2021. (with S. Isager) Early Ptolemaic Halikarnassos (ca. 280–260 BC) and its network of interactions

VOL II Modern geographical limitations have been influential on both archaeological investigations and how we approach cultural relations in the region. Comprehensive and valuable research has been carried out on many individual sites in Karia and the Dodekanese, but the results have rarely been brought together in an attempt to paint a larger picture of the culture of this region. In Antiquity, the sea did not constitute an obstacle to interaction between societies and cultures, but was an effective means of communication for the exchange of goods, sculptural styles, architectural form and embellishment, education, and ideas. It is clear that close relations existed between the Dodekanese and western Asia Minor during the Classical period (Vol. I), but these relations were evidently further strengthened under the shifting political influences of the Hellenistic kings, the Roman Empire, and the cosmopolitan late antique period. The contributions in this volume comprise investigations on urbanism, architectural form and embellishment, sculpture, pottery, and epigraphy. Birte Poulsen is Associate Professor at the Department of History and Classical Studies (Classical Archaeology), Aarhus University. She has been the head of the Danish Halikarnassos team since 2016. Her main research interests are art and archaeology of the imperial period and Late Antiquity, with special reference to Asia Minor and Italy. Poul Pedersen is Professor Emeritus at the University of Southern Denmark. He started working at Halikarnassos in 1970 and was head of the Danish Halikarnassos team 1989-2015. His main interests are the topography of ancient Halikarnassos, the architecture of western Asia Minor and Greek Architecture and its impact on later times John Lund is a Senior Researcher in the Danish National Museum, who has studied the finds from Kristian Jeppesen’s excavations at the Maussolleion of Halikarnassos intermittently since 1999. The wider implications – economic and otherwise – of Hellenistic and Roman ceramics from the Eastern Mediterranean are central to his research interests. KARIA AND THE DODEKANESE Karia and the Dodekanese, Vol. II, presents new research that highlights cultural interrelations and connectivity in the Southeast Aegean and western Asia Minor over a period of more than 700 years. Throughout Antiquity, this region was a dynamic meeting place for eastern and western civilizations. VO LU M E I I KARIA AND THE DODEKANESE Cultural Interrelations in the Southeast Aegean II Early Hellenistic to Early Byzantine Edited by Birte Poulsen Poul Pedersen & John Lund ISBN 978-1-78925-514-0 www.oxbowbooks.com Edited by Birte Poulsen, Poul Pedersen & John Lund KARIA AND THE DODEKANESE AN OFFPRINT FROM KARIA AND THE DODEKANESE CULTURAL INTERRELATIONS IN THE SOUTHEAST AEGEAN II Early Hellenistic to Early Byzantine Edited by BIRTE POULSEN, POUL PEDERSEN AND JOHN LUND Hardback Edition: ISBN 978-1-78925-514-0 Digital Edition: ISBN 978-1-78925-515-7 (epub) Oxford & Philadelphia Published in the United Kingdom in 2021 by OXBOW BOOKS The Old Music Hall, 106–108 Cowley Road, Oxford, OX4 1JE and in the United States by OXBOW BOOKS 1950 Lawrence Road, Havertown, PA 19083 © Oxbow Books and the individual contributors 2021 Hardback Edition: ISBN 978-1-78925-514-0 Digital Edition: ISBN 978-1-78925-515-7 (epub) A CIP record for this book is available from the British Library Library of Congress Control Number: 2020949505 All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical including photocopying, recording or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission from the publisher in writing. Printed in Malta by Melita Press Typeset by Versatile PreMedia Service (P) Ltd For a complete list of Oxbow titles, please contact: UNITED KINGDOM Oxbow Books Telephone (01865) 241249 Email: [email protected] www.oxbowbooks.com UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Oxbow Books Telephone (610) 853-9131, Fax (610) 853-9146 Email: [email protected] www.casemateacademic.com/oxbow Oxbow Books is part of the Casemate Group Front cover: Late Antique mosaic in Halikarnassos (Birte Poulsen) Contents List of contributors Abbreviations vii ix Preface Birte Poulsen, Poul Pedersen, and John Lund xiii Introduction Birte Poulsen, Poul Pedersen, and John Lund 1 Hellenistic period 1. Hellenistic sculpture as artistic expression of a wide geographical and political unity: the case of Rhodos and its relations to Karia Κalliope Bairami 9 2. Knidian fine ware in Rhodos – a first assessment Lisa Betina 23 3. Relations between Karia, the Dodekanese and South Italy: the case studies of Knidos and Paestum Christine Bruns-Özgan 33 4. Karian reflections in Halasarna, Kos Nikolas Dimakis and Giorgos Doulfis 41 5. Relations between the Dodekanese, Karia and Alexandria: the case of the sculpture Elena Ghisellini 51 6. The impact of Knidian fine wares on the local market and pottery production of Halasarna on Kos during the Hellenistic and Roman periods Dimitris Grigoropoulos and Edyta Marzec 65 7. Mutual influences between Dodekanesian and Karian sanctuaries in the Hellenistic period: the Sanctuaries of Apollo in Loryma and Amos, and the “Corinthian Temple” in Kaunos Winfried Held 79 8. The moving movers. Foreigners buried on Kos in the Hellenistic period Kerstin Höghammar 89 9. Early Ptolemaic Halikarnassos (ca. 280–260 BC) and its network of interactions Jan-Mathieu Carbon and Signe Isager 109 vi Contents 10. Tracing networks of the Hellenistic amphora market: a study based on Rhodian, Knidian and Koan transport amphoras Nikoline Sauer 125 11. The language of Koan architecture between Synoikism and Late Hellenism Giorgio Rocco 141 12. Building projects in the Rhodian State: local dynamics and interrelations Stella Skaltsa 155 13. Cultural interdependence between Kos and Karia as illustrated by the grave markers (semata) of the Hellenistic period Chrysanthi Tsouli 175 Imperial period 14. Kos: the official language of the Imperial architecture Monica Livadiotti 193 15. Amphorae from the southeastern Aegean in Pannonia Anna Andrea Nagy, Piroska Magyar-Hárshegyi, and György Szakmány 209 Late Antiquity 16. The Early Byzantine architecture in Kos and the interactions with the nearby regions of Asia Minor Isabella Baldini and Claudia Lamanna 229 17. The cult of Saint Kerykos in the Dodekanese: the evidence of the Rhodian Peraia Angeliki Katsioti and Nikolaos Mastrochristos 247 18. Across the waves. Early Christian paintings on Kalymnos and Karia Michalis Kappas and Konstantia Kefala 255 19. The “School of Kos” and architectural koine in the southeastern Aegean during Late Antiquity Giuseppe Mazzilli 269 20. A mosaic in Halikarnassos: cultural interrelations between Halikarnassos and the Dodekanese during Late Antiquity Birte Poulsen 285 Index 293 List of contributors Κalliope Bairami Ephorate of Antiquities of the Dodecanese [email protected] isaBella Baldini Dipartimento di Storia Culture Civiltà University of Bologna [email protected] lisa Betina Saxo Institute University of Copenhagen [email protected] Christine Bruns-Özgan Mimar Sinan Güzel Sanatlar Üniversitesi Istanbul [email protected] Jan-mathieu CarBon Department of Classics Queen’s University (Canada) [email protected] nikolas dimakis Department of Archaeology & History of Art National & Kapodistrian University of Athens [email protected] giorgos doulfis Department of Archaeology & History of Art National & Kapodistrian University of Athens gdoulfis yahoo.gr elena ghisellini Università degli Studi di Roma “Tor Vergata” Dipartimento di Storia, Patrimonio culturale, Formazione e Società [email protected] dimitris grigoropoulos Deutsches Archäologisches Institut, Abteilung Athen [email protected] Winfried held Archäologisches Seminar Philipps-Universität Marburg [email protected] kerstin hÖghammar Uppsala university [email protected] signe isager University of Southern Denmark [email protected] miChalis kappas Ephorate of Antiquities of Messenia [email protected] angeliki katsioti Ephorate of Antiquities of the Dodecanese [email protected] konstantia kefala Ephorate of Antiquities of the Dodecanese [email protected] Claudia lamanna Dipartimento di Beni Culturali e Ambientali University of Bologna [email protected] moniCa livadiotti Department of Civil Engineering and Architecture Polytechnic of Bari [email protected] viii List of contributors John lund National Museum of Denmark [email protected] piroska magyar-hárshegyi Department of Roman Archaeology BHM Aquincum Museum [email protected] edyta marzeC Fitch Laboratory British School at Athens [email protected] nikolaos mastroChristos Ephorate of Antiquities of the Dodecanese [email protected] giuseppe mazzilli Polytechnic University of Bari Department of Civil Engineering and Architecture (DICAR) & University of Macerata Department of Humanities [email protected] anna andrea nagy Department of Classical and Roman Provincial Archaeology Eötvös Loránd University [email protected] poul pedersen University of Southern Denmark [email protected] Birte poulsen Department of History and Classical Studies Aarhus University [email protected] giorgio roCCo Department of Civil Engineering and Architecture Polytechnic University of Bari [email protected] nikoline sauer Centre for Urban Network Evolutions (UrbNet) Aarhus University [email protected] stella skaltsa Saxo Institute University of Copenhagen [email protected] gyÖrgy szakmány Department of Petrology and Geochemistry Eötvös Loránd University [email protected] Chrysanthi tsouli National Arcaheological Museum, Athens [email protected] 9 Early Ptolemaic Halikarnassos (ca. 280–260 BC) and its network of interactions* Jan-Mathieu Carbon and Signe Isager As part of the ongoing work on the corpus of inscriptions from Halikarnassos, this paper represents an attempt to establish a more precise understanding of the Early Ptolemaic period at Halikarnassos. Using this discussion of chronology and politics as a foundation, it offers some broader reflections on the wide-ranging role of Halikarnassos and the interactions of Halikarnassians in the Ptolemaic sphere. Focussing on contacts and interrelations within Karia and the Dodekanese, but also within the Mediterranean at large, this chapter seeks to assess the place of the city of Halikarnassos at a very specific juncture in the early Hellenistic period. After a brief historical introduction, we focus primarily on a period of about two decades, from ca. 280–260 BC, and on three modest epigraphic case studies (1–3). It is perhaps only after the fall of Lysimachos and the victory of the Seleukids at Kouropedion (February/March 281 BC), and after the death of Seleukos I later that same year (late August/September 281 BC), that Halikarnassos began to fall under the dominant influence and control of the Ptolemies. In the decades that followed, Halikarnassos was garrisoned by the kingdom. But the city was not just a cog in a military machine: its institutions and denizens interacted with a large, evolving Ptolemaic network. Prominent citizens of Halikarnassos seem to have played parts in the development of the strategic framework favoured by Ptolemy II in the Aegean, the Nesiotic League (Study 1). This is notably revealed by the activities of Halikarnassians on Delos, the League’s base of operations. In a similar vein, around this time, Halikarnassos appears to have bestowed honours on one of the most prominent figures of the Early Ptolemaic kingdom: Sostratos of Knidos (Study 2). Sostratos’ specific benefactions towards Halikarnassos, if any, remain obscure. But the recognition of this man, who was instrumental in the construction of the Lighthouse of Alexandria and who had acted as a diplomat for Ptolemy I, not only signalled the allegiance of Halikarnassos with the Ptolemies but also, on another level, cultivated a bond of guest-friendship with a neighbouring Knidian, albeit an exceptional one. Reaching across the Aegean, we next move to the discussion of a decree of Halikarnassos for one of its own citizens, Zenodotos (Study 3). The decree was passed in response to one from Troizen, which was reckoned to be the metropolis of Halikarnassos. The decree from Troizen honoured Zenodotos for his role in its liberation, which leads us to consider – but not necessarily solve – the historical problems behind the identification and dating of this event. Moreover, since the decree for Zenodotos can be demonstrated to be contemporaneous with the one for Sostratos, the matter of the Ptolemaic foothold established on the Methana Peninsula around or after this time must also be discussed. We can here too begin to glimpse Halikarnassos and its inhabitants acting not only on a level of perceived kinship (συγγένεια), but also within the sweep of Ptolemaic expansion. As part of the ongoing work on the corpus of inscriptions from Halikarnassos,1 we aim to keep a close eye on matters of chronology for the Early Ptolemaic period at Halikarnassos – as much as these can be determined with precision – while offering some broader reflections on the wide-ranging role of Halikarnassos and the interactions of Halikarnassians in 110 Jan-Mathieu Carbon and Signe Isager Fig. 9.1: Map of some Halikarnassian interactions ca. 280–260 BC (modified by J.-M. Carbon using the mapping software found at: http://awmc.unc.edu/awmc/applications/carte-transitional/, © MapBox | Data © OpenStreetMap and contributors, CC-BY-SA | Tiles and Data © 2013 AWMC CC-BY-NC 3.0). the Ptolemaic sphere. As far as we can rely on the epigraphic evidence, which also dramatically increases in the Early Ptolemaic period, the general perception we can begin to form is one of greater connectivity across the Mediterranean, as part of accelerated processes of benefaction, diplomacy, and exchange (cf. Fig. 9.1). The epigraphic material from Halikarnassos thus helps us not only to begin to write the history of the city, but also, more broadly, to better understand its place in the eastern Mediterranean at this time. Halikarnassos in the years after Alexander: a sketch Before turning to the period under consideration, a general though still quite approximate historical sketch is necessary. After the siege of Alexander (late summer 334 BC), which, at least according to the testimony of Arrian, seems to have resulted in widespread destruction at Halikarnassos, the city probably would have recovered over the following decades.2 There is little information about this recovery, however. In fact, there is currently no local epigraphic evidence which can be firmly tied to the last three decades of the 4th century BC. This is not to say that the epigraphic habit should be presumed to have died out at Halikarnassos, only that, given the absence of evidence, the period remains quite murky. Moreover, this does not mean that Halikarnassians were not active abroad around this time; indeed, some demonstrably were, such as the famous poet Phanostratos.3 After the death of Alexander, we can suppose that Halikarnassos, like much of Karia, fell under the control of the satrap Asandros (ca. 323–313/2 BC) and then the Antigonids from 313/2 BC. From a literary source, we hear that Ptolemy I Soter attacked Halikarnassos – another siege for the poor city – probably in 309 BC; this took place during a sweeping attempt to “liberate” the coast of Karia and Lykia. But Ptolemy appears to have been quickly repulsed by the Antigonids.4 Still, this not only reveals early Ptolemaic designs on Halikarnassos, but may suggest that the city maintained some relations with the rising court in Alexandria. As a point of comparison, one should note the complicated position of Iasos around this time, which negotiated a treaty with Ptolemy I before 305 BC, while being garrisoned by the soldiers of Antigonos Monophthalmos.5 In the absence of other evidence, however, Halikarnassos may be presumed to have been Antigonid until at least the battle of Ipsos (early 301 BC).6 After this, the situation is not much clearer, at least as far as Halikarnassos is concerned. Yet the details of how Karia was organized and administered in this period are continually being made more precise. One 9. Early Ptolemaic Halikarnassos (ca. 280–260 BC) and its network of interactions of the major questions remains whether the influence of the Antigonids persisted in the 290s and early 280s BC, under Demetrios Poliorketes, or whether Lysimachos managed to conquer Halikarnassos.7 Acting for Lysimachos, two dynasts, Pleistarchos and Eupolemos, certainly ruled over large parts of Karia in the early decades of the 3rd century.8 Though Eupolemos interacted with nearby Theangela, there is still no evidence for either figure at Halikarnassos itself.9 Lysimachos was defeated by Seleukos I and killed at the battle of Kouropedion, in February/March 281 BC.10 Probably shortly anticipating this event, or perhaps virtually contemporaneous with it, is a dossier from Miletos concerning the tribute due to Lysimachos.11 It would seem that Miletos, which had already made a first instalment of the payment, needed funds to pay the second. The inscription, beginning with an honorific decree of Miletos for Knidos, recounts how the Milesians sent an embassy to Knidos seeking its aid. At Knidos, which passed a decree for this purpose, the effort to assist Miletos was spearheaded by a small group of rich Knidians, who contributed various sums; the Milesians honoured Knidos and sent this decree to the Knidians in the hands of the same ambassadors, who were also tasked to carry back the money. Appended to the decree is a list of Milesian guarantors (75 individuals) and the list of Knidians who loaned money; among the Knidians are two citizens of Halikarnassos, the only other foreigners along with a man from Kyrene.12 The pair of wealthy Halikarnassians may of course have acted independently in this capacity, hearing about the matter and joining the effort to help Miletos, or perhaps they were metics in Knidos and saw fit to contribute generously within their host community. At any rate, their presence in the subscription list from Miletos points to the continued attention paid to Lysimachos in the region, right up to the moment of his death. Yet we now know that Halikarnassos also maintained contacts in other courts during the first decades of the 3rd century BC. An important new decree from Halikarnassos, which will soon be published elsewhere, directs honours at two of its citizens, a pair of brothers who are in the circle (διατρίβοντες) of a King Antiochos.13 Since the inscription must (from its letterforms and its formulary) date to the early 3rd century BC, it should refer to Antiochos I. Indeed, Antiochos attained the title of βασιλεύς in coregency with his father in 294 BC, and so the decree seems probably to date to ca. 294–281, when the Halikarnassian brothers will thus have been in the mobile court of Antiochos in the East (Babylon, Seleukeia-on-the-Tigris, Bactria). At any rate, it is less easy to imagine that the new inscription could belong to a period after the death of Seleukos in late August or September 281 BC.14 After 281 or around 280, the situation had changed in favour of Ptolemy II. Though it is not impossible that Halikarnassos chose to pass a decree for two of its citizens who were associates of the Seleukid king after 280, the city would have been ill-advised to do so. 111 Case Study 1. The Nesiotic League and Delos (ca. 280–260s BC) It seems generally accepted that the “power vacuum” created by the sudden death of Seleukos and the problems inherited by Antiochos created an opportunity for Ptolemy II to seize vast swaths of territory in Asia Minor in 280–278 BC: the so-called “War of Syrian Succession”.15 Though the issue of the date of the first Ptolemaic involvement in Karia remains debated,16 we now have a growing body of evidence about the extent of Ptolemaic conquest as early as late 282 BC – in the case of Telmessos in Lykia – and in the early 270s in Karia, extending far inland.17 Yet Ptolemaic dominion substantially ended as far as central Karia is concerned in ca. 261/0 or even earlier, with the Seleukid reconquest of this territory during the “Second Syrian War”, as well as with the Chremonidean War and the Battle of Kos, which are thought to have curbed Ptolemaic naval power.18 In the wake of this conquest in the last 280s and early 270s BC, when exactly did Halikarnassos become Ptolemaic? The state of our knowledge has perhaps not much progressed from the admirable synthesis of Bagnall, published in 1976, who spoke of “continuous [Ptolemaic] control from 280 to about 195 [BC]”.19 Halikarnassos, for much of the remainder of the 3rd century, is thought to have been part of the Ptolemaic kingdom and its sphere of influence. Yet some uncertainty remains about when this properly began. We still lack precise dates and cannot be absolutely sure whether 280 BC is the right point of inception: it could well be somewhat earlier; it can hardly be much later. Perhaps the earliest evidence for Halikarnassos’ part in Ptolemaic affairs in the Aegean remains a well-known decree of Samos.20 This passed honours for judges from Miletos, Myndos, and Halikarnassos who were sent to Samos to resolve a dispute, though only the copy concerning Myndos and its judges is preserved (there presumably would have been two others for Miletos and Halikarnassos). Prominently mentioned in the considerations of the decree are the actions of the Ptolemaic agent Philokles, king of Sidon, who wrote to Myndos for this purpose (and to Miletos and Halikarnassos too, presumably), and thus facilitated the sending of these judges.21 The date of the inscription remains somewhat debated, but it is now claimed that it belongs shortly before 280 BC (according to Hallof in IG). This date falls in the expected period of the expansion of Ptolemaic territory and influence. The inscription from Samos belongs to a small group of documents from this time, which testify to the actions of Ptolemaic agents towards the resolution of disputes and the sending of judges.22 This clearly reveals a form of what can be called “soft power”. Overall, however, the evidence provided by the decree from Samos is relatively weak as far as Halikarnassos is concerned. There is, by comparison, no notion that Miletos was a definitive part of the Ptolemaic possessions in 280 or before. A royal agent such as Philokles, who wielded considerable influence 112 Jan-Mathieu Carbon and Signe Isager in certain cases, could well have facilitated the sending of judges even from a city that was not under direct Ptolemaic control. This is just a way of saying, again, that we must be cautious and that we cannot be absolutely sure that Halikarnassos was definitively Ptolemaic in 280, however likely it is that this was the case. What is perhaps more interesting is the matter of regional interactions that is raised by the decree from Samos. The sending of judges to resolve disputes was part and parcel of the intricate mechanisms of arbitration and peer-polity interaction in the deeply connected Hellenistic Mediterranean.23 Halikarnassos, working alongside its neighbour Myndos and the city of Miletos, now participated in this process. Through the intervention of Philokles, Halikarnassos helped Samos, one of the major Ptolemaic bases of operation in the area.24 Much like Samos, Halikarnassos was garrisoned by Ptolemy II. It is clear that this was the case by 271/0 BC, when the celebrated Kallias of Sphettos was placed in charge of the local garrison, though it must have been so even earlier.25 An interesting new inscription found in Halikarnassos might contain a list of mercenaries and members of the Ptolemaic garrison.26 The letterforms suggest that it may belong to this period (ca. 280–260 BC?), while the presence of a Ἁλικαρνασσεύς among the men makes this identification of the list plausible. Yet, given the presence of this ethnic, an attractive alternative seems to be that the inscription came to Bodrum from elsewhere. Moreover, it deserves to be underlined that, from his post as garrison commander in Halikarnassos, Kallias was able to assist the Athenians in sending embassies to Ptolemy II and sacred missions (θεωρίαι) to Alexandria. Though essentially under military occupation, Halikarnassos constituted a hub in a large Ptolemaic network. Aegean interactions and the role of Philokles in the dispute on Samos also point us towards that collective framework fostered by Ptolemy II Philadelphos, the League (κοινόν) of the Islanders or Nesiotai. Philokles is closely associated with one of the early leaders of the League of the Islanders, the nesiarch known as Bacchon, whose career in the years ca. 285–275 BC is relatively well-known.27 Depending on which scholar one chooses to follow, the exact details concerning the founding or the refounding of this league as a successor to the Delian Amphictyony remain open for debate;28 its prominent role becomes apparent in 280 BC or shortly before. As Meadows has admirably argued, the new League constituted an apt mechanism for Ptolemy II to exercise propaganda and a measure of control over the Aegean, which perhaps included parts of the Dodekanese such as the island of Nisyros, without actually garrisoning most of the islands.29 Halikarnassos, much like the other cities involved in the Samian dispute – Myndos, Miletos, and Samos – was never a member of the Nesiotai, nor would we expect it to be: it was not an island, of course, and it was garrisoned, as we have already seen.30 But without officially forming a part of the League, the city and its citizens demonstrably interacted with it and with the community of Delos around which it was based. This is made evident by a decree of the Nesiotai, albeit an extremely fragmentary one, in honour of two Halikarnassians.31 The decree should be assigned to these early decades of the Ptolemaic League of the Islanders (ca. 280–260 BC).32 It is probable that it granted substantial honours to the two Halikarnassians (citizenship? proxeny?) and it is equally probable, given the space available on the stone, that these were a pair of brothers, a certain Peleus and his kin.33 Regrettably, nothing is known about their benefactions or their involvement with the Nesiotai, though the text intriguingly finds a parallel in a few other documents mentioning pairs of Halikarnassian brothers active in the Early Hellenistic period – a testament to the importance of the familial bonds of the agents acting within larger diplomatic networks.34 At any rate, this picture of Halikarnassian relations with the Nesiotai is well complemented by two honorific decrees of the city of Delos for other Halikarnassian individuals, at least one of which, if not both, must belong to this same local and historical context (ca. 280–260 BC).35 The picture is still further substantiated by the intriguing case of another figure from the third decade of the 3rd century BC, Hermias. A nesiarch of the League by this name is known from several Delian inscriptions, and from these documents it is inferred that he founded the festival of the Philadelphia on Delos, after the death of Arsinoe II in 270 BC (thus probably in 269 or 268 BC).36 An apparent successor to Bacchon the earlier nesiarch, the origin and ethnicity of this Hermias is not made explicit in any document. Yet the publication in 1910 by Roussel and Hatzfeld of an inscription from Delos, an honorific decree of the city for a certain Hermias from Halikarnassos, suggested to these editors the possibility that this was the same Hermias as the nesiarch.37 It is worth pausing for a moment on this inscription (see Appendix no. 1). The elegant stele on which it is inscribed, depicting a crown of laurel leaves near its top, was identified by its editors as bearing a script belonging to ca. 260 BC.38 As can be seen from the photograph of the stele (see Fig. 9.2, to our knowledge the first reproduction of this inscription ever published), this impression seems plausible; the letters could perhaps be assigned to the third or fourth decades of the 3rd century BC. But it should be admitted that there are few other clues suggesting contemporaneity with Hermias the nesiarch; the proposer of the Delian decree, Sosidemos son of Antigonos, is otherwise unknown. The stone appears particularly effaced in the line containing the honorand Hermias’ name and patronym; this is now confirmed on a squeeze which we were kindly able to consult. If the trace of a delta read originally by the editors is correct, it might be possible to suggest that the patronym was simply Δημέας, which would adequately fill the available space in 9. Early Ptolemaic Halikarnassos (ca. 280–260 BC) and its network of interactions 113 for the Nesiotai; other individuals were honoured by the Delians themselves. Case Study 2. A famous Knidian (ca. 280 BC, possibly earlier) Turning to the epigraphy of Halikarnassos itself, we can single out two published honorific decrees as particularly worth revisiting. The first (Appendix no. 2) is a fragment from an honorific, probably a proxeny decree, now in the British Museum. On the basis of the decree’s formulary and its letterforms, we propose to date it to the period in question.42 This then raises the question of who the Knidian individual it concerns might be. Regrettably, only a few letters of his father’s name are now preserved, suggesting a name ending in -νης. The name and ethnic are interestingly inscribed in somewhat larger letters on the stone (cf. Fig. 9.3), so as to emphasize the honorand. Though it is far from the only possibility at hand,43 a proposal can be made to restore his father’s name and thus to identify the individual. Fig. 9.2: Honorific Decree of Delos for Hermias of Halikarnassos (© École française d’Athènes, scanned glass photo plate from 1904, Museum of Delos no. Δ 236). the lacuna; but the trace could not actually be confirmed during autopsy of the squeeze. Demeas is a common name, found abundantly on Delos itself; it also appears to be the only compelling restoration for the name of the πρύτανις in an unpublished honorific decree from Halikarnassos, which most probably dates to the reign of Philadelphos.39 Hermias the nesiarch and the Hermias who was honoured on Delos were perhaps the same man, but perhaps not.40 Though we should admit that the identification of the ethnicity of Hermias the nesiarch remains an open matter, that a Hermias from Halikarnassos received substantial honours (a crown during the Apollonia, proxeny, etc.) around the same time nevertheless strengthens our impression of the close links developed between the Halikarnassians and the Delians, as well as between Halikarnassos and the Nesiotai.41 In other words, though it cannot be absolutely demonstrated that Halikarnassians were involved at a high level in the administration of the League of the Islanders as agents of Ptolemy II, we still witness a rich picture of their interactions on Delos during this time. This took place on different levels: a pair of brothers performed some services Fig. 9.3: Honorific Decree of Halikarnassos, probably for Sostratos of Knidos (© Trustees of the British Museum, BM 1868.1025.8). 114 Jan-Mathieu Carbon and Signe Isager If we are right, he is one of the most famous Knidians of his time and another important figure in the early Ptolemaic world: Sostratos, son of Dexiphanes, the man behind the Lighthouse at Alexandria.44 The restoration [Σώστρατος Δεξιφά]νους Κνίδιος fits perfectly in the lacuna in the text, accounting for the larger and more spaced lettering in this line. As a candidate for the recipient of honours at Halikarnassos, Sostratos is particularly attractive given his popularity in the epigraphy of the early 3rd century BC. Sostratos was a prominent member of Ptolemy I’s and Ptolemy II’s circles, having at least on one occasion acted as an ambassador for the regime, in 287/6 BC.45 Moreover, Sostratos was widely honoured: he received the private dedication of a statue on Delos, where he was also honoured by the League of the Islanders.46 Also on Delos, Sostratos was honoured by the people of Kaunos with a further statue.47 Other evidence of honours for Sostratos is provided by at least one inscription from Delphi.48 In a recent and admirably considered review of this evidence, Meeus has stressed how difficult it is to find firm chronological indications for the honours passed for Sostratos. He notes, surveying the whole of Sostratos’ curriculum as it is known to us, that his career as an architect must have begun “some time before the end of the 4th century BC, and that the period of his activity as a diplomat must at least span the first quarter of the 3rd century since he was an experienced diplomat by 287/6”.49 However, Meeus is perhaps overly cautious in dealing with some of the relevant epigraphic specimens, many of which must belong to the years following 287/6. For instance, the decree of the Nesiotai for Sostratos is unlikely to antedate his activity as a diplomat in Athens; indeed, it can hardly be placed earlier than the second half of the 280s, more likely in ca. 280 BC or shortly before, as with the earliest inscriptions from the League of the Islanders connected to Ptolemy II.50 Much the same could be said about the statue that the Kaunians set up for Sostratos on Delos: this can hardly derive from the brief period in 309 BC when Ptolemy I temporarily seized control of Kaunos (the city was back in Antigonid hands at least by 305, if not much earlier).51 The inscription must surely belong to a time after Kaunos was controlled by Ptolemy II, that is to say in the late 280s (or even early 270s) BC, and when the Nesiotai, based in Delos, were active under Ptolemy II. In other words, while Sostratos certainly began his career under Ptolemy I and acquired his reputation and prominence in the first two decades of the 3rd century BC, it is clear that he was increasingly celebrated in the late 280s BC (perhaps even later).52 Taking into account the probable establishment of Ptolemaic rule at Halikarnassos and the approximative parameters of Sostratos’ career, if we are right to restore him as the honorand of the decree from Halikarnassos, this would place the inscription in the late 280s or in the early 270s at the latest; in other words, perhaps again in ca. 280 BC, when he was honoured on Delos. In any case, if Halikarnassos recognized Sostratos, the text would again underline that the city now formed part of an elaborate Ptolemaic network. On the surface, Halikarnassos “merely” passed honours for a Knidian, a man from a city not far to the south of Halikarnassos and who had acted – rather vaguely, according to the decree – as a benefactor towards it. In a deeper sense, the city activated a reciprocal link with an illustrious figure of the regime that now substantially defined it. Case Study 3. Across the pond: the liberation of Troizen (ca. 279/8 BC?) The second published decree from Halikarnassos which can be brought into the discussion (Appendix no. 3) brings us much farther afield than Delos, introducing a degree of interaction stretching across the Aegean. Though the type of decree is different, the letterforms on the stele (cf. Fig. 9.4), now in the Fitzwilliam Museum in Cambridge, clearly reveal it to be a very close contemporary of the decree we have identified as honouring Sostratos of Knidos. In fact, we are tempted to identify the same cutter at work in both inscriptions. This would imply that, accounting for some margin of error, its date should also fall around 280 BC, whether shortly before or after. The inscription concerns a certain Zenodotos son of Baukideus, about whom we regrettably have little other information. Yet the inscription itself provides many tantalizing historical clues. Though the beginning of the inscription is missing, the decree clearly contains a προβούλευμα (lines 1–12), in other words a resolution of the civic Council of Halikarnassos, which is then followed by a confirmatory motion of the Assembly (in lines 13–20).53 The Halikarnassian decree itself was passed in response to honours already enacted at Troizen for Zenodotos and which were communicated to Halikarnassos.54 Being a citizen, the honours for Zenodotos are confined to “praise” (ἐπαινέσαι, ̣ line 2) as well as the privilege of being called to meals in the πρυτανεῖον (lines 11–12). What did Zenodotos do to deserve these honours? A key passage is found in lines 5–11, which essentially quote the decree from Troizen: Zenodotos had already been a benefactor for Troizen in the past (γέγονε); in a recent circumstance, arriving in the nick of time (κατὰ καιρὸν ἀφικόμενος), he both helped and fought alongside the people of Troizen for their freedom (ἐβοήθησε καὶ συνηγωνίσατο αὐτοῖς εἰς τὴν ἐλευθερίαν) as well as for the expulsion of the garrison (καὶ τὴν ἐξαγωγὴν τῆς φρουρᾶς) that occupied the city. All of this Zenodotos accomplished in a manner worthy of his fatherland and of the mutual kinship (οἰκειότης) and goodwill (εὐνοίας) between Halikarnassos and Troizen. Troizen was reckoned to be the metropolis of Halikarnassos and the two communities shared elaborate links of kinship 9. Early Ptolemaic Halikarnassos (ca. 280–260 BC) and its network of interactions 115 Fig. 9.4: Honorific Decree of Halikarnassos for Zenodotos (© Fitzwilliam Museum, Cambridge; Loan Ant. V [1924]). (also known as συγγένεια)55 These are exemplified in the person of Zenodotos, who appears as a longstanding Halikarnassian benefactor of Troizen. Republishing this inscription in 1881 with an ample commentary, Hicks noted that Zenodotos, while a common name, is also that of a historian of Troizen,56 while Baukis was the name of an Olympic victor from Troizen, and Baukidas was the name of a nearby island.57 The names borne by Zenodotos and his father, Baukideus, likely reveal familial links with Troizen. In having aided and fought alongside the citizens of the metropolis, Zenodotos adopted a role that corresponds well to what is known of a certain Diomedes. Belonging to the prominent γένος of Anthas from Troizen, the mythical founder (κτίστης) of Halikarnassos, this Diomedes was honoured by Troizen with a large semicircular pedestal set up in his honour at Oropos.58 As the epigram inscribed on it informs us, this commemorated his role in liberating the city from a hostile force (παρὰ δυσμενέων Τροζήνιοι ἄστυ λαβόντα) and also in helping to restore its laws. Several commentators, such as Robertson and Jameson, have studied this inscription in comparison with the Halikarnassian decree for Zenodotos, and attempted to frame it within a specific context. Robertson even argued that Diomedes, like Zenodotos, must have come from Halikarnassos too, but this seems incompatible with the epigram, which claims that “from one house Troizen twice shone bright with its ancestral wall” and affirms “therefore, for this double service the fatherland honours you” – particularly the former phrase, referring to his house or household, should imply that Diomedes was born and lived in Troizen.59 Jameson’s attempt to save Robertson’s hypothesis was to suggest that Diomedes may have been granted citizenship in Troizen as a result of his benefactions.60 Whatever the case may be, most commentators seem to agree that the epigram for Diomedes must belong to the same context as the decree for Zenodotos. Indeed, in terms of their dates, this concurrence is also compelling. The statue base for Diomedes is dated by an eponymous priest of Oropos, who, since he is unknown, adds no certainty to the date. But it is signed by Xenokrates of Athens, a famous sculptor and disciple of Lysippos known to have been active in the first half, or more specifically the first quarter, of the 116 Jan-Mathieu Carbon and Signe Isager 3rd century BC – his floruit has traditionally been given as ca. 280 BC.61 We have seen that the decree for Zenodotos most likely falls in ca. 280 BC as well.62 What was the precise occasion for the liberation of Troizen mentioned here? Though favouring a different and earlier context, Hicks pointed in what now seems to be the right direction. From two collections of stratagems, we know of a liberation of Troizen from the Antigonids and their garrison by the Spartan pretender Kleonymos, probably in 279/8 BC.63 This would perfectly suit the expected date for the actions of Zenodotos of Halikarnassos (and, by implication, for Diomedes from Troizen). Both figures may have worked towards the same goal, liberating Troizen from Antigonid rule as part of a diverse force led by Kleonymos. The recent publication of an Early Hellenistic inscription from Troizen has added another interesting element to the debate, though unfortunately few certainties.64 This is a fragmentary decree referring to soldiers that were sent by an unknown king to the city. Their commander, one Kleomenes, is specifically to be commended and rewarded, and the honorific decree of Troizen apparently concluded with a list of the soldiers under his command. The ones preserved all come from Arkadian communities. Commendably cautious, the editors, Fouquet and Kató, raise several possibilities for the identification of its context, hesitating to identify it with the liberation of Troizen by the Spartan Kleonymos or with one of the later phases in the city’s history. No certainty is perhaps possible concerning this new document, but the identification of the context for the liberation of Troizen by Zenodotos and Diomedes under Kleonymos in ca. 279/8 BC opens some new avenues to explore. The editors of the new text air the intriguing idea that the Spartan liberation of Troizen in ca. 279/8 may have opened the door to a Ptolemaic influx into this area in the ensuing decade.65 Indeed, it is known that Ptolemy II gained a foothold in the Troizenian peninsula at least by the time of the Chremonidean War (268–263/2 BC), though it could well have been earlier.66 Ptolemaic involvement is particularly manifest at Methana, the site of the Ptolemaic polis of Arsinoe, which was founded sometime after 270 BC.67 Arsinoe was fortified and garrisoned, while Troizen, liberated already in ca. 279/8, may have continued to have been autonomous or independent, though it must have entertained close relations with its new Ptolemaic neighbours.68 There need be no notion that Zenodotos son of Baukideus acted as a Ptolemaic agent in ca. 279/8 (or any other participants in the conflict, for that matter). The decree does not claim this and should instead suggest that his actions were independent of any such association, being motivated by his personal relations with the community of Troizen. But coming as they do at the very beginning of the Ptolemaic period at Halikarnassos, the tangible links between Halikarnassos and its metropolis that were activated in this context may have helped paved the way for Ptolemaic relations with Troizen. One aspect of such a triangular relationship between Halikarnassos, Ptolemy II, and Troizen might be indicated by a much later source, the travelogue of Pausanias, which tells us that Halikarnassos built a temple of Isis or Aphrodite Akraia in Troizen.69 According to the Periegete, another temple of Isis was also to be found on the Methana Peninsula, though this was not explicitly associated with Halikarnassos.70 Though these building projects could well belong in different and later periods, it is not impossible, and perhaps even tempting, to identify the impetus behind them as a Ptolemaic one. At any rate, it is clear that Halikarnassos and its citizens, such as Zenodotos, became closely involved with the affairs of Troizen during this critical period of time (in ca. 279/8 BC and afterward) and that further bonds between Halikarnassos and its metropolis were forged during the early reign of Ptolemy II.71 From Halikarnassos to Troizen, from one peninsula to the next, such interrelations stretched across the Aegean. Conclusion Though it would be interesting to continue the attempt which has been started here to situate the numerous decrees of Halikarnassos in a precise chronology leading into the mid3rd century and the latter half of this century, that would take us into a differently nuanced and equally complex historical territory.72 This work remains a crucial part of the ongoing development of the corpus of the inscriptions, of which we hope to have given a taste here. In the years that followed the inception of Ptolemaic rule at Halikarnassos, the situation evolved in different ways, but also strengthened the interrelations developed as part of the early Ptolemaic network. An example, probably paralleling the case of the earlier poet Phanostratos (see above, with n. 3), is that of Herakleitos son of Asklepiades, apparently another prominent poet from Halikarnassos. He may have been associated with the Mouseion of Alexandria and perhaps acted as a Ptolemaic agent during the Chremonidean War or in the following decade (ca. 260–250 BC?), notably being honoured at Oropos.73 Only alluded to in the present discussion, Alexandria and Egypt also form a crucial part of the complex and organic picture which we have begun to sketch here.74 If we may seem to have put politics first in this chapter, this is notably because our knowledge of the chronology of the inscriptions and their historical outlook is still relatively fragile and needs to be solidified. But it is also, more importantly, because event-driven history closely informs our understanding of regional contacts, as well as larger Aegean and Mediterranean networks: cultural interrelations are thus inextricably intertwined with politics. In the short, critical period we have examined (ca. 280–260 BC), Halikarnassos, after demonstrating orientation towards or dependence on many successive powers – the Antigonids, Lysimachos, 9. Early Ptolemaic Halikarnassos (ca. 280–260 BC) and its network of interactions and even the Seleukids – became a key strategic asset of the Ptolemies. From this time, Halikarnassos was closely connected with the high affairs of the Ptolemaic empire, its prominent officials and personas, such as Philokles of Sidon or Sostratos of Knidos, and the construction of Ptolemaic hegemony over the Aegean – the Nesiotic League, the liberation of Troizen, and the eventual fortification of the Methana Peninsula. In other words, the Early Ptolemaic period at Halikarnassos was marked both by the fostering of existing cultural interrelations across the Aegean (e.g. with Troizen) and by the opening up of new contacts and vectors of exchange across the Mediterranean (e.g. with Alexandria). Halikarnassos was truly a “plaque tournante”, one of the major hubs of the dynamic Ptolemaic network in the early 3rd century.75 Appendix: Key documents 1. Honorific Decree of Delos for Hermias of Halikarnassos (ca. 280–260 BC?) Edd.pr. Roussel & Hatzfeld 1910, 363 no. 10; Roussel, IG XI,4 565. [θ ε] ο ί̣ (crown of laurel) ἔδοξεν τῆι βουλῆι καὶ τῶι δήμωι· Σωσίδημος Ἀντιγόνου εἶπεν· ἐπειδὴ Ἑρμίας̣ ἀνὴρ ἀγαθὸς ὢν διατελεῖ περί τε τὸν vv 5 θεὸγ καὶ τὸν δῆμον τὸν Δηλίων· δεδόχ̣[θα]ι τῶι δήμωι· ἐπαινέσαι μὲν Ἑρμίαν Δ̣[. ca. 3 .]ου Ἁλικαρνασσέα ἀρετῆς ἕνεκα καὶ ε[ὐ]νοίας τῆς περὶ τὴμ πόλιν τὴν Δηλίων κ̣αὶ στεφανῶσαι δάφνης στεφάνωι καὶ 10 [ἀναγορεῦ]σ̣αι τὸν στέφανον ἐν τῶι θεά[τρωι τοῖς Ἀπολλ]ωνίοις· εἶναι δὲ αὐτὸν [πρόξενον τοῦ δήμου κα]ὶ αὐτὸγ καὶ ἐγγό[νους καὶ εἶναι αὐτοῖς ἀτέ]λειαν ἐν Δ[ή][λωι — — — — — — — καὶ] γ̣ῆς κα[ὶ] 15 [οἰκίας ἔγκτησιν — — — — — — —] 1. litteras grandiores, in cumatio incisas, non legerunt edd.pr. ‖ 3. Ἑρμία[ς] edd.pr. ‖ 5-6. δεδό[χ]|θαι edd.pr. ‖ 6-7. Δ̣….|ΟΥ edd.pr., fortasse Δ̣[ημέ]ου? ‖ 9. [κ]αί edd.pr. ‖ 10. [ἀναγορεῦσ] αι edd.pr. ‖ 14. [καὶ γ]ῆς edd.pr. 2. Honorific Decree of Halikarnassos, probably for Sostratos of Knidos (ca. 280 BC?) Ed.pr. Hirschfeld, GIBM IV,1 887. ———————————————— [— — — ca.14 — — μηνὸ]ς Ἀνθεσ̣[τηριῶνος] [— — — ca.16 — — — ἔ]δ̣οξεν τῆι β̣[ουλῆι v] [καὶ τῶι δήμωι, γνώμη πρυ]τ̣άνεων· ἐπε̣[ιδὴ v] [Σώστρατος Δεξιφά]νους Κνίδιο[ς vv] 117 5 [ἀνὴρ ἀγαθός ἐστιν] π̣ερὶ τὴν πόλιν̣ [τὴν] [Ἁλικαρνασσέων καὶ] ἰ̣δίαι τε τοῖς ἐν[τυγ][χάνουσι τῶμ πολιτῶ]ν̣ χρήσιμός ἐστιν [καὶ κοινῆι τὰ συμφέρον]τα τῆι πόλει διὰ [παντὸς πράσσει· δεδόχθ]αι· ἐπηινῆσθαι v 10 [τε αὐτὸν εὐνοίας ἕνεκεν] ἧς ἔχει περὶ τὴν [πόλιν τὴν Ἁλικαρνασσ]έ̣[ω]ν̣ καὶ εἶναι vv [αὐτὸν πρόξενον καὶ εὐεργέτην] τῆς vvv [πόλεως — — — — — — — —]. . Ν̣ ————————————— 2. dies aut [ἐν κυρίαι ἐκκλησίαι]. ‖ 4. [—]νους Κνίδιο[ς ἀνὴρ] ed.pr. ‖ 5. [ἀγαθὸς ὢν διατελεῖ] ed.pr. ‖ 6. [κοινῆι μὲν ἅπασιν] ed.pr. ‖ 8. [πράττων πάντα τὰ συμφέρον]τα ed.pr. ‖ 9. [ταῦτα στεφανῶσαι — κ]αὶ ed.pr. 3. Honorific Decree of Halikarnassos for Zenodotos (ca. 279/8 BC or shortly after?) Ed.pr. Boeckh, CIG I 106 + p. 900; Hicks 1881, 98–101. ——————————————— [— — — — — — — — — — — — — Τρο]ζῆνι ἐν στήληι ἐν τῶι ἱερῶι· ἐπαινέσαι δὲ καὶ Ζηνόδοτον Βαυκιδέως, ἐπειδὴ Τροζήνιοι γεγράφασιν ἐν τῶι ψηφίσματι τῶι πρὸς τὴν πό5 λιν ὅτι ἀνὴρ ἀγαθὸς γέγονε περὶ τὸν δῆμον τὸν Τροζηνίων καὶ κατὰ καιρὸν ἀφικόμενος ἐβοήθησε καὶ συνηγωνίσατο αὐτοῖς εἰς τὴν ἐλευθερίαν τῆς πόλεως καὶ τὴν ἐξαγωγὴν τῆς φρουφᾶς ἀξίως τῆς τε πατρίδος καὶ τῆς 10 οἰκειότητος καὶ εὐνοίας τῆς ὑπαρχούσης τῆι πόλει πρὸς Τροζηνίους, καλέσαι δὲ αὐτ[ὸν] καὶ εἰς πρυτανεῖον ἐπὶ δεῖπνον. vacat ἔδοξε τῶι δήμωι· Ἰατροκλῆς Πυθίωνος εἶπ[ε.] τὰ μὲν ἄλλα καθότι ἡ βουλὴ ἐψηφίσατο, τὸ δὲ 15 ψήφισμα τὸ περὶ Τροζηνίων ὁ προεβούλευ[σεν] ἡ βουλὴ ἀναγράψαι ἐν στήληι λιθίνηι καὶ σ[τῆ]σαι ἐν τῶι ἱερῶι τοῦ Ἀπόλλωνος· ἐπιμεληθ[ῆναι] δὲ τῆς ἀναγραφῆς τοὺς ἐξεταστάς· τὸ [δὲ] [ἀνά]λωμα τὸ εἰς τὴν στήλην δοῦναι το[ὺς τα]20 [μία]ς̣.̣ vacat 1. e.g. [καθὼς/καθάπερ (ἀνα)γέγραπται?] ‖ 19–20. τὸ[ν τα|μίαν] ed.pr., dubitanter H. Notes * This paper stems from collaborative work towards the publication of a corpus of the inscriptions at Halikarnassos. Part of the Danish Halikarnassos Project, in close collaboration with Bodrum Museum of Underwater Archaeology and with the permission of the General Directorate in Ankara, this work, led by Signe Isager and Poul Pedersen, has been ongoing for a few decades; Jan-Mathieu Carbon was invited to form part of their team in 2016. For the ongoing prolegomena to 118 1 2 3 4 Jan-Mathieu Carbon and Signe Isager the corpus, see recently Carbon, Isager & Pedersen 2017. We thank the participants at the conference for their comments and, in particular, we deeply thank the editors for their patience and their diligence. The École Française d’Athènes (EFA) kindly allowed us to reproduce the photo of Roussel & Hatzfeld 1910, 363 no. 10 (cf. Appendix no. 1); Anaïs Michel, a member of the EFA who is working on a republication of the honorific decrees from Delos, provided generous assistance as well as access to a squeeze of the inscription, for which we are extremely grateful. A major aspect of this work is the establishment of the chronology of the inscriptions from Halikarnassos, more specifically the decrees of the city. Comprising about 10% of the more than 500 items forming the corpus, these therefore form a far from negligible subset of the available epigraphic material. They are primarily Hellenistic (3rd–1st centuries BC). The texts also have the advantage of being on the whole quite formulaic and well representative of different periods through their letterforms. Siege: Arr. 1.20–23; Diod. Sic. 17.24–26. Destruction: largescale fires and αὐτὸς (Alexander) δὲ τὴν πόλιν (except the two citadels, ἄκραι) εἰς ἔδαφος κατασκάψας αὐτῆς τε ταύτης καὶ τῆς ἄλλης Καρίας φυλακὴν ἐγκαταλιπὼν (Arr. 1.23.6). Cf. the victory of Phanostratos son of Herakleides, a tragic poet from Halikarnassos, at the Athenian Lenaia in 307/6 BC: IG II² 3073; IG II² 2794 for the statue set up in his honour by the people of Halikarnassos. Perhaps not coincidentally, this fell in a critical year, the first of Demetrios Poliorketes’ rule in Athens (cf. also SEG 51, 194 on IG II² 3073). This Phanostratos was also honoured as a benefactor, with proxeny, on Delos: IG XI,4 528. That decree is usually dated to the beginning of the 3rd c. BC but, prima facie, it would seem more appropriate to situate it around 307/6 BC too. It should be recalled that a famous inscription of the Nesiotic League from Delos (IG XI,4 1036), testifying to the festivals of the Antigoneia and the Demetrieia, is traditionally dated to the joint rule of Monophthalmos and Poliorketes in 306–302 BC. The date has been recently questioned by Meadows (2013, 19–38), but defended by others, for instance Landucci (2016, 52–55). Could the Halikarnassian poet Phanostatros, if he was associated with Antigonos and Demetrios – though this remains only a conjecture – have also been honoured by the Delians in these years? IG XI,4 528 would thus probably belong to the years ca. 306–302/1 BC. Much later, Phanostratos, victor in Athens, was still celebrated as one of the leading lights of the city of Halikarnassos, in the Salmakis inscription (late 2nd–early 1st c. BC), Isager 2004/SEG 48, 1330 II.51–52: δμῶα Διωνύσου Φανόστρατον ἔσχεν ἀοιδόν | Κεκροπιδῶν ἱεροῖς ἁβρὸν ἐνὶ στεφάνοις; cf. Isager 1998, 18–19. Plut. Dem. 7.3: Πτολεμαίου μέντοι πολιορκοῦντος Ἁλικαρνασὸν, ὀξέως βοηθήσας (ὁ Δημήτριος) ἐξήρπασε τὴν πόλιν. For Ptolemy’s attacks on Myndos, Kaunos, and Xanthos in Lykia at this time: Diod. Sic. 20.27 and 37 (see also n. 16 below, with Meadows 2006 on the debate concerning the date of inscriptions which had been thought to fall under Ptolemy I). But the conquest was manifestly short-lived and it was followed by a retreat to Kos (in winter (?) 309 BC). The situation of Halikarnassos’ neighbour, Kos, in these years has been considerably elucidated by both Wiemer (2002, 230–231) and Habicht (2007, 132–133). A key piece of evidence for Antigonid influence over Kos in ca. 306–302/1 BC is the large dossier of honours awarded by various communities to Nikomedes of Kos, φίλος of Monophthalmos (IG XII,4 129–130; cf. also IG XII,4 131 and 132.108). This control persisted under the sole rule of Demetrios Poliorketes, in the period 294–288 BC, cf. IG XII,4 133 (cf. 134); see also IG XII,4 22, a decree in honour of the comic poet Dionysius of Sinope, who was perhaps an agent or πάρεδρος of Phila I (Poliorketes’ wife), probably belonging to the early years of the 3rd century BC, thus after Ipsos (hesitations on the date also in Paschidis 2008, 365–368 D9). 5 I.Iasos 2–3 (309–305 BC); cf. SEG 54, 1075; Fabiani 2015, 3 with n. 24; Meadows (2006, 462–463) also demonstrates “how fluid the political situation” was in these years in the case of Kaunos. 6 See also n. 3 above on Phanostratos. For the Antigonid general over Karia, Hipparchos of Kyrene, honoured on Samos, see IG XII,6 31 (306–301 BC). 7 A question that is treated in some detail, though without a definite resolution, in Carbon, Isager & Pedersen forthcoming. For the influence of Demetrios Poliorketes on nearby Kos, see n. 4 above. A Halikarnassian by the Ionic name of Hyblesios was honoured with proxeny in the early years of the 3rd century BC on Kos (IG XII,4 17), but little is known about the context of this fragment. 8 For Pleistarchos in Karia, Errington 1993, 13–18; for Eupolemos, see Fabiani 2009. For a helpful summary of the still ongoing debates concerning the dates of the two dynasts, see Meadows 2006, 465–466. 9 For the treaty of Eupolemos with Theangela, Robert 1936, 69–86, no. 52; it is probably to be assigned to the first two decades of the 3rd century BC. 10 The Babylonian King List (van der Spek & Finkel 2004, CM 4 [https://www.livius.org/sources/content/mesopotamian-chronicles-content/babylonian-king-list-of-the-hellenistic-period/], line 8; BM 35603) states that Seleukos died in month VI of year 31 of the Seleukid Era (SE), i.e. 26 August–24 September 281 BC); Justin (17.2.4) reports that his death took place “about seven months” (post menses admodum septem) after Kouropedion, which would imply that the battle took place in February or March 281; cf. Will 1979, 103, for this widely accepted date, with further references. As the editors of the Babylonian King List write: “In any event, the battle must have taken place in SE 30, which ended 30 March 281 BC”. 11 Milet I.3 138/Migeotte 1984, 299–304, no. 96; cf. line 7 for Lysimachos. This dossier is usually dated to 283/2 BC (so Rehm in Milet I.3, p. 297, followed by Migeotte) on the basis of the mention of the year of the eponym Alexippos (line 82). This eponym is identified as the αἰσυμνήτης of the Molpoi Ἀλέξιππος Σίμου listed in Milet I.3 123.34, who also appears as one of the contributors in Milet I.3 138 (line 49). However, according to the correction of E. Cavaignac (see Rhodes 2006, for a helpful summary of the question), the list of αἰσυμνῆται in Milet I.3 123 would run not from 313/2 to 260/59 BC (so Rehm), but from 312/1 to 259/8 BC. Alexippos would therefore have been the eponym of 282/1 BC. Since 9. Early Ptolemaic Halikarnassos (ca. 280–260 BC) and its network of interactions 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 the decree concerns a second payment to Lysimachos, the first may have been made early in Alexippos’ tenure (according to Rehm) or even earlier, but the loan period which is mentioned in connection with the Knidians is clearly to start at the end of Alexippos’ tenure, in March/April; cf. lines 81–82: ἄρχει τοῦ δανείου μεὶς Ἀρτεμισιὼν | vacat ἐ̣π’ Ἀλεξίππου (for the Milesian month Artemision, the last of the local calendar year, as equivalent to Attic Elaphebolion, March/April, see Trümpy 1997, 89–93 §§77–81). The decree Milet I.3 138, which does not contain a dating formula, must therefore shortly antedate this month. In the revised chronology of Cavaignac, it would therefore seem that the Milesian decree falls precisely around the time of the battle of Kouropedion (ca. February/March 281 BC). If that is right, the decree should no doubt fall shortly before Kouropedion and it should remain unclear if the tribute was actually paid to Lysimachos before his death. Milet I.3 138/Migeotte 1984, 299–304, no. 96 (see n. above), line 79: [Κ]αλλικλῆς Ἀθηνοκρίτου Ἁλικαρνασσεύς (6000 dr. of Rhodian silver); line 86: [Νί]κανδρος Συμμάχου Ἁλικαρνασσεύς (2000 dr. without interest, for a year). This inscription is published separately in Carbon, Isager & Pedersen forthcoming, with further commentary. For the dates, see n. 10 above. For a helpful summary, see Hölbl 2001, 37–38 (with refs. to Halikarnassos, nn. 12–13). According to the convincing view of Meadows (2006; 2008), two texts from Limyra (Wörrle 1977/SEG 27, 929) and Amyzon (Amyzon 6, unknown year and month) respectively, which appeared to date to the rule of Ptolemy I Soter must be down-dated to the reign of Ptolemy II Philadelphos (January/ February 249 BC in the case of the text from Limyra). For some early reservations about Meadows’ proposal, see van Bremen 2003, 9, n. 2. The key pieces of evidence assembled by Meadows (2006, 467) come from Telmessos (Wörrle 1978/SEG XXVIII 1224; September/October 282 BC), Termessos (Robert 1966, 53–54; October/November 281 BC), Lissa (TAM II 158–159; March/April 277 and 274 BC, respectively), Stratonikeia (I.Stratonikeia 1002; May/June 277 BC) and Amyzon (Amyzon 3; August/September 277 BC; for the case of Amyzon 6, see n. above). But note that the text from Araxa included in Meadows’ list has been shown by Bresson (1999, 114–115; cf. SEG 49, 1076) to date to the 8th year of a Lykian era under Rhodian domination (thus 181/0 BC). To the above must also now be added important documents from Panamara (van Bremen 2003; October/November of unknown year of Ptolemy II), Labraunda (Labraunda 43; April/May 266 BC, and nos 45 and 51 with van Bremen 2017), and from Xystis (Bresson and Descat forthc.; October/November 275 or 274 BC). Overall, the earlier evidence from Lykia and Pisidia may suggest that the seizure of territory proceeded from there to Karia, but this impression remains to be confirmed. For the “Second Syrian War”, see also n. 42 below. For the battle of Kos, the traditional date is 261 BC, see Reger 1985, 155–177; 1994, 40–41; for arguments for 255/4 BC, Buraselis 1982, 141–151. Bagnall 1976, 94. The terminal date of 195 BC should be treated with caution, however, as we hope to demonstrate elsewhere. 119 20 IG XII,6 95.1–4 (shortly before 280 BC): ἔδοξεν τῆι βουλῆι καὶ τῶι δήμωι, πρυτάνεων | γνώμη, ὑπὲρ ὧν ἡ βουλὴ προεβούλευσεν, ὅπως οἱ | παραγενόμενοι δικασταὶ ἐπὶ τὰ μετέωρα συμβόλαια | ἔκ τε Μιλήτου καὶ Μύνδου καὶ Ἁλικαρνασσοῦ τιμηθῶσιν. 21 IG XII,6 95.6–9 (shortly before 280 BC): βουλόμενος ἐν | ὁμονοίαι τὴμ πόλιν εἶναι Φιλοκλῆς, βασιλεὺς Σιδονίων, | ἔγραψεν, ὅπως ὁ δῆμος ὁ Μυνδίων ἀποστείληι δικασ|τήριον τὸ διαλῦσον τὰ μετέωρα συμβόλαια, κτλ. On Philokles, cf. Hauben 2004; Prosop. Ptol. VI 15085. Philokles was acting for the Ptolemies in Athens already in ca. 286 BC (IG II³ 868); he appears to be mentioned also in the decree from Telmessos (SEG XXVIII 1224.17; September/October 282 BC). 22 Cf. e.g. IG XII,4 135 (shortly before 280 BC), a decree of Naxos honouring Koan judges, which must fall after the death of Soter (line 31) and in the early years of Ptolemy II Philadelphos. Bacchon the Nesiarch was instrumental in the process (lines 14–16); on Bacchon, see below n. 27. For another judicial matter falling in the early years of Ptolemy II and also involving Bacchon, cf. IG XII,5 1065 (Karthaia). Other such texts may belong later in Ptolemy II’s reign, cf. e.g. I.Iasos 82 and T.Cal. 17 (judge directly sent by Ptolemy to Kalymna), with the redating to the 250s BC by Fabiani 2015, 264 with n. 76. 23 For a helpful account of the longstanding processes of interstate arbitration and the Hellenistic increase in the phenomenon of sending foreign judges, see Magnetto 2015. 24 For Samos, Bagnall 1976, 80–88; Shipley 1987, 185–94, 298–301. 25 Kallias of Sphettos: cf. now IG II³ 911 (270/69 BC), which provides a detailed account of his career; cf. esp. lines 70–72: [καὶ] | νῦν ἐν Ἁλικαρνασσῶι καθ<ε>στηκὼς ὑ[π]ὸ τ[οῦ] β[α]σ[ι]λ[έως Πτολ]|εμαίου Καλλίας διατελεῖ φιλοτιμούμενο[ς κτλ.; for the soldiers under his command, cf. lines 76–77: καὶ τῶν στρατευ̣[ομέ]ν̣[ων καὶ τεταγ]|μένων μεθ’ αὑτοῦ. As Osborne and Byrne (IG) reason, Kallias would have been appointed in the winter of 271/0 BC. Note that a recently published inscription from Limyra seems to refer to Kallias as a garrison commander there too (cf. Wörrle 2019, arguing for a date under Ptolemy I). Incidentally, we do not support a connection between the actions of Kallias and the very fragmentary honorific decree from Halikarnassos mentioning both a King Ptolemy and Athens (Frost 1971), as argued by Shear (1978, 45). From the letterforms, we find it unlikely that the inscription can belong much earlier than the final years of Ptolemy II’s reign; it could also belong later. 26 For the first edition, cf. Isager forthcoming. Isager provides a detailed commentary on the variety of letterforms present in the list, cautiously dating it to “the first half of the 3rd c. BC”; Isager hesitates between a list of πρόξενοι – the inscription in that case wrongly attributed to Halikarnassos – and one with a military character. 27 Cf. IG XII,7 506 (the famous text from Nikouria, ca. 280 BC), decree of Nesiotai resulting from the letter of Φιλοκλῆς ὁ βασιλεὺς Σιδονίων καὶ Βάκχων ὁ νησίαρχος… | ὅπως ἂν ἀπο[στ]εί[λ]ωσιν συνέδρους εἰς Σάμον… For this date of the inscription from Nikouria, see Meadows 2013, 27–28, 31. For Philokles receiving cultic honours on Delos, the seat of the Nesiotai, see IG XI,4 559.22–24 (again, ca. 280 BC): 120 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 Jan-Mathieu Carbon and Signe Isager [θῦσα]ι Σωτήρια ὑπὲρ Φιλοκλέους | ἐν Δήλωι Ἀπόλλ[ωνι καὶ Ἀρτέμιδι καὶ Λητοῖ] καὶ Διὶ Σωτῆρι | [κα]ὶ Ἀθηνᾶι Σ[ω]τ̣ε̣ί̣ρ̣α̣ι̣. For Bacchon, originally from Boiotia, see above n. 22 and cf. Prosop. Ptol. VI 15038. Recall the ongoing debate concerning the date of the inscription IG XI,4 1036 (cf. n. 3 above), with Meadows 2013, 19–38; Landucci 2016, 52–55. Meadows 2013, esp. 35; for the League, see also Bagnall 1976, 136–140. Cf. again n. 25 above. IG XI,4 1046. The formulary of the decree is heavily dependent on restorations, but appears to be supported by the clause concerning the grant of proxeny “[in all] of the islands which [share in the council of the League] in lines 11–15: [δεδόσ]|θ̣αι δὲ [αὐτ]ο[ῖ]ς καὶ π̣[ροξενίαν? | κ]αὶ αὐτοῖς καὶ ἐκγό[νοις ἐν πάσαις | τ]αῖς νήσοις ὅσ[αι μετέχουσι τοῦ συνε|δρίου]. The text in IG has π̣[ολιτείαν]. Citizenship “in all of the islands” was indeed granted as an honour by the Nesiotai (cf. IG XI,4 1038.17–19; 1039.B.3–6), but apparently to very prominent figures (Sostratos in no. 1038; on Sostratos, see below). Grants of proxeny were perhaps more common (cf. e.g. IG XI,4 1024; 1040, 274/3 BC; 1042) and so we think proxeny might be a plausible alternative here. For the date, see Buraselis 1982, 182, no. 14, on the basis of autopsy. IG XI,4 1046.8–10: δεδόχθαι τ[οῖς συνέδροις· ἐπαι|ν]έσαι μὲν Πηλέα κα[ὶ — — ca.15 max.— — —|.]ίου Ἁλικαρνασσεῖ[ς ἀρετῆς ἕνεκα κτλ. Since we calculate that there is only space for a maximum of 15 letters in the lacuna and since the patronym ending in line 10 is very incomplete, the letters ΚΑ are unlikely to be part of the patronym of Peleus and the restoration κα[ὶ] is thus compelling. The two Halikarnassians must therefore have shared the same father. Already thinking of brothers is Buraselis 1982, 182, no. 14, who additionally hypothesises that the pair may have been part of the personnel of Hermias the nesiarch (on which, see below). Note that the first of the two brothers, Πηλεύς, has a distinct name. Peleus of course has clear mythological antecedents, but is rarely found in historical personal onomastics. According to the LPGN, two other cases are known, though much later (2nd century AD): Ins.Aph. 12.914, line 8, and Milet VI.3 1148, line 3. This might suggest some particularity to the region of Karia, but both were clearly nicknames. Compare instead the straightforward name Πηλεὺς Ἀντιπά̣[τρου], winner of the flute-contest for boys at the Soteria in SEG 2, 260.B (latus posticum), line 11, to be read with SEG 18, 237 (Delphi, ca. 250–240 BC?). Cf. the decree in Carbon, Isager and Pedersen forthcoming; another unpublished inscription from Halikarnassos dating to the first half of the 3rd century BC also involves a pair of brothers, Androsthenes and Theomnestos. Cf. IG XI,4 581 (ca. 275 BC), for Θεόδοτος Ἁλικαρνασσεύς; and IG XI,4 610 (assigned to the first half of 3rd century BC, but perhaps ca. 280–260 BC?), for Φανόδημος Ἁλικαρνασσεύς. For the date of the decree IG XI,4 581, note that its proposer is Σώσιλος Μνησάλκου, who is known as a χορηγός of the παῖδες during the Dionysia on Delos in 275 BC: IG XI,2 109 (year of the Delian archon Φίλλις τοῦ Διαίτου, i.e. Philis II, according to the traditional classification of Homolle 1887, 102). 36 Cf. Buraselis 1982, 186, nos 33–35; Constantakopoulou 2017, 180–181 with nn. 48–49. 37 Roussel & Hatzfeld 1910, 363, no. 10: “On est tenté d’identifier ce personnage avec le nésiarche Hermias, qui était au service de Ptolémée II et qui établit à Délos, vers 267, la fête des Philadelphia”. The general view (see n. above) now seems to be that the Philadelphia could have been founded quite soon after the death of Arsinoe in 270 BC. 38 Roussel & Hatzfeld 1910, 363, no. 10: “Écriture de l’année 260 environ”. 39 I.Halikarnassos *298 (provisional inv.), lines 2–3: πρυτανεύοντος Δημ[έου | το]ῦ Αἰγυπτίου. The pronoun τοῦ is used in the names of the two other officials cited in the preamble of this decree. Demeas is to be restored as the patronym of the eponymous official in SEG 16, 543.1 (I.Halikarnassos *20), also belonging to the reign of Ptolemy II: ἐ̣πὶ νεωποίου Ἀνθύλου τοῦ Δημέ̣[ου]. 40 Paschidis 2008, 534 with n. 1, expresses reasonable doubts as to whether one can assume that Hermias the Halikarnassian honorand on Delos is the same as Hermias the nesiarch. 41 Constantakopoulou (2017, 180–181), though fully aware of the problematic nature of her classification, treats Hermias as a unitary figure and, what is more, as an “Alexandrian”: “For the purposes of this study, I have placed Hermias under the ethnic group ‘Alexandrians’, as I think it is reasonable to say that his identity as Nesiarch of the Ptolemaic administration was more important when he founded a festival to honour his queen than his original ethnic identity (Halicarnassian). But this hides a real danger of compartmentalization and simplification of complex processes and dynamic relations that result in the creation of ethnic identities. I do not have a solution to this, but I wanted to flag it up as a potential problem from the start.” As the Delian decrees make clear, Halikarnassian “ethnic identity” remained crucial in all these cases – being conspicuously advertised in all of the relevant texts surveyed here – and there was no notion of anything specifically “Alexandrian” in Hermias the nesiarch’s actions. 42 A detailed analysis of the formulary and letterforms will be given in the corpus of the inscriptions of Halikarnassos. We identify this decree as part of a “Group 4”, belonging to ca. 280–260 BC. For the formulary, note that the mention of the month occurs immediately before the enactment formula (in other Groups, it occurs first in the heading or in position 2 after the mention of the νεωποίης). In line 3, either a date or the formula denoting a plenary assembly is to be restored. For the letterforms, compare especially those of the inscription preliminarily published by Isager & Pedersen 2015, an honorific decree for a man from Alabanda, which should thus antedate the conclusion of the “Second Syrian War” (ca. 260–253 BC), after which the city was renamed Antiocheia (of the Chrysaoreis) by Antiochos II, Ma 1999, 42. 43 Since names ending in -νης are quite common at Knidos (cf. e.g. IG XII,3 252.11–12: Ἀριστοφάνης [Ἐρα]τοσθένους [Κν]ίδιος, recipient of proxeny at Anaphe in ca. 200–150 BC), some caution of course remains necessary. 44 For the Lighthouse, built over several decades (ca. 297–283/2 BC), cf. its final dedication as attested in Strabo 17.1.6: Σώστρατος Δεξιφάνους Κνίδιος Θεοῖς Σωτῆρσι ὑπὲρ τῶν πλωϊζομένων. For the sources for Sostratos’ building activity, 9. Early Ptolemaic Halikarnassos (ca. 280–260 BC) and its network of interactions 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 which included one or more στοαί at Knidos, Meeus 2015, 147–152. The decree for Kallias of Sphettos, IG II³ 911 (270/269 BC; see n. 25 above), mentions Sostratos’ role in the context of the aftermath of the revolt of Athens against Demetrios in 287/6; cf. the discussion in Meeus 2015, 158–161. Dedication by Etearchos of Kyrene: IG XI,4 1190. Honours by the Nesiotai: IG XI,4 1038. IG XI,4 1130 (apparently not included in the testimonia of Marek, I.Kaunos). FD III.1 299, inscribed on the treasury of the Knidians (the Delphic archon is Ornichidas, ca. 315–280 BC, but his exact date remains imprecise, cf. Daux 1943, 29 F22). Meeus (2015, 155–158) carefully deconstructs ideas about other inscriptions from Delphi perhaps connected with Sostratos. Meeus 2015, esp. 162. For a date of ca. 280/279–274 BC for IG XI,4 1038, see Buraselis 1982, 180 no. 3. For the development of the League under Ptolemy II in ca. 280 or shortly before, see again Meadows 2013, 32. Meeus (2015, 162, n. 93) writes: “That the Kaunian statue was set up in Delos might rather point to the second period when the Ptolemies were in control of Delos too, but this is not necessary.” For Kaunos, see above with n. 5 (Meadows 2006, 462–463). Note again (see n. 16 above) that the honorific decree of Limyra for two Kaunians (Wörrle 1977/SEG XXVII 929) should be assigned to January/February 249 BC rather than to 287 BC. Meeus (2015, 165) himself concludes: “No precise dates for Sostratos’ career can be established, but it seems that he was active from at least 323 to the 270s and spent all this time in Ptolemaic service”. This section of the document begins ἔδοξε τῶι δήμωι; and cf. esp. the phrase in lines 14–16: τὸ δὲ | ψήφισμα τὸ περὶ Τροζηνίων ὁ προεβούλευ[σεν] | ἡ βουλὴ. This is alluded to in the first fragmentary phrase of the inscription, which appears to refer to an honorific decree for Zenodotos that was passed at Troizen and set up there, “on a stele in the sanctuary” (lines 1–2: [Τρο]ζῆνι ἐν στήληι ἐν τῶι ἱερῶι). This was communicated to Halikarnassos, probably to the βουλή directly, cf. lines 3–5: ἐπειδὴ Τροζήνιοι γε|γράφασιν ἐν τῶι ψηφίσματι τῶι πρὸς τὴν πό|λιν (a form of ἀποστέλλω is probably to be implied in the phrase, ἐν τῶι ψηφίσματι τῶι (viz. ἀποστελλομένωι) πρὸς τὴν πό|λιν, compare e.g. IG IX,2 219.12–13; SEG III 468.11–12). In fact, the inscription set up for Zenodotos at Troizen has been found there, though only the conclusion of the honorific decree is preserved: cf. Wilhelm 1911, 19–26, no. 4; Jameson 2004, 106, no. III d. The sanctuary in question was that of Apollo Thearios at Troizen. For the relations between Halikarnassos and Troizen, Jameson 2004. Hicks 1881, 101. Zenodotos: FGrH 821; but the name is relatively common and it should be noted that this figure may belong to the late 2nd or 1st century BC (he appears to have been concerned with the history of Italy). Baukis: Paus. 6.8.4 (victor in 400 BC); Baukidas: Plin. HN 4.19. I.Oropos 389 (ca. 300–250 BC). The pedestal supported two statues and so it has been be conjectured that this group 121 depicted Diomedes himself, being crowned by another figure, probably representing the δῆμος of Troizen. For the date, it should also be noted that the pedestal was again inscribed around ca. 240–180 BC (I.Oropos 116, decree of Oropos for an Athenian πρόξενος, Euboulides son of Kalliades) and still further with an honorific inscription in the 1st century BC (I.Oropos 440, honours of Oropos for Timarchos son of Theodoros). These successive re-inscribings, beginning probably already in the second half of the 3rd century BC, make it likelier that the original date of the pedestal is not ca. 250 BC but earlier in the first half of 3rd century BC; for further discussions of the date, see also below n. 61. For the Antheadai, cf. line 3: Ἄνθα ἀπ’ ἐυσήμου κεκριμένον γενεᾶς; and see Robertson 1982; Jameson 2004. 59 Cf. I.Oropos 389.5–7: ἐγ δ’ ἑνὸς οἴκου | Τροζὴν δὶς πατ[ρί]ωι τείχει ἐνηυγάσατο· | τῶι σὲ κατ’ ἀμφότερον σέβεται πατρίς, and see Robertson 1982, 15–16 (with an unsatisfactory explanation of this passage in n. 41). 60 Jameson 2004, 98. This solution now appears to be favoured by Fouquet & Kató (2017, 105 with n. 40), who also opt to see Diomedes as a Halikarnassian. A detailed argument in favour of identifying Diomedes as a Halikarnassian was made by Robertson (1982, 15–16), who also adduced the Halikarnassian epitaph in elegiac distichs SEG 16, 666/ SGO 01/12/13 (1st c. BC?) for the mother of a certain Posis. This woman claimed descent from the Antheadai through her father’s forefather (πατρὸς ἐπεὶ προπάτωρ Πι[—], line 18), apparently a certain Diomedes. We now think (despite Isager 2015, 144, n. 43) that an identification of the two men called Diomedes may be unlikely, since the admittedly very fragmentary epitaph seems to say that this Diomedes obtained his place among the Antheadai by marrying the daughter of one, namely Androsthenes (lines 17 and 19: κτιστῶν γένος εἷλκον ἀπ᾽ Ἀν[θεαδῶν ἀγακλειτῶν] (…) τὴν Ἀνδροσθένεος Διομήδη[ς]), which is not particularly easy to reconcile with the image of the Diomedes honoured in Oropos as a descendant of Anthas. At any rate, it is not possible to be certain about any such identification on the basis of a quite common name (Diomedes). What remains striking about the funerary epigram from Halikarnassos, however, is the idea that a monumental tomb belonging to the Antheadai may have been constructed under the guidance or with the help of “kings”, perhaps the Ptolemies in the 3rd century BC, according to the attractive hypothesis of J. and L. Robert (BE 1982, 392 no. 368): cf. lines 1–2: μνῆμ᾽ ἴκελον ναοῖσι θε[ῶν —] | ὃν βασιλεῖς βιότωι θῆκ[αν —]. If that is right, it would certainly provide a further clue towards elucidating the dossier concerning Troizen and Methana: the Antheadai may have been connected, both at Halikarnassos and Troizen, with the Ptolemaic regime. 61 Priest, date unknown: I.Oropos 389.1 (ἐπὶ ἱερέως Ὀλυμπίχου; the priest Olympichos in I.Oropos 108, ca. 230 BC, seems to be a later homonym). Xenokrates: I.Oropos 389.10 (Ξενοκράτης Ἀθηναῖος ἐποίησε; cf. also I.Oropos 390, for another base signed by the same sculptor); for the date of ca. 280 BC, identified on the basis of the inscription from Oropos, Schweitzer 1932, 6–7, citing a talk by H. Diels reported in AA 1893, 138–139 (cf. also id., Wochenschrift für klassische Philologie 1893, 985–986); Schweitzer offers a monograph on 122 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 Jan-Mathieu Carbon and Signe Isager the sculptor supporting this period of activity with a detailed analysis of both sources and style; Petrakos in I.Oropos 389 and DNO III, 634–635, no. 2511, only state that Xenokrates was active in the first half of 3rd century BC. The scepticism expressed recently by Fouquet and Kató (2017, 105) about the date of both inscriptions thus seems overly cautious. Polyaenus 2.29 (see also Frontin. Strat. 3.6.7); the projectile weapons used in this context were inscribed “ἥκω τὴν πόλιν ἐλευθερώσων”. The exact date remains unclear, but it must belong after ca. 280, in the early 270s; for this date and Kleonymos’ activities, see Cartledge & Spawforth 1992, esp. 29 with n. 12; for a date of probably 279, cf. now the opinion of Fouquet & Kató 2017, 103–104; the date of ca. 275 BC adopted by some, cf. Petrakos in I.Oropos 389, seems too late, as Kleonymos allied with Pyrrhos in that year and turned his attention back to Sparta. Fouquet & Kató 2017. Fouquet & Kató 2017, 104. Bagnall 1976, 135–136; on the Ptolemaic fort at Arsinoe/ Methana, see Gill et al. 1997, 73–75. Cf. most conspicuously the statues set up by the city of Arsinoe for Ptolemy and Arsinoe in the sanctuary of Poseidon at Kalauria, SEG 59, 367 (ca. 270–246 BC). On Arsinoe, see now Meadows 2017, 148, who demonstrates that the city was founded and that Methana is only its later successor. Meadows 2017, 149: “The story of the Ptolemaic acquisition of the peninsula, and the ability to found a new polis there, thus becomes that of Ptolemaic relations with Troezen.” Paus. 2.32.6: διαβὰς δὲ καὶ ἐς τὴν Τροιζηνίαν ναὸν ἂν ἴδοις Ἴσιδος καὶ ὑπὲρ αὐτὸν Ἀφροδίτης Ἀκραίας· τὸν μὲν ἅτε ἐν μητροπόλει τῇ Τροιζῆνι Ἁλικαρνασσεῖς ἐποίησαν, τὸ δὲ ἄγαλμα τῆς Ἴσιδος ἀνέθηκε Τροιζηνίων δῆμος. The interpretation of the passage is disputed, since the text is not completely clear as to whether by τὸν μὲν a temple of Isis or one of Aphrodite Akraia is meant. Cf. Jameson 2004, 96, preferring a temple of Aphrodite Akraia/Askraia; for another summary of the debate, favouring Isis over Aphrodite, see Pirenne-Delforge 1994, 182–183; for further discussion of this passage, see Carbon, Isager & Pedersen 2020. Paus. 2.34.1. Such contacts were also well at play before the Ptolemaic period, as seems to be indicated by another inscription from Troizen, IG IV 750 (287 BC). In any case, it should be admitted that, for the decades after the 270s BC, relatively exact markers in the decrees are more elusive. We occasionally have to resort to impressions, notably the always tricky comparison of letterforms. Several decrees, for instance those connected with Diodotos the son of Philonikos, the euergetes of the gymnasion at Halikarnassos, seem to our eyes to be dated to the latter half of the reign of Ptolemy II, ca. 260–246 BC, or to the reign of Euergetes (cf. Isager & Pedersen 2004). They appear to relate to the financially problematic (even austere) decades of the middle to Late Ptolemaic period at Halikarnassos. Far from coincidentally, sales of priesthoods, of which a small number are known from Halikarnassos (GIBM IV.1 895; Parker & Thonemann 2015), also fall in these years: they were probably used to raise funds for civic cults and related matters. 73 For the sources and this identification, cf. Swinnen 1970, with the commentary of Mack (2015, 160–161 n. 32), who suggests a Chremonidean context. As Swinnen argued, this was perhaps the same Herakleitos whose death Callimachus mourned (C. Ep. 36); Callimachus’ death is thought to fall in ca. 240 BC. Note in particular the statue dedicated for Herakleitos by his brother at Oropos (I.Oropos 415, ca. 250–225 BC); since the date of this base is relatively certain (sculptor Thoinias of Sikyon, DNO IV, nos 3155–3161), Herakleitos must have been active at the latest around 250 BC or in the early 240s. 74 A proxeny decree of Halikarnassos for Leontiskos son of Leon from Alexandria (SEG 26, 1222) forms a piece of the interactions with Egypt in this later period, ca. 260–240 BC. 75 The phrase is J. and L. Robert’s (BE 1981, 398 no. 230), apropos of the decree of Kallias (n. 25) and the mobility of persons (notably soldiers and agents) towards and from Egypt via Halikarnassos. Bibliography Bagnall, R. 1976: The Administration of the Ptolemaic Possessions outside Egypt, Leiden. Bresson, A. 1999: Rhodes and Lycia in Hellenistic times, in V. Gabrielsen et al. (eds), Hellenistic Rhodes: Politics, Culture, and Society, Aarhus, 98–131. Bresson, A. & R. Descat forthcoming: L’inscription de Xystis, in P. Brun et al. (eds), L’Asie Mineure au IIIe siècle, Pessac. Buraselis, K. 1982: Das hellenistische Makedonien und die Ägäis: Forschungen zur Politik des Kassandros und der drei ersten Antigoniden (Antigonos Monophthalmos, Demetrios Poliorketes und Antigonos Gonatas) im Ägäischen Meer und in Westkleinasien, München. Carbon, J.-M., S. Isager & P. Pedersen 2017: Priestess Athenodote: a new piece of evidence for the history and the cults of Late Hellenistic Halikarnassos (I.Halikarnassos *294, with an Appendix on I.Halikarnassos *297), ZPE 201, 165–186. Carbon, J.-M., S. Isager & P. Pedersen 2020: A thesauros for Sarapis and Isis: I.Halikarnassos *290 and the Cult of the Egyptian gods at Halikarnassos, in L. Bricault & R. Veymiers (eds), Bibliotheca Isiaca 4, Pessac, 75–83. Carbon, J.-M., S. Isager & P. Pedersen forthcoming: A pair of brothers in the court of Antiochos I: a new honorific decree from Halikarnassos, in P. Brun et al. (eds), L’Asie Mineure au IIIe siècle, Pessac. Cartledge, P. & A. Spawforth 1992: Hellenistic and Roman Sparta: A Tale of Two Cities (2nd ed.), London–New York, NY. Constantakopoulou, C. 2017: Aegean Interactions: Delos and its Networks in the Third Century, Oxford. Daux, G. 1943: Chronologie Delphique, Paris. Errington, R.M. 1993: Inschriften von Euromos, EpigrAnat 21, 15–31. Fabiani, R. 2009: Eupolemos Potalou o Eupolemos Simalou? Un nuovo documento da Iasos, EpigrAnat 42: 61–77. Fabiani, R. 2015: I decreti onorari di Iasos, Cronologia e storia, München. Fouquet, J. & P. Kató 2017: Königliche Soldaten in der Stadt: eine neue hellenistische Inschrift aus Troizen, ZPE 201, 97–109. Frost, F.J. 1971: Ptolemy II and Halicarnassus: an honorary decree, AnSt 21, 167–172. 9. Early Ptolemaic Halikarnassos (ca. 280–260 BC) and its network of interactions Gill, D. et al. 1997: Classical and Hellenistic Methana, in C.B. Mee & H.A. Forbes (eds), A Rough and Rocky Place: the Landscape and Settlement History of the Methana Peninsula, Liverpool, 62–76. Habicht, C. 2007: Neues zur hellenistischen Geschichte von Kos, Chiron 37, 123–152. Hauben, H. 2004: A Phoenician king in the service of the Ptolemies: Philocles of Sidon revisited, AncSoc 34, 27–44. Hicks, E.L. 1881: On an inscription at Cambridge: Boeckh, C.I.G. 106, JHS 2, 98–101. Hölbl, G. 2001: A History of the Ptolemaic Empire (transl. T. Saavedra), London–New York. Homolle, T. 1887: Les archives de l’intendance sacrée à Délos (315–166 av. J.-C.), Paris. Isager, S. 1998: The pride of Halikarnassos: Editio princeps of an inscription Salmakis, ZPE 123, 1–23. Isager, S. 2004: Appendix: The pride of Halikarnassos, in S. Isager & P. Pedersen (eds), The Salmakis Inscription and Hellenistic Halikarnassos, Halicarnassian Studies 4, Odense, 217–237. Isager, S. 2015: On a list of priests: from the son of Poseidon to members of the elite in Late Hellenistic Halikarnassos, in J. Fejfer et al. (eds), Tradition: Transmission of Culture in the Ancient World, Copenhagen, 131–148. Isager, S. forthcoming: Rhodians and a Hellenistic list of names in the Bodrum Museum: The Ptolemaic garrison at Halikarnassos or an errant list of Proxenoi?, in A.H. Rasmussen & C.A. Thomsen (eds), Acta of the Symposion in Honour of Vincent Gabrielsen, Copenhagen. Isager, S. & P. Pedersen 2004: Halikarnassos and the Ptolemies I: inscriptions on public buildings, in S. Isager & P. Pedersen (eds), The Salmakis Inscription and Hellenistic Halikarnassos, Odense, 133–144. Isager, S. & P. Pedersen 2015: Om arbejdet med indskrifterne fra Halikarnassos – et upubliceret aeresdekret som eksempel, Logos, Klassikerforeningens medlemsblad, 40–44. Jameson, M.H. 2004: Troizen and Halicarnassus in the Hellenistic Era, in S. Isager & P. Pedersen (eds), The Salmakis Inscription and Hellenistic Halikarnassos, Halicarnassian Studies 4, Odense, 93–107. Landucci, F. 2016: The Antigonids and the ruler cult: global and local perspectives?, Erga-Logoi 4, 39–60. Ma, J. 1999: Antiochos III and the Cities of Western Asia Minor, Oxford. Mack, W. 2015: Proxeny and Polis: Institutional Networks in the Ancient Greek World, Oxford. Magnetto, A. 2015: Interstate arbitration and foreign judges, in E.M. Harris & M. Canevaro (eds), The Oxford Handbook of Ancient Greek Law, Oxford, online: [http://www.oxfordhandbooks.com/view/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199599257.001.0001/ oxfordhb-9780199599257]. Meadows, A. 2006: The Ptolemaic annexation of Lycia: SEG 27.929, in K. Dörtlük et al. (eds), Proceedings of the 3rd Symposium on Lycia, Antalya, 459–470. Meadows, A. 2008: Fouilles d’Amyzon 6 reconsidered: The Ptolemies at Amyzon, ZPE 166, 115–120. Meadows, A. 2013: The Ptolemaic League of Islanders, in K. Buraselis et al. (eds), The Ptolemies, the Sea and the Nile, Cambridge, 19–38. 123 Meadows, A. 2017: The coinage of Arsinoe-Methana, in E. Apostolou & C. Doyen (eds), ὀβολός 10: Coins in the Peloponnese, Athens, 133–149. Meeus, A. 2015: The career of Sostratos of Knidos: politics, diplomacy and the Alexandrian building programme in the Early Hellenistic period, in T. Howe et al. (eds), Greece, Macedon and Persia: Studies in Social, Political and Military History in Honour of Waldemar Heckel, Oxford, 143–171. Migeotte, L. 1984: L’emprunt public dans les cités grecques, Recueil des documents et analyse critique, Québec–Paris. Parker, R.C.T. & P.J. Thonemann 2015: A Hellenistic sale of a priesthood from Halikarnassos, ZPE 194, 132–134. Paschidis, P. 2008: Between City and King: Prosopographical Studies on the Intermediaries Between the Cities of the Greek Mainland and the Aegean and the Royal Courts in the Hellenistic Period (322–190 BC), Athens. Pirenne-Delforge, V. 1994: L’Aphrodite grecque, Liège. Reger, G. 1985: The date of the Battle of Kos, AmJAncHist 10, 155–177. Reger, G. 1994: The political history of the Kyklades, 260–220 BC, Historia 43, 32–69. Rhodes, P.J. 2006: Milesian Stephanephoroi: applying Cavaignac correctly, ZPE 157, 116. Robert, L. 1936: Collection Froehner 1. Inscriptions Grecques, Paris. Robert, L. 1966: Documents de l’Asie mineure méridionale: Inscriptions, monnaies et géographie, Genève. Robertson, N. 1982: The Decree of Themistokles in its contemporary setting, Phoenix 36, 1–44. Roussel, P. & J. Hatzfeld 1910: Fouilles de Délos exécutées aux frais de M. le Duc de Loubat. Décrets, dédicaces et inscriptions funéraires (1905–1908) II, BCH 34, 355–423. Schweitzer, B. 1932: Xenokrates von Athen, Halle. van Bremen, R. 2003: Ptolemy at Panamara, EpigrAnat 35, 9–14. van Bremen, R. 2017: Labraunda and the Ptolemies: a reinterpretation of three documents from the Sanctuary of Zeus (I.Labraunda 51, 45 and 44), Studi Ellenistici 31, 223–259. van der Spek, R.J. & I.L. Finkel 2004: Babylonian Chronicles of the Hellenistic Period, online: [https://www.livius.org/sources/ about/mesopotamian-chronicles/]. Shear, T.L. 1978: Kallias of Sphettos and the Revolt of Athens in 286 BC, Princeton. Shipley, G. 1987: A History of Samos, 800–188 BC, Oxford. Swinnen, W. 1970: Herakleitos of Halikarnassos, an Alexandrian poet and diplomat?, AncSoc 1, 39–52. Trümpy, C. 1997: Untersuchungen zu den altgriechischen Monatsnamen und Monatsfolgen, Heidelberg. Wiemer, H.-U. 2002: Krieg, Handel und Piraterie. Untersuchungen zur Geschichte des hellenistischen Rhodos, Berlin. Wilhelm, A. 1911: Neue Beiträge zur griechischen Inschriftenkunde I, Sitzungsberichte der Kais. Akademie der Wissenschaften in Wien (SBAW) 166.1, Abh. 1, 1–63. Will, E. 1979: Histoire politique du monde hellénistique (323–30 av. J.-C.) 1. De la mort d’Alexandre aux avènements d’Antiochos III et de Philippe V (2nd ed.), Nancy. 124 Jan-Mathieu Carbon and Signe Isager Wörrle, M. 1977: Epigraphische Forschungen zur Geschichte Lykiens I, Chiron 7, 43–66. Wörrle, M. 1978: Epigraphische Forschungen zur Geschichte Lykiens II, Chiron 8, 201–246. Wörrle, M. 2019: Epigraphische Forschungen zur Geschichte Lykiens XII: Schutz für Kallias, Chiron 49, 161–171.