RoussetDelphes 3 Athenian boundary settlement between Delphi and Phlygonion-Ambryssos, at Delphi

Athenian boundary settlement between Delphi and Phlygonion-Ambryssos, at Delphi

Rousset, Le territoire de Delphes 3 Date: ca. 140 BC

Θεός. Τ̣ύχαν ἀγαθάν

col. 1

[- - -] Α̣Τ [- - -] [- - -] ΕΓΕΝ̣ [- - -] ΣΕ ΥΠΟΤ [- - -] ΣΤΩΝ (5)[- - -] υ̣μῖν Τ[- - -]Ρ̣ΟΝ [- - - ἄ]ρχον[τος? - - - ἐ]ν̣ δ̣[ὲ - - -] [- - - ἐν? Δε]λ̣φοῖς [- - - ἄ]ρχο[ντος?]

ll. 9–17 are lost

col. 2

τὸ [κα]λο̣ύμε[ν]ον ΔΕ̣[- - -]ΕΩΝ, τὰ δ[ὲ] ε̣[ὐώ]νυμα ὡς ὕδωρ ῥεῖ εἶναι Δ[ελφῶν] ἕω̣[ς Α]ἰγωνείας. (20)[Ἀπὸ] δὲ Αἰγωνείας ὡς ὕδωρ ῥεῖ δι[ὰ τ]ὴς [χαρ]άδρας ⟨επὶ⟩ τὸν [λ]όφον τὸν καλούμενον Κέρδωνα ἕ̣[ως τῆ]ς ὁδοῦ [τ]ῆς ἐπὶ τὸν πρῖνον φερούσης· τὰ δέξ̣[ια εἶν]αι Φλυγο- [ν]έων καὶ Ἀμβρυσσέων, τὰ δὲ εὐώνυμα̣ [εἶναι] Δελφῶν. [Ἀ]πὸ δὲ τῆς ὁδοῦ ἐπὶ τὸμ πρῖνον τὸν ἐπ[ὶ τοῦ] Κατο- (25)πτηρίου· ἀπὸ δὲ τοῦ Κατοπτηρίου εἰς ὀ[ρθὸν κ]ατὰ ῥάχιν ἐπὶ τὸν Ὀξὺν λίθον· ἀπὸ δὲ τ[οῦ Λίθ]ου [εἰ]- ς ὀρθὸν ἐπὶ τὸν Πέτραχον· ἀπὸ δὲ τοῦ[Πετράχου] εἰς ὀρθὸν ἐπὶ τὸν Παρνασσόν· τούτων̣ [τὰ μὲν] πρὸς ἡλίου ἀνατολὴν εἶναι Φλυγωνέω̣[ν καὶ Ἀμ]- (30)βρυσσέων, τὰ δὲ πρὸς ἡλίου δύσιν εἶναι Δε[λφῶν]. Τὸ δὲ ὕδωρ τὸ παρὰ τὴν Αἰγώνειαν ῥέον εἶνα[ι] κοινὸν πάντων. Εἰ δέ τινά ἐστιν ἱερὰ ἐν τού- τοις τοῖς τόποις, ὑπάρχειν αὐτὰ κατὰ τὰ ἐξ ἀρχῆ[ς].

Previous - SEG 1.54 Next - SEG 3.105 (l. 3)
Translated text

References:

Rousset, Le territoire de Delphes 3 (Translated text) (AIO)

SEG 2.267 (PHI)

F.Delphes III 2 136 + Add. p. 298 (PHI)

Ager, Arbitrations 126 I/IV

Choix de Delphes 170

Translation by: Niklas Bettermann

Images: Archimage - (1)

Monument type: Block (Wall)

Inscription type: Inter-state arbitration

Fr. a - Findspot: Delphi (Athenian Treasury, south wall, in situ) (Delphi Museum 1459)
Fr. b - Findspot: Delphi (Athenian Treasury, south wall, in situ) (Delphi Museum 690)
Fr. c - Findspot: Delphi (Delphi Museum 5454)
Fr. d - Findspot: Delphi (Delphi Museum 609)
Fr. e - Findspot: Delphi (Delphi Museum 232)
Fr. f - Findspot: Delphi (in situ) (Delphi Museum 137)
Fr. g - Findspot: Delphi (in situ) (Delphi Museum 1283)

Transliterations on Places on

[1] Textual note: AIO follows the text of Rousset, excluding an extra fragment, which has been associated with this text (F.Delphes III 3, 170 = SEG 2.267), but probably belongs to the Treasury of the Cyrenians (cf. Rousset, pp. 79-80).

Interstate arbitrations were a phenomenon of the Greek world, in which the resolution of conflicts between two communities – mostly concerning borders – was entrusted to a third party. Although evidence for arbitration can be already found in the sixth century BC (e.g. Hdt. 6.108.5), the practice reached its height and greatest degree of formalisation during the Hellenistic period. As their involvement in Greek affairs grew from the second century BC onwards, the Romans continued this tradition, with arbitrations carried out by the Senate or Greek cities chosen by them (on interstate arbitrations and foreign judges, see Ager, pp. 3-33, and A. Magnetto, in E. Harris and M. Canavero eds., Oxford Handbook of Ancient Greek Law, 2015 [e-book only]; IG II³ 1, 997-998, 1171). Delphi was regularly affected by border disputes as its territory was attractive to its neighbours (e.g. F.Delphes III 4, 280, col. 2, ll. 28-32; col. 3, ll. 7-10, an Amphictyonic boundary settlement between Delphi and Amphissa of ca. 338/7 BC). During the period of Aitolian control over the Delphic Amphictyony from ca. 262 BC, Delphi underwent major territorial shifts which seem to have caused issues following its 'liberation' by the Romans in 191 BC. In a letter to the Delphians that year, the consul Manius Acilius Glabrio seized land that individuals had acquired in Delphi during the Aitolian hegemony and transferred it to the sanctuary and the city (Rousset, 250-69 no. 41). The need for boundary determinations at Delphi during the second century BC is highlighted by the frequency of arbitrations such as this one (for an overview of documented cases see Rousset, pp. 293-95).

This text, inscribed on the south wall of the Athenian Treasury at Delphi, contains an Athenian settlement of the eastern border between Delphi and Ambryssos-Phlygonion (on the Treasury, see F.Delphes III 2, 3 and on Attic inscriptions at Delphi, see IG II³ 4, 17 with notes). Another document associated with this inscription suggests this was done at Roman request (cf. Rousset, 78 no. 4 with notes). The text is dated to ca. 140 BC on the basis of letter forms, which are similar to those of F.Delphes III 2, 7; 11; 23; and 29, themselves closely related to the first Pythaïs procession of 138/7 BC (cf. S. Tracy, BCH 99, 1975, 185-188, 211; F. Camia, Rome e le poleis, 2009, 69 n. 168; on the Hellenistic Pythaïs, see F.Delphes III 2, 3 with notes). Around the same time, the Athenians were also involved in an arbitration between Thronion and Skarpheia concerning voting rights in the Amphictyony (F.Delphes III 4, 38; cf. also Ager, no. 167 with commentary).

The inscription consists of seven fragments. It was originally written on two blocks with one column of text each. The opening invocation (l. 1) is positioned on a separate block above the first column. Dialectal features in l. 1 imply a Delphian document, but Athenian authorship of the arbitration itself is indicated by the use of koine Greek (ll. 18-33). F.Delphes III 2, 142, which explicitly mentions the Athenian People is probably connected with the same arbitration. F.Delphes III 3, 243, a Delphian decree dealing with an embassy from Delphi to Athens may also be linked with this arbitration (cf. A. Camia, Roma e le poleis, 2009, 70), but this is highly speculative as it depends on the reconstruction of Phlygonion and Ambryssos in l. 3 of that inscription. [2] The expression ‘as the stream flows’ makes clear that the boundary runs along a river or stream, with the Delphian territory on the left bank and the Phlygonian/Ambryssian territory on the right bank. The geographical and toponymic information shows that the course of the border ran from the southern Pleistos valley up to northern Parnassus (l. 28). Due to the vague and unidentifiable landmarks (see n. 4), the exact course of the border cannot be reconstructed. [3] The close association of Phlygonion and Ambryssos has led to the view that they had merged into a single polis (a synoikism, e.g. Camia, 2009, 68). Ambryssos seems to have been a Phokian polis, identified with modern Distomo (cf. M. H. Hansen and T. H. Nielsen, An Inventory of Archaic and Classical Poleis, 2004, no. 171). By contrast, the exact location of Phlygonion is still matter of discussion. It may be the same as "Plygonion", which is epigraphically well attested but unmentioned in literary sources. If this is the case, it would not only mean that both were in Phokis but also that the P(h)lygonians were part of the Aitolian federation (cf. Rousset, pp. 23-24; contra E. Meyer, RE Suppl. XIV, coll. 385-87). Prosopographical evidence suggests that Plygonion was incorporated into Delphian territory shortly after 190 BC (cf. G. Daux, Delphes au IIe et au Ier siècle, 1936, 247-54). The dispute seems to have arisen because they subsequently broke away from Delphi and synoicised with the Ambryssians, making it necessary to redraw the border. Later documents, such as an Amphictyonic demarcation of sacred land (F.Delphes III 4, 280, ca. 125 BC) and a dossier from the early 2nd century AD (F.Delphes III 4, 290; 291) show that the conflict between Ambryssos and Delphi continued (on synoecism in Phokis, see Ch. Schuler and A. Walser, in A. Matthaei and M. Zimmermann, Urbane Strukturen und bürgerliche Identität im Hellenismus, 2015, 352-55, and E. Meyer-Zwiffelhofer, Politikos archein, 2002, 105-8 on the imperial-period evidence). [4] Katopterion (‘lookout’) is mentioned in Strabo (9.3.15) and Stephanos of Byzantion (sv. Anemoreia) as a place near the city of Anemoreia in Phokis. Its modern location is not identifiable, but might be Arachova or Desfina-Kastrouli (cf. A. J. Koh et al., Mediterranean Archaeology and Archaeometry 20/3, 2020, 47-73). Nothing can be said regarding the locations of the other places named in the inscription. [5] The access to essential resources and raw materials was a matter of particular interest for the parties involved in boundary disputes and required particular attention (cf. M. Sartre, Ktema 4, 1979, 213-24; A. Chaniotis, War in the Hellenistic World, 2005, 130-32). Therefore, arbitrations often award a common right to use of such resources in order to prevent further conflicts (see Ager, pp. 6-7; and no. 138). The inclusion of this clause, though, might indicate to an existing dispute between Delphi and Phlygonion-Ambryssos over water resources. [6] As Camia, 2009, 69 points out, the clause affecting the legal status of the sanctuaries can be understood in different ways. However, the most plausible interpretation is that they were excluded from the settlement and not awarded to any disputing party, remaining neutral territories.

Added: 3 Dec 2023
Updated: 3 Dec 2023
Feedback

ID: AIO_2829