• Contenu principal
  • Menu
OpenEdition Books
  • Accueil
  • Catalogue de 15381 livres
  • Éditeurs
  • Auteurs
  • Facebook
  • X
  • Partager
    • Facebook

    • X

    • Accueil
    • Catalogue de 15381 livres
    • Éditeurs
    • Auteurs
  • Ressources numériques en sciences humaines et sociales

    • OpenEdition
  • Nos plateformes

    • OpenEdition Books
    • OpenEdition Journals
    • Hypothèses
    • Calenda
  • Bibliothèques

    • OpenEdition Freemium
  • Suivez-nous

  • Newsletter
OpenEdition Search

Redirection vers OpenEdition Search.

À quel endroit ?
  • École française d’Athènes
  • ›
  • Bibliothèque des Écoles françaises d’Ath...
  • ›
  • Parasites of the God
  • ›
  • The Delian economy: the market and price...
  • École française d’Athènes
  • École française d’Athènes
    École française d’Athènes
    Informations sur la couverture
    Table des matières
    Liens vers le livre
    Informations sur la couverture
    Table des matières
    Formats de lecture

    Plan

    Plan détaillé Texte intégral The creation of a market The characteristics of the Delian market The development of the Delian emporion Conclusion: from the emporion to the free port Notes de bas de page

    Parasites of the God

    Ce livre est recensé par

    Précédent Suivant
    Table des matières

    Chapter 5

    The Delian economy: the market and prices

    p. 235-293

    Texte intégral The creation of a market The Recording of Prices in the Accounts of the Hieropoioi:The Expression of Demand The question of the state of the economy The sanctuary’s influence Difficulty with price analysis The Organization of Procurement for the Sanctuary Local stockists and suppliers Provenance and transport costs: the organization of stocks Pitch and oil Tiles Products imported from afar The market for everyday consumer goods Sacrificial animals Timber Price‑Setting: Auctions and Bargaining The challenges of resorting to auction Thehieropoioias sellers Thehieropoioias buyers Price negotiations The characteristics of the Delian market The Continuity of Structures and Activities The classicalemporion Population growth in the third century Business Premises and the Interests of the Delians The practices of the hieropoioi Stockpiling outside the sanctuary Competition among Delians The City‑State’s Policy Price changes and redistributive commerce The fight against speculation The development of the Delian emporion The Volume of Exchange The Delianpentekoste The Rhodianellimenion The Transit Trade The clues from the grain trade Slaves Theateleia The Commercial Infrastructures The Agora of the Delians Thechoma The Facilities The Storage Infrastructures Conclusion: from the emporion to the free port Notes de bas de page

    Texte intégral

    1The accounting practices the Delians engaged in proved relevant in the marketplace both for procuring materials and for entering into agreements. By recording their monthly purchases and detailing the unit prices of their transactions, while specifying the monies making up their reserves and the particulars corresponding to the bankers’ registers, the hieropoioi shed light at the same time on the economic and financial context in which they operated.1

    2This is why commentators have ultimately shown more interest in the prices that can be observed year after year in the accounts of the hieropoioi than in the arrangements for the financial management of the sacred fund. They have rightly seen prices as source material for better delineating the Aegean economy as part of a debate about the nature of the economy of the ancient world.2 But the interpretations are largely dependent on the underlying model chosen to describe the market that produced those prices, for want of explicitly asking how the market should be defined. In a paper inviting scholars to show how the market was historically determined, R. Descat writes: “In point of fact, the economy of the ancient world exists as the academic locus of a debate essential to it because the debate enables the economy to live with a difficulty that has never been resolved: whether or not there was a market […] When it comes to it, the ancient market has been little studied if at all; it is more of a sign that one has taken sides, used polemically, and that dispenses with having to think about the concept itself.”3

    3The Delian records from the Hellenistic period lie at the heart of this debate. With the publication of the initial volumes of the accounts of the hieropoioi, G. Glotz and then F. Heichelheim used the data to show that the prices in the Delian records reflected military power balances in the Aegean Sea. From then on, those prices were understood as being set in an interconnected Mediterranean market open to competition. “In Hellenistic times, Greece’s market becomes universal. It opens up freely to imports and the only commodities whose prices rise are those not involving competition among several producing countries.”4 In the 1960s, J.A.O. Larsen came out against the great model-making syntheses of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries in T. Franck’s global history project, An Economic Survey of Ancient Rome. Larsen, too, took up the examination of Delian prices to relate them to a state of the economy in the Mediterranean responding to the laws of supply and demand.5

    4Again adopting in detail this vantage point of statistical analysis of price changes, G. Reger in the 1990s ended up reducing the range of interpretations: prices should no longer be explained on the scale of the Mediterranean and do not reflect political changes in the Aegean Sea. They are to be understood on the local scale and attest to the emergence of regionalism in the Cyclades.6 In many respects G. Reger’s interpretation echoes Finley’s idea of ancient economic primitivism: “Early studies of the Delian economy were influenced by a ‘modernizing’ model of the Hellenistic world that saw capitalism everywhere and emphasized long-distance trade and strong market interconnections.”7 G. Reger’s own interpretative choices are influenced just as much by underlying models: it was when outside powers pulled out of the Cyclades that the islands began to operate as a region as manifested by price stability leading to economic prosperity. Any influence from outside the region can then only be explained by religious motives relating to the pulling power of the sanctuary of Apollo and not by economic relations: “The ‘international’ importance of Delos derived from its religious position.”8 By contrast, the creation of the duty-free port at the will of Rome in 167 BC was for G. Reger a political decision by Rome against Rhodes and not an economic choice because it brought about a radically different situation from that of the period of Independence.

    5In parallel to a stand-off between “modernists” and “primitivists”, the interpretation of the Delian records has become the stuff of a divide between “interventionism” and “liberalism”. T. Mavrojannis takes exception with the view of “liberalization” of the market of the free port of Delos supposedly breaking with this regionalism and sees in the power play on Delos under Rome’s authority the continuity of the third-century market dominated by the kings as F. Heichelheim and M. Rostovzeff thought of it: the political interpretation has to prevail over the economic one and “neither geographical expansion, nor the growth of trade, nor the rising number of places of origin of merchants, nor lastly the change in the cleruchy imply the complete liberalization of the Delian market: they more probably point to a new interventionist policy.”9

    6One of the factors helping to shape interpretations is surely the point that the sanctuary as an actor in the Delian economy was largely ignored. The Delian economy was as a result decontextualized in some sense. Yet, as seen in the foregoing chapters, the nature of the treasury handled by the administrators in both the sacred fund and the public fund very broadly directed the choices of the Delian city-state at the same time as it sheds light on the Aegean context that influenced those choices. It is on this basis that the scale of activity of the Delian economy should now be analysed, moving from the activity of the sanctuary to that of the emporion.

    The creation of a market

    The Recording of Prices in the Accounts of the Hieropoioi: The Expression of Demand

    The question of the state of the economy

    7Ever since G. Reger’s statistical studies based on the prices of several commodities in the accounts of Delos, the idea of a unified market has been superseded by an interpretation emphasizing the compartmentalization of markets in the ancient world. Prices for each product are set in different markets because they obey trends and changes that are not uniform: “any explanation for a particular individual price history must be sought in the particularities of that good, and not in a general appeal to a common price-setting market for imported goods.”10

    8Contrariwise, for G. Glotz, F. Heichelheim, J. Larsen and M. Rostovtzeff, the intent to achieve a global view of exchange led to supply and demand being contemplated on the scale of the entire Hellenistic world and so to Delian prices being used as valid indicators for all markets. From this perspective, price changes could be understood in terms of the state of the economy. Without excluding other variables such as transport costs or labour costs for some commodities,11 this interpretation emphasized explanations of a geopolitical order: the military obstruction of communication channels in one place or the rise in population because of the demobilization of veterans in another explained fluctuations in demand across the Mediterranean and variations in costs as highlighted by the accounts of Delos. If Delian prices were subject to repercussions from major geopolitical events, then, for the proponents of this interpretation, it was because they were part of a universal market constructed at the beginning of Hellenistic times with the expansion of the Greek world brought about by the conquests of Alexander and the formation of great kingdoms.

    9G. Reger’s study of several series of Delian prices does not escape geopolitical explanations for long-term fluctuations although not on the scale of the Mediterranean but of the Cyclades. After serving as a military base, the Cyclades developed their capacity to supply most of the basic consumption of their populations, especially once the withdrawal of military powers from the Aegean Sea around the mid‑third century BC left scope for the regional organization of exchange.12

    10It is this regional scale of exchange that L. Migeotte uses as the criterion for analysing the extent of markets in Antiquity: “even in Hellenistic and Roman times, the economy of the Greek cities was one of great diversity in which, simplifying things, three superimposed and partially interconnected tiers can be identified: a scattering of local, varied and partly autarkic sources of production and exchange; a multitude of well-developed regional markets where numerous products were bought and sold; and several large-scale trading networks for a certain number of commodities including luxury items. It was naturally enough in these last two tiers that market-oriented activities were mostly to be found.” In the understanding of market organization, the scale of exchange seems here to play a more decisive part than the nature of the products exchanged.13

    11Yet the price analyses proposed in all these interpretations remain consistent with one presupposition: whatever the scale on which they are set, these prices can be analysed in terms of the state of the economy, meaning that ultimately they are the outcome of a confrontation between supply and demand. On the contrary, in analysing economies of the Ancien Régime, J.‑Y. Grenier has already shown one should begin by characterizing the forms taken by demand, which has to be the first component in the analysis: “The traditional historical approach to problems of this kind rests on the empirical method that consists in reading statistical data. It is unsatisfactory because its results are insufficient at best (only the crisis is described but not the entire economic situation), and at worst open to contention (use of inappropriate economic concepts such as the law of supply and demand). Moreover, the idea of an interpretation that is explanatory in itself is misleading because it contains all the presuppositions that are in the end given the name of explanations.”14

    12Without denying for all that the existence of a price conjuncture, what is called for is an exploration of the operating mechanisms of these markets. The perspective of an analysis of Delian prices, from Glotz to Reger, is first and foremost centred on supply: roughly speaking, price rises can be explained by shortages, and price cuts reflect a comparative abundance or ease of access to resources, the whole question being to ascertain the causes of blockages (seasonal patterns, military occupations, the severing of diplomatic relations) and the geographical radius of supply. On the contrary it is an analysis of demand that would better account for the actual working of the Delian market by better highlighting the strategies of those involved.15

    The sanctuary’s influence

    13The Delian records, the richness of which has been emphasized, are most certainly capable of powering a case study designed not so much to situate the scale of organization of exchanges as to analyse the organization and development of that market, in terms both of its material aspects and its legislation, but also in terms of its economic manifestations in the shape of the prices of commodities recorded in the accounts of the hieropoioi. When they were not busy with the inventory of the collections of offerings and the jars of the sanctuary or planning so that festivals went smoothly, these magistrates spent their time in the marketplace, in the agora and on the port of Delos, engaged in various business and financial operations, recruiting craftsmen and placing orders.

    14It should not be forgotten, then, exactly what those accounts showed. Kept by the sanctuary’s administrators who were tasked with procuring supplies for the organization of festivals but also and above all for the implementation of major construction works and regular repair works on the island’s sacred and public monuments, the Delian records bear witness above all to the involvement of a large sanctuary in an economy of exchange focused for the most part on materials for building and maintenance. Other price series compounded this: firewood, oil for cooking for banquets and for unctions, animals for sacrifice, rents from sanctuary-owned estates and houses. We also know of accounting and financial operations conducted by means of loans between the sanctuary and the city‑state of Delos. This is the case of the grain supply fund which we know of from the loans from the sacred fund to the public fund. The economic weight of the sanctuary in aggregate demand, associated with the financial power that Apollo’s fortune afforded to the city-state and to the Delians, necessarily had repercussions on the Delian market in terms of ordinary procurement for a population that amounted to barely more than 6,000 souls at the time of Independence.

    15This demand from a major sanctuary therefore exerted both a non-negligible and a highly specific influence on the market because it was not comparable in nature or in quantity with the demand from an oikos. The main challenge for the Delian sanctuary was not to procure foodstuffs but instead to ensure the regular availability of materials and goods for sacrifices and festivals and for the upkeep of the buildings: livestock, building timber, oil, pitch and resins, building stone and metals were essential items, supplemented by a few luxury goods like perfumes, ivory and incense. These data have come in for less attention, though, from commentators more concerned with establishing price series, first because they are more difficult to exploit because of the different units of measurement, but also because they are unrelated to the challenges of securing supplies of basic necessities like grain.16 Yet they do enable us to observe the workings of the Delian market with some precision and to measure the impact of demand from the sanctuary with respect to the availability of regional supply. Moreover, these data provide certain parallels with other prices in more sporadic accounting records concerning constructions at Eleusis, Delphi, Epidaurus and more rarely Didyma.17

    Difficulty with price analysis

    16For most commodities the sanctuary purchased, a fall in prices can be observed during the first half of the third century, meaning that prices were far lower around 250 BC than at the start of Independence. This general observation, already made by M. Rostovtzeff,18 holds for most products attested in the Delian accounts. But each product had its own pattern: oil prices began to fall as from the 280s whereas it was not until the 270s‑260s that firewood and pitch followed suit, and the 250s for piglets and tiles. Only the prices of papyrus, incense, perfume and lead, so far as can be ascertained from sources that only rarely mention them, bucked the trend and appeared stable. Shortly before the year 250, then, it can be said that the Delian economy had undergone a substantial change in the space of 20 or 30 years that seemed to affect most sectors.

    17After 250, prices underwent other fluctuations. Some seemed to converge, as was the case of pitch, oil and tiles, which remained comparatively stable, whereas the prices of firewood and piglets rose overall, with many fluctuations. In the early second century, other trends could be observed: while the price of pitch continued to fall, the price of wood rose.19

    18Contesting exclusively geographical explanations, G. Reger proposes a stepwise interpretation of the Delian economy by identifying three stages: a first period (314‑290) of readjustment of commercial circuits on the scale of the Cyclades after the departure of the Athenians; a second period (290‑230) that saw the stabilizing of a Cycladic commercial network with Delos as its centre; and then a third period (230‑167) marked by tell‑tale signs of new forms of prosperity. During this final period, Delos was no longer just a place of consumption dependent on its neighbourhood for its supply but a mandatory port‑of‑call on the commercial routes of the Cyclades that founded its prosperity on its role as a regional port of transit. This period of prosperity coincided with a vacuum of hegemonic military power in the Aegean, leaving the Cyclades wholly independent. Even so, G. Reger is reluctant to admit the idea of convergent price movements towards the mid third century, and clearly separates imported products and Cycladic products: “It is true that for every good except frankincense, some structural change occurs after about 250 BC (though the precise timing of these changes varies widely from good to good). But the character of those changes is in each case different.”20 For him, the prices set for these imported commodities comply with rules specific to the history of each good: “in seeking explanations for price behavior in these goods too, we should first look at the particularities of each good.” Pitch, papyrus and perfume “were produced, marketed and priced in different markets”. Only the weight of military presence in the Cyclades during the first half of the third century ensured general demand for strategic materials that could partly unify price trends: “After the battle of Andros, however, the Kyklades were left relatively alone.”21

    19A. Bresson, on the contrary, in examining staples like oil, firewood and piglets, views Delian prices as “the best price observatory for the Aegean world in Hellenistic times” and in the fall in Delian prices in the first half of the third century, bolstered by the fall in grain prices, he sees the effect of a progressive reduction in the money supply in circulation around the Aegean by the conquests of Alexander the Great.22 The explanation holds overall of course and does not dispense with resort to other factors to account for certain fluctuations. The impact of monetary phenomena is indeed incontrovertible in the Delian “observatory”: in the inventory of offerings, we have identified signs of the end of hoarding that followed the conquests of Alexander in the increased dedications of items made of gold at the beginning of the third century.23 Besides, the explanation for price changes by monetary phenomena remains largely to be explored: How much of an impact did the change in monetary holdings, which we have observed for the sanctuary, but that must also have affected the population that frequented the commercial port of Delos, have on prices? The inflows of Histiaian and Rhodian coinage might have had inflationary and deflationary effects similar to the consequences of the inflow of Alexander’s money in the late fourth and early third centuries.

    20However, the explanation based on money is not enough to account in full for the organization of this market. For sure, the specific nature of each product, the ingredients that went into it, the conditions in which it was produced and commercialized, but also the currency in which payments were accepted, composed a set of variables that contributed to price setting. For products such as papyrus that were necessarily made outside the Cyclades, the Delian hieropoioi were at the mercy of any chance events affecting production, which were not the same thing as blockages that could affect them regionally in the organization of their procurement of other products. Should it be concluded, though, that these prices were set in separate markets?

    21The prices recorded in the accounts of the hieropoioi have been analysed as if each purchase were preceded by the wait for a cargo due in port, sometimes from a remote place, sometimes from the Cyclades depending on the interpretations, with Delos feeding off its neighbours’ surpluses. And the fact is that the tiny island of Apollo remained devoid of the raw materials (chiefly clay and timber) necessary for its population and its sanctuary. Yet the development of storage places and practices, all too often overlooked in the analysis of economic circuits, is one possible explanation for price changes. It might also explain, for example, why price variations obey a logic specific to the season of sales while achieving relative stability, without prices being set for all that in a strictly Cycladic dimension: if local merchants were able to build up stocks, their prices would be stable overall the year round while following the patterns of shortfalls in supply, with a tendency to rise before replenishment and to fall once the gap had been bridged. Such a phenomenon does not undermine G. Reger’s explanatory principle, but it dispenses with an explanation that seeks to confine sources of supply to a local setting.24

    22Accordingly the correlation between rents for olive-growing estates and the price of oil25 does not necessarily mean that supply was only local or from the Cyclades, whenever storage managed to smooth the fluctuations of long-distance trade. This is indeed what happened on Delos with the formation of a fund for purchasing grain, stocks of which were sold on to citizens at prices that could smooth conjunctural fluctuations, reconstructing after a fashion the financial conditions of a local supply although the actual provenance might have been far more remote.26 In addition, in the context of bidding for tax farming of estates, it is highly likely that bidders tracked more than they set the trends of profits and returns that could be perceived in the Delian market.

    23Without excluding the possibility of price movements being used to detect any sudden changes in the evolving relations between supply and demand on the Delian market, phenomena of increased competition or, on the contrary, desertion of certain economic domains, it is better, as can be seen, to break free from too exclusive a reading of prices in the accounts of the hieropoioi, so as to better consider both the context in which these prices were set and the infrastructures underpinning exchange.

    24In actual fact, the data in the accounts of the hieropoioi attest primarily to the creation of a market based on demand from the sanctuary. For a number of building materials and maintenance products, such as pitch, building timber or tiles, the sanctuary put together, over the years, a system of procurement that enabled it to reduce transport costs while often pushing its suppliers’ production capacities to the limit. Just as it was involved in the organization of the god’s treasury, the Delian city was involved in the sanctuary’s procurement policies through the organization of infrastructures for facilitating transactions.

    The Organization of Procurement for the Sanctuary

    25Analysis of the transactions in the accounts of the Delian hieropoioi indicate, first off, the sources of supply. Overall the framework is a regional one because the hieropoioi go through middlemen who sell on goods after having been supplied from other sources. Study of the recruitment pool for craftsmen who worked for the Delian sanctuary had led to similar observations: the artisans who came to work on Delos were usually from the vicinity but the hieropoioi did recruit from further afield when a particular specialist was needed.27 The same was true for the building sites at Delphi, Epidaurus and Eleusis. Certain aspects of the transactions should be specified, though.

    Local stockists and suppliers

    26Some of the products required for maintaining buildings were available from local stockists and suppliers. This was the case for pitch (see table 34 below), purchased in the accounts of Eleusis from a σκηνίτης (IG II2 1672, col. I, fr. a, l. 13 and l. 170, a. 329/8) or from a λιτροπώλης (IG II2 1673, l. 20‑22, a. 336/5 or 333/2) or from a κεραµοπώλης (IG II2 1672, col. I, fr. a, l. 69, a. 329/8).28 These traders, whether ambulant generalists or specialists – one in the sale of ceramics for which pitch could be used for waterproofing, the other in hardware – kept their stocks some way from Eleusis since their carriage by a handler to Eleusis (Ἐλευσῖ<νάδε>) was provided for under another heading (IG II2 1672, col. I, fr. a, l. 16). No ethnic name was indicated in the accounts for them, suggesting they were Athenians or resident metics. Later the customs inscription of Caunos, in a passage on the sale of pitch and resins, mentions a παντοπώλης as one of the links in the import chain (Marek 2006, 35, F, l. 4‑13, 117‑138).

    27On Delos (table 46) the pitch suppliers were sometimes foreigners whose ethnic is given: a Carystian, a Chian, an Astypalean, a Byzantine, a Naxian, a Clazomenian or just παρὰ τῶν ξένων. But of 16 suppliers known from the accounts, 10 are mentioned without ethnics and might well have been Delians or resident foreigners.29 In their accounts, the hieropoioi clearly distinguished among suppliers between names with and names without ethnics, which is certainly no chance matter: in the adjudication of building work, this stipulation was part of the contract.30

    28Now among the pitch sellers, those shown with an ethnic are not otherwise known whereas sellers with an ethnic were either craftsmen, Delian or not, active on Delos for several years, or Delians judging from onomastics. It can therefore be thought that sellers listed with an ethnic in the accounts of the hieropoioi were transient importers while the others were sellers settled there, whether Delians or foreign residents.

    29Some pitch suppliers were known as craftsmen and besides worked for the sanctuary. The varnishing and painting or the joinery work they were engaged for explain their having access to supplies like pitch or various resins.31 Sometimes the pitch supplier was also the artisan who did the varnishing: this was the case for example of Amphithales in 282. In other instances, the suppliers were craftsmen who did other jobs on the worksites of the sanctuary. Some of the maintenance products needed artisanal processing before being sold. This was the case of the red pigment, the µίλτος, used pure in architecture to mark the lines for assembling blocks32 but also used mixed with a resin binder to give a coloured rendering applied to monuments. The Delian hieropoioi bought the product ready mixed (µίλτος καὶ κόλλης, µίλτος καὶ κηρός, κηρὸς καὶ χρώµατα) from the mine. A similar mix of pitch and red pigment is termed µιλτοπίττης in a contract for the refurbishment of the Long Walls of Piraeus, where it was applied to ceilings and the windows of the towers (IG II2 463, l. 90, a. 307/6). By contrast the epistatai at Eleusis bought pure µίλτος, blacking (µελαντήρια), oak gall (κηκῖς) and pitch separately (IG II2 1672, col. I, fr. a, l. 13‑16, a. 329/8).33

    30So when the hieropoioi of Delos bought several metretai of pitch every summer for varnishing the woodwork of the various buildings of the sanctuary, as with the other products for the upkeep of the buildings, they could resort to several sources of supply: importers arriving at the port, retailers set up in the shops on Delos, or craftsmen who held stocks from other suppliers (table 46). This diversity of suppliers might in itself justify the variations in cost from year to year, but the sources do not enable us to identify the status of all the sellers clearly. There is no way of telling whether resort to craftsmen was more profitable for the sanctuary than buying from importers. It can be supposed it was at Eleusis, where, in the same year, the purchase of two keramia of pitch from a stockist cost the epistatai 12.5 drachmas per unit as against 10 drachmas per unit when they bought 3 keramia from a ceramics dealer whose speciality might afford him prime access to pitch and good knowledge of the supply channels.

    Provenance and transport costs: the organization of stocks

    31It is hard to say where these products came from. It is known that Athens held the monopoly on miltos from Keos, which was doubtless a much sought-after and advantageous material.34 Pitch is mentioned alongside timber among the commodities authorized for export by the Macedonian king Amyntas III in an alliance treaty with the Chalcidian League in the early fourth century (Syll   3 135, B, l. 9‑12) but Macedon was not the sole supplier.35 It seems pointless, then, to seek the explanation for the variation in prices in the events of Antigonid politics in the way G. Glotz does.36 True, it cannot be ruled out that certain events might exceptionally have laid hold of stocks and caused higher prices on Delos. This may be what happened in 279, since the price of pitch rose to a record 40 drachmas compared with prices of the following and preceding years. The year 279 was the year of the Ptolemaia of Alexandria, when the consumption of pitch for the pompe was particularly intense and may have taken up available stocks.37 This explanation in any event seems more likely than that of Glotz who claims the very high prices of 279 were the outcome of Celtic invasions of Macedon.38 But the diversity of provenances and qualities of the product ruins by the same token any hope of building a relevant analysis of price changes. In accepting that transport costs and various constraints (sporadic blocking of supply, failures in the chain of operations) might account for most price variations, attention must then focus on the degree of variation of these prices relative to each other.

    Pitch and oil

    32In the case of pitch, Delian prices in the late fourth century can be compared with Eleusinian prices: in 329/8 the keramion of pitch was sold at between 10 and 12.5 drachmas in Athens where, with Piraeus, stockists probably had easy access to the raw material, whereas it cost between 17 and 22 drachmas on Delos less than 30 years later in the closing years of the fourth century. The Athenians, administrators of the Delian sanctuary until 314, were themselves confronted with the need to provide pitch for the sanctuary to maintain the buildings, but their accounts fail to give us any details on the subject. The outlay must have been included in the broader category of works for which a grand total is given, with the result that we know neither of their sources of supply nor of the particulars of the prices.39 Did they change with the departure of the Athenians? The question stands likewise for oil which, in the classical period, had to be supplied to the sanctuary – always a major consumer for sacrifices and banquets – probably by Athenian sources, but whose price is not known either in the Delian accounts of the time.

    33For G. Reger, the fall in the price of oil between the end of the fourth century and the 280s could be attributed to the development of Cycladic production ending wider reliance on Aegean, Athenian or Rhodian supplies.40 The Delians of the classical period most certainly did business with Athenians, as attested by the sources on the tenants of sacred houses and their guarantors during the Athenian domination.41 These networks certainly did not suddenly disappear with the political and administrative withdrawal of Athens in 314. An act of the Delian archon for the year 263 reveals among the winners of the competition for tragedy an Athenian metic, Apollodoros of Koile, named according to his occupation as a shopkeeper (IG XI 2, 113, l. 14 ἐγ µετοίκων Ἀπολλόδωρος παντοπώλης, Κο̣λλῆς). Besides, the islands had not waited for the Antigonids and the Nesiotic League to maintain economic ties with each other.42 Accordingly it is difficult to determine whether the seemingly high price of oil and pitch on Delos in the late fourth century, given the further change in prices, actually differed from the earlier situation when the sanctuary was under the authority of Athens and whether the Delians at the beginning of Independence had immediately restructured their sources of supply on a regional level compared with the Athenian period.

    34Athenian epigraphy yields a price for oil in the rules of a deme relating to the compensation paid to the priestesses for certain purchases dating from the beginning of the fourth century (IG II2 1356, l. 3, 7‑8, 14, 17‑18, 21: LSCG 28): 1.5 obols for 3 kotylai, that is 0.5 obol per kotyle and 1 drachma per khous in Athens. Known prices on Delos at the very beginning of Independence might be three to four times higher (3.5 drachmas per khous in 307, 4.5 drachmas in 304 and 4.6 drachmas in 300) because of transport costs, but they depended in part on the time of year for shipping. We also find for 304 a price of 1.5 drachmas per khous and the average price of oil then stabilized at this level in the early decades of the third century.43 It can be assumed that regular supply channels had become organized for such stability to be achieved.

    35The same phenomenon of organized channels and stabilized prices can be observed for pitch. The gap in the change in prices appeared on Delos from the year 250. The cost of the metretes of pitch fell from an average of 25 drachmas to about 15 drachmas and even to 9 or 10 drachmas in the 180s. This phenomenon should probably be attributed to the formation of a supply with stocks available on the island. Only a significant fall in transport costs could justify such a price gap.

    36The procurement of pitch seems to have caused real difficulties for the hieropoioi at least in the first half of the third century. Between 305 and 296 they secured the same rates from Delian suppliers as from importers, but the experience with Amphithales, a Delian who supplied pitch to the sanctuary for at least two years in close succession (282 and 279) does not seem to have been conclusive since the price of pitch reached a record of 40 drachmas in 279, then a Byzantine supplied some for 28 drachmas in 276.44 Subsequently it can be seen that the hieropoioi managed to obtain a price between 28 and 25 drachmas from importers and a lower price of 20 drachmas from local suppliers like Menon, who also sold wood to them. Prices fell substantially from the mid third century and the hieropoioi no longer indicated the names of their suppliers, save two exceptions. It seems, then, that the question of sources of supply had been settled and relatively steady prices were secured through stockpiling on the island.

    37But the consequences of the reform of weights and measures already detected in the accounts of the hieropoioi around 280 must also be included in the price curves. For want of other indications in the sources, pitch, sold by the metretes, is the only product for which this modification can be observed. Since the metretes of pitch rose in 282 from 8 to 12 khoeis, the price changes should be reckoned in the same unit for them to be properly analysed.45 The consequence is that the difference between the price of pitch in the late fourth century and in the 280s is far narrower than might be thought (table 45).46

    Table 45 — Price of pitch calculated per khous between 305 and 250 BC.

    Year  Price per khous     Price per 12-khous metretes   
    305-3032.7533
    3022.1225.4
    2962.2527
    2823 then 236 then 24
    2793.3340
    2762.3328
    2741.6620
       272 or 271   2.2527
    2692.1225.5
    268224
    2501.1614

    38   

    Table 46 — Prices of pitch in Athens and Delos

    Image
    Image

    Tiles

    39Changes in the price of tiles allow similar observations to be made about the organization of supplies (table 47). Suppliers were never the same individuals as tilers, with the result that the sanctuary generally made separate adjudications for the tiling materials and labour. During the first half of the third century, the hieropoioi bought tiles from outside Delos and paid, whether on Syros or Mykonos, the naulon, that is, the transport costs, and a tax on those islands. This tax was probably levied on production rather than export because it does not seem to have made up a fiftieth of the total cost as might be expected of a pentekoste. They obtained a unit price that must have been close to the cost of production on site (4 to 5 obols per couple of tiles) to which were added the cost of carriage and taxation, coming to an average price of 1 drachma. Despite all, this was less than the 1 drachma, 2 obols that the sanctuary obtained in 304 from two probably Delian suppliers, Aristokrates and Aristoboulos (table 42)55. It can be imagined that the cost offered by the two suppliers – who must themselves have imported their tiles because the island of Delos has little in the way of clay and wood – included the profit from selling them on. The hieropoioi sought to escape this logic by arranging for their own supply from producers on Syros and Mykonos even if it meant the sacred fund had to pay the cost of transport.

    40But, by the mid third century, prices had fallen considerably. The hieropoioi obtained unit prices of 4 or 5 obols, that is the same price as on Syros, but this time without having to pay transport costs, nothing of which is any longer indicated in the accounts. With the exception of one of the suppliers referred to as “the Chiot” and who must have been a passing seller, the craftsmen who sold the tiles to the sanctuary seem to have been Delians or residents. One of them, Zelomenes, bears a typically Delian name. It appears likely, then, that steady and sizeable demand for this material from the sanctuary, combined with private building, was sufficient to gradually channel procurement so there was an abundant stock on the spot, lowering and stabilizing prices.

    41For J.A.O. Larsen, who was the first to analyse this price series, it was the constant demand for land and population growth that brought about this stability.56 From the evidence available for the first half of the third century at least, the cost of bricks held up also at an average price of 5 drachmas per hundred.57

    42We are unable to measure the share of competition in demand on Delos, alongside the sanctuary, but it seems the hieropoioi often had recourse to several craftsmen to take on major building projects. This was the case for the construction of the south vestibule of the Archegesion in 282 for which they drew on four suppliers for making 520 bricks (IG XI 2, 158, A, l. 57‑60), with one of the suppliers, Demophilos, taking on the building work. For the supply of timber, the hieropoioi also resorted to a large number of craftsmen, both for minor repairs and for major work requiring the provision of hundreds of items for roof frames. Many of these timber sellers were partly specialized craftsmen, supplying timber, but also torches and reed sheeting or pitch, repairing doors, sharpening tools or laying tiles.58 Their capacity to provide roofing timber also seems limited. For the work on the Hypostyle Hall in 207 (ID 366, A, l. 8‑41) the hieropoioi used stocks of timber already made up in the sanctuary, purchasing others from ten or so different suppliers and entering into agreements with craftsmen (two of whom were also suppliers) to shape and fit beams and achitraves.59

    43For C. Feyel, this division of labour, that can be seen in other instances, reflects the caution of those placing the orders who divided up the financial risks in this way.60 However, it might also be wondered whether it was not the limits of the production capacity of these artisan-entrepreneurs that were at issue. It seems that demand from the sanctuary often exhausted the productive capacities of the island and its surroundings, suggesting there was little competition or at any rate that demand was unequalled. So it is not the balancing of supply and demand that could explain the comparatively steady character of prices but rather the steady pressure of demand from the sanctuary for building work.

    44As expected it was primarily the weight of demand from the sanctuary that could be read in the accounts of the hieropoioi. But this observation forces us at the same time to re‑examine the market mechanisms attested to by the prices recorded by the administrators. Whereas they have essentially been interpreted as reflecting supply, whether international or regional, they should be seen instead as the reflection of demand mechanisms.

    Products imported from afar

    45Even for commodities that can be considered as coming from monopolies or near-monopolies, scrutiny of the data reveals first that the organization of a network of stockists created a filter of sorts between the initial production conditions and the final commercialization on Delos. This means that it is the pattern of the selling season that can be read through price changes.

    46Incense was regularly bought by the hieropoioi for ritual needs but the indications in their accounts are seldom associated with quantities. The price was plainly between 5 and 7 drachmas per mine. It was a commodity that necessarily came from long-distance trade, but the hieropoioi did not make advanced purchases or keep stocks. In 250 they made three separate purchases allowing us to observe the repercussions of the sailing season on prices. The other purchases of incense over the period show that the hieropoioi could procure it at the beginning of the year and then in summertime.61 So there was a regular supply channel that surely involved stockists close to the sanctuary. The few prices that have come down to us make it difficult to spot any trend. In seeking to do so, G. Reger wonders whether it might be that the hieropoioi had negotiated a fixed price of 5 drachmas per mine as a knock-down rate, with other higher prices being for the purchase of a quarter or half mine. The regular procurement makes such practice unlikely for a commodity that could be stocked. It seems far more likely that the price fluctuations observable between 250 and 169 corresponded not to variations in quantities but to variations in the availability of the products from local stockists because of the sailing season.

    47The reconstruction of perfume prices seems even more hit‑and-miss because, for an outlay of 5 to 7 drachmas that the hieropoioi made regularly in the third month of the year, the quantity is only indicated in two instances.62 But as G. Reger rightly notes, one of the suppliers of the sanctuary was a woman, suggesting that the hieropoioi were here again dealing with stockists.63

    48Papyrus, a monopoly product, was also bought at different times of year by the hieropoioi.64 As G. Glotz reports, the price of the sheet of papyrus wavered between 1.5 and 2 drachmas with a few exceptions.65 This average price was identical to that attested both by the accounts of the Erechtheion in 407 (IG I3 476, fr. XVII, col. II, l. 298‑291: 1 drachma, 2 obols) and the accounts of Epidaurus in the third quarter of the fourth century (IG IV2 1, 103, B, l. 159: 4.5 Aegenetic obols or 1 Attic drachma, ½ obol). It is the interpretation of the exceptions that is dubious: the exceptional price of 10 drachmas per sheet in 267 (ID 205, Bb, l. 2) figures in a text that is so fragmentary (χάρτης ∆ —) that the ∆ could equally well be the beginning of the supplier’s name, much as in 296 when the price of 1 obol per sheet, in a corrupted passage (IG XI 2, 154, A, l. 24: χάρτης̣ Ι[․․․․]ΟΛΛΙ is hardly sure while the purchase of [β]ιβλία for 1 drachma (l. 34) does not necessarily provide any relevant comparison.

    Table 47 — Price of tiles on Delos.

    YearReferencePrice per pair (ζεῦγος)QuantitySupplierNature of spending
    304IG XI 2, 144, A, l. 62,
    68-69, 73-74, 79-80,
    100, 115-116
    1 dr. 2 ob.24
    46
    53
    53
    56
    (making 232)
    20
    Aristokrates





    Aristoboulos
    Repairing the roofing of various buildings: Dioskourion, Asklepieion, Temple of Demeter, Herakleion, possibly the tamieion in the Prytaneum area, Eileithyaion. Suppliers were not roofers.
    Before
    282
    IG XI 2, 156, A, l. 76ImportedTiles transported by Charistios for 1 ob. 2 ch. per pair of tiles.
    282IG XI 2, 158, A, l. 84-854 ob. ½ ob.
    + naulon 13 dr. 3 ob.
    ½ ob. 2 ch. for
    a purchase of 52.5 dr. (or a unit cost
    of less than 1 dr.)
    70On SyrosPurchased on Syros for roofing of several buildings: Delian oikos, Inopos, Heraion (gaps)
    279IG XI 2, 161, A, l. 73-745 ob.
    + naulon and tax66 : 37 dr.
    (or a unit cost of 1 dr. ¼ ob.)
    175Purchased on Syros for the Porinos Naos
    Circa 280IG XI 2, 165, l. 54-57292ImportedTiles transported from Mykonos (naulon and tax) For the palaestra?
    274IG XI 2, 199, A, l. 109-110500AnapsyktidèsFor the palaestra
    (adjudication)
    269IG XI 2, 203, B, l. 31 dr.200Decision by the architect (adjudication)
    250IG XI 2, 287, A, l. 85
    et l. 113-114
    (4 ob. la κεραµίς)
    4 ob.
    5 ob.
    1
    190
    65

    The Chiot
    Periandros
    Decision by the architect (adjudication)
    Tiles for the palaestra
    246ID 290, l. 161, l. 165 et
    l. 174-175
    4 ob.4
    11
    76
    (making 91)
    Zelomenes
    208ID 365, l. 46-47 et
    l. 51-52
    (3 ob. per several κεραµίδες)249
    90
    (making 339)
    HeroidesTemple of the Nesos and neokorion of the
    Artemision (adjudications). Supplier was not roofer.
    207ID 366, A, l. 21-255.5 ob.
    5 ob.
    1500
    1060
    Praxikles
    Heroides
    Hypostyle Hall (adjudicated to two suppliers)
    174ID 456 + 440, B, l. 92-104
    (= ID 440, A, l. 78-90)
    (3 ob. 1 ch. per cover tile)

    (2.5 ob. per tile)
    600 κεραµίδες
    + cover tiles
    60 κεραµίδες
    KreonFor the Hypostyle Hall, the Temple of Apollo, the Graphe, the oikoi of the Kynthion, of the Nesos, Sarapieion and for the Inopos.
    (2.5 ob. per tile)160 κεραµίδεςHeroides
    Glaukon
    169ID 461, Ab, l. 53Pyrrhos

    49On the basis of a monopoly price interestingly accounted for by G. Glotz’s study, the slight variations in price paid by the hieropoioi for a sheet of papyrus more than likely reflect the transport costs and the stockists’ profit, even if not very different from the price of 1 drachma, 1 obol paid by Zeno in the mid third century.67

    50Conversely, in the case of luxury goods, the scarcity of which was then measured, the hieropoioi jumped at the opportunity of an importer passing through Delos. In the case of ivory, these were plainly occasional purchases for which the hieropoioi took advantage of a merchant’s presence. They made an investment of sorts by making up a small stock of some precious material that could be used at a later date. In 276 (IG XI 2, 163, Aa, l. 7) they bought 15 mines of ivory at 8 drachmas per mine. In 269 (IG XI 2, 203, A, 71) they bought two elephant tusks from a Tyrian merchant for 8 drachmas, 2 obols per mine.68 In 250 (IG XI 2, 287, A, l. 118) they made a third purchase for 3.5 drachmas per mine. Again this discrepancy was interpreted by W.W. Tarn and M. Rostovtzeff as reflecting rivalry between Ptolemy Philadelphus and Antiochos II with respect to the Delians, whereas it should probably be seen above all as the reflection of the organization of occasional long-distance trade in which different qualities were found under the same name. Ivory bought at 3.5 drachmas per mine might have been hippopotamus and not elephant ivory.69

    51For metals, unexpectedly the prices in the accounts are characterized by their stability although little data can be exploited.70 It is likely the reason was different and the price was closely related to the value of silver. The cost of the talent of lead, for those years in which a price can be ascribed to a unit, was 5 drachmas around 290 (IG XI 2, 153, l. 13).71 The cost was identical to that recorded in the accounts of the Erechtheion where a craftsman in 408/7 supplied two talents of lead for 10 drachmas (IG I3 476, fr. XVII, col. II, l. 296-2999). A little later, in 269, the hieropoioi bought lead in three instances, at different times of year, from three different suppliers, but the cost price was invariably 7 drachmas per talent (IG XI 2, 203, A, l. 34‑35, 52 and 71‑72).

    The market for everyday consumer goods

    52The accounts of the hieropoioi illustrate primarily the efforts made by the city-state of Delos and its magistrates to ensure regular supplies for its sanctuary for the worksites for construction and maintenance of the buildings while keeping costs down. But demand from the sanctuary also concerned other products that were part of the population’s routine consumption. Although the hieropoioi seldom purchased cereals, for the purposes of worship they did consume large amounts of firewood, charcoal and oil, along with animals for sacrifice.

    Sacrificial animals

    53Among the animals for sacrifice, the purchase of piglets for monthly purification (χοῖρος τὸ ἱερὸγ καθήρασθαι) recurred regularly, albeit with the difficulty for interpretation that no weight indications are given alongside the price of these animals. Analysing price fluctuations therefore becomes more hit and miss. Examination of other price series for sacrificial animals in the accounts of the hieropoioi (table 48), in particular in the series of recurring expenditure for the Posideai, reveals price variations for one and the same year that can hardly be ascribed to anything other than the animals’ weight. The δελφάκιον bought for Zeus Eubouleus and the δελφάκιον bought for Kore varied in price by 5 drachmas in 246 (ID 290, A, 88) whereas the price of 24 drachmas paid in 178 for three δελφάκια (ID 445, 3) corresponds to the price of a single animal in 177 (ID 444, A, 31). In 174, in the course of three separate purchases (IG 440, A, 36‑37 and 61), the δελφάκιον was bought for 23.5, 33 and 28 drachmas in turn.

    Table 48 — Prices of sacrificial animals.

    Changes in price of κάπρος (wild boar)

    YearReferencePrice

    274

    IG XI 2, 199, A, 71

    16

    246

    ID 290, A, 116

    16

    178

    ID 445, 3

    18

    177

    ID 452, 8

    16

    174

    ID 440, A, 61

    15

    169

    ID 461, Bb, 50

    10

    Changes in price of δελφάκιον (suckling pig)

    YearReferencePrice

    250

    IG XI 2, 287, A, 69        

    24 16

    Post. 248

    ID 291, b 24

    18 16.5

    246

    ID 290, A, 88

    14 9

    231

    ID 316, 122

    4.6 ?

    224

    ID 338, 59

    20

    200

    ID 372, A, 104

    22 22

    Ca 195

    ID 398, A, 9

    16

    179

    ID 442, A, 220

    30

    178

    ID 445, 3

    3 for 24

    177

    ID 444, A, 31

    25

    174

    ID 440, A, 36-37

    ID 440, A, 61

    23.5 ; 33 ; 28        

    Changes in price of ὗς ἐγκύµων (pregnant sow)

    YearReferencePrice

    302

    IG XI 2, 145, 4

    41

    250

    IG XI 2, 287, A, 69

    15

    246

    ID 290, A, 88

    26

    224

    ID 338, 59

    22.4

    200

    ID 372, A, 104

    37

    179

    ID 442, A, 200

    32

    177

    ID 444, A, 31

    36

    174

    ID 440, A, 36

    28

    171

    ID 460, t, 66

    40

    Changes in price of κριὸς (ram)

    YearReferencePrice

    ID 104-3

    17

    274

    IG XI 2, 199, A, 71

    16

    190

    ID 401, 17

    12

    Ca 190

    ID 406, B, 69

    13
    (2 for 26)

    170

    ID 464, 2

    13 ?
    (2 for 26 ?)

    54In contrast to these rather insignificant variations in market trends, G. Reger identifies a general upward trend from the mid third century in the variation in another recurrent purchase, the piglet (χοῖρος) intended for monthly purifications. He attributes this trend, which holds despite inevitable alterations due to the animal’s weight, to rising demand. This was supposedly due not to population growth but instead to the “new prosperity” that began in the 230s.72 It is a plausible explanation and might justify why demand from the Delians should vie with demand from the sanctuary for monthly sacrifices. But as shall be seen, the question of population growth should not be dismissed too readily. There are signs in the rising tax on rents and the volume of fish catches of the early presence of foreigners on the island in addition to the citizens.73 This rise in the price of piglets in the second half of the third century and more especially from the 230s, if it does correspond to demand for meat consumption, may also be a sign of the new eating habits related to the arrival of other populations on the island. One thinks more specifically of the Italians whose diet included pork.74 Questions must also be asked about the nature of monies used by the hieropoioi for payments of transactions with local farmers that might have affected the price variations.

    Timber

    55The procurement of building timber plainly shows, by contrast, changes related to the organization of supply even if the disparate character of the data does not really enable us to compare prices. An interesting variation can be spotted, though, during Independence in the types of wood purchased by the hieropoioi (table 49).

    Table 49 — Types of wood purchased for building timber.

      walnut    cedar   cork oak   lime    dogwood   elm  oak   fir    beech  
    302×
    282×
    281×
    279××××
    276××
    250××
    246××
    209×
    207××
    189×××
    174×
    169×

    56In the early years of Independence, a great variety of woods appeared in the passages of the accounts on construction, bought in various shapes and sizes (planks, beams, trunks and logs). In 302 the hieropoioi bought walnut (δοκὸς καρυΐνη: IG XI 2, 145, l. 20), in 282 they used fir (ἐλάτινον: IG XI 2, 158, l. 68‑69), in 281 cedar (κέδρος: IG XI 2, 159, A, l. 24), in 279 Arcadian cork‑oak (ἀρία: IG XI 2, 161, A, l. 70), lime (σανίδες φιλύριναι: IG XI 2, 161, A, 96), dogwood (κράνεια: IG XI 2, 161, A, l. 104) and elm (σανίς πτελεΐνη: IG XI 2, 161, A, l. 112‑113 and 120‑121). In 276 or 275, they still buy lime (σανίδες φιλύριναι: IG XI 2, 165, l. 4‑5, 32‑33, 45) and oak (ξύλον δρυΐνον: IG XI 2, 287, A, l. 118). In 246 they bought mostly oak (ξύλα δρυΐνα: ID 290, l. 221‑226) and fir (δοκὸς ἐλατίνη: ID 290, l. 173). In 209 they bought oak (δρυΐνα: ID 364, A, l. 19). In 207 they again bought oak (δρυΐνα: ID 366, A, l. 38) and beech (ξύλα ὀξύινα: ID 366, A, l. 37‑38), in 189 fir (σφηκίσκους ἐλατίνους: ID 403, l. 19), oak (δρυΐνα: ID 403, l. 24‑25) and elm (πτελεΐνα: ID 403, l. 29‑30). In 174 and 169 they again bought fir (ξύλον ἐλατίνον: ID 440 A, l. 77‑78 = 456 + 440, B, l. 91‑92; ID 461, Ab. l. 50).

    57As the table above shows, procurement by the hieropoioi tended to narrow from the mid third century to certain species: mostly oak with fir followed by elm and beech superseding the varied woods that made up their purchases in the first half of the third century.

    58Here one should probably not overlook the possible impact of deforestation and excess logging of varieties that had still been available in the classical period, forcing traders to turn to more specialized channels and probably more remote ones, offering oak and fir above all. But this shift also shows that the hieropoioi, initially reliant on various distribution channels and compelled to take supplies as the opportunities arose, seem to have managed to establish steady sources of supply around the middle of the third century by opting for the more regularly accessible species like oak and fir. This narrowing of varieties might therefore be a mark that Delos was opening more widely to the Aegean market through the formation of supply networks that stabilized during the third century and led to a degree of uniformization of products with oak and fir being preponderant.

    Price‑Setting: Auctions and Bargaining

    59This situation, in which the sanctuary – through the intermediary of the assembly and the council – controlled the formation of demand, was facilitated by the form that transactions took. Most transactions involved agreements made by adjudication to the lowest bidder at auction.75 C. Feyel shows how this lengthy adjudication process leading to the contract had the effect of making competition keener among craftsmen, whether settled on the island or from elsewhere, forcing them to calculate labour costs as closely as possible to win the business.76 He views the question from the point of view of the competition created among entrepreneurs. Closer scrutiny should be paid to the particular form of these sales and its impact on price formation by taking up the point of view of the sanctuary this time round.

    60The accounts of the hieropoioi do appear as a window on price levels in the Aegean in Hellenistic times,77 but a window for which it is important to specify the context. Many of the prices recorded by the hieropoioi were not market prices in the sense of rates reliant on a balance between supply and demand among a large customer base at a time t, but prices negotiated in the context of contractual relations. Of course, these prices were not impervious to the economic situation, conditions of supply and transport costs. They were entirely “unregulated” prices insofar as the city itself did not impose any price set prior to negotiations, which entailed competition among suppliers. But given how important this contractual dimension was in determining these prices, they depended in part on the bargaining capacity of the sanctuary’s administrators.

    The challenges of resorting to auction

    61In the auction process the sanctuary was in a position of force to influence prices, whether for building contracts or contracts for the supply of materials, because it set the starting price for negotiation.

    62A good many of the products for work in the sanctuary were supplied under contract. This was the case for example for brick, stone, earth and timber.78 In this way, when Menon, a craftsman settled on Delos, sold ξύλα µακεδονικὰ to the sanctuary in 274 (IG XI 2, 199, A, l. 57), the purchase was made µετὰ βουλῆς. This is the only occurrence of the expression in the accounts of the hieropoioi. It is actually used only in the acts of the fourth-century Athenian Amphictyons to designate the transmission of offerings “in the presence of the Boule of the Delians” (ID 104, l. 3 and ID 104‑12, l. 2). Here it attests to the council, whose commission of the eleven served as witness for business contracts (ID 502, A, l. 25), being present when the purchase of timber between the hieropoioi and Menon was concluded and to the purchase taking the form of a contract.79 It would probably be wrong to see this as an exception. The drafting of the accounts probably stated on the contrary the usual purchasing procedure, but the hieropoioi did not always copy out the full form of the contract. Whereas the hieropoioi had working capital made up of a part of their cash in hand for sundry payments, they made purchases above all κατὰ ψηφίσµατα τοῦ δήµου, decided by the assembly of the people, which set the amounts the hieropoioi could lay out on any particular category of expenditure in the form of a diataxis or its equivalent.80 The budgetary decision to release funds usually had to go along with the negotiation of the sale, as in the case of Menon.

    63The leeway for the hieropoioi was therefore limited from the outset by the city-state’s budgetary decisions and this constraint compounded the constraint that the form of adjudication placed on suppliers. Moreover, despite the changeover of boards, even for purchases they made on the market independently of the contracts voted for by the assembly, the hieropoioi always had archival information on the prices their predecessors paid. This information was also known to the council and assembly. Typically the hieropoioi sometimes omitted to indicate the total amount paid for some purchase in the accounts (this was often the case for purchases of pitch) but they did generally record the unit price.81 They did this, too, for contracts for the supply of various materials, whereas it would have sufficed, from an accounting standpoint, to show the total cost charged to the sacred fund.82 In the early second century, the way the accounts were drawn up was reorganized and showed more plainly the monthly prices of recurring purchases such as oil, firewood, pitch, and piglets for sacrifices.83 The civic instances, by way of the accounts of the hieropoioi, therefore had knowledge of the average prices, the going rates and suppliers that made them something of an authority on transactions. Without being market price lists as such, the accounts of the hieropoioi had something of a similar effect. On the sellers’ side, the regular demand from the sanctuary could be predicted by and large. As for the major works, the proclamation of adjudications by the public herald advertised them sufficiently for contractors to come in from outside the island.

    64Even before prices were concluded by comparing supply and demand, most of the factors were known to both sides. Although these prices were set in the context of a market, they were not, as seen, determined by any straightforward confrontation of supply and demand at a time t, as neoclassical analysis would have it.

    The hieropoioi as sellers

    65Resort to auction sales was familiar practice for the hieropoioi. Operations of adjudication of contracting work were carried out in the agora through the voice of the herald and the accounts of the hieropoioi report this on several occasions. Thus for the building of a wall in 302: τοῦ ∆ιοσκουρίου τὸν τοῖχον ἐξέδοµεν τὸµ πρὸς βορέαν ὑπὸ κήρυκος ἐν τῆι ἀγορᾶι κατὰ συγγραφὴν οἰκοδοµῆσαι Νίκωνι, “we have put up for adjudication, through the herald in the agora, under the contract, the construction of the north wall of the Dioskourion to Nikon” (IG XI 2, 145, l. 11; l. 18).84

    66They were sometimes also sellers on the market for goods acquired previously that served no further purpose. In 246 a slave was resold further to a decision by the assembly and replaced by another bought on the market (ID 290, l. 114‑115: ψ̣[ηφισαµένου τοῦ δ]ήµου τὸµ παῖδα ἀποδόσθαι καὶ ἕτερον ἀγοράσαι, [ἐ]πράθη ὑπὸ κήρυκος ἐ̣[ν ἀγορᾶι? δραχµῶν] Η̣𐅄̣∆· ἄλλος ἠγορά[σθη], “the people having voted to sell the slave again and to buy another one, he was sold by way of the herald in the agora for 160 drachmas and another one purchased”.

    67Besides the resale of used or surplus equipment, the hieropoioi sometimes had occasion to sell on the market animals that had been consecrated to Apollo by the faithful. The category of receipts from resale even figured as such in the list of the different entries making up the cash holdings of the hieropoioi (e.g. ID 371, A, l. 5).85 The term used for the slave resold through the herald, and therefore by auction, and for the resale of materials, was identical: it was ἀπόπρασις (ID 353, A, l. 38), of the proceeds of the ἀποπραθέντων (ID 371, A, l. 5; ID 442, A, l. 157‑159) or the πραθέντων (IG XI 2, 144, A, 21; ID 395, l. 7) and this πράσις, of which it is also question for the crops seized for failure to pay farm rents so as to reimburse the sanctuary, in the hiera syggraphe (ID 503), was in all likelihood an auction sale.86

    68These sales joined the register of the ἐπικηρυσσόµενα mentioned in the Delian law on the sale of wood and charcoal (ID 509, l. 6) and known from the lexicographers’ definitions: they were public (or sacred) goods sold at auction by the herald’s voice in the agora.87 A passage from Pollux (X, 18‑19) on forms of sale defines more specifically the way in which, in Attic and Ionian vocabulary, the name of the thing sold designated both the act of sale and its location. It is a question in particular of the sale of epipla (movables), a type of skeue (equipment), formerly called pamprasia and done by way of the herald; τὴν πρᾶσιν τῶν ἐπίπλων τὴν ὑπὸ κήρυκι γιγνοµένην, ἥν νῦν ἀπαρτίαν καλοῦσιν, ἀγορὰν καὶ παµπρασίαν, “the sale of movables effected via the herald, a sale that is now called apartia, agora and pamprasia”. Now the term ἀπαρτία or ἀπαρτεία refers to the process of public auction in the papyri.88 Together with the term παµπρασία, it seems to refer to a general form of sale in the Greek world.

    69A circular market structure mentioned by the lexicographers, the kukloi, was appropriate for sales of this type. One of them, from the first century BC, has been identified in the Agora of Theophrastos.89 This structure, which must have been monumentalized in stone late on, is to be sought rather, at the time of Independence, in the Agora of the Delians, as attested to by the references cited above to sales in the agora by the hieropoioi. For anyone who did not have a shop or stall on the market, sale by public auction was the only possible form of transaction on the market. The Delian hieropoioi were in just this situation.

    70From the evidence of the records of transactions in the accounts of the hieropoioi, the sanctuary was more often than not in the position of the seller and not the buyer because of the form of auction and adjudication, even when it was ultimately the payer in the case of contracts for supply and building work.90 It sold to the lowest bidder when it put building work up for adjudication but also to the highest bidder when, by the same process, it farmed out the collection of taxes, farm rents and property rents of Apollo’s estate, much as it sold off animals offered to the god or resold surplus or used materials. Usually, in the case of adjudications of work or tax farming, the sale gave rise to a contract. In all instances, the form of auction put the sanctuary in an advantageous position in the sale, not just because it heightened competition among potential buyers but also because the sanctuary, through the intermediary of the hieropoioi or the herald, as the seller, was first to announce its price.

    71The rules of market behaviour were based on negotiation and meant the seller announced his price first before potential buyers began discussions with him. It is precisely the opposite attitude to what Theophrastus (Characters, XV, 4‑5, transl. C.E. Bennet and W.A. Hammond, Longmans, Green and Co. 1902) describes as surliness: the surly man, “[w]hen he has anything for sale, he will not tell the purchaser what he charges, but instead inquires, ‘How much do I get for it?’ ” (καὶ πωλῶν τι µὴ λέγειν τοῖς ὠνουµένοις, πόσου ἂν ἀποδοῖτο, ἀλλ’ ἐρωτᾶν· Τί εὑρίσκει;). So most of the prices recorded in the expenditure of the hieropoioi were actually sale prices, or more exactly, in the context of the definition of a contract, prices asked by the seller (the sanctuary) and accepted by the contractor (the craftsman), after negotiations in which the sanctuary usually had the advantage.

    The hieropoioi as buyers

    72In other instances, the sanctuary was in the position of buyer on the market, with a margin of negotiation that carried the weight of the monetarized wealth of Apollo and the institutional authority of the hieropoioi. Auction proceedings, that served for adjudication by which the supplier with whom the sanctuary was to draw up a contract was designated, were also practised for other transactions by the hieropoioi. Alongside purchases of lengths of timber by contract, as just seen, the hieropoioi purchased wood at auction. This was certainly the case of wood, already mentioned (ID 366, A, l. 38‑39), bought from the pentekostologoi, which must have been goods seized by customs further to fraud by the seller and sold at public auction.91 According to a hypothesis suggested by P. Gauthier, the pentekostologoi could have confiscated a cargo that had been ordered by the hieropoioi, which would be why they accepted immediately to make it over to them against payment. This interpretation does not seem suitable for the transaction in question. A second purchase features in the same lines of the accounts for the year 207 for the same quantities and at the same price (29 lengths of timber for 406 drachmas) from the “guardians of Aristagore”. C. Vial assumes (Index, s.v.) that the guardians in question took over the wood dealing business of the father of Aristagore, who is unknown. But it could equally well be, there again, an auction sale of stocks of timber upon the death of the dealer by the executors of his will. It is striking, then, to observe that, in this series of purchases made the same year for the work on the Hypostyle Hall, upon injunction of the architect and in accordance with a decree of the people (l. 36), the hieropoioi obtained different rates from different sellers for pieces of the same name (σφηκίσκοι). They managed to secure an identical price of 14 drachmas per unit at the sale at public auction of two lots and negotiated sales ranging from 10 to 14.5 drachmas per unit from three merchants (table 50).

    Table 50 — Prices of purchases of wood for the Hypostyle Hall in 207 (ID 366) by supplier.

    Seller   Number of items   
    (σφηκίσκοι)
       Unit price (dr.)      Total price (dr.)   
    Demeas1013.5135
    Pentekostologoi2914406
    Guardians of Aristagore   2914406
    Soterikos714.6102.2
    Kallistratos91090

    73This account for the year 207 makes a clear distinction between supplies bought under contract ([τ]άδε ἔργα ἐξέδοµεν, l. 1), including tiles ordered from several craftsmen,92 and purchases of wood made at the injunction of the architect and by virtue of a decree of the people (τάδε ξύλα ἠγοράσαµεν, l. 36), and so on the market and probably at auction. The hieropoioi generally fared better when selling adjudication contracts than when buying at public auction, because the terms of competition were not the same.

    Price negotiations

    74A number of commodities were purchased monthly by the hieropoioi from the working capital of the sacred fund. In the early second century this was the case of oil, pitch, firewood and piglets for sacrifices. For these regular purchases, the hieropoioi probably did not need to resort to contracts. As seen, demand from the sanctuary multiplied the number of shopkeepers and stockists capable of supplying it not just with pitch and oil but also papyrus, incense and perfume, and of ensuring a steady supply through stockpiling.

    75When the hieropoioi bought in supplies on the market or from shopkeepers whose names they recorded in the accounts, negotiation prevailed. This meant that the prices the hieropoioi paid were not – or not entirely – imposed by the economic situation whether local, regional or Aegean.

    76Several passages by Athenaeus describe bargaining that characterized the confrontation between seller and buyer on the market, essentially over transactions with fishmongers who had fool-proof techniques for imposing their prices.93 Mastery of the power relations between seller and buyer required a degree of practice. Lynceus of Samos, according to Athenaeus (VI, 228c and 313f‑314a), had written a treatise entitled Techne opsonetike or “the art of shopping on the market” in which he taught a friend how to bargain effectively (δυσωνεῖσθαι). In shops, too, the prices proposed by the shopkeeper could be haggled over by customers. A mime by Herondas (VII) set the scene in a cobbler’s shop and highlighted, in the mouth of the cobbler, the different parameters that made up the asking price: the costs of materials and their processing, the cost of labour, the costs of maintaining the shop. Nonetheless the cobbler let the buyer adjust her price to his, while putting forward his arguments.

    77In the transactions conducted on Delos, the administrators of the sanctuary of Apollo were at risk of resembling the fishmongers of Athenaeus, even if the these Delians of good society must have been more amiable than the merchants dictating their prices and whose conduct the comics constantly mocked as coarse and unbecoming. Apart from the institutional authority conferred on them by the prestige of their office, they had precise knowledge of earlier prices by way of the archives of the sacred fund and the weight of what was both steady and sizeable demand, to the extent that it sometimes reached the limits of craftsmen’s productive capacities. This meant they could dictate their requirements to their counterparts, and they plainly managed to do this in some instances at least by maintaining a fixed price over the course of the year while making purchases at different times and from several suppliers. This was the case with pitch. Whether the sellers were importers passing through the island or local stockists who certainly had reserves, the hieropoioi secured the same price. Thus in 302 (IG XI 2, 145 l. 3, 8 and 10) they paid 17 drachmas per keramion to Hestiaios and to Nannakos, who were both on the spot, and “to foreigners”, and in 296 for a price of 18 drachmas per keramion to Diakritos, who bore a Delian name, and to Herodoros of Chios (IG XI 2, 154, l. 2 and l. 48).

    78Another question is to what extent the sanctuary, as purchaser, was up against competition. We know that for most building materials it had to turn to several suppliers to meet its demand for bricks, tiles and building timber. And yet, the development of the Delian marketplace in the form of a regional redistribution centre for the Cyclades, well before the creation of the free port, could not have been without effect on the sanctuary’s economic position.

    The characteristics of the Delian market

    79The formation of supply networks on the spot to meet the sanctuary’s demand was the effect of a collective policy by the city-state of the Delians, who must themselves have found sources of profit in their business activities. The change observed in the 250s and that led to price stabilization can be explained, as G. Reger points out, by local reasons. The pattern of prices of ordinary consumer products like oil followed the seasonal pattern of sales, rising when it became hard to make ends meet and falling after the harvests. But the explanation in itself fails to account for the organization of the Delian market, which proved more complex. In particular the proportion given over to storage, by reconstructing local terms of sale, may mask the reality of connections beyond the Cyclades. It is important for that reason to detect what the accounts of the hieropoioi do not say about the economy, that is, to determine the proportion of commercial activities not wholly reliant on the sanctuary.

    The Continuity of Structures and Activities

    The classical emporion

    80Well before it was characterized as κοινὸν ῾Ελλήνων ἐµπόριον (Pausanias, VIII, 33), Delos was a busy port. In the mid fourth century, a fragmentary speech by Hyperides related to the dispute between Athens and Delos for the administration of the sanctuary described Delos as having an emporion, unlike Rhenea which did not.94 The wharfs were one of the leading features of the Delian port infrastructure as early as the classical period and the Athenian inscriptions of Delos show that, at the time, the Athenians had endeavoured to set up a fiscal system to exploit the revenues of the sacred port, on the basis of those infrastructures from as early as the late fifth century.95 Once again, the presence of the sanctuary as the contractor for major constructions and employer of many artisanal businesses was probably not unconnected with this situation, which was at the same time consolidated by the drawing power of Delos as a Cycladic and Aegean religious centre, although it was impossible, at that date, to measure its outreach and the scale of its pulling power with any precision. As an emporion, it was nonetheless the redistribution trade that made Delos a centre in classical times, compounded by the banking activity of the sanctuary with respect to the island cities. As early as classical times, Delos was a place of supply, trade and business where people came to seek out capital. This situation favoured Delian families involved in commerce and diverse trades, and it can be seen from the accounts of the fourth century that they sometimes allied with Athenians to rent premises.96

    81This initial circumstance casts doubt on the stages described by G. Reger. Why wait for a power vacuum in the Aegean Sea in the second half of the third century to see the beginnings of what had already been operative in the fourth and perhaps already the fifth centuries, and often on a broader scale than that of the Cyclades alone as concerns loans by the sanctuary?97 It is instead as a continuation of the business of the emporion in the fourth century that the developments of the third century are to be understood.

    Population growth in the third century

    82Two indications suggest that population growth occurred on Delos from the first half of the third century and not from the 230s as G. Reger believes.98 Figures for a tax on all rents on the island, the dekate on rents, which was farmed out for the benefit of the public fund and for which we have two references concerning repayments of loans by the city-state to the sacred treasury, show that the population had more than doubled between 279 and 250. This tax, which had brought in 600 drachmas in 279 (IG XI 2, 161, A, l. 26), was adjudged for 1690 drachmas in 250 (IG XI 2, 287, A, l. 9). Now, it must have been levied mostly on foreigners resident on the island who did not benefit from the enktesis. It must also have concerned any rental of buildings for commercial or craft purposes.

    83Another tax, the dekate on fish (ἰχθύων δεκάτη), corresponded to the levy of 1/10th of the price of sales of fish. On the basis of farm rent income that came to 1,850 drachmas in a loan repayment of the year 250 (IG XI 2, 287, A, l. 8‑10), combined with information on the price of fish in the Akraiphia price list, E. Lytle calculated that the Delian tax take corresponded to the sale of 240,000 mines of fish per year, or 144,000 kg, a quantity that belies the idea of a small local market: “The Delian market could only have been supplied fish in such volumes by scores of professional fishermen engaged in what can be described as an artisanal industry.”99

    84While they prove that fish consumption was not marginal in the diet, these estimates also provide an interesting indication as to population growth on Delos and the plausible presence of foreigners who were not all visible in the epigraphic accounting information. The figures given by E. Lytle hold for a population of up to 8,000 for annual fish consumption of 20 kg or so. Only the proportion of Delian citizens can be precisely evaluated in the sources, more especially from the accounts of the Posideia in the early second century that yield an estimate of about 1,200 male citizens.100 Apart from the figures for families, the proportion of aliens escapes us. But if we correlate this information with the increase in the price of piglets from the mid third century, it can be seen that the question of the growth of the population of Delos cannot be limited, as G. Reger seeks to limit it, to the period after the 230s.101 These few indications suggest that between the fourth and third centuries Delos did not cease to be an attractive emporion.

    Business Premises and the Interests of the Delians

    85The Delian emporion and its redistributive role could not have developed without the emergence of facilities and practices for stockpiling.

    86The matter of stockpiling is difficult to apprehend in the sources but the data we have collated in the accounts of the hieropoioi, highlighting the formation of supplies close by for the sanctuary, suggest that this went along with the development of means of stockpiling that could delay the effects of fluctuations relating to imports and ensure, in the short term at least, stabilization of costs as reflected in the price curves from the middle of the third century. The storage of commodities certainly made it possible to lessen the effects of gaps related to production conditions or breaks in the more remote distribution channels. Stockpiling evened-out prices and transport costs over the course of the year.

    87The method was well-known and Lysias, in Against the grain merchants, says as much, although the period in consideration was shorter: “If they were acting in your interest [by buying up grain in mass], one should have seen prices stay the same for many days, until their stocks were exhausted” (§12). The presence of stocks among the island’s sellers meant the hieropoioi did not need to stockpile goods themselves and that they could save their purchases for the times of the year when necessary. In this way they optimized the funds available to them.

    The practices of the hieropoioi

    88As seen, the sanctuary conserved some scarce commodities. The hieropoioi bought ivory when an opportunity arose. They kept an inventory of surplus tiles, stockpiled for reasons that seem above all related to the difficulty in estimating exactly how many to order, perhaps also to make up for those that might be broken during handling and laying.102 Shortly before 280, they thus used 217 pairs of tiles left by earlier boards for the palaestra and for the Asklepieion (IG XI 2, 156, B, L. 21‑27). In 269 they bought 200 pairs of tiles for various buildings and used three-quarters of them, with the remainder being handed down to their successors. Of the purchases of tiles made in 250 for repairing several roofs, there remained 114 cover tiles (IG XI 2, 287, B, l. 154). In 200 the hieropoioi had the tiles stored in various buildings counted and drew up the inventory (ID 372, A, l. 107 and l. 163‑165). In 189 they used some of the tiles stored and made an inventory of the remainder (ID 403, l. 38‑43). They also stored pieces of timber that would serve for building scaffolding or roof frames. The oikos of the Naxians housed stocks of timber that the hieropoioi inventoried on two occasions, in 240 and 229 (ID 298, A, l. 184 and 320, B, l. 68‑69). The construction of the Hypostyle Hall gave rise to many purchases of wood that probably explain the stock-taking in the early second century (ID 372, A, l. 159‑169 and ID 400, l. 32‑35 and l. 44‑49).103

    89Nor did they hesitate, at the same time, to sell off surplus or old tiles in the agora (IG XI 2, 144, A, l. 21; from the oikoi: IG XI 2, 287, A, l. 22‑23; from the Pythion: ID 290, A, l. 103) or pieces of timber from the Poulydamas (IG XI 2, 159, A, l. 49), the Inopos (ID 354, A, l. 18‑19, the Kynthion (ID 442, A, l. 157) or the Herakleion (ID 442, A, l. 158), stones from the peribolos of the sanctuary (ID 442, A, l. 159), and wood from the trimming of wild fig trees (ID 353, A, l. 37‑38). Admittedly, these sales, in particular of tiles that were broken or worn by the sea air, finished rather with them being recycled as building materials than for re‑use on roofs. Even so, the hieropoioi, in resorting to the market, did not feel the need to build up stand‑by stocks, although the repair of the roofs of the various buildings of the sanctuary seems to have been a recurrent operation. The purchases made invariably indicate that the tiles were meant for a particular building, with the result that their stocks were rather left‑overs that, as thrifty housekeepers, they exploited methodically. Their purchases of wood were also made as part of specific building programmes, with the result that the stocks they inventoried subsequently were more like left‑overs than actual stockpiling.104 When it came to necessities like oil, the hieropoioi, procured them every month without building up reserves. If we correlate this observation with the stabilization of prices and supply channels, it has to be inferred that stockpiling on Delos took place outside of the sanctuary.

    Stockpiling outside the sanctuary

    90In the course of the period of Independence the sanctuary rented out houses belonging to the god including a number of business premises:105 the “house of Ephesos” was a commercial building (kapeleia), the “house of Orthokles” was a forge, other workshops were located “near the forge”, the Sosileiai buildings were in the port district and included a workshop for male workers (andron) and the Chareteiai buildings in the same district, which included workshops for men and a workshop for women, and two xylones which must have served as timber warehouses.106 Other workshops were the private property of Delians who mortgaged them to secure loans from the sanctuary.107 The administrative documents of the Second Athenian Domination also present valuable clues as to the composition of the property of the Delians at the time of Independence. The estates and houses rented out at the time for the benefit of the sanctuary were no longer exactly those farmed out during the period of Independence. Some properties were confiscated from the Delians who had been expelled and a clause concerning the upkeep of estates and premises leased out indicates various categories of goods (ID 1416, B, I, l. 11‑15):108 οἰκήµατα, ἐργαστήρια, ναυπήγια, ἐγδοχεῖα. For P. Roussel, the arsenals (ναυπήγια) and warehouses (ἐγδοχεῖα.) might have been the former οἰκήµατα πρὸς τῆι θαλάσσηι rented out by the sanctuary in the course of Independence (IG XI 2, 161, A, l. 21; 277, l. 11; 226, A, l. 16; ID 317, a, l. 20). There is no proof of it but this list is evidence above all of the existence of buildings for storage and craftwork in the property of the Delians at a period before 167.

    91For the sanctuary’s rented property, C. Vial shows that a score of craftsmen or entrepreneurs, who rented craft buildings, mostly Delians, paid the sanctuary a rent of between 100 and 190 drachmas per year, which comes to a non-negligible total.109 The category of the tenants of the sacred houses, however, which includes a large number of magistrates, does not necessarily indicate the business activity of the interested parties, who might have been businessmen renting premises to make a profit from them by subletting to foreigners. But at least three choregoi and two hieropoioi between 292 and 252 bore the same names as timber entrepreneurs.110 During the first half of the third century, at least two shopkeepers belonged to politically active families: Menes son of Evelthon, marble worker and tenant of a workshop of the Chareteia, who proposed a decree granting rights as a citizen to a Chian (ID 599) and Sosimenes son of Antigonos, supplier of stone and house painter, brother to a proposer of decrees.111

    92Several Delians appear among the intermediaries in supplying wood to the sanctuary. M. Lacroix recognizes the branches of a Delian family of lumber dealers in a number of merchants’ names in the accounts of the hieropoioi.112 But it is actually difficult to identify Delian shopkeeping families with certainty and to ascertain the proportion of Delians involved in business activities because the accounts of the hieropoioi seldom mention patronyms.113 However, mentions of purchases of pieces of timber by the sanctuary gave rise to handling operations that may provide clues as to supply channels. In 274 the hieropoioi paid carriers to convey from the agora timber bought from Demetrios (ἀπενέγκασιν ἐ[κ τ]ῆς̣ ἀγορᾶς ξ̣ύλ[α παρὰ] [∆η]µητρίου ἀγορασθέντα, IG XI 2, 199, A, l. 47‑48) or again to transport wood bought at Philtes’ premises to the palaestra (l. 52‑53):114 the transaction seems indeed to have taken place on the island. With the exception of a timber merchant of Assos who supplied limewood planks for the Pythion in 276 or 275 (IG XI 2, 165, l. 32‑33), the suppliers of the hieropoioi in this domain were usually mentioned by their eponym alone, with no patronym or ethnic, suggesting that the hieropoioi found merchants on the spot capable of supplying the pieces of building timber they needed. Some of these timber suppliers were certainly Delians. A purchase made in 207 for the Hypostyle Hall from “guardians of Aristagore” (ID 366, A, l. 39) situated the operation a priori on Delos. But this wood was obviously imported and stockpiled. That same year, the hieropoioi also bought 29 pieces of timber from the pentekostologoi (l. 38‑39), the sign that the goods transited via the port. These were goods seized by customs and sold on under the oversight of the tax receivers for the benefit of the public treasury.115

    93It is likely, then, that the Delian population was largely involved in the economic activities of the sanctuary through its role in the activities of the Delian emporion. The exact nature of this business escapes us. It probably involved family undertakings tied to networks outside Delos, involved in commercial channels for import and redistribution and for stockpiling goods on the spot.116

    94The involvement of some magistrates and politicians in commerce was probably not alien to the implementation of an active policy to form local supply channels in the first half of the third century. Decisions about the sacred finances were down to the council and assembly but could at the same time reflect debates and orientations of interest groups. In this way the development of local supply from imports, reflected by support for dealing and stockpiling practices, was a political choice made in the interest of the sanctuary’s finances, which, at the same time, served the interests of the community of Delians by maintaining the god’s treasury through good stewardship, but equally served certain citizens when they found financial advantage in engaging in commercial activities that met demand from the sanctuary.

    Competition among Delians

    95These choices could equally as well have prompted debates and disagreements within the civic community. While the rental of sacred estates and houses was monopolized by a few Delian families, it might have been tempting to use the auctions to set up a tenant interested in some activities rather than others. The accounting nature of the Delian records is hardly enlightening on these questions but it can be guessed that support for a policy conducive to the setting up of warehousing agents, sometimes to the detriment of other activities, should not have failed to elicit reactions within Delian families with a stake in the adjudications. Thus Eteolkeides, a farmer of Kerameion with his son for three decades from 282 to 258, was driven out by Ergoteles, who was also tenant of andrones in 246 (ID 290, 26). Eteokleides had also tried to hold on to the tenancy of the shop of Ephesos, which he forfeited in 268.117

    96Although the Delian sanctuary was certainly not the only lessor to offer premises for let, the general rise in sacred rents during the first half of the third century could probably be attributed in part at least to this new situation. It is likely that these premises that were to serve for commercial and artisanal activities had become more sought after as the hieropoioi tended to turn increasingly to warehousing agents on the spot.

    97The premises were multi-purpose. Accordingly the andrones were rented in succession by Philtes and by Ergoteles, both known for their timber merchant businesses, by Menes, who was a marble worker for the sanctuary, and by Mnesileos who was a house painter.118

    98The rise in rents in the first half of the third century did not concern the sanctuary alone. The increase in income from sacred rents was paralleled in the tax figures for all the rents of the island, the dekate on rents, that was farmed out to the public fund and for which we have two indications for repayments of loans by the city-state to the sacred treasury. This tax, which had brought in 600 drachmas in 279 (IG XI 2, 161, A, l. 26), was adjudged for 1,690 drachmas in 250 (IG XI 2, 287, A, l. 9). Accordingly the fall in sacred rents in the second half of the third century119 might suggest that other constructions had been undertaken at the instigation of individuals to meet demand which, at the beginning of the third century, rested primarily on premises belonging to the sanctuary.

    99Since the classical period, the Delian emporion seems to have experienced a growth stage that led, in the course of the first half of the third century, to the adapting of redistribution channels and the development of stockpiling practices, involving several Delian families in commercial activities. This evolution was certainly facilitated by the growing monetarization made possible by the minting of Persian treasuries. In the inventories on offerings, we have already identified the impact in the increase in dedications of gold items in the early third century.120

    100To what extent did these developments bring about a far-reaching transformation of Delian society? The essentially accounting character of the records we have makes this difficult to measure, but perhaps one should see a form of resistance to these changes, or a form of social divide, in certain votive practices that contrasted with the ambient business speculation. While some Delian families dedicated founding capital to the sanctuary, other Delians honoured Apollo, probably in the form of a tithe on their income in thanks for their prosperity, in a very different manner, by consecrating to the god an animal from their herd or flock. Yet the sanctuary had neither the means nor the intention to develop livestock management. By making a gift in kind, the faithful compelled the hieropoioi to monetize their offering, that is, to sell the animal on the market and then transform the proceeds into a vase of precious metal of the same weight as the amount obtained from the sale.121 We have a trace of this in the offering of a ram by one Demetrios in 258, converted into a small kylix (κυλύχνιον).122 The practice was marginal but shows even so that not all Delians shared the same access to cash and that some remained attached to agriculture and livestock farming, alongside a society that was moving increasingly towards commerce and finance. And yet Delian farmers were not cut off from market practices either. Excavation of the Farm with Granite Door Posts yielded some 50 bronze coins, potential evidence of farm sales or, at least, that these families were integrated in the local market.123 It was indeed business speculation that seemed to win out in third-century Delos as it had done in the fourth century.

    The City‑State’s Policy

    Price changes and redistributive commerce

    101It appears that, from the second half of the third century, the administration of the sanctuary managed to stabilize the organization of its procurement to the point of lowering prices. The downturn in the price of pitch is clear evidence of this. The early third century saw a similar trend for firewood but this did not continue, with prices surging as from the mid third century. The rise was more difficult to perceive in the case of charcoal because the hieropoioi did not generally indicate the unit of measurement, although it is possible to compare the amount of annual expenditure and so the change in amounts spent on charcoal in the budget of the Posideia, which the hieropoioi habitually detailed in the second century. It appears that this spending more than doubled between the years 250 and 200. Was it the drawing power of the sanctuary that meant there were more sacrifices? Was it demand from outside the sanctuary, from a growing resident population, that competed with it on the market and drove prices up? The two explanations were probably complementary (table 51). Alongside this, the demand for local wine seemed to fall, to the advantage of foreign wines.124 Population growth from the early third century is apparent from the needs expressed in particular through rises in rents, the volume of fish catches and meat consumption.

    Table 51 – The sanctuary’s expenditure on charcoal.

    Montha. 258
    (IG XI 2,
    224)
    a. 250
    (IG XI 2,
    287)
    a. 246
    (ID 290)
    a. 231
    (ID 316)
    a. 224
    (ID 338)
    a. 218
    (ID 354)
    a. 200
    (ID 372)
    a. 194
    (ID 396)
    a. 179
    (ID 442)
    a. 174
    (ID 440+456)
    a. 173
    (Tréheux
    1985a
    Γ766γ)
    a. 171
    (ID 460)
    Lenaion6714127[10]1314
    Hieros412710111214
    Galaxion36101[10]1015
    Artemision66.61010.1
    Thargelion4.560.49614
    Panemos04.5389157
    Hekatombaion3109
    Metageitnion3914
    Bouphonion3.6512891415
    Apatourion46101414
    Aresion4.576101815
    Posideion674101212.510.1
    TOTAL48.6116(107)(105.5)
    Average monthly price4.049.66(13.37)(13.18)
    Spending on charcoal for the Posideia
    YearPrice of charcoal        

    190 (ID 401, l. 20)

    15

    179 (ID 442, A, l. 221)        

    18

    178 (ID 445, l. 6)

    7

    177 (ID 452, l. 10)

    12

    170 (ID 464, l. 6)

    8

    169 (ID 461 Bb, l. 52)

    13

    102Yet this trend was not that of pitch which, even so, must have been produced from the same conifers as were used for heating and of which, as seen, the hieropoioi had probably managed to build up nearby stocks thereby bringing down production and distribution costs. For this product, used for the upkeep of the extensive woodwork of the temples and cult buildings, the sanctuary probably retained a position of monopsony and was not in competition with other local demand. The same stability, with a downward trend, can be observed for the price of oil, which should probably be construed as a steady supply made possible by the development of storage practices. This stabilization of costs of these commodities ultimately appears to be the best indication of the development of commercial activity on Delos as an emporion. Regular arrivals were provided by larger and more frequent ships and the development of storage infrastructures meant the costs of carriage could be spread evenly over the course of the year.

    103In itself, the interpretation of these various trends seems pointless but, whatever the scale of the explanation, commentaries converge around the idea of the port of Delos and its commerce becoming increasingly attractive by the end of the third century.125 However, at the same time, it seems that some goods, and firewood especially, were more subject to speculation than others.

    The fight against speculation

    104It is precisely such speculation that is attested by the Delian law on the sale of wood and charcoal, the sole evidence of the regulation of the Delian market and a rare document on the operation of ancient markets more generally. If the re‑edited text and the interpretation I proposed are accepted,126 it provides an account of a policy of the Delian city that appears, once again, particularly sensitive to its commercial environment and consistent with the development of the Delian emporion.

    105At a date that is difficult to pin down, but before the redevelopment of the port area in relation to the construction of the sea‑front stoas, and therefore in the course of the third century, the city legislated on the organization of the market for wood and charcoal. Although it has often seemed tempting to connect this law with a particular economic situation that could be read from the changes in the prices recorded in the accounts of the hieropoioi, especially in the years 230‑220, the study of the grammatical and phonetic specificities of the text inclines us to situate it in a broader time span, with possibly a series of copies related to the redevelopment of the port area.

    106Once a fresh explanation is given of the clause that proved problematic and that suggested there was a statement of the price set at the moment the customs declaration was made, the purpose of the law can be clearly seen.127 It specifically defines, for strategic materials – wood and charcoal – that might have been one of the specialities of supply of the Delian marketplace, the working of the emporion and its interaction with the population settled on the island.

    107The position of importers, who, when they arrived on Delos, offloaded their cargo and had to sell neither πλείονος, nor ἐλάσονος, neither “for more” nor “for less” than they had declared, was comparable to a number of instances evoked in maritime cases in the civil pleadings of the Demosthenian corpus. The assessment of the cargo, or τίµηµα, required for calculating the customs duty ad valorem, rested on a declaration the merchant had to make to the pentekostologoi. This declaration, based on a written record concerning both the vessel and its cargo, was not a declaration of the sale price. It is far more logical that the declaration made to the pentekostologoi concerned the purchase cost of the cargo, plus the costs of carriage, because the price for which the importer had purchased the goods could be proved by documents.128 It is very likely this initial price served to determine the value of the goods, much as today ad valorem customs duties are calculated on the CIF (Cost, Insurance, Freight) value as distinct from the FOB (Free on Board) value. The declaration made for the payment of the pentekoste could therefore not constrain the sale cost, other than by representing a price that necessarily had to be exceeded, otherwise the undertaking would become unprofitable. The actual selling process, that left much scope to auctions, crying of lots and, for retail sale, to haggling between buyer and seller, plus the form of purchase by contract in transactions conducted by the sanctuary of Apollo, ran counter to the assumption that prices would have been fixed before going to market.129 Moreover, the customs declaration must have covered the total quantity of goods making up the cargo and not the unit price. Otherwise it is hard to see how the magistrates or tax farmers could have made their assessments.130 The declaration did not indicate the sale price, then, but the quantity. On the contrary, the sale price, if ever it had to be declared to the magistrates of the port or the agora, had to be a unit price.

    108In this way, when the law stipulated that merchants should not sell µήτε πλείονος µήτε ἐλάσονος ἢ ὅσου ἀπεγράψαντο, it took into consideration an overall value declared to the collectors of the one-fiftieth tax or to the agoranomoi, that necessarily corresponded to a certain quantity of goods. The genitive forms of prices πλείονος and ἐλάσονος corresponded literally to the expression “for more expensive” or “for less expensive”, that is “in a greater amount” or “in a lesser amount”. When an importer offloaded a cargo of 50 talents of wood for a total value declared as 80 drachmas, he had to sell exactly that quantity on the market. He did not have the right to sell “for more money”, that is for a higher overall price, for example by acquiring other stocks of goods on the spot. If he did manage to purchase a second stock of 50 talents of wood on Delos, he could then sell double the quantity, or “for 160 drachmas” and this is what the law sought to prohibit. Nor did he have the right to sell “for less money” by entrusting a part of his cargo to a middleman, with the result that he himself would only have sold half of his cargo, that is “for 40 drachmas”.

    109It was precisely this behaviour that the law sought to prohibit in the preceding clauses, preventing re‑sale by contemplating all possible cases of capture of goods for speculative purposes: re‑selling after buying on the spot, re‑selling after reloading his goods, re‑selling after having compiled several lots (bought personally or through others) on the port, selling to intermediaries.131

    110The selling areas on Delos were interlinked. The Agora of the Delians adjoined the wharfs and so did not separate as clearly as between Piraeus and Athens the activity of the emporion from that of the agora of the city.132 Even so, it was important for the Delians to check that the cargoes sold on the market were identical in quantity to the cargoes declared at customs. An importer could have declared his own cargo and then added to it purchases made on Delos from other sellers or at public auction and so concentrated large quantities in his own hands so as to speculate and sell them on at a higher price. He might also, after declaring his cargo, take only a small part to the market and come to an understanding with other merchants holding larger quantities. Such understandings among merchants, based on the circulation of economic intelligence, was liable to foment speculation, as shown by the familiar example of Cleomenes of Naucratis.133 Prohibiting the composition of lots from various sources for re‑sale, requiring sellers to be the importers in person, ensuring that some of the goods were not hijacked between offloading and sale were all effective ways of combating speculative and monopolistic practices implemented by the Delian law.

    111There remained all the same for the importer the possibility of storing the goods. The law covered only goods that were declared for sale (only the πωλεῖν mattered) and in a specific place, the wood market, by using places intended for such sales. It said nothing about the activities of those who brought in wood and charcoal to Delos, paying the appropriate customs duties, for storage and subsequent sale in shops or under contract with the sanctuary. The law did not interfere with these storage practices but it did require a form of traceability of wood and charcoal cargoes on the basis of records kept by the pentekostologoi and the agoranomoi who recorded the sellers’ declarations. The goods stored, if later sold on the wood market, were subject to the same obligation of selling only the quantity initially declared for import. Yet the commerce and storage of wood and other commodities were also practised by the Delians themselves who must have found it a way of making substantial profits, while being in competition, probably as early as the third century, with foreign merchants.

    112At a time when storage practices were beginning to grow in scope on Delos, it was indeed the quantities that had to be checked above all, because they had a direct impact on prices. The law remained advantageous to the merchants who were established there, whether Delians or aliens, who could reconcile the possibilities of storage with the obligation for importers to sell the cargoes themselves. But it went against an activity of speculators and dealers organized as a network who might have sought to profit from the Delian infrastructures to get rich. It has to be asked, then, whether the law, which admittedly protected consumers from excessive and anarchic price rises, was not also prompted by the intention to protect the business of some of those citizens involved in the wood trade for supplying the sanctuary and the Delian market against the development of a class of dealers-speculators who might equally well be Delians as foreigners.

    113The law was clearly a reaction to the context of the development of transit trade on Delos, which must have prompted speculation in trade in the two products, for which it was necessary to ensure the supply of the sanctuary and of the population while maintaining conditions conducive to the transit trade. It was designed to create the conditions for a sustainable market by avoiding the island becoming a place for speculation. Traders could come to Delos to collect a cargo of wood and charcoal intended for some other destination that could be made up by grouping lots from various sources (import, local auction sales, sales from stockpiles).134 But capturing cargoes for re‑sale on the spot was prohibited. The Delian city attempted to reconcile in this way, through its authority, various interests: those of supply for the sanctuary and the population, those of the part of the Delian population involved in commerce and finance, and those of development of the port of commerce that ensured its fiscal revenues.

    114The business activity perceptible in the wood and charcoal trade through this law was also apparent for the trade in grain and, to a lesser extent, slaves, as from the third century, through other sources.

    The development of the Delian emporion

    115Among the various interpretations of the Delian data, the role of Delos wavers between that of a great centre of Aegean commerce, a secondary node in a system of exchange under Rhodian authority, or a centre of redistribution within the Cyclades.

    116The underlying interpretative models largely override the contextualization of the sources used – the accounts of the hieropoioi. In these models, two images play a decisive and sometimes contradictory part: that of the free port that succeeded independent Delos and that some take as their inspiration for reconstructing the workings of the third-century economy whereas others see it as a great political rift; the specificity of the Cyclades, highlighted in several recent works that have revealed productive agricultural economies contrasting with the seeming aridity of these island soils and their poverty-stricken image in ancient literature.135 By highlighting Cycladic regionalism in which the Cyclades were self-sufficient for their supply and Delos was fed by the surpluses of the neighbouring islands,136 G. Reger is very much heir to this historiographic tradition which, from the 1970s onwards, saw the emergence of a series of historical and archaeological studies that contributed to showing the unity and coherence of this island space, to demonstrating the vitality of agricultural and artisanal production of the Cyclades and their relative capacity for self-sufficiency at the same time as the anthropic transformations in the landscape as the effect of intensive farming since Antiquity. Accordingly the idea of Cycladic regionalism – the conclusion of which is a reduction in the scale of economic activities on Delos in reaction to what is characterized as a modernizing, more Mediterranean interpretation – appears as the epigraphic reflection, read in the accounts of the hieropoioi, of this renewed vision of Cycladic economies. And yet, while the vitality of island societies is now well proven, the articulation of their economic activities in a Mediterranean world of “connectivity”137 remains to be clarified.

    117Rather than any Cycladic coherence, examination of the Delian administration in the accounts of the hieropoioi reveals the tremendous porosity of this island space to foreign influences, whether monetary and metrological phenomena or military matters.138 It also shows the structuring character of Delos, because of both its neutrality and its wealth, in a space that could not be reduced to the Cyclades alone. More than an exception within a supposedly coherent Cycladic geographical whole, Delos was a centre. Accordingly it is best to attempt to re‑evaluate its importance in the light of what the administrative, financial and monetary context of the accounts of the hieropoioi teaches us and of the evidence of the archaeological remains.

    The Volume of Exchange

    The Delian pentekoste

    118A single source, essentially, provides the scant information on the volume of trade, but its interpretation depends on many uncertain parameters. These are the indications about the customs duty of the pentekoste in the accounts of the hieropoioi. It features but a few times in the accounts of the first half of the third century because it served along with other civic revenues to repay the amounts borrowed from the sacred fund. Subsequently, as seen, other sources of income, beginning with the rents of the agora’s new porticoes, were assigned to this budget item.139

    119The idea of the growth of redistributive activities as from the middle of the third century on Delos was first highlighted through an analysis of the pentekoste astia mentioned in the account for the year 250 (IG XI 2, 287, A, l. 9) concerning a repayment from the public fund to the sacred fund. Since the total of 5,250 drachmas was two-thirds lower than the amount of the pentekoste mentioned in the earlier accounts (14,200 drachmas in 279; IG XI 2, 161, A, l. 26; 17,900 drachmas in 278: IG XI 2, 162, An l. 29‑30), commentators concluded that it must have been the part of the one-fiftieth tax concerning goods intended for the town (astu), and therefore for sale in the agora of Delos, or goods produced by the city and that exited to be sold outside. It could therefore be inferred that two-thirds of Delian commerce was transit trade.140

    120This conclusion depended primarily on the interpretation made of the expression πεντηκοστῆς τῆς ἀστίας. Now, as a passage in Pseudo-Aristotle’s Economics (1345 a = I, 6, 7) suggests, the pentekoste astia on Delos might refer instead to the customs duty paid by the citizens on imports as opposed to the duty paid by xenoi. The name might refer not so much to the destination of the goods as to the status of the payers, and the figure recorded in the repayments to the sanctuary would testify in any event to the marked involvement of Delians in the mid third century in commercial activities alongside foreign importers.141

    121Another question is whether the amounts of the proceeds of the pentekoste recorded in the accounts of the hieropoioi as loan repayments corresponded to the totality of the tax levied by the city or just a part that it gave over to repayments. Now, when these duties were paid into the sacred fund, they were often accompanied by a supplementary revenue, the eponia paid by the tax farmers.142 On four occasions between 279 and 250 the hieropoioi indicate that they also received the amount for the eponia (IG XI 2, 161, A, l. 26‑27; 162, A, l. 30; 199, A, l. 16; 287, A, l. 10) for a set of taxes. Only the figure for the year 250 (IG XI 2, 287, A, l. 10) was given separately from the actual amount of the tax and specifically came to a ratio of 5% (445 drachmas of eponia for 8,900 drachmas of contracts farmed out). In this one case alone can we be certain that the total of the city-state’s revenue went to repaying the sacred treasury.143 But this mention of the pentekoste astia, since it was the only one of its kind, was compared with the total income from the pentekoste recorded in the 280s. Nothing indicates the figure for takings was permanent, unless one wishes precisely to prove that there was no significant transit trade before the year 250.

    122Even then it should be taken into account that the amount paid by the tax farmers was not the exact amount of the taxes levied but the sum taken in by the city-state under the tax-farming agreement, with the tax farmer incurring any risks and profits. The evaluation of the actual proceeds might therefore be higher than the figure recorded in the accounts.

    123It can be seen, then, that it is pointless trying to produce evidence on this basis.

    The Rhodian ellimenion

    124And yet the paucity of the amounts conserved was emphasized several times by comparison with the testimony of Polybius about Rhodian trade.144 The port revenues of Rhodes after 166 (Polybius, XXX, 31, 10‑12) supposedly still came to almost ten times the proceeds from the pentekoste of Delos according to the accounts of the hieropoioi in the 280s.145 But, on the one hand, the time difference of a century makes the comparison somewhat irrelevant, given the changes Delians experienced in the course of the third century and that are reflected to some extent in the accounts of the hieropoioi. On the other hand, the terms of the comparison need to be carefully set out. According to the recent interpretation of the passage from Polybius by N. Badoud in light of Rhodian inscriptions, it is to be understood that the Rhodians’ complaint to the Roman Senate concerned the port revenues in toto (ἡ τοῦ λιµένος πρόσοδος), because it was the whole of the administration of Rhodian businesses that had come under Rome’s control.146 The revenue the Rhodian Astymedes then spoke of in the Roman Senate was an example that proved the truth of his claim (ὅτι δὲ τοῦτ’ἔστιν ἀληθὲς οὐ δυσχερὲς καταµαθεῖν). He illustrated his assertion by the case of the ellimenion, which, before the creation of the free port of Delos and Rome’s takeover of Rhodes’ port revenues, brought in a million drachmas in tax farming. The definition of this tax, which commentators often likened to the general expression of a port revenue, was more specific. The term referred to the tax on the use of the port and not a customs duty properly speaking. The criterion of the ellimenion as a tax on use, that therefore meant the transit trade could be evaluated, was also relevant in the Rhodians’ analysis to show that the Delian free port was used increasingly to their detriment.147 Conversely, the Rhodian’s speech says nothing about the volume of the pentekoste. Delian port taxes, that we know of only from the loan repayments by the city-state to the sanctuary and from the inscriptions of the classical period,148 do not include the name ellimenion, which dashes all hopes of a term for term comparison.

    125It should at the very least be emphasized that the grounds for validating or discrediting the weakness of Delian trade by any precise measurement of its volume, compared with that of Rhodes before 166, escape from any argumentation. It is rather the complementarity between the two ports, that of Rhodes and that of Delos, that should be explored, by clarifying by other means the nature of the commercial activities conducted on Delos.

    The Transit Trade

    126There is no denying that we know much more in the way of administrative facts about Delos than about economic facts. This is compounded by the particular nature of transit trade, which by definition can hardly be detected archaeologically, other than through the study of shipwrecks, which for the time being are virtually non-existent in Delian archaeology. Because goods in transit are carried off to some other destination, they leave few traces on the spot and from this point of view the change in the number of Rhodian amphoras, for example, is significant only in terms of local consumption.149 Because there is little in the way of clues, analysis of commercial activity on Delos, when conducted in terms of scale, lends itself to contradictory interpretations depending on the chosen model of interpretation. To highlight the Cycladic framework of exchange, G. Reger gives precedence to event-based explanations rather than structural ones about the presence of foreign sitonai on Delos or of interventions by military powers in questions of supply in the island’s port. It was sometimes a food shortage that brought foreign sitonai to Delos, sometimes the sporadic need for a depot for the armies that explained the naming of Delos on Aegean maritime routes.150

    127The question of the role of Delos as a supply centre is, from this point of view, emblematic of the divergence in inherited models in the viewpoints of commentators because the data are so fragmentary and difficult to piece together.

    The clues from the grain trade

    128The attestations relating to the grain trade are the first clue for analysing the role of the Delian emporion in exchanges. Is there any testimony proving that cargoes were offloaded and then re‑directed from Delos, which therefore served as a trans-shipment point on sea routes to other destinations?151

    129The question should first be illuminated beginning with the new data provided by recent work on the storage of and trade in grain. First developed for the Roman world and more recently for the Greek, they provide an initial lesson about the length of time grain could be stored, which was never more than a year.152 This observation goes along with the information we have about the public funds for purchasing grain in the Greek cities. The fund for Delos set up in the late third century managed to turn over the capital three times in the year, which attests both to the short storage times made possible by the rapid outflow of stocks – retail selling making it possible to recover the capital invested in wholesale purchasing – and easy access to supplies.153 These short-term storage conditions explain, not just for Delos but for many cities in the Greek world, the scant evidence for specific storage locations, which probably means that very few additional infrastructures were required. The Athenian law on wheat from the islands thus revealed that it was the sanctuary of Aeacus that served as the storage place and one of its clauses provided for the construction of a locking device.154

    130The accounts of the hieropoioi reveal an identical situation on Delos when, in 281 (IG XI 2, 159, A, l. 53‑54), they record a payment to two craftsmen tasked with supplying and fitting keys (κλεῖδας ποιήσασι καὶ ἐπιθεῖσι) for the building where wheat was stored. The date, which corresponds to other evidence of Ptolemaic presence on Delos, had led the editors of the corpus to restore in this passage, for the name of the place, [οὗ ὁ πτολεµαϊ?]κὸς σῖτος ἔκειτο – “there where the Ptolemaic wheat is stored”. G. Reger is fully justified in considering that this restoration is “history from square brackets”,155 whereas numerous other solutions are possible to fill the gap (δηµοτικός, πολιτικός, ἀγοραστικός, ξενικός). That same year, the city borrowed heavily from the sacred fund, which the hieropoioi reported in the hand-over, and those were probably the earliest attestations of the operation of a fund for purchasing grain which, for the time being, was still reliant on public borrowing from the sacred fund.

    131The very fact that Delos down the years needed to put together this public fund for grain purchase by gradually improving its arrangement may be construed in either of two ways: either the island had no particular supply dispensing the Delians from acting like other civic communities, or on the contrary it had an emporion whose commercial activity, jurisdiction and organization made it a separate world from the agora, as with Piraeus and Athens in classical times. In the latter case, there was no question of individuals going to buy supplies from the emporion, which was the venue for transactions among importers, financiers and wholesalers. The city‑state of Delos, like many other Hellenistic city‑states, took on the public service of providing its citizens with balanced market prices through the sale in the agora of grain purchased by the sitonia. For the rest of the year, Delians bought from shopkeepers, probably for that matter in the shape of ready processed products, for breadmaking.156

    132Now other testimony confirms the existence of an emporion for the redistribution of grain as from the first half of the third century. In a passage of the Athenian decree for Callias of Sphettos, Delos is mentioned as the half‑way point between Alexandria and Athens for the supply of wheat to the Athenians.157 Having served the Ptolemies in the 290s, Callias was honoured by the Athenians in 169 in the conflict between the Ptolemies and Antigonids looking to maintain their control over Athens and which led in the following year to the Chremonidean War. The recitals of the decree for Callias specify that, having met king Ptolemy II in Cyprus, where he went with an embassy to defend the Athenian cause, he secured a gift of 50 talents of silver for the Athenian people “and of 20,000 medimnoi of wheat, which were measured out on Delos to those the people had sent” (πυρῶν δὲ δισµυρίους µεδίµνους δωρεάν, οἳ παρεµετρήθησαν ἐγ ∆ήλου τοῖς ἀποσταλεῖσιν ὑπὸ τοῦ δήµου·). Delos does therefore appear to have been a redistribution storehouse for the commerce of Lagid wheat. Ptolemy II’s order released, free of charge for the Athenians, stocks which ordinarily were sold to the sitonai or grain redistribution merchants in wholesale trade. But to support the argument of a regional scale of exchange, that Delos did not play this role of Aegean commercial centre, and so early in the third century, G. Reger defends a purely military interpretation of this episode. Delos was supposedly not a venue for regular stockpiling of Egyptian wheat for commercial purposes but just the place of transfer of wheat from Cyprus to the Athenian envoys from a temporary military depot: “Grain was probably stockpiled for use of the troops that liberated Athens in 287 B.C.”158 Yet this explanation falls foul of the Greek text which explicitly states that the wheat was “measured out on Delos” (παρεµετρήθησαν ἐγ ∆ήλου) for the Athenian envoys, in terms that are specifically those of storage infrastructures.

    133It was no less true that, geographically, the Cyclades provided staging posts and garrison points for military expeditions further afield. In the early second century, Roman and Antigonid troops used the Cyclades as a stopover and garrison place, leading some to see in the transaction by the banker Timon with the Nesiots (IG XII 5, 816) the reflection of the passage of the four Roman legions on the way to Asia Minor, with Timon then being one of the financiers accompanying the Roman armies in the War of Antiochos.159 But what is true for armies might indeed be true too for commercial infrastructures, particularly because it was in the interests of the military powers to take advantage of existing channels and because Delian neutrality would have allowed them to benefit from supply from the Delian emporion. Accordingly, contrary to the regionalist theory, it should be considered instead that military demand had contributed to boosting the activity of Delos as an Aegean centre for redistribution.160

    134The use of Delos as one of the redistribution centres for Egyptian wheat in the Aegean Sea is consistent with the role of the early Ptolemies in the Aegean economy, as identified through weights and measures. The testimony of the Decree of Callias also invites us again to think that Delos played this part of an Aegean centre from the beginning of the third century as an extension of what must have been its status as emporion under Athenian guardianship in the fourth century.

    135Another decree supports the early character of economic and financial activity on Delos. At the same date, around 280, there is a decree from an unknown city for the Delian Mnesalkos (IG XI 4, 1049) who had helped sitonai to recover a cargo of wheat they had come to pick up from Delos and that had been seized by their Delian creditors. This document shows both that sitonai were coming to Delos at the time and that city‑states frequented the Delian centre of commerce to borrow capital, as were to do, a century later, the sitonai of the Island League in coming to find the banker Timon of Syracuse on Delos.161 Another decree displayed on Delos mentioned, around 230‑220, sitonai of Histiaea who managed, on Delos itself, to secure from a Rhodian financer, Athenodoros, an interest-free loan and bestowed honours on him (IG XI 4, 1055). In those same years, a certain Aristoboulos of Thessalonika, sent by Demetrios II, was also sitones of the king on Delos, where he was honoured by the Delians (IG XI 4, 666). These sitonai knew then that they could find a way to do business for a cargo of grain on Delos, and possibly also for the finances to pay for it. G. Reger sets out to separate these testimonies and associate them with sporadic shortages, before finally accepting the role of Delos in redistribution but only from the 230s and in a narrowly Cycladic context and therefore of marginal significance on the scale of the Aegean.162 On the contrary, the conjunction of supply of wheat and the quest for capital is plainly visible in these records which, at different dates, attest to the continuing role of Delos as a resource centre. And what goes for city-states goes for armies, too.

    Slaves

    136Another decree evokes this time the early role of Delos in the slave trade (IG XI 2, 1054 supplemented by SEG III, 666). It is a decree from the city of Theangela, displayed on Delos and dated around 230‑220. It honours a Delian, Semos son of Kosmiades, who may be one of the only two known Delian authors, who wrote a Deliad and who had also held several civic offices in his city‑state.163 He had purchased on Delos women from Theangela of Caria who had been captured in a pirate raid on the Carian coast. Having treated them well and allowed them to return to their homeland, he was granted citizenship rights there. This isolated testimony on the slave market of Delos does not provide certainty that the sale of slaves around 230‑220 should be situated as the extension of the activity of the Delian market described by Strabo at the time of the free port.164 But it assures us that merchants turned to Delos to sell off their captives.165

    137G. Reger observes that this piracy corresponded to the period of a power vacuum and saw at the same time in the decrees for Nabis of Sparta (IG XI 4, 716) and the Aetolian Boukris (IG XI 4, 692), the sign of collaboration among the islanders and the pirate undertakings during this period.166 He gives there an economic explanation that he rejects for other texts, but the interpretation seems unlikely. One should instead see in these two decrees for the Spartan and the Aetolian the recurring expression of Delian neutrality. It was rather the role of Rhodes, in commercial activities largely based on the exploitation of piracy, that it fought from time to time, which comes in for question in this context.167

    The ateleia

    138For G. Reger, a single proxeny decree of a commercial nature features in the Delian corpus, in favour of Dionysios of Byzantion who was honoured in the first half of the third century by the Delians for having supplied wheat at the price asked by the people (IG XI 4, 627).168 While it is true that the place of origin of the person honoured does not mean the cargo originated there, there is nothing to prove that other Delian decrees in favour of benefactors were not approved for commercial reasons. C. Vial has already observed the large number of Delian decrees in honour of citizens from the Black Sea and the Straits, which cannot be accounted for by religious reasons alone.169 Unlike the other cities, the recitals of the decrees of Delos were surprisingly succinct, simply repeating the good deed done for the sanctuary and the city‑state without further clarification, possibly because Delian neutrality precluded the city from stating too openly the grounds for the honours it was bestowing.

    139But it is interesting to observe that the Delians, during the time of Independence, used the range of honours they could award to foreigners in a particular manner. Of the sometimes fragmentary five hundred or so decrees from the Delian city between 314 and 167, one in five contains a clause that has been conserved on ateleia.170 It was therefore an honour that the Delians frequently granted to those they included among the benefactors of the city‑state and the sanctuary. And those benefactors were probably also particularly concerned by this privilege through their business activity. The law on the sale of wood and charcoal (ID 509) has a passage that deals exclusively with ateleis, showing the significance of this category in the activity of the Delian port.171 These decrees are very poorly dated and this could only be improved by a study of the script of the engraver that would allow them to be placed in a narrower time frame within the period of Independence. It is difficult therefore, for the time being, to say whether the granting of ateleia was regular over the period in question or if it appeared at a particular moment. A few clues allow hypotheses to be made about the chronology.

    140A. Bresson takes the view that the Delians exempted themselves from customs duties in addition to the ateleia they conferred frequently on foreigners. He takes as proof of this the point that the decree for Dionysios of Byzantion (IG XI 4, 627) conferred on him not the ateleia but the isoteleia, thereby setting him fiscally on an equal footing with the Delians.172 This ateleia of the Delians is supposedly contradictory with the mention of a pentekoste astia which, if our interpretation is still justified, concerned, on the contrary, citizens’ customs payments.173 But the pentekoste astia is no longer mentioned after 250 and it is not known whether this source of revenue was maintained, since the city-state no longer used it in its repayments to the sanctuary. It had available at that date new inflows of cash with the rents of the agora and could therefore be more generous in attributing privileges by renouncing tax receipts. The decree for Dionysios of Byzantion has been dated by palaeography to the first half of the third century and seems even, by those criteria, to form part of the decrees of the beginning of Independence.174 Conditional upon more precise dating of all of the Delian decrees, it may be that the fiscal policy of Delos was modified around the mid third century, in connection with the growth of the port economy and the probable growing involvement of Delians in the commercial activity that ensued. The isoteleia granted to Dionysios of Byzantion seemingly corresponded to a first phase in the early third century, parallel to the existence of a pentekoste astia owed by the citizens who imported or exported. The Delians supposedly later extended access to the ateleia probably by giving their own citizens the benefit of it.

    141Whatever the aporia concerning the chronology, this broad deployment of the ateleia as a concession in honorific decrees means that Delos in the third century and in the first half of the second century, through its policy choices in the bestowing of honours, operated in a way before its time as a free port for a good many of the foreigners who frequented the commercial centre.175 Likewise the absence of banking charges, as supposed, also foreshadowed the situation of ateleia of the year 167.176

    The Commercial Infrastructures

    142This activity of the emporion relied on infrastructures and constructions that support the evidence of epigraphic sources. In the course of the third century, the harbour front at Delos was a permanent worksite and underwent far‑reaching transformation. Pending the resumption of a comprehensive study of the port of Delos,177 some of its characteristics can be outlined (fig. 7).

    Fig. 7 — Map of the main commercial areas on Delos.

    Image

    Moretti and Fincker 2016, fig. 1.

    The Agora of the Delians

    143In classical times, the central space of commercial activities was a huge square that extended to the south of the sanctuary of Apollo down to the seafront.178 Archaeologists named this square (GD 84) the Agora of the Delians because it contained several monuments bearing dedications about Independence. It was the only agora on Delos during the time of Independence and it was here that transactions took place, especially auction sales and adjudications that the hieropoioi sometimes mentioned ὑπὸ κήρυκος ἐν τῆι ἀγορᾶι (IG XI 2, 145, l. 11 and 18; 146, A, l. 44; 162, A, l. 43; 199, D, l. 40‑46; ID 290, l. 114) until the middle of the third century.

    144This Agora of the Delians was referred to as the Tetragon in two dedications of the Second Athenian Domination (ID 1709 for the epimeletes of the island and ID 1725 for the banker Marius Gerillanus). The expression οἱ τὴν τετράγωνον ἐργαζόµενοι that refers to the authors of the dedications, debated at length, is understood as referring to the shopkeepers of this agora.179 Yet this expression using the verb ἐργάζεσθαι for the retail trade is uncommon. The term ergasia appears several times in funerary inscriptions of Hierapolis meaning a corporation grouping together practitioners of the same trade.180 The ergastai referred to in a few inscriptions in Asia Minor were retail dealers.181 At Thyatire, they were the authors of a dedication that identified them more specifically as slave dealers of the statarion: (οἱ τοῦ σταταρίου ἐργασταὶ καὶ προξενηταὶ σωµάτων) OGIS 484, l. 8; IGRR IV, 352), the probable equivalent of the Latin expression qui in statario negotiantur of the imperial dedications of Ephesus (Iephesos 3025 and 646). This resemblance is an incentive to question one of the possible functions of this Tetragon agora at the time of the free port. Might it not have served, among other things, as statarion of Delos in the slave trade? It is in any event a far more likely place for that trade than the Agora of the Italians in the interpretation by F. Coarelli.182 Now, there was probably also an “epimeletes of the Tetragon” (ID 1831, restored as: Ἄριστος Μ̣[εναίχ]µου Φιλαΐδης χειροτονηθεὶς ἐπιµελητὴς τῆς τετ[ραγώνου? — — —]), as appropriate under these circumstances for the selling of slaves. The dedication to the Campanian banker Gerillanus, who is known along with his family from several other dedications in this same sector of the island, is also consistent in this context with a trade mustering substantial capital. The slave trading attested to on Delos in the third century must have taken place in the Agora of the Delians, the only square suitable at the time. It may be that practices had not changed a century later, even if the development of infrastructures throughout the port area had considerably extended the selling spaces.

    The choma

    145A paved way ran to the west of the sanctuary beside the Stoa of the Naxians (GD 36). To the south, a seafront street has been identified, lined by houses and shops, among which were recognized the remains of a small archaic monument.183 Restorations on the site have sought to materialize this pathway. The land of the future Agora of the Hermaistai and Competaliastai (GD 2) and Agora of Theophrastos (GD 49) long remained occupied by a coastal marsh, which was drained in the second half of the second century.184 But as from the final quarter of the third century, as attested by the sanctuary’s accounts (ID 355, l. 12), the Delian city borrowed from the sanctuary to build an embankment (χῶµα), the location of which cannot be precisely determined.185 Several payments were then made to build up a reserve fund “for the choma” in anticipation of major work.

    146For that matter, as early as the fourth century, the accounts mention there being a χῶµα (ID 104‑4, A, l. 58). In the third century, beams purchased by the sanctuary were transported, which had been set down on this mole (Θράσωνι καὶ Κτήσωνι τοῖς ἀπενέγκασιν ἀπὸ τοῦ χώµατος τὰς δοκοὺς τὰς παρὰ Μικύθου εἰς τ‑, IG XI 2, 199, A, l. 33), and the same for stones (IG XI 2, 159, A, l. 28). The wharfs were one of the major components of the Delian port infrastructure and the Athenian inscriptions of classical Delos show that the Athenians had attempted to set up a tax system to exploit the revenues of the sacred port, on the basis of these infrastructures, from the late fifth century.186 Between 217 and 171, the Delians spent close on 10,000 drachmas for works that were probably on a large scale. P. Bruneau assumes that the choma was the backfill that made it possible to reclaim from the sea, by way of earthworks, the land west of street 5, south of the sanctuary of Apollo, where a first group of buildings stood (Warehouses α, β, γ).187 But the expenditure might equally well correspond to the north-western part of the port area. It may be that with these works, new spaces were auctioned off, that the hieropoioi no longer put down as “in the agora” after 246. Now, it was indeed in this north-western part of the port area that the kukloi offered by Sokrates in the time of the free port were discovered, a building that served as an auction house and that might have monumentalized a more modest, earlier structure.188

    147In point of fact, as from the middle of the third century, it was the entire commercial space on the edge of the sanctuary that was transformed (fig. 8). The Agora of the Delians was progressively hemmed by porticoes that altered the circulation pattern and the relationship with the seafront. During the first half of the third century, the South Stoa (GD 4) first closed the agora on the west by opening a space for shops and offices giving onto the sea and the dockside. Then this space was again split, in the late third century, with the construction of the Stoa of Philip facing the South Stoa and the building of the West Stoa that again created an opening onto the sea (GD 3).

    Fig. 8 — The Agora of the Delians and the seafront stoas.

    Image

    Photo EFA/C. Gaston.

    The Facilities

    148On the seafront were wharfs, as attested to by the Delian law on the sale of wood and charcoal (ID 509), the first clause of which speaks of σταθµοὶ ξυληρoί. These have been wrongly understood as referring to weights and measures,189 whereas the terms should be taken to mean a market facility.

    149In the same way as the κύκλοι on the Agora of Theophrastos made it possible to carry out auctions,190 the σταθµoί were special selling locations made available to merchants and purchasers. They may have been pallets or storage supports, on the terrace that preceded the construction of the stoas, for setting out the goods offloaded in limited spaces and for selling them.191 This space on which the law on the sale of wood and charcoal (ID 509) was exhibited, was then destroyed by the construction of the West Stoa, in the foundations of which the stele bearing the inscription was found. It must have been moved further away as and when the port space was developed.

    150In the north-western part, the late third century also saw the beginning of work on the “Stoa close to the Posideion”, named the “Hypostyle Hall” by the excavators. Its construction, decided on by the assembly of the people and paid for out of the sacred fund, is known from the accounts of the hieropoioi that supplied details of spending and the stages of the work.192 It bore a dedication of the Delians, later changed into a dedication of the Athenians after 167 (ID 1610). Set up behind the sanctuary of Poseidon, it bounded on the north a square that was later to be developed by Theophrastos, the Athenian epimeletes of the island in 126/5. This stoa took the form of a huge hall of more than 1,800 m2 the roof of which as supported by five rows of nine columns. To ease movement outside and inside the building, the colonnade of the facade stood directly on the stylobate, unlike the other porticoes on Delos that usually had two steps.193 The accounts concerning its construction speak of διαφράγµατα (ID 365, l. 34 and 37), which were probably partitions between the columns. The edifice had interior ornamentation. The inner walls were faced with marble topped for the elevation by stuccoed walls and the ceiling was painted. In the upper part, as attested by the accounts, a roof lantern let in daylight and underwent various restorations.194

    151It is nowadays accepted that the building had a commercial purpose, although its function has not yet been clarified from study of the monument. G. Leroux spoke of it being a commercial exchange, H. Lauter of deigma, all being buildings that are not known from architectural parallels but only from texts. J.‑C. Moretti and M. Fincker suggest it should be seen as a place for concluding agreements, which is plausible but probably not exclusive of other purposes such as bankers’ offices or business and bargaining premises.195 Even so the size of the building, when a religious purpose that is hardly warranted in this sector is excluded,196 is impressive and attests to the will of the Delians to invest in their commercial infrastructure, which they improved constantly in the course of the third century. Such building activity seems little suited to Cycladic regionalism alone, whereas it is in keeping with the role of a major emporion under development as was the case of Delos from classical times, well before the creation of the free port.

    The Storage Infrastructures

    152When it comes down to it, the island of Delos does appear to have been a great commercial port with sources mentioning its name on several occasions. Characterized as emporion in the fourth century, Delos is referred to by the term ekdocheion in the second century.197

    153The word used for warehouse keepers, the ἐγδοχεῖς, is only found at this date in the inscriptions of Delos and in a few later papyrological sources. The ἐγδοχεῖον refers to a specific storage function in supply channels using the concept of “reservoir”, with etymologically the idea of “receiving from someone” (ekdechomai).198 The use of the term is not limited, though, to the context of the island. Strabo, in a passage about Ephesus and Apamea of Phrygia (XII, 8, 15), uses a similar term taking up this concept of reservoir when he describes the city as “a big market of Asia, properly so termed, and second only to Ephesus, for it is the shared warehouse for goods brought from Italy and Greece”.199

    154This word therefore emphasizes the connections within a distribution network between a reservoir and its supply channels and its outlets, thereby introducing the idea of transit trade in connection with the function of warehouses. It is significant that these compounds of docheion ultimately translate, for Delos as for Apamea of Phrygia and Ephesus, into a commercial language that takes up the image of the reservoir, the notion of emporion as a trans-shipment place to feed a redistribution market, in much the same way as liquids flow into a central point from where they are redistributed.200

    155By emphasizing the storage infrastructures, this term sheds fresh light on the operation of a commercial redistribution centre, in which warehousing can become a lucrative activity and a trade, that of warehouser, in the operative chain of commerce. For the Greek world, contrary to the Roman world,201 we know next to nothing of the ownership of warehouses and the possibility of the city-state leasing them to individuals as part of the grain supply policy. But some epigraphic sources on Delos show the development of storage trades in a context that seems to involve individual entrepreneurs, independently of civic policies. Those sources also clarify the chronology of the development of these redistribution trade practices that preceded the creation of the free port.

    156In the well-known dedication of the association of the Poseidoniasts of Berytos, several occupations figure because they contributed financially to the construction of the building around 150 in the northern district of the island (GD 57). The warehousers (ἐγδοχεῖς) feature alongside the traders (ἐµπόροι) shipowners (ναυκλήροι) who made up the three categories represented in the koinon (ID 1774).202 By contrast, the decree referring to the Herakleists of Tyre (ID 1519), at the same period, mentions only the traders and shipowners, a sign of the specificity of the group of ἐγδοχεῖς.

    157This category of ἐγδοχεῖς is also mentioned in two other dedications on Delos, found in the ruins of the stoa of Antigonos beneath which they must have been exhibited (GD 29). They emanated from an association of Alexandria, ἡ σύνοδος τῶν ἐν Ἀλεξανδρείαι πρεσβυτέρων ἐγδοχέων (ID 1528 and 1529), in the second half of the second century. The organization may well have had its administrative centre in Alexandria but the Alexandrian warehousers mentioned in the text were very much present on Delos, along with other Alexandrians for that matter, as evidenced in particular by the rolls of ephebes and dedications found on the island.203 A little earlier, a dedication from the first half of the second century, which was exhibited south-east of the Temple of Apollo (GD 13), also points to the presence on Delos of warehousers (ἐγδοχεῖς) from Laodice in Phoenicia (Berytos, thus named at the time of Seleucus IV [187‑175]), carrying out trade (IG XI 4, 1114; οἱ ἐν Λα[οδικείαι] τῆι ἐν Φοινίκηι ἐγδοχεῖς καὶ να[ύκληροι]). The dedication, which bears the statue of Heliodorus, minister of Seleucus IV, must date from 178, when the minister passed through Delos at the time of the wedding of Laodice and Perseus, as is recorded in the accounts of the hieropoioi (ID 468, l. 7‑9). The wording of the dedications clearly identifies the place that was the headquarters of these associations: Laodice of Phoenicia for the early second-century association, and then Delos for the association of the Poseidoniasts, Alexandria for the synodos of presbuteroi warehousers. These three commercial sites were therefore interconnected by storage activities.

    158These texts attest, then, to the presence of warehousers from the Eastern Mediterranean frequenting the Delian emporion from the early second century. Other sources, as seen, attest to the existence of these warehouses some of which were owned by Delians (ἐγδοχεῖα, ID 1416, B, I, l. 11‑15; ID 1417, C, l. 15). The stabilization of several price series in the first half of the third century gives a glimpse of the existence of regular commercial flows characteristic of a transit trade and the development of storage capacities that could spread transport costs evenly. The increase in tax revenues from rents in the course of the third century shows at the same time that all manner of business premises must have been sought after, as the island’s population grew with the arrival of Orientals and Italians, which is probably attested by the increase in fish catches and the rise in the price of piglets.204 And so the concept of ἐγδοχεῖον referring to the transit trade on Delos was not concomitant with the creation of the free port but pre‑dated it.

    Conclusion: from the emporion to the free port

    159After the Roman victory over Perseus in 168, the Greek world underwent rearrangement under the authority of the Senate, including the granting of new privileges to Athens, which had shown itself to be a loyal ally of Rome against the Antigonids. It was in this unequal power relationship and despite numerous diplomatic endeavours that the Delians lost not just their independence but also their homeland, since they were expelled from the sacred island, while Athens found itself in full possession of Delos and set up a cleruchy there as well as its own administration.205 As in the classical period, the Athenian magistrates in charge of Delos belonged to great Athenian families and the prosopography attests, throughout the second and first centuries, to the bonds uniting the Athenian worthies and the island of Apollo.

    160In taking the decision to hand the island over to the Athenian administration, Rome was probably responding to geopolitical and military criteria. Delian neutrality that had relied on diplomacy in all directions with the competing powers was to be superseded by Athenian authority at Roman bidding in this central part of the Aegean Sea.206

    161But by adding the establishment of the free port, Rome could rely on an existing state of affairs. First came into play the fact that the challenges for the supply of the population of Delos were not of the same scope as in a populous urban centre like Athens and Piraeus and would not weigh on the organization of traffic. But above all, structures and networks were already existent for this free port which, when it comes down to it, does not seem to have been created out of nothing.207 The institution of the free port of Delos was an ateleia, and it was very likely that he was thinking of the Delian context when, in the second century AD, Pollux specified in the Onomasticon (IX, 32):

    Tὸ δ᾽ ἀνυπεύθυνον ἀτελές καὶ τὸ πρᾶγµα ἀτέλεια, καὶ οὐ µόνον ἄνθρωπος ἀτελὴς ἀλλὰ καὶ λιµήν, ὅπου µηδὲν εἰσπράττεται.

    What is not subject to a tax, [is said to be] exempted, and the action [is called] exemption. It is not just a person that is exempted but also a port, where nothing is levied.

    162This situation, it can be seen, broadened and radicalized what the city‑state of Delos had attempted to develop over the course of its independence through careful legislation and active diplomacy that included the frequent granting of the privilege of ateleia. At the same time, it saved Rome having to create a unilateral tax benefit for a city‑state and thereby prevented any political recuperation of commercial channels. The Roman decision did not even allow Athens to take the place of Rhodes in the influence it seemed to have exerted over the Cyclades from the early second century.208

    163In the first century, Strabo (X, 5, 4 = C486) emphasized that the Athenians in charge of Delos had provided for the interests of cult and commerce alike. The nature of the Athenian authority over the island remained uncertain over time and the question was related to what happened to the cleruchy set up in 167 to replace the Delians. After the disappearance of the engraved acts around 140, dedications alone attest to a situation that seems to have been, from the 130s onwards, an association of communities of which the Athenians were only one component.209 But one should probably not minimize the organizing and regulating role of Athens in the development of the free port’s infrastructures. Fresh examination of the harbour front reveals the rationale behind the organization of space, attesting to a watchful administration.

    164It seems it was the port area that was reorganized first during the second and first centuries. As shown by the study of the Agora of the Competaliasts by C. Hasenohr, the Agora of Theophrastos became the traditional commercial space of the agora, while the Agora of the Delians, from then on named the Tetragon, was home to banking and financial activities.210 The Hypostyle Hall saw its dedication re‑inscribed by the Athenians. The emporion proper began from Warehouses α, β, and γ, with more than a kilometre of commercial buildings – traditionally named “magasins” in the literature – stretching southwards along the seafront (fig. 9). Having been explored anew as part of the ANR programme, Warehouses and storage places of the ancient Greco-Roman world, these buildings can indeed be defined as warehouses, arranged on the basis of a module of 900 m2 that is repeated along the entire length of the shore (fig. 10).211 They represented, for the area currently excavated that is itself only a part of the whole, more than 4,000 m2 of storage space fitted with mezzanines, or the equivalent of the imperial warehouses of Myra, or Patara, or even Hergla.212

    Fig. 9 — The seafront of Delos from the Agora of the Competaliasts and Hermaists.

    Image

    Photo EFA/C. Gaston.

    Fig. 10 — The seafront warehouses.

    Image

    Drawing by J.‑J. Malmary, published in Chankowski 2018a, p. 186, fig. 11.

    165Even if the identities of the owners and users of these warehouses escape us, the many dedications that make up the Delian epigraphy of the second and first centuries testify largely to the cosmopolitanism of the island with the presence of Italian negotiatores and eastern traders and financers. Alongside them, taking the place of the Delians of the time of Independence, the Athenians were not to be outdone when it came to taking advantage of the transit trade. The Athenian act of 155/4 (ID 1417, C, l. 15‑28) mentions the leasing of a warehouse (τὸ ἐγδοχ[εῖον]), the exact location of which is shown in a lacuna, further to the defection of the first tenant, Satyros – probably a Delian from the onomastic and the absence of ethnic – having left the island after the expulsion of 167, like other tenants on the same list.213 His replacement was an Athenian, Apelles son of Kalos, of the deme of Kothokidai. The annual rent for this warehouse was 160 drachmas putting the building slightly above the average of rents received by the god on premises for let and contributed to the general rise in rents in the early days of the free port, probably because of the higher demand.

    166The caesura of 167 was that of a civic community, that of the Delians, that saw within the space of a year the disappearance of what had been its way of life for centuries. The permanence of the Delian claims after 167 testifies besides to the unflagging determination of the refugees to demonstrate their attachment to their homeland and their rights.214 But as can be seen economically, continuity took precedence over change in the constant growth of the Delian emporion, again promoted by the Roman decision of 167, then by the destruction of Corinth in 146 and by the creation of the Roman province of Asia in 129.

    167This commercial activity, the importance of which had been singularly minimized both for the period of Independence215 and for the period of the free port,216 may therefore now be re‑evaluated properly both through the evidence of the accounts of the hieropoioi and through new archaeological studies.217

    168The activities of the warehousers that can be identified on Delos comply with the particular status of this “reservoir” that the Delian transit trading place must have constituted in the Aegean Sea, the “common emporion of all the Greeks”.218 The commodities in question could not besides have been limited to grain: perishable commodities, building materials, artisanal products were involved in these channels that brought to Delos a cosmopolitan and socially colourful merchant population, at all levels of redistribution. The scale of this redistribution included points of contact in other ports of the eastern Mediterranean and in particular Berytos and Alexandria. In 127, Roman shipowners based in Alexandria identified themselves as ναύκληροι καὶ ἔµποροι in a dedication of Delos for the strategos of the Thebaid, Lochos (ID 1526): these were therefore Roman citizens exercising the maritime mercatura.219 In the same period, an Alexandrian synod of warehousers with a detachment on Delos (ἡ σύνοδος τῶν ἐν Ἀλεξανδρείαι πρεσβυτέρων ἐγδοχέων) honoured Krokos, navarch of Cyprus, for his generosity towards them and towards other foreigners (ID 1528 and 1529).

    169The status of free port that guaranteed the ateleia to importers and exporters could obviously only favour profit, since it was more advantageous than elsewhere to centralize goods in quantity on Delos, for subsequent redistribution according to demand. Other parallels with other times mean these profit mechanisms can be easily understood.220 As an economic and financial centre, Delos at the same time reduced transaction costs by (i) facilitating meetings among actors in exchange for concluding agreements and financing business and for loading cargoes, and by (ii) improving the circulation of economic information.221

    170And so we can clarify a little the economic model which, on Delos, corresponded to the names emporion and ekdocheion that are found in the sources. As R. Etienne shows, Strabo’s use of the term emporion, even when he uses earlier writings, invariably corresponds to a strict definition of reality and stands apart from the multiple meanings admitted in Greek usage. It was always a storage port where goods from various provenances were grouped to be shipped on to other destinations.222

    171This trans-shipment may be allied to questions of tonnage. In the case of the port of Narbonne, for example, sea‑going ships brought goods that were then redistributed among smaller vessels and this redistribution was combined with the trading of raw materials from the hinterland.223 In the case of Delos, there remain too many unknowns about the operation of the port in the second and first centuries, that current and subsequent research should clear up. It is the totality of the port infrastructures that it is worth re‑examining so as to gauge its scope and potential.224 The tonnage of vessels that could be accommodated in the waters of Delos is, in particular, a decisive component in the analysis, even if the many testimonies of military fleets that frequented them in the third and second centuries already point to non-negligible capacities.225

    Notes de bas de page

    1 On Delian society’s use of these prices through engraving and the relation with price lists, see Chapter 1 pp. 63‑65 above and this Chapter p. 239 and p. 260 below.

    2 For the historiography of this interest in prices, see Chankowski 2020.

    3 Descat 2006a, pp. 257‑258.

    4 Glotz 1913a, p. 29 and Glotz 1913b; Heichelheim 1930.

    5 Larsen 1938, with the chapter “Delos in the Economic Life of the Period”, pp. 334‑356.

    6 Reger 1994a.

    7 Reger 1994a. Also Reger 1997, pp. 54‑55.

    8 Reger 1994a, p. 71.

    9 Mavrojannis 2002, p. 166, n. 11, criticizing the interpretations of Reger 1997 and Chankowski-Sablé 1997 which he characterizes as liberal.

    10 Reger 1997, p. 59.

    11 Glotz 1913a and Glotz 1913b; Glotz 1932.

    12 Reger 1994a; Reger 1997, p. 63.

    13 Migeotte 2008b, p. 81.

    14 Grenier 1987, p. 497.

    15 It is along these lines that R. Etienne and I emphasized, in a review of G. Reger’s book (Etienne and Sablé 1995), the importance of demand in the formation of Delian prices by suggesting that the share of regional transactions governed by supply must in the end have been somewhat marginal in the supply strategies implemented by the Delians. G. Reger answered this objection (Reger 1997) by emphasizing demand: it is the strong demand related to the presence of military forces in the Aegean at the beginning of the period that accounts for the formation of the Delian regional market which, when the military presence was removed, stabilized its organization in a regional framework. As interesting as this explanation might be, it fails to analyse Delian local demand in itself.

    16 Reger 1997.

    17 See the PhD thesis by V. Mathé, “Le prix de la construction en Grèce aux IVe et IIIe siècles avant J.‑C. Etudes sur les chantiers financés par les sanctuaires de Delphes, d’Epidaure et de Délos”, defended in Lyon on 27 November 2010 and supervised by J.‑C. Moretti.

    18 Rostovtzeff [1941] 1989, p. 154.

    19 See below for the analysis of these changes between the third and second centuries.

    20 Reger 1997, p. 59.

    21 Reger 1997, pp. 59‑61.

    22 Bresson 2008, p. 220.

    23 See Chapter 2 above, p. 94.

    24 Reger 1994a, p. 153: “looking first and foremost for local causes”.

    25 Reger 1994a, p. 203.

    26 On the challenges of storage, see Chankowski 2018a.

    27 Feyel 2006, pp. 348‑368 and map 10a. p. 352, albeit with the criticisms made as to the concept of regionalism.

    28 See the new edition of Clinton 2005 for the chronology of these inscriptions.

    29 Reger 1997; Chankowski 1997a. See in particular the case of Amphithales, who has a Delian name: O. Masson 1988, p. 73. Most do not figure in Vial 2008 as it is the only mention of these individuals. Some of these sellers were therefore thought to be foreigners by Tréheux 1992a (Rhodippos, Auxibios) but were classed as such because they were pitch sellers, so the reasoning is circular. Accordingly Menon, a seller of timber from Macedonia (IG XI2 199, A, 57), supplier of pitch and various kinds of wood, was thought by G. Glotz to be a Macedonian or to have had ties with Macedonia. For Glotz 1916, Nannakos and Hestiaios were Phyrgian and Ionian, and therefore pitch suppliers. Yet these are typically Cycladic names.

    30 Feyel 2006, pp. 348‑355, on the geographical distribution of craftsmen: the hieropoioi regularly mention ethnics. M. Lacroix thought he could show that foreigners were generally mentioned with their ethnic (Lacroix 1932, pp. 501‑502) but as C. Vial shows (Vial 1984, pp. 349‑350), this theory does not hold up. The distinction between residents and non-residents seems more plausible because it also implies the terms and conditions for drafting contracts.

    31 Chankowski 1997a, p. 78 and Chankowski 2018b.

    32 See for example the clauses in the quote of Livadeia (IG VII 3073).

    33 Chankowski 2018b; Chankowski 2019.

    34 Vélissaropoulos 1980, pp. 184‑188; Chankowski 2018b.

    35 Meiggs 1982, p. 470: “wherever there were pines there could be pitch”. On the wood and pitch of Bruttium imported to Attica from the late fifth century, see Compatangelo-Soussignan 2006, p. 192 and n. 110 (Aristophanes, frg. 638 Kassel-Austin).

    36 Glotz 1916.

    37 Fraser 1972, vol. I, p. 224 and pp. 231‑232.

    38 Glotz 1916, pp. 295‑299.

    39 The κηρός, µίλτο[ς] mix for coating woodwork is found in an account of the naopoi of Delos for 359/8 (ID 104‑5, l.4).

    40 Reger 1994a, pp. 160‑163. On the development of oil production in the Cyclades, see Brunet and Brun 1997, pp. 605‑609; Brunet 1990, p. 676 and Brunet 1999, pp. 45‑50.

    41 Chankowski 2008a, pp. 371‑376.

    42 Cf. Brun 1996, pp. 170‑182, with the testimony of the Aegineticus of Isocrates in particular.

    43 Reger 1994a, p. 295.

    44 See table 46 below, p. 249.

    45 The question does not arise for the oil price plots since the chous was already the unit used in the accounts of the hieropoioi.

    46 This observation challenges the table presented by Reger 1997, p. 66 and the graphs pp. 58‑60 for the years 314‑282. See the caveats by Doyen 2017, pp. 197‑198.

    55 Vial 2008, s.v., thinks Aristoboulos could have been a Delian.

    56 The study by Larsen 1941 came in answer to the interpretation of G. Glotz and then F. Heichelheim, who identified several periods of change in the price of tiles in the course of Delian Independence: Glotz 1932, p. 247 and Heichelheim 1938, pp. 128‑135.

    57 Feyel 2006, p. 390, table 11. The unit of a hundred bricks is that used by the hieropoioi (IG XI 2, 287, A, l. 98‑100).

    58 Examination of the directory of Delian craftsmen conveniently presented by C. Feyel does not seem to lead to the conclusion, contrary to the author’s assertions (Feyel 2006, pp. 384‑388), there was a category of artisans truly representative of woodworkers because thy generally added various tasks for which they were employed on the sanctuary worksites (manufacture of locks, tile laying).

    59 Moretti and Fincker 2016.

    60 Feyel 2006, p. 492.

    61 Reger 1997, p. 56 and table p. 65.

    62 Reger 1997, p. 65. Reger 2005, pp. 277‑280.

    63 Reger 1997, p. 62 and n. 40. See the summary by D’Ercole 2013 on the social category of male and female stockists.

    64 Reger 1997, p. 64.

    65 Glotz 1926.

    66 ἐπὶ τὸν νεὼ τὸµ πώρινον κεράµου ζεύγη ·Η𐅄∆∆𐅃· ἐξύρου, τιµὴ τοῦ ζεύγους ·ΙΙΙΙΙ· ἡ πᾶσα τιµὴ δραχµαὶ ·Η∆∆∆∆Image· τέλος ἐν Σύρωι τοῦ κεράµου ·𐅂𐅂𐅂𐅂ΙΙΙΙ· ναῦλλον τοῦ ζεύγους ·Ι[𐅀/] Νικοκλεῖ vac. τὸ πᾶν δραχµαὶ ·∆∆∆𐅂𐅂· ἀνακοµίσασι τὸγ κέραµον εἰς τὸ ἱερὸν µισθὸς ·𐅂ΙΙΙ. It is the name of the tax that is given here and not a tax per pair of tiles. But the total does not match. For the numbers to work out, the price for the naulon must be restored as 1 obol and 2 chalkoi (I[//]), making 0.185 drachmas per pair of tiles to which was added the tax of 4.6 drachmas, hence a total of 37 drachmas paid to Nikokles.

    67 Cited by Glotz 1926, pp. 9‑10.

    68 ἐλέφαντος ὀδόντες δύο παρὰ Ἡρακλείδου Βασιλεύκου Τυρίου, τάλαντον µναῖ τριάκοντα δύο ἡµιµναῖον ὀγδοήµορον, τὸ τάλαντον δραχµῶν : 𐅅 : ἡ πᾶσα τιµὴ : 𐅅ΗΗ𐅄∆∆𐅂ΙΙΙΙΙ : “two elephant tusks from Herakleides son of Basileukos of Tyre, one talent 32 minas ½ mina and 1/8th, the talent 500 drachmas, total price 771 drachmas, 4 obols”.

    69 Tarn 1928; Rostovtzeff 1989 [1941], p. 389; Baslez 1987.

    70 The accounts of the hieropoioi record countless payments to craftsmen for the supply of nails, used for repairing doors, shutters or chests, and for the supply of keys or the repair of locks. But these data can barely be exploited for want of indications as to units. The sanctuary also regularly needed lead to seal the stelae that were exhibited in the sanctuary’s grounds.

    71 Contrary to what Reger 1997, p. 56, n. 17 says, it was not lead but timber that was mentioned in 274 (IG XI 2, 199, A, l. 63‑64).

    72 Reger 1994a, p. 260.

    73 See below p. 266 on fishing and pp. 265‑266 on rents.

    74 Pucci 1989.

    75 Darest 1887; Davies 1937; Burford 1969, pp. 159‑206; Feyel 2006, p. 485, n. 46.

    76 Feyel 2006, pp. 485‑486.

    77 Bresson 2008, p. 220: “The best price observatory for the Aegean world in Hellenistic times.”

    78 For the supply of clay and bricks, see the tables compiled in Feyel 2006, pp. 389‑390 (brick) and p. 393 (clay). See also the case of paint: Chankowski 2018b.

    79 On the council’s role with respect to the sanctuary’s finances see Vial 1984, p. 104 and pp. 116‑119. The council also examined guarantors by checking the collateral they put up.

    80 On the diataxis, see Chapter 3 above, pp. 168‑173.

    81 See also in the case of nails lines 67‑68 of the accounts for 279 (IG XI 2, 161, A): the total paid is not shown but the unit price of the mina of nails features in a rasura, as if this were thought important enough to replace the total paid on the stele: ἥλων πα[ρὰ] ∆εξίου εἰς τὰς πυλίδας µναῖ πέντε· ἡ µνᾶ 𐅂Ι𐅁· “nails bought from Dexios for the doors, 5 mina, 1 mina 1 drachma, 1 obol, ½ obol”.

    82 See for example the list drawn up by Feyel 2006, pp. 487‑489, who thinks these indications attest to reductions accorded by craftsmen.

    83 Chankowski 2008b, p. 91.

    84 Also IG XI 2, 146; 162, A, l. 43; 199, D, l. 41‑47.

    85 See Chapter 3 above, pp. 105‑107 for the resale of materials.

    86 On the analysis of the procedure, essentially from the papyrological records of Lagid Egypt, see Pringsheim 1950, pp. 102‑126 and in particular p. 123, on the reference to auction sales by the term πρᾶσις, and Pringsheim 1961; Talamanca 1955.

    87 Gauthier 1977, pp. 205‑206; Moretti, Fincker and Chankowski 2012; Chankowski 2012.

    88 P.Strasb. 59, 3 (first century BC) and P.Gnom. 241 (second century AD). Directory of sources in Moretti, Fincker and Chankowski 2012, pp. 237‑241.

    89 Moretti, Fincker and Chankowski 2012.

    90 Chankowski 2011b, pp. 159‑162.

    91 Gauthier 1977, p. 208 and n. 17. E. Schulhof (see the note by F. Durbach at ID 366) surmised they had been confiscated. On the sale of confiscated goods in Attica, see Hallof 1990.

    92 See above p. 241 about the limits on business production capacities.

    93 Numerous texts relate to fishmongers. See the dissertation by Bohlen 1937; Feyel 1936, pp. 27‑36; Vatin 1971, pp. 95‑109 and Vatin 1966; Loyest 2009. On bargaining and auctions, see the attestations collected by Grassl 2004; Chankowski 2020.

    94 Hyperides, frg. 70: οὔτε γὰρ λιµένας εἶναι παρ’ αὑτοῖς οὔτε ἐµπόριον οὔτε ἄλλην διατριβὴν οὐδενίαν. πάντας δὲ ἀνθρώπους ἀφικνεῖσθαι πρὸς τὴν ∆ῆλον ἔλεγον, καὶ αὐτοὶ τὰ πολλὰ ἐν ∆ήλῳ διατρίβειν, “There are not at theirs [= the Rheneians] any ports or emporion or any other place of business, and they said that everyone went to Delos, and they themselves for that matter conducted most of their business on Delos.” (On this passage, see Chankowski 2008a, pp. 374‑375.

    95 Chankowski 2008a, pp. 374‑375.

    96 Chankowski 2008a, p. 372.

    97 See in particular the relations with Chios: Chankowski 2008a, pp. 175‑179.

    98 See the figures collated in Chapter 3 above, pp. 152‑155.

    99 Lytle 2013, p. 301, commenting on the analysis of Reger 1994a, p. 256. However, it is wrong to equate the hypotropion and the dekate ichtyon. It is a question of revenues assigned to repayment of loans and we do not know of all the taxes levied by the polis. The hypotropion and dekate ichtyon may very well have been two separate and concomitant taxes, even if they appear repeatedly as loan repayments. See Chapter 3 above, pp. 152‑153.

    100 Vial 1984, pp. 17‑20.

    101 Reger 1994a, p. 260 and pp. 300‑305, on the price of piglets. See p. 257 above on the price of animals for sacrifice.

    102 Payment being made only after counting the tiles in good condition (IG XI2, 199, A, l. 109‑110).

    103 Full references in Feyel 2006, p. 495, n. 93.

    104 Feyel 2006, p. 495.

    105 Molinier 1914, pp. 19‑34 and 80‑85. Vial 1984, p. 349.

    106 Hennig 1985, p. 439.

    107 Vial 1984, p. 348, identifies seven cases.

    108 M. Brunet in Nouveau Choix, p. 236; Roussel 1916, pp. 157‑159.

    109 Vial 1984, pp. 353‑354.

    110 Vial 1984, p. 355 identifies the choregoi and hieropoioi with wood suppliers. The presentation of these individuals in Index II, s.v. is more cautious.

    111 Vial 1984, p. 355 and p. 133, with the correction in Vial 2008, s.v.: Σωσιµένης Ἀντιγόνου, brother of Σωσίδηµος rogator. The Index II also corrects, s.v., the status of Aristolochos son of Nikodromos, herald of the sanctuary and proposer of four decrees, two of which granted rights as a citizen to a Chian and a Megarian (ID 547 and ID 545) and not a shopkeeper as stated in Vial 1984, p. 355.

    112 Lacroix 1916. See also Deonna 1948, pp. 50‑126, on the economic activities of Delians attested in the sources.

    113 Vial 1984, pp. 348‑356.

    114 On the identification of Philtes, who might have been the hieropoios of 275, see Vial 1984, p. 355.

    115 Vial 1984, p. 235, n. 231. See pp. 262‑263 above for the sale procedure.

    116 Notice the role seemingly played by relations with individuals from Chios, both in the accounts and in the honorific decrees, which is hardly surprising when one thinks of the role that city-states played in trading circuits. Cf. Sarikakis 1986. From the late fifth century Chios was linked to the sanctuary of Delos through loans at interest: Chankowski 2008a, pp. 175‑179.

    117 Vial 2008, s.v.

    118 Vial 1984, pp. 351‑353.

    119 Reger 1994a, pp. 338‑349.

    120 See Chapter 2 above, p. 94.

    121 See Chapter 3 above, p. 107.

    122 IG XI 2, 224, B, l. 27 = 287, B, l. 90 : ID 298, A, l. 108‑112.

    123 Unpublished material from excavations by M. Brunet whom I thank for letting me examine the coins.

    124 Reger 1994a, p. 259 in conjunction with change in the farming out of the sanctuary’s winegrowing estates, pp. 209‑211.

    125 Apart from the interpretation proposed by Reger 1994a (p. 259: “both phenomena suggest a rising demand for wood, which would tie in nicely with new building”), see the different interpretations for wood proposed by Descat 2001 and Bresson 2006a.

    126 Chankowski 2012. I summarize here the main conclusion of that paper. The re‑edited text and its translation are in Appendix 4.

    127 Chankowski 2012, pp. 41‑48.

    128 On ships’ papers, see Bresson 2000, pp. 131‑150.

    129 On equipment for auction sales on Delos, see Moretti, Fincker and Chankowski 2012. More generally on the negotiation of prices on the market, see the examples collected by Grassl 2004 and Chankowski 2012.

    130 In the tax register of the Elephantine papyrus, dating from 475, Descat 2001, p. 128 also note the comprehensive nature of taxation on vessels.

    131 Chankowski 2012, p. 40.

    132 See pp. 283‑285 below. On the possible division of the space between the agora and the emporion, apparent since the first century, see Hasenohr 2012b.

    133 See Descat 2002 on economic information.

    134 The practice of grouping lots can be seen besides through the term συναγορασµένον used to characterize a cargo of oil that a merchant had accepted to offload at Piraeus whereas it was intended for Pontos, in an Athenian decree of 176/5: IG II2 903 (Syll3 640), l. 12: [σπ]εύσας εἰσήγαγεν τὸ συνηγορασµένον ἔλ[αιον...]; also l. 6: συνηγορακώς. See the commentary by Gauthier 1982; Bresson 2008, pp. 179‑180.

    135 Cherry, Davis and Mantzourani 1996; Brun 1996; Dalongeville and Rougement 1993; Brunet 1999. See also the summary by Bonnin and Le Quéré 2014, pp. 11‑18.

    136 Reger 1994a, p. 109.

    137 Horden and Purcell 2000.

    138 In this sense, the Cyclades were incontrovertibly stepping stones for military powers: Reger 1994a, pp. 20‑26.

    139 See Chapter 3 above, pp. 153‑155.

    140 Vial 1984, pp. 339‑340 and n. 105. On the interpretation of the pentekoste astia, see also Larsen 1938, p. 355; Vélissaropoulos 1980, p. 210; Migeotte 2014, p. 660 and n. 257.

    141 See Chapter 3 above, pp. 150‑152.

    142 Vial 1984, pp. 234‑235.

    143 Lytle 2013, p. 298.

    144 Casson 1984; Vial 1984, pp. 339‑340; Reger 1994a, p. 256: “Delos practically vanishes compared to truly great economic centers.”

    145 See Chapter 3 above, pp. 150‑152 for the epigraphic references.

    146 Badoud 2014, pp. 182‑183.

    147 Chankowski 2007, pp. 313‑319. Carrara 2014 for a discussion of the term ellimenion.

    148 Chankowski 2008a, pp. 295‑308; Migeotte 2014, pp. 659‑662.

    149 Reger 1994a, pp. 163‑164, on the possible fall in the number of Rhodian amphoras on Delos in the course of the third century.

    150 Reger 1994a, pp. 118‑121.

    151 The case of the grain trade is taken up in detail by Reger 1994a, pp. 83‑126 and Reger 1993 with criticisms and supplements by Sosin 2003.

    152 Erdkamp 2005; Virlouvet 2018; Chankowski 2018a; Chankowski 2020.

    153 See Chapter 3 above pp. 162‑168.

    154 Stroud 1998.

    155 Reger 1994a, p. 116 (cited from E. Badian, ZPE 79 [1989], p. 59).

    156 It is mostly excavations in the first-century districts that have yielded remains of bakeries: Chamonard 1922-1924, p. 229, but see also Brunet 1998, p. 687, who sees them rather as domestic facilities.

    157 Shear 1978, l. 53‑55 and commentary pp. 30‑32; IG II3, 1, 911, l. 53‑355. For the date, Habicht 2006, p. 146.

    158 Reger 1994a, pp. 117‑118.

    159 Etienne 2011, pp. 19‑20; but see Bresson 2014, pp. 517‑518; see Chapter 4 above, p. 192. For Reger 1994a, p. 122, the sitonai of the Island League supposedly acted under Rhodian orders for the supply of troops.

    160 The argument in Reger 1994a, p. 123, that the local role of Delos as supplier for the Cyclades would even have discouraged importers from frequenting the island (“Delos’s role as a local distribution center radically reduced the locals’ need to encourage or compel imports, at least until the changes of the late third century”) seems mistaken because there is no proof of this narrowly Cycladic dimension.

    161 See Chapter 1 above, pp. 16‑17 on this text. For Reger 1994a, p. 118, the confiscated wheat “was being moved from one Kykladic island to another and happened to pass through Delos; it is less likely, in my view, that the grain was bought on Delos”, but Bresson 2008, pp. 186‑188 shows that seizure at sea would have been impossible.

    162 Reger 1994a, pp. 119‑123: “Despite the closeness in date of this text (IG XI 4, 666) to the Histiaian decree just discussed, it is important to avoid the temptation to treat them together as complementary or corroborating testimony on the importance (whether new or continuing) of Delos as an international market for grain transit” (p. 119).

    163 On this family, Vial 1984, pp. 32‑34.

    164 Strabo, XIV, 5, 2, on the subject of the slave market of Delos in the first century: “Merchant, dock in the harbour, offload your cargo – it is all sold ” (ἔµπορε, κατάπλευσον, ἐξελοῦ, πάντα πέπραται).

    165 See pp. 284‑285 below for the location of this trade.

    166 Reger 1994a, p. 41 and pp. 261‑263.

    167 On the relations between Rhodes and piracy, see the analysis by Gabrielsen 2001.

    168 Reger 1994a, p. 68 and p. 119.

    169 Vial 1984, p. 341. See also the recent study by Constantakopoulou 2017, pp. 152‑154.

    170 See also the data base compiled by W. Mack, Proxeny Networks of the Ancient World. A Database of Proxeny Networks of the Greek City-States: http://proxenies.csad.ox.ac.uk (consulted 8 March 2019) and Mack 2015 and the book by Constantakopoulou 2017.

    171 Chankowski 2012 and Appendix 4.

    172 Bresson 2008, pp. 82‑83.

    173 See Chapter 3 above, pp. 151‑152.

    174 Commentary ad IG XI 4, 627.

    175 Chankowski 2018a, pp. 33‑34.

    176 Chankowski 2014a and Chapter 4 above, p. 228.

    177 Several programmes are currently underway at the French School at Athens.

    178 Marc 2000.

    179 See the commentary by P. Roussel on ID 1709 evoking other possibilities (makers of herms, building contractors, etc.).

    180 Pennacchietti 1966-1967 and Bull. 1971, 648 and 652.

    181 Robert 1929, pp. 32‑38.

    182 See Coarelli 2016 who stands by his interpretation and the critical account by Chankowski 2018c, esp. p. 241.

    183 Moretti 1998.

    184 Hasenohr 2002; Hasenohr 2012a, p. 96.

    185 Vial 1984, pp. 340‑341; Reger 1988, pp. 29‑30; Duchêne and Fraisse 2001, pp. 147‑153.

    186 Chankowski 2008a, pp. 295‑307.

    187 P. Bruneau, “Deliaca IV” reprinted in Bruneau 2006, pp. 555‑565.

    188 Moretti, Fincker and Chankowski 2012.

    189 Schulhof and Huvelin 1907, p. 57; Nouveau Choix, p. 196; Bresson 2006a, p. 318.

    190 Moretti, Fincker and Chankowski 2012.

    191 Chankowski 2012: ἄνθρακας µηδὲ ῥυµοὺς µηδ[ὲ ξύλα ὅσα πωλεῖ]ται τοῖς σταθµοῖς τοῖς ξυληροῖς [µὴ ἐξέστω] πριάµενον ἐν ∆ήλωι πωλεῖν·, “charcoal, logs, building timber that are sold by using locations for wood, shall not be re‑sold in the event they have been purchased on Delos”. See the text in Appendix 4 and fig. 22.

    192 In particular ID 365 (a. 208) and ID 366 (a. 207).

    193 Fraisse and Llinas 1995, p. 256.

    194 See lastly the study of the monument by Moretti and Fincker 2016.

    195 Leroux 1913, p. 255; Lauter 1986, p. 163. R. Martin thinks the Hypostyle Hall may have been for warehousing: Martin 1951, p. 445, a purpose rejected by Moretti and Fincker 2016, p. 109 because the inside of the building was decorated.

    196 Moretti and Fincker 2016, pp. 107‑108.

    197 Chankowski 2018a.

    198 In other later attestations (imperial period) in inscriptions of Asia Minor, the term, sometimes compounded as ὑδρεγδοχεῖα, is used to refer to a water reservoir: Priene 208, l. 7; Didyma 264, l. 6; IEphesos 695, l. 9; MAMA VIII, 449, l. 4 (Aprhodisias); TAM III, 590, l. 12 (Pisidia); SEG XVIII, 740, b, l. 5 (Cyrenaica).

    199 Ἀπάµεια δ᾽ ἐστὶν ἐµπόριον µέγα τῆς ἰδίως λεγοµένης Ἀσίας, δευτερεῦον µετὰ τὴν Ἔφεσον·αὕτη γὰρ καὶ τῶν ἀπὸ τῆς Ἰταλίας καὶ τῆς Ἑλλάδος ὑποδοχεῖον κοινόν ἐστιν.

    200 Some only entertain for ἐγδοχεῖον the technical meaning of “cistern” and deny it has any meaning in the register of warehouses. Others translate the term ἐγδοχεῖς by “brokers” or “middlemen”, taking in particular in the papyrological occurrences their involvement in operations for financing maritime trade. It is only on Delos, and not incontrovertibly, that the term is understood by most epigraphists as meaning “warehousing agents”, in conjunction with the island’s role in the transit trade. See details in Chankowski 2018a.

    201 Virlouvet 2018 with the relevant bibliography.

    202 The Delian corpus provides a dozen or so dedications in this series (ID 1520, 1772, 1773, 1774, 1777, 1778, 1779, 1780, 1781, 1782, 1791, 1795) emanating from τὸ κοινὸν Βηρυτίων Ποσειδωνιαστῶν τῶν ἐν ∆ήλωι ἐµπόρων καὶ ναυκλήρων καὶ ἐγδοχέων, dedications of the traders, shipowners and warehousers of the koinon of the Poseidoniasts of Berytos settled on Delos.

    203 Roussel 1916, p. 93.

    204 See pp. 257‑258 and pp. 265‑266 above.

    205 The situation of Delos in the Athenian period, after the summary by Roussel 1916, has been studied in detail by Habicht 1985 and then Habicht 2006, pp. 271‑289, analysing all of the literary and epigraphic sources. On the circumstances of the handing over of Delos to the Athenians, Polybius, XXX, 20, 1‑8, with the commentary by Walbank 1979, pp. 443‑444; Strabo, X, 5, 4 C486. See also Perrin-Saminadayar 1999. On the consequences of the Roman decisions for Rhodes, Weimer 2002, pp. 328‑339. On Delos, the Athenians reactivated many of the cults first set up during their domination in classical times. Contrary to what Habicht 2006, p. 276 writes, the cults of Pythian Apollo, Theseus and the Delia were not new (see Chankowski 2008a, pp. 79‑121).

    206 Habicht 2006, pp. 282‑283, on dedications. Several Athenian documents attest to the permanent Roman authority over decisions concerning Delos, especially two Athenian decrees (Charneux and Tréheux 1997, pp. 239‑256).

    207 Chankowski 2018a, pp. 33‑38.

    208 Fraser and Bean 1954, pp. 154‑172; for Etienne 1990, pp. 107‑110, this influence was more of a guardianship: but see Badoud 2014, p. 121.

    209 Habicht 2006, pp. 271‑283.

    210 Hasenohr 2012a, pp. 95‑110; Hasenohr 2012b.

    211 On criticism of the interpretation of H. Duchêne and P. Fraisse, see Chankowski 2018a.

    212 Karvonis, Malmary and Zarmakoupi 2018. The comparative study of storage areas is provided by several warehouses of the imperial period by Ubaldo and Virlouvet 2016.

    213 A Satyros son of Amphykles was the tenant of the building for 150 drachmas around 192 (ID 400, l. 21‑22).

    214 On the Achaean embassy of 159/8 that supported the rights of the Delians against Athens, to which Polybius (XXX, 20, 9) possibly alludes in mentioning the problems that the ceding of Delos brought for Athens, see Habicht 2006, pp. 273‑274 and Walbank 1979, pp. 525‑526. Threats were still mentioned in the decree for the Athenian epimeletes (Tréheux and Charneux 1998). Two dedications by Delians (∆ήλιοι) to their patrons (τὸν ἑαυτῶν πάτρωνα), the orator Marcus Antonius, consul in 99 and censor in 97 (ID 1700) and C. Iulius Caesar, father of the dictator and proconsul in Asia between 99 and 89 (ID 1701) show that they managed to secure support from powerful protectors.

    215 Reger 1994a, p. 256.

    216 Duchêne and Fraisse 2001, p. 178; Rickman 1971, p. 155: “It is certain that the excavations on Delos have not such warehouses”; Hellmann 2010, p. 283.

    217 Round‑up in Chankowski 2018a.

    218 Pausanias, VIII, 33, 2, of Delos: κοινὸν Ἑλλήνων ἐµπόριον.

    219 Rossi 2012, pp. 647‑654.

    220 See for example, on contemporary markets, the role of free ports in the art market, studied by several journalists at the time of the contemporary art market fair in Singapore in 2013 (Le Monde, 29 January 2013): “Free ports have many advantages for art collectors. Set up on large areas (30,000 m2 of land in Singapore, 50,000 m2 in Geneva and a planned 70,000 m2 for the future free port of Beijing), they are open virtually non‑stop, day and night, all year round. They are often equipped with ultra-sophisticated security systems and can be used to store large format artworks. These free ports are also sought after for their attractive storage rates (between 200 and 700 euros per square metre for one year) and their confidentiality. They enjoy advantageous tax conditions. The artworks are only taxed on leaving the free zones, generally at the rate in force in the country of destination.” Other parallels, such as the free port of Leghorn between the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, bear interesting similarities with Delos. See for example the study by Calafat 2012.

    221 On transaction costs, see in particular the study by Lo Cascio 2005.

    222 Etienne (Robert) 1993.

    223 Bonsangue 2014; Tchernia 2008; Andreau 2010.

    224 See for now the Chronique des fouilles en ligne of the French School at Athens, notice 6199 (https://chronique.efa.gr/).

    225 For example Livy XXXVI, 43. On the tonnage of vessels, see Nantet 2016.

    Précédent Suivant
    Table des matières

    Le texte seul est utilisable sous licence Licence OpenEdition Books. Les autres éléments (illustrations, fichiers annexes importés) sont « Tous droits réservés », sauf mention contraire.

    Voir plus de livres
    La représentation honorifique dans les cités grecques aux époques classique et hellénistique

    La représentation honorifique dans les cités grecques aux époques classique et hellénistique

    Guillaume Biard

    2017

    Une microhistoire d’Athènes

    Une microhistoire d’Athènes

    Le dème d’Aixônè dans l’Antiquité

    Delphine Ackermann

    2018

    Les Grecs face aux catastrophes naturelles

    Les Grecs face aux catastrophes naturelles

    Savoirs, histoire, mémoire

    Ludovic Thély

    2016

    Parasites du Dieu

    Parasites du Dieu

    Comptables, financiers et commerçants dans la Délos hellénistique

    Véronique Chankowski

    2019

    Chypre à l'épreuve de la domination lagide

    Chypre à l'épreuve de la domination lagide

    Testimonia épigraphiques sur la société et les institutions chypriotes à l’époque hellénistique

    Anaïs Michel

    2020

    Contribution à l’épigraphie et à l’histoire de la Béotie hellénistique

    Contribution à l’épigraphie et à l’histoire de la Béotie hellénistique

    De la destruction de Thèbes à la bataille de Pydna

    Yannis Kalliontzis

    2020

    La réforme orthodoxe

    La réforme orthodoxe

    Église, État et société en Grèce à l’époque de la confessionnalisation post-ottomane (1833-1940)

    Anastassios Anastassiadis

    2020

    Mémoires de champions

    Mémoires de champions

    Corpus des palmarès, d’Octavien à Valentinien Ier

    Jean-Yves Strasser

    2021

    Combattre pour la santé

    Combattre pour la santé

    L’Armée d’Orient et la construction du système sanitaire grec, 1912-1922

    Léna Korma

    2022

    Poisons sociaux

    Poisons sociaux

    Histoire des stupéfiants en Grèce (1875-1950)

    Konstantinos Gkotsinas

    2022

    L’organisation militaire de la Confédération Béotienne (447-171 av. J.-C.)

    L’organisation militaire de la Confédération Béotienne (447-171 av. J.-C.)

    Thierry Lucas

    2023

    Parasites of the God

    Parasites of the God

    Accountants, financiers and traders on Hellenistic Delos

    Véronique Chankowski

    2023

    Voir plus de livres
    1 / 12
    La représentation honorifique dans les cités grecques aux époques classique et hellénistique

    La représentation honorifique dans les cités grecques aux époques classique et hellénistique

    Guillaume Biard

    2017

    Une microhistoire d’Athènes

    Une microhistoire d’Athènes

    Le dème d’Aixônè dans l’Antiquité

    Delphine Ackermann

    2018

    Les Grecs face aux catastrophes naturelles

    Les Grecs face aux catastrophes naturelles

    Savoirs, histoire, mémoire

    Ludovic Thély

    2016

    Parasites du Dieu

    Parasites du Dieu

    Comptables, financiers et commerçants dans la Délos hellénistique

    Véronique Chankowski

    2019

    Chypre à l'épreuve de la domination lagide

    Chypre à l'épreuve de la domination lagide

    Testimonia épigraphiques sur la société et les institutions chypriotes à l’époque hellénistique

    Anaïs Michel

    2020

    Contribution à l’épigraphie et à l’histoire de la Béotie hellénistique

    Contribution à l’épigraphie et à l’histoire de la Béotie hellénistique

    De la destruction de Thèbes à la bataille de Pydna

    Yannis Kalliontzis

    2020

    La réforme orthodoxe

    La réforme orthodoxe

    Église, État et société en Grèce à l’époque de la confessionnalisation post-ottomane (1833-1940)

    Anastassios Anastassiadis

    2020

    Mémoires de champions

    Mémoires de champions

    Corpus des palmarès, d’Octavien à Valentinien Ier

    Jean-Yves Strasser

    2021

    Combattre pour la santé

    Combattre pour la santé

    L’Armée d’Orient et la construction du système sanitaire grec, 1912-1922

    Léna Korma

    2022

    Poisons sociaux

    Poisons sociaux

    Histoire des stupéfiants en Grèce (1875-1950)

    Konstantinos Gkotsinas

    2022

    L’organisation militaire de la Confédération Béotienne (447-171 av. J.-C.)

    L’organisation militaire de la Confédération Béotienne (447-171 av. J.-C.)

    Thierry Lucas

    2023

    Parasites of the God

    Parasites of the God

    Accountants, financiers and traders on Hellenistic Delos

    Véronique Chankowski

    2023

    Accès ouvert

    Accès ouvert freemium

    ePub

    PDF

    PDF du chapitre

    Suggérer l’acquisition à votre bibliothèque

    Acheter

    Édition imprimée

    • amazon.fr
    • mollat.com
    • leslibraires.fr
    • placedeslibraires.fr
    ePub / PDF

    1 On Delian society’s use of these prices through engraving and the relation with price lists, see Chapter 1 pp. 63‑65 above and this Chapter p. 239 and p. 260 below.

    2 For the historiography of this interest in prices, see Chankowski 2020.

    3 Descat 2006a, pp. 257‑258.

    4 Glotz 1913a, p. 29 and Glotz 1913b; Heichelheim 1930.

    5 Larsen 1938, with the chapter “Delos in the Economic Life of the Period”, pp. 334‑356.

    6 Reger 1994a.

    7 Reger 1994a. Also Reger 1997, pp. 54‑55.

    8 Reger 1994a, p. 71.

    9 Mavrojannis 2002, p. 166, n. 11, criticizing the interpretations of Reger 1997 and Chankowski-Sablé 1997 which he characterizes as liberal.

    10 Reger 1997, p. 59.

    11 Glotz 1913a and Glotz 1913b; Glotz 1932.

    12 Reger 1994a; Reger 1997, p. 63.

    13 Migeotte 2008b, p. 81.

    14 Grenier 1987, p. 497.

    15 It is along these lines that R. Etienne and I emphasized, in a review of G. Reger’s book (Etienne and Sablé 1995), the importance of demand in the formation of Delian prices by suggesting that the share of regional transactions governed by supply must in the end have been somewhat marginal in the supply strategies implemented by the Delians. G. Reger answered this objection (Reger 1997) by emphasizing demand: it is the strong demand related to the presence of military forces in the Aegean at the beginning of the period that accounts for the formation of the Delian regional market which, when the military presence was removed, stabilized its organization in a regional framework. As interesting as this explanation might be, it fails to analyse Delian local demand in itself.

    16 Reger 1997.

    17 See the PhD thesis by V. Mathé, “Le prix de la construction en Grèce aux IVe et IIIe siècles avant J.‑C. Etudes sur les chantiers financés par les sanctuaires de Delphes, d’Epidaure et de Délos”, defended in Lyon on 27 November 2010 and supervised by J.‑C. Moretti.

    18 Rostovtzeff [1941] 1989, p. 154.

    19 See below for the analysis of these changes between the third and second centuries.

    20 Reger 1997, p. 59.

    21 Reger 1997, pp. 59‑61.

    22 Bresson 2008, p. 220.

    23 See Chapter 2 above, p. 94.

    24 Reger 1994a, p. 153: “looking first and foremost for local causes”.

    25 Reger 1994a, p. 203.

    26 On the challenges of storage, see Chankowski 2018a.

    27 Feyel 2006, pp. 348‑368 and map 10a. p. 352, albeit with the criticisms made as to the concept of regionalism.

    28 See the new edition of Clinton 2005 for the chronology of these inscriptions.

    29 Reger 1997; Chankowski 1997a. See in particular the case of Amphithales, who has a Delian name: O. Masson 1988, p. 73. Most do not figure in Vial 2008 as it is the only mention of these individuals. Some of these sellers were therefore thought to be foreigners by Tréheux 1992a (Rhodippos, Auxibios) but were classed as such because they were pitch sellers, so the reasoning is circular. Accordingly Menon, a seller of timber from Macedonia (IG XI2 199, A, 57), supplier of pitch and various kinds of wood, was thought by G. Glotz to be a Macedonian or to have had ties with Macedonia. For Glotz 1916, Nannakos and Hestiaios were Phyrgian and Ionian, and therefore pitch suppliers. Yet these are typically Cycladic names.

    30 Feyel 2006, pp. 348‑355, on the geographical distribution of craftsmen: the hieropoioi regularly mention ethnics. M. Lacroix thought he could show that foreigners were generally mentioned with their ethnic (Lacroix 1932, pp. 501‑502) but as C. Vial shows (Vial 1984, pp. 349‑350), this theory does not hold up. The distinction between residents and non-residents seems more plausible because it also implies the terms and conditions for drafting contracts.

    31 Chankowski 1997a, p. 78 and Chankowski 2018b.

    32 See for example the clauses in the quote of Livadeia (IG VII 3073).

    33 Chankowski 2018b; Chankowski 2019.

    34 Vélissaropoulos 1980, pp. 184‑188; Chankowski 2018b.

    35 Meiggs 1982, p. 470: “wherever there were pines there could be pitch”. On the wood and pitch of Bruttium imported to Attica from the late fifth century, see Compatangelo-Soussignan 2006, p. 192 and n. 110 (Aristophanes, frg. 638 Kassel-Austin).

    36 Glotz 1916.

    37 Fraser 1972, vol. I, p. 224 and pp. 231‑232.

    38 Glotz 1916, pp. 295‑299.

    39 The κηρός, µίλτο[ς] mix for coating woodwork is found in an account of the naopoi of Delos for 359/8 (ID 104‑5, l.4).

    40 Reger 1994a, pp. 160‑163. On the development of oil production in the Cyclades, see Brunet and Brun 1997, pp. 605‑609; Brunet 1990, p. 676 and Brunet 1999, pp. 45‑50.

    41 Chankowski 2008a, pp. 371‑376.

    42 Cf. Brun 1996, pp. 170‑182, with the testimony of the Aegineticus of Isocrates in particular.

    43 Reger 1994a, p. 295.

    44 See table 46 below, p. 249.

    45 The question does not arise for the oil price plots since the chous was already the unit used in the accounts of the hieropoioi.

    46 This observation challenges the table presented by Reger 1997, p. 66 and the graphs pp. 58‑60 for the years 314‑282. See the caveats by Doyen 2017, pp. 197‑198.

    55 Vial 2008, s.v., thinks Aristoboulos could have been a Delian.

    56 The study by Larsen 1941 came in answer to the interpretation of G. Glotz and then F. Heichelheim, who identified several periods of change in the price of tiles in the course of Delian Independence: Glotz 1932, p. 247 and Heichelheim 1938, pp. 128‑135.

    57 Feyel 2006, p. 390, table 11. The unit of a hundred bricks is that used by the hieropoioi (IG XI 2, 287, A, l. 98‑100).

    58 Examination of the directory of Delian craftsmen conveniently presented by C. Feyel does not seem to lead to the conclusion, contrary to the author’s assertions (Feyel 2006, pp. 384‑388), there was a category of artisans truly representative of woodworkers because thy generally added various tasks for which they were employed on the sanctuary worksites (manufacture of locks, tile laying).

    59 Moretti and Fincker 2016.

    60 Feyel 2006, p. 492.

    61 Reger 1997, p. 56 and table p. 65.

    62 Reger 1997, p. 65. Reger 2005, pp. 277‑280.

    63 Reger 1997, p. 62 and n. 40. See the summary by D’Ercole 2013 on the social category of male and female stockists.

    64 Reger 1997, p. 64.

    65 Glotz 1926.

    66 ἐπὶ τὸν νεὼ τὸµ πώρινον κεράµου ζεύγη ·Η𐅄∆∆𐅃· ἐξύρου, τιµὴ τοῦ ζεύγους ·ΙΙΙΙΙ· ἡ πᾶσα τιµὴ δραχµαὶ ·Η∆∆∆∆Image· τέλος ἐν Σύρωι τοῦ κεράµου ·𐅂𐅂𐅂𐅂ΙΙΙΙ· ναῦλλον τοῦ ζεύγους ·Ι[𐅀/] Νικοκλεῖ vac. τὸ πᾶν δραχµαὶ ·∆∆∆𐅂𐅂· ἀνακοµίσασι τὸγ κέραµον εἰς τὸ ἱερὸν µισθὸς ·𐅂ΙΙΙ. It is the name of the tax that is given here and not a tax per pair of tiles. But the total does not match. For the numbers to work out, the price for the naulon must be restored as 1 obol and 2 chalkoi (I[//]), making 0.185 drachmas per pair of tiles to which was added the tax of 4.6 drachmas, hence a total of 37 drachmas paid to Nikokles.

    67 Cited by Glotz 1926, pp. 9‑10.

    68 ἐλέφαντος ὀδόντες δύο παρὰ Ἡρακλείδου Βασιλεύκου Τυρίου, τάλαντον µναῖ τριάκοντα δύο ἡµιµναῖον ὀγδοήµορον, τὸ τάλαντον δραχµῶν : 𐅅 : ἡ πᾶσα τιµὴ : 𐅅ΗΗ𐅄∆∆𐅂ΙΙΙΙΙ : “two elephant tusks from Herakleides son of Basileukos of Tyre, one talent 32 minas ½ mina and 1/8th, the talent 500 drachmas, total price 771 drachmas, 4 obols”.

    69 Tarn 1928; Rostovtzeff 1989 [1941], p. 389; Baslez 1987.

    70 The accounts of the hieropoioi record countless payments to craftsmen for the supply of nails, used for repairing doors, shutters or chests, and for the supply of keys or the repair of locks. But these data can barely be exploited for want of indications as to units. The sanctuary also regularly needed lead to seal the stelae that were exhibited in the sanctuary’s grounds.

    71 Contrary to what Reger 1997, p. 56, n. 17 says, it was not lead but timber that was mentioned in 274 (IG XI 2, 199, A, l. 63‑64).

    72 Reger 1994a, p. 260.

    73 See below p. 266 on fishing and pp. 265‑266 on rents.

    74 Pucci 1989.

    75 Darest 1887; Davies 1937; Burford 1969, pp. 159‑206; Feyel 2006, p. 485, n. 46.

    76 Feyel 2006, pp. 485‑486.

    77 Bresson 2008, p. 220: “The best price observatory for the Aegean world in Hellenistic times.”

    78 For the supply of clay and bricks, see the tables compiled in Feyel 2006, pp. 389‑390 (brick) and p. 393 (clay). See also the case of paint: Chankowski 2018b.

    79 On the council’s role with respect to the sanctuary’s finances see Vial 1984, p. 104 and pp. 116‑119. The council also examined guarantors by checking the collateral they put up.

    80 On the diataxis, see Chapter 3 above, pp. 168‑173.

    81 See also in the case of nails lines 67‑68 of the accounts for 279 (IG XI 2, 161, A): the total paid is not shown but the unit price of the mina of nails features in a rasura, as if this were thought important enough to replace the total paid on the stele: ἥλων πα[ρὰ] ∆εξίου εἰς τὰς πυλίδας µναῖ πέντε· ἡ µνᾶ 𐅂Ι𐅁· “nails bought from Dexios for the doors, 5 mina, 1 mina 1 drachma, 1 obol, ½ obol”.

    82 See for example the list drawn up by Feyel 2006, pp. 487‑489, who thinks these indications attest to reductions accorded by craftsmen.

    83 Chankowski 2008b, p. 91.

    84 Also IG XI 2, 146; 162, A, l. 43; 199, D, l. 41‑47.

    85 See Chapter 3 above, pp. 105‑107 for the resale of materials.

    86 On the analysis of the procedure, essentially from the papyrological records of Lagid Egypt, see Pringsheim 1950, pp. 102‑126 and in particular p. 123, on the reference to auction sales by the term πρᾶσις, and Pringsheim 1961; Talamanca 1955.

    87 Gauthier 1977, pp. 205‑206; Moretti, Fincker and Chankowski 2012; Chankowski 2012.

    88 P.Strasb. 59, 3 (first century BC) and P.Gnom. 241 (second century AD). Directory of sources in Moretti, Fincker and Chankowski 2012, pp. 237‑241.

    89 Moretti, Fincker and Chankowski 2012.

    90 Chankowski 2011b, pp. 159‑162.

    91 Gauthier 1977, p. 208 and n. 17. E. Schulhof (see the note by F. Durbach at ID 366) surmised they had been confiscated. On the sale of confiscated goods in Attica, see Hallof 1990.

    92 See above p. 241 about the limits on business production capacities.

    93 Numerous texts relate to fishmongers. See the dissertation by Bohlen 1937; Feyel 1936, pp. 27‑36; Vatin 1971, pp. 95‑109 and Vatin 1966; Loyest 2009. On bargaining and auctions, see the attestations collected by Grassl 2004; Chankowski 2020.

    94 Hyperides, frg. 70: οὔτε γὰρ λιµένας εἶναι παρ’ αὑτοῖς οὔτε ἐµπόριον οὔτε ἄλλην διατριβὴν οὐδενίαν. πάντας δὲ ἀνθρώπους ἀφικνεῖσθαι πρὸς τὴν ∆ῆλον ἔλεγον, καὶ αὐτοὶ τὰ πολλὰ ἐν ∆ήλῳ διατρίβειν, “There are not at theirs [= the Rheneians] any ports or emporion or any other place of business, and they said that everyone went to Delos, and they themselves for that matter conducted most of their business on Delos.” (On this passage, see Chankowski 2008a, pp. 374‑375.

    95 Chankowski 2008a, pp. 374‑375.

    96 Chankowski 2008a, p. 372.

    97 See in particular the relations with Chios: Chankowski 2008a, pp. 175‑179.

    98 See the figures collated in Chapter 3 above, pp. 152‑155.

    99 Lytle 2013, p. 301, commenting on the analysis of Reger 1994a, p. 256. However, it is wrong to equate the hypotropion and the dekate ichtyon. It is a question of revenues assigned to repayment of loans and we do not know of all the taxes levied by the polis. The hypotropion and dekate ichtyon may very well have been two separate and concomitant taxes, even if they appear repeatedly as loan repayments. See Chapter 3 above, pp. 152‑153.

    100 Vial 1984, pp. 17‑20.

    101 Reger 1994a, p. 260 and pp. 300‑305, on the price of piglets. See p. 257 above on the price of animals for sacrifice.

    102 Payment being made only after counting the tiles in good condition (IG XI2, 199, A, l. 109‑110).

    103 Full references in Feyel 2006, p. 495, n. 93.

    104 Feyel 2006, p. 495.

    105 Molinier 1914, pp. 19‑34 and 80‑85. Vial 1984, p. 349.

    106 Hennig 1985, p. 439.

    107 Vial 1984, p. 348, identifies seven cases.

    108 M. Brunet in Nouveau Choix, p. 236; Roussel 1916, pp. 157‑159.

    109 Vial 1984, pp. 353‑354.

    110 Vial 1984, p. 355 identifies the choregoi and hieropoioi with wood suppliers. The presentation of these individuals in Index II, s.v. is more cautious.

    111 Vial 1984, p. 355 and p. 133, with the correction in Vial 2008, s.v.: Σωσιµένης Ἀντιγόνου, brother of Σωσίδηµος rogator. The Index II also corrects, s.v., the status of Aristolochos son of Nikodromos, herald of the sanctuary and proposer of four decrees, two of which granted rights as a citizen to a Chian and a Megarian (ID 547 and ID 545) and not a shopkeeper as stated in Vial 1984, p. 355.

    112 Lacroix 1916. See also Deonna 1948, pp. 50‑126, on the economic activities of Delians attested in the sources.

    113 Vial 1984, pp. 348‑356.

    114 On the identification of Philtes, who might have been the hieropoios of 275, see Vial 1984, p. 355.

    115 Vial 1984, p. 235, n. 231. See pp. 262‑263 above for the sale procedure.

    116 Notice the role seemingly played by relations with individuals from Chios, both in the accounts and in the honorific decrees, which is hardly surprising when one thinks of the role that city-states played in trading circuits. Cf. Sarikakis 1986. From the late fifth century Chios was linked to the sanctuary of Delos through loans at interest: Chankowski 2008a, pp. 175‑179.

    117 Vial 2008, s.v.

    118 Vial 1984, pp. 351‑353.

    119 Reger 1994a, pp. 338‑349.

    120 See Chapter 2 above, p. 94.

    121 See Chapter 3 above, p. 107.

    122 IG XI 2, 224, B, l. 27 = 287, B, l. 90 : ID 298, A, l. 108‑112.

    123 Unpublished material from excavations by M. Brunet whom I thank for letting me examine the coins.

    124 Reger 1994a, p. 259 in conjunction with change in the farming out of the sanctuary’s winegrowing estates, pp. 209‑211.

    125 Apart from the interpretation proposed by Reger 1994a (p. 259: “both phenomena suggest a rising demand for wood, which would tie in nicely with new building”), see the different interpretations for wood proposed by Descat 2001 and Bresson 2006a.

    126 Chankowski 2012. I summarize here the main conclusion of that paper. The re‑edited text and its translation are in Appendix 4.

    127 Chankowski 2012, pp. 41‑48.

    128 On ships’ papers, see Bresson 2000, pp. 131‑150.

    129 On equipment for auction sales on Delos, see Moretti, Fincker and Chankowski 2012. More generally on the negotiation of prices on the market, see the examples collected by Grassl 2004 and Chankowski 2012.

    130 In the tax register of the Elephantine papyrus, dating from 475, Descat 2001, p. 128 also note the comprehensive nature of taxation on vessels.

    131 Chankowski 2012, p. 40.

    132 See pp. 283‑285 below. On the possible division of the space between the agora and the emporion, apparent since the first century, see Hasenohr 2012b.

    133 See Descat 2002 on economic information.

    134 The practice of grouping lots can be seen besides through the term συναγορασµένον used to characterize a cargo of oil that a merchant had accepted to offload at Piraeus whereas it was intended for Pontos, in an Athenian decree of 176/5: IG II2 903 (Syll3 640), l. 12: [σπ]εύσας εἰσήγαγεν τὸ συνηγορασµένον ἔλ[αιον...]; also l. 6: συνηγορακώς. See the commentary by Gauthier 1982; Bresson 2008, pp. 179‑180.

    135 Cherry, Davis and Mantzourani 1996; Brun 1996; Dalongeville and Rougement 1993; Brunet 1999. See also the summary by Bonnin and Le Quéré 2014, pp. 11‑18.

    136 Reger 1994a, p. 109.

    137 Horden and Purcell 2000.

    138 In this sense, the Cyclades were incontrovertibly stepping stones for military powers: Reger 1994a, pp. 20‑26.

    139 See Chapter 3 above, pp. 153‑155.

    140 Vial 1984, pp. 339‑340 and n. 105. On the interpretation of the pentekoste astia, see also Larsen 1938, p. 355; Vélissaropoulos 1980, p. 210; Migeotte 2014, p. 660 and n. 257.

    141 See Chapter 3 above, pp. 150‑152.

    142 Vial 1984, pp. 234‑235.

    143 Lytle 2013, p. 298.

    144 Casson 1984; Vial 1984, pp. 339‑340; Reger 1994a, p. 256: “Delos practically vanishes compared to truly great economic centers.”

    145 See Chapter 3 above, pp. 150‑152 for the epigraphic references.

    146 Badoud 2014, pp. 182‑183.

    147 Chankowski 2007, pp. 313‑319. Carrara 2014 for a discussion of the term ellimenion.

    148 Chankowski 2008a, pp. 295‑308; Migeotte 2014, pp. 659‑662.

    149 Reger 1994a, pp. 163‑164, on the possible fall in the number of Rhodian amphoras on Delos in the course of the third century.

    150 Reger 1994a, pp. 118‑121.

    151 The case of the grain trade is taken up in detail by Reger 1994a, pp. 83‑126 and Reger 1993 with criticisms and supplements by Sosin 2003.

    152 Erdkamp 2005; Virlouvet 2018; Chankowski 2018a; Chankowski 2020.

    153 See Chapter 3 above pp. 162‑168.

    154 Stroud 1998.

    155 Reger 1994a, p. 116 (cited from E. Badian, ZPE 79 [1989], p. 59).

    156 It is mostly excavations in the first-century districts that have yielded remains of bakeries: Chamonard 1922-1924, p. 229, but see also Brunet 1998, p. 687, who sees them rather as domestic facilities.

    157 Shear 1978, l. 53‑55 and commentary pp. 30‑32; IG II3, 1, 911, l. 53‑355. For the date, Habicht 2006, p. 146.

    158 Reger 1994a, pp. 117‑118.

    159 Etienne 2011, pp. 19‑20; but see Bresson 2014, pp. 517‑518; see Chapter 4 above, p. 192. For Reger 1994a, p. 122, the sitonai of the Island League supposedly acted under Rhodian orders for the supply of troops.

    160 The argument in Reger 1994a, p. 123, that the local role of Delos as supplier for the Cyclades would even have discouraged importers from frequenting the island (“Delos’s role as a local distribution center radically reduced the locals’ need to encourage or compel imports, at least until the changes of the late third century”) seems mistaken because there is no proof of this narrowly Cycladic dimension.

    161 See Chapter 1 above, pp. 16‑17 on this text. For Reger 1994a, p. 118, the confiscated wheat “was being moved from one Kykladic island to another and happened to pass through Delos; it is less likely, in my view, that the grain was bought on Delos”, but Bresson 2008, pp. 186‑188 shows that seizure at sea would have been impossible.

    162 Reger 1994a, pp. 119‑123: “Despite the closeness in date of this text (IG XI 4, 666) to the Histiaian decree just discussed, it is important to avoid the temptation to treat them together as complementary or corroborating testimony on the importance (whether new or continuing) of Delos as an international market for grain transit” (p. 119).

    163 On this family, Vial 1984, pp. 32‑34.

    164 Strabo, XIV, 5, 2, on the subject of the slave market of Delos in the first century: “Merchant, dock in the harbour, offload your cargo – it is all sold ” (ἔµπορε, κατάπλευσον, ἐξελοῦ, πάντα πέπραται).

    165 See pp. 284‑285 below for the location of this trade.

    166 Reger 1994a, p. 41 and pp. 261‑263.

    167 On the relations between Rhodes and piracy, see the analysis by Gabrielsen 2001.

    168 Reger 1994a, p. 68 and p. 119.

    169 Vial 1984, p. 341. See also the recent study by Constantakopoulou 2017, pp. 152‑154.

    170 See also the data base compiled by W. Mack, Proxeny Networks of the Ancient World. A Database of Proxeny Networks of the Greek City-States: http://proxenies.csad.ox.ac.uk (consulted 8 March 2019) and Mack 2015 and the book by Constantakopoulou 2017.

    171 Chankowski 2012 and Appendix 4.

    172 Bresson 2008, pp. 82‑83.

    173 See Chapter 3 above, pp. 151‑152.

    174 Commentary ad IG XI 4, 627.

    175 Chankowski 2018a, pp. 33‑34.

    176 Chankowski 2014a and Chapter 4 above, p. 228.

    177 Several programmes are currently underway at the French School at Athens.

    178 Marc 2000.

    179 See the commentary by P. Roussel on ID 1709 evoking other possibilities (makers of herms, building contractors, etc.).

    180 Pennacchietti 1966-1967 and Bull. 1971, 648 and 652.

    181 Robert 1929, pp. 32‑38.

    182 See Coarelli 2016 who stands by his interpretation and the critical account by Chankowski 2018c, esp. p. 241.

    183 Moretti 1998.

    184 Hasenohr 2002; Hasenohr 2012a, p. 96.

    185 Vial 1984, pp. 340‑341; Reger 1988, pp. 29‑30; Duchêne and Fraisse 2001, pp. 147‑153.

    186 Chankowski 2008a, pp. 295‑307.

    187 P. Bruneau, “Deliaca IV” reprinted in Bruneau 2006, pp. 555‑565.

    188 Moretti, Fincker and Chankowski 2012.

    189 Schulhof and Huvelin 1907, p. 57; Nouveau Choix, p. 196; Bresson 2006a, p. 318.

    190 Moretti, Fincker and Chankowski 2012.

    191 Chankowski 2012: ἄνθρακας µηδὲ ῥυµοὺς µηδ[ὲ ξύλα ὅσα πωλεῖ]ται τοῖς σταθµοῖς τοῖς ξυληροῖς [µὴ ἐξέστω] πριάµενον ἐν ∆ήλωι πωλεῖν·, “charcoal, logs, building timber that are sold by using locations for wood, shall not be re‑sold in the event they have been purchased on Delos”. See the text in Appendix 4 and fig. 22.

    192 In particular ID 365 (a. 208) and ID 366 (a. 207).

    193 Fraisse and Llinas 1995, p. 256.

    194 See lastly the study of the monument by Moretti and Fincker 2016.

    195 Leroux 1913, p. 255; Lauter 1986, p. 163. R. Martin thinks the Hypostyle Hall may have been for warehousing: Martin 1951, p. 445, a purpose rejected by Moretti and Fincker 2016, p. 109 because the inside of the building was decorated.

    196 Moretti and Fincker 2016, pp. 107‑108.

    197 Chankowski 2018a.

    198 In other later attestations (imperial period) in inscriptions of Asia Minor, the term, sometimes compounded as ὑδρεγδοχεῖα, is used to refer to a water reservoir: Priene 208, l. 7; Didyma 264, l. 6; IEphesos 695, l. 9; MAMA VIII, 449, l. 4 (Aprhodisias); TAM III, 590, l. 12 (Pisidia); SEG XVIII, 740, b, l. 5 (Cyrenaica).

    199 Ἀπάµεια δ᾽ ἐστὶν ἐµπόριον µέγα τῆς ἰδίως λεγοµένης Ἀσίας, δευτερεῦον µετὰ τὴν Ἔφεσον·αὕτη γὰρ καὶ τῶν ἀπὸ τῆς Ἰταλίας καὶ τῆς Ἑλλάδος ὑποδοχεῖον κοινόν ἐστιν.

    200 Some only entertain for ἐγδοχεῖον the technical meaning of “cistern” and deny it has any meaning in the register of warehouses. Others translate the term ἐγδοχεῖς by “brokers” or “middlemen”, taking in particular in the papyrological occurrences their involvement in operations for financing maritime trade. It is only on Delos, and not incontrovertibly, that the term is understood by most epigraphists as meaning “warehousing agents”, in conjunction with the island’s role in the transit trade. See details in Chankowski 2018a.

    201 Virlouvet 2018 with the relevant bibliography.

    202 The Delian corpus provides a dozen or so dedications in this series (ID 1520, 1772, 1773, 1774, 1777, 1778, 1779, 1780, 1781, 1782, 1791, 1795) emanating from τὸ κοινὸν Βηρυτίων Ποσειδωνιαστῶν τῶν ἐν ∆ήλωι ἐµπόρων καὶ ναυκλήρων καὶ ἐγδοχέων, dedications of the traders, shipowners and warehousers of the koinon of the Poseidoniasts of Berytos settled on Delos.

    203 Roussel 1916, p. 93.

    204 See pp. 257‑258 and pp. 265‑266 above.

    205 The situation of Delos in the Athenian period, after the summary by Roussel 1916, has been studied in detail by Habicht 1985 and then Habicht 2006, pp. 271‑289, analysing all of the literary and epigraphic sources. On the circumstances of the handing over of Delos to the Athenians, Polybius, XXX, 20, 1‑8, with the commentary by Walbank 1979, pp. 443‑444; Strabo, X, 5, 4 C486. See also Perrin-Saminadayar 1999. On the consequences of the Roman decisions for Rhodes, Weimer 2002, pp. 328‑339. On Delos, the Athenians reactivated many of the cults first set up during their domination in classical times. Contrary to what Habicht 2006, p. 276 writes, the cults of Pythian Apollo, Theseus and the Delia were not new (see Chankowski 2008a, pp. 79‑121).

    206 Habicht 2006, pp. 282‑283, on dedications. Several Athenian documents attest to the permanent Roman authority over decisions concerning Delos, especially two Athenian decrees (Charneux and Tréheux 1997, pp. 239‑256).

    207 Chankowski 2018a, pp. 33‑38.

    208 Fraser and Bean 1954, pp. 154‑172; for Etienne 1990, pp. 107‑110, this influence was more of a guardianship: but see Badoud 2014, p. 121.

    209 Habicht 2006, pp. 271‑283.

    210 Hasenohr 2012a, pp. 95‑110; Hasenohr 2012b.

    211 On criticism of the interpretation of H. Duchêne and P. Fraisse, see Chankowski 2018a.

    212 Karvonis, Malmary and Zarmakoupi 2018. The comparative study of storage areas is provided by several warehouses of the imperial period by Ubaldo and Virlouvet 2016.

    213 A Satyros son of Amphykles was the tenant of the building for 150 drachmas around 192 (ID 400, l. 21‑22).

    214 On the Achaean embassy of 159/8 that supported the rights of the Delians against Athens, to which Polybius (XXX, 20, 9) possibly alludes in mentioning the problems that the ceding of Delos brought for Athens, see Habicht 2006, pp. 273‑274 and Walbank 1979, pp. 525‑526. Threats were still mentioned in the decree for the Athenian epimeletes (Tréheux and Charneux 1998). Two dedications by Delians (∆ήλιοι) to their patrons (τὸν ἑαυτῶν πάτρωνα), the orator Marcus Antonius, consul in 99 and censor in 97 (ID 1700) and C. Iulius Caesar, father of the dictator and proconsul in Asia between 99 and 89 (ID 1701) show that they managed to secure support from powerful protectors.

    215 Reger 1994a, p. 256.

    216 Duchêne and Fraisse 2001, p. 178; Rickman 1971, p. 155: “It is certain that the excavations on Delos have not such warehouses”; Hellmann 2010, p. 283.

    217 Round‑up in Chankowski 2018a.

    218 Pausanias, VIII, 33, 2, of Delos: κοινὸν Ἑλλήνων ἐµπόριον.

    219 Rossi 2012, pp. 647‑654.

    220 See for example, on contemporary markets, the role of free ports in the art market, studied by several journalists at the time of the contemporary art market fair in Singapore in 2013 (Le Monde, 29 January 2013): “Free ports have many advantages for art collectors. Set up on large areas (30,000 m2 of land in Singapore, 50,000 m2 in Geneva and a planned 70,000 m2 for the future free port of Beijing), they are open virtually non‑stop, day and night, all year round. They are often equipped with ultra-sophisticated security systems and can be used to store large format artworks. These free ports are also sought after for their attractive storage rates (between 200 and 700 euros per square metre for one year) and their confidentiality. They enjoy advantageous tax conditions. The artworks are only taxed on leaving the free zones, generally at the rate in force in the country of destination.” Other parallels, such as the free port of Leghorn between the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, bear interesting similarities with Delos. See for example the study by Calafat 2012.

    221 On transaction costs, see in particular the study by Lo Cascio 2005.

    222 Etienne (Robert) 1993.

    223 Bonsangue 2014; Tchernia 2008; Andreau 2010.

    224 See for now the Chronique des fouilles en ligne of the French School at Athens, notice 6199 (https://chronique.efa.gr/).

    225 For example Livy XXXVI, 43. On the tonnage of vessels, see Nantet 2016.

    Parasites of the God

    X Facebook Email

    Parasites of the God

    Ce livre est diffusé en accès ouvert freemium. L’accès à la lecture en ligne est disponible. L’accès aux versions PDF et ePub est réservé aux bibliothèques l’ayant acquis. Vous pouvez vous connecter à votre bibliothèque à l’adresse suivante : https://freemium.openedition.org/oebooks

    Acheter ce livre aux formats PDF et ePub

    Si vous avez des questions, vous pouvez nous écrire à access[at]openedition.org

    Parasites of the God

    Vérifiez si votre bibliothèque a déjà acquis ce livre : authentifiez-vous à OpenEdition Freemium for Books.

    Vous pouvez suggérer à votre bibliothèque d’acquérir un ou plusieurs livres publiés sur OpenEdition Books. N’hésitez pas à lui indiquer nos coordonnées : access[at]openedition.org

    Vous pouvez également nous indiquer, à l’aide du formulaire suivant, les coordonnées de votre bibliothèque afin que nous la contactions pour lui suggérer l’achat de ce livre. Les champs suivis de (*) sont obligatoires.

    Veuillez, s’il vous plaît, remplir tous les champs.

    La syntaxe de l’email est incorrecte.

    Référence numérique du chapitre

    Format

    Chankowski, V. (2023). The Delian economy: the market and prices. In Parasites of the God (1‑). École française d’Athènes. https://doi.org/10.4000/books.efa.16201
    Chankowski, Véronique. « The Delian Economy: The market and prices ». In Parasites of the God. Athènes: École française d’Athènes, 2023. https://doi.org/10.4000/books.efa.16201.
    Chankowski, Véronique. « The Delian Economy: The market and prices ». Parasites of the God, École française d’Athènes, 2023, https://doi.org/10.4000/books.efa.16201.

    Référence numérique du livre

    Format

    Chankowski, V. (2023). Parasites of the God (1‑). École française d’Athènes. https://doi.org/10.4000/books.efa.16192
    Chankowski, Véronique. Parasites of the God. Athènes: École française d’Athènes, 2023. https://doi.org/10.4000/books.efa.16192.
    Chankowski, Véronique. Parasites of the God. École française d’Athènes, 2023, https://doi.org/10.4000/books.efa.16192.
    Compatible avec Zotero Zotero

    1 / 3

    École française d’Athènes

    École française d’Athènes

    • Plan du site
    • Se connecter

    Suivez-nous

    • Facebook
    • Instagram
    • Flux RSS

    URL : https://www.efa.gr

    Email : Bertrand.Grandsagne@efa.gr

    Adresse :

    Διδότου 6

    GR 10680

    Αθήνα

    Ελλάδα

    OpenEdition
    • Candidater à OpenEdition Books
    • Connaître le programme OpenEdition Freemium
    • Commander des livres
    • S’abonner à la lettre d’OpenEdition
    • CGU d’OpenEdition Books
    • Accessibilité : partiellement conforme
    • Données personnelles
    • Gestion des cookies
    • Système de signalement