Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-4rdpn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-14T04:37:32.281Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Ancient archives: the edict of Alexander to Priene, a reappraisal

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 October 2013

S. M. Sherwin-White
S. M. Sherwin-White
Affiliation:
Royal Holloway and Bedford Colleges, London
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

‘The historical value of an object depends not so much on the nature of the object as on its associations, which only scientific excavation can detect.’ The full significance of an inscription may equally rely on knowledge of its archaeological context. In practice, however, users of inscriptions often neglect this aspect. The standard commentaries, new and old, on Alexander's famous ‘edict to Priene’ (hereafter ‘AE’) tend to ignore the physical context of the inscription (I.Priene I) and to treat the text as an isolated or one-off document. Consequently no-one reading Dittenberger, Tod or now Heisserer would learn that it is one of a series of public inscriptions with a consistent theme belonging to an ‘archive’ of connected texts. The inscription is not discussed as one of a group of documents, its monumental setting is largely ignored and the rich corpus of Prienian inscriptions is not exploited fully as a control and source for the historical background of the AE. It is the purpose of this article to try to show that the AE cannot be properly studied in this archaeological limbo. ‘The associations’ of the AE are vital. They provide a new perspective from which to study the text.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Hellenic Studies , Volume 105 , November 1985 , pp. 69 - 89
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for the Promotion of Hellenic Studies 1985

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

I am grateful to Prof. A. B. Bosworth, Dr D. M. Lewis, Joyce Reynolds and Charlotte Roueché for their comments on this paper from which I have greatly benefited. An earlier version was given at the London Summer School in Greek and Roman Epigraphy, in the Institute of Classical Studies, in June 1983. I should like to thank Dr Susan Walker of the Department of Greek and Roman Antiquities for facilitating my access to the inscriptions from the anta in the British Museum on several occasions; also Mr Bill Coles for the ready help familiar to all epigraphists working in the Museum. Finally I must thank the British Museum for supplying the photographs and for permission to publish them.

1 Woolley, L., Digging Up The Past (Pelican 1937) 16Google Scholar.

2 Dittenberger, OGIS I; Tod, GHI 184; P. J. Rhodes, Greek historical inscriptions 359–323 BC, LACTOR ix, 19; Heisserer, A. J., Alexander the Great and the Greeks. The epigraphic evidence (Oklahoma 1980) 145 ff.Google Scholar The physical context is fully discussed by Hicks, E. L., GIBM iii. 16Google Scholar, but the question of the epigraphic connexions of the AE with the texts below it on the anta is raised neither by Hicks in his commentary (GIBM 400), nor by any subsequent editor.

3 See von Gaertringen, F. Hiller, ed., Inschriften von Priene (Berlin 1906)Google Scholar (hereafter I.Priene) xi on the integration of the temple in the original city plan; cf. Hornblower, S., Mausolus (Oxford 1982) 324Google Scholar n. 250. For the position of the temple see Schede, M., Die Ruinen von Priene2 (Berlin 1964) 101Google Scholar (plan of Priene). See also Kleiner, G., ‘Priene’, RE Suppl. ix (1962) 1181–1221Google Scholar. See further Appendix 2.

4 H. A. Thompson's appropriate phrase for a practice studied in his ‘Architecture as a medium of public relations among the Successors of Alexander’, in Barr-Sharrar, B. and Borza, E. N., eds, Macedonia and Greece in late Classical and early Hellenistic times (Washington 1982) 173–89Google Scholar; for Alexander at Priene see ibid. 180. See also Coulton, J. J., Greek architects at work (London 1977)Google Scholar ch. 1.

5 See Hornblower (n. 3) 274 ff. for discussion of the pre-Hellenistic origins of this development.

6 See Carter, J. C., ‘The date of the sculptured coffer lids from the temple of Athena Polias at Priene’, in Kopcke, G. and Moore, M. B., eds, Studies in classical art and archaeology: a tribute to Peter Heinrich von Blanckenhagen (Locust Valley N.Y. 1979) 139–51Google Scholar (with bibliography); id., The sculpture of the sanctuary of Athena Polias at Priene, Reports Soc. of Antiquaries London xlii (London 1983), esp. 25–43. See also H. Schrader in Wiegand, T. and Schrader, H., Priene. Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen und Untersuchungen in den Jahren 1895–1898 (Berlin 1904) 25 ff.Google Scholar; Schede (n. 3) 146.

7 Strabo xiv 1.22–3 (641 C). But Alexander helped to fund the temple by diverting the ‘tribute’ to it (Arr. An. i 17.10) and also extended the boundaries of the sanctuary (Str. loc. cit. 23).

8 See Hornblower (n. 3) 281.

9 On the uncertain tradition as to the original location of the archive—on the north anta and the north (i.e. exterior) wall of the pronaos, or on the south (interior) wall of the entrance hall—see Heisserer (n. 2) 144 with n. 3.

10 R. Chandler, Antiquities of Ionia i (London 1821) 13, quoted by Hicks, , GIBM iii.I6Google Scholar.

11 The size of the lettering of the dossier from the archive wall at Aphrodisias is not sharply gradated: see Reynolds, J., Aphrodisias and Rome, JRS Monographs i (1982) 33Google Scholar. In the case of the Hellenistic archive of documents from the stoa at Magnesia-Maeander (n. 36) larger lettering was utilised for documents of especial importance, i.e. royal letters; cf. O. Kern, I. Magnesia 12. On the high quality of ‘royal inscriptions’ see also J. and L. Robert, Bull. 1980 no. 487.

12 See n. 31. The inscriptions of the upper part of the anta (the Alexander dedication and the AE) and sidewall (the Rhodian arbitration) are now well displayed in the Epigraphy Room in the British Museum.

13 The letters from lower blocks of the Rhodian arbitration (I.Priene 37), stored in the basement of the British Museum, are painted in red, but this colouring is not original.

14 Hicks', plan (GIBM iii.I7Google Scholar) was revised by Hiller von Gaertringen, I.Priene plan facing p. 312.

15 I.Priene 14 (GIBM 401; OGIS 11), cf. Robert, L., Etudes Anatoliennes (Paris 1937) 183 ff.Google Scholar

16 I.Priene 15 (GIBM 402; OGIS 12; Welles, C. B., Royal Correspondence [New Haven 1934] 6Google Scholar).

17 I.Priene 16 (GIBM 410; Welles, RC 8). For the text see Appendix I. B.

18 I.Priene 37 (lines 1–44 = Syll. 3 599).

19 I.Priene 39 (GIBM 424 a–b; OGIS 351; Sherk, R., Roman documents from the Greek East [Baltimore 1969] 6Google Scholar). For the background see Plb. xxxiii 6. On the chronology see Walbank, F. W., Commentary on Polybius iii (Oxford 1979) 547–9Google Scholar. For Orophernes' building at Priene, the North Stoa (called the Hiera Stoa) in the agora from which fragments of his architraval dedication survive (I.Priene 204), see Coulton, J. J., The architectural development of the Greek stoa (Oxford 1976) 277–8Google Scholar, fig. 103.

20 I.Priene 40–1 (GIBM 404–5; Sherk [n. 19][ 10).

21 I.Priene 27 (GIBM 412; Welles, RC 46), of second-century date (lettering), consists of fragments of two blocks from the temple wall. The text has not been allocated a place in reconstructions, but there is room for it on the sidewall. The inscription contains the end of a letter and the beginning of an arbitration by Smyrna of a boundary dispute between Miletus and Priene. Although the letter has been attributed to an Attalid king (cf. Welles, RC 46), both Hiller and recently Allen, R. E., The Attalids of Pergamon (Oxford 1983) 104Google Scholar n. 115, recognised the probability that it was issued by a Roman magistrate.

22 See Wilhelm, A., Beiträge zur griechischen Inschriftenkunde, Sonderschr. des öst. arch. Inst. Wien vii (1909) 235, 253Google Scholar, on the selectivity practised by Greek poleis in publishing copies of public decisions (and other records) on stone. Cf. G. Klaffenbach, Bemerkungen zum griechischen Urkundenwesen, SB Berlin 1960.6. It is this which makes it so misleading to generalise (usually adversely) from surviving Hellenistic inscriptions about the nature of political activity in the ekklēsia during the Hellenistic period. On state archives see now Lambrinudakis, W. and Wörrle, M., Chiron xiii (1983) 346–50Google Scholar.

23 See Schrader (n. 6) 127–8; Schede (n. 3) 49–50.

24 I.Priene 2 (Tod, GHI 186).

25 I.Priene 3 (Syll. 3 282 II) and 231 (Syll. 3 282 I) (the base of the statue awarded in 3 line 9). The Megabyxos was honoured for his goodwill to the dēmos and, significantly, for his demonstration of ‘all zeal for helping in the completion of the temple of Athena.’ For discussion of the role of the Megabyxos see Carter 1983 (n. 6) 36–8.

26 Cf. I.Priene 37.146, Ἀλεξάνδρου διαβάντος εἰς τὴν Ἀσίαν.

27 Heisserer (n. 2) 154, noted some of the differences between the lettering of the dedication and the AE and saw that the inscriptions had been cut by two different masons. Since he did not compare the AE with the inscriptions below it on the anta, or discuss the relation of the texts as a group, he did not discover the similarity of the lettering of these texts or the chronological problem this posed for the traditional dating of the publication of the AE in Alexander's reign.

28 Several letter forms are common to the AE and the dedication: e.g. deep nu and xi with intersecting vertical hasta (the latter feature, as Welles observed, RC lii is not of chronological significance). Omicron and theta are consistently large. Generally (cf. Welles, RC li–lii) the large form of omicron and theta, and nu with the second vertical reaching the base line, tend to be later but are found also in early Hellenistic texts (late fourth and early third centuries BC).

29 McCredie, J. R., Hesperia xxxvii (1968) 222Google Scholar, pl. 66b; id., Hesperia xlviii (1979) 8.

30 E.g. I.Priene 2, which though described as ‘Schrift noch einfacher als die Alexanderbriefes’ is not apicated and has small omicron and theta; I.Priene 5 (dated before the return of Samos to the Samians, probably shortly before 326/5: cf. Hiller von Gaertringen, comm. line 19) also has small omicron and theta, and nu is shallow. On the distinction between ‘monumental’ and ‘cursive’ (sometimes called documentary) epigraphic styles see L. Robert, ‘Une bilingue gréco-araméene d'Asoka’, J.Asiatique 1958, 8–9.

31 Allowance has to be made for: (i) the different size of the lettering—the average size of the letters is about 1·5 cm smaller in nos 14–15 than in the AE. In the AE the large letters are c. 4 cm, occasionally 5 cm, and the small (omicron, theta, omega) c. 3·5 cm; the size of the large letters in the decree for Lysimachus is c. 2·5 cm (in the heading c. 3·5 cm) and of the smaller c. 2–2.2 cm; in the letter of Lysimachus the large letters are slightly bigger at c. 2·6–2·8 cm (phi is 2·8–3 cm), and the small are c. 2.2 cm. The large letters of the AE are approximately 1 cm smaller than those of the dedication at c. 5–5·5 cm. (ii) The different state of preservation of the three inscriptions. With the exception of the lower portion of block III of the AE, the surface of the surviving parts is well preserved. The majority of the fragments of the decree are also well preserved. This cannot, however, be said of much of the letter (except fragment b), the surface of which has suffered badly from weathering.

32 Apart from the difference of size, the script of the AE is especially close to that of the decree; individual letter forms and style of apices are alike. Both inscriptions are likely to be the work of the same mason. The comparison with the letter is made more difficult because of its worse state of preservation. There is no doubt about the general similarity of the main letter forms and overall style. Two differences, I note, are that the cross-bar of alpha is consistently higher than in either the AE, or the decree, and phi is not as oval as in the AE. It is possible that another mason designed the letter.

33 See Heisserer (n. 2) 143.

34 See Klaffenbach (n. 22) esp. 24 ff.

35 For this in the early third century BC at Priene see Ph. Gauthier's discussion, J Sav. 1980, 35–50, of the Larichos dossier (I.Priene 18), esp. 48 ff. For the keeping of public records see also I.Priene 4.5 ff, 14 ff; I.Priene 114.29 ff. (honouring Zosimus inter alia for service as grammateus of boulē and dēmos: after 86 BC).

36 I.Magnesia nos 16–64, 66–84, 87. For a plan of the disposition of 35–87 on the west return of the stoa wall see I.Magnesia pl. II; 16–34 were inscribed on the other end. On the date see Kern, O., Hermes xxxvi (1901) 495Google Scholar; Robert, L., REA xxxviii (1936) 13–15Google Scholar. See Gauthier, Ph., Symbola. Les étrangers et la justice dans les cités grecques (Nancy 1972) 270 ff.Google Scholar for the politics.

37 OGIS 315 (Welles, RC 55–61, pls IX–XI); Virgilio, B., Il tempio stato di Pessinunte fra Pergamo e Roma nel II–I Secolo A.C. (C. B. Welles, Royal Corr. 55–61) (Pisa 1981)Google Scholar with photos of squeezes of all the texts.

38 Reynolds (n. 11).

39 See Dunand, F., ‘Sens et fonction de la fête dans la Grèce hellénistique’, Dialogues d'Histoire Ancienne iv (1978) 201 ff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

40 See Welles, RC introd. to 55 (with bibliography).

41 Cf. Stähelin, F. S., Geschichte der kleinasiatischen Galater2 ((Leipzig 1907) 85Google Scholar; Wilhelm, A., Neue Beiträge zur griechischen Inschriftenkunde i, Sitz. Ak. Wiss. Wien, Philol.-hist. Kl. clxvi (1911) 36Google Scholar, = Kleine Schriften I (Leipzig 1974) i 54; Welles, RC 247.

42 Paepcke, C., De Pergamenorum Litteratura (Diss. Rostock 1906) 26Google Scholar.

43 See Welles' comments, RC 247.

44 Virgilio (n. 37) 125 ff., associates the publication with the incorporation in 25 BC of Galatia as a Roman province.

45 Reynolds (n. 11) v. The dossier honouring Artemidorus, patriot and adherent of Rome in the period of the Mithridatic war (nos 2–4), was inscribed at the NE corner of the stage, after remodelling of the theatre dated to the middle and second half of the second century AD: see Reynolds xv, 38 ff.

46 Reynolds (n. 11) xv, 33–7 (with plan of the archive wall at 34–5), 107 ff.

47 See nn. 45, 46.

48 Reynolds (n. 11) 36.

49 GIBM 401 b 1 and e were left behind in Priene; GIBM 401 a, b 2, c, d and fare in the BM, as are the fragments g–n associated in Hiller with this decree.

50 I.Priene p. 20, and plan facing p. 312.

51 I.Priene 15 (GIBM 402; OGIS 12; Welles, RC 6).

52 I.Priene 15 fr. f = GIBM 402 e; this was a new fragment found on the terrace of the temple in the German excavations of 1898. Welles is mistaken in his statement, RC p. 40, that the remains belong to six different blocks. He appears to have taken e and f as originally from different blocks.

53 I.Priene 14 (for text see Appendix 1 A). On the cult cf. Habicht, C., Gottmenschentum und griechische Stadte2 (Munich 1970) 38–9Google Scholar.

54 For the building named the Alexandreion, under renovation at Priene in the second half of the second century BC, see I.Priene 108.75. There is no corroborating evidence that this was a cult building and no other evidence as to its date of construction.

55 I.Priene 15.1 ff.

56 See n. 66 below.

57 I.Priene 15.1 ff.

58 Translation of Bagnall, R. S. and Derow, P., Greek historical documents: the Hellenistic period, Sources for Biblical Study xvi (1981)Google Scholar no. 11 (with slight alterations).

59 Hicks, Hiller, Dittenberger and Welles restore Μάγνητας in the decree. Hiller and Dittenberger restore Πεδιεῖς in the letter.

60 I.Priene 16 (GIBM 410; Welles, RC 8); for the text see Appendix I B.

61 See Klaffenbach (n. 22) 34 for the difference between ancient and modern attitudes on copy making—the former did not require verbatim accuracy; Henry, A. S., The prescripts of Athenian decrees, Mnemos. Suppl. xlix (1977) 105–6Google Scholar.

62 Welles, RC 43–4, gives a more elaborate explanation; the stratiōtai, identified as part of the invasion force of Demetrius in 287/6 BC (see n. 86) were omitted because the Prienians thought the mention of Lysimachus’ enemy would be ‘unwelcome’. The stratiōtai are not further identified because of Lysimachus' hatred of Demetrius. This seems to me very unlikely, especially in view of Lysimachus' own reference to them, which he need not have made.

63 For discussion of the dependent position of the laoi see Briant, P., Rois, tributs et paysans (Paris 1982) 96–135Google Scholar ( = Actes du Colloque 1971 sur l'Esclavage; Ann. Litt. U. de Besançon cxl [1973] 94–133Google Scholar); Kreissig, H., Actes du Colloque 1973 sur l'Esclavage, Ann. Litt. U. de Besançon clxxxii (1976) 237 ff.Google Scholar

64 See, however, I. Priene 3 (n. 25) 14 ff. forbidding the Megabyxos the acquisition of property (ktēmata) belonging to the Pedieis.

65 Welles, RC 44 (cf. 45).

66 Cf. Welles, ibid.

67 See e.g. Welles, RC, 15 (OGIS 223) 21 ff. (letter of Antiochus I(?) to Erythrae).

68 See further below.

69 Hicks, comm. on GIBM 410.

70 GIBM iii. 7 (plan).

71 I.Priene, plan facing p. 312. Hiller's text is superior to that of Welles, who adopted Hicks' arrangement of the fragments (ABCD). Hiller's order (DABC) is to be preferred. The bottom edge of fragment D is complete. Since there is a vacat of 8 cm above the letters inscribed at the bottom of D, D is from the beginning of the text, not from the end. The alternative (cf. Welles, RC 54), that D belongs to a new column of the same text, would only be possible if the text was continued on the right return of the anta. This is not feasible because the Rhodian arbitration occupied the upper area of the right return of the anta, while—lower down—the right return of fr. B of this edict was inscribed with I.Priene 38 d. Welles' objection to D as the beginning of the text is based on his assumption that the text was a letter, which should therefore have begun with a greeting. There is, however, no reason to identify the document as a letter. D is perfectly compatible with the beginning of an edict (see below). C can be placed at the end of the text on the basis of the vacat below the last preserved letters. A is from the upper part of a block, having a complete upper edge, and B from the lower, complete at bottom and right hand side. Hicks and Hiller saw that if the two fragments A and B came from the same block, their combined height (29 + 27 cm = 56 cm), greater than the height of the wide course of blocks (53 cm), meant that there was an overlap of one line—the last line of A with the first line of B. Welles' objection to this (54), that the combined line length would be too long by a few letters, is not very convincing. In view of our ignorance of the average line length of this text and of the exact amount of space (and so of letters) preceding the preserved letters of A line 7, it seems foolish to rule out the obvious possibility that A and B do overlap and that the participle—ψάμενοι (RC 8.7) of A line 7 belongs to the same line as, and was followed (after a short gap) by that (ὑπολαμβάνοντες) in B line 1 ( = GIBM 410.7; I.Priene 16.9). Hiller's ordering of the fragments has the great merit of placing the beginning and the end of the text in the right position. The text began immediately with the king's rulings because it was, as Hiller saw, an edict.

72 Cf. Hicks on GIBM 410 (‘The characters are firm and good, belonging to the third century BC’); Hiller (n. 73).

73 Hiller on I.Priene 16. Examination of frr. a and d in the British Museum confirmed the general similarity of the lettering of this inscription to that of the letter of, and and decree for, Lysimachus.

74 Hicks on GIBM 410.

75 OGIS II n. 4.

76 I.Priene 16, ‘Erlass eines Herrschers (Lysimachos?) über Priene und Magnesia’; cf. plan facing p. 312, ‘Erlass des Lysimachus’.

77 On the date of Curopedium see Sachs, A. J. and Wiseman, D. J., ‘A Babylonian king list of the Hellenistic period’, Iraq xvi (1954) 205 ff.Google Scholar; for the date of Seleucus' death see ibid. 205 ff.; for the King List, ibid. 203 (BM 35603) obv. 6–8.

78 Cf. below.

79 Welles assumed that the grant referred to in line 11 ( = RC 8 B3) was an earlier grant to the Pedieis and that the king dealt with business in chronological order. The slaughter is then a sequel to the grant. This reconstruction also assumed that the king's solution was given in D in a part of the text now lost. Hiller's re-ordering of the fragments (n. 71), recognising that C ( = I.Priene 16 IV) was the end of the edict, established the probable original length of the text (20 lines). The important consequence of this is that these fragmentary 20 lines constituted the whole of the king's settlement of this upheaval between the Pedieis and the Prienians. The grants referred to in lines 4 and 11 are therefore more likely to contain part of the king's present settlement; reaffirmation of the residence in kōmai of paroikoi, a ruling on the condition of the Pedieis and penalties for those Pedieis (11 ff.) guilty of hostilities against Prienians. That not all the Pedieis were involved is perhaps implied by the language of the Prienian decree (I.Priene 14.6); text Appendix 1 A.

80 See n. 63; for recent attestation of paroikoi at Aphrodisias see Reynolds (n. 11) no. 2 b 2 (decree of Plarasa/Aphrodisias: 88 BC), with comm. See Wörrle, M., Chiron viii (1978) 236–46Google Scholar, esp. 241 ff., on the analogous condition of the perioikoi of Lycian cities.

81 Cf. I.Priene 1 and above.

82 Cf. Hiller on I.Priene 16 I (= D); I.Priene 3 (n. 64) indicates the dependence of some Pedieis on the polis of Priene in as much as the Prienian dēmos acts to keep intact property of the Pedieis.

83 Confirmation of rights to residence in the kōmai and to work the land? The Pedieis are not named again in Prienian inscriptions.

84 Hicks, comm. on GIBM 410. Meyer's, E. view, Die Grenzen der hellenistischen Staaten in Kleinasien (Zurich/Leipzig 1925) 36Google Scholar, that this text merely attests perennial upheaval between Priene and the Pedieis, and permanent border problems with Magnesia, is unconvincing since it seems clear that this occasion was something special, requiring royal intervention.

85 Hicks, comm. on GIBM 410.

86 For the date 287/6 see the discussions, utilised here, of Tarn, W. W., CAH vii 87–8Google Scholar; Welles, RC 43–4; Bengtson, H., Die Strategie in der hellenistischen Zeit i (Munich 1937) 221–3Google Scholar, esp. 222 n. 2. Cf. Habicht (n. 53) 38–9, who notes (38 n. 3) that the arguments of Welles and Bengtson against Meyer's dating of the occasion to 289 BC had been neglected by Magie, D., Roman rule in Asia Minor ii (Princeton 1950) 922Google Scholar n. 13, who (still) regarded the affair as local. Welles (43) and Bengtson (222 n. 2) pointed to the significance of lines 5 ff., where the safety of Lysimachus' realm is mentioned. The chronology and extent of Lysimachus' control of Ionia is problematic. Syll. 3 368 (289/8 BC), honouring Lysimachus' στρατηγὸς ἐπὶ των πόλεων τω̑ν Ἰώνων, gives the terminus ante quem. In 302/301 BC Lysimachus appointed Prepelaus as ‘general over Aeolis and Ionia’ (Diod. xx 107.4) and probably from 294 BC, when Lysimachus took over remaining possessions of Demetrius Poliorcetes in Asia Minor (Plut., Demetr. 35.5Google Scholar), he was able to organise the administrative basis of his control in Ionia: see Beloch, , Griechische Geschichte2 iv. 1 (Leipzig 1925) 234–35Google Scholar; Bengtson i 219–20; Magie i 89 ff.

87 For the stratiōtai see Welles, RC p. 43; Habicht (n. 53) 39.

88 Demetrius crossed to Miletus (Plut. Demetr. 46) with his fleet after the revolt of Athens and his conclusion of a peace treaty with Ptolemy I, newly revealed by the decree for Callias of Sphettus, published by Shear, T. L., Kallias of Sphettos and the revolt of Athens, Hesperia Suppl. xvii (1978)Google Scholar. For the dating of the revolt (and the peace) in 287 BC, not (with Shear) in 286, see Osborne, M., ZPE XXXV (1979) 181 ffGoogle Scholar; Habicht, C., Unters. zur politischen Geschichte Athens im 3. Jahr. v. Chr., Vestigia XXX (Munich 1979) 45 ff.Google Scholar

89 For the long history of the territorial dispute between Samos and Priene see Kleiner, RE Suppl. ix s.v. ‘Priene’ 1184–5; Welles, RC 48–50. On Lysimachus' arbitration, referred to frequently in the Rhodian arbitration (I.Priene 37), see Tod, M. N., International arbitration among the Greeks (Oxford 1913) 135 ff.Google Scholar On the date see Hiller, comm. on I.Priene 37.126.

90 RC 7.2–9.

91 RC 7.9 ff.

92 See I.Priene 37, where the Samians' acceptance of Prienian possession of Karion and the chōra at the time of Lysimachus' krisis is used by the Prienians as an argument against Samian claims to it in the 190s.

93 Cf. Welles, RC 48.

94 For Lysimachus' letter to the Samians see Welles, RC 7 (OGIS 13; I.Priene 500).

95 Heisserer (n. 2) 145 ff.

96 Trans. Heisserer, with some alterations.

97 Welles, RC p. 258 n. 3.

98 Roesch, P., Etudes Béotiennes (Paris 1982) 78–9Google Scholar; examples include the archive of decrees and royal letters from the stoa of Magnesia-Maeander (n. 36), the Coan asylia decrees published by G. Klaffenbach and R. Herzog, Asylieurkunden aus Kos, Abh. deutschen Akad. Wiss. Berlin 1952.1, and the dossier of the late fourth century from Lesbian Eresos (IG xii. 2 526; OGIS 8; GHI 191; Heisserer (n. 2) 27 ff). The headings give in the genitive case the proper name of the authority (king/polis/koinon) from which the document originated.

99 I.Priene 1.1; 14.1. The lack of evidence of another heading at the beginning of the royal edict I.Priene 16 is a further indication that the author was Lysimachus.

100 Only a small part of the top of a vertical and the beginning of a horizontal stroke to the right are preserved after pi; the traces are compatible with either rho or epsilon: Heisserer (n. 2) 152 pl. 22 (fr. IIb). The context—of non-Prienian communities—and the independent evidence for Pedieis in the region of Priene make Πε̣[διει̑ς] the best supplement. Heisserer's new supplement is based on the occurrence of the toponym Myrsileia and a reference to agroi there in I.Magnesia 116.53 (reign of Hadrian); Heisserer 156.

101 Welles, C. B., AJA xl (1938) 245–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar at 258, with n. 3.

102 E.g. Hiller, I.Priene I; Hornblower (n. 3) 163–4.

103 Tod, GHI 185; Rhodes (n. 2) no. 19; Heisserer (n. 2) 145 ff.

104 Welles (n. 101).

105 Welles (n, 101).

106 Bickerman, , REA xlii (1940) 25CrossRefGoogle Scholar n. 5.

107 Cf. Welles (n. 101) 258 n. 3.

108 E.g. Welles (n. 101) 249–50 is an extract from an edict of Philip V (lines 10 ff.), preceded by a covering note of an Antigonid official, = Moretti, L., Iscrizioni storiche ellenistiche ii. (Florence 1975)Google Scholar III: 187 BC; Welles 251–3 is a stele containing (extracts from?) an edict on the duties of royal oikonomoi, perhaps part of a general army code of Philip V, but without any covering note.

109 Badian, E., ‘Alexander and the Greeks of Asia’, in Ancient society and institutions. Studies…V. Ehrenberg (Oxford 1966) 46–53Google Scholar. This interpretation has won wide acceptance. As a sampling see Rhodes, loc. cit. (n. 2);Hamilton, J. R., Alexander the Great (London 1973) 59Google Scholar; Heisserer (n. 2) 61–2. Badian's argument that the inscription represents a second settlement is based on his particular interpretation of syntaxis (cf. below) and Alexander's imperfectly preserved decision with regard to the garrison (op. cit. 47).

110 Cf. n. 95.

111 On the Prienian archives see n. 35.

112 E.g. the section of a diagramma of Philip V on the property of Serapis: Welles (n. 101) 249–50, lines 10 ff. (ISE ii III); Pelekides, S., Ἀπὸ τήν πολιτεία καὶ τὴν κοινωνία τῆς ἀρΧαίας Θεσσαλονίκης (Thessaloniki 1934) 10 ff.Google Scholar, the first editor, recognised from the use of δέ at the beginning of the text of the diagramma that it was a section of a longer document: cf. Welles 251 n. 3 and 254. For the publication of a group of clauses from Imperial grants of privileges at Aphrodisias see Reynolds (n. 11) 92 ff. no. 9.

113 See e.g. Dittenberger, OGIS I adn. 4; Tod, GHI 185; cf. J. and L. Robert, Bull. 1971, no. 581; pace Berchem, D. Van, Mus. Helv. xxvii (1970) 200Google Scholar, who identified the polis as Naulochon and therefore took the AE as the terminus post quem for the foundation of Priene!

114 Hornblower (n. 3) 162, 163.

115 Ibid. 183.

116 See e.g. the Prienian grant of γῆς ἔγκτησις (including a specification of the required distance between any acquired property and the frontier with Ephesian territory) in I.Priene 3 (the Megabyxos of Ephesus); see I.Priene 2 (Antigonus); 6 (Philaios of Athens); 8 (dikasts of Phocaea and Astypalaea and of an unknown state): cf. 12.20 ff. For Prienian disposal of klēroi in the chōra by sale see I.Priene 37.84 ff. For defence of the chōra by Prienian forces see the vivid description of Sotas’ expedition against marauding Gauls in the 270s, I.Priene 17.

117 Cf. de Ste Croix, G., The class struggle in the ancient Greek world (London 1981) 10–11Google Scholar.

118 Heisserer (n. 2) 155.

119 On Alexander's application of traditional Achaemenid ideology in his territorial conquests see P. Briant, ASNP 1979, 1375–1414, = Rois [n. 63], 291–330, and Colloque de Mogilany 1977 (Varsovie Cracovie 1980) 37–83 ( = Rois 357–404).

120 The royal ‘we’ appears to be used (pace Lenschau, , Klio xxxiii [1940] 205–6Google Scholar; Heisserer [n. 2] 89–90) in Alexander's Chian edict, Syll. 3 283.10, 18, where the text has been re-shaped by the Chian authorities responsible for its publication (cf. Aymard, A., ‘Le Protocole royal grec’, Etudes d'Histoire ancienne [Paris 1967] 92Google Scholar n. 2 = REA l [1948] 255 n. 2) and in the ‘Exiles' Decree’ (Diod. xviii 8.4); Alexander uses the first person singular in the ‘Second Letter to the Chians’, Heisserer 101.27–9 SEG xxii 506). In Antigonus' letter to Scepsis (Welles, RC I; OGIS 5: 311 BC), Antigonus varies between an occasional use of ‘I’ (25, 65) and ‘we’ (otherwise passim). This usage, as Welles said, seems to correspond to a distinction between the king as an individual and as representative of the state. On the existence of a Greek concept of kingship which recognised a doctrine of capacities—distinguishing between the man and his royal office—see Kantorowicz, E. N., The King's two bodies. A study in medieval political theology (Princeton 1957) 497 ff.Google Scholar

121 See Hornblower (n. 3) 161–5.

122 Hornblower, ibid.

123 Arr. An. i 18.2; Diod. xvii 24.1.

124 Studien zur Geschichte des römischen Kolonates (Leipzig/Berlin 1910) 243 ff.Google Scholar, where Rostovtzeff saw the distinction as between the royal chōra (liable to phoros) and the poleis, the tributary obligation of which was termed syntaxis; see also Hammond, N. G. L., Alexander the Great: king, commander and statesman (London 1981) 155Google Scholar, who takes syntaxis to be taxation.

125 See Francotte, H., Les finances des cités grecques (Paris 1909) 77–86Google Scholar for the view that syntaxis and phoros are distinct through the Hellenistic period, the former being the term for the contributions of an ally in a free system, the latter denoting the obligatory dues levied by ‘un régime decontrainte’. In the case of Priene Francotte argues (79) that the syntaxis stands for Prienian contributions to Alexander's war efforts because Alexander had already freed the cities of phoros. This argument is especially weak since Alexander had only announced his policy, not implemented it ‘globally’; the account of Arrian shows that the poleis were dealt with individually as Alexander marched south. Alexander's treatment of Ephesus, where he ordered the phoros to be paid to Artemis (n. 7) instead of to himself, shows that aphorologēsia was not granted. Heuss, A., Stadt und Herrscher des Hellenismus in ihren staats- und völkerrechtlichen Beziehungen, Klio Beiheft xxxix (1937) 106–11Google Scholar, denied any distinction between the use of phoros and syntaxis.

126 For example the use of syntaxis for allied contributions in the Second Athenian Confederacy (cf. Syll. 3 192 [GHI 156] 11: Andros) and for contributions of the members of the Antigonid Nesiotic League: Durrbach, , Choix d'inscriptions de Délos (Paris 1921)Google Scholar no. 13 (IG xi. 4 1036). For contributions for war levied by the Successors (not called syntaxeis) see OGIS 4.10 ff. (321 BC); Welles, RC 1.44 (311 BC); RC 15.26.

127 Badian (n. 109) 52–3.

128 See Bosworth, A. B., A historical commentary on Arrian's History of Alexander i (Oxford 1980) 280–1Google Scholar.

129 As was held by Hiller I. Priene introd. xii and Tod, GHI 185.

130 Loc. cit. (n. 128).

131 For a conspectus on grants of ateleia see Holleaux, M., Etudes d'epigraphie et d'histoire grecques ii (Paris 1938) 72–125Google Scholar.

132 Op. cit. 101–05.

133 Allen, R. E., The Attalid Kingdom (Oxford 1983) 50–3Google Scholar.

134 Allen (n. 133) 52 n. 81, with the parallels of Syll. 3 601. 19–21 and Welles, RC 35.7–8.

135 Pace Bosworth (n. 128) following Herrmann; see Walbank, F. W., Commentary on Polybius iii (Oxford 1979) 165–6Google Scholar on Plb. xxi 46.2–3.

136 Segre, M., Clara Rhodos ix (1938) 190 ff.Google Scholar, revised by Maier, F., Griechische Mauerbauinschriften i (Heidelberg 1959)Google Scholar no. 76 ( = SEG xix 867) line 10. Eumenes simply remits the arrears of poll-tax and lowers the tax radically for the future (from 4 dr. 1 ob. to 1 dr. 1 ob.). The poll-tax was evidently a regular imposition: see also Bar-Kochva, B., The Seleucid army (Cambridge 1976) 217CrossRefGoogle Scholar n. 27, especially for criticism of Rostovtzeffs view (SEHHW ii 648) that Eumenes was ‘demoting’ the settlement. In Jerusalem ‘only’ the gerousia, priests, temple singers and scribes were granted full exemption by Antiochus III from the poll-tax and other crown taxes (Josephus, AJ xii 142Google Scholar). There is no evidence that in the Seleucid empire the poll-tax was restricted to laoi. For reference to the poll-tax among taxes collected in Asia by Alexander's successors see [Arist.] Econ. ii. 1364a4.

137 Cf. Préaux, C., L'economie royale des Lagides (Brussels 1939) 383–5Google Scholar; Tcherikover, V., JJurPap iv (1956) 179–207Google Scholar; Evans, J. A. S., Aegyptus xxxvii (1957) 259–65Google Scholar.

138 For attestation of the apomoira in a decree from Sinuri see Robert, L., Le sanctuaire de Sinuri près de Mylasa i. Les inscriptions grecques (Paris 1945)Google Scholar no. 73.12; cf. id., Hellenica vii (Paris 1949) 63 ff. Cf. Hornblower (n. 3) 161–2, 365 M 5.

139 Theopompus FGrH 115 F 98; Cargill, J., The Second Athenian League: empire or free alliance? (Berkeley 1981) 124 ff.Google Scholar

140 Cf. Prienian editing of public decrees to stress the most important clauses—those on fiscal immunity: e.g. I.Priene 13. The dossier of three separate documents honouring the Seleucid officer Larichus (I.Priene 18), which were published simultaneously on one stele in the 270s, transcribed in the form of shortened decrees the clauses which were still important—notably on ateleia: cf. Gauthier (n. 35) 41.

141 Badian (n. 109) 49; Heisserer (n. 2) 166–8. Alexander's recommendation about the phroura (AE line 15) is too fragmentary for any certainty as to its original purpose. On the Prienian garrison of the citadel (Teloneia) see L. and J. Robert, J Sav. 1976, 198, 201–2, 205.

142 See Bengtson, H., Kleine Schriften (Munich 1974) 213 ff.Google Scholar at 215; Guarducci, M., Epigrafia Greca ii (Rome 1969) 2–3Google Scholar. Cf. Gauthier (n. 36) 33–5.

143 For a different aspect of this process see Herman, G., ‘The “Friends” of the Early Hellenistic rulers: servants or officials?’, Talanta xii–xiii (1980–1981) 103 ff.Google Scholar

144 See e.g. the dossier from Eresos (n. 98) which included (a) an edict of Philip III upholding Alexander's kriseis, and (b) the beginning of a letter of Antigonus concerning the sons of the tyrant Agonippus; and IG xi.2 6 (Tod, GHI 201; OCIS 2; Heisserer [n. 2] 118 ff.), the long inscription from Mytilene dealing inter alia with the return of exiles and referring to a royal settlement embodied in a diagramma. For citation of earlier grants of Alexander and the Successors see n. 67 (Erythrae: autonomia and aphorologēsia); Meritt, B. D.AJA lvi (1935) 361Google Scholar, lines 6–7 (Colophon) (on the dating, c. 311–306 BC ?, see Robert, L., RPh lxii [1936] 158 ff.Google Scholar).

145 Orth, W., Königlicher Machtanspruch und städtische Freiheit (Munich 1977) 105Google Scholar, posited a deterioration in Prienian relations with Lysimachus after the krisis of 283/2, leading to a joyous reception of Seleucus' victory over Lysimachus. The only evidence is the Prienian vote of statues for Seleucus and Antiochus referred to in), I. Priene 18 (OCIS 215) 2 ff., of the 270s, which can be explained simply as a politic move towards new suzerains. The Prienians accepted Lysimachus' krisis over Batinetis, as is shown by the fact that this territorial dispute was not reopened. See Gauthier (n. 35) 37 ff. for criticism of Orth's attempt to infer a similar disaffection with the Seleucids from the Larichus dossier. For a sensible reassessment of Lysimachus' relations with the Greek cities of Asia Minor see Burstein, S. M., ‘Lysimachus and the Greek cities of Asia’, The Ancient World iii. 3 (1980) 73–9Google Scholar.