UN@ est une plateforme d'édition de livres numériques pour les presses universitaires de Nouvelle-Aquitaine
Facebook-f Twitter Instagram Youtube

Ausonius Éditions
Presses universitaires de Bordeaux
Presses universitaires de Limoges
Presses universitaires de Pau et des Pays de l'Adour

je soutiens le libre accès
logo de la collection Diglossia
Accès à l'ouvrage One Cult, Multiple Cultures
logo Presses universitaires de Bordeaux
Logo de la maison des sciences de l'homme de Bordeaux

Onomastics in the religious epigraphy of Cyrene as a reflection of multiculturalism in Roman times

edited by

Introduction

Bilingual religious testimonies in the Cyrenaean region of the Roman province of Crete and Cyrene are scarce. However, this does not diminish their importance. The aim of this chapter is to show that the study of a multilingual area does not require direct bilingualism but can be carried out using indirect evidence. In this case, the indirect evidence is provided by the onomastic chains of the inhabitants. These chains allow us to trace the social and cultural interweaving of

the different population groups, including Libyans, Greeks, Romans, and the Jewish population that settled in the territory, particularly in the cities of Cyrene and Barke. It is important to note that no written sources in the Libyan language have survived. However, one inscription has been preserved that mentions the appearance of a deity whose name has been transcribed into the Greek alphabet, together with several other names of Greek origin. Notably, this inscription is the only surviving written record of the Libyan language. The study of onomastics allows for the analysis of the coexistence of two or more languages and cultures and of the extent to which this coexistence is reflected in the choice of citizens’ names, indicating acculturation from one population to another.

The structure of the onomastic formula can indicate the acculturation or acceptance of Roman cultural innovations in Hellenophone territory, also from an institutional point of view. This lexicon is a marked sign of identity or otherness. In other words, a father’s choice of name for his child is a clear indication of the cultural impact of Romanisation in a Greek territory. The Romanisation led to the acceptance and imitation of dominant structures, resulting in changes in citizenship, as individuals sought acceptance and assimilation into the new elites.1

In some cases, onomastic changes may occur due to a propensity to accept innovation, while in others, acceptance may take place without any onomastic change. It is important to analyse each situation on a case-by-case basis in order to adequately assess the degree of penetration of Latin structures in Cyrene during the Roman period.2

Monolingual Inscriptions with Implicit Multilingualism

In the first centuries of our era, several ethnic groups inhabited the Cyrenean territory,3 which can be divided into four main classes (ἔθνη): Libyans, Greeks, Romans, and Jews. Of these, it is the latter three that have left a direct mark on the region’s religious epigraphic landscape, while the first is attested only indirectly, through a process of Hellenisation reflected in onomastic usage.

Inscriptions with Libyan and Jewish elements

With regard to the Libyan population, no epigraphic record in the Libyan language has been found in the Cyrenaean territory.4 Of the more than 360 religious testimonies analysed between the 1st c. BC and the 4th c. AD, only one may be considered a Libyan testimony, although it is written in Greek:

Δ̣Υ̣Ε̣Π̣ / Γοββα / [—]ΟΙΝΙ̣ΝΜΗ[—] / [—]Γοββά θεός / [.]Ϲ εὐ̣προ̣ϲ̣όδ̣αϲ(?)5

The inscription was discovered on the walls of a cave in Wadi Zaza (between Barke and Taucheira), but its highly fragmentary state does not provide sufficient evidence to ascertain many details. However, it may be hypothesised that Γοββά θεός is a transliteration of the name of an indigenous divinity rather than a proper name such as Gobus, as proposed by M. Abdussalem, A. Abdussaid and J. Reynolds. This hypothesis can be supported by typological and topographical parallels with other caves in the territory of Cyrene where cultic practices took place. These include the caves at the Kyra spring, dedicated to the nymphs, and that at Budaraj, where goddesses linked to fertility or “déesses-mères” are attested.6 The notion of female fertility deities is a recurring category in the history of religions, which I believe is used as an umbrella construct for a set of commonplace ideas, since it is an empty term that can encompass almost anything.

However, the onomastics of the region provide some interesting details. As L. Gasperini observes,7 in such cases we must consider whether the attestation of a possibly Libyan name corresponds to an immediate or intermediate echo, as well as its ramifications over time – for example, further occurrences of the same name in the first, fourth, or eighth generation. This consideration allows us to assess whether we are dealing with evidence of a genuine Libyan presence or rather with the genealogical vindication by a local citizen well integrated into the city’s social dynamics, who claims for themselves the name of an ancestor. In any case, the use of a Libyan name by a Greek individual only confirms that their identity is equally composed of both Hellenic and Libyan elements. The recognition of the evolution from a Hellenised Libyan to a native Greek of Cyrene over successive generations is inseparable, given that the city’s population was as Greek as it was Libyan.

We owe to O. Masson the most comprehensive compendium of possible Libyan names from the region compiled to date, to the works of C. Dobias-Lalou should also be added.8 Their insights are invaluable for the commentary on the cases analysed here. The majority of the examples presented in this section derive from lists of priests and priestesses. One such case is a list of priestesses of Hera, dated to the 1st c. BC or 1st c. AD, discovered in the agora of the city:

θεός Τύχα ἀγαθά / Ἱάρεαι τᾶς Ἥρας / Μεγὼ Εἰδοκρίτω / Λαβράμεα Βάκαλος9

The inscription contains two terms that are notable for their “Libicity”: Λαβράμεα and Βάκαλος. The latter is a demonym referring to the small tribe of the Bakales, one of the most prominent tribes of the region located between the cities of Barke and Evesperides, already mentioned by Herodotus in the 5th c. BC.10 The female anthroponym, on the other hand, is attested only in this inscription, and the sole information we can provide is the context itself. It may be assumed that the individual in question was a Greek citizen and priestess, whose ancestors likely acquired the privilege of joining the civic body of the city at some point during the Hellenistic period, although not too far back in time, given the date of the Ptolemaic diagram and the information provided by Herodotus. The conscious choice to bestow upon a daughter a name with indigenous roots – thus mirroring the characteristics of her father’s anthroponym – can be interpreted as a reaffirmation of Libyan character, or, in other words, as a marker of pride, despite the fact that she had been granted citizenship and was therefore perceived as Greek. Taking all this into consideration, there can be no doubt that the role of this woman as priestess is even more important since, through the active efforts of her father reflected in the onomastics, she embodies the interweaving of Greek structures with the Libyan ancestral roots of the region. As O. Masson notes,11 a variant of the name Λαβρομεια is also preserved in an epitaph belonging to two rock-hewn tombs:

a) Μναϲιτίμω Χ / Ἀρίστ- / αρχοϲ / Πανταλέ- / οντο[ϲ] / {Φ} Φιλύτα / b) [—]ΔΡΑ[—] / Λέων / c) Λαβρομείαϲ / d) Ἐχεμήδαϲ / Τιμοκρατείαϲ

The first tomb includes the testimonies of a) and b), while the second includes c) and d).12 O. Masson posits that d) corresponds to the tomb of two women, whereas the editors of the IRCyr database, following the reading of the LGPN, suggest that it is probably a single woman with a matronymic. If this were the case, although unusual, it could be explained cautiously by a series of reasons, such as the freed origin of the deceased; the personal preference of the person involved, as evidenced by some epitaphs and aristocrats of the western provinces of the Empire;13 or Egyptian customs to which Cyrene was exposed for an extended period of time due to its historical link with the territory of the pharaohs, even though they began to affect Roman onomastic structures from the 1st c. AD onwards.14

A further group of priestesses, in this case of Artemis, are named on a marble stele of unknown provenance dating back to 180 AD.15 The stele was reused for two other inscriptions16 and eventually repurposed as pavement for the Byzantine Baths. Despite its reemployment, the text presents several noteworthy facts. Firstly, the eponymous priest who consecrated the stele is a citizen with Latin tria nomina (ll. 6-7: διὰ ἱερέος Τι(βερίου) Κλ(αυδίου) / Βάττου), but his cognomen, Βάττος,17 indicates the coexistence of Latin naming conventions brought by the new rulers and the local Greek tradition, where the name of the colony’s founder, reappearing centuries after the foundation of the city, serves as a symbol of belonging to the Hellenic community. H. Alshareef, F. Chevrollier and C. Dobias-Lalou have explained how the use of Βάττος during the Roman Imperial period represented a mode of self-identification among the elite.18 It was precisely this prominent priestly figure in the city, Tiberius Claudius Battus,19 who was in charge of restoring both the temple of Isis and that of Apollo Nymphageta.20 #Secondly, the personal name in line 33 (Βελυδρία ὀγ(κίαϲ) ι̣´) provides further evidence of “Libicity”. She is the only woman in the list to bear a single name, in contrast to the expected two-member structure, thus constituting, once again, a hapax in the preserved documentation. That said, this is not an exceptionally unusual occurrence, as in Republican times it was customary for women to be identified by a single name, often without any accompanying demonym.21

The first attestation of the Latin tria nomina, and thus of the clear influence of Roman onomastic practices on Greek society, is found in an epigraphic record of Cyrene dating to the Augustan period. This appears in a list of priests of Apollo, where we read the names of the cultic personnel: Μᾶρκος Κλέαρχος / Φλάμμα Ἰσοκράτευς and Λούκιος Καρνήδας / Φλάμμα Ἰσοκράτευς.22 It is evident that those adopting Latin customs were two members of the cult of the eponymous god – individuals belonging to a social group that enjoyed both prestige and religious recognition. This adoption enabled them to identify as part of the elite, willing to accept the new political situation and eager to ingratiate themselves with the Roman rulers. This idea is supported by another priest named on the stele, Φάος Κλεάρχω / τῶ Φιλοπάτριδος (ll. 4-5), who also served in the imperial cult and was awarded an honorary decree from the city:

[—τὰν ἐ]πι̣μ̣[έ]λ̣ειαν ταύ̣[ταν καὶ] / [—ἀξία]ν κα[ὶ] τ̣ῶν προγ̣όνω̣[ν καὶ] / [τᾶς πα]τρίδος ποιησάμενο̣[ς ἱερ-] / [ατε]ύσας τε δὶς Καίσαρος τῶ̣ [Σεβα- / στῶ?] ἐκτενῶς καὶ φιλοτείμως […]23

He held this office twice, and the fact that he served both as eponymous priest of Apollo and as priest of the emperor reflects the continuation of a trend already established in Hellenistic times, when the Ptolemaic rulers determined who was to hold the city’s most important religious positions.24 That Φάος joined the imperial cult at such an early stage confirms the desire of the native oligarchies to preserve the privileged status they had enjoyed before Cyrene became a Roman province.

At the same time, it is also possible to find a typically Greek two-member structure, in which the patronymic is Hellenic while the personal name is Libyan. Such is the case of Ἰγίσαν Ἀντιμάχω, attested in a dedication of a monument to Hermes and Heracles by a group of ephebes of the city, dating to between the 1st c. BC and the 1st c. AD:

Ἰγίσαν Ἀντιμάχω / Ἀντίμαχος Ἀντιμάχω / Ἑρμαῖ Ἡρακλεῖ25

The name falls into one of the five categories established by O. Masson for the autochthonous onomastics of the region: names in -an and -as; names in -l and -r; names in -is;26 theophorics; and female names.27 The decision of a Greek father to give his child a purely Libyan name may be due to a family tradition in which indigenous connection is restored without renouncing identification as a Greek citizen.

The anthroponym Ἰγισαν is well attested at Cyrene, occurring in several testimonies, such as Ἰγίσαντα Ὀνομάρχω,28 recorded in a list of ephebes from the first half of the 1st c. AD. Particularly significant, as L. Gasperini points out,29 is the occurrence of Ἰγισαν, which is repeated three times. The first instance refers to Ἰγίσαντα Ὀνομάρχω, who held the office of τριακατιαρχέντα (i.e. ephebic magistrate) of the city. The second is the ephebe Ὀνομαρχος Ἰγισαντος, whom the author confidently identifies as the son of Ἰγίσαντα Ὀνομάρχω. Thus, we have a grandfather, Ὀνόμαρχος, a father, Ἰγισαν, and a grandson bearing the name of his grandfather. This typical Greek structure offers further evidence of a Libyan onomastic tradition that testifies to the coexistence of populations and the process of acculturation in the territory, although we do not know how far back it goes.

The same stele contains further significant information, including the presence of Jewish onomastics: Ἰούλιος Ἰησοῦτος (b, i, l. 40), Σίμων Πόθωνος (b, ii, l. 22), and especially Ἐλάσζαρ Ἐλάζαρος and Ἀγαθοκλῆς Ἐλάζαρος (b, ii, ll. 31-32).30 These last two names have an additional element, likely reflecting the substratum, as they may represent transcriptions of the original Libyan name Ἀλαζειρ31 or its variants Ἀλαδδειρ and Ἀλα(τειρ).32 Other traces of foreign substrata in the anthroponyms and demonyms of Greek citizens in these texts include Βαρθυβᾶς Βαρθυβᾶ,33 which F. Vattoni explains as the combination of an obvious Aramaic element br (“son”) with the Semitic root ṭwb (“good”),34 and Διονύσιος Ὑράθιος, which occurs multiple times in the region, alongside variants such as Ὕραθθις and Ὕρατθις.35 Here again, we may be dealing with the Hellenisation of a lineage of Libyan origin, since the father may have recovered the name of an ancestor for his son. In the latter case, however, the inscription appears on a marble slab that served as the base of a statue dedicated to Aphrodite by the nomophylakes of Cyrene in 17/16 BC. This dedication is the first reference to the imperial cult in the city:36

(ἔτους) ιε’ ἐπὶ ἱερέως / Φιλίσκω Εὐφάνευς / Αὐτοκράτορος δὲ Καίσα- / ρος Θεῶι υἱῶ Σεβαστῶ

This coexistence of Graeco-Latin and Roman elements is a constant feature in the epigraphic production of the region, as attested by many other inscriptions, especially among the elites – elites that were not alien to the transformations taking place in other parts of the Empire. Let us not forget that, as far as onomastic usages are concerned, from the 2nd-3rd c. AD onwards, the typical Roman formula lost the praenomen and the patronymic, and was reduced to a two-member structure consisting of a demonym and cognomen.37 Evidence of this development appears in a dedication to Hermes and Heracles by the ephebes of the years 223/224 AD, during the priesthood of Apollo Ktistos, Marcus Antonius Aristippus, where we find Αὐρ(ήλιος) Ἀνύςςαν and Αὐρ(ήλιος) Ἰαμβάρις.38 As O. Masson suggests, Ἰαμβάρις may be the Hellenised form of the name Iambar(t) with the suffix -is, as attested in the Roman province of Tripolitania or in Cyrene itself.39 If O. Masson’s interpretation is accepted – as I believe it should be – the innovation lies precisely in the fact that, on this marble stele from 161-169 AD, a Libyan anthroponym is also employed as a cognomen within a typically Roman three-member formula.

As for the other cities in the region, it is worth noting the greater survival of the Libyan substratum – an expected phenomenon if we consider that the capital hosted a larger population of Greeks and Hellenised Libyans, as opposed to the smaller, more rural towns. It is in these smaller towns that we encounter both noteworthy buildings and distinctive personal names, such as Ἀμμώνιος Αλδ̣αμωνο[ς], Ἀνύσσαν Ιαλος, and Αἰσαγυς Δάχιος.40 The name Δάχις is attested frequently elsewhere in the region, though not in Cyrene itself.41 Regarding the form Ἀλδ̣αμων, this was the initial reading proposed by the first editors of the inscription.42 However, they also suggested the alternative reading Ἀλλαμονος, which was later adopted by O. Masson in his study of Libyan onomastics,43 and which is reflected in another list of ephebes.44 J. M. Reynolds subsequently emended this form to Ἀ(μ)μών(ιος), thus maintaining the first reading in the IRCyr database. In addition, in the same inscription, we find a Libyan anthroponym of confirmed reading.45 Nevertheless, according to the current editors of the database, the original reading is confirmed by the discovery of a tombstone found some time later, inscribed with Ἀλδαμων Ἴασονος.46 The inscription also displays another feature: the use of double genitive filiation (X son of Y son of Z), a characteristic of Afro-Roman onomastic practice of Semitic origin.47

Bilingualism and Monolingualism in Multilingual Spaces

This section contains both bilingual and monolingual inscriptions in multilingual spaces,48 which are still relatively rare if we consider the total number of preserved inscriptions. Bilingual Greek-Latin inscriptions with some religious content found in this region can be divided into two categories: prayers and votive dedications of any kind to a divinity on consecrated land; and inscriptions on buildings (either sacred or civil), usually commissioned as part of the reconstruction work that took place after the Jewish revolt of the years 115/6-117 AD.49 It should be remembered that the use of Latin in the mainly Hellenophone provinces was generally due to a specific political and administrative intention on the part of the elites, who sought to reaffirm their power, often through evergetic actions.50 Subsequently, it may have been used by other social strata or other factors may have intervened, such as the militarisation of the territory or the settlement of new inhabitants. Furthermore, we should not forget the fact that ideological messages sometimes appear in the most widely spoken language, thus reinforcing the process of acculturation or Romanisation inherent in the presence of Roman authority.51

Votive dedications and prayers

The use of Latin in dedications to deities in the region is relatively infrequent: in the city of Cyrene, it occurs only nine times out of a total of 115 known inscriptions up to the 4th c. AD, amounting to slightly less than 8 %.52 This rarity makes the instances in which Latin is used especially significant, as they carry particular weight due to both their exceptional nature and their idiomatic choice.53 Of these nine examples, half are connected either to the imperial cult or to public references to Roman deities expressed in the Roman manner. In the other enclaves, we find one Latin dedication at Taucheira (compared to four in Greek)54, none at Barke, and two at Ptolemais (versus fourteen in Greek),55 while at Balagrae there is only one in Latin,56 alongside eight in Greek. These figures, however, should not be regarded as absolute, at least not without first taking into account the particularities of the region, namely, the scarcity of marble, which required its importation and encouraged the reuse of materials across generations. In addition, historical events that have destroyed – and continue to destroy – the heritage must also be considered, including the conflicts of the Byzantine period and the various civil and world wars.57

Among the inscriptions from the capital, the one addressed to the goddess Libya by M. Messius Atticus stands out as particularly interesting:

Libuae sacrum / pro salute P(ubli) Pomponi Secundi / pro co(n)s(ulis) / M(anius) Messius Atticus cliens58

As far as the divinity is concerned, the dedication is to the epichoric goddess of the region, who had been worshipped since the earliest preserved attestations.59 Two additional pedestals, bearing what appear to be Latin nominatives, were discovered near the site; however, their poor state of preservation makes it impossible to extract any reliable information from them. E. Ghislanzoni nonetheless believed he could discern the names of Cyrene and Libya,60 along with the extant names of Diana and Apollo Augustus,61 and interpreted these as further evidence for the continued survival of their cult during the Imperial period.62

As for the cult of Libya, epigraphic evidence from the pre-Roman period has also been preserved, although the amount of numismatic and sculptural evidence is greater.63 A relief from the 2nd c. AD, discovered during excavations of the so-called “Temple of Venus”,64 depicts the epichoric goddess of the region crowning the nymph Cyrene while she strangles a lion,65 serving as clear testimony to the survival of the cult over the centuries. In any case, the use of this figure by the imperial elite should not come as a surprise, insofar as it aligns with Rome’s political agenda, which employed well-known, though not overly exploited, motifs as mythical justifications for political action.66 With regard to the individuals mentioned in the Latin votive dedication to Libya, there is no doubt concerning the identity of the provincial governor, P. Pomponius Secundus, who was related to the imperial family and well connected to the cultural elite of his time.67 The identification of his cliens, however, is less certain, since only limited traces of his persona have survived. According to the editors’ comments in the IRCyr database, he may be the same individual attested in another fragmentary inscription discovered on the city’s acropolis,68 which appears to preserve nearly the entirety of his onomastic structure. No additional records are known for him, although it is plausible that he was the grandson or some other direct descendant of a Messius Atticus who appears, as a centurion and priest, in three inscriptions of Roman Tripolitania dating to the 2nd c. AD.69

Returning to the Cyrenaean area, among the Latin inscriptions of a religious nature, four are particularly noteworthy despite their fragmentary state. These texts are part of the rites of the Fratres Arvales, which, in Imperial time, were linked to the cult of the national gods and, above all, to the salvation of the emperor as head of state.70 One inscription originates from Cyrene, while the other three were found in Ptolemais.71 As J. M. Reynolds points out,72 it is remarkable that, despite being a Greek-speaking province, the model used in the oath is entirely Roman, including the language, which suggests a form of strict religious control and demonstrates the resilience of the cult against any innovation or external influence within the multipolar context of Cyrene. This is even more striking given the environment in which these inscriptions were made, probably a small community of migrants or Roman soldiers. All these uota pro salute principis belong to the same period (1st c. AD), with the exception of IRCyr, P.97, which is dated to between 161 and 180 AD. Moreover, as S. M Marengo notes,73 it is essential to bear in mind that the imperial cult in Cyrene was almost perfectly interwoven with the civic-religious tradition of the Greek court, in that the numina sacra Augusta were deposited in the Augusteum,74 built over part of the ancient gymnasium or Ptolemaion, itself the socio-political centre of Hellenistic cities.75 The flamen of the emperor was identified with the eponymous priest of Apollo, who had previously been the highest religious authority. This duality between sacred and political spheres had already been in Archaic times, as both the tomb of the colony’s founder and the temple of the propitiatory god Apollo Archagetes were located in this same area.

Also erected in this area was the Nomophylakeion, from whose members we have a series of six dedications, embedded within the public functionality of the religious act, addressed to Apollo Nomios, Agathe Tyche, Aphrodite Nomophylakida, Omonia, Aphrodite, and Apollo Nomios one more.76 All are dated to between the 1st c. BC and the 1st c. AD, i.e. to the Augustan period. Each inscription is noteworthy for specific reasons. In the case of the Apollonian dedications, the emphasis lies on Apollo’s role as guarantor of legality – a mission entrusted precisely to those responsible for the dedications – thus associating the god not with the sphere of pastoral power described by Callimachus,77 but rather with the epiclesis used by Cicero in his narration of the Arcadian variant of the myth.78 Particularly striking is the fact that the final dedication to Apollo Nomios concludes with an elegiac couplet, unique within the entire series. The marble dedication to Good Fortune, by contrast, displays an added political and administrative complexity, as it refers to only six nomophylakes, whereas the royal decree of the Ptolemaic period stipulated that their number should always be nine.79 This may reflect evidence of a significant constitutional reform. As for Aphrodite, her dedication not only represents the earliest surviving attestation of the imperial cult in the region, but also preserves the onomastic attribute Νομοφυλακίδα, which can be classified as a political attribute of the Agoraios type, connected to the city.80 Finally, in the case of Omonia, both A. Oliverio and later S. M. Marengo add the epithet Σεβαστήν,81 thereby conferring upon it an imperial rank with strong political connotations – so dear to Octavian’s restorative endeavours, and particularly resonant within the unstable Cyrenaean context, which was often marked by staseis (i.e. civil strives) and power struggles.

In light of the political dimension of Cyrene’s religiosity during the first centuries of our era, it is now appropriate to return to one of the inscriptions briefly cited above:

Ζηνὶ Σωτῆρι καὶ Ῥώμ[αι —]αι καὶ Σε[βαστῶι —]82

Numerous reconstructions have been proposed for the missing space between the personification of Rome and the conjunction καὶ. However, one reconstruction deserves particular attention due to its far-reaching implications: it may have been dedicated to an epichoric female deity, either Cyrene or Libya.83 If we were to accept the hypothesis that this inscription reflects a connection between these gods, it would provide confirmation of a new phase in the imbrication, adaptation, and coexistence of Roman religious structures with those of the autochthonous Greeks and Libyans. This, in turn, would suggest a greater persistence and penetration of pre-colonial cults than has traditionally been acknowledged.

Such interweaving is evident in the imperial cult and in the adoption of Roman dedicatory practices, whereby the emperor and members of his family were granted honours and devotions. As in other Greek areas of the Mediterranean, such as in the province of Achaia, the ideological legitimation of Latin rule rested on the ambiguous identification of the human figure with a divine one,84 whether in iconography or epigraphy. In Cyrene, for example, Hadrian is identified with Zeus Olympios,85 Livia with Demeter,86 and Nero with Apollo.87

One final Latin dedication that must be mentioned is an inscription addressed to the goddess Luna:

Lunae88

As I have argued elsewhere,89 the piece is most likely an example of religious hydridisation involving a pre-Greek (Libyan) deity and Isis, rather than a simple dedication to one of the planets, as suggested by the editors of the Cyrenaean database. Among other historical and religious considerations, we may note that it is a Latin dedication in the Apollonian sanctuary – an uncommon occurrence in Greek areas – as well as the presumed importance of the goddess in earlier times.

Inscriptions on buildings

The surviving bilingual inscriptions transmit almost the same text in both languages. In other words, they are generally specular compositions, without any alteration, except for abbreviations, oversights, or reformulations due to spatial constraints.90 However, in rare instances, two distinct texts are transmitted:

a) [c. 17 pr]o[co](n)s(ul) [Io]ui Augus[to? Dedicauit?] / [c. 19]ciuit[a]- [Cyrenensium] / b) [— κ]αὶ̣ ἀφ[ιε]ρώσαντος τῶ κρατί[στ]ω ἀνθυπάτω Κ̣λ(αυδίω) / Ἀττάλω91

The majority of these inscriptions relate to restorations of various temples and buildings, where there was little scope for innovation, since the primary function of such epigraphic documents was to inform speakers of both languages about the evergetic activity of the benefactor, particularly in relation to the emperor Hadrian. Indeed, it was during Hadrian’s reign that most of the restoration work in the region was undertaken, especially in the city of Cyrene, which had suffered extensive damage during the Jewish Revolt and had to be repopulated due to significant human losses. As a result of his initiative, Hadrian was accorded the title of founder and saviour, as if he were a second Battos I:

Α̣ὐτ̣[οκράτορα Καί]σαρα θεῶ Τραιανῶ Π̣αρθ̣[ι] κῶ υ[ἱὸν] / θ̣ε̣[ῶ Νέρ]ο̣[υα υἱων]ὸ̣ν Τραιανὸν Ἁδριανὸν Σεβασ[τὸν] / [ἀρχιερῆ μέ[γιστον]] δαμαρχικᾶς ἐξουσίας τὸ ιγ´ ὕπα[τον] / [τὸ γ´ πατέρα πατρί]δ̣ος κτίσταν καὶ τροφ[ῆ καὶ] νομο[θέ-] / [ταν ἁ] [πόλ]ι̣ς ἁ Κυραναίων92

As J. N. Adams observes,93 there are bilingual inscriptions in which the formulaic conventions of the two languages are adapted, meaning that the version does not follow a word-for-word approach. Some of these inscriptions were found outside the territory of Cyrene, though produced by its citizens. The first example cited by J. N. Adams is a dedication to Iulia Augusta,94 in which the Latin dative has been rendered as a Greek accusative, rather than preserving the original case:

Iuliae Augustae Cyrenenses / Ἰουλίαν Σεβαστὰν Κυραναῖοι

In the second example cited by J. N. Adams, a member of the third Cyrenaic legion stationed in Egypt, the veteran C. Valerius Cottus95 offers a dedication to the god Ammon – whose presence in Cyrene represents an innovation of the bricolage between the Libyan-Egyptian deity and the Greek Zeus –96 written in the language of the colonists:

ὑ̣πὲρ Αὐτοκράτορος Καίσαρος Τίτου Αἰλίου Ἁδριανοῦ / Ἀντωνίνου Σεβαστοῦ Εὐσεβοῦς καὶ τοῦ σύνπαντος οἴ- / κου αὐτοῦ, ἐπὶ Σενπρωνίωι Λιβελαρίωι ἐπάρχωι Αἰγύπτου, / Ἄμμωνι θεῶι μεγάλωι Γαΐος Οὐαλέριος Κόττος, οὐε̣τραυὸς λε̣- / γιωναρὶς γ Κυραναικῆς, ἀνοικοδόμησεν τὸ ἱερὸν ἰδίαις δαπάναις ὑπὲρ ἑαυτοῦ / καὶ τῆς γυναικὸς Γαΐα<ς> Ὀ̣υ̣α̣λ̣ε̣ρία<ς> καὶ τῶν τέκνων, ἐπ’ ἀγαθῶι, [(ἔτους) ιθʹ Παχ(ὼν) κδʹ· Νί]κανδρος ἔγραψε

The presence of [Νί]κανδρος ἔγραψε is a peculiar feature, but one that may suggest the soldier’s lack of knowledge of a language not his own – he was, in all likelihood, a native Latin speaker – and therefore the need for an interpreter. However, it is also possible that the soldier was simply illiterate; yet in that case, the lapicide would not typically have recorded his own name, as it was not customary for a stonecutter to do so. From the same legion comes a dedication to the god Pan by the tribune Poplius Iuventius Rufus, who also served as ἔπαρχος (i.e. governor) of Berenice.97 The final example of Cyrenaean dedications outside the region, as noted by J. N. Adams, is a dedication offered by the centurion T. Egnatius Tiberianus to Zeus for the salvation and victory of the emperor Domitian (written in Greek):

a.1 (ἔτους) βʹ〚[Αὐτο]κρ[ατο]ρος Κ̣[αίσαρος Δομιτιανοῦ Σεβαστοῦ Γερμανικοῦ]〛/ b.1 ὑπὲρ σωτηρίας [καὶ] / νείκης〚Αὐτοκρ[άτορος]〛/〚Δομ[ιτιανοῦ Κα]ίσ[αρος]〛/ Σεβαστοῦ〚[Γερμανικοῦ]〛/ Διὶ μεγίστῳ εὐχ[ήν], / Τίτος Ἐγνάτιος Τιβεριαν- / ὸς, (ἑκατόνταρχος) λεγεῶνος γʹ Κυρηνιακ[ῆς] / ὁ ἐπὶ τῆς λατομίας — — — / στρῶσις τῆς πό[λ]ε[ω]ς / Ἀλεξανδρείας98

Libyan Religious Traces

As already noted, the absence of Libyan epigraphic records of any kind in Cyrene – unlike in neighbouring regions – perhaps with the exception of a single transliteration, does not preclude the possibility of tracing indigenous religious influences in the preserved cultic practices and places of worship. The various sanctuaries located within the boundaries of the so-called “cinta sacra” of Cyrene99 offer valuable insights into the Libyan world, or more precisely, into local traditions during the Roman period. The term “cinta sacra” (literally “sacred belt”) refers to the area occupied by sacred buildings, generally accompanied by necropolises situated in places at some distance from the city, and extending from the city walls to the limits of the chora and the onset of fully Libyan territories. Within this zone, three well-differentiated sub-areas can be distinguished.100

The first consists of the extramoenia sanctuaries, also referred to as peri-urban, which display purely Greek characteristics and include the sanctuary of Zeus,101 originally situated outside the city walls and only later incorporated into the urban fabric; the sanctuary of Demeter and Persephone;102 the sanctuary of Apollo in the Myrtousa – at least in the early stages of colonial settlement – which constituted the principal cultic centre of Cyrene; and the sanctuary of the Apotropean divinities, with a particular emphasis on Apollo,103 but also including Zeus and Athena,104 located near the sanctuary of Demeter and Persephone.105

The second “cinta sacra”, which marked the boundary between the city’s sphere of religious influence and the surrounding territory of Libyan roots, consisted of sanctuaries and temples situated a few kilometres beyond the city’s limits. These places of worship were not only located near and associated with springs or subterranean waters – where Chthonian deities predominated – but had originally been established as indigenous cultic sites. In this way, they later came to serve both as a religious frontier in both directions and as an intercultural meeting point. Among these centres, the sanctuary at Ain Hofra stands out,106 with its numerous epigraphic references to heroes, the Eumenides, and Zeus Meilichios.107 Abandoned following earthquake damage during the Hellenistic period, this cultic site was subsequently replaced by the Graeco-Libyan form of Ammon, represented in his ram aspect.108

Finally, the third “cinta sacra” consists of the sanctuaries located at the greatest distance from the city walls, between twenty and fifty kilometres away, and is characterised by a strong and distinct Libyan presence. The most prominent site is Slonta,109 which remained active well into the 3rd-4th c. AD. The reliefs carved into the walls of this two-chamber space are noteworthy, depicting various animal and human figures, both male and female, arranged into several groups, as well as a large serpent with clear Chthonic associations. For the purpose of this study, suffice it to say that multiple connections can be drawn between the extramoenia sanctuaries of Demeter and Persephone and the sanctuary at Slonta, beginning with the divinities worshipped and the rites performed there, primarily related to the funerary sphere of the nearby necropoleis and the practice of divination, which may have transformed these sites into a nekromanteion, as M. Luni suggests.110

Conclusion

As mentioned throughout the chapter, there is no epigraphic evidence of the Libyan language in the region, except for a possible transcription of the name of a god (Γοβββα θεός), for which there is no parallel among the deities known in neighbouring regions, but which is traditionally associated with the sphere of fertility. As a result, only the Greek and Latin documents provide information on linguistic exchanges and the multicultural conditions of the Roman period.

Bilingual religious testimonies are rare and of little cultic interest, as they are usually reconstructions, mostly linked to Hadrian’s actions after the Jewish revolt. Attention should therefore be paid to the Latin dedications and, in particular, the onomastic chains. These documents, although limited in number, provide interesting data. They show, for example, the survival of indigenous cults such as Luna, the adaptation of the imperial cult to local specificities, and the use of the local pantheon for political purposes, as in the case of the goddess Libya. From an onomastic point of view, it is clear that during Hellenistic times, and especially during the Roman imperial period, Hellenised Libyans and their descendants not only acquired citizenship, but also held priestly offices and prestigious religious positions associated with different ages and social classes. This was only possible with the acceptance of Roman cultural innovations, as did the nomophylakes, the ephebes and their leaders, or those in charge of the cults of various deities, especially the polyad.

Bilingual inscriptions fall into two categories. The first category includes prayers and votive dedications on land consecrated to a deity. The second category includes inscriptions on buildings, both sacred and civil, usually after their reconstruction because of damage caused by staseis (especially the Jewish revolt). It is common for the Latin text to be an exact translation of the Greek text, regardless of any omissions, oversights, or minor linguistic variations it may present. Bilingual inscriptions may also adapt the formulaic conventions of both languages, but this does not necessarily mean that they are translated word for word. In Egyptian territory, the Cyrenaeans were responsible for the four examples cited in this chapter, including a notable dedication to Iuliae Augustae. In some cases, purely local cults, such as that of the goddess Libya, not only survived but also expanded during the Roman period. This is shown by the inscription of M. Messius Atticus. At times, a Latin cult could adopt the mechanisms of a Greek cult and be integrated into the pre-existing civic-religious tradition, as exemplified by the imperial cult and the divinisation of the Lagids.

The population resulting from the intermingling of Greeks and some Libyans used onomastics to claim a legacy that is essential for understanding the dynamics which regulated the civic body of Cyrene. This is exemplified by Λαβραμέα Βακάλος, priestess of Hera, and Βελυδρία, priestess of Artemis. In these cases, there is an active identification and claiming of a specific cultural heritage by a specific agent. In addition to this situation, the Cyrenaean oligarchies readily adopted Latin onomastic uses to ingratiate themselves with the new rulers, thus demonstrating their acceptance of the Roman cultural innovation. The Cyrenaean priests of the cult of Apollo provide examples of Latin onomastic influence, such as Μᾶρκος Κλέαρχος Φλάμμα Ἰσοκράτευς and Λούκιος Καρνήδας Φλάμμα Ἰσοκράτευς. It is important to note that this cult became a prime example of the political and religious actions of the Roman emperors. For instance, Hadrian himself held the highest office of the eponymous priesthood, a position that dates back to the time of King Magas.

The process of adaptation and acceptance of cultural innovations, first Greek and then Roman, in the territory of Cyrene is reflected in its onomastics. This linguistic field reveals some of the processes that have shaped the identity and otherness of a specific population group, as in the case of Libyans who were granted citizenship and assimilated into the dominant cultural system. In some instances, indigenous individuals adopted the customs of the colonists while retaining their familiar names. However, we have limited knowledge of the populations beyond the chora, except for sanctuary remains, which suggest an otherness that is completely separate from the city. It is important to note that the use of certain patronymics and demonyms does not necessarily indicate cultural adaptation, since a given cultural innovation may have been accepted without leaving a trace in onomastics, but it is an indicator of the processes of coexistence of two or more cultures in the region of Cyrene. In any case, this is a region where, at least from a linguistic perspective, the dominant cultures permit us only a partial glimpse of the local substratum that persists within the preserved onomastic sequences.

Abbreviations

AEL’Année épigraphique.
GVCyrGreek Verse Inscriptions of Cyrenaica.
IGCyr= Dobias-Lalou 2017b.
IGGRInscriptiones Graecae ad res romanas pertinentes.
IRCyr= Reynolds et al., 2020
IRT= Reynolds et al., 2021
OGISOrientis Graeci inscriptiones selectae.
SEGSupplementum Epigraphicum Graecum.
SIRARSylloge Inscriptionum Religionis Africae Romanae.

Universidad Carlos III de Madrid, Departamento de Humanidades: Historia, Geografía y Arte, Instituto de Historiografía ‘Julio Caro Baroja’, pablorod@hum.uc3m.es, ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7999-7135. This contribution has been written within the framework of the RICO (Religion: The Individual and the Communitas) research project, funded by the Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation (ref. no. PID2020-117176GBI00), to which the author belongs with an FPI contract. The author thanks J. Alvar Ezquerra for the critical reading of the manuscript and his comments. He also acknowledges the volume editors; their commentaries greatly improved the final version of this chapter. In cases where the authorship of the translation of an ancient source is not explicitly indicated, it is attributed to the editor of the corresponding database (GVCyr, IGCyr, IRCyr, or IRT).

Bibliographie

Abdussalem, M., Abdussaid, A. and Reynolds, J. (1997): “Partridges, gazelles and Greek inscriptions: a report on visits to the Cave of the Birds in Wadi Zaza”, Libya Antiqua, 3, 47-50.

Adams, J. N. (2003): Bilingualism and the Latin Language, Cambridge.

Alshareef, H., Chevrollier, F. and Dobias-Lalou, C. (2021): “New inscriptions from rural Cyrenaica”, Libyan Studies, 52, 54-66, [online] https://doi.org/10.1017/lis.2021.6 [accessed on 05/06/2025].

Alvar Ezquerra, J. and López-Gómez, J. C. (2024): “Augustus, Regina and Dominus. Epithets of Power as a Way to Call upon Gods in Roman Hispania”, in: Alvar Nuño, A., Martínez Maza, C. and Alvar Ezquerra, J., ed. Calling upon Gods, Offering Bodies: Strategies of Human-Divine Communication in the Roman Empire from Individual Experience to Social Reproduction, Bern, 119-147.

Alvar Ezquerra, J., Beltrán Ortega; A., Fernández Portaencasa, M., Gasparini, V., López-Gómez, J. C., Pañeda Murcia, B. and Pérez Yarza, L. (2024): “Divine Onomastic Attributs in the Greco-Roman World. A New Proposal of Taxonomy », in: Alvar Nuño, A., Martínez Maza, C. and Alvar Ezquerra, J., ed. Calling upon Gods, Offering Bodies: Strategies of Human-Divine Communication in the Roman Empire from Individual Experience to Social Reproduction, Bern, 17-50.

Applebaum, S. (1979): Jews and Greeks in Ancient Cyrene, Studies in Judaism in Late Antiquity 28, Leiden.

Bancalari Molina, A. (2004): “On the Effects of Caracalla’s Edict”, Studi Classici e Orientali, 47, 167-182.

Bisi, A. M. (1985): “Origine e diffusione del culto cyrenaico di Zeus Ammon”, in: Barker, G., Lloyd, J. and Reynolds, J., ed. Cyrenaica in Antiquity, BAR International Series 236, Oxford, 307-318.

Bonacasa, N. (2007): “I culti della collina di Zeus a Cirene”, in: Dobias-Lalou, C., ed. Questions de religion cyrénéenne: actes du colloque de Dijon, 21-23 mars 2002, Paris, 233-245.

Broux, Y. and Depauw, M. (2015): “The maternal line in Greek identification: signalling social status in Roman Egypt (30 BC-AD 400)”, Historia, 64, 467-478, [online] https://www.jstor.org/stable/45019207 [accessed on 05/06/2025].

Callot, J.-J. (1999): Recherches sur les cultes en Cyrénaïque durant le Haut-Empire romain, Études d’archéologie classique 10, Nancy.

Chabot, J.-B. (1941): Recueil des Inscriptions Libyques, Paris.

Chevrollier, F. (2016a): “Conscience gentilice et processus d’aristocratisation chez les notables de Cyrénaïque à l’époque impériale”, in: Michel, V., ed. De Leptis Magna à Derna, de la Tripolitaine à la Cyrénaïque: travaux récents sur la Libye antique, Collection Études libyennes 3, Paris, 39-66.

Chevrollier, F. (2016b): “From Cyrene to Gortyn. Notes on the relationship between Crete and Cyrenaica under Roman domination (1st century BC–4th century AD)”, in: Francis, J. E. and Kouremenos, A., ed. Roman Crete. New Perspectives, Oxford-Philadelphia, 11-26.

Dobias-Lalou, C. (1987): “Noyau grec et éléments indigènes dans le dialecte cyrénéen”, in: Luni, M. and Stucchi, S., ed. Cirene e i Libyi. Atti del Simposio Internazionale, Roma-Urbino, 13-16 aprile 1981, Quaderni di Archeologia della Libia, 12, 85-91.

Dobias-Lalou, C. (1989): “Bulletin Épigraphique”, Revue des Études Grecques, 102, 475, [online] https://www.jstor.org/stable/44264321 [accessed on 05/06/2025].

Dobias-Lalou, C. (2017a): “La suffixation des anthroponymes en Cyrénaïque pré-romaine”, in: Alonso Déniz, A., Dubois, L., Le Feuvre, C. and Minon, S., ed. La suffixation des anthroponymes grecs antiques (SAGA). Actes du colloque international de Lyon, 17-19 septembre 2015. Université Jean-Moulin-Lyon 3, Hautes Études du monde gréco-romain 55, Geneva, 469-492.

Dobias-Lalou, C. (2017b): Inscriptions of Greek Cyrenaica, Bologna, [online] doi.org/10.6092/UNIBO/IGCYRGVCYR [accessed on 05/06/2025].

Feissel, D. (1983): “Notes d’épigraphie chrétienne”, Bulletin de Correspondance Hellénique, 107(1), 601-618, [online] https://www.persee.fr/doc/bch_0007-4217_1983_num_107_1_1899 [accessed on 05/06/2025].

Fabbricotti, E. (2007): “Il santuario di Ain Hofra”, in: Dobias-Lalou, C., ed. Questions de religion cyrénéenne: actes du colloque de Dijon, 21-23 mars 2002, Paris, 93-100.

Gasperini, L. (1987): “Echi della componente autoctona nella produzione epigrafica cirenaica”, Quaderni di Archeologia della Libya, 12, 403-413.

Ghislanzoni, E. (1927): “Il Santuario delle Divinità Alessandrine”, Notiziario Archeologico del Ministero delle Colonie, 4, 147-206.

Goodchild, R. G., Reynolds, J. M. and Herington, C. J. (1958): “The Temple of Zeus at Cyrene”, Papers of the British School at Rome, 26, 30-62, [online] https://www.jstor.org/stable/40310596 [accessed on 05/06/2025].

Henzen, W. (1874): Acta fratrum Arvalium, Berlin.

Inglebert, H. (2005): “Les processus de romanisation”, in: Inglebert, H., ed. Histoire de la civilisation romaine, Nouvelle clio, Paris, 421-449.

Kantiréa, M. (2007): Les dieux et les dieux augustes: le culte impérial en Grèce sous les Julio-claudiens et les Flaviens. Études épigraphiques et archéologiques, Meletēmata 50, Paris.

Kerkeslager, A. (2006): “The Diaspora from 66 to c. 235 CE: The Jews in Egypt and Cyrenaica, 66-c. 235 CE”, in: Katz, S. T., ed. The Cambridge History of Judaism, Vol. IV: The Late Roman-Rabbinic Period, Cambridge, 53-68.

Kouremenos, A. (forthcoming): “Cultural identity and the process of emulative acculturation: the view from the domestic realm in Roman Crete”, Annual of the British School at Athens.

Laronde, A. (1988): “La Cyrénaïque romaine, des origines à la fin des Sévères (96 av. J.-C. – 235 ap. J.-C.)”, in: Temporini, H., ed. Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt, Volume 10/1: Politische Geschichte (Provinzen und Randvölker: Afrika und Ägypten), Berlin, 1006-1064, [online] https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110852943-024 [accessed on 05/06/2025].

Laronde, A. (1995): “Élément grec et élément libyen dans le droit et la société à Cyrène”, Sources. Travaux historiques, 36, 77-84.

Lassère, J.-M. (1988): “Onomastique et acculturation dans le monde romain”, in: Gély, S., ed. Sens et pouvoirs de la nomination dans les cultures hellénique et romaine, Montpellier, 87-102.

Luni, M. (1987): “Il Santuario rupestre libyo delle ‘immagini’ a fronte (Cirenaica). Testimonianze della cultura libya in ambiente greco-romano: originalità e dipendenza”, Quaderni di Archeologia della Libya, 12, 415-458.

Luni, M. (1992): “Strutture monumentali e documenti epigráfico nel Foro di Cirene”, in: Mastino, A., ed. L’Africa Romana. Atti del IX convegno di studio, Nuoro, 13-15 dicembre 1991, Pubblicazioni del Dipartimento di Storia dell ̕Università degli Studi di Sassari 20, Sassari, 123-146.

Luni, M., ed. (2006): Cirene “Atene d’Africa”, Monografie di archeologia libica 28, Rome.

Luni, M. (2011): “Le nouveau sanctuaire de Déméter et la «ceinture sacrée» à Cyrène à l’époque royale”, Comptes rendus de l’Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres, 155(1), 221-247, [online] https://www.persee.fr/doc/crai_0065-0536_2011_num_155_1_93129 [accessed on 05/06/2025].

Luni, M. (2013): “Definire lo spazio sacro a Cirene: l’area del santuario extra-urbano di Demetra”, in: Inglese, A., ed. Epigrammata 2. Definire, descrivere, proteggere lo spazio. In ricordo di André Laronde, atti del Convegno di Roma. Rome 26-27 October 2012, Themata 14, Rome, 197-230.

Marengo, S. M. (1988): “L’agorà di Cirene in età romana alla luce delle testimonianze epigrafiche”, Mélanges de l’École française de Rome. Antiquité, 100(1), 87-101, [online] https://www.persee.fr/doc/mefr_0223-5102_1988_num_100_1_1582 [accessed on 05/06/2025].

Marengo, S. M. (2003): “L’iscrizione votiva di Claudio Lykos”, Quaderni di Archeologia della Libya, 18, 205-210.

Marini, S. (2013): Grecs et Romains face aux populations libyennes. Des origines à la fin du paganisme (VIIe s. av. J.-C. – IVe s. ap. J.-C.), PhD thesis, Maison de la recherche, Paris.

Marini, S. (2014): “Grecs et Romains face aux populations libyennes. Des origines à la fin du paganisme (VIIe s. av. J.-C. – IVe s. ap. J.-C.)”, Ikosim, 3, 166-176, [online] https://shs.cairn.info/revue-ikos-2014-1-page-166?lang=fr [accessed on 05/06/2025].

Martin, R. (1973): “Rapports entre les structures urbaines et les modes de division et d’exploitation du territoire”, in: Finley, M. L., ed. Problèmes de la terre en Grèce ancienne, Civilisations et sociétés 33, Paris, 97-112.

Masson, O. (1965): “Trois Questions de Dialectologie Grecque”, Glotta, 43(3-4), 217-234, [online] https://www.jstor.org/stable/40265969 [accessed on 05/06/2025].

Masson, O. (1976): “Grecs et Libyens en Cyrénaïque, d’après les témoignages de l’épigraphie”, Antiquités africaines, 10, 49-62, [online] https://www.persee.fr/doc/antaf_0066-4871_1976_num_10_1_981#:~:text=Depuis%20le%20VIIe%20si%C3%A8cle%20avant,province%20romaine%20de%20%C2%AB%20Cyr%C3%A9na%C3%AFque%20%C2%BB [accessed on 05/06/2025].

Masson, O. (1984): “En marge d’Hérodote: deux peuplades mal connues, les Bacales et les Cabaléens”, Museum Helveticum, 41(3), 139-145, [online] https://www.jstor.org/stable/24816339 [accessed on 05/06/2025].

Menozzi, O. (2006): “Per una lettura della chora cirenea attraverso lo studio di santuari rupestri e di aree marginali della necropoli di Cirene”, in: Fabbricotti, E. and Menozzi, O., ed. Cirenaica: studi, scavi e scoperte. Atti del X Convegno di Archeologia Cirenaica, Chieti 24-26 novembre 2003, Part I: nuovi data da città e territorio, BAR International Series 1488, Oxford, 61-84.

Menozzi, O. (2007): “Santuari agresti nella chora di Cirene”, in: Dobias-Lalou, C., ed. Questions de religion cyrénéenne. Actes du colloque de Dijon, 21-23 mars 2002, Paris, 79-91.

Menozzi, O. (2015): “Extramural rock-cut sanctuaries in the territory of Cyrene”, Libyan Studies, 46, 57-74, [online] https://doi.org/10.1017/lis.2015.3 [accessed on 05/06/2025].

Menozzi, O. (2016): “Santuari rupestri nella chora di Cirene: incontro tra mondo libyo, greco e romano”, in: Russo Tagliente, A. and Guarneri, F., ed. Santuari mediterranei tra oriente e occidente: interazioni e contatti culturali. Atti del convegno internazionale, Civitavecchia-Roma 2014, Rome, 581-594.

Micheli, M. E., Santucci, A. and Bacchielli, L. (2000): Il santuario delle Nymphai Chthoniai a Cirene: il sito e le terrecotte, Monografie di archeologia libica 25, Rome.

Morpurgo Davies, A. (2000): “Greek Personal Names and Linguistic Continuity”, in: Matthews, E. and Hornblower, S., ed. Greek Personal Names: Their Value as Evidence, Proceedings of the British Academy 104, Oxford, 15-39.

Mullen, A. (2019). “Was Latin epigraphy a killer?”, Centre for the Study of Ancient Documents Newsletter, 23, 2-5, [online] https://nottingham-repository.worktribe.com/output/2095863 [accessed on 05/06/2025].

Mullen, A. (2024). “Languages and Literacies in Roman Britain”, in: Mullen, A. and Willi, A., ed. Latinization, Local Languages, and Literacies in the Roman West, Oxford Studies in Ancient Documents, Oxford, 355-401, [online] https://doi.org/10.1093/9780191994760.003.0010 [accessed on 05/06/2025].

Múrcia Sànchez, C. (2010): La llengua amaziga a l’antiguitat a partir de les fonts gregues i llatines, PhD thesis, Universitat de Barcelona, [online] http://www.tdx.cat/TDX-1001110-115129 [accessed on 05/06/2025].

Napolitano, M. C. and Venturini, F. (2015): “Luoghi di culto in grotta nella chora di Cirene”, Nearco, 8, 59-86.

Nuorluoto, T. (2017): “Emphasising matrilineal ancestry in a patrilineal system: maternal name preference in the Roman world”, in: Nowak, M., Łajtar, A. and Urbanik, J., ed. Tell me who you are: labelling status in the Graeco-Roman world, U schyłku starożytności 16, Warsaw, 257-283.

Nuorluoto, T. (2021): Roman Female Cognomina: Studies in the Nomenclature of Roman Women, Uppsala, [online] https://uu.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:1514294/FULLTEXT01.pdf [accessed on 05/06/2025].

Oliverio, A. (1933): La stele dei nuovi comandamenti e dei cereali: iscrizioni di Cirene (Gortina), El Gùbba, Ngàrnes, Gasr Barbùres, Gasr Taurgùni, Tolméta, Documenti antichi dell’Africa italiana 2,1, Rome.

Paci, G. (1994): “Le iscrizioni in lingua latina della Cirenaica”, Libyan Studies, 25, 251-257, [online] https://doi.org/10.1017/S0263718900006397 [accessed on 05/06/2025].

Renberg, H. (2017): Where Dreams May Come. Incubation Sanctuaries in the Greco-Roman World, Leiden-Boston, [online] https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004330238 [accessed on 05/06/2025].

Reynolds, J  M. (1959): “Four inscriptions from Roman Cyrene”, The Journal of Roman Studies, 49, 95-101, [online] https://doi.org/10.2307/297628 [accessed on 05/06/2025].

Reynolds, J. M. (1962): “Vota Pro Salute Principis”, Papers of the British School at Rome, 30, 33-36, [online] https://www.jstor.org/stable/40310628 [accessed on 05/06/2025].

Reynolds, J. M. (1988): “Inscriptions from the Cyrenaican limes”, in: Mastino, A., ed. L’Africa romana: atti del V convegno di studio, Sassari 11-13 dicembre 1987, Sassari, 167-172.

Reynolds, J. M. and Masson, O. (1976): “Une inscription éphébique de Ptolémaïs (Cyrenaïque)”, Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik, 20, 87-100, [online] https://www.jstor.org/stable/20181011 [accessed on 05/06/2025].

Reynolds, J. M., Roueché, C. M. and Bodard, G. (2020): Inscriptions of Roman Cyrenaica, London, [online] < http://ircyr2020.inslib.kcl.ac.u [accessed on 05/06/2025].

Reynolds, J. M., Roueché, C. M., Bodard, G. and Barron, C. (2021): Inscriptions of Roman Tripolitania, London, [online] http://irt2021.inslib.kcl.ac.uk [accessed on 05/06/2025].

Rizakis, A. D. (1996): “Anthroponymie et société. Les noms romains dans les provinces hellénophones de l’empire”, in: Rizakis, A. D., ed. Roman onomastics in the Greek East. Social and political aspects. Proceedings of the International Colloquium on Roman Onomastics, Athens 7-9 September 1993, Meletēmata 21, Athens, 11-30, [online] https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/61176626.pdf [accessed on 05/06/2025].

Robert, J. and Robert, L. (1959): “Bulletin Épigraphique”, Revue des Études Grecques, 72, 149-283, [online] https://www.persee.fr/doc/reg_0035-2039_1959_num_72_339_3579 [accessed on 05/06/2025].

Robertson, N. (2010): Religion and Reconciliation in Greek Cities. The Sacred Laws of Selinus and Cyrene, American Classical Studies, New York.

Rodríguez-Valdés, P. (2025a). Análisis de las transformaciones religiosas de Creta y Cirene entre los siglos I a.C. y IV d.C., PhD thesis defended on September 2025, Madrid.

Rodríguez-Valdés, P. (2025b). “Snakes, arulae and a female puissance: a new interpretation of the divinity worshipped in the Cyrenaican sanctuary of Martuba”, Libyan Studies, 56 (in print).

Rodríguez-Valdés, P. (forthcoming): “Collectivity and Religious Identity: the Idea of Belonging in the Cult of Isis in Cyrene”, in: Mazzili, F. and Lichtenberger, A., ed. Belonging and Sacred Places in Antiquity, Leiden-Boston.

Romanelli, P. (1961): “Un nuovo governatore della provincia di Creta e Cirene”, Quaderni di Archeologia della Libya, 4, 97-100.

Rosamilia, E. (2016): Cirene nel periodo dell’indipendenza (440-320 a.C.): un’élite cittadina e il suo mondo, Pisa.

Sandys, J. (1978): The Odes of Pindar Including the Principal Fragments, Loeb Classical Library 56, London.

Sfaxi, I. (2014): “L’onomastique libyque: son intérêt – état des recherches”, Revue des Études Berbères, 9, 565-575.

Smith, R. M. and Porcher, E. A. (1864): History of the recent discoveries at Cyrene, made during an expedition to the Cyrenaica in 1860-61, under the auspices of Mer Majesty’s government, London, [online] https://www.digitale-sammlungen.de/de/view/bsb10211931?page=,1 [accessed on 05/06/2025].

Struffolino, S. (2016-2017): “Gruppi etnici, divisioni sociali e organizzazione del territorio in Cirenaica tra Batto II e i Tolemei”, Dike, 19-20, 127-163, [online] https://doi.org/10.13130/1128-8221/10656 [accessed on 05/06/2025].

Stucchi, S. (1965): L’Agorà di Cirene I. I lati nord ed est della platea inferiore. With contributions from L. Gasperini and L. Pandolfi, Monografie di archeologia libica 7, Rome.

Stucchi, S. (1967): Cyrene 1957-1966. Un decennio di attività della missione archeologica italiana a Cirene, Quaderni dell’Istituto Italiano di Cultura di Tripoli 3, Tripoli.

Stucchi, S. (1975): Architettura cirenaica, Monografie di archeologia libica 9, Rome.

Taylor, R. (1931): The divinity of the Roman Emperor, Philological monographs 1, Middletown.

Thériault, G. (1996): Le Culte d’Homonoia dans les cités grecques, Lyon, [online] https://www.persee.fr/doc/mom_0985-6471_1996_mon_26_1 [accessed on 05/06/2025].

Vattioni, F. (1988): “I semiti nell’epigrafia cirenaica”, Studi Classici e Orientali, 37, 527-543, [online] https://www.jstor.org/stable/24182955 [accessed on 05/06/2025].

Vitali, L (1932): Fonti per la storia della religione cyrenaica, Padua.

White, D. (1966): “Excavations at Apollonia, Cyrenaica, Preliminary Report”, American Journal of Archaeology, 70(3), 259-265, [online] https://www.jstor.org/stable/501894 [accessed on 05/06/2025].

White, D. (1981): “Cyrene’s Sanctuary of Demeter and Persephone: A Summary of a Decade of Excavation”, American Journal of Archaeology, 85(1), 13-30, [online] https://www.jstor.org/stable/504962 [accessed on 05/06/2025].

White, D. (1987): “Demeter Libyssa. Her Cyrenean Cult in light of the Recent Excavations”, in: Luni, M. and Stucchi, S., ed. Cirene e i Libyi. Atti del Simposio Internazionale, Roma-Urbino, 13-16 aprile 1981, Rome, 67-84.

White, D. (2012): The Extramural Sanctuary of Demeter and Persephone at Cyrene, Libya, Final Reports, vol. VIII: The Sanctuary’s Imperial Architectural Development, Conflict with Christianity, and Final Days, Philadelphia, [online] https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt3fhqvk [accessed on 05/06/2025].

Notes

  1. In this regard, vid. Lassère 1988, 87-102. On acculturation and Romanisation, vid. the following references: Inglebert 2005, 421-449; Kouremenos forthcoming.
  2. The name of the province is Crete and Cyrene, not Cyrenaica, although this is the widespread name in recent bibliography and modern languages (vid., for example, the chapter by Chevrollier 2016b, 11). The classical sources give the names Crete and Cyrene with no room for error: IRCyr, C.101 (= SEG 9, 8, l. 37) ὅσοι Κρήτης καὶ Κυρήνης στρατηγήσουσιν; IRCyr, C.163 (= SEG 28, 1566, l. 72) τῆϲ τε Κρήτηϲ καὶ τῆϲ Κυρήνηϲ οὐκ ἔϲτιν ἱκανὸϲ. Mela, Chor. 1.39.1: In litore promunturia sunt Zephyrion et Naustathmos, portus Paraetonius, urbes Hesperia, Apollonia, Ptolemais, Arsinoe atque unde terris nomen est ipsa Cyrene.
  3. See Struffolino 2016-2017 for a detailed study of ethnic groups and social divisions from the founding of the colony to the Lagid rule. Vid. also Laronde 1995, 77-84. For the various Libyan tribes in the area, vid. Marini 2013, 17-68. Marini 2014, 168 offers a simplified tripartite division of the Libyans: Hellenised Libyans living inside the Greek cities; Libyans living near the Greek cities; and Libyan tribes living on the border zones of Greek influence. Clearly, the Greek population was considered indigenous from the moment it took over Libyan territory, with the indigenous population, with which it had different kinds of relations, both peaceful and warlike, from the very beginning. However, only the descendants of a Cyrenaean and a Libyan woman were admitted to the rank of citizens, thus excluding all other indigenous people, whether more or less Hellenised, as confirmed by the diagram of King Ptolemy I in 320 BC (IGCyr, 10800; SEG 9, 1). There are also scholars who have suggested the case of the Libyan population being rewarded with access to the civic body for their service to the colony, for their status among the tribes or for their close contacts with the Greeks (Struffolino 2016-2017, 130 n° 12), but it must be remembered that the granting of citizenship was an honour reserved for a few, and that cultural assimilation and a more or less peaceful coexistence do not imply that citizenship was granted (Marini 2013, 676).
  4. On other regions of the Empire where inscriptions for the indigenous language(s) are non-existent or very rare, vid. Mullen 2019, 2-5; 2024, 355-401.
  5. IRCyr, M.70 (= SEG 47, 2200, ll. 1-5): “[…] Gobba, god / accessible […]”, personal transl.). Abdussalem et al., 1997, 47-50. For a completely different situation in the preservation of epithets and theonyms in the indigenous languages of the imperial provinces, vid. the chapters of J. Herrera Rando and G. de tord Basterra in this volume.
  6. Vid. Marini 2013, 310-311 for a recent commentary on the cave and this ascription to “déesses-mères”. For the inscriptions of the grotto in the Apollonian sanctuary, IRCyr, C.336-392 (= SEG 9, 254-301). For the inscriptions of Budaraj, IRCyr, M.3-27 (= SEG 9, 773-795) and IGCyr, 51800 (= SEG 9, 727).
  7. Gasperini 1987, 406.
  8. Masson 1976, 49-62; Dobias-Lalou 1998, 207-212; 2017a, 464-492.
  9. IRCyr, C.130 (= SEG 9, 181), ll. 1-4: “Good Fortune. Priestesses of Hera: Mego (daughter of) Eidokritos, Labramea (daughter of) Bakal” (personal transl.). Along with this, only three other lists of priestesses of Hera have been preserved (cf. Dobias-Lalou 1989, 475): CIG III, 5143 (= IRCyr, C.142, now lost in its original format and preserved by a 19th-c. copy); SEG 9, 182 (= IRCyr, C.103); and SEG 17, 799 (= IRCyr, C.423). It is worth mentioning that the absence of lists from earlier times does not imply that Hera’s cult was not well established in the city. Indeed, a temple was constructed in her honour in the agora, and it is probable that she was also worshipped in the sanctuary of Zeus Ammon, under the patronage of Ammonia (cf. Callot 1999, 260).
  10. Hdt. 4.171.1: […] Αὐσχισέων δὲ κατὰ μέσον τῆς χώρης οἰκέουσι Βάκαλες, ὀλίγον ἔθνος, κατήκοντες ἐπὶ θάλασσαν κατὰ Ταύχειρα πόλιν τῆς Βαρκαίης; νόμοισι δὲ τοῖσι αὐτοῖσι χρέωνται τοῖσι καὶ οἱ ὑπὲρ Κυρήνης; “About the middle of the land of the Auschisae lives the little tribe of the Bacales, whose territory comes down to the sea at Tauchira, a town in the Barcaean country; their customs are the same as those of the dwellers inland of Cyrene” (trans. Godley 1920). For the analysis of the evolution of a tribe’s demonym into an anthroponym, Masson 1984, 139-145.
  11. Masson 1976, 62. Masson 1965, 219 claims that the name is an obvious Greek transcription of a Libyan one.
  12. SECir 1961-1962, 199a-d (= IRCyr, C.516).
  13. Nuorluoto 2014, 257-279.
  14. Broux & Depauw 2015, 467-478.
  15. IRCyr, C.221 (= SEG 9, 176).
  16. IRCyr, C.219 (= SEG 37, 1671, list of priests of Apollo) and IRCyr, C.220 (= SEG 9, 177, dedication to the goddess).
  17. This cognomen has been the subject of debate since antiquity, with two main theories emerging. One theory suggests that it originated from a Libyan term used to refer to the monarch or chief of the tribe (cf. Dobias-Lalou 1987, 86), while the other one proposes that it may have derived from the Greek verb βατταρίζω (“to babble”). Masson 1976 has proposed the Greek option as the most plausible. Vid. also Hdt. 4.155.1-2: [1] […] τῷ οὔνομα ἐτέθη Βάττος, ὡς Θηραῖοί τε καὶ Κυρηναῖοι λέγουσι, ὡς μέντοι ἐγὼ δοκέω, ἄλλο τι· [2] Βάττος δὲ μετωνομάσθη, ἐπείτε ἐς Λιβύην ἀπίκετο, ἀπό τε τοῦ χρηστηρίου τοῦ γενομένου ἐν Δελφοῖσι αὐτῷ καὶ ἀπὸ τῆς τιμῆς τὴν ἔσχε τὴν ἐπωνυμίην ποιεύμενος. Λίβυες γὰρ βασιλέα βάττον καλέουσι, καὶ τούτου εἵνεκα δοκέω θεσπίζουσαν τὴν Πυθίην καλέσαι μιν Λιβυκῇ γλώσσῃ, εἰδυῖαν ὡς βασιλεὺς ἔσται ἐν Λιβύῃ; “[1] […] to whom he gave the name Battus, as the Theraeans and Cyrenaeans say; but in my opinion the boy was given some other name, [2] and changed it to Battus on his coming to Libya, taking this new name because of the oracle given to him at Delphi and the honourable office which he received. For the Libyan word for king is ‘Battus,’ and this (I believe) is why the Pythian priestess called him so in her prophecy, using a Libyan name because she knew that he was to be king in Libya” (transl. Godley 1920).
  18. Alshareef et al., 2021, 57-58.
  19. For more information on his persona and his socio-political links with the Roman elite, Chevrollier 2016a, 55.
  20. The inscriptions corresponding to these restorations are IRCyr, C.299 (= SEG 9, 174, temple of Isis) and IRCyr, C.305 (= SEG 9, 175, temple of Apollo).
  21. Nuorluoto 2014, 13. Vid., for example, the dedication IRCyr, C.445 (= SEG 62, 1795.9) in Cyrene: Δά[ματ]ρ̣ι̣ καὶ Κό[ρ]α[ι] / Ἀντωνία / τ[ὰν] Ἀρεταφ[ίλαν] / [ἀ]νέθηκε; “To Demeter and Kore, Antonia dedicated the (statue of) Aretaphila” (personal transl.).
  22. IRCyr, C.48, ll. 24-27.
  23. IRCyr, C.416 (= OGIS 767), ll. 2-6: “and having shown that concern worthy of his ancestors and his homeland, having twice served as a priest of Caesar Augustus with tenacity and zeal […]” (personal transl.) For an explanation of this priest’s office and its consequences for the religious structure, vid. Rodríguez-Valdés 2025a, 119-120.
  24. Already in the time of King Magas, the eponymous priesthood was employed as a mechanism of social control to prevent potential uprisings by local elites against the dominant foreign oligarchies (Rosamilia 2016, 110-111).
  25. IRCyr, C.647: “Igisan (son of) Antimachos, Antimachos (son of) Antimachos (dedicated this) to Hermes and Herakles)” (personal transl.).
  26. For example, the dedication IRCyr, C.446 (= SEG 26, 1825) includes an offering for the statue of a woman belonging to the cult of Demeter and Kore in the city. On the base, reused due to the socio-economic conditions of the time and the Marmaric Wars, the name of the sculptor, Ἄριστις Ταβάλβιος, is inscribed, displaying a Libyan rather than a Greek patronymic (Masson 1976, 60). As O. Masson suggests, the suffix -is may be due to the Hellenisation of indigenous names ending in a vowel, or it may simply be a suffix of Greek origin appended to a Libyan root. Be that as it may, it is recognised as a distinctly non-Hellenic feature, attested since the 4th c. BC.
  27. Masson 1976, 56-62.
  28. IRCyr, C.145 (= SEG 20, 741, l. 7).
  29. Gasperini 1987, 409.
  30. For Jewish onomastics in Cyrenaean territory, which will be touched on briefly here, Vattioni 1988, 527-543; Applebaum 1979.
  31. According to Hdt. 4.164.4, it is the name of the king of Barce in the 5th c. BC, who was the stepfather of the king of Cyrene Arcesilaus IV: εἶχε δὲ γυναῖκα συγγενέα ἑωυτοῦ, θυγατέρα δὲ τῶν Βαρκαίων τοῦ βασιλέος, τῷ οὔνομα ἦν Ἀλάζειρ: παρὰ τοῦτον ἀπικνέεται, καί μιν Βαρκαῖοί τε ἄνδρες καὶ τῶν ἐκ Κυρήνης φυγάδων τινὲς καταμαθόντες ἀγοράζοντα κτείνουσι, πρὸς δὲ καὶ τὸν πενθερὸν αὐτοῦ Ἀλάζειρα […]; “Now he had a wife who was a relation of his, a daughter of Alazir king of the Barcaeans, and Arcesilaus went to Alazir; but men of Barce and some of the exiles from Cyrene were aware of him and killed him as he walked in the town, and Alazir his father-in-law too […]” (transl. Godley 1920).
  32. IRCyr, C.515 ll. 14-15: Ἀλαδδειρο[ς] / Ἀλαδδει[ρ]. Masson 1976, 53, 59.
  33. IRCyr, C.145 (b, i, l. 17).
  34. Vattioni 1988, 529.
  35. IRCyr, C.145 (b, i, l. 15). For example, it occurs in IRCyr, T.344 (= SEG 9, 588): [(ἔτους) Φ]α̣ω- / [φὶ .] / Λυϲα- / νίαϲ Ὑρά- / θιοϲ (ἐτῶν) ν; “[year] Phaophi. Lisanias (son of) Hyrathis. 50 years” (personal transl.). The variants can be found in IRCyr, C.95 (= SEG 9, 133) l. 14: Ὕρατθις Διονυσίω; “Hyratthis (son of) Dionysios” (personal transl.). Masson 1976, 60.
  36. IRCyr, C.95 (= SEG 9, 133), ll. 1-4: “year 15. Under the priest (of Apollo) Philisko (son of) Euphanes and that of emperor Caesar Augustus, son of a god” (personal transl.). Taylor 1931, 270.
  37. Marengo 2003, 206-207.
  38. IRCyr, C.152 (= SEG 9, 128), ll. 13, 18. With regard to the abundance of “Aurelius” in the onomastic structures from the 3rd c. AD onwards in extant sources, it should be noted that, as Bancalari Molina 2004, 174 points out, the promulgation of the constitutio Antoniniana meant that every person who acquired citizenship had to bear such a marker in honour of Caracalla himself. In the case of Roman Cyrene, of the eight other records which retain this name and which are not, of course, that of the emperor or his family (IRCyr, C.299 = SEG 9, 174; C.305 = SEG 9, 175; C.422 = SEG 9, 126; C.86 = SEG 9, 9; P.145 = SEG 56, 2036; P.201 = AE 1969/70, 639), only C.306 (= SEG 9, 172. 176-180 AD) and T.99 (= SEG 9, 522. 1st c. BC-2nd c. AD) are certainly earlier than the date of the edict.
  39. Masson 1976, 59. Roman Tripolitana (IRT, 1259: Iambart / Uixit ann(os) LXX); Cyrene (IRCyr, C.131 = SEG 20, 742, b, col. ii, l. 48: Γ(άϊος) Ἰούλιος Ἰαμβάρις). Finally, Ἀνύσσαν is most often attested in Cyrenaean epigraphy, either with a single syllable or with a geminate. Vid., for instance, IRCyr, T.145 (= SEG 9, 436: Ἀ̣[ν]υ̣σσὰν̣); SEG 9, 348 ([Ἀν̣]ύσαν Ἀριστάρχω).
  40. IRCyr, P.79 (= SEG 26, 1839, b, ii, ll. 5, 7, 8) is a dedication by forty-five ephebes from Ptolemais and dated to the 4th or 3rd c. BC.
  41. For example, in IRCyr, M.61 (= SEG 26, 1846: Δάχις Χ̣αλδαις) or IRCyr, T.100 (Δάχις Ἀριστωνύμωι).
  42. Reynolds & Masson 1976, 89-90, 99.
  43. Masson 1976, 61.
  44. IRCyr, P.11 (= SEG 9, 379), l. 4: (ἔτους) α´ Ἀ̣λ̣ά̣μων Φιλωνίδα; “year 1. Alamon (son of) Philonidas)” (personal transl.).
  45. IRCyr, P.11 (= SEG 9, 379), l. 2: (ἔτους) α ́ Ἀριπαχθίς. Cf. Reynolds & Masson 1976, 99; SEG 26, 1849: Ἀ̣ριπ̣αχθ[ίς] Ν[…], the second and last time it appears in Greek epigraphy. For further information, Reynolds 1988, 169; Múrcia Sànchez 2010, 141.
  46. IRCyr, P.299. It is also worth mentioning that there is another name that was originally thought to be Libyan, Ἀρίμμαν, an anthroponym that we find scattered throughout the region, such as in: IRCyr, C.259, which reads as [— Ἀ]ρ̣ίμμαν Ἀρίμμαντος ἱαριτεύων (“Arimman (son of) Arimmantos, being priest”, personal transl.); the aforementioned IRCyr, C.145 (Βάττος Ἀρίμμαντος); IRCyr C.144 (= SEG 50, 1643), l. 1: Ἀρίμμαν Καρ̣τ̣ίμαχος; IRCyr, M.204 (= SEG 9, 729-35), l. 13: Γ[ρυ]λλος Ἀριμμάντο[ς], but which Reynolds & Masson 1976, 91 already explain as a perfectly regular Greek diminutive with an expressive gemination from a compound Ἀρι-μένης ο Ἀρί-μναστος.
  47. IRCyr, C.144 (= SEG 50, 1643): Ἁγήσιος (ἔτους) μ’ Βαρκαίω τῶ Δάμιος. Sfaxi 2014, 56.
  48. Vid. the chapter of L. Pérez Yarza, J. Herrera Rando and S. Bianchi Mancini in this volume for an overview of studies on multilingualism in antiquity and possible categorisations.
  49. For a summary of the situation of the Jews in Egypt and Cyrene in the first two centuries AD, and of the still unresolved issue question concerning the origins of the conflict, Kerkeslager 2006, 53-68; Applebaum 1979.
  50. Paci 1994, 251-253; Marengo 1988, 93-94.
  51. Vid., for example, the dedication of the northern stoa of the Agora of Cyrene, in which Zeus Soter, Rome and Augustus appear as a clear sign of the politico-religious vindication of the imperial cult and its link with the preceding Greek pantheon (IRCyr, C.114 = SEG 9, 127): Ζηνὶ Σωτῆρι καὶ Ῥώμ[αι —]αι καὶ Σε[βαστῶι —]; “To Zeus Soter, Rome and Augustus” (personal transl.).
  52. These are IRCyr, C.102 (= SEG 17, 808, bilingual dedication to Hadrian); C.106 (= AE 1968, 532); C.107; C.108 (= AE 1968, 534); C.109 (= AE 1968, 534); C.126 (= AE 1963, 142); C.300 (= SECir, 1961-1962, 78); C.301 (= SECir, 1961-1962, 79); C.455 (= SEG 44, 1538) The selection of inscriptions is based on the provision of a minimum amount of information, and on the state of preservation, with the objective of enabling specific study.
  53. For adaptive strategies in bilingual religious inscriptions, especially regarding theonyms, vid. the chapter of G. Benedetti in this volume.
  54. IRCyr, T.5 (= AE 1939, 278): Libero patri ciuitas Ṭ[euchirensium —] / ex pubḷịca p̣ẹcunịạ [—]; “To Liber Pater, the city of the Teuchirirenses from public money” (personal transl.).
  55. IRCyr, P.118 (= AE 1963, 141.1, 2); P.119 (= AE 1963, 141.3).
  56. IRCyr, M.192 (= AE 1974, 681): Ael(ia) T(iti) f(ilia) Palatina / Iul(ius) Democritus / eq(ues) R(omanus) pro salute / Iulior(um) Saturnini / et Catullini filior(um) / suorum Aesculapio / et Hygiae; “Aelia Palatina, daughter of Titus, (and) Julius Democritus, Roman eques, for the safety of their sons, Julius Saturninus and Julius Cautillinus, to Aesculapius and Hygia (dedicated this)” (personal transl.).
  57. Paci 1994, 251; Stucchi 1975, 445.
  58. IRCyr, C.126 (= AE 1963, 142): “Sacred to Libya, for the safety of Publius Pomponius Secundus, proconsul, Manius Messius Atticus, his client, (dedicated this)” (personal transl.).
  59. For an account of its iconography and representation in Roman Imperial times, Catani 1987, 385-410.
  60. IRCyr, C.108 (= AE 1968, 534): [— Augusta]e sacrum / [—]PANA; IRCyr, C.109: [—] sacrum [—].
  61. IRCyr, C.106 (= AE 1968, 532): [D]iana[e] Augustae / [sacrum]; IRCyr, C.107: A[po]llini Aug[u]sto / sacrum.
  62. Ghislanzoni 1927, 200. Vid. Stucchi 1965, 213-214 for a different view, holding that the former could be Latona, Minerva or Ceres, or a member of the imperial family, while the latter would be analogous, though in worse conditions.
  63. For example, the dedication to the Soteres gods of the 3rd c. BC, later reused for IRCyr, C.122, IGCyr, 100000 (= SEG 38, 1887: a): [—] Κυράνα Ἀπόλλων [—] / Λιβύα [—] / b) Ζηνὶ Σωτ[ῆρι καὶ —] [θε]|οῖς [Σωτῆρ?]|σ̣ιν [—] [Κυρα]|ναῖο[ι] ἀ[νέ]|θ̣ηκαν).
  64. Name given by the British discoverers: Smith & Porcher 1864. If this name is retained, it is to distinguish it from the one dedicated to Aphrodite in the Apollonian sanctuary, along with the rest of the deities associated with the same sphere of power (Luni et al., 2006). The relief and its inscription in elegiac couplets are catalogued as GVCyr, 29.
  65. Pind. Pyth. 9.26-32: κίχε νιν λέοντί ποτ ̓ εὐρυφαρέτρας / ὀμβρίμῳ μούναν παλαίοισαν / ἄτερ ἐγχέων ἑκάεργος Ἀπόλλων. / αὐτίκα δ ̓ ἐκ μεγάρων Χείρωνα προσέννεπε φωνᾷ. / ‘σεμνὸν ἄντρον, Φιλλυρίδα, προλιπὼν θυμὸν γυναικὸς καὶ μεγάλαν δύνασσιν / θαύμασον, οἷον ἀταρβεῖ νεῖκος ἄγει κεφαλᾷ, μόχθου καθύπερθε νεᾶνις / ἦτορ ἔχοισα· φόβῳ δ ̓ οὐ κεχείμανται φρένες.; “Once did Apollo, the far-darting god of the wide quiver, fin her without spears, wrestling alone with a monstrous lion; and forthwith he called Cheiron from out his halls and spake to him in this wise: “Son of Philyra, leave the hallowed cave and look with wonder at a woman’s spirit and mighty power. See what a contest she is waging with undaunted head, –this maiden with a heart which no toil can subdue, and a mind that no fear can overwhelm.”” (transl. Sandys 1978).
  66. In this respect, the minting of coinage from the province of Crete and Cyrene is noteworthy, as is the use and reinterpretation of the myths shared by both regions during the Imperial period to retrospectively justify their annexation. Vid. Chevrollier 2016, 11-26.
  67. Romanelli 1961, 97-100.
  68. IRCyr, C.150: [—] P(ubli) f(ilius) Atticu[—]).
  69. IRT, 408 (= AE 2013, 1766; AE 2017, 1676): Iuliae Aug(ustae) / matri Aug[[g(ustorum)]] / et castrorum / Messius ——Atticus c(enturio) / coh(ortis) VII pr(aetoriae) p(iae) v(indicis) / v(otum ) s(olvit; “To Julia Augusta, mother of the Augusti and of the camps; Messius Atticus, centurion of cohort seven of the praetorian guard, the pious avengers, paid his vow” (personal transl.). IRT, 438 (= AE 2013, 1766): [[L(ucio) S[ep]t[i]mio Ge]]/[[tae Caes(ari)]] / Imp(eratoris) Caes(aris) L(uci) Sep/timi Severi Pii / Pertinacis Aug(usti) Ara/bici Adiabenici / Parthici max(imi) / fil(io) et / Imp(eratoris) Caes(aris) M(arci) Aurelli(!) / Antonini Aug(usti) fratr/i Messius ——Atticus / prim(us) sacerd (os) vot (um) sol(vit); “To Lucius Septimius Geta Caesar (all erased) son of Emperor Caesar Lucius Septimius Severus Pius Pertinax Augustus, victor in Arabia, victor in Adiabene, greatest victor in Parthia, and brother of Emperor Caesar Marcus Aurellius Antoninus Augustus, Messius Atticus, first priest, paid his vow” (personal transl.). IRT, 439 (= AE 2013, 1766): [[P(ublio) Septi[m]io [Getae]]] / [[C[a]es(ari)]] / Imp(eratoris) Caes(aris) L(uci) Septimi / Severi Pii Pertina/cis Aug(usti) Arabici A/diabenici Parthi/ci maximi fortissi/mi felicissimi / p(atris) p(atriae) filio et Imp(eratoris) / Caes(aris) M(arci) Aurelli(!) An/tonino(!) Aug(usti) trib(unicia) pot(estate) / proco(n)s(ulis) fratri / Messius ——Atticus c(enturio) / coh(ortis) X urb(anae) / votum solvit; “To Publius Septimius Geta Caesar (all erased) son of Emperor Caesar Lucius Septimius Severus Pius Pertinax Augustus, victor in Arabia, victor in Adiabene, greatest victor in Parthia, most courageous, most fortunate, father of the country, and brother of Emperor Caesar Marcus Aurellius Antoninus Augustus, holding tribunician power, proconsul, Messius Atticus, centurion of Cohort Ten of the urban guards, paid his vow” (personal transl.).
  70. Vid. Henzen 1874, 100-104 for these fragments and the rest of the testimonies of the vota annua held at the beginning of January, the closest in the province being the papyrus of Dura Europos P. Dura 54 (cf. also the comment on IRCyr, C.146).
  71. Cyrene: IRCyr, C.146; Ptolemais: IRCyr, P.97; P.204; P.339.
  72. Reynolds 1962, 33.
  73. Marengo 1988, 97-98.
  74. On the Augusteum of Cyrene, Stucchi 1965, 207-217; 1967; Stucchi & Bacchielli 1983.
  75. Probably named in honour of Ptolemy VIII Evergetes II (182-116 BC). Luni 1992, 124.
  76. IRCyr, C.93 (= SEG 9, 132 to Apollo Nomios); C.94 (= SEG 9, 131 to Agathe Tyche); C.95 (= SEG 9, 133 to Aphrodite Nomophylakida); C.96 (= SEG 9, 135 to Omonia); C.97 (= SEG 9, 134 to Aphrodite); GVCyr, 26 (= SEG 20, 736 to Apollo Nomios).
  77. Callim. Hymn 1, 47-49: Φοῖβον καὶ Νόμιον κικλήσκομεν ἐξέτι κείνου, / ἐξότ᾽ ἐπ᾽ Ἀμφρυσσῷ ζευγίτιδας ἔτρεφεν ἵππους / ἠιθέου ὑπ᾽ ἔρωτι κεκαυμένος Ἀδμήτοιο; “We also invoke Apollo as Nomios ever since he looked after the horses on the banks of the Amphryssos, consumed by the desire for the young Admetus.” (personal transl.).
  78. Vid. the editors’ commentary in the IRCyr database. Cic. Nat. D. 3.57: […] quartus in Arcadia, quem Arcades Νόμιον appellant quod ab eo se leges ferunt accepisse; “the fourth (Apollo) is from Arcadia, called by the inhabitants ‘Nomios’ because he is believed to give to them the laws.” (personal transl.).
  79. In the IRCyr database, IGCyr, 10800 (= SEG 9, 1), l. 32 reads: Ἔστωσαν δὲ καὶ νομοφύλακες ἐννῆ ἐκ τῶν μὴ νενομοφυλακηκότων; “There will be also nine nomophylakes chosen amongst those who have not yet taken on that duty” (personal transl.).
  80. For the complete classification of onomastic attributes and the terminology used, Alvar Ezquerra et al., 2024.
  81. Thériault 1996, 54, with n° 236. SEG 9, 135: quibus approbatis Ὁμ. [Σεβαστήν?] Oliv(erio); Marengo 1988, 98. Be that as it may, if there really was a reading with the epithet, this would not be a dedication belonging to the imperial cult, but rather a strategy of semantic hyperbole or Augustalisation. On this, vid. Alvar Ezquerra & López-Gómez 2024, 119–147.
  82. IRCyr, C.114 (= SEG 9, 127).
  83. Marengo 1988, 97-98. The editors of the IRCyr database, on the other hand, propose a tentative reconstruction in their commentary: Ῥώμ[αι Εὐεργέτιδι θε]αῖ.
  84. Kantiréa 2007, 141.
  85. IRCyr, P.54 (= SEG 40, 1602): [ἐφ’ἱερέως Ἀπόλλων]ος Καίσα- / [ρος Τραιανοῦ Ἁ]δριανοῦ Σε- / [βαστοῦ Ὀλυ]μπίου τὸ β´ / [c. 12] ἀκαδημεα̣- / [ρχc. 10] Φαινιανὸς / [c. 11ο]υ̣ καὶ Φ[—]; “under the priest of Apollo Caesar Trajan Hadrian Augustus Olympios, for the second time, akademearch […] Phainianos […] and Ph[…]” (personal transl.). The inscription has gaps that cannot be plausibly reconstructed, but two facts seem incontrovertible: the term Ὀλυ]μπίου is part of the onomastic chain of the emperor, and therefore his identification with the father of the gods; and Hadrian held the position of eponymous priest, following the tradition already indicated above in n° 24 and started by King Magas.
  86. IRCyr, C.660: [— Δ]ά̣ματρα νέαν / [—φ]ορον. She could also be Sabina, but the space and the typography of the letter make the identification with Ioulia Livia more plausible. Cf. IRCyr, C.499 (= IGRR, I.1033): Ἰουλίαν / Σεβαστὰν / Κυραναῖοι.
  87. In this case, indirectly. IRCyr, C.287 (= SEG 27, 1197): ὑπὲρ τῆς ⟦Νέρων⟧ος Κλαυδίου / Καίσαρος νίκης καὶ σωτηρίας / καὶ τοῦ οἴκου αὐτοῦ πάντος / Ἀπόλλωνι Ἀποβατηρίω / Μ(ᾶρκος) Ἀντώνιος Γέμελλος ἐκ τῶν τοῦ / Ἀπόλλωνος; “for the victory and safety of Nero Claudius Caesar and his whole domus, to Apollo Apobaterios Markos Antonios Gemellos from the funds of Apollo (dedicated it)” (personal transl.).
  88. IRCyr, C.300 (= SECir 1961-1962, 78).
  89. Rodríguez-Valdés, forthcoming; 2025b. Also, Ensoli 1992, 167-250; Marini 2013, 444-445.
  90. On these and other peculiarities of the inscription, Goodchild et al., 1958, 36-37, IRCyr, C.292 (= SEG 9, 168): [Imp(erator) Caesar diui Traiani Parthici filius] / [diui Neruae nepos Traianus Hadrianus] / [Aug(ustus) pontif(ex) max(imus) trib(unicia) pot(estate) III co(n)s(ul) III/ templum ] / [restitui iussit Cyr]⟦enen⟧siụ[m ciuitati quod] / [tumulto Iudaico di]rutum et e[xustum erat]. [Αὐτοκράτω]ρ Καῖσ[αρ] / [θεοῦ Τραιανοῦ Παρθικ]οῦ υἱὸς θε̣[οῦ Νέρβα υἱ- / ωνὸς Τραιανὸς Ἁδριαν]ὸς Σεβαστ[ὸς ἀρχιερε-] / [ὺς μέγιστος δημαρ]χ̣ικῆς ἐξου̣[σίας? τὸ —] / [ὕπατος τὸ? τῆι Κ]υρηναίων π[όλει τοῦ] / [ναοῦ ἐν τῶι ταράχωι Ἰ]ουδαικῶι κεκ̣[αυμένου] / [καὶ πεπορθημένου τὴ]ν ἀποκατάσ[τασιν προσέταξε]; Latin: “[Emperor Caesar, son of deified Trajan, victor in Parthia, grandson of deified Nerva, Trajan Hadrian Augustus pontifex maximus, holding tribunician power for the 3rd time, consul for the 3rd time, ordered that the temple which had been] destroyed and [burnt in the Jewish riot should be restored for the city] of the Cyrenaeans”, Greek: “[Emperor] Caesar, son [of deified Trajan, victor in Parthia, grandson of] deified [Nerva, Trajan Hadrian] Augustus [pontifex maximus, holding] tribunician power [for the 3rd time, consul for the 3rd time, ordered] the reconstruction [of the temple which had been destroyed and] burnt in the Jewish [riot for the city] of the Cyrenaeans” (personal transl.). In this inscription on the restoration of the temple of Hecate, we find all the expected elements. The badly damaged Latin text was reconstructed from the Greek translation, which, we are told, was burnt and destroyed during the Jewish uprisings. Another restoration inscription ordered by Hadrian, in this case from the city’s Caesareum, is very similar, except for minor details (Luni 1992, 123-146; 2006, 37-56).
  91. IRCyr, C.419 (= SEG 17, 801), an inscription from the temple of Zeus: “a) proconsul [dedicated] to Jupiter Augustus . . . the city [of the Cyrenaeans . . . (b): . . . and dedicated the most excellent proconsul Claudius Attalos” (personal transl.).
  92. IRCyr, C.14 (= SEG 17, 809): “Emperor Caesar, son of deified Trajan victor in Parthia, grandson of deified Nerva, Trajan Hadrian Augustus, chief priest, holding tribunician power for the thirteenth time, consul for [the third time, father] of the country, founder and nourisher and lawgiver: the city of the Cyrenaeans ((i.e. set up his statue)” (personal transl.). Another example is IG II.2, 3306: Αὐτοκράτορα / Ἁδριανὸν / Ὀλύμπιον / τὸν οἰκιστὴν / καὶ εὐεργέτην / Ἀπολλωνιᾶται / οἱ κατὰ Κυρήνην / [δι]ὰ · Λ · Νοουίου / [Ῥο]ύφο[υ]; “Emperor Hadrian Olympios, founder and benefactor, the Apollonians from Cyrene by L. Novius” (personal transl.). Paci 1994, 252.
  93. Adams 2003, 38.
  94. CIL III, 8.
  95. Adams 2003, 579. Fayoum 2, 124.
  96. Marini 2013, 371-405.
  97. Adams 2003, 578. Bernand 1977, 120, with n° 51; Pan du désert 51.
  98. Akoris 3.
  99. For complete information on the subject in the territories of the region of Cyrene, Menozzi 2006, 61-84; 2007, 79-91; 2015, 57-74; 2016, 581-594. For a more general conceptualisation, Martin 1973, 97-112.
  100. Menozzi 2007, 79-80; 2016, 592.
  101. Bacchielli 1998, 23-34.
  102. For the sanctuary, White 1966; 2012.
  103. Cf. the sacred law of the 4th c. BC (IGCyr, 16700 = SEG 9, 72), in which this deity is mentioned along with a series of regulations on worship, purification, or ritual sacrifice (ll. 4-7: [Αἴ] κ̣α ἐπὶ τὰγ γᾶν ἢ ἐπὶ τὰμ πόλιν ἐπείηι νόσο[ς ἢ λι- / μὸ]ς̣ ἢ θάνατος, θύεν ἔμπροσθε τᾶμ πυλᾶν [ἐναντ- / ίον] τῶ Ἀποτροπαίω, τῶι Ἀπόλλωνι τῶι Ἀποτρ̣[όπ- / ωι] χ̣ίμαρον ἐρυθρόν; “If ever the land or the city is hit by sickness or famine or death, sacrifice in front of the city gates, facing the Apotropaion, to Apollo Apotropos a red kid” (personal transl.)).
  104. Vid. Luni 2013, 197-230. IGCyr, 114900 (= SEG 61, 1554): Δαμόφιλος Δαμοφίλω / Ἀπόλλωνι {δ} Διὶ / Ἀθηνᾶι / Ἀποτροπαίοις; “Damophilos (son of) Damophilos to Apollo, Zeus and Athena Apotropaioi” (personal transl.).
  105. Some others, no less important, are that of Aphrodite, built next to the temple of Cybele, or that of the Chthonian Nymphs, converted into the oracular grotto par excellence of Cyrene. Napolitano & Venturini 2015, 59-86 and especially Micheli et al., 2000.
  106. Menozzi 2006, 61-84; Fabbricotti 2007, 93-100; Menozzi, 2015.
  107. For example, IGCyr, 31100 (= SEG 9, 327): [Ζ]ε̣̣̄νὶ Με̄[λιχίōι] / Εὐμε(νίσι) / Εὐμ(ενίσι) Δάμας; IGCyr 31200 (= SEG 9, 328): Μη̣λιχίου.
  108. Menozzi 2016, 590. O. Menozzi argues that it is the Libyan Ammon rather than the Graeco-Libyan form of Zeus-Ammon; however, I do not find her arguments convincing. On the cult of Zeus-Ammon, vid., for instance, Bisi 1985, 307-318; Marini 2013, 389-410; and, to a lesser extent, Bonacasa 2007, 233-245.
  109. Menozzi 2015, 87ff. Also Luni 1987, 415-458.
  110. Luni 1987, 455-456. It would not have been an entirely unknown practice in Cyrene, since there already seems to be evidence of its realisation in the sanctuary of Balagrae, dedicated to Iatros-Asclepius (Renberg, 2017, 561-563). Cf. the stele of the commanders or sacred law of Cyrene (4th c. BC). The custom of visiting the tombs of illustrious ancestors, in this case Battos, as a form of divination is already explicitly mentioned in IGCyr, 16700, ll. 21-24: Ἀ̣καμαντίων ὁσία παντὶ καὶ ἁγνῶι καὶ βαβάλω̣[ι]· / πλὰν ἀπ’ ἀνθρώπω Βάττω τω τῶ ἀρχαγέτα καὶ / Τριτοπατέρων καὶ ἀπὸ Ὀνυμάστω τῶ Δελφῶ{ι}, / ἀπ’ ἄλλω, ὅπη ἄνθρωπος ἔκαμε, οὐκ ὁσία ἁγνῶ<ι>· / τῶν δὲ ἱαρῶν ὁσία παντί.; “Access to the Akamantia is allowed for everyone, pure or profane except with any human Battos, descendant of the founder, with the Tritopatores and with Onymastos the Delphian, contact with any other place where a man is dead is forbidden for the pure.” (personal transl.). Oliverio 1933; Robertson 2010. Vid. also the editors’ comment on the database.
Rechercher
Retour au sommaire
One Cult, Multiple Cultures:
Multilingualism and Religion in the Roman Mediterranean
Pablo Rodríguez-Valdés
Presses universitaires de Bordeaux
Diglossi@_3
Pessac
Livre
EAN html : 9791030011487
ISBN html : 979-10-300-1148-7
ISBN pdf : 979-10-300-1149-4
Volume : 3
ISSN : 3000-3563
28 p.
licence CC by SA

Comment citer

Rodríguez-Valdés, Pablo, « Onomastics in the religious epigraphy of Cyrene as a reflection of multiculturalism in Roman times », in: Yarza, Lorena, Herrera Rando, Javier, Bianchi Mancini, Sofia, ed., One Cult, Multiple Cultures: Multilingualism and Religion in the Roman Mediterranean, Pessac, Presses Universitaires de Bordeaux, collection Diglossi@ 3, 2025 [en ligne] https://una-editions.fr/onomastics-in-the-religious-epigraphy-of-cyrene/ [consulté le 05/06/2025].
http://dx.doi.org/10.46608/diglossia3.9791030011487.9
Au téléchargement
la version PDF
Accès à l'ouvrage One Cult, Multiple Cultures
Illustration de couverture • Altar with bilingual inscription from Viseu (Portugal) © J. Alfredo/EON; Relief from the Temple of Zeus Kyrios in Dura Europos (Syria) © Wikimedia Commons.
Chapitre précédent
Sommaire
Chapitre suivant

Commencez à saisir du texte et appuyez sur Entrée pour rechercher

Retour en haut