Introduction
Athletes were the superstars of Archaïc and Classical Greece. They competed with each other in sports (running and fighting) at major and minor agonistic (from the Greek agon, meaning competition) festivals throughout the Greek world. In some games, like the Olympic, only a crown was the top prize. Nevertheless, winning these games was worth the while, seeing how victors were showered in gifts, privileges and honors upon return in their polis.
In Hellenistic, and especially Roman times, the number of festivals grew exponentially. This presented a number of problems. It was becoming difficult to keep track of all the games that were organized (for participants and organizers). The winning athletes wanted someone to guide them through this forest of festivals, fight for their privileges, and seek recognition from (Roman) government. The organizing parties wanted a guarantee of quality and quantity of participants for their games, and sometimes lacked the know-how of hosting athletes. At the end of Hellenistic times (winning) athletes began to unite themselves into ‘synods’ to solve these problems. What did these organizations of athletes do? How did they contribute to the world of games? And, more precisely, what part did the synod play in the network of agonistic festivals?
In Hellenistic, and especially Roman times, the number of festivals grew exponentially. This presented a number of problems. It was becoming difficult to keep track of all the games that were organized (for participants and organizers). The winning athletes wanted someone to guide them through this forest of festivals, fight for their privileges, and seek recognition from (Roman) government. The organizing parties wanted a guarantee of quality and quantity of participants for their games, and sometimes lacked the know-how of hosting athletes. At the end of Hellenistic times (winning) athletes began to unite themselves into ‘synods’ to solve these problems. What did these organizations of athletes do? How did they contribute to the world of games? And, more precisely, what part did the synod play in the network of agonistic festivals?
Social Network Analysis
To answer these questions, I will work with the Social Network Analyses, also called Social Network Theory. The core concept is that entities (persons, organizations, cities, groups) are connected with other entities, who are connected to others, etcetera. These connections are central for the structure of a network. De individual points are called nodes, the connections are ties. Ties can be strong (lots of nodes are interconnected, like a family), or weak (just one or two nodes connect to another network). Just imagine Facebook, where you have close friends who share a lot of mutual friends with you (strong ties). You also have a friend who doesn’t have a mutual acquaintance with any of your Facebook followers, let’s say someone you met in Brazil while backpacking. This person has a whole network of close friends of his own. Your Facebook friendship is a weak tie, but it does allow connection between two networks. Flow is what travels on these connections, being information, people, rumors, anything. Social Network Analysis looks at the way that ideas, innovations and information are shared and spread throughout a network. So, in Antiquity the different cities organizing festivals are nodes. A special entity in the network is a network agent or broker. These are specialists making sure the networks functions properly. The imperial-age athletic associations were exactly that, as I will show you shortly.
Connection to other research
The sources for the history and nature of the athletic synods leave a lot to be desired. In 1955 Clarence Forbes made a brave attempt to structure and organize the ‘patchwork’ of evidence. He gives a good outline of the rise, nature and demise of the synods. Harry Pleket in 1973 did the same thing, and comes almost to the same conclusions. In 2015 Sofie Remijsen included the development and nature of the synods for her research on sports in Late Antiquity. None of these authors have used the paradigm of Social Network Analysis however. Only Onno van Nijf and Christina Williamson are currently using this theory to map ancient sport networks. In their 2014 article, they lift a corner of the veil on the role of athletic associations in festival networks. Because the evidence is so extremely ‘patchy’, my research mostly leans on the findings of Forbes, Pleket and Remijsen.
Results
The history and nature of the 'xystic synod'
Exactly where and when the athletes began to organize themselves is unknown. There is some evidence that victors of sacred games, the hieronikai, were a separate group in Hellenistic society. Two inscriptions, dating from the second century BCE, show that they were a group with its own identity, status and privileges. Because sacred victors had more privileges and more status, they pressure for them to defend their rights must have been higher. They had more to lose. A third inscription from somewhere between 100 and 20 BCE shows that they formed a separate organization that could take initiative. The inscription gives us very little information however on how and why the group was formed. It is an honorary inscription for an athlete. Three crowns are shown, two of which are given to him by the hieronikai from around the world, and another organization, the athletes from around the world.
A letter from Marc Anthony from 42-41 or 33-32 BCE gives final evidence that there was a synod of athletes. He writes to the ‘Commonwealth of Greeks in Asia’ and reports on his meeting with a trainer and an eponymous priest of the ‘synod of ecumenical victors of sacred and crown games’. The priest indicates that the synod also had a cult, making it an official organization. The reason of Marc Anthony’s writing gives a good indication of the function of the synod: he will prolong the privileges of the athletes, as requested by the trainer and eponymous priest. Perhaps this is still at the moment of birth for the synod, but the letter forms its first official appearance.
During the Imperial Age, the synod flourished. It was called the ‘xystic synod of those around Herakles’, but other names and variations are also found. Xystic comes from the word xystos, a covered running track for athletes. The agonistic circuit grew and grew under the Roman emperors, cities were competing with each other through festivals, major and minor festivals popped up like mushrooms. There was need for an organization who could keep track of the agonistic calendar, help the athletes organize their journey from festival to festival, fight for their privileges and communicate with the festival organizers. The organizing parties on the other hand wanted their festival to fit in with the busy schedule of athletes, especially the prestigious hieronikai, who were a very welcome sight at the starting line. The cities lacked the means and know-how to regulate this flow of athletes. The synod filled this gap.
It is interesting to see how the synod was organized. A central committee was located in Rome, from the second century CE. It communicated closely with the emperor, via delegations or letters. The emperor would grant the synod and its athletes privileges and some autonomy to regulate the festivals. Sometimes the synod only needed permission to do the things they did best. The emperor after while also appointed xystarchs, festival directors, who could be sent to a festival, a city, or an entire region to check up on the festivals. They worked closely with the local politics who organized the games. These xystarchs were appointed for life, and were the best of the best former athletes. Only hieronikai and periodonikai (victors of the Big Four: Olympic, Nemean, Isthmic and Pythian Games) show up in the lists of xystarchs. Because the headquarters of the synod was located near the Baths of Trajan, one of the board members of was made ‘Director of the Imperial Baths’.
The local branches of the synod had slightly different tasks at hand. They were on top of the festivals and local facilities. They would hand out certificates to members of the synod – membership was everything but cheap! - proof of which would guarantee victors of privileges and gifts upon their return. The local board would accept more members and officials. Perhaps they also provided the traveling athletes with training and medical facilities on site. Every game they would appoint a priest, seeing how religion and sports (and politics for that matter) were closely linked. This was an honorary job. The boxer Hermeinos made a donation of a whopping 50 denarii to act as priest at the local festival of Sardis at the end of the second century CE.
A letter from Marc Anthony from 42-41 or 33-32 BCE gives final evidence that there was a synod of athletes. He writes to the ‘Commonwealth of Greeks in Asia’ and reports on his meeting with a trainer and an eponymous priest of the ‘synod of ecumenical victors of sacred and crown games’. The priest indicates that the synod also had a cult, making it an official organization. The reason of Marc Anthony’s writing gives a good indication of the function of the synod: he will prolong the privileges of the athletes, as requested by the trainer and eponymous priest. Perhaps this is still at the moment of birth for the synod, but the letter forms its first official appearance.
During the Imperial Age, the synod flourished. It was called the ‘xystic synod of those around Herakles’, but other names and variations are also found. Xystic comes from the word xystos, a covered running track for athletes. The agonistic circuit grew and grew under the Roman emperors, cities were competing with each other through festivals, major and minor festivals popped up like mushrooms. There was need for an organization who could keep track of the agonistic calendar, help the athletes organize their journey from festival to festival, fight for their privileges and communicate with the festival organizers. The organizing parties on the other hand wanted their festival to fit in with the busy schedule of athletes, especially the prestigious hieronikai, who were a very welcome sight at the starting line. The cities lacked the means and know-how to regulate this flow of athletes. The synod filled this gap.
It is interesting to see how the synod was organized. A central committee was located in Rome, from the second century CE. It communicated closely with the emperor, via delegations or letters. The emperor would grant the synod and its athletes privileges and some autonomy to regulate the festivals. Sometimes the synod only needed permission to do the things they did best. The emperor after while also appointed xystarchs, festival directors, who could be sent to a festival, a city, or an entire region to check up on the festivals. They worked closely with the local politics who organized the games. These xystarchs were appointed for life, and were the best of the best former athletes. Only hieronikai and periodonikai (victors of the Big Four: Olympic, Nemean, Isthmic and Pythian Games) show up in the lists of xystarchs. Because the headquarters of the synod was located near the Baths of Trajan, one of the board members of was made ‘Director of the Imperial Baths’.
The local branches of the synod had slightly different tasks at hand. They were on top of the festivals and local facilities. They would hand out certificates to members of the synod – membership was everything but cheap! - proof of which would guarantee victors of privileges and gifts upon their return. The local board would accept more members and officials. Perhaps they also provided the traveling athletes with training and medical facilities on site. Every game they would appoint a priest, seeing how religion and sports (and politics for that matter) were closely linked. This was an honorary job. The boxer Hermeinos made a donation of a whopping 50 denarii to act as priest at the local festival of Sardis at the end of the second century CE.
The role in the agonistic festival network
Now that we’ve seen how the synod emerged and how it functioned, it is time to look at its role in the network. Here weak and strong ties come in again. The enormous agonistic network, with all its competing and organizing parties, mostly consisted of weak links. Like I said, nobody really knew what other cities and festivals were up to. There was no real central organization who kept track of everything. The synod, with its local branches and traveling xystarchs, formed a strong tie network, within this weak tie network. This is a so-called nested network. The synod was definitely a network agent, making sure that the network was interconnected and that everything ran as smoothly as possible.
Conclusion
Social Network Analysis is a good tool to look at the athletic synod of the Imperial Age. Sadly enough, the evidence is so scarce that it is not possible to map it out completely. It does however show why the synod had such an important function in the network of agonistic festivals. The synod had the tools, means and know-how to help make the machine of festivals run smoothly. The xystic synod truly was a network expert and formed a nested network.
Further Reading
FORBES, C. A. (1955). Ancient athletic guilds. Classical Philology, 50(4), 238-252.
GOUW, P. (2009). Griekse atleten in de Romeinse keizertijd (31 v. Chr. - 400 n. Chr.). Amsterdam:
Amsterdam University Press
MALKIN, I. (2011). Networks in the Ancient Mediterranean, New York: Oxford University Press,
MILLER, S. G. (2012). Arete : Greek Sports From Ancient Sources. Berkeley: University of California
Press, 2012. eBook Collection (EBSCOhost), EBSCOhost (accessed May 27, 2016).
VAN NIJF, O.M. (2013). Ceremonies, athletics and the city: some remarks on the social imaginary of
the Greek city of the Hellenistic period. Shifting Social Imaginaries in the Hellenistic Period:
Narrations, Practices, and Images, 311-338.
----------------- (2012). Athletes, artists and citizens in the imperial Greek city. In: Patries d’origine et
patries électives: les citoyennetés multiples dans le monde grec d’époque romaine. A. Heller and A.-V. Pont-Boulay. Bordeaux, Ausonius: 175-194.
VAN NIJF, O. M., & WILLIAMSON, C. G. (2014). Netwerken, panhelleense festivals en de globalisering
van de Hellenistische wereld. Groniek, 46(200).
-------------- (draft) Connecting the Greeks: festival networks in the Hellenistic world ' in: C. Mann & S.
Remijsen (eds) Sport in der Epoche der Hellenismus, Mannheim (forthcoming)
-------------- (2015). Re-inventing traditions: connecting contests in the Hellenistic and Roman world.
in: D. Boschung et al.' Reinventing the invention of tradition? Indigenous pasts and the
Roman present'. Conference Cologne 14-15 November 2013. Paderborn: 95-111
PLEKET, H. W. (1973). Some aspects of the history of the athletic guilds. Zeitschrift für Papyrologie
und Epigraphik, 10, 197-227.
------------------- (2013). Inscriptions as Evidence for Greek Sport. A Companion to Sport and Spectacle
in Greek and Roman Antiquity, 98-111.
REMIJSEN, S. (2011). The So-Called" Crown-Games": Terminology and Historical Context of the
Ancient Categories for Agones. Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik, 97-109.
---------------- (2015). The End of Greek Athletics in Late Antiquity. Cambridge University Press.
RUTHERFORD, I. (2007) 'Network Theory and Theoric Networks', Mediterranean Historical Review 22,
23-37
GOUW, P. (2009). Griekse atleten in de Romeinse keizertijd (31 v. Chr. - 400 n. Chr.). Amsterdam:
Amsterdam University Press
MALKIN, I. (2011). Networks in the Ancient Mediterranean, New York: Oxford University Press,
MILLER, S. G. (2012). Arete : Greek Sports From Ancient Sources. Berkeley: University of California
Press, 2012. eBook Collection (EBSCOhost), EBSCOhost (accessed May 27, 2016).
VAN NIJF, O.M. (2013). Ceremonies, athletics and the city: some remarks on the social imaginary of
the Greek city of the Hellenistic period. Shifting Social Imaginaries in the Hellenistic Period:
Narrations, Practices, and Images, 311-338.
----------------- (2012). Athletes, artists and citizens in the imperial Greek city. In: Patries d’origine et
patries électives: les citoyennetés multiples dans le monde grec d’époque romaine. A. Heller and A.-V. Pont-Boulay. Bordeaux, Ausonius: 175-194.
VAN NIJF, O. M., & WILLIAMSON, C. G. (2014). Netwerken, panhelleense festivals en de globalisering
van de Hellenistische wereld. Groniek, 46(200).
-------------- (draft) Connecting the Greeks: festival networks in the Hellenistic world ' in: C. Mann & S.
Remijsen (eds) Sport in der Epoche der Hellenismus, Mannheim (forthcoming)
-------------- (2015). Re-inventing traditions: connecting contests in the Hellenistic and Roman world.
in: D. Boschung et al.' Reinventing the invention of tradition? Indigenous pasts and the
Roman present'. Conference Cologne 14-15 November 2013. Paderborn: 95-111
PLEKET, H. W. (1973). Some aspects of the history of the athletic guilds. Zeitschrift für Papyrologie
und Epigraphik, 10, 197-227.
------------------- (2013). Inscriptions as Evidence for Greek Sport. A Companion to Sport and Spectacle
in Greek and Roman Antiquity, 98-111.
REMIJSEN, S. (2011). The So-Called" Crown-Games": Terminology and Historical Context of the
Ancient Categories for Agones. Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik, 97-109.
---------------- (2015). The End of Greek Athletics in Late Antiquity. Cambridge University Press.
RUTHERFORD, I. (2007) 'Network Theory and Theoric Networks', Mediterranean Historical Review 22,
23-37
Thank you for your attention!
E.N. 03-06-2016
E.N. 03-06-2016