- Dipartimento di Discipline Umanistiche, Sociali e delle Imprese Culturali
Via Massimo D'Azeglio 85
43125 Parma
Italy
- The University of Texas at Austin, Classics, Faculty Memberadd
- Athenian Imperialism, Ancient Greek History, Greek Epigraphy, Greek Economy, History of salt, Hellenistic History, and 13 moreAthenian Democracy, Greek Law, Archaeology of salt, Graeco-Roman Egypt, Hellenistic and Roman Asia Minor, Papyrology, Seleucid Empire, Athens and Attica, Classics, Ancient History, Greek Papyrology, Ancient economy, and Ancient Greek Epigraphyedit
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
The aim of this paper is to show how the format of Athenian building accounts inscribed on stone evolved over the course of time as well as to discuss possible reasons for this development and for the concurrent appearance of building... more
The aim of this paper is to show how the format of Athenian building accounts inscribed on stone evolved over the course of time as well as to discuss possible reasons for this development and for the concurrent appearance of building specifications in the epigraphic record.
Through a survey of the most important examples of building accounts, I demonstrate that during the years 440s and 430s these inscriptions moved from a more cursory and concise format (e.g. IG I³ 433 and 434) to a format in which a well-ordered list of receipts and expenditures was laid out in “tabular” form, with the use of visual devices that created an “user-friendly interface” (e.g. IG I³ 436-471). Then, starting from the 420s, building accounts began to display an increasing level of details, moving towards a more “narrative” format (e.g. IG I³ 472 and 475-476). In doing so, however, inscribed texts became more crowded and most of the visual devices adopted before were abandoned. As a result, the effectiveness of the accounts’ purpose – to celebrate the grandeur of Athens’ achievements by pointing to the size of the relevant monetary figures – ended up being almost obscured in favor of what appears, at first sight, a more “bureaucratic” concern.
In order to explain this change, scholars have looked at the difficult financial situation that Athens was facing in the war against Sparta and to the political crisis that had led to the abolition and then restoration of the democracy in 411-410. These political and financial concerns would have sparked the need for an increased level of accountability and transparency from the part of public officials and led to the inscribing of documents that enabled the public to inspect more closely the conduct of said officials (e.g. Davis 1948, Wittenburg 1978, Feyel 2006, Epstein 2013).
Conversely, I argue that this change was not driven by a specific financial and political situation nor by an increased preoccupation with the accountability of public officials but was the result of a development in the epigraphic habit and the way in which the Athenians chose to celebrate their achievements. The same trend – i.e. shifting from a “tabular” to a “narrative” format and moving attention from money figures to the human and logistics resources and the ingenuity the city deployed to achieve its endeavors – can explain why building accounts seem to go out of fashion in the 4th c. and are gradually replaced, in the epigraphic record, by building specifications. These texts, where monetary figures were dispensable and technical instructions took most of the space (e.g. IG II² 1668), were heavily focused on the level of accomplishment necessary to achieve a building project, and had the further advantage of celebrating that achievement even when the building itself – the tangible proof of the city’s accomplishment – was yet to come.
Selected Bibliography
Burford, A. 1971. “The Purpose of Inscribed Building Accounts”, Acta of the Fifth International Congress of Greek and Latin Epigraphy, Oxford: 71-76.
Carusi, C. 2006. “Alcune considerazioni sulle syngraphai ateniesi del V e IV secolo a.C.”, ASAA 84: 11-36.
Davies, J.K. 1994. “Accounts and Accountability in Classical Athens”, in R. Osborne and S. Hornblower (eds.), Ritual, Finance, Politics: Athenian Democratic Accounts presented to D.M. Lewis, Oxford: 201-212.
Davies, J.K. 2003. “Greek Archives: From Record to Monument”, in M. Brosius (ed.), Ancient Archives and Archival Traditions. Concepts of Record-Keeping in the Ancient World, Oxford: 323-343.
Davis, P.H. 1948. “In the Workshop of the Erechtheion”, AJA 52: 485-489.
Epstein, Sh. 2013. “Attic Building Accounts from Euthynae to Stelae”, in M. Faraguna (ed.), Archives and Archival Documents in Ancient Societies, Trieste: 127-141.
Feyel, Chr. 2006. Les artisans dans les sanctuaires grecs aux époques classique et hellénistique, Athens.
Marginesu, G. 2009. “Note sui rendiconti ateniesi di statue del V secolo a.C.”, PP 64: 460-474.
Marginesu, G. 2010. Gli epistati dell’Acropoli: edilizia sacra nella città di Pericle, 447/6-433/2 a.C., Paestum.
Rhodes, P.J. 2001. “Public Documents in the Greek States: Archives and Inscriptions. Part I. Part II”, G&R 48: 33-44, 136-153.
Wittenburg, A. 1978. Grieschische Baukommisionen des 5. und 4. Jahrhunderts, München.
Through a survey of the most important examples of building accounts, I demonstrate that during the years 440s and 430s these inscriptions moved from a more cursory and concise format (e.g. IG I³ 433 and 434) to a format in which a well-ordered list of receipts and expenditures was laid out in “tabular” form, with the use of visual devices that created an “user-friendly interface” (e.g. IG I³ 436-471). Then, starting from the 420s, building accounts began to display an increasing level of details, moving towards a more “narrative” format (e.g. IG I³ 472 and 475-476). In doing so, however, inscribed texts became more crowded and most of the visual devices adopted before were abandoned. As a result, the effectiveness of the accounts’ purpose – to celebrate the grandeur of Athens’ achievements by pointing to the size of the relevant monetary figures – ended up being almost obscured in favor of what appears, at first sight, a more “bureaucratic” concern.
In order to explain this change, scholars have looked at the difficult financial situation that Athens was facing in the war against Sparta and to the political crisis that had led to the abolition and then restoration of the democracy in 411-410. These political and financial concerns would have sparked the need for an increased level of accountability and transparency from the part of public officials and led to the inscribing of documents that enabled the public to inspect more closely the conduct of said officials (e.g. Davis 1948, Wittenburg 1978, Feyel 2006, Epstein 2013).
Conversely, I argue that this change was not driven by a specific financial and political situation nor by an increased preoccupation with the accountability of public officials but was the result of a development in the epigraphic habit and the way in which the Athenians chose to celebrate their achievements. The same trend – i.e. shifting from a “tabular” to a “narrative” format and moving attention from money figures to the human and logistics resources and the ingenuity the city deployed to achieve its endeavors – can explain why building accounts seem to go out of fashion in the 4th c. and are gradually replaced, in the epigraphic record, by building specifications. These texts, where monetary figures were dispensable and technical instructions took most of the space (e.g. IG II² 1668), were heavily focused on the level of accomplishment necessary to achieve a building project, and had the further advantage of celebrating that achievement even when the building itself – the tangible proof of the city’s accomplishment – was yet to come.
Selected Bibliography
Burford, A. 1971. “The Purpose of Inscribed Building Accounts”, Acta of the Fifth International Congress of Greek and Latin Epigraphy, Oxford: 71-76.
Carusi, C. 2006. “Alcune considerazioni sulle syngraphai ateniesi del V e IV secolo a.C.”, ASAA 84: 11-36.
Davies, J.K. 1994. “Accounts and Accountability in Classical Athens”, in R. Osborne and S. Hornblower (eds.), Ritual, Finance, Politics: Athenian Democratic Accounts presented to D.M. Lewis, Oxford: 201-212.
Davies, J.K. 2003. “Greek Archives: From Record to Monument”, in M. Brosius (ed.), Ancient Archives and Archival Traditions. Concepts of Record-Keeping in the Ancient World, Oxford: 323-343.
Davis, P.H. 1948. “In the Workshop of the Erechtheion”, AJA 52: 485-489.
Epstein, Sh. 2013. “Attic Building Accounts from Euthynae to Stelae”, in M. Faraguna (ed.), Archives and Archival Documents in Ancient Societies, Trieste: 127-141.
Feyel, Chr. 2006. Les artisans dans les sanctuaires grecs aux époques classique et hellénistique, Athens.
Marginesu, G. 2009. “Note sui rendiconti ateniesi di statue del V secolo a.C.”, PP 64: 460-474.
Marginesu, G. 2010. Gli epistati dell’Acropoli: edilizia sacra nella città di Pericle, 447/6-433/2 a.C., Paestum.
Rhodes, P.J. 2001. “Public Documents in the Greek States: Archives and Inscriptions. Part I. Part II”, G&R 48: 33-44, 136-153.
Wittenburg, A. 1978. Grieschische Baukommisionen des 5. und 4. Jahrhunderts, München.
The goal of this paper is to ascertain within which legal framework Athenian magistrates of the Classical age recruited and remunerated workers for the completion of public building projects. My analysis takes its cue from a... more
The goal of this paper is to ascertain within which legal framework Athenian magistrates of the Classical age recruited and remunerated workers for the completion of public building projects.
My analysis takes its cue from a terminological oddity. While in the rest of the Greek world the vocabulary pertaining to the awarding and undertaking of building works belongs to the lexical sphere of sale (cf. words like ἐργώνης, i.e. "contractor", and ἐργωνεῖν, i.e. "to contract for a work"), in Attica the same vocabulary belongs to the lexical sphere of μισθός (cf. words like μισθωταί and μισθωσάμενοι, i.e. "contractors", and μισθοῦν, i.e. "to farm out by contract").
Current scholarship takes this peculiarity as evidence that, originally, the Athenians used to hire workers directly and pay them through a daily rate system or a piecework system (μισθός having here the meaning of "wage" or "remuneration in exchange of a work performed"). This practice would be specific to Athens and result in an extreme fragmentation of building projects, usually split in many small portions assigned to many different workers. By contrast, cities and sanctuaries outside Attica used to contract out (or "sell") an entire project or large portions of it to big entrepreneurs by means of the legal instrument of building contracts, awarded through public auctions (Martini 1997).
According to this viewpoint, the elaboration and use of building contracts would be linked to small or remote places, such as Epidaurus, Delphi, and Delos, where the availability of skilled labor was scarce and the sale by auction of building contracts was necessary to attract and keep hold of skilled workers with the promise of important and long-term jobs (Feyel 2006). In Athens, however, the large availability of skilled workers, attracted by the lively economy and ambitious projects of the 5th c., led the city to adopt the system of direct recruitment. Only later, in the 4th c., when skilled labor became scarcer even in Athens, the letting out on contract of building works came into use, even if the terminology, originally shaped by the idea of μισθός, remained linked to the old practice (Davis 1937; Burford 1969; Schaps 1996).
Against this background, and with the aid of several pieces of evidence (e.g. Hdt. 5.62; IG I³ 35; IG I³ 475-476), I argue that despite the different terminology forms of agreement with the same features of building contracts are attested in Athens from mid-5th c. on. In addition, I maintain that the adoption of these agreements was not necessarily linked to the execution of more complex and expensive jobs than those paid through a daily rate system or a piecework system. Finally, I conclude that, in line with the dynamics and composition of the labor market, no significant change in the system of labor recruitment and remuneration occurred in Athens and both direct hiring and building contracts were frequently employed to complete different parts of the same project in the 5th as well as in the 4th c.
Select bibliography
Burford, A. 1969. The Greek Temple Builders at Epidauros. Liverpool.
Davis, P.H. 1937. “The Delian Building Contracts”, BCH 61: 109-135.
Feyel, Ch. 2006. Les artisans dans les sanctuaires grecs aux époques classique et hellénistique à travers la documentation financière en Grèce. Athènes.
Martini, R. 1997. “Lavori pubblici e appalto nella Grecia antica”. In I rapporti contrattuali con la pubblica amministrazione nell’esperienza storico-giuridica. Napoli: 37-53.
Schaps, D.M. 1996. “Builders, Contractors, and Power: Financing and Administering Building Projects in Ancient Greece”. In Classical Studies in Honor of David Sohlberg, Ramat Gan: 77-89.
My analysis takes its cue from a terminological oddity. While in the rest of the Greek world the vocabulary pertaining to the awarding and undertaking of building works belongs to the lexical sphere of sale (cf. words like ἐργώνης, i.e. "contractor", and ἐργωνεῖν, i.e. "to contract for a work"), in Attica the same vocabulary belongs to the lexical sphere of μισθός (cf. words like μισθωταί and μισθωσάμενοι, i.e. "contractors", and μισθοῦν, i.e. "to farm out by contract").
Current scholarship takes this peculiarity as evidence that, originally, the Athenians used to hire workers directly and pay them through a daily rate system or a piecework system (μισθός having here the meaning of "wage" or "remuneration in exchange of a work performed"). This practice would be specific to Athens and result in an extreme fragmentation of building projects, usually split in many small portions assigned to many different workers. By contrast, cities and sanctuaries outside Attica used to contract out (or "sell") an entire project or large portions of it to big entrepreneurs by means of the legal instrument of building contracts, awarded through public auctions (Martini 1997).
According to this viewpoint, the elaboration and use of building contracts would be linked to small or remote places, such as Epidaurus, Delphi, and Delos, where the availability of skilled labor was scarce and the sale by auction of building contracts was necessary to attract and keep hold of skilled workers with the promise of important and long-term jobs (Feyel 2006). In Athens, however, the large availability of skilled workers, attracted by the lively economy and ambitious projects of the 5th c., led the city to adopt the system of direct recruitment. Only later, in the 4th c., when skilled labor became scarcer even in Athens, the letting out on contract of building works came into use, even if the terminology, originally shaped by the idea of μισθός, remained linked to the old practice (Davis 1937; Burford 1969; Schaps 1996).
Against this background, and with the aid of several pieces of evidence (e.g. Hdt. 5.62; IG I³ 35; IG I³ 475-476), I argue that despite the different terminology forms of agreement with the same features of building contracts are attested in Athens from mid-5th c. on. In addition, I maintain that the adoption of these agreements was not necessarily linked to the execution of more complex and expensive jobs than those paid through a daily rate system or a piecework system. Finally, I conclude that, in line with the dynamics and composition of the labor market, no significant change in the system of labor recruitment and remuneration occurred in Athens and both direct hiring and building contracts were frequently employed to complete different parts of the same project in the 5th as well as in the 4th c.
Select bibliography
Burford, A. 1969. The Greek Temple Builders at Epidauros. Liverpool.
Davis, P.H. 1937. “The Delian Building Contracts”, BCH 61: 109-135.
Feyel, Ch. 2006. Les artisans dans les sanctuaires grecs aux époques classique et hellénistique à travers la documentation financière en Grèce. Athènes.
Martini, R. 1997. “Lavori pubblici e appalto nella Grecia antica”. In I rapporti contrattuali con la pubblica amministrazione nell’esperienza storico-giuridica. Napoli: 37-53.
Schaps, D.M. 1996. “Builders, Contractors, and Power: Financing and Administering Building Projects in Ancient Greece”. In Classical Studies in Honor of David Sohlberg, Ramat Gan: 77-89.
The goal of this paper is to demonstrate that, contrary to the traditional view, there existed in Athens a regularly organized construction industry, i.e. a fairly stable number of workers who made their living from their skills in this... more
The goal of this paper is to demonstrate that, contrary to the traditional view, there existed in Athens a regularly organized construction industry, i.e. a fairly stable number of workers who made their living from their skills in this sector.
According to the traditional view, public building in ancient Greece was mostly an occasional and sporadic activity, calling for specialized skills that were beyond the regular demand of any given city. Such being the case, only a small number of local craftsmen could expect to make a living from their skills in this sector when public building projects were not going on and not even such a lively center as Athens could accommodate a large number of builders on a permanent basis. As a result, the construction industry was largely made up of travelling craftsmen, plus the accessory contribution of some local workers who found employment in public building projects only as a subsidiary activity. In other words, the crucial problem that any given city was facing when realizing building projects was not the lack of money but the widespread scarcity of skilled labor to do the job.
However, through a fresh re-examination of the Athenian building accounts of the 5th and 4th c. (e.g. IG I³ 475-476; I.Eleusis 159 and 177), I intend to show that the traditional viewpoint needs to be revised. In particular, the level of horizontal specialization attested in the accounts indicates that the demand for the services of workers whose trade was part of the construction industry (e.g. stonemasons, carpenters, brick masons, etc.) was usually considerable, even in years not characterized by a high density of public projects. In the same way, the pattern of slave ownership and the pay scale of workers suggest that several of them, in particular stonemasons, were usually able to command a sizable volume of business. In addition, building accounts reveal that even in years characterized by a higher density of public projects the construction industry was able to meet the increased demand of the market thanks to the versatility of workers within their own trade and their willingness to establish ad-hoc partnerships with other colleagues in order to carry out more onerous jobs.
All this, in my opinion, points to the existence, in classical Athens, of a regularly organized construction industry, i.e. not made up only of travelling craftsmen and occasional workers, and speaks against the traditional idea that the shortage of skilled labor was one of the main challenge of public construction programs.
According to the traditional view, public building in ancient Greece was mostly an occasional and sporadic activity, calling for specialized skills that were beyond the regular demand of any given city. Such being the case, only a small number of local craftsmen could expect to make a living from their skills in this sector when public building projects were not going on and not even such a lively center as Athens could accommodate a large number of builders on a permanent basis. As a result, the construction industry was largely made up of travelling craftsmen, plus the accessory contribution of some local workers who found employment in public building projects only as a subsidiary activity. In other words, the crucial problem that any given city was facing when realizing building projects was not the lack of money but the widespread scarcity of skilled labor to do the job.
However, through a fresh re-examination of the Athenian building accounts of the 5th and 4th c. (e.g. IG I³ 475-476; I.Eleusis 159 and 177), I intend to show that the traditional viewpoint needs to be revised. In particular, the level of horizontal specialization attested in the accounts indicates that the demand for the services of workers whose trade was part of the construction industry (e.g. stonemasons, carpenters, brick masons, etc.) was usually considerable, even in years not characterized by a high density of public projects. In the same way, the pattern of slave ownership and the pay scale of workers suggest that several of them, in particular stonemasons, were usually able to command a sizable volume of business. In addition, building accounts reveal that even in years characterized by a higher density of public projects the construction industry was able to meet the increased demand of the market thanks to the versatility of workers within their own trade and their willingness to establish ad-hoc partnerships with other colleagues in order to carry out more onerous jobs.
All this, in my opinion, points to the existence, in classical Athens, of a regularly organized construction industry, i.e. not made up only of travelling craftsmen and occasional workers, and speaks against the traditional idea that the shortage of skilled labor was one of the main challenge of public construction programs.
In this paper I will first compare the demand for salt generated by dietary needs with the availability and production of salt around the ancient Mediterranean, to show that the level of demand created by dietary consumption and domestic... more
In this paper I will first compare the demand for salt generated by dietary needs with the availability and production of salt around the ancient Mediterranean, to show that the level of demand created by dietary consumption and domestic uses could be fulfilled, in most cases, by local resources. The extremely rare references to interregional salt trade in literary and documentary sources can certainly corroborate this idea. As a bulky commodity with little economic value, salt was probably too expensive to be transported on the long distance and was more conveniently obtainable from local resources.
However, the situation was different when large-scale productive activities involving the use of salt were concerned, the most obvious example being fish processing. The production and widespread distribution of processed fish required a steady supply of both fish and salt. Salt only was able to transform fish – which is otherwise extremely perishable – into a durable commodity, easy to store and trade, with a high economic value. So, when salt was not available in sufficient quantity at the local level, interregional trade became crucial. It was the strategic relevance of salt at certain large-scale processing centers that transformed it in an economically significant resource and made interregional trade convenient. It was also through the medium of processed fish that the surplus of salt production available in certain regions was redistributed across the Mediterranean and came to play an important, although indirect role, in interregional and long-distance trade.
However, the situation was different when large-scale productive activities involving the use of salt were concerned, the most obvious example being fish processing. The production and widespread distribution of processed fish required a steady supply of both fish and salt. Salt only was able to transform fish – which is otherwise extremely perishable – into a durable commodity, easy to store and trade, with a high economic value. So, when salt was not available in sufficient quantity at the local level, interregional trade became crucial. It was the strategic relevance of salt at certain large-scale processing centers that transformed it in an economically significant resource and made interregional trade convenient. It was also through the medium of processed fish that the surplus of salt production available in certain regions was redistributed across the Mediterranean and came to play an important, although indirect role, in interregional and long-distance trade.
In this paper I intend to discuss the relationship between and the different function of archival copies and the temporary and permanent display of public contracts in classical Athens in the light of a specific case study, i.e. the... more
In this paper I intend to discuss the relationship between and the different function of archival copies and the temporary and permanent display of public contracts in classical Athens in the light of a specific case study, i.e. the epigraphic dossier concerning the lease of the Piraeus theatre in 324/3 (Agora XIX L13).
This dossier has recently being the subject of much scholarly debate as the only document unarguably attesting a lease agreement as a form of management of an ancient theatre. In my opinion, however, the dossier reveals many other peculiar aspects that deserve a closer attention. Among them I find particularly intriguing the publication clause of ll. 25-28. By examining this clause in detail and quoting several other epigraphic parallels, I will argue the following points:
1. The first document inscribed on the stele (l. 1-31), whose incipit is lost, was a decree of the Piraeus deme authorizing the lease of the theatre and describing the conditions of the lease. The decree was set up in the Athenian agora (where fragments of the stele have been found).
2. The clause of the decree ordering the demarch and the treasurers to inscribe copies of the lease agreement (synthekai ) on a stone stele and place them in the deme’s agora (l. 25-27) does not refer to our stele, but to a different stone, originally set up in Piraeus agora and now lost.
3. The clause of l. 27-28, which according to the most common interpretation ordered the demarch and the treasurers to add to the Piraeus stele the name of the person with whom the synthekai will be deposited, is clearly at odd with what we know of the recording of public contracts in classical Athens. In fact, public transactions were usually recorded in public archives and not deposited with a third party, namely a private individual, as happened in private transactions.
4. Rather, the clause ordered the demarch and the treasurers to inscribe the name(s) of the future lessees of the theatre “wherever the archival copies of the synthekai will be deposited” (i.e. in whichever spot of the deme’s record office they will be deposited).
5. The publication clause of our lease agreement confirms once more that public contracts were usually recorded in public archives in addition to be temporary and/or permanently displayed in public spaces for anyone who wished to examine them.
6. The fact that our deme’s decree was displayed in the Athenian agora was due to the exceptional position of the Piraeus theatre within the polis of Athens and to the relevance that this lease agreement had for the whole community. This is consistent with the idea that the inscribing on stone and permanent display of public contracts, rather than advertising the content of the agreements for sheer practical needs, was mainly intended to emphasize and literally erect a monument to the specific relevance of certain initiatives undertaken by the polis and its components.
This dossier has recently being the subject of much scholarly debate as the only document unarguably attesting a lease agreement as a form of management of an ancient theatre. In my opinion, however, the dossier reveals many other peculiar aspects that deserve a closer attention. Among them I find particularly intriguing the publication clause of ll. 25-28. By examining this clause in detail and quoting several other epigraphic parallels, I will argue the following points:
1. The first document inscribed on the stele (l. 1-31), whose incipit is lost, was a decree of the Piraeus deme authorizing the lease of the theatre and describing the conditions of the lease. The decree was set up in the Athenian agora (where fragments of the stele have been found).
2. The clause of the decree ordering the demarch and the treasurers to inscribe copies of the lease agreement (synthekai ) on a stone stele and place them in the deme’s agora (l. 25-27) does not refer to our stele, but to a different stone, originally set up in Piraeus agora and now lost.
3. The clause of l. 27-28, which according to the most common interpretation ordered the demarch and the treasurers to add to the Piraeus stele the name of the person with whom the synthekai will be deposited, is clearly at odd with what we know of the recording of public contracts in classical Athens. In fact, public transactions were usually recorded in public archives and not deposited with a third party, namely a private individual, as happened in private transactions.
4. Rather, the clause ordered the demarch and the treasurers to inscribe the name(s) of the future lessees of the theatre “wherever the archival copies of the synthekai will be deposited” (i.e. in whichever spot of the deme’s record office they will be deposited).
5. The publication clause of our lease agreement confirms once more that public contracts were usually recorded in public archives in addition to be temporary and/or permanently displayed in public spaces for anyone who wished to examine them.
6. The fact that our deme’s decree was displayed in the Athenian agora was due to the exceptional position of the Piraeus theatre within the polis of Athens and to the relevance that this lease agreement had for the whole community. This is consistent with the idea that the inscribing on stone and permanent display of public contracts, rather than advertising the content of the agreements for sheer practical needs, was mainly intended to emphasize and literally erect a monument to the specific relevance of certain initiatives undertaken by the polis and its components.
In this paper I reconsider the system of labor recruitment and remuneration in public building projects of classical Athens in the light of a specific terminological problem and argue that the choices of the city in this sector were... more
In this paper I reconsider the system of labor recruitment and remuneration in public building projects of classical Athens in the light of a specific terminological problem and argue that the choices of the city in this sector were strictly linked to the dynamics of the Athenian labor market. In my opinion the composition of the labor market is crucial to understand the social and economic impact of building projects in redistributing public money among the people and to what extent the perceived democratic nature of public works (e.g. Plu., Per. 12) was linked to this specific function.
Current scholarship assumes that in the 5th c. the city of Athens used to carry out large and complex projects by hiring the workers directly, usually by the day, or paying them by the piece of work done, thus splitting each project in a number of small portions assigned to many different workers. The large affluence of skilled workers due to the ambitious Periclean projects made possible and encouraged such a practice. This seems confirmed by the fact that in Attic sources the recruitment of workers for building projects is labeled as a transaction pertaining to the sphere of the μισθός (public officials assigning the works and individuals undertaking them are indicated respectively by the active and middle voices of the verb μισθόω and its compounds) (Martini 1997).
By contrast, in non-Attic sources of the 4th-2nd c., the terminology concerning the assignment and undertaking of building works belong to the sphere of the ὠνή (e.g. ἐργώναι, ἐργωνέω, ἐργολαβέω) and indicates the use of building contracts, through which large portions of works were “sold” to individuals through public auctions. The elaboration and use of building contracts is traditionally linked to small or remote places, such as Epidaurus, Delphi, and Delos, where the availability of skilled labor and building material was scarcer than in large urban centers. In this context, building contracts allowed the commissioning bodies to attract and keep hold of qualified entrepreneurs with the promise of important and long-term jobs, as a response to the instable nature of this kind of skilled labor (Feyel 2006). Only in the 4th c., when skilled labor became scarcer even in Athens, the city opted for the contracting out of large portions of works to “big firms”, even if the terminology remained linked to the old practice (Davis 1937; Burford 1969; Schaps 1996).
However, with the aid of several pieces of evidence (Hdt. 5.62; IG I³ 35; IG I³ 475-476), I will argue that despite the peculiar terminology, forms of agreement with the same features of building contracts are attested in Athens from mid-5th c. on, and that their adoption doesn’t seem related to the necessity to contract out larger or more complex portions of works. Moreover, I will argue that no significant change in the system of labor recruitment occurred in Athens between the 5th and 4th c. and that both direct hiring and building contracts were frequently employed even to complete different parts of the same project.
The number of large-scale building projects was not large enough, or so constant in time, to encourage the development of big firms capable of undertaking large works. In this respect the fragmentation of works and the diversification of systems of labor recruitment, with the combination of both direct hiring and building contracts, was the only logical strategy to respond to the fragmentation of the labor market and achieve the completion of works in the most cost-effective and efficient way.
The fragmentation of the labor market confirms that both in the 5th and 4th c. building projects performed the “democratic” task of redistributing public revenues among the people. However, I will argue that it was the increasing role of private wealth in funding public works that in the 4th c. substantially changed the democratic nature and purpose of large building projects.
Burford, A., The Greek Temple Builders at Epidauros, Liverpool 1969.
Caskey, L.D., “The Inscriptions”, in The Erechtheum, measured, drawn, and restored, ed. by J.M. Paton, Cambridge, MA 1927.
Clinton, K., Eleusis. The Inscription on Stone. Documents of the Sanctuary of the Two Goddesses and Public Documents of the Deme, I-II, Athens 2005-2008.
Davis, P.H., “The Delian Building Contracts”, BCH 61 (1937): 109-135.
Feyel, Ch., Les artisans dans les sanctuaires grecs aux époques classique et hellénistique à travers la documentation financière en Grèce, Athènes 2006.
Martini, R., “Lavori pubblici e appalto nella Grecia antica”, in I rapporti contrattuali con la pubblica amministrazione nell’esperienza storico-giuridica, Napoli 1997: 37-53.
Schaps, D.M., “Builders, Contractors, and Power: Financing and Administering Building Projects in Ancient Greece”, in Classical Studies in Honor of David Sohlberg, Ramat Gan 1996: 77-89.
Current scholarship assumes that in the 5th c. the city of Athens used to carry out large and complex projects by hiring the workers directly, usually by the day, or paying them by the piece of work done, thus splitting each project in a number of small portions assigned to many different workers. The large affluence of skilled workers due to the ambitious Periclean projects made possible and encouraged such a practice. This seems confirmed by the fact that in Attic sources the recruitment of workers for building projects is labeled as a transaction pertaining to the sphere of the μισθός (public officials assigning the works and individuals undertaking them are indicated respectively by the active and middle voices of the verb μισθόω and its compounds) (Martini 1997).
By contrast, in non-Attic sources of the 4th-2nd c., the terminology concerning the assignment and undertaking of building works belong to the sphere of the ὠνή (e.g. ἐργώναι, ἐργωνέω, ἐργολαβέω) and indicates the use of building contracts, through which large portions of works were “sold” to individuals through public auctions. The elaboration and use of building contracts is traditionally linked to small or remote places, such as Epidaurus, Delphi, and Delos, where the availability of skilled labor and building material was scarcer than in large urban centers. In this context, building contracts allowed the commissioning bodies to attract and keep hold of qualified entrepreneurs with the promise of important and long-term jobs, as a response to the instable nature of this kind of skilled labor (Feyel 2006). Only in the 4th c., when skilled labor became scarcer even in Athens, the city opted for the contracting out of large portions of works to “big firms”, even if the terminology remained linked to the old practice (Davis 1937; Burford 1969; Schaps 1996).
However, with the aid of several pieces of evidence (Hdt. 5.62; IG I³ 35; IG I³ 475-476), I will argue that despite the peculiar terminology, forms of agreement with the same features of building contracts are attested in Athens from mid-5th c. on, and that their adoption doesn’t seem related to the necessity to contract out larger or more complex portions of works. Moreover, I will argue that no significant change in the system of labor recruitment occurred in Athens between the 5th and 4th c. and that both direct hiring and building contracts were frequently employed even to complete different parts of the same project.
The number of large-scale building projects was not large enough, or so constant in time, to encourage the development of big firms capable of undertaking large works. In this respect the fragmentation of works and the diversification of systems of labor recruitment, with the combination of both direct hiring and building contracts, was the only logical strategy to respond to the fragmentation of the labor market and achieve the completion of works in the most cost-effective and efficient way.
The fragmentation of the labor market confirms that both in the 5th and 4th c. building projects performed the “democratic” task of redistributing public revenues among the people. However, I will argue that it was the increasing role of private wealth in funding public works that in the 4th c. substantially changed the democratic nature and purpose of large building projects.
Burford, A., The Greek Temple Builders at Epidauros, Liverpool 1969.
Caskey, L.D., “The Inscriptions”, in The Erechtheum, measured, drawn, and restored, ed. by J.M. Paton, Cambridge, MA 1927.
Clinton, K., Eleusis. The Inscription on Stone. Documents of the Sanctuary of the Two Goddesses and Public Documents of the Deme, I-II, Athens 2005-2008.
Davis, P.H., “The Delian Building Contracts”, BCH 61 (1937): 109-135.
Feyel, Ch., Les artisans dans les sanctuaires grecs aux époques classique et hellénistique à travers la documentation financière en Grèce, Athènes 2006.
Martini, R., “Lavori pubblici e appalto nella Grecia antica”, in I rapporti contrattuali con la pubblica amministrazione nell’esperienza storico-giuridica, Napoli 1997: 37-53.
Schaps, D.M., “Builders, Contractors, and Power: Financing and Administering Building Projects in Ancient Greece”, in Classical Studies in Honor of David Sohlberg, Ramat Gan 1996: 77-89.
In this talkI will discuss the textual arrangement of inscriptions containing Athenian syngraphai of the 5th and 4th c. BCE. In this context the term syngraphai indicates the documents that detailed instructions and contractual clauses... more
In this talkI will discuss the textual arrangement of inscriptions containing Athenian syngraphai of the 5th and 4th c. BCE. In this context the term syngraphai indicates the documents that detailed instructions and contractual clauses for the construction of public building; in other words, what we might call today preliminary projects and building specifications.
On the basis of the textual arrangement of the inscriptions, I will deal with the main characteristics of this category of documents, and I will show how they are clearly recognizable and isolable, even when they are inscribed alongside or embedded in different categories of documents, such as laws and decrees.
I will argue that the ‘monumental’ inscribed texts were only abridged versions of more detailed dossiers written on perishable material and preserved in public archives. I will discuss the relationship between the extant inscribed texts and the conjecturable archive copies, as well as the relationship between the content of the syngraphai and their places of publication.
On the basis of these observations, I will argue that the publication on stone of syngraphai did not meet the practical need to convey useful information to the individuals involved in building projects. In most cases, inscribed syngraphai had an essentially political goal: they aimed to underline the nature and importance of certain building initiatives undertaken by the polis and to perpetuate their memory.
On the basis of the textual arrangement of the inscriptions, I will deal with the main characteristics of this category of documents, and I will show how they are clearly recognizable and isolable, even when they are inscribed alongside or embedded in different categories of documents, such as laws and decrees.
I will argue that the ‘monumental’ inscribed texts were only abridged versions of more detailed dossiers written on perishable material and preserved in public archives. I will discuss the relationship between the extant inscribed texts and the conjecturable archive copies, as well as the relationship between the content of the syngraphai and their places of publication.
On the basis of these observations, I will argue that the publication on stone of syngraphai did not meet the practical need to convey useful information to the individuals involved in building projects. In most cases, inscribed syngraphai had an essentially political goal: they aimed to underline the nature and importance of certain building initiatives undertaken by the polis and to perpetuate their memory.
In this paper I will try to assess the demand for salt of a Greek community, as defined by the dietary needs of the population and the uses associated with other activities, in particular fish salting. By taking Cato’s ration for slaves... more
In this paper I will try to assess the demand for salt of a Greek community, as defined by the dietary needs of the population and the uses associated with other activities, in particular fish salting.
By taking Cato’s ration for slaves (De agr. 67) as a reliable indicator, I will propose some estimations of the demand for dietary consumption, and compare them with the ample availability of salt in the Mediterranean context. On this basis, I will argue that the majority of Greek cities were usually able to rely on local resources to fulfil their internal needs; as a consequence, salt trade was mainly the object of local or regional trade, its low economic value playing probably an important role in this scenario. It is not an accident, in my opinion, that the few references to salt trade in the ancient sources deal mostly with people living far from the sea, for whom salt must have had a higher economic value. Long-distance trade, I will argue, came into play with some kinds of salt, which were particularly renowned because of their taste and qualities, and with large consumer centres, whose demand was more likely to exceed local resources.
In the latter category we must include those centres in which productive activities requiring large amounts of salt were a strategic asset for the community in question. The case of fish salting shows to what extent the availability of salt – local or imported – was crucial for the development of a veritable industry, aimed mainly at international markets. That’s why, in my opinion, fish salting played a major role in the pattern of demand and distribution of salt, by boosting its direct and indirect participation in international trade networks.
By taking Cato’s ration for slaves (De agr. 67) as a reliable indicator, I will propose some estimations of the demand for dietary consumption, and compare them with the ample availability of salt in the Mediterranean context. On this basis, I will argue that the majority of Greek cities were usually able to rely on local resources to fulfil their internal needs; as a consequence, salt trade was mainly the object of local or regional trade, its low economic value playing probably an important role in this scenario. It is not an accident, in my opinion, that the few references to salt trade in the ancient sources deal mostly with people living far from the sea, for whom salt must have had a higher economic value. Long-distance trade, I will argue, came into play with some kinds of salt, which were particularly renowned because of their taste and qualities, and with large consumer centres, whose demand was more likely to exceed local resources.
In the latter category we must include those centres in which productive activities requiring large amounts of salt were a strategic asset for the community in question. The case of fish salting shows to what extent the availability of salt – local or imported – was crucial for the development of a veritable industry, aimed mainly at international markets. That’s why, in my opinion, fish salting played a major role in the pattern of demand and distribution of salt, by boosting its direct and indirect participation in international trade networks.
In this paper I will offer some new insights on the lease terminology in classical Athens, while dealing with the structure and purpose of the Piraeus decree concerning the lease (misthosis) of the deme theatre in 324/3 (Agora XIX L13).... more
In this paper I will offer some new insights on the lease terminology in classical Athens, while dealing with the structure and purpose of the Piraeus decree concerning the lease (misthosis) of the deme theatre in 324/3 (Agora XIX L13).
The exemplary re-edition by Stroud (1974) has enlightened many aspects of this text, but its structure and purpose are still debated, due to the non-univocal terminology employed in the text (Behrend 1970). While the agreement under which the Piraeus deme rents out the theatre is called a lease (misthosis), the four entrepreneurs signing the agreement are not called lessees (misthosamenoi), as we might expect, but purchasers (priamenoi and onetai). This seems to conflict with the common Attic usage (e.g. Xenoph. Vect. 4.19), where one usually rents (misthousthai) public properties, such as plots of lands, houses, etc., but buys (oneisthai, priasthai) the right to collect public revenues, exploit mines, etc. As there are some exceptions to this usage in the sources, some scholars have concluded that the two terminologies were completely interchangeable (Rosivach 1992) or indifferently employed (Harrison 1968; Csapo 2007).
Even though the analysis of these exceptions shows that the two terminologies can be applied to the same object (e.g. quarries in SEG 28, 103, mines in Dion. Hal. Din. 13), I will argue that each of them is employed to stress a different aspect of the action involved. The sale terminology stresses the fact that the entrepreneur, as a purchaser, has bought the right to exploit the property; the lease terminology points to the conditions of acquisition and enjoyment of the property by the entrepreneur, as a lessee. The difference between the two is also proved by their not completely overlapping usage: the renting of such properties as lands, quarries, and mines can be perceived as the purchasing of the right to exploit them, but the purchase of the right to collect taxes, for example, cannot be defined as «renting» the collection of taxes. In the light of this argument I will propose also a slightly different interpretation of the passage of the Aristotelian Athenian Constitution (47.2) concerning the duties of the public sellers (poletai).
The Piraeus decree did not merely relate the decision of the deme to rent the theatre, but explained also the terms of the contract (synthekai) under which the entrepreneurs were bound to operate. I will argue that these terms are completely in line with the conditions usually attached to lease agreements; moreover, as the contract included some building works the entrepreneurs had to perform, I will show that the decree contained also the building specifications for these works (a fine parallel to this structure being the Attic decree IG I³ 84).
The complexity of the structure must not divert the attention from the nature and purpose of the agreement. The four entrepreneurs are correctly described as the purchasers of the theatre, because at the cost of 3300 drachmas (ll. 29-31) they bought the right to exploit the theatre, i.e. the right to collect the admission fees paid by the spectators (ll. 9-11). The agreement, however, can be correctly described also as a lease, whose attached conditions, concerning the acquisition and enjoyment of the theatre, were listed in the decree. The presence of building works does not qualify the contract as a different form of agreement, e.g. a contract for services (Papazarkadas 2007), or a kind of liturgy, where the purchasers were unlikely to be recompensed by the admission fees (Walbank 1991). Maintenance works were frequently included in lease contracts without alterations to the nature of the agreement; even though the agreement was meant to ensure the deme with a settled income, while providing for the upkeep of the theatre, this does not imply that building works were its main purpose, or that the purchasers did not make a profit from the whole operation.
Bibliography
D. Behrend, Attische Pachturkunden, Munich 1970, 86-88.
C. Carusi, Alcune considerazioni sulle syngraphai ateniesi del V e del IV secolo a.C., ASAA, s. III, 6/I (2006), 11-36, esp. 20-21, n. r.
E.Csapo, The Men Who Built the Theatres: Theatropolai, Theatronai, and Arkhitektones, in P. Wilson (ed.), The Greek Theatre and Festivals, Oxford 2007, 87-115, esp. 90-94.
N. Papazarkadas, Four Attic Deme Documents Revisited, ZPE 159 (2007), 155-177, esp. 167-168.
R. Stroud, Three Attic Decrees, CSCA 7 (1974), 290-298, n. 3.
M.B. Walbank, Agora XIX. Leases of Public Lands, Princeton 1991, 194-195, n. L13.
The exemplary re-edition by Stroud (1974) has enlightened many aspects of this text, but its structure and purpose are still debated, due to the non-univocal terminology employed in the text (Behrend 1970). While the agreement under which the Piraeus deme rents out the theatre is called a lease (misthosis), the four entrepreneurs signing the agreement are not called lessees (misthosamenoi), as we might expect, but purchasers (priamenoi and onetai). This seems to conflict with the common Attic usage (e.g. Xenoph. Vect. 4.19), where one usually rents (misthousthai) public properties, such as plots of lands, houses, etc., but buys (oneisthai, priasthai) the right to collect public revenues, exploit mines, etc. As there are some exceptions to this usage in the sources, some scholars have concluded that the two terminologies were completely interchangeable (Rosivach 1992) or indifferently employed (Harrison 1968; Csapo 2007).
Even though the analysis of these exceptions shows that the two terminologies can be applied to the same object (e.g. quarries in SEG 28, 103, mines in Dion. Hal. Din. 13), I will argue that each of them is employed to stress a different aspect of the action involved. The sale terminology stresses the fact that the entrepreneur, as a purchaser, has bought the right to exploit the property; the lease terminology points to the conditions of acquisition and enjoyment of the property by the entrepreneur, as a lessee. The difference between the two is also proved by their not completely overlapping usage: the renting of such properties as lands, quarries, and mines can be perceived as the purchasing of the right to exploit them, but the purchase of the right to collect taxes, for example, cannot be defined as «renting» the collection of taxes. In the light of this argument I will propose also a slightly different interpretation of the passage of the Aristotelian Athenian Constitution (47.2) concerning the duties of the public sellers (poletai).
The Piraeus decree did not merely relate the decision of the deme to rent the theatre, but explained also the terms of the contract (synthekai) under which the entrepreneurs were bound to operate. I will argue that these terms are completely in line with the conditions usually attached to lease agreements; moreover, as the contract included some building works the entrepreneurs had to perform, I will show that the decree contained also the building specifications for these works (a fine parallel to this structure being the Attic decree IG I³ 84).
The complexity of the structure must not divert the attention from the nature and purpose of the agreement. The four entrepreneurs are correctly described as the purchasers of the theatre, because at the cost of 3300 drachmas (ll. 29-31) they bought the right to exploit the theatre, i.e. the right to collect the admission fees paid by the spectators (ll. 9-11). The agreement, however, can be correctly described also as a lease, whose attached conditions, concerning the acquisition and enjoyment of the theatre, were listed in the decree. The presence of building works does not qualify the contract as a different form of agreement, e.g. a contract for services (Papazarkadas 2007), or a kind of liturgy, where the purchasers were unlikely to be recompensed by the admission fees (Walbank 1991). Maintenance works were frequently included in lease contracts without alterations to the nature of the agreement; even though the agreement was meant to ensure the deme with a settled income, while providing for the upkeep of the theatre, this does not imply that building works were its main purpose, or that the purchasers did not make a profit from the whole operation.
Bibliography
D. Behrend, Attische Pachturkunden, Munich 1970, 86-88.
C. Carusi, Alcune considerazioni sulle syngraphai ateniesi del V e del IV secolo a.C., ASAA, s. III, 6/I (2006), 11-36, esp. 20-21, n. r.
E.Csapo, The Men Who Built the Theatres: Theatropolai, Theatronai, and Arkhitektones, in P. Wilson (ed.), The Greek Theatre and Festivals, Oxford 2007, 87-115, esp. 90-94.
N. Papazarkadas, Four Attic Deme Documents Revisited, ZPE 159 (2007), 155-177, esp. 167-168.
R. Stroud, Three Attic Decrees, CSCA 7 (1974), 290-298, n. 3.
M.B. Walbank, Agora XIX. Leases of Public Lands, Princeton 1991, 194-195, n. L13.
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Call for Papers THIRD INTERNATIONAL CONGRESS ON THE ANTHROPOLOGY OF SALT 12–15 September 2018, Salinas de Añana, Basque Country, Spain vallesalado.com/congressalt Dear colleagues, We are glad to invite you the attend the... more
Call for Papers
THIRD INTERNATIONAL CONGRESS ON THE ANTHROPOLOGY OF SALT
12–15 September 2018, Salinas de Añana, Basque Country, Spain
vallesalado.com/congressalt
Dear colleagues,
We are glad to invite you the attend the “Third International Congress on the Anthropology of Salt”, organized between the 12th and 15th of September 2018, in Salinas de Añana, Basque Country, Spain — vallesalado.com/congressalt
Please print and share this call with anyone who might be interested in attending, and this includes not only anthropologists and archaeologists, but also historians, geographers, linguists, and specialists from any domain researching common salt.
You can find more information on the event on its dedicated webpage: vallesalado.com/congressalt [ENG] / vallesalado.com/congresosal [ESP]
The Scientific Committee
THIRD INTERNATIONAL CONGRESS ON THE ANTHROPOLOGY OF SALT
12–15 September 2018, Salinas de Añana, Basque Country, Spain
vallesalado.com/congressalt
Dear colleagues,
We are glad to invite you the attend the “Third International Congress on the Anthropology of Salt”, organized between the 12th and 15th of September 2018, in Salinas de Añana, Basque Country, Spain — vallesalado.com/congressalt
Please print and share this call with anyone who might be interested in attending, and this includes not only anthropologists and archaeologists, but also historians, geographers, linguists, and specialists from any domain researching common salt.
You can find more information on the event on its dedicated webpage: vallesalado.com/congressalt [ENG] / vallesalado.com/congresosal [ESP]
The Scientific Committee