Roman conquest and Late Hellenistic resilience: the epigraphical case of Aemilius Paullus’ monument at Delphi (167–100 BC)

Juan P. Prieto

doi:10.1017/S0075426926100597

Roman conquest and Late Hellenistic resilience: the epigraphical case of Aemilius Paullus’ monument at Delphi (167–100 BC)

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 29 September 2026

Juan P. Prieto

Show author details

Juan P. Prieto*: Affiliation:
Facultad de Educación y Humanidades, Universidad Andrés Bello, Chile
*: Email: jpabloprietoi@gmail.com

Article contents

Abstract
Introduction
The second-century BC inscriptions on the Delphic pillar of Aemilius Paullus
Conclusion: the Roman événement and Hellenistic political resilience
Abbreviations
Footnotes
References

Rights & Permissions

Abstract

Building on recent studies of classical resilience, this article scrutinizes the second-century BC inscriptions on the monument of Aemilius Paullus at Delphi, erected in 167 BC. By analysing the epigraphic reuse of its surfaces, the article posits that the Roman pillar played a crucial political role in the second century BC. It functioned as a material device used by Delphi, the Amphictyony and pro-Roman Greek agents to consolidate their interstate authority and legitimacy amidst the intricate military dominance of Rome and the influence of the Greek leagues. These inscriptions reveal the interplay of new pro-Roman elites, interstate arbitrations, Greek memorialization and Roman provincialization, all converging to signify the rapid transformations of this era. Consequently, this study contributes to a more nuanced understanding of Greek ideological adaptations to Roman power during this period.

Keywords

resilience epigraphy Delphi imperator événement

Information

Type: Research Article
Information: The Journal of Hellenic Studies , First View , pp. 1 - 21

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0075426926100597 [Opens in a new window]
Copyright: © The Author(s), 2026. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of The Society for the Promotion of Hellenic Studies

I. Introduction

In the last two decades, studies on the Hellenistic world have seen significant progress in the examination of local and regional experiences.Footnote ¹ The recent application of concepts such as ‘resilience’ or ‘risk culture’ has directed attention towards the abilities of classical political entities to overcome both human and natural challenges.Footnote ² For this study, I will adopt the collective definition of resilience, which refers to a coherent set of capacities that political entities maintain or enhance when reacting to adversity and adapting to its consequences, without losing autonomy in the process.Footnote ³ I propose that this concept encourages a nuanced examination of the relationship between historical events and civic processes, particularly those arising from catastrophic experiences that prompted political decisions to create, maintain or transform material and ideological resources over time. This notion of resilience also facilitates the assessment of both the success and failure of political entities in maintaining, strengthening or adapting their formal structures and informal community practices in the face of crises.Footnote ⁴ It thus provides a promising framework for analysing the historical trajectory of Hellenistic political systems, specifically focusing on the degree of resilience demonstrated by their agents when confronting the adverse phenomena generated by the expansion of Rome. These degrees of resilience can be classified into three levels: active (capacity to resist adversity), reactive (capacity to rebuild and recover after adversity) and proactive (capacity to anticipate or prevent adversity).Footnote ⁵

In particular, I contend that substantial research opportunities for the Hellenistic world arise when an emphasis on civic resilience is combined with spatial awareness, epigraphic documentation and a nuanced understanding of the disruptive historicity of the Roman conquest. Historians of the Hellenistic world quickly realized that space is an essential component in understanding classical social phenomena, making the public display of an inscription a key factor in its interpretation.Footnote ⁶ In this regard, considering the quality and extent of its documentation, the Panhellenic sanctuary of Delphi stands as an exemplary case for deepening our understanding of the geopolitical dialogue among various international actors of the period and their spatial manifestation through epigraphical adaptations in the face of adversity while grappling with Roman power.Footnote ⁷ Against this background, I propose that the pillar of the Roman imperator Aemilius Paullus, erected in Delphi after his total victory against Macedonia in 167 BC, subsequently bears a Greek epigraphic reuse that is of great value for comprehending the historical nature of Hellenistic civic resilience in the face of the Roman conquest during the second century BC.

The initial decades of the second century BC marked an intricate political phase for the Panhellenic sanctuary, since military conflicts involving Rome, Macedonia and their respective allies ushered in profound and persistent changes in the international Hellenistic political hierarchy.Footnote ⁸ Delphi and the Amphictyony oscillated between the conflicting influences of the Antigonid monarchs, the Aetolian Confederation and Roman commanders.Footnote ⁹ These challenges prompted substantial adjustments within the honorary, architectural and spatial domains of the sanctuary in order to better navigate the risks linked to evolving alliances and hegemonies.Footnote ¹⁰ Archaeological and epigraphic evidence attests to the sustained and diverse presence of Panhellenic visitors and audiences, including Italians and Romans.Footnote ¹¹ Additionally, the third-century BC Attalid stoa reinforced the temple terrace as the primary locus for honorific display, and Delphic epigraphical authorities – the Amphictyony and the polis – began to integrate Romans into their gift-giving system for foreigners.Footnote ¹² A striking example of these developments is found in the northeast section of the Temple of Apollo’s terrace where, after his victory over the Macedonian king Perseus at Pydna, Aemilius Paullus repurposed two unfinished monuments to commemorate his victory.

Anecdotally referenced by classical authors, the Roman adaptation of the Macedonian structure has been confirmed through archaeological discoveries.Footnote ¹³ The monument, standing over 10m in height, broadly consists of a stepped pedestal, a column crowned with an entablature adorned with a continuous battle frieze and a gilded equestrian statue.Footnote ¹⁴ On the western face of the pedestal, a Latin inscription with 7.3cm-tall characters confirms its identification: ‘Lucius Aemilius, son of Lucius, took from Perseus and the Macedonians’ (fig. 1, no. 1).Footnote ¹⁵ Epigraphically, this inscription highlights the Roman identity of the monument, defined by the mid-Republican practice of integrating war spoils into political capital within a competitive senatorial elite striving for honour and military glory.Footnote ¹⁶ By repurposing the Antigonid king’s pillar and using a Latin inscription that avoids the accusative, the conquering imperator emphasizes displaying rather than merely describing his victory (cepit) over the enemy. This tactic urged spectators to focus on the material monument as a testament to his accomplishments and prestige, aiming to surpass those of others nearby.Footnote ¹⁷ However, unlike other surviving examples, the uniqueness of this monument lies in the imperator’s choice of a Panhellenic space for a Roman and Italic honorary strategy. This decision is better understood in the context of expanding Roman ideological ties with Mediterranean audiences, rather than viewing it merely as a symbol of the violent and disruptive imposition of Roman conquest and imperialism.Footnote ¹⁸

Figure 1.

Distribution of inscriptions based on Laroche and Jacquemin’s reconstruction.

Architectural drawing showing the west, north, south and east façades of the Column of Aemilius Paullus. The elevations indicate the placement of inscribed blocks on the pedestal and lower shaft. A vertical scale at right marks 0–10 m.

Figure 1. Long description

The diagram reconstructs the epigraphic distribution of the monument between the second and first centuries BC. It illustrates how later Greek inscriptions progressively reused the Roman monument spatially and politically, concentrating around Paullus’ original Latin victory inscription before expanding upwards with the Lex de Provinciis Praetoriis.

Between 167 and 119 BC, there was a notable absence of new inscriptions on the monument, challenging expectations given the typical prolific epigraphic practices of the sanctuary.Footnote ¹⁹ Two factors account for this ‘epigraphic hiatus’. After the Third Macedonian War, Delphi, under Roman guardianship, enjoyed a 20-year peace, prompting a shift in focus towards reorganizing the Amphictyony and managing patrimony and border disputes, rather than risking Roman interference and violence like Mummius’ destruction of Corinth and Glabrio’s violence against the sanctuary of Athena Ithonia.Footnote ²⁰ Additionally, from 149 to 129 BC, during the rebellions of Andriscus, Aristonicus and the Achaean War, Delphi exercised caution vis-à-vis Rome’s power, avoiding epigraphically bound decisions in order to preserve its autonomy and potentially garner additional Roman honours.Footnote ²¹

The frequency of conflicts and the rotating, occasionally erratic, nature of Roman commands in Greece help elucidate the absence of epigraphic reuses on the surfaces of the monument until the last decades of the second century BC. From that point onwards, Roman violence, political disengagement and discourses of Greek freedom transitioned into a prolonged period of Greek local autonomy, facilitated by a discreet yet cumulative Roman exploitation and encroachment.Footnote ²² This environment fostered revitalized local agency and peer-polity interactions, with Delphi, the Amphictyony and foreign communities playing key geopolitical roles, as evidenced epigraphically in the Panhellenic sanctuary. During this gradual restoration of tranquillity to the Greek mainland and the generational turnover among the diverse Greek elites, Paullus’ pillar entered a second epigraphic phase between ca. 120 and ca. 100 BC, which will be the focus of this article (fig. 1).

Therefore, I argue that the Greek epigraphic reuse of Paullus’ monument provides invaluable insights into the complex and sometimes contradictory political transformations that characterized mainland Greece in the late second century BC. Specifically, I contend that, when contextualized and read together, these inscriptions demonstrate the presence of political communities with highly developed Late Hellenistic civic adaptive resilience in response to Roman victories and conquests, rather than merely indicating a short-lived political revival.

II. The second-century BC inscriptions on the Delphic pillar of Aemilius Paullus

Since Gaston Colin’s Reference Colin1930 analysis, there has been a notable absence of thorough examination of the inscriptions inscribed on the monument of the Roman imperator.Footnote ²³ Predominant are anecdotal references or, at best, partial studies on specific inscriptions.Footnote ²⁴ In the analysis below, each inscription will undergo careful scrutiny with a fourfold approach: a concise presentation of its components, the political contextualization for its inclusion on the monument, the reasons for its publication on the monument and, more importantly, their significance when studying Hellenistic resilience.

i. The unfinished Amphictyonic decree: independence, autonomy and Roman authority

The initial epigraphic reutilization of the monument took the form of an Amphictyonic decree in letters 1cm tall dated to between 120 and 115 BC (fig. 1, no. 2). The relatively regular inscription is situated on the lower left section of the western façade of the plinth, just beneath Paullus’ inscription (fig. 2). This Amphictyonic decree honours those who accused numerous individuals of misappropriating the sanctuary’s property.Footnote ²⁵

Figure 2.

Latin inscription (FD III.4.36) and below, on the left, an unfinished Amphictyonic decree (FD III.4.43), and on the right, Aristodemus’ proxeny (FD III.4.52).

Line drawing of a fragmentary inscribed block. A large Latin text occupies the upper half, beginning L. Aimilius L. f. imperator. Two smaller Greek inscriptions appear below, one on the left and one on the right.

Figure 2. Long description

The drawing shows the original Latin inscription commemorating Aemilius Paullus’ victory over Perseus and Macedonia dominating the centre of the façade. Beneath it, two later Greek inscriptions were added in the late second century BC: an unfinished Amphictyonic decree concerning sacred property disputes and a proxeny decree honouring Aristodemos of Patras. The spatial arrangement illustrates how Delphic and Amphictyonic authorities reused the Roman monument to associate local political legitimacy with Roman authority and interstate arbitration.

Despite being only partially engraved, the ten lines shed light on the motivation behind the decree’s placement on the monument, revealing that accused and accusers ‘appeal to the Roman Senate’.Footnote ²⁶ In functional terms, the decree combines two international practices: the established tradition in Delphi of commending those who reported irregularities in the management of Apollo’s property and the contemporary tendency to turn to the Roman Senate as the principal international arbitrator.Footnote ²⁷ However, this action is rooted in more specific historical motivations. In 191 BC, the Roman commander Manius Acilius Glabrio had already intervened on behalf of the sanctuary, restoring many of the properties that had been looted during Aetolian rule. Glabrio explicitly declared his personal commitment to supporting both the sanctuary and the Delphic polis and, the following year, the praetor Spurius Postumius Albinus joined Delphi’s ambassadors in Rome, where the Senate confirmed its independence, properties and tax exemptions.Footnote ²⁸ Furthermore, in 165 BC – two years after Paullus’ victory against Perseus and the erection of his monument – a new embassy and senatus consultum consolidated the sanctuary’s status.Footnote ²⁹ Given this context, the fact that the epigraphic authority here is the Amphictyony rather than the Delphic polis demonstrates the extent to which the League was striving to reclaim control over the sacred lands of the sanctuary.Footnote ³⁰ However, these pro-Delphic Roman interventions rendered the Amphictyonic efforts seemingly redundant, which may account for the unfinished state of the inscription on the monument.

Hence, placed in context, the Amphictyonic decree on Paullus’ pillar testifies to a concerted effort to solidify a proactively resilient relationship between the sanctuary of Delphi and Roman power early in the second century BC. The publication of the inscription on Paullus’ monument displays the conscious effort to monumentalize and safeguard a fresh and adaptive Delphic connection between the temporary military authority of the triumphant imperator Paullus and the enduring political authority – not interference – of the Roman Senate at the conclusion of the Third Macedonian War.

ii. Thessaly and Rome: Pherecrates and Paullus in a Hellenistic pro-Roman perspective

A decade later, in 106 BC, a second reuse is attested on the third level of the same western façade of the monument (fig. 1, no. 3). This addition comprised three honorary inscriptions of 17, 21 and 14 surviving lines, each featuring letters sized 6–8mm tall, rather thickly cut and engraved in a fairly irregular fashion (fig. 3). Two were dedicated by the polis of Delphi, while the third was by the Amphictyony, all of them honouring Menecrates and Isagoras, sons of Pherecrates, who served as stratēgoi of the Thessalian League in 142 BC.Footnote ³¹ While the honorands were granted customary Hellenistic proxeny-related religious, political and fiscal privileges (προμαντϵία, προδικία, ἀσυλία, ἀτέλϵια and προϵδρία), the reasons behind their inclusion on the monument years later require further analysis.Footnote ³²

Figure 3.

Proxeny decree for Isagoras and sons (FD III.4.51).

Line drawing of the surviving pedestal of the Column of Aemilius Paullus at Delphi. Large rectangular stone blocks preserve fragmentary Latin inscriptions on the front face.

Figure 3. Long description

The figure presents the proxeny decree honouring Isagoras and the family of Pherecrates, members of the Thessalian League connected to the pro-Roman political order established after the Macedonian Wars. Engraved on the monument in 106 BC, the inscription reflects the integration of Thessalian elites into Delphic and Amphictyonic networks under Roman hegemony. Its placement on Paullus’ monument linked Thessalian freedom and prestige with the memory of Roman victory over Macedonia.

As vividly depicted by the Daochos monument in Delphi, the interplay between the Thessalian League and Delphi peaked in the late fourth century BC, only to wane under the influence of Macedonia over the ensuing two centuries.Footnote ³³ Nevertheless, following Flamininus’ victory over Philip V in 196 BC during the Second Macedonian War, the Roman commander liberated and revitalized the League, reinstating its independence and international autonomy.Footnote ³⁴ This pro-Roman era of freedom and prosperity found expression in the commemorative federal festivities aptly named the EleutheriaFootnote ³⁵ and, following his triumph over Perseus at Pydna in 167 BC, the imperator Paullus directed special attention to acknowledging the Thessalian League for its invaluable contributions and sacrifices in resisting Antigonid power and supporting Roman forces in their victory. As attested by Paullus’ missive and the senatorial commission advocating for Demophilus before the leaders of Gonnoi, he actively sought to cultivate and safeguard Greek alliances in the post-war period, underscoring, through both deeds and words, the regional and international significance of the post-war relationship between Thessaly and the imperator.Footnote ³⁶ Concurrently, the family of Pherecrates had recently emerged in Thessalian political history. Originally from Crannon, their migration to Larissa in the late third century BC was probably a consequence of demographic reforms promoted by Philip V, inspired by the king’s explicit reference to the mythical Roman asylum of Romulus.Footnote ³⁷ From that moment, this family would assume various roles of high political responsibility within the new Thessalian League.Footnote ³⁸

As in various instances across Greece, Roman triumphs fostered the ascent of new political figures within families, factions and Hellenistic organizations in Thessaly.Footnote ³⁹ In this case, Pherecrates appears to have adeptly aligned himself with the pro-Roman Thessalian faction. In an effort to solidify his family’s international influence under the auspices of a reconfigured Delphic Amphictyony within a liberated polis and sanctuary, the placement on Paullus’ Delphic monument held a key historical resonance by the end of the second century BC. This was a prosperous family, enjoying freedom under Roman dominance and publicly endorsing Thessalian liberation by the Roman imperator through mention and proclamation of their honours during Delphic international celebrations (the Pythia and Soteria) as well as during their newly established foundational festival: the Eleutheria.Footnote ⁴⁰ Moreover, the participation of both Delphic and Amphictyonic authorities in these decrees shows an exceptional attempt to exploit every international network available.Footnote ⁴¹

The personal, political and religious freedoms of the Thessalians converged and were realigned under the monumentalized name of Paullus in Delphi. Much like Daochos and the Thessalian League in the past, by the late second century BC Pherecrates and his sons aspired to participate proactively in what appeared to be a developing and resiliently adapted system of local and regional Hellenistic power dynamics, with triumphant Roman imperatores taking a prominent role.

iii. Aristodemus of Patras and Delphi: Philhellenic memory under Roman power

Two years later, in 104 BC, a third reuse occurs with the placement of a new 21-line inscription, directly beneath that of Paullus, with letters of irregular size between 6 and 8mm – just like the Pherecrates decrees – and located beside the incomplete Amphictyonic decree (fig. 1, no. 4 and fig. 2). Here, an Aristodemus of Patras is praised by the polis of Delphi for unspecified ‘services’ rendered to the city, receiving, along with the customary honours, the most distinguished ones: a crown, a bronze statue and the proclamation of these honours during the Pythian and Soteria games.Footnote ⁴² Concerning Patras during this period, our literary sources provide the anecdotal mention of Xenon of Patras, a stratēgos whose neutrality during the war and defiant attitude towards the post-war senatorial commission led to his trial in Rome and, in all likelihood, his forced exile in Italy (Paus. 7.10.9–10). Without further details, the political reasons for including Aristodemus from Patras on this monument remain obscure. Perhaps, as the decree includes the phrase ἐν τῶι ἐπιφανϵστάτωι τόπωι – that its installation must be ‘in a place of the greatest prominence’ – the motivation is strictly practical, and it was inscribed there for its visibility on the terrace.Footnote ⁴³ However, two elements may help further elucidate the historical reasons for this placement.

On the one hand, in 279 BC, Patras held the exceptional distinction of being the sole Achaean state to have provided military support to Delphi against the Galatian invasion, enduring significant losses (Paus. 7.18.6, 10.22.6). However, the Hellenistic world allotted the glory for this victory over the barbarian invaders to the Aetolian League up until the second century BC, when Aetolia and its pro-Hellenic Delphic propaganda were definitively subdued by Rome after the Roman-Seleucid War.Footnote ⁴⁴ Facing this propaganda vacuum, Patras could seize the political opportunity to reinstate its own pro-Hellenic propaganda through the special relationship born from the city’s past sacrifices regarding the sanctuary, which may also suggest why Delphi acted as the sole honorific authority in this instance. Nevertheless, such motivations would have needed to consider the new Roman hegemony, the process of Roman provincialization and Roman-endorsed Delphic independence, thereby motivating a much more cautious and pro-Roman approach.Footnote ⁴⁵

On the other hand, similar to the case of Pherecrates, Aristodemus emerges as part of a new pro-Roman elite, with his city assuming a new prominent political as well as commercial role following the period between the subjugation of Illyria by Paullus and the destruction of Corinth by Mummius in 146 BC in the ensuing regional upheavals.Footnote ⁴⁶ Additionally, parts of the equestrian monument promised to Aristodemus by Delphi were found in 1918 and 1961, installed precisely in the so-called ‘Roman agora’ of the sanctuary. Revealingly, the inscription also referred to Aristodemus’ son, probably sent as a pro-Roman ambassador or consultant by his father to aid Delphi in an emergency now unknown.Footnote ⁴⁷

Consequently, alongside the merely practical argument of a visible and prominent location for display, other historical and symbolic factors may have played a role in its conspicuous publication: as part of a new pro-Roman elite, Aristodemus could erase the uncomfortable neutrality of his fellow citizen Xenon. Moreover, this act, when associated with Roman claims to have liberated Delphi and Greece more widely, might have revived Delphi’s earlier debt of gratitude to Patras. In both respects, placing Aristodemus’ honours on this monument would have had a significant impact on Greek and Roman audiences alike. The explicit reference in the decree that its installation must be ‘in a place of the greatest prominence’ (ἐν τῶι ἐπιφανϵστάτωι τόπωι) underscores a deliberate effort by the sanctuary, Patras and Aristodemus’ family to assign to the surfaces and spaces of Paullus’ monument a valuable and innovative international role: a resilient Hellenistic memory of Patras–Delphi relations proactively rehashed under Paullus’ military authority and Roman hegemony.

iv. Scarpheia vs Thronium: local victory in a Graeco-Roman perspective

During the final years of the second century BC, an intricate series of Amphictyonic decrees concerning territorial disputes between the cities of Thronium and Scarpheia were meticulously recorded on the Paullus monument, in thick and rather untidy letters between 8 and 10mm tall (fig. 1, nos 5.1–5.5; figs 4 and 5). Originally, these inscriptions occupied substantial portions of the northern and eastern façades of the pedestal, strategically oriented towards the Apollo altar on the terrace, thereby ensuring a heightened visibility, since they were arranged in accordance with the natural movement of its spectators: after reading the main Latin inscription, they would then circle the monument from the spacious northeastern section of the terrace to admire it properly – and read its inscribed surfaces.Footnote ⁴⁸ These inscriptions concern a territorial dispute between the two cities, with implications for their participation in the Amphictyony. Seeking a resolution, Scarpheia demanded Roman arbitration, only for the verdict to favour Thronium.Footnote ⁴⁹

Figure 4.

Dispute between Thronium and Scarpheia, inscriptions on the northern façade (in numerical order: FD III.4.38, 4.39, 4.40 and 4.41).

Line drawing of the north façade of the pedestal of the Column of Aemilius Paullus at Delphi. Fragmentary inscriptions concerning the dispute between Thronium and Scarpheia are carved across adjoining stone blocks.

Figure 4. Long description

The figure identifies the placement of several Amphictyonic inscriptions concerning the late second-century BC dispute between Thronium and Scarpheia over territory and Amphictyonic representation. Positioned on the highly visible northeast section of the pedestal, the inscriptions demonstrate how Greek communities reused the Roman monument to publicize local political victories and legitimize interstate claims through association with Roman authority and Delphic arbitration.

Figure 5.

Dispute between Thronium and Scarpheia, inscription on the eastern façade (FD III.4.42).

Line drawing of the east façade of the pedestal of the Column of Aemilius Paullus at Delphi. Fragmentary Greek inscriptions relating to the dispute between Thronium and Scarpheia are carved on large stone blocks.

Figure 5. Long description

The figure shows the principal inscription from the territorial dispute between Thronium and Scarpheia carved on the east façade of the monument pedestal. The text preserves the dramatic first-person claims of Thronium against Scarpheia and formed part of a broader Amphictyonic dossier publicly displayed on the monument. Its placement connected Thronium’s legal and political triumph with the enduring symbolic authority of Aemilius Paullus’ Roman victory monument.

A meticulous examination of each inscription reveals a pivotal clue in one of its texts (fig. 6), where Thronium speaks in the first person: ‘But you, city of Scarpheia, you challenged my rights through wicked fallacies, seeking to steal what is rightfully mine…’.Footnote ⁵⁰ This dramatic language, theatrically concluding the dispute, confidently suggests that it was Thronium and not Scarpheia that, in conjunction with the sanctuary, benefited from this monument to assert the legitimacy of its cause.

Figure 6.

Detail of FD III.4.38.

Line drawing of the Greek inscription FD III.4.38 = PH240149 carved on a stone block. The surface preserves several lines of carefully cut letters, with visible wear and damage along the edges of the inscription.

Figure 6. Long description

The figure highlights part of the Amphictyonic inscription FD III.4.38 relating to the territorial conflict between Thronium and Scarpheia in the late second century BC. The text preserves highly rhetorical language defending Thronium’s claims against its rival city. Inscribed on the Roman monument at Delphi, the decree illustrates how Greek political communities reused the symbolic prestige of Paullus’ victory monument to reinforce local authority, legal legitimacy and interstate visibility under Roman hegemony.

Expanding upon this latest piece of evidence, a significantly more potent subtext becomes apparent in the interplay of text, space and surface. The recent history of Scarpheia should be placed in perspective at this point: looted by the Romans following their triumph over Antiochus III at Thermopylae in 191 BC and later, in 145 BC, serving as the location for the definitive defeat and humiliation of Greek resistance, Scarpheia had a shameful record regarding its dealings with Rome.Footnote ⁵¹ Hence, at this particular juncture, Thronium dealt another ignominious blow to its Locrian neighbour. By epigraphically associating itself with the Roman monument on the Apollo terrace, Thronium not only solidified but also intricately linked its triumph over Scarpheia with the Roman presence in Greece, thereby demonstrating its proactive political resilience. This astute manoeuvre involved a strategic reuse of the most unequivocal material embodiment of Roman authority and legitimacy stemming from military conquests at Delphi at the time. As a skilful echo of its Latin inscription and the Roman conquest condensed by its monumentalized presence, if Paullus ‘took’ from the Macedonians, Thronium now, in turn, ‘took’ from Scarpheia.Footnote ⁵²

v. Lex de Provinciis Praetoriis: a new provincial age

Lastly, with 7.5mm letters and a very irregular layout, the monument harbours on the first third of its pillar an epigraphic document of approximately 80 lines inscribed towards the end of the second century BC or the beginning of the first, identified as the Lex de Provinciis Praetoriis (fig. 1, no. 6 and fig. 7).Footnote ⁵³ In stark contrast to its predecessors, this inscription is notably distinctive: a senatus consultum translated from Latin into Greek and outlining numerous financial and military provisions for the impending conflict against Mithridates VI of Pontus.Footnote ⁵⁴ In conjunction with Paullus’ inscription, this plebiscitum is the most extensively recognized scriptural engraving on the monument, and justifiably so, since it serves as pivotal epigraphic evidence clarifying the consolidation of Rome’s representation of Greece as a provincial domain.Footnote ⁵⁵ Unfortunately, due to the condition of the first block, it is not possible to ascertain whether it was addressed to the Amphictyony or the city of Delphi.Footnote ⁵⁶

Figure 7.

Surviving fragments of the Lex de Provinciis Praetoriis at Delphi (FD III.4.37).

Line drawing of stone fragments of the Lex de Provinciis Praetoriis displayed on the surface of the Monument of Aemilius Paullus at Delphi. Several inscribed blocks with fragmentary Greek text are arranged in rows across the column.

Figure 7. Long description

The figure shows surviving fragments of the Greek version of the Lex de Provinciis Praetoriis engraved on the upper levels of the Monument of Aemilius Paullus during the late second or early first century BC. Unlike earlier honorific inscriptions clustered beneath Paullus’ dedication, this senatorial document occupied a dominant elevated position on the column. The inscription reflects the growing assertion of Roman senatorial authority in Greece and the adaptation of Delphic epigraphic practices to the realities of Roman provincial expansion.

In the context of this paper, the Lex de Provinciis Praetoriis represents the first instance where the monument serves as an international platform for asserting unequivocal senatorial power and dominion.Footnote ⁵⁷ Here, a marked shift in the epigraphic reuse of the monument occurs. Earlier inscriptions had been placed beneath Paullus’ Latin inscription on the lower quadrants of the base and plinth, in significantly smaller letters and as part of an honorific cluster of communities operating under Roman authority. The Lex, by contrast, was inscribed on three or four levels of the western side of the column (fig. 1, no. 6; figs 7 and 8).Footnote ⁵⁸

Figure 8.

Overview of Aemilius Paullus’ inscriptions on the main façade.

Overview of the main façade of the monument of Aemilius Paullus at Delphi. Large inscribed stone blocks preserve fragmentary Latin and Greek texts distributed across the pedestal of the structure.

Figure 8. Long description

The reconstruction visualizes the cumulative epigraphic reuse of the monument from 167 to ca. 100 BC. Earlier Greek honorific inscriptions cluster beneath Paullus’ Latin dedication, while the Lex de Provinciis Praetoriis occupies the upper levels, reflecting the growing authority of the Roman Senate in Delphi.

This shift not only dominates spatially but also semantically subordinates the preceding epigraphic arrangement to a new configuration. As a result, the overall interpretation of the monument is altered, with the message of the Roman Senate taking precedence over that of the imperator, thereby hierarchically organizing the rest. This transition marks a shift from reuse to a profound resignification of the Roman monument in Delphi. Epigraphically, the transformation reveals that, nearly half a century after Paullus’ victory, Roman codes of monumentalization had become intricately interwoven with resilient Hellenistic traditions. This integration allowed the sanctuary to acknowledge and inscribe the authority of the Senate, which took precedence over that of the individual imperator. This process can be described as ‘intersignification’, that is, the Roman integration of the monument into a competitive process of including, modifying and appropriating monuments to the glory of a specific republican political agent. Viewed from this perspective, the monument could be considered a senatorial ‘strategic assemblage of signs’, subject to Hellenistic intersignification through Delphic ‘intermediality’.Footnote ⁵⁹ However, it is worth noting that the 7.5mm letters of the Lex are among the smallest, especially when compared to the significantly larger text of Paullus’ inscription (7.3cm). This, combined with the height at which it was inscribed, makes the choice of its placement rather paradoxical: spatially superior, yet virtually illegible compared to the original Latin.Footnote ⁶⁰

Beyond this apparent contradiction, the placement of this minute yet powerful inscription on Paullus’ monument reveals more profound historical implications for our study. It demonstrates, on the one hand, a conflicting transition in the honorific practices of Delphi and the Amphictyony in response to Roman external dominance.Footnote ⁶¹ On the other hand, it strongly suggests that these authorities were responding to an internal tension within Roman expansionism: the shift from the imperator auctor to the auctoritas senatus, that is, from the Roman commander acting as an unregulated international agent to the reassertion of the Senate’s hegemonic power in the East.Footnote ⁶² Thus, the inconsistencies revealed by the size and placement of the Lex de Provinciis Praetoriis, both spatially and epigraphically, exemplify the ongoing adaptations of Delphi and its political agents in response to the rapid political transformations imposed by Roman authority. Yet another sign of proactive resilience in progress.

Nonetheless, at the time of the Lex de Provinciis Praetoriis, the Greeks at Delphi were unaware that the Mithridatic Wars would drag Rome into another violent, unstable and perplexing period, greatly challenging their frail geopolitical assessments: radical anti-Roman allegiances, local as well as regional massacres, and three long and exhausting military conflicts, which would lead, among many profound disturbances, to the sacking of Delphi itself by the Roman imperator Sulla.Footnote ⁶³

III. Conclusion: the Roman événement and Hellenistic political resilience

Concluding this brief analysis of the Greek inscriptions engraved on the Paullus monument throughout the second century BC, it is now possible to discuss their historical significance as an ensemble. In this regard, three noteworthy observations emerge: first, each Delphic or Amphictyonic inscription has a direct and an indirect relationship with Rome and its imperatores, alternatively aspiring to establish, recover or consolidate various ties with the new Roman hegemony and the Panhellenic space of the sanctuary. Second, none of the inscriptions attests to the creation of international connections among the Greek political agents present on the monument. On the contrary, what predominate here are hermetically arranged associations around the past and present legitimacy of Roman power over the Hellenistic geopolitical order. Third, the spatial arrangement of the inscriptions on the monument keeps the imperator’s initial inscription – placed on the western surface of the pedestal – as its primary focus of epigraphic aggregation until the end of the second century BC, when the Lex de Provinciis Praetoriis redirects its audiences towards the top of the pillar, albeit in an ambivalent manner. The first – and rather superficial – conclusion is that the Paullus monument is an extremely complex aggregation of epigraphic testimonies, reflecting an era whose violent conflicts, accelerated changes and radical reforms make comprehensive study a significant interpretive challenge. However, for a deeper examination, three possible theories are available.

Firstly, the monument could be understood as a carefully orchestrated piece of pro-Roman propaganda.Footnote ⁶⁴ Nevertheless, the endeavour to identify a so-called ‘language of images’ – where art consists of formal choices dictated by the social and political content intended to be conveyed to diverse and unforeseen recipients – proves difficult to substantiate convincingly in historical terms for this case. This monument and its inscriptions are situated in a historical epoch characterized by the fluctuation of both Roman military goals and Delphic epigraphical authorities, the steadfast power of the Senate and the concerns of Hellenistic allied powers grappling with the unprecedented process of realignment within the new political framework led by Rome.Footnote ⁶⁵ Moreover, this interpretation tends towards reductionism, focusing solely on continuity at the expense of the complexities inherent in historical phenomena. Specifically, studies predominantly concentrate on the combat frieze, with a tendency to categorize the monument holistically as belonging to the ‘late’ phase of Hellenistic visual propaganda, a ‘prelude’ to imperial artistic propaganda or an artistic unicum.Footnote ⁶⁶

Secondly, the Paullus monument could be understood as a lieu de mémoire, that is, a ‘place’ or ‘space’ to which a community or collective attributes a range of sentiments and emotions detached from temporality; in other words, a place of commemorative significance.Footnote ⁶⁷ In this regard, Paullus’ triumphal pillar might commemorate a collective Hellenic experience in the face of Roman conquest, involving diverse emotional and political negotiations. However, despite its initial appeal, the designation proves to be exceedingly complex to examine due to the intricate and fragmentary nature of the evidence available for this historical context. If anything, the epigraphic reuses during this period reveal the lack of a collective consensus concerning the monument’s precise political and emotional significance.Footnote ⁶⁸ Hence, it is problematic to consistently and clearly identify specific emotional and commemorative processes,Footnote ⁶⁹ especially since no Delphic ritual or festival ever incorporated the Paullus monument, not even the Romaia festival.Footnote ⁷⁰

Thirdly, inspired by the theoretical insights of François Dosse, I propose to ponder this historical case from an alternative perspective. In Dosse’s historiographical framework, the concept of the événement (‘event’ or ‘happening’) underscores the disruption and singularity of historical occurrences. This approach highlights the unique and unpredictable nature of events, portraying life and history as a series of distinctive and unforeseeable moments.Footnote ⁷¹ This approach aims to elucidate their situated significance, suggesting a nuanced and reflective comprehension of their historicity, which, in this case, assists us in understanding the complex second-century BC Greek epigraphical perception of the Roman conquest. Rather than conventionally interpreting this period of conquest as the conclusion of one historical stage or the precursor to another, Dosse reminds us of the necessity of understanding these events in their particular context, of avoiding ahistorical interpretations and of considering the challenges their comprehension posed for the Greeks.Footnote ⁷² In this regard, studies centred on Polybius have already shown evidence of Greek communities struggling with the singularity of the Roman événement through literary representations in his work: the western storm or ‘Clouds from the West’, or the virtuous king turned into a monstrous ‘wolf to man’, and Greek public opinion described as a thoughtless mob cheering on an undecided boxing match between Perseus and Rome.Footnote ⁷³ Additionally, it is worth recalling that Polybius himself, through his causal theory, repeatedly strives to apprehend this historical process, which he refers to as an unprecedented and almost incredible event.Footnote ⁷⁴

The epigraphic reuse of the Paullus monument can then be comprehended within an alternative historical framework, specifically as a monumental testimony to the Hellenistic bewilderment caused by the événement of the Roman conquest. From the late second century BC onwards, Greece found itself thrust into a rapid succession of wars that left many Hellenistic communities perplexed. Faced with this scenario and entangled between political continuity and discontinuity, Roman victories against Greek powers would not have been readily nor unequivocally understood as decisive victories of Rome over Greece as a whole. If anything, the interpretations of these events were always current and varied, each understanding depending on which Greeks were defeated by which Romans at specific times and places. More importantly for Paullus’ monument, the varying perceptions of Roman successes by different communities led them to spatialize their self-identification or association with these victorious Romans through epigraphic means.

It is important to remember that the surfaces of the monument would continue to receive honorific text. In the first century BC, following the Lex de Provinciis Praetoriis, most new inscriptions reverted to more ‘traditional’ locations on the plinth, next to Paullus’ text.Footnote ⁷⁵ Later, in the first and second centuries AD, ever more inscriptions would reach the upper levels of the column itself,Footnote ⁷⁶ with a proxeny decree honouring the emperor Trajan crowning the new epigraphical reuse and virtually renaming the monument in imperial terms.Footnote ⁷⁷ However, notwithstanding these later stages, epigraphic evidence from the last quarter of the second century BC demonstrates how various Greek political actors resiliently endeavoured to proactively mobilize material and ideological resources in order to integrate the Roman victories within traditional epigraphic mechanisms, spatial strategies and universally recognizable honorific systems. Through their epigraphic reuse of Paullus’ victory over Macedonia, Delphi, the Amphictyonic League and foreign communities repeatedly attempted to spatialize and materialize a new geopolitical order. Ultimately, they created a monument that epitomized the acute transitional crisis of their political world-views in the second century BC. The rapid pace of Roman expansionism overwhelmed both Greeks and Romans alike. In this context, Paullus’ monument illustrates the Roman événement and the Hellenistic political strategies intended to endure and adapt to the constantly changing Roman hegemony. Thus, it highlights how Greek Panhellenic honorific practices continually evolved in response to the shifting dynamics between Greek communities and both the Senate and the imperatores.Footnote ⁷⁸

Acknowledgements

This article is an output of the Fondecyt project No. 3250209, funded by ANID (Agencia Nacional de Investigación y Desarrollo), Chile. I am deeply grateful to Filippo Coarelli, François Cadiou, Laurence Cavalier, Didier Laroche, Anne Jacquemin, Milagros Navarro Caballero, Felipe Soza, Daniel Nieto, Lin Foxhall and Judith Mossman, editors of the Journal of Hellenic Studies, and the anonymous reviewers for their insightful suggestions and comments. Their feedback has been invaluable in refining and enhancing this work. All remaining errors are, of course, my own.

Abbreviations

Choix = Jacquemin, A., Mulliez, D. and Rougemont, G. (2012) Choix d’inscriptions de Delphes (Athens)

Footnotes

¹ Starting with Alcock (Reference Alcock1993); Rizakis (Reference Rizakis1995). More recently, see Shipley (Reference Shipley2018); Beck and Smith (Reference Beck and Smith2018); Beck (Reference Beck2020); Kalliontzis (Reference Kalliontzis2020); Lucas (Reference Lucas2023); Bernini (Reference Bernini2023).

² On the term ‘resilience’, see Quenault (Reference Quenault, García-Acosta and Musset2017); Tisseron (Reference Tisseron2021). For its use in classical studies, see Kowalski (Reference Kowalski2017); Engerbeaud (Reference Engerbeaud2019); Maranzana (Reference Maranzana, Erdkamp, Manning and Verboven2021); Guelfucci (Reference Guelfucci and Battistoni2022); Bady et al. (Reference Bady, Boubounelle, Vlamos, Bady, Boubounelle and Vlamos2023) 30–31; Bats et al. (Reference Bats, Lacam and Laignoux2023). For ‘risk society’, see Peretti-Watel (Reference Peretti-Watel2010); Toner (Reference Toner2023). An effective use of both concepts is made in Thély (Reference Thély2016).

³ Kulig et al. (Reference Kulig, Edge, Townshend, Lightfoot and Reimer2013).

⁴ On the classical interplay between formal and informal political agencies, see Azoulay (Reference Azoulay2014).

⁵ Carpenter et al. (Reference Carpenter, Walker, Anderies and Abel2001); Juffé (Reference Juffé2013); Quenault (Reference Quenault, García-Acosta and Musset2017).

⁶ For insights into the spatial turn in classical research and recent developments in Hellenistic epigraphy, see Ma (Reference Ma2013); Bernini (Reference Bernini2023) 9–12.

⁷ Jacquemin (Reference Jacquemin1999); Lefèvre et al. (Reference Lefèvre, Laroche and Masson2002); Galli (Reference Galli and Galli2013); Grzesik (Reference Grzesik2019); (Reference Grzesik2021).

⁸ Eckstein (Reference Eckstein2008); Brisson (Reference Brisson2022).

⁹ Sánchez (Reference Sánchez2001) 269–363.

¹⁰ Jacquemin (Reference Jacquemin, Marc and Moretti2001); Galli (Reference Galli and Galli2013) 13–27; Grzesik (Reference Grzesik2021) 40–62.

¹¹ On Hellenistic and Roman audiences in Delphi during this time, see Galli (Reference Galli and Galli2013) 23–27. On this subject, particular attention should be given to Glabrio’s letter to Delphi in 190 BC. Glabrio specifically mentions the existence of lodging facilities for Roman citizens within the sanctuary (Syll. ³ 609 l. 1: ὑπάρχϵιν κατάλυμα τοῖς ἡμϵτέροις πολίταις). Hence, by the time of Paullus’ monument, Roman visitors were well integrated as a regular foreign audience.

¹² Grzesik (Reference Grzesik2018) 31–32. Tensions between the Amphictyony and the city arose from disputes over territorial control, economic resources and jurisdictional authority, particularly after sacred lands were transferred to private citizens. The city’s assumption of traditional Amphictyonic roles, such as managing the Pythian Games, furthered these conflicts, and the overlap of religious and civic functions blurred the lines of authority, intensifying friction. See Grzesik (Reference Grzesik2021) 40–62.

¹³ On these literary mentions and Paullus’ travels across Greece after the war, see Russell (Reference Russell, Smith and Yarrow2012). On the archaeological discovery, see Homolle (Reference Homolle1897).

¹⁴ Kähler (Reference Kähler1965); Laroche and Jacquemin (Reference Laroche and Jacquemin1982) 208–18; Taylor (Reference Taylor2016).

¹⁵ CIL I², 622 = III, 14203; ILLRP 323; Syll.³ 652a; Choix 161.

¹⁶ Shatzman (Reference Shatzman1972); Churchill (Reference Churchill1999); Welch (Reference Welch, Dillon and Welch2006); Tarpin (Reference Tarpin, Coudry and Humm2009); Beck (Reference Beck, Helm and Roselaar2023); Vout (Reference Vout, de Jong and Versluys2023).

¹⁷ For the cepit formula, see Waurick (Reference Waurick1977); Tarpin (Reference Tarpin, Ferriès and Delrieux2013) 97–98; Aberson (Reference Aberson and Crété2016); Díaz-Ariño (Reference Díaz Ariño and Remesal2016); Luci (Reference Luci and Cousins2022). On the viewer’s gaze in epigraphic contexts, see Ma (Reference Ma2013) 59.

¹⁸ For example, Rawson (Reference Rawson, Astin, Walbank, Frederiksen and Ogilvie1989) 463; Hallett (Reference Hallett2006) 139–41; Pollini (Reference Pollini2012) 78–79.

¹⁹ Grzesik (Reference Grzesik2021) 166–69.

²⁰ Sánchez (Reference Sánchez2001) 364–420. Also, the previous cases of the praetor L. Hortensius and the consul Licinius must be considered; see Livy 42.63.3–12, 43.4.5 and 43.7.5–8.19. On violence carried out by imperatores, see Jacquemin (Reference Jacquemin, Marc and Moretti2001). Specifically, on Mummius, see Lippolis (Reference Lippolis2004). For Glabrio, see Livy 36.20.2–4; Sordi (Reference Sordi, Roesch and Argoud1985) 265–69; Kalliontzis (Reference Kalliontzis2020) 124–25. On Delphi’s uncomfortable past, see Lefèvre et al. (Reference Lefèvre, Laroche and Jacquemin1995).

²¹ On the Hellenistic honorific system and Delphi, see Quass (Reference Quass1993); Ma (Reference Ma2013); Biard (Reference Biard2017) 387–92; Grzesik (Reference Grzesik2021) 13–39. On the correlation between historical context and honorific decrees, see Luraghi (Reference Luraghi, Foxhall, Gehrke and Luraghi2010) 254–59 and Kralli (Reference Kralli1999–2000) 148–59.

²² See Ma (Reference Ma2024) 269–79, where he refers to this period of local Greek freedom between 150 and 80 BC as ‘The Indian Summer of the Polis’.

²³ Colin (Reference Colin1930) 5–18 = FD III.4.

²⁴ Namely, on the Lex de Provinciis Praetoriis (Crawford (Reference Crawford1996) 1.231–70; Braga (Reference Braga2014)) and the Amphictyonic decree (Rousset Reference Rousset, Biville, Decourt and Rougemont2008).

²⁵ FD III.4.43 = CID IV.118; Choix 174.

²⁶ FD III.4.43 ll. 7–8: καταφυγόντϵς δὲ καὶ ἐπὶ τὴν σύγκλητον τὴν Ῥωμαίων.

²⁷ On honouring denouncers, for two cases in the third century BC, see FD III.2.205 (= SIG ³ 416; CID IV.22) and SGDI 2516 (= SIG ³ 418-A; FD III.3.185; CID IV.25). On Rome as a new and central international player, see Gruen (Reference Gruen1984) 101–31 with FD III.2.70a (= SIG ³ 705).

²⁸ Rousset (Reference Rousset2002) 250–69, inscr. 41 (Glabrio) and FD III.4.353 (= Holleaux (Reference Holleaux1930) 38–39; CID IV.104) (Albinus).

²⁹ Holleaux (Reference Holleaux1930) 38–39. On the continuation of this Roman intervention after the second century BC: Rousset (Reference Rousset, Biville, Decourt and Rougemont2008).

³⁰ Discussion in Grzesik (Reference Grzesik2021) 41.

³¹ FD III.4.49–51 = CID IV.128. Thessalian coinages with the names of Pherecrates and Isagoras as stratēgos of the Confederacy in Rogers (Reference Rogers1932) 23–24 (specially 49a and 51b).

³² On Late Hellenistic proxeny decrees: Mack (Reference Mack2015) 112, 233–81; Grzesik (Reference Grzesik2021) 75–82.

³³ On the relationship between the Daochos monument, Delphi and Macedonia: Sánchez (Reference Sánchez2001) 220–68; Aston (Reference Aston2012); Martinez (Reference Martinez2021) 2.583–625.

³⁴ Polyb. 18.46.5; Livy 34.51.4–6; Plut. Flam. 10.4, 12.3. See specially Pfeilschifter (Reference Pfeilschifter2005) 278–324; Graninger (Reference Graninger2011) 27–37; Bouchon and Helly (Reference Bouchon, Helly, Funke and Haake2013) 218–23.

³⁵ Subsequently, in the aftermath of the Second Macedonian War, a second celebration was added to acknowledge the League’s instrumental role in aiding the Roman army under Publius Licinius Crassus against the Antigonid king Perseus during the Battle of Callinicus in 171 BC. See Meloni (Reference Meloni1953) 230–36; Helly (Reference Helly1995) 264–72.

³⁶ Bouchon (Reference Bouchon2014).

³⁷ IG IX 2.517 (= Syll.³ 543), ll. 29–34. See Dench (Reference Dench2005) 250 and Oetjen (Reference Oetjen, Reger, Ryan and Winters2010).

³⁸ Third century BC: origins in Crannon (IG IX.2 459 l. 11) and moving to Larissa (RDGE 33 = Syll.³ 543); Kramolisch (Reference Kramolisch1978) 35. End of third–early second century BC: IG IX.2 516, 507. Middle/end second century BC: FD III.4.49–51. Around 48 BC: IG IX.2 540. See Kramolisch (Reference Kramolisch1978) 87–88, 119–20; Graninger (Reference Graninger2011) 166–68 n.44.

³⁹ Similarly, it is worth noting the case of the Thessalian Philon, who negotiated a peace agreement after the Battle of Scarpheia with the Achaeans on behalf of Metellus. Shortly thereafter, in 132/1 BC, Philon himself would become the general of the Thessalian League. See Polyb. 38.17.3–4; Kramolisch (Reference Kramolisch1978) 73–74; Walbank (Reference Walbank1979) 715; Graninger (Reference Graninger2011) 38 n.126.

⁴⁰ It is not coincidental that these honours bestowed upon Isagoras, son of Pherecrates, should be proclaimed both during the Delphic Pythian and Soteria festivals, as well as during the Thessalian Eleutheria (FD III.4.49, ll. 13–15: καὶ ποιήσασθαι | τὰν ἀναγόρϵυσιν τᾶς ϵἰκόνος ἐν τῶι γυμνικῶι ἀγῶνι τῶν Πυθίων καὶ Σωτηρίων, ὁμοίως δὲ καὶ | ἐν Λαρίσαι ἐν τῶι ἀγῶνι τῶν Ἐλϵυθϵρίων ὧι τίθϵντι Θϵσσαλοί).

⁴¹ In this case, the honours conferred by the Amphictyony align with general trends, wherein the League bestowed gifts of a strictly honorific nature such as crowns, commendations, proedria, statues and xenia. See Grzesik (Reference Grzesik2021) 45–46. Although comparing the honours bestowed on the family of Pherecrates by the Delphic polis and the Amphictyony could reveal more differences in epigraphic practices, the fragmentary state of the Amphictyonic decree prevents a thorough analysis.

⁴² FD III.4.52.

⁴³ On the use of this formula, see Ma (Reference Ma2013) 113–50; Grzesik (Reference Grzesik2018) 30; (Reference Grzesik2021) 139–44; Bernini (Reference Bernini2022).

⁴⁴ On the rise and fall of the Aetolian League, see Grainger (Reference Grainger1995); (Reference Grainger1999) 407–548. On Aetolian propaganda after 279 BC in Delphi: Champion (Reference Champion1995); Martinez (Reference Martinez2021) 2.706–09.

⁴⁵ Similar cases and strategies in Herbin (Reference Herbin, Bonnin and Le Quéré2014); Melfi (Reference Melfi and Galli2013).

⁴⁶ The latter is evidenced in the renowned inscription of Dyme (Syll.³ 684 = RDGE 84). Here, after the Achaean War, the Roman proconsul utilized Patras as his operational base. Subsequently, the triumph of Patras would serve as a catalyst for Augustus, following his victory at Actium, to initiate Roman colonization concurrent with the establishment of Nikopolis (Paus. 7.18.7–9). This marked a pivotal juncture for the city, navigating the intersections of its historical and mythical Greek heritage with the burgeoning Roman influence. This accomplishment was facilitated through what Dijkstra (Reference Dijkstra, Dijkstra, Kuin, Moser and Weidgenannt2017) terms an ‘anchored innovation’, denoting the intentional and inventive amalgamation, orchestrated by Roman authority, of the foundational traditions of the polis. In this particular context, Patras adopted from Kalydon the worship of Artemis Laphria, reconfigured as ‘Diana Laphria’ (Paus. 7.18.8–9), thereby attesting to the success in solidifying a novel Graeco-Roman identity stemming from Hellenic traditions, orchestrated by the might of Roman governance.

⁴⁷ Bousquet (Reference Bousquet1961) 86.

⁴⁸ FD III.4.38–42; see also CID IV.123–26 and Choix 183.

⁴⁹ On the details of the dispute, see Ager (Reference Ager1996) 482–84; Sánchez (Reference Sánchez2001) 396–98; CID IV.124.

⁵⁰ FD III.4.38 ll. 14–16: τὺ δέ, πόλι Σκαρφέ | ων, ἀντιποιϵῖσαι κακοπραγμόνως κατασοφιζομένα, καὶ ἐξιδιάζϵσθα[ι θέ]-|λϵις ἀδίκως τὸ ἐμὶν ἐπιβάλλον μέρος τᾶς ἱϵρομναμοσύνας. On the dramatic language used by Thronium, see Choix, 183.

⁵¹ On the Battle of Thermopylae in 191 BC and Scarpheia: Livy 36.19.5–6; ILLRP 321a. For the battle of 145 BC: Paus. 7.15.3–4.

⁵² A similar epigraphical strategy had already been used by a Lucius Mummius Achaicus in Olympia (IG IV 2.306), on a monument in the shape of a ship’s prow formerly belonging to the Achaean koinon. See Melfi (Reference Melfi and Galli2013) 146–48. Perhaps it could be argued that Hellenistic states were adopting Roman epigraphical tactics in displaying dominance over each other. See Jacquemin (Reference Jacquemin, Marc and Moretti2001) 162–65.

⁵³ FD III.4.37 = Choix 184 (= IK 41, Knidos no. 31). English translation and commentary with bibliography in Crawford (Reference Crawford1996) 231–70. More recently: Braga (Reference Braga2014). It is important to highlight that the copy in Knidos has a completely different setting (warehouse walls in the northern area of the trireme harbour) and larger letters (between 10 and 15mm). See Braga (Reference Braga2014) 16–17.

⁵⁴ On the debate regarding the date, content and meaning of the Lex de Provinciis Praetoriis: Crawford (Reference Crawford1996) 231–33; Kallet-Marx (Reference Kallet-Marx1996); Ferrary (Reference Ferrary, Caldelli, Gregori and Orlandi2008); Giovannini (Reference Giovannini2008); Braga (Reference Braga2014) 49–73.

⁵⁵ Geelhaar (Reference Geelhaar2002) 116–17; Giovannini (Reference Giovannini2008) 106–07; Braga (Reference Braga2014) 75–83.

⁵⁶ Crawford (Reference Crawford1996) 258. The presence of the word κοινὸν in FD III.4.37 A1, l. 1 could indicate either a general reference to the Greek community or a specific mention of the Amphictyonic League. However, there is no conclusive evidence to confirm or disprove either possibility. In this regard, Braga proposed that the law was inscribed here at the request of the governor of Macedonia, who wished to publicize his authority over the Thracian Chersonese and the Caenica, recently conquered by Titus Didius. See Braga (Reference Braga2014) 20–21. However, evidence to substantiate this theory has yet to be discovered.

⁵⁷ This senatorial pre-eminence is underscored by the inscription, which repeatedly mentions the Senate and the people of Rome. See for example FD III.4.37 B1, ll. 2 and 6.

⁵⁸ On the principles of organization, see Ma (Reference Ma2013) 113–30.

⁵⁹ See Hölkeskamp (Reference Hölkeskamp, Smith and Sandberg2018).

⁶⁰ Braga (Reference Braga2014) 16: ‘e le piccole lettere, benché siano incise finemente, risultano di difficilissima lettura’.

⁶¹ Regarding the honorific habits relating to foreigners and foreign communities in Delphi, although the decree data are somewhat limited, it is possible to assert a preference for the erection of statues over the engraving of decrees. Moreover, based on the available data, it could be argued that both Delphi and the League viewed foreign decrees in the sanctuary as an unpleasant reminder of Aetolian and Macedonian dominance, hence the ambivalence towards the Roman document. See Grzesik (Reference Grzesik2021) 42–43.

⁶² Concerning the recipient of the copy in the sanctuary of Apollo (Delphi or the Amphictyony), the loss of the upper section (FD III.4.37 A1, ll. 1–10) renders it impossible to determine with certainty. On the shift from the imperator auctor to the auctoritas senatus: Sánchez (Reference Sánchez, Benoist, Daguet-Gagey and Hoët-van Cauwenberghe2011).

⁶³ On the Mithridatic Wars, specially the first, on the Greek mainland: Ñaco del Hoyo et al. (Reference Ñaco del Hoyo, Antela Bernárdez, Arrayás Morales, Busquets-Artigas, Hekster and Kaizer2011); (Reference Ñaco del Hoyo, Arrayás Morales, Antela Bernárdez and Busquets-Artigas2015); Arrayás Morales (Reference Arrayás Morales2016); Keaveney (Reference Keaveney2018); Zoumbaki (Reference Zoumbaki, Ñaco del Hoyo and López Sánchez2018). On the specific case of Thessaly: Bouchon (Reference Bouchon2007) 261–67. For central and southern Greece: Zoumbaki (Reference Zoumbaki, Eckert and Thein2020).

⁶⁴ Ferrary (Reference Ferrary1988) 559–60; Rawson (Reference Rawson, Astin, Walbank, Frederiksen and Ogilvie1989) 463; Gruen (Reference Gruen1992) 144–45; Alcock (Reference Alcock1993) 196. On the concept of ‘propaganda’ for antiquity: Meister (Reference Meister2021) 604–12.

⁶⁵ Hölscher (Reference Hölscher and Marconi2015) 666–73.

⁶⁶ Examples in Laroche and Jacquemin (Reference Laroche and Jacquemin1982) 210; Torelli (Reference Torelli1982) 119–35; Holliday (Reference Holliday2002) 91–96; Hallett (Reference Hallett2006) 139–41.

⁶⁷ An idea expressed but not expanded on by Pareti (Reference Pareti1953) 96 and then Flower (Reference Flower2006) 62. On the notion of the lieu de mémoire applied to the study of Greek and Roman interactions: Ma (Reference Ma, Boys-Stones, Graziosi and Vasunia2009); Grigoropoulos et al. (Reference Grigoropoulos, Di Napoli, Evangelidis, Camia, Rogers, Vlizos, Dijkstra, Kuin, Moser and Weidgenannt2017). For a thorough case study of collective memory and its topographical expression in Hellenistic civic values through inscriptions, see Bernini (Reference Bernini2022).

⁶⁸ Ma (Reference Ma2013) 150–51.

⁶⁹ A possibility already noted by Grzesik (Reference Grzesik2018) 38: ‘A collective memory space and much more beyond that, the Delphic temenos constituted an ideal spot to flaunt one’s power. Erectors of the monuments intended to shape what and who would be remembered by future generations. However, changes in the local statuary habit and the constant evolution of the monumental landscape at times skewed the message dedicators meant to convey.’

⁷⁰ On the Romaia and Delphi, see Mellor (Reference Mellor1975) 100–01; van Nijf and van Dijk (Reference van Nijf, van Dijk and Berthelot2020). The potential incompatibility of this interpretation for Paullus’ monument can be more extensively illustrated through comparison with the Gytheion dossier. See Facella and Letta (Reference Facella and Letta2022) 283–85.

⁷¹ Mainly Ricœur (Reference Ricoeur and Petit1991) 51–52; Dosse (Reference Dosse2010) 1–12; Goetschel and Granger (Reference Goetschel and Granger2011); Dosse (Reference Dosse2015) 21. Sewell’s notion of ‘eventful temporality’ is particularly noteworthy for the debate. This concept suggests that certain events can accelerate historical processes and bring about rapid change. In contrast to more gradual changes, these eventful moments are crucial for understanding historical dynamics. However, Sewell’s approach remains anchored in social structures and does not fully account for the perspectives of Dosse and Ricœur. Building on their work, I argue that eventful moments also interact with individual agency in ways that can transcend structural constraints. See Sewell (Reference Sewell2005) 225–70.

⁷² Following Paul Ricœur, our study of Greek powers and their agents may be skewed by our supra-signification of these events. This implies that we tend to view the Roman conquest of Greece exclusively as the primary source of new historical meanings for subsequent periods. See Ricœur (Reference Ricoeur and Petit1991) 51–52 and Goetschel and Granger (Reference Goetschel and Granger2011). On ahistorical interpretations, see Harris (Reference Harris2016) 42–43.

⁷³ This argument regarding Polybius has previously been explored by Champion (Reference Champion2000) and Erskine (Reference Erskine2013). For these examples, see respectively: Polyb. 5.104, 9.37.10 (Clouds from the West), 7.13.7–8 (Philip V as a ‘wolf to man’) and 27.9–10.5 (the Third Macedonian War as an undecided boxing match). See also 1.57.1–2. Besides Polybius, other examples in Kosmin (Reference Kosmin2018) 137–86 and Prieto (Reference Prieto2022).

⁷⁴ For example, see Polyb. 1.1.6 ὡς δ᾽ ἔστι παράδοξον καὶ μέγα τὸ πϵρὶ τὴν ἡμϵτέραν ὑπόθϵσιν, and 18.32.13 ἀπίστῳ τὸ γϵγονὸς ἐοικέναι.

⁷⁵ FD III.4.45–46, 53–55, 66 and 70–72. Exceptions: FD III.4.56, 57 and 69.

⁷⁶ FD III.4.59, 60–63, 68 and 73. Also in this period: FD III.4.47, 58 and 67–68. The last known inscription belongs to the third century AD: FD III.4.48.

⁷⁷ FD III.4.47. For the relation between Delphi and Roman emperors: Grzesik (2019) 214–16; (Reference Grzesik2021) 102–04. On the ideological process of reinscribing a civic monument or statue, see Ma (Reference Ma2013) 61–62.

⁷⁸ Dosse (Reference Dosse2010) 6–7. This atypical ‘a-memorial status’ accounts for the ‘in-between condition’ of this epigraphical stage of the monument. It was neither erased nor celebrated, but rather remained subdued from the first century BC until the sanctuary’s abandonment in Late Antiquity. See n.55 alongside Flower (Reference Flower2006) 1–16; Patterson (Reference Patterson, García Morcillo, Richardson and Santangelo2016).

References

Aberson, M. (2016) ‘L’implicite et l’explicite dans les inscriptions dédicatoires (république-empire)’, in Crété, M. (ed.), Discours et systèmes de représentation: modèles et transferts de l’écrit dans l’Empire romain. Actes des colloques de Nice (septembre 2009–décembre 2010) (Besançon) 103–19Google Scholar

Ager, S.L. (1996) Interstate Arbitrations in the Greek World, 337–90 B.C. (Hellenistic Culture and Society 18) (Berkeley)10.1525/9780520913493CrossRef Google Scholar

Alcock, S.E. (1993) Graecia Capta: The Landscapes of Roman Greece (Cambridge)Google Scholar

Arrayás Morales, I. (2016) ‘Las guerras mitridáticas en la geopolítica mediterránea: sobre los contactos entre Mitrídates Eupátor y los Itálicos’, Aevum 90.1, 155–87Google Scholar

Aston, E.M.M. (2012) ‘Thessaly and Macedon at Delphi’, Electrum 19, 41–60 Google Scholar

Azoulay, V. (2014) ‘Repolitiser la cité grecque, trente ans après’, Annales (HSS) 3, 689–719 10.1353/ahs.2014.0120CrossRef Google Scholar

Bady, C., Boubounelle, O. and Vlamos, A. (2023) ‘Introduction’, in Bady, C., Boubounelle, O. and Vlamos, A. (eds), Les cités grecques face à l’imperium Romanum. Résilience, participation et adhésion des communautés grecques à la construction d’un empire (II^e siècle avant–I^er siècle de notre ère) (DHA Supplément 26) (Besançon) 25–36 Google Scholar

Bats, M., Lacam, J. and Laignoux, R. (eds) (2023) La république romaine face aux crises: traumatismes, résilience et recompositions aux temps des guerres hannibalique et civile (218–201/49–30 a.C.) 1 (Scripta Antiqua 174) (Bordeaux)10.4000/16f4vCrossRef Google Scholar

Beck, H. (2020) Localism and the Ancient Greek City-State (Chicago)10.7208/chicago/9780226711515.001.0001CrossRef Google Scholar

Beck, H. (2023) ‘Global spoils on a local stage: the case of Republican Rome’, in Helm, M. and Roselaar, S.T. (eds), Spoils in the Roman Republic, Boon and Bane (Stuttgart) 31–34 Google Scholar

Beck, H. and Smith, P.J. (2018) Megarian Moments: The Local World of an Ancient Greek City-State (Teiresias Supplements Online, 1) (Montreal)Google Scholar

Bernini, J. (2022) ‘La topographie des décrets de Priène’, CEA 49 http://journals.openedition.org/etudesanciennes/2028 Google Scholar

Bernini, J. (2023) ‘Plaise au peuple’: pratiques et lieux de la décision démocratique en Ionie et en Carie hellénistiques (Scripta Antiqua 173) (Bordeaux)10.4000/15zfbCrossRef Google Scholar

Biard, G. (2017) La représentation honorifique dans les cités grecques aux époques classique et hellénistique (Bibliothèque des Écoles françaises d’Athènes et de Rome, BEFAR 376) (Athens)10.4000/books.efa.808CrossRef Google Scholar

Bouchon, R. (2007) ‘Les porteurs de toge de Larissa’, Topoi 15.1, 251–84 10.3406/topoi.2007.2236CrossRef Google Scholar

Bouchon, R. (2014) ‘Démophilos de Doliché, Paul-Émile et les conséquences de la troisième guerre de Macédoine à Gonnoi’, Topoi (Lyon) 19.2, 483–513 CrossRef Google Scholar

Bouchon, R. and Helly, B. (2013) ‘Construire et reconstruire l’état fédéral thessalien (époque classique, époque hellénistique et romaine)’, in Funke, P. and Haake, M. (eds), Greek Federal States and Their Sanctuaries: Identity and Integration (Stuttgart) 205–26Google Scholar

Bousquet, J. (1961) ‘Inscriptions de Delphes’, BCH 85, 69–97 10.3406/bch.1961.1576CrossRef Google Scholar

Braga, R. (2014) La lex de prouinciis praetoriis: aspetti notevoli e questioni aperte (Milan)Google Scholar

Brisson, P.-L. (2022) Le moment unipolaire: Rome et la Méditerranée hellénistique (188–146 av. n. ère) (Suppléments francophones de la Revue Phoenix 2) (Quebec and Paris)10.1515/9782763743332CrossRef Google Scholar

Carpenter, S., Walker, B., Anderies, J.M. and Abel, N. (2001) ‘From metaphor to measurement: resilience of what to what?’, Ecosystems 4, 765–8110.1007/s10021-001-0045-9CrossRef Google Scholar

Champion, C. (1995) ‘The Soteria at Delphi: Aetolian propaganda in the epigraphical record,’ AJPh 116.2, 213–20Google Scholar

Champion, C. (2000) ‘Romans as ΒΑΡΒΑΡΟΙ: three Polybian speeches and the politics of cultural indeterminacy’, CPh 95.4, 425–44Google Scholar

Churchill, J.B. (1999) ‘Ex qua quod facerent: Roman magistrates’ authority over praeda and manubiae’, TAPhA 129, 85–116 Google Scholar

Colin, G. (1930) Fouilles de Delphes. Tome III. Épigraphie. Fascicule IV. Inscriptions de la terrasse du temple et de la région nord du sanctuaire (nos 1 à 86): Monuments des Messéniens, de Paul-Émile et de Prusias (Paris)Google Scholar

Crawford, M.H. (1996) Roman Statutes (2 vols) (Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies Supplement 34) (London)Google Scholar

Dench, E. (2005) Romulus’ Asylum: Roman Identities from the Age of Alexander to the Age of Hadrian (Oxford)10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198150510.001.0001CrossRef Google Scholar

Díaz Ariño, B. (2016) ‘El papel de la epigrafía en la construcción de la imagen pública de la aristocracia romana en época republicana: inscripciones y botín de guerra’, in Remesal, J. (ed.), Autorretratos: la creación de la imagen personal en la antigüedad (Barcelona) 41–58 Google Scholar

Dijkstra, T. (2017) ‘Strategies of remembering in the creation of a colonial society in Patras’, in Dijkstra, T.M., Kuin, I.N.I., Moser, M. and Weidgenannt, D. (eds), Strategies of Remembering in Greece under Rome (100 BC–100 AD) (Publications of the Netherlands Institute in Athens VI) (Athens) 37–48 Google Scholar

Dosse, F. (2010) Renaissance de l’événement. Un défi pour l’historien: entre Sphinx et Phénix (Paris)Google Scholar

Dosse, F. (2015) ‘L’événement historique: une énigme irrésolue’, Nouvelle revue de psychosociologie 19, 13–27 Google Scholar

Eckstein, A. (2008) Rome Enters the Greek East: From Anarchy to Hierarchy in the Hellenistic Mediterranean, 230–170 BC (Malden MA)10.1002/9781444301564CrossRef Google Scholar

Engerbeaud, M. (2019) ‘Introduction. Les désastres militaires romains’, Pallas 110, 259–6610.4000/pallas.17719CrossRef Google Scholar

Erskine, A. (2013) ‘Making sense of the Romans: Polybius and the Greek perspective’, DHA Supplément 9, 115–2910.3917/dha.hs90.0115CrossRef Google Scholar

Facella, M. and Letta, C. (2022) ‘Roman refusal of isotheoi timai in the late Republic and early Principate’, SCO 68, 259–300 10.12871/978883339640811CrossRef Google Scholar

Ferrary, J.-L. (1988) Philhellénisme et impérialisme: aspects idéologiques de la conquête romaine du monde hellénistique, de la seconde guerre de Macédoine à la guerre contre Mithridate (Rome)CrossRef Google Scholar

Ferrary, J.-L. (2008) ‘Retour sur la loi des inscriptions de Delphes et de Cnide (Roman Statutes n° 12)’, in Caldelli, M.L., Gregori, G.L. and Orlandi, S. (eds), Epigrafia 2006. Atti della XIV^e rencontre sur l’épigraphie in onore di Silvio Panciera con altri contributi di colleghi, allievi e collaboratori (Tituli 9) (Rome) 101–14Google Scholar

Flower, H. (2006) The Art of Forgetting: Disgrace and Oblivion in Roman Political Culture (Studies in the History of Greece and Rome) (Chapel Hill)Google Scholar

Galli, M. (2013) ‘Ritual dynamic in the Greek sanctuaries under the Roman domination’, in Galli, M. (ed.), Roman Power and Greek Sanctuaries: Forms of Interaction and Communication (Tripodes 14) (Athens) 9–44 Google Scholar

Geelhaar, C. (2002) ‘Some remarks on the lex de provinciis praetoriis’, RIDA 49, 109–17Google Scholar

Giovannini, A. (2008) ‘Date et objectifs de la lex de provinciis praetoriis (Roman Statutes, no 12)’, Historia 57.1, 92–107 10.25162/historia-2008-0006CrossRef Google Scholar

Goetschel, P. and Granger, C. (2011) ‘Faire l’événement, un enjeu des sociétés contemporaines’, Sociétés & représentations 32, 7–23 10.3917/sr.032.0007CrossRef Google Scholar

Grainger, J.D. (1995) ‘The expansion of the Aitolian League, 280–260 BC’, Mnemosyne 48.3, 313–4310.1163/156852595X00202-bCrossRef Google Scholar

Grainger, J.D. (1999) The League of the Aitolians (Mnemosyne 200) (Leiden, Boston and Cologne)10.1163/9789004351219CrossRef Google Scholar

Graninger, C.D. (2011) Cult and Koinon in Hellenistic Thessaly (Brill Studies in Greek and Roman Epigraphy 1) (Leiden and Boston)10.1163/ej.9789004207103.i-210.6CrossRef Google Scholar

Grigoropoulos, D., Di Napoli, V., Evangelidis, V., Camia, F., Rogers, D. and Vlizos, S. (2017) ‘Roman Greece and the mnemonic turn: some critical remarks’, in Dijkstra, T.M., Kuin, I.N.I., Moser, M. and Weidgenannt, D. (eds), Strategies of Remembering in Greece under Rome (100 BC–100 AD) (Publications of the Netherlands Institute in Athens VI) (Athens) 21–35 Google Scholar

Gruen, E.S. (1984) The Hellenistic World and the Coming of Rome (Berkeley, Los Angeles and London)10.1525/9780520351233CrossRef Google Scholar

Gruen, E.S. (1992) Culture and National Identity in Republican Rome (London)Google Scholar

Grzesik, D. (2018) ‘The power of space and memory: the honorific statuescape of Delphi’, Antichthon 52, 23–42 10.1017/ann.2018.6CrossRef Google Scholar

Grzesik, D. (2019) ‘The honorific statues of Delphi’, Historia 68.2, 200–2710.25162/historia-2019-0012CrossRef Google Scholar

Grzesik, D. (2021) Honorific Culture at Delphi in the Hellenistic and Roman Periods (Brill Studies in Greek and Roman Epigraphy 17) (Leiden and Boston)10.1163/9789004502499CrossRef Google Scholar

Guelfucci, M.-J. (2022) ‘Résilience, dégénérescence et ἀντίπλοια: l’anacyclose comme modèle mental’, in Battistoni, F. (ed.), Polibio e Roma, l’alba di un impero (I tempi e le forme) (Rome) 57–84 Google Scholar

Hallett, C.H. (2006) The Roman Nude: Heroic Portrait Statuary 200 BC–AD 300 (Oxford Studies in Ancient Culture and Representation) (Oxford)Google Scholar

Harris, W.V. (2016) Roman Power: A Thousand Years of Empire (Cambridge)10.1017/CBO9781316591420CrossRef Google Scholar

Helly, B. (1995) L’état thessalien: Aleuas le Roux, les tétrades et les tagoi (Collection de la Maison de l’Orient et de la Méditerranée 25; série épigraphique et historique 2) (Lyons)Google Scholar

Herbin, F. (2014) ‘Propagande et stratégies d’occupation de l’espace sacré durant la période de l’Indépendance à Délos’, in Bonnin, G. and Le Quéré, E. (eds), Pouvoirs, Îles et mer. Formes et modalités de l’hégémonie dans les Cyclades antiques (VII s. a.C.–III s. p.C.) (Bordeaux) 161–81Google Scholar

Hölkeskamp, K.-J. (2018) ‘Memoria by multiplication: the Cornelii Scipiones in monumental memory’, in Smith, C.J. and Sandberg, K. (eds), Omnium annalium monumenta: Historical Writing and Historical Evidence in Republican Rome (Historiography of Rome and Its Empire Volume 2) (Leiden) 422–7610.1163/9789004355552_019CrossRef Google Scholar

Holleaux, M. (1930) ‘Le consul M. Fulvius et le siège de Samé’, BCH 54, 1–41 10.3406/bch.1930.2870CrossRef Google Scholar

Holliday, P.J. (2002) The Origins of Roman Historical Commemoration in the Visual Arts (Cambridge and New York)Google Scholar

Hölscher, T. (2015) ‘Semiotics to agency’, in Marconi, C. (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Greek and Roman Art and Architecture (New York) 662–86Google Scholar

Homolle, T. (1897) ‘Le trophée de Paul-Émile vainqueur de Persée’, BCH 21.1, 620–2310.3406/bch.1897.3574CrossRef Google Scholar

Jacquemin, A. (1999) Offrandes monumentales à Delphes (Athens)Google Scholar

Jacquemin, A. (2001) ‘De la méconnaissance à l’abus du sanctuaire. L’apprentissage de la Grèce par les chefs de guerre romains’, in Marc, J. and Moretti, J. (eds), Constructions publiques et programmes édilitaires en Grèce entre le II^e siècle av. J.-C. et le I^er siècle ap. J.-C. actes du colloque organisé par l’École française d’Athènes et le CNRS, Athènes 14–17 mai 1995 (Athens and Paris) 155–65Google Scholar

Juffé, M. (2013) ‘La résilience: de quoi, à quoi et pour quoi?’, Annales des Mines - Responsabilité et environnement 72.4, 7–11 10.3917/re.072.0007CrossRef Google Scholar

Kähler, H. (1965) Der Fries vom Reiterdenkmal des Aemilius Paullus in Delphi (Berlin)Google Scholar

Kallet-Marx, R.M. (1996) Hegemony to Empire: The Development of the Roman Imperium in the East from 148 to 62 B.C. (Berkeley)10.1525/9780520408265CrossRef Google Scholar

Kalliontzis, I. (2020) Contribution à l’épigraphie et à l’histoire de la Béotie hellénistique: de la destruction de Thèbes à la bataille de Pydna (Bibliothèque des Écoles françaises d’Athènes et de Rome, BEFAR 391) (Athens)10.4000/books.efa.12990CrossRef Google Scholar

Keaveney, A. (2018) ‘Notes on the First Mithridatic War in Macedonia and Greece’, SyllClass 29, 29–65 Google Scholar

Kosmin, P. (2018) Time and Its Adversaries in the Seleucid Empire (Cambridge MA and London)10.4159/9780674989634CrossRef Google Scholar

Kowalski, J.-M. (2017) ‘Thymos et résilience: retour sur une défaite décisive, l’expédition de Sicile’, HiMA: revue internationale d’histoire militaire ancienne 5, 51–64 Google Scholar

Kralli, I. (1999–2000) ‘Athens and her leading citizens in the early Hellenistic period (338–261): the evidence of the decrees awarding the highest honors’, Archaiognosia 10, 133–61Google Scholar

Kramolisch, H. (1978) Die Strategen des Thessalischen Bundes vom Jahr 196 v. Chr. bis zum Ausgang der Römischen Republik (Bonn)Google Scholar

Kulig, J.C., Edge, D.S., Townshend, I., Lightfoot, N. and Reimer, W. (2013) ‘Community resiliency: emerging theoretical insights’, Journal of Community Psychology 41.6, 758–7510.1002/jcop.21569CrossRef Google Scholar

Laroche, D. and Jacquemin, A. (1982) ‘Notes sur trois piliers delphiques’, BCH 106.1, 191–218 10.3406/bch.1982.1912CrossRef Google Scholar

Lefèvre, F., Laroche, D. and Jacquemin, A. (1995) ‘Delphes, le roi Persée et les Romains’, BCH 119.1, 125–3610.3406/bch.1995.1644CrossRef Google Scholar

Lefèvre, F., Laroche, D. and Masson, O. (2002) Corpus des inscriptions de Delphes. Tome IV: documents amphictioniques (Paris)Google Scholar

Lippolis, E. (2004) ‘Triumphata Corintho: la preda bellica e i doni di Lucio Mummio Achaico’, ArchClass 55, 25–82 Google Scholar

Lucas, T. (2023) L’organisation militaire de la Confédération béotienne (447–171 av. J.-C.) (Bibliothèque des Écoles françaises d’Athènes et de Rome, BEFAR 401) (Athens)10.4000/books.efa.15838CrossRef Google Scholar

Luci, F. (2022) ‘Epigraphic strategies of communication: the visual accusative of Roman Republican dedications of spoils’, in Cousins, E. (ed.), Dynamic Epigraphy: New Approaches to Inscriptions (Oxford) 95–120 10.2307/j.ctv2npq9dc.10CrossRef Google Scholar

Luraghi, N. (2010) ‘The demos as narrator: public honours and the construction of future and past’, in Foxhall, L., Gehrke, H.-J. and Luraghi, N. (eds), Intentional History: Spinning Time in Ancient Greece (Stuttgart) 247–63Google Scholar

Ma, J. (2009) ‘The city as memory’, in Boys-Stones, G., Graziosi, B. and Vasunia, P. (eds), The Oxford Handbook of Hellenic Studies (Oxford) 248–59Google Scholar

Ma, J. (2013) Statues and Cities: Honorific Portraits and Civic Identity in the Hellenistic World (Oxford Studies in Ancient Culture and Representation) (Oxford)10.1093/acprof:osobl/9780199668915.001.0001CrossRef Google Scholar

Ma, J. (2024) Polis: A New History of the Ancient Greek City-State from the Early Iron Age to the End of Antiquity (Princeton)10.1353/book.124837CrossRef Google Scholar

Mack, W. (2015) Proxeny and Polis: Institutional Networks in the Ancient Greek World (Oxford Studies in Ancient Documents) (Oxford)10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198713869.001.0001CrossRef Google Scholar

Maranzana, P. (2021) ‘Resilience and adaptation at the end of antiquity: an evaluation of the impact of climate change in late Roman western-central Anatolia’, in Erdkamp, P., Manning, J.G. and Verboven, K. (eds), Climate Change and Ancient Societies in Europe and the Near East (Palgrave Studies in Ancient Economies) (Cham) 561–8610.1007/978-3-030-81103-7_19CrossRef Google Scholar

Martinez, J.-L. (2021) Un âge d’or du marbre. La sculpture en pierre à Delphes dans l’Antiquité (FD, IV, 8) (2 volumes) (Athens)Google Scholar

Maschek, D. (2023) ‘Zurück zur Geschichte! Römische Architektur als historische Quelle’, in Krmnicek, S. and Maschek, D. (eds), Römische Archäologie in Deutschland. Positionsbestimmung und Perspektiven (Heidelberg) 57–89 Google Scholar

Meister, J.B. (2021) ‘Antike und moderne Propaganda’, HZ 312.3, 587–613 Google Scholar

Melfi, M. (2013) ‘Religion and communication in the sanctuaries of early-Roman Greece: Epidauros and Athens’, in Galli, M. (ed.), Roman Power and Greek Sanctuaries: Forms of Interaction and Communication (Tripodes 14) (Athens) 143–58Google Scholar

Mellor, R. (1975) Θϵα Ῥώμη: The Worship of the Goddess Roma in the Greek World (Göttingen)10.13109/9783666251382CrossRef Google Scholar

Meloni, P. (1953) Perseo e la fine della monarchia macedone (AFLC 20) (Rome)Google Scholar

Ñaco del Hoyo, T., Antela Bernárdez, B., Arrayás Morales, I. and Busquets-Artigas, S. (2011) ‘The “ultimate frontier”: war, terror and the Greek “poleis” between Mithridates and Rome’, in Hekster, O. and Kaizer, T. (eds), Frontiers in the Roman World: Proceedings of the Ninth Workshop of the International Network Impact of Empire (Durham, 16–19 April 2009) (Impact of Empire Volume 13) (Leiden and Boston) 291–304 10.1163/ej.9789004201194.i-378.63CrossRef Google Scholar

Ñaco del Hoyo, T., Arrayás Morales, I., Antela Bernárdez, B. and Busquets-Artigas, S. (2015) ‘Roma o Mitrídates: las “póleis” griegas en su última encrucijada (89–63 a. C.): cuatro casos de estudio’, Faventia 37, 35–55 Google Scholar

van Nijf, O.M. and van Dijk, S. (2020) ‘Experiencing Roman power at Greek contests: Romaia in the Greek festival network’, in Berthelot, K. (ed.), Reconsidering Roman Power: Roman, Greek, Jewish and Christian Perceptions and Reactions (Collection de l’École française de Rome 564) (Rome) 101–2510.4000/books.efr.5704CrossRef Google Scholar

Oetjen, R. (2010) ‘Antigonid cleruchs in Thessaly and Greece: Philip V and Larisa’, in Reger, G., Ryan, F.X. and Winters, T.F. (eds), Studies in Greek Epigraphy and History in Honour of Stephen V. Tracy (Études 26) (Bordeaux) 237–54Google Scholar

Pareti, L. (1953) Storia di Roma e del mondo romano 3: dai prodromi della terza Guerra Macedonica al primo triumvirato (170–59 av. Cr.) (Turin)Google Scholar

Patterson, J.R. (2016) ‘Imperial Rome and the demise of the Republican nobility’, in García Morcillo, M., Richardson, J.H. and Santangelo, F. (eds), Ruin or Renewal? Places and the Transformation of Memory in the City of Rome (Rome) 213–42Google Scholar

Peretti-Watel, P. (2010) La société du risque (Paris)10.3917/dec.peret.2010.01CrossRef Google Scholar

Pfeilschifter, R. (2005) Titus Quinctius Flamininus: Untersuchungen zur römischen Griechenlandpolitik (Hypomnemata: Untersuchungen zur Antike und zu ihrem Nachleben 162) (Göttingen)Google Scholar

Pollini, J. (2012) From Republic to Empire: Rhetoric, Religion and Power in the Visual Culture of Ancient Rome (Oklahoma Series in Classical Culture 48) (Norman)Google Scholar

Prieto, J. (2022) ‘Publius at Naupaktos: The First Macedonian War and Phlegon of Tralles’ anti-Roman Prophecies in De mirabilia 3’, Klio 104.2, 587–618 10.1515/klio-2021-0047CrossRef Google Scholar

Quass, F. (1993) Die Honoratiorenschicht in den Städten des griechischen Ostens. Untersuchungen zur politischen und sozialen Entwicklung in hellenistischer und römischer Zeit (Stuttgart)Google Scholar

Quenault, B. (2017) ‘La résilience: un concept abscons en cours de complexification et d’instrumentalisation’, in García-Acosta, V. and Musset, A. (eds), Les catastrophes et l’interdisciplinarité. Dialogues, regards croisés, pratiques (Investigations d’anthropologie prospective 15) (Louvain-la-Neuve) 43–68 Google Scholar

Rawson, E. (1989) ‘Roman tradition and the Greek world’, in Astin, A.E., Walbank, F.W., Frederiksen, M.W., Ogilvie, R.M. (eds), Cambridge Ancient History, Volume VIII: Rome and the Mediterranean to 133 B.C. (Cambridge) 422–76Google Scholar

Ricoeur, P. (1991) ‘Événement et sens’, in Petit, J. (ed.), L’événement en perspective (Paris) 41–56 Google Scholar

Rizakis, A. (1995) Achaïe I. Sources textuelles et histoire régionale (Paris)Google Scholar

Rogers, E. (1932) The Copper Coinage of Thessaly (London)Google Scholar

Rousset, D. (2002) Le territoire de Delphes et la terre d’Apollon (Bibliothèque des Écoles françaises d’Athènes et de Rome, BEFAR 310) (Paris)Google Scholar

Rousset, D. (2008) ‘Usage des langues et élaboration des décisions dans le “Monument bilingue” de Delphes’, in Biville, F., Decourt, J.-C. and Rougemont, G. (eds), Bilinguisme gréco-latin et épigraphie: actes du colloque, 17–19 mai 2004 (Collection de la Maison de l’Orient et de la Méditerranée 37; série épigraphique et historique 6) (Lyon) 71–108 Google Scholar

Russell, A. (2012) ‘Aemilius Paullus sees Greece: travel, vision and power in Polybius’, in Smith, C.J. and Yarrow, L. (eds), Imperialism, Cultural Politics and Polybius (Oxford) 152–167 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199600755.003.0009CrossRef Google Scholar

Sánchez, P. (2001) L’Amphictionie des Pyles et de Delphes: recherches sur son rôle historique, des origines au II^e siècle de notre ère (Historia Einzelschriften 148) (Stuttgart)Google Scholar

Sánchez, P. (2011) ‘De l’auctoritas senatus à l’Imperator auctor: le Sénat, les généraux vainqueurs et les amis et alliés du peuple romain aux deux derniers siècles de la République’, in Benoist, S., Daguet-Gagey, A. and Hoët-van Cauwenberghe, C. (eds), Figures d’empire, fragments de mémoire. Pouvoirs et identités dans le monde romain impérial (II^e s. av. n. è.–VI^e s. de n. è.) (Villeneuve d’Ascq) 197–222 10.4000/books.septentrion.68519CrossRef Google Scholar

Sewell, W.H. (2005) Logics of History: Social Theory and Social Transformation (Chicago and London)10.7208/chicago/9780226749198.001.0001CrossRef Google Scholar

Shatzman, I. (1972) ‘The Roman general’s authority over booty’, Historia 21.2, 177–205 Google Scholar

Shipley, G. (2018) The Early Hellenistic Peloponnese: Politics, Economies, and Networks 338–197 BC (Cambridge and New York)10.1017/9781139034012CrossRef Google Scholar

Sordi, M. (1985) ‘Acilio Glabrione e l’Atena Itonia di Coronea’, in Roesch, P. and Argoud, G. (eds), La Béotie antique (Lyon) 265–69Google Scholar

Tarpin, M. (2009) ‘Les Manubiae dans la procédure d’appropriation du butin’, in Coudry, M. and Humm, M. (eds), ‘Praeda’. Butin de guerre et société dans la Rome républicaine/Kriegsbeute und Gesellschaft im republikanischen Rom (Stuttgart) 81–102 Google Scholar

Tarpin, M. (2013) ‘Morale ou droit? La capture des objets sacrés à Rome’, in Ferriès, M.-C. and Delrieux, F. (eds), Spolier et confisquer dans les mondes grec et romain (Sociétés, Religions, Politiques 23) (Chambéry) 81–100 Google Scholar

Taylor, M. (2016) ‘The battle scene on Aemilius Paullus’s Pydna monument: a reevaluation’, Hesperia 85.3, 559–7610.2972/hesperia.85.3.0559CrossRef Google Scholar

Thély, L. (2016) Les Grecs face aux catastrophes naturelles. Savoirs, histoire, mémoire (Bibliothèque des Écoles françaises d’Athènes et de Rome, BEFAR 375) (Athens)10.4000/books.efa.1536CrossRef Google Scholar

Tisseron, S. (2021) La résilience (Paris)Google Scholar

Toner, J. (2023) Risk in the Roman World (Key Themes in Ancient History) (Cambridge)10.1017/9781108592734CrossRef Google Scholar

Torelli, M. (1982) Typology and Structure of Roman Historical Reliefs (Ann Arbor)Google Scholar

Vout, C. (2023) ‘“Spolia” as category: Greek and Roman perspectives’, in de Jong, I.J.F. and Versluys, M.J. (eds), Reading Greek and Hellenistic-Roman Spolia: Objects, Appropriation and Cultural Change (Euhormos: Greco-Roman Studies in Anchoring Innovation Volume 5) (Leiden) 265–8310.1163/9789004682702_015CrossRef Google Scholar

Walbank, F.W. (1979) A Historical Commentary on Polybius, Volume 3: Books XIX–XL (Oxford)Google Scholar

Waurick, G. (1977) ‘Kunstraub der Römer: Untersuchungen zu seinen Anfängen anhand der Inschriften’, JRGZM 22, 1–46 Google Scholar

Welch, K.E. (2006) ‘Domi militiaeque: Roman domestic aesthetics and war booty in the Republic’, in Dillon, S. and Welch, K.E. (eds), Representations of War in Ancient Rome (Cambridge) 91–161 Google Scholar

Zoumbaki, S. (2018) ‘Sulla, the army, the officers and the poleis of Greece: a reassessment of warlordism in the first phase of the Mithridatic wars’, in Ñaco del Hoyo, T. and López Sánchez, F. (eds), War, Warlords and Interstate Relations in the Ancient Mediterranean (Impact of Empire, Volume 28) (Leiden and Boston) 351–79Google Scholar

Zoumbaki, S. (2020) ‘Sulla’s relations with the poleis of central and southern Greece in a period of transitions’, in Eckert, A. and Thein, A. (eds), Sulla: Politics and Reception (Berlin and Boston) 33–54 Google Scholar

Figure 1. Figure 1 long description.Distribution of inscriptions based on Laroche and Jacquemin’s reconstruction.

Figure 2. Figure 2 long description.Latin inscription (FD III.4.36) and below, on the left, an unfinished Amphictyonic decree (FD III.4.43), and on the right, Aristodemus’ proxeny (FD III.4.52).

Figure 3. Figure 3 long description.Proxeny decree for Isagoras and sons (FD III.4.51).

Figure 4. Figure 4 long description.Dispute between Thronium and Scarpheia, inscriptions on the northern façade (in numerical order: FD III.4.38, 4.39, 4.40 and 4.41).

Figure 5. Figure 5 long description.Dispute between Thronium and Scarpheia, inscription on the eastern façade (FD III.4.42).

Figure 6. Figure 6 long description.Detail of FD III.4.38.

Figure 7. Figure 7 long description.Surviving fragments of the Lex de Provinciis Praetoriis at Delphi (FD III.4.37).

Figure 8. Figure 8 long description.Overview of Aemilius Paullus’ inscriptions on the main façade.

Article contents

Roman conquest and Late Hellenistic resilience: the epigraphical case of Aemilius Paullus’ monument at Delphi (167–100 BC)

Abstract

Keywords

Information

I. Introduction

II. The second-century BC inscriptions on the Delphic pillar of Aemilius Paullus

i. The unfinished Amphictyonic decree: independence, autonomy and Roman authority

ii. Thessaly and Rome: Pherecrates and Paullus in a Hellenistic pro-Roman perspective

iii. Aristodemus of Patras and Delphi: Philhellenic memory under Roman power

iv. Scarpheia vs Thronium: local victory in a Graeco-Roman perspective

v. Lex de Provinciis Praetoriis: a new provincial age

III. Conclusion: the Roman événement and Hellenistic political resilience

Acknowledgements

Abbreviations

Footnotes

References

Save article to Kindle

Save article to Dropbox

Save article to Google Drive

Reply to: Submit a response

Your details

You have entered the maximum number of contributors

Conflicting interests