Recruitment, Coherence, and Hierarchy: The reasons for Alexanders ‘Banquet of Reconciliation’

This essay will discuss the significance of the Opis Banquet of Reconciliation and surrounding events to determine what Alexander’s aims were. This essay will argue that the event was significant not because it highlighted some form of ethnic policy, but rather that Alexander needed Macedonian manpower and coherency within his new empire. This essay will argue the aim of the banquet was to ensure the goodwill and impress the importance of Macedonian troops and to encourage others back home to join up. To argue this point this essay focuses on three key issues, the first is the problem of army recruitment, the second of the issues of coherence, and thirdly the question hierarchy. 

The events at Opis were significant because they highlighted that Alexander needed more able loyal Macedonian troops. We know that during Alexander’s reign the manpower of Macedon dropped significantly, and after 331 BC no more troops reached Alexander (Worthington and Hammond, 1994 p. 203, Austin, 2006 pp. 50- 53). Therefore, during the events at Opis there was decreasing numbers of Macedonian soldiers arriving. Yet Alexander needed soldiers he could trust in top positions and continued drawing on the homeland despite dropping numbers (Bosworth, 1986 pp. 15-17, Billows, 1995 pp. 184-189). To help this process it is possible that Alexander employed a number of tactics to encourage the youth of Macedonia to join the army. One strategy that the Opis incident suggests is the chance to gain riches. This can be seen in Alexander’s present to the ten thousand dismissed soldiers. This act, Alexander may have hoped, would have encouraged the youth to join the army for the chance to become rich. However, after the mutiny Alexander realized that his actions failed to win the support of the Macedonians, hence, the Banquet to show the importance that Alexander placed on the Macedonians. This makes the events at Opis significant to our understanding of Alexanders reliance on Macedonian troops to fulfill important positions within the court and upper military ranks. In holding a Banquet Alexander wanted to ensure the goodwill of his troops so others would be encouraged to join the ranks. 

Alexander’s prayer is significant to understanding the events at Opis, because it demonstrated Alexander’s desire for coherency between the Macedonians and the Persians. Furthermore, it highlights that Alexander was trying to be as resourceful as possible in the organization of the army. This is demonstrated when Alexander starts replacing the Macedonian leadership with Persians. Rather then being a manipulative move to play on the hostilities between the Macedonians and Persians, as Bosworth argues, this action was a strategic move by Alexander (Bosworth, 1993 p. 160). Alexander’s reasoning may have been that the army needed leadership and if the Macedonians were not willing then the Persians would do. This suggests that Alexander’s focus was on maintaining the war machine and the management of the new empire. It is true that Alexander may have been unaccustomed to the Macedonians disagreeing with him, but Alexander was always trying to ensure the efficiency of the army, and it’s doubtful that he had time for such manipulative tactics. By replacing the Macedonians with Persians, Alexander was not aiming to integrate a ethnic policy but was ensuring that his army remained efficient. Such a point is illustrated by Robert Lock, who argues that Alexander had a very simple relationship with his men (Lock, 1977 pp. 104-105). Open discussion of events and troubles would have been a normal activity, what is unusual at Opus is the range of discontent, but there was never a real mutiny, but rather insults herald at the king (Lock, 1977 pp. 104-105). Because there was no overarching kinship system yet developed. Therefore, Alexander had to be practical and un-manipulative in his policies. We know from Plutarch that the Macedonians were unhappy with the recent Persian soldiers at Susa (Plut. 7. 71). However, by dismissing ten-thousands troops because they could not serve efficiently and replacing disgruntled soldiers with capable Persons soldiers Alexander was acting as any commander would during war time. The banquet is then significant because it represents Alexanders push for coherency between the two peoples. 

Hierarchy was an important element in Alexander's army. The higher up you were the more likelihood of being near the King and, therefore, the power-base of the whole empire. This is  significant to the Banquet of Reconciliation because of the focus and power bestowed to the Macedonians, especially over the Persians. And considering, as Dirodoris explains, the Macedonians had just persuaded Alexander for their positions back, it is a great show of power and hierarchy (Diod. 17.109). The banquet was a clear statement that the Macedonians were in the central sphere of power while the Persians were on the periphery. This is perhaps best demonstrated in the seating arrangement of the Banquet of Reconciliation. According to Arran over nine thousand individuals showed up, with the most important Macedonians sitting closest to Alexander. The Macedonians enjoyed a privileged position right near the king. While the Persians sat on the boundary of the Macedonians and then everybody else (Arr. VII.9). If Alexander wanted an ethnic policy or a racial fusions policy then why separate the groups. It would have been better to mix everybody and ensure that the races mixed. The Banquet was then significant because it was emphatically aimed at pleasing the Macedonians. Further, Alexander’s prayer expresses his desire for the whole event to have “concord and community in empire for Macedonians and Persians” (Arr. VII.9). Such a statement is not indicative of a man who was seeking an ethnic policy (Bosworth, 1993 p. 161). Rather Alexander wanted a coherent court and empire. With the Macedonians and Greeks holding the prime positions and the Persians making up the bulk of the army. 

This essay has attempted to determine the significance and aims of the Banquet of Reconciliation. In doing so it has examined the issue of recruitment of Macedonian troops, and the possibility that at Opis Alexander was trying to instigate a recruitment program. Secondly, this essay argued that the Banquet had two clear aims. The first to ensure that there was some coherency between the Macedonians and Persians and to win over the goodwill of the Macedonians troops. Lastly, this essay argued that the main significance of the Banquet was that it was aimed to inform the Macedonians that they enjoyed a privileged position in the empire hierarchy. 

Works Cited

AUSTIN, M. (2006) The Hellenistic World from Alexander to the Roman Conquest: A Selection of Ancient Sources in Translation, Cambridge University Press.

BILLOWS, R. A. (1995) Kings and Colonists: Aspects of Macedonian Imperialism, E.J. Brill.

BOSWORTH, A. B. (1986) Alexander the Great and the Decline of Macedon Journal of Hellenistic Studies 106, 1-12.

BOSWORTH, A. B. (1993) Conquest and Empire: The Reign of Alexander the Great, Cambridge University Press.

LOCK, R. (1977) The Macedonian Army Assembly in the Time of Alexander the Great Classical Philology 72, 91-107.

WORTHINGTON, I. & HAMMOND, N. G. L. (1994) Ventures Into Greek History, Clarendon Press.

What does it take to be an anthropologist?

Cynthia’s last lines in, A memoir of Fieldwork, Survival, and Commitment, hints at the character of what it takes to be an anthropologist.

 ‘But we survivor-anthropologists are not afraid. We believe in the possibilities, find all human beings “of interest,” and will not turn away.’ 

Personally I take from this statement that anthropology fieldwork entails more than just technical knowledge and skill, although these are important, it takes the development of personal characteristics to be an anthropologist. Throughout the journey of this course my views on anthropology have evolved. While I still love anthropology, I now know that the risks and rewards of doing ethnographic work can be high. This course has allowed me to focus on issues that I will have to personally face in my own ethnographic fieldwork. Furthermore, as I wish to emphasize in this essay there are many skills that are required to be an anthropologist that I still have to learn. In this essay I hope to call attention the essential nature of technical skills that are required for good ethnographic work. Moreover, while in the field, anthropological inquiry involves good methods and practice of those skills. This may include working with informants, working out which multi-site or a tradition style should be used. I have also learnt that an anthropologist has to consider the importance of ethics and where our morals should stand. Further, I have learnt that studying anthropology involves personal development such as being honest with yourself and your informants. In this reflected essay I want to give my answer to a question Cynthia raised in her article: ‘What does it take to be an anthropologist?’

Bronislaw Malinowski’s famous work, Method and scope of Anthropological Fieldwork, set the hallmarks of what good anthropological work should be. Long term, on some remote island, with a holistic approach to ethnographic work studying every aspect of a society.

While Evens-Pritchard’s ideas on the ‘Oxford man’ takes this notion even further with in-depth studies of multi-able cultures over a very long periods of time with the aim of conducting a cross cultural study of two whole societies. This anthropologist, and others like them, set the standard of what techniques are needed in order to study a society. However, while this may be the ideal model, today the scope and method of anthropology has grown. Today you may use multi-sited fieldwork over the traditional methods if you want to explore a common theme across cultures. This was certainly the case with Ulf Hannerz, Being There...and There... and There! Reflections on Multi-Site ethnography” whose research in foreign correspondents is perhaps reflective of what it takes to be a modern anthropologist. As in our modern world, unlike the societies Malinowski and Evens-Pritchard stayed, things are in constant flux, people are moving all over the world, things are becoming globalized, and the ‘other’ is not so far away anymore. What all these anthropologists demonstrate is that to be an anthropologist requires knowledge of the methods and the development of skills to carry out research in a systematic way. As Hannerz concludes ethnography is really the art of the possible. 

The works of Nancey Scheper-Hughes and Philip Bourgue highlight two important ethical issues that need to be addressed by anthropologists. Scheper-Hughes, Ire in Ireland, shows that anthropologists have to be aware that their work is part of the voice of a community. And sometimes as researchers we have to be aware that the ‘other’ may now see our work and actively disagree with the image presented, moreover, we anthropologists may be responsible in creating new social categories which may lead to problems for our informants. Meanwhile, in the essay, Confronting the Ethics of Ethnography, Bourgue critiques the traditional ideas of ethics in anthropology demonstrating, through his powerful experience in the field, of the wider implications of fieldwork. Bourgue essay highlights the requirement for persona and sometimes complex judgment when we are conducting ethnographic work. Furthermore, it highlights what anthropologists are, they are more than just researchers but they are also humans and the concerns of humanity should be high priority for any anthropologist. If we can keep this in mind while doing field work we can be more ethical in tough times. The academic reaction to Bourgue work consisted of his work being deemed unethical and his career in anthropology was almost cut short. However, as Bourgue argues the ethics of anthropology are too narrow and rigid. What both Scheper-Hughes and Bourgue works demonstrate is that to be an anthropologist we have to go beyond basic ethical limits. We as anthropologists have to power to give and take a voice for communities that we are studying and because of this we have to be aware that we are not the end point of the moral questions we face as human beings. 

The article, Being Gay and Doing Fieldwork, by Walter L. Williams really touched home for me. As a homosexual myself I never thought about coming out in the field and the problems and advantages that might occur if I had to do this. The article highlights some of the issues with interaction with informants, making clear that honest is perhaps the best course of action. While it is important to fully disclose your reasons for research, I have found that in my anthropological training, up till this course, how to approach fieldwork was to basically give some basic guidelines. However, this approach may miss some of the important personal characteristics we should develop. Honesty, Williams highlights is one of them. By giving insights to his research where he was open about his sexuality, Williams bring to the fore some of the advantages of being ‘out’ in anthropology. In one instance he is talking about getting access to Native American ‘two spirit’ people, and the fear of revealing that his interest stemmed from his own sexuality. When he revealed this to an old Indian man doors opened that allowed him to gain access to informants. This, to me, signifies the importance of the anthropologists as a social gathering tool. If we cannot be honest with those around us in our fieldwork why would they have any reason to open up to us about their culture? 

In sum, Cynthia’s survivor-anthropologists may be a good statement of what it takes to be an anthropologist. When she states that we, the students of anthropology should be asked what it takes to be an anthropologist, we should be able to say more than just the technical aspects. We should say the courage to be honest, the ability to see the ethical concerns as a human being, and we should be able to answer about the character of being an anthropologist. So what does it take to be an anthropologist? It takes, as I have hopefully shown, a good understanding of the methods of fieldwork including gathering data and finding good informants. It takes knowledge of the growing scope of anthropological inquiry considering that now we have different ways and different questions in this globalized world. It takes knowing that we have the power to give and take away the voice of a community and that they now have the ability to comment on that voice as well. It takes personal courage and honesty to open yourself up to informants, even if this means the risk of being vulnerable. It takes finding people ‘of interest’ and not turning away when things can become so bleak.  

Wills of Power

What was Rome’s Involvement in the Hellenistic Kings Last Testament

  Good Hellenistic Monarchs were cunning as wells as ruthless in the pursuit of power. Moreover this seems no different with their last testament. For the Hellenistic kings, wills could be used in the game of power to secure their life from assassination and ensure that a bitter enemy, usually a family member, was kept in place. Further, royal wills for the Hellenistic kings served as an extension of their diplomacy with Rome, which was becoming essential in the Mediterranean as Rome’s power and control increased. Many kings would include in their will a clause about bequeathing their kingdoms to Rome, or a successful succession of power for their children. While each royal will is unique there are some general themes within each. These overarching themes relate to how monarchs interpreted and needed a friendship with Rome and how the game of power, between the Hellenistic siblings, was played. In this essay I will argue that Rome’s involvement in Hellenistic Royal wills comes down to a pattern of the Monarch wanting to keep their own power and then ensure the succession of that power to their children.

  Hellenistic Monarchs saw being a friend and ally to Rome as a good policy. By being on the good side of the Romans, or at least showing your enemies that, you could try and use the chaos in the Roman Senate to your own advantage. Because of this most kings included Rome in their wills in some way. Furthermore, these wills were often highly public and known by everybody. This openness was used to the advantage of the Monarchs who could use their wills as a insurance policy against assassination from other members of the royal household who had leadership ambitions (Braund 1983 pp. 49-50; Erskine 2003 p. 18). However, things were not always clear cut and the business of a king could be haphazardness. The first king to use Rome as a threat of bequeathment was Ptolemy VIII Physcon (Hekster 2012 p. 7). Physcon was very public and clear about the reasons for his will. We know this because there is a copy of the will in SEG IX. 7 (Braund 1983 p. 17). One segment in particular, lines 6-11, refer to a plot by somebody to overthrow his kingdom while he is alive and in lines 19-20 there is a suggestion that his kingdom would be attacked upon his death. While lines 11-16 state that the purpose of the will is to advert this attack on his life (Braund 1983 pp. 18-19; Polybius XXXIV.14). The publicity of the will in the general population and the documental evidence of an assassination threat suggests that the will was a strategic move designed to send a message. Moreover, his testament was made at a strategic time around 155 BCE after an assassination attempt in around 156 BCE. Suggesting that this message was aimed at the would be king killers.  

  The Roman Senate was a confusing entity for the Hellenistic Kings. Because of the many competing interests of the senators Rome’s actions were not always coherent to what it did in the past. However, Hellenistic Monarchs still tried to manipulate the system like they would other powers. For example Physcon assassination attempt on his life did not stop him trying to manipulate the Romans. He used the attempted assassination to help bolster his claim for Cyprus in the Roman Senate in 154 BCE (Gruen 1986 p. 698). They agreed, and while it is not stated in the will this may be one reason why the Roman people were chosen to be included in his will and not some other Hellenistic Monarch. Perhaps, Physcon saw the Romans as a safer inheritor who was unlikely to kill him, and who he could use to his own advantage when it suited him. In hindsight Physcon will would usher in a change for Royal Monarchs who sort to gain the support of the Roman Senate by including Rome in their wills in some way. For instance despite no guarantee Rome would carry it out the Will, Hekster argues, Physcon realised how useful Rome could be. By publicising his will he successfully used the threat of Rome in internal politics. Although this was problematic because while Rome was powerful it was also unpredictable to the Hellenistic Monarchs. Part of this unpredictability resided in the competing forces in the Senate (Hekster 2012 p. 119). Later Hellenic kings, such as Ptolemy XII Auletes who will be discussed later, would often travel to Rome to seek Roman friendship with specific Roman elites. Yet, Rome always only seemed to act when the situation suited its own interests and for the Hellenistic this was impossible to predict. 

  The amphimetric strife between Ptolemy VIII Physcon and his brother Ptolemy VI 'philometer' was a good reason to include Rome in the will. Moreover, its seems Physcon’s use of the will was a complete facade and instead was aimed at getting Rome on his side and not his brothers (Gruen 1986 pp. 705-706). Physcon’s will dictated that if he was to die childless then the kingdom should be passed on to Rome. However, Physcon was around twenty when the will was publicized and had ample time to father children. He may have wanted it to seem to his brother that Rome was on his side. By being the first king to proclaim Rome as heir he sent a powerful message to his brother that Rome was on his side and to stay away (Gruen 1986 p. 707). This insurance policy, while hardly noticed in Rome was useful to the young kings plans and as we have seen with Cyprus proved to be very beneficial (Braund 1983 pp. 49-50). In this way Physcon, and as we will see later kings, were practicing a game of smoke and mirrors to make themselves seem more powerful than they really were. In Physcon case it did not work so well, he was captured by his brother only to be later freed without Rome even paying that much attention.

  Rome was already important factor in the foreign policy and personal propaganda of the Attalids of Pergamon. For the Attalids the relationship with Rome served to strengthen their own power. It is then perhaps no surprise that the first King to successfully bequeath his kingdom was an Attalid (Evens 2012 p. 47; Gruen 1986 p. 592). Attalus III, who was childless, annexed his kingdom upon his death in 133 BCE upon the instructions in his will (Kosmetatou 2007 p. 159). For the Romans it was quite unexpected, as up till this period they had really only acted in sorting out disputes (Braund 1983 p. 22; Gruen 1986 p. 592). Therefore it took several years for Rome to accept the terms of the will. 

  To understand the reasoning why Attalus bequeath his kingdom rather then giving it to another family member we must examine the close history these two countries shared, and the propaganda upon which the Attalids relied on for their power. Foreign policy was not a new concept to the Attalids. Its first leader Philetarios built a strong system of alliances with the surrounding city states. Indeed Polybius devoted some time in explaining that Eumenes and Attalus I may have inherited a small kingdom but a powerful one because it had respect and good agreements of many kingdoms (Polybius Histories 23.11.78). In this way, the power of the Attalids rested on diplomacy and not military power similar to other Hellenistic Kingdoms. Moreover, Rome became an important player in the affairs of Pergamon when King Attalus I helped the Romans in their war against Philip V in the First and Second Macedonian War (Austin 2006 pp. 198-203). The relationship that formed was beneficial to both parties. On one hand Rome needed a base of operations in the East while on the other Attalus I wanted to expand his power and territory, and saw Rome as a method for achieving that. However, while this notion of close friendship with Rome suggests one possible explanation for Attalus III will. It does not follow the pattern as suggested by the thesis of this essay. That power, protection and the successful succession of that power were a high priorities for Monarchs. Then it is perhaps more likely that Attalus III bequeathment was more the result of internal conflict then outside admiration.

  Attalus III was not a typical Hellenistic King. He seems to not have had much involvement in public life and no desire for warfare. Instead he seems to have spent most of his time studying biology and medicine and doing gardening (Braund 1983 p. 22; Errington 2011: Pergamon; SEG 28. 960; Evens 2012 p. 144). Grien suggests that this personality did not blind Attalus III to the limits of the game of power played by other kings. Instead Grien suggests that Attalus III saw what Rome was becoming and decided to act. He suggest that rather than seeing Rome as an executor of royal wills, Attalus saw Rome as a the next world conquer. This Grien suggests is reflected in Attalus will. The most notable part was a clause that called for each of Pergamon subjects be granted full Roman style citizenship thereby ensuring that each citizen remained free (Gruen 1986 p. 597). In contrast to Physon’s will aimed at a life insurance policy then any real care for the people he governed, Attalus III looks generous. However, Grien’s explanation may be better understood in hindsight. As it does not follow the pattern we see of Hellenistic Kings and their attitude towards wills of first the retention of power and then the successful succession of that power to the next generation. 

  Attalus III was not a popular king and his reign was troubled by uprisings. His reclusive lifestyle, in stark contrast to other Attalid Kings, caused the population to become dismayed. Rumors about the king killing people for experiments and wasting the wealth of the kingdom were widespread. And as a result the kingdom was plagued by civil unrest. Diodorus in particular notes that the subjects of Attalus did not like the king and often disagreed with him (Diodorus Bibliotheca 39. 60, 1-62). According to Vavřínek the freedoms granted in the will were not so much for the benefit of the people but to ensure that the will was carried out after his death (Vavřínek 1957 pp. 50-55). Part of this may have to do with Attalus III a step-brother Aristonicus, later called Eumenes III, who desired the throne. Aristonicus posed a serious threat to Attalus power (Kosmetatou 2007 pp. 163-164). Not only was the Kingdom unstable but it had another potential King who may have been better than the current one . 

  This amphimetric strife is not an unusual reason for a kingdom to be bequeath to Rome. As we have seen Ptolemy VIII Physcon and his brother Ptolemy VI 'philometer' employed Rome in several ways to try and overpower each other (Kosmetatou 2012 p.1 ). So it is not unusual for a Hellenistic King to be bitter towards any potential rival that was not his own choice. This explanation of rival siblings fits with the overall general theme of Hellenistic wills. However, unlike Physion who seems never really to have intended Rome to get his kingdom. Attalus III fails to have any real heirs other than his step-brother and dies before anything can be done about it. This may also explain why the will favours the people so much. Attalus may have designed it that way to ensure public support for the will (Vavřínek 1957 p. 50). This is easy to see when we consider the action of Aristonicus. While Rome was busy debating whether it should ratify the will, Aristonicus stepped in to fill the power vacuum. However, while he presented himself as a social revolutionary promising freedom to cities and the enslaved in to hope of gaining the support of the lower class’s he just came across as another dynastic contender (Evens 2012 p. 47; Gruen 1986 p. 597). Moreover, under the terms of Attalus will the people were already free with Roman protection. All they had to do was wait till it was ratified by the Roman Senate. 

  This came by 131 BCE when the Romans sent an army and crushed what little support Aristonicus had (Liviy, Periochae, 59). And thereby Rome carried out the terms of the will under the guidance Tiberius Sempronius Gracchus, who was a Roman politician pushed for Rome to annex Pergamon, but only when it suited the interest of the Romans. Aristonicus’s alliance with Gaius Blossius, an anti-Rome philosopher who helped in a popular uprising in Rome and brother of  Gracchus, may have put the Romans at uneasiness at it threatened their link to the East (Braund 1983 pp. 22-23; Evens 2012 p. 48; Strabo XIV.1.38; Gruen 1986 pp 599-600). This may be why Rome decided to act and ratify the will. Yet, as we shall see it is not unusual for Rome to act only when the situation suited their own interests.

  Succession is a problem for a monarchical system. And while the Hellenistic kingdoms practiced co-rule with the chosen heirs, this often did not work . Therefore, Rome’s power and role as a mediator between the various Mediterranean kings also served another use for monarchs, to use Rome to ensure that power was passed along safely to their children. By putting in their wills that the Kingdom would go to Rome unless there was children involved, the Hellenistic Monarchs may have been trying to ensure a peaceful succession (Braund 1983 p 28; Siani-Davies 1997 p. 321). Furthermore, the kings may have used this to ensure that their children already had a close association with Rome that could lead to a good friendship. This would have become more necessary as Roman control of the Mediterranean strengthened (Austin 2006 p. 430). Ptolemy XII Auletes last testament and life demonstrates this new reliance on Rome. While his will does not bequeath his kingdom to Rome it does set out a succession plan for his children. In the will Auletes states that upon his death his children are to be joint rulers with the protection of Rome (Braund 1983 p. 34 ). Perhaps with this clause Auletes was trying to ensure his own power and that of his children by befriending Rome. Unlike the other kings we have looked at, Ptolemy XII has no step-brothers or sisters who were challenging him for the throne, however, his greatest threat to power was Rome itself. 

  It is not surprising that during his lifetime Auletes took steps, such as pay 6000 and then 10,000 talents, to become a friend and ally of the Roman people (Hölbl 2001 p. 237). When we consider the circumstances of his rise to power. Part of the reason for the dependence on Rome was the will of his father Ptolemy I Alexander whose very short but chaotic rule left a will in which he bequeathed his kingdom to Rome unless he had a legitimate heir. Since Ptolemy XII was not a legitimate son and his rise to power was based on the support of the Alexandrines. A lot of the actions he took can be understood is cementing his leadership with the Romans while trying not to cause hostilities with the Alexandrines, which he failed to do. And if we also consider that around this time Rome took a real interest in the affairs of Egypt where as in the past it just has sporadic interest only when it needed too (Braund 1983 p. 28; Hekster 2012 p. 7). We can understand that Auletes was under considerable pressure in an uncertain environment that no other Hellenistic kings had found themselves. 

  This of course made establishing his power more difficult. In Rome, a copy of Ptolemy I Alexander will was debated in the Senate, who by now had annexed several kingdoms, to answer the Egyptian Question, basically what to do with Egypt (Cicero and Siani-Davies 2001 p. 1). The question of the Romans is understandable, Egypt was by now the only other real power on the Mediterranean. However, despite the Egyptian Question we know that Cicero supported Auletes restoration to the throne, despite Cicero’s feelings towards the King (Cicero and Siani-Davies 2001 pp. 1-3).  Perhaps to make his position stronger Auletes bribed Julius Caesar with 6000 talents for formal recognition of his throne and to be a friend and ally of Rome. Which of course Caesar did. This just shows that Rome while it acted as the judicial negotiator still always acted in its own self interest. Foolishly, many hellenistic kings believed the Romans to be just, but this as we have seen is not the case they were only just when the justice suited themselves. With all this effort it is no surprise that Auletes sort to extend the friendship, which he bought, to his children by including them in the will. Auletes’s reign then follow the clear pattern that we see for Kings when they write their wills. First the establishment of personal power and then the extension of that power their children. Therefor, Royal wills became a way for Kings to ensure the smooth transfer of power from one generation to the next with Rome's help. It allowed the Kings to maintain a stability that is inherently difficult in a system that comes unstable when its leader dies. Furthermore, it makes sense that kings who sort so hard  for Roman recognitions would try to extend that friendlessness they built with the romans to their children.

  Power and the maintenance of that power with each successful generation was the main purpose of Royal Hellenistic wills. As Rome became stronger it was essential to Monarchs to be acknowledged as a friend and ally.  Wills also allowed Hellenistic Monarchs to try and manipulate Rome with the aim of achieving safety for themselves against assassination cause by amphimatric strife. However, in most cases Rome only acted on Royal wills if there was something they could gain. Whether that meant taking twenty years to annex a bequeath kingdom or keeping a king on the throne because he was willing to pay. Rome acted in its own interests. This, though, did not stop the Hellenistic Monarchs from trying. For them including Rome in their wills was a strategy of power that became more essential to their own power as Rome became more powerful. 

Bibliography

Austin, M. M.

2006 The Hellenistic World from Alexander to the Roman Conquest: A Selection of Ancient Sources in Translation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Braund, David

1983 Royal Wills and Rome. Papers of the British School at Rome 51:16-57.

Cicero, M.T., and M. Siani-Davies

2001 Cicero's Speech: Pro Rabirio Postumo: Clarendon Press.

Errington, R.M.

2011 A History of the Hellenistic World: 323 - 30 BC: Wiley. Kindle ebook.

Erskine, A.

2003 A Companion to the Hellenistic World: John Wiley & Sons.

Evens, Richard

2012 A History of Pergamum: Beyond Hellenistic Kingship New York: Continuum 

Gruen, E.S.

1986 The Hellenistic World and the Coming of Rome: University of California Press.

Hekster, Olivier

2012 Kings and Regime Change in the Roman Republic. In Imperialism, Cultural Politics, and Polybius. C. Smith and L.M. Yarrow, eds. Oxford: Oxford Press.

Hölbl, Günther

2001 History of the Ptolemaic Empire: 2001.

Kosmetatou, Elizabeth

2007 The Attalids of Pergamon. In A Companion to the Hellenistic World. Pp. 159-174: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

—

2012 Wills, of Hellenistic kings. In The Encyclopedia of Ancient History. Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

Siani-Davies, Mary

1997 Ptolemy XII Auletes and the Romans. Historia: Zeitschrift für Alte Geschichte 46(3):306-340.

Vavřínek, Vladimiŕ

1957 La révolte d'Aristonicos: Ceskoslovenska Akad. ved.

In what ways is the expansion of Roman culture detectable archaeologically within the cities and landscape of Etruria and Campania?

By Wayne Marsahall

This essay will examine the ways in which the expansion of Roman culture is detectable archaeologically within the cities and landscapes of Etruria and Campania. This essay will look at the ways the resistance 1to the expansion of Roman Culture can be seen in the Etruria landscape. Archaeological evidence from farms and the burials associated with them demonstrate that the process of acculturation was ongoing, which can be seen in the burial urns and the latinization of tomb inscriptions. In Campania the expansion of Roman culture was aided by the building of aqueducts. These building projects affected the spread of Roman culture in Pompeii. The local élite adopted Roman style architecture, this in turn trickle down into the lower classes spreading Roman culture in the process.  In the city of Paestum the Romans took control of the political life of the city. They built a new Forum which helped strengthen the Roman expansion in the city and landscape of Campania. 

Archaeological evidence shows that the expansion of Roman culture in the landscapes northern and southern Etruria varied possibly because cultural attitudes. Terrenato hypothesizes that cultural homogeneity for the northern Etruscans was a result of their tight community(Terrenato, 1998 p. 109).   However, social anthropologist Eriksen notes that regular contact between two ethnic groups might make them emphasized their own cultural uniqueness (Eriksen, 2010 p. 276). The site San Mario shows evidence for the Etruscans protecting their own cultural identity. The San Mario site is thought to be a typical Etruscan farmstead. Artifacts from the site date to the fourth century BC, right into the Roman period. This Terrenato suggests is evidence for a long occupation by people of the same culture and that these people had some degree of autonomy away from the central influences of Rome (Terrenato, 1998 p. 102, Nicola Terrenato, 1996 pp.101-106). In southern Etruscan settlement patters change dramatically with Roman control. Local settlement population decrees and unlike northern farms local southern farms are abandoned (Potter, 1978 p. 107). This change is settlement patterns may show that the process of Romanization in southern Etruria was far more extensive then the northern people. Terrenato hypothesizes Etruscans held onto their own culture their outward focus and appearance emulated Roman fashions (Terrenato, 1998 p. 102). In south Etruscan resistance to Romanization can be seen in the settlement patterns of smaller farms that seem to avoid major Roman highways sticking to the fringes of valleys (Potter, 1978 p. 109). With increased contact with the Romans the people of Etruria started to emphasized their own culture uniqueness. They resisted Romanization by keeping aspects of their culture intact, but northern Etruscans were better able to resist then southern Etruscans. 

The idea to become Roman, or the process of Romanization, was an ongoing process, because the idea of what being Roman was alway changing. To chart the expansion of Roman culture through the archaeological record dose not represent a change in cultural identify but merely a change in material culture. Language, however, is at the heart of a community changes in language could mean changes in the community as a whole. Language, Cooley says, can be used to resist cultural and political change or integrate one culture into another (Cooley, 2002 p. 77).  There is evidence to support that local Etruscans were successful in keeping important aspects of their cultural alive centuries after the Romans had conquered them, through burial customs and language. Analysis of élite burials associated with villa sites suggests that Etruscans maintained their funerary traditional several centuries after annexation. At the tomb site I1 Puntone an inscribed stone shows etymological evidence of Etruscans origins. The tomb may have belonged to a magistrate with the name Anaenius and his cognomen, Pharianus. Anaenius may have its origins in the Etruscan language. This assertion, as Terrenato indicates, is hard to establish, as the etymological evidence also point to a romanization of Etruscan language. Terrenato suggests that inscribed names could be the latinized version of the original Etruscan. A sarcophagus inscribed with name Pestinia Apricula shows evidence of latinization. The name Pestinia may be the latinized version of the Etruscan pestiu (Terrenato, 1998 pp. 101-102).  

In the city of Volaterrae, one of the oldest and most important Etruria cities, public life became essentially a Roman affair. The expansion of Roman culture was fueled by the building of great urban works The locals went to great length to convoy a level of Roman sophistication. The local élite's adopted Roman architectural, the domus was popular of house build in this style. The Romans would expand their culture through the construction of urban development. One such development in Volaterrae is the Great urban reservoirs, built to ease water supply problems (Terrenato, 1998 p. 105). Such works show the spread of Roman culture in public life, through the spread of Roman urban developments. The city of Volaterrae was not the only city where the Romans used urban works to expand their culture.

Romans were known for their urban infrastructure, it’s a lasting image of Roman culture. Aqueducts  were build to serve many large cities and had important affect on the development of culture in these cities. The building of an aqueduct to relive the water problems of Pompeian would also serve to expand Roman culture in the city.  According to Jones, social competition within the city was fierce. The building of an aqueduct led to the elite redesigning their houses to take advantage of the water, often adopting roman styles, to gain prestige (Jones, 2005 p. 696). In this way the architectural features of Pompeian houses emulate the ideas of what it means to be Roman. The competition among the Pompeian élite’s, to gain prestige, speeded up the process of acculturation. The Pompeiian élite emulated the Roman style, so much so, that they became the visual symbols of what it meant to be Roman (Graham, 1998 pp. 172-173).  The site, house of the Vestals show that it went through several redesigns to take advantage of the access to water (Jones, 2005 p. 697).

While competition among the élite's to emulate the Romans style raged the trickle down effects of romanization can also be seen in the architectural features of everyday houses. The lower class tried to emulated the élite class thereby expanding the cultural fabric to include Roman culture (Graham, 1998 p. 165). An archaeological study shows that out of 144 houses from the city region VI that the spatial layout of a Pompeian house became very similar to that of a Roman houses overtime. Although individual houses differ their are many similarities. Evidence of Pompeian houses show that their was a shift from houses with no courtyard spaces to houses with. Of the 144 houses 29.9 per cent had no courtyard and of those with courtyards, the larger the house the more courtyards their were (Graham, 1998 pp. 167-171). The wealthier an individual was the more they could afford to emulate the Romans. In this way the expansion of roman culture may have been accelerated by the locals trying to emulate Roman architecture.

The city of Poseidonia name change when the Romans took control and changed the name to Paestum. At the time the city was occupied by two cultures the Greek and Oscan, who turn it into a thriving city. The Romans set about changing the typology of the city starting with the political spaces. Archaeological evidence of Roman expansion in the city can be seen in the Roman style Forum. Build right in the center of the city it became center of political life and a statement of influence for the spread of Roman culture in Campania. The Forum was build in the third century, AD, moving the political center away from the Greek and Lucanian agora. A small Roman style temple was build on the northern side and may have been the capitolium attributed to Jupiter, Juno and Minerva although the evidence is weak. The three temples that make up the capitolium are the religious cultural heart of the city, ritualistic becoming the foundation of the new city. This step represents an important step in the expansion and dominance of Roman culture (Torelli, 1999 p. 52, Pedley, 1990 p. 118-119) . The evidence for the small northern temple being the Capitolium is weak. For starters their is only one temple not three and it seems that the temple was built after the first phase of Forum construction. Torelli suggests instead that this temple is dedicated to the cult of Bona Mens an important political cult and the capitolium may be located at the eastern non-excavated end of the Forum. This close connection with the forum is not unusual. In Rome itself a temple of Bona Mens was constructed on the capital (Torelli, 1999 p. 65). Such evidence shows that Roman culture was adaptive and trends in Rome quickly expanded into other territories. It is in these ways that the expansion of Roman culture is detectable archaeologically with in the cities and landscape of Etruria and Campania. 

This essay explored the ways in which Roman culture is detectable archaeologically in the cities and landscapes of Etruria and Campania. Examining evidence such as burials site, diachronic change, urns and sites such as San Mara and the architectural features of Volaterrae in Etruria. In Campania the evidence included Roman construction of aqueducts and the effects on social competition within the city of Pompeii, and the changes to political life in Paestum by the construction of the forum.

Bibliography

COOLEY, A. E. 2002. Become Roman, Writing latin? Literacy and Epigraphy in the Roman West. Journal of Roman Archaeology, 77-86.

ERIKSEN, T. H. 2010. Small Places, Large Issúes, New York, Pluto Press.

GRAHAM, M. 1998. Material Culture and Roman Identity: The spatial layout of Pompeian houses and the problem of ethnicity. In: BERRY, R. L. A. J. (ed.) Cultural Identity in the Roman Empire. London: Routledge.

JONES, R. 2005. Water, Wealth, and Social Status at Pompeii: The House  of the Vestals in theFirst Century. American Journal of Archaeology, 109, 695-710.

NICOLA TERRENATO, A. J. A. 1996. Visibility and Site Recovery in The Cecina Valley, Italy. Journal of Field Archaeology, 23, 91-109.

PEDLEY, J. G. 1990. Paestum: Greeks and Romans in Southern Italy, Thames & Hudson.

POTTER, T. W. 1978. Population Hiatus and Continuity: The case of the South Etruria Survey. Papers in Italian Archaeology, i, 99-116.

TERRENATO, N. 1998. Tam Firmun Municipium: The Romanization of Volaterrae and Its Cultural Implications. The Journal of Roman Studies, 88, pp. 94-114.

TORELLI, M. 1999. Tota Italia. Essays in the cultural Formation of Roman Italy, Oxford, Oxford University Press.

Achievements of humanity

Civilization is a funny word, it's not really a good word when we talk about human progress, or what we think of as progress. When I think of progress, or civilization I'm not thinking that one group of people have more or less "civilization". I am, however, viewing all humans as having civilization, civilization to me is groups of people developing ideas and tools suited to their environment. The achievements of civilization have not beem cities or writing or even building but instead have been humanbeings ability to adapt to a world of different environments. And as we enter into an age where we control the environment, I'm sure that we will use the tools of civilization to gain even more achievements.

Eridu-worlds oldest city

The city of Eridu was considered to be one of the oldest cities in the world, according to the bible is was build before the great flood. Archaeological evidence (from a source I cant remember at the moment) says people used the city as a sessional fishing campsite before developing it into a major city. At its high, Eridu, had a large temple in the center devoted to the god of water and wisdom and was a trade center. The city's decline was kick started by a change of environment; the section of a river it relied on changed course moving closer to the city of Ur. However, due to the religious importance of the city it did survive, it was even rebuilt under the support of the Royal Persian family ( sorry but I don't remember the king or kings that rebuilt the city). Today very little remains of the area except a small mount where the temple used to be, however there is much archaeological work going on at Ur and since the two cities were very close in ancient time it may be important to take a closer look at the site of Eridu.