Version classiqueVersion mobile
OpenEdition Books

Transferts culturels et droits dans le monde grec et hellénistique

 | 
Bernard Legras

Transferts culturels et construction des droits durant l’époque archaïque et classique

Defining “legal place” in archaic and early classical Crete

Karen Rørby Kristensen

Texte intégral

1We may understand cultural transfer in various ways, for example, as processes of Hellenisation, or as processes of acculturation or the assimilation of different cultures, or the perception of the world in terms of a centre and a periphery (or several layers of peripheries). However, we need to approach communities which shared the same cultural parameters, and communities which were politically independent of each other, differently. I will not be addressing how we encounter the question of cultural transfer between the Cretan city-states in the seventh through fifth centuries BCE. There is no evidence for cultural transfer in the political or legal sphere at this point of time. Clearly, other fields of human interaction had an effect on the communities involved. Invention and creation were considered, and either admitted or rejected.

  • 1 See also Gagarin, this volume.
  • 2 Polignac 1995. For some preliminary thoughts on the interaction of law and religion in Crete, see K (...)
  • 3 See Tuan 2005.
  • 4 See Tuan 2005: 67-84 compared to 85-100.

2Yet the reason I so boldly claim that we find no legal or political transfer between the various Cretan city-states is not because the laws were not identical or similar (which the extant pieces certainly are not).1 The explanation lies embedded in the purpose of law making. Ehe law was obviously intended for establishing rules in order to settle disputes within a clearly defined domain – the territory of the polis. Thus, the law defined the place within a more abstract space in which the citizenry existed. Cults and sanctuaries have previously been used to understand the definition of the polis and its territory, as, for example, F. de Polignac suggests, and myths acted as means for understanding the creation and definition of the polis’ territory.2 Applying the ideas of the humanist geographer, Yi-Fu Tuan,3 it becomes evident that the law, too, adds to the creation of the definition of place and territory: as a physical place, but even more importantly, as a mental construction ordering separate places within a wider space (which sometimes also had a physical dimension). In other words, we can perceive “place” as a relatively defined geographical unit, as well as a mentally defined place.4

  • 5 See Tuan 2005: 3-7, 67-84, esp. 75-76.
  • 6 See, for example, Tuan 2005: 147-148.
  • 7 See Tuan 2005: 151-154, 175-177.

3Tuan seeks to explore different kinds of human experience of the space that surrounds us, the different ways in which we define our world with regard to space, place and identity. His ideas relate to individuals and to groups, whether designated by age, origin, or because of close geographical attachment to a place. He argues that we all do perceive the world around us in terms of undefined space and well-defined place.5 Definitions of place comprise locations on different scales, ranging from the cosy armchair to, in fact, the whole world.6 A place has an identity; we may call it “identity of place”, and it defines a place in terms of its special features. The creation and continuous development of an identity of place depends on various factors. Yet, we can say of the Greek city-states, and in this particular case, the Cretan city-states, that they all shared the same types of definitions of place (sanctuaries), small territories (in the sense that they did not exceed a two-days’ journey) and expressions of collective memories (graves and monuments, which were “literary”, to some degree). A place can thus be defined and acknowledged by the existence of a specific temple, for example: it could be a spring believed to have been created by Poseidon, which holds something central. The place is then known for this feature and the mythologies which encompassed it, and the place is thus made distinct for that reason.7

  • 8 This is implied by Tuan 2005: 1 58-159.
  • 9 Apart from outsiders, that is, foreigners, the Cretan communities also had to deal with non-citizen (...)

4On the other hand, “place identity” relates to the special features of a place, to which people subscribe in order to make a geographical place aid in the formation of personal or group identity.8 Essentially, the law was defined to include some, and exclude others – to clarify the differences between “them” and “us”; and to achieve that end, the law had also to assist to define and potentially create near-exact notions of “place identity”. At some point, the unspecific notion of being part of, or belonging to a space, became defined and delimited into the mental construction of place; in this case, legal place, although the law obviously only constitutes but one of several aspects which define place. In my view, there need not be much discussion, leaving aside the actual purpose of a specific law, that the earliest laws were aimed at defining place – “legal place”. In the process of defining place, one group of people encountered other groups of people who were defining their places. Once place was defined, there was a need for ways in which to address situations wherein people from different mental constructions of place were confronted with each other in various ways. At some point, one community had to establish means of dealing with outsiders, whether this related to individuals or groups of people from other mental constructions of place, from other communities. Hence, some legislation was aimed at regulating relations between “them” and “us”, which again reinforced “place identity”. The meeting between “them” and “us” could come about in various ways and on different levels. The civic community could encounter an individual outsider, or a group of outsiders, or even several numbers of defined groups of outsiders at the same time. Finally, there was the possibility of the civic community engaging in an agreement with another civic place. Although most of the extant legislation from archaic and early classical Crete aimed to provide solutions to conflicts involving citizens, it is obvious that at the turn of the sixth century BCE, various Cretan communities had already considered the issue of foreigners in their legislation, and more legislation was to follow.9 The legislation, which addresses encounters between the citizenry and various outsiders, clarifies and emphasises how the citizenry defined their “legal place”. We shall examine this process in what follows.

The community facing an individual outsider

  • 10 See, for example, the risk associated with travelling, documented in IC IV.72 Vl.46-56, concerning (...)
  • 11 Many believe the option was restricted to the ranks of the citizenry. See, for example, Willetts 19 (...)
  • 12 At the colloque, Michael Gagarin noted that we cannot be certain from the legible words in the frag (...)

5Whenever a community faced an individual coming from without, there were obviously two ways in which to react. If there was no protection offered by treaties or any other kind of mutual agreement (for example, regarding commerce) between the home city and the alien community, the encounter could turn out to be a hostile adventure for an outsider. Hostile encounters probably resulted in either the enslavement or killing of the outsider. He could not have hoped for any protection embedded in whatever concern might exist for acts of retaliation from his native polis. An outsider was furthermore not necessarily a citizen in any polis, or even a person of free status. The evidence indicates that one could not safely travel to whatever community one liked during the seventh through fifth centuries BCE in Crete.10 Individuals could, nonetheless, also engage in peaceful interactions with other communities. Whatever their actual backgrounds, individuals could be naturalised through adoption, in fifth century Gortyn: ἄνπανσιν ἔμεν ὀπο κά τιλ λ/ε͂ι (IC IV.72 X.33-34), and of course this could probably also have been applied to an outsider.11 Whether or not that actually ever happened to an outsider, we obviously do not know, although a potential adoptee most likely would have to have been a free person, as well as belonging to the Gortynian legal place in some sense. A fragmentary legal document from Phaistos may have dealt with adoption; we cannot tell how a potential adoptee was defined there.12

  • 13 Contrary to Guarducci (IC comm, ad loc.), who believed citizens were implied in the text, Willetts (...)

6One person experienced a peaceful encounter with another definition of place. Gortyn in its entirety, and the inhabitants of Aulon (Γόρτυνς πίπανσαοἰ ἐν ἈƑλõvι Ƒοικίοντες) awarded privileges to Dionysios for his merits in warfare, and good services. Whilst Aulon, which appears to have been a fortification at the outer border of the Gortynian territory, was singled out in the text, it is a reasonable guess that Dionysios had fought there. Dionysios was rewarded with freedom from taxation (ἀτελεία), access to the citizens’ court Ƒαστία δίκα, as opposed to the κσενεία δίκα (see ICIV.80), a house (Ƒοικία) in Aulon inside the fortification, and land outside it.13 In fact, the overall purpose of this enactment was to grant citizenship to Dionysios by providing him with rights equal to those of a citizen of Gortyn; in other words, he was naturalised in the polis of Gortyn, as were his descendants. The segregation of the law into the two fields of Ƒαστία δίκα and κσενεία δίκα, respectively, visualises the definition of legal places into two entities. We must pay attention to the fact that these terms obviously served as polarities, but whilst Ƒαστία δίκα not only simply applies to the citizenry, it also signifies and alludes to the physical location where the legal actions actually took place – within the urban centre. On the other hand, κσενεία δίκα applies to the elusiveness (that is, to anyone who was not member of the citizenry, any κσένος or ἀλλοπολιάτας) and random nature of the contract between the polis and hypothetical outsiders.

  • 14 See Jeffery and Morpurgo-Davies 1970 and Nomima I.22.
  • 15 That is, δίκαια ἐς ἀνδρήιον δώσει δ-/έκα πέλευς κρέων, αἴ καὠι ἄλọ [ι] / [ἀπ?]άρωνται, καὶ τò (...)
  • 16 A.3-5: “so that he be for the city its scribe and recorder in public affairs both sacred and secula (...)
  • 17 Tò Ƒῖσov λακὲν τòν ποινικαστὰν καί παρῆμε-/ν καὶ συνῆμεν ἐπί τε θιηίων καὶ ἐπ' ἀνθρωπί-/νων πάντε (...)

7Somewhere east of Gortyn, possibly also in the Mesara plain, Spensithios14 was granted privileges similar to those of Dionysios. It is evident from the fact that Spensithios was to contribute ἐς ἀνδρήιον that if he was not initially a citizen, he eventually became one, when he took on the positions as μνάμον and ποινικαστάς for the Dataleis.15 Spensithios did receive exemption from taxes and a means of maintenance for himself and his descendants: θρόπα-/ν τε καὶ ἀτέλειαν πάντων αὐτῶι τε καὶ γενιᾶι, though he apparently did not need to work the fields himself (μισθòν δὲ δόμεν τõ ἐνιαυτό τῶι ποινι[κ]-/[α]στᾶι, and thus a list follows, containing the actual items of payment in the remainder of the side side A of the inscription). His privileges did, however, also embrace a range of obligations and rights equal to those of the board of κόσμοι. Foremost amongst these, however, was his appointment in order to: -/ς κα πόλι τὰ δαμόσια τὰ τε θιήια καὶ τἀνθρώπινα / ποινικάζεν τε καὶ μναμονεῦƑην.16 Clearly, Spensithios’ job description extended far beyond what would describe the duties of a plain secretary (or a mason). We learn from the beginning of the side B of the inscription that he was given the right to share and participate in the meetings of the kosmoi, and serve as a substitute for priests in the public cults, if no one else was available.17 There is no doubt that he was to have tremendous influence in this polis. Spensithios was not only admitted to a legal place, the positions as μνάμον and ποινικαστάς (though not his person) became part of the ongoing definition of this legal place, the “identity of place”, and thus became part of the “place identity”. In contrast to Spensithios qua his positions, Dionysios took on a more passive role as a defining element of the outer boundaries of the legal territory of the Gortynians, in the sense that his ascending to the level of the citizenry worked as a tool in the continuous redefinition of the polis territory.

The community facing groups of individuals

  • 18 Whilst we have no examples in Crete of mercenaries in Archaic and Classical Crete (apart from the f (...)
  • 19 Van Effenterre 1979 discusses ICII.v.1-4 (Axos), ICII.xii.9 and 11 (Eleutherna), ICIV.58 (which is (...)
  • 20 See Guarducci IC II comm, ad loc., Bile 1988: 175 with n. 94, 183 n. 131. Συσυρποιοί were probably (...)

8Groups of individuals could have had different reasons lor approaching a foreign community, and thus essentially essaying an encounter with another definition of place. A community may have invited a group of individuals to settle within the polis territory to perform different tasks for various purposes, as workmen.18 Likewise, groups of alien individuals approaching a legal place could comprise a group of exiles. It is, however, arguable whether we in fact find examples of the latter within the epigraphical corpus from Crete.19 There is no unambiguous evidence that various outsiders or non-citizens in the epigraphic record were exiled emigrants. We find, nonetheless, a number of references to workmen, some of whom appear to have originated from other constructions of place than the polis that issued the enactment in which we find the reference. However, we cannot be certain of the origins of the workmen mentioned in a fragment from Eleutherna (ICII.xii.9 last quarter of the sixth century BCE). The fragment seems to have regulated the contractual conditions for a group of workmen and the polis of Eleutherna. We find references to what appears to be payment τριόδολον (I. 3) and ‘half-sixth of a bushel (?) of barley: [μιτυέκτο κριθαί (1.4), which were possibly for the workmen, the curious συσυρποιοί.20

  • 21 Ed. pr. Jeffery 1949: 35-36 no. 8, the text is as follows:]λ̣ε̣τ̣ […./....]σταυ.[--- / ---]εν | τòν(...)
  • 22 That is, either we admit the reading -/νεκυρασ̣ [τάν] for -/νέκυρα, or read -/νέκυρα, and thus i (...)
  • 23 See Guarducci ICII.v p. 48, Jeffery 1949: 36. In Nomima I.28 it is held that ICII.v. 1, together wi (...)
  • 24 Also, the remainder of those inscriptions belonging to the so-called “main code” is quite fragmenta (...)
  • 25 See IC IV.47.6 and ICIV.72 II.32, 43, III.54, IV.2, 20, 22-23.

9From Axos, roughly contemporary with the fragment from Eleutherna, we also find fragmentary evidence of contractual conditions between groups of workmen and the polis. One is the fragment published by L. H. Jeffery in 1949: this inscription comes from the corner of a wall of the lower temple of the acropolis in Axos, and appears to contain general (contractual?) rules for the workmen.21 Additionally, there seems to be some kind of exception, describing that the conditions for a workman were to be analogous to those of someone accepting a pledge,22 although we cannot tell whether this fragment dealt with alien workmen or indigenous inhabitants of the polis. A group of inscriptions from the upper temple of the Acropolis in Axos is sometimes referred to as the main code of Axos (IC II.v. 1-7 and 11).23 Some of these inscriptions are believed to deal with workmen: ICII.v.1-4. However, three of these texts are in such a state that we need to settle for considering the possibility that they in fact related to outsiders as workers, that is, the nos. 2-4 in the Inscriptiones Creticae II.24 However, in all probability, no. 3 does not relate to outsiders of free status, because we find the term πάστας applied, which, at least in Gortyn, always referred to the master of dependent labourers.25

  • 26 We find reference to this in the pair made up by the second and third lines:--ιv δοκεν ἀκσία ἤμεν τ (...)
  • 27 See Guarducci IC II comm, ad loc., IGT 101 and Nomima 1.28. Perlman 2004b: 114-115 with n. 106, how (...)
  • 28 ICII.v. 1.4-5: -- κατ' ἀμέραν ζ ιμιõμεν | αί δ'ἐπέλ/θοιεν ἰν ταῖσι πέντε αἰ μὴ λειοι -- could be ta (...)
  • 29 ICII.v. 1.8-9: --τᾶ]ς ἰν ἀντρηίοι διάλ̣σιος [α] δια-/λ̣οι ̣πὶ σποƑδδὰν | ἐκςαἰ[--. In Nomima I (...)
  • 30 In Nomima I.28, although in my view inconclusively: ἰα[ρήιον for --[ρηιον.] in line fourteen. Jeffe (...)
  • 31 See Willetts 1980: 41, who adds that they could perhaps be freedmen, as he believes was the case in(...)
  • 32 In Nomima 1.28, the case of reincorporation of emigrated citizens into the polis of Axos is argued.
  • 33 See Koerner in IGT 101 and Perlman 2004b.

10Although no. 1 is by far the best preserved of the pieces amongst these Axian inscriptions, the interpretation is made difficult by the fact that, although the lines are connected in pairs, we do not have one single entire sentence. I shall indicate some similarities and some differences between the fragment from Axos, and the cases of Dionysios in Gortyn and Spensithios in Datala. As were these two individuals, someone was regarded as worth the maintenance and exemption from taxation in Axos, during the last quarter of the sixth century BCE, and admitted into the legal place of the citizenry.26 However, I am not convinced that we should understand ά τέκνα as referring to descendants (that is, as the plural τò τέκνον), and I thus agree with the opinio communis, in understanding this to mean τέχνη.27 We also learn about reprisals in relation to these workmen, something which is absent from the cases of Dionysios and his granted privileges, as well as from the contract of Spensithios.28 There are, however, references to what appear to be further rewards (if, indeed, διά̣λ̣σιος refers to dining or the like) for good services (that is, “with effort” ̣πὶ σποƑδδὰν).29 We may further wonder what indeed were the implications for these workmen, the occurrence of ἰν ἀντρηίοι in the text, which is repeated at the end of the fragment as: τõν δ' ἄλον πάντον / ἀτέλειαν καὶ τροπὰν ἰν ἀντρηίοι κ̣α --?30 Who were these people: outsiders (or even freedmen),31 or immigrants, but newly incorporated citizens,32 or should we compare this text to the situation of Spensithios and that of the IC IV.78 (see below)?33 There are indications that this fragment dealt with the incorporation of outsiders into the polis of Axos, but it is evident that these people did not enjoy a position comparable to that of Spensithios, nor were they honoured, as was Dionysios. It is far from conclusive whether or not these workmen became citizens, and were thus admitted into to the legal place of Axos on equal terms with its citizenry. Whether or not it was so, the citizens of Axos evidently did set up rules to govern a particular situation involving outsiders. On the other hand, if these outsiders continued to hold a status as aliens in the polis, the citizenry had clearly defined their particular position within the general legal place of the polis.

  • 34 See Willetts 1980: 43, who argues that those who were allowed to settle in Latosion (allegedly a cr (...)
  • 35 ICIV.78.4-9: αἰ δὲ [συλ/ί]οιεν, ἐκατόν στατὲρανς, Ƒέκαστον τòνς τίτανς [ἐσπράδδεθ/θαι, καὶ τὰν δ]ιπ (...)

11A mid-fifth century inscription from Gortyn (ICIV.78) refers to some individuals who were given the right to settle in Latosion (Θιοί. τὰδ Ƒαδε Γορτυνίοις πσαπίδονσ̣[ιτõν ἀπελευ[θέρον--/----- κ]α̣̣ λε͂ι καταƑοικίδεθαι Λατόσιον ἐπὶ τᾶι Ƒίσραι [κ/αὶ τ]ᾶι ὀμοίαι), which was either a settlement outside Gortyn proper, or a quarter in the city. As previously proposed, this inscription may very well refer to either a reinstatement of exiled Gortynians, to manumitted people of servile status or to foreigners.34 It is emphasised in the text that these people were not to be enslaved or robbed by the Gortynians (καὶ μέτινα τοῦτον μέτε καταδολό[θαι μέτε συλεν]). Additionally, the magistrate in charge was the κσένιος κόσμος ([αἰ καταδολ]οῖτο, τòν κσένιον κόσμον μὲ λαγαῖεν), and thus it seems most likely that they had not previously been Gortynian citizens. The remainder of the text provides more specific rules for levying fines.35 The magistrates who were to exact fines were the τίται, whom we so far know only from Gortyn.

  • 36 IC IV.79:-----------/…..]. ο κριθ[ᾶν…./….]κια κα[……../. σύ]κον ἐκατόν μ[εδίμν/ονς κα] γλεύκιος προ (...)
  • 37 Guarducci IC IV.79 (comm, ad loc) argued that these people could be foreigners and freedmen, a poin (...)

12Another inscription, ICIV.79,36 contemporary with ICIV.78, establishes the contract for a public enterprise in Gortyn, where different kinds of provisions are listed in the beginning of the text. The appearance of the κσένιος κόσμος in this text, too, suggests that the persons engaging in this contract are outsiders, in this case both free and dependent labourers.37 In the Axos inscription there may have been rules regarding breach of contract; in Gortyn we learn that failure to perform to the fulfilment of the contract was fined with ten staters. Similarly, for the two Gortynian cases, it was required that the magistrates themselves pay, if they did not exact the fines in question.

13Essentially, foreigners, outsiders, were admitted into the polis territory, while simultaneously the citizenry’s “legal place” became reinforced in the course of setting up rules and boundaries for the outsiders. In some of these cases, the outsiders in question may turn out to have been indigenous inhabitants of the geographical entity. Yet the process of admitting foreigners into the polis created new polarities, which then became part of the ongoing definitions of place and identity. This, too, applies to the polis that set up rules and granted protection for a defined group of people, who remained outsiders in the legal place of the citizenry.

The community facing another community

  • 38 Ed. pr. Van Effenterre 1946: no. 1. See also Bile 1988: 30.
  • 39 See IC I.ix.l, allegedly archaic = ICI.ix.l D.137-164. See further, Nomima I.48. Willetts 1980: 119 (...)
  • 40 See ICI.ix.l D.144-152: καὶ οἱ Μιλάτιοι/ἐπεβώλευσαν / ἐν τἂι νέαι νε/μονήιαι τᾶι πό/λει τᾶι τῶν Δρη(...)

14The evidence for treaties or inter-state dealings is confined to a small number of cases in the archaic and classical Cretan epigraphic record. We may have a fragment of such an agreement, from late seventh century Dreros, that is: --δε ἆι οἰ Πρεπσίδιαι κοἰ Μιλάτιοι ἆρκσαν vacat.38 (----after (or while) the Prepsidai and Milatioi had begun). Amongst the Drerian inscriptions is the famous Ephebian oath, part of which is believed by some scholars to originate from the archaic period.39 For what it is worth, we find the Milatioi singled out in the text as potential enemies, whether this applies to a specific initiation rite of the youths, or whether the Milatioi were considered enemies, generally.40 It is a vexed question whether this part of the text is indeed archaic. The remainder of the inscription complies with many other examples from the Hellenistic period.

  • 41 See ICIV.72 I.2-II.2. See further, Guarducci ICIV comm. ad loc.

15From Gortyn we have a fragmentary agreement between Lebena and Gortyn, which appears to belong to the late sixth century: ICIV.63. Whilst the content of the first line remains inconclusive, we can identify twelve μεδίμνοι of barley in the subsequent line, which is followed by: κατὰ τõ Γορτυνίο κατὰ δὲ τõ Λεβενα[ίο] ὀ̣γ[--/--]ιο[..] τõι Λεβεναίοι κ̣αρτερòς μαί̣τ[υς--. These lines suggest this fragment to be a piece of a treaty, in which, since a Lebenian is provided with preference in oath, Lebena is perhaps the weaker party. The fifth line κατἀμέραν πέντε στατἐραṿ[ς could indicate public contractors, but could also, for example, refer to a payment for illegal seizure, along the lines of the first column of the Law Code.41 Both options are possible.

  • 42 Apart from one point, where I follow Chadwick 1987, ύπὲ]ρ, Ƒῶλαςαδᾶς, I base this discussion on (...)
  • 43 See Van Effenterre 1989, reiterated in Nomima I.12.
  • 44 As Perlman 2004b: 124-127 points out, adding that the normal term for a foreigner is κσένος. See al (...)
  • 45 That is to say, I follow John Chadwick in understanding the first letter in line six as rho, not qo (...)

16The side side A of the infamous two-side inscription from Lyttos also deals with interstate dealings, insofar as one particular group of people was admitted to Lyttos, that is, those who came from Itanos, whereas everybody else, regardless of their origin, was not.42 For the present, two issues are of importance. How do we understand the ἀλ(λ)ο/πολιάταν in the text, and why is this not a δίκη ἐξουλη´ (as has been previously argued)?43 The ἀλλοπολιάται are identical to two groups of people, who are contrasted in the text, that is, those who were seized with force (καρτεῖ), or those who happened to be Itanian citizens. The term itself indicates that ἀλλοπολιάται did not apply to persons not holding citizenship at all. The prefix ἀλλο- does not suggest that we are encountering exiled Lyttians, while they were not perceived as citizens of another polis. In short, άλλοπολιάται refer to citizens from another polis than Lyttos herself.44 Apart from the fact that I find it difficult to argue for a relationship between a type of process which is much disputed within Athenian legal history and the occurrence of an isolated concept in a Cretan inscription, the reason this text has nothing to do with a δίκη ἐξουλή relates to the reading of the letter subsequent to the first digamma in A.6: ὐπὲ]ρωλᾶς / Ƒαδᾶς “on the decision of the council”, which emphasises the severity of the violation of the law, if the perpetrator was either a κόσμος or an ἀπόκοσμος.45

17We do not know what penalty was imposed on a common citizen, if he violated the ban against admitting non-Itanian citizens to his city. Nevertheless, the citizenry of Lyttos had defined their legal position in quite severe terms.

  • 46 See Kristensen 2002.
  • 47 Willetts 1980: 111 believes the right to be mutual (although he interprets the remainder of the tex (...)
  • 48 See Nomima I.7 τõ’πορί̣σμ̣[ο for τõ’πορίμ[ο in ICIV.80.
  • 49 ἐνεκυραστὰν δὲ μὲ παρέρπε/ν Γορτύνιον ἐς τõ Ριττενίο, αἰ δέ κα ν[ικ]αθἐι τõν ἐνεκύρον, διπλεῖ κατασ (...)
  • 50 ὄτι δέ [κα αὖ]τ[ι]ς ἀνπιπαίσοντι τò κοινόν οἰ Ρι/ττένιοι πορτὶ τòνς Γορτυνίον[ς.. c.6,.]ν τòν κάρυκ (...)

18In the course of the first half of the fifth century BCE, a treaty was drawn up between Rhitthenia and Gortyn. As was the case with the treaty between Gortyn and Lebena, some fifty years earlier, Gortyn was the stronger party. As I have argued previously, the offering mentioned in the beginning of the text (τὰ θ[ύ]/ματα παρέκοντες ἐς βίδαν τρί[τ]οιέ]τει τριακατίονς <σ>τατερανς καὶ πεν/τέκοντα) may in fact constitute a tribute paid to Gortyn, and we may compare the relationship between Gortyn and Rhittenia as one similar to the relationship between the allies of the Peloponnesian League and Sparta, and that of the allies of the Delian league and Athens.46 Although 1 may admit that we cannot be certain that the offerings were not a communal enterprise shared by Rhittenians as well as Gortynians, the nature of Rhittenian contribution seems to be a kind of tribute paid to the Gortynian. The impression that this is in fact a tribute rests with the fact the text was found in Gortyn, and that the opening sentence refers to the Rhittenians alone. This text is interesting for a discussion of legal place, for the following reasons: it is established that the Rhittenians were to be αὐτόνομοι and αὐτόδικοι (θιοί. ἐπὶ τοῖδε [Ρ]ι[ττέν]ι[οι Γ]ορ[τυνίοις αὐτ]όνομοι καύτόδικοι), in other words, there was no formal case of interference with the legal place of the Rhittenians. A right was endowed to those who either were to build houses or to plant trees to sell and dispose of these (στέγαν δ' ἄν κα Ƒοικοδομέσ[ει….]ς δένδρεα πυτεύσει, τòν / Ƒοικοδομέσαντα καί πυτεύσαντ[α] καὶ πρίαθαι κάποδόθαι). We cannot be certain, in fact, that this relates only to Gortynians within the Rhittenian territory, and not vice versa.47 However, the next section of the text does to some extent contradict the mutuality of the two parties, in that we learn that an army was placed in Rhittenia, and a person was appointed to exercise the rights and duties of a kosmos, together with the Rhittenian boards of kosmoi. This we learn in relation to what happened to someone who did not respect the border48-between the two territories? (τòν δὲ σταρτ/αγέταν καὶ τòν κοσμίοντα ὄς κ' ἄγε[ι] Ρ[ι]ττενάδε κοσμεν πεδὰ τõ Ριττενίο / κόσμο τòν μὲ πειθόμενον τõ ’πορί̣σμ̣[ο, δ]αμιόμεν δὲ δαρκνὰν καὶ κατακρέθαι πεδ/ά τε τõ σταρτõ καὶ πεδὰ τõν Ριττενίον πλ[ίο]ν δέ μέ δαμιόμεν). However, there is one feature that, more than anything else in the text, emphasises the segregation into two well defined legal places; the occurrence of the κσενεία δίκα[ι], contrary to the Ƒαστία δίκα, which we encountered in the case of Dionysios (see IC IV.64, above). We learn that the κσενεία δίκα[ι] was to be applied, if the fine for an offence involving a Gortynian and a Rhittenian citizen exceeded one drachma, or if the offender did not pay his fine (αἰ δὲ πλίον δαμιόσ/αι μὲ κατακρέσαιτο, κσενείαι δίκα[ι δι]κάδδεθαι). The parties involved belonged to two different legal spheres, and thus one of them would always be a κσένος in comparison with the other. IC IV.80 is not a case of ἰσοπολιτεία, which, in Crete, appears to be a feature of the Hellenistic Age. The subsequent section of IC IV.80 prohibits a Gortynian from taking a pledge from a Rhittenian citizen, and we learn that this fell within the jurisdiction of the Rhittenian kosmos49 The. remainder of the text describes the procedure to be followed if the Rhittenian Koinon accused Gortynian citizens, or perhaps Gortyn, as such.50 Yet despite the fact that there remain disputed interpretations of various bits and pieces of this inscription, there is, nonetheless, evidence for a very well defined notion of “legal place”. Whilst the text served as a guideline for settling disputes amongst individuals (or perhaps even the communities themselves) from two sets of legal places, the emphasis was clearly on the legal elements of “place identity”. The text itself defined the rights and identity of a Rhittenian citizen or Gortynian citizen, respectively. The abstract space that had previously existed between the two communities now became “place”. The provisions within IC IV.80 make two legal places collaborate, while acknowledging the presence of two legal places.

Conclusions

19When we approach laws as means for defining place identity, and explore how this corresponds to our extant material, it becomes an obvious feature of the legal self-representation of the Archaic and classical Cretan poleis. The civic communities of ancient Crete created their “place identities” in many ways, among which was the enactment of laws concerning their relation to outsiders, “the others”, as well as laws for settling disputes amongst the citizens. There was a need for special magistrates dealing with those from outside, special rules, and oaths defining the limits for interaction, but above all, the place identity and the embedded polarity in the meeting between “them” and “us” is reflected in the application of the abstract and evasive κσενεία δίκα, versus the geographically and physically expressed Ƒαστία δίκα, as the magistrates also reflect, in the existence of a κσενίος κόσμος, as all are known from the Gortynian material. Yet besides the features we may ascribe to the general framework of “Greekness”, and the embedded need for polarity, neither of the cases examined above demonstrate actual cultural transference between the Cretan city-states, which was also my general point, initially: place identity comes into existence when people seek to define themselves in opposition to that which people from other constructions of identity and place are. In this process, two people may share common ground, embedded in the wider cultural framework, yet this does not encourage loans from neighbouring communities-on the contrary, exactly because those communities are bound to be “them”, “the others”. The citizenry defined its place, which was continuously redefined each time new legislation was enacted, or new institutions and magistrates were, respectively, invented or appointed, and so on. Acknowledging how the citizenry defined their “legal place” in relation to outsiders may take us further in understanding the relations amongst the citizenry, and the citizenry’s relations to different groups of incorporated, disenfranchised individuals: dependent labourers, free persons without citizenship and persons in debt bondage.51

Bibliographie

Bibliography

Bile 1988: Bile M., Le dialecte crétois ancien. Étude de la langue des inscriptions. Recueil des inscriptions postérieures aux IC, Paris, 1988 (Études crétoises, XXVII).

Brixhe and Bile 1999: Brixhe C. and Bile M., «La circulation des biens dans les Lois de Gortyne», in C. Dobias-Lalou (ed.), Des dialectes grecs aux Lois de Gortyne, Nancy, 1999, p. 75-116.

Di Vita and Cantarella 1978: Di Vita A. and Cantarella E., «Iscrizione arcaica giuridica da Festes», Annuario della Scuola Archeologica di Atene, 56 (1978), p. 429-435.

Chadwick 1987: Chadwick J., «Some Observations on two New Inscriptions from Lyktos», in L. Katrinaki, G. Orphanou and N. Giannadakis (ed.), Ειλαπίνη. Τόμος τιμητικός γιά τόν καθητηγή Νικόλαο Πλάτωνα, Heraklion, 1987, p. 329-334.

IC = Guarducci Μ., Inscriptions Creticae, 4 vol., Roma, 1935-1950.

IGT = Koerner R., Inschriftliche Gesetzestexte der frühen griechischen Polis, Köln, 1993.

Jeffery 1949: Jeffery L. H., «Comments on Some Archaic Greek Inscriptions», The Journal of Hellenic Studies, 69 (1949), p. 23-38.

Jeffery and Morpurgo-Davies 1970: Jeffery L. H. and Morpurgo-Davies A., «Poinikastas and Poinikazen: BM 1969.4-2.1, A New Archaic Inscription from Crete», Kadmos. Zeitschrift für Vor- und Frühgriechische Epigraphik, 9 (1970), p. 118-154.

Kristensen 2002: Kristensen K. R., «On the Gortynian ΠΥΛΑ and ΣΤΑΡΤΟΣ of the 5th Century Gortyn», Classica et Medievalia, 53 (2002), p. 65-80.

Kristensen 2008: Kristensen K. R., «The ‘Ritual’ of Legislation: Some Preliminary Reflections on the Interaction of Law and Religion in Ancient Crete», in A. H. Rasmussen and S. W. Rasmussen (ed.), Religion and Society. Rituals, Resources and Identity in the Ancient Graeco-Roman World. The BOMOS-Conferences 2002-2005, Roma, 2008, p. 107-115.

Link 1994: Link S., Das griechische Kreta. Untersuchungen zu seiner staatlichen und gesellschaftlichen Entwicklung vom 6. bis zum 4. Jahrhundert v. Chr., Stuttgart, 1994.

Maffi 1997: Maffi A., Il diritto di famiglia nel Codice di Gortina, Milano, 1997.

Maffi 2003: Maffi A., «Studi recenti sul Codice di Gortina», Dike, 6 (2003), p. 161-226.

Nomima = Van Effenterre H. and Ruzé F., Nomima. Recueil d’inscriptions politiques et juridiques de l’archaïsme grec, 2 vol., Roma-Paris, 1994-1995.

Perlman 1996: Perlman P., «Πόλις ‛Υπήκοος. The Dependent Polis and Crete», in Μ. H. Hansen (ed.), Introduction to an Inventory of Poleis. Symposium 1995, Copenhagen, 1996 (Acts of the Copenhagen Polis Centre 3), p. 233-287.

Perlman 2004a: Perlman E, «Crete», in Μ. H. Hansen and T. H. Nielsen (ed.), An Inventory of Archaic and Classical Poleis, Oxford, 2004, p. 1144-1195.

Perlman 2004b: Perlman P., «Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Sailor. The Economies of Archaic Eleutherna, Crete», Classical Antiquity, 23 (2004), p. 95-136.

Polignac 1995: Polignac F. de, Cult, Territory and the Origins of the Greek City-State, New York-London, 1995 (1st ed. La naissance de la cité grecque, Paris, 1984).

Tuan 2005:Tuan Y., Space and Place. The Perspective of Experience, Minneapolis-London, 2005 (1st ed. 1977).

Van Effenterre 1946: Van Effenterre H., «Inscriptions archaïques crétoises», Bulletin de correspondance hellénique, 70 (1946), p. 588-606.

Van Effenterre 1979: Van Effenterre H., «Le statut comparé des travailleurs étrangers à Chypre, en Crète et autres lieux à la fin de l’archaïsme», in Acts of the International Archaeological Symposion: The Relations between Cyprus and Crete, ca. 2000-500 BC, Nicosia, 1979, p. 279-293.

Van Effenterre 1989: Van Effenterre H., «Ein neues Gesetz aus dem archaischen Kreta», in G. Thür (ed.), Symposion 1985. Vorträge zur griechischen und hellenistischen Rechtsgeschichte (Ringsberg, 24-26 jul. 1985), Köln-Wien, 1989, p. 25-27.

Vegilianni 1995: Vegilianni C., «Gazoros und sein Umland. Polis und Komai», Klio, 77 (1995), p. 145-146.

Wllletts 1967: Willetts R. F., The Law Code of Gortyn, Berlin, 1967.

Willetts 1980: Willetts R. F., Aristocratic Society in Ancient Crete, Westport, 1980 (1st ed. London, 1955).

Notes

1 See also Gagarin, this volume.

2 Polignac 1995. For some preliminary thoughts on the interaction of law and religion in Crete, see Kristensen 2008.

3 See Tuan 2005.

4 See Tuan 2005: 67-84 compared to 85-100.

5 See Tuan 2005: 3-7, 67-84, esp. 75-76.

6 See, for example, Tuan 2005: 147-148.

7 See Tuan 2005: 151-154, 175-177.

8 This is implied by Tuan 2005: 1 58-159.

9 Apart from outsiders, that is, foreigners, the Cretan communities also had to deal with non-citizens within their legal place, for example the Gortynian άπέταιροι, I shall return to this in a future paper.

10 See, for example, the risk associated with travelling, documented in IC IV.72 Vl.46-56, concerning the ransoming of a captive Gortynian, or the concrete ban against accepting any persons other than those from Itanos in Lyttos (Nomima 1.22).

11 Many believe the option was restricted to the ranks of the citizenry. See, for example, Willetts 1967: 30 (comm, ad locc. 76-77), Koerner in IGT549 and Maffi 1997: 75-76; 2003: 201, while according to Nomima II.40, this phrase applied to the dependent population as well, and Link 1994: 55-59, who believes that even strangers were included. Perlman 2004/7 114 believes, too, that an adoptee could be chosen from outside the ranks of the citizens.

12 At the colloque, Michael Gagarin noted that we cannot be certain from the legible words in the fragment that it in fact regards adoption, as suggested in the editio princeps (Di Vita and Cantarella 1978).

13 Contrary to Guarducci (IC comm, ad loc.), who believed citizens were implied in the text, Willetts 1980: 39 interpreted Aulon as a Perioecic community. So does Perlman, who finds support in the comparison with the situation of the Rhittenians in IC IV.80 (see below), Perlman 1996: 267-268, and Perlman 2004a: 1152-1153. In Nomima I.8, the possibility is mentioned, because οἰ ἐν Ƒλõνι Ƒοικίοντες are singled out in the text. Vegilianni 1995: 145-146 thinks that the people of Aulon themselves did not have the right to grant the privileges to Dionysios, and therefore we have two sets of decisions in the text. Brixhe and BILE 1999: 88 argue against the interpretation of Nomimds authors (Nomima II: 72-75), claiming that Ƒοικία means family, or perhaps a subdivision of the πύλα. I do not agree with their objections to the interpretation of Ƒοικίαν έν Ƒλõνι ἔνδος πύργο as a house, as opposed to Ƒοικόπεδον ἔκσοι γᾶν – land outside the fortification, as is proposed in Nomima I.8, while Brixhe’s and Bile’s objection becomes increasingly difficult to accept, when they include the nine neighbours to the Ƒοικία in ICIV.81, in order to conclude that Ƒοικία must mean the socio-political unit, although they do add a question mark to this conclusion (Brixhe and Bile 1999: 89).

14 See Jeffery and Morpurgo-Davies 1970 and Nomima I.22.

15 That is, δίκαια ἐς ἀνδρήιον δώσει δ-/έκα πέλευς κρέων, αἴ καὠι ἄλọ [ι] / [ἀπ?]άρωνται, καὶ τò ἐπενιαύτιον, τò / δέ λάκσιον συαλεῖ, ἄλο δέ μ[ηδ]-/[]ν ἐπάνανον μην αἰ μὴ λῆι / δόμεν. “As lawful dues to the andreion he shall give ten axes (weight) of dressed meat, if? the others also make offerings, the yearly offering also, and shall?? collect the?? portion, but nothing else is to be compulsory if he does not wish to give it”. Translation: Jeffery and Morpurgo-Davies 1970. Opinion remains divided regarding the question of Spensithios’ civil status; see Perlman 2004b: 113-114 for the most recent review of the arguments. Perlman holds that Spensithios was initially a citizen of Datala. However, we cannot argue from a negative: there is no indication that Spensithios became member of a φυλή within the decree, but if it had happened (an admission to a φυλή), this could have taken place before his appointment, and therefore not stated. Yet we may wonder whether any Greek community would ever have granted an outsider such extensive authority, unless, of course, we are prepared to argue that this text was the eventual outcome of a time of stasis.

16 A.3-5: “so that he be for the city its scribe and recorder in public affairs both sacred and secular”. Translation: Jeffery and Morpurgo-Davies 1970.

17 Tò Ƒῖσov λακὲν τòν ποινικαστὰν καί παρῆμε-/ν καὶ συνῆμεν ἐπί τε θιηίων καὶ ἐπ' ἀνθρωπί-/νων πάντε ὄπε καὶ όσμος εἴη καί τòν ποινι-/καστὰν, καί ὄτιμί κα θιῶι ἰαρεὺς μὴ ἰδιαλο-/[.c. 1-2.] θύεν τε τὰ δαμόσια θύματα τò<ν> πονικαστὰ-/ν. Β.1-6: “The scribe is to have equal share and is to be present at and to participate in sacred and affairs in all cases wherever the board of kosmoi may be, the scribe (is to be) and to whatever deity a priest does not-?-its own (sacrifices) the scribe is to make the public sacrifices”. Translation: Jeffery and Morpurgo-Davies 1970.

18 Whilst we have no examples in Crete of mercenaries in Archaic and Classical Crete (apart from the fact, of course, that Dionysios might have been one), I have chosen to ignore this group, which obviously also added to the potential meeting between “them” and “us”.

19 Van Effenterre 1979 discusses ICII.v.1-4 (Axos), ICII.xii.9 and 11 (Eleutherna), ICIV.58 (which is very fragmentary, but mentions the location of Latosion), 78 and 79, along with the Spensithios decree, in order to demonstrate the presence of reinstated exiles and foreigners in the Cretan city-states.

20 See Guarducci IC II comm, ad loc., Bile 1988: 175 with n. 94, 183 n. 131. Συσυρποιοί were probably cloak or blanket makers, see Willetts 1980: 41, see also Perlman 2004b: 104.

21 Ed. pr. Jeffery 1949: 35-36 no. 8, the text is as follows:]λ̣ε̣τ̣ […./....]σταυ.[--- / ---]εν | τòν Ƒ.[εργ-/α]στὰν καὶ τ̣ [--- / ---]Ƒεργαστὰν / συνγνοῖεṿ[— (b): Ƒε]ργαστᾶ ί-/ νέκυρα /--/--]όμεθα /ποδιδόμ̣ [εθα--/--τρι]άκοντα σ-/τατήρας--/--τõι τόκα κ-/οσμίον[τι --/ --ς | αἰ μὴ / βοαζρο[μίο μηνὸς?—/ ỏ (?) δ] κόσμ-/ος πέν[τε--. Translation: “---/---/-- the workman and -? - /(the) workman. They agree to (?) (b) for a workman or somebody who has accepted a pledge (?)---/ we shall? or we shall pay (or return) -- / -- thirty staters -- / -- for the kosmos? -- / if not within the month of Boadromion? -- the kosmos five --”.

22 That is, either we admit the reading -/νεκυρασ̣ [τάν] for -/νέκυρα, or read -/νέκυρα, and thus imply the verbal action from the contexts.

23 See Guarducci ICII.v p. 48, Jeffery 1949: 36. In Nomima I.28 it is held that ICII.v. 1, together with ICII.v.2-4 referred to foreign labourers. Although Jeffery 1949: 36 also interprets ICII.v. 1 as legislation referring to foreigners, she only notes that we find words relating to labour in IC II.v.2-4.

24 Also, the remainder of those inscriptions belonging to the so-called “main code” is quite fragmentary. ICII.v.7 and 11 could relate to any legal matter, and ICII.v.5 and 6 have τπολέμ[ο (in ICII.v.5) and τõ πολέμο (ICII.v.6) in common. Whilst we cannot say anything further with respect to IC II.v.5, Ποτειδᾶνι in ICII.v.6 does suggest some sort of religious context.

25 See IC IV.47.6 and ICIV.72 II.32, 43, III.54, IV.2, 20, 22-23.

26 We find reference to this in the pair made up by the second and third lines:--ιv δοκεν ἀκσία ἤμεν τᾶς τ[ε τροπᾶς] / καὶ τᾶς ἀτελεία τέκνα το [τ]ινυμε̣[νο --, although it is difficult to make out the syntax of these lines. Koernerigt IGT101, p. 353, suggests that the best solution is to take τέκνα to form part of a construction of the nominative with the infinitive, while the authors of Nomima 1.28 suggest τέκνα could be the subject in a new clause.

27 See Guarducci IC II comm, ad loc., IGT 101 and Nomima 1.28. Perlman 2004b: 114-115 with n. 106, however, opts for the alternative, with reference to a situation similar to that of the Spensithios decree. Perlman’s interpretation demands, however, that we explain an oddity, that is to say, the loss of the initial tau of the neuter article. Although Perlman notes several cases in which the mason had left spaces the size of one or more letters (we could thus restore the tau in such a lacuna), I find it doubtful that the mason would have made this error, for which I have found no parallel in the Cretan material. Furthermore, apart from the case of a double san in ἴσς (IC II.v.1.12), Bile 1988: 138 suggests that consonant doubling (which cannot as ἴσς be referred to as scribal errors) is used to emphasise dentals.

28 ICII.v. 1.4-5: -- κατ' ἀμέραν ζ ιμιõμεν | αί δ'ἐπέλ/θοιεν ἰν ταῖσι πέντε αἰ μὴ λειοι -- could be taken as “... they are to be punished for each day. If they arrive (or return) in the course of five days, if they do not want to” However, Guarducci comm, ad loc. understands κατ' ἀμέραν as “daily”, while Koerner IGT101 and Nomima 1.28 understand it as “for each day”. Contra opinionem communem, Perlman 2004b: 115 n. 107, suggests (unconvincingly) that we could perhaps take ἐπέλθοιεν as “lodge a complaint”, for which there are parallels in later material. Furthermore, ICII.v. 1.6-7:--]v | τᾶνδ' ἀμερᾶν | πέντ' ἀμέρας. Ƒεργακσα̣/[μένο]ς τᾶι πόλι ἀμίστος. τõ δὲ μισ[τõ -- may imply that the workmen were to undertake their duties, unpaid by the polis, for a period of five days out of a larger number of days (as a penalty?), as suggested by Koerner. The implication remains, nonetheless, quite elusive, although we could join Koerner in concluding that ICII.v. 1.4-7 dealt with the contracted number of “working days” as well as the fines, if these were not satisfied.

29 ICII.v. 1.8-9: --τᾶ]ς ἰν ἀντρηίοι διάλ̣σιος [α] δια-/λ̣οι ̣πὶ σποƑδδὰν | ἐκςαἰ[--. In Nomima I.28 an illegible letter subsequent to διάλ̣σιος in line eight is suggested to be an alpha. Bile 1988: 135 n. 245 finds Van Effenterre’s interpretation of διάλσις (that is in the sense of “maintenance” or “contribution”) too evasive (from ἐάλην aorist passive of ἴλλω). Guarducci understands this as “absence”, and Koerner translates this as “Speisung”, to which he refers in line fifteen, as well as to the Spensithios decree.

30 In Nomima I.28, although in my view inconclusively: ἰα[ρήιον for --[ρηιον.] in line fourteen. Jeffery and Morpurgo-Davies 1970: 130, points to the similarity with Datala 1A.2-3: θρόπα-/ν τε καὶ ἀτέλειαν πάντων.

31 See Willetts 1980: 41, who adds that they could perhaps be freedmen, as he believes was the case in IC I V.79 from Gortyn.

32 In Nomima 1.28, the case of reincorporation of emigrated citizens into the polis of Axos is argued.

33 See Koerner in IGT 101 and Perlman 2004b.

34 See Willetts 1980: 43, who argues that those who were allowed to settle in Latosion (allegedly a craftsman’s quarter) were metics and freedmen, and that this is explained by the limitation to which they seem to have been subjected. Koerner in IGT 153 follows Guarducci (ICIV.78 comm, ad loc.) in suggesting that these people were manumitted slaves. In Nomima I.16 the authors argue that the text deals with reinstated Gortynians. As pointed out in Perlman 2004b: 109 n. 76, there is hardly room for more than ἀπελευ[θέρον and, for example an ὄς, so consequently she argues also for “freedmen”. We may nonetheless consider whether ἀπελεύθέροι does mean manumitted slaves or freedmen.

35 ICIV.78.4-9: αἰ δὲ [συλ/ί]οιεν, ἐκατόν στατὲρανς, Ƒέκαστον τòνς τίτανς [ἐσπράδδεθ/θαι, καὶ τὰν δ]ιπλείαν τõν κραμᾶτον ἐστείσαντανς ἀποδόμ[ε/ν]. αἰ δοἰ τίται μὲ Ƒέρκσιεν ἆι ἔγραται, τὰν διπλείαν [ταν Ƒέκαστο/ν αύτδν τõι μ]εμπομένοι άποδόμεν καὶ τᾶι πόλι θέμεν. Koerner (IGT 153) identifies the κσένιος κόσμος as the magistrate in charge who intervened in cases of illegal enslavement, while the τίται were concerned with cases in which these people were robbed.

36 IC IV.79:-----------/…..]. ο κριθ[ᾶν…./….]κια κα[……../. σύ]κον ἐκατόν μ[εδίμν/ονς κα] γλεύκιος προκό̣ [ο/νς ]κατόν καὶ τὰν π[..../…]ṿ[.]αλκίαν ἄλλαν Ƒ.[ισƑό]μετρον τõ προκ[όο. Ƒερ/γάδδ]εθαι δὲ ἐπὶ τõι μ[ι/στõι αὐτõι πάν[τ]α̣ [τοῖς / ἐμ πόλι Ƒ]οικίονσι το<ί>ς [τ' / ἐλ]ευθέροις καὶ το[ῖς δόλ/οις. αἰ δ] μὲ λείοιεν Ƒερ[γά/δδε]θαι, δέκα στατἐ[ρ]α[νς / τõ πα]θέματος Ƒεκάστ[ο/ τ] ὸ̣ν κσένιο[ν ]στει[σάμ/ενον] πόλι θέμεν. αί δ[ μ/] σ̣τείσαιεν [τ]ὰν [ἀπλόον /ταν, πράδ]δεθαι τ[]ν διπ[λεί/αν] αὐτõν Ƒέκασυ̣ο̣v[.../--τ]όνς τίτανς ἐσ̣ [τ/εί]σανταν[ς] τ[ᾶι πόλι θέμεν. IC IV.79 was reinscribed later as IC IV. 144, and thus the younger text helps to fill in some of the lacunae of the older one, and vice versa.

37 Guarducci IC IV.79 (comm, ad loc) argued that these people could be foreigners and freedmen, a point of view which is further elaborated in Willetts 1980: 40-44. Willetts took this text to be interpreted as indicating freedmen who were still obliged to serve their former masters, though now in the city. This point of view is dismissed in Koerner IGT154. The entire argument of Willetts is alone based upon the alleged relationship between ICIV.78 and IC IV.79. Koerner thinks these people were foreigners accompanied by their chattel slaves. In Nomima I.30 (with reference to Van Effenterre 1979) it is argued that these people were travelling foreigners. Perlman 2004b: 111-112 disagrees, and points to the κσένιος κόσμος as the only evidence that these people were indeed foreigners. Whilst the text refers to persons who were living in the town, she believes the dichotomy between ἄστυ and χώρα is more significant in this respect. Personally, I still believe it to be significant that the κόσμος was the κσένιος κόσμος.

38 Ed. pr. Van Effenterre 1946: no. 1. See also Bile 1988: 30.

39 See IC I.ix.l, allegedly archaic = ICI.ix.l D.137-164. See further, Nomima I.48. Willetts 1980: 119-123 discusses this inscription along with other examples of initiation rites. Koerner has not included this inscription amongst the archaic inscriptions in IGT.

40 See ICI.ix.l D.144-152: καὶ οἱ Μιλάτιοι/ἐπεβώλευσαν / ἐν τἂι νέαι νε/μονήιαι τᾶι πό/λει τᾶι τῶν Δρη/ρίων ἕνεκα τᾶς / χώρας τᾶς /μᾶς, τᾶς ἀμφι/μαχόμεθα.

41 See ICIV.72 I.2-II.2. See further, Guarducci ICIV comm. ad loc.

42 Apart from one point, where I follow Chadwick 1987, ύπὲ]ρ, Ƒῶλαςαδᾶς, I base this discussion on the revised text in Nomima I.12.

43 See Van Effenterre 1989, reiterated in Nomima I.12.

44 As Perlman 2004b: 124-127 points out, adding that the normal term for a foreigner is κσένος. See also ICII.xii.3, in which the term άλλοπολιάται also occurs. Guarducci takes ἀλλοπολιάται as citizens from other poleis, and is followed by Koerner IGT, p. 360-361. Contra Nomima I.10, in which the editors understand ἀλλοπολιάται in this fragment as returning exiled Eleutheranians.

45 That is to say, I follow John Chadwick in understanding the first letter in line six as rho, not qoppa, despite this readings general acceptance (see, for example, Koerner IGT87 who, however, does not agree with the interpretation of ọƑωλᾶς as the Athenian ἐξουλή, Bile 1988: 32-34 (DCA 12), Chadwick 1987: esp. 331-332.

46 See Kristensen 2002.

47 Willetts 1980: 111 believes the right to be mutual (although he interprets the remainder of the text as evidence for Rhittenia as subordinate to Gortyn), while Perlman 1996: 262-266, for example, argues that the lack of reciprocity in the decree supports the idea that the Rhittenians formed a dependent community of Gortyn.

48 See Nomima I.7 τõ’πορί̣σμ̣[ο for τõ’πορίμ[ο in ICIV.80.

49 ἐνεκυραστὰν δὲ μὲ παρέρπε/ν Γορτύνιον ἐς τõ Ριττενίο, αἰ δέ κα ν[ικ]αθἐι τõν ἐνεκύρον, διπλεῖ καταστᾶσ/αι τὰν ἀπλόον τιμὰν ἆι ἐν τᾶιπόραι [γρα]τται, πρὰδδεν δὲ τòν Ριττένιον κόσμ/ον. αἰ δέ κα μὲ πράδδοντι, τòνς πρειγ[ίσ]τονς τούτονς πράδδοντας; ἄπατόν / ἔμεν vac. τὰ ἐγραμμέν', ἄλλα δὲ μέ vac. The interpretation of τόνς πρειγ[ίσ]τονς is uncertain: see, for example, Willetts 1980: 114-115, who takes these to be a tribal council, Bile 1988: 341, who states that in this text the word signifies a category of men with a sense of honour or politics, Perlman 1996: 265, who understands these as “officials” and Nomima I.7, who understand these as “the elders”, with no further discussion on this particular point.

50 ὄτι δέ [κα αὖ]τ[ι]ς ἀνπιπαίσοντι τò κοινόν οἰ Ρι/ττένιοι πορτὶ τòνς Γορτυνίον[ς.. c.6,.]ν τòν κάρυκα Ριττενάδε ἐν ταΐδ <δ>έ/κα παρέμεν ἐ´αὐτόνς ἄλλος π[ρ]ò [τούτον ἀπ]οκρίνεθθαι κατ' ἀγορὰν Ƒευμέν/αν τᾶς α[ί]τίας ἆς κ´ αἰτι[ά]σ[ονται, τὰν δ]έ κρίσιν [με]ν ἆιπερ ταῖ [----.

© Éditions de la Sorbonne, 2012

Conditions d’utilisation : http://www.openedition.org/6540