Cambridge University Press
0521483131 - The Cambridge Dictionary of Classical Civilization - Edited by Graham Shipley, John Vanderspoel, David Mattingly and Lin Foxhall
Excerpt

A

abacus see COUNTING; EDUCATION, ROMAN.

Academy The philosophical school founded by PLATO, named after the GYMNASIUM near Athens in which it was located. Three stages in the history of the school are conventionally distinguished. The Old Academy developed Plato’s dogmatic teachings, including his interest in MATHEMATICS. Beginning with Arkesilaos (316/15–242/1 BC) the Middle Academy emphasized rather the sceptical aspect of Plato’s writings, rejecting the STOIC account of KNOWLEDGE and showing that, as there were arguments against every position, it was wise to suspend judgement. The New Academy of Karneades (214/13–129/8 BC) similarly rejected dogmatism. While Kleitomachos interpreted Karneades as holding that it was wise not to assent, Philo of Larisa (159/8–84/3 BC) took his view to be that the wise person could hold opinions while being aware that they might be false and went so far as to claim that this had been the consistent doctrine of the school throughout. In the confusion following SULLA’s sack of Athens in 86 BC the school seems to have disintegrated, Antiochos of Askalon (b. c.130 BC) rejecting Philo’s position and claiming to restore the dogmatic position of the Old Academy, asserting that the views of the Old Academy, ARISTOTLE and the Stoics had been essentially similar. Whether the Academy continued as an institution is uncertain, as is the relation to it of the later NEOPLATONIST ‘School of Athens’. In the first two centuries AD ‘Academic’ was increasingly used to indicate SCEPTICAL followers of Plato, ‘Platonist’ those who adopted a more dogmatic position – the ‘Middle Platonists’ (not to be confused with the earlier Middle Academy). RWS
See Dillon, J. (1996) The Middle Platonists; Glucker, J. (1978) Antiochus and the Late Academy; Ostwald, M. and Lynch, J. P. (1994) Plato’s academy, in CAH 6, 602–16; Schofield, M. (1999) Academic epistemology, in K. Algra et al., eds., The Cambridge History of Hellenistic Philosophy 323–51.

Acarnania see AKARNANIA.

accounting It has been argued that the absence of double-entry book-keeping was a crucial factor limiting the evolution of rational ECONOMIC management in the ancient world. The non-survival of the vast majority of financial accounts limits our ability to challenge this assertion, but there is ample evidence as early as the classical period of a concern for accurate financial recording. In Athens, for example, public accounts were displayed in the city. The income and expenditure for a series of 5th-century BC buildings (e.g. the PARTHENON and the Propylaia) and sculptural projects (e.g. the statues of Athena Parthenos and Athena Promachos) were cut onto marble slabs and displayed in public areas such as the ACROPOLIS. These accounts are usually at the macro-scale, suggesting that they summarize payments made elsewhere. For example, quarrying of marble is entered as a block entry. However, in the Erechtheion accounts from the end of the 5th century there are entries for named sculptors working on specific figures in the frieze. Records of the pôlêtai, the officials responsible for public finances, have been recovered during excavations in the Agora. Records of commercial transactions can be found scratched onto the bases of exported Athenian pottery. These can list the size of consignments and their value in drachmai and obols (and occasionally in other currencies such as Persic obols on Cyprus).

Work on estate records from Ptolemaic and Roman Egypt has revealed some sophistication in accounting practices. For example, the HERONINOS archive of the Appianus estate in the Fayûm (3rd century AD) consists of monthly accounts compiled by a series of managers. They record cash receipts and offset them with total disbursements, including cash salaries and food payments for estate employees and casual payments for specified tasks, along with other cash expenses and lists of tools and foodstuffs held in the granaries of the estate. These detailed records could have had a primary function of limiting the scope of managers for defrauding absentee landowners. However, the records also indicate a more advanced economic understanding, for instance in the ability of managers to deal with internal transfers of produce and labour between separate units of the estate, and in the arrangement of transactions by type, not by date. The conclusion is that Greek and Roman accounting, though primitive by modern standards, could nonetheless have allowed the profitability of larger economic enterprises to be assessed. DJM, DWJG
See Johnston, A. W. (1981) Trademarks on Greek Vases; Langdon, M. K. (1991) Poletai records, in G. V. Lalonde et al., Inscriptions: horoi, poletai records, leases of public lands (Athenian Agora, 19) 53–143; Macve, R. H. (1985) Some glosses on ‘Greek and Roman accounting’, in P. A. Cartledge and F. D. Harvey, eds., Crux 233–64; Rathbone, D. (1991) Economic Rationalism and Rural Society in Third-century AD Egypt.

acculturation The term acculturation signifies all the phenomena of interaction resulting from the contact of two distinct ‘cultures’. It denotes the process and mechanisms of interaction and also its outcome. In theory, such interaction is bilateral, though in most cases studied one ‘culture’ is dominant and the other is subordinate. Thus the usage is somewhat euphemistic and serves to conceal the term’s political implication in the discourse and practice of colonial domination. In these contexts, acculturation is often accompanied by an active ‘destructuration’ of those aspects of native culture inimical to the ruling power. This feature, its association with the discredited notion of ‘diffusion’ and the ambiguities of the concept of culture itself have cast doubt on its utility as an explanatory concept among modern social scientists. If, however, in a ‘POST-COLONIAL’ context, notions of power and domination are added, it may be

ACCULTURATION: an asymmetric cultural relationship? Cartoon by Simon James.

possible to rehabilitate the use of the concept of acculturation as a tool of analysis.

Ancient historians and archaeologists often hide the notion of acculturation under the formulations ‘romanization’ and ‘hellenization’. These terms carry their own hidden agenda and are frequently linked to the traditional colonialist dichotomy of ‘civilization’ versus ‘barbarism’. In the classical context, it is helpful to realize that acculturation was often the outcome of an unequal negotiation of power between a dominant imperial authority and the subordinated native communities it had conquered. This is true of the ‘romanization’ of the north-west provinces of the Roman empire, which can be used as a paradigmatic case for attempts to explain and analyse the processes of social change involved. Acculturation was made manifest by the adoption by Britons and GAULS of (among other things) the Latin language, town life and new forms of habitation, a market economy, new material culture and dress, new cuisines and new forms of RELIGION. The classic statement of the mechanisms and outcome of acculturation is provided by Tacitus, referring to the social policy of the Roman governor AGRICOLA in the province of Britain (AD 77–84).

Clearly, the mechanisms of acculturation were bilateral: pro-active efforts by Roman governors such as Agricola were matched by a quest for status and by emulation on the part of the native élite, who saw Roman culture as a new arena for social competition and advancement. The last sentence reveals that acculturation was regarded by the Romans as eminently a method of control. The domination ensured by the Roman army was reinforced by ‘hegemony’ or ‘manufacturing consent’. This programme is not exclusive to the Roman empire: the history of colonialism demonstrates that limited acculturation (usually of native élites) has been a tool of domination by imperial powers throughout history, as it ensured the governability of the colonized. It was to this end that the education of the sons of the native élite was directed. The progressive acquisition of ROMAN CITIZENSHIP by native élites, promoted by EMPERORS such as CLAUDIUS, facilitated their allegiance. The IMPERIAL CULT was another remarkable method of promoting social solidarity within the empire.

Although many aspects of Roman culture were adopted by native élites, it seems clear that further down the social scale there was less inducement or need to ‘romanize’, so much so that some have claimed (for the province of Britain) that romanization was a mere (élite) veneer over an underlying and continuing native social structure and culture. Implicit in this hypothesis is the assumption of the continuity of a primordial ‘Celtic’ culture. Recent historical research on ‘ethnogenesis’, however, suggests that ETHNICITY and culture are active historical constructions and are subject to constant reinvention as a response to outside pressure. It seems probable that ‘Celtic’ ethnicity and culture were reinvented in response to the Roman presence and promoted new forms of IDENTITY, rather than remaining as some unchanging, primordial substrate.

Although acculturation was regarded by the Roman authorities as a useful tool of hegemony, it was potentially a double-edged weapon. Such an ‘antagonistic acculturation’ is evident in the ‘conspiracy of Civilis’ in Roman Gaul and the Rhineland (AD 69–70). Here the acquisition of Roman military and organizational skills (marshalled by Civilis) and classical rhetorical culture (deployed by the orator Valentinus against the Romans) in combination with certain aspects of native culture (Civilis dyed his hair red as a symbolic gesture of cultural defiance) was used against the Romans and made the insurrection of Civilis all the more formidable (Tacitus, Histories 4–5). CMF
See Jones, S. (1997) The Archaeology of Ethnicity; Millett, M. (1990) The Romanization of Britain; Wachtel, N. (1978) The Vision of the Vanquished.

Achaea (Achaia) see PELOPONNESE.

Achaean league see ACHAIAN LEAGUE; PELOPONNESE.

Achaemenids see PERSIA AND PERSIANS.

Achaia, Roman (Achaea, Roman) This small PROVINCE, encompassing the heart of ‘Old Greece’, was probably created early in the reign of AUGUSTUS, following his victory off the Greek coast at ACTIUM. Achaia’s territory was roughly coterminous with the boundaries of modern Greece (minus CRETE, THESSALY and MACEDONIA); a separate province of EPIRUS was formed later. Roman colonies or foundations in the province were relatively few: Augustus established Nikopolis (‘Victory City’) to commemorate his triumph at Actium; the Julian colony at CORINTH probably acted as provincial capital.

For much of its history, Achaia was a senatorial province. Its most dramatic departure from that status came when NERO declared the Greeks ‘free’ (AD 67) – a gift almost immediately revoked by VESPASIAN. POLEIS and league structures served as the province’s dominant political and administrative structures, as local ÉLITE families took charge of the IMPERIAL CULT, tax collection, public order and other basic liturgies. Dozens of cities continued to dot the Achaian landscape; chief among these were ancient centres such as Athens, SPARTA and ARGOS. The antique panhellenic sanctuaries also continued, now attracting participants from Rome and elsewhere in the empire; existing FESTIVALS in the province were frequently expanded to embrace worship of the imperial family.

Achaia’s position within the Roman world was complicated by civic myths and histories, the hellenic heritage so often admired by philhellenic Roman authorities. This could lead to great benefits, as when ANTONINUS PIUS awarded freedom to the Arkadian village of Pallantion on the grounds that it had been the home of Evander, an early founder of Rome. Athens, Sparta and other venerable sights became tourist attractions. The PAST, especially the memory of the classical era, was carefully cultivated in a ‘nostalgic’ Achaia, not out of sycophancy or inertia, but as a strategy for negotiating the new position of Greek cities, and their leading families, within the empire.

This emphasis on the classical past has often resulted in the province being viewed as a kind of academic haven or an isolated, passive backwater. The cultural significance of Achaia has tended to discourage investigation into other dimensions of life within the province, a reluctance abetted by scholarly bias against studying ‘the glory that was Greece’ in periods of dependence or of submission. The late 20th century witnessed the passing of such attitudes; for example, the ARCHAEOLOGY of Roman Greece has received much more attention in recent years. A good number of regional survey projects now attest to significant changes in settlement and landholding patterns in the province; centuriation systems have been traced around Roman colonies such as Corinth; alterations in the Greek ritual landscape have been observed. ‘Greece, the captive, took her savage victor captive’, wrote HORACE (Epistles 2.1.156), but it is increasingly clear that Roman annexation in its turn had a deep impact on Achaia, the ‘homeland’ of the Greeks. (see p. 4) SEA
See Alcock, S. E. (1993) Graecia Capta; Cartledge, P. and Spawforth, A. (1989) Hellenistic and Roman Sparta; Hoff, M. C. and Rotroff, S., eds. (1997) The Romanization of Athens.

ROMAN EMPIRE: (b).

Achaian league (Achaean league) POLYBIOS implies that the Achaians had a federal state early on (2.41.4–6); since their colonies lack named mêtropoleis (mother-cities), this may be true. The Achaians were certainly divided into 12 regions by the 5th century BC (HERODOTOS 1.145), and the league’s existence can be inferred from Achaian relations with the ATHENIAN EMPIRE.

The league’s heyday was the 3rd century. Having added new members in the 280s and 270s, it became an important power under the leadership of ARATOS OF SIKYON (general for the first time in 245), who united his Dorian polis to the federation. Frequently at odds with the AITOLIANS, Sparta and MACEDONIA, the Achaians over time drew closer to Macedonia, beginning in the 220s when they together inflicted on Sparta its great defeat at Sellasia (222/1). This entente ended when the Achaians were forced to side with Rome in 198. Under the leadership of PHILOPOIMEN, the league controlled almost all of the Peloponnese. Growing tensions with Rome led to the removal to Italy of 1,000 hostages (including Polybios), and eventually war in 146/5. Once defeated, the league permanently lost its independence.

Centred on a shrine of ZEUS at Aigion, the government of the league was composed of an ASSEMBLY, council and elected MAGISTRATES: a GENERAL (originally two), ten damiorgoi, secretary, a hipparch, an admiral and a hypostratêgos. Cities were autonomous, but there were also league laws, as well as uniform weights, measures, COINAGE and common courts, though Polybios (2.37–8) exaggerates the degree of harmonization and the league’s democratic credentials. JDD
See Larsen, J. A. O. (1968) Greek Federal States; Walbank, F. W. (1984) Aratus of Sicyon and the Achaean league, in CAH 7.1, 243–6; Macedonia and the Greek leagues, in CAH 7.1, 446–81.

Achilles Greek HERO, son of Peleus and Thetis, a sea nymph. Mythology revolves around two major phases of the life of Achilles: his education under Cheiron, the wise and friendly centaur in THESSALY, and his adult life as the prince of the Myrmidons in the ACHAIAN camp during the siege of Troy. HOMER, PINDAR and to a lesser extent EURIPIDES (Iphigeneia at Aulis) shaped ancient traditions about Achilles’ childhood alongside later authors, notably PAUSANIAS, APOLLODOROS and PHILOSTRATOS. Thetis unsuccessfully attempted to render her son immortal by dipping him in the river Styx; he was held by his heel, preventing complete immersion (hence the phrase ‘Achilles heel’). Subsequently the boy was committed to Cheiron who taught him hunting, as well as healing, music and other arts.

Homer’s Iliad presents full insights into the hero’s ethos, psychology and relationships in the Achaian camp, particularly through his conflict with AGAMEMNON, the leader of the Achaians, and his fatal choice to avenge the death of his friend Patroklos by pursuing and killing the Trojan prince HEKTOR. Achilles was renowned for his outstanding military skill and prowess, and his natural beauty, but also for excessive emotions which often proved destructive for the Achaians and ultimately himself.

A less famous phase in Achilles’ life, generated by his mother’s concerns to protect him, is his mythical sojourn, disguised as a woman, at the palace of Lykomedes on Skyros during the preparation for

ACHAIA, ROMAN: map of mainland Greece and the Aegean under Roman rule.

ACHILLES: defeats the female Amazon warrior Penthesileia, exemplifying the triumph of masculine Greek values over Others.

the Trojan expedition. Only through a trick did ODYSSEUS and his Achaian companions manage to approach him and lure him into joining the campaign. EP
See Kossatz-Deissman, A. (1981) Akhilleus, in LIMC vol. 1, 37–200; Schein, S. L. (1984) The Mortal Hero; Zanker, G. (1994) The Heart of Achilles.

acropolis see AKROPOLIS.

Acropolis, Athenian The term literally means ‘upper (akron) town (polis)’. It occupied the summit of one of the three major rocky hills of Athens, the other two being the AREIOPAGOS and Lykabettos. The name of the Acropolis is often synonymous with the sanctuary of the goddess ATHENA which rose to panhellenic prominence from the 5th century BC onwards.

The origins of the site go back to the Neolithic period. Although the ARCHAEOLOGICAL evidence for life on the Acropolis at that time is meagre, it has been possible to associate several POTTERY pit-deposits on the north-western and south slopes of the hill with areas of habitation at the site. Further support for this hypothesis has been offered by the presence of a FOUNTAIN (known as Klepsydra) on the north-western slopes and traces of a structure identified as a hut on the south slope. The latter area was probably occupied in the succeeding period, while from the 13th century the first attempts of a more substantial development appear, including terraces and high, neatly built walls. This must have transformed the site into a fortified citadel, as happened elsewhere in Greece during this period. Isolated ARCHITECTURAL pieces have often been taken to belong to a system of political and social organization of some sophistication. Whether there was a PALACE or the home of a local ruler is hard to infer from the surviving architectural remains.

The beginnings of the historical age on the Acropolis are not marked by any noteworthy developments in terms of building remains. It is, however, likely that the sacred character of the place, which is undoubted from the early 6th century onwards, began to emerge by that time. This is shown by the type and level of investment in prestigious artefacts from 750 BC, including bronze objects of types that are found dedicated at other major Greek sanctuaries

ACROPOLIS, ATHENIAN: (a) general view from Hill of the Muses.

ACROPOLIS, ATHENIAN: (b) entrance to Erechtheion.

at the time, notably fragments of tripod cauldrons and FIGURINES.

The Acropolis acquired the first definite features of a major sanctuary around 575 BC, a period coinciding with a sudden burst of building activity and display of wealth through the treasures dedicated to the goddess worshipped there. Following a modest 7th-century TEMPLE which housed the ancient image of the goddess Athena Polias, a monumental STONE temple, surrounded by a colonnade and adorned with SCULPTURE, was built in about the 560s, perhaps early in the TYRANNY of PEISISTRATOS (561/0–528/7 BC). Although the exact location remains a problem, it seems fairly clear that another temple of the goddess, known as the Old Temple (archaios neôs), replaced or co-existed with the earlier Peisistratid one from c.525 BC. The entrance to the site was remodelled under Peisistratos and next to it, an old MYCENAEAN bastion was transformed into a temple dedicated to Athena NIKE (the goddess of Victory). Furthermore, a number of sacred buildings (hiera oikêmata) are mentioned in inscriptions from the site, testifying to the intensification of religious activity on the summit of the Acropolis. The latter is confirmed by the range of luxurious dedications to the city goddess, most notably in the form of MARBLE sculpture and bronzes.

Life on the Acropolis continued to prosper after Peisistratos and particularly under democratic rule. Plans for redevelopment of the site began with the construction of a new temple to Athena and a monumental gateway at the entrance to the site. The temple was a thanksgiving to the goddess for her continuous support in Athens’ sweeping military victory at MARATHON against its oriental enemies, the PERSIANS, in 490 BC. The temple would have stood at the site of its Periklean successor, the PARTHENON, had it not been left unfinished because of a second Persian invasion led by XERXES. Like other sacred buildings on the Acropolis, including the Old Temple, the pre-Parthenon fell victim to the Persians when they gained access to the city in 480. After the Persians were repelled at PLATAEA in 479, it took about 30 years for the Athenians to undertake substantial rebuilding work on the destroyed temples. Instead, work focused on the fortification of the Acropolis, the building of the Long Walls which linked the city with PIRAEUS, and the rebuilding of the AGORA and the lower city; some essential sacred structures of the upper city were temporarily fixed. When a more extensive operation began in 447 BC, the Parthenon rose out of the former unfinished temple of Athena and was dedicated to Athena Parthenos. It was a grand and unusual building, designed to honour the city goddess and to promote the glory of her city to the world. The iconographic programme of its sculptural decoration constituted a powerful message of the superiority of the culture and lifestyle of Athens and their contribution to the Greek struggle for independence from the oriental enemy. The rebuilding extended to other temples in the 5th century, such as that of Athena Nike and the former old temple of Athena Polias, known as the Erechtheion.

The turbulent history of the Acropolis did not stop there. It lasted through hellenistic and Roman times until the conversion of the Parthenon and other temples into CHRISTIAN CHURCHES. Subsequently the Parthenon was turned into a Turkish mosque, while other buildings, like the Erechtheion, were used for habitation after the occupation of Greece by the Turks in the 15th century. The Parthenon was finally turned into a ruin after it was blown up by the Venetians while they were besieging the Turks on the Acropolis in 1687. The stripping of the monuments’ architectural and sculptural parts by foreign visitors to the site continued, and artworks were often transported away to be displayed in museums or antiquities markets abroad. The scene changed with the outbreak of the Greek movement for independence from Ottoman rule in 1821, which finally succeeded in driving the Turks off the Acropolis 12 years later. Since then, substantial EXCAVATION and restoration work has been carried out on the buildings, which are still regarded as the most prominent parts of the Greek heritage. Controversially, this work has also involved the removal of post-Roman structures such as the medieval tower at the west end, in an attempt to restore the ‘original’ appearance of the citadel. EP
See Hurwit, J. M. (1999) The Athenian Acropolis.

ATHENS: (a); PARTHENON: (a)–(b).

Actium, battle of A defining moment in the transition between the Roman REPUBLIC and PRINCIPATE was the defeat of Mark ANTONY and CLEOPATRA by Octavian (soon to be AUGUSTUS) at Actium, on the west coast of Greece, on 2 September 31 BC. The NAVAL battle, involving over 600 ships, took place at the opening of the Ambrakian gulf, where Antony’s forces were blockaded by Octavian’s superior fleet and army. Cleopatra’s panic and flight apparently

ACROPOLIS, ATHENIAN: (c) overall plan.

led to an overwhelming victory for Octavian. This was the last major action of the prolonged civil wars, leaving him the acknowledged master of a MEDITERRANEAN empire. Although both Antony and Cleopatra escaped, they committed suicide when Octavian’s army reached Egypt. The cape of Actium overlooking the battle already contained a temple of APOLLO, and Augustus later developed the site further in honour of his victory and his special relationship with the god. A colony called Nikopolis (‘Victory City’) was also established on the opposite side of the gulf, and traditional Greek GAMES (Actia) were initiated. STRABO mentions that Augustus dedicated a series of ten captured warships in the enlarged sanctuary of Apollo (7.7.6) and elements of a substantial victory monument have been found. The rams (rostra) from other ships were placed in front of the temple erected to the deified CAESAR in the Republican FORUM at Rome. Contemporary Roman sources hailed Actium as the triumph of Roman traditional virtues over a decadent eastern monarchy. In truth it marked the effective start of Rome’s own monarchical principate. DJM

ACHAIA: (a).

actors and actresses The early history of the acting profession in the Greek world is beyond recovery, and simply to repeat ARISTOTLE’s story of the evolution from a single actor, or hypokritês, to three in TRAGEDY would be misleading (Poetics 1449a 2–25). Most likely, the institution of a competition for actors in 449 BC at the Athenian Dionysia canonized the number three for tragedy. The apparent lack of this limitation on the number in contemporary Attic COMEDY (as many as five are needed for some

ACTORS AND ACTRESSES: (a) comic actors on stage in costume wearing masks. The actor dressed as a woman (on the right) is actually a man.

ACTORS AND ACTRESSES: (b) mosaic from the House of the Tragic Poet at Pompeii showing actors backstage preparing for a satyr play.

ARISTOPHANIC comedies) supports the view that the number was fluid into the middle of the 5th century. After that, the limitation on actors for tragedy appears to have influenced comedy; by the end of the 4th century, three became standard in that genre as well.

Actors in tragedies and comedies performed at city FESTIVALS at Athens and elsewhere were all free men of good standing and could become significant public figures. Their ‘star power’ made them people of importance throughout the Greek world; actors were even sent on embassies from Athens to PHILIP II of MACEDONIA, evidently to appeal to his well-known interest in the stage. In the late 4th century, actors began to form professional associations to negotiate the terms under which they would appear at festivals. These associations, which appear to have coalesced into the ‘artisans of Dionysos’ in the course of the 3rd century, probably served to protect the interests of all members of the profession, including performers of lesser status than the stars of the tragic and comic stage, who contended for prizes.

All performers who could contend for prizes in the Greek world were men. In other forms of drama, such as MIME, regarded as an inferior form of comedy, women too played roles. This was also true at Rome, where all stage performers were considered to be of low status – a result of the very different tradition of entertainment in the Italic world, where performers were regarded as clients of great ARISTOCRATS, and were often of servile origin. Despite this prejudice, substantial fortunes could be made by actors and actresses on the Roman stage. In the early period of Greek-influenced Roman drama in the 3rd and 2nd centuries, there is evidence for an association of professional actors, associated with playwrights, who would often appear in their works. In the 1st century AD, we find another association, this time for actors in mime and the popular form of DANCE known as PANTOMIME, the ‘parasites of Apollo’, providing evidence for leading mime actors (archimimi) and actresses (archimimae).

Under the Roman empire the contradiction between the Greek tradition of high-status individuals who acted in traditional forms and the Roman tendency to declare all stage performers as being of low status, subject to infamia, continued to be observed. The most significant development was that the performance of new tragedies and comedies gave way, in the course of the first three centuries AD, to solo performances by actors of tragedy. At the same time, the evident preference for risqué performances by mime actors and actresses led to the domination of the stage by these art forms. DSP
See Easterling, P. and Hall, E., eds. (2002) Greek and Roman Actors.

DRAMA: (a); MASKS: (a).

Adamklissi (ancient Tropaeum Traiani) Location of one of most spectacular Roman victory TROPHIES. It lies at the southern end of the main north–south route down the Dobrudja plain (south-east Romania), the strategic corridor between the DANUBE and the BLACK SEA. Adamklissi marks a crucial cross-roads of routes, at a point where invaders advancing down the Dobrudja can chose to move south towards Greece or west towards MOESIA. The complex of monuments commemorate both Roman defeat and victory and at least one of the battles must have taken place close to this spot. There are three main structures within 100 m or so of each other – reflecting several different aspects of the poorly known story that lies behind their erection. The first is a large ‘altar’ (c.16 m square, 6 m high) engraved with details of significant legionary and auxiliary casualties in a battle that probably took place in the reign of DOMITIAN or in the initial stages of the first DACIAN WAR (AD 101). Close by lies a large, circular cenotaph structure (40 m in diameter), erected over a pit filled with sacrificed oxen. To the south, the third component was another circular drum (30 m in diameter), evidently erected after the first two monuments and decorated with relief metopes celebrating Trajan’s victory in the second Dacian war and the death of DECEBALUS. On top of the drum was placed a series of statues of chained prisoners around a representation in stone of a lopped tree draped with arms and armour. The entire monument was at least 10 m high. The dedication of the tropaeum c.AD 108 to MARS Ultor provides the link between the three monuments, which thus commemorate the avenging of an earlier defeat. The Roman town below the hill took its name from the tropaeum. DJM
See Richmond, I. (1967) Adamklissi, PBSR 35: 29–39.

adhesives see GLUES.

admirals see NAVAL WARFARE.

Adonis see MOTHER GODDESSES; POETESSES.

adoption

In ancient Greece, adoption provided someone to inherit property in the absence of sons. People did not adopt simply because they wanted a FAMILY, or to give orphaned children a home. In Athens it was illegal to adopt foundlings, since they might not be of citizen birth. Childless men usually adopted male adults, who were frequently close relatives. Women and children were only rarely adopted (Isaios 11). In Athens a man who had daughters, but no sons, might adopt a son to marry his daughter (Demosthenes 41). Alternatively, a grandfather might adopt his daughter’s son, sometimes posthumously. An adopted son inherited the estate of his adoptive father, but forfeited the right to inherit from his biological father.

Provisional adoption was sometimes incorporated in WILLS, so that the adoption only happened if the testator died childless. Men about to go off to fight in battle regularly made such wills, since they could not be certain of returning alive. A large estate with no obvious heir was likely to become the subject of dispute. Even the rights of an adopted son might be contested, and the lawsuits could last many years.

Our main sources for adoption are the courtroom speeches of 4th-century BC Athens and the Great Law Code of GORTYN, CRETE (early 5th century BC). Despite differences of detail, the general principles are similar in both, suggesting that Greek concepts of adoption were deeply rooted and closely linked to INHERITANCE. LF
See Rubinstein, L. (1993) Adoption in IV. Century Athens.

For the childless man – married or unmarried – adoption provided a means of perpetuating his family name and cult. It was possible to adopt someone posthumously, in a WILL (e.g. the younger PLINY). The law distinguished between adoptio of a boy or man still in his father’s power and adrogatio of a man with a family in his own power, whose whole family would transfer legally to that of the adopter. The middle (gentile) Roman name was changed to that of the adoptive father but the original gentile name, in extended form, replaced the third name (cognomen) – thus Publius Aemilius Paullus, adopted by Publius Cornelius SCIPIO AFRICANUS, became Publius Cornelius Aemilianus. Adoptees, who were usually adults and often relatives, relinquished legal claims (such as INHERITANCE) to the family of their birth but still maintained relations with them. Many adoptions transferred the son of a daughter or sister from the female to the male line. A female Roman citizen could be adopted but could not adopt. She could establish quasi-maternal relations by naming a favourite as heir in her will, or by rearing a poor relative or social inferior (an alumnus or alumna) who would care for her in old age and perform her funeral rites. Romans could therefore extend kinship and emotional relationships without fictions of biological parenthood or secrecy. SD
See Crook, J. A. (1967) Law and Life of Rome.

Adrianople, battle of Gothic victory over the Romans, 9 August AD 378. In 376 the emperor Valens allowed a large group of GOTHS, who were trying to escape the HUNS, to cross the DANUBE into the empire, hoping to recruit troops from them. Mistreatment by Roman officers while the Goths were still in THRACE led them to revolt under the leadership of Fritigern. After two years of inconclusive campaigning, Valens took the field himself in 378, marching from CONSTANTINOPLE. Informed by his scouts that there were only 10,000 Goths in the region, he determined to attack. In an acrimonious council meeting at Adrianople, Valens refused to wait for assistance from his Western colleague Gratian. Leaving behind his administrative staff, he led the Eastern field army against the Gothic groups in their wagon laager (circle) nearby. The attack was hurried, and the Roman left wing was still deploying when fighting began in the centre. When the main forces were engaged, the Gothic CAVALRY returned, attacking the Romans in the still undeployed left flank. As the Roman left wing collapsed, the reserve regiment of the Batavi could not be found. The Roman army dissolved, and Valens was caught in a farmhouse and burnt to death with his bodyguard. Roman losses were large, but the sources provide no figures for the size of either army. This battle is often described as a triumph of cavalry over infantry, but would be better seen as a result of poor scouting and Valens’ impatience. HWE
See Ammianus Marcellinus, book 31; Heather, P. J. (1991) Goths and Romans 332–489.

Adriatic sea Body of water between Italy and the Greek peninsula. From very early on, the Greeks established colonies and trading posts along the north-east coast of the Adriatic; they also maintained, where possible, friendly ties with the natives of the region and traded with Italy, for example with ETRUSCAN SPINA, sometimes thought to be a Greek foundation. Throughout the Greek and hellenistic periods, the Adriatic was afflicted with PIRACY, an activity particularly associated with ILLYRIANS. Rome’s later attempts to eradicate this were not completely successful, at least initially. Rome’s conquest of Italy provided it with access to the Adriatic across land; several roads directly from Rome ended at Italy’s eastern coast, for example, the Via Appia at Brundisium (the main port for travel to Greece), the Via Flaminia at Fanum Fortunae, and the Via Salaria near Picenum.

Rome’s first military foray across the Adriatic occurred in 229 BC, to protect Greek cities against the expansionist aims of the Illyrian queen Teuta. Subsequently, Roman military involvement was regular, if not necessarily continuous, until the PANNONIAN WARS of AUGUSTUS brought Illyrian territory under Roman control. From the early years of the HANNIBALIC WAR, Rome maintained a fleet in the Adriatic, initially to guard against MACEDONIAN (and Illyrian) expansion but also to protect TRADE and hinder piracy. By late antiquity, naval units were stationed at various points on the Adriatic coasts; their importance increased when RAVENNA became the residence of the Western emperors. JV

DALMATIA: (a).

adultery In Greek and Roman society, adultery was defined by the status of the woman. Married men could freely have sex with SLAVES and PROSTITUTES. In Greece, adultery was seen as a threat to the purity of the citizen line. In Athens, a wronged husband could demand monetary damages from his wife’s lover or kill him if he caught him in the act (Lysias, On the Killing of Eratosthenes 30). He was obliged to DIVORCE his wife. The sources are silent on her fate, which must have been grim. It is uncertain whether she retained her dowry, but we know she could be attacked if she tried to attend religious ceremonies – the main social outlet for Athenian women (Pseudo-Demosthenes, Against Neaira 85). The stigma on herself and her children was considerable. In SPARTA the small but dominant Spartiate group, also preoccupied with civic purity, practised selective polyandry. It was not adultery if a respectable woman could have children with a worthy man approved by her husband for the good of the state (Xenophon, Spartan Society = Lakedaimonion politeia 1).

Like their Greek equivalents, wronged husbands at Rome sometimes adopted vicious and colourful self-help measures against their rivals, but apparently stopped short of the ‘homicide of honour’. The emperor AUGUSTUS’ legislation of 18 BC imposed severe penalties (loss of property, exile) on adulterers of both sexes. SD
See Lacey, W. K. (1968) The Family in Classical Greece; Richlin, A. (1981) Approaches to the sources on adultery at Rome, Women’s Studies 8.1–2: 225–50.

advertising In the ancient world, advertising was done through images and the written word. In a world where the majority of the people were illiterate or semi-literate, the former may have been more important than the latter. A painting on the outside of the WORKSHOP or SHOP owned by Marcus Caecilius

ADVERTISING: painted Roman sign from a street wall in Herculaneum, advertising the prices of different wines.

Verecundus at POMPEII, a dealer in clothes, shows his labourers combing wool and engaging in fulling activities, and the owner himself proudly displaying the finished product. Further examples come from an inn and a FULLERY, also from Pompeii. Some commercial establishments targeted a more literate audience and used written advertisements. The poet MARTIAL writes that the doorposts of the bookshop owned by one Atrectus were painted with advertisements for the books on sale. SLAVES who were offered for sale carried a placard advertising their skills, age and other details that might be of relevance to potential buyers. Non-commercial advertising extended to electoral slogans, announcements of GLADIATORIAL and other GAMES, and a few notices aimed at the recovery of runaway slaves or HORSES. In the area of classifieds, notices of property up for rent were painted on the walls of houses in Pompeii, and the same phenomenon is described in PETRONIUS’ novel Satyrica. Occasionally, other materials such as wood may have been used for these purposes. Besides making use of the written word and images, people could also advertise a simple message, such as a theft or the disappearance of a slave, by hiring a street-crier. MK
See Cicero, Letters to his Brother Quintus 9.3; Digest 21.1.1; Dio Chrysostom, Orations 7.123; Martial 1, 117.11; Petronius 29.3, 38.10, 16, 97.1–2.

aediles Originally (494 BC), two PLEBEIAN MAGISTRATES in charge of the TEMPLE (aedis) where ARCHIVES recording concessions made by PATRICIANS were kept. By the time plebeians had access to the highest magistracies (367 BC), two new ‘curule’ aediles were created to take over some of the CONSULS’ powers, especially aspects of municipal administration (FIRE-FIGHTING, SANITATION, law and order, public morality), the organization of public GAMES (often the cause of their subsequent popularity) and the FOOD SUPPLY. Each was assigned to one of the city neighbourhoods (regiones); he was vested with police powers and had limited civil and criminal jurisdiction (potestas) in connection with public works, MARKETS, and public establishments. Aediles issued edicts outlining their policies, co-operated with the CENSORS in letting out public contracts, and were assisted by junior magistrates, public servants and their own private staffs. Six in number since AUGUSTUS, they gradually lost their powers to newly created officials. They are known to have acted

© Cambridge University Press