The denarius was introduced into Greece wholesale around the time of the civil wars (49-30 BC), and the country became especially flooded by denarii when Marc Antony was recruiting an army from the legions in Greece and Asia Minor; he needed money to fund these and used cities like Athens to mint coins for this purpose (Kroll 1997: 141, citing Crawford 1974: 516-7, 520-2, 527-9, 533, 536, 539, 541-5). The conversion to the denarius in the Aegean was a by-product of military circumstance (Kroll 1997: 141). However, Athens was the exception in these matters: it circulated its own local coins (Katsari 2011: 231). By the Julio-Claudian era, most Greek cities had ‘Romanised’ their bronze coinage, but the bronze hemi-drachms that Athens produced after 42 BC and those that followed were not denominationally Roman (Kroll 1997: 144).
For example, coins minted for Marc Antony only made passing references to him by way of incorporating features of him into the head of Dionysos ((much like the way Hellenistic Diadochi portrayed themselves as Alexander the Great) Kroll 1997: 144, Fig. 1:16, 18). Coins minted under the auspices of Augustus (and Octavian) were exactly the same; the emperor was only alluded to by way of reference. Symbols of Athenian identity were a mainstay: For example, a coin had the Athenian owl perched on the prow of warship and this warship was an oblique reference to the Battle of Actium in 31 BC (Kroll 1997: 144-5, Fig. 2:21). Other than references such as that, Athenian coins continued to be traditional, a fierce symbol of their identity. Coins from the Augustan era have the ‘Owl-on-amphora’ image that Athens used to forge in its old stephanephoric money (Kroll 1997: 144-5, Fig. 2:23, 24).
Usually, it was customary to place the head of the emperor on the obverse of the coin and to switch from the Greek bronze system to the Roman; the nature of a city’s public identification could be determined by its coinage. Athens however, did not follow a traditional minting formula. The city even ceased minting until the time of Hadrian, when a swell of pride in Roman benefaction by Hadrian probably caused it to re-open its mints (Kroll 1997: 145) and even then, these bronze coins still did not depict the emperor (Kroll 1997: 145, Fig. 2:25, 26)!
Thereafter, Athens continued to produce similar bronze, emperor-less coins during the period of the Nerva-Antonine emperors (Kroll 1997: 145, 2:27, 28) and it was still producing these well into the 3rd century AD under Gallienus (Kroll 1997: 145, 2:29, 30). It was a sign of Athens’ pride in its cultural heritage, the same heritage which had seen it spared from total mauling by Sulla (comparatively!) and earn favour from philhellenic emperors like Hadrian and Antonius Pius. It could have been, like Kroll says, a way of creating some sort of equality with Rome, the Athena figure-head was a link to its past (Kroll 1997: 146). Athenian coinage would make you believe that Athens was never in the Roman Empire!
Kroll’s account fails to tell the full story however. While Athens did mint its own civic coins, there was a far great number of more common imperial silver coins. In the 2nd and 3rd centuries AD, the circulation of bronze coins was consistently low until the reigns of Trajan, Hadrian and Antoninus Pius and of Valerians/Gallienus (Katsari 2011: 118). Athenian ‘individuality’ was at a high point during these periods. Excavations at Athens for this period reveal the total level of civic bronze coins at 15-30%, with the rest being mostly sestertii and antoniniani, the latter increasing in number during the reigns of Maximinius Thrax (AD 235-8), Gordian III (AD 238-44) and Gallienus (AD253-68) (Katsari 2011: 157, 234).
Imperial currency was designed to be circulated around the empire; the presence of sestertii and antoniniani indicates that Athens did accept its value and the ideology behind it (Katsari 2006: 13). Rather than seeing the printing of civic bronze coins as an Athenian attempt to ignore Rome through coin, we should see it as evidence of a dual ‘proto-national identity’ (Katsari 2006: 16); loyalty to the emperor and to one’s own civic institutions were not in conflict with each other.
The combination of Greek and Roman identities through Ceramics:
The study of ceramics and pottery shows us a noticeable difference in consumer society in Athens during the 1st and 2nd centuries AD: it is quite easy to see a change in pots from these periods, and many would describe the change from being ‘Greek’ to ‘Roman’: the pottery reveals a Roman influence from imports and from Italian ceramic shapes and surfaces (Rotroff 1997: 97-8). However, the study of ceramic lamps reveals little change over the years, a striking contrast. Traditional Athenian wheel-made lamps, though they did gradually disappear later on into the Roman period, can be dated in the 1st century AD (Rotroff 1997: 100, citing Howland 1958). In fact, the way that Athenian lamps were manufactured stayed the same over the course of the 1st century BC (Rotroff 1997: 100-1). There were new designs on older Hellenistic types of lamps, but this represents a continued development rather than a sudden change because of the Roman takeover.
Furthermore, the majority of the lamps produced in the early first century AD follow the old Hellenistic tradition (Rotroff 1997: 107, Fig. 6), with the sole variant being and imported Italian lamps with a scroll-like nozzle (Rotroff 1997: 107, citing Robinson 1959: F104) and enjoyed popular usage during the time of Augustus. Lamps of the later 1st century AD are, again, much in the same Hellenistic fashion and resilient to change (Rotroff 1997: 109, Fig. 7).Three new types of lamp display features which mark them as imports. However, there is an example of a new type of lamp, Attic in origin, but with adopted Roman features, the ‘alpha globule’ lamp, which had a series of small bumps littered over the body of the lamp (Rotroff 1997: 109, Fig. 8, lower row). This new type does not specifically copy a type of Italian design, but the scroll-like nozzle attests to an interpretation of western Mediterranean design; it was first made around AD 75 (Rotroff 1997: 110-1).
The traditional Hellenistic lamps continued to be manufactured because Athenian lamp makers were still using the same moulds from the 2nd and 1st centuries BC (Rotroff 1997: 111), and so, by extension, that must mean that demand was still high enough for these local designs. Even though imported lamps were on the market, Athenian lamp makers did not imitate them, nor did these imports flood the market. And it was only when these Italian imports decreased in number that Athenian lamp makers decided to incorporate Roman features into their local lamps (Rotroff 1997: 111).
Ceramic pottery plotted a different course during the years of the early principate; continuity is very hard to detect between the different types. Original Hellenistic pottery shapes must have continued to have been made since they were part of the Roman assemblage in the first century AD (Rotroff 1997: 102). Also, stew pots and water jugs do display continuity in that 1st century AD examples, though differing in shape and proportion from their late Hellenistic forms, show a clear development from the earlier type (Rotroff 1997: 102). Most Hellenistic designs and shapes did not become part of Athenian pottery in the 1st and 2nd centuries AD however.
The sack of Athens by Sulla in 86 BC could well have had an effect on the development of pottery over the course of the first century BC and later. Many pottery moulds were destroyed and potters were killed defending the city or in the resulting rampage, hence the developments of new designs in order to make up for the loss of old designs (Rotroff 1997: 102). Excavations from Athens do reveal large amounts of imported wares, but not just from Rome. We find red-glossed Eastern Sigillata A plates from Syria as well as grey-ware platters from Ionia (Rotroff 1997: 105). So
The early 1st century AD continues in much the same vein. Much of the ceramic evidence consists of imported pottery from the East and from Rome (Rotroff 1997: 107). Despite this, local pottery did not imitate these imports, but rather continued with the Hellenic tradition. A lekane from this period was found to have had a 1st century BC ancestor (Rotroff 1997: 107), whilst two ‘Levantine’ amphoriskoi were found which were known to have been made in the Hellenistic period (Rotroff 1997: 107, citing Thompson 1934: D79, fig. 78). Despite this, there are examples of differentiation, with two large but thin one handed vessels being found that were to become a common feature of later imperial Roman assemblage (Rotroff 1997: 107).
Pottery from the later 1st century AD is completely different in look. Pottery found in a cistern, entitled ‘Layer IIa’, is almost entirely of a Roman design. The shapes of red-ware plates and bowls do not have any resemblance to wares in the traditional Hellenistic pottery (Rotroff 1997: 108). Instead, they are of a design that originated in Italy but can be found in red-ware found all over the East and West at the end of the first century AD (Rotroff 1997: 108, citing Robinson 1959: G49, G65, G68, G69, pls. 4, 5, 65, 66). There are only a few examples of Hellenic continuity; one of which is a bi-conical jug, with a history dating back to the 2nd century BC (Rotroff 1997: 108, citing Robinson 1959: G88).
Unlike the Athenian lamp makers, potters were far more experimental with their pottery designs by the end of the 1st century AD; a mould-made cup (Rotroff 1997: 108-9, citing Robinson 1959: G48) bears a similar look to Hellenistic predecessors, but the rim, which is elaborate and overhangs, is of a Roman design. So by the end of the 1st century AD, the pottery assemblage was completely different to an assemblage from the beginning of the century, with the shape and design based on Roman imports. The two types of ceramic developed completely differently in reaction to Roman (and other) imports: Potters copied Roman forms whilst lamp makers created their traditional ware, yet creating designs of an ‘Attic’ from that incorporated small amounts of Roman features.
The disparity between lamp makers and potters goes to show that Athenian society was not entirely homogenous to Roman culture. It was a case of acculturation, with some choosing to adapt to the new cultural environment rather than blindly accept the cultural customs of Rome (Rotroff 1997: 112): the case of the potters and lamp makers neatly exemplifies this.
Change in Athenian Architecture:
The Roman control of Athens also saw a dramatic shift in the layout of the city, with distinguished (or wealthy) Roman Republic statesmen funding repairs to new buildings following the sacking in 86 BC and this continued on into the Empire, with Augustus as well as his successors approving further repairs as well as funding new buildings, effectively turning the city into a museum to satisfy their own vision of philhellenism by way of Athens and its ‘glorious’ past.
Sulla’s sack devastated Athens, economically as well as culturally: he confiscated gold and silver from the Acropolis and also sold all the slaves (App. Mith. 39). Athens was so poor that it effectively had to sell of the island of Salamis (Strab. 9.394). Cultural and historical monuments were shown no mercy by Sulla – many of the buildings damaged were not repaired until much later. The Theatre of Dionysos and the Asklepieion were not repaired until the mid to late 1st century BC (Hoff 1997: 41, citing Fiechter 1936: 77-8; IG II2, 1046, 3174, 4464), while the Heliaia was not repaired until the 2nd century AD (Hoff 1997: 42, Table 1)! Even the Acropolis did not escape the damage (Hoff 1997: 41, citing Lewis 1975: 383-84, n. 7). In reality, the Athenians could not afford to extensively repair these damaged buildings (Hoff 1997: 41-2) and so we hear of donations from the likes of Pompey and Julius Caesar, gifting 50 talents which were probably used to restore and repair Athenian buildings (Plut. Pomp. 13.5; Cic, Att. 6.1.25; Hoff 1997: 43).
The era of the principate saw the construction of the Roman agora in 11 BC, situated seventy-five metres east of the old agora (Shear 1981: 358). It was built with features including Ionic porticoes and a Doric tetra-style propylon and dedicated to Athena Archegetis (Shear 1981: 358). Initiated by Caesar, it was further funded and finished under Augustus. The spacing and planning of the new Roman agora in Athens bears similarities to the Forum lulium: they were analogous in concept, containing porticoed squares and enclosed by high walls. It is worth noting that both of these styles were not native to their architectural environment (Shear 1981: 359).
The old agora underwent considerable change under Augustus too; the formerly open space in the agora, kept free of building for more than 500 years, begun to be built upon (Shear 1981: 360). One of these buildings being the Odeion, with its classicising décor, style and placement near to the old orchestra of the Archaic era meant that it fitted in with the environment. The only exceptions were its location in the agora space and its sheer size (Shear 1981: 361)! One the one hand, Rome had built over the space normally associated with democratic Athens (Walker 1997: 68), but in return funded vast buildings in Greek style, almost as if by way of repayment.
The image of Rome creating a museum out of Athens is given credence by the very nature of the building of the Temple of Ares. Originally from the deme of Acharnai (Shear 1981: 362, citing McAllister 1959), the Romans moved the temple stone by stone and placed it at a right angle to the Odeion (Shear 1981: 362). The connection of the axes between these two buildings was a common Roman architectural principle. It is another case of building in the style of Greeks using Roman rules; again, it results in a sort of compromise between the two cultures. Other examples of moving buildings and building materials into Athens include two sets of 5th century Ionic columns built into the Roman fortification wall to the south of the Stoa of Attalos, a few metres from the Temple of Athena at Sounion and a series of Doric columns from a temple to Demeter in Thorikos (Shear 1981: 364, citing Thompson 1962: 200).
Though the 1st century AD in Athens shows little in the way of specifically ‘Roman’ architecture, there is some change in the following century. Trajan’s reign saw the introduction of a classically Roman feature into Athens – the colonnaded street. Two of these were built in AD 100 (Shear 1981: 371-2) and were known to have been funded by wealthy Roman benefactors (IG II2, 3175). Despite this, there were few grand building works until the time of that famous philhellene, Hadrian. He carried on in much the same vein as before by attempting and succeeding in finishing the Temple of Olympian Zeus, resplendent with a gold and ivory statues (Shear 1981: 373). However, altars and votives attach the epithet ‘Olympian’ to his name which indicates that Hadrian aligned himself with the cult of Zeus and renewing an interest in the Imperial cult (Shear 1981: 373).
Changes in religious worship:
We have talked about the building of temples, but what about the notions of worship and godhood. Did this really change in the era of the principate? The imperial cult did exist in Athens, and, in fact, the evidence for the imperial cult is better for Athens than in other Greek cities (Spawforth 1997: 183). Supposedly, the newly moved Temple of Ares was shared with Gaius and Drusus Caesar, who were worshipped as the ‘New Ares’, according to inscriptions on two statue bases (Shear 1981: 362, citing IG II2, 3250, 3257). However, this does nothing to strengthen the case for linking the temple with the imperial cult.
Titles like these were honorific and cannot allow us to know for sure who was worshipped inside the temple. Even if it were the case that the imperial cult did worship at the Temple of Ares, it remained subordinate to the worship of the war god (Spawforth 1997: 193). Similarly, Athenians were reticent in ordaining ‘high priests’ of the imperial cult, lest they overshadow the traditional cults of Athens, such as the Mysteries at Eleusis (Spawforth 1997: 193), to which many Roman emperors received initiation as a matter of course (Habicht 1997: 369).
In Augustus’ time, the most obvious sign of the Imperial cult was the monopteros on the Acropolis, a very prominent position which would indicate that the worship of the Imperial cult was taken seriously in Athens, however, an ulterior motive lies behind this in that the decision to place the cult in the Acropolis was made after the battle of Actium in order to appease Augustus for having sided with Marc Antony (Spawforth 1997: 193). It was not until the imperial cult was incorporated into major Athenian festivals (during the reigns of Claudius and Nero) that the attitude changed towards emperor worship (Spawforth 1997: 194).
At the same time, worship of the imperial cult was very useful for ambitious Athenian elites who wanted to gain a foothold into the greater Roman status system – Spawforth argues that this was a ‘‘Romanisation’ of the Athenian elite’ (Spawforth 1997: 194). However, this ignores the very simple fact that Athenians, like other Greeks, worshipped certain aspects of gods, like Zeus Meilichios, and had no trouble incorporating foreign elements into the worship of their own gods. Therefore, when Julia Domna was assimilated into the cult of Athena Polias (IG II-III2 1076), or when Claudius identified himself as Apollo Patroös (Geagen 1997: 25), we should not view this as ‘romanisation’, but rather as acceptance – the Athenians had a history of accepting foreign deities into state worship (for example, Planeaux 2001)
Other Cultural Processes: Changes in education, festivities and sports:
The traditional institution of the Ephebeia was still present in Athens in the Roman period. Its original purpose of training a young Athenian how to fight and represent the polis gradually morphed into a sportive-cultural association, but it remained important to Athenians nonetheless. Eventually, in the last quarter of the 2nd century BC, admission was opened toforeigners (Tracy 2004: 209).
Indeed, Table A shows that it was popular with outsiders during the 3rd century B.C. Surely, a fair proportion of these foreigners must have been Roman. The pan-Greek cultural consciousness present in the education system, and the emphasis on the studies of classicism, and specifically Athens, would have been absorbed by those outside of Athens who participated in the ephebeia (Swain 1996: 68).
So when Cassius Dio was referring to the Greek education of the Roman emperors, giving praise to Marcus Aurelius for his superior education (71.31.3 ), and chastising Commodus and Caracalla for failing to live up to their excellent education (71.36.4; 77.11.2-3), surely a part of their education would have been in the ephebeia? If so, then it does go some way to explaining the philhellenism of many emperors in the 2nd and 3rd centuries AD. In fact, one could say that those leading the Roman Empire had been ‘Hellenised’!
If some foreigners were not schooled in the ephebeia when they studied in Athens, then they would surely have been educated at academies. The education they received however would have promoted a pro-hellenic viewpoint, with Athens at the heart of it (Lamberton 1997: 153). This education had an enormous effect on contemporary writers and historians at the time. Aelius Aristides entitled one of his eulogies as Panathenaicus, while Plutarch’s series of Parallel Lives were a way of mirroring the Greek past with Rome’s past. Of 24 Romans lives, Plutarch chose to pair ten Athenians, compared to four Spartans, two Macedonians and two Thebans; Plutarch’s motive is made clear when he paired Theseus and Romulus in one of his Parallel Lives (Lamberton 1997: 156-7). Athens was being moved to the centre of the Greek world to ensure a process of cultural accommodation, where Greek and Roman culture combined (Lamberton 1997: 153, 158).
Athens was also renowned for its festivals and games; they were of more than local importance and drew in many participants from across the empire. The continued existence of the Panathenaea (an Athenian festival with games) would infer that Athenian local identity in the greater empire was still strong and important to Rome (Day 1973: 254). Hadrian was so supportive of this festival that he created the agonothesia to oversee the festival (IG II-III2, 1101; Day 1973: 187-8). He restored the Panathenaic Games to importance whilst also introducing the Panhellenia, the Hadriania, the Olympia and the Antinoeia in Eleusis (van Nijf 2001: 320)!
We have evidence, too, that the Greeks started to enjoy gladiatorial games as early as the 1st century AD by way of an inscription in the Theatre of Dionysos (Spawforth 1997: 184). However, Spawforth also maintains that the imperial cult aroused enthusiasm for the gladiatorial games (Spawforth 1997: 192). Though these types of games were Roman in origin (Swain 1996: 419), the Greeks, and by extension Athenians, did not think of them as Roman. Rather, Plutarch observed that the gladiators were ‘Hellenes’, who ‘make arrangements for their women and slaves before they fight’ (Not even a Pleasant Life is Possible according to Epicurus 1099b)!
Changes in Athenian Housing:
The structure and layout of housing in Athens also undergoes significant change, but far from ‘Romanising’, these houses combined Hellenistic and Roman features. Athenians houses of the Augustan period did actually begin to arrange themselves upon a symmetrical base like Roman households and the courtyards to the houses became more rectangular to fit the symmetry (Papaioannou 2007: 351; Thompson and Wycherly 1972: 183, fig. 45). However, some houses actually regressed by re-introducing a double courtyard (a housing feature of Classical and early Hellenistic times), whilst introducing Roman features like porticoes and gardens (Papaioannou 2007: 351).
Many Athenian houses were remarkably conservative and traditional in construction and decoration during this period (Papaioannou 2007: 351-2); the local elite did not adopt Roman customs. There was, however, a change in the 2nd and 3rd centuries AD when houses in the industrial district of Athens included mosaic pavements – a typically Roman feature – as well as displaying private portraits. That said, they also continued to combine these Roman stylistic devices with their own traditional ones. House S combined Hellenistic symbols like rosettes, amphorae, waves and doves in the mosaic (Young 1951: 278, pl. 85a). All of which goes to show that rather than undergoing ‘romanisation’, Athens was quite flexible in its identity, including a negotiation between different aspects of both societies.
Conclusion:
As we have seen, the study of Athens in terms of ‘romanisation’ is problematical. Politically, Rome, up until Hadrian, appears to have taken a hands-off approach to Athens. The use of the hoplite general and of the epimeletes meant that Athens could be controlled by Rome through its own political offices. Hadrian turned the clock right back by then making the Areopagus the dominant political body of Athens, which although dominated by pro-Roman elites, was another way of using Athenian politics and law to Rome’s own advantage. What we can gather through numismatics is yet another compromise. Athens was one of very few (if not the only) cities still to mint its own bronze coinage, and even then, the emperor was not depicted, with the Athenians preferring images of local identity. On the other hand, they did use the silver sestertius as well as the antoniniani. The study of Athenian ceramics shows that lamp makers were very traditional and produced the same styles of lamp as they always had, whilst potters were very much more influenced by imports from the West and East.
Architectural change shows yet more assimilation, with the Roman agora under Augustus’ reign being built in a style not seen in either Rome or Greece. Rome then built in a classically Athenian (Greek) style, but according to Roman perceptions of scale and symmetry. The moving of temples from outside of Athens and into the city created a sort of museum and promoted a Roman view of Athenian identity. Hadrian continued this with the finishing of the Temple of Olympian Zeus but a Roman aspect is integrated into the building with the rise of the Imperial cult and the Roman propensity to assimilate themselves with certain deities. However, the Athenians were no strangers to this, as they worshipped particular aspects of certain gods and also incorporated other foreign gods into their Pantheon. We have also seen how Athens was still very committed to its cultural institutions like the ephebeia and festivals such as the Panathenaea which were both used and promoted by Rome to highlight Attic identity. Lastly, Athenian housing in both the early and late principate combined stylistic features common in both Roman and Hellenistic households.
The key point is that, to Athens, identity seemed to be a rather fluid concept. We should remember that the Greeks were partial to absorbing cultural imports, which had no effect on their own cultural identity (Swain 1996: 418-9). And so, Athens welcomed Roman influences in some ways and rejected it in others (Alcock 1997: 5-6); in many cases, it even found middle ground between the two and thus the sharing of ideas, or creolisation, was an Athenian concept in itself (Alcock 1997: 4). What happened in Athens was not ‘romanisation’; it was a blending of the two cultures.
Bibliography:
Ancient Sources:
Appian, The Foreign Wars, translated by H. White. New York: MacMillan. 1899
Cicero, De Natura Deorum (Books 1 & 2), translated by A.R. Dyck (Cambridge Greek and Latin Classics), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 2003
———— Letters to Atticus (Volumes I-IV), translated by D.R. Shackleton Bailey (Loeb Classical Library), Heinemann/Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press. 1999
Dio Cassius, Roman History (Volume IX), translated by E. Cary (Loeb Classical Library), Heinemann/Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press. 1989
Pausanias. Description of Greece, translated by W.H.S. Jones, Litt.D., and H.A. Ormerod, M.A., in 4 Volumes. Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press; London, William Heinemann Ltd. 1918
Plutarch, Moralia (Volume X), translated by H.N. Fowler (Loeb Classical Library), Heinemann/Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press. 1936
———— Moralia (Volume XIV), translated by B. Einarson and P. H. De Lacy (Loeb Classical Library), Heinemann/Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press. 1967
———— Parallel Lives: Agesilaus and Pompey, Pelopidas and Marcellus, translated by B. Perrin (Loeb Classical Library), Heinemann/Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press. 1989
Strabo, Geography (Volume IV, Books 8-9), translated by H.L. Jones (Loeb Classical Library), Heinemann/Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press. 1927
Modern Authors:
Alcock, S.1997. ‘The Problem of Romanisation, the Power of Athens’, in Michael C. Hoff and Susan I. Rotroff (eds.), The Romanisation of Athens. Proceedings of an International Conference held at Lincoln, Nebraska (April 1996). Oxbow Monograph 94. 1-7
Crawford, M.H. 1974. Roman Republican Coinage (Volume I). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Day, J. 1973. An Economic History of Athens under Roman domination. New York: Columbia University Press
Fiechter, E. 1936. Antike griechische Theaterbauten VII: Das Dionysos-Theater in Athen III: Einzelheiten und Baugeschichte. Stuttgart
Follet, S. 1976. Athènes au IIe et au IIIe siècle. Paris
Geagen, D.J. 1979, ‘The Third Hoplite general-ship of Antipatros of Phyla’, American Journal of Philology, vol. 100 (no. 2) 59-68. (13/06/2011)
———— 1997. ‘The Athenian Elite: Romanisation, Resistance, and the Exercise of Power’, in Michael C. Hoff and Susan I. Rotroff (eds.), The Romanisation of Athens. Proceedings of an International Conference held at Lincoln, Nebraska (April 1996). Oxbow Monograph 94. 19-32
Habicht, C. 1997. Athens from Alexander to Antony. Cambridge Mass: Harvard University Press
Hoff, M.C. 1997. ‘Laceratae Athenae: Sullas’s Siege of Athens in 87/6 BC and its Aftermath’, in Michael C. Hoff and Susan I. Rotroff (eds.), The Romanisation of Athens. Proceedings of an International Conference held at Lincoln, Nebraska (April 1996). Oxbow Monograph 94. 33-51
Howland, R.H. 1958. Agora IV: Greek Lamps and Their Survivals. Princeton
Katsari, C. 2006. ‘Money and proto-national identities in the Greco-Roman cities of the first and the second centuries AD’, National Identities 8.1. 1-20. (13/06/2011)
———— 2011 Katsari, C. 2011. The Roman Monetary System: The Eastern Provinces from the First to the Third Century AD. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Kroll, J.H. 1997. ‘Coinage as an Index of Romanisation’, in Michael C. Hoff and Susan I. Rotroff (eds.), The Romanisation of Athens. Proceedings of an International Conference held at Lincoln, Nebraska (April 1996). Oxbow Monograph 94. 135-50
Lamberton, R. 1997. ‘Plutarch and the Romanisations of Athens’, in Michael C. Hoff and Susan I. Rotroff (eds.), The Romanisation of Athens. Proceedings of an International Conference held at Lincoln, Nebraska (April 1996). Oxbow Monograph 94. 151-60
Lewis, D.M. 1975, ‘Greek inscriptions form the Athenian Agora’, Hesperia 44, 383-84
McAllister, M. H. 1959, ‘The Temple of Ares at Athens’, Hesperia 28, 1-64
Papaioannou, M. 2007. The Roman domus in the Greek world, in R. Westgate, N. Fisher and J. Whitley (eds), Building Communities: house, settlement and society in the Aegean and beyond. British School at Athens 15: 351-361.
Planeaux, C. 2001. ‘The Date of Bendis' Entry into Attica’, The Classical Journal, vol. 96 (no. 2)165-192. (13/06/2011)
Robinson, H.S. 1959. Agora V: Pottery of the Roman Period: Chronology. Princeton
Rotroff, S.I. 1997. ‘From Greek to Roman in Athenian Ceramics’, in Michael C. Hoff and Susan I. Rotroff (eds.), The Romanisation of Athens. Proceedings of an International Conference held at Lincoln, Nebraska (April 1996). Oxbow Monograph 94. 97-116
Shear, T.L. Jr. 1981. Athens: From city-state to provincial town. Hesperia 50, 356-377. (13/06/2011)
Spawforth, A.J.S. 1997. ‘The Early Reception of the Imperial Cult in Athens: Problems and Ambiguities’, in Michael C. Hoff and Susan I. Rotroff (eds.), The Romanisation of Athens. Proceedings of an International Conference held at Lincoln, Nebraska (April 1996). Oxbow Monograph 94. 183-201
Swain, S. 1996. Hellenism and empire: language, classicism and power in the Greek world, AD 50-250. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Thompson, H.A. 1934, ‘Two Centuries of Hellenistic Pottery’, Hesperia 3 311-480. (13/06/2011)
Thompson, H.A. and Wycherley, R.E. 1972. The Agora of Athens. Princeton
Tracy, S. V. 2004. ‘Reflections on the Athenian Ephebeia in the Hellenistic Age’, in Daniel Kah and Peter Scholz (eds.), Das hellenistische Gymnasion: Wissenskultur und gesellschaftlicher Wandel 8. Akademie Verlag, Berlin. 207-210 (reprinted 2007)
Van Nijf, O. 2001. ‘Local Heroes: athletics, festivals and elite self-fashioning in the Roman East’, in , S. (ed.), Being Greek Under Rome: Cultural Idenity, the Second Sophistic and the Development of Empire. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Walker, S. 1997. ‘Athens Under Augustus’, in Michael C. Hoff and Susan I. Rotroff (eds.), The Romanisation of Athens. Proceedings of an International Conference held at Lincoln, Nebraska (April 1996). Oxbow Monograph 94. 67-80
Young, R. S. 1951. ‘An industrial district of ancient Athens’, Hesperia 20: 135-288.
