Macler, MSM, 675 no. 96

Dussaud & Macler, MSM, 679 no. 109 IGLS XIII 9084 LA 9 (1958–9), 357 no. 8 Canova no. 215 PAES 3A, 625 Dussaud & Macler, MSM, 677 no. 105

AAES 435 AAES 435 Waddington, I.Syrie 2496 Waddington, I.Syrie 2495

Dunand, Musée, 24 no. 22 AAES 389

Waddington, I.Syrie 2429 SEG VII 1036 PAES IIIA 805 SEG VII 1146 PAES IIIA 776

Pierre-Louis Gatier, Inscriptions de la Jordanie (Paris, 1986–), Inscr. grecques et latines de la Syrie. Mélanges de la Faculté orientale (Beirut, 1906–21).

Syria. Soada-Dionysias (Hauran) Syria. Tafhâ (Hauran)

Αναμο Αναμο

a

Syria. Nejrân (Trachonitis) Syria. Nimre (Hauran) Syria. Sahr (Trachonitis) Syria. Sahwat al-Balât (Hauran) Syria. Seeia (Hauran)

Αναμο Αναμο Αναμο Αναμο Αναμο

Ανε[μ]ο, lap.; f. & ΡοGφο f. Αβανη [Α]νεμ[ο], lap.; s. Φαρεκο f. Σεο f. Σαεδο s. Σαβ)νο Ανερο, lap.

f. Αυθο f. Σεου6ρο

Σομαιδαθη

s. ?Θησακα f. Ουαελο Αναμ[ο], lap.; f. Χασετο f. Βοχεθο, Σαμεθο f. Μα´ξιμο; ?s. Αριμαθη I, f. Αζιζο II, s. Αζιζο f. Ουαελο f. Αβαβαιη ? καH

f. Μαρδου, gen.

CULTURAL IDENTITY AND SYRIAN NAMES

221

Location

Arabia. Adraha Arabia. Adraha

Arabia. Adraha

Arabia. Awwas (Hauran) Arabia. Awwas (Hauran)

Arabia. Awwas (Hauran) Arabia. Awwas (Hauran) Arabia. Aynun Arabia. Bostra Arabia. Bostra Arabia. Charachmoba

Arabia. Dael (Batanaea)

Arabia. Dhat Ras Arabia. Gerasa Arabia. Gerasa Arabia. Gerasa Arabia. Gerasa Arabia. Gerasa Arabia. Hauran Arabia. Jmarrin (Hauran) Arabia. Mahaiy Arabia. Mahaiy Arabia. Mahaiy Arabia. Mahaiy Arabia. Mahaiy

Οα´λη Οα´λη

Οα´λη

Οα´λη Οα´λη

Οα´λη Οα´λη Οα´λη Οα´λη Οα´λη Οα´λη

Οα´λη

Οα´λη Οα´λη Οα´λη Οα´λη Οα´λη Οα´λη Οα´λη Οα´λη Οα´λη Οα´λη Οα´λη Οα´λη Οα´λη

Ouales in Syrian and Arabian inscriptions

Name

Table 11.

577 AD 2nd cent. AD after 250 AD after 250 AD after 250 AD after 250 AD 2nd–6th cent. AD Imp. 598 AD 598 AD 608 AD 643–4 AD Byz.

Imp.

310–11 AD 354–5 AD Byz. 2nd–6th cent. AD Imp. Byz.

?387–8 AD 2nd–6th cent. AD

2nd–6th cent. AD

2nd–6th cent. AD 2nd–6th cent. AD

Date

Canova no. 344 Welles, no. 229 Welles, no. 100 Welles, no. 94 Welles, no. 95 Welles, no. 99 SEG VII 1236 Waddington, I.Syrie 1959 Canova no. 365 Canova no. 366 Canova no. 375 Canova no. 391 Canova no. 411

BCH (1897), 47 no. 33

Waddington, I.Syrie 2042 Waddington, I.Syrie. 2045 Canova no. 257 IGLS XIII 9383 IGLS XIII 9258 Canova no. 141

PAES 3A, 693 Dussaud & Macler, Voyage, 167 no. 34

ZPDV 36 (1913), 258 no. 20a

SEG VII 951 SEG VII 956

Reference

s. &ΡοGμο f. &ΡοGμο f. Ηλα f. Μαρα f. &ΡοGμο

?f. Στρατ γιο ?s. Θεδωρο ?f. Θεδωρο ?f. Στρατ γιο f. Δμνα

f. Αλδη Ιο!λιο Οα´λη; s. Θεδωρο [Ο]α´λη, lap.; s. Ναθνου, gen. s. Αζιζο Οα´λη Οβεδο; s. Θιεμο f. Μα´νο f. Πρ)σκο s. &Αβραα´μιο Οα´λ[η], lap. f. Φαυστ)να Οα´λ[η], lap.; s. Α5νεα Ουμε, voc. lap.; s. Φλα´ειο f. Γε\ργιο

Relations etc.

222 Maurice Sartre

Syria. Athela (Hauran) Syria. Maximianopolis (Sakkaia) Syria. Mechta Helu (Arados) Syria. Mushannaf (Hauran)

Syria. Mushannaf (Hauran) Syria. Nakhle (Beqâ{a) Syria. Sijn (Hauran)

Syria. Umm az-Zaytûn (Trachonitis)

Οα´λη Οα´λη Οα´λη Οα´λη

Οα´λη Οα´λη Οα´λη

Οα´λη

Zeitschrift des deutschen Palästina-Vereins.

Arabia. Yadude (Jawlan) Syria. al-Maksar al-Ahdab (Apamene)

Οα´λη Οα´λη

a

Arabia. Motho Arabia. Orman (Hauran) Arabia. Salkhad Arabia. Salkhad Arabia. Salkhad Arabia. Shanire (Hauran) Arabia. Ubtaa (Batanaea) Arabia. Umm al-Jimal Arabia. Umm al-Jimal Arabia. Umm al-Jimal

Οα´λη Οα´λη Οα´λη Οα´λη Οα´λη Οα´λη Οα´λη Οα´λη Οα´λη Οα´λη

Byz.

Imp. Imp. 2nd cent. AD

2nd–6th cent. AD Imp. Imp. Imp.

Imp. Byz.

?587–8 AD 245–6 AD 294–5 AD 363–4 AD Imp. Imp. 2nd–6th cent. AD 2nd–6th cent. AD 2nd–6th cent. AD Imp.

Waddington, I.Syrie 2548

Waddington, I.Syrie 2374 c AAES 370 IGLS VII 4043 Burton & Drake, Unexplored Syria II, pl. VI, 119 and p. 386 no. 119 Waddington, I.Syrie 2218 IGLS VI 2893 Savignac, RB 14 (1905), 95 no. 10

BCH (1897), 46 no. 25 IGLS IV 1797

Canova no. 312 Ewing no. 162 Dunand, Musée, 108 no. 222 Dussaud & Macler, MSM, 656 no. 42 Waddington, I.Syrie 1989 SEG VII 1210 AO 18 (1950), 157 no. 348 PAES 3A, 387 PAES 3A, 412 PAES 3A, 358

(Ο)α´λι; s. Αλξανδρο f. Ανατο´λιο

Ιο!λ. Οα´λη; ?s. Κα´σσιο

Ανιο Οα´λη Κυδαλιμε Οα´λη s. Αυθο s. Σαλμανου, gen. Οα´λη Αναμο or s. Αναμο) -υλι Οα´λη Οα´(λ)η[]; s. Μαλχο s. Μα´ξιμο s. Αρουαο

s. Σαβε)νο s. Αδιf. Αλξανδρο

s. Δουσαριο

CULTURAL IDENTITY AND SYRIAN NAMES

223

224

Maurice Sartre

just as in the case of Eunomos. Again, there are names that are similar while being somewhat different (Table 12). All are from the Hauran and none from central or northern Syria. The overlap with Οα´λη is thus very satisfying. Just as Χεειλο prompted the search for a Semitic root, Ουαελο cannot be just a clumsy version of the Graeco-Roman original. It is not difficult to identify the root wa{el, signifying ‘antelope’, as it was often borne as a proper name in Safaitic (Harding, p. 645, sixty-nine examples), as well as in other Arab communities (e.g. Edessa). Did the popularity of Wa{el-Ουελο help in the adoption of Οα´λη? In my opinion, yes, even if one cannot possibly prove it in any individual case. Once again, I believe that the popularity of an indigenous name prompted, and in part explains, the choice of a particular Graeco-Roman name, but I am not maintaining that every Οα´λη is in reality only a Wa{el. I will return to this point, when I examine awareness of the meaning and origin of the name. Let us leave behind the formation of names to turn to the reasons behind the choice of a name. Lacking the relevant source material, scholars have not concerned themselves much with this subject. The ancients never tell us why they chose this or that name for their children; only rarely can reasons be guessed. To obtain results, one needs to have long genealogical lists at one’s disposal, which is hardly ever the case. Nevertheless, some clues can guide us. I believe that family traditions lead generation after generation to bestow the same names or the same derivatives on their children regardless of the origin of the name. Thus, we have Philip son of Alexander son of Philip, etc. It is a classic and commonplace process, but one ought to be prudent as to the ‘historical’ consequences which can be drawn from it. If a certain theophoric name is prominent within a family, one could logically infer a particular devotion of that family to the god or goddess in question. However, as time passes, which prevails, the attachment to the god or goddess, or the family’s tradition? One can elaborate on that remark. The majority of names are meaningful. I mentioned ‘antelope’ above but could have added ‘veal’ (Ogelos), ‘scorpion’ (Akrabos), ‘archer’ (Chasetos), ‘servant’ (Thaimos, Ausos), ‘gift’ (Ouabos), etc. Two relevant questions may be asked. First, was the meaning of the name perceptible to the person who chose it? I am inclined to believe so, both for indigenous and for Greek names, at least in the case of theophoric names: each individual will have known that he or she was giving a name relating to Zeus, Herakles, Apollo, or Athena. But second, even if the answer to the first question is positive, was the choice made because of the meaning of the name, or for other reasons, such as the family traditions mentioned above, or personal taste for the aesthetic aspects of the name? In other words, can we glean historical information pertaining to the cults of Syria and of Arabia from the relative frequency of a given theophoric name?

Location

Arabia. Bostra Arabia. Jabir (Hauran) Arabia. Nemara (Safa) Arabia. Umm al-Jimal

Syria. Sahwat al-Balât (Hauran) Syria. Umm al-Walad (Hauran)

Syria. Zorava (Trachonitis) Arabia. Umm al-Jimal

Syria. Sauara (Trachonitis) Arabia. Harise (Hauran)

Ουαελο Ουαελο Ουαελο Ουαελο

Ουαελο Ουαελο

Ουαελο Ουαλα

Ουαλο Ουαλου Imp. 419–20 AD

2nd–6th cent. AD 2nd–6th cent. AD

2nd–6th cent. AD 2nd–6th cent. AD

2nd–6th cent. AD 2nd–6th cent. AD 2nd–6th cent. AD 223–4 AD

Date

Ouaelos etc. in Syrian and Arabian inscriptions

Name

Table 12.

Waddington, I.Syrie 2203 a Waddington, I.Syrie 2022 a

SEG VII 1146 Dussaud & Macler, Voyage, 197 no. 81 Waddington, I.Syrie 2496 PAES 3A, 302

IGLS XIII 9267 Mittmann, Beiträge, 195 no. 31 PAES 3A, 748 PAES 3A, 276

Reference

gen.; f. Σεο

s. & Ραουαο; f. Μασεχο s. Αναμο Ου[αελ]ο; f. Ανουνο s. Αναμο gen.Ουαλα-, ?Ουαλα[θο]; f. Καεμα

f. Αιθειβηλο f. Οναινα

Relations etc.

CULTURAL IDENTITY AND SYRIAN NAMES

225

226

Maurice Sartre

I think that here again the answer is a positive one, if there is supporting evidence. Thus the name Μαμβογα)ο (spelled in many different ways) is primarily found in the Damascene and the Emesene (Table 13). Clearly, the name must be related to Atargatis, the goddess of MambidjBambyke. It ought therefore to come as a surprise that we do not find it in northern Syria, the region where the greatest sanctuary of the goddess was located. But the dissemination of the name within the Damascene should not in itself cause astonishment, given the numerous sources mentioning the cult of Atargatis under the name of Leukothea, in the region of the Hermon and in Batanea. The conclusion appears justified, but we could just as well turn it on its head: the absence of any anthroponym relating to Atargatis is not a proof that she was not worshipped. There are many others reasons for choosing a name, which have to do neither with culture nor with religion. I have previously shown that the name Agrippa (and its cognates) is particularly well represented in southern Syria, specifically in the ancient Herodian states of the Jawlan and the Trachonitis. Yet the sources are much later than the lifetime of Agrippa II. This is an example of the continuation of an onomastic tradition long after its initial causes. I wonder if the names Odainathos and Ouaballas/athos did not acquire a sudden popularity in the third century, but the attestations of these names can, alas, almost never be dated with any precision. The only two Odainathos that can be dated precisely received their name before the time of the prince of Palmyra (Table 14). But since I have chosen to be primarily concerned with the cultural aspects of names, I would like to return to the problem of theophoric names. Among the thousands of names recorded in Syria, one can distinguish at least two great series of theophoric names: those that are composed on the name of a Greek deity, and those that are formed from the name of a Semitic god. I leave aside those where the divine name is only implied, as they cannot be of use here. One could, if one wanted, draw a parallel between the two series to the extent that they mutually translate from one language into the other. Thus, we could pair off Athenodoros-Wahballath, or match compound names based on Zeus with those based on Baalshamin, those based on Helios with those on Shams, etc. These correspondences cannot always be precise since Zeus can cover Baalshamin as well as Hadad or Dousares: as we see, things quickly become complex. For my present purpose, however, that complexity is of little consequence. The question that I am asking is of a quite different order: why does an individual call himself Athenodoros and not Wahballath? Obviously, I have chosen this particular example on purpose to provoke the response that a well-known Wahballath is called Athenodoros in certain Greek documents. Wahballath of Palmyra belongs to the very rare category of people with

Location

Syria. Abila of Lysanias (Damascene) Syria. Chalkis (Ituraia) Syria. Halbûn (Damascene) Syria. Halbûn (Damascene) Syria. Halbûn (Damascene)

Syria. Iabruda (Emesene) Syria. Kômh Maara Samethou (Beqâ{a)

Syria. Laodikeia pros Libanon

Syria. Maskane (Emesene)

Syria. Pirûn (Commagene)

Syria. Tell Amerî (Emesene)

Μαμβογα)ο Μαμβογα)ο Μαμβογα)ο Μαμβογα)ο Μαμβογα)ο

Μαμβογα)ο Μαμβογα)ο

Μαμβογα)ο

Μαμβογα)ο

Μαμβογα)ο

Μαμβογα)ο

Mambogaios in Syrian and Arabian inscriptions

Name

Table 13.

167 AD

Imp.

131 AD

Imp.

2nd half 1st cent. AD Imp.

1st cent. AD Imp. Imp.

159–60 AD

Date

IGLS V 2509

IGLS I 49

IGLS V 2607

IGLS V 2687

IGLS V 2707 IGLS VI 2731

Conder, PEFQS (1885), 17, fig. 2 IGLS VI 2981 SEG VII 218 Waddington, I.Syrie 2554 Waddington, I.Syrie 2555

Reference

Μερκο!ριο Μαμβ[ογ]αι; s. Αβεμμου, gen. [Μ ]αμβογεο; f. ΚαισοG Μαμβογεο; s. Αλξανδρο Μαμ(βο)γα)ο; f. Δαμα

Μαμβογεο; f. ΠοGπα [Μα]νβογε[ο]; dub. [Μα]μβογα)ο f. Λυσα Μαμβογα)[ο]; f. Λυσα Μαμ[βογα)ο], dub. f. Σαλαμανη,

Relations etc.

CULTURAL IDENTITY AND SYRIAN NAMES

227

Location

Syria. Maximianopolis (Sakkaia) Arabia. Adraha

Arabia. Rihab Arabia. Umm al-Jimal Syria. al-Kusayb (Hauran) Syria. al-Qusayfe (Trachonitis)

Syria. Emesa

Syria. Karak (Hauran)

Syria. Râma (Hauran)

Syria. Salamanestha (Hauran) Syria. Soada-Dionysias (Hauran) Syria. Soada-Dionysias (Hauran)

Arabia. Umm al-Jimal Syria. Amra (Sakkaia)

Arabia. al-Umtaiye (Hauran) Arabia. Dayr al-Mayyas (Hauran)

Arabia. Hegra Arabia. Hegra

Οδαιναθη Οδαιναθο

Οδαιναθο Οδαιναθο Οδαιναθο Οδαιναθο

Οδαιναθο

Οδαιναθο

Οδαιναθο

Οδαιναθο Οδαινατο Οδαινατο

Ουαβαλα Ουαβαλαθο

Ουαβαλλα Ουαβαλλα

Ουαβαλλα Ουαβαλλα Imp. Imp.

2nd–6th cent. AD 2nd–6th cent. AD

2nd–6th cent. AD 2nd–6th cent. AD

2nd–6th cent. AD 1st cent. BC–1st cent. AD 2nd–6th cent. AD

2nd–6th cent. AD

253–4 AD

119–20 AD

2nd–6th cent. AD 2nd–6th cent. AD Imp. 3rd–4th cent. AD

Imp. 2nd–6th cent. AD

Date

Odainathos and Ouaballas/atos etc. in Syrian and Arabian inscriptions

Name

Table 14.

PAES 3A, 43 Dussaud & Macler, Voyage, 186 no. 61 b Jaussen & Savignac, Mission, 646 no. 8 Jaussen & Savignac, Mission, 647 no. 11

SEG VII 1130 Waddington, I.Syrie 2320 Brünnow, MNDP V (1899), 83 no. 41 PAES 3A, 476 Waddington, I.Syrie 2086

Waddington, I.Syrie 2236

Waddington, I.Syrie 2412 f

IGLS V 2328

SEG VIII 89 PAES 3A, 324 Waddington, I.Syrie 2204 Waddington, I.Syrie 2540

Waddington, I.Syrie 2147 ZDPV (1897), 123 no. 20

Reference

s. Αβγαρο Ου[α]βαλαθο; f. Αιλαμο f. Θεδωρο s. Ζοβαιδο

Ορδνατο Οδεναθο; f. Γαρμαιο Οδενιθο; f. Βαυλανη s. Σαουαδο or Σαουδο s. Σαγειο s. Αννηλο f. Χαλιπο

s. Σαυρου, gen. s. Σαμεθο Οδεναθο; f. Αρ. Αουε)το

Οδεναθη; d. Οσεσο Οδεναθο; s. Σαλειμαθο

Relations etc.

228 Maurice Sartre

Arabia. Transjordan Desert

Arabia. Ubtaa (Batanaea) Arabia. Umm al-Jimal

Arabia. Umm al-Jimal

Ουαβαλλα

Ουαβαλλα Ουαβαλλα

Ουαβαλλα Imp.

2nd–6th cent. AD 2nd–6th cent. AD

Imp.

2nd–6th cent. AD Imp.

Imp.

F. V. Winnett and G. L. Harding, Inscriptions from Fifty Safaitic Cairns (Toronto, 1978).

Arabia. Huyyet Hibbike (Hauran) Arabia. Transjordan Desert

Ουαβαλλα Ουαβαλλα

a

Arabia. Hegra

Ουαβαλλα

PAES 3A, 277

Dussaud & Macler, MSM, 664 no. 66 Winnett & Harding, Fifty Cairns, 543 no. 2a Winnett & Harding, Fifty Cairns, 543 no. 2 AO 18 (1950), 152 no. 336 PAES 3A, 424

Jaussen & Savignac, Mission, 647 no. 12

Ουαβαλου, gen.; s. Ινο s. Αυσο

I f. Ταννηλο

Αουα-, lap.; Ουα[βαλλα], edd.; Αουα[θο] or Αουα[δο]: MS s. Νεκβαθου, gen. II s. Ταννηλο

CULTURAL IDENTITY AND SYRIAN NAMES

229

230

Maurice Sartre

double names where the second name is a translation of the first; we must therefore exclude him from the present argument. In most instances, we have no proof that a certain Athenodoros of Emesos or of Bostra was called Wahballath in his family or daily life. Should we look for a worshipper of Melqart behind every Herakleios or Herakleitos of Tyre? Beyond enabling us to infer that the family was particularly devoted to Athena or Herakles, a name does not allow us to know whether the devotion was directed towards Athena or towards Allat, her Arab equivalent, to the Greek Herakles or to the Tyrian Melqart. One might assume that the acculturation at Tyre was so ancient, and had permeated local customs so well, that the question no longer arose, and that there was now only one god, Herakles. But this is not true for Athena, who was very popular among the Arabs. It seems to me dangerous to conclude automatically that each Athena that is found (in onomastics, in statuary, in dedications) is only an interpretatio Graeca of the Allat of the Arabs. I do not wish to play down the popularity of the goddess, but I do not think it is sound practice to go looking every time for the indigenous god hidden behind the name (or the image) of a Greek god. I see two methodological obstacles to such an approach. First, there is no justification whatsoever for saying that the Greek and Roman gods found in Syria were not adopted and worshipped in their own right. In practice, we tend to accept that a deity was worshipped in its own right only when a particular epithet militates against making a match, or when a deity is completely unknown in Syria. I believe this is mistaken, and that we should accept the possibility that a Greek god was worshipped, even by indigenous peoples, in its Greek form and under its Greek name. Second, and this flows from my preceding remark, by continuing to look each time for the ‘Semitic original’, one necessarily denies any possibility of acculturation. While no historian is troubled by the notion that the Greeks adopted indigenous cults, even those that would seem very strange to them (e.g. in Egypt) or even repulsive (Atargatis, Attis, Cybele), no one seems prepared to admit that a member of the Syrian elite (I happen to think that those who wrote in Greek did not belong to the more modest classes of society) might devote a cult to Zeus, Athena, Apollo, or Herakles as Greek or Roman gods rather than as some indigenous god dressed in Greek garb. It is not my intention to bring into question all the work done so far on cults, but only to emphasize the systematic character of certain deductions where onomastics are involved. I would especially like to point out that the ethnic character of the gods, and consequently, of their names, was perhaps not as pronounced as we tend to believe. By distinguishing Greek and Roman gods on the one hand, and indigenous gods on the other, I am transgressing one of my deepest convictions. My

CULTURAL IDENTITY AND SYRIAN NAMES

231

own view is that we tend to neglect the effects of time, of the longue durée. Greek culture was present in Syria for more than six centuries, to speak only of the period in which Greek gods were honoured. Do we really believe that a person who was consecrating a statue to Athena in the Hauran, at Damit al-Alya for example, wondered which goddess he was addressing? Of course not. Yet I believe we need to go one step further. That there are essential differences between the patron goddess of Athens and the idol of Damit al-Alya in the eyes of scholars is evident, but for the individual from the Trachon, there was only one Athena, namely his own. He did not know if she was of Greek, Arab, or some other origin, for the simple reason that he did not ask himself that question. Did he know that she had two names? In many cases, yes, because we are dealing with a largely bilingual population. That last observation has consequences as far as onomastics are concerned. Bilingualism does not mean that everything is translated. Let us imagine that our man from Damit has a son. If he chooses to name him Athenodoros, that will seem to us to be an explicitly cultural choice, namely the decision to choose a Greek name over its Aramean equivalent, Wahballat. But how do we know that for him the world is divided between the Greek and the Aramean culture? That would be true if Greek names were only written in Greek, and Aramean or Arabic names only in Semitic writing; but whether he chooses Athenodoros or Wahballat, our individual will in both cases write the name in Greek. Surely for him the two names belong to one and the same onomastic stock, which he has available to him, and which pleases him? When we find the names Alexandros, Dousarios, and Markos together in the same family, I doubt that the parents made conscious cultural choices. Besides, a few clues confirm that the names that we analyse do not have the cultural connotations that we regularly ascribe to them. In a passage from the Panarion, Epiphanes of Salamis explained that Valesian heretics, settled in Arabia, owed their name to their founder, a certain Valens, and he adds that the name is an Arabic one! This will undoubtedly startle any philologist. But if we go back to the list of instances of Οα´λη which was studied above, we find that Epiphanes was obviously right: all of the Ouales-Valens are attested between the Hauran and the land of Moab, that is, in Arabia. Epiphanes has thus substituted a geographical identification for a cultural classification based on philology. The wise bishop knew exactly where the name was to be found. We can see, therefore, how much prudence is required. I will refrain from applying the conclusions drawn here from the study of Syrian onomastics to the rest of the Greek world. But it is my firm conviction that one can glean more from the study of personal names if one advances prudently, if one takes account of the effects of time, and if one does not apply to ancient

232

Maurice Sartre

realities the dichotomies imposed on us by our philological and historical knowledge. Choosing a name is governed by motivations so complex that they can never be ascertained in any individual case. We can expect to draw some conclusions from a wide body of data, never from a few isolated cases. I think that we can affirm the presence of an important population of Arab origin in the Hauran because many names observed there are also to be found in great numbers among the peoples of the nearby Harra. But, when an individual had an Arabic name, I will never be certain that he or she was really an Arab. Therein lies the difficulty.