Owens, 'Rome and the Western Greeks, 350 BC - AD 200: Conquest and Acculturation in Southern Italy', Bryn Mawr Classical Review 9503
URL = http://hegel.lib.ncsu.edu/stacks/serials/bmcr/bmcr-9503-owens-rome

@@@@95.3.12, Lomas, Rome and the Western Greeks

Kathryn Lomas, <i>Rome and the Western Greeks, 350 BC - AD 200:
Conquest and Acculturation in Southern Italy</i>. London:
Routledge, 1993. Pp. xiii + 244. ISBN 0-415-05022-7. 
     Reviewed by William M. Owens -- Ohio University   
          owensb@ouvaxa.cats.ohiou.edu

     Kathryn Lomas's <i>Rome and the Western Greeks</i> aims to
tell the story of Magna Graecia from the point of view of the
region itself, rather than the point of view of Rome. In other
words, the author has attempted to write a history in non-Roman
terms that is both skeptical of the ancient Romanocentric sources
and places Rome, not Magna Graecia, at the margin of the story.
L.'s emphasis on regionalism and local conditions reflects the
influence of our own recent experience, in which the force
driving events is no longer the center-stage competition between
the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. but localized passions and rivalries
being played out in dozens of smaller arenas. Similarly in Magna
Graecia, L. argues, local factors may often have been more
important than the influence of Rome in shaping events.

     L. carries her emphasis on regionalism to the point where
she is often hesitant to generalize about Magna Graecia as a
whole, preferring to distinguish between larger sub-regions, such
as Campania and the South, or among the individual poleis. Thus,
L.'s approach gives the reader some notion of the diverse
economic, political, and cultural character of the region--
perhaps at the cost of imparting a sense of Magna Graecia as a
whole. L. focuses our attention on individual tesserae rather
than the whole mosaic. This may be appropriate; despite the
existence of a common Italiote League, L. argues that there is
little reliable evidence indicating what sense the inhabitants of
Magna Graecia themselves had of a communal regional identity. The
term Magna Graecia itself was elastic in meaning. At one time
embracing the whole of the Greek world, Magna Graecia, or Megale
Hellas, progressively shrank until in the Roman period it came to
indicate the Greek inhabited areas of Italy from Cumae to
Tarentum, the sense of the term that L. makes the object of her
study. L. notes that this construction of Magna Graecia as a
region may have been conditioned more by Roman perceptions than
regional self-assertion. This complicates the premise of the
book, for it is no mean task to describe Magna Graecia from the
point of view of the region, that is from a non-Romanocentric
point of view, if Magna Graecia itself existed largely as a
matter of Roman perception. On occasion L. herself adopts a
Romanocentric point of view where an alternative is possible. For
example, she argues that eastern mystery cults do not appear to
have had much of an impact on Magna Graecia because of greater
Roman circumspection after the Bacchanal scandal--and not because
of religious sensibilities peculiar to the region itself.

     L. invites us to consider her book more as an "histoire des
mentalites," focusing on cultural, political, and socio-economic
structures, than an "histoire des evenements," a narrative of
events. In fact, L. has written both kinds of history. After the
Introduction, the first five chapters provide the historical
narrative, reviewing the history of the region from the period of
earliest colonization to Augustus. In this section L. attempts to
read through the pro-Roman biases and topoi that affected the
mainly historical sources. The final five chapters focus on a
number of discrete cultural, economic, political and social
topics. Here, L. is able more successfully to counteract the
Romanocentric nature of the sources with evidence made available
by archaeologists, epigraphers, numismatists, and linguists. Her
insights and observations here regarding the nature of the
endurance of Greek cultural institutions offer the reader a rich
appreciation of interplay of cultures in southern Italy.  

     The main sources of L.'s narrative account are familiar
enough--the texts of writers such as Livy, Polybius, and Appian.
What is new is L.'s non-Romanocentric point of view. While I am
not a specialist in any of these authors, L. appears to offer a
plausible reexamination of these texts in the context of local
conditions in Magna Graecia. L.'s revisionism is particularly
apparent in her reading of Roman-Tarentine relations during the
period of Roman conquest. In a Romanocentric view, Rome was
confronted by unremitting hostility from Tarentum.[[1]] In
contrast, L. argues that Rome was not a significant factor in
determining Tarentine policy until after 320, with the opening of
a second front against the Samnites in Apulia, when Roman
consolidation of the South made the challenge to the Tarentines
clear. Lomas explains these events in their immediate context
rather than as part of a wider pattern, depicting Tarentine
policy as a series of discrete Realpolitik confrontations with
Rome rather than a consistent anti-Roman policy. Thus, in 326
when the Tarentines used a ruse to break up a developing
Roman-Lucanian alliance, Lomas sees a natural Tarentine desire to
maintain influence in the area rather than a grand anti-Roman
strategy. And in 320, when the Romans faced the Samnites near
Luceria in Apulia, the Tarentines did not join the Samnites
against the Romans. Instead, they offered to act as honest
brokers between the two disputants. 

     L. argues in general that local events and concerns were
often more important in determining the policy of the Italiote
cities than any premonition of Rome's destiny. Typically the
Italiote cities were buffeted by internal stasis and pressure
from neighboring Italians. In the case of Tarentum the picture
that L. develops is less a consistent and well defined
confrontation between two powerful states than a confused series
of localized quarrels characterized by local passions and issues,
a Bosnia rather than a Cold War era confrontation. 

     Especially interesting is L.'s suggestion that even in the
epochal struggle between Rome and Carthage local concerns
continued to play a role in shaping events. Italians seemed more
ready than the Greeks to defect from Rome; the Greek cities of
the South were more likely to break with Rome than those in
Campania. L. suggests that reasons for this may have been the
greater political stability of Campania and its longer
association with Rome, where, for example, the loyalty of Cumae
might be explained by its peculiar position on the fringes of
both the Italiote and the Italian spheres. Even the defection of
Tarentum was not necessarily motivated by inveterate hostility to
Rome, though in this case L. may be pressing her point, given
Rome's garrisoning of Tarentum and Thurii in 218 right after the
outbreak of hostilities. Elsewhere the pressure to break with
Rome could come from internal stasis or local Italian pressure
rather than Carthage. Lomas notes that after Croton broke with
Rome, the exiled, pro-Roman Crotoniates went to Locri, allied
with Carthage, rather than a city still in the Roman sphere. 

     L. completes her historical survey with an examination of a
number of topics related to Rome's settlement of the region after
the Hannibalic War down to the end of Augustus' reign, a period
ordinarily associated with the region's decline. L. rejects this
picture, and follows Brunt in the view that the economic
devastation of the Hannibalic War was temporary.[[2]] Again, L.
is inclined to see events in their local context. The foundation
of numerous Roman colonies, which in the conventional view
hastened the decline of the Italiote cities, in L.'s view had
varying effects, revealed in part by archaeology. For example,
Paestum went into decline after it was bypassed by the Via Annia
Popillia; other cities continued to thrive, particularly in
Campania. The appearance of Italiotes on inscriptions in the
eastern Mediterranean has been interpreted as evidence for
decline and emigration;[[3]] L. suggests that such inscriptions
may in fact indicate prosperity and trade. Nor, according to L,
was the lack of Italiote participation in the Social War evidence
of the region's decline; L. suggests that continuing Italiote
hostility to the Oscans and their Greek disinterest in Roman
notions of extended citizenship may have weighed against joining
the revolt.

     In the second half of the book L. continues her case against
the view of the region's decline, challenging it in ad hoc
fashion as the relevant evidence is brought into her discussion.
L. reminds us not to generalize about the region. Indeed,
microeconomic data supplied by archaeology suggest that the
fortunes of individual cities varied: some, like Tarentum,
declined while others continued to prosper, like Naples. However,
sometimes L. presses her revisionism too far, especially in cases
where the evidence is thin enough to admit explanations contrary
to hers and perhaps as plausible. For example, in the 170s
craftsmen could not be found who were able to replace the roof
tiles looted by Fulvius Flaccus from the Crotonian shrine of Hera
Lacinia. Was this an index of poverty or decline? L. says no,
suggesting instead that the incident reveals that the sanctuary
was still wealthy enough to be plundered. But Fulvius' theft of
the roof tiles may also suggest that everything else worth taking
was gone. L. may also be stretching a point in her discussion of
J. R. Patterson's analysis of the incidence of municipal building
as an indication of the prosperity and influence of the elite of
Samnium.[[4]] The elite of Magna Graecia does not fare as well by
this criterion. An index of poverty or decline? L. says no,
suggesting that because Magna Graecia had already been urbanized,
it did not need new municipal building on the same scale as
Samnium. The weakness of this argument is its assumption that
public euergetism was motivated more by municipal need than the
aristocratic desire for self-promotion. Another example of
special pleading may be in L.'s contention that few gentes from
the region achieved senatorial status not because of economic
decline, but because of "the gradual process of marginalisation
of the whole of southern Italy as the centres of economic and
political power shifted northwards." (p. 160) It is difficult to
see how this 'economic and political marginalization' of the
region differs from the notion that much of Magna Graecia may
have, indeed, been rather poor.

     In the end, I was more impressed by the arguments in favor
of the notion that the period after the Roman conquest was one of
at least relative decline. Nonetheless, L. has done a service by
reopening the debate and bringing archaeological data into the
discussion which complicates the picture of decline and suggests
that prosperity and decline could have prevailed in different
parts of Magna Graecia. 

     L. has made a valuable contribution in the second half of
the book to our understanding of what it meant to be an Italiote
Greek. She approaches this question from a number of
perspectives: the nature and significance of the contacts between
the Italiotes and the rest of the Greek world; the role of cult
and religion; the nature of political life and civic
administration in the Italiote cities; the question of
acculturation and civic identity. There is more inscriptional and
archaeological evidence available for the questions addressed in
these chapters; therefore, L. is able to come nearer to her goal
of a non-Romanocentric history because this evidence is largely
provided by the inhabitants of Magna Graecia themselves. L. shows
that some cities in the region continued to manifest aspects of
their Greek origins as late as the second century AD. This latter
period of hellenism reveals a pattern of accommodation and
adaptation to the political and cultural impact of Rome. 

     Of course, the hellenism of Magna Graecia was originally the
natural expression of the culture of the Greek colonists and
their descendants. L. notes that in the fifth and fourth
centuries BC, the region made important contributions to Greek
intellectual and cultural life. There was a strong tradition of
contacts between the western colonies and the Greeks of the
eastern Mediterranean. In particular, L. notes that Italiote
victors in pan-Hellenic festivals and Italiote dedications at
major sanctuaries such as Delphi by inhabitants of the region are
indices of Magna Graecia's early importance and prosperity. 

     L. documents a number of these manifestations of Greek
identity that continued after Roman conquest. Naples and Velia
are among the respondents to a Coan inscription from 242
recording embassies from the Asklepeion to seek the right of
asylia. A Velian inscription recording the presence of an
Aeginetan priest as curator sacrorum at the sanctuary of Athena
shows that some contacts with the eastern Greek world continued
into the first century AD. Most evidence for contacts between the
Greeks of Italy and the rest of the Greek world after 270 concern
individuals rather than states. Characteristically, L. refuses to
see in this a symptom of the region's decline, noting that for
the Greek world in general at this time there is increased
evidence for the relationship between states and individuals, as
recorded in proxeny decrees. L. notes epigraphic evidence that
Italiote Greeks were active in the eastern Mediterranean as
traders, professional athletes, musicians, and mercenaries.
Inscriptions from this period also indicate that a small number
of Italiotes registered their sons in the ephebe lists of Greek
cities in the eastern Mediterranean. Participation in the ephebia
of Athens and other Greek cities suggests that a sense of Greek
cultural identity was still alive in the second century BC; it
may also indicate, I suggest, that the observance of traditions
such as the ephebia had become weaker in Magna Graecia itself.

     The most interesting part of L.'s book is her depiction of
the survival of hellenism in Magna Graecia, particularly in the
Bay of Naples region, under the aegis of the Roman elite.[[5]]
One aspect of this patronage involved the sponsorship of Greek
games, such as the Sebasta at Naples, in whose success Nero was
instrumental. In the second century Greek culture and
institutions received a further boost from Hadrian, whose
Panhellenion provided a focus for all cities of proven Greek
origin. L. argues that under Roman patronage the region came to
play a unique and pivotal cultural role in Roman hellenism and
she considers the impact this had on the inhabitants of the
region. 

     Epigraphy indicates that three Italiote cities, Naples,
Velia, and Rhegium, preserved use of the Greek language and Greek
institutions well into the second century AD. Inscriptions tend
to illuminate select aspects of the life of an ancient city, in
particular its religious, administrative, and civic institutions.
It is difficult to assess the nature of personal cultural
assimilation through the lens of public inscriptions; other data
for private acculturation, such as ethnic identification or
private language use, are sparse. It is fascinating to speculate
on, but probably impossible to determine, in what aspects of
their lives the elites of the region considered themselves Romans
or Greeks. At Velia, for example, while Greek was actively
promoted and continued to be used in honorific decrees, personal
funerary dedications tended to be in Latin. It is tempting to
conclude from this that the Velian elite considered themselves
Roman in the context of private life; however, even such personal
funerary dedications were public statements, so we cannot know
for sure. And it is even more difficult to assess the nature of
acculturation for those outside the elite. L.'s approach is
conservative and avoids speculation about the nature of private
acculturation, tempting as this may be. Even without such
speculation she provides a fascinating picture of the artificial
hellenism that survived in these cities through the first two
centuries AD. 

     Strabo observed (5.4.7) that Naples retained Greek language
and social practices after 90 BC. This is confirmed by Neapolitan
inscriptions revealing a wide variety of Greek magistracies and
institutions, apparently honorific in character. Similarly at
Velia Greek was actively promoted and continued to be used for
ceremonial purposes; at Rhegium the formula <i>ek tou idiou</i>
in association with the magistracy of prytanis indicates that the
original office had become a liturgy, most often filled by
families of Roman extraction, a pattern which is observed
throughout the South.

     L. considers this data in a cultural context and sees a
complex picture of cultural accommodation and assimilation. In
general, Greek magistracies were retained, and the Greek language
continued to be used, for purposes of elite euergetism and public
display, in particular, the celebration of Greek festivals and
the granting of public honors. Another significant aspect of the
Greek revival was its archaism; for instance, Neapolitan
phratries, originally kinship groups of archaic origin, were
revived as elite clubs that served as a focus for social
relations for the Neapolitan elite and included prominent Romans
among their members. Thus, the survival of hellenism in these
cities shares the characteristics of euergetism and archaism
notable in the hellenic revival in the Greek East. L. offers a
compelling illustration of the process of acculturation with an
AD 71 decree honoring Tettia Casta, a priestess, probably of
Demeter at Naples, and possibly the wife of Domitius Lepidus.
L.'s discussion reveals the complex intertwining of Greek and
Roman cultures; the Greek language, form, and content of this
dedication and the Roman names of the principals--the honorand,
Tettia Casta, Domitius Lepidus, and the archon and antarchon,
Julius Laevinus and Tranquillus Rufus--suggest a complex cultural
product of a romanized but self-consciously hellenizing elite.
L.'s judgment that the Roman revival of hellenism in Magna
Graecia was an artificial cultural phenomenon reflecting Roman
notions about Greek culture rather than the genuine survival of
that culture in Italy itself should not be surprising--after all,
the Romans had been accommodating Greek culture to their needs
for almost four centuries. 

     This is a useful book in which is assembled an impressive
range of data, evidence, and secondary scholarship. L.'s
narrative account offers a plausible and interesting rereading of
the region's history from a non-Romanocentric point of view. Her
depiction of social and cultural life in the region contributes
to our understanding of Roman hellenism and the impact Rome made
on the social and cultural institutions of the Greek cities of
Italy. While L. herself conservatively avoids speculation, the
evidence she has carefully assembled allows us better to imagine
what role the notions of "Greek" and "Roman" came to mean in the
lives of the inhabitants of Magna Graecia.


NOTES

[[1]] Cf. M.W. Frederiksen, <i>Campania</i>, ed. N. Purcell
(London, 1984).

[[2]] P.A. Brunt, <i>Italian Manpower</i> (Oxford, 1971).

[[3]] Cf. L. Moretti, "Problemi di storia tarantina," <i>Taranto
nella civilta della Magna Grecia</i>. Atti di 10o Convegno di
studi sulla Magna Grecia (Naples, 1971).

[[4]] J.R. Patterson, "Settlement, City and Elite in Samnium and
Lycia," in J. Rich and A.F. Wallace-Hadrill (edd.), <i>City and
Country in the Ancient World</i> (London, 1990).

[[5]] Cf. John D'Arms, <i>Romans and the Bay of Naples</i>
(Cambridge, Mass., 1970).