Athens’ (re)incorporation in the Roman Empire after the Battle of Actium in 31 was preceded by a turbulent period of violent conflicts (both internal and external). Following the disastrous sack of Athens by the Roman commander Lucius Sulla in 86, Athens continued to end up on the losing side of Rome’s wars. The city supported Pompey in his war against Julius Caesar, Brutus and Cassius in theirs against Octavian and Antony, and lastly Antony in his attempt for sole rule against Octavian. Whether the Athenians collectively and deliberately chose a side in these conflicts is debatable. Since at least two of the Roman generals mentioned above appeared with armies at the city’s gates, one can wonder to what extent the Athenians really had a choice. Furthermore, internal factionalism, opportunism, and sheer misfortune all seem to have influenced the course of events of the mid- and late first century BCE. Nevertheless, one can imagine that in 31 the mood in the Athenian Boulè must have been uneasy when it became apparent that the city had once again sided with the losing party. The victor in this case was Octavian, who would become the first emperor of the Roman Empire.

The Romans had always been wary of influences from the Greek East. Luxuria and decadence, notions long attributed to the Greek East, were considered to be a danger for Roman society. In the last decades of the civil wars, Octavian ingeniously used this sentiment in his war against Egypt.^[2] By degenerating or “othering” these notions and those subjected to it (Mark Antony and Cleopatra) Octavian was able to substantiate his leadership for conservative Romans.^[3] However, the Romans simultaneously valued their true Greek neighbors in (mainland) “Old Greece,” especially at Athens, for their cultural values and heritage.^[4] The Classical Greek civil and military values in particular were seen as exemplary moral standards (mores), and were therefore worth promoting. Roman admiration for Greece’s past was strengthened by the fact that the legendary victory of the Greeks over the Persians was particularly useful to fuel the symbolism and rhetoric of Rome’s war with Parthia.^[5]

Augustus’ building activities and his participation in religious ceremonies in cities such as Athens and Sparta are, then, believed to have been part of a larger sociocultural policy of promoting the mythical and Classical legacy of Greek cities under Rome, to the effect that their heritage may in turn aid in the self-promotion and legitimization of Augustus’ rule.^[6] This Augustan model would then supposedly have resulted in a renewed emphasis placed on Greek culture, in effect “a Romanisation of Greece achieved (...) through a process of ‘re-hellenisation’ for which the impulse came from the west.”^[7] This view has received a fair amount of criticism. The extent to which “top-down” Augustan propaganda was the driving force behind the Greeks’ (renewed) interest in their culture and past, and in turn the driving force behind the restoration of Classical temples and the revival of ancient religious practices, is questionable.^[8] One important question that is often overlooked is to what extent the emphasis on the mythical and Classical past in mainland Greece around the change of the millennium is truly exceptional.^[9] Therefore, this paper intends to shift the debate’s focus from Augustan Greece to earlier encounters between Greeks and Romans in the first century BCE, taking Athens as an indicative case study.^[10] Through combining literary, epigraphic, numismatic, and archaeological evidence, it aims to gain a thorough understanding of the political climate of the first century BCE. It will demonstrate that, in the case of Athens, the iconic “turn to the past” was by no means an Augustan invention; rather, it was a continuous way for the Athenians and Roman leaders of the first century BCE to find a shared field of references to present Roman rule in a traditional framework. Greek culture and the Greek past provided a useful repertoire in this regard. Understanding the process behind this can perhaps best be understood by the notions of finding “common ground” and “anchoring” (terms derived from communication theory and social psychology).

The search for Rome to find common ground with provincial cities, through which power was negotiated and exercised, has already been extensively discussed by Ando (as consensus) and others in the last two decades.^[11] Modern studies in the fields of Roman history and archaeology have indeed shown that Roman rule was embedded in pre-existing structures (in the case of the imperial cult even quite literally),^[12] but such studies have not always considered the theoretical assumptions behind such forms of interaction. For it is only possible to find common ground when communication works, and in order for communication to work, there is need for shared terminology.^[13] Pre-existing worldviews and their symbolic manifestations could help in this regard. One of the clearest examples of how this process works can perhaps be found in Egypt, where several statues of Roman emperors survive in the guise of pharaohs, thereby “translating” Roman rule in Egyptian terms.^[14] This strategy was neither new, nor necessarily initiated from the imperial center.^[15] In fact, in many cases (including the case of the emperor in Egypt) it is unknown to us who “produced” the image of the emperor.^[16] The important thing is that there was an apparent need to convey such messages with certain cognitive footholds (i. e. “anchors”) in mind. This process can be defined by the notion of anchoring—a process by which new situations are presented in line with what people expect and understand.^[17] Anchoring was not only crucial for Rome to legitimize its rule, but it was likewise important for its subjects to understand and accommodate (political) change.

Pompey the Great’s visits to Athens (in 67 and 62) provide a good starting point. Pompey was granted imperium by the Roman Senate to deal with pirates in the Eastern Mediterranean (the Lex Gabinia). “But though his immediate business was urgent and he sailed past other cities in his haste, still, he could not pass Athens by,” says Plutarch (Pomp. 27). Unfortunately, we do not have significant material evidence to accompany Plutarch’s account. Two preserved statue-bases from the Acropolis mention Pompey’s father and grandfather (Cn. Pompeius Strabo and Sex. Pompeius), and might have been erected on occasion of Pompey’s visit in 62.^[18] Plutarch also mentions that the Athenians bestowed divine honors upon Pompey by putting up inscriptions on one of Athens’ city gates (Pomp. 27), probably either the Dipylon or Piraeus Gate, yet these have thus far not been found. It has also been suggested that Athenian bronze coins from the Agora (roughly dated between 70 and 40), which bear a dolphin and trident on the obverse (symbols of Poseidon), and a plemochoe (a vessel that was connected to rituals in the Eleusinian Mysteries)^[19] with ears of wheat on the reverse, might allude to Pompey’s initiation into the Eleusinian Mysteries in September 62.^[20] However, conclusive evidence for Pompey’s initiation is lacking. In any case, the attributes of Poseidon must have held some significance, as this was, as Kroll has shown, “the only pre-imperial Athenian coin type that refers to Poseidon.”^[21] If not a reference to Pompey’s initiation in the Mysteries, they were likely to have been a commemoration of Pompey’s sweep through the eastern Mediterranean to clear it from pirates (67–66). As peace was restored on sea by Pompey, symbols of Poseidon would be an appropriate reference to current events.^[22]

What we do know with more certainty is that Pompey granted Athens fifty talents to rebuild parts of the city that were destroyed by Sulla two decades earlier (Plut. Pomp. 42; Cic. Att. 6.1.25). A line from the Athenian restoration decree indicates that part of the funds were probably used to restore Athens’ harbor, as it records repairs to a waterfront bazaar of Magnus (i. e. Pompey the Great) at Piraeus.^[23] According to Plutarch, the reason for Pompey to financially support Athens and other cities was “to set foot in Italy with a reputation more brilliant than that of any other man” (Pomp. 42). Plutarch refers to the practice known as euergetism (derived from the Greek εὐεργεσία, “good deed”), which was a common practice amongst the Hellenistic kings of the Greek East, especially the Attalids, who repeatedly adorned cities such as Athens with monuments to improve their cultural ties with the traditional centers of Greek culture.

Interestingly, some twelve years later, Athens received the same amount of funds (fifty talents) from Pompey’s triumviral rival, Julius Caesar.^[24] In a letter to his friend Atticus, Cicero reports the following: “And look here, has Herodes [of Marathon] really squeezed 50 Attic talents out of Caesar on behalf of your adopted country? I hear that you Athenians have made Pompey very angry because of that. He thinks that you have wasted his cash ...” (Att. 6.1.25). The funds were put to use by Herodes (the ancestor of the famous second-century benefactor Herodes Atticus) to construct a new market area in the city, today known as the Roman Agora or the Market of Caesar and Augustus. The market was finished with additional funds of Augustus that were given to Herodes’ son Eukles.^[25] Both father and son received honorable mention in the inscription which accompanied the gate of the new market:^[26]

ὁ δῆμος ἀπὸ τῶν δοθεισῶν δωρεῶν ὑπὸ Γαίου Ἰουλίου Καίσαρος θεοῦ

καὶ Αὐτοκράτορος Καίσαρος θεοῦ υἱοῦ Σεβαστοῦ

Ἀθηνᾶι Ἀρχηγέτιδι στρατηγοῦντος ἐπὶ τοὺς ὁπλίτας Εὐκλέους Μαραθωνίου

τοῦ καὶ διαδεξαμένου τὴν ἐπιμέλειαν ὑπὲρ τοῦ πατρὸς Ἡρώδου, τοῦ καὶ πρεσβεύσαντος

ἐπὶ ἄρχοντος Νικίου τοῦ Σαραπίωνος Ἀθμονέως

The people, from the gifts given by the god Gaius Julius Caesar and Augustus Caesar, son of a god, to Athena Archegetis (Leader), when Eukles of Marathon, who has taken over the care (of the market) on behalf of his father Herodes, was hoplite general and ambassador, (and) when Nikias of Athmonos, son of Sarapion, was archon.

The initiative to seek another sponsor thus seems to have come from the Athenians themselves, in this case from Herodes of Marathon. Rumor was that Pompey was angry with the Athenians for this, probably because he figured that Caesar was trying to gain their support in the inevitable conflict between the two.^[27] If this was the case, Caesar did not succeed in doing so, as the city would still support Pompey in the Battle of Pharsalos two years later (in 48). However, it was Caesar who emerged as victor, and after the battle, Athens sent a delegation to the victorious general (Cass. Dio 42.14). Whereas Sulla had punished Athens severely for its unfaithfulness, Caesar offered amnesty, supposedly only rebuking the Athenians instead by asking them: “How often will the glory of your ancestors save you from self-destruction?” (App. B Civ. 2.88). The Athenians came to terms with their narrow escape, and dedicated at least two statues to Caesar on the Athenian Agora in the summer of 48, honoring him as εὐεργέτης (benefactor) and σωτήρ (savior).^[28] A portrait head, now in the National Archaeological Museum in Athens, might represent Julius Caesar because of its style and likeness in physiognomy to Caesar’s Tusculum/Turin type.^[29] If so, the portrait head is best dated between 48 and 44, hence in agreement with the statue dedications to Caesar on the Agora.

In March 44 Caesar was stabbed to death in the Curia. The principal conspirators were Marcus Junius Brutus and Gaius Cassius Longinus, better known as Brutus and Cassius. In the fall of 44, the two arrived in Athens.^[30] Dio reports that “The Athenians gave them a splendid reception” (47.20.4). Especially Brutus seemed to have made the best out of his stay in Athens, as he devoted himself to philosophical studies (Plut. Brut. 24) until he joined Crassus again in Smyrna at the end of 43.^[31] The conspiracy of Brutus and Cassius, culminating in the death of Caesar, seems to have reminded the Athenians of a similar act from their own history, for, although the two “were honored by nearly everybody else for what they had done, the inhabitants of this city [Athens] voted them bronze images by the side of those of Harmodius and Aristogeiton, thus implying that Brutus and Cassius had followed their example” (Cass. Dio 47.20.4). The two legendary heroes Harmodius and Aristogeiton were remembered as tyrant-killers, or tyrannicides, for their involvement in the disposal of the Athenian tyrant Hipparchus in 514.^[32] Brutus and Cassius were thus mirrored to Athens’ own local heroes, and this connection was made explicit through the dedication of statues of the two side by side with those of the tyrannicides on the Athenian Agora. The tyrannicides, in this context, thus served as an anchor through which the contemporary act of Brutus and Cassius could be contextualized in a traditional Athenian framework.

Fig. 1

Statue base with inscription (SEG 17, 75) mentioning Brutus. Found in Athens. Reproduced with permission of the American School of Classical Studies at Athens: Agora Excavations.

Dio’s report is supported by the remains of several statue dedications found in Oropos, Delos, and in Athens itself. In Oropos (central Greece), the demos dedicated a statue to Brutus, naming him εὐεργέτης (benefactor) and σωτήρ (savior).^[33] The Athenian community in Delos likewise honored Brutus (and his family) with statues, mentioning several benefactions that Athens had received from him.^[34] Based on these and other parallels, the inscription from Athens (Fig. 1), although fragmentary, can be securely reconstructed as follows:^[35]

[ὁ δῆμος]

[Κοίντον Σερβίλι]ον Κοίντου

[υἱὸν Καιπίωνα] Βροῦτον

The people (dedicated this statue) to Quintus Servilius Caepio Brutus, son of Quintus.

This was not the first time that influential political leaders were paired with prominent figures from the past in Athens. In the late fourth and early third century BCE, for example, the Hellenistic rulers Antigonos I Monophthalmos and Demetrios I Poliorcetes, were likewise honored with statues side by side with those of the tyrannicides (Diod. Sic. 20.46.2).^[36] The cultural memory of the tyrannicides was once more employed during Sulla’s visit to Athens in 84–83, an occasion for which the two famous tyrant-killers were put on the reverses of Athens’ silver coins (Fig. 2).^[37] As argued by Habicht and others, these coins unmistakably alluded to the disposal of the Athenian tyrant Aristion by Sulla in 86.^[38] All in all, the reoccurrence of this strategy over time attests to the continuous need to mirror present events to those in the past.

Fig. 2

Reverse of Athenian tetradrachm (84–83 BCE), with a representation of the Harmodius and Aristogeiton statue in the right field. Reproduced with permission of American Numismatic Society.

In October 42, Brutus and Cassius were defeated at Philippi (Macedonia) by Mark Antony and Octavian. It remains unclear whether Athenian soldiers actually participated in the battle. Nevertheless, Athens once again ended up on the losing side in one of Rome’s civil wars.^[39] While Octavian returned to Italy, Mark Antony remained in Greece (Plut. Ant. 23.1) and set sail for Athens.

In the years between the Battle of Philippi and the Battle of Actium, Antony visited Athens at least four times. The city even served as his headquarters between 40 and 36, during which he was accompanied by his newly-wed wife Octavia (Octavian’s sister). In examining Antony’s behavior towards Athens, a pattern can be observed. Like Caesar, Antony offered amnesty to the Athenians (Plut. Ant. 23.2; cf. App. B Civ. 5.7). Like Brutus, he seemed to have engaged with Athens’ cultural life (Plut. Ant. 23.2, 33.4, 57.1; cf. App. B Civ. 7.6), and even wished to be addressed as φιλαθήναιος (friend of Athens) (Plut. Ant. 23.2). And lastly, like Pompey, he supported Athens (economically), for when in the spring of 41 an Athenian delegation came to him, he gave them the islands and territories of Aegina, Icos, Ceos, Sciathos, and Peparethos (App. B Civ. 5.7). Furthermore, Antony might have been initiated into the Mysteries of Eleusis (Plut. Ant. 23.2).

The Athenians responded accordingly by bestowing several honors onto Antony and his associates. Among those associates were L. Marcius Censorinus, proconsul of Macedonia between 42 and 40 (IG II² 4113), L. Munatius Plancus, consul in 42 (IG II² 4112), C. Cocceius Balbus, consul in 39 (IG II² 4110), and Antony’s freedman M. Antonius Aristocrates (Plut. Ant. 69.1; IG II² 3889).^[40] Furthermore, Antony’s wife Octavia, for whom the Athenians seemed to have developed a fondness (Plut. Ant. 57.1), was also honored, as is apparent from an inscription on an altar from the Agora which was dedicated to both Antony and Octavia:^[41]

[Ἀ]ν̣τωνίου καὶ Ὀ

[κτ]α̣ίας δυῖν θε

[ῶν ε]ὐεργετῶν

To Antonius and Octavia, both gods and benefactors.

Antony himself was honored as the (new) god Dionysos both in Athens as well as elsewhere in the East, for example in Ephesus (Plut. Ant. 24). Seneca the Elder records that “the Athenians came to him on his arrival with their wives and children, and saluted him as Dionysus” (Suas. 1.6; cf. Cass. Dio 48.39.2, 50.5.3). Furthermore, the Panathenea festival of 38 was celebrated in honor of “Antonius, the new god Dionysos,” as an inscription concerning the ephebeia records (IG II² 1043, lines 22–23). Who initiated this divine association remains unsure. The fact that Dionysos was already known amongst the Athenians, not least as the bringer of prosperity and new life, would have provoked positive and familiar associations.^[42] During the Anthesteria spring-festival, for example, the Athenians celebrated the arrival and sacred marriage of Dionysos with the wife of the king-archon of Athens, effectively making Dionysos the king of Athens.^[43] A slightly adapted form of this ritual was perhaps also performed upon Antony’s arrival in Athens, for after mentioning that the Athenians greeted Antony as Dionysos, Seneca records that “they [the Athenians] went on to say that they were offering him their Minerva [Athena] in marriage, and asked him to marry her” (Suas. 1.6). Furthermore, Dionysos’ mythological conquest of Asia, and his triumphal return, made him particularly suitable for Hellenistic rulers who aspired to wage war in the East to identify with.^[44] Examples include Demetrios I Poliorcetes (early third century) and Mithridates VI of Pontus (early first century), who were both honored as “the new god Dionysos” in Athens.^[45] Antony’s authority and wish to expand Roman rule into Parthian territory could then have been presented in a highly traditional way. In any case, the divine titulature would have associated Antony in the guise of a well-known deity whose arrival symbolized prosperity and new life.^[46]

Numismatic evidence likewise demonstrates the connection drawn between Antony and Dionysos. The Athenian coins are often characterized as traditional, as they tend to depict Athena on the obverse and an owl on the reverse. There are of course some variations with, for example, Zeus, Apollo, and Poseidon (for the latter, see above) on the obverse. However, it is remarkable that during Antony’s stay in Athens, its mint started to strike Dionysos on the obverse, and a bust of Athena or a standing Athena on the reverse.^[47] This could just be a coincidence. However, when we take into account the historical development of Athens’ bronze mint, it becomes apparent that this was the first and only appearance of Dionysos on Athenian bronzes (at least until the reign of Hadrian). Three coin types, dated between 39 and 37 (hence coinciding with Antony’s stay in Athens), of which at least 102 specimens have been preserved, are known from the excavations of the Athenian Agora (see Fig. 3).^[48] These coin types correspond to several emissions from Pergamon and Ephesus. Some of this latter group show Antony in Dionysic style (with an ivy-wreath) on the obverse and a Dionysic chest (cistophorus) surmounted by a bust of Octavia on the reverse.^[49] Other variations show Antony and Octavia conjoined on the obverse and a standing Dionysos on the cistophorus on the reverse.^[50] These parallels strongly suggest that the Athenians likewise used their mint to seek a connection with Antony.

Fig. 3

Athenian bronze coin (39–37 BCE), showing the head of a youthful Dionysos on the obverse. Reproduced with permission of the American School of Classical Studies at Athens: Agora Excavations

In 31, the forces of Octavian and Marcus Agrippa defeated those of Antony and Cleopatra at Actium. Again, we do not know if the Athenians actually participated in the fighting, but up until the battle their city surely belonged to Antony’s territory. As mentioned above, when news reached Athens of Octavian’s victory, the mood might have been uneasy. For the third time in a row, the Athenians were dependent on the mercy of a Roman ruler. Athens’ worry might have been strengthened upon receiving news that a Roman ship from Asia Minor had departed: Octavian was on his way to Athens.

Our sources are ambiguous regarding Octavian’s behavior towards Athens. On the one hand, the future emperor seems to have imposed sanctions on Athens; he took away Athens’ control over the territories of Aegina and Eretria, and forbade the city to sell its citizenship, which was an important source of revenue for the city (Cass. Dio 54.7). Dio understandably argues that Octavian might have imposed these sanctions to punish the Athenians for their support of Antony.^[51] However, Dio also remarks that “the thing which had happened to the statue of Athena was responsible for this misfortune; for this statue on the Acropolis, which was placed to face the east, had turned around to the west [to Rome] and had spat blood” (ibid.).^[52] Dio’s report seems confirmed by Plutarch who mentions that Octavian, now named Augustus, withheld from visiting Athens in 21 because “the Athenian people had committed some offense;” instead, he preferred to spend the winter of that year on Aegina (Mor. 207F).^[53]

On the other hand, Plutarch mentions that Octavian visited Athens right after the Battle of Actium, making “settlement with the Greeks” and distributing “the grain, which was left from the war, among their cities” (Ant. 68.4). Following a suggestion made by Graindor, Hoff has convincingly argued that a surviving lead token was originally one of the many issued in ca. 31 to be exchanged for rations of grain.^[54] The surviving token (Fig. 4) depicts a young laurel-crowned Apollo (a reference to Octavian) and a six-rayed star (a reference to Caesar’s apotheosis).^[55] The association of Apollo with Octavian is substantiated by the inscription Καῖ|σαρ (Caesar) above the head of Apollo.^[56] Since Octavian is referred to as “Caesar” and not “Augustus” (Σεβαστός in Greek), and since a reference is made to Caesar’s apotheosis, the token should date before 27 and after 44 respectively. The association between Octavian and Apollo seems to have been picked up by the Athenians, who, in addition to honoring Octavian as savior and benefactor (see below), dedicated a statue of Octavian in 21–20 (by then Augustus) as either νέος or θέος Ἀπόλλων (the new/god Apollo).^[57]

Fig. 4

Athenian lead token, showing the head of Apollo and a six-rayed star. Reproduced with permission of M. Hoff.

In addition to distributing grain, Octavian also let himself be initiated into the Eleusinian Mysteries twice (Suet. Aug. 93; for the second time in 19: Cass. Dio 4.9.7–10). Both events, the distribution of grain and the initiation into the Mysteries, were distinctively linked with one another as they revolved around the themes of fertility and prosperity. In the second century CE, the emperor Hadrian followed in Augustus’ footsteps when he too initiated himself in the Mysteries and then distributed grain.^[58] Lastly, as mentioned above, Octavian continued the economic support which had initially been provided by his adoptive father for the construction of a new market area in the city (the Market of Caesar and Augustus).^[59]

Likewise, the Athenians honored the new Roman leader. One of the earliest dedications to Octavian comes from Eleusis, where a large two-course monument (measuring about five meters on each side) was built to hold two statues. The discovery of two inscriptions on this monument by Vanderpool has revealed that these statues were dedicated to Octavian and his wife Livia.^[60] The inscriptions read:

ὁ δῆμος

Αὐτοκράτορα Καίσ[αρα]

θεοῦ Ἰουλίου ὑὸ[ν]

τὸν ἁτοῦ σωτῆ[ρα]

καὶ εὐεργέτ[ην]

The people (dedicated this statue) to its savior and benefactor imperator Caesar, son of the god Julius

ὁ δ[ῆμ]ος

Λιβίαν Δρουσίλλαν

[Αὐ]τοκράτορος Καίσαρος

γυναῖκα

The people (dedicated this statue) to Livia Drusilla, wife of imperator Caesar.

What is especially noteworthy about the Eleusis-dedication is the fact that it must have been constructed somewhere between 31 (the Battle of Actium) and 27 (when Octavian became known as Augustus), indicating Athens’ quick response to the change in rulership. It is tempting to connect the dedication with Octavian’s visit to Eleusis shortly after the Battle of Actium when he was initiated into the Mysteries. In addition to being honored as “new Apollo” (see above), surviving dedications from the Athenian Agora show that Octavian/Augustus is mainly honored as “son of the god Julius Caesar,” and as σωτήρ (savior).^[61] A portrait head, made from Pentelic marble from Mt. Pentelikon (north of Athens), which is now in the National Archaeological Museum of Athens (Fig. 5), shows Augustus in his main portrait type (Prima Porta type), and can possible be connected to one of these dedications.^[62] The head, dated by most in the early reign of Augustus,^[63] roughly follows the Roman prototype, yet the plasticity of the locks, the shape of the face, the full lips, and the deep-set eyes are reminiscent of Hellenistic portraiture. Similar “free imitations” of the Prima Porta type are known for example from Samos and Aphrodisias, and presented Augustus in a familiar Hellenistic fashion.^[64] Whether the head was consciously modeled to achieve this, or the result of a mixture of Roman models with Athenian sculptural traditions, the style of the head would express a sense of familiarity, and as such could have aided in the recognition and accommodation of Roman rule.

Fig. 5

Portrait of emperor Augustus (Athens, National Archaeological Museum, inv. no. 3758). Prima Porta type. Found in Athens. Photos by author.

Before making some concluding remarks on how Roman leaders and the Athenian elite negotiated a common ground in the first century BCE, it is worthwhile to return to the Acropolis, where the (in)famous incident of Athena’s statue had supposedly taken place. Additional material evidence on the site can aid us in discovering a process that is in many ways exemplary of the mechanisms we have seen above. This additional material is concerned with two buildings known as the Monument of Agrippa and the Temple of Roma and Augustus, of which the remains can still be found on the hill of the Acropolis (Figs. 6 and 7 respectively).^[65]

The pedestal known as the Monument of Agrippa (west of the Propylaia) was originally built in honor of Eumenes II and Attalos II of Pergamon in the early second century BCE, and would have held a bronze quadriga (a chariot drawn by four horses) with portraits representing the kings of Pergamon (Paus. 1.22.4). Before it was dedicated to Agrippa, the pedestal might have served as a base to hold statues of Antony and Cleopatra. This is suggested by Plutarch, who explicitly refers to the monument in connection to Antony (Ant. 60), and also by Cassius Dio, who mentions “statues of herself [Cleopatra] and Antony in the guise of gods, which the Athenians had placed on their Acropolis” (50.15.3).^[66] The monument can be linked with more certainty to Marcus Agrippa—Octavian’s close companion and most important general. An inscription on the west side of the monument (Fig. 6) reveals the following:^[67]

[ὁ δῆ]μος

Μ[ᾶρκον] Ἀγρίππα[ν]

Λε[υκίου] υἱὸν

τρὶς ὕ[πατ]ον τὸν ἑατοῦ

ε[ὐερ]γέτη[ν]

The people (dedicated this monument) to its benefactor Marcus Agrippa, son of Lucius, consul for the third time.

Since Agrippa held his third consulship in 27 (together with Octavian), the dedication ought to be dated after that year and probably before Agrippa’s visit to the city around 16.^[68] Considering the fact that Agrippa, like Eumenes, was the sponsor of a large building project in Athens, it is reasonable to think that the spectators were meant to link the two together. Whereas Eumenes had funded a stoa set against the south slope of the Acropolis, Agrippa sponsored the construction of a large theater-building (odeon) on the Agora (finished around 16–14).^[69] The rededication of the pedestal shows that the Athenians sought to honor Agrippa in the same way they had honored previous benefactors.^[70] At least two more dedicatory inscriptions have withstood the test of time: one from the same area as the monumental pedestal and in similar formulaic style, and the other in modern context southwest of the Agora.^[71]

Fig. 6

West side of the remains of the Monument of Agrippa. Reproduced with permission of the American School of Classical Studies at Athens: Agora Excavations

On the other side of the Acropolis, the remains of a circular temple (tholos) dedicated to Augustus and the goddess Roma can still be located, although it is probably not in situ. Amidst these remains, a fragment of the upper part of the temple can be found (Fig. 7), one that carries the following inscription:^[72]

[ὁ] δῆμος θεᾶι Ῥώμηι καὶ Σ[εβασ]τῶι [[Καίσαρι]] στρα[τηγ]οῦντος ἐπὶ τ[οὺς]

ὁπλίτας Παμμένους τοῦ Ζήνωνος Μαραθωνίου ἱερέως θεᾶς

Ῥώμης καὶ Σεβαστοῦ Σωτῆρος ἐπ’ ἀκροπόλει, ἐπὶ ἱερείας Ἀθηνᾶς

Πολιάδος Μεγίστης τῆς Ἀσκληπίδου Ἁλαιέως θυγατρός

ἐπὶ ἄρχοντος Ἀρήου τ[οῦ] Δωρίωνος Παιανιέως

The people (dedicated this monument) to the goddess Roma and Augustus Caesar (at the time that) Pammenes, son of Zenon of Marathon, was hoplite general and priest of the goddess Roma and Augustus savior on the Acropolis, (and) Megiste, daughter of Askepiades of Halai, was priestess of Athena Polias, (and) Areos, son of Dorion of Paiania, was archon.

Due to the fact that Octavian is referred to as Σεβαστός (Augustus), the monument must have been constructed after 27. Furthermore, the archonship of Areos can be dated before 17, allowing us to date the construction of the monument between 27 and 17.^[73] The dedication by the δῆμος and the title of σωτήρ are common features that we have seen before regarding honors to Roman leaders.^[75]

Fig. 7

The remains of the Temple of Roma and Augustus in front of the east entrance of the Parthenon. Photo by author.

The current location of the remains of the Temple of Roma and Augustus on the longitudinal axis with the Parthenon is often treated as the exact location of the original site.^[76] Through a careful examination of the archaeological records, Binder and others have, however, questioned this assumption.^[77] Still, the concentration of finds on the Acropolis indicate that the temple stood in close proximity of the Parthenon and the Erechtheion.^[78] As will be demonstrated below, this spatial context is, in addition to the architectural style of the building, crucial to the temple’s significance and meaning.

The Temple of Roma and Augustus was erected from Pentelic marble, like much of the other buildings on the Acropolis (such as the Parthenon, the Erechtheion, and the Temple of Athena Nike). The temple’s Ionic columns were connected to the local context in particular, as they were almost exact replicas of those of the nearby Erechtheion (named after one of Athens’ legendary kings). Furthermore, the buildings and decorations near the newly-build temple were all important expressions of Athens’ history and identity. In close proximity of the temple loomed the Parthenon, of which its pediments depicted Athena’s birth and the contest between her and Poseidon (Paus. 1.24.5). The nearby Erechtheion, which stylistically resembled the temple of Roma and Augustus, supposedly housed Athens’ most important relics of the past (e. g. the famous olive tree given by Athena, the old wooden cult statue of Athena Polias, and tombs of early kings).^[79] This “memory theater”^[80] was deemed an appropriate context by the Athenians to honor Roma and Augustus.

At the same time, the Acropolis was also what has been referred to as a “field of victory,” commemorating the triumph of the Greeks over the Persians.^[81] Besides the fact that the Parthenon was in itself a victory monument, its metopes on the eastern façade depicted a Gigantomachy, which represented the triumph of civilization (the Greeks) over barbarism (the Persians). In between the metopes, the famous shields of Alexander the Great, those that he took as spolia from the Persians after his victory at Granikos in 334, would have evoked similar cultural memories of Greek triumph. Lastly, the freestanding statues of fallen Persians, known as the Smaller Attalid Group, which were dedicated by Attalos I of Pergamon (third century BCE), made the cultural memory of Greek triumph strikingly explicit (Paus. 1.25.2). As a result, it is probable that the Temple of Roma and Augustus was placed in this field of memory because of Augustus’ contemporary victory (although diplomatic) over the Parthians in 20.^[82] The cultural memories associated with the Acropolis would have provided an appropriate context to link current events to the Greek past. This theory is supported by the fact that a similar strategy was employed in the mid-first century CE when a dedication to emperor Nero was inscribed on the east façade of the Parthenon, honoring him as “the greatest imperator” (αὐτοκράτωρ μέγας), to commemorate his victory over the Parthians.^[83]

The Temple of Roma and Augustus was thus both architecturally and spatially anchored in the context of Athens’ cultural and religious landscape. In addition, the placement of the temple in the context of the Acropolis around the time of Augustus’ Parthian settlement established a strong connection between present and past. The rededication of the Hellenistic pedestal to Agrippa additionally demonstrates that the practice of euergetism continued into the early Augustan Age, and that past associations to buildings could aid in the contextualization of present events.^[84] From this point onwards, it would primarily be the Roman emperors taking on the mantle of εὐεργέτης.^[85] Yet their interest in Athens’ past should, in addition to whatever propagandistic purposes it might have served, also be understood from the angle of finding a common ground through which power and influence was negotiated between ruler and ruled.

In the first century BCE, Athens was at the center of Rome’s civil wars. Almost all of the important political figures in these wars visited Athens: Pompey, Caesar, Brutus, Cassius, Antony, Octavian, and Agrippa. This paper has argued that a dialogue was initiated between these Roman leaders and the Athenian elites in which power and influence were negotiated. In search for common ground, anchors were used to present new events in ways that people knew and understood. The socio-political practice of euergetism was as one of the ways through which this was achieved. As a result, Roman leaders followed in line with Hellenistic benefactors of Athens, who repeatedly adorned Greek cities such as Athens to improve their ties to the traditional centers of Greek culture. Although, over time, acts of euergetism would not necessarily have reminded one of just Hellenistic predecessors, they would still have alluded to a deep-rooted expectation of how a foreign leader should behave in Athens. This anchor proved to be successful. The Athenians recognized Roman leaders as benefactors on their part and used corresponding honorary epithets in statue dedications to them. Another recurrent way in which Roman leaders were presented in a traditional framework was by their assimilation with well-known deities such as Dionysos or Apollo.

Additional cognitive footholds used in search for a common ground were found in the material manifestations of Athens’ past and culture. This has, for example, become apparent from the dedication of statues of Brutus and Cassius beside those of Harmodius and Aristogeiton, which “translated” the formers’ deed in familiar terms. The rededication of a Hellenistic pedestal to Agrippa, too, demonstrates that past associations to monuments were used to accommodate contemporary events. Furthermore, the case of the Temple of Roma and Augustus has demonstrated that even when new commemorative buildings were erected, existing spatial contexts and/or styles could be turned to in order to anchor new situations or events in a traditional framework.

The results of this paper have thus shown that even before the imperial age, Athens’ past and culture were turned to as a shared field of references to find common ground between Rome’s leaders and Athens. Inquiries into other cities in Greece yield similar results, and should further encourage scholars to contest the assumed Augustan agency behind such engagements with the Greek past and culture around the change of the millennium.^[86] In fact, we should even consider the possibility that local projections on Roman leadership might occasionally have influenced central imagery. In Rome, for example, the famous victory of the Athenians over the Persians at the Battle of Salamis was reenacted on occasion of Gaius Caesar’s departure to the East to fight the Parthians (RG 23; Cass. Dio 55.10.7).^[87] The use of such anchors might well have been inspired by the way the Parthian settlement was anchored in Athens almost two decades earlier.