The typical general wording of the decree does not permit any hypothesis as to the reasons of honor. The inscription probably dates from before 168 BC. and is related to the seizure of Dion's Macedonian treasures by the Romans in the previous year.10. However, no mention is made of the title euergetes, despite all the great help he had given the city.
There is nothing in the original publication of the archaeological findings to suggest such a proposal (Lazaridi 1990, 253). Clearly, the existence of native and foreign benefactors in the cities of Macedonia is confirmed by epigraphic evidence; However, I still have reservations about the awarding of the title to people from Macedonia. Domitius Aenobarbus, one of the ten-member representative senatorial committees that decided Macedonian affairs in 167 BC.
Annius had been sent by the senate as quaestor of the province of Macedonia and successfully dealt with the invasions of the Gallic tribes and Maedi in the area. The reasons were the virtue of Metellus and the favor (eunoia) he had shown Damon, to the city of Thessalonica, to the rest of the Macedonians, and to the other Greeks.
This observation leads us to suggest that the title was used epigraphically in Macedonia exclusively for the Romans, until the end of the 1st century BC. According to the text, Quintus Popillius Pytho, the high priest of Augustus on the life and agonotthes of. But the evidence in question is not always so abundant in detail about the actions of the honors.
Barreeffamichi walakkaa jalqabaa jaarraa 2ffaa Dh.K.D. Kilaawudiyoos Flaaviyaanos Lisimaakus, ofii isaatii barattuu mana barumsaa sadarkaa lammaffaa fi magaalattii keessatti agonotete Awugusxoos ture. Haaluma walfakkaatuun magaalaan Heraclea Lyncestis Titus Flavius Orestes, ἀρχιερέα καὶ εὐεργέτην, jalqaba jaarraa 2ffaa Dh.K.B.
Perhaps, the honor can be identified as the Julius Crispus mentioned in the decree from Battyna as Oreste's ambassador.65 In another case, it is κοινὸν Δοστωνέων̣. As an alternative, he suggests "the inconsistent use of civic terms in the name of Greeks".
Conclusions
In addition to these general comments, however, some issues appear to arise after examining the evidence from this period. Besides, the Macedonians were already familiar with the institution of charity from the era of the kings. A fact that supports this proposal is, as just stated, that the cities of Macedonia were not exceptions to the rule, according to which cities depended on the voluntary financial contributions of their citizens, already from the middle of the 1st century BC , as witnessed. in the epigraphic evidence at hand.
This assumption implies that prosperity was exclusively related to the cities' dependence on their wealthy citizens. Such a statement is related to the main question of the fate of the Macedonian elite after 167 BC at the royal court and locally.
A remark should be added here about the repatriation of the Greeks held as hostages in Italy from 167 to 150 BC: in the above passage Livy clearly speaks of Macedonia's draining of its leadership, mainly of those who belonged to the aristocracy . of the court. Perhaps another argument for this assumption could be that the state of constant upheaval itself, which Macedonia was in after 167 BC, made the return of the Macedonian hostages prohibitive. What is true, however, is that many members of the Beroian elite families were not attested in the Roman period (Tataki.
Harpalos, a descendant of a well-known city family whose members had close contacts with the kings, apparently unconsciously declares that he restores ἀπὸ τῶν | προγόνων δόξαν (ll.. 6) and repeats τῶν πάππων vacat | στρατηγίας καὶ δαπ[ά]νας (ll. This substitution can be traced to the existence of a 'feast of benefactors' held in the month of Daisios, as we have seen in the decree of Leta (adj. 56) that it was a conscious reference also to the actions of the family during the kingdom.
I disagree with the assumption that "ideological rhetoric in honor inscriptions was primarily a discourse focused on the moral excellence of the individual member of the elite and his or her family" and that this discourse "served to provide legitimacy to the oligarchic system of power as a whole," as Zuiderhoek suggests 2009, 133. However, the question of whether these wealthy citizens belonged to exactly the same families as those who exercised their influence at the local level during the period of the Macedonian kingdom is something that he cannot prove due to the lack of information. Macedonian kingdom and with the role of the king as the exclusive bearer of the title euergetes.
It should be further explained by the presence in Macedonia of the cult of Ῥωµαίων εὐεργετῶν. For Macedonian benefactors of later periods, family connections must have played a crucial role in qualifying one who wanted to belong to the elite. Local variations may have been offset by marriages between surviving members of old ruling families with people belonging to other aristocratic families that emerged after the consolidation of the Roman presence in Macedonia.
Erskine 1994, 80 also noted the absence of the adjective κοινῶν in inscriptions from Macedonia for the Roman eurgetai, though without further interpretation.
