Chaniotis From Communal Spirit to Individuality 2004
14
Originalveroffentlichung in :CretaRomanaeProtobizantina.Attide lCongresso Internazionale.Iraklion 23-30settembre2000, Padova 2004, S. 75-87FROMCOMMUNAL SPIRIT T O INDIVIDUALITY: T H EEPIGRAPHIC HABITI N HELLENISTICA N D ROMANCRETE Thesubject o fm y paper is a comparisonbetween t h e epigraphichabit i n Hellenistic an di n RomanCrete, from t h e thirdcenturyB.C. t o t h e third centuryA.D. W e define as epigraphic habit' t h e position occupiedb y inscriptionsin t he public a n d private life o f a particularperiod a n d area. Studies o f t h e epigraphic habitd o n o t focus s o much o n t h e specificcontento finscriptions, b u t consider more general aspects, such as t h e number o f inscriptions, t h e nature oft h e texts, their language,their distribution over time, space, a n d socialstrata.These aspects depend t o a great extent o n t h e particularcharacteristics o f t h e communitywhich produces and displaysinscriptions,such as mentality, social stratification, ideology, an d socio-political structure.Consequendy, changes in these features often (but not always) reflect deeper changes i n a community 1 . Studies o fth e epigraphic habit naturally have a quantitive component; but numbers never speakf o r themselves,a n d it would b e meaningless to say,e.g., that more inscriptions o r more epitaphs survivefrom Romanthan from Hellenistic Crete. I n order t o give meaning t o theseo r similar statements,o n e needs t o take into consideration variousparameters, especially t h e state o fresearch; e.g., with regard t o epigraphy, centralCrete is betterknownthan t h e easterna n d western parts o ft h e island. I t is f o r this reasonthat I will focus o n central Crete. T h e most important parameters i n t h e study o f t h e epigraphichabita re n o t quantitative, b u t qualitative: -the characteroft h e documentsdaws, decrees, treaties,epitaphs, dedications, inscriptions o npotterya n d other instrumentadomestica,etc.);it is , e.g.,significantthat t h e majority o f t h e Hellenisticinscriptions o f Crete ar e pub/ic /^//documents (see below); 1 F o r somerecent studies o nepigraphic habit(s) se e R. MACMI I.I.F.N.Th eEpigraphicHabit in th eRoman Umpire, mAJPh 103,1982,pp.' 233-246;J.C. MANN, Epigraphic Consciousness m/RSli,1985,p p . 204-206;R . M ACMU.LIN, Lreqitencyof Inscriptionsin RomanLydia,in ZP E65,1986, p p . 237-238; E.A. M r YHR, ExplainingtheEpigraphicHabit in th e RomanUmpire:Th eIzridenceof li.pitaphs, in_/AV90, 1990, p p . 74-96(cf. th e comments o f HAY. Pleket in S / GXL 1654); W.Lirm'sciinTZ, Th eEn d of th eAncient Off,in J. RICH ed.),Th eCityin Late Antiquity,London-NewYork 1992, pp. 4-6;H.W. Pi.HkKT,Creek Inscriptionsin th eRoman Empire: Their .Strength. Deficiencies,an dIn)accessibility, in . \tti dell Xl Congresso Internationaledi l:pigrafia Creca e Latina.Roma, 18 - 24 settembre 19<r, 11 , Rome 199 1 ,p p . 83-86. CAN. HI-DRICK [R.,Democracyan dthe.AthenianEpigraphicalHabit,in Hesperia 68 ,1999,p p . 387-394.Fo r Crete, see t h e studies o f J . Whitley o nt he stateo f literacyas reflected b v t h e epigraphichabit in ArchaicCrete: CretanLairsan d Cretan Literacy in ./. 1101,1997,p p . 635-661;c f. ID., Literacy an d Euvmakjng:Th eCase of .ArchaicCrete in N .FiSHIR AND H. VAN W l. KS (edd.),. ArchaicGreece:Xeir Approachesan d Xcii E/ idence, London 1998,p p . 311-331; c f. m y critical remarks in SE G XLYII 13 7a n d those o f L .D l HOIS.Bulletin epigraphiqne, in REGIII, 1998,p.56 8n o . 19 .
Chaniotis From Communal Spirit to Individuality 2004
Originalveroffentlichung in: Creta Romana e Protobizantina. Atti
del Congresso Internazionale. Iraklion, 23-30 settembre 2000,
Padova 2004, S. 75-87
F R O M C O M M U N A L SPIRIT T O I N D I V I D U A L I T Y : T
H E E P I G R A P H I C H A B I T IN HELLENISTIC A N D R O M A N C
R E T E
T h e subject o f m y paper is a comparison between the
epigraphic habit in Hellenistic and in R o m a n Crete, f r o m the
third century B.C. to the third century A . D . W e define as
'epigraphic habit' the position occupied by inscriptions in the
public and private life o f a particular period and area. Studies o
f the epigraphic habit d o not focus so m u c h o n the specific
content o f inscriptions, but consider more general aspects, such
as the number o f inscriptions, the nature o f the texts, their
language, their distribution over time, space, and social strata.
These aspects depend to a great extent o n the particular
characteristics o f the community which produces and displays
inscriptions, such as mentality, social stratification, ideology,
and socio-political structure. Consequendy, changes in these
features often (but not always) reflect deeper changes in a
community 1 . Studies o f the epigraphic habit naturally have a
quantitive component; but numbers never speak for themselves, and
it would be meaningless to say, e.g., that more inscriptions or
more epitaphs survive from R o m a n than f r o m Hellenistic
Crete. In order to give meaning to these or similar statements, one
needs to take into consideration various parameters, especially the
state o f research; e.g., with regard to epigraphy, central Crete
is better k n o w n than the eastern and western parts o f the
island. It is for this reason that I will focus o n central Crete.
T h e most important parameters in the study o f the epigraphic
habit are not quantitative, but qualitative: - the character o f
the documents daws, decrees, treaties, epitaphs, dedications,
inscriptions o n pottery and other instrumenta domestica, etc.); it
is, e.g., significant that the majority o f the Hellenistic
inscriptions o f Crete arepub/ic/^//documents (see below);
1
F o r s o m e recent studies o n epigraphic habit(s) see
Congresso Internationale di l:pigrafia Creca e Latina. R o m a ,
1824 settembre 19
