ISic030277: Decree in honour of Nemenios (copy A)

Apparatus criticus

• Text from autopsy;
• 2: The initial Δ below the line appears to belong to a previously erased text underlying the current one; cf. lines 11, 33 and 35-36.
  
• 4: in general the engraver clearly distinguishes upsilon from tau; however, here in Ζωπύρου and at ll. 15, 17, 18 and 32 the letter appears indistinguishable from tau.
  
• 5: Manganaro: Διογένη(ος); there is no trace of any letter after the final eta (for the form, which lacks Sicilian examples and foreshadows a common late type with nom. -γένης, acc. -γένην, gen. (dat., voc.) -γένη, and ultimately modern Greek (-ης, -η) (see Dubois 2013, 7-8 nn. 28-30 and Prag 2018 ad loc. for further references).
  
• 8: Scibona, Manganaro: ἱερου Ἀπόλλωνος.
  
• 10: Scibona, Manganaro: Yστ. The form ΥϹΓ is consistent at each iteration on the bronze, and the engraver clearly distinguishes gamma and tau in all other instances; cf. ll. 14, 23, 26, 33. Badalì ap. Scibona: ΑΠΘΛΛΩΝΙΟϹ; the horizontal stroke of the 'theta' is a flaw on the bronze.
  
• 11: Scibona, Manganaro: Τηλ; Badalì ap. Scibona: ΤΚΛ; the visible traces of left vertical hasta and upper right sloping hasta, together with a point bottom right are entirely compatible with the common form of eta in this text (similar to a reversed nu, see e.g. l. 5). Scibona, Manganaro: Λογ; in the second copy this instance appears clearly as ΛΟΓ (and cf. l. 12), so is merely poorly struck here. Badalì ap. Scibona: ΑΡΤΕΜΩΝΑ; a horizontal stroke is visible on the bronze after the final nu, but it is not obviously part of a letter (unless part of the underlying earlier text), and there are no further traces to suggest a letter.
  
• 15: Badalì ap. Scibona: ΦΑΝϹΡΟϹ. Scibona, Manganaro: εὔνους; on the bronze: ΕΤΝΟYϹ.
  
• 16: Badalì ap. Scibona: ΙΕΡϹΩΝ.
  
• 17: The final upsilon is poorly executed.
  
• 18: Manganaro: κοινᾶ. Scibona, Manganaro: τε; on the bronze: ΤϹ. Scibona: αὑτοῦ; Manganaro: αὐτοῦ; on the bronze: ΑYΤΟΤ.
  
• 22: On the bronze: ΔΕΔΟΛΤΑΙ. Scibona, Manganaro: τοῖ[ς]; Badalì ap. Scibona: ΤΟΙ; traces compatible with iota are visible, no traces of final sigma visible on the bronze, the surface of which is very uneven at the far right margin (cf. l. 19).
  
• 23: Scibona, Manganaro: Νεμηνίου Υστ; Badalì ap. Scibona: ΗΕΜΝΝΙΟΥ ΥϹΓ; the initial nu is merely poorly formed; the third letter is partially obliterated but traces compatible with mu; for ΥϹΓ cf. l. 10.
  
• 24: Scibona, Manganaro: ἀναθέμειν; on the bronze: ΛΝΑΘΕΜΕΙΝ.
  
• 25: Scibona, Manganaro, Badalì: κα; traces compatible with kappa, but the bronze has suffered some heat damage at this point. Scibona, Manganaro: θεοῖϲ; on the bronze: ΟϹΟΙϹ.
  
• 27: Badalì ap. Scibona: ΤϹΙϹ; right side of the omicron is faint but visible.
  
• 28: Scibona, Manganaro: χάριταϲ; on the bronze ΧΑΡΙΤEϹ.
  
• 29: Scibona: ἄξια; Manganaro: ἄξια(ϲ). Manganaro: εὐερχεσιᾶν.
  
• 32: Scibona, Manganaro: αὐτῷ; on the bronze: ΑΤΤΩ.
  
• 33: Scibona, Manganaro: Νενηνίου Υστ (cf. line 10). The final circular character (not similar to omicron elsewhere in the text) appears to have no relation to the current text and is perhaps part of an imperfectly erased preceding text.
  
• 35: Traces of two further lines of a pre-existing text, imperfectly erased? (cf. lines 2, 11, 33).

Physical description

Support

Description

A substantial bronze plate over 5 mm thick, to which were affixed, by means of rivets, a number of relief elements giving it the form of a temple facade: crepidoma, a framing pair of Corinthian columns, an entabulature containing a frieze with triglyphs and metopes surmounted by a cornice with dentils, and a pediment, the tympanum of which is undecorated. The relief elements differ in detail between this example and the second copy (ISic030278), although not in essentials. The main plate consists of two pieces of bronze, welded together horizontally at a point equivalent to the second line of the inscribed text; this join is only visible on the reverse, which itself presents a very rough, unfinished appearance. The tablet suffered to some extent from the heat of the fire in the destruction of the building in which it was found. The damage is minimal on this copy, limited to a few small patches of surface damage in the field of the inscription. The tablet measures H 48 cm x W 24.5 cm x D 0.5 cm overall; the pediment is W 36.3 cm x H 8.3 cm; the columns (incl. base and capital) are 31.5cm high. The field available for inscription is 21 cm wide (measured at line 8) by 32 cm high.

Object type

lamina

Material

bronze

Condition

damaged

Dimensions

height: 48 cm, width: 24.5 cm, depth: 0.5 cm

Inscription

Layout

The inscription occupies the large field between the two columns; the upper part of the inscribed field also contains an engraved laurel-wreath, with the text of the initial lines arranged in and around the wreath (the precise arrangement differs slightly between the two copies). There are clear traces of a previous inscription underlying the existing text, and likewise most of the inscribed face shows the traces of having been beaten smooth prior to re-use.

Text condition

complete

Lettering

Letter heights

Line 1: 7-12mm

Lines 2-7: 4-7mm

Lines 8-34: 3-4mm

Interlinear heights

Interlineation: not measured

Provenance

Place of origin

Halaesa

Provenance found

Found September 2004 lying close to the second example within a destruction layer in what appears to have been a ground-floor store-room in a larger building of uncertain character, but probably a large, private house (the rest of the building is unexcavated). The building lies within Insula I, to the north-west of the junction between cardo maximus and decumanus XII, close therefore to the likely route from the agora to the acropolis.

Map

Current location

Place

Halaesa, Italy

Repository

Antiquarium e sito archeologico di Halaesa , ME 21924

Autopsy

2010-04-19

Map

Date

Evidence

lettering, textual-context

Text type

decree

commentary

The Nemenios bronzes are particularly fine examples of a late Hellenistic honorific decree on bronze. Such survivals are unsuprisingly rare, but several other Sicilian examples exist (e.g. from Entella in the third century BC (IGDS no.204-212), from Agrigentum in the later Hellenistic period (IG 14, no.952)). The physical form of a temple facade, as represented here, is best paralleled on texts from Malta (IG 14, no.953) and Hanisa in Cappadocia (Robert 1963: 457-523 with plate 1), as well as Corcyra (IG IX.12.4, no.786, 789-92) in western Greece. The tendency to record decrees, and particularly honorific decrees, on bronze seems to have been especially strong in Sicily. Two aspects make the Halaesa examples particularly unusual: the fact that both copies of the same text are preserved, which is unparalleled; and the very unusual institutional framework of this decree, passed by an association of priests of Apollo. A number of details within the texts are also unusual.

The destruction layer, within what appears to be a private building, in which the two bronzes were found, appears to be the result of a fire which took place probably during the first century AD, and so provides a terminus ante quem for the production of the two inscriptions. The use of Greek, some of the letter forms, the absence of iota adscript, the presence of typically Sicilian pseudo-ascending numerals and the presence of civic sub-divisions in most of the names all suggest a date for the inscriptions of not later than the middle of the first century BC. Since the texts themselves record that the two bronzes were to be placed originally in different locations, their discovery together in a private house, probably at least half a century after their original production, suggests that they were taken down from their original locations in antiquity and reunited in this house. The traces of wood and metal door furniture found with the tablets suggest display on a door on an upper floor, perhaps therefore in a house belonging to descendants of the honorand, Nemenios.

The honours for Nemenios are proposed by a koinon (an association) of the priests of Apollo, which is organised with an assembly (halia) and a council (boule), on the model of typical civic organisation. The record of the decision is presented in the typical fashion of a decree by a city or association, with a prescript that includes the date and the presiding officials, a summary of the motivation for the decision, the decision itself, an engraving clause, and a concluding record of the vote on the decision. The aspect of this text which is most difficult to understand is the relationship of this assocation and the decree to the city of Halaesa. The city is never mentioned, and none of the individuals named are described with any ethnic affiliation. Since, however, all but one of the individuals have ‘demotics’ (the three-letter abbreviations which most likely describe their membership of civic subdivisions, probably territorial) it is reasonable to assume that the text is addressing an internal audience. A number of other circumstantial elements, besides the findspot, support the assumption that the text was produced in Halaesa: some of the demotics are attested in other texts from Halaesa (although some are also attested elsewhere, e.g. at Akrai); the text includes unusual linguistic forms such as the third person plural imperatives in -ντον in the engraving clause, only attested in Sicily in another Halaesan text (ISic003651, associated with the cadastral inscription); the unusual reference to a ‘basilica’, for which see ISic000802 and ISic003580; the existence of a second text from Halaesa referring to a koinon of priests (ISic001176); and other references to a sanctuary of Apollo at Halaesa (in the cadastral inscription, ISic001174; and in Diodorus Siculus 14.16.4). However, although associations of many sorts, including of priests, are well attested in the ancient world, no such association has such a fully evolved institutional framework as this, which directly parallels what one would expect for a city. Additionally, the final clause, recording the vote in favour by 825 individuals suggests a membership that is far in excess of any other recorded association of this type, and is difficult to explain if made up of 825 priests as the text seems to imply. Even if the association consisted of the priests of Apollo from all the cities of Sicily (perhaps c.65 cities at this date), this would not generate enough individuals, and the same is true for a smaller organisation such as the regional symmachia (alliance) suggested by the original editor Giacomo Scibona (2009) on the basis of separate evidence for a Hellenistic alliance in the region. Conversely, the number is almost exactly what one would expect for the adult male free population of a city of Halaesa’s size (using standard model-life tables, such as Coale-Demeny model West level 3 female, and assuming that the 825 individuals are males between 30 and 65 years of age, then the minimum free population would be c. 4,547). Either, therefore, we must assume that this association is made up of all of the male citizens of Halaesa, meeting not as citizens of Halaesa but as members (priests) of the sanctuary; or else the association should be assumed to be much smaller and the voting clause at the end describes the confirmation of the association’s decision by the normal civic assembly of Halaesa (see Tybout in SEG 59.1100 at p.323-324). Examples exist of this sort of conflation of two levels of decision-making in the published version of a text like this, although the complete absence of reference to the city or explicit reference to its institutions anywhere in the text would be unusual in such a case. Examples can also be offered of associations acting almost at the level of independent states, and even in competition with a city (famously the dispute betwen the city of Teos and the koinon of the technitai of Dionysos: Le Guen 2001: no. 47). Choosing between these alternatives is not simple.

The honours for Nemenios are considerable, and one aspect of these adds a further element to the debate over the relationship between koinon and city: it is a well-attested mark of honour for the honorand to be allowed to choose where their statue should be erected. In this case, Nemenios is given the choice, and one alternative is the ‘basilica’. The reference to a basilica is already significant, as this appears to be the earliest attestation in Greek of the word in its Latin meaning (denoting a building used for a range of mercantile and judicial functions). In the case of Halaesa, this sits interestingly alongside evidence for early Italic presence in the city (e.g. ISic000583), as well as the evidence provided by Cicero’s Verrines for the judicial activity under taken in civic agoras by Roman magistrates (Cic. Verr. 3.77, 4.85-6; cf. David 1983). However, given that other Latin epigraphic evidence from Halaesa (ISic000802 and ISic003580) strongly suggests that this building was in the area of the agora, not within the sanctuary, this either requires that the association had authority over wider public space in the city; or that the final voting clause must reflect civic confirmation of the decision.

Among the other honours, the inscription decreed for Nemenios’ statue base very clearly parallels the other surviving Hellenistic honorific texts from Halaesa (ISic000800 offers an exact parallel for the formulation). In the decree, however, Nemenios is also designated as a euergetes of the association, i.e. a benefactor. It has been demonstrated that in the Hellenistic period cities do not usually designate one of their own citizens as a euergetes, but with the intermediate role of the association this becomes possible, and within Sicily there are parallels for this in the honours decreed for Syracusans by the associations of the technitai of Dionysus and Aphrodite at Syracuse (Le Guen 2001: no. 73-77). Last among the honours is the award of a copy of the decree itself on bronze. This appears to be a distinctive regional practice, attested otherwise in texts from Agrigentum (IG 14 no.952), Kaleakte (Caronia, ISic003628), Malta (IG 14 no.953), Rhegium (IG 14 no.612), and reported by Cicero at Syracuse (Cic. Verr. 4.145).

Several other elements within the text are unusual. We lack clear evidence on the identity of the eponymous magistrate(s) at Halaesa (i.e. the official, whether priest or magistrate, by whose term of office the civic year is marked). This text lists three priests, without specific titles, of Zeus and Apollo. A triple eponym would be unusual: it may be that this also reflects a blending of civic and association institutions, with perhaps the priest of Zeus being the civic eponym (as, e.g, the amphipolos of Zeus at Syracuse) and the priests of Apollo being the association’s eponyms (cf. Sherk 1993, Di Veroli 1996). The treasurers mentioned in the engraving clause also bear unusual titulature, being described as the Diodoreioi. It is likely that this adjectival form is intended to denote the treasurers in office under the prostatas Diodoros named in the prescript, but there is no exact parallel for marking this out in this way, and this may again be a consequence of parallel civic and association institutions, with the formulation intended to designate either civic or association treasurers.

Lastly, the text makes clear the significance of the sanctuary of Apollo in the city, whether we think the association to be acting in parallel to, or subordinate to the city itself. As noted, a sanctuary of Apollo is described as a significant landmark within the city in the cadastral inscription, and Diodorus Siculus also refers to it (Facella 2006: 318-322 collects the evidence for Apollo cult at Halaesa). This text and the actions that it records illustrate the sanctuary’s likely wealth and activity at this period. The temple on the summit of the site, briefly explored by Carettoni in the 1950s (Carettoni 1961: 313 18), and now the object of fresh excavation by the Universities of Oxford and Messina, is commonly attributed to Apollo (ISic000469 is often cited in support) although formal proof of the identification is still lacking. The engraving clause of the decree suggests that a temple of Zeus stood within the sanctuary of Apollo, which would be relatively unusual, but the presence of a shrine to one deity within the sanctuary of another is certainly not without parallel (Facella 2006: 322-327 for evidence for the cult of Zeus at Halaesa).

Bibliography

Digital editions

• TM: -
• EDR: -
• EDH: -
• EDCS: -
• PHI: -

Printed editions

• Association pour l’encouragement des études greques, « Bulletin épigraphique », Revue des études grecques, 1888, http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/797735566, at 2010.0646 Zotero FAIR
• ‘Supplementum Epigraphicum Graecum’, Supplementum Epigraphicum Graecum, 1923, http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/1607583, at 59.1100.A Zotero FAIR
• G. Scibona, «Decreto sacerdotale per il conferimento della euerghesia a Nemenios in Halaesa», in Alaisa-Halaesa. Scavi e ricerche (1970-2007), a c. di G. Scibona e G. Tigano (Messina, 2009), 97–112, at Tavola A Zotero FAIR
• Giacomo Manganaro, «Il paesaggio agrario di Halaesa Archonidea», Epigraphica 71 (2009): 9–28, at 21-28 Zotero FAIR
• Giacomo Manganaro, «Il sistema anagrafico nella Sicilia in epoca ellenistica», in Da Halaesa ad Agathyrnum. Studi in memoria di Giacomo Scibona, a c. di AA.VV. (Sant’Agata di Militello: Rotary Club Sant’Agata di Militello, 2011), 33–68, at 52-60 Zotero FAIR
• Laurent Dubois, « Une inscription sicilienne déconcertante », Revue des Études Grecques 126, n^o 1 (2013): 1‑19. Zotero FAIR
• J.R.W. Prag e G. Tigano, Alesa Archonidea: il lapidarium, Introduzione all’archeologia di Halaesa 8 (Palermo: Regione Siciliana, Assessorato beni culturali e identità siciliana, Dipartimento beni culturali e identità siciliana, 2017), at no. 34 Zotero FAIR
• J.R.W. Prag, ‘A New Bronze Honorific Inscription from Halaesa, Sicily, in Two Copies’, Journal of Epigraphic Studies 1 (2018): 93–141, https://doi.org/10.19272/201813701007, at Tablet A Zotero FAIR
• Anna Maria Prestianni Giallombardo, «Il decreto onorifico per Nemenio in due tabelle di bronzo da Alesa», Mediterraneo antico 21, fasc. 1–2 (2018): 509–50, at Tablet A Zotero FAIR

Discussion

• Giacomo Manganaro, «Un frammento inscritto erratico dall’area di Caronia (Kaleakté)», Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 170 (2009): 87–98, at 90 n.26 Zotero FAIR
• Anna Maria Prestianni Giallombardo, «Spazio pubblico e memoria civica. Le epigrafi dall’agora di Alesa», in Agora greca e agorai di Sicilia, a c. di C. Ampolo (Pisa: Edizioni della Normale, 2012), 171–200, at 178-179, 182, 185-187 Zotero FAIR
• Anna Maria Prestianni Giallombardo, «Monogrammi e litterae ligatae nelle Tabulae Halaesinae. Terra del dio o terra della polis?», Linguarum Varietas 7 (2018): 119–42, https://doi.org/10.19272/201811601009, at 132-135 Zotero FAIR
• Loredana Cappelletti, «Postille istituzionali al decreto SEG 59, 1100 da Alesa, Sicilia», Index 48 (2020): 249–64. Zotero FAIR

Citation and editorial status

Editor

Jonathan Prag

Principal contributor

Jonathan Prag

Contributors

• Jonathan Prag
• James Cummings
• James Chartrand
• Valeria Vitale
• Michael Metcalfe
• system
• Simona Stoyanova

Last revision

8/18/2021