Navigation – Plan du site

AccueilNuméros124MiscellanéesBorderlands, Resources and Interp...

Miscellanées

Borderlands, Resources and Interpolis Disputes. Remarks on the Areas of Joint Exploitation in the Hellenistic Peloponnese

Terres frontalières, ressources et conflits inter-polis. Remarques sur les zones d’exploitation commune dans le Péloponnèse hellénistique 
Claudio Biagetti
p. 185-207

Résumés

Cet article se focalise sur un groupe spécifique de zones frontalières qui ont été soumises à une exploitation conjointe par des communautés voisines. Une attention particulière est portée aux zones frontalières connues sous le nom de κοιναὶ χῶραι (« régions communes »), attestées quelques inscriptions conservant des détails sur leurs origines et leur statut. Le Péloponnèse hellénistique représente un domaine d’étude fort intéressant, car il fournit un ensemble de témoignages à la fois limité et diversifié.

Haut de page

Texte intégral

1. Introduction*

  • * This piece of research has been developed within the framework of the ERC Project FeBo: F (...)
  • 1 A scholarly overview on this subject is still lacking. See Daverio Rocchi, 1988 (...)
  • 2 An earlier version of this paper has been prepared for the conference TeMAES 4 (...)

1This paper delves into a special group of border areas that were subject to joint exploitation by neighbouring communities. Particular attention is paid to the borderlands known as κοιναὶ χῶραι (« common regions ») attested by a handful of inscriptions that preserve some details about their origins and status.1 Indeed, evidence about these sub-regions substantiates the evocative image of ‘multiple territories’ where frontiers, people, interests, experiences and cultures come into contact, compete (either in a peaceful or hostile manner) and sometimes conflate one into another.2 In this respect, the Hellenistic Peloponnese stands out as an area of inquiry of the utmost interest, providing as it does a limited but varied body of evidence. In general terms, a border demarcation from central Arcadia, the contents of which will be touched upon in this paper, proves that the establishment of the koinai chorai in the Peloponnese dates back at least to late Classical times. However, explicit references to the Peloponnesian koinai chorai surface only in two inscriptions from the 2nd century Argolid, while the existence of other areas subject to joint exploitation can be inferred from the dispositions of two more texts, where the terms of resource sharing are admittedly elusive or simply different from those of a ‘ordinary’ common land.

  • 3 Fachard, 2017, p. 20.
  • 4 In fact, Fachard does not ignore the complexity of borderlands in terms of org (...)
  • 5 Marek, 1984, p. 147-149; Hodkinson, 1988, p. 51-53, 62-63; Chandezon, 2003, p. 351-389.
  • 6 Rousset, 2010, p. 48-50. On the timber trade in the Peloponnese, see Mackil, 2 (...)
  • 7 See Mackil, 2013, p. 258-260, for the privileges exercised by proxenoi throughout (...)
  • 8 Cf. Rousset, 1994, p. 122-123.
  • 9 For the economic weight of some sub-regions like the koinai chorai, see Mackil (...)

2One of the peculiarities of these border areas lies in the joint exploitation of their resources by neighbouring poleis. As Sylvian Fachard has concisely observed, « [e]xploiting resources in a foreign chora was not tolerable: it would have been considered as a hostile action, excruciating for a polis and its citizens ».3 As a matter of fact, inscriptions demonstrate that individuals or communities could be granted access to foreign territories and take advantage of the resources available in there.4 On the one hand, proxeny decrees prove that a community (no matter whether polis or koinon) could bestow on foreigners privileges like grazing rights (ἐπινομία)5 or the rights of wood exploitation (ἐπιξυλία).6 In these cases, provisions about the geographical limits of the concession remain vague, which leads scholars to believe that these privileges were virtually effective on the entire territory of the granting community.7 On the other hand, there are cases in which two poleis reach – or are forced to reach – an agreement (ὁμολογία) on the ways of exploitation of a given territory, which may thereafter be declared a koine chora. Sometimes the texts of such agreements outline the limits of the areas subject to joint exploitation, whereas in other cases they only provide choronyms, allowing us to identify the territories at issue very roughly. As for the koinai chorai, in most cases their status was established or re-asserted by a third party in order to prevent or settle border conflicts.8 In Hellenistic times, the involvement of federal authorities surfaces in one way or another in the available evidence and this leads us to wonder whether federal intervention stems from the lines of a specific policy implemented by Greek koina or whether it was simply intrinsic to the membership to a federal state.9

3These pages, however, do not aim at investigating in full all the questions raised by the study of the koinai chorai and other borderlands subject to joint exploitation. As a preliminary approach to the topic, which will be investigated more extensively in the framework of the ERC Project FeBo: Federalism and Border Management in Greek Antiquity (P.I. E. Franchi, University of Trento), this paper will rather focus on the geography of these sub-regions and the natural resources available in there.

2. The koinai chorai: some attempts of definition

  • 10 Rousset, 2003-2004, p. 119.
  • 11 Daverio Rocchi, 1988, p. 39.
  • 12 Daverio Rocchi, 1988, p. 40.
  • 13 As Fachard has pointed out, exploiting a (border)land is a strategy to possess and contr (...)
  • 14 Mackil, 2013, p. 313-314 underestimates the role of the Achaean koinon in the resolution (...)
  • 15 Ager, 2015, p. 476-480. For the case of the Achaean koinon, see also Harter-Uibopuu, (...)

4In his report of a course taught at the École Pratique in 2003-2004, Denis Rousset has defined the « régions communes » (κοιναὶ χῶραι) as « zones indivises et appartenant simultanément à deux cités, sises sur leurs frontières, et interrompant quelquefois le tracé de la ligne-frontière ».10 Rousset’s definition followed some observations made by Giovanna Daverio Rocchi in the book Frontiera e confini nel mondo greco: according to Daverio Rocchi, a koine chora is « uno spazio sottoposto ad un complesso di norme specifiche e affidato all’amministrazione congiunta delle poleis che separano »,11 and its establishment « è sollecitata da imperativi economici, di portata locale ».12 Indeed, economic matters are key factors for understanding the reasons behind the establishment of a koine chora. Nevertheless, while it is undoubtedly true that such economic imperatives corresponded to local interests, it deserves to be emphasised that the stabilisation of the disputed border areas could have political repercussions on a macro-regional scale.13 Federal states were crucial players in the Hellenistic Peloponnese: their stability heavily depended on the preservation of the internal balance of power, as well as the containment of conflicts between members. In some cases, federal authorities – the Achaean koinon, the Aetolian koinon and the Arcadian koinon – intervened to regulate the joint use of contested border territories.14 In other cases, the mediation of the koinon remains in the background, even if it may be inferred from the actors and/or circumstances referred to.15

  • 16 For some criticism to established patterns relating to fringe areas (eschatiai), see Gia (...)
  • 17 See already Wilhelm, 1948, p. 69.
  • 18 See, for example, Skydsgaard, 1988, p. 80 (« Finally, if one focuses on the borderland b (...)
  • 19 Chaniotis, 2004, p. 187-190 with the remarks of Fachard, 2017, p. 26.
  • 20 Carusi, 2005, p. 109; cf. Fachard, 2017, p. 26.

5Admittedly, the body of evidence is not abundant, and this poses some still insurmountable obstacles to the study of the real terms of management of the common regions. Epigraphical evidence (both from within and outside the Peloponnese) reveals an array of dispositions regulating the joint exploitation of borderlands, even without yielding to us the basic tenets for developing a full-fledged and consistent pattern of a koine chora.16 As for many other topics related to the study of the ancient world, the development of reliable models is heavily hampered by the scantiness, conciseness and fragmentary nature of our evidence. A crucial point that has increasingly challenged scholars, for example, is the question of ownership of and within the koinai chorai. As emerged above, Rousset regards them as indivisible ownership/property of two cities, whereas Daverio Rocchi argues for their joint administration by the poleis at their borders. Accordingly, the attribute κοινός is supposed to encapsulate implications of juridical, political and economic nature at one time: these territories are therefore jointly owned, jointly managed and jointly exploited.17 One may cast some doubt whether this is how the situation stood. In this respect, the contribution of epigraphical sources is all but unambiguous, as are also some positions assumed by scholarship in the past.18 Ultimately, the very term κοινός, which implies per se a plurality of agents, does not enable us to solve the dilemma between ownership or possession of a koine chora and it shows that even an accurate terminological examination of epigraphical phrasing is far from being conclusive.19 The picture of the common regions as coproprieté indivise de deux cités must be reconsidered, as Cristina Carusi has pointed out while emphasising the existence of private estates (κτήσεις) within the koine chora between Troezen and Methana.20 At the moment, at any rate, we are concerned with four inscriptions from the Hellenistic Peloponnese, to which a late Classical text from Arcadia can be added. By tackling the subject from a geographical point of view, this paper will dwell on the location of these territories, their denominations and, finally, the resources they had to offer.

3. The location of the koinai chorai in the Peloponnese

  • 21 369 BCE: Plassart, 1915, p. 62-69. 369-361 BCE: Dušanić, 1978, p. 348-351; Dav (...)
  • 22 Rousset, 1994, p. 117-118.
  • 23 Plassart, 1915, p. 56, 82; Dubois, 1986, II, p. 141-143.
  • 24 While scholarship usually identifies Methydrion as the polis sharing the borde (...)
  • 25 Cf. Rousset, 2002, p. 176 (« Sur les confins des cités grecques, la stricte définition d (...)
  • 26 See Robert, 1960a, p. 534; cf. Rousset, 1994, p. 123-125.

6If we focus on the information provided by inscriptions, Messenia and Argolis stand out as the two Peloponnesian regions more concerned by the presence of koinai chorai. Apparently, the Messenian evidence is slightly earlier than that from Argolis and pertains to territories lying along the borders with Arcadia. In a way, this connection with Arcadia sheds a different light on the documentation so far available since the earliest epigraphical evidence from the Peloponnese concerning the koinai chorai comes from central Arcadia and goes back to late Classical times. The fragment of a border demarcation between Orchomenos and another unknown Arcadian polis (IPArk 14) is usually dated to between 369 and 361, although Rousset has argued for a later chronology.21 As in other cases, this text is informed by the application of natural reference points,22 and it is therefore not surprising that the border sub-regions proclaimed common (κοινὰ ἀμφοτέροις) are called Παδόεσσα (literally « conifer forest » or « mahaleb cherry forest ») and Ἀρία (« the oak forest »).23 Their respective positions rely on the identification of the polis sharing the border with Orchomenos (Methydrion or Torthyneion), even if the assumption that they were located on the (south-)western borderlands of Orchomenos is probably not far from being true.24 As far as we can tell, however, the actual jurisdiction of the koinai chorai near Orchomenos still seems to be uncertain: indeed, the formulation κοινὰ ἀμφοτέροις does not clarify whether Παδόεσσα and Ἀρία are jointly owned or only accessible to both for exploitation.25 Interestingly, the same uncertainty affects the status of the border area mentioned in our earliest evidence from the Hellenistic times: the ὁμολογία between Phigaleia and Messene.26

  • 27 For some other editions and commentaries, see, for example, Schmitt, 1969, p.  (...)
  • 28 IG V 1, 419, ll. 13-15.
  • 29 See, for example, Robert, 1960a, p. 534; Thür, Taeuber, 1994, p. 300; Ager, 1996, p. 123 (...)
  • 30 IG V 2, 419, l. 15. Kienast, 1964, p. 62 translates IG V 2, 419, ll. 13-15 implying (...)
  • 31 The ambiguity of IG V 2, 419, ll. 13-15 was pointed out by Robert, 1960a, p. 234 (« les (...)
  • 32 Cf. Daverio Rocchi, 1988, p. 162-163 n. 1. In fact, one may wonder if ἑκατέρως could imp (...)
  • 33 Noteworthy is most of all the exchange of the isopoliteia and epigamia (see Gawantka, 19 (...)
  • 34 See already Ræder, 1912, p. 95-97 (No. LI); Tod, 1913, p. 9-10 (No. V-VII); Gawantka, 19 (...)
  • 35 IG V 1, 1429 and 1430. See Ager, 1996, p. 123.
  • 36 Magnetto, 1997, p. 236 n. 8; Harter-Uibopuu, 1998, p. 47-50.
  • 37 Strab. VIII 3, 22.
  • 38 Larsen, 1968, p. 203, 206-207; Scholten, 2000, p. 116-123; Mackil, 2013, p. 11 (...)
  • 39 See Grainger, 1999, p. 159-161; Kralli, 2017, p. 278-281.

7The agreement between Phigaleia and Messene (IG V 2, 419) is usually assigned to around 240 BCE and was concluded under the auspices of the Aetolian koinon.27 The inscription, which has been unearthed at the ancient site of Phigaleia (western Arcadia), includes an excerpt from a decree by the Messenians acknowledging the rights of exploitation of one region by the Messenians and Phigaleians (τὰν δὲ χώραν καρπίζεσσθαι ἑκατέρως, τώς τε Μεσσανίως καὶ τὼς Φιαλέας).28 Strictly speaking, this is one of the cases in which the existence of a koine chora may be inferred only by an interpretation of the text phrasing, and not by a straightforward statement made in the inscription.29 Moreover, the decree of the Messenians adds that the region (τὰν δὲ χ|[ώραν]) shall be exploited by both communities in the same ways as they did at the time (καθὼς καὶ νῦν καρπιζόμεθα).30 Then, there is no mention of a koine chora. The general tone of the clauses and the somewhat elliptic phrasing undermine a full comprehension of this passage and, especially, the original sense of ἑκατέρως.31 In this regard, it is hard to ascertain how Phigaleians and Messenians could together exploit a well-defined plot of land each to its own benefit.32 Uncertainties affect the identification of the disputed territory too, since the remainder of the Messenian decree lacks any topographical detail. As a matter of fact, the inscription merely aims at transmitting a set of measures taken by the demos of Messene in favour of the Phigaleians.33 Accordingly, the addition of other information of minor relevance may have not been in line with the purposes and summary nature of the text itself. This does not mean, of course, that the boundaries of the chora at stake (presumably at the origin of the dispute)34 were not defined elsewhere. Sheila Ager, for instance, associates with the same contested borderland two more fragments of boundary delimitations which have been found in Messene and date back to the 2nd century BCE.35 However, there is no compelling indication in both fragments suggesting some sort of overlap with the border region at stake in IG V 2, 419,36 which is likely to stretch out along the banks of the river Neda.37 In connection with the homologia from Phigaleia and the χώρα mentioned therein, it should be stressed that the intervention of the Aetolians and their supervision of the agreement were likely geared towards the stabilisation of an area of strategic importance for the League, especially in a moment when the koinon was seeking to expand its influence and its web of alliances in the southwestern Peloponnese.38 In this sense, the efforts to promote good relationships between Messenians and Phigaleians, two of the major Aetolian allies in the Peloponnese, should be regarded as attempts by the Aetolians to lend more solid ground to the their overseas power.39

  • 40 Some preliminary notes on the text were provided in Themelis, 2008. See also A (...)
  • 41 Habicht, 2012.
  • 42 Luraghi, Magnetto, 2012.
  • 43 Luraghi, Magnetto, 2012, p. 529.
  • 44 A commentary on the different stages of this arbitration can be found in Luraghi, (...)
  • 45 The expression koine chora does not properly mirror the situation at the borde (...)
  • 46 A topographical study on the contents of SEG 58, 370, which Rousset has hoped (...)
  • 47 Luraghi, Magnetto, 2012, p. 526; Pikoulas, 2010-2013, p. 270-272.
  • 48 Themelis, 2008, p. 215-216; Luraghi, Magnetto, 2012, p. 526. For the πόλις Πυλανέων in S (...)
  • 49 It is worth noticing that an unpublished passage that reproduces the πρόκλησις of the (...)
  • 50 For a different view, see Pikoulas, 2010-2013, p. 272.
  • 51 Themelis, 2008, p. 215.
  • 52 Luraghi, Magnetto, 2012, p. 527; Pikoulas, 2010-2013, p. 272.

8Evidence of a later controversy along the Arcadian-Messenian border has come to light in an epigraphic dossier recording a dispute between Messene and Megalopolis, which has been unearthed in the temenos of Messene at Messene and is still partially unpublished (SEG 58, 370).40 The inscription is likely to date to the aftermath of the capitulation of Messene and the restoration of the polis to the Achaean koinon (ca. 180-175 BCE).41 The history of this long-standing conflict has been outlined by Nino Luraghi and Anna Magnetto, and there is no need to dwell on it at length here.42 On the whole, the issue at stake was the ownership of four territories (Ἐνδανικά, Πυλανικά, Ακρειᾶτις, Βιπειᾶτις), two of which (Akreiatis and Bipeiatis) appear to have been the main point of contention.43 The sub-regions called Akreiatis and Bipeiatis belonged to a larger χώρα that was eventually recognised as Messene’s property after the sentences had been issued by seventeen ἁγεμόνες of the Achaean League (ll. 15-43) and a board of 147 judges from Aigion (ll. 50-64).44 Yet, the Messenians had earlier allowed the Megalopolitans to exploit this area in return for a compensation of 50% of the crop (the καρποί in ll. 66, 69), and this has been regarded as a special instance of koine chora or, borrowing a word used in the inscription, a ‘mesokoine chora’.45 Some years ago, Yannis A. Pikoulas published a paper aiming at re-establishing the geographical backdrop of this dispute.46 However, Pikoulas’ attempt while often grounded on questionable inferences nonetheless drew attention to the importance of the historical topography as well as the outcome of archaeological surveys. As a matter of fact, looking at the content of the dossier, one can argue that all the disputed territories lay relatively close by the Megalopolitan borders (if not properly in an immediate contiguity with it) and one of them, the Akreiatis, certainly derives its name from the presence of heights in the territory itself (ἄκρα).47 Then again, except for the Endanika (the territory of Andania), all other toponyms are nearly unattested,48 which makes it extremely difficult to pinpoint them on a map. Finally, it must be stressed that the size of these border areas as well as the location of one in relation to another remain matters of speculation, unless the unpublished part of the inscription provides more details in this respect.49 Finally, it may be tentatively concluded that at least the Akreiatis and Bipeiatis appear to be closer to the Megalopolitan borders than the Endanika and Pylanika,50 and the Akreiatis is likely to be located somewhere on the slopes of Mt. Ellinitsa51 or, farther to the north, in the area of Mt. Tetrazi.52

  • 53 The text of this κρίμα is preserved by two copies, the one found in Epidauros (IG IV2 1, (...)
  • 54 Moretti, ISE I 43, ll. 1-2, 15.
  • 55 Luraghi, Magnetto, 2012, p. 539-540.
  • 56 On the πρόκλησις, see Harter-Uibopuu, 1998, p. 75 and Cassayre, 2010, p. 234, (...)
  • 57 On the identification of the topographical references mentioned in these inscriptions, s (...)
  • 58 Paus. II 36, 3.
  • 59 Daverio Rocchi, 1988, p. 57-58, 159. On the description and representation of spaces and (...)
  • 60 Weber-Pallez, 2016 (esp. p. 60).

9At around the same time as the Messenian arbitration (most probably between 180 and 170 BCE), two different panels made up respectively of Milesian and Rhodian judges were mobilised to deliver a sentence concerning a disputed area between Hermione and Epidauros, both members of the Achaean League.53 As a matter of fact, this evidence (Moretti, ISE I 43) yields us the earliest official proclamation of a koine chora by an established authority ([κα]τὰ τάδε ἐπέκριναν καὶ συνέλυσαν οἱ Μιλήσιοι δικα|σταὶ … εἶναι ταύτην [scil. χώραν] κοινὴν Ἑρμιονέων καὶ Ἐπιδαυρίων).54 The submission of a dispute to authorities outside the League was clearly a concrete tool in the hands of the opponents, as the involvement of a Milesian δικαστήριον in the arbitration between Messene and Megalopolis demonstrates.55 The dispute in Argolis was triggered by a legal challenge (πρόκλησις) by the Hermioneans to the Epidaurians, who also shared the decision to entrust the two boards with the survey of the contested borderland.56 Milesians and Rhodians issued an unanimous verdict, proclaiming as κοινὴ χώρα the territory that embraced the river Sellas (to the east), the Wild Harbours and Cape Strouthous (to the west). This plot of land, which is said to be a part of a larger area called Διδυμία, was delimited by two parallel sequences of topographical points of reference, one coastal, the other inland.57 The latter overlaps in reverse order a route sketched out by Pausanias, who also attests to the existence of a locality named Δίδυμοι in this area.58 The demarcation is rather precise and, as frequently happens, it results from a combination of both natural and artificial limits.59 As Clémence Weber-Pallez has pointed out, however, boundary stones and other landmarks placed to distinguish an internal border between Argolic communities do not have to be understood as elements of a ‘linear’ frontier, but they dot the landscape often disregarding sub-regions of cross-border cooperation and exchange, as the territories of the later proclaimed koinai chorai were.60

  • 61 Daverio Rocchi, 1988, p. 157.
  • 62 For the dispute between Epidauros and Corinth (ca. 242-238 BCE), which was med (...)
  • 63 The text provided by the Supplementum Epigraphicum Graecum reproduces the revi (...)
  • 64 For the revised edition IG IV 741, see again Carusi, 2005, p. 86-87.
  • 65 For the chronological frame of this agreement, see Carusi, 2005, p. 126-136. For some (...)
  • 66 See Harter-Uibopuu, 1998, p. 108-109; Dixon, 2000, p. 227-236; Carusi, 2005, p (...)
  • 67 SEG 55, 425, l. 8.
  • 68 SEG 55, 425, ll. 6-8; see Carusi, 2005, p. 102, 107. There are other fragmentary referen (...)
  • 69 SEG 55, 425, ll. 20-27. On the nature of this fortification, which could be linked to th (...)

10In the century preceding the Roman Conquest and the establishment of the province of Achaea, the Argolic Ἀκτή appears to have been swept by other interpolis controversies and, accordingly, undergone significant border changes.61 Besides the territorial dispute between Epidauros and Hermione, conflicts on the northern side of the peninsula flared up between Epidauros and Corinth and – later – between Troezen and Arsinoe/Methana.62 In particular, the terms of the latter conflict are preserved in the homologia engraved on a stele from Epidauros (SEG 55, 425)63 and in another fragmentary copy found in Troezen (SEG 55, 418).64 The agreement was fostered by a Lagid king, most probably Ptolemy VI (181/0-146/5), while compliance with the provisions was entrusted to the Athenians, allies of the Ptolemies.65 Troezen, a member of the Achaean League at that time, and Arsinoe/Methana, a polis under Lagid control, came into conflict over a border zone, which included at least four territories named Στενίτας, Διαστενίτις, Χερσονάσος and Πραξωνεῖον. Toponymy makes the location of the contested area immediately transparent: the two poleis mainly contended for the possession of the thin strip of land connecting the Methana-Peninsula with the Peloponnesian mainland.66 Other contiguous plots of land outside the isthmus might have been involved in the dispute, but the damages of the stone make the text not fully clear on this point. Due to the poor condition of the stone, however, one can only be certain that Στενίτας was proclaimed κοινός,67 while the other sub-regions did not enjoy the same status assuredly.68 The limits of the koine chora were outlined in a fragmentary passage of the homologia and included a fortified work (χάραξ) and some private estates.69

  • 70 Another possible testimony concerning an area of joint exploitation in Arcadia might (...)
  • 71 According to Paus. II 36, 3, the inner route connecting the Cape Strouthous (modern Kavo (...)
  • 72 The presence of a χάραξ on the isthmus of Methana is just one example of the military (...)

11The reconsideration of the epigraphic evidence sheds light on some geographical characteristics of the koinai chorai. First, the establishment of common territories concerns the borderlands of three Peloponnesian regions so far: Arcadia, Messenia and Argolis.70 Secondly, the extension of these chorai is quite hard to assess, but in the only two ‘measurable’ examples it appears to be uneven: if we look at the disputes in Argolis, we are dealing with an area of relevant dimensions (koine chora of Epidauros and Hermione) and another relatively small (the isthmus of the Methana-Peninsula).71 Third, the physical configuration of a koine chora may vary similarly from territory to territory: the common regions known so far are sometimes landlocked, sometimes coastal; they may lie on plains, hills or mountains. In fact, the physical characteristics of these common territories seem to be subordinate to key factors that explain the reasons why these areas fell into contention from time to time: indeed, these areas turned out to be more and more attractive for some regional players not only for the possibility to exploit economic resources and commodities locally available, but also for the presence of strategic key zones or spots like isthmuses, strongholds (whether natural or not), landing places or crossroads.72

4. Choronymy

  • 73 See for example Schmitt, 1995, p. 633-634.
  • 74 Perono Cacciafoco, Cavallaro, 2023, p. 134-137.

12The natural features of landscape inform the toponymy of a given area very frequently.73 Examples from the Greek world are countless, and it is nearly impossible to draw a list of them. The borderlands under consideration are no exception. If one leaves aside the agreement between Phigaleians and Messenians in which no place names occur, all other evidence displays a toponymy overwhelmingly based on the natural characteristics of the region. Indeed, toponymy does not only provide a rough representation of a particular area, but it may turn out to be crucial to figure out the resources available in there and/or the ways of their exploitation by the locals.74

  • 75 Moretti, ISE I 43, ll. 15-16: εἶναι ταύτην (scil. χώραν) κοινὴν Ἑρμιονέων καὶ (...)
  • 76 IPArk 14, ll. 18-19, 22-23; cf. Daverio Rocchi, 1988, p. 98.

13In general terms, the koinai chorai of the Peloponnese cannot always be identified through a choronym unambiguously. They are sometimes part of a larger region, as happens for the common areas between Epidauros and Hermione (unnamed, but included in the Didymia),75 or they are made up of more sub-regional entities (each with its own denomination), as happens for the Messenian-Megalopolitan borderlands and, likely, for the common areas around the isthmus of Methana. If one extends the chronological horizon of the evidence discussed here, it may be observed that the two common areas of Arcadia which are mentioned in the border demarcation from Orchomenos are named after the vegetation (Παδόεσσα; Ἀρία).76

  • 77 For some general remarks concerning the study of toponymy, see Taylor, 2016 and (...)
  • 78 For some examples of interchangeable place names from the area of Mycale (Κάρι (...)
  • 79 A useful classification based on the practices of place-naming can be found in (...)
  • 80 See also Hesych. s.v. Ἄγριοι λιμένες [α 803 Latte]; cf. Wilhelm, 1911 [1974].
  • 81 J. and L. Robert in BE 1949, No. 68 and BE 1954, No. 116; Jameson, 1953, p. 161-165; Mor (...)

14Place names drawn from landscape features are originally conceived by locals and, as such, imply local inter-community and cross-border dynamics.77 Even if a given borderland may be known under different denominations depending on the different regional frequenters,78 landscape toponymy can be ‘objective’ enough to describe and represent a specific region with no need of other equivalence.79 In this respect, the ‘isthmic’ denominations of the disputed territories in the homologia between Troezen and Arsinoe/Methana (Stenos, Diastenos, Chersonasos) are enlightening, as it is the choronym Akreiatis in the epigraphic dossier from Messene. The latter overtly alludes to an upland area subject to joint exploitation, lying somewhere on the north-eastern fringes of the Messenian territory. Similarly, the dispute between Epidauros and Hermione provides a great variety of place names alluding to distinctive shapes or qualities of the territory, like the two peaks of Mt. Didyma or the availability of landing places in the Ἄγριοι Λιμένες.80 In most cases, the very effectiveness of these denominations has produced a toponymic persistence that makes the identification of the ancient topographical reference points easier.81

  • 82 See also Paus. II 36, 3.
  • 83 See already Thür, 2012, p. 299 (« In the course of the dispute it [scil. the Akreiatis]  (...)
  • 84 For the Praxoneion, see Carusi, 2005, p. 103; for Philanoreia or Philanorion ( (...)
  • 85 See Paus. II 36, 3: ἀπὸ Μάσητος δὲ ὁδὸς ἐν δεξιᾷ ἐστιν ἐπὶ ἄκραν καλουμένην Στρουθοῦντα. (...)

15In other occasions, however, toponymy is less straightforward. Even natural place names turn out to be elusive for us when looking at landmarks like the Ἄκραι κολούραι in the inland of Hermione. The westernmost limit of the koine chora between Epidauros and Hermione owed its name to sparrows (Cape Στρουθοῦς),82 while one of the territories at stake in the dispute between Messene and Megalopolis (Βιπειᾶτις) might be associated with a grazing area tentatively.83 Scholarship refers eponymic place names like Πραξωνεῖον or Φιλανόρεια/Φιλανόριον to individuals or heroes, whose memory is lost to us.84 Finally, an eminently artificial nature informs the border shaped by the so-called βολέοι λίθοι, where piles of stones punctuated the southeasternmost (?) limits of the koine chora between Epidauros and Hermione.85

  • 86 SEG 58, 370, ll. 29-33: …, ἀποδόν|τες οἱ Μεγαλοπολῖται ὅρους Ἀπολλωνί|δαι τῶι στραταγῶι (...)
  • 87 SEG 55, 418, ll. 16-19 ≈ SEG 55, 425, ll. 53-56: οἵτινες παραγενόμενοι (ἐξ Ἀθανᾶν) τὰ (...)
  • 88 Interventions of foreigners in the border disputes at issue: Aetolians in the dispute be (...)

16Perhaps nothing is more local than landscape toponymy. Indeed, place names deriving from natural environment mirror first and foremost a local level of landscape perception and representation and, as such, they can be regarded as an authentic expression of an emic point of view. After all, city decrees themselves are informed by an emic perspective, being documents that stem from the heart of one community. In the texts addressed to city audiences, an extensive description of locally known micro-regions may be replaced by local toponyms that could have a very limited circulation in other parts of the Greek world and even lesser attestation in our sources, if any. The regional toponymy occurring in the dispute between Messene and Megalopolis can be an enlightening example of this metonymic use of place names. In general terms, the evidence under examination presupposes some sort of agreement by the different parties in the use of local toponymy. When going back over the history of the dispute against Megalopolis, the Messenian dossier reproduces the geography of this long-lasting conflict according to local place names, and both the Megalopolitan counterpart and the different courts called for a judgement seem to conform to that toponymy.86 The interpolis agreement following the dispute between Troezen and Methana, on the other hand, was engraved on stelae set up in two prominent sanctuaries of the region, the Asklepieion of Epidauros and the temple of Poseidon at Kalaureia, as well as in the sanctuary of Athena at Athens.87 This led once again to the conclusion that the toponymy employed for the koine chora of Epidauros-Hermione was freely accepted and shared by both disputants, as well as by the courts of foreign judges that were asked for an intervention. All in all, even though some pieces of evidence imply the intervention of external actors for the resolution of disputes, the etic point of view is never predominant, and no toponymic equivalence was therefore required for the demarcation of the koinai chorai.88

5. Resources

  • 89 Harter-Uibopuu, 1998, p. 128-129; Mackil, 2013, p. 316-318, 361-362.

17For the sake of cohesion, federal organisations undertook every attempt to defuse internal or cross-border tensions on the local level and to prevent larger repercussions on the regional scale. In this respect, the case of the Achaean koinon, which laid down the resolution of ongoing controversies as a prerequisite for joining the League, is undoubtedly the most well-known and most revealing one.89 In consideration of the scanty evidence available, the establishment of a koine chora appears not to be an obvious response for settling border conflicts. One of the reasons explaining the recourse to this tool may lie in the roots of the dispute itself and, indeed, in claims of economic nature that surface in all the texts at issue. In our case studies, economic attractiveness and resource availability are deeply embedded into every episode of border conflict in one way or another.

  • 90 On the Greek vocabulary of ‘exploitation’ and its occurrence in Greek epigraphy, see esp (...)
  • 91 IG V 1, 419, ll. 14-16: τὰν δὲ χ|[ώραν καρπ]ίζεσσθαι ἑκατέρως, τώς τε Μεσσανίω (...)
  • 92 SEG 58, 370, ll. 65-67; cf. Luraghi, Magnetto, 2012, p. 533-534 n. 78; Youni, 2012, p. 3 (...)
  • 93 Moretti, ISE I 43, ll. 20-22: Περὶ δὲ τῶν καρπείων καὶ τῶν | ἐπινομῶν τῶν πρὸ (...)
  • 94 SEG 55, 418, l. 2 + SEG 55, 425, l. 38. See Carusi, 2005, p. 114, who also proposes to (...)

18As the occurrences of the key terms καρπίζεσθαι, καρποί and ἐπικαρπία suggest, the exploitation of agricultural resources triggered or exacerbated the controversies under examination.90 Since the homologia between Phigaleia and Messene (ca. 240 BCE), the different pieces of evidence lend emphasis on the enjoyment of land products. The decree of the Messenians reproduced in the agreement with Phigaleia (IG V 2, 419) seems to betray the perpetuation of an extant exploitation agreement according to the same conditions as in the present.91 According to the Messenian dossier on the dispute with Megalopolis (SEG 58, 370), at some point before clashing περὶ καρπῶν Messenians and Megalopolitans concluded an agreement regulating the crop of μεσόκοινοι καρποί (literally, « half-common fruits ») in the borderlands named Akreiatis and Bipeiatis.92 Clauses on the revenues from land exploitation appear in both the arbitration procedure between Epidauros and Hermione (Moretti, ISE I 43) and the homologia between Troezen and Arsinoe/Methana (SEG 55, 418 + SEG 55, 425). While the former presents a brief declaration rendering void all the charges περὶ καρπειῶν καὶ τῶν ἐπινομῶν (« on cropping and grazing rights ») retroactively,93 the latter seeks to further discourage retroactive actions by private citizens περὶ τᾶς ἐπικαρπίας or περὶ τᾶν ἐπικαρπιᾶν, providing for fines in case of violations.94

  • 95 SEG 55, 425, l. 9: [--- τᾶς] λιθίνας καὶ τᾶς ξυλίνας; see Ager, 1996, p. 384; Carusi, 20 (...)
  • 96 See Mackil, 2013, p. 276. As Rousset, 2003-2004, p. 121 has pointed out, the right to (...)
  • 97 IPArk 14, ll. 27, 29. The economic interest of these common areas is proven by a couple (...)
  • 98 Cf. Sartre, 1979, p. 214-215.
  • 99 Moretti, ISE I 43, ll. 20-24.
  • 100 On Bipeiatis in SEG 58, 370, see Thür, 2012, p. 299.

19However, land exploitation was not restricted to agricultural produce, but it also entailed other activities tied to forest economy and pasturage. In the agreement between Troezen and Arsinoe/Methana a fragmentary clause from the stone of Epidauros is likely to refer to quarries and timber exploitation.95 Ultimately, activities of timber cutting already appear to be the reason for the establishment of koinai chorai near Orchomenos. In the highlands of Arcadia, geographically landlocked and poor in cultivable plains, timber was indeed one of the resources that could grant a steady economic return.96 The importance of the Παδόεσσα and Ἀρία and the possibility to access them for the communities involved in the delimitation procedure of IPArk 14 could have represented (or could really have been) an element of friction, which the panel of arbiters and, likely, the entire Arcadian koinon had to take into account.97 As for pasturage and transhumance,98 the double verdict of Milesians and Rhodians suggests a significant availability of grazing lands in the territory between Epidauros and Hermione. The final clauses record that the contention originated from some kind of disagreement περὶ τῶν ἐπινομῶν (« about those who enjoy the grazing rights ») and, moreover, they inform us about an earlier κρίμα περὶ τῶν αἰγῶν (« a judgement concerning the goats ») issued over the same borderlands.99 Similar controversies about grazing rights might have arisen in Messenia, too, if the etymology of the choronym Bipeiatis is intended as an allusion to the activities of husbandry and pasturage in the region.100

  • 101 SEG 55, 418, ll. 6-7; SEG 55, 425, ll. 39 (restored), 43-44.
  • 102 SEG 55, 418, ll. 5-8; SEG 55, 425, ll. 42-44.
  • 103 Rousset, 2003-2004, p. 120. See, in the same vein, Dixon, 2000, p. 193. Peter (...)
  • 104 Carusi, 2005, p. 118; Mackil, 2013, p. 317. Although Foxhall, Gill, Forbes, 1997, p. 272 (...)
  • 105 Magnetto, 1997, p. 413; cf. Sartre, 1979, p. 215-216.

20The body of evidence shows that the access to cultivable areas and the exploitation of resources often underlay the establishment of a koine chora, especially in those regions of the Peloponnese where the availability of arable land was limited. Thus, land exploitation was indeed a key factor for the establishment of a koine chora, but certainly not the only one. If one looks at the dispute between Troezenians and Arsinoeans/Methanians, it is undeniable that the exploitation of the sea resources turns out to be an important point on the agenda of both communities. The joint exploitation of the tuna fishery, in particular, rose to relevance to such an extent that, before the double κρίμα of Milesians and Rhodians, the two poleis were able to set up a common fund based on fishery revenues (αἱ κοιναὶ πρόσοδοι αἱ ἐκ τῶν θυννείων).101 This fund was employed for the reparations owed to those who had suffered confiscations at the time when the borderland was proclaimed inaccessible.102 According to the interpretation of Rousset, the establishment of the koine chora between Troezen and Arsinoe/Methana should have taken place in a regime of shared territorial waters.103 Against this, one might wonder if one should not rather think of land-based facilities such as tuna factories linked to fish processing.104 The possibility to have access to natural landing places like the Ἄγριοι Λιμένες might also be distinguished on the background of the dispute between Epidauros and Hermione, as Magnetto has pointed out.105

21All in all, the economic attractiveness of these sub-regions expectedly fostered human mobility and brought into being forms of population that could cut across group identity. Such a mixed settling of borderlands and the resulting systems of joint exploitation may have developed into border conflicts whose resolution imposed a variety of possible responses by superordinate authorities. One of these responses can ultimately have been the establishment of an area of joint exploitation, i.e. a koine chora.

6. By Way of Conclusion. From epigraphical evidence to literary projections of the κοιναὶ χῶραι

  • 106 Rousset, 1994, p. 98-100.
  • 107 Mackil, 2013, p. 246.
  • 108 Paus. IV 24, 1 (likely connected to Rhian. BNJ 265 F 40).
  • 109 Paus. II 30, 6.
  • 110 Paus. II 35, 2.
  • 111 Paus. VIII 13, 1.

22A preliminary assessment of the koinai chorai in the Hellenistic Peloponnese leads to a number of observations, which will profit from a closer comparison with other regions of the Greek world in the future. What can be concluded with regard to the epigraphical evidence now is that most of the sources refer to the 2nd century BCE. This may appear a pretentious conclusion if one looks at the extreme meagreness of the available documentation. However, this simple observation turns out to be of some interest if one considers a telling statistic presented by Rousset some years ago. In 1994, Rousset compiled a list of 240 inscriptions concerning ancient Greek borders: almost one third of this corpus (72 inscriptions) dates to the 2nd century BCE, while more than one eighth of it goes back to the 3rd century (33).106 Following Rousset’s provisional compilation, it comes as no surprise that four out of five inscriptions considered in this paper date precisely to the centuries with more documentation at our disposal. The overall impression is that the Greeks perceived the koinai chorai as areas of economic interaction, animated overwhelmingly by local networks. Borrowing the words of Emily Mackil, « [t]he ancient evidence, both literary and numismatic, points to economic cooperation between poleis within a region prior to the development of formal state institutions at the regional level, which will suggest that economic considerations were part of the federal bargain from the start ».107 Before the right to exploit a given region was proclaimed or granted, and before the ‘common’ status of these borderlands was formalised, these common regions and micro-regions had presumably been areas of cross-border frequentation for a long time – and not only for economic exchange. The continuity and – so to speak – density of these exchanges probably recommended the establishment of common regions, precisely where a rigid demarcation of the border and a clear-cut definition of interpolis boundaries were objectively unfeasible. With regard to neighbourhood relations between poleis, the pragmatism of some communities is sometimes foreshadowed on the mythical and religious level. The friendly relations between Phigaleians and Messenians, for instance, took the shape of intermarriage in the Messenian tradition reworking the archaic struggles against Sparta: according to a story elaborated most likely during the 3rd century, Hagnagora, the sister of the Messenian king Aristomenes, was bestowed in marriage to Tharyx, the king of Phigaleia.108 Similarly, the picture of Troezenia as a space of (interpolis) confrontation echoes the mythical division of the region between Athena and Poseidon after a duel with no winner.109 From a religious point of view, the projection of troublesome neighbourly relations materialises in the worship of Apollo Horios at Hermione, whose cult is recorded by Pausanias to preserve the memory of a border conflict.110 The attitude of the Orchomenians for the establishment of sharing places with their neighbours surfaces in the border sanctuary of Artemis Hymnia, common to Orchomenians and Mantineans.111 These are just a few examples linked to some of the communities considered in this paper. It would not be surprising if other literary evidence, which implies the notion of border in one way or another, could be reinterpreted in the light of data stemming from the koinai chorai around the Greek world.

Appendix

The place name Βιπειᾶτις

  • 112 Arnaoutoglu, 2009-2010, p. 184 n. 10; Luraghi, Magnetto, 2012, p. 526-527.
  • 113 See for example IG V 1, 864-865 for Βωρθεία (2nd cent. BCE), but also IG V 1, 1277, l. (...)
  • 114 Polyb. XXIII, 18, 3; XXIV, 1, 6; 2, 4. See Bechtel, 1917, p. 93 for Βίππος Βί-ιππος ( (...)
  • 115 A case in point is again Λαβίπα for Λαβίππα in IG V 1, 1277, l. 4; see Her (...)
  • 116 Hodkinson, 1990, p. 153-154.
  • 117 IG V 1, 213, ll. 18-22; for a date to ca. 400-390 BCE, see Nafissi, 2013, p. 114-117. (...)
  • 118 SEG 47, 393; 1st cent. BCE.

23As observed by Ilias N. Arnaoutoglu and Luraghi/Magnetto the place name Βιπειᾶτις discloses some dialectal colour.112 The change ϝ > β is well attested for the Laconian dialect, especially at the beginning of a word.113 On the other hand, the pertinence of the anthroponym Βίππος to this group is highly uncertain.114 If one assumes that the form Βιπειᾶτις can be in fact a degeminated form for Βιπ(π)ειᾶτις, the possibility that this obscure choronym must be somehow related to (a grazing area of) horses cannot be ruled out. Like the change ϝ > β, cases of degeminated forms in Laconian are well attested too and, as for -ππ- > -π-, they are overwhelmingly tied to the word ἵππος and its compounds.115 A passage from the Platonic Alcibiades I (122d), whose fictional background has to be fixed around 430 BCE, may suggest some kind of connection between the Spartan horse husbandry and the large availability of grazing areas in Messenia.116 This evidence, however, appears to be less conclusive than one might be led to believe. Interestingly, the stele preserving the victory list of the Spartan Damonon refers to chariot races held in the perioecic settlement of Thouria in Messenia in the framework of the local Ποhοίδαια.117 Finally, it is worth noticing that a late Hellenistic inscription from Messene attests to the existence of groups called ἱπποτρόφοι καὶ νεώτεροι, who were led by a ἁγεμών and performed perhaps some military duties.118

Haut de page

Bibliographie

Ager, S., 1996, Interstate Arbitrations in the Greek World, 337-90 B.C., Berkeley - Los Angeles - London (Hellenistic Culture and Society 18) [= Ager, Arbitrations].

Ager, S., 2015, Peaceful Conflict Resolution in the World of the Federal States, in H. Beck and P. Funke (eds.), Federalism in Greek Antiquity, Cambridge, p. 471-486.

Arnaoutoglu, I., 2009-2010, Dispute Settlement between Poleis-Members of the Achaean League. A New Source, Dike, 12-13, p. 181-201.

Bechtel, F., 1917, Die historischen Personennamen des Griechischen bis zur Kaiserzeit, Halle.

Blair, D. and Tent, J., 2021, A Revised Typology of Place-Naming, Names, 69, p. 31-47.

Bravo, B., 1980, Sulân. Représailles et justice privée contre des étrangers dans les cités grecques, ASNP, ser. III, 10, p. 675-987.

Buck, C. D., 1955, The Greek Dialects, Chicago.

Buraselis, K., 2002, rev. S. L. Ager, Interstate Arbitrations in the Greek World, 337-90 B.C., Berkeley - Los Angeles - London 1996 and A. Magnetto, Gli arbitrati interstatali greci. II, Pisa 1997, Gnomon, 74, p. 224-231.

Carusi, C., 2003, Isole e peree in Asia Minore. Contributi allo studio dei rapporti tra poleis insulari e territori continentali dipendenti, Pisa (Pubblicazioni della Classe di Lettere e Filosofia 28).

Carusi, C., 2005, Nuova edizione della homologia fra Trezene e Arsinoe (IG IV 752, IG IV2 76 + 77), Studi Ellenistici, 16, p. 79-139.

Cassayre, A., 2010, La Justice dans les cités grecques. De la formation des royaumes hellénistiques au legs d’Attale, Rennes.

Chandezon, C., 2003, L’élevage en Grèce (fin ve-fin ier s. a.C.). L’apport des sources épigraphiques, Bordeaux (Scripta Antiqua 5).

Chandezon, C., 2014, L’hippotrophia et la boutrophia, deux liturgies dans les cités hellénistiques, in C. Balandier and C. Chandezon (eds.), Institutions, sociétés et cultes de la Méditerranée antique. Mélanges d’histoire ancienne rassemblés en l’honneur de Claude Vial, Bordeaux (Scripta Antiqua 58), p. 29-50.

Chaniotis, A., 1999, Milking the Mountains. Economic Activities on the Cretan Uplands in the Classical and Hellenistic Period, in A. Chaniotis (ed.), From Minoan Farmers to Roman Traders. Sidelights on the Economy of Ancient Crete, Stuttgart (Heidelberger althistorische Beiträge und epigraphische Studien 29), p. 181-220.

Chaniotis, A., 2004, Justifying Territorial Claims in Classical and Hellenistic Greece: The Beginnings of International Law, in E. M. Harris and L. Rubinstein (eds.), The Law and the Courts in Ancient Greece, London, p. 185-213.

Daverio Rocchi, G., 1988, Frontiere e confini nella Grecia antica, Roma (CRDAC 12).

Daverio Rocchi, G., 2016, Sistems of Borders in Ancient Greece, in S. Bianchetti, M. R. Cataudella and H.-J. Gehrke (eds.), Brill’s Companion to Ancient Geography. The Inhabited World in Greek and Roman Tradition, Leiden - Boston, p. 58-77.

Dixon, M. D., 2000, Disputed Territories: Interstate Arbitrations in the Northeast Peloponnese, ca. 250-150 B.C., Columbus (Diss. The Ohio State University).

Dixon, M. D., 2001, IG IV2.1.75+ and the Date of the Arbitration Between Epidauros and Hermion, ZPE, 137, p. 169-173.

Dubois, L., 1986, Recherches sur le dialecte arcadien, I-III, Louvain-La-Neuve.

Dumont, J., 1977, Liberté des mers et territoire de pêche en droit grec, RHDFE, 55, p. 53-57.

Dušanić, S., 1978, Notes Épigraphiques sur l’histoire arcadienne du ive siècle, BCH, 102, p. 333-358.

Fachard, S., 2017, The Resources of the Borderlands. Control, Inequality, and Exchange on the Attic-Boeotian Borders, in P. Derron (ed.), Économie et inégalité. Ressources, échanges et pouvoir dans l’Antiquité classique, Vandœuvres (Entretiens sur l’Antiquité Classique 63), p. 19-61.

Foxhall, L., Gill, D., Forbes, H., 1997, Appendix 2. The Inscriptions of Methana, in C. Mee and H. Forbes (eds.), A Rough and Rocky Place. The Landscape and Settlement History of the Methana Peninsula, Greece, Liverpool, p. 269-277.

Funke, P. and Hallof, K., 2013, Zwei neue Staatsverträge aus Akarnanien, in F. Lang, P. Funke, L. Kolonas, E.-L. Schwandner and D. Maschek (eds.), Interdisziplinäre Forschungen in Akarnanien / Διεπιστημονικές έρευνες στην Ακαρνανία, Bonn (Akarnanien-Forschungen / Ακαρνανία Έρευνες 1), p. 55-64.

Gauthier, Ph., 1972, Symbola. Les étrangers et la justice dans les cités grecques, Nancy (Annales de l’Est. Mémoire 42).

Gawantka, W., 1975, Isopolitie. Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der zwischenstaatlichen Beziehungen in der griechischen Antike, München (Vestigia 22).

Giangiulio, M., 2001, L’eschatia. Prospettive critiche su rappresentazioni antiche e modelli moderni, in Problemi della ‘chora’ coloniale dall’Occidente al Mar Nero. Atti del XL Convegno di Studi sulla Magna Grecia. Taranto, 29 settembre - 3 ottobre 2000, Taranto, p. 333-361.

Gill, D., Foxhall, L. and Bowden, H., 1997, Classic and Hellenistic Methana, in C. Mee and H. Forbes (eds.), A Rough and Rocky Place. The Landscape and Settlement History of the Methana Peninsula, Greece, Liverpool, p. 62-76.

Grainger, J. D., 1999, The League of the Aitolians, Leiden - Boston - Köln (Mnemosyne. Supplements 200).

Habicht, C., 2012, Appendix: Ainetidas, Chiron, 42, p. 545-546.

Harter-Uibopuu, K., 1998, Das zwischenstaatliche Schiedsverfahren im achäischen Koinon. Zur friedlichen Streitbeilegung nach den epigraphischen Quellen, Köln - Weimar - Wien (Akten der Gesellschaft für griechische und hellenistische Rechtsgeschichte 12).

Hermann, E., 1923, Silbenbildung im Griechischen und in den andern indogermanischen Sprachen, Göttingen Ergänzungsheft zur Zeitschrift für vergleichende Sprachforschung auf dem Gebiete der indogermanischen Sprachen 2).

Hodkinson, S., 1988, Animal Husbandry in the Greek Polis, in C.R. Whittaker (ed.), Pastoral Economies in Classical Antiquity, Cambridge (Proceedings of the Cambridge Philological Society. Supplementary Volume 14), p. 35-74.

Hodkinson, S., 1990, Politics as a Determinant of Pastoralism: the Case of Southern Greece, ca. 800-300 B.C., Rivista di Studi Liguri, 56, p. 139-163.

Hough, C., 2016, Settlement Names, in C. Hough (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Name and Naming, Oxford, p. 87-103.

Jameson, M., 1953, Inscriptions of the Peloponnesos, Hesperia, 22, p. 148-171.

Kienast, D., 1964, Die Homonoiaverträge in der römischen Kaiserzeit, JNG, 14, p. 51-64.

Kralli, I., 2017, The Hellenistic Peloponnese: Interstate Relations. A Narrative and Analytic History, from the Fourth Century to 146 BC, Swansea.

Larsen, J. A. O., 1968, Greek Federal States, Oxford.

Luraghi, N. and Magnetto, A., 2012, The Controversy between Megalopolis and Messene in a New Inscription from Messene, Chiron, 42, p. 509-550.

Mackil, E., 2013, Creating a Common Polity. Religion, Economy, and Politics in the Making of the Greek Koinon, Berkeley - Los Angeles - London (Hellenistic Culture and Society 55).

Magnetto, A., 1997, Gli arbitrati interstatali greci, II, Pisa (Relazioni interstatali nel mondo antico. Fonti e Studi 7) [= Magnetto, Arbitrati].

Marek, C., 1984, Die Proxenie, Frankfurt am Main - Bern - New York (Europäische Hochschulschriften III, 213).

Matijašić, I., 2022, Common Sense Geography nelle iscrizioni greche di età ellenistica. Rappresentazione e definizione dello spazio geografico, in S. L. Sørensen (ed.), Sine fine. Studies in honour of Klaus Geus on the occasion of his sixtieth birthday, Stuttgart, p. 393-412.

Moretti, L., 1967, Iscrizioni storiche ellenistiche, Firenze [= Moretti, ISE I].

Nafissi, M., 2013, La stele di Damonon (IG V 1, 213 = Moretti, IAG 16), gli Hekatombaia (Strabo 8,4,11) e il sistema festivo della Laconia d’epoca classica, Aristonothos, 8, p. 105-174.

Perono Cacciafoco, F. and Cavallaro, F., 2023, Place Names. Approaches and Perspectives in Toponymy and Toponomastics, Cambridge.

Pikoulas, Y. A., 2010-2013, Καθώς ἐστι ἁμῖν ἁ χώρα. Ἡ βόρεια μεθόριος Μεσσηνίας καὶ Ἀρκαδίας, ΗΟΡΟΣ, 22-25, p. 261-287.

Plassart, A., 1915, Orchomène d’Arcadie. Fouilles de 1913. Inscriptions, BCH, 39, p. 53-127.

Purpura, G., 2008, “Liberum Mare”, acque territoriali e riserve di pesca nel mondo antico, in J. Napoli (ed.), Ressources et activités maritimes des peuples de l’Antiquité. Actes du colloque international de Boulogne-sur-Mer 12, 13 et 14 Mai 2005, Boulogne-sur-Mer (Cahiers du Littoral 2, 6), p. 533-554.

Ræder, A., 1912, L’arbitrage international chez les Hellènes, Kristiania (Publications de l’Institut Nobel Norvegien 1).

Rizakis, A., 2015, The Achaian League, in H. Beck and P. Funke (eds.), Federalism in Greek Antiquity, Cambridge, p. 118-131.

Robert, L., 1960a, Inscriptions hellénistiques de Dalmatie, in L. Robert, Hellenica. Recueil d’épigraphie, de numismatique et d’antiquités grecques, XI-XII, Paris, p. 505-541.

Robert, L., 1960b, Sur un décret des Korésiens au Musée de Smyrne, in L. Robert, Hellenica. Recueil d’épigraphie, de numismatique et d’antiquités grecques, XI-XII, Paris, p. 132-176.

Rousset, D., 1994, Les frontières des cités grecques. Premières réflexions à partir du recueil des documents épigraphiques, CCG, 5, p. 97-126.

Rousset, D., 2002, Le territoire de Delphes et la terre d’Apollon, Athènes - Paris (BEFAR 310).

Rousset, D., 2003-2004 [2005], Épigraphie grecque et géographie historique du monde hellénique, Annuaire de l’EPHE (IVe sect.), 19, p. 119-123.

Rousset, D., 2010, De Lycie en Cabalide. La convention entre les Lyciens et Termessos près d’Oinoanda, Genève (Fouilles de Xanthos 10 / Hautes Études du Monde Gréco-Romain 45).

Saba, S., 2011, Epigamia in Hellenistic Interstate Treaties: Foreign and Family Policy, AncSoc, 41, p. 93-108.

Saba, S., 2020, Isopoliteia in Hellenistic Times, Leiden - Boston (Brill Studies in Greek and Roman Epigraphy 14).

Sartre, M., 1979, Aspects économiques et aspects religieux de la frontière dans les cités grecques, Ktema, 4, p. 213-224.

Schmitt, H. H., 1969, Die Staatsverträge des Altertums, III, München [= StV III].

Schmitt, R., 1995, Entwicklung der Namen in älteren indogermanischen Sprachen, in E. Eichler, G. Hilty, H. Löffler, H. Steger and L. Zgusta (eds.), Namenforschung. Ein internationales Handbuch zur Onomastik (Handbücher zur Sprach- und Kommunikationswissenschaft 11.1), Berlin - New York, p. 616-636.

Scholten, J. B., 2000, The Politics of Plunder. Aitolians and Their Koinon in the Early Hellenistic Era, 279-217 B.C., Berkeley - Los Angeles - London (Hellenistic Culture and Society 24).

Skydsgaard, J. E., 1988, Transhumance in Ancient Greece, in C. R. Whittaker (ed.), Pastoral Economies in Classical Antiquity, Cambridge (Proceedings of the Cambridge Philological Society. Supplementary Volumes 14), p. 75-86.

Taylor, S., 2016, Methodology in Place-Name Research, in C. Hough (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Names and Naming, Oxford, p. 69-85.

Themelis, P., 2008, Κρίμα περὶ χώρας Μεσσηνίων καὶ Μεγαλοπολιτῶν, in Y. A. Pikoulas (ed.), Ιστορίες για την αρχαία Αρκαδία. Πρακτικά / Proceedings of the International Symposium in honour of James Roy 50 χρόνια Ἀρκάς (1958-2008), Stemnitsa, p. 211-222.

Thür, G., 2012, Dispute over Ownership in Greek Law: Preliminary Thoughts about a New Inscription from Messene (SEG LVIII 370), in B. Legras and G. Thür (eds.), Symposion 2011. Études d’histoire et de droit grec et hellénistique (Paris, 7–10 septembre 2011), Wien, p. 293-316.

Thür, G. and Taeuber, H., 1994, Prozessrechtliche Inschriften der griechischen Poleis: Arkadien (IPArk), Wien (Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften, Phil.-Hist. Kl., Sitzungsberichte 607).

Tod, M. N., 1913, International Arbitration among the Greeks, Oxford.

Vérilhac, A.-M. and Vial, C., 1998, Le mariage grec. Du vie siècle av. J.-C. à l’époque d’Auguste, Athènes - Paris (Bulletin de Correspondance Hellénistique. Supplément 32).

Vessella, C., 2018, Sophisticated Speakers. Atticistic Pronunciation in the Atticist Lexica, Berlin - Boston (Trends in Classics – Supplementary Volumes 55).

Weber-Pallez, C., 2016, L’Argolide, un territoire grec défini par l’emboîtement des frontières ?, in H. Berthelot, A. Boiché, P.-A. Caltot, M. Diarra, F. Réveilhac and É. Romieux-Brun (eds.), Vivre et penser les frontières dans le monde méditerranéen antique. Actes du colloque tenu à l’Université Paris-Sorbonne, les 29 et 30 juin 2013, Bordeaux (Scripta Antiqua 89), p. 55-65.

Wilhelm, A., 1911 [1974], γριοι λιμένες, in A. Wilhelm, Akademieschriften zur griechischen Inschriftenkunde (1895-1951), Leipzig (Opuscula 8), p. 26-32.

Wilhelm, A., 1948, Ein Gebietsstreit in der Argolis, AAWW, 4, p. 57-79.

Youni, M. S., 2012, Remarques sur une inscription messénienne. Réponse à Gerhard Thür, in B. Legras and G. Thür (eds.), Symposion 2011. Études d’histoire et de droit grec et hellénistique (Paris, 7-10 septembre 2011), Wien, p. 317-328.

Haut de page

Notes

* This piece of research has been developed within the framework of the ERC Project FeBo: Federalism and Border Management in Greek Antiquity funded by the European Union (ERC FeBo, ERC 2021 Cog PR. No. 101043954). Directed by Elena Franchi and hosted by the University of Trento, Project FeBo aims to shed light on the strategies and policies adopted by Greek federal states for the management, control and protection of internal and external borders. The views and opinions expressed in this paper are exclusively those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the European Union or the European Research Council Executive Agency. Neither the European Union nor the granting authority can be held responsible for them. The author expresses gratitude to the anonymous referees for their valuable suggestions.
A scholarly overview on this subject is still lacking. See Daverio Rocchi, 1988, p. 39-40; Rousset, 2003-2004, p. 119-121; cf. Rousset, 1994, p. 124.

1 A scholarly overview on this subject is still lacking. See Daverio Rocchi, 1988, p. 39-40; Rousset, 2003-2004, p. 119-121; cf. Rousset, 1994, p. 124.

2 An earlier version of this paper has been prepared for the conference TeMAES 4. Territoires multiple: façonner les régions dans le monde grec, organised by Clémence Weber-Pallez and held at the University of Toulouse II – Jean Jaurès on June 6th, 2023. I am indebted to the organiser and all the members of the research group TeMAES (Stefania De Vido, Arianna Esposito and Airton Pollini) for the kind invitation to the conference and the permission to publish in advance some preliminary thoughts set forth in Toulouse.

3 Fachard, 2017, p. 20.

4 In fact, Fachard does not ignore the complexity of borderlands in terms of organisation, ownership and resources. In his study on the Attic-Boeotian frontier, he shows that the scholarly view that looks at the border areas as territories almost uninhabited and, as it were, nearly deregulated must necessarily be blurred and reassessed on a case-by-case basis (Fachard, 2017, p. 25-27).

5 Marek, 1984, p. 147-149; Hodkinson, 1988, p. 51-53, 62-63; Chandezon, 2003, p. 351-389.

6 Rousset, 2010, p. 48-50. On the timber trade in the Peloponnese, see Mackil, 2013, p. 275-276.

7 See Mackil, 2013, p. 258-260, for the privileges exercised by proxenoi throughout the territories of Boeotia and Achaea.

8 Cf. Rousset, 1994, p. 122-123.

9 For the economic weight of some sub-regions like the koinai chorai, see Mackil, 2013, p. 257.

10 Rousset, 2003-2004, p. 119.

11 Daverio Rocchi, 1988, p. 39.

12 Daverio Rocchi, 1988, p. 40.

13 As Fachard has pointed out, exploiting a (border)land is a strategy to possess and control it (Fachard, 2017, p. 37-38).

14 Mackil, 2013, p. 313-314 underestimates the role of the Achaean koinon in the resolution of the disputes amongst its members.

15 Ager, 2015, p. 476-480. For the case of the Achaean koinon, see also Harter-Uibopuu, 1998, p. 119-129 and Rizakis, 2015, p. 128-131.

16 For some criticism to established patterns relating to fringe areas (eschatiai), see Giangiulio, 2001 (esp. p. 341-343).

17 See already Wilhelm, 1948, p. 69.

18 See, for example, Skydsgaard, 1988, p. 80 (« Finally, if one focuses on the borderland between city states a common pasture is often found. We have already noticed Mount Cithaeron […]. A similar no man’s land existed on the Mount Parnassus and caused the outbreak of the Corinthian War »); Chaniotis, 1999, p. 198 (« Instead of setting boundaries for a disputed frontier region, the cities involved agreed to use these areas in common, as koinai chorai »); Rousset, 2003-2004, p. 121 (« Les régions communes, à la difference des zones désertes ou neutres, sont la coproprieté indivise de deux cites, et se caractérisent par la possibilité d’une exploitation économique »); Daverio Rocchi, 2016, p. 73 (« Interest in exploiting woodland resources compelled the poleis to making agreements in order to subject these middle-lands [altogether or partly] to a regime of shared use [koinai chorai] »).

19 Chaniotis, 2004, p. 187-190 with the remarks of Fachard, 2017, p. 26.

20 Carusi, 2005, p. 109; cf. Fachard, 2017, p. 26.

21 369 BCE: Plassart, 1915, p. 62-69. 369-361 BCE: Dušanić, 1978, p. 348-351; Daverio Rocchi, 1988, p. 96-99; Thür, Taeuber, 1994, p. 124-129. For a later chronology, see Rousset, 2003-2004, p. 121. For the involvement of the Arcadian koinon in the dispute, see Mackil, 2013, p. 314.

22 Rousset, 1994, p. 117-118.

23 Plassart, 1915, p. 56, 82; Dubois, 1986, II, p. 141-143.

24 While scholarship usually identifies Methydrion as the polis sharing the borders with Orchomenos (Plassart, 1915, p. 69; Daverio Rocchi, 1988, p. 97), Slobodan Dušanić rather opted for Torthyneion (Dušanić, 1978, p. 351-355).

25 Cf. Rousset, 2002, p. 176 (« Sur les confins des cités grecques, la stricte définition d’une ligne-frontière pouvait en effet expressément laisser place, en tel point d’une délimitation, à des zones communes, comme on le voit sur les confins d’Orchomène d’Arcadie […]. On peut donc concevoir que le territoire d’une cité ait été ici limité par une ligne, tandis qu’ailleurs il se perdait dans une zone laissée à l’usage de tous »).

26 See Robert, 1960a, p. 534; cf. Rousset, 1994, p. 123-125.

27 For some other editions and commentaries, see, for example, Schmitt, 1969, p. 182-185 (= StV III, 495); Daverio Rocchi, 1988, p. 162-164; Thür, Taeuber, 1994, p. 295-301 (= IPArk 28); Ager, 1996, p. 119-124 (No. 40); Magnetto, 1997, p. 230-237 (No. 38); Saba, 2020, p. 170-175 (No. 39).

28 IG V 1, 419, ll. 13-15.

29 See, for example, Robert, 1960a, p. 534; Thür, Taeuber, 1994, p. 300; Ager, 1996, p. 123; Magnetto, 1997, p. 234; Harter-Uibopuu, 1998, p. 47-48.

30 IG V 2, 419, l. 15. Kienast, 1964, p. 62 translates IG V 2, 419, ll. 13-15 implying that the Messenians owned the region and they allowed the Phigaleians to exploit it jointly (« Das Land aber sollen sie beide nutzen […], die Messenier und die Phigaleer, wie auch wir [d. h. die Messenier] es jetzt nutzen »). Indeed, the subject of καρπιζόμεθα is not obvious.

31 The ambiguity of IG V 2, 419, ll. 13-15 was pointed out by Robert, 1960a, p. 234 (« les deux peuples de Messène et de Phigalie […] exploitent en commun un territoire, il « n’appartient » à aucun des deux […], ou ils décident, dans leur accord, d’exploiter chacun leur territoire, sans soulever les questions de propriété qui les divisent au sujet de leurs frontières »). Gawantka, 1975, p. 67 n. 60 has stressed the differences between ἑκάτερος and ἀμφότερος, still without ruling out the existence of a koine chora along the borders between Phigaleia and Messene (cf. Daverio Rocchi, 1988, p. 162-163 n. 1; Thür, Taeuber, 1994, p. 300). As it happens, the general formulations of IG V 2, 419, ll. 13-15 have led some scholars to raise doubts on the very existence of this common borderland. According to Buraselis, 2002, p. 228, this passage is to be regarded as a diplomatic formula pointing to reassert the exploitation rights of each community over its own territory (see now Saba, 2020, p. 172 n. 19). Indeed, the point made by Kostas Buraselis deserves some further thoughts, which must however reconsider the entire passage in its epigraphical and historical context.

32 Cf. Daverio Rocchi, 1988, p. 162-163 n. 1. In fact, one may wonder if ἑκατέρως could imply the distribution of personal properties – of both Phigaleian and Messenian citizens – within the χώρα itself (cf. Sartre, 1979, p. 216: « Ce qui importe pour nous ici, c’est de constater que la cité se conduit à l’égard de sa frontière comme un propriétaire en ce qui concerne les limites de son champ. D’ailleurs, il est probable que la cité ne fait, le plus souvent, dans ces querelles, qu’épouser la cause d’un citoyen ou d’un groupe de citoyens propriétaires aux frontières »; Fachard, 2017, p. 24: « Greek borderlands, when exploited and inhabited, are areas of interactions at the public and private levels. »; my emphasis). The presence of private domains in a koine chora is certain for the homologia between Troezenians and Arsinoeans/Methanians (SEG 55, 425, l. 25; see Carusi, 2005, p. 109 and below). It is worth observing that the prescription preceding ll. 13-15 concerns the drafting of a συμβολά intended to settle private controversies (IG V 2, 419, ll. 12-13: ποιήσασθαι δὲ καὶ συνβολάν, ἅ|[νπερ δοκεῖ] ἀνφοτέραις ταῖς πολέοις [« they shall also establish a judicial agreement that pleases both cities »; transl. S. Saba]; cf. Gauthier, 1972, p. 366-368; Ager, 1996, p. 123).

33 Noteworthy is most of all the exchange of the isopoliteia and epigamia (see Gawantka, 1975; Vérilhac, Vial, 1998, p. 68-69, 71-82; Saba, 2011, esp. p. 103-106; Saba, 2020, esp. p. 170-175).

34 See already Ræder, 1912, p. 95-97 (No. LI); Tod, 1913, p. 9-10 (No. V-VII); Gawantka, 1975, p. 114 n. 46. Daverio Rocchi, 1988, p. 164 has raised doubts on this interpretation.

35 IG V 1, 1429 and 1430. See Ager, 1996, p. 123.

36 Magnetto, 1997, p. 236 n. 8; Harter-Uibopuu, 1998, p. 47-50.

37 Strab. VIII 3, 22.

38 Larsen, 1968, p. 203, 206-207; Scholten, 2000, p. 116-123; Mackil, 2013, p. 116-117.

39 See Grainger, 1999, p. 159-161; Kralli, 2017, p. 278-281.

40 Some preliminary notes on the text were provided in Themelis, 2008. See also Arnaoutoglu, 2009-2010; Thür, 2012 and D. Rousset in BE 2013, No. 153-154.

41 Habicht, 2012.

42 Luraghi, Magnetto, 2012.

43 Luraghi, Magnetto, 2012, p. 529.

44 A commentary on the different stages of this arbitration can be found in Luraghi, Magnetto, 2012, p. 525-533. The last phase of this arbitration, which was resolved by a panel of six Milesian judges, focused on the validity of the fine imposed by federal damiourgoi (see Luraghi, Magnetto, 2012, p. 535).

45 The expression koine chora does not properly mirror the situation at the borderlands between Messene and Megalopolis (for a different view, see Youni, 2012, p. 326). There can be no doubt that what results from the dossier is definitely the Messenian ownership of the contended χώρα and the existence of previous (formalised?) agreements between Messene and Megalopolis about some sort of joint exploitation of the Akreiatis and Bipeiatis (cf. Thür, 2012, p. 299-300). Accordingly, the ‘semi-common’ nature of both sub-regions takes shape only in relation to the exploitation rights in force over them, not in relation to their ownership (see esp. Thür, 2012 and Youni, 2012). One might wonder whether this twofold facet of the Messenian chora (exploitation vs. ownership) discloses in fact another possible sense of μεσόκοινος, being the term not only tied to the produce of these borderlands but extending somehow to the status of the contested χώρα (on μεσόκοινος, see Luraghi, Magnetto, 2012, p. 533-534 n. 78). What is published from this long text does not say anything about the circumstances resulting in this Messenian-Megalopolitan agreement on the joint exploitation (cf. Youni, 2012, p. 321).

46 A topographical study on the contents of SEG 58, 370, which Rousset has hoped for (in BE 2013, No. 153), has been undertaken in Pikoulas, 2010-2013.

47 Luraghi, Magnetto, 2012, p. 526; Pikoulas, 2010-2013, p. 270-272.

48 Themelis, 2008, p. 215-216; Luraghi, Magnetto, 2012, p. 526. For the πόλις Πυλανέων in SEG 11, 979, l. 23 (2nd or 1st cent. BCE), see Themelis, 2008, p. 216; Luraghi, Magnetto, 2012, p. 522-523 (who posit the location of the ancient site around modern Kato Melpeia); Pikoulas, 2010-2013, p. 268-269.

49 It is worth noticing that an unpublished passage that reproduces the πρόκλησις of the Megalopolitans is reported to refer to the τέρμονες of the Akreiatis (ll. 119-120); see Thür, 2012, p. 301-302; Pikoulas, 2010-2013, p. 272.

50 For a different view, see Pikoulas, 2010-2013, p. 272.

51 Themelis, 2008, p. 215.

52 Luraghi, Magnetto, 2012, p. 527; Pikoulas, 2010-2013, p. 272.

53 The text of this κρίμα is preserved by two copies, the one found in Epidauros (IG IV2 1, 75+ = SEG 31, 328), the other from Hermione (SEG 11, 377 + 51, 431). Both are re-edited and commented by Moretti, 1967, p. 100-105 (Moretti, ISE I 43 = SEG 25, 375); Ager, 1996, p. 170-173 (No. 63), Magnetto, 1997, p. 405-416 (No. 69) and Harter-Uibopuu, 1998, p. 72-80 (No. 10). A likely chronology for this judgement has been offered by Dixon, 2001 (= SEG 51, 431; 175-172 BCE), based on prosopography of some Rhodian judges appearing in IG IV2 1, 75, fr. B, ll. 25-28 and Polyb. XXVIII 7, 9.

54 Moretti, ISE I 43, ll. 1-2, 15.

55 Luraghi, Magnetto, 2012, p. 539-540.

56 On the πρόκλησις, see Harter-Uibopuu, 1998, p. 75 and Cassayre, 2010, p. 234, 243.

57 On the identification of the topographical references mentioned in these inscriptions, see esp. Jameson, 1953, p. 160-167, Moretti, 1967, p. 102-104 and Harter-Uibopuu, 1998, p. 78-80. For a state-of-art, see also Dixon, 2000, p. 157-166.

58 Paus. II 36, 3.

59 Daverio Rocchi, 1988, p. 57-58, 159. On the description and representation of spaces and distances in Greek arbitration inscriptions, see Matijašić, 2022 (esp. p. 397-398 for the arbitration between Hermione and Epidauros).

60 Weber-Pallez, 2016 (esp. p. 60).

61 Daverio Rocchi, 1988, p. 157.

62 For the dispute between Epidauros and Corinth (ca. 242-238 BCE), which was mediated by Megarian judges, see IG IV2 1, 70-71, with some commentary in Ager, 1996, p. 113-117 (No. 38); Magnetto, 1997, p. 212-224 (No. 36); Harter-Uibopuu, 1998, p. 16-23 (No. 3); cf. also Daverio Rocchi, 1988, p. 156-159.

63 The text provided by the Supplementum Epigraphicum Graecum reproduces the revised edition of IG IV2 1, 76-77 in Carusi, 2005, p. 93-95. Cf. Ager, 1996, p. 381-385 (No. 138); Harter-Uibopuu, 1998, p. 97-109 (No. 12).

64 For the revised edition IG IV 741, see again Carusi, 2005, p. 86-87.

65 For the chronological frame of this agreement, see Carusi, 2005, p. 126-136. For some prosopographic remarks and the uncommon name Γνίκων (SEG 55, 425, l. 3), see Dixon, 2000, p. 222-224. On the history of Methana, the Ptolemaic control of the peninsula and the name change to Arsinoe, see Gill, Foxhall, Bowden, 1997, p. 74-75.

66 See Harter-Uibopuu, 1998, p. 108-109; Dixon, 2000, p. 227-236; Carusi, 2005, p. 102-103.

67 SEG 55, 425, l. 8.

68 SEG 55, 425, ll. 6-8; see Carusi, 2005, p. 102, 107. There are other fragmentary references to a common region (ll. 24, 34), as well as to common income from tuna fishing (ll. [24], 39, 43/44, 49). For the latter point, see below.

69 SEG 55, 425, ll. 20-27. On the nature of this fortification, which could be linked to the τείχη or the φρούριον in Thuc. IV, 45, 2, see again Gill, Foxhall, Bowden, 1997, p. 74-75, followed by Dixon, 2000, p. 229-230 and Carusi, 2005, p. 107-108. On the private estates in the koine chora and on the issues of legal nature they raise, see Carusi, 2005, p. 109.

70 Another possible testimony concerning an area of joint exploitation in Arcadia might be the arbitration between Alipheira and Lepreon that has been dated to 194/3 BCE (IPArk 26 = SEG 25, 449; for some commentary, see Ager, 1996, p. 226-228 [No. 82]; Harter-Uibopuu, 1998, p. 41-46 [No. 6]). The word πολύκοινος occurs in the boundary demarcation which likely follows the final part of the verdict and precedes a list of judges called for a sentence (IPArk 26, l. 25: [---]σιν τὰν πολύκοινο[ν]). The poor condition of the inscription and the lack of a clear context do not allow us to speculate much on the existence of an area of shared exploitation between the territories of Alipheira and Lepreion. However, the presence of a (border)land ‘common to many’ (alluding perhaps even to other communities besides Alipheirans and Lepreatai) has been suggested by Laurent Dubois (1986, II, p. 253: « s’agirait-il d’une ἐσχατιά commune à plusieurs cites ? »; cf. Harter-Uibopuu, 1998, p. 46).

71 According to Paus. II 36, 3, the inner route connecting the Cape Strouthous (modern Kavo Iri) with Philanorion (Phournoi ?) – both being the opposite limits of the territory disputed between Epidauros and Hermione – was about 250 stadia long (ca. 50 km), a distance that has been rightly regarded by scholars as exaggerated (see below for further considerations). According to Ps. Scylax 50 (mid-4th century), the shoreline under Epidaurian control stretched for 30 stadia (more than 5,5 km) along the Argolic Gulf and the coastline from the territory of Argos to Halieis (mod. Porto Cheli) amounted to 100 stadia (ca. 20 km). On the other hand, the dispute between Methana and Troezen mainly concerned the thin strip of land that binds the volcanic peninsula of Methana with the mainland (1,3 km long × 0,3 large, according to Robert 1960b, p. 158). The other two territories mentioned in the homologia and perhaps pertaining to the koine chora (Chersonasos and Praxoneion) are likely to pinpoint at the immediate borders of the isthmus (see Carusi, 2005, p. 109: « gli elementi forniti dalla moderna toponomastica sembrano confermare che la zona oggetto dell’accordo tra le due città gravitasse intorno al sottile istmo che univa la penisola di Methana alla terraferma »).

72 The presence of a χάραξ on the isthmus of Methana is just one example of the military importance that a given territory could assume for the control of a larger region. From the strategic point of view, on the other hand, one can consider the importance of the route connecting Messene and Megalopolis: passing through the areas under contention in SEG 58, 370, this route gave access to the Messenian lowlands and, further beyond, to the Western coast of the Peloponnese through the Aulon of Messenia (Strab. VIII 3, 25; Paus. IV 36, 7). Just a few years before the events of SEG 58, 370, for instance, the same route was likely followed by the Achaean στρατηγός Diophanes to launch assaults on Messene in order to restore the city under Achaean control (summer 191 BCE; see Liv. XXXVI 31, 1-5). What is more, a meeting between Flamininus and Diophanes took place at Andania, where the Achaeans were warned not to attack Messenians anymore (Liv. XXXVI 31, 7-8).

73 See for example Schmitt, 1995, p. 633-634.

74 Perono Cacciafoco, Cavallaro, 2023, p. 134-137.

75 Moretti, ISE I 43, ll. 15-16: εἶναι ταύτην (scil. χώραν) κοινὴν Ἑρμιονέων καὶ Ἐπιδαυρίων | οὖσαν τῆς Διδυμίας κτλ.

76 IPArk 14, ll. 18-19, 22-23; cf. Daverio Rocchi, 1988, p. 98.

77 For some general remarks concerning the study of toponymy, see Taylor, 2016 and Hough, 2016. For the relationships between toponymy and landscape in a comparative perspective, see Perono Cacciafoco, Cavallaro, 2023, p. 134-157. For toponymy and natural habitat in the ancient world, see Daverio Rocchi, 2016, p. 73.

78 For some examples of interchangeable place names from the area of Mycale (Κάριον/Χάραξ; Θίνιχος πάγος/οἱ κατὰ Σανίδειαν τόποι), see Carusi, 2003, p. 147-149.

79 A useful classification based on the practices of place-naming can be found in Blair, Tent, 2021. On the practical function of landscape toponymy, see Perono Cacciafoco, Cavallaro, 2023, p. 136 (« Toponyms, by alluding to and describing the related landscapes, helped people to orientate themselves in the spaces and, in the absence of drawing tools and writing systems, facilitated the sketching of a mental, oral, and ideal map of their territory »).

80 See also Hesych. s.v. Ἄγριοι λιμένες [α 803 Latte]; cf. Wilhelm, 1911 [1974].

81 J. and L. Robert in BE 1949, No. 68 and BE 1954, No. 116; Jameson, 1953, p. 161-165; Moretti, 1967, p. 103-104. A similar toponymic persistence may be observed for the territory corresponding to the koine chora between Troezen and Methana (see Robert, 1960b, p. 159-160; Rousset, 2003-2004, p. 120; Carusi, 2005, p. 102-103).

82 See also Paus. II 36, 3.

83 See already Thür, 2012, p. 299 (« In the course of the dispute it [scil. the Akreiatis] became connected with Bipeiatis, most probably unfertile pastureland close by or surrounding it »). For some more consideration on Bipeiatis, see below in Appendix.

84 For the Praxoneion, see Carusi, 2005, p. 103; for Philanoreia or Philanorion (Paus. II 36, 3), see Wilhelm, 1948, p. 72-73.

85 See Paus. II 36, 3: ἀπὸ Μάσητος δὲ ὁδὸς ἐν δεξιᾷ ἐστιν ἐπὶ ἄκραν καλουμένην Στρουθοῦντα. Στάδιοι δὲ ἀπὸ τῆς ἄκρας ταύτης κατὰ τῶν ὀρῶν τὰς κορυφὰς πεντήκοντά εἰσι καὶ διακόσιοι ἐς Φιλανόριόν τε καλούμενον καὶ ἐπὶ Βολεούς∙ οἱ δὲ Βολεοὶ οὗτοι λίθων εἰσὶ σωροὶ λογάδων (« From Mases there is a road on the right to a headland called Struthous [Sparrow Peak]. From this headland by way of the summits of the mountains the distance to the place called Philanorium and to the Boleoi is two hundred and fifty stades. These Boleoi are heaps of unhewn stones. »; transl. W.H.S. Jones). For the distance of 250 stades, see the emendation proposed by Wilhelm, 1948, p. 79 (55 stades).

86 SEG 58, 370, ll. 29-33: …, ἀποδόν|τες οἱ Μεγαλοπολῖται ὅρους Ἀπολλωνί|δαι τῶι στραταγῶι τᾶς τε Ἐνδανικᾶς | καὶ Πυλανικᾶς καὶ τᾶς Ἀκρειάτιος καὶ | Βιπειάτιος, … (« and the Megalopolitans gave the στραταγός Apollonidas the borders of the territories of Endania and Pylana and of Akreiatis and Bipeiatis, … »); ll. 39-43: καὶ γενομένας (i.e.: τῶν δικαστᾶν) | [ἐν] τ̣ῶι Καρνειασίωι δικαιολογίας ἐπὶ | [δύο ἁ]μέρας μεθ’ ὕδατος, ἀπὸ μὲν τᾶς | [Ἀκρειά]τιος καὶ Βιπειάτιος ἀποστ̣άντων | τῶν Μεγαλοπολιτᾶν (« and after in the Karneiasion a debate took place over two days, with speakers’ time measured by water-clock, the Megalopolitans renounced Akreiatis and Bipeiatis »); ll. 48-50: ἁμῶν δὲ συ|[--- ca. 9-10 --- κρί]σιν ποτί τε Καλιάτας | [καὶ Μεγαλοπολίτ]ας περὶ τᾶς Ἀκρειάτιος | [καὶ Βιπειάτιος] … (« and since we agreed to be judged against the Megalopolitans and the Kaliatai regarding Akreiatis and Bipeiatis … »); ll. 52-56: Μεγαλοπολιτᾶν | [μὲν? --- ca. 11 --- ὅτι] Ἀκρειᾶτις | καὶ Βιπειᾶτις Ἀρκαδία ε[ἴη καὶ] Μ̣ε|γαλοπολῖτις, ἁμῶν δὲ δι[δ]α̣σκόν|των ὁτι Μεσσανία εἴη (« the Megalopolitans [argued] that Akreiatis and Bipeiatis were Arkadian and Megalopolitan, and we showed that they are Messenian »), ll. 61-64: κρινάντων Μεσσανίαν εἶ|μεν τὰν χώραν τὰν Ακρειᾶτιν καὶ | Βιπειᾶτιν κατὰ τοὺς ὅρους οὕς ἀπε|δώκαμες τοῖς κοινοῖς δαμιοργοῖς (« [in a court of 147 judges], who judged that Akreiatis and Bipeiatis were Messenian according to the borders we had indicated to the common δαμιοργοί »); ll. 71-73: ἁμὲ προεκα|λέσατο ἁ πόλις τῶν Μεγαλοπο|λιτᾶν περὶ τᾶς Ἀκρειάτιος χώρας (« the polis of the Megalopolitans challenged us again to undergo a judgment regarding the Akreiatis territory »); ll. 79-84: καὶ εἰσαγαγόντων (i.e. τῶν κοινῶν δαμιοργῶν) εἰς τὸ | δικαστήριον τῶν Μιλησίων ἐνικά|σαμεν πάσαις ταῖς ψάφοις καθότι | εἴημεν κεκριμένοι περί τε ταύτας | τᾶς χώρας καὶ τᾶς Βιπειάτιος πο|τὶ Μεγαλοπολίτας (« and [the common δαμιοργοί] introduced us into the court of the Milesians, we won receiving all the votes, which confirmed that we had indeed already been judged regarding this territory and the Bipeiatis against the Megalopolitans »). English translations are drawn from Luraghi, Magnetto, 2012.

87 SEG 55, 418, ll. 16-19 ≈ SEG 55, 425, ll. 53-56: οἵτινες παραγενόμενοι (ἐξ Ἀθανᾶν) τὰ γεγονότα αὐτοῖς ὁμόλογα ἐπικρίναντες ἀναθεσοῦνται ἐν στάλαις είς τὰ ἱερὰ τὸ ἐγ Καλαυρείαι τοῦ Ποσειδᾶνος καὶ τὸ ἐν Ἐπιδαύρωι τοῦ Ἀσκλαπίου καὶ τὸ έν Ἀθάναις ἐν ἀκροπόλει τᾶς Ἀθάνας (« those who have come [from Athens] and verified the agreements between them [i.e. the Epidaurians and the Hermioneans] shall take care of the publication on stelae in the sanctuaries of Poseidon at Kalaureia and Asclepios at Epidauros and Athena on the Acropolis of Athens »; my translation).

88 Interventions of foreigners in the border disputes at issue: Aetolians in the dispute between Messenians and Phigaleians; Achaeans and a board of Milesian judges in the dispute between Messenians and Megalopolitans; Milesians and Rhodians in the contention between Epidauros and Hermione; a Lagid king in the conflict between Troezen and Arsinoe/Methana.

89 Harter-Uibopuu, 1998, p. 128-129; Mackil, 2013, p. 316-318, 361-362.

90 On the Greek vocabulary of ‘exploitation’ and its occurrence in Greek epigraphy, see esp. Robert, 1960a, p. 533-535 and also Sartre, 1979, p. 214; Fachard, 2017, p. 20.

91 IG V 1, 419, ll. 14-16: τὰν δὲ χ|[ώραν καρπ]ίζεσσθαι ἑκατέρως, τώς τε Μεσσανίω|[ς καὶ τὼς Φι]αλέας, καθὼς καὶ νῦν καρπιζόμεθα (« The land shall be cultivated by each, [the citizens] of Messene and [those] of Phigaleia, just as we cultivated it now »; transl. S. Saba).

92 SEG 58, 370, ll. 65-67; cf. Luraghi, Magnetto, 2012, p. 533-534 n. 78; Youni, 2012, p. 321, 325-326; Thür, 2012, p. 300 n. 11.

93 Moretti, ISE I 43, ll. 20-22: Περὶ δὲ τῶν καρπείων καὶ τῶν | ἐπινομῶν τῶν πρὸ τῆς κρίσεως μὴ εἶναι μηδετέροις ἔγκλη|μα μηθέν (« No claim is to be made concerning cropping or pasturage [which occurred] before this decision »; transl. M. H. Jameson, C. N. Runnels, T. H. van Andel).

94 SEG 55, 418, l. 2 + SEG 55, 425, l. 38. See Carusi, 2005, p. 114, who also proposes to restore κ̣[αρπίζεσθαι] in l. 33 (p. 97, 112). According to Bravo, 1980, p. 866-867, the term ἐπικαρπία might rather be related to revenues coming from the taxation of grazing rights. However, nothing in this text hints at that explicitly.

95 SEG 55, 425, l. 9: [--- τᾶς] λιθίνας καὶ τᾶς ξυλίνας; see Ager, 1996, p. 384; Carusi, 2005, p. 104.

96 See Mackil, 2013, p. 276. As Rousset, 2003-2004, p. 121 has pointed out, the right to exploit wooded areas was conceded to foreigners also in the form of ἐπιξυλία, an accessory honour that could be awarded in proxeny decrees and that is attested in Arcadia for Orchomenos and Thisoa (IPArk 36 j, r).

97 IPArk 14, ll. 27, 29. The economic interest of these common areas is proven by a couple of passages from the Historia Plantarum by Theophrastus, according to whom the πηδός was used to produce axles of chariots and drawbars of ploughs (Hist. Plant. V 7, 6), while the ἀρία – a Doric gloss for holm-oak – was employed for the fabrication of chariot elements (Hist. Plant. III 16, 3). On the federal intervention of the short-lived Arcadian koinon in this matter, see Mackil, 2013, p. 314. The case of IPArk 14 forces to reconsider some statements made by Daverio Rocchi some years ago: « “[w]oodland activities” pointed to a system of skilled works that we can relate to a true woodland-economy having | its privileged space in the borderland. It was the open space where the regime of subsistence based on pasturing, hunting, gathering of spontaneous fruits, fishery from marshes and rivers, required undivided land and free passage, unlike the core plain where enclosures and farming prevailed » (Daverio Rocchi, 2016, p. 70-71, with my italics). As a matter of fact, the regulation from Arcadian Orchomenos depicts a different scenario, as also do the clauses of the agreement between the Lycians and the Termessians-near-Oenoanda concerning the ways of exploitation of Mt. Masa with the Tloeans (SEG 60, 1569, ll. 27-33; 160-150 BCE; see Rousset, 2010, p. 43-50). Relying on the phrasing employed in ll. 27-30 (Τὸ δὲ Μασα̣ ὄρος ἔστω Τλωέων, τὴν δὲ ἐπι|νέμησιν καὶ ξυλισμὸν αὐτοῦ ἐχέτωσαν Τερ|μησσεῖς οἱ πρὸς Οἰνοάνδοις εἰς τὸν ἀεὶ χρό|νον), Rousset maintains that the ownership of Mt. Masa and the right to erect buildings and populate it was assigned to the Tloeans, while the rights of pasturage and wood exploitation were granted to the Termessians exclusively (Rousset, 2010, p. 46).

98 Cf. Sartre, 1979, p. 214-215.

99 Moretti, ISE I 43, ll. 20-24.

100 On Bipeiatis in SEG 58, 370, see Thür, 2012, p. 299.

101 SEG 55, 418, ll. 6-7; SEG 55, 425, ll. 39 (restored), 43-44.

102 SEG 55, 418, ll. 5-8; SEG 55, 425, ll. 42-44.

103 Rousset, 2003-2004, p. 120. See, in the same vein, Dixon, 2000, p. 193. Peter Funke has drawn my attention to a passage from a treaty between Acarnanians, Amphilochians and Ambraciotai (I.Mus.Thyrio 2, A, II = SEG 63, 391 [II]; late 4th century BCE) where the parties are likely to agree on the joint exploitation of a sea loch of the Gulf of Ambracia (ll. 8-9: [--- τᾶι δὲ θαλά]σσαι κοινᾶι χρήσθω ἕκασ̣|[τος]; see Funke, Hallof, 2013, p. 58-60). From a legal point of view, however, it is worth highlighting that the applicability of the modern notion of ‘territorial waters’ to the ancient world is a matter of contention among legal historians and, at the end of the day, it appears to be rather problematic (against the elaboration of the notion of territorial waters by ancient jurists, see Purpura, 2008 who convincingly rejects the earlier influential position of Dumont, 1977).

104 Carusi, 2005, p. 118; Mackil, 2013, p. 317. Although Foxhall, Gill, Forbes, 1997, p. 272 and Dixon, 2000, p. 232 cited Robert, 1960b, p. 159-160 n. 2 for the alleged remains of tuna traps on the Western coast of the isthmus of Methana, I read no clear reference to this in the passage at issue (« … je considère la baie appelée Θυννί à l’Ouest de l’isthme de Méthana comme la persistance des θυννεῖα antiques, de même que le nom du | golfe de droite Steno, conserve un toponyme ancien de l’arbitrage; cela, bien que Θυννί puisse se trouver ailleurs, venant des madragues ou des guettes du thon, et qu’il y ait un cap Thynni à l’Ouest du territoire d’Hermione. »). According to Dixon, 2000, p. 232, however, remains of tuna traps « are still visible to the west of the isthmos itself and I have been told that this is the old method of fishing around Methana ».

105 Magnetto, 1997, p. 413; cf. Sartre, 1979, p. 215-216.

106 Rousset, 1994, p. 98-100.

107 Mackil, 2013, p. 246.

108 Paus. IV 24, 1 (likely connected to Rhian. BNJ 265 F 40).

109 Paus. II 30, 6.

110 Paus. II 35, 2.

111 Paus. VIII 13, 1.

112 Arnaoutoglu, 2009-2010, p. 184 n. 10; Luraghi, Magnetto, 2012, p. 526-527.

113 See for example IG V 1, 864-865 for Βωρθεία (2nd cent. BCE), but also IG V 1, 1277, l. 4 (2nd/1st cent.?) with Buck, 1955, p. 47 (for the compound Λαβίπα).

114 Polyb. XXIII, 18, 3; XXIV, 1, 6; 2, 4. See Bechtel, 1917, p. 93 for Βίππος < Βί-ιππος (based on βία, « violence »); cf. LGPN III.a s.v. Βίιππος (2nd cent. BCE).

115 A case in point is again Λαβίπα for Λαβίππα in IG V 1, 1277, l. 4; see Hermann, 1923, p. 187-188; Vessella, 2018, p. 108 and 111.

116 Hodkinson, 1990, p. 153-154.

117 IG V 1, 213, ll. 18-22; for a date to ca. 400-390 BCE, see Nafissi, 2013, p. 114-117. For Spartan hippotrophy, see Chandezon, 2014, p. 37-39.

118 SEG 47, 393; 1st cent. BCE.

Haut de page

Pour citer cet article

Référence papier

Claudio Biagetti, « Borderlands, Resources and Interpolis Disputes. Remarks on the Areas of Joint Exploitation in the Hellenistic Peloponnese »Pallas, 124 | 2024, 185-207.

Référence électronique

Claudio Biagetti, « Borderlands, Resources and Interpolis Disputes. Remarks on the Areas of Joint Exploitation in the Hellenistic Peloponnese »Pallas [En ligne], 124 | 2024, mis en ligne le 07 mai 2024, consulté le 07 juillet 2025. URL : http://journals.openedition.org/pallas/29430 ; DOI : https://doi.org/10.4000/1221n

Haut de page

Auteur

Claudio Biagetti

Post-Doc Fellow
Università di Trento, Dipartimento di Lettere e Filosofia
ERC-Project FeBo: Federalism and Border Management in Greek Antiquity 

Articles du même auteur

Haut de page

Droits d’auteur

CC-BY-NC-ND-4.0

Le texte seul est utilisable sous licence CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. Les autres éléments (illustrations, fichiers annexes importés) sont « Tous droits réservés », sauf mention contraire.

Haut de page
Rechercher dans OpenEdition Search

Vous allez être redirigé vers OpenEdition Search