BUILDING ACTIVITY AND PATRONAGE IN ROMAN PELOPONNESE
2.5 Imperial and private euergetism
As we have seen the construction of the aqueducts, which resulted in the diffusion of public baths throughout the area, was complex, technically speaking, and extremely costly70. It may be that these factors resulted in the predominance of impe‐
rial patronage in these projects. However, over and above the technical and economic issues, the prop‐
aganda value of an aqueduct should not be under‐
estimated, given that providing water made bath structures possible and therefore the life‐style of Rome a reality. The Empire’s propaganda machine required that its patronage be highly visible.
Whereas in the case of buildings the structure itself
honoured the donor’s name, in the case of the aque‐
ducts, most of whose course ran underground and outside the cities, the relationship between the donor and users was not so obvious and the sym‐
bolic potential, so crucial to the Romans, accordingly reduced71. It is no accident that the aqueduct built by Sextius Pollio at Ephesus during the Augustan era bore a monumental inscription at the point where it crossed the road from Magnesia on the Meander to Ephesus72. Nonetheless most of the sections of the aqueducts raised above ground level were usu‐
ally far away from the roads. The only means of making the hydraulic works visible was to insert
29
Building activity and patronage in roman Peloponnese
Fig. 2.5 The vault of thefrigidariumof the Baths on the Pamisos valley at Thouria
30
nymphaea and fountains at the point of an aque‐
duct’s arrival in town: this is what happened at Argos, as we have seen, but also in other cities as Nicopolis and Athens, where there are nymphaea still extant. The more invisible the aqueduct’s struc‐
ture was the more crucial it became to construct a monumental nymphaeum. That the patron needed to publicize his generosity to the people at all costs is well demonstrated in Athens, where the under‐
ground aqueduct73begun under Hadrian and fin‐
ished under Antoninus Pius, terminated in a massive cistern on the Lycabettus Hill, enriched by an Ionic portico on which a Latin inscription cele‐
brated the completion of the project74. In Corinth, against a lack of archaeological evidence of the ar‐
rival point of the aqueduct in the city, we must sup‐
pose that the work was someway advertised since it was mentioned twice by Pausanias (see § 3.4.1).
Together with the imperial patronage is also impor‐
tant to mention the private sponsorship. In Argos, from the Claudio‐Neronian era, the private patron‐
age of the Tiberi Claudii made substantial changes in the agora of the city, so that its character was pro‐
foundly altered75. For example, whereas up until the middle of the 1stcentury the traditional celebration of ephebic tradition were restored into the agora with the construction of a new gymnasium close to the dromosfor the reinstated race tracks. Later the gymnasium became a public bath and the dromos was occupied by fountains and monuments76. This development should perhaps be associated with the rule of Domitian, whose presence in the Pelopon‐
nese is marked by the feasts for the centenary of the foundation of Patras and the re‐foundation of Corinth. This development, from the construction techniques point of view, is mostly characterised by the move away from ashlar masonry in the gymna‐
sium toopus testaceumin the baths and fountains77. The adoption by the euergetists, whether members of the local élites or the Emperor himself, of “mod‐
ern” building methods and architectural forms in the period between the middle of the 1stand begin‐
ning of the 2ndcenturies is useful for understanding the transformation of local construction traditions and the expansion of a burgeoning industry able to meet the growing demands for component parts such as lime, inert material and bricks.
The works of Herodes Atticus in Olympia and An‐
toninus Pythodorus in Epidaurus require examina‐
tion separately, in this overview of private patronage. The undertakings of these two euer- getists under Hadrian and Antoninus Pius is part of the systematic renovation of cult sites called for by from the so‐called Second Sophistic.
Herodes Atticus paid for the aqueduct that ran from the River Alpheus to the Sanctuary of Olympia and that ended in the nymphaeum dedicated by his wife, Annia Regilia. The nymphaeum, an imposing con‐
struction78with a broad hemicycle featuring two ar‐
chitectural orders, was intended both to quench the thirst of visitors and athletes, but was also a part of the propaganda programme of its sponsors, who had the niches embellished with statues of their family members in association with those of the Em‐
peror79. In line with this scheme, at the centre there was a marble bull with the inscription of the spon‐
sor80, Annia Regilla, named as priestess to Demeter, dedicating the water and the nymphaeum to Zeus.
This homage to the members of the imperial family aimed to underline the political and cultural conti‐
nuity of the local élitesand their recognition of the dominion of Rome81. It is important however to re‐
alize also that construction techniques were as im‐
portant as the iconographic and architectural aspects of the building programme. The nymphaeum was built with concrete faced with bricks similarly to the building practices current in Rome.
Sextus Iulius Major Antoninus Pythodorus from Nysa on the Meander, a member of the Asia Minor elite, on the other hand, funded a substantial reno‐
vation of the sanctuary of Epidaurus82. His sponsor‐
ship83 is also recorded in the by then famous Sanctuary in Pergamon, where he was θεραπευτής.
Chapter 2
31
Building activity and patronage in roman Peloponnese
According to Pausanias’ account in Epidaurus he was probably responsible for a public bath complex (probably the northeast complex; see § 3.3.3), a temple dedicated to the so‐called epidotaigods, a temple to the “Egiptians” Hygieia, Asclepius and Apollo (related to the north‐western bath complex;
see § 3.3.2), an inn (the Hellenistic katagogion) and the reconstruction of the stoa of Cotys, to the north of the sacred boundary84. The discovery of numer‐
ous tiles stamped ANTωΝΕΙΝOY85made it possible to identify buildings attributed to him by Pausanias, both in the Asclepius and the nearby Apollo Maleatas sanctuaries86. In a similar fashion stamps bearing the name of Herodes Atticus have emerged at the Olympia sanctuary87. This fact would seem to indicate that the building undertakings of wealthy patrons such as these would have resulted in a di‐
rect relationship being struck up between them and the figlinaethat provided the building materials.
The findings at Olympia and above all Epidaurus make it possible to reconstruct how famous and enormously wealthy individuals with close links to the imperial family embarked upon building pro‐
grammes on a scale entirely unknown during the preceding century. But the phenomenon was cer‐
tainly not limited only to these examples. In Messene, for instance, Tiberius Claudius Saithidias Caelianos II, a member of the most important family in Messene, commemorated in the heroon‐mau‐
soleum near the stadium88, rebuilt the urban sanc‐
tuary to Asclepius, as Antonynus Pythodorus had done at Epidaurus89.
32
Notes to chapter 2
1ALCOCK1999, 110‐111.
2Diod.Sic. 38.7. Paus. 9.7.5
3 THORNTON 2012, 104‐105. See letter of Quintus Fabius Maximus to the authorities of Dyme in R.M.
KALLET‐MARX, Quintus Fabius Maximus and the Dyme Affair (Syll.3684), in “CQ” XLV, 1995, 129‐153.
4PESANDO2012, 80.
5RIZAKIS2010, 5.
6RIZAKIS1997, 25.
7ĖTIENNEet alii2000, 311.
8ALCOCK1999, 156‐157.
9RIZAKIS2010a, 9.
10ZANKER1998, 29.
11ALCOCK1999, 176; PETROPOULOS2007, 199‐202.
12I am most grateful to Adamantia Vasilogamvrou for pointing this discovery to me.
13Since the Augustan period coloured marbles be‐
come a common practice for private and public con‐
struction. The temple of Mars Ultorand the Forum Augustiwere the reference for many public works in the provinces. Since the age of Trajan monolithic columns are used in the exterior parts of the tem‐
ples. The marble trade was directly connected with the expansion of the occupied territories and re‐
flected the organisational set‐up of the Empire.
Quarries and marble trade were Imperial property.
In Laconia the serpentine quarries in Croceae were used by Nero for his Domus Transitoriaand the Villa in Subiaco. See PENSABENE 2002, 9‐20. For trans‐
portation see p. 32‐34: “I marmi spartani (ser‐
pentino, rosso antico, bianco di Mani), è probabile che partissero per le loro destinazioni da porti sit‐
uati in regioni costiere presso le cave…”
14ALCOCK1999, 175.
15 Strabo 7.7.5‐6; 10.2.2‐3. Paus. 5.23.3; 7.18.8;
8.24.11; 10.38.4.
16E.g. the twenty‐thousand pirates that Pompeus transferred from Cilicia to Dyme (Plutarch, Pompeo 28.4).
17Liv. XL, 38.
18ZANKER2000, 35.
19ĖTIENNEet alii 2000, 332‐336, ROMANO2010.
20ETIENNE2004, 173‐205.
21 Senators of Peloponnesian Origin are encoun‐
tered from the period of Trajan onwards, as under‐
lined by Zoumbaki (ZOUMBAKI2008, 47).
22CAMIA2008; RIZAKIS2010a,12‐13.
23GALLI2008, 78; CAMIA‐KANTIREA2010.
24GIARDINA2012.
25“de iure honorum Gallis dando”, CIL, XIII 1668.
26RICCI2012, 166.
27PIERART‐TOUCHAIS1996, 79.
28E.g. Philopappus in Atene (ETIENNE2004, 185‐7) or another unknown person buried in the agora of Argos. For monuments built by local elite in Argos see PIERART‐TOUCHAIS, 2006, 80. Similar cases are doc‐
umented in Messene, such as the burial of Saethid Dionysos (Themelis 2010, 97).
29ROMANO2010, passim.
30See STROCKA2010.
31DESTECROIX1981.
32ZOUMBAKI2008, 41‐2.
33THEMELIS2010, 96.
34RAKOB1998.
35HOSKINS1997.
36RIZAKIS2010, 196.
37 FLÄMING2007, DEKOUAKOU 2009, M. VITTI‐P. VITTI
2010.
38BOATWRIGHT 2003, 144‐157; GALLI2008, 80.
39In the Heraion at Argos there was a statue dedi‐
cated to Hadrian as “Theós”. See GALLI2008, 82.
40GALLI2008, 90‐9.
41PALAGIA2010, 433.
42MELFI2010.
43The façade of the nymphaeum must be supposed similar to the one in Athens. See. STUART‐ REVETT 1794.
44 The nymphaeum has an extraordinary modern parallel in the fountain built in 1600 by Pope Paolo V on the Janiculum hill. When the Pope restored the aqueduct from Lake Bracciano to supply the area of Chapter 2
Trastevere, he built a monumental fountain that up to nowadays overlooks the urban landscape.
45 VOLLGRAFF BCH 82 (1958),516‐539; I. PA‐
PACHRISTODOULOU, ArchDelt23 (1968), I, 130‐131.
46The polygonal wall must be dated to the Hellenis‐
tic age, when with a similar technique was built the fortification of the city.
47VOLLGRAFFBCH82 (1958), 550‐555.
48PIÉRART‐TOUCHAIS2000, 75.
49 As pointed out by Boatwright in Mantinea
“Hadrian juxtaposed his reworking of the past with the original monument” of Epaminondas (Paus 8.11.8) placing a stele with a personal epigram on the Leader’s tomb (BROATWRIGHT2003, 141‐2). Also in this case we see that Hadrian uses Greek tradition as an agent to promote the Imperial person and Rome.
50 The divinisation of the Emperor while he was alive was a current practice in Greece. See HOËT‐VAN CAUWENBERGHE2008.
51GALLI2008, 88‐90, fig 7. Also here the statue of the emperor has been associated to Diomedes of Cre‐
sila.
52COULTON1987,82.
53BOATWRIGHT2003, 108‐116.
54CIL3,549.
55LANCASTER2010, 450‐454.
56LOLOS1997.
57WOLLGRAFFBCH(1944),397‐400; BCH82 (1958), 554‐555.
58Dating to Hadrian is based upon the name of the emperor is related to an important public work.
59COULTON1987, 82; YEGÜL1992, 32‐33.
60 FAGAN2002.
61WASSENHOVEN2012.
62J.BIERS1984.
63See NINSEN1990, 112.
64The identification of room (3) as a sudatiocan be advanced upon the presence of a shallow pool at the centre of the room (first phase) e a concameratio (see §3.4.2).
65WASSENHOVEN2009, II 370‐89.
66See AUPERT1994 for the healing significance of the baths with the Sanctuary of Asclepius.
67AUPERT1994, 195.
68Olympia VIKATOU, ArchDelt51 (1996), 191, pl. 62a.
69First dated to the end of 2ndcentury BCE by Kunze and Schleif, it is now dated around the half of 1stcen‐
tury BCE. See VASSENHOVEN2012, 76.
70The aqueduct of Alexandria Troas, was built by Herodes Atticus as “corrector of the free cities of Asia”. Though estimated as a 3 million denariinter‐
vention, it costed 7 millions, causing many concerns because its cost was equal to the tribute of five hun‐
dred cities of the Province Asia. See BOATWRIGHT 2003, 117.
71ZANKER1998.
72COULTON1987, 73.
73The two bridges at Nea Ionia, most probably be‐
long to a later intervention. See LEIGH1998, 63‐5.
74CIL3,549. On the castellum aquaeand the Latin inscription: LEIGH1998, 117‐143.
75 Hydraulic works dating to this period must be considered as a forerunners of the first significant changes brought to the agora: [T]ΩΝ ΠΗΓΩΝ ΚΑΙ ΤΟ ΝΥΜΦΑΙΟΝ ΜΕΤΑ ΤΩΝ ΔΟΧΙ[ΩΝ]. See MARCHETTI
1995, 113 and MARCHETTI 2010, 51‐56. Marchetti demonstrated that the renewing of ephebic tradi‐
tion in the imperial period was related to the policy of local oligarchs who honoured the Romans as
“benefactors, friends and allies”, in order to monop‐
olize the political roles and thus access to Roman citizenship. The Tiberii Claudii are recorded not only in Argos, but also in Sparta (MARCHETTI1995, 198‐199). See also MARCHETTI1998, 364.
76MARCHETTI1998, 357. In the 2ndcentury the agora was significantly transformed: the dromosused for ephebic competitions was abandoned and the gym‐
nasium partially transformed in the bath B complex.
The agora acquired a commercial character, docu‐
mented by the transformation of the nymphaeum to a fountain. Another fountain had been already built close to the dromosby the Tiberii Julii.
77P. AUPERT, BCH Suppl 39, 442.
33
Building activity and patronage in roman Peloponnese
Chapter 2
34
78WALKER1987, 61.
79BOL1984.
80ΡΗΓΙΛΛΑΙΕΡΕΙΑ¦ΔΗΜΗΤΡΟΣΤΟΥΔΟΡ¦ΚΑΙΤΑΠΕΡΙ ΤΟΥΔΩΡΤΩΔΙΙ. BOL 1984, 109, s.v. “Appia Annia Regilla Atilia Caucidia Tertullia”.
81GALLI2008, 95.
82MELFI2007, 121‐122.
83“Euergetes”, as mentioned in the inscription IG IV2, 684.
84MELFI2010, 334‐335.
85IGIV2,715‐716; KAVVADIAS1891, n247, p.107; LAM‐
BRINOUDAKIS, Ergon1990, 16 fig. 16.
86MELFI2010.
87 See WALKER 1987, 69; Arch. Zeitung 1876, 59;
ADLER1892, 135; GINOUVÉS1972, 217‐ 220.
88THEMELIS1999.
89MELFI2007, 271.