What’s New in Roman Greece?

Recent Work on the Greek Mainland

and the Islands in the Roman Period
Τα ΜΕΛΕΤΗΜΑΤΑ είναι η σειρά μονογραφιών και συλλογικών τόμων του Τομέα Ελληνικής και
Ρωμαϊκής Αρχαιότητας του Ινστιτούτου Ιστορικών Ερευνών.

ΜΕΛΕΤΗΜΑΤΑ is the series of monographs and collected volumes of the Section of Greek and Roman
Antiquity of the Institute of Historical Research.

The publication of this book has been co-funded by the National Hellenic Research Foundation - Institute of
Historical Research and the Roman Seminar Research Group.

Cover image: marble base with procession of gods and heroes, from the Monument of Augustus at Nikopolis
(courtesy K.L. Zachos).

© 2018, INSTITUTE OF HISTORICAL RESEARCH

NATIONAL HELLENIC RESEARCH FOUNDATION
48 Vas. Constantinou Ave., 116 35 Athens – Greece
Tel. (+30) 210 7273554
Fax: (+30) 210 7273629
e-mail: [email protected]

Distribution: https://history-bookstore.eie.gr/en

ISBN 978-960-9538-79-4
What’s New in Roman Greece?
Recent Work on the Greek Mainland
and the Islands in the Roman Period

Edited by
V. Di Napoli, F. Camia, V. Evangelidis, D. Grigoropoulos, D. Rogers, S. Vlizos

ΜΕΛΕΤΗΜΑΤΑ 80

ΕΘΝΙΚΟ ΙΔΡΥΜΑ ΕΡΕΥΝΩΝ / ΙΝΣΤΙΤΟΥΤΟ ΙΣΤΟΡΙΚΩΝ ΕΡΕΥΝΩΝ

NATIONAL HELLENIC RESEARCH FOUNDATION / INSTITUTE OF HISTORICAL
RESEARCH

ATHENS 2018
 Preface

In 2012, the editors of this volume came together as an informal, self-organized group of like-minded indi-
viduals interested in the study of Greece as part of the Roman world. The goal of this group was to explore
ways in which to de-marginalize this subject area from other traditionally fashionable periods of the Greek
past and to encourage a closer collaboration between scholars with similar research interests. This led to
the birth of the Roman Seminar, an Athens-based series of lectures running annually from October to May,
dedicated to showcasing research in all facets of the society and culture of Roman Greece and to promoting
knowledge and public awareness of the country’s Roman past (www.romanseminar.com). Our aim was to
offer a stimulating open platform for the dissemination of research results and the exchange of ideas be-
tween students of Roman antiquity of all specializations and (non-)institutional backgrounds. Since then,
despite the ever-present problems of funding and thanks to the generous support by many Greek and for-
eign institutions in Greece that have provided us with the venues for our undertaking, the Roman Seminar
has hosted numerous lectures and co-organized events with speakers and scholars from all over the world,
who were keen to come and present their research. At the time of writing, having successfully completed
our sixth consecutive annual series of lectures, it may not be too bold to claim that the Roman Seminar
has already become something of a standard point of reference in the calendar of Athenian archaeological
events, and we are looking forward to carrying on its existence and extending its activities for many years
to come.
The positive reception that this initiative was met with from early on by the archaeological community
in Greece and abroad suggested to us that the time was ripe to take our efforts to the next level. The 43 pa-
pers presented in this volume derive from the proceedings of an international conference entitled, “What’s
New in Roman Greece”, that was co-organized by the Roman Seminar and the Institute of Historical Re-
search – Section of Greek and Roman Antiquity of the National Hellenic Research Foundation (NHRF) be-
tween 8 and 10 October 2015 in Athens. The aim of the conference was to bring to the foreground new ap-
proaches and recent research undertaken on the archaeology of Roman Greece, taken broadly to include all
Roman provinces within Modern Greek territory from the early post-conquest period (late 2nd cent. B.C.) to
Late Antiquity. The subject areas equally were broadly conceived and were meant to provide a cross-section
of topical debates and to explore the diverse dynamics in a range of aspects of provincial material culture
and society, as well as the reception and significance of the heritage of Roman Greece in the modern age.
Following the open call for papers, this deliberately expansive concept resulted in an exceptionally high
turnout of proposals, more than we could accommodate with the limited resources and time available for
the conference. Still, this fact in itself is a clear reflection of the increased interest in the study of Roman
Greece and the rich research potential that this subject area holds for the future.
Such a large conference, including the publication of its proceedings, could not have been made pos-
sible without the active involvement and support of several institutions and individuals. We wish to thank
first and foremost our co-organizing partner, the Institute of Historical Research, National Hellenic Re-
search Foundation, and particularly its former Director, Taxiarchis Kolias, and Charikleia Papageorgiadou,
Research Director in the Section of Greek and Roman Antiquity and Deputy Director of the Institute, for
kindly endorsing from the beginning our idea for this conference, their practical support in various mat-
ters, and for including the publication of its proceedings in the ΜΕΛΕΤΗΜΑΤΑ series. Our thanks are also
due to the American School of Classical Studies at Athens and its then Director, James Wright, for holding
a wonderful reception for the conference delegates on the premises of the School and for his continuous
interest in our work. We are furthermore grateful to the following distinguished members of the academic
community that took over the role of chairing the individual sessions: Nancy Bookidis (Athens), Emanuele
Greco (Athens), Chrysanthos Kanellopoulos (Athens), Pavlina Karanastasi (Rhethymno), Yannis Lolos
(Volos), Dimitris Plantzos (Athens), Katja Sporn (Athens), Panayotis Tselekas (Thessaloniki), Panos Vala-
vanis (Athens), Elena Vlachoyanni (Athens) and Mantha Zarmakoupi (Philadelphia).
We also wish to thank the several undergraduate students of the Universities of Athens, Corfu and
Ioannina who voluntarily helped out with secretarial tasks and catered for the smooth running of the ses-
sions. Graphical design and page layout for the volume was undertaken by Sophia Saltamara, to whom we
are grateful for her patience and her speedy and accurate work. The handsome booklet for the conference
abstracts was prepared by Lenio Margaritouli. Last, but not least, we are indebted to Julia Engelhardt for de-
signing the elegant Roman Seminar logo based on the well-known motif on Hadrian’s cuirassed statue from
the Athenian Agora. Finally, our thanks go to the speakers and poster presenters, as well as the audience for
making this conference such a successful event; in particular, we wish to thank Susan E. Alcock (Michigan)
for generously accepting our invitation to join us for the conference in Athens and for being, in effect, the
source of inspiration for the Roman Seminar. We hope that the present volume will provide similar inspira-
tion for approaching the material remains of the Roman past in new ways and for making Roman Greece a
subject worthy of more attention by Classical archaeologists and students of Greek antiquity.

Athens, June 2018

Valentina Di Napoli – Francesco Camia –

Vasilis Evangelidis – Dimitris Grigoropoulos – Dylan Rogers – Stavros Vlizos

Editors’ Νote: The bibliography and abbreviations of journals and series follow the guidelines of the Deutsches Archäologisches Institut.
See https://www.dainst.org/publikationen/publizieren-beim-dai/richtlinien.
 Περιεχόμενα | Table of Contents

V. Di Napoli, F. Camia, V. Evangelidis, D. Grigoropoulos, D. Rogers, S. Vlizos: What’s New in Roman

Greece? An Introduction .................................................................................................................................... xiii

1. Πόλεις και Ύπαιθρος | Town and Country

Ε. Farinetti: Roman Landscapes of Greece. Issues on Archaeological Visibility

and Inter-Regional Variability ................................................................................................................................. 3

A.I. Kωνσταντάκη: Παράλιες οικιστικές θέσεις στην περιφέρεια της Νικόπολης ........................................... 21

G.A. Zachos: The City of Opous and its Effect on the Settlement Pattern
of Opountian Locris in the Roman Period ............................................................................................................ 39

D. Gilman Romano: Pirates, Slaves and Colonies in the Roman Peloponnesos ............................................... 55

C. Trainor, D. Grigoropoulos, E. Tzavella, M. Maher: Roman Sikyon: Aspects

of Urban Organization, Settlement and Economy ............................................................................................... 65

Γ. Γρηγορακάκης, Α. Τσάτσαρης: Από τη σταθερότητα στην αγωνία: Η Κυνουρία

στους ρωμαϊκούς χρόνους .................................................................................................................................. 79

Μ. Τσούλη, Α. Μαλτέζου, Λ. Σουχλέρης: Η κοιλάδα του Ευρώτα. Αγροτικές εγκαταστάσεις

και αρχαίο οδικό δίκτυο κατά τη ρωμαϊκή περίοδο ............................................................................................ 91

E. Le Quéré: Was Delos Really Adelos? A Reappraisal of the Delian Solitude

in Roman Imperial Times ..................................................................................................................................... 111

N. Coutsinas: A Living Countryside: Changes in the Rural Occupation of Eastern Crete

from the Hellenistic to the Late Roman Period................................................................................................... 123

2. Οικονομία και Ανταλλαγές | Economy and Exchange

A.Δ. Ριζάκης: Η αγροτική οικονομία των ελληνικών πόλεων κατά την αυτοκρατορική εποχή:
παράδοση και νεωτερισμοί ................................................................................................................................... 137

Ch. Papageorgiadou: The Coinage of Hadrianic Era in the Helladic Provinces. A Preliminary Essay ........ 157

Α. Γαρυφαλλόπουλος: Κεραμική της πρώιμης αυτοκρατορικής περιόδου από τη Θεσσαλονίκη:

όψεις της καθημερινότητας μιας ρωμαϊκής μητρόπολης ................................................................................. 165
Σπ. Βασιλείου: Κάνιστρο. Κασσάνδρα Χαλκιδικής. Κεραμική με ερυθρό επίχρισμα
και εμπορικοί αμφορείς: 2ος–4ος αι. μ.Χ. ........................................................................................................... 175

Κ. Γερολύμου: Η σφράγιση κεραμικών οικοδομικών προϊόντων των ρωμαϊκών χρόνων

στον ελλαδικό χώρο. Η περίπτωση της Νικόπολης ........................................................................................... 189

P. Reynolds, E. Pavlidis: A Fourth-Century Deposit from a Newly Discovered Building

behind the Small Nymphaeum at Nicopolis (Preveza, Greece) ......................................................................... 195

Chr. Hinker: The Roman Settlement of Aigeira on the Peloponnese:

Preliminary Remarks on its Trade and Economy based on the Pottery Evidence ........................................... 205

3. Αστικοί χώροι, υποδομές και αρχαιολογία κτηρίων | Urban Spaces, Infrastructures

and the Archaeology of Buildings

Θ. Στεφανίδου-Τιβερίου: Πολεοδομικά της ρωμαϊκής Θεσσαλονίκης.

Ερωτήματα και προτάσεις.................................................................................................................................... 219

Ε. Παυλίδης, Θ. Κύρκου: Η υδροδότηση της Νικόπολης: Παρατηρήσεις

σχετικά με το σύστημα διανομής ύδατος εντός της πόλης ............................................................................... 237

T. Theurillat, G. Ackermann, S. Zurbriggen: From Hellenistic Loutron to Roman Thermae:

The Romanization of Baths at Eretria ................................................................................................................. 249

Γ. Κουρτζέλλης: Η αρχιτεκτονική του αρχαίου Θεάτρου Μυτιλήνης.

Παρουσίαση των πρώτων αποτελεσμάτων της μελέτης ................................................................................... 263

M. Bruno, M. Vitti: Sectilia Pavimenta in Athens. From the Imperial Age to Late Antiquity ...................... 281

A. Caruso: Lecturing in Athens. Investigation on the ‘Topography’ of the Second Sophistic:

An Overview .......................................................................................................................................................... 303

Σ.Ε. Κατάκης, Β. Νικολόπουλος, Π. Φωτιάδη: Νέες έρευνες στον αρχαιολογικό χώρο

του λεγομένου Ρωμαϊκού Βαλανείου στην Ραφήνα: Ιδιωτικός ή δημόσιος χώρος;........................................ 317

Σ.Α. Φριτζίλας: Θέματα της μνημειακής τοπογραφίας της ρωμαϊκής Μεγαλοπόλης .................................. 337

Δ. Σαρρή: Λουτρό των ύστερων ρωμαϊκών χρόνων στο Δερβένι Κορινθίας .................................................. 353

4. Πολιτισμός της εικόνας | Visual Culture

E. Kountouri, N. Petrochilos, S. Zoumbaki: The Tropaion of Sulla over Mithridates VI Eupator:

A First Approach .................................................................................................................................................. 359
C. de Grazia Vanderpool: Julius Caesar and Divus Iulius in Corinth: Man, Memory, and Cult ................. 369

S. Dillon: Portrait Statuary in Roman Athens: Reconsidering the Material from the Athenian Agora ........ 379

Δ.Σ. Σούρλας: Ο διάκοσμος της βιβλιοθήκης του Αδριανού: τα γλυπτά........................................................ 391

Π. Θέμελης: Η Μεσσήνη της ρωμαιοκρατίας και η ανακύκλωση του παρελθόντος .................................... 419

Φ. Κοκκίνη: Θέματα καθημερινής ζωής στα μωσαϊκά δάπεδα των τρικλινίων οικιών
και επαύλεων του ελλαδικού χώρου κατά τους ρωμαϊκούς αυτοκρατορικούς χρόνους ............................... 437

5. Λατρείες, ιερά και ταφικές πρακτικές | Cults, Sanctuaries and Mortuary Practices

Ι. Τριάντη, Γ. Σμύρης: Άκτιο. Ο ρωμαϊκός ναός του Ακτίου Απόλλωνα ........................................................ 453

F. Lozano: A Provincial Priest for the Province of Achaia? A Reconsideration

and an Update Based on Several Recently Found Inscriptions ......................................................................... 467

F. Camia, A. Corcella, M.C. Monaco: Hadrian, the Olympieion, and the Foreign Cities ............................ 477

Ν. Σαραγά: Ανάγλυφο με παράσταση Παλμυριακής θεϊκής τριάδας

από την ανασκαφή για την ανέγερση του Νέου Μουσείου Ακροπόλεως ....................................................... 487

Β. Λάμπρου, Ου. Πάλλη, Α. Αηδόνης: Επώνυμοι και ανώνυμοι: έθιμα ταφής

στη ρωμαϊκή Θεσπρωτία ...................................................................................................................................... 505

Ε. Τρακοσοπούλου-Σαλακίδου, Α. Παντή, Σπ. Βασιλείου: Ταφικά έθιμα στο ανατολικό

νεκροταφείο της ρωμαϊκής Θεσσαλονίκης: ΔΕΘ, Βόρεια Πύλη....................................................................... 519

B. Χριστοπούλου, Ν. Δημάκης, Κ. Ξανθόπουλος: Ένας μνημειακός τάφος των αυτοκρατορικών

χρόνων στο Ψαλίδι της πόλης Κω: αρχιτεκτονική μορφή, χρήση και έθιμα ταφής ....................................... 537

6. Το ρωμαϊκό παρελθόν σήμερα | Τhe Roman Past in the Present

Κ.Λ. Ζάχος: Το Αρχαιολογικό Πάρκο Νικόπολης. Η διαχείριση και ανάδειξη

ενός εκτεταμένου ερειπιώνα της αυτοκρατορικής και πρωτοβυζαντινής εποχής στην Ελλάδα .................. 557

Α. Ψάλτη, Ε. Σπηλιωτοπούλου, Στ. Ροπακά: Η ανάδειξη μνημείων των ρωμαϊκών χρόνων

στον αρχαιολογικό χώρο των Δελφών: η περίπτωση του Ηρώου G. Blum και της αγοράς .......................... 571

Δ. Ρουμπιέν: Το πρόβλημα της ανάδειξης των ρωμαϊκών μνημείων της Πάτρας

μέσα στο σύγχρονο πολεοδομικό ιστό................................................................................................................. 579
Π.Ν. Μπάρκα: Η ρωμαϊκή Νικόπολη μέσα από την ιστορία κόμικς «Στην πόλη της νίκης».
Μια εναλλακτική – ελκυστική προσέγγιση ........................................................................................................ 587

Επίλογος | Afterword
S.E. Alcock: Graecia Capta Unfettered ............................................................................................................... 599

Περιλήψεις | Abstracts ....................................................................................................................................... 603

Συγγραφείς | List of Contributors ................................................................................................................... 627

Έγχρωμοι πίνακες | Colour plates .....................................................................................................................631

 Elena Kountouri – Nikolaos Petrochilos – Sophia Zoumbaki

The Tropaion of Sulla over Mithridates VI Eupator:

A First Approach*

On November 14th, 2004, a large fragment of stone ological site of Orchomenos, which was recognized
sculpture (Fig. 1) was delivered to the archae- as a partly preserved trophy1. It was reported to be
found in a field at “Kydonia” in the northwestern
part of Kopais plain, between the modern towns
Pyrgos and Orchomenos, and that it was brought
to light during agricultural works. The archaeo-
logical exploration of the site revealed numerous
architectural members in situ; the euthynteria,
measuring 2.25 x 2.25 m., and part of the first step
were maintained (Figs. 2–3). Τhe study of the scat-
tered members made clear that the restoration of
the monument was possible; it consisted of a ped-
estal with orthostats bearing relief decoration, an
inscribed crowning, tiers with relief decoration and
an armored tree-trunk. The inscription confirmed
that the monument can be identified as the trophy

Fig. 1. The lower part of the trophy with the armored tree Fig. 2. The orthostat base blocks in situ, view from the W
trunk (photo authors). (photo authors).

359
 The Tropaion of Sulla over Mithridates VI Eupator: A First Approach

Fig. 3. The orthostat base blocks in situ,

view from the S (photo authors).

erected to commemorate the victory of Lucius Cor- enabled L. Cornelius Cinna to gain control, sup-
nelius Sulla at Orchomenos against the king of Pon- plies for Sulla’s army were cut off, Sulla was de-
tus Mithridates VI Eupator and his army. clared a public enemy (hostis), and command of
the war against Mithridates was transferred to the
The battles at Chaeronea and Orchomenos consul Marius3. After Marius’s unexpected death,
the consul suffectus L. Valerius Flaccus replaced
The region near Orchomenos was the battlefield of
him, took over the governorship of Asia, and was
one of the two decisive clashes, in which Roman
sent out to the East (Plu., Sull. 20. 1). In the mean-
forces under Sulla’s command defeated the troops
while, between the battle of Chaeronea and that of
of the king of Pontus, Mithridates VI Eupator, Orchomenos, Sulla had to confront Flaccus near
whose expansionist aspirations in Asia Minor had Melitea in Thessaly. Plutarch (Sull. 20–21) describes
brought him into conflict with Rome. Therefore, the conflict at Orchomenos, where the odds were
when Sulla was assigned the responsibility to van- against the Roman side, since Archelaos’ army had
quish Mithridates in 87 B.C., he landed to Epirus 80,000 men under Dorylaios’ command. The Pontic
and marched to the S. Both decisive victories of troops camped at Orchomenos where, as Archelaos
the Roman army over the Pontic forces, at the head surmised, was the most suitable place for an army
of which stood Archelaos, took place in 86 B.C. in superior in cavalry. After the first skirmishes and
Boeotia, at Chaeronea and Orchomenos. Details of Sulla’s encouragement to his soldiers, the ensu-
the battles are described by Plutarch (in his Life of ing battle resulted in heavy losses for Mithridates’
Sulla), whose birthplace, Chaeronea, is located not army. The fallen soldiers were so numerous that
far from the battlefield. An important role in the the marshes were full of blood and the lakes with
outcome of the battle at Chaeronea was played by corpses; even two hundred years later, at the time
two natives, Omoloichos and Anaxidamos, who ac- of Plutarch, barbarian bows, helmets, knives, and
cording to Plutarch’s narration (Sull. 17. 5–7) led a pieces of iron breastplates were still being found
small Roman military detachment through a secret (Plut., Sull. 21).
path onto the Thourion hill where the enemy had Further, according to Plutarch, Sulla after his
encamped and was thus taken by surprise; part of a victories at Chaeronea and Orchomenos erected
monument which was probably erected by the two two trophies (Sull. 19. 5–6), one of which is with
natives in order to commemorate their gallantry, certainty to be identified with that found in a field
was found in 1989 on the Thourion hill2. in the vicinity of Orchomenos. Unpretentious in
In 86 B.C., when the balance of power in Rome its architectural structure, of low artistic quality,

360
 Elena Kountouri – Nikolaos Petrochilos – Sophia Zoumbaki

and with its relief decoration rendered roughly, at the temple of Apollo at Delphi (Paus. 10. 19. 4
the trophy at Orchomenos is the oldest surviving and Aeschin., Ctes. 116) and later Alexander III
monument erected in Greece by a Roman general dedicated golden shields from the spoils of the bat-
to display his victory over enemies. tle at Granicus in the Athenian Parthenon (Plu.,
Alex. 16; Arr., An. 1. 16. 7; Paus. 1. 25. 7). Shields
The tradition of erecting trophies were often adapted onto the bases of monuments
which were erected in order to commemorate vic-
The tradition according to which the victor erected
tories, as for instance the pedestals dedicated by the
a trophy on the battlefield, sometimes even at the
Naupactians and the Messenians at Olympia and
very point where the defeated enemy fled4, was de-
Delphi10. Depicting relief weapons at conspicuous
veloped on Greek soil and dates back to the 5th cen-
parts of monumental buildings corresponds exactly
tury B.C.5. The earliest trophies consisted merely of
to the same ideology. A well-known monument of
a mound of weapons that were abandoned by the
this category is the propylon frieze of the sanctu-
defeated army on the battlefield; this evolved into
ary of Athena Nikephoros at Pergamon, on which
the erection of perishable monuments consisting of
weapons and armor are depicted, such as helmets,
a tree trunk with the military equipment attached6.
shields, swords etc.11.
Drawing inspiration from these early tropaia, from
Gradually, a similar practice for proclaiming a
the 4th cent. B.C. onwards victory monuments were
victory was developed by the Romans. According to
carved in stone7. The ancient tradition of trophies
an old military tradition, Roman generals brought
in the form of piles of armor is reflected on the
the enemies’ weapons into Rome where the victors
monuments dedicated by the Aetolians for their
presented them first in triumph and afterwards
victory over the Gauls8, whereas in the Hellenistic
could exhibit them in a public or private build-
period booty seized from the defeated enemies is
ing12. The first monumental trophies in the West
depicted on statue bases and other types of monu-
were erected on the battlefield to commemorate the
ments. It was important that the viewer could per-
victory over the Gallic tribes in 121 B.C. Nothing
ceive the meaning and the reason for the erection
is preserved from these early trophies which were
of a trophy. This could be achieved through the
constructed as stone towers bearing xoana on the
depiction of weapons which – despite their rough
top13. Marius erected monumental trophies which
rendering on such monuments – formed a direct
were later demolished by Sulla and restored by Cae-
reference to the army that bore them. The iconog-
sar14.
raphy could be even more explicit, as in the case of
the statue of Attalus, which would proclaim his vic-
The trophy at Orchomenos
tory over the Gauls, since it was planned to depict
the king πεντάπηχυ τεθωρακισμένον καὶ βεβηκὸς So far, the concise examination of the evolution of
ἐπὶ σκύλων (“five cubits high, bearing a cuirass and trophies and of the symbolism of the depiction of
stepping on booty of war”), as it is mentioned in the armor during the Hellenistic period gives us the
relevant decree9. opportunity for a comprehensive approach of the
Enemy shields left behind especially formed monument that was erected by Sulla in the vicin-
the most important proof of imposition of power ity of Orchomenos. The base of the monument is
over the defeated rival. After the battle of Tanagra, of the type with orthostats, which was widely used
Spartans dedicated a golden shield at the temple of from the late Classical period onwards15. On a low
Zeus at Olympia (Paus. 5. 10. 3), Athenians dedi- stepped base stood a rectangular pedestal formed
cated gilded shields after the battle of Marathon by a built core which was covered by orthostats of

361
 The Tropaion of Sulla over Mithridates VI Eupator: A First Approach

local limestone; they were joined together by means the chalkaspides20, who bore as their main arma-
of horizontal ties (clamps) and in the course below ment the bronze large round shield and the pikes,
by means of dowels; all metal parts have been re- grieves, a sword, and a helmet21. In regard to the
moved and their shape can be assumed by the form composition of the Pontic army, additional infor-
of the dowel holes. The outer face of the orthostats mation is very important, namely that it included
bore relief decoration depicting military equip- an enormous and mighty cavalry exceeding in
ment, whereas the upper surface of the pedestal number other contemporary armies22, probably
was covered by plates which formed a crowning, hippotoxotai and scythed chariots23, as well as thou-
whose frontage bore an inscription. The pedestal sands of lightly armed slaves24.
and the crowing were surmounted by a tier of ar- Parts of the equipment of these military units
chitectural members bearing relief decoration of are depicted in relief on the base of the trophy at
oblong ovoid scutae (type D), a type of shield with Orchomenos. The object featuring a cylindrical
curved sides, which was in use during the Hellen- shape with a convex lower ending and with the
istic period in the Greek-speaking East16. Atop the open endings attached to a thin relief strap can
latter rested a prismatic plinth that bore a second probably be recognized as a sling, which would
type of shields, circular and in low relief. From the normally be used by the light equipped military
armored tree trunk hung the chiton, the breastplate bodies, especially slaves25. The oval object should
girded with a waving belt and greaves and at the top be interpreted rather as a stylized head cover which
a conical helmet17. Its cubic form on a stepped base finds a parallel in the pileus on dinars minted by
and a crowning, atop of which stands the armored Brutus in 42 B.C.26. Depicted are also spears, a
tree trunk are widespread features of the Hellenistic bow, grieves, a dagger, and an Attic type helmet27,
period, even though the combination of all these whereas impressive is a wheel, from which a broken
elements in one monument is rather difficult to be element is hanging28 (Fig. 4); the latter could refer
found18. The relief decoration of the base of the Or- to no other than Mithridate’s scythed chariots. An
chomenos trophy formed a clear reference to the even more striking effect should have been evoked
military equipment of Mithridates’ army. The ba- by the scutae on the surmounting plinth. The shape
sic military unit of this army, as in all armies of the of the shield, as well as the vertical ridge with the
Successors, should have been the hoplite phalanx19. central boss find parallels to the shields borne by
An elite corps was the bronze-shielded phalangitai, the legionaries on the monument of Aemilius Paul-

Fig. 4. Relief block depicting the

wheel of a chariot (photo authors).

362
 Elena Kountouri – Nikolaos Petrochilos – Sophia Zoumbaki

Fig. 5. The inscribed crowning (photo

authors).

lus at Delphi and the so-called Altar of Domitius and Aphrodite (Mars, Victory and Venus). This in-
Ahenobarbus, both of the Republican Period29. As formation is in accordance with the inscription of
it seems so far, above the plinths with the scutae, on the trophy at Orchomenos (Fig. 5).
the most prestigious place of the base, at the plinth
of the armored tree trunk, are attributed circular Dimensions of the inscribed block: 1.72 x 0.47 x
and almost flat shields, thus recalling the classical 0.27 m. (height of the inscribed surface: 0.15 m.). Letter
tradition to schematically render a circular shield height: 0.035 m. The letters bear apices, A has a broken
on the pedestal of the tropaion30. Τhe statue, found horizontal cross-bar, the horizontal arms of Ω bear verti-
in two adjoining fragments, was anchored in the cal apices whose height is equal to the total height of the
socket of the plinth. According to the tradition that letter.
was developed at least after the erection of the tro-
phy of Leuctra, the statue was rendered in the form [Λεύκιος Κ]ọρνήλ[ιος Λευκίου υ]ἱὸς Σύλλας αὐτοκράτωρ
of a tree trunk – as indicated by the node of wood [κ]ατὰ βασιλέως Μιθραδάτου καὶ τῶν συμμάχων α[ὐτοῦ]
– on which are mounted the individual parts of the [Ἄ]ρ[ει] Νί[κη]ι Ἀφροδί[τηι]
military equipment.
The roughness of the reliefs, especially the flat The name of Sulla should be restored in the
circular shields on the plinth of the statue and the first line; it obviously included the tria nomina and
weaponry on the orthostats, does not deviate from the filiation written in full, as was the rule with Ro-
what is usual in the monuments of this category. man names rendered in Greek in inscriptions of
The hard and angular pleats of the chiton and the this period, since abbreviations were not yet in use.
stylized tassel find parallels in monuments of the
The second line is slightly wider, as we observe at
2nd and 1st cent. B.C., like the trophies at the sanctu-
the right part of the inscription, which is better pre-
ary of Chemtou in Tunis, which are dated to the late
served. The third line, which included only three
2nd cent. B.C.31. Like those, the trophy of Orchome-
words, seems to have been slightly shorter as well,
nos is an unpretentious work, which dominates the
so that the layout of the whole text is symmetrical
plain by means of its size and symbolism.
on the surface of the stone.
Sulla himself must have dictated the inscription
The inscription
on the trophy, a fact which is very important for our
According to Plutarch (Sull. 19. 5–6), the two tro- understanding of his self-definition as imperator32.
phies erected by Sulla after his victories at Chaero- The official title of proconsul that was assigned to
nea and Orchomenos were dedicated to Ares, Tyche him by his state is not mentioned in the inscription,

363
 The Tropaion of Sulla over Mithridates VI Eupator: A First Approach

as Rome had in the meanwhile declared him an en- pointed out34, during this period and especially in
emy and assigned the command of the war against the ensuing years, a trophy was not erected in the
Mithridates to another general. It is thus remark- field of a specific battle, as Roman victories were
able that he prefers to use the title imperator, “com- not based on isolated battles, but on long-term
mander cum imperio”, a title given by acclamation wars. Trophies stand thus as symbols of Roman
of the troops after important victories. Sulla’s power presence and domination over a larger area. This
was based on the support of his troops after he was practice was followed by powerful Roman gener-
cut off from Rome’s central government. He him- als, such as Pompey, Caesar, and Augustus. On the
self had cultivated the attachment of his soldiers to contrary, Sulla’s trophies in Boeotia were erected
his person, as indicated by various incidents, such at the exact sites were the battles took place, thus
as that recorded by Appian: when Sulla spoke to his following the old Greek tradition. The trophy of
soldiers about a personal offence, an outrage com- Orchomenos renders in stone the primary type of
mitted against him by Sulpicius and Marius in re- trophy, while the Greek inscription also follows the
gard to the command of the Mithridatic War in 88 ancient Greek tradition of dedicating trophies to
B.C. (App., BC 1. 7. 57: …τὴν δ’ ὕβριν ὁ Σύλλας τὴν deities.
ἐς αὑτὸν εἰπὼν Σουλπικίου τε καὶ Μαρίου…), the It is of great interest for the topography of the
soldiers encouraged him, θαρροῦντα ἐκέλευον, and region, where the battle took place, that the trophy
remained loyal to him. was set up in the middle of the northwestern cove
of Kopais valley, in an area mainly characterized
Messages reinforced by the trophy and its place- by the presence of a permanent marsh due to the
ment flooding of the Polygira stream and the presence of
the springs of ancient Melas, one of the two main
Sulla chose to erect a trophy which morphologi- rivers feeding the Kopais35. It is also known that in
cally belongs to the long tradition of monuments the northern part of the lake the Mycenaean dam
of this kind, erected in the previous centuries in the was preserved, by means of which the lake was left
Greek world. It was not an attempt to improve his to dry up, whereas to the S the trench that was de-
image after the destruction of Athens and other cit- signed and implemented by Alexander’s engineer
ies33; it was rather a desire to proclaim his power Crates ran in the middle of the Copais field from E
and decisiveness and this message was addressed to W36. These technical works must have prevented
to various directions: to his army, to the Boeotians the deployment of Mithridate’s cavalry, whilst the
as well as to the Greek-speaking populations of the argillaceous soil of the valley would have certainly
East, and, last but not least, to the Senate which had hampered the movement of the scythe chariots.
outlawed him. In any case, both the trophy found The Pontic troops were thus trapped in the marshy
at Orchomenos and the trophy that was erected at area between the sites Pyrgos37 and Orchomenos38
Chaeronea according to Plutarch, are to be consid- without any possibility of escape to the W. Sulla
ered as the first Roman stone trophies on Greek ter- chose to erect the trophy manifesting his victory
rain. exactly at this site that was crucial for the outcome
Even though they do not celebrate Roman vic- of the battle.
tories over Greeks, Sulla’s trophies against Mithri- An archaeological find which has not until now
dates reinforced various messages. They signal the received much attention, could perhaps be related
crash of a Rome’s enemy, the indisputable restora- to the battle. Two bronze Roman helmets of the
tion of Roman rule over the Greeks as well as Sulla’s late 2nd/early 1st cent. B.C. of the Montefortino type,
amplified dominance and power. As it has been with parallels from the western provinces39, were

364
 Elena Kountouri – Nikolaos Petrochilos – Sophia Zoumbaki

found according to the Directorate of the National nography of the monument, Sulla’s titulature which
Archive of Monuments in the marshy northern reflects the political and military balance of the very
outskirts of the lake40. It is unknown under which moment after the battle, the deities to whom the
circumstances they were discovered; however, they trophy is dedicated. Everything shows clearly that it
are obviously associated with the battle in question. was Sulla himself who gave the orders and instruc-
Plutarch, who did autopsy on the battlefield more tions about the type of the monument, which would
than two centuries after the confrontation of the commemorate his victory. Moreover, the celebra-
two armies, records that military equipment was tion of the epinikia with festivities and games or-
still to be seen scattered on the field. ganized in Thebes (Plu., Sull. 19. 6) proves that the
In conclusion, there are many important ele- victories over Rome’s greatest enemy were of special
ments to the trophy: the choice of the site of set- importance for Sulla. Despite the fact that he was no
ting up the victory monument which dominates the longer supported by the central authority of Rome,
plain of Orchomenos, the language of its inscrip- Sulla was able to win these victories relying only on
tion, which reinforced a clear message to the local his own military skills, on his soldiers’ loyalty and
population, the propaganda promoted by the ico- on the constant favor of the goddess Tyche.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Bernard 1993 Camp et al. 1992

P. Bernard, Bouclier inscrit du J. Paul Getty Museum au J. Camp – M. Ierardi – J. McInerny – K. Morgan – G.
nom de Pharnace I, Roi du Pont, Bulletin of the Asia In- Umholtz, A Trophy from the Battle of Chaeroneia of 86
stitute 7, 11–19. B.C., AJA 96, 443–455.

Bishop – Coulston 2006 Couvenhes 2009

M.C. Bishop – J.C.N. Coulston, Roman military equip- J.–C. Couvenhes, L’armée de Mithridate VI Eupator
ment from the Punic Wars to the fall of Rome (Oxford). d’après Plutarque, Vie de Lucullus, VII, 4-6, in: H. Bru
– Fr. Kirbihler – S. Lebreton (eds.), L’Asie Mineure dans
Blinkenberg 1941 l’Antiquité: échanges, populations et territoires (Renne)
C. Blinkenberg, Lindos, Fouilles de l’Acropole 1902– 415–438.
1914 vol. 2, Inscriptions II (Berlin).
Crawford 1974
Bonanno Aravantinos 2012 M.H. Crawford, Roman Republican Coinage (London).
M. Bonanno Aravantinos, La scultura di età romana
Dillon – Welch 2006
nella Beozia: importazioni e produzioni locali, in: Θ.
S. Dillon – K. Welch, Representation of war in ancient
Στεφανίδου-Τιβερίου – Π. Καραναστάση – Δ. Δαμά-
Rome (Cambridge).
σκος (eds.), Κλασική παράδοση και νεωτερικά στοιχεία
στην πλαστική της ρωμαϊκής Ελλάδας, Πρακτικά Διε- Dintsis 1986
θνούς Συνεδρίου Θεσσαλονίκη 2009 (Θεσσαλονίκη) P. Dintsis, Hellenistische Helme (Roma).
233–249.
Eichberg 1987
Camp 1986 M. Eichberg, Scutum: Die Entwicklung einer italisch-
J.M. Camp, The Athenian Agora. Excavations in the etruskischen Schildform von den Anfängen bis zur Zeit
Heart of Classical Athens (London). Caesars (Frankfurt am Main).

365
 The Tropaion of Sulla over Mithridates VI Eupator: A First Approach

Farinetti 2009 pazarkadas (ed.), The Epigraphy and History of Boeotia.

E. Farinetti, Boeotian Landscapes. A GIS-based study New finds, new prospects (Leiden – Boston) 332–372.
for the reconstruction and the interpretation of the ar-
chaeological datasets of ancient Boeotia (Leiden). Κaltsas et al. 2010
Ν. Καλτσάς – S. Fachard – Α. Ψάλτη – Μ. Γιαννοπούλου
Feugère 2011 (επιμ.), Ερέτρια. Ματιές σε μια αρχαία πόλη, Κατάλογος
M. Feugère, Les casques antiques: visages de la guerre, de της έκθεσης Αθήνα 2010 (Αθήνα).
Mycènes à la fin de l’Empire romain (Paris).
Knauss 1990
Fossey 1988 J. Knauss, Wasserbau und Geschichte: minische Ep-
J.M. Fossey, Topography and Population of Ancient Boi- oche, bayerische Zeit (vier Jahrhunderte, ein Jahrzehnt)
otia (Chicago). (München).
Fraenkel 1890 Kosmopoulou 2002
M. Fraenkel, Die Inschriften von Pergamon, AvP VIII.1 A. Kosmopoulou, The iconography of sculptured statue
(Berlin). bases in the Archaic and Classical periods (Madison).
Geagan 1979 Kountouri 2009
D.J. Geagan, Roman Athens. Some aspects of life and Ε. Kountouri, Ορχομενός-Κωπαΐς, in: Α.G. Vlachopou-
culture, ANRW II.7.1 (Berlin – New York) 371–437. los (ed.), Archaeology, Euboea and Central Greece (Ath-
ens) 248–253.
Ghita 2012
C.E. Ghita, The  Pontic  army:  integrating  Persian and Kountouri et al. 2012
Macedonian traditions, in: Pontos ordusu: pers ve Make- E. Kountouri – N. Petrochilos – D. Koutsoyiannis – N.
donya geleneklerinin entegrasyonu (Oxford) 97–103. Mamassis – N. Zarkadoulas – A. Vött – H. Hadler – P.
Henning – T. Willershäuser,  A new project of surface
Gisborne 2005
M. Gisborne, A curia of kings: Sulla and royal image- survey, geophysical and excavation research of the My-
ry, in: O. Hekster – R. Fowler (eds.), Imaginery kings. cenaean drainage works of the North Kopais: the first
Royal images in the ancient Near East, Greece and Rome study season,  in: 3rd IWA Specialized Conference on
(München) 105–123. Water & Wastewater Technologies in Ancient Civiliza-
tions, Istanbul (Istanbul) 467–476.
Griffith 1935
G.Th. Griffith, The Mercenaries of the Hellenistic World Lauffer 1986
(Cambridge). S. Lauffer, Kopais I. Untersuchungen zur historischen
Landeskunde Mittelgriechenlands (Frankfurt).
Hoff 1997
M.C. Hoff, Laceratae Athenae: Sulla’s siege of Athens in Lovano 2002
87/6 BC and its aftermath, in: C.M. Hoff – S.I. Rotroff M. Lovano, The age of Cinna: Crucible of Late Republi-
(eds.), The Romanization of Athens, Proceedings of an can Rome (Stuttgart).
international conference Lincoln-Nebraska 1996 (Ox-
Mackay 2000
ford) 33–51.
C.S. Mackay, Sulla and the Monuments: Studies in his
Hölscher 1980 Public Persona, Historia 49.2, 161–210.
T. Hölscher, Römische  Siegesdenkmäler  der späten
Nabbefeld 2008
Republik, in: E. Simon – H.A. Cahn (eds.), Tainia. Ro-
A. Nabbefeld, Römische Schilde: Studien zu Funden und
land Hampe zum 70. Geburtstag am 2. Dezember 1978
bildlichen Überlieferungen vom Ende der Republik bis
(Mainz) 351–371.
in die späte Kaiserzeit (Rahden).
Jacob-Felsch 1969
Paddock 1993
M. Jacob-Felsch, Die Entwicklung griechischer Statuen-
basen und die Aufstellung der Statuen (Waldsassen). J.M. Paddock, The Bronze Italian Helmet: the develop-
ment of the Cassis from the last quarter of the sixth cen-
Κalligas 1985 tury B.C. to the third quarter of the first century A.D.
Π.Γ. Καλλιγάς, Ρωμαϊκά κράνη στην Ελλάδα, ΑΑΑ 18, (unpublished PhD diss., University of London).
161–164.
Philippson 1951
Kalliontzis 2014 A. Philippson, Das östliche Mittelgriechenland und die
Y. Kalliontzis, Digging in storerooms for inscriptions: An Insel Euboea, in: A. Philippson (ed.), Die Griechischen
unpublished casualty list from Plataia in the Museum of Landschaften. Eine Landeskunde. Band I, Teil II (Frank-
Thebes and the memory of war in Boeotia, in: N. Pa- furt am Main).

366
 Elena Kountouri – Nikolaos Petrochilos – Sophia Zoumbaki

Picard 1957 Santangelo 2007

Ch. Picard, Les trophées romains:  contribution à l’his- F. Santangelo, Sulla, the elites and the Empire. A study
toire de la religion et de l’art triomphal de Rome (Paris). of Roman policies in Italy and the Greek East (Leiden –
Boston).
Polito 1998
E. Polito, Fulgentibus Armis. Introduzione allo studio Schliemann 1881
dei fregi d’armi antichi (Roma). H. Schliemann, Orchomenos, Bericht über meine Aus-
Pritchett 1974 grabungen, Leipzig (English version in JHS 2, 122–163.
W.K. Pritchett, The Greek State at War II (Berkeley). Schmidt 2000
Rabe 2008 S.G. Schmidt, Sullan debris from Eretria (Greece), RCRF
B. Rabe, Tropaia, τροπή und σκύλα. Entstehung, Funk- Acta 36, 169–180.
tion und Bedeutung des griechischen Tropaions (Rah-
Schmuhl 2008
den/Westf.).
Y. Schmuhl, Römische Siegesmonumente republikani-
Reinach 1890 scher Zeit.  Untersuchungen zu Ursprüngen, Erschei-
Th. Reinach, Mithridate Eupator, roi de Pont (Paris). nungsformen und Denkmalpolitik (Hamburg).

NOTES

* The publication of the monument is being prepared by 8. At Delphi: Rabe 2008, 119–121. 178–179 no. 34 pl. 34. 35,
an interdisciplinary team, which consists of Dr. E. Koun- 1–2.
touri, Dr. S. Zoumbaki, Dr. N. Petrochilos, and architects
9. Fraenkel 1890, no. 246, l. 7. For the representation of the
Th. Bilis and M. Magnisali.
victor as victorious stepping on the armor of the enemy,
1. The news on the discovery was released from the Minis- see Picard 1957, 84, 97–98.
try of Culture on December 8th, 2004. Cf. Kountouri 2009,
10. Rabe 2008, 117. 181–182 no. 42 (Olympia); 118, 18.2 no.
249–250. Based on that press release and in some cases on
43 pl. 32.2 (Delphi).
personal inspection of the architectural members placed
near the Tholos Tomb of Minyas at Orchomenos, the fol- 11. Polito 1998, 90–96.
lowing references on the monument were made during
12. Florus 1. 20. 4. The representation of Nike decorating a
the previous years: Rabe 2008, 143, 185 no. 55; Schmuhl
trophy is to be found on coins from the late 3rd cent. B.C.:
2008, 119; Bonanno Aravantinos 2012, 234.
Hölscher 1980, 355; Schmuhl 2008, 36. 61–71.
2. Camp et al. 1992 regarded the base as Sulla’s trophy men-
13. Florus 1, 37, 6; Strabo 4. 185. See: Picard 1957, 101–107;
tioned by Plutarch. This base, however, is not to be as-
Schmuhl 2008, 37–38.
sociated with the Sullan monument, as Mackay (2000,
168–177) already suggested. For a different view on the 14. Plu., Sull. 6. 1–2; Mar. 32. 2–3; Suet., Caes. 11; Plu., Caes. 6.
base and its inscription, see Kalliontzis 2014, 349–359. 1–5. See Hölscher 1980, 356–357. Architectural members
3. App., BC 1. 73; 77; 81; Mith. 51; cf. Lovano 2002, 97. bearing relief decoration, that were unearthed in 1937 in
Rome in the vicinity of S. Omobono’s church, have been
4. According to ancient authors, the term tropaion was de- attributed to Jugurtha’s monument that was dedicated by
rived from the term trope, meaning the enemy’s repulsion Mauretania’s king, Bocchos. See: Hölscher 1980, 359–371;
and fleeing. See: Pritchett 1974, 246–275, esp. 259; Rabe
Schmuhl 2008, 190–194.
2008, 15; Schmuhl 2008, 17. 27.
15. Jacob-Felsch 1969,  53–54.  65–66.  181–183  cat. nos. 78–
5. Rabe 2008, 117; Schmuhl 2008, 16. 24, where references
87; Kosmopoulou 2002, 10–15.
of ancient authors from the 5th cent. B.C. onwards are col-
lected. 16. Eichberg 1987, 164–166; Nabbefeld 2008, 17–20.
6. Rabe 2008, 126. 17. Feugère 2011, 36–37.
7. Rabe 2008, 22–24; Schmuhl 2008, 30–46. 18. This remark is stated with some reservation, since several

367
 The Tropaion of Sulla over Mithridates VI Eupator: A First Approach

orthostats, parts of Hellenistic monuments, are known, lar). 47–48 fig. 21 (Altar of Domitius Ahenobarbus).
but their overall form is missing: e.g. the votive offering at 30. E.g. the monuments at Olympia and Delphi: see above,
Lindos, see Blinkenberg 1941, 970–971 no. 659. n. 12.
19. On the Macedonian phalanx in the Pontic army, see Str. 7. 31. Polito 1998, 87–88 figs. 21–22.
3. 17; App., Mith. 17. 63 and 44; Plu., Sull. 18. 1–2; Fron-
tin., Strateg. 2. 3. 17; cf. Couvenhes 2009, 418. 426. An 32. On Sulla’s self-presentation, see Gisborne 2005, esp. 112–
indirect attestation for the use of hoplite phalanx in the 116 on the title of imperator.
kingdom of Pontus is offered by a bronze shield bearing 33. On the blockade of supplies and famine in Athens, on de-
the inscription ΦΑΡΝΑΚΗΣ, who is perhaps to be iden- structions and plundering of the town, see: Plu., Sull. 12;
tified with the king of the first half of the 2nd cent. B.C., 14. 4–10; App., Mith. 5. 30–39. On archaeological traces
see Bernard 1993. The fact that this shield is shallow and of the siege and literary sources, see: Geagan 1979; Camp
without a rim perhaps allows the assumption that it was 1986, 181; Hoff 1997. On Thebes, see Paus. 9. 4. 4–6. On
used rather by a phalanx of Macedonian type than by a Anthedon, Larymna and Halae, see Plu., Sull. 26. 7. On
Greek hoplite phalanx: see Ghita 2012, 102. Plutarch re- archaeological evidence for the destruction of Eretria, see:
fers to the Roman phalanx, πεζῶν δὲ μυριάδας δώδεκα Schmidt 2000; Κaltsas et al. 2010, 85–86. On removing
κατεσκευασμένων εἰς φάλαγγα ῾Ρωμαϊκήν (“a hundred treasures from sanctuaries, see Santangelo 2007, 200–201
and twenty thousand footmen in the Roman phalanx for- (Orchomenos and Alalkomenai). On the use of precious
mation”), obviously meaning the arrangement of Roman votive offerings from Olympia, Epidauros and Delphi for
troops for confronting the enemy on the battle field. minting currency for the payment of Sulla’s troops, see:
20. Plu., Sull. 16. 7 and 19. 2. See Couvenhes 2009, 426. Plu., Sull. 12. 3–4; App., Mith. 8. 54; Paus. 9. 7. 5–6.
21. Plu., Sull. 16. 7 and 18. 34. Dillon – Welch 2006, 31.
22. Reinach 1890, 269–270; Couvenhes 2009, 426. 35. Philippson 1951, 447. See also Farinetti 2009, 109.
23. Couvenhes 2009, 421. 36. Kountouri et al. 2012.
24. At the battle of Chaeronea, Archelaos’ army included 37. On the identification of the Pyrgos hilltop site with ancient
15,000 former slaves that were emancipated in the Asian Tegyra, see: Schliemann 1881, 160; Fossey 1988, 369–370.
cities (Plu., Sull. 18. 4). See: Griffith 1935, 191–192; Cou- On the other hand, Lauffer 1986, 156, and Knauss 1990,
venhes 2009, 430. 68, identify it with the acropolis of ancient Aspledon. Or-
chomenos and Aspledon are mentioned together in the
25. On the slingers (σφενδονῆται), see DNP 11, 186 (S. Link). Homeric Catalogue of Ships: Homer, Il. 2. 5. 11.
A bundled net depicted on a sarcophagus from Tuscany is
quite similar, see Polito 1998, 116 fig. 48. 38. According to Lauffer 1986, 149, a road existed crossing
the basin from Pyrgos to Orchomenos, though the area
26. Crawford 1974, 218. 508.3 pl. 41. was often entirely marshy. Scarce remains that came to
27. Reminiscent of the helmet depicted on the relief from the light next to Sulla’s trophy most probably belong to that
city gate at Side and the circular base at Delos, see Polito road.
1998, 86 fig. 18. 87 fig. 20. For the helmet type, see: Dintsis 39. Paddock 1993, 633–634 type ΧΙ (1st cent. B.C.). See also:
1986, 105–112; Feugère 2011, 38–39. Dintsis 1986, 153. 154. 158. 374 no. 445 pl. 72, 2; Feugère
28. Op. cit. n. 25. 2011, 52–54. 93–96 (Buggenum type).
29. Bishop – Coulston 2006, 2–3 fig. 1 (Aemilius Paullus’ pil- 40. Κalligas 1985.

368
 Συγγραφείς | List of Contributors

Αστέριος Αηδόνης Βασιλική Λάμπρου

ΑΠΘ, Ιατρική Σχολή ΥΠ.ΠΟ.Α., ΕΦΑ Θεσπρωτίας
[email protected] [email protected]

Σπύρος Βασιλείου Αφροδίτη Μαλτέζου

ΥΠ.ΠΟ.Α., ΕΦΑ Χαλκιδικής και Αγίου Όρους ΥΠ.ΠΟ.Α., ΕΦΑ Λακωνίας
[email protected] [email protected]

Απόστολος Γαρυφαλλόπουλος Πολυξένη Ν. Μπάρκα

Αριστοτέλειο Πανεπιστήμιο Θεσσαλονίκης ΥΠ.ΠΟ.Α., ΕΦΑ Πρέβεζας
[email protected] [email protected]

Κωνσταντίνα Γερολύμου Βαγγέλης Νικολόπουλος

ΥΠ.ΠΟ.Α., ΕΦΑ Μεσσηνίας ΥΠ.ΠΟ.Α.
[email protected]
Κυριάκος Ξανθόπουλος
Γρηγόριος Γρηγορακάκης Δημοκρίτειο Πανεπιστήμιο Θράκης, Τμήμα Ιστορίας
ΥΠ.ΠΟ.Α., ΕΦΑ Κεφαλληνίας και Ιθάκης και Εθνολογίας, Εργαστήριο Ανθρωπολογίας
[email protected] [email protected]

Νικόλας Δημάκης Ουρανία Πάλλη

Εθνικό Καποδιστριακό Πανεπιστήμιο Αθηνών Αρχαιολογικό Μουσείο Θεσσαλονίκης
[email protected] [email protected]

Κωνσταντίνος Λ. Ζάχος Άννα Παντή

Επιστημονική Επιτροπή Νικόπολης ΥΠ.ΠΟ.Α., ΕΦΑ Περιφέρειας Θεσσαλονίκης 
[email protected] [email protected]

Πέτρος Θέμελης Αθανάσιος Δ. Ριζάκης

Εταιρεία Μεσσηνιακών Αρχαιολογικών Σπουδών ΕΙΕ, Ινστιτούτο Ιστορικών Ερευνών
[email protected] [email protected]

Στυλιανός Ε. Κατάκης Στυλιανή Ροπακά

Εθνικό Καποδιστριακό Πανεπιστήμιο Αθηνών ΥΠ.ΠΟ.Α., ΕΦΑ Φωκίδος
[email protected] [email protected]

Φωτεινή Κοκκίνη Διονύσιος Ρουμπιέν

ΥΠ.Π.Ε.Θ. ΤΕΙ Δυτικής Ελλάδας
[email protected] [email protected]

Γιάννης Κουρτζέλλης Νικολέττα Σαραγά 

ΥΠ.ΠΟ.Α., ΕΦΑ Λέσβου ΥΠ.ΠΟ.Α., ΔΑΜΕΕΠ, Τμήμα Εκθέσεων
[email protected] [email protected]

Θάλεια Κύρκου Δήμητρα Σαρρή

ΥΠ.ΠΟ.Α., ΕΦΑ Ιωαννίνων ΥΠ.ΠΟ.Α., ΕΦΑ Κορινθίας
[email protected] [email protected]

Αθηνά I. Κωνσταντάκη Γιώργος Σμύρης

ΥΠ.ΠΟ.Α., ΕΦΑ Πρέβεζας Πανεπιστήμιο Ιωαννίνων
[email protected] [email protected]

627
Δημήτρης Σ. Σούρλας Francesco Camia
ΥΠ.ΠΟ.Α., ΕΦΑ Πόλης Αθηνών Sapienza Università di Roma
[email protected] [email protected]

Λεωνίδας Σουχλέρης Ada Caruso

ΥΠ.ΠΟ.Α., ΕΦΑ Λακωνίας Università della Calabria
[email protected] [email protected]
Ελένη Σπηλιωτοπούλου Aldo Corcella
ΥΠ.ΠΟ.Α., ΕΦΑ Φωκίδος Università degli Studi della Basilicata
lena_spiliotopoulou@hotmail. com [email protected]
Θεοδοσία Στεφανίδου-Τιβερίου Nadia Coutsinas
Αριστοτέλειο Πανεπιστήμιο Θεσσαλονίκης UMR 7041 (ArScAn), Paris I Panthéon-Sorbonne –
[email protected] CReA-Patrimoine, Université Libre de Bruxelles
[email protected]
Ελένη Τρακοσοπούλου-Σαλακίδου
ΥΠ.ΠΟ.Α. Catherine de Grazia Vanderpool
[email protected] Corinth Excavations, American School
of Classical Studies at Athens
Ισμήνη Τριάντη
[email protected]
Πανεπιστήμιο Ιωαννίνων
[email protected] Sheila Dillon
Duke University – Department of Art, Art History
Ανδρέας Τσάτσαρης
ΤΕΙ Αθηνας – Τμήμα Μηχανικών, Τοπογραφίας & Visual Studies
και Γεωπληροφορικής [email protected]
[email protected] Emeri Farinetti
Μαρία Τσούλη Roma Tre University, Department of Humanities
ΥΠ.ΠΟ.Α., ΕΦΑ Λακωνίας [email protected]
[email protected] Dimitris Grigoropoulos
Σταμάτης Α. Φριτζίλας German Archaeological Institute, Athens
ΥΠ.ΠΟ.Α., ΕΦΑ Μεσσηνίας  [email protected]
[email protected] Christoph Hinker
Πέλλη Φωτιάδη ÖAI, Vienna
ΥΠ.ΠΟ.Α., ΕΦΑ Ανατολικής Αττικής [email protected]
[email protected]
Elena Kountouri
Βασιλική Χριστοπούλου Hellenic Ministry of Culture, Directorate of Prehistoric
ΥΠ.ΠΟ.Α. and Classical Antiquities
[email protected] [email protected]

Αθανασία Ψάλτη Enora Le Quéré

ΥΠ.ΠΟ.Α., ΕΦΑ Φωκίδος University of Rouen, Department of History
[email protected] and Archaeology (GRHis – EA 3831)
[email protected]
Guy Ackermann
University of Lausanne, Institute of Archaeology Fernando Lozano Gómez
and Classical Studies Universidad de Sevilla
[email protected] [email protected]

Susan Ε. Alcock Matthew Maher

The University of Michigan University of Winnipeg
[email protected] [email protected]

Matthias Bruno Maria Chiara Monaco

Independent scholar, Rome Università degli Studi della Basilicata
[email protected] [email protected]

628
Charikleia Papageorgiadou Conor Trainor
NHRF, Institute of Historical Research University of Warwick, Department of Classics
[email protected] and Ancient History
[email protected]
Evangelos Pavlidis
Hellenic Ministry of Culture, Scientific Committee Elissavet Tzavella
of ancient Nikopolis Open University of Cyprus/Topoi, Ηumboldt-
[email protected] Universität zu Berlin
Nikolaos Petrochilos  [email protected]
Hellenic Ministry of Culture, Ephorate of Antiquities
Massimo Vitti
of Phokis
Sovrintendenza Capitolina ai Beni Culturali, Rome
[email protected]
[email protected]
Paul Reynolds
George A. Zachos
ERAAUB, Universitat de Barcelona, and ICREA
[email protected] Academy of Athens, Research Center for Antiquity
[email protected]
David Gilman Romano
University of Arizona, School of Anthropology Sophia Zoumbaki
[email protected] NHRF, Institute of Historical Research
[email protected]
Thierry Theurillat
Swiss School of Archaeology in Greece/University Simone Zurbriggen
of Lausanne University of Basel, Department of Classics
[email protected] [email protected] 

629