Lines 26-32 of the Horothesia of Dionysopolis (IGBulg V 5011)

Author(s): Mirena Slavova

Source: Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik, Bd. 120 (1998), pp. 99-106
Published by: Dr. Rudolf Habelt GmbH, Bonn (Germany)
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/20190153 .
Accessed: 09/01/2014 11:53

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Dr. Rudolf Habelt GmbH, Bonn (Germany) is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access
to Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 193.19.172.29 on Thu, 9 Jan 2014 11:53:31 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 99

Lines 26-32 of the Horothesia of Dionysopolis (IGBulg V 5011)

Ten years ago the late Kr. Banev presented a preliminary report about a new Greek horothesia of

Dionysopolis on theBlack Sea1. The inscriptionwas included by the lateProf. G. Mihailov into the fifth
volume of his Inscriptiones Graecae in Bulgaria repertae2.
For the convenience of the readers of ZPE, I include the text:

''
'AyaOfjrbyy\x
Atito?s*
\epi?\i?vr\s \rr\~
vb? Taupecovo? elraSi 8eir
Tepa ol ?i?oordX?vTe? opio??
5 Tat ko ?aaiXecos' Kotuos* <&Xitt
' '
tto? ApicrreiSou A8pa|iinr|v?c,
Mooxo? AtvTa BiCxrqvoc, SaSa
Xa? MoKaTTopeco? ? KaraoT?[ie
vo? aTpaTriyoc kv Aparicp Kal ??ro
10 tujv 8f||ia)v ??'08r|(7oiJ (sic)*M?vavSpoc
npo^aGLcovos-, AeOKptTo?' iTTTrayopou,
?y Se KaXX?Tei8os,,fHp?KXeiTos' Mov?

[|io]u, repovTiSac Ze?|iou, dlrive? |ia6?u

[re? ?k tcov apxaicov ypa|i|i? v Kal ?X_
15 [Q6vr]e? ?m Ta opta opio0 Tf|aa|i?v ??ro
[tojv IlkuKcov(f>?pouaav ?m tt\v veav ttct
rr\v
[kiv] A?TOTTTLQT?? Kal OTTO TCOVAUTOTTTLOTCOV

[ttiv <?>?p]ovoav ?ni ZKT|pr|Civ Kal ??ro ZKriprp

[? 0)9 ?]|ia?f|XaTov ttiv cf)?pouaav ?m t?v tgt
20 [cf>ov too] aKOTreuovToc rr\v x^pav Kal airo to?

[T?(f)ou] ttiv (()?pouaav ?|ia?f|XaTov ?m Kap

[?aTe]i8a Kal ??ro Kap?aTei8oc rr\v cf>?poixja[v]

[?m T]? ?pxa?a opta KaXXaTiav?v Kal Aiovir
[ao7r]oXeiTo3v Kal ??ro rav ?p?cov To?rrav
25 [t]?\v <?>?povoav???)"AKpac ?m t? Nu|i(f>ar
ov, Ta?Ta Kpeivofiev \iaQovre? K t?v

?pxaicov ypa[i|i?T?)v e?vai Aiovuao

TroXeiTcov Kal 8t]|io(7??)v<?)v> tcov f|yo
paK?TCOV t?v II?vtov, t? 8?'A(f>po8er
30 [a]iov ovvex?pr\oav XPAGeiA?o
vuaoTToXe?TaL ?aaiXei Kottjl eio?
T? IIoVTT?OV

The stone
is in good condition as we can see in the photograph on the following page. Except for the
broken-off left side of lines 13-25, the lettering allows for the contents to be completely restored, which
was done by the late Prof. G. Mihailov.

1Kr. Banev - M. P.
Dimitrov, A New Epigraphical Monument of Dionysopolis (in Bulgarian). Thracia Pontica II,
Jambol 1985 (Deuxi?me symposium international. Sozopol, 4-7 Oct. 1982. The inscription was reported on at the epigraphi
cal congress inAthens 1982.
2
IGBulg V, Serdicae MCMXCVII, No. 5011.

This content downloaded from 193.19.172.29 on Thu, 9 Jan 2014 11:53:31 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 M. Slavova

The end of the inscription, however, raised some controversial issues. Yet following the preliminary
report several opinions about the final lines of the inscription were advanced3. The lines in question read
as follows:

3 G.
Mihailov, Epigraphica et ling?istica, Linguistique balkanique 30 (1987), p. 259-262 (on lines 29-32).
A. Avram, Untersuchungen zur Geschichte des Territoriums von Kallatis in griechischer Zeit, Dacia (NS) 35 (1991), p. 103
137(cf.SEGXXXIX.604).
K. Vlahov, Neuentdeckte thrakische Ortsnamen, in: Annuaire de l'Universit? de Sofia. Facult? d'histoire, vol. 77,2, Sofia

1985, p. 452-457 (on EIZSTOnONUION).

Al. Fol, Again (and for the Last Time) about the Issue of Thracian Strategiae (in Bulgarian), in:Annuaire de l'Universit? de
Sofia. Facult? d'histoire, vol. 77,2, Sofia, p. 142-144 (on the governor of Apaeio?).
M. Tacheva, Ancient History of Bulgarian Lands (in Bulgarian), Sofia 1987, p. 84, 86-87,92-93, 110, 164.

This content downloaded from 193.19.172.29 on Thu, 9 Jan 2014 11:53:31 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Lines 26-32 of theHorothesia ofDionysopolis 101

to 8?'Acf>po8eL
30 [<j]iov aw?X^pT|(jav XPAG l Alo~
vuaoTToXeLTat ?acaXeL Kotul EI SS
TonoNnioN

K. Vlahov considered the letters EISSTOTTONTIION to be a Thracian toponym. G. Mihailov's idea,

however, was that the Dionysopolitans agreed that King Kotys use the sanctuary of Aphrodite as a

sanctuary of special functions where the sacred supplies were kept. According to his opinion, lines 29
32 should be read as follows:

to S?'A^poSer
30 [<j]iov auvex^pTlcjav xpAGei Alo~
viKJOTToXeiTai ?aaiXeL Kotul eio?
to TTovmov

Translation: "... and the Dionysopolitans reached an agreement with King Kotys to use the sanctuary
of Aphrodite as the Pompeion".

From a philological point of view, the weakness of that reading lies in the presence of a definite article
before the word Tlovmov in the Greek text. As we know, the construction of such phrases as "to use sth
as sth" in Greek requires a second direct object without -
any definite article cf. for instance X. Mem.
3.14.4 where one can read: x- tc3 olto to
oij;a) f| oi/?coaireo (LSJ s.v. xp?o|iai).
A few years later, at the conference in honour of the late Prof. Boris Gerov at Sofia University 1991,
Kr. Banev suggested a more likely and acceptable idea which I share, namely:

to 8?'A<j>po8er
30 [a]iov cjuvex^priaav XPAGeiAlo
vuaoTroXeLTai ?aaiX^L Kotul ei? o[iY
TOTTOVTTLOV

Translation: ". . . and the Dionysopolitans reached an agreement with King Kotys that he use the
sanctuary of Aphrodite for conveyance of corn".

The writing of the word aLTOTTO|i7TeLovas OLTOTrovmov can be regarded as hypercorrect. In line 12 we
find a case of assimilation of sonority -
ey 8? instead of ?k 8?. Along with the simplified writing of a
geminate 10 - ?^'O?rjaou
in line instead of e? 'OSrjaaou - and a few other writings of III by {EI},

typical of post-classical Greek in general, these are the singular orthographic "errors" in our otherwise
literately composed text.
As far as I know, the literary evidence of the lexeme aLTLTTOjiTreLovin the meaning "conveyance of
corn, transportation of corn" is to be found only in the description of Scythia Minor by Strabo, who
.
highlighted the fruitfulness and the fiscal duties of Theodosia (Str. 7.4.6 . . Kdv tol? TTp?aOev xP^vol?
?vrevQev fjv Ta aLTOTro|i7T6La TOL?"EXXr|aLv, KaGa?rep ?k Tris* Xliivtis* ai TapLx^iaL).
We do not have, however, any epigraphical testimony of that lexeme up to now. A variant
cjLTOTTO|JLTTLa,f] of the same meaning appears in an Athenian inscription from the late 4th c. B.C. which
settles a colony to be sent to Adria.
We can add to the orthographic and lexical arguments in favour of the conjecture graphological ones
as well. One can distinctly make out the broken-off stone part at the end of line 31 after the last sigma as
a sufficient space for the suggested iota.

This content downloaded from 193.19.172.29 on Thu, 9 Jan 2014 11:53:31 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 102 M. Slavova

The sense ofthat new conjecture is extremely interesting. The horiothetes4 sent by King Kotys, by
the demos of Odessos and of Kallatis delimited the boundaries of the Dionysopolitan hora which
bordered on the land property of the two poleis and on that of the Thracians. As for the sanctuary of

Aphrodite, itwas ceded by the citizens of Dionysopolis to the Thracians to use it for conveying corn.
We can, therefore, consider the inscription as important evidence of the successful economic

development of the Thracian client kingdom under the auspices of Rome, especially during Augustus'
rule. All the more that the process occurred against a background of a continuous decay of that
peripheral area of the Greek world at the end of the Hellenistic period. This decay was due, on the one
hand, to the emergence of a lot of new rival trade centres such as Alexandria, Seleukia, Laodikeia, and

Rhodos, which had ousted the Pontic colonies on the western coast of the Black Sea from their

leadership in the trade with continental Greece, and, on the other hand, to the devastating attacks of the
Bastarn and Gete tribes in the 1st c. B.C.
As a former student and a colleague of the late Prof. G. Mihailov at the Department of Classics, I
had the honour towork with him in his last days on the elaboration the fifth volume of IGBulg. In our
discussions about the inscription of Dionysopolis he admitted the obscurity especially of the lettering
KAIAHMOSI?NQNT?NHrOPAKOTQNTONnONTON in lines 28-29. Prof. Mihailov postulated a
couple of superfluous letters here, so that he secluded the second <o)v> in the AHMOSIQNQN. In his

opinion the versions cov tgov or (o)vtov are meaningless. So the meaning of the phrase in question
became: Kai 8r||aocFLG)v<Q)v> tov ?|yopaK? v t?v TI?vtov. That itwas even then felt to be ambiguous is
shown by the fact that Prof. Mihailov added to the commentary of line 28 "sed non liquere conf?teor".
Several years after his decease, it occurred to me that the text would entirely complete its meaning,
if we read the secluded letters as well and if we regarded the phrase in question as a Genetivus
of 8r]|ioaLo3vaL oi fiyopaKOTe? t?v TI?vtov. Therefore we could read the conclusion of the
possessivus
inscription as follows:

. . . TauTa Kp?Lvo(JL6v [laQovQe? ?k tov

apxa??)v ypa|i|i? v elvaL Alovixjo
TToXeLTOv Kai 8r][ioaLa)V(ov tgjv f|yo
'
paK?TOV t?v T??vtov, t? 8? A(|>po8eL
30 [<j]lov aw6X??Prlaav XPAGe?Alo
vuaoTToXe?TaL ?acnXa Kotul els* ct[lJ
tottovttlov

One of the reasons for such a reading which corresponds to all the letters on the stone is the literacy and
the accuracy of the stone-cutter. As we have seen above, there are no technical mistakes but the
on page 3 which have a psycholinguistic
ones mentioned nature5. Actually, the stone-cutter
orthographic
-
cut the letters not as he saw them on the copy of the document but as he uttered the words aloud or in
- itself could have been written and given to
his mind. Of course, there is another option the document
the stone-cutter with those spelling errors, but that is less probable.
The second reason for the reading 8t||jlo(jl?)vo?v tov f)yopaK? v t?v II?vtov is a logical one and
results from the idea of cjltottoijltt?lov discussed above.
to G. Mihailov as well as to Kr. Banev and M. P. Dimitrov in their preliminous report,
According
the inscription in dates back to the rule of the Thracian king Kotys (the Third), well-known
question

4 in question offers a new version of the lexeme

The inscription although comprehensible apoGe^s', namely ?pioO?
.
tt|s\ The delay in publishing the inscription did not allow the lexeme to be included in the new supplementum of LSJ
5 See more about the issue in S. T. The of Ptolemaic Koine. Studia Graeca et Latina
Teodorsson, Phonology

Gothoburgensia XXXVI, 1977, chapter 3, p. 36-47.

This content downloaded from 193.19.172.29 on Thu, 9 Jan 2014 11:53:31 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Lines 26-32 of theHorothesia of Dionysopolis 103

from Ovid's poems6. The death of Kotys' father, Roemetalces (the First), put an end to a twenty-year
period of relatively stable governance of the Thracian kingdom. After Roemetalces the political power
over Thrace was divided his brother, Rescuporis
between (the Third), and Roemetalces' son Kotys (the
-
Third), who was later on murdered by his uncle. The young Kotys got married certainly not without
the blessing of Augustus himself in the spirit of his strategy of pacifying the whole Roman empire and
-
its clients to Antonia Tryphaina of the royal dynasty of Pontos. We know the favourable words of both
Tacitus and Ovid about this Thracian ruler, who was regarded as most cultivated and civilized by the
Romans. So Tacitus called him mitis and amoenus (Tac. Ann. 2,64), while Ovid vaunted him in Ex P. II
9,35-54. The inscription in question as well as the inscription of a Dionysic thyasos from Kallatis in
as an -
honour of Arist?n7 both mentioned Kotys eponymous magistrate fiaoiXevc, which testifies in
favour of his friendly attitude to the Greek colonies bordering on the Thracian kingdom.
As for the colonies located to the north of Haemus, they were placed under Roman control following
the campaigns of M. Terentius Varro Lucullus in 72-71 B.C. It is most probable that they acquired the
status of civitates foederatae, as we can conclude from Dio's testimony (Cass. Dio 38,10,3) and from a

fragmentary treaty of alliance between Rome and Kallatis8. In fact,

the situation changed with C.
Antonius Hybrida's unsuccessful campaign in 62-61 B.C. and with Burebista, but M. Licinius Crassus'

campaigns in 29 and 28 B.C. restored the Roman influence along the western Pontic coast. The colonies
were under the control of the governor of the province of Macedonia but after the formation of the

province of Moesia under the rule of Tiberius in 15 A.D. they were placed into its governor's
submission9.
As a matter of fact, the Roman control was
carried into effect first through a praefectus orae
maritimae who was himself subordinated to the governor of Macedonia. The exact date of the
establishment of that praefectura and the details of its setting up are unknown to us10. According to D.
M. Pippidi, the ancient literary and epigraphical evidence we could rely on is as follows:] ]

1. The year of Ovid's exile in Tomi is supposed to be a terminus ante quern of the establishment of the
praefectura orae maritimae because, had Tomi not been included within the limits of the Roman empire
before 8 B.C., the poet would hardly have been sent into exile there. Ovid's poem Tristia supports the
belief that the praefectura had been founded before Ovid's getting to those peripheral lands (Trist. II,
197-200):
Hactenus Euxini pars est Romana sinistri:
Pr?xima Bastarnae
Sauromataeque tenent.
Haec est Ausonio sub iure novissima vixque
Haeret in imperii margine terra tui...
2. We know two inscriptions dating back to the last years of Augustus' rule, i.e. before the formation of
the province of Moesia. The first of them, that of Papas, Theopompos' son, originates from Histria and
is dedicated to Augustus himself12. The second one from Kallatis is in honour of P. Vinicius, the consul

6 The
following brief historical summary on thatperiod of the Thracian history is according to R. D. Sullivan, Thrace in
the Eastern Dynastic Network, in:ANRW 7,1 Principat, p. 200-204.
7DaciaI, 1923, p. 139 f.
8 Se.
Lambrino, Une inscription latine de Callatis, CRAI 1933, p. 278 f.; A. Passerai, Il testo del foedus di Roma con
Callatis, Athenaeum 23 (1935), p. 57 f.
9 B.
Gerov, Die Grenzen der r?mischen Provinz Thracia, in:ANRW 7,1 Principat, p. 213.
10More about
praefectura orae maritimae see by D. M. Pippidi, Das Stadtgebiet von Histria in r?mischer Zeit auf
Grund der ?pooea?a des Laberius Maximus, Dacia (NS) 2 (1958), p. 244 ff. (= SEG 1.329); J. Marquardt, R?mische
Staatsverwaltung, Leipzig 1881, vol. 1.2 p. 554 and Leipzig 1884, vol. II.2, p. 535-537; G. Barbieri, Rivista di Filolog?a 19
(1941), p. 288 ff.
1 *D. M.
Pippidi, op. cit.
12Histria
1,1954, p. 511, p. 9.

This content downloaded from 193.19.172.29 on Thu, 9 Jan 2014 11:53:31 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 104 M. Slavova

in 2 A.D.13 These epigraphical monuments provide specific information about the loyality of the
population on the western coast of the Black Sea, in particular of those two colonies, to the Roman

government.
After the establishment of the province of Moesia the praefectura orae maritimae was subordinated
to its governor. There is no precise evidence as to who were the praefecti of the administrative structure
in question from its beginning until the middle of the 1st c. A.D. As a matter of fact, we do not know but
the names of two friends of Ovid's, Vestalis and L. Pomponius Flaccus, who were in charge of that

praefectura before 15 A.D.14

In my opinion, we are able to put the horothesia of Dionysopolis into those ancient testimonies of
the Roman presence in the north-western Pontic colonies, as it provides evidence of the existence of tax
collectors on the city's territory at the very beginning of the 1st c. A.D.
-
The inscription is most likely to have been put up in 15 A.D. the year of including Kallatis and

Dionysopolis into the boundaries of Moesia. We know about a similar practice with the other adjacent
Greek cities, which wanted to draw attention to their ancient boundaries, when the Roman admini
stration was about to change the territorial organisation of the lands in the vicinity of the city's hora. The
reason for that was mainly the intention to avoid potential fiscal problems whatever they might have
been.
-
Such is the case of the well-known inscription of Histria the horothesia of Manius Laberius
Maximus. The text dates back to 100 A.D., altough it contains the correspondence between the
-
governors of Moesia and the boule of Histria after 47-50 A.D. the rule of governor Tullius Geminus15.
It is focused on the relationship between Histria and the tax-collectors ripa from the customs zone
Thraciae (to TTfe KaT?"IrjTpov 6x&r\? T?Xo?), established in 45 A.D., the year of the annexation of the
Thracian vassal kingdom by Claudius. It is exactly at this time that the citizens of Histria addressed a

request to the provincial governor in connection with their own territory. It bordered on the southern arm
r
of the Danube, named Iep?v <jT?|ia or Ileutcr), and was considered very important for the city's
revenues because of the fishing opportunities it offered. In contrast to the time of the independent
Thracian kingdom when that part of the Histrian territory was tax-free, the turning of the Thracian

kingdom into a Roman province endangered Histria's fiscal immunity. The new circumstances imposed
"the acknowledgment of its boundaries in order to avoid the occurrence of legal disputes, especially
with the tax-collectors, which otherwise would have arisen with certainty"16.
The first question ensuing from the reading suggested above is related to the precise period in which
the tax-collectors reached the city of Dionysopolis.
One of the possible assumptions is that they got there following the establishment of the praefectura
orae maritimae to collect the taxes ofthat territory which was part of the province of Macedonia.
The analogy we run across in Cicero (Cic. De lege agr. II, 50) according to which the tax-collectors
had settled in the province of Asia even before it was established . . agros
(. Bithyniae regios, quibus
nunc publicani fruuntur) is obvious. It is also evident that they had their financial interests, which
motivated Pompeius in his policy to turn those lands into a new Roman province17.
came to Dionysopolis -
The alternative assumption is that the publicani in 15 A.D. the year of the

integration of the city into the province of Moesia.

13 IGRP
1,654.
14Ex Ponto 119.
IV,7; IV,91-4, 59-60,
15 D. M.
Pippidi, op. cit., p. 243
16 Ibidem.
17A. H. M. The Cities of the Eastern Roman Provinces. Second Oxford 156.
Jones, Edition, 1971, p.

This content downloaded from 193.19.172.29 on Thu, 9 Jan 2014 11:53:31 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Lines 26-32 of theHorothesia of Dionysopolis 105

second problem
The in the passage in question is why the tax-collectors are called ol 8r||ioaitovai ol

f)yopaKOTe? t?v TI?vtov. We can refer to parallels with the papyri of Ptolemy Philadelphus' revenue
laws18 which yield information concerning a similar usage of ayop??oo in two kinds of phrases:
-
? ttiv o)vf)v ?yopaaa? the contractor who farmed the harvest (for instance col. 41,22);
-
? nomen nomi ayopaaac the contractor who farmed the taxes of the nome of... For instance:
? t?v Za[LTTi]v?yopaaa? (col. 60,22);
rai tt]v Ai?inr|v ?yop?aavTL (col. 61,11-12);
? t?v npoaa)TTLTT|v ayop?aas' (col. 61,18);
? t?v Mev8f|(Ji[ov] ayop?aas*(col. 62,20-21).
It ensues from this frequent use of ayop???) that such formulae are typical ofthat kind of documents. In
our passage there is just ? TTovtos' instead of the name of the nome. One should bear in mind that this

geographical name acquired an administrative meaning during Mithridates Eupator's rule. There is
sufficient and convincing ancient literary evidence that it was after the imposing of his political
influence all over the coast of the Black Sea that he began to be called King of Pontos19. It is worthy to
know concept of Pontos did not come from the name of his home-land,
that the administrative North

Cappadocia; on the contrary, the king gave it to her. And his state was named "Pontos" not because it
bordered on the Black Sea, but due to the fact that its king was the ruler of the lands adjacent to the
Pontos Euxeinos. It is obvious that this administrative concept of Pontos did not exist before Mithri
dates' rule, moreover it was imposed only after Bithynia and Mithridates' kingdom became Roman

provinces.
The passage in question however is still a source of trouble given the fact that the epigraphical
monument dates back to the second decade of the 1st c. A.D., i.e. more than 70 years after the formation
of the province of Pontos. One could avoid this difficulty by supposing that the tax-collectors who
farmed the Dionysopolitan hora were members of one of those societates publicanorum which farmed
-
the province of Pontos as well. Both the geographical closeness of the two provinces Pontos and
-
Moesia and the traditionally close political relations between the north-western Pontic colonies and the
Pontic kingdom can be used as an argument for this presupposition.
Wemay suggest that the Dionysopolitans drew up a contract with someone societas
publicanorum
in order to fulfil their fiscal obligations to Rome. Our horothesia could be a kind of insurance against

possible complications in case the contractors would lay claims to collect taxes from a larger agricultural
land. Thus the specifying and the confirmation of the old boundaries of the city and the consultation
with the old documents could more likely be attributted to the contractors' requirements for levying
taxes on territories which did not really belong to the Dionysopolitans.

Apart from the horothesia from Histria mentioned above there is another inscription yielding us
similar information concerning the relations between the Greek cities and the publicani. The monument
to be added is the well-known letter of the Roman consuls to the magistrates
of 73 B.C. of Oropos20.

They informed them about the senatus consultum which settled the dispute between the sanctuary of the
divinized heros Amphiaraius and the publicani. The question about the divine or the human nature of

Amphiaraius, which seems transcendental at first sight, has in that case entirely economic aspects. The
publicani insisted on levying taxes on the sanctuary's land which otherwise had fiscal immunity. In the

hope of gaining more profit they claimed that the land was not sacrosanct since Amphiaraius did not

belong to the Olympic pantheon.

As far as I know, there are two other interpretations concerning not so much the contents of the

Dionysopolitan horothesia (it is clear that it belongs to the traditional Greek administrative documents

settling the changes in the cadaster of the local hora) than its purpose.

18P.
Grenfell, Revenue Laws of Ptolemy Philadelphus, Oxford 1986. Cf. LSJ, s.v.
19B.
Niese, Straboniana, Rhein. Museum f?r Philologie 42 (1887), p. 570 f.
20
Syll.3 747.

This content downloaded from 193.19.172.29 on Thu, 9 Jan 2014 11:53:31 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 106 M. Slavova

According to A. Avram21, the referrence to the old documents and the updating of the boundaries of

Dionysopolis could be the result of the restoration of the borders of Bizone, a small town in the

neighbourhood of Dionysopolis, which had previously suffered an earthquake. Such an idea is hardly

credible, and moreover, it does not result from the contents of the text, the name of Bizone not being
mentioned at all.
As for the other opinion, it dates the inscription back to the time of another
that of M. Tacheva22,
Thracian king Kotys who ruled from 42 to 16 B.C.
The palaeographic and phonetic pecularities of the

inscription in question are her main argument. She relates its putting up, the change of the dynasty in

Bizye and the coming of Kotys to the throne after Sadala II. In her opinion, Kotys as the main political
person in the text had insisted on the renewal of the "old documents" between "the colonies and the

powerful kings of the Hinterland".

Thracian
The time gap of nearly 60 years between this datation and the datation accepted by us is so
insignificant that we could hardly take advantage of the palaeographic or linguistic arguments in favour
of any of them. What makes them even less significant is the fact that the phonetic characteristics of the

inscription are commonplace for post-classical Greek. Therefore what we are left with is the search in
the intrinsic reasons of the text itself.
First of all, we have to state that the inscription does not imply the main political role of Kotys, the

king of the Thracian kingdom, only one of the entities together with Kallatis and Odessos bordering on

Dionysopolis which sent the horiothetes.

Secondly, we should not forget that the dating of the inscription back to 12-19 B.C. complies with
the fact that it was Kotys whom the Thracian lands around the Greek colonies belonged to after the
division of the Thracian kingdom and it was him that had close connections with the Greek colonies,
given that he was at least once an eponymous magistrate of Kallatis according to the well-known

inscription of Arist?n.

Thirdly, the parallel drawn between the inscription in question and the ones of Histria and Oropos
are in favour of the assumption that during the time of the Roman domination many Greek cities went to
a kind of specifying or "remembering" their boundaries, if their economic interests came within the

provisions of a law on their administrative or fiscal status.

And last but not the reading
least, suggested in this paper should also revise M. Tacheva's
about of some "dependent"
the existence population, the "so-called demosioi", i.e. the
presupposition
public slaves, on the territory of Dionysopolis.
In case our conjecture and interpretation of the final lines of the inscription are close to the truth, its
translation should read as follows:
"Based on our knowledge from the old documents, we decided that this territory be the possession
of the Dionysopolitans and of the tax-collectors; as for the Aphrodeision, the Dionysopolitans reached
an agreement with King Kotys to use it for the conveyance of corn."

Sofia University Mirena Slavova

See note 3.

See note 3.

This content downloaded from 193.19.172.29 on Thu, 9 Jan 2014 11:53:31 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions