Athletes, like the rest of us, are all performers on the stage. In the Hellenistic period, athletes devoted their days to training their bodies and minds (or perhaps their horses) in order to compete for long-lasting kleos (glory). Athletic victories, however, are fleeting in the sense that once the cheering crowds disperse and everyone goes home, only the memory of that victory remains. As Sebastian Scharff discusses in Hellenistic Athletes, victorious competitors continued their performance in the realm of memory through self-presentation. The main evidence which Scharff analyzes in order to unveil nuances of “agonistic cultures” are inscribed victory epigrams–short metrical compositions celebrating an athletic victory. The primary contribution of Scharff’s excellent and detailed study is that Hellenistic athletes were both constrained and empowered by their local agonistic culture and victory discourses.[1] Scharff has authored two edited volumes on Greek athletics.[2] He also co-produced the Mannheim University Database of Hellenistic Athletes which contains data for over 2,000 known athletes from the period.
Hellenistic Athletes opens in Chapter 1 (“Introduction”) with the still-common refrain that the Hellenistic Period (323-31 BCE) in general, and the athletes of that period in particular, have often been overlooked due to the traditional narrative of decline.[3] Scharff successfully remedies that apparent gap in the literature. After narrowing the parameters of the project and detailing his methods, he proceeds to Chapter 2 (“What’s New in Hellenistic Athletics?”), which this reviewer found to be one of the most important contributions of the book. Scharff challenges the decline narrative by highlighting recent research showing how Greek athletics thrived during the Hellenistic period. The number of games and athletic festivals boomed. The festivals at the “Big Four” (Olympia, Delphi, Nemea, Isthmia) and famous games such as the Panathenaia did not lose their attraction, but additional “local” games acquired greater notoriety or were established ex nihilo. New age classes and events were added to increase participation (37-40); offices like the agonothesia (40-46) and institutions such as the gymnasium flourished (46-54); and poleis even engaged in what Scharff calls “talent promotion” (54-60).
Chapters 3-6 constitute the central analytical sections of the book, each examining an aspect of the book’s central theme of athletic self-representation. Chapter 3 (“Athlete and Polis: The Hellenistic City as an Agonistic Community of Fame”) is the longest at 144 pages. It is divided into four regions (Asia Minor and the Eastern Aegean, Central Greece, the Peloponnese, and Northern Greece) and subdivided by polis. There is no overarching or unifying characterization of these regions and poleis because each region or polis has its own “local discourse environment”.[4] The section on Asia Minor and the Eastern Aegean examines Miletus and Rhodes. Miletus relied on state-sponsorship of athletes in the late 3rd century to restore the city to its former glory. The repeated theme of crowns (stephanōn) in the victory epigrams reinforced a victory culture in Miletus. Rhodes, on the other hand, fashioned an “agonistic community of fame” through formulaic epigrams centering the athlete’s family and the polis. The section on Central Greece examines Thebes, Athens, and Euboeian Chalkis. The Thebans promoted their “agonistic success of the young as an answer to (the external criticism of) political decline of the city” (112). Turning to Athens, Scharff argues that although Athenian victors fade from the crown games, a prosopographical analysis of 41 Hellenistic-era Athenian victors (mostly upper class) reveals that Athenians clearly prioritized participation in their local games. The evidence from Euboeian Chalkis is primarily numismatic, yet this evidence also shows an emphasis on youth success translating to adult equestrian success and a greater percentage of participation in local games.
The section on the Peloponnese focuses on Elis, Sparta, Messene, with brief comments on Sicyon, Argos, Arcadia, and Achaia. Elean athletes dominated the victory records at Olympia during the Hellenistic period. Most victors were from elite classes, and surviving victory epigrams emphasize “the excellence of their family, the quality of their own horse breeding, and the access to administrative functions at Olympia” (146-147). Hellenistic athletics in Sparta exhibited “a deeply traditionalistic society” in which the state took the most interest in commemorating victors (even Spartan kings demonstrated “modesty” in victory). Unsurprisingly, Messene’s athletic successes were portrayed as a sign of their eleutheria and autonomia. The Peloponnese as a whole did not experience a “decline” during the Hellenistic period, and as Scharff argues, the Peloponnese continued to be the “athletic center” of the Hellenistic world (193). The section on Northern Greece focuses on Macedonian victors from Amphipolis and Pella (though it briefly passes over victors from Ambrakia and Epirus). Macedonian victors, evidence for whom peaked in the late 4th/early 3rd century BCE, emphasized both their association with Alexander III and prior military experience, both of which constituted “typical Macedonian features” (199).
Chapter 4 (“Athlete and Koinon: Agonistic Success beyond the Level of the Polis”) is based on Scharff’s study of Thessalian equestrian victors.[5] These athletes emphasized their proud tradition of rearing excellent horses (equestrian victories dominate) in order to challenge “new” royal elites of the Hellenistic period by tapping into a tradition dating back at least to the 6th century BCE. Although only 11 pages were devoted to the athletes of the Phocian, Arkadian, and Achaian koina, Scharff concludes that “the basic unit in the agonistic discourse remained the polis… As a result, it may be a fair assumption to state that the regional identity was indeed visible in athletics, but that it never had the potential to challenge the polis as the basic unit of agonistic self-presentation on a general level” (232).
Chapter 5 (“Victorious Kings: The Self-Representation of a ‘New Society of Victors’”) examines the agonistic commemoration strategies of the Ptolemies and Attalids. This “new society of victors” had to express being victorious in multiple spheres of political and cultural life in the Hellenistic Period—athletics was simply one such area. The Ptolemies were especially active in equestrian events, and they used agonistic victories to promote their dynastic connections to their royal house and to integrate victorious female members into their “image of power” (247). They were also active patrons and sponsors of Greek athletes, and the proliferation of gymnasia in Egypt showed a commitment to advancing “a lifestyle…for Greeks as well as Hellenized Egyptians.”[6] The Attalids promoted gymnasia culture as well, but did not sponsor athletics as “a way of life” (270). They also existed in a different political context from the Ptolemies; they promoted an image of “brotherly love” and emphasized family in their agonistic victory memorials (261-264).
Chapter 6 (“Becoming Greek through Athletics: The Participation of Non-Greek Victors in Hellenistic Games”) turns our attention to ethnic discourse regarding perceived boundaries of ancient Greek athletics. Scharff engages with Hellenistic-era athletics regarding Phoenicians, Romans, non-Greek dynasts, and Jewish athletes (readers searching for discussion of Hellenistic athletes in places outside the Greek mainland, Asia Minor, and the Levant generally need to look elsewhere, though he provides a few references for the reader: 278, n. 9). This reviewer would have liked to see deeper engagement with the large and ever-growing body of scholarship on ethnicity and identity, words that too often go undefined—indeed, it might be the weakest chapter in an otherwise excellent monograph.[7] It concludes with an Isocratean notion of Greekness, i.e., that Greekness was “not a biological, but a cultural category” (302), suggesting that non-Greeks could assimilate using Greek athletics. Yet, there is unevenness that distracts from this otherwise straightforward analysis.
Scharff rightly remarks that “‘Hellenization’ was no one-way street” (281, repeated at 302). Scharff’s discussion of Romans and Phoenicians, however, makes the reader think otherwise. Diotimos of Sidon had “self-Hellenizing tendencies” and was “a philhellenic Sidonian regent” (281). For Scharff, “Roman athletes primarily engaged in local contests in order to become part of the community they were living in,” just as the Phoenicians did, but the Romans “wanted to become part of the Greek world through athletics, though in a much more local way” (296, my emphasis). It is unclear, however, what is less “local” in the Phoenician case that merits such a contrast. The unpleasant undertone here is that Phoenicians were somehow more “Other” than Romans. Scharff concludes: “the main purpose of non-Greek competition in sporting events of the Hellenistic period was to become part of the Greek world… Although the ethnic difference ‘Greek’ vs. ‘barbarian’ was evoked time and again, a connecting element was stronger: Athletics served as a vehicle for integration in a time whose defining feature had originally been seen in the merging of Greek and Oriental cultures” (302). This final result, however, is the adoption of Greek-style athletics by non-Greeks, not some hybrid or dual agonistic culture. It appears, then, that Hellenization through athletics was a one-way street after all.
There appears to be a tint of Orientalism in this chapter as well. It is curious to refer to the Numidian Mastanabal as “the most ‘exotic’ competitor in a Greek contest” (quotes in the original, 298) and to use the phrase “Hellenizing Orientals” unironically (original capitalization, 301; also, “Greek and Oriental cultures” at 302). So, while a North African is referred to as “exotic,” Scharff admonishes that we should probably better refrain from such a “suggestive labelling” as “Hellenized barbarian” for Mithridates VI Eupator (296). It is not clear whether “Hellenized” or “barbarian” is the suggestive component. Why doesn’t Scharff also refer to the Romans as exotic/foreign or as “Hellenized Romans” in a Greek context? The case of Idragas of Patara in Lycia (291-294)–the first-known Lycian to receive Roman citizenship (when Mark Anthony was triumvir)–is far more interesting as an example of how a putative non-Greek could simultaneously be Roman (by way of citizenship) and Greek (by way of athletic participation).
Hellenistic Athletes closes with a brief conclusion reiterating the overall idea that the Hellenistic period was not a period of decline in Greek athletics, as it is usually seen; that poleis, kings, and other victors all engaged in a shared victory discourse; that the period is characterized by the coexistence of multiple agonistic cultures; and that developments within this long chronological period and wide geographic scope were non-linear. Apart from the difficulties of Chapter 6, the book is well-edited and produced. Overall, it should be counted as a success and will hopefully drive more students and scholars to engage with the sports cultures of the Hellenistic period.
Notes
[1] The ideas expressed in Hans Beck’s recent scholarship on localism are on full display, as is the influence of Christian Mann, who was Scharff’s Habilitation advisor at Mannheim University (both are acknowledged in the preface).
[2] S. Scharff (ed.), Beyond the Big Four: Local Games in Ancient Greek Athletic Culture, Teiresias Supplements Online, Volume 4 (Münster, 2024); C. Mann, S. Remijsen, and S. Scharff (eds.), Athletics in the Hellenistic World (Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag, 2016) (reviewed in BMCR 2018.03.33).
[3] See now J. Ma, Polis: A New History of the Ancient Greek City-State from the Early Iron Age to the End of Antiquity (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2024) (reviewed in BMCR 2025.04.03).
[4] To borrow Hans Beck’s phrasing (Localism and the Ancient Greek City-State [Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2020], 34-35).
[5] S. Scharff, “Das Pferd Aithon, die Skopaden und die πατρὶς Θεσσαλία. Zur Selbstdarstellung hippischer Sieger aus Thessalien im Hellenismus,” in Athletics in the Hellenistic World, edited by C. Mann, S. Remijsen, and S. Scharff (Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag, 2016), 209-229.
[6] Scharff quoting Sofie Remijsen, “Greek Sport in Egypt: Status Symbol and Life Style” in A Companion to Sport and Spectacle in Greek and Roman Antiquity, edited by P. Christesen and D. G. Kyle (Malden, MA: Oxford University Press, 2014), 355.
[7] Scharff cites Christian Mann, “Könige, Poleis und Athleten in hellenistischer Zeit,” Klio 100, no. 2 (2018): 447-479 and K. Freitag, J. Fündling, and C. Michels “Hellenicity ohne Hellenen? Eine Einleitung in die Thematik,” in Athen und/ order Alexandreia? Aspekte von Identität und Ethnizität im hellenistischen Griechenland, edited by K. Freitag und C. Michels, 7-18 (Cologne), but he does not elaborate any further than “What is meant to be ‘Greek’ was culturally defined rather than characterized by descent” (276). Though obviously not a biological reality, many Greek and non-Greek peoples appealed to “kinship diplomacy” with other Greek communities, which appears to have flourished during the Hellenistic Period through proxeny decrees (for example, see C. P. Jones, Kinship Diplomacy in the Ancient World (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1999); J. Ma, “Peer polity interaction in the Hellenistic age,” Past & Present 180 (2003): 9-39 (Scharff only uses this article in Chapter 2); T. S. Scheer, “The Past in a Hellenistic Present: Myth and Local Tradition,” in A Companion to the Hellenistic World, edited by Andrew Erskine, 216-231 (Malden, MA: Blackwell, 2003); L. E. Patterson, Kinship Myth in Ancient Greece (Austin: University of Texas Press, 2010); T. S. Scheer, “Myth, Memory and the Past. Wandering Heroes between Arcadia and Cyprus,” in Wandering Myths: Transcultural Uses of Myth in the Ancient World edited by L. Audley-Miller and B. Dignas, 71-92 (Berlin: De Gruyter, 2018)).